# MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 520105013
- **title:** MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2010-04-26
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401(b), 195.410(a)(1).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105013.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105013.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105013
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520105013
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.401(b),  195.410(a)(1). The case was opened on 2010-04-26 and is reported as closed as of 2011-06-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

520105013_closure letter_06142011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_closure%20letter_06142011.pdf

520105013_closure letter_06142011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_closure%20letter_06142011_text.pdf

520105013_FinalOrder_02182011 .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_FinalOrder_02182011%20.pdf

520105013_FinalOrder_02182011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_FinalOrder_02182011_text.pdf

520105013_NOPV PCO_04262010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_NOPV%20PCO_04262010.pdf

520105013_NOPV PCO_04262010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_NOPV%20PCO_04262010_text.pdf

520105013_Operator Response to Final Order_04082011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_Operator%20Response%20to%20Final%20Order_04082011.pdf

520105013_operator response_06012010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_operator%20response_06012010.pdf

520105013_operator response_06302010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_operator%20response_06302010.pdf

520105013_closure letter_06142011_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 14, 2011
Mr. John Swearingen
President
Marathon Pipe Line LLC
539 South Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840
CPF 5-2010-5013
Dear Mr. Swearingen:
On February 18, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Marathon Pipe Line LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order
included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has
been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 M. Petronis (#124323)

520105013_FinalOrder_02182011 .pdf

U.S. Department
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
FEB 1 8 2011
Mr. John Swearingen
President
Marathon Pipe Line LLC
539 South Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840
Re: CPF No. 5-2010-5013
Dear Mr. Swearingen:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Marathon Pipe Line LLC to comply with
the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as
determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of
the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mant Magey
for: Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
Mr. Randy M. Thomson
Environmental, Safety, and Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
Marathon Pipe Line LLC
539 South Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 11600001 0041 3153]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of
Marathon Pipe Line LLC,
CPF No. 5-2010-5013
Respondent.
FINAL ORDER
On July 13-16, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Marathon Pipe
Line LLC (MPL or Respondent) in Wyoming. MPL, a subsidiary of Marathon Oil Corporation,
operates more than 5,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines in 16 states, primarily in the eastern
United States.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated April 26, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that MPL had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1) and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
MPL responded to the Notice by letters and emails dated June 1, 2010, June 30, 2010, August
23, 2010, and October 28, 2010 (collectively, Response). The company contested one of the
allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the
proposed violation be withdrawn. The company did not contest the other allegation of violation
but provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not
request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.401(b), as follows:
' Marathon Oil Corporation, http://www.marathon.com/Global_Operations/Refining_Marketing_and_Transportation
/Transportation_and_Logistics/ (last visited December 17, 2010).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b), which states:
§ 195.401 General requirements.
(a)
(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely
affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a
reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it
presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not
operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe
condition.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b) by failing to address
conditions that could adversely affect the operation of its pipeline. Specifically, it alleged that a
"very loud and distinct 'gravelly' sound" emanated from the pipeline immediately downstream
from the pressure-reducing control valve at Casper Station, indicating possible cavitation? The
Notice further alleged that the ball valve immediately downstream of the control valve was
partially closed, and that this was not an acceptable use of such a valve.?
In its Response, MPL stated that source of the noise identified by the OPS inspector was an
orifice plate that it installed in 2003 to assist in the control valve holding backpressure.*
Respondent did not dispute the fact that the orifice plate could cause cavitation, or that the latter
phenomena could damage pipeline equipment.
However, MPL provided evidence, obtained by way of a May 26, 2010 inspection, that this
condition had no observable impact on the pipe, plug valve, or orifice downstream of the control
valve. Respondent also stated that it has never experienced a pipeline failure due to cavitation,
and that it did not believe that the conditions observed could affect the safe operation of its
system.
Further, with regard to the allegation that the ball valve was being used in an unacceptable
manner, Respondent indicated that the valve was actually a plug valve being used for equipment
2 Notice at 4. Cavitation is "[the formation and collapse, within a liquid, of cavities or bubbles that contain vapor or
gas or both. In general, cavitation originates from a decrease in static pressure in the liquid. It is distinguished in
Handbook 11 (Desk ed., 2nd ed. 1998). Cavitation can cause what is known as "cavitation erosion." the
this way from boiling, which originates from an increase in the liquid temperature." ASM International, Metals
"[p]rogressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to continuing exposure to cavitation." Id. at 12. It
exposure to cavitation[,] ... [which] may include the loss of material, surface deformation, or changes in properties
can also cause what is known as "cavitation damage," i.e., "[the degradation of a solid body resulting from its
or appearance." Id.
3 Id.
* Respondent's Response to the Notice (Response) dated June 1, 2010 at 1.
5 Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Cavitation Information.
" Response dated June 1, 2010 at 1.



3
isolation, not backpressure control. MPL also stated that while the plug valve had now been
placed in a full open state, it had never been a threat to the safe operation of the line?
I do not find the first part of MPL's arguments persuasive. Respondent has not disputed the fact
that the orifice plate could be causing cavitation, or that this condition, if left uncorrected, could
adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline system through erosion. While MPL has
demonstrated that no cavitation erosion has occurred to date, it has not demonstrated that this
phenomenon will not occur in the future.
However, I am persuaded by the second part of Respondent's argument. The Notice incorrectly
identified the plug valve as a ball valve, and the evidence of record does not substantiate the
allegation that the failure to fully open that valve adversely affected the safe operation of MPL's
pipeline system.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
$ 195.401(b) by failing to address conditions that could adversely affect the operation of its
pipeline.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1), which states:
$ 195.410 Line markers.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in
accordance with the following:
(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each
railroad crossing, and in sufficient number along the remainder of each
buried line so that its location is accurately known.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and
maintain line markers in sufficient number along each buried line so that its location was
accurately known.
• Specifically, the Notice alleged that MPL failed to adequately mark buried
Station.? In its Response, Marathon did not contest this allegation of violation.'°
pipelines located at road crossings in a housing development located a few miles west of Casper
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. $ 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and maintain line markers in sufficient number along
each buried pipeline so that its location was accurately known.
Id. at 2.
8 Notice at 2.
' Id.
1° Response dated June 30, 2010.



4
These findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or
operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established
under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions
to address one of the cited violations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.410(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has
replaced missing line markers in the housing development a few miles west of
Casper Station.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 are not included in this Order.
As for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49
C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with
the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.401(b) (Item 1), Respondent must submit
an engineering analysis showing whether the cavitation at the Casper Station
could affect the safe operation of its pipeline system. If potential long-term
damage could occur, Respondent must make appropriate modifications to any
affected piping and components.
2. Respondent must complete the above requirements within sixty (60) days of the
Final Order.
3. It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this compliance Order and submit
the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. It is requested that
the costs be reported in two categories: (1) total costs associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.
" Id. at 2; Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Line Marker Information.



5
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
MantIlla
FEB 1 8 2011
for Jeffrey D. Wiese
Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520105013_FinalOrder_02182011_text.pdf

FEB 18 2011
Mr. John Swearingen
President
Marathon Pipe Line LLC
539 South Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840
Re: CPF No. 5-2010-5013
Dear Mr. Swearingen:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Marathon Pipe Line LLC to comply with
the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as
determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of
the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
Mr. Randy M. Thomson
Environmental, Safety, and Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
Marathon Pipe Line LLC
539 South Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 11600001 0041 3153]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Marathon Pipe Line LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2010-5013
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On July 13-16, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Marathon Pipe
Line LLC (MPL or Respondent) in Wyoming. MPL, a subsidiary of Marathon Oil Corporation,
operates more than 5,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines in 16 states, primarily in the eastern
United States.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated April 26, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that MPL had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1) and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
MPL responded to the Notice by letters and emails dated June 1, 2010, June 30, 2010, August
23, 2010, and October 28, 2010 (collectively, Response). The company contested one of the
allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the
proposed violation be withdrawn. The company did not contest the other allegation of violation
but provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not
request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.401(b), as follows:
1 Marathon Oil Corporation, http://www.marathon.com/Global_Operations/Refining_Marketing_and_Transportation
/Transportation_and_Logistics/ (last visited December 17, 2010).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b), which states:
§ 195.401 General requirements.
(a) . . . .
(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely
affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a
reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it
presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not
operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe
condition.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b) by failing to address
conditions that could adversely affect the operation of its pipeline. Specifically, it alleged that a
“very loud and distinct ‘gravelly’ sound” emanated from the pipeline immediately downstream
from the pressure-reducing control valve at Casper Station, indicating possible cavitation.2 The
Notice further alleged that the ball valve immediately downstream of the control valve was
partially closed, and that this was not an acceptable use of such a valve.3
In its Response, MPL stated that source of the noise identified by the OPS inspector was an
orifice plate that it installed in 2003 to assist in the control valve holding backpressure.
4
Respondent did not dispute the fact that the orifice plate could cause cavitation, or that the latter
phenomena could damage pipeline equipment.
However, MPL provided evidence, obtained by way of a May 26, 2010 inspection, that this
condition had no observable impact on the pipe, plug valve, or orifice downstream of the control
valve.5 Respondent also stated that it has never experienced a pipeline failure due to cavitation,
and that it did not believe that the conditions observed could affect the safe operation of its
system.6
Further, with regard to the allegation that the ball valve was being used in an unacceptable
manner, Respondent indicated that the valve was actually a plug valve being used for equipment
2 Notice at 4. Cavitation is “[t]he formation and collapse, within a liquid, of cavities or bubbles that contain vapor or
gas or both. In general, cavitation originates from a decrease in static pressure in the liquid. It is distinguished in
this way from boiling, which originates from an increase in the liquid temperature.” ASM International, Metals
Handbook 11 (Desk ed., 2nd ed. 1998). Cavitation can cause what is known as “cavitation erosion,” the
“[p]rogressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to continuing exposure to cavitation.” Id. at 12. It
can also cause what is known as “cavitation damage,” i.e., “[t]he degradation of a solid body resulting from its
exposure to cavitation[,] . . . [which] may include the loss of material, surface deformation, or changes in properties
or appearance.” Id.
3 Id.
4 Respondent’s Response to the Notice (Response) dated June 1, 2010 at 1.
5 Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Cavitation Information.
6 Response dated June 1, 2010 at 1.



3
isolation, not backpressure control. MPL also stated that while the plug valve had now been
placed in a full open state, it had never been a threat to the safe operation of the line.
7
I do not find the first part of MPL’s arguments persuasive. Respondent has not disputed the fact
that the orifice plate could be causing cavitation, or that this condition, if left uncorrected, could
adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline system through erosion. While MPL has
demonstrated that no cavitation erosion has occurred to date, it has not demonstrated that this
phenomenon will not occur in the future.
However, I am persuaded by the second part of Respondent’s argument. The Notice incorrectly
identified the plug valve as a ball valve, and the evidence of record does not substantiate the
allegation that the failure to fully open that valve adversely affected the safe operation of MPL’s
pipeline system.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.401(b) by failing to address conditions that could adversely affect the operation of its
pipeline.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1), which states:
§ 195.410 Line markers.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in
accordance with the following:
(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each
railroad crossing, and in sufficient number along the remainder of each
buried line so that its location is accurately known.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and
maintain line markers in sufficient number along each buried line so that its location was
accurately known.8 Specifically, the Notice alleged that MPL failed to adequately mark buried
pipelines located at road crossings in a housing development located a few miles west of Casper
Station.9 In its Response, Marathon did not contest this allegation of violation.10
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and maintain line markers in sufficient number along
each buried pipeline so that its location was accurately known.
7 Id. at 2.
8 Notice at 2.
9 Id.
10 Response dated June 30, 2010.



4
These findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or
operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established
under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions
to address one of the cited violations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.410(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has
replaced missing line markers in the housing development a few miles west of
Casper Station.11
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 are not included in this Order.
As for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49
C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with
the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.401(b) (Item 1), Respondent must submit
an engineering analysis showing whether the cavitation at the Casper Station
could affect the safe operation of its pipeline system. If potential long-term
damage could occur, Respondent must make appropriate modifications to any
affected piping and components.
2. Respondent must complete the above requirements within sixty (60) days of the
Final Order.
3. It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this compliance Order and submit
the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. It is requested that
the costs be reported in two categories: (1) total costs associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.
11 Id. at 2; Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Line Marker Information.



5
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
__________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 25396