{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220120003W","title":"AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.11(b), 192.463(a), 192.465(a), 192.481(a), 192.491(a), 192.605(a), 192.614, 192.615(c), 192.616(h), 192.616(i), 192.625(f), 192.707(d), 192.721, 192.739(a), 192.747(a), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220120003w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220120003w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220120003w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220120003W","body":"Warning Letter involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.463(a),  192.465(a),  192.481(a),  192.491(a),  192.605(a),  192.614,  192.615(c),  192.616(h),  192.616(i),  192.625(f),  192.707(d),  192.721,  192.739(a),  192.747(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2012-04-17 and is reported as closed as of 2012-04-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220120003W_warning letter_04172012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220120003W/220120003W_warning%20letter_04172012.pdf\n\n220120003W_warning letter_04172012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220120003W/220120003W_warning%20letter_04172012_text.pdf\n\n220120003W_warning letter_04172012_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 17, 2012\nMr. Eugene Bissell\nPresident & CEO\nAmerigas Propane, LP\nP.O. Box 965\nValley Forge, PA 19482-0965\nCPF 2-2012-0003W\nDear Mr. Bissell:\nFrom October 24 - 27, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) inspected the Amerigas records and procedures in its Rockledge,\nFlorida office and its liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline systems in Brevard County,\nFlorida, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that Amerigas has committed probable violations of\nthe Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. §192.11 Petroleum gas systems.\n...(b) Each pipeline system subject to this part that transports only petroleum gas or\npetroleum gas/air mixtures must meet the requirements of this part and of\nANSI/NFPA 58 and 59.\nAmerigas did not meet the requirements of NFPA 58, Section 6.7.4.6, which states that\n“The point of discharge shall also be located not less than 5 ft (1.5 m) in any direction\naway from any source of ignition, openings into direct-vent (sealed combustion system)\nappliances, or mechanical ventilation air intakes.”\n\n\n\nAmerigas installed the point of discharge from pressure relief devices on regulating\nequipment less than 5 feet from sources of ignition at the following locations:\n– 325 Three Oaks Drive at the Oaks at Lake Front\n– 5242 Colleens Way at Stone Lake Estates.\n– 3290 and 3420 Biscayne Drive at Sunset Groves\n– 1707 Sharon Lane and 512 Summers Creek Drive at Summers Creek\n2. §192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must provide a level of\ncathodic protection that complies with one or more of the applicable criteria\ncontained in appendix D of this part. If none of these criteria is applicable, the\ncathodic protection system must provide a level of cathodic protection at least equal\nto that provided by compliance with one or more of these criteria.\nAmerigas did not ensure that its installed cathodic protection systems provided a level of\ncathodic protection that complied with one or more of the applicable criteria contained in\nAppendix D of Part 192.\nCathodic protection testing performed during the inspection found locations with low1\npipe-to-soil (p/s) readings indicating inadequate levels of cathodic protection. The\nlocations with associated p/s readings were as follows:\nOaks at Lake Front (10/26/2011) Sunset Groves (10/26/2011)\nTank A -590 mV DC Tank A -580 mV DC\nTank B -750 mV DC Tank B -480 mV DC\nRegulator Station -610 mV DC Tank C -360 mV DC\nTank D -550 mV DC\nStone Lake Estates (10/26/2011) Tank E -450 mV DC\nTank A -710 mV DC\nTank B -760 mV DC Summers Creek (10/26/2011)\nTank C -810 mV DC Tank A -410 mV DC\nTank B -470 mV DC\nCitrus Isle (10/26/2011) Tank C -520 mV DC\nNorth Tank A -490 mV DC Tank D -620 mV DC\nNorth Tank B -530 mV DC Tank E -590 mV DC\nNorth Tank C -510 mV DC Tank F -520 mV DC\nSouth Tank A -600 mV DC Regulator Station -620 mV DC\nSouth Tank B -600 mV DC\nSouth Tank C -540 mV DC\n3. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the\n1 The criteria for cathodic protection are contained in 49 CFR Part 192, Appendix D. The criteria being\nreferenced in this letter is negative (cathodic) voltage of at least 850mV with reference to a saturated copper-\ncopper sulfate half-cell. Accordingly, a “low” p/s reading is a reading less negative than 850mV.\n2\n\n\n\ncathodic protection meets the requirements of §192.463. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of mains or\ntransmission line, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected\nservice line, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10\npercent of these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be\nsurveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent\nyear, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period.\nAmerigas did not test each pipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the\ncathodic protection met the requirements of §192.463. Amerigas did not provide records\ndemonstrating that it performed external corrosion control monitoring on the following\nsystems:\n– Citrus Isle for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011\n– The Oaks at Lake Front for 2008 and 2010\n– Sunset Groves for 2008, 2009, and 2010\n– Summers Creek for 2008, 2009, and 2010\n– Stone Lake for 2008, 2009, and 2010\n4. §192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to\nthe atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 39 months\nOffshore At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-\nair interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports,\nin splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the operator must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by §192.479.\nAmerigas did not inspect each onshore pipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Amerigas has onshore pipelines exposed to\nthe atmosphere for which it provided no records demonstrating that Amerigas performed\natmospheric corrosion control monitoring for the following systems:\n– Citrus Isle. Amerigas provided no records.\n– Stone Lake. Amerigas provided 2010 records and no records for the preceding\n39 months.\n– Sunset Groves. Amerigas provided 2011 records and no records for the preceding\n39 months.\n3\n\n\n\n5. §192.491 Corrosion control records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain records or maps to show the location of\ncathodically protected piping, cathodic protection facilities, galvanic anodes, and\nneighboring structures bonded to the cathodic protection system. Records or maps\nshowing a stated number of anodes, installed in a stated manner or spacing, need\nnot show specific distances to each buried anode.\nAmerigas did not maintain records or maps to show the location of cathodically protected\npiping and galvanic anodes for its five Brevard County pipeline facilities. Amerigas did\nnot provide these records when requested during the inspection.\n6. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Amerigas written procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\neither did not have procedures, or had inadequate procedures, for the following:\n– defining an incident in accordance with the definition found in §191.3.\n– requiring reports (except SRCR and offshore pipeline condition reports) be\nsubmitted in accordance with the requirements of §191.7.\n– notifying PHMSA electronically through the National Registry of Pipeline and\nLNG Operators at http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov of certain events, as required by\n§191.22.\n– filing written safety-related conditions reports in accordance with the requirements\nof §191.23.\n– installing excess flow valves (EFV) which meet the performance requirements of\n§192.381 on new or replaced service lines on single-family residences as required\nby §192.383.\n– providing public awareness messages as required by §192.616.\n– odorizing the gas so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower\nexplosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of\nsmell, as required by §192.625(a); and conducting periodic sampling of\ncombustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of\ngas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable as required by §192.625(f).\n7. §192.614 Damage prevention program.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each operator of a\nburied pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section, a written program\nto prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation activities. For the purposes of\nthis section, the term “excavation activities” includes excavation, blasting, boring,\ntunneling, backfilling, the removal of aboveground structures by either explosive or4\n\n\n\nmechanical means, and other earthmoving operations.\n(b) An operator may comply with any of the requirements of paragraph (c) of this\nsection through participation in a public service program, such as a one-call system,\nbut such participation does not relieve the operator of responsibility for compliance\nwith this section. However, an operator must perform the duties of paragraph (c)(3)\nof this section through participation in a one-call system, if that one-call system is a\nqualified one-call system. In areas that are covered by more than one qualified one-\ncall system, an operator need only join one of the qualified one-call systems if there\nis a central telephone number for excavators to call for excavation activities, or if\nthe one-call systems in those areas communicate with one another. An operator's\npipeline system must be covered by a qualified one-call system where there is one in\nplace. For the purpose of this section, a one-call system is considered a “qualified\none-call system” if it meets the requirements of section (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this\nsection.\n(1) The state has adopted a one-call damage prevention program under §198.37 of\nthis chapter; or\n(2) The one-call system:\n(i) Is operated in accordance with §198.39 of this chapter;\n(ii) Provides a pipeline operator an opportunity similar to a voluntary participant to\nhave a part in management responsibilities; and\n(iii) Assesses a participating pipeline operator a fee that is proportionate to the costs\nof the one-call system's coverage of the operator's pipeline.\n(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this section must,\nat a minimum:\n(1) Include the identity, on a current basis, of persons who normally engage in\nexcavation activities in the area in which the pipeline is located.\n(2) Provides for notification of the public in the vicinity of the pipeline and actual\nnotification of the persons identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section of the\nfollowing as often as needed to make them aware of the damage prevention\nprogram:\n(i) The program's existence and purpose; and\n(ii) How to learn the location of underground pipelines before excavation activities\nare begun.\n(3) Provide a means of receiving and recording notification of planned excavation\nactivities.\n(4) If the operator has buried pipelines in the area of excavation activity, provide for\nactual notification of persons who give notice of their intent to excavate of the type\nof temporary marking to be provided and how to identify the markings.\n(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of excavation\nactivity before, as far as practical, the activity begins.\n(6) Provide as follows for inspection of pipelines that an operator has reason to\nbelieve could be damaged by excavation activities:\n(i) The inspection must be done as frequently as necessary during and after the\nactivities to verify the integrity of the pipeline; and\n5\n\n\n\n(ii) In the case of blasting, any inspection must include leakage surveys.\n(d) A damage prevention program under this section is not required for the\nfollowing pipelines:\n(1) Pipelines located offshore.\n(2) Pipelines, other than those located offshore, in Class 1 or 2 locations until\nSeptember 20, 1995.\n(3) Pipelines to which access is physically controlled by the operator.\n(e) Pipelines operated by persons other than municipalities (including operators of\nmaster meters) whose primary activity does not include the transportation of gas\nneed not comply with the following:\n(1) The requirement of paragraph (a) of this section that the damage prevention\nprogram be written; and\n(2) The requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.\nAmerigas did not provide a means of receiving and recording notification of planned\nexcavation activities through participation in a one-call system. The operator provided\nno one-call tickets when requested during the inspection. The field inspection identified\ntwo locations, 3291 Biscayne Drive and 263 Summers Creek Drive, where other utilities\nhad been located, but Amerigas pipelines had not been located. An investigation by\nAmerigas personnel determined that Amerigas had not received notification of the\npending excavations because it did not participate in a one-call system.\n8. §192.615 Emergency plans.\n... (c) Each operator shall establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire,\npolice, and other public officials to:\n(1) Learn the responsibility and resources of each government organization that\nmay respond to a gas pipeline emergency;\n(2) Acquaint the officials with the operator's ability in responding to a gas pipeline\nemergency;\n(3) Identify the types of gas pipeline emergencies of which the operator notifies the\nofficials; and\n(4) Plan how the operator and officials can engage in mutual assistance to minimize\nhazards to life or property.\nAmerigas did not establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other\npublic officials. When requested, Amerigas provided no records of its liaison activities\nwith fire, police, and other public officials.\n9. §192.616 Public Awareness.\n... (h) Operators in existence on June 20, 2005, must have completed their written\nprograms no later than June 20, 2006. The operator of a master meter or petroleum\ngas system covered under paragraph (j) of this section must complete development\nof its written procedure by June 13, 2008. Upon request, operators must submit\ntheir completed programs to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility\noperator, the appropriate State agency.\n6\n\n\n\nAmerigas did not complete its public awareness program by the regulatory deadline. At\nthe time of the inspection, Amerigas did not have a written program or procedures in\nplace that met the requirements of §192.616.\n10. §192.616 Public Awareness.\n... (i) The operator's program documentation and evaluation results must be\navailable for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\nAmerigas did not document its public awareness program. When requested, Amerigas\nprovided no documentation of public awareness activities.\n11. §192.625 Odorization of gas.\n... (f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this section,\neach operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an\ninstrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor\nbecomes readily detectable. Operators of master meter systems may comply with\nthis requirement by-\n(1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the gas has the proper\nconcentration of odorant; and\n(2) Conducting periodic \"sniff\" tests at the extremities of the system to confirm that\nthe gas contains odorant.\nAmerigas did not assure the proper concentration of odorant by conducting periodic\nsampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage\nof gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Amerigas provided\ndocumentation from its propane supplier showing the propane was odorized prior to\ndelivery and records showing that the operator conducted periodic “sniff” tests to confirm\nthe gas contained odorant. However, since Amerigas was not operating master meter\nsystems, it cannot solely rely on this method to comply with the regulation. The only\nacceptable method of complying was to use an instrument capable of determining the\npercentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable.\n12. §192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n... (d) Marker warning. The following must be written legibly on a background of\nsharply contrasting color on each line marker:\n(1) The word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the words “Gas (or\nname of gas transported) Pipeline” all of which, except for markers in heavily\ndeveloped urban areas, must be in letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high\nwith1/4inch (6.4 millimeters) stroke.\n(2) The name of the operator and the telephone number (including area code) where\nthe operator can be reached at all times.\nAmerigas pipeline markers did not meet the requirements of the regulation. The pipeline\nmarkers used by Amerigas did not contain the word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger”\nfollowed by the words “Gas (or name of gas transported) Pipeline” written legibly on a\nbackground of sharply contrasting colors. Moreover, the pipeline markers did not contain\na telephone number where the operator can be reached at all times.\n7\n\n\n\n13. §192.721 Distribution systems: Patrolling.\n(a) The frequency of patrolling mains must be determined by the severity of the\nconditions which could cause failure or leakage, and the consequent hazards to\npublic safety.\n(b) Mains in places or on structures where anticipated physical movement or\nexternal loading could cause failure or leakage must be patrolled—\n(1) In business districts, at intervals not exceeding 4½ months, but at least four times\neach calendar year; and\n(2) Outside business districts, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least\ntwice each calendar year.\nAmerigas did not patrol its mains outside business districts at intervals not exceeding 7½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year. Amerigas provided no records showing\nthat it patrolled its mains for its five Brevard County pipeline systems from 2008 to 2011.\n14. §192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure\nregulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine\nthat it is—\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at\nthe correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that\nmight prevent proper operation.\nAmerigas did not inspect and test its pressure limiting and regulating stations at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. When requested,\nAmerigas provided no records of inspection and testing its pressure limiting and\nregulating station for 2008 at five systems (Oaks at Lake Front, Sunset Groves, Summers\nCreek, Stone Lake Estates, and Citrus Isle) and for 2009 at four systems (Sunset Groves,\nSummers Creek, Stone Lake Estates, and Citrus Isle). Furthermore, the PHMSA field\ninspection of the regulators at Citrus Isle found the relief vents buried in the dirt, which\nmight have prevented proper operation.\n15. §192.747 Valve maintenance: Distribution systems.\n(a) Each valve, the use of which may be necessary for the safe operation of a\ndistribution system, must be checked and serviced at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\nAmerigas did not check and service each valve which may be necessary for the safe\noperation of its pipeline distribution system at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year. When requested, Amerigas provided no records of valve\nmaintenance for 2008 at five systems (Oaks at Lake Front, Sunset Groves, Summers\n8\n\n\n\nCreek, Stone Lake Estates, and Citrus Isle) and for 2009 at four systems (Sunset Groves,\nSummers Creek, Stone Lake Estates, and Citrus Isle).\n16. §192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n... (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified;\nAmerigas did not ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nwere qualified. When requested, Amerigas provided no records of individuals\nperforming covered tasks having been qualified through evaluation. Furthermore,\nAmerigas personnel did not recall receiving operator qualification training or being\nevaluated on their performance of covered tasks.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, Amerigas is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$1,000,000 for any related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct\nthe item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Amerigas being subject to\nadditional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 2-2012-0003W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b),\nalong with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document\nwith the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b).\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n9","truncated":false,"body_characters":23597}