{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220130020W","title":"LOVELACE GAS SERVICE INC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-06-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 191.11, 192.1005, 192.491(a), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(8), 192.616(a), 192.616(b), 192.616(c), 192.616(d)(1), 192.616(e), 192.616(g), 192.625(f), 192.739(a), 192.743(a), 192.747(a), 192.805.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130020w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130020w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130020w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220130020W","body":"Warning Letter involving LOVELACE GAS SERVICE INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.11,  192.1005,  192.491(a),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(8),  192.616(a),  192.616(b),  192.616(c),  192.616(d)(1),  192.616(e),  192.616(g),  192.625(f),  192.739(a),  192.743(a),  192.747(a),  192.805. The case was opened on 2013-06-19 and is reported as closed as of 2013-06-19. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220130020W_warning letter_06192013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130020W/220130020W_warning%20letter_06192013.pdf\n\n220130020W_warning letter_06192013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130020W/220130020W_warning%20letter_06192013_text.pdf\n\n220130020W_warning letter_06192013_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 19, 2013\nMr. Garry Lovelace\nVice President\nLovelace Gas Service\n10606 East Colonial Drive\nOrlando, FL 32825\nCPF 2-2013-0020W\nDear Mr. Lovelace:\nOn May 28-31, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety Southern Region inspected the Lovelace\nGas Service (Lovelace) liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline systems, records, and\nprocedures in Orlando, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are as follows:\n1. §191.11 Distribution system: Annual report.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator of a\ndistribution pipeline system shall submit an annual report for that system on\nDepartment of Transportation Form RSPA F 7100.1-1. This report must be\nsubmitted each year, not later than March 15, for the preceding calendar year.\n(b) Not required. The annual report requirement in this section does not apply to a\nmaster meter system or to a petroleum gas system that serves fewer than 100\ncustomers from a single source.\nLovelace did not properly submit an annual report (DOT RSPA F 7100.1-1) for calendar\nyear 2012 for its LPG pipeline systems.\nLovelace has separate regulated LPG pipeline systems serving four mobile home parks\nwith a total of 287 customers. The parks are Alafaya Palms - 63 customers; Colonial\nVillage - 10 customers; Silver Star - 55 customers; Starlight Ranch Mobile Home Estates\n(front) - 53 customers; and, Starlight Ranch Mobile Home Estates (back) - 106 customers.\n\n\n\nThe only system that has 100 customers or more is the Starlight Ranch Mobile Home\nEstates. While these mobile home parks are isolated from each other and LPG is supplied\nto each system from a different source, Lovelace incorrectly combined these four mobile\nhome parks into one annual report for calendar year 2012.\n2. §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 not\nshow specific distances to each buried anode.\nLovelace did not have a revised and updated system map showing the location of galvanic\nanodes, pipe-to-soil test stations, or cathodically protected tanks and piping.\n3. §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. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate\nparts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance\nactivities are conducted.\nLovelace did not properly prepare and follow a manual of written procedures for\nconducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. The\noperator had a manual dated January 2013, but it was generic with no site specific\noperations and maintenance procedures or site specific procedures for emergency\nresponse.\n4. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n… (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide\nsafety during maintenance and operations.\n… (8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the\neffectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and modifying the procedure when deficiencies are found.\nLovelace did not provide records to the PHMSA inspector to show it had conducted\nperiodic reviews of work done by its service technicians to determine the effectiveness\nand adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and maintenance.\n2\n\n\n\n5. §192.616 Public Awareness1\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public\neducation program that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum\nInstitute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see\n§192.7).\nLovelace’s Public Awareness Plan (PAP) did not follow the guidance provided in the\nAmerican Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by\nreference, see §192.7).\n− Lovelace’s PAP did not provide for an annual program implementation audit or\nreview. API 1162 required the operator to “complete an annual audit or review of\nwhether the program has been developed and implemented according to the guidelines\nin this RP.” While Lovelace’s PAP stated, “[The] Program Administrator should\nprepare an annual estimate of the resources required to implement the Program,” an\nannual estimate of resources needed to implement a public awareness program did not\nmeet the requirement to complete an annual audit or a review of whether the program\nhas been developed and implemented according to API RP 1162 guidelines.\n− Lovelace did not provide a specific time interval for measuring the effectiveness of its\nPAP. PAP effectiveness evaluations must be done no more than four years apart.\n6. §192.616 Public Awareness\n... (b) The operator’s program must follow the general program recommendations of\nAPI RP 1162 and assess the unique characteristics of the operator’s pipeline and\nfacilities.\nLovelace did not assess the unique attributes and characteristics of its pipeline systems\nin developing and implementing its written PAP.\nWhile the Lovelace’s pipelines transport propane gas, the PAP did not provide any\ninformation on the attributes and characteristics of propane gas. In fact, Lovelace’s PAP\nmisled the targeted audience by specifically addressing pipelines transporting natural gas -\nnot propane gas. For example, one of the objectives listed in Lovelace’s PAP is “To\neducate both our customers and non-customers who live or work near our pipelines how\nto recognize the odor of natural gas.” Propane gas has significantly different attributes\nand characteristics than natural gas and the PAP failed to address how the intended\naudience would recognize and react to a release of propane gas from the pipeline.\n7. §192.616 Public Awareness\n... (c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including\nthe baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator\n1 Items 5-10 are based on PHMSA’s understanding that the transportation of gas by pipeline is Lovelace Gas’\nprimary activity. If Lovelace Gas believes the transportation of gas by pipeline is not its primary activity and\nthat it is entitled to the less stringent public awareness requirements in §192.616(j), it must provide PHMSA with\ndocumentation demonstrating that it does not transport gas by pipeline as its primary activity.3\n\n\n\nprovides justification in its program or procedures manual as to why compliance\nwith all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not\nnecessary for safety.\nLovelace’s PAP did not address the supplemental requirements of API RP 1162 or\nprovide justification in its program or procedures manual as to why compliance with all or\ncertain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for\nsafety.\nAPI 1162 requires the operator to “consider to what extent an enhanced, supplemental\nprogram is warranted.” To support the decision for or against a supplemental program,\nAPI 1162 requires the operator to “consider external factors along the pipeline system to\ndetermine if some additional level of public awareness communication is warranted,\nbeyond the recommended baseline program.”\n8. §192.616 Public Awareness\n... (d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to educate the\npublic, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation\nrelated activities on:\n(1) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage\nprevention activities;\nLovelace’s PAP did not adequately educate the public, appropriate government\norganizations, and persons engaged in excavation related activities in the vicinity of its\npipeline on the use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage\nprevention activities.\nThe PAP contained a list of excavator categories (i.e. construction companies, public\nworks officials, land developers, etc.) and it specified how names and addresses will be\nobtained under each category of excavator. The PAP states, “The names, addresses and\ntelephone numbers of excavators will be obtained through generation of Sunshine One-\nCall tickets for each type of excavator listed.” Lovelace’s use of one-call tickets to\ndevelop a list of excavators is not sufficient to meet the requirements of this subpart.\nLovelace must educate all entities engaged in excavation related activities, not just those\nthat are already using the one-call center.\n9. §192.616 Public Awareness\n... (e) The program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school\ndistricts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations.\n(f) The program and the media used must be as comprehensive as necessary to reach\nall areas in which the operator transports gas.\nLovelace’s PAP did not provide adequate information on the locations of its pipeline\nfacilities to municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents situated adjacent to\nits pipeline system or fully define the areas in which it transports gas so the program and\nmedia can reach its intended audience.\n4\n\n\n\nThe PAP states, “... all of Lovelace’s pipeline facilities are included in the PAP.” But,\nLovelace’s PAP did not include all the specific locations in which it operates pipeline\nfacilities. For example, it did not identify all of the four distinct mobile home parks where\nLovelace operates pipeline facilities.\nThe PAP did state under Stakeholder Audiences, “The list of individuals living or working\nnear our pipelines will be developed by…” However, no information was provided to\nindicate the distances that would be considered “near our pipelines.” To determine if the\nprogram and media used are reaching all areas in which Lovelace transports gas, Lovelace\nmust establish the actual distance from the pipeline that defines the area in which gas is\ntransported and provide the parameters used to determine this distance. That is, a buffer\nzone that considers the properties of the gas being transported, terrain, wind, etc.\n10. §192.616 Public Awareness\n... (g) The program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly\nunderstood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English speaking\npopulation in the operator's area.\nLovelace’s PAP did not address whether or not there are other languages commonly\nunderstood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English speaking\npopulation in Lovelace’s area.\nLovelace did state in the PAP,\n“[The] Public Awareness Program will be conducted in\nEnglish and in other languages commonly understood by a significant number of and\nconcentration of the non-English speaking population on our service area.” However,\nLovelace did not determine if there are significant languages other than English\ncommonly understood by any segment of the population along its pipeline system. Also,\nLovelace did not provide any information on the method(s) that it used to determine if\nother languages are spoken in significant numbers in the area of its pipeline.\n11. §192.625 Odorization of gas\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be\nodorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the\ngas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.\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.\n(See also NFPA 58, Section 4.2.3, LP-Gas Odorization)\nLovelace did not conduct periodic sampling (sniff tests) to assure the proper concentration\nof odorant using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at\nwhich the odor becomes readily detectable. The monthly “sniff test” conducted in 2012\nand 2013 were done without the use of instrumentation.\n5\n\n\n\n12. §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 the\ncorrect 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.\nLovelace did not inspect its pressure regulators at Colonial Village in calendar years 2011\nand 2012 at intervals not exceeding 15 months. The pressure regulators were inspected in\nApril 2011 and December 2012 - an interval of 20 months. Also, Lovelace did not\nprovide any records to demonstrate that its regulators were set to control or relieve at the\ncorrect pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a).\nLovelace has Fisher 627 primary regulators and Fisher 620/627 secondary regulators\nlocated aboveground. These regulators are 1-inch in size with a 1/2 -inch orifice and have\npressure ratings of 250 psig at the inlet and 5-20 psig at the outlet. But there were no\npressure set-points recorded for these regulators. Lovelace only provided information on\nthe lock up tests of its primary and secondary regulators.\n13. §192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating\nstations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are\nconnected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with\nthe pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in\nplace or by review and calculations\nLovelace did not determine the capacity of its 1-inch Fisher 1805 relief valve at the Silver\nStar Mobile Home Park at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year, by testing the device in place or by review and calculations.\n14. §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.\nLovelace did not check and service its key valve at Colonial Village at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months. The key valve inspections were done in April 2011 and\nDecember 2012 - an interval of 20 months. Further, Lovelace did not provide to the\nPHMSA inspector key valve maintenance records; i.e. type, size, manufacturers’6\n\n\n\nrecommended practices to operate, turns it takes to open/close the valve, etc. The records\njust indicated that the valves were “operated.”\n15. §192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a\ncovered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual’s\nperformance of a covered task contributed to an incident as defined in Part 191;\n(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual is\nno longer qualified to perform a covered task;\n(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals performing those\ncovered tasks; and\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the\nindividual’s qualifications is needed.\n(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that\nindividuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to\nperform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities;\nand\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency participating\nunder 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly modifies the program after\nthe Administrator or state agency has verified that it complies with this section.\nLovelace did not provide a qualified Operator Qualification program to the PHMSA\ninspector.\n16. §192.1005 What must a gas distribution operator (other than a master meter or\nsmall LPG operator) do to implement this subpart?\nLovelace did not develop and implement a Distribution Integrity Management Plan\n(DIMP) by August 2, 2011. Lovelace did provide to the PHMSA inspector a DIMP plan\nusing the SHRIMP program provided by the American Public Gas Association (APGA)\nbut the plan was established in March 2013.\nUnder 49 United States Code, §60122, Lovelace Gas Service is subject to a civil penalty not\nto exceed $200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$2,000,000 for any related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to\nJanuary 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed$100,000 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided\nnot to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time.\n7\n\n\n\nWe advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nLovelace Gas Service being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 2-2013-0020W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available.\nIf you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n8","truncated":false,"body_characters":20314}