{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220130022","title":"AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-11-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.11(b), 192.463(a), 192.465(a), 192.465(b), 192.481(a), 192.615(c), 192.625(f), 192.707(a), 192.741(a), 192.743(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130022.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130022.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130022","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220130022","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.463(a),  192.465(a),  192.465(b),  192.481(a),  192.615(c),  192.625(f),  192.707(a),  192.741(a),  192.743(a). The case was opened on 2013-11-07 and is reported as closed as of 2015-04-08. Proposed civil penalty: $70,100. Assessed civil penalty: $70,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220130022_closure letter_04082015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130022/220130022_closure%20letter_04082015.pdf\n\n220130022_closure letter_04082015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130022/220130022_closure%20letter_04082015_text.pdf\n\n220130022_Final Order_09152014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130022/220130022_Final%20Order_09152014.pdf\n\n220130022_Final Order_09152014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130022/220130022_Final%20Order_09152014_text.pdf\n\n220130022_nopv_pcp_pco_11072013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130022/220130022_nopv_pcp_pco_11072013.pdf\n\n220130022_nopv_pcp_pco_11072013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130022/220130022_nopv_pcp_pco_11072013_text.pdf\n\n220130022_Operator_Response_to_Notice_12022013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130022/220130022_Operator_Response_to_Notice_12022013.pdf\n\n220130022_closure letter_04082015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 8, 2015\nMr. Jerry E. Sheridan\nAmeriGas Partners, LP\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\n460 North Gulph Road\nValley Forge, PA 19482\nCPF 2-2013-0022\nDear Mr. Sheridan:\nOn September 15, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued AmeriGas Propane, LP (AmeriGas) a Final\nOrder with an attached Compliance Order (CO) in the above-referenced case. The CO\nrequired AmeriGas to undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the federal pipeline\nsafety regulations.\nThe OPS Southern Region received and reviewed AmeriGas’ responses to the CO dated\nDecember 10, 2014, December 12, 2014, and March 31, 2015. Based on our review of the\nactions taken by AmeriGas and the supporting documentation we have determined that\nAmeriGas has complied with the terms of the CO and the Final Order.\nThis case is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved\nin this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2013-0022)\nand not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220130022_Final Order_09152014_text.pdf\n\nSEPTEMBER 15, 2014\nMr. Jerry E. Sheridan\nAmeriGas Partners, LP\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\n460 North Gulph Road\nValley Forge, PA 19482\nRe: CPF No. 2-2013-0022\nDear Mr. Sheridan:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $70,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken by your\nsubsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, OPS,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nMr. Paul Grady, VP and COO, AmeriGas Propane, LP\nMr. Mike McLean, Corporate OPS Compliance, AmeriGas Propane, LP\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nAmeriGas Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 2-2013-0022\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 10-13 and July 11, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of AmeriGas\nPropane, LP (AmeriGas or Respondent), in Palm Beach County, Florida. AmeriGas is a\nsubsidiary of AmeriGas Partners, LP, a publicly traded master limited partnership that distributes\npropane throughout the United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 7, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that AmeriGas had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192\nand assessing a civil penalty of $70,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nAmeriGas responded to the Notice by letter dated December 2, 2013 (Response). The company\ncontested one of the allegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.11(b), which states:\n§ 192.11 Petroleum gas systems.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each pipeline system subject to this part that transports only\n1 http://investors.amerigas.com/investor-relations/ir-home/default.aspx (last accessed January 17, 2014).\n\n\n\n2\npetroleum gas or petroleum gas/air mixtures must meet the requirements\nof this part and of ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.11(b) by failing to meet the\npetroleum gas system requirements in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 58,\nSection 6.7.4.5, for “Regulator Installation.” Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas had\npressure relief devices with points of discharge that were less than five feet from sources of\nignition at two customer locations.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.11(b) by failing to meet the\npetroleum gas system requirements in NFPA 58.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at\nleast once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nto determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§ 192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for\nseparately protected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in\nexcess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these\npipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of\nthese protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be\nsurveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each\nsubsequent year, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each\npipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection met the requirements of\n§ 192.463. Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas could not demonstrate it had\nperformed the required testing on four of its systems during 2010, 2011, and/or 2012.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each\npipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection met the requirements of\n§ 192.463.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current power\nsource must be inspected six times each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 2½ months, to insure that it is operating.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) by failing to inspect each\ncathodic protection rectifier at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 2½ months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas inspected one of its\nrectifiers only one time in 2012.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) by failing to inspect each\ncathodic protection rectifier at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 2½ months.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that\nis exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as\nfollows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore ………………….. At least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months\nOffshore …………………. At least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each\nonshore pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths. Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas failed to inspect its pipelines at Tavares\nCove and Loxahatchee Pointe for atmospheric corrosion at the required intervals.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each\nonshore pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), which states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with\nthis section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible\ngases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in\nair at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Operators of master\nmeter systems may comply with this requirement by—\n(1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the gas\nhas the proper concentration of odorant; and\n(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to\nconfirm that the gas contains odorant.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct\nperiodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the\npercentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that while AmeriGas had records of periodic “sniff” tests and written verification from its\nsupplier showing the propane had been odorized prior to delivery, this was insufficient to meet\nthe requirements of the regulation because AmeriGas was not operating a master meter system.\nIn its Response, AmeriGas argued that sniff tests were sufficient to comply with the odorant\ntesting requirement in NFPA 58 (2004), “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code,” Section 4.2.3, and that\ntherefore § 192.625(f) conflicts with NFPA 58. Section 192.11(c) of Part 192 states: “In the\nevent of a conflict between this part and ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59, ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59\nprevail.” AmeriGas stated that because there is a conflict between § 192.625(f) and NFPA 58\nand the latter prevails over the former, sniff testing was sufficient to comply with Part 192\nodorant testing requirements for small propane gas systems.\nI disagree. I have reviewed the regulation and NFPA 58 and can find no conflict between the\ntwo in this case. In fact, this is not the first time the very same defense has been raised by\nAmeriGas and rejected by PHMSA.2 In addition, this issue was addressed directly in the\npreamble to a final rule adopted by PHMSA in 2010 that updated certain technical standards\nincorporated by reference into the pipeline safety regulations, and which clarified that “[w]hen a\nrequirement exists in Part 192 that does not exist in NFPA 58 or 59, operators are required to\ncomply with it. A conflict only exists when an operator cannot comply with a requirement in\nNFPA 58 and 59 because it conflicts with a requirement in part 192.”3\nAmeriGas also argued that PHMSA’s Training Guide for Operators of Small LP Gas Systems\nrecognizes the supposed conflict between NFPA 58 and § 192.625(f) in the section on\n“Odorization.” The training guide explains the requirements of NFPA 58. However, it does not\ndiscuss a conflict between NFPA 58 and the regulation and does not relieve operators of the\nrequirement to comply with § 192.625(f).\nBecause the Respondent has failed to establish a conflict between NFPA 58 and the regulation in\nthis case, I find that AmeriGas was required to conduct periodic testing for odorant\nconcentration, as provided in § 192.625(f). Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence\nand the legal issues presented, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing\nto conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining\nthe percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable.\n2 In a 2009 final order issued to AmeriGas, the company was cited under 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) for failing to\nfollow its own procedures for conducting monthly tests to ensure that gas in its system contained the proper\nconcentration of odorant. Although AmeriGas acknowledged in that case that it had failed to follow its own\nprocedures for conducting “sniff tests” at the extremities of its system, it argued nevertheless that it did not need to\nconduct such tests because NFPA allowed other means of verification. The company argued this constituted a\n“conflict” between the standard and the regulation and that NFPA 58 controlled. This argument was specifically\nrejected by PHMSA in the final order, which stated: “[T]he regulation simply permits an additional means of\nachieving compliance. The possibility of conflict would only arise if it were impossible or impracticable to comply\nwith both.” In the Matter of AmeriGas Propane, L.P., Final Order C.P.F. No. 3-2006-0004 (April 15, 2009)\n(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n3 Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Edits,\nFinal Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 48593, 48595 (Aug. 11, 2010).\n\n\n\n5\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a), which states:\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this\nsection, a line marker must be placed and maintained as close as practical\nover each buried main and transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line\nor main to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a) by failing to place and\nmaintain line markers as close as practical over each buried main at each crossing of a public\nroad. Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas did not have line markers at the crossings\nof public roads at four locations.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a) by failing to place and\nmaintain line markers as close as practical over each buried main at each crossing of a public\nroad.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.741(a), which states:\n§ 192.741 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Telemetering or\nrecording gauges.\n(a) Each distribution system supplied by more than one district\npressure regulating station must be equipped with telemetering or\nrecording pressure gauges to indicate the gas pressure in the district.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.741(a) by failing to place\ntelemetering or recording pressure gauges in each distribution system supplied by more than one\npressure regulating station. Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas fed its Loxahatchee\nPoint distribution system from two separate regulator stations, but did not supply telemetering or\nrecording pressure gauges to indicate the gas pressure in the district.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.741(a) by failing to place\ntelemetering or recording pressure gauges in each distribution system supplied by more than one\npressure regulating station.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), which states:\n§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief\ndevices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to\nwhich they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the capacity\nmust be consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). This capacity\n\n\n\n6\nmust be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review and\ncalculations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine the\ncapacity of pressure relief devices at pressure regulating stations to ensure that they were\nadequate to protect the facilities to which they were connected, at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas did\nnot have records to demonstrate that it had determined, at the required intervals, the capacity of\nthe relief device downstream of its regulator station at Mystic Cove.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine\nthe capacity of pressure relief devices at pressure regulating stations to ensure they were\nadequate to protect the facilities to which they were connected, at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths but at least once each calendar year.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.4 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $70,100 for the violations cited above.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(a), for failing to 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 cathodic\nprotection met the requirements of § 192.463. AmeriGas neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Testing of\ncathodic protection is necessary to protect against corrosion on the pipe, which could result in a\nleak or more severe consequences if leaking gas were ignited. AmeriGas was aware of the\nregulatory requirement and failed to comply. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,200 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a).\n4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\n7\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $34,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(b), for failing to inspect each cathodic protection rectifier at least six times each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months. AmeriGas neither contested the\nallegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty.\nRegular inspections are necessary to ensure that rectifiers are providing adequate cathodic\nprotection to a pipeline. As described above, cathodic protection is required to protect against\nthe possibility of corrosion and leaks. AmeriGas was aware of the regulatory requirement and\nfailed to comply. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $34,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $70,100.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $70,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the Notice,\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.11(b), 192.481(a), 192.625(f), 192.707(a), 192.741(a), and\n192.743(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.11(b) (Item 1), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA-regulated systems in the state of Florida, identify all locations\nthat do not meet the NFPA 58 (2004) regulator point of discharge distance\nrequirements, and take corrective actions to bring the identified locations into\ncompliance with the standard.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.481(a) (Item 5), Respondent must inspect\nall of its PHMSA-regulated systems in the state of Florida on which it has not\n\n\n\n8\nconducted atmospheric corrosion monitoring during the previous 39 months and\ndocument the inspections. If atmospheric corrosion is found, Respondent must\ncomply with § 192.479.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.625(f) (Item 7), Respondent must ensure\nthe proper concentration of odorant by conducting sampling, using an instrument\ncapable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes\nreadily detectable. AmeriGas must conduct the instrumented sampling at multiple\nlocations within each system, including at the extremities of the systems and\nwithin dead-legs, for all of its PHMSA-regulated systems in the state of Florida.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.707(a) (Item 8), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA-regulated systems in the state of Florida, identify locations\nwhere buried mains cross public roads, and ensure that pipeline markers meeting\nthe requirements of §192.707(d) are placed and maintained as close as practical\nover each buried main at each crossing of a public road.\n5. With respect to the violation of § 192.741(a) (Item 9), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA-regulated systems in the state of Florida, identify locations\nwhere its LPG distribution systems are supplied by more than one pressure\nregulating station, and install telemetering or recording pressure gauges.\n6. With respect to the violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 10), Respondent must\nsurvey all of its PHMSA-regulated systems in the state of Florida and determine\nthe capacity of all relief devices to ensure they have sufficient capacity to protect\nthe facilities to which they are connected, either by testing the devices in place or\nby review and calculations.\n7. Within 100 days following receipt of the Final Order, AmeriGas must provide\nwritten documentation that Items 1-6 have been completed to the Director, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region, and must make the records and\ndocumentation demonstrating completion available for inspection by PHMSA\nrepresentatives.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\n\n\n\n9\nWith respect to Items 2 and 6, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure that its\ncathodic protection systems provided a level of protection at least equal to that\nprovided by compliance with one of more of the criteria in Appendix D of Part\n192; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to establish and\nmaintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials prior to\n2013.\nAmeriGas presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29586}