{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220140016W","title":"FERRELLGAS — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-09-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.1007(b), 192.1015(b)(2), 192.1015(b)(6), 192.11(b), 192.195(b)(1), 192.195(b)(2), 192.481(a), 192.605(b)(8), 192.625(f)(1), 192.625(f)(2), 192.707(a)(1), 192.707(a)(2), 192.707(d)(2), 192.723(b)(2), 192.739(a), 192.741(a), 192.747(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220140016w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220140016w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220140016w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220140016W","body":"Warning Letter involving FERRELLGAS. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.1007(b),  192.1015(b)(2),  192.1015(b)(6),  192.11(b),  192.195(b)(1),  192.195(b)(2),  192.481(a),  192.605(b)(8),  192.625(f)(1),  192.625(f)(2),  192.707(a)(1),  192.707(a)(2),  192.707(d)(2),  192.723(b)(2),  192.739(a),  192.741(a),  192.747(a). The case was opened on 2014-09-04 and is reported as closed as of 2014-09-04. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220140016W_warning letter_09042014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140016W/220140016W_warning%20letter_09042014.pdf\n\n220140016W_warning letter_09042014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140016W/220140016W_warning%20letter_09042014_text.pdf\n\n220140016W_warning letter_09042014_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 4, 2014\nMr. Stephen Wambold\nChief Executive Officer and President\nFerrellgas\n7500 College Boulevard, Suite 1000\nOverland Park, Kansas 66210\nCPF 2-2014-0016W\nDear Mr. Wambold:\nOn January 27-30, May 5, and May 28, 2014, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)\ninspected the Ferrellgas liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline system records in Jupiter and\nTampa, Florida and pipeline facilities located in Martin and Osceola counties, Florida,\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that Ferrellgas 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.\n– Ferrellgas did not meet the requirements for \"Pipe for Regulator Venting\" in\nNFPA 58 (2004), Section 5.7.5.1 which states that \"Pipe or tubing used to vent\nregulators shall be one of the following: (1) Metal pipe and tubing in accordance with\n5.8.3, (2) PVC meeting the requirements of UL 651, Schedule 40 or 80 Rigid PVC\nConduit.\"\nThe PHMSA inspectors observed white PVC water pipe, which did not meet the\nrequirements of Section 5.7.5.1, used to vent regulators at:\n– 3169 SW Cordoba Street in The Villas\n– 5801 SE Forest Glade Trail in The Arbors1\n\n\n\n– Ferrellgas did not meet the requirements for \"Regulator Installation\" in\nNFPA 58 (2004), Section 6.7.4.5, which states that \"[t]he point of discharge from the\nrequired pressure relief device on regulating equipment installed outside of buildings\nin fixed piping systems shall be located not less than 3 ft. (1 m) horizontally away from\nany building opening below the level of such discharge, and not beneath any building\nunless this space is well ventilated to the outside and is not enclosed for more than 50\npercent of its perimeter.\"\nThe PHMSA inspectors observed a pressure relief device with its point of discharge\nless than 3 feet from the building opening, which was below the point of discharge, at\n3076 SE Island Point Ln in Sailfish Point.\n– Ferrellgas did not meet the requirements for \"Regulator Installation\" in NFPA 58\n(2004), Section 6.7.4.6, which states that \"The point of discharge [of a regulator] shall\nalso be located not less than 5 ft. (1.5 m) in any direction away from any source of\nignition, openings into direct-vent (sealed combustion system) appliances, or\nmechanical ventilation air intakes.\"\nThe PHMSA inspectors observed pressure relief devices with points of discharge less\nthan 5 feet from sources of ignition at:\n– 5045 Sea Holly Way in Orchid Bay\n– 2266 SW Estella Terrace in 141The Villas\n– 3169 SW Cordoba Street in The Villas\n– 3020 SW Captiva Court in Islesworth\n2. §192.195 Protection against accidental overpressuring.\n... (b) Additional requirements for distribution systems. Each distribution system that\nis supplied from a source of gas that is at a higher pressure than the maximum\nallowable operating pressure for the system must—\n(1) Have pressure regulation devices capable of meeting the pressure, load, and other\nservice conditions that will be experienced in normal operation of the system, and\nthat could be activated in the event of failure of some portion of the system; and\n(2) Be designed so as to prevent accidental overpressuring.\nFerrellgas did not protect its Sailfish Point system from accidental overpressuring that\ncould have occurred due to failure of some portion of the system. Ferrellgas installed a\nsingle regulator at its Sailfish Point regulating station, but did not provide a method to\nprevent accidental overpressure in the event that its primary pressure regulator failed.\n2\n\n\n\n3. § 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\nintervals not exceeding 39 months\nOffshore At least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months\nFerrellgas did not inspect each onshore pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to\nthe atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion once every 3 calendar years, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 39 months. Ferrellgas records showed that it conducted\natmospheric corrosion control monitoring at The Arbors, an onshore pipeline system, on\n07/17/2008. The next monitoring was due by 10/17/2011 but did not occur until\n02/14/2013, thus the inspection interval exceeded the 39 months between inspections\nspecified in the regulation.\n4. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n... (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety\nduring 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 procedures when deficiencies are found.\nFerrellgas did not periodically review the work done by its personnel to determine the\neffectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance\nand to modify the procedure when deficiencies were found. That is, Ferrellgas did not\nprovide documentation demonstrating that it periodically reviewed the work done by its\npersonnel or that it modified its procedures when deficiencies were found, as required by\nthe regulation.\n5. § 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 this\nrequirement 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.\n3\n\n\n\nFerrellgas did not assure the proper concentration of odorant by conducting periodic\nsampling of combustible gases using an instrument1 capable of determining the\npercentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Ferrellgas did not\nhave records of performing these required instrumented checks for calendar years 2010 –\n2013 at The Arbors, Buenaventura Lakes, Islesworth, Orchid Bay, Sailfish Point, and The\nVillas.\n6. § 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a line\nmarker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each buried main\nand 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 or main to\nreduce the possibility of damage or interference.\nFerrellgas did not place and maintain line markers as close as practical over each buried\nmain at each crossing of a public road. During the field inspection, the OPS inspector\nidentified several locations without line markers where mains crossed public roads at The\nArbors, Islesworth, Orchid Bay, Sailfish Point, and The Villas.\n7. § 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... (2) The name of the operator and telephone number (including area code) where\nthe operator can be reached at all times.\nThe line marker that Ferrellgas placed at the Treasure Coast meter bank did not display a\ntelephone number where the operator could be reached at all times.\n8. § 192.723 Distribution systems: Leakage surveys.\n... (b) The type and scope of the leakage control program must be determined by the\nnature of the operations and the local conditions, but it must meet the following\nminimum requirements:\n... (2) A leakage survey with leak detector equipment must be conducted outside\nbusiness districts as frequently as necessary, but at least once every 5 calendar years\nat intervals not exceeding 63 months. However, for cathodically unprotected\ndistribution lines subject to §192.465(e) on which electrical surveys for corrosion are\nimpractical, a leakage survey must be conducted at least once every 3 calendar years\nat intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nFerrellgas did not conduct leakage surveys outside business districts at least once every\n5 calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63 months. Ferrellgas records showed that it\nhad conducted leak surveys at:\n1 Since Ferrellgas was not operating a master meter system, the only acceptable method of complying was to use\nan instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable.4\n\n\n\n9. – The Arbors on 07/10-15/2008 and 07/02/2013. While this was within the 5 year\nintervals and did not exceed 63 months, the 2013 leak survey was only performed at\nthe tanks and not on mains and services in the system.\n– Islesworth on 06/04/2008 and 07/09/2013. While this was within the 5 year intervals\nand did not exceed 63 months, the 2013 leak survey was only performed at the tanks\nand not on mains and services in the system.\n– Orchid Bay on 06/04/2008 and 10/13/2013. This interval exceeded 63 months.\nAdditionally, the 2013 leak survey was only performed at the tanks and not on mains\nand services in the system.\n– Sailfish Point on 05/20-21/2008 and 10/31/2013. This interval exceeded 63 months.\nAdditionally, the 2013 leak survey was only performed at the tanks and not on mains\nand services in the system.\n– The Villas on 05/26/2008 and 05/09/2013. While this was within the 5 year intervals\nand did not exceed 63 months, the 2013 leak survey was only performed at the tanks\nand not on mains and services in the system.\n§ 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 might\nprevent proper operation.\nFerrellgas did not inspect and test its pressure limiting and regulating stations at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Ferrellgas records for The\nArbors listed 6 pressure regulators and showed inspections as follows:\n– No pressure regulators in 2010.\n– All 6 pressure regulators between 11/04/2011 and 11/08/2011.\n– Only 5 pressure regulators on 11/17/2012 (missing a monitor regulator at the front\ntanks)\n– Only 5 pressure regulators on 11/25/2013 (missing a monitor regulator at the front\ntanks)\n10. § 192.741 gauges.\nPressure limiting and regulating stations: Telemetering or recording\n(a) Each distribution system supplied by more than one district pressure regulating\n5\n\n\n\nstation must be equipped with telemetering or recording pressure gauges to indicate\nthe gas pressure in the district.\nFerrellgas did not place telemetering or recording pressure gauges in its distribution\nsystems served by more than one pressure regulating station. Ferrellgas fed The Arbors,\nIslesworth, and Orchid Bay systems from two separate regulator stations, however,\nFerrellgas did not supply telemetering or recording pressure gauges to indicate the gas\npressure in the district.\n11. § 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.\nFerrellgas 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.\nFerrellgas records demonstrated that valve inspections were performed as follows:\n– The Arbors: missed 1 key valve at regulating station on 01/17/2013. The valve was\ninspected on 01/23/2012 and 01/17/2014 .\n– Islesworth: missed 2 key valves, 1 at each regulating station, at inspections performed\non 05/27/2010, 05/05/2011, 05/06/2012, and 05/07/2013.\n– The Villas: missed 1 key valve at the regulating station in 2011. The valve was\ninspected on 10/14/2010 and 10/18/2012 .\n12. § 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan?\n... (b) Identify threats. The operator must consider the following categories of threats\nto each gas distribution pipeline: corrosion, natural forces, excavation damage, other\noutside force damage, material or welds, equipment failure, incorrect operations,\nand other concerns that could threaten the integrity of its pipeline. An operator must\nconsider reasonably available information to identify existing and potential threats.\nSources of data may include, but are not limited to, incident and leak history,\ncorrosion control records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records,\nmaintenance history, and excavation damage experience.\nFerrellgas did not consider reasonably available information to identify existing and\npotential threats. The Ferrellgas written Distribution Integrity Management Program\n(DIMP) plans for Arbors, Islesworth, and Orchid Bay was generated by the Simple Handy\nRule Based Integrity Management Plan (SHRIMP) tool, which failed to identify existing\nand potential threats as follows:\n– Section 4.2.1. Corrosion, External Corrosion On Other Metal, states that \"other metal\nis not present.\" While the system had plastic mains and services, the LP supply source\nwas a buried metal tank that should have been considered in the threat assessment.\n– Section 4.2.1. Corrosion, Internal Corrosion, states that \"neither metal mains and\nservices nor plastic mains and services with metal fittings are present.\" While the\n6\n\n\n\nsystem had plastic mains and services, the LP supply source, a metal tank, metal\nfittings, and a copper pigtail should have been considered in the threat assessment.\n13. § 192.1015 What must a master meter or small liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)\noperator do to implement this subpart?\n... (b) Elements. A written integrity management plan must address, at a minimum,\nthe following elements:\n... (2)Identify threats. The operator must consider, at minimum, the following\ncategories of threats (existing and potential): Corrosion, natural forces, excavation\ndamage, other outside force damage, material or weld failure, equipment failure,\nand incorrect operation.\nFerrellgas did not consider reasonably available information to identify existing and\npotential threats. The Ferrellgas written DIMP plans for Buenaventura Lakes, Sailfish\nPoint, and The Villas (generated by the SHRIMP tool), failed to identify existing and\npotential threats as follows:\n– In the written DIMP plan for Buenaventura Lakes:\n- Section 4.2.1. Corrosion, Atmospheric Corrosion On the Entire System, states that\n\"Buenaventura Lakes Shopping Centre does not have facilities that require\natmospheric corrosion inspections.\" In fact, Buenaventura Lakes had\naboveground piping that required atmospheric corrosion inspections and should\nhave been considered in the threat assessment.\n- Section 4.2.1. Corrosion, External Corrosion On Other Metal, states that \"other\nmetal is not present.\" While the system had plastic mains and services, the LP\nsupply source, a buried metal tank, should have been considered in the threat\nassessment.\n– In the written DIMP plan for Sailfish Point:\n- Section 4.2.1. Corrosion, External Corrosion On Other Metal, states that \"other\nmetal is not present.\" While the system had plastic mains and services, the LP\nsupply source, a buried metal tank, should have been considered in the threat\nassessment.\n- Section 4.2.1. Corrosion, Internal Corrosion, states that \"neither metal mains and\nservices nor plastic mains and services with metal fittings are present.\" While the\nsystem had plastic mains and services, the LP supply source, a metal tank, metal\nfittings and a copper pigtail should have been considered in the threat assessment.\n- Section 4.2.3. Excavation Damage, Excavation Damage Due To Third Party\nDamages, states that \"[e]xcavation damages have not occurred due to third\nparties during the past few years.\" In fact, there was third party excavation\ndamage to the Sailfish Point System in 2012 that should have been considered in\nthe threat assessment.\n– In the written DIMP plan for The Villas:\n- Section 4.2.1. Corrosion, External Corrosion On Other Metal, states that \"other\nmetal is not present.\" While the system had plastic mains and services, the LP\n7\n\n\n\nsupply source, a buried metal tank, should have been considered in the threat\nassessment.\n14. § 192.1015 What must a master meter or small liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)\noperator do to implement this subpart?\n... (b) Elements. A written integrity management plan must address, at a minimum,\nthe following elements:\n... (6) Periodic evaluation and improvement. The operator must determine the\nappropriate period for conducting IM program evaluations based on the complexity\nof its pipeline and changes in factors affecting the risk of failure. An operator must\nre-evaluate its entire program at least every five years. The operator must consider\nthe results of the performance monitoring in these evaluations.\nFerrellgas did not periodically evaluate and improve its DIMP plan for Buenaventura\nLakes. In its written DIMP plan for Buenaventura Lakes, Chapter 8 Periodic Evaluation\nand Improvement, states that \"Buenaventura Lakes Shopping Center will conduct a\ncomplete re-evaluation of this Plan no less than every 1 year.\" The plan that Ferrellgas\nprovided was dated 08/02/2011 and there were no plans or documentation showing the\nplan was re-evaluated in 2012 or 2013.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a 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 Ferrellgas 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 2-2014-0016W. 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\n8","truncated":false,"body_characters":21166}