{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220180001W","title":"CLEARWATER GAS SYSTEM — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-05-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.11(b), 192.195(a), 192.603(b), 192.619(a)(1), 192.625(f).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220180001w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220180001w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220180001w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220180001W","body":"Warning Letter involving CLEARWATER GAS SYSTEM. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.195(a),  192.603(b),  192.619(a)(1),  192.625(f). The case was opened on 2018-05-22 and is reported as closed as of 2018-05-22. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220180001W_Operator Response to Notice_06182018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180001W/220180001W_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06182018.pdf\n\n220180001W_Warning Letter_05222018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180001W/220180001W_Warning%20Letter_05222018.pdf\n\n220180001W_Warning Letter_05222018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180001W/220180001W_Warning%20Letter_05222018_text.pdf\n\n220180001W_Warning Letter_05222018_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 22, 2018\nMr. Charles Warrington\nManaging Director\nClearwater Gas System\n400 N. Myrtle Avenue\nClearwater, FL 33755\nCPF 2-2018-0001W\nDear Mr. Warrington:\nFrom February 28 to March 2, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, inspected the\nClearwater Gas System (CGS) liquefied petroleum gas (LP-Gas) written procedures and\nrecords in CGS’ Clearwater, Florida, office and LP-Gas pipeline systems in Pasco and\nPinellas counties, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.)\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that CGS has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §192.11 Petroleum gas systems\n(a) ....\n(b) Each pipeline system subject to this part that transports only petroleum gas\nor petroleum gas/air mixtures must meet the requirements of this part and of\nANSI/NFPA 58 and 59.\n1\n\n\n\n2. CGS failed to comply with the requirements of NFPA-58 (2004)1, as follows:\n NFPA 58 § 5.7.3.9\nFirst-stage regulators shall have an outlet pressure setting up to 10.0 psig\n(69 kPag) in accordance with UL 144, Standard for LP-Gas Regulators.\nCGS failed to ensure that the outlet pressure setting of first-stage regulators did not\nexceed 10.0 psig. PHMSA inspectors identified first-stage regulators, at Savannah\nPointe and Harborpointe, with outlet pressure settings that exceeded 10.0 psig.\n NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.5\nThe point of discharge from the required pressure relief device on regulating\nequipment installed outside of buildings in fixed piping systems shall be located\nnot less than 3 ft. (1 m) horizontally away from any building opening below the\nlevel of such discharge, and not beneath any building unless this space is well\nventilated to the outside and is not enclosed for more than 50 percent of its\nperimeter.\nCGS failed to ensure that the point of discharge from pressure relief devices on\nregulating equipment installed outside of buildings was at least 3 feet horizontally\naway from any building opening below the level of such discharge. PHMSA\ninspectors observed and photographed the point of discharge, from a regulator vent,\nthat was less than 3 feet horizontally away an opening into the building at 4521\nHarborpointe Drive on the Harborpointe system.\n NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.6\nThe point of discharge shall also be located not less than 5 ft. (1.5m) in any\ndirection away from any source of ignition, openings into direct-vent (sealed\ncombustion system) appliances, or mechanical ventilation air intakes.\nCGS failed to comply with the point of discharge requirements of § 6.7.4.6.\nPHMSA inspectors observed and photographed points of discharge, from regulator\nvents, that were less than 5 feet in any direction from sources of ignition at 1819 and\n1890 Lexington Place on the Savannah Pointe system.\n§192.195 Protection against accidental overpressuring.\n(a) General requirements. Except as provided in §192.197, each pipeline that is\nconnected to a gas source so that the maximum allowable operating pressure could\nbe exceeded as the result of pressure control failure or of some other type of failure,\nmust have pressure relieving or pressure limiting devices that meet the\nrequirements of §192.199 and 192.201.\nCGS failed to ensure that each pipeline that was connected to a gas source, for which the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) could be exceeded as the result of\npressure control failure or some other type of failure, had a pressure relieving or pressure\nlimiting device that met the requirements § 192.199 and § 192.201.\n1 The 2004 edition of NFPA 58, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (LP-Gas Code),” is the edition incorporated by\nreference in §192.7.\n2\n\n\n\n4. CGS supplies LP-Gas to its pipeline systems from storage tanks capable of operating up\nto 250 psig, whereas the downstream pipeline systems have a MAOP of 10 psig.\nPressure regulating stations at Harborpointe and Savannah Pointe consisted of two\npressure regulators installed in parallel, with no additional pressure relieving or pressure\nlimiting device that would maintain the pressure in the pipeline system within the limits\nspecified in § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) in the event of pressure control failure of either primary\nregulator.\nFollowing PHMSA’s inspection, CGS corrected this condition by installing an additional\ndevice in each system to maintain pressures within required limits in the event of a\npressure control failure or some other type of failure.\n3. §192.603 General provisions.\n(a) ....\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under §192.605.\nCGS failed to keep records demonstrating that it periodically reviewed the work done by\noperator personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in\nnormal operation and maintenance and modified the procedures when deficiencies were\nfound, in accordance with 192.605(b)(8). When asked for records showing the results of\nprocedural reviews, CGS representatives indicated that even though CGS used various\nmethods to review procedures, it did not have a systematic means of documenting either\nthe reviews or the results of the reviews.\n§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines.\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure\nthat exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph\n(c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in\naccordance with subparts C and D of this part. . . . .\nCGS failed to comply with the regulation because it did not correctly determine the\nMAOP on segments of its LP-Gas pipeline systems, downstream of first-stage\nregulators2. Specifically, CGS did not consider the design pressure of the weakest\nelement of the system when establishing the MAOP for each segment.\nCGS records showed that it established an MAOP of 15 psig for segments of its\nHarborpointe and Savannah Pointe pipeline systems located downstream of first-stage\nregulators. In establishing the MAOP for piping downstream of first-stage regulators on\nthese systems, CGS did not properly consider the design pressure of the weakest elements\nin these segments, the Second-Stage regulators3 and/or 2-psi Service Regulators4\n, which\nwere stamped with a maximum inlet pressure of 10 psig. The 10 psig pressure rating\nestablished by the manufacturer is, in accordance with § 192.143, the design pressure of\n2 NFPA 58 § 3.3.64.2 defines a “First-Stage Regulator” as “A pressure regulator for LP-Gas vapor service\ndesigned to reduce pressure from the container to 10.0 psig (69 kPag) or less.”\n3 NFPA 58 § 3.3.64.7 defines a “Second-Stage Regulator” as “A pressure regulator for LP-Gas vapor service\ndesigned to reduce first-stage regulator outlet pressure to 14 in. w.c. (4.0 kPag) or less.”\n4 NFPA 58 § 3.3.64.10 defines a “2-psi Service Regulator” as “A pressure regulator for LP-Gas vapor service\ndesigned to reduce first-stage regulator outlet pressure to 2 psig (13.8kPag).”\n3\n\n\n\nthe component, and is consistent with the pressure limits for regulators established in\nNFPA 58.\n5. §192.625 Odorization of gas\n(a) ....\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this\nsection, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using\nan instrument 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 […]\nCGS failed to comply with the regulation because it did not conduct periodic sampling of\ncombustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air\nat which the odor became readily detectable. During PHMSA’s field inspection, PHMSA\ninspectors observed a CGS technician perform odorization testing using an odorant\ndetection device calibrated for natural gas. Further questioning revealed that CGS was\nnot using any device calibrated specifically for LP-Gas for taking its odorization\nreadings. Consequently, CGS’ odorization readings did not accurately represent the\npercentage of gas in air at which the odorant in its LP-Gas pipeline systems became\nreadily detectable.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022\nfor a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 2-2018-0001W. 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,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":10485}