{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220190001W","title":"AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-02-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.11(b), 192.459, 192.491(c), 192.603(b), 192.605(b)(8), 192.707(c), 192.721(b)(1), 192.727(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190001w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190001w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190001w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220190001W","body":"Warning Letter involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.459,  192.491(c),  192.603(b),  192.605(b)(8),  192.707(c),  192.721(b)(1),  192.727(d). The case was opened on 2019-02-28 and is reported as closed as of 2019-02-28. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220190001W_Warning Letter_02282019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190001W/220190001W_Warning%20Letter_02282019.pdf\n\n220190001W_Warning Letter_02282019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190001W/220190001W_Warning%20Letter_02282019_text.pdf\n\n220190001W_Warning Letter_02282019_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 28, 2019\nMr. Hugh Gallagher\nPresident and CEO\nAmeriGas Propane, LP\n460 N. Gulph Road\nKing of Prussia, PA 19406\nCPF 2- 2019-0001W\nDear Mr. Gallagher:\nFrom June 18 to 22, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety(OPS), inspected\nAmeriGas Propane, LP (AmeriGas) liquefied petroleum gas (LP-Gas) records and selected\nprocedures in AmeriGas’ Medley, Florida, office and pipeline facilities in and around\nMiami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that AmeriGas has committed probable violations of\nthe Pipeline 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.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA-58 (2004)1 for each pipeline system,\nas follows:\n1 The 2004 edition of NFPA 58, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (LP-Gas Code),” is the edition currently\nincorporated, by reference, in §192.7.\n1\n\n\n\nA. NFPA 58 § 5.2.8.3\nThe markings specified for ASME containers shall be on a stainless steel metal\nnameplate attached to the container, located to remain visible after the\ncontainer is installed.\n(A) . . . .\n(B) Where the container is buried, mounded, insulated, or otherwise covered so\nthe nameplate is obscured, the information contained on the nameplate shall be\nduplicated and installed on adjacent piping or on a structure in a clearly visible\nlocation.\n(C) . . . .\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 § 5.2.8.32 which, amongst\nother things, required that nameplates attached to containers be located to remain\nvisible after the container installation or when the nameplate was obscured because\nthe tank was buried, mounded, insulated, or otherwise covered, that the information\ncontained on the nameplate was duplicated and installed on adjacent piping or on a\nstructure in a clearly visible location.3\nPHMSA inspectors and AmeriGas employees were unable to locate visible\nnameplates attached to containers or the information from the nameplates duplicated\nand installed in a clearly visible location for buried containers at Brentwood\nApartments, Gables Walk Apartments, Villas of West Bird, and Virginia Point\nCondominiums.\nB. NFPA 58 § 5.7.11.4\nConnections to ASME containers installed underground shall be located within\na substantial dome, housing, or manhole and shall have a cover.\n(A) . . . .\n(B) Such manholes or housings shall be ventilated.\n(C) The area of ventilation openings shall equal or exceed the combined\ndischarge areas of the pressure relief devices and other vent lines that discharge\ninto the manhole or housing.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 § 5.7.11.4 (B) and (C),\nwhich, amongst other things, required that the area of ventilation openings equaled\n2 NFPA 58 (2004) § 5.2.8.3 is referenced here for simplicity. In general, pipeline facilities must meet the design\nand construction requirements that are in place at the time of construction. PHMSA acknowledges that\nsome or all of the ASME containers referenced in this letter were installed prior to incorporation of the\n2004 edition of the NFPA 58 standard, and, as such, must meet the design and construction requirements of\nthe NFPA 58 edition incorporated by reference at the time they were constructed. In citing § 5.2.8.3, of\nNFPA 58 (2004), PHMSA is citing the general requirement that the nameplate remain visible after the\ncontainers are installed – a requirement that has existed since, at least, the 1969 edition.\n3 The exception allowing the information contained on the nameplate, of a buried tank, to be duplicated and\ninstalled in a clearly visible location was first introduced, in an edition incorporated into 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, in the 1992 edition of NFPA 58.\n2\n\n\n\nor exceeded the combined discharge areas of pressure relief devices and vent lines\nthat discharged into the manhole or housing.\nPHMSA inspectors observed and documented that the area of ventilation openings\nfor manhole covers at Virginia Point Condominiums did not exceed the combined\ndischarge areas of the container relief and the first-stage regulators that discharged\ninto the manhole.\nC. NFPA 58 § 6.7.2.4\nRain caps or other means shall be provided to minimize the possibility of the\nentrance of water or other extraneous matter into the relief device or any\ndischarge piping. Provision shall be made for drainage where the accumulation\nof water is anticipated.\nNFPA 58 § 6.7.2.5 The rain cap or other protector shall be designed to remain\nin place, except during pressure relief device operation and shall not restrict\npressure relief device flow.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 §§ 6.7.2.4 and 6.7.2.5, which\nrequired it to protect the container relief device from the entrance of water or other\nextraneous matter by providing a rain cap or other protector and ensuring that the\nrain cap or other protector remained in place.\nPHMSA inspectors observed and documented container relief devices with water\nand/or extraneous matter in them due to AmeriGas not providing the container relief\ndevice with a rain cap or other protection or not ensuring that the rain cap or other\nprotection remained in place as designed. Container relief devices with water and/or\nextraneous matter in them were identified at Key Colony Plaza, Nile Gardens\nApartments, Villas of West Bird, and Virginia Point Condos.\nD. NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.4\nAll regulators for outdoor installations shall be designed, installed, or protected\nso their operation will not be affected by the elements (freezing rain, sleet, snow,\nice, mud, or debris).\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.4, which required it to\ndesign, install, or protect regulators for outdoor installation such that their operation\nnot be affected by the elements.\nPHMSA inspectors observed and documented regulators installed outdoors that were\nnot designed, installed, or protected in a manner that would protect their operation\nfrom the elements. The vents of regulators installed below grade at Key Colony\nPlaza terminated below grade and were found buried in the soil at the time of the\ninspection. The vents of regulators installed below grade at Brentwood Apartments,\nNile Gardens Apartments and Virginia Point Condominiums did not terminate above\ngrade. As regulator installed in below grade domes can become submerged in water\nwhen it rains, installing vent extensions that terminate above grade protects regulator\noperation from the elements.\n3\n\n\n\nE. 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.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.5, which amongst\nother things required it to install the point of discharge of pressure regulating\nequipment installed outside of buildings not less than 3 feet horizontally away from\nany building opening below the level of such discharge.\nPHMSA inspectors observed and documented second-stage regulators whose point\nof discharge was located less than 3 feet horizontally away from building openings\nbelow the level of the discharge at Brentwood Apartments (regulator serving unit\n116), Nile Gardens Apartments (regulators serving meters 12 and 98), and the Villas\nof West Bird (regulator serving unit 18).\n2. § 192.491 Corrosion control records.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Each operator shall maintain a record of each test, survey, or inspection\nrequired by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition does not exist. These\nrecords must be retained for at least 5 years, except that records related to\n§§192.465 (a) and (e) and 192.475(b) must be retained for as long as the pipeline\nremains in service.\n§192.459 External corrosion control: Examination of buried pipeline when\nexposed.\nWhenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is\nexposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence of external corrosion if\nthe pipe is bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If external corrosion requiring\nremedial action under §§192.483 through 192.489 is found, the operator shall\ninvestigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by\nvisual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether additional\ncorrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the exposed portion.\nAmeriGas did not meet the regulation because it did not maintain a record of each\ninspection required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition did not exist. Specifically,\nAmeriGas did not document and maintain records demonstrating that it examined a\nburied pipeline, when it was exposed, for evidence of corrosion or coating deterioration.\nA review of AmeriGas records identified two instances where AmeriGas failed to\ndocument the required examination of buried pipelines when they were exposed. The\nfirst was on or about December 1, 2014, when a portion of its pipeline at the Nile\nGardens Apartments was exposed during the construction, by another operator, of a\n4\n\n\n\nnatural gas pipeline. The second was on June 13, 2018, when AmeriGas installed an\nanode, on a main, at its Gables Walk Apartments system.\nWhen asked for records demonstrating that the exposed portion or the buried pipelines\nhad been examined, AmeriGas personnel indicated that they had examined the exposed\nportions of the pipeline, but acknowledged that they had not documented the\nexaminations.\n3. § 192.603 General provisions.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under §192.605.\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . .\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(1) . . . .\n(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine\nthe effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are found.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the regulation because it did not keep records necessary to\nadminister the procedures established under § 192.605. Specifically, AmeriGas did not\nkeep records demonstrating the implementation of procedures established under\n§ 192.605(b)(8), that require it to periodically review the work done by operator\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance.\nAmeriGas representatives explained to the PHMSA inspectors the various methods\nAmeriGas used to evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance, including reviewing work done by operator personnel. The\nrepresentatives also explained that while there had not been a system in place for\ndocumenting the reviews, AmeriGas was already working on revised procedures that\nincluded instructions on conducting and documenting the reviews.\n4. § 192.721 Distribution systems: Patrolling\n(a) . . . .\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 4 ½ months, but at least four\ntimes each calendar year; [...]\nAmeriGas failed to meet the regulation because it did not patrol its mains in business\ndistricts at intervals not exceeding 4½ months, but at least four times each calendar year.\nAmeriGas patrolling records for Key Colony Plaza showed that AmeriGas exceeded the\n4½ month interval for patrols between January 7 and June 17, 2014, and again between\n5\n\n\n\nOctober 23, 2014, and April 3, 2015, and, consequently, only documented three patrols\nfor calendar year 2014.\n5. § 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Pipelines aboveground. Line markers must be placed and maintained along\neach section of a main and transmission line that is located aboveground in an area\naccessible to the public.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the regulation because it did not place and maintain line markers\nalong each section of main located aboveground in areas accessible to the public. During\nthe field inspection of Key Colony Plaza, the PHMSA representatives observed mains\nlocated aboveground, in areas accessible to the public, where line markers had not been\nplaced and maintained.\n6. § 192.727 Abandonment or deactivation of facilities.\n(a) . . . .\n(d) Whenever service to a customer is discontinued, one of the following must be\ncomplied with:\n(1) The valve that is closed to prevent the flow of gas to the customer must be\nprovided with a locking device or other means designed to prevent the opening of\nthe valve by persons other than those authorized by the operator.\n(2) A mechanical device or fitting that will prevent the flow of gas must be\ninstalled in the service line or in the meter assembly.\n(3) The customer's piping must be physically disconnected from the gas supply\nand the open pipe ends sealed.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of § 192.727(d), which required it to take\ncertain steps to prevent the flow of gas to a customer whenever service to the customer is\ndiscontinued.\nPHMSA inspectors observed and documented instances where the valve that was closed\nto prevent the flow of gas to the customer was not provided with a locking device or\nother means designed to prevent the opening of the valve by persons other than those\nauthorized by the operator. During the field inspection the service valves serving meter\n16 at Gables Walk Apartments and meter 12 at Nile Gardens Apartments were closed,\nbut were not provided with a locking device or any other means to prevent opening of the\nvalve by persons other than those authorized by the operator.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before\nNovember 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day,\nwith a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November\n2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\n6\n\n\n\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nAmeriGas 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 2-2019-0001W. 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\n7","truncated":false,"body_characters":17082}