{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220190004W","title":"AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-06-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.11(b), 192.465(a), 192.465(d), 192.616(j).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190004w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190004w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190004w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220190004W","body":"Warning Letter involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.465(a),  192.465(d),  192.616(j). The case was opened on 2019-06-07 and is reported as closed as of 2019-06-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220190004W_Warning Letter_06072019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190004W/220190004W_Warning%20Letter_06072019.pdf\n\n220190004W_Warning Letter_06072019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190004W/220190004W_Warning%20Letter_06072019_text.pdf\n\n220190004W_Warning Letter_06072019_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 7, 2019\nMr. Hugh Gallagher\nPresident and CEO\nAmeriGas Propane, LP\n460 N. Gulph Road\nKing of Prussia, PA 19406\nCPF 2- 2019-0004W\nDear Mr. Gallagher:\nFrom July 16 to 20, 2018, a representative 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’ Fort Lauderdale, Florida, district office and pipeline facilities in\nBroward County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.).\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.\n1\n\n\n\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA-58 (2004)1 for each pipeline system\nthat transports petroleum gas, as follows:\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, in part,\nrequired that nameplates attached to containers be located to remain visible after the\ncontainer installation or, when the nameplate was obscured because the tank was\nburied, mounded, insulated, or otherwise covered, that the information contained on\nthe nameplate was duplicated and installed on adjacent piping or on a structure in a\nclearly visible location.3\nThe PHMSA inspector 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 containers as follows:\n Larkdale system – 4 containers (tanks 3, 4, 7, and 8)\n Madison #1 system – 2 containers (tanks 1 and 2)\n Madison #4 system – 1 container (tank 4)\n Madison #5 system – 1 container (tank 5)\n Royal Palm system – 4 containers (tanks 1, 2, 8, and 9)\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) . . . .\n1 The 2004 edition of NFPA 58, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (LP-Gas Code),” is the edition currently\nincorporated, by reference, in §192.7.\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\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), which\nrequired, in part, that the area of ventilation openings on underground ASME\ncontainers equaled or exceeded the combined discharge areas of pressure relief\ndevices and vent lines that discharged into the manhole or housing.\nThe PHMSA inspector observed and documented manholes or housings for which\nthe area of ventilation openings did not equal or exceed the combined discharge\nareas of pressure relief devices and vent lines that discharged into the manhole or\nhousing, as follows:\n Larkdale system – 3 containers (tanks 3, 7, and 8)\n Madison #1 system – 2 containers (tanks 1 and 2)\n Madison #4 system – 1 container (tank 4)\n Madison #5 system – 1 container (tank 5)\n Shoppes at Cleary – 1 container (tank 1)\n Royal Palm system – 3 containers (tanks 1, 2, and 8)\nC. NFPA 58 § 6.7.2.3\nPressure relief devices on the following ASME containers shall be installed so\nthat any gas released is vented away from the container upward and\nunobstructed to the open air:\n(1) Containers of 125 gal (0.5 m3) or more water capacity installed in stationary\nservice\n(2) . . . .\nAmeriGas failed to ensure that pressure relief devices on containers of 125 gallons or\nmore water capacity installed in stationary service were installed so that any gas\nreleased would be vented away from the container upward and unobstructed to the\nopen air.\nThe PHMSA inspector identified container relief devices that were installed with\nregulators or piping located directly above the relief device such that any gas\nreleased would not be vented away from the container and unobstructed to the open\nair, as follows:\n Madison #1 system – relief on tank 2\n Madison #4 system – relief on tank 4\n Royal Palm system – reliefs on tanks 2 and 8\nD. 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.\n3\n\n\n\n2. 3. NFPA 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 lack of a rain cap or other protection, or the\nrain cap or other protection not in place as designed. Container relief devices with\nwater and/or extraneous matter in them were identified on tank 1 of the Nob Hill\nsystem and tank 2 at the Royal Palm system.\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine\nwhether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of §192.463. […]\nAmeriGas failed to test each pipeline under cathodic protection at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the\ncathodic protection met the requirements of §192.463.\nAmeriGas did not test its pipelines systems at Nob Hill and the Shoppes at Cleary at least\nonce in calendar year 2015. Based upon AmeriGas records, testing was conducted on the\nNob Hill system on November 17, 2014, and January 21, 2016, and on the Shoppes at\nCleary system on November 17, 2014, and January 19, 2016. While the testing was\ncompleted within a 15 month interval, it was not completed at least once each calendar\nyear.\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring\n(a) . . . .\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any deficiencies\nindicated by the monitoring.\nAmeriGas did not take prompt remedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by\nexternal corrosion control monitoring. AmeriGas records showed that AmeriGas\nidentified low4 tank-to-soil (T/S) potentials during its cathodic protection monitoring in\nJanuary 2017, that were not promptly corrected as evidenced by continued low readings\nin December 2017, and January 2018.\n4 The criteria for cathodic protection are contained in 49 CFR Part 192, Appendix D. The criterion being\nreferenced in this letter is a negative (cathodic) voltage of at least 850 mV with reference to a saturated\ncopper-copper sulfate half-cell. Accordingly, a low reading is any reading less negative than -850 mV.\n4\n\n\n\nThe tanks with low T/S potentials and the range of readings5 (in mV) were as follows:\nLarkdale\n01/31/2017 12/28/2017 01/26/2018\nTank 3 -630 to -490 -600 to -470 -600 to -470\nTank 4 -530 to -270 -520 to -340 -520 to -380\nTank 7 -700 to -320 -520 to -400 -520 to -400\nTank 8 -750 to -500 no readings taken -790 to -580\nTank 9 -870 to -730 no readings taken -450 to -330\n4. § 192.616 Public awareness.\n(a) . . . .\n(j) Unless the operator transports gas as a primary activity, the operator of a\nmaster meter or petroleum gas system is not required to develop a public awareness\nprogram as prescribed in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. Instead the\noperator must develop and implement a written procedure to provide its customers\npublic awareness messages twice annually. If the master meter or petroleum gas\nsystem is located on property the operator does not control, the operator must\nprovide similar messages twice annually to persons controlling the property. […]\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of the regulation because it did not deliver\npublic awareness messages to all persons controlling property upon which its petroleum\ngas systems were located. During a field visit, the PHMSA inspector attempted to verify\ncustomer and non-customer addresses whose property contained portions of the\noperator’s petroleum gas systems against AmeriGas’ January 2018 public awareness\nmessage mailing list. Numerous non-customer addresses on the Royal Palm system were\nnot included in the referenced mailing list - specific examples include properties on\nNW 26th Avenue, NW 27th Lane, and NW 33rd Terrace.\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. We have reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct\nadditional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you\nto correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in AmeriGas being\nsubject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 2-2019-0004W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\n5 AmeriGas takes multiple tank-to-soil (T/S) potential readings, typically four, around each tank to test for\nadequate levels of cathodic protection. Tanks are not deemed to have adequate cathodic protection until all\nreadings meet the cathodic protection criterion.\n5\n\n\n\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\n6","truncated":false,"body_characters":13175}