{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220190005W","title":"AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-07-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.11(b), 192.459, 192.463(a), 192.491(c), 192.727(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190005w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190005w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190005w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220190005W","body":"Warning Letter involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.459,  192.463(a),  192.491(c),  192.727(d). The case was opened on 2019-07-18 and is reported as closed as of 2019-07-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220190005W_Warning Letter_07182019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190005W/220190005W_Warning%20Letter_07182019.pdf\n\n220190005W_Warning Letter_07182019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190005W/220190005W_Warning%20Letter_07182019_text.pdf\n\n220190005W_Warning Letter_07182019_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 18, 2019\nMr. Hugh Gallagher\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nAmeriGas Propane, LP\n460 North Gulph Road\nKing of Prussia, PA 19406\nCPF 2- 2019-0005W\nDear Mr. Gallagher:\nFrom August 20 to 24, 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’ Lakeland, Florida, district office and pipeline facilities in\nHillsborough 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.\nAmeriGas failed to meet the requirements of NFPA-58 (2004)1 for each pipeline system\nthat transports petroleum gas, as 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 § 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\nor more 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 Arista system – relief on tank 1\n Dovewood Estates system – relief on tank 1\n Twin Lakes system – relief on tank 4\nB. NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.6\nThe point of discharge [of a regulator] shall also be located not less than 5 ft\n(1.5 m) in any direction away from any source of ignition, openings into direct-\nvent (sealed combustion system) appliances, or mechanical ventilation air\nintakes.\nAmeriGas failed to locate the regulator point of discharge not less than 5 feet, in any\ndirection, away from any source of ignition. The PHMSA inspector observed and\nphotographed regulator points of discharge less than 5 feet away from sources of\nignition at multiple addresses on Valterra Loop on the Valterra Vista system.\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\n2\n\n\n\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 requirements of the regulation because it did not maintain a\nrecord of each inspection required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the\nadequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition did not exist.\nSpecifically, AmeriGas did not document and maintain records demonstrating that it\nexamined a buried pipeline, when it was exposed, for evidence of corrosion or coating\ndeterioration.\nA review of AmeriGas records identified two instances where AmeriGas failed to\ndocument the required examination of buried pipelines when they were exposed. The\ntwo instances both involved the replacement of tanks on the Twin Lakes system, the first\nwhen one tank was replaced in April 2016, and the second when two tanks were replaced\nin April 2018.\n3. § 192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must provide a\nlevel of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of the applicable criteria\ncontained in appendix D of this part. If none of these criteria is applicable, the\ncathodic protection system must provide a level of cathodic protection at least equal\nto that provided by compliance with one or more of these criteria.\nAmeriGas failed to ensure that its cathodic protection systems provided levels of cathodic\nprotection that complied with one or more of the applicable criteria contained in\nAppendix D of this part. Cathodic protection testing conducted during the field\ninspection identified sections of buried steel pipe with low2 pipe-to-soil potentials near\nthe regulator station closest to tanks 1 and 2 on the Crosby Crossings system and the\nregulator station closest to tanks 1 and 2 on the Valterra Vista system.\n4. § 192.727 Abandonment or deactivation of facilities.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) 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\n2 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.\n3\n\n\n\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\nwas discontinued.\nDuring the field inspection of the Twin Lakes system, the PHMSA inspector identified an\naddress on Cooper Hawk Court where the closing of the service valve was the sole means\nused to discontinue service to a customer. The valve that was closed to prevent the flow\nof gas to the customer was not provided with a locking device or other means designed to\nprevent the opening of the valve by persons other than those authorized by the operator.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, AmeriGas is subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679\nfor a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and\nbefore November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to\nNovember 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with\na maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided\nnot to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time.\nWe advise you, to the extent practicable, to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to\ndo so will result in AmeriGas 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 2-2019-0005W. 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":9819}