{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220190006W","title":"LOVELACE GAS SERVICE INC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-11-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.11(b), 192.459, 192.465(a), 192.491(c), 192.603(b), 192.625(f).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190006w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190006w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220190006w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220190006W","body":"Warning Letter involving LOVELACE GAS SERVICE INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.459,  192.465(a),  192.491(c),  192.603(b),  192.625(f). The case was opened on 2019-11-07 and is reported as closed as of 2019-11-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220190006W_Warning Letter_11072019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190006W/220190006W_Warning%20Letter_11072019.pdf\n\n220190006W_Warning Letter_11072019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220190006W/220190006W_Warning%20Letter_11072019_text.pdf\n\n220190006W_Warning Letter_11072019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 7, 2019\nGarry Lovelace\nPresident\nLovelace Gas Service, Inc.\n10606 East Colonial Drive\nOrlando, FL 32817\nCPF 2-2019-0006W\nDear Mr. Lovelace:\nFrom September 4 to 7, 2018, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Southern Region Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspected the\nLovelace Gas Service, Inc. (LGS) procedures and records in its Orlando, Florida, office and\nliquefied petroleum gas (LP-Gas) pipeline systems in Orange county, Florida, pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that LGS has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand 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 or\npetroleum gas/air mixtures must meet the requirements of this part and of\nANSI/NFPA 58 and 59.\nLGS failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 (2004) for each pipeline system that\ntransports petroleum gas, as follows:\nA. NFPA 58 § 6.6.1.2\nLP-Gas containers or systems of which they are a part shall be protected\nfrom damage from vehicles.\n\n\n\nLGS failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 § 6.6.1.2, which, in part,\nrequired it to protect LP-Gas containers from damage from vehicles. The\nPHMSA inspector observed and photographed aboveground containers, serving\nthe Alafaya Palms system, in and adjacent to a parking lot, that were not protected\nfrom damage from vehicles. During a follow-up call, LGS reported that it\ncorrected the condition.\nB. NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.5\nThe point of discharge from the required pressure relief device on\nregulating equipment installed outside of buildings in fixed piping systems\nshall be located not less than 3 ft (1 m) horizontally away from any building\nopening 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\nthan 50 percent of its perimeter.\nLGS failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.5, which, in part,\nrequired it to install the point of discharge of pressure regulating equipment\ninstalled outside of buildings not less than 3 feet horizontally away from any\nbuilding opening below the level of such discharge. The PHMSA inspector\nobserved and documented second-stage regulators whose point of discharge was\nlocated less than 3 feet horizontally away from building openings below the level\nof the discharge at addresses on Scranton Avenue, West Pointe Drive, Pittsburg\nCourt, and Wesleyan Boulevard on the Alafaya Palms system.\nC. 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\ndirect-vent (sealed combustion system) appliances, or mechanical ventilation\nair intakes.\nLGS failed to meet the requirements of NFPA 58 § 6.7.4.6, which required it to\ninstall the point of discharge of regulators not less than 5 feet in any direction\naway from any source of ignition, openings into direct-vent (sealed combustion\nsystem) appliances, or mechanical ventilation air intakes. The PHMSA inspector\nobserved and documented a second-stage regulator whose point of discharge was\nlocated less than 5 feet away from a source of ignition at an address on Annapolis\nAvenue in the Alafaya Palms system.\n2. § 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether\nthe cathodic protection meets the requirements of §192.463. However, if tests at\n\n\n\nthose intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of mains or\ntransmission lines, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected\nservice lines, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10\npercent of these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be\nsurveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent\nyear, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period.\nLGS failed to meet the regulation because it did not test each pipeline under cathodic\nprotection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to\ndetermine whether the cathodic protection met the requirements of § 192.463.\nLGS cathodic protection testing records for the Starlight Ranch (front) system, for\ncalendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017, did not include cathodic protection readings for the\nburied LP Gas containers that served the system. During a follow-up call, LGS reported\nthat it replaced its buried LP-Gas containers with aboveground LP-Gas containers.\n3. § 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.\nLGS failed to meet the regulation because it did not maintain a record of each inspection\nrequired by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion\ncontrol measures or that a corrosive condition did not exist. Specifically, LGS did not\ndocument and maintain records demonstrating that it examined buried pipelines, when\nthey were exposed, for evidence of corrosion or coating deterioration, as required by\n§ 192.459,\n\n\n\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed records documenting three repairs\nto steel pipelines which exposed buried portions - two on the Starlight (back) system on\nOctober 5, 2015, and July 21, 2017, and one on the Starlight (front) system on August 12,\n2016. None of the referenced records documented the examination of the exposed pipe\nfor signs of external corrosion or coating deterioration.\n4. §192.603 General provisions.\n(a) . . . .\nunder §192.605.\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures established\nLGS failed to meet the regulation because it did not keep records necessary to administer the\nprocedures established under §192.605. Specifically, LGS did not keep records demonstrating\nthat it:\nA. Re-qualified, in accordance with §192.285(c), persons to join plastic pipe under an\napplicable procedure once each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 15 months.\nB. Trained, in accordance with §192.615(b)(2), the appropriate operating personnel to assure\nthat they were knowledgeable of the emergency procedures and verified that the training was\neffective.\nC. Reviewed, in accordance with §192.615(b)(3), employee activities to determine whether\nthe procedures were effectively followed in each emergency.\nD. Established and maintained, in accordance with §192.615(c), liaison with appropriate\nfire, police, and other public officials.\nE. Provided, in accordance with §192.616(j), public awareness messages twice annually to\npersons, other than customers, who controlled property that contained portions of the operator’s\npetroleum gas systems.\nF. Documented, in accordance with §§ 192.619 and 192.621, the maximum allowable\noperating pressure (MAOP) for each of its pipeline systems, including the basis of the MAOP\ndetermination.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested records demonstrating compliance with\neach of the listed items. LGS representatives acknowledged that they did not have records for\nthe requested items.\n5. § 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this section, each\noperator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable\nof determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable.\nOperators of master meter systems may comply with this requirement by—\n(1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the gas has the proper\nconcentration of odorant; and\n\n\n\n(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to confirm that the gas\ncontains odorant.\nLGS failed to meet the regulation because it did not conduct periodic sampling of gases using an\ninstrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor became readily\ndetectable to assure the proper concentration of odorant.\nPHMSA’s review revealed that LGS attempted to comply with the regulation through a\ncombination of sniff testing and the use of stain tubes. Neither a sniff test nor stain tubes can\ndetermine the percentage of gas, in air, at which the odor becomes readily detectable.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, LGS is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before\nJuly 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2,\n2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring\nprior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\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\nLovelace Gas Service, Inc. being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 2-2019-0006W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":12191}