# AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320060004
- **title:** AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2006-07-06
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(a), 192.465(d), 192.469, 192.491(c), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(8), 192.707(d)(2), 192.739, 192.739(a), 192.743(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320060004.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320060004.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320060004
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320060004
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192,  192.465(a),  192.465(d),  192.469,  192.491(c),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(8),  192.707(d)(2),  192.739,  192.739(a),  192.743(a). The case was opened on 2006-07-06 and is reported as closed as of 2011-04-28. Proposed civil penalty: $105,600. Assessed civil penalty: $105,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320060004_Closure Letter_04282011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320060004/320060004_Closure%20Letter_04282011.pdf

320060004_Closure Letter_04282011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320060004/320060004_Closure%20Letter_04282011_text.pdf

320060004_FinalOrder_04152009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320060004/320060004_FinalOrder_04152009.pdf

320060004_FinalOrder_04152009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320060004/320060004_FinalOrder_04152009_text.pdf

320060004_Closure Letter_04282011_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 28, 2011
Mr. John S. Iannarelli
Vice President – Field Operations - North
AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
460 North Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Re: CPF No. 3-2006-0004
Dear Mr. Iannarelli:
On April 15, 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Amerigas Propane, Inc a Final Order for CPF 3-2006-0004. The Order included a
Compliance Order, Civil Penalty, and the requirement to take corrective actions on your
propane distribution system operated out of Flint Hills, MO. On November 22, 2010, we
received correspondence from Mr. Ron Rogers detailing what was done to comply with the
Final Order. Based on that response with the accompanying documentation, as well as some
follow-up documentation provided by your personnel, and confirmation of payment of the
civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
David Barrett
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

320060004_FinalOrder_04152009_text.pdf

APR 15 2009
Mr. Eugene V. N. Bissell
Chief Executive Officer and President
AmeriGas Propane, L.P.
460 North Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Re: CPF No. 3-2006-0004
Dear Mr. Bissell:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,
assesses a civil penalty of $105,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by AmeriGas
Propane, L.P., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set
forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance
order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be
closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ivan Huntoon, Director, Central Region, PHMSA
Jean S. Konowalczyk, Esq., AmeriGas Propane
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0047 7032]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
______________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
AmeriGas Propane, L.P., ) CPF No. 3-2006-0004
)
Respondent. )
______________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On August 8-12, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of AmeriGas
Propane, L.P. (Respondent), in Flint Hill, Missouri. As a result of the inspection, the Director,
Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 6, 2006, a Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).1 In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had
committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $105,6002
for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain
measures to correct the alleged violations. Finally, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent
had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning Respondent
to take appropriate corrective action to address them or be subject to future enforcement action.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated July 26, 2006, and requested a hearing,
specifically to discuss the proposed civil penalty amount (Response). By letter dated April 3,
2007, Respondent clarified and expanded the issues it sought to discuss at the hearing (Issues
Statement). A hearing via telephone conference was held on April 4, 2007. After the hearing,
Respondent provided additional information by letter dated May 3, 2007 (Closing).
JURISDICTION
Before reaching the Notice Items, it is appropriate first to address Respondent’s jurisdictional
arguments. The Part 192 gas pipeline safety standards apply to pipeline facilities and the
1 The Notice was originally issued with the CPF No. 3-2006-1014. By letter dated July 20, 2006, OPS notified
Respondent that the CPF Number was changed to 3-2006-0004.
2 The Notice incorrectly proposed a total civil penalty of $106,400 for the violations. When the individual penalties
set out on page 5 of the Notice are added, the correct total is $105,600.



2
transportation of gas, including pipeline systems that transport petroleum gas or petroleum
propane gas distribution systems in the Flint Hill, Missouri area: Green Acres, Daniel Homesites
(Daniel), and Pine Tree Mobil Manor (Pine Tree). Each of these systems is fed by propane
storage tanks that are periodically refilled by tank trucks. Propane flows from the storage tanks
through a combination of buried mains and service lines to individual customers. Green Acres
had approximately 77 customers at the time of the 2005 inspection and is the largest of the three
gas/air mixtures to ten (10) or more customers.3 The Notice addressed three of Respondent’s
systems. Respondent has not raised any jurisdictional issues regarding Green Acres.
Subsequent to the 2005 OPS inspection, AmeriGas argued that the Daniel and Pine Tree systems
are not subject to Part 192 because these systems each had fewer than ten customers at the time
of the inspection and during the 2002-2005 time period covered by the Notice. On that basis,
Respondent argues, the penalties proposed for Items 1(a), 5(b), 7(a), 7(b) and 8 should be
reduced or eliminated, but has provided differing accounts as to whether and when the Daniel
and Pine Tree systems became non-jurisdictional to PHMSA. For the reasons explained below, I
find that these two systems were subject to PHMSA jurisdiction during the relevant time periods.
During the 2005 inspection, AmeriGas personnel indicated to the OPS inspector that the Daniel
and Pine Tree systems had 13 and 11 customers, respectively. Afterwards, in a September 15,
2005 letter sent by email, AmeriGas stated that the Daniel system had 12 customers and that the
Pine Tree system had been removed from service but did not say when that occurred. An
attachment to the letter, entitled “Action Plan for OPS Systems in Missouri,” stated that the Pine
Tree system would be “abandoned” by September 1, 2005. The attachment is inconclusive on
the jurisdictional status of Pine Tree, either prior to or at the time of the inspection.
Later, in its April 3, 2007 Issues Statement, AmeriGas claimed that the Pine Tree and Daniel
systems had become non-jurisdictional in 2001 and early 2003, respectively, but provided no
supporting evidence. During the hearing, the Presiding Official questioned AmeriGas about the
jurisdictional status of the systems. Respondent expressed uncertainty about what systems were
non-jurisdictional and when they may have become so. The Presiding Official provided
Respondent with an opportunity to clarify its position and provide supporting evidence in its
Closing.
In its Closing, Respondent provided yet another account of when the two systems became non-
jurisdictional. The company contended that the Pine Tree and Daniel systems became non-
jurisdictional in February 2005 and on July 7, 2004, respectively. Respondent provided
documents in support of its position but they do not support Respondent’s claim that the Daniel
and Pine Tree systems were non-jurisdictional at the time of the inspection and during the 2002-
2005 time period covered by the Notice.
Respondent provided two documents relating to the Daniel system. The first is a faded service
order, dated July 7, 2004, that appears to relate to work performed pursuant to OPS
requirements. The document includes a handwritten note that states “8 meter[s] on system.”
This document, however, is inconclusive because it merely states that there are eight meters but
also suggests that AmeriGas nonetheless believed the system to be jurisdictional. Moreover,
3 49 C.F.R. § 192.1(a)(5)(i).



3
Respondent’s September 15, 2005 post-inspection letter to OPS clearly stated that the Daniel
system had 13 customers. The second document is a list of meters, dated April 23, 2007, but
this list is irrelevant because it post-dates the inspection by almost two years. Based upon a
review of these two documents, the company’s own statements during the inspection, and its
September 15, 2005 letter to OPS, I find that the evidence shows that the Daniel system was
subject to Part 192 at the time of the inspection and during the 2002-2005 time period at issue
in the Notice.
Regarding the Pine Tree system, Respondent’s personnel stated during the 2005 inspection that
the Pine Tree system had 11 active customers. After the hearing, Respondent provided faded
service orders with handwritten notes that seemed to suggest that Pine Tree system meters were
removed on July 13, 2005. These documents are inconclusive and inconsistent with
Respondent’s statements made during the inspection. Even if, arguendo, the Pine Tree system
ceased being jurisdictional on July 13, 2005, it is clear that the system was jurisdictional during
the 2002-2005 time period at issue in the Notice. Accordingly, on the basis of Respondent’s
statements made during the inspection and the inconclusive nature of the evidence provided after
the hearing, I find that the Pine Tree system was subject to Part 192 jurisdiction at the time of the
inspection and during the 2002-2005 time period at issue in the Notice.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1a: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465, which states:
§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine
whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of §192.463…
(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any
deficiencies indicated by the monitoring. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to conduct cathodic
protection (CP) surveys of the Daniel system for the years 2002 and 2004, and the Green Acres system
in 2002. The Notice also noted that follow-up field evaluations of both systems at valve locations
produced marginal CP readings. Aside from the jurisdictional issues already discussed, Respondent
submitted no evidence regarding the Daniel system. Regarding the Green Acres system, at the hearing
Respondent indicated it was not contesting the allegation that it failed to conduct a CP survey of the
system in 2002. Therefore, I find that Respondent violated § 192.465(a) by failing to conduct annual
CP surveys of the Daniel system in 2002 and 2004, and the Green Acres system in 2002.
Item 1b: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), as quoted above,
by failing to take prompt remedial action to correct inadequate CP on the Green Acres system.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to correct inadequate CP at the Highway
C and Green Acres Road test location after inspections in 2003 and 2005 produced low CP
readings of -0.740v and -0.720v, respectively. These readings fell short of the minimum -0.850v



4
CP levels required under the regulations.4 In its Closing, AmeriGas argued that the 2003 and
2005 records showed that the readings for the “Highway C” test station were higher than those
alleged in the Notice and within an acceptable range. However, it appears that Respondent was
referring to a different Highway C test station other than the one at the intersection with Green
Acres Road. The records provided by Respondent do not show that the readings at the specific
test station cited in the Notice were acceptable and in fact confirm the low readings.5
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt
remedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by the 2003 and 2005 CP surveys at the
Highway C and Green Acres Road test station.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.469, which states:
§ 192.469 External corrosion control: Test stations.
Each pipeline under cathodic protection required by this subpart must have
sufficient test stations or other contact points for electrical measurement to
determine the adequacy of cathodic protection.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.469 by failing to provide adequate
test stations or other contact points on the Green Acres system for electrical measurement to
determine the adequacy of CP. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection, OPS
only observed three CP test stations on the system. The Green Acres system is the largest of the
three systems at issue in the Notice, serving approximately 77 meters. The Notice also alleged
that OPS had not been able to obtain any CP test station readings on the Daniel system. OPS
therefore alleged that there were not enough test stations to adequately monitor either of these
systems. Test stations only provide an indication of the adequacy of CP in the vicinity of the
station. Unless test stations are located throughout a pipeline system, an operator cannot
determine whether all parts of its system are adequately protected.
In its Closing, Respondent did not contest the allegation that it had inadequate CP test stations on
the Green Acres System and explained that since the date of the inspection, it had added several
test stations. Regarding the Daniel system, aside from the jurisdictional arguments already
discussed, Respondent submitted no evidence to show that it had sufficient test stations.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.469 by failing to provide an
adequate number of test stations or other contact points for electrical measurement on the Green
Acres and Daniel systems to determine the adequacy of CP.
Item 5a: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states:
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
4 Appendix D to Part 192 – Criteria for Cathodic Protection and Determination of Measurements.
5 Closing, Ex. 2. Respondent’s records for 2003 and 2005 confirm low CP readings for the Highway C and Green
Acres Road test station.



5
(a) Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and
for emergency response…
The Notice further alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c), which states:
§ 192.615 Emergency plans.
(a)…
(c) Each operator shall establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire,
police, and other public officials to:
(1) Learn the responsibility and resources of each government
organization that may respond to a gas pipeline emergency;
(2) Acquaint the officials with the operator’s ability in responding to a gas
pipeline emergency;
(3) Identify the types of gas pipeline emergencies of which the operator
notifies the officials; and
(4) Plan how the operator and officials can engage in mutual assistance to
minimize hazards to life or property.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its manual of
written procedures for emergency plans. Respondent is required to develop emergency plan
procedures in accordance with § 192.615 and to include such procedures in the Operations and
Respondent had failed to establish a liaison with local fire, police and public officials. The
Notice alleged that Respondent could provide no documentation that it had conducted such
Maintenance (O&M) manual required by § 192.605(a).6 Specifically, the Notice alleged that
liaison with regard to any of the three systems for the years 2002-2004.
Respondent did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its manual of written procedures for emergency plans.
Item 5b: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted above,
by failing to follow its own procedures for conducting monthly tests to ensure that the gas in its
system contained the proper concentration of odorant. The methodology in Respondent’s
procedure for confirming odorization is also set forth in § 192.625(f), which states:
§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.
(a)…
(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this
section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases
using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which
the odor becomes readily detectable. Operators of master meter systems may
comply with this requirement by-
(1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the gas has the
proper concentration of odorant; and
(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to
confirm that the gas contains odorant.
6 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(e).



6
Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas violated § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own
procedures for conducting monthly “sniff” tests on each of its systems, as follows:
• Pine Tree: Failed to conduct tests for five months in 2002
• Daniel: Failed to conduct tests for nine months in 2003 and one
month in 2004
• Green Acres: Failed to conduct tests for three months in 2002 and one
month in 2003.
In its Closing, AmeriGas admitted that it did not follow its own O&M procedures for ensuring
that its propane contained the proper concentration of odorant. Respondent’s procedures
required that AmeriGas personnel verify the presence of odorant by two methods: (1) when gas
is delivered to the storage tank or service is performed on the system; and (2) on a monthly basis
at several test points along the pipeline. Respondent’s procedures specifically stated that the
verification of odorant at delivery “does not take away the responsibility of the District to verify
the presence of odorant each month.”7
Although Respondent conceded that it failed to follow its own odorant procedures, it contested
the allegation on two grounds. First, in its Issues Statement and Closing, Respondent argued that
“PHMSA has not provided any citation to the regulation that it alleges requires that the
operator’s procedures be followed even if the procedure is not required under the Pipeline Safety
“each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for
conducting operations and maintenance activities and emergency response.” [Emphasis added].
With regard to what procedures must be followed, the regulation draws no distinction among
Regulations.”8 This is incorrect. Item 5 of the Notice cited § 192.605(a), which provides that
components of a procedural manual specifically required by Part 192, or other procedures an
operator has included in its manual. Respondent must follow all written procedures contained in
its manual for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.
Respondent further argued that the requirements of § 192.625(f) conflict with the National Fire
Protection Association 58: Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (NFPA 58) and that § 192.11(c)
provides that, in the event of a conflict with NFPA 58, the latter prevails.9 irrelevant since Respondent included two methods of odorization verification in its O&M
manual, and admittedly failed to follow them. The company cannot violate its own procedures
and then claim that they conflict with NFPA 58.
I find this argument
Furthermore, I see no conflict between the requirements of NFPA 58 and § 192.625(f). Section
4.2.3 of NFPA 58 requires operators to test for the presence of odorant by sniff-testing when the
gas is delivered to the bulk plant. Section 192.625(f)(1) is consistent with this requirement,
insofar as it permits written verification from the gas delivery source (such as a documented
7 OPS Violation Report, attachments for Item 5b, AmeriGas Odorization Procedures, § 5.20. OPS collected
Respondent’s procedures at the time of the inspection.
8 Closing at 3.
9 49 C.F.R. § 192.11(c) states: “In the event of a conflict between this [Part 192] and ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59,
ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 prevail.”



7
sniff-test by the driver delivering the gas to the bulk plant) that odorant has been added. The fact
that § 192.625(f)(2) also permits an operator to meet the testing requirement by conducting stiff
tests at the extremities of the system does not place the regulation in conflict with NFPA 58; the
regulation simply permits an additional means of achieving compliance. The possibility of
conflict would only arise if it were impossible or impracticable to comply with both.
In its Closing, Respondent also cited a training manual for Liquefied Petroleum (LP) gas systems
page of the manual “clearly demonstrates that NFPA 58, rather than Part 192 applies to propane
odorization testing.” This argument is also irrelevant to the allegation of violation. Respondent
that is shown on the PHMSA website.10 Respondent argues, without elaboration, that the cited
chose to include two methods of odorization verification in its O&M manual and admittedly
failed to follow them. The mere reference to NFPA 58 in a training manual does not prove that
the requirements of Part 192 do not also apply.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), by failing to follow its own
procedures for conducting monthly sniff tests for the three systems during the time periods
described above, to ensure the proper concentration of odorant.
Item 7a: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, which states:
§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection
and testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and
pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and
tests to determine that it is-
(1) In good mechanical condition;
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for
the service in which it is employed;
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve
at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a); and
(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions
that might prevent proper operation.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739 by failing to conduct the
following regulator inspections:
• Daniel: Failed to conduct inspections of one of two regulators in 2002
• Green Acres: Failed to conduct inspections of many regulators in 2002. (Respondent
inspected only 5 out of more than 30 regulators).
In its Closing, Respondent did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739 by failing to conduct regulator inspections at the locations and in
the years described above.
10 Closing Ex 4: “Training Guide for Operators of Small LP Gas Systems,” at II-3.



8
Item 7b: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, as quoted above, by
failing to test the external relief devices on the Pine Tree and Green Acres systems from 2002 to
2004. Respondent contested this allegation in its Issues Statement and Closing, arguing that it
was not required to install or test relief devices because its systems were subject to § 192.197(a)
and not § 192.739.
Section 192.197 is entitled “Control of the pressure of gas delivered from high-pressure
distribution systems.” [Emphasis added]. Section 192.197 is concerned with controlling pressure
on that portion of a gas pipeline system that flows through service lines and regulators to
residential and commercial customers. The pressure relief devices at issue in the Notice, on the
contrary, are designed to control pressure on that portion of a gas distribution system that is
upstream of customer service lines and regulators. Section 192.197 does not apply to such
upstream relief devices that control pressure on the distribution system itself. Therefore, I find
Respondent’s argument unpersuasive.
In its Issues Statement and Closing, Respondent also cited a 2001 Final Order issued by this
did not indicate what it believed was similar between the allegation in the Notice and the cited
case. The cited case concerned different facts and circumstances. The 2001 Final Order
withdrew an allegation that AmeriGas had violated § 192.743 and included a discussion of the
UL 144 standard for low-pressure gas regulators. Neither § 192.743 nor UL 144 is at issue in
Item 7b. Absent additional argument or explanation, I find Respondent’s reference to the 2001
Final Order inapposite.
agency and argued that such order withdrew an allegation on “similar grounds.”11 Respondent
Accordingly, upon review of all of the evidence and arguments of the parties, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to test the relief devices on the Pine Tree
and Green Acres systems from 2002 to 2004.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), which states:
§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of
relief devices.
(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure
regulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which
they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the capacity must be
consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). This capacity must be
determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, by testing the devices in place or by review and calculations.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to annually check
the pressure relief devices on the Green Acres and Pine Tree systems for sufficient capacity to
protect the facilities to which they were connected. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the
external relief devices at these locations had never been checked for capacity. In its Issues
Statement, Respondent argued that no such capacity review was required because § 192.197,
11 Closing at 6, citing In the Matter of AmeriGas Partners, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 38002, later re-numbered as
3-1998-0002, (December 31, 2001).



9
rather than § 192.743, applied to these devices. I find this argument unpersuasive for the same
reasons as those set forth in Item 7b above.
AmeriGas also argued that it should not be cited for violating both § 192.739 (for failure to
conduct annual testing of relief devices) and § 192.743 (for failure to conduct annual capacity
reviews). Respondent argued that § 192.743 permitted it to either conduct tests or review
capacity calculations, but did not require both.12
Respondent’s argument is not supported by either regulation. Section 192.743 requires a
determination of proper relief device capacity. Many kinds of system changes can affect relief
capacity needs, including changes in orifice sizes, vents, piping, etc. Section 192.739 requires
annual inspections and tests to determine, among other things, that the relief devices are
“adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which
[they] are employed.” Whereas § 192.743 requires an assessment of what the proper relief
capacity should be, § 192.739 requires an actual test of the relief device against its determined
capacity. Though similar, these regulations have different purposes and requirements. PHMSA
has cited other operators for violations of both regulations on the same relief device.13
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to annually check
the pressure relief devices on the Green Acres and Pine Tree systems for sufficient capacity to
protect the facilities to which they are connected.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $105,600 for the violations.
Notice Item 1a proposed a civil penalty of $15,000 for violations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), for
Respondent’s failure to conduct CP surveys of the Daniel system for the years 2002 and 2004,
and the Green Acres system in 2002. Adequate CP is an essential part of maintaining the
integrity of pipeline systems. In this case, both of AmeriGas’ systems lay in close proximity to
homes. Without adequate CP, corrosion could occur and result in a leak and the migration of
flammable propane into homes. By failing to conduct tests to determine whether CP was
12 Closing, at 6.
13 See In the Matter of Fairbanks Natural Gas LLC, Final Order, at 2, CPF No. 5-2000-0006 (Mar. 15, 2004); and,
more recently, In the Matter of CenterPoint Energy – Mississippi River Transmission Co., Final Order, at 1-2, CPF
No. 3-2007-1014 (Oct. 28, 2008). Although issued after the Notice in the present case, the CenterPoint case
demonstrates that PHMSA continues to take the position that §§ 192.739 and 192.743 impose separate requirements
and support separate violations for the same relief device.



10
adequate, Respondent increased the risk of harm to the public, property and the environment.
Respondent has presented no arguments or information that would warrant a reduction or
elimination of the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for violating
49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a).
Notice Item 1b proposed a civil penalty of $8,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), for
Respondent’s failure to take prompt remedial action to correct inadequate CP on one particular
portion of the Green Acres system. Without adequate CP, corrosion could occur and result in a
leak and the migration of flammable propane into homes. By failing to correct known
inadequate CP levels, Respondent increased the risk of harm to the public, property and the
environment. Respondent has presented no arguments or information that would warrant a
reduction or elimination of the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record
and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $8,000 for violating
49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d).
Notice Item 5b proposed a civil penalty of $15,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for
Respondent’s failure to follow its own procedures for conducting monthly “sniff tests” on each
of its systems. Respondent’s failure to follow its own written procedures jeopardized public
safety, property, and the environment. Adherence by operators to their own written safety
procedures has long been a core requirement of the Pipeline Safety Regulations and is intended
to prevent mistakes that could lead to accidents. Respondent admitted that it did not follow its
own O&M manual. Having rejected Respondent’s other arguments, as discussed in the Findings
of Violation, and in the absence of any basis for mitigation or elimination of the civil penalty for
this item, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).
Notice Item 7a proposed a civil penalty of $15,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, for
Respondent’s failure to conduct inspections of regulators on its Daniel and Green Acres systems
in 2002. Respondent did not submit any evidence that indicated it had conducted the required
inspections. Regulator inspection is important to pipeline safety because it can help to identify
operational problems with these important overpressure protection devices. Respondent’s failure
to conduct regulator inspection increased the risk to the public, property and the environment.
Respondent has presented no arguments or information that would warrant a reduction or
elimination of the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for violating
49 C.F.R. § 192.739.
Notice Item 7b proposed a civil penalty of $26,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, for
Respondent’s failure to test the external relief devices on the Pine Tree and Green Acres systems
from 2002 to 2004. External relief devices help to prevent overpressure of gas pipeline systems.
In this case, Respondent’s failure to conduct annual tests of these devices increased risks to the
public, property and the environment. Respondent has presented no arguments or information
that would warrant a reduction or elimination of the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$26,300 for violating 49 C.F.R. § 192.739.
Notice Item 8 proposed a civil penalty of $26,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.743, for
Respondent’s failure to annually check the pressure relief devices on the Green Acres and Pine



11
Tree systems for sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected.
Respondent failed to conduct the annual review of relief device capacity when it failed to inspect
the relief devices or perform capacity calculations. Such review is necessary to determine
whether the devices have sufficient relief capacity to protect the facilities on which they are
installed. Respondent argued that this penalty was duplicative of the penalty associated with
Item 7b. I found that these two violations were not duplicative, for the reasons discussed more
fully above; therefore, neither are the penalties. Respondent has presented no arguments or
information that would warrant a reduction or elimination of the proposed civil penalty.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $26,300 for violating 49 C.F.R. § 192.739.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for all the
violations set forth above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $105,600. Respondent has
presented no information that payment of this penalty would adversely affect its ability to
continue in business.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $105,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United
States District Court.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 2 and 5a in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.469 and 192.605(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),
each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility
is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under Chapter 601.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations.
Respondent must:
1. With regard to Notice Item 2, pertaining to the cathodic protection (CP) test stations in Green
Acres, perform a comprehensive review of the Green Acres CP system that includes:
a. Confirming what materials are used for the main and services, and ensuring that the
services, if they are copper, are insulated from the main. This work should include
field excavations in various parts of the system;



12
b. Addition of new test points throughout the system to ensure adequate cathodic
protection monitoring; and
c. Taking remedial actions to correct any deficiencies found during this evaluation,
including, but not limited to, replacement of corroded pipe, addition or replacement
of anodes, and re-coating;
2. Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this
Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Central Region, PHMSA. Costs shall be
reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,
procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and
other changes to pipeline infrastructure; and
3. Within 60 days of receipt of this Final Order, submit a proposed time schedule to accomplish
the objectives specified in paragraph 1 to the Director, Central Region, PHMSA.
4. Submit documentation of procedures, costs and evidence of actions taken to the Director,
Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 901 Locust Street,
Suite 462, Kansas City, MO 64106-2641. Please refer to CPF No. 3-2006-0004 on any
correspondence or communication in these matters.
The Director, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.
The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address Item 5a of
the Notice, pertaining to Respondent’s failure to follow its manual of written procedures for
liaison with fire and polic
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 44043