{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320130003","title":"SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-06-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.11, 192.16(c), 192.465(a), 192.481(a), 192.491(a), 192.605, 192.707(d)(2), 192.743(a), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320130003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320130003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320130003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320130003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11,  192.16(c),  192.465(a),  192.481(a),  192.491(a),  192.605,  192.707(d)(2),  192.743(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2013-06-26 and is reported as closed as of 2014-03-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320130003_Closure_03172014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320130003/320130003_Closure_03172014.pdf\n\n320130003_Closure_03172014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320130003/320130003_Closure_03172014_text.pdf\n\n320130003_Final Order_11152013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320130003/320130003_Final%20Order_11152013.pdf\n\n320130003_Final Order_11152013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320130003/320130003_Final%20Order_11152013_text.pdf\n\n320130003_NOPV PCO_06262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320130003/320130003_NOPV%20PCO_06262013.pdf\n\n320130003_NOPV PCO_06262013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320130003/320130003_NOPV%20PCO_06262013_text.pdf\n\n320130003_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Time_07252013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320130003/320130003_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Time_07252013.pdf\n\n320130003_Final Order_11152013_text.pdf\n\nNOVEMBER 15, 2013\nMr. Michael J. Dunn, Jr.\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSuburban Propane, LP\nOne Suburban Plaza\n240 Route 10 West\nWhippany, NJ 07981\nRe: CPF No. 3-2013-0003\nDear Mr. Dunn:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Suburban Propane, LP, to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, Central Region, OPS\nMr. Ed Moreno, CSC Manager – WI Market, Suburban Propane, LP, 800 South Division\nStreet, Suite D, Wanakee, WI 53597\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nSuburban Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2013-0003\nf/k/a Tru-Gas, Inc., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 17, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Suburban Propane,\nLP (Suburban Propane or Respondent), in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. Suburban Propane is a\nnationwide marketer and distributor of energy products, specializing in propane, fuel oil, and\nrefined fuels.\n1 At its Wisconsin location, Suburban Propane operates a propane distribution\nsystem serving residential customers,2 including ones at the Pineview, Bluffside and Terlinqua\nTrailer Parks.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated June 26, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice), which also included several warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205.3 In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but\nwarned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible enforcement action.\nSuburban Propane responded to the Notice by letter dated July 25, 2013 (Response). Respondent\n1 Suburban Propane, About Us, available at http://www.suburbanpropane.com/about (last accessed September 26,\n2013).\n2 Tru-Gas, About Us, available at http://www.trugaspropane.com/trugaspropane/About_Us html (last accessed\nSeptember 26, 2013).\n3 The Notice was erroneously issued to Tru-Gas, Inc., the former operator of the facilities that are the subject of this\nFinal Order. Tru-Gas, Inc. was acquired by Suburban Propane, LP, on August 1, 2012, prior to the date of\nPHMSA’s inspection. See Suburban Propane, LP, Welcome to Suburban Propane, available at\nhttp://www.suburbanpropane.com/welcomes/august2012/trugaspropane html (last accessed September 26, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\ndid not contest the allegations of violation and requested additional time to submit\ndocumentation of the corrective actions it had taken. The company did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Suburban Propane did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at\nleast once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nto determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§ 192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for\nseparately protected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in\nexcess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these\npipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of\nthese protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be\nsurveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each\nsubsequent year, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test one of its\npropane pipeline systems that was under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection met the\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 192.463. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\nperform annual surveys on 47 cathodically-protected steel risers that are part of Respondent’s\npipeline distribution system at the Pineview Trailer Park in Lacrosse, Wisconsin.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test 47 steel\nrisers that were under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection met the requirements of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.463.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion,\nas follows:\n\n\n\n3\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore ………. At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months\nOffshore ………. At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to perform\natmospheric corrosion inspections at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months, on each portion of its pipeline exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Suburban Propane failed to inspect 47 steel risers that are part of its pipeline\nsystem at the Pineview Trailer Park in Lacrosse, Wisconsin, for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion at least once every three calendar years. The Notice alleged that at the time of the\ninspection, Suburban Propane could not produce any documentation to demonstrate it had\nconducted atmospheric corrosion inspections within the last three calendar years.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to perform\natmospheric corrosion inspections at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months, on each portion of its pipeline distribution system exposed to the\natmosphere.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(a), which states:\n§ 192.491 Corrosion control records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain records or maps to show the location\nof cathodically protected piping, cathodic protection facilities, galvanic\nanodes, and neighboring structures bonded to the cathodic protection\nsystem. Records or maps showing a stated number of anodes, installed in\na stated manner or spacing, need not show specific distances to each\nburied anode.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(a) by failing to maintain\nrecords or maps showing the location of cathodically protected piping and galvanic anodes at one\nof its pipeline distribution systems. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Suburban Propane failed\nto record the location of 47 cathodically protected steel risers and the approximate location of the\nanodes at the Pineview Trailer Park. The Notice further alleged that at the time of the inspection,\nSuburban Propane did not provide any evidence demonstrating that it maintained records or\nmaps of its Pineview pipeline system showing the location of cathodically protected piping or\nanodes.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(a) by failing to maintain\nrecords or maps showing the location of its cathodically protected piping and galvanic anodes at\n\n\n\n4\nthe Pineview Trailer Park.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to follow a\nwritten qualification program with provisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals\nperforming covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Suburban Propane\nfailed to ensure that its Operator Qualification (OQ) coordinator, Shawn Allen, was qualified to\nperform each of the covered tasks listed in Respondent’s OQ manual. The Notice further alleged\nthat at the time of the inspection, Suburban Propane failed to produce evidence indicating that\nMr. Allen was qualified to perform such covered tasks.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to follow a\nwritten qualification program with provisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals\nperforming covered tasks were qualified.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.16(c), which states:\n§ 192.16 Customer notification.\n(a) This section applies to each operator of a service line who does not\nmaintain the customer's buried piping up to entry of the first building\ndownstream, or, if the customer's buried piping does not enter a building,\nup to the principal gas utilization equipment or the first fence (or wall) that\nsurrounds that equipment. For the purpose of this section, “customer's\nburied piping” does not include branch lines that serve yard lanterns, pool\nheaters, or other types of secondary equipment. . . .\n(c) Each operator shall notify each customer not later than August 14,\n1996, or 90 days after the customer first receives gas at a particular\nlocation, whichever is later. However, operators of master meter systems\nmay continuously post a general notice in a prominent location frequented\nby customers.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.16(c) by failing to notify each\ncustomer of buried piping that is not maintained by the operator, within 90 days after each\ncustomer first receives gas service. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA investigators\nobserved buried customer piping throughout the Bluffside Trailer Park in Desoto, Wisconsin, but\nthat Suburban Propane had failed to notify customers of such buried customer piping within 90\ndays after each customer first received gas service. At the time of inspection, Suburban Propane\n\n\n\n5\ndid not provide any evidence demonstrating that Respondent notified customers at the Bluffside\nTrailer Park of buried customer piping.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.16(c) by failing to notify each\ncustomer of buried piping that is not maintained by the operator within 90 days after each\ncustomer first receives gas service.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(d)(2), which states:\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) . . . .\n(d) Marker warning. The following must be written legibly on a\nbackground of sharply contrasting color on each line marker:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) The name of the operator and the telephone number (including\narea code) where the operator can be reached at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(d)(2) by failing to provide on\nits line marker signs the name of the operator and the telephone number where the operator could\nbe reached at all times. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Suburban Propane listed the\nincorrect operator name and telephone number on several line markers located at the Bluffside,\nPineview and Terlinqua Trailer Parks, rendering the operator unable to be reached at all times.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(d)(2) by failing to provide\non line marker signs the correct operator name and telephone number where the operator could\nbe reached at all times.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), which states:\n§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief\ndevices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to\nwhich they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the\ncapacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). This\ncapacity must be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review\nand calculations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine at\nleast once each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, whether its pressure\nrelief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating stations had sufficient capacity\nto protect the facilities to which they were connected, consistent with the pressure limits of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Suburban Propane failed to check\n\n\n\n6\nits relief devices at least annually and that Respondent did not provide any documentation at the\ntime of the inspection demonstrating that its relief devices had been properly tested.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, whether its pressure\nrelief devices had sufficient capacity to protect its facilities.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 in the\nNotice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465(a), 192.481(a), 192.491(a), 192.805(b), 192.16(c),\n192.707(d)(2), and 192.743(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.465(a) (Item 4), Respondent must perform a\ncathodic protection survey on the 47 steel risers and assure that the readings provide a\nlevel of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of the applicable criteria\ncontained in Appendix D of Part 192. Any deficiencies must be immediately\ncorrected.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.481(a) (Item 5), Respondent must inspect all\naboveground steel piping at the Pineview Trailer Park for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion and correct any deficiencies.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.491(a) (Item 6), Respondent must revise all\napplicable maps to ensure adequate documentation.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.805(b) (Item 7), Respondent must ensure\nthat any individual who performs a covered task on a pipeline is qualified on that\ntask.\n5. With respect to the violation of § 192.16(c) (Item 8), Respondent must provide\nnotification to affected customers of buried customer piping.\n6. With respect to the violation of § 192.707(d)(2) (Item 10), Respondent must\nperform a survey on each of its systems and correct any deficiencies found with its\nline markers.\n\n\n\n7\n7. With respect to the violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 11), Respondent must check\nthe capacity of relief devices at or near the tank (ex, Fisher 289H).\n8. Respondent must submit documentation demonstrating compliance with each of\nthe items outlined in this Compliance Order to the Director, Central Region, within\n60 days of receipt of this Order.\n9. PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to the Director, Central Region. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: (1) total costs associated with the preparation and revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total costs associated with replacements,\nadditions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, 3, and 9, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.11 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to test relief devices\nfor proper operation at intervals not exceeding five years, in accordance with\nANSI/NFPA 59 Section 10.1.4;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.11 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to take precautions\nagainst damage to liquefied petroleum gas systems where vehicular traffic is a\npossibility, in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 58 Section 4.4;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.11 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to minimize the\npossibility of the entrance of water or other extraneous matter into relief devices\nor discharge piping, in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 58 Section 6.7.2.4; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605 (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to periodically\nreview the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness and\nadequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and maintenance.\n\n\n\n8\nRespondent is advised to take appropriate action to correct these items. If OPS finds a violation\nof any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320130003_Closure_03172014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 17, 2014\nMr. Michael J. Dunn, Jr.\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSuburban Propane, L.P.\n240 Route 10 West\nWhippany, New Jersey 07981\nRe: CPF 3-2013-0003\nDear Mr. Dunn:\nOn November 15, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) issued to Suburban Propane a Final Order (Order) in the above-referenced case.\nThis Order included a Compliance Order regarding tests and inspections on the Wisconsin\npropane distribution pipeline systems. Based on a review of the documentation you\nprovided, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to\nthe matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":22216}