# FERRELLGAS — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320190001
- **title:** FERRELLGAS — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2019-04-29
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.285(a), 192.285(c), 192.513(a), 192.513(c), 192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(1), 192.605(b)(8), 192.619(a)(1), 192.741(a), 192.743(a), 192.743(b), 192.805(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320190001.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320190001.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320190001
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320190001
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving FERRELLGAS. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.285(a),  192.285(c),  192.513(a),  192.513(c),  192.603(b),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(1),  192.605(b)(8),  192.619(a)(1),  192.741(a),  192.743(a),  192.743(b),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2019-04-29 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-02. Proposed civil penalty: $19,600. Assessed civil penalty: $19,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320190001_Closure Letter_10022020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190001/320190001_Closure%20Letter_10022020.pdf

320190001_Closure Letter_10022020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190001/320190001_Closure%20Letter_10022020_text.pdf

320190001_Final Order_04062020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190001/320190001_Final%20Order_04062020.pdf

320190001_Final Order_04062020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190001/320190001_Final%20Order_04062020_text.pdf

320190001_NOPV PCP PCO_04292019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190001/320190001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04292019.pdf

320190001_NOPV PCP PCO_04292019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190001/320190001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04292019_text.pdf

320190001_Operator Response to Notice_07102019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190001/320190001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07102019.pdf

320190001_Closure Letter_10022020_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: JordanBurns@ferrellgas.com and
rufusyoungblood@Ferrellgas.com
October 2, 2020
Jordan Burns
Vice President - Legal
Ferrellgas
One Liberty Plaza
Liberty, MO 64068
RE: CPF 3-2019-0001
Dear Mr. Burns:
On August 7-9, 2018, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your liquid propane gas distribution facilities in northern
Wisconsin. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS issued a Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order on April 29, 2019.
On April 6, 2020, PHMSA issued a Final Order which made findings of violation, assessed a
civil penalty and ordered Ferrellgas to take certain compliance measures.
The records show that Ferrellgas has paid the civil penalty, in addition to submitting records of
determining the maximum allowable operating pressure of its systems and the relieving capacity
of its relief devices or changing the overpressure protection to monitor regulators. My staff has
reviewed these documents and determined that the terms of the Compliance Order have been
met. The case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc. Rufus Youngblood, Director Safety, Ferrellgas, rufusyoungblood@Ferrellgas.com

320190001_NOPV PCP PCO_04292019_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 29, 2019
Jordan Burns
Vice President - Legal
Ferrellgas
One Liberty Plaza
Liberty, MO 64068
CPF 3-2019-0001
Dear Mr. Burns:
On August 7-9, 2018, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your liquid propane gas distribution facilities in
northern Wisconsin.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items
inspected and the probable violation(s) are:



1. §192.285 Plastic pipe: Qualifying persons to make joints
(a) No person may make a plastic pipe joint unless that person has been qualified
under the applicable joining procedure by:
(c) A person must be re-qualified under an applicable procedure once each
calendar year at intervals not exceeding 15 months, or after any production joint
is found unacceptable by testing under §192.513.
Ferrellgas did not re-qualify one person in 2015 under the applicable plastic joint
procedure once each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 15 months. The
individual made pipe joints in 2015, but had not been qualified by making specimen
joints for inspection and testing as required by the regulation and their procedures.
2. §192.513 Test requirements for plastic pipelines.
(a) Each segment of a plastic pipeline must be tested in accordance with this
section.
(c) The test pressure must be at least 150 percent of the maximum operating
pressure or 50 p.s.i. (345 kPa) gage, whichever is greater. However, the maximum
test pressure may not be more than three times the pressure determined under
§192.121, at a temperature not less than the pipe temperature during the test.
Ferrillgas did not test its plastic pipelines to at least a pressure of 50 psig. Ferrellgas
installed three (3) plastic service lines in 2017 and 2018 which were not pressure
tested to at least 50 psig. The service locations, dates and pressures are:
Address Date Test Pressure (psig)
7219 W. Courtland Circle, Egg Harbor, WI 5-5-2017 28
7192 Ida Red Rd., Egg Harbor, WI 7-19-2018 24
7300 McIntosh Way, Egg Harbor, WI 8-28-2017 24
3. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include
procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and
updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once
2



each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline
system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations
where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
Ferrellgas did not conduct annual reviews of its written procedures. Ferrellgas
personnel informed PHMSA that it had not conducted annual reviews of its written
procedures for the last two years.
4. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . .
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)
of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and
maintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are found.
Ferrellgas did not periodically review the work done by operator personnel to
determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures in normal operations and
maintenance. Ferrellgas informed PHMSA that these effectiveness reviews had not
been conducted for the last two year.
5. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines
a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that
exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph
(c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:
(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in
accordance with subparts C and D of this part. However, for steel pipe in
pipelines being converted under §192.14 or uprated under subpart K of this part,
if any variable necessary to determine the design pressure under the design
formula (§192.105) is unknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as
design pressure:
Ferrellgas did not determine its maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) to be
the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Ferrellgas stated that its
MAOP in each system was 30 psig, but the PHMSA inspector found house service
regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10 psig. This would restrict the
MAOP to not be above 10 psig.
3



6. §192.603 General provisions.
(a) . . . .
(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures
established under §192.605.
§192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . .
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.
§192.741 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Telemetering or recording
gauges.
(a) Each distribution system supplied by more than one district pressure
regulating station must be equipped with telemetering or recording pressure
gauges to indicate the gas pressure in the district.
Ferrellgas did not keep records of recording pressure gauges for two multiple feed
systems. The monthly pressure recording charts for the Horse Shoe Bay distribution
system were not keep for August of 2016, October and February of 2017, and June of
2018. The same records for Heritage Lake distribution system were not kept for
August and October of 2016, Febuary, April, May, and June of 2017, and March of
2018.
7. §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.
(b) If review and calculations are used to determine if a device has sufficient
capacity, the calculated capacity must be compared with the rated or
experimentally determined relieving capacity of the device for the conditions
under which it operates. After the initial calculations, subsequent calculations
need not be made if the annual review documents that parameters have not
changed to cause the rated or experimentally determined relieving capacity to be
insufficient.
4



Ferrellgas did not determine pressure relief capacity at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review
and calculations of the capacity of its regulator station relief devices. None of
Ferrellgas’ nine (9) regulator stations had been tested in place or calculated capacities
reviewed to determine if the relieving capacities were sufficient. Ferrellgas had no
capacity design sheets for its regulator stations to even review.
8. §192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(a) . . . .
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified;
Ferrellgas did not ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified. The operator 2015 qualification records for one individual who
performed 19 covered tasks had none of the proficiency (performance) evaluations
completed, but all the written tests had been completed. The individual performed
these tasks multiple times during the period from 2015 to 2018. His records for 2018
for all qualifications were complete. This individual was in charge of qualifying most
of the staff.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679
for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and
before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per
day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to
November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day,
with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The
Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved
in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a
civil penalty of $19,600 as for Item 2.
Warning Items
With respect to item(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting
documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement
action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct
these items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.
5



Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 5 and 7 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Ferrellgas. Please
refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline
Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response
options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly
available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential
treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide
a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment
redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request
a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this
Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and
authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this
Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this
Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from
receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-0001 and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
6



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to FerrellGas a Compliance Order incorporating
the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Ferrellgas with the pipeline
safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to determining pipeline
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), Ferrellgas must evaluate its
pipelines and determine the MAOP according to §192.619 and document its
findings for each of its systems.
In regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining capacity of relief valves at
regulator stations, Ferrellgas must determine if the reliefing capacity is
sufficient by testing the devices in place or by capacity calculations of each
station.
Within 90 days after receipt of the Final Order FerrellGas must have completed
Items 1 and 2 of the compliance order and sent the appropriate documentation
to Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS.
It is requested (not mandated) that Ferrellgas maintain documentation of the
safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and
submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs
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.
7

320190001_Final Order_04062020_text.pdf

VIA EMAIL TO: jamesferrell@ferrellgas.com, jordanburns@ferrellgas.com, and
rufusyoungblood@ferrellgas.com
Mr. James E. Ferrell
Chairman, Interim Chief Executive Officer and President
Ferrellgas Partners, LP
One Liberty Plaza
Liberty, Missouri 64068
Re: CPF No. 3-2019-0001
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $19,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by your
subsidiary, Ferrellgas, LP, 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. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of mailing
as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Jordan Burns, Vice President and General Counsel, Ferrellgas
Mr. Rufus Youngblood, Director Safety, Ferrellgas
VIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of )
Ferrellgas, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2019-0001
a subsidiary of Ferrellgas Partners, LP, )
Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
From August 7, 2019, through August 9, 2019, 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
Ferrellgas, LP’s (Ferrellgas or Respondent) liquid propane distribution facilities in northern
Wisconsin. Ferrellgas, a subsidiary of Ferrellgas Partners, LP,1 operates six small liquid propane
distribution systems in Wisconsin.2 The systems are comprised of plastic mains, plastic services,
and some copper lines supplied by underground and above-ground 1,000-gallon tanks.3
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated April 29, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Ferrellgas
had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.513, 192.619, and 192.743, and proposed assessing a civil penalty
of $19,600 for the alleged violation of § 192.513. The Notice also proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items
required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face
possible future enforcement action.
Ferrellgas responded to the Notice by letter dated July 10, 2019 (Response). The company did
not contest the allegations of violation of §§ 192.513 and 192.743 (Items 2 and 7, respectively),
offered additional information in response to the allegation of violation of § 192.619 (Item 5),
1 Ferrellgas Partners, LP Form 10-K, available at https://ferrellgas.gcs-web.com/static-files/e9dc3d5d-7b17-4295-
9729-cc99c18488c4 (last accessed March 10, 2020).
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 29, 2019) (on file with PHMSA), at 1 (on file with
PHMSA).
3 Id.



CPF 3-2019-0001
Page 2
and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated for § 192.513 (Item 2).
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.513, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.513 Test requirements for plastic pipelines.
(a) Each segment of a plastic pipeline must be tested in accordance with
this section.
(b) ….
(c) The test pressure must be at least 150 percent of the maximum
operating pressure or 50 p.s.i. (345 kPa) gage, whichever is greater.
However, the maximum test pressure may not be more than 3 times the
pressure determined under § 192.121 at a temperature not less than the pipe
temperature during the test.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.513 by failing to test its plastic
pipelines to a pressure of at least 50 psi. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Ferrellgas installed
three plastic service lines in 2017 and 2018 that were not pressure tested to at least 50 psi.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.513 by failing to test its plastic
pipelines to a pressure of at least 50 psi.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic
pipelines.
(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a
pressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined
under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:
(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment,
determined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part. However, for
steel pipe in pipelines being converted under § 192.14 or uprated under
subpart K of this part, if any variable necessary to determine the design
pressure under the design formula (§ 192.105) is unknown, one of the
following pressures is to be used as design pressure: ….
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)(1) by failing to determine
its maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) in conformance with the design pressure of



CPF 3-2019-0001
Page 3
the weakest element in the pipeline segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Ferrellgas’
procedures stated that its MAOP for each system was 30 psi, even though its house-service
regulators have a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10 psi. Therefore, the Notice alleged that
Ferrellgas’ MAOP should be not have exceeded 10 psi.
In its Response, Ferrellgas stated that the MAOP in its Operations and Maintenance Manual
(O&M Manual) is set at 30 psi because 30 psi is the limit for propane vapor in polyethylene
(poly) pipe. Ferrellgas also stated that no further MAOP calculations were needed “because poly
pipe used in the propane industry has a design pressure far above 30 psi.” Ferrellgas
acknowledged nevertheless that the second-stage regulators used in its systems have a maximum
inlet pressure of 10 psi.4
Section 192.619(a)(1) provides that no person may operate a segment of plastic pipeline at a
pressure that exceeds the MAOP of the design pressure of the weakest element in the segment.
Respondent’s second-stage regulators constitute a part of the pipeline segment and have a
maximum inlet pressure of 10 psi. The design pressure of the poly pipe is therefore immaterial
because the second-stage regulator is the weaker element on the pipeline segment.
Consequently, the MAOP should not have exceeded 10 psi.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.619(a) by failing to determine its MAOP in conformance with the design pressure of the
weakest element in the pipeline segment.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 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.
(b) If review and calculations are used to determine if a device has
sufficient capacity, the calculated capacity must be compared with the rated
or experimentally determined relieving capacity of the device for the
conditions under which it operates. After the initial calculations, subsequent
calculations need not be made if the annual review documents that
parameters have not changed to cause the rated or experimentally
determined relieving capacity to be insufficient. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743 by failing to determine the
capacity of its regulator-station relief devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least
4 Response, at 4.



CPF 3-2019-0001
Page 4
once each calendar year, by testing them in place or by review and calculations. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that none of Ferrellgas’ nine regulator stations had been tested in place or by
calculation to determine if the relieving capacities were sufficient. The Notice also alleged that
Ferrellgas did not have any capacity-design sheets for its regulator stations available for the
PHMSA inspector to review.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743 by failing to determine the
capacity of its regulator-station relief devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least
once each calendar year, by testing in place or by review and calculations.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses]in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.5 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must 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; 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 $19,600 for the violation of Item 2.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.513, for failing to test its plastic pipelines to a pressure of 50 psi. In its Response,
Ferrellgas explained that its employees had mistakenly tested the lines using the parameters
found in NFPA 54 and 58, which have a lower minimum test pressure than those established in
Part 192. Ferrellgas noted that it had re-tested all of the lines in accordance with its O&M
Manual and that the new tests showed that the lines were safe and their integrity had not been
compromised. In light of these mitigating factors, Ferrellgas requested that the proposed penalty
be rescinded or reduced.
While I acknowledge, and appreciate, Ferrellgas’ willingness to re-test its pipelines following the
issuance of the Notice, I do not find that such corrective actions warrant the withdrawal or
reduction of the civil penalty. Regarding the nature and circumstances of the violation, PHMSA
noted in the Violation Report that the alleged violation related to a failure to perform a required
activity and that the violation had been discovered by PHMSA or a State Partner. It is
uncontested that Ferrellgas failed to test its plastic pipelines to a pressure of at least 50 psi and
that PHMSA, rather than the company, had discovered the violation.
5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.



CPF 3-2019-0001
Page 5
Regarding gravity, PHMSA noted in the Violation Report that pipeline safety was minimally
affected; therefore, the proposed civil penalty has already accounted for the fact that pipeline
integrity was never compromised. Regarding culpability, Ferrellgas did not contest the violation
and has thus acknowledged that it failed to comply with an applicable requirement of Part 192.
Regarding good faith, Ferrellgas seeks a penalty reduction because its employees mistakenly
used the wrong standard when testing the lines. Ferrellgas stated that in most other
circumstances where these lines had been installed to serve a single customer from a stationary
ASME tank, the test pressure used would have been acceptable under the codes that it uses for
the safe installation and operation of propane systems.
I am unconvinced that it would be appropriate to reduce a proposed penalty because an employee
made a mistake or used the wrong standard while performing a safety task. On the contrary,
pipeline operators are and should be expected to ensure that their personnel perform all safety-
related tasks using the correct standards and procedures. As such, a reduction of the proposed
civil penalty under the “good faith” standard is not warranted.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $19,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.513.
Failure to pay the $19,600 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 district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 5 and 7 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.619 and 192.743, 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:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.619 (Item 5), Respondent must evaluate its
pipelines and determine the MAOP according to § 192.619 and document its findings
for each of its systems.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.743 (Item 7), Respondent must determine if
the relieving capacity of its regulator-station relief devices is sufficient by testing the
devices in place or by capacity calculations of each station.
3. All documentation demonstrating compliance with items 1 and 2 of the



CPF 3-2019-0001
Page 6
compliance order must be submitted to the Director, Central Region, Pipeline and
Hazardous Safety Materials Administration, for review within 90 days of receipt of
the Final Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs 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.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did
not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered
to be warning items. The warnings were for the following:
49 C.F.R. § 192.285 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to re-qualify a
person under an applicable plastic joint procedure once each calendar year, with
intervals not exceeding 15 months, in 2015. The individual made pipe joints in
2015, but had not been requalified by making specimen joints and testing them as
required by the § 192.285 and Respondent’s own procedures.
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct an
annual review of its written procedures.
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to periodically
review the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness and
adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and maintenance.
49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to keep records
of recording pressure gauges for two multiple feed systems.
49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure through
evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.



CPF 3-2019-0001
Page 7
Ferrellgas presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
April 6, 2020
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 35680