{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320190003","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":"2019-11-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.201(a)(2)(iii), 192.603(b), 192.619(a)(1), 192.619(a)(2), 192.743(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320190003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320190003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320190003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320190003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.201(a)(2)(iii),  192.603(b),  192.619(a)(1),  192.619(a)(2),  192.743(a). The case was opened on 2019-11-22 and is reported as closed as of 2021-04-22. Proposed civil penalty: $46,700. Assessed civil penalty: $22,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S).pdf\n\n320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf\n\n320190003_Final Order_12182020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Final%20Order_12182020.pdf\n\n320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Final%20Order_12182020_text.pdf\n\n320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO%20Corrected_01142020.pdf\n\n320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11222019.pdf\n\n320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11222019_text.pdf\n\n320190003_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_01062021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01062021.pdf\n\n320190003_Operator Response to Notice and Request Copy of the Proposed Civil Penalty Worksheet_02122020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20Copy%20of%20the%20Proposed%20Civil%20Penalty%20Worksheet_02122020.pdf\n\n320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf\n\nApril 19, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: konderdonk@suburbanpropane.com\nMr. Keith P. Onderdonk\nVice President, Operational Support\nSuburban Propane, LP\n240 Route 10 West\nWhippany, New Jersey 07981\nRe: CPF No. 3-2019-0003\nDear Mr. Onderdonk:\nEnclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case.\nFor the reasons explained therein, the Decision reduces the civil penalty to $22,900. When the\ncivil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the\nfinal administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this decision by electronic mail is\neffective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nCONFIRMATION OF 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSuburban Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2019-0003\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nFrom September 11, 2018, through September 13, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Suburban\nPropane, LP (Suburban or Respondent) facilities and records in West Salem, and propane gas\nsystems in La Crosse and Juneau counties, Wisconsin. As a result of the inspection, the Director,\nCentral Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent by letter dated November 22, 2019, a\nNotice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice).1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Suburban\nhad committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$46,700 for the alleged violations.\nSuburban responded to the Notice by letter dated February 12, 2020 (Response) contesting the\nallegations, requesting a hearing, and requesting a copy of the case file, including the civil\npenalty worksheet.2 Respondent also requested an informal conference and specifically stated\nthat it “[did] intend to seek available economic relief where possible.” On May 5, 2020, the\nCentral Region provided the case file and civil penalty worksheet,3 and on May 20, 2020, held an\ninformal conference with Respondent. On June 4, 2020, Respondent withdrew its request for a\nhearing and noted that it no longer contested the alleged violations, proposed compliance order,\nor proposed civil penalty for Item 2.4\n1 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), CPF No. 3-2019-\n0003 (November 22, 2019). The original Notice went undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. On January 14, 2020,\nCentral Region resent the Notice to a new address provided by Suburban. Suburban had 30 days from the date of\nreceipt of the Notice to respond, as permitted under § 190.208.\n2 Suburban Propane, LP’s Response to Notice (February 12, 2020).\n3 Due to certain COVID-19 related mail issues, Central Region did not review Suburban’s response until May 4,\n2020.\n4 Suburban email to PHMSA (June 3, 2020) (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-0003\nPage 2\nOn December 18, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order\nfinding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 193.603(b) (Item 1),\n192.743(a) (Item 2), 192.619(a) (Item 3), and 192.201(a)(2)(iii) (Item 4).5 The Final Order\nfound that Respondent had already satisfied the terms of the proposed compliance order. In\naddition, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.223, the Final\nOrder assessed a civil penalty of $22,900 for Item 2 and a reduced civil penalty of $6,566 for\nItem 4. The total civil penalty for both violations was $29,466.\nOn January 6, 2021, Respondent filed a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.243 (Petition).6 In its Petition, Respondent sought reconsideration of the civil penalty\nassessed for Item 4 and presented grounds for reconsideration. Respondent asserted that the civil\npenalty assessment considerations in the Final Order did not properly reflect certain factual\ninformation. In addition, Respondent asserted that it had withdrawn its initial hearing request\nbased on its understanding from the informal conference on May 20, 2020, that Respondent had\nalready provided sufficient grounds to support withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4 and the\nDirector had recommended withdrawal.\nStandard of Review\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of a final order that has been issued pursuant to § 190.213. Reconsideration is\nnot an appeal or a completely new review of the record.7 A respondent may ask for correction of\nan error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a\nrespondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit\nthe reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. Repetitious\ninformation or arguments will not be considered.8 The Associate Administrator may grant or\ndeny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings.\nAnalysis\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.9 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that\n5 Suburban Propane, LP, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2019-0003, 2020 WL 8369928 (December 18, 2020).\n6 Suburban Propane LP’s Petition for Reconsideration (January 6, 2021).\n7 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).\n8 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, CPF No. 5-2009-00118, 2013 WL 5883403, at *3 (August 30, 2013).\n9 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-0003\nPage 3\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; the good faith of Respondent in\nattempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations; and self-disclosure and correction of\nviolations, or actions to correct a violation, prior to discovery by PHMSA. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nItem 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,800 for the violation of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii),\nfor failing to correctly set pressure relief devices to operate at pressures consistent with the\npressure limits of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) by failing to set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures\nthat do not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) plus 50 percent when\nMAOP is less than 12 psig.10 While Respondent had withdrawn its contest of the violation in\nresponse to the Notice, Respondent had offered information to mitigate the civil penalty,\nincluding that it utilized the regulator manufacturer’s documentation to establish an MAOP of 15\npsig.11 Respondent also contended that the setting of the station regulator relief valves would\nhave been allowed under a separate provision, § 192.201(a)(2)(ii), and that the violation was\nquickly corrected. The Final Order did not find the settings were compliant with any other code\nsections, but determined that Respondent had provided a reasonable justification for its\nnoncompliance, which was predicated on a misinterpretation of the correct MAOP for the six\nsegments, and that the misinterpretation warranted a reduction of the proposed civil penalty\nunder the good faith credit. The proposed civil penalty was reduced to $6,566.\nRespondent argued in its Petition that the civil penalty assessment considerations in the Final\nOrder did not appropriately reflect certain factual information. With regard to nature and\ncircumstances, Respondent asserted that its established inlet pressure was not an error or\nmisinterpretation, but a difference in choice, and that the safety of the system was not\ncompromised. According to the Petition, “the manufacturer documentation previously provided\nto PHMSA clearly shows that the service regulators in question are more than capable of\nhandling a 15 psi inlet pressure while still offering adequate relief protection downstream.”12\nFurther, with regard to gravity, Respondent argued that due to the performance limitations of the\nregulator itself, pipeline safety was not affected at all. Regarding culpability, Respondent\nasserted that culpability did not exist for Item 4, because the relief settings were compliant under\na separate regulation, § 192.20l(a)(2)(ii).\nPHMSA finds Respondent’s assertions are based on an erroneous interpretation of the regulation.\nAs more fully explained in the Final Order, Respondent’s pressure relief devices were not set to\noperate at pressures that do not exceed the MAOP plus 50 percent. The Notice alleged that 19\nand 19.5 psig exceeded the pressure setting permitted under § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) because the\nactual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limited by house service regulators. Therefore,\nthe maximum pressure setting of the relief valves would be 15 psig. The regulators in question\nare stamped with the maximum pressure relief setting, but Respondent used the manufacturer’s\n10 Notice, at 3.\n11 Response, at 4.\n12 Petition, at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-0003\nPage 4\nspecifications for emergency pressure rating to calculate its MAOP when MAOP must be\ncalculated under normal operating conditions, not based on the emergency pressure rating.\nSection 192.201(a)(2)(ii) is not applicable because the MAOP is not 12 psig or more. As to\nwhether pipeline safety was affected, a finding that pipeline safety was minimally affected is the\nlowest possible level under the gravity assessment factor and was the appropriate rating for\nviolation Item 4.\nRespondent also contended that the Final Order did not consider its history of prior offenses\nwhen assessing a penalty, according to § 192.225(a)(3), or its good faith in attempting to achieve\ncompliance as required by § 192.225(a)(4). However, Respondent’s history of prior offenses\nwas in fact included in the Violation Report, and was considered in the Penalty Assessment as a\nfactor that did not increase the total point calculation used to determine the base civil penalty.\nGood faith was also considered in assessing Respondent’s civil penalty, and the Final Order\nspecifically reduced the penalty under this consideration to account for Respondent’s reasonable\njustification for its non-compliance.\nFinally, Respondent asserted that prior to issuance of the Final Order, it had withdrawn its\nhearing request based on its understanding from the informal conference on May 20, 2020, that\nRespondent had provided sufficient grounds to support withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4\nand the Director had recommended withdrawal.\nRespondent is correct that the Director’s recommendation dated September 10, 2020, submitted\npursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), recommended withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4. As a\ngeneral matter, I am not bound by a Director’s recommendation, and will consider all of the\nevidence in the case file and the applicable civil penalty assessment factors when issuing a final\norder.\nGiven Respondent’s lack of violation history, it appears Respondent may have been unaware that\nthe Director’s recommendation is not binding, unlike a Consent Agreement reached pursuant to\n§ 190.219. Having considered these circumstances in light of the Director’s recommendation,\nRespondent’s limited enforcement history, Respondent’s justification for the noncompliance and\nthe minimal, if any, impact to pipeline safety, I have determined that it would be appropriate to\nreconsider the previously reduced civil penalty for Item 4 pursuant to § 190.225(b)(2), which\npermits me to consider “other matters as justice may require” in determining the amount of a\ncivil penalty. Under this assessment factor, I find that the record demonstrates that Respondent\nmisunderstood the requirements of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) and the MAOP stamped on the regulator\nitself, and this fact should be credited when considering justification for a civil penalty in this\ncase. Further, Respondent’s failure to comply with § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) in this case minimally\naffected pipeline safety, the noncompliance was not egregious or willful, and did not\nsignificantly increase the likelihood of a pipeline failure. Respondent is advised to ensure that it\ncomplies with the regulations going forward as the regulations assist in the continued safe\noperation of the pipeline, and a failure to comply with regulations may result in future\nenforcement, including issuance of a civil penalty.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-0003\nPage 5\nBased upon the foregoing, I withdraw the civil penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.201(a)(2)(iii) (Item 4). No other amendments to the Final Order are made by this\nDecision, and the remaining civil penalty of $22,900 for violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 2) is\nnow due.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision. Federal\nregulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through\nthe Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should\nbe directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration,\nMike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma\n79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $22,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nThis Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nApril 19, 2021\n__________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n. 901 Locust Street, Suite 462\nKansas City, Missouri 64106-2641\nSafety Administration\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nFedEx -7774 7397 6716\nJanuary 14, 2020\nKeith P. Onderdonk\nVice President, Operational Support\nSuburban Propane, L.P.\n240 Rte 10 West\nWhippany, NJ 07981\nRE: CPF 3-2019-0003\nDear Mr. Onderdonk:\nOn November 22, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Central Region sent Suburban Propane, L.P. a Notice of Probable\nViolation (Notice), CPF 3-2019-0003, that included a proposed civil penalty and a proposed\ncompliance order. The original Notice was addressed to an apparently inactive Suburban Propane\noffice in Wisconsin, and went undelivered by the US Postal Service. Therefore, I have enclosed a\ncopy of this Notice that is being sent to you via FedEx, with no changes to the original Notice.\nAs described in the Notice and the Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance\nProceedings, following receipt, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing\nunder 49 CFR §190.211. Because you did not receive the original Notice, Suburban Propane, L.P. has\n30 days from the date of receipt of this cover letter to respond to the Notice, in accordance with 49\nCFR $190.208.\nIn your correspondence on this matter please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003.\nSincerely,\nfor\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure\ncc (via email): Ed Moreno, CSC Manager\nSuburban Propane, L.P.\nemoreno@suburbanpropane.com\n\n\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n901 Locust Street, Suite 462\nKansas City, Missouri 64106-2641\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 22, 2019\nEd Moreno\nDivision President\nSuburban Propane, L.P.\n800 South Division Street, Suite D\nWaunakee, WI 53597\nCPF 3-2019-0003\nDear Mr. Moreno:\nOn September 11-13, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your procedures, records and field facilities in West\nSalem and propane gas systems in La Cross and Juneau Counties, Wisconsin.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Suburban Propane L.P. (Suburban) has\ncommitted violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal\nRegulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n§192.603\nGeneral provisions.\n(%) Each operator shill kep recards necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under §192.605.\nSuburban did not keep records of its liaison meetings with fire, police and other public\nofficials in accordance $192.603. Section 192.603 requires operators to keep records\nnecessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605, which include the\ninspection, Suburban was unable to produce records of the meetings with the\nadministering of Suburban's emergency plans as required by §192.615. During the\nappropriate fire, police and other public officials in order to demonstrate that it met the\nrequirements of §192.615(c).\n2.\n§192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating\nstations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are\nconnected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent\nwith the pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing\nthe devices in place or by review and calculations.\nSuburban failed to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once\neach calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution\nsystems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected.\nSpecifically, Suburban had no regulator station design information for the pressure\nlimiting and regulating devices that would show that the determined or calculated\ncapacities of the devices are sufficient to meet the pressure limits of $192.201(a).\nAdditionally, Suburban was unable to provide records showing that the determined\nand calculated capacities of the pressure relief devices were reviewed for calendar\nyears 2015, 2016 and 2017.\nAdditionally, PHMSA's inspector found the documented regulator orifices for the\nFisher 627 devices were incorrect for the regulator stations at Pine Crest II, Edgewood,\nPineview and Terlingua. The orifice size was listed as 1-inch for the Fisher 627 with\n1-inch body at the Pine Crest II, Edgewood, and Pineview stations. The largest orifice\nfor this device is ½- inch. The orifice size was listed as 2-inch for the Fisher 627 with\n2-inch body at the Terlingua station. Likewise, the largest orifice for this device is ½\ninch. Suburban revised this information after being informed by PHMSA's inspector.\n2\n\n\n\n3.\n§192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that\nexceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph\n(c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in\naccordance with subparts C and D of this part.\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was\ntested after construction as follows...\nSuburban did not correctly determine the maximum allowable operating pressure\n(MAOP) to be the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Suburban's\nrecords listed the MAOP on each of its six systems as 15 psig, but the PHMSA\ninspector found house service regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10\npsig.\n4.\n§192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations.\n(a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those\nstations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and must be set\nto operate, to insure the following:\n(1) ...\n(iiii) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is less than 12 p.s.i. (83 kPa)\n(2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system: (i).••\ngage, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure\nplus 50 percent.\nSuburban did not correctly set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures\nconsistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(2)(iii). Records showed that\nstations, located at Terlingua, Pineview, Bluffside, Pinecrest II, and Edgewood. This\nSuburban's pressure relief devices were set between 19 and 19.5 psig for five regulator\nproximately 50 percent. The actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limite\nressure setting is above the MAOP, exceeding the operating pressure b\nby house service regulators. Therefore, the maximum pressure setting of the relief\nvalves would be 15 psig.\n3\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465\nfor a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and\nbefore July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day,\nwith a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after\nNovember 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For\nviolations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended\nthat you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,700 as follows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\n2\n$22,900\n4\n$23,800\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Suburban Propane,\nL.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of\nthis Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide\na second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request\na hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nlotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to th\notice, we propose that vou submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days fro\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\n4\n\n\n\n•\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003 and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan (Berline\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Director, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\n2.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to records of regulator\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to determining the\nhall review the components of each system to determine the design pressure of\nnaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of each segment, Suburbal\nRecords of the MAOP determinations shall be keep.\nthe weakest element of the segment and update the MAOP determinations.\n4.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to setting pressure relief\nlevices at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of g192.201(a)(111)\ncompliance with $192.201 and document the pressure settings if each device.\nSuburban must adjust its pressure limiting and relieving devices to be il\nSuburban shall complete and provide documentation of the actions taken for\nItems 1-4 of the Proposed Compliance Order to Allan C. Beshore, Director,\nAdministration within 90 days after receipt of a Final Order.\nCentral Director, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\n4.\nRegion, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)\notal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipelin\nnfrastructure\n6\n\n320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 22, 2019\nEd Moreno\nDivision President\nSuburban Propane, L.P.\n800 South Division Street, Suite D\nWaunakee, WI 53597\nCPF 3-2019-0003\nDear Mr. Moreno:\nOn September 11-13, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your procedures, records and field facilities in West\nSalem and propane gas systems in La Cross and Juneau Counties, Wisconsin.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Suburban Propane L.P. (Suburban) has\ncommitted violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal\nRegulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §192.603 General provisions.\n(a) . . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under §192.605.\nSuburban did not keep records of its liaison meetings with fire, police and other public\nofficials in accordance §192.603. Section 192.603 requires operators to keep records\nnecessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605, which include the\nadministering of Suburban’s emergency plans as required by §192.615. During the\ninspection, Suburban was unable to produce records of the meetings with the\nappropriate fire, police and other public officials in order to demonstrate that it met the\nrequirements of §192.615(c).\n2. §192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating\nstations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are\nconnected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent\nwith the pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing\nthe devices in place or by review and calculations.\nSuburban failed to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once\neach calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution\nsystems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected.\nSpecifically, Suburban had no regulator station design information for the pressure\nlimiting and regulating devices that would show that the determined or calculated\ncapacities of the devices are sufficient to meet the pressure limits of §192.201(a).\nAdditionally, Suburban was unable to provide records showing that the determined\nand calculated capacities of the pressure relief devices were reviewed for calendar\nyears 2015, 2016 and 2017.\nAdditionally, PHMSA’s inspector found the documented regulator orifices for the\nFisher 627 devices were incorrect for the regulator stations at Pine Crest II, Edgewood,\nPineview and Terlingua. The orifice size was listed as 1-inch for the Fisher 627 with\n1-inch body at the Pine Crest II, Edgewood, and Pineview stations. The largest orifice\nfor this device is ½- inch. The orifice size was listed as 2-inch for the Fisher 627 with\n2-inch body at the Terlingua station. Likewise, the largest orifice for this device is ½\ninch. Suburban revised this information after being informed by PHMSA’s inspector.\n2\n\n\n\n3. 4. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that\nexceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph\n(c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in\naccordance with subparts C and D of this part. . .\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was\ntested after construction as follows . . .\nSuburban did not correctly determine the maximum allowable operating pressure\n(MAOP) to be the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Suburban’s\nrecords listed the MAOP on each of its six systems as 15 psig, but the PHMSA\ninspector found house service regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10\npsig.\n§192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations.\n(a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those\nstations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and must be set\nto operate, to insure the following:\n(1) . . .\n(2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system: (i) . . .\n(iii) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is less than 12 p.s.i. (83 kPa)\ngage, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure\nplus 50 percent.\nSuburban did not correctly set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures\nconsistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(2)(iii). Records showed that\nSuburban’s pressure relief devices were set between 19 and 19.5 psig for five regulator\nstations, located at Terlingua, Pineview, Bluffside, Pinecrest II, and Edgewood. This\npressure setting is above the MAOP, exceeding the operating pressure by\napproximately 50 percent. The actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limited\nby house service regulators. Therefore, the maximum pressure setting of the relief\nvalves would be 15 psig.\n3\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465\nfor a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and\nbefore July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day,\nwith a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after\nNovember 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For\nviolations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended\nthat you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,700 as follows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\n2\n4\n$22,900\n$23,800\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Suburban Propane,\nL.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of\nthis Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide\na second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request\na hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\n4\n\n\n\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003 and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Director, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Suburban Propane, L.P. a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Suburban\nPropane, L.P. with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to keeping records of its\nliason meetings with fire, police and other public officials, Suburban shall\nestablish its liason with fire, police and public officials as required by\n§192.615(c) and keep records of these meetings to show compliance with Part\n192. Suburban, L.P. shall provide records of its 2019 liason meetings to the\nCentral Region Director.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to records of regulator\nstation design capacities, Suburban shall document the design of each regulator\nstation and pressure limiting station to include calculations of capacities of the\ndevices to show that they are sufficient for the conditions under which they\noperate.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to determining the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of each segment, Suburban\nshall review the components of each system to determine the design pressure of\nthe weakest element of the segment and update the MAOP determinations.\nRecords of the MAOP determinations shall be keep.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to setting pressure relief\ndevices at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(iii),\nSuburban must adjust its pressure limiting and relieving devices to be in\ncompliance with §192.201 and document the pressure settings if each device.\nSuburban shall complete and provide documentation of the actions taken for\nItems 1-4 of the Proposed Compliance Order to Allan C. Beshore, Director,\nCentral Director, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration within 90 days after receipt of a Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Suburban Propane, L.P. maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement cos","truncated":true,"body_characters":60544}