# SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320190003_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

320190003_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

320190003_Final Order_12182020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Final%20Order_12182020.pdf

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Final%20Order_12182020_text.pdf

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO%20Corrected_01142020.pdf

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11222019.pdf

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11222019_text.pdf

320190003_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_01062021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320190003/320190003_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01062021.pdf

320190003_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

320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf

April 19, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: konderdonk@suburbanpropane.com
Mr. Keith P. Onderdonk
Vice President, Operational Support
Suburban Propane, LP
240 Route 10 West
Whippany, New Jersey 07981
Re: CPF No. 3-2019-0003
Dear Mr. Onderdonk:
Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case.
For the reasons explained therein, the Decision reduces the civil penalty to $22,900. When the
civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the
final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this decision by electronic mail is
effective upon the date of transmission 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. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
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 )
Suburban Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2019-0003
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
From September 11, 2018, through September 13, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,
representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Suburban
Propane, LP (Suburban or Respondent) facilities and records in West Salem, and propane gas
systems in La Crosse and Juneau counties, Wisconsin. As a result of the inspection, the Director,
Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent by letter dated November 22, 2019, a
Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order
(Notice).1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Suburban
had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of
$46,700 for the alleged violations.
Suburban responded to the Notice by letter dated February 12, 2020 (Response) contesting the
allegations, requesting a hearing, and requesting a copy of the case file, including the civil
penalty worksheet.2 Respondent also requested an informal conference and specifically stated
that it “[did] intend to seek available economic relief where possible.” On May 5, 2020, the
Central Region provided the case file and civil penalty worksheet,3 and on May 20, 2020, held an
informal conference with Respondent. On June 4, 2020, Respondent withdrew its request for a
hearing and noted that it no longer contested the alleged violations, proposed compliance order,
or proposed civil penalty for Item 2.4
1 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), CPF No. 3-2019-
0003 (November 22, 2019). The original Notice went undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. On January 14, 2020,
Central Region resent the Notice to a new address provided by Suburban. Suburban had 30 days from the date of
receipt of the Notice to respond, as permitted under § 190.208.
2 Suburban Propane, LP’s Response to Notice (February 12, 2020).
3 Due to certain COVID-19 related mail issues, Central Region did not review Suburban’s response until May 4,
2020.
4 Suburban email to PHMSA (June 3, 2020) (on file with PHMSA).



CPF No. 3-2019-0003
Page 2
On December 18, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order
finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 193.603(b) (Item 1),
192.743(a) (Item 2), 192.619(a) (Item 3), and 192.201(a)(2)(iii) (Item 4).5 The Final Order
found that Respondent had already satisfied the terms of the proposed compliance order. In
addition, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.223, the Final
Order assessed a civil penalty of $22,900 for Item 2 and a reduced civil penalty of $6,566 for
Item 4. The total civil penalty for both violations was $29,466.
On January 6, 2021, Respondent filed a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.243 (Petition).6 In its Petition, Respondent sought reconsideration of the civil penalty
assessed for Item 4 and presented grounds for reconsideration. Respondent asserted that the civil
penalty assessment considerations in the Final Order did not properly reflect certain factual
information. In addition, Respondent asserted that it had withdrawn its initial hearing request
based on its understanding from the informal conference on May 20, 2020, that Respondent had
already provided sufficient grounds to support withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4 and the
Director had recommended withdrawal.
Standard of Review
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a final order that has been issued pursuant to § 190.213. Reconsideration is
not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.7 A respondent may ask for correction of
an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a
respondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit
the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. Repetitious
information or arguments will not be considered.8 The Associate Administrator may grant or
deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings.
Analysis
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.9 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
5 Suburban Propane, LP, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2019-0003, 2020 WL 8369928 (December 18, 2020).
6 Suburban Propane LP’s Petition for Reconsideration (January 6, 2021).
7 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).
8 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, CPF No. 5-2009-00118, 2013 WL 5883403, at *3 (August 30, 2013).
9 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.



CPF No. 3-2019-0003
Page 3
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; the good faith of Respondent in
attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations; and self-disclosure and correction of
violations, or actions to correct a violation, prior to discovery by PHMSA. 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.
Item 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,800 for the violation of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii),
for failing to correctly set pressure relief devices to operate at pressures consistent with the
pressure limits of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) by failing to set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures
that do not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) plus 50 percent when
MAOP is less than 12 psig.10 While Respondent had withdrawn its contest of the violation in
response to the Notice, Respondent had offered information to mitigate the civil penalty,
including that it utilized the regulator manufacturer’s documentation to establish an MAOP of 15
psig.11 Respondent also contended that the setting of the station regulator relief valves would
have been allowed under a separate provision, § 192.201(a)(2)(ii), and that the violation was
quickly corrected. The Final Order did not find the settings were compliant with any other code
sections, but determined that Respondent had provided a reasonable justification for its
noncompliance, which was predicated on a misinterpretation of the correct MAOP for the six
segments, and that the misinterpretation warranted a reduction of the proposed civil penalty
under the good faith credit. The proposed civil penalty was reduced to $6,566.
Respondent argued in its Petition that the civil penalty assessment considerations in the Final
Order did not appropriately reflect certain factual information. With regard to nature and
circumstances, Respondent asserted that its established inlet pressure was not an error or
misinterpretation, but a difference in choice, and that the safety of the system was not
compromised. According to the Petition, “the manufacturer documentation previously provided
to PHMSA clearly shows that the service regulators in question are more than capable of
handling a 15 psi inlet pressure while still offering adequate relief protection downstream.”12
Further, with regard to gravity, Respondent argued that due to the performance limitations of the
regulator itself, pipeline safety was not affected at all. Regarding culpability, Respondent
asserted that culpability did not exist for Item 4, because the relief settings were compliant under
a separate regulation, § 192.20l(a)(2)(ii).
PHMSA finds Respondent’s assertions are based on an erroneous interpretation of the regulation.
As more fully explained in the Final Order, Respondent’s pressure relief devices were not set to
operate at pressures that do not exceed the MAOP plus 50 percent. The Notice alleged that 19
and 19.5 psig exceeded the pressure setting permitted under § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) because the
actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limited by house service regulators. Therefore,
the maximum pressure setting of the relief valves would be 15 psig. The regulators in question
are stamped with the maximum pressure relief setting, but Respondent used the manufacturer’s
10 Notice, at 3.
11 Response, at 4.
12 Petition, at 1.



CPF No. 3-2019-0003
Page 4
specifications for emergency pressure rating to calculate its MAOP when MAOP must be
calculated under normal operating conditions, not based on the emergency pressure rating.
Section 192.201(a)(2)(ii) is not applicable because the MAOP is not 12 psig or more. As to
whether pipeline safety was affected, a finding that pipeline safety was minimally affected is the
lowest possible level under the gravity assessment factor and was the appropriate rating for
violation Item 4.
Respondent also contended that the Final Order did not consider its history of prior offenses
when assessing a penalty, according to § 192.225(a)(3), or its good faith in attempting to achieve
compliance as required by § 192.225(a)(4). However, Respondent’s history of prior offenses
was in fact included in the Violation Report, and was considered in the Penalty Assessment as a
factor that did not increase the total point calculation used to determine the base civil penalty.
Good faith was also considered in assessing Respondent’s civil penalty, and the Final Order
specifically reduced the penalty under this consideration to account for Respondent’s reasonable
justification for its non-compliance.
Finally, Respondent asserted that prior to issuance of the Final Order, it had withdrawn its
hearing request based on its understanding from the informal conference on May 20, 2020, that
Respondent had provided sufficient grounds to support withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4
and the Director had recommended withdrawal.
Respondent is correct that the Director’s recommendation dated September 10, 2020, submitted
pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), recommended withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4. As a
general matter, I am not bound by a Director’s recommendation, and will consider all of the
evidence in the case file and the applicable civil penalty assessment factors when issuing a final
order.
Given Respondent’s lack of violation history, it appears Respondent may have been unaware that
the Director’s recommendation is not binding, unlike a Consent Agreement reached pursuant to
§ 190.219. Having considered these circumstances in light of the Director’s recommendation,
Respondent’s limited enforcement history, Respondent’s justification for the noncompliance and
the minimal, if any, impact to pipeline safety, I have determined that it would be appropriate to
reconsider the previously reduced civil penalty for Item 4 pursuant to § 190.225(b)(2), which
permits me to consider “other matters as justice may require” in determining the amount of a
civil penalty. Under this assessment factor, I find that the record demonstrates that Respondent
misunderstood the requirements of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) and the MAOP stamped on the regulator
itself, and this fact should be credited when considering justification for a civil penalty in this
case. Further, Respondent’s failure to comply with § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) in this case minimally
affected pipeline safety, the noncompliance was not egregious or willful, and did not
significantly increase the likelihood of a pipeline failure. Respondent is advised to ensure that it
complies with the regulations going forward as the regulations assist in the continued safe
operation of the pipeline, and a failure to comply with regulations may result in future
enforcement, including issuance of a civil penalty.



CPF No. 3-2019-0003
Page 5
Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the civil penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.201(a)(2)(iii) (Item 4). No other amendments to the Final Order are made by this
Decision, and the remaining civil penalty of $22,900 for violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 2) is
now due.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision. Federal
regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through
the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury.
Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should
be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $22,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United
States District Court.
This Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
April 19, 2021
__________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf

of Transportation
U.S. Department
. 901 Locust Street, Suite 462
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2641
Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
FedEx -7774 7397 6716
January 14, 2020
Keith P. Onderdonk
Vice President, Operational Support
Suburban Propane, L.P.
240 Rte 10 West
Whippany, NJ 07981
RE: CPF 3-2019-0003
Dear Mr. Onderdonk:
On November 22, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Central Region sent Suburban Propane, L.P. a Notice of Probable
Violation (Notice), CPF 3-2019-0003, that included a proposed civil penalty and a proposed
compliance order. The original Notice was addressed to an apparently inactive Suburban Propane
office in Wisconsin, and went undelivered by the US Postal Service. Therefore, I have enclosed a
copy of this Notice that is being sent to you via FedEx, with no changes to the original Notice.
As described in the Notice and the Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance
Proceedings, following receipt, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing
under 49 CFR §190.211. Because you did not receive the original Notice, Suburban Propane, L.P. has
30 days from the date of receipt of this cover letter to respond to the Notice, in accordance with 49
CFR $190.208.
In your correspondence on this matter please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003.
Sincerely,
for
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure
cc (via email): Ed Moreno, CSC Manager
Suburban Propane, L.P.
emoreno@suburbanpropane.com



U.S. Department
of Transportation
901 Locust Street, Suite 462
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2641
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 22, 2019
Ed Moreno
Division President
Suburban Propane, L.P.
800 South Division Street, Suite D
Waunakee, WI 53597
CPF 3-2019-0003
Dear Mr. Moreno:
On September 11-13, 2018, representatives 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 procedures, records and field facilities in West
Salem and propane gas systems in La Cross and Juneau Counties, Wisconsin.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Suburban Propane L.P. (Suburban) has
committed violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:



§192.603
General provisions.
(%) Each operator shill kep recards necessary to administer the procedures
established under §192.605.
Suburban did not keep records of its liaison meetings with fire, police and other public
officials in accordance $192.603. Section 192.603 requires operators to keep records
necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605, which include the
inspection, Suburban was unable to produce records of the meetings with the
administering of Suburban's emergency plans as required by §192.615. During the
appropriate fire, police and other public officials in order to demonstrate that it met the
requirements of §192.615(c).
2.
§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.
Suburban failed to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once
each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution
systems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected.
Specifically, Suburban had no regulator station design information for the pressure
limiting and regulating devices that would show that the determined or calculated
capacities of the devices are sufficient to meet the pressure limits of $192.201(a).
Additionally, Suburban was unable to provide records showing that the determined
and calculated capacities of the pressure relief devices were reviewed for calendar
years 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Additionally, PHMSA's inspector found the documented regulator orifices for the
Fisher 627 devices were incorrect for the regulator stations at Pine Crest II, Edgewood,
Pineview and Terlingua. The orifice size was listed as 1-inch for the Fisher 627 with
1-inch body at the Pine Crest II, Edgewood, and Pineview stations. The largest orifice
for this device is ½- inch. The orifice size was listed as 2-inch for the Fisher 627 with
2-inch body at the Terlingua station. Likewise, the largest orifice for this device is ½
inch. Suburban revised this information after being informed by PHMSA's inspector.
2



3.
§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.
(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was
tested after construction as follows...
Suburban did not correctly determine the maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) to be the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Suburban's
records listed the MAOP on each of its six systems as 15 psig, but the PHMSA
inspector found house service regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10
psig.
4.
§192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations.
(a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those
stations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and must be set
to operate, to insure the following:
(1) ...
(iiii) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is less than 12 p.s.i. (83 kPa)
(2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system: (i).••
gage, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure
plus 50 percent.
Suburban did not correctly set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures
consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(2)(iii). Records showed that
stations, located at Terlingua, Pineview, Bluffside, Pinecrest II, and Edgewood. This
Suburban's pressure relief devices were set between 19 and 19.5 psig for five regulator
proximately 50 percent. The actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limite
ressure setting is above the MAOP, exceeding the operating pressure b
by house service regulators. Therefore, the maximum pressure setting of the relief
valves would be 15 psig.
3



Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465
for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and
before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day,
with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. 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 violations and has recommended
that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,700 as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
2
$22,900
4
$23,800
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Suburban Propane,
L.P. 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
lotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to th
otice, we propose that vou submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days fro
receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.
4



•
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003 and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Allan (Berline
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Director, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
2.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to records of regulator
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to determining the
hall review the components of each system to determine the design pressure of
naximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of each segment, Suburbal
Records of the MAOP determinations shall be keep.
the weakest element of the segment and update the MAOP determinations.
4.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to setting pressure relief
levices at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of g192.201(a)(111)
compliance with $192.201 and document the pressure settings if each device.
Suburban must adjust its pressure limiting and relieving devices to be il
Suburban shall complete and provide documentation of the actions taken for
Items 1-4 of the Proposed Compliance Order to Allan C. Beshore, Director,
Administration within 90 days after receipt of a Final Order.
Central Director, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
4.
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)
otal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipelin
nfrastructure
6

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 22, 2019
Ed Moreno
Division President
Suburban Propane, L.P.
800 South Division Street, Suite D
Waunakee, WI 53597
CPF 3-2019-0003
Dear Mr. Moreno:
On September 11-13, 2018, representatives 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 procedures, records and field facilities in West
Salem and propane gas systems in La Cross and Juneau Counties, Wisconsin.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Suburban Propane L.P. (Suburban) has
committed violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:



1. §192.603 General provisions.
(a) . . . . .
(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures
established under §192.605.
Suburban did not keep records of its liaison meetings with fire, police and other public
officials in accordance §192.603. Section 192.603 requires operators to keep records
necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605, which include the
administering of Suburban’s emergency plans as required by §192.615. During the
inspection, Suburban was unable to produce records of the meetings with the
appropriate fire, police and other public officials in order to demonstrate that it met the
requirements of §192.615(c).
2. §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.
Suburban failed to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once
each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution
systems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected.
Specifically, Suburban had no regulator station design information for the pressure
limiting and regulating devices that would show that the determined or calculated
capacities of the devices are sufficient to meet the pressure limits of §192.201(a).
Additionally, Suburban was unable to provide records showing that the determined
and calculated capacities of the pressure relief devices were reviewed for calendar
years 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Additionally, PHMSA’s inspector found the documented regulator orifices for the
Fisher 627 devices were incorrect for the regulator stations at Pine Crest II, Edgewood,
Pineview and Terlingua. The orifice size was listed as 1-inch for the Fisher 627 with
1-inch body at the Pine Crest II, Edgewood, and Pineview stations. The largest orifice
for this device is ½- inch. The orifice size was listed as 2-inch for the Fisher 627 with
2-inch body at the Terlingua station. Likewise, the largest orifice for this device is ½
inch. Suburban revised this information after being informed by PHMSA’s inspector.
2



3. 4. §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. . .
(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was
tested after construction as follows . . .
Suburban did not correctly determine the maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) to be the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Suburban’s
records listed the MAOP on each of its six systems as 15 psig, but the PHMSA
inspector found house service regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10
psig.
§192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations.
(a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those
stations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and must be set
to operate, to insure the following:
(1) . . .
(2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system: (i) . . .
(iii) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is less than 12 p.s.i. (83 kPa)
gage, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure
plus 50 percent.
Suburban did not correctly set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures
consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(2)(iii). Records showed that
Suburban’s pressure relief devices were set between 19 and 19.5 psig for five regulator
stations, located at Terlingua, Pineview, Bluffside, Pinecrest II, and Edgewood. This
pressure setting is above the MAOP, exceeding the operating pressure by
approximately 50 percent. The actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limited
by house service regulators. Therefore, the maximum pressure setting of the relief
valves would be 15 psig.
3



Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465
for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and
before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day,
with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. 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 violations and has recommended
that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,700 as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
2
4
$22,900
$23,800
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Suburban Propane,
L.P. 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.
4



In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003 and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Director, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
5



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Suburban Propane, L.P. a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Suburban
Propane, L.P. with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to keeping records of its
liason meetings with fire, police and other public officials, Suburban shall
establish its liason with fire, police and public officials as required by
§192.615(c) and keep records of these meetings to show compliance with Part
192. Suburban, L.P. shall provide records of its 2019 liason meetings to the
Central Region Director.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to records of regulator
station design capacities, Suburban shall document the design of each regulator
station and pressure limiting station to include calculations of capacities of the
devices to show that they are sufficient for the conditions under which they
operate.
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to determining the
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of each segment, Suburban
shall review the components of each system to determine the design pressure of
the weakest element of the segment and update the MAOP determinations.
Records of the MAOP determinations shall be keep.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to setting pressure relief
devices at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(iii),
Suburban must adjust its pressure limiting and relieving devices to be in
compliance with §192.201 and document the pressure settings if each device.
Suburban shall complete and provide documentation of the actions taken for
Items 1-4 of the Proposed Compliance Order to Allan C. Beshore, Director,
Central Director, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration within 90 days after receipt of a Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that Suburban Propane, L.P. maintain
documentation of the safety improvement cos
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 60544