{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320145011W","title":"ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-10-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 195.402(e)(9), 195.440(d), 195.442(c)(1), 195.452(k), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320145011w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320145011w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320145011w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320145011W","body":"Warning Letter involving ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(e)(9),  195.440(d),  195.442(c)(1),  195.452(k),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2014-10-09 and is reported as closed as of 2014-10-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320145011W_Warning Letter_10092014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320145011W/320145011W_Warning%20Letter_10092014.pdf\n\n320145011W_Warning Letter_10092014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320145011W/320145011W_Warning%20Letter_10092014_text.pdf\n\n320145011W_Warning Letter_10092014_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 9, 2014\nMr. Wes Christensen\nSr. Vice President, Operations\nONEOK NGL Pipeline L.P.\n100 West 5th Street\nTulsa, OK 74103\nCPF 3-2014-5011W\nDear Mr. Christensen:\nOn September 9-19, November 4-6, and November 18-21, 2013, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code inspected your records in Medford, OK, your Kansas Gathering\nfacilities from Liberal, KS to Hutchinson, KS, and your North System facilities in Morris, IL\nand Lemont, IL.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violation(s) are:\n1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include\nprocedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs;\n(9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether\nthe procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found.\n\n\n\nONEOK personnel did not take corrective action when they identified an issue during their\npost incident review of the emergency response to the Romeoville, IL incident that occurred\non May 14, 2011.\nIn the post-accident critique of the incident in Romeoville, IL, it was noted that ONEOK\nneeded to review and determine expectations of the Fire Department and the training and\nqualifications of ONEOK personnel for those roles. Follow-up with ONEOK personnel\nfound that these issues were not addressed at the time of the PHMSA inspection.\n2. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(k) What methods to measure program effectiveness must be used? An operator's\nprogram must include methods to measure whether the program is effective in\nassessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline segment and in protecting the\nhigh consequence areas. See Appendix C of this part for guidance on methods that can\nbe used to evaluate a program's effectiveness.\nONEOK did not adequately measure their IM program’s effectiveness for 2012. The\nannual review presented to PHMSA to meet this requirement concentrated more on the\nlessons learned from the assessments done and how to improve the assessment program for\nthe future. While this is a component of the effectiveness evaluation, it should also include\nhow the program was effective in protecting the high consequence areas.\n3. §195.440 Public awareness\n(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to educate the public,\nappropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation related\nactivities on:\n(1) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage\nprevention activities;\n(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a hazardous liquid or\ncarbon dioxide pipeline facility;\n(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;\n(4) Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a hazardous liquid or\ncarbon dioxide pipeline release; and\n(5) Procedures to report such an event.\nONEOK’s public education program did not identify all the products that they were\ntransporting in their mailings to the public for 2012 and 2013.\n2\n\n\n\nThe 2012 and 2013 brochures that were sent to the public do not identify refined fuels as\none of the products delivered. In 2011, the brochures did identify refined fuels. It is\nunknown as to why refined fuels was removed for the 2012 and 2013 mailings.\n4. §195.442 Damage Prevention Program\n(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this section must,\nat a minimum:\n(1) Include the identity, on a current basis of persons who normally engage in\nexcavation activities in the area in which the pipeline is located.\nONEOK is not maintaining an up to date list of excavators that engaged in excavation\nactivities in the area in which the pipeline is located.\nONEOK’s list of excavators that excavate around their pipelines is kept up to date by their\npublic awareness (PAP) contractor in conjunction with their PAP program. Also, ONEOK\nmaintains an encroachment file where a letter and information is sent to excavators found\nby field personnel excavating on or near the pipeline ROW without a OneCall notification.\nWhen these excavators are found, ONEOK sends their PAP contractor the names and\naddresses so they can be added to the annual mailing list. However, it was found that if the\nmailing address of the excavator is outside the mailing buffer zone around the pipeline, the\nPAP contractor removes the excavator from the list and the excavator receives no future\ninformation from ONEOK. Examples include Precision Farm Drainage on the North\nSystem and Hudson Trenching on the KGS system.\n5. §195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination,\ninspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient\ndetail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures does not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5\nyears, except that records related to Secs. 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and\n195.579(b)(3) and (c) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nONEOK personnel did not document the exposed pipe coating condition when the pipeline\nwas exposed and evaluated as required by §195.569.\nDuring the PHMSA field evaluation on Line 105, at MP 219.857, it was noticed that there\nwas some recent excavation work done at the test station. The corrosion technician\nindicated that they had vacuum excavated the line at this location to fix the test station.\nWhen the PHMSA representative asked if an exposed pipe report was completed, the\n3\n\n\n\ntechnician indicated that it was not, since it was a vacuum excavation. However, the\ntechnician also went on to indicate that the coating was good at this location. When asked\nhow he knew, he indicated that he had to check the integrity of the pipe before he could cad\nweld a test lead on to the pipe. If the vacuum excavation was big enough to make that\nevaluation and attach a test point, then an exposed pipe report should have been done.\nONEOK indicated that a report would be completed to document the inspection.\nAdditionally, the records reviewed found two examples of missing documentation\nregarding exposed pipe coating conditions. The first was the Equipment Addition/Deletion\n(EAD) form for a casing removal on Line 106 in the North System. There is a place to\ndocument the information, but it was not filled out. The second was on an Inspection and\nInvestigate (INI) form for Line 106. It looks like a pipeline crossed underneath Line 106,\nbut no coating condition was filled out.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed\n$1,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct\nthe item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in ONEOK NGL Pipeline L.P.\nbeing subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 3-2014-5011W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":9261}