{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320175005","title":"ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-05-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.214(a), 195.402(a), 195.403(b)(1), 195.406(b), 195.428(a), 195.432(c), 195.440(d)(2), 195.452(l)(1)(ii), 195.579(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320175005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320175005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320175005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320175005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.214(a),  195.402(a),  195.403(b)(1),  195.406(b),  195.428(a),  195.432(c),  195.440(d)(2),  195.452(l)(1)(ii),  195.579(c). The case was opened on 2017-05-18 and is reported as closed as of 2018-03-30. Proposed civil penalty: $36,200. Assessed civil penalty: $36,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320175005_Closure Letter_03302018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320175005/320175005_Closure%20Letter_03302018.pdf\n\n320175005_Closure Letter_03302018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320175005/320175005_Closure%20Letter_03302018_text.pdf\n\n320175005_Final Order_03292018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320175005/320175005_Final%20Order_03292018.pdf\n\n320175005_Final Order_03292018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320175005/320175005_Final%20Order_03292018_text.pdf\n\n320175005_NOPV PCP PCO_05182017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320175005/320175005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05182017.pdf\n\n320175005_NOPV PCP PCO_05182017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320175005/320175005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05182017_text.pdf\n\n320175005_Operator Response to Notice_06202017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320175005/320175005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06202017.pdf\n\n320175005_NOPV PCP PCO_05182017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 15, 2017\nMr. Wes Christensen\nSenior Vice President of Operations\nONEOK NGL Pipeline LP\n100 West Fifth Street\nTulsa, OK 74102\nCPF 3-2017-5005\nDear Mr. Christensen:\nOn various weeks between August 15, 2016 to December 16, 2016, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code, inspected ONEOK NGL Pipeline LP (ONEOK) records in Medford,\nOklahoma, and Conway, Kansas for the facilities in Kansas and Nebraska. For the North\nSystem, facilities and records were inspected in Des Moines and Iowa City, Iowa.\nAs a result of the investigation and the inspection, it appears that ONEOK has committed\nprobable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.\nThe probable violation(s) are:\n1. §195.214 Welding procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator in\naccordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5, section 12,\n\n\n\n2. Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §\n195.3), or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME\nBPVC) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). The quality of the test welds used\nto qualify the welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing.\nONEOK did not qualify their welder to a welding procedure that was used to make a\nrepair on an integrity management dig in 2013.\nWhile reviewing welder qualifications for a repair in November of 2013 on Line 11316, it\nwas found that the repair welder was qualified to a procedure that was not used on the\nrepair job. The welder was qualified to a procedure that uses a 6010 electrode in the root\nwith a low-hydrogen electrode all the way out. However, the repair was made with a\nprocedure which utilized low-hydrogen electrodes from the root out. The use of the low\nhydrogen rod on the root requires a change in welding direction, which is an essential\nvariable according to API 1104 Section 6.3.2. The change requires the welder to be\nrequalified to the new procedure.\n§195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n§ 195.432 Inspection of In-Service Breakout Tanks\n(c) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service steel aboveground\nbreakout tanks built to API Std 2510 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3)\naccording to section 6 of API Std 510 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\nONEOK did not have operation and maintenance procedures to address the requirements\nof API 510 for high-pressure tanks and the inspections that are necessary for these tanks.\nReview of ONEOK’s procedures noted that the procedures only addressed low pressure\nAPI 653 tanks and the associated inspections. ONEOK only operates tanks that fall under\nthe inspection requirements of API 510.\n2\n\n\n\n3. 4. § 195.403 Emergency Response Training\n(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\neach operator shall:\n(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the\nemergency response training program set forth in paragraph (a) of this section;\nAt the Bushton facility, ONEOK did not review with personnel their performance in\nmeeting the objectives of the emergency response training program at an interval not to\nexceed 15 months.\nONEOK utilizes emergency response drills to train their personnel on the emergency\nresponse plans. After the drills, a post drill critique is done where ONEOK personnel\nreview the results of the drill. While at the Bushton facilities, the records review noted\nthat the 2014 response drill was conducted in June; and the following year, the drill was\ndone on December 1, 2015. The dates of the drills exceeded the allowable 15 month\ninterval.\n§ 195.406 Maximum Operating Pressure\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or other\nvariations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the operating\npressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each operator\nmust provide adequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure\nwithin this limit.\nONEOK did not provide adequate protective equipment to control the pressure within the\nmaximum operating pressure at the Messena Pump Station.\nReview of the over pressure protection (OPP) records for the Messena Pump Station found\nthat the OPP device was set higher than the maximum operating pressure (MOP) plus 10%\nfrom September 2014 until the time of the PHMSA inspection. The MOP of the line was\n1,150 psig; the OPP device was set at 1300 psig. Review of the pressure charts found that\nthe pipeline did not exceed the MOP anytime from 2014 until the PHMSA inspection.\nONEOK indicated that they also had measures to protect the maximum operating pressure\nsuch as a shutdown programmed within the program logic controller (PLC). However, the\ninspections of this shutdown consisted only of a calibration check of the transmitter.\nThere was no documentation or check of the shutdown showing that it operated at the\nproper set point during the inspection.\n3\n\n\n\n5. § 195.428 Overpressure Safety Devices and Overfill Protection Systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the\ncase of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure\nlimiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control\nequipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical\ncondition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is used.\nONEOK did not inspect the OPP device for the Heartland Line twice a calendar year at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months. Additionally, ONEOK did not inspect the pressure\ncontrol valve (PCV) at the Iowa City Pump Station twice a year at intervals not to exceed\n7½ months during 2014 and 2015.\nONEOK typically utilizes a hard pressure switch at the pumps as their over pressure\nprotection. On the Heartland Line in Des Moines, Iowa, there is no hard pressure switch.\nONEOK indicated that they utilize a “soft-kill” within the PLC as the OPP device. Based\non the records review, the only inspection documented for this OPP device was a pressure\ntransmitter calibration check done bi-annually from 2014 to 2016. ONEOK later produced\nan inspection record of a full capacity relief located in the Heartland Terminal that is\ninspected by another operator. However, ONEOK had not been getting the inspection\npaperwork on that relief semi-annually from the owner/operator of that device.\nRegarding the PCV at the Iowa City Pump Station, it appears that the device was moved\nfrom the “semi-annual” inspection list to the “annual” inspection list in the fall of 2013.\nThe valve was only inspected once per year in 2014 and 2015. In the fall of 2015, the\nvalve was placed back on the “semi-annual” inspection list.\n6. § 195.440 Public Awareness\n(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to educate the\npublic, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation\nrelated activities on:\n(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a hazardous\nliquid or carbon dioxide pipeline facility;\nONEOK’s public education did not identify all the hazards associated with the products\nthat they are transporting in their mailings to the public.\n4\n\n\n\n7. 8. On October 9, 2014, PHMSA issued a Warning Letter noting that ONEOK had failed to\nidentify all the products that were being transported in the brochures sent out to the public.\nSpecifically, refined products was left out of the mailings. During the records review in\nDes Moines, Iowa, it was found that the mailings that were being sent out still did not have\nrefined products on the list nor did it indicate the hazards associated with the product.\nThese mailings had not been updated since the 2014 Warning Letter.\n§ 195.452 Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas\n(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?\n(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that\ndemonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a minimum, an\noperator must maintain the following records for review during an inspection:\n(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any\nmodifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances,\nand actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity\nmanagement program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.\nONEOK is not documenting any preventive and mitigative measures that is taken for each\nline segment.\nUpon review of the preventive and mitigative measures (PMM), it was found that ONEOK\nwas not documenting any additional measures that were being taken or that 195.452(i)\nincludes. Actions taken such as implementing damage prevention best practices for the\naffected line segments, better monitoring of cathodic protection where corrosion is a\nconcern, establishing shorter inspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline\nsegment, modifying the systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks, providing\nadditional training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local\nemergency responders and adopting other management controls must be documented for\neach line segment. ONEOK maintained that additional measures were being done, but it\ndid not appear to be reflected in the records for the line segments.\n§ 195.579 What Must I do to Mitigate Internal Corrosion?\n(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you must inspect the\ninternal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If you find internal corrosion\nrequiring corrective action under § 195.585, you must investigate circumferentially\nand longitudinally beyond the removed pipe (by visual examination, indirect method,\nor both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists\nin the vicinity of the removed pipe.\n5\n\n\n\nONEOK did not inspect the internal surface of the pipe that was replaced on Line Segment\n102.\nONEOK records their pipe replacements on an “Equipment and Deletion” form. This\nform documents the internal inspection of the pipe when it is cut out. On Pipeline\nSegment 102, a 28-foot segment of the line was removed and replaced in July of 2013.\nThe form for the 102 segment did not indicate that an internal inspection of the removed\npipe was done for internal corrosion. ONEOK personnel investigated this and found that\nthe inspection was missed because of a miscommunication in the field.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nAs of April 27, 2017, under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a\ncivil penalty not to exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists up to a\nmaximum of $2,090,022 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable\nviolation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$36,200 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n6 $36,200\nWarning Items\nWith respect to items one (1), three (3), four (4), seven (7), and eight (8), we have reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to\nconduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We\nadvise you to promptly correct these item(s). Failure to do so may result in additional\nenforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items two (2) and five (5), pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance\nOrder to ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which\nis enclosed and made a part of this 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 treatment6\n\n\n\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.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2017-5005 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n7\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 ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P. a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of ONEOK\nNGL Pipeline, L.P (ONEOK) with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of procedures\nfor tanks designed to API 510, ONEOK shall complete the following:\n Within 60 days following issuance of the Final Order, ONEOK must\nsubmit new procedures for operation and maintenance of the high\npressure breakout tanks as required by API 510.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to overpressure protection\nfor the pipeline, ONEOK shall complete the following:\n Submit an explanation to the Director, Central Region within 30 days\nfollowing issuance of the Final Order outlining what ONEOK believes\nto be their overpressure protection for the Heartland pipeline and other\nsimilar pipeline facilities.\n ONEOK should also include a plan to specify the inspection protocols\nfor the various levels of overpressure protection, i.e. soft kills, hard\nkills.\n Complete the revision of all relevant operating and maintenance\nprocedures within 90 days following issuance of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that ONEOK NGL Pipeline. L.P. maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central\nRegion, 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)\ntotal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n8\n\n320175005_Final Order_03292018_text.pdf\n\nMarch 29, 2018\nMr. Terry K. Spencer\nPresident and CEO\nONEOK Partners, LP\n100 West Fifth Street\nTulsa, OK 74102\nRe: CPF No. 3-2017-5005\nDear Mr. Spencer:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $36,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, LP, a subsidiary of ONEOK Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire\ntransfer, dated June 21, 2017. When the terms of the compliance order are completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under\n49 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. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2017-5005\na subsidiary of ONEOK Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between August 15, 2016, and December 16, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nthe facilities and records of ONEOK NGL Pipeline, LP (ONEOK or Respondent), in Medford,\nOklahoma, and Conway, Kansas, for the facilities in Kansas and Nebraska. ONEOK operates\napproximately 2,440 miles of FERC-regulated natural gas liquids (NGL) pipelines, with a peak\ncapacity of 393,000 barrels per day. Its NGL gathering pipelines deliver NGLs gathered in\nOklahoma, Kansas, and the Texas Panhandle to separate fractionation facilities.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 18, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that ONEOK\nhad violated three sections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$36,200 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action,\nbut warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement\naction.\nONEOK responded to the Notice by letter dated June 20, 2017 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation, agreed to complete the proposed compliance actions, and\npaid the civil penalty in full by wire transfer dated June 21, 2017. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 See https://www.oneok.com/en/partners/Customers/NaturalGasLiquids/Pipelines/NGLPipeline. (Current as of\n10/16/2017)\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-5005\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, ONEOK did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare written\nprocedures for conducting certain operation and maintenance activities. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Respondent failed to have operation and maintenance procedures for breakout tanks\nthat meet the requirements of API 510 for high-pressure tanks and the inspections that are\nnecessary for these tanks.2 The Notice alleged that ONEOK’s procedures only address low-\npressure API 653 tanks and the associated inspections, but that ONEOK only operates tanks that\nfall under the inspection requirements of API 510.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to have\nprocedures for conducting operation and maintenance activities for breakout tanks that meet the\nrequirements of API 510 for high-pressure tanks and the inspections that are necessary for those\ntanks.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\n2 The Notice also referenced 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(c), which requires operators to inspect the physical integrity of in-\nservice steel aboveground breakout tanks built to API Std 2510 according to section 6 of API Std 510 (both\nincorporated by reference, see §195.3).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-5005\nPage 3\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect each\npressure limiting device or other pressure control equipment on a pipeline used to carry highly\nvolatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability for the service in which it is used. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect the overpressure protection (OPP) device for the\nHeartland Line or the Iowa City Pump Station twice each calendar year at intervals not to exceed\n7½ months. The Notice alleged that based on a records review of the Heartland Line, the only\ndocumented inspection of the “soft-kill” OPP device was a pressure-calibration check done bi-\nannually from 2014 to 2016. ONEOK later produced an inspection record of a full capacity\nrelief in the Heartland Terminal (inspected by another operator), but that paperwork was not\nreceived by Respondent semi-annually. In terms of the Iowa City Pump Station, the OPP device\nwas moved from the “semi-annual” to the “annual” inspection list in the fall of 2013. The valve\nwas subsequently placed on the “semi-annual” list again in 2015.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect the\nOPP device for the Heartland Line or the Iowa City Pump Station twice each calendar year, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(d)(2), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nthe American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). . .\n(d) The operator’s program must specifically include provisions to\neducate the public, appropriate government organizations, and persons\nengaged in excavation related activities on:\n(1) …\n(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline facility; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(d)(2) by failing to include\nprovisions in its public education program to educate the public on all the hazards associated\nwith unintended releases of the products that ONEOK transports. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that even though PHMSA issued an October 2014 Warning Letter to ONEOK, alerting\nthe company to the fact that it had failed to identify all the products being transported in its\npublic awareness brochure, a subsequent records review showed that Respondent’s public\nawareness mailings still did not have refined products on the list of transported goods nor did\nthey indicate the hazards associated with transporting refined products.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-5005\nPage 4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(d)(2) by failing to identify\nin its public-awareness mailings all the hazards associated with the products that ONEOK\ntransports.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\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.3 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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. 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. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $36,200 for the violation of § 195.440(d)(2) in Item 6 cited above.\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $36,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.440(d)(2), for failing to identify in its public-awareness mailings all the hazards associated\nwith the products ONEOK transports. ONEOK neither contested the allegation nor presented\nany evidence or argument justifying either a reduction of or elimination of the proposed penalty.\nEven though OPS alleged that pipeline safety was minimally affected, ONEOK failed to comply\nwith a clearly applicable requirement after it was brought to the company’s attention by a\nWarning Letter in 2014. In addition, ONEOK failed to carry out its public-awareness program\nwithout any reasonable justification. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $36,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.440(d)(2).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $36,200.\nBy wire transfer dated June 21, 2017, ONEOK has paid the penalty amount in full. No further\npenalty assessment is needed at this time.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 5 in the Notice for\n3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-5005\nPage 5\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.402(a) and 195.428(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 2), Respondent shall complete\nthe following:\na. Within 60 days following issuance of this Final Order, ONEOK must\nsubmit new procedures for operation and maintenance of the high-pressure\nbreakout tanks, as required by API 510.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.428(a) (Item 5), Respondent shall complete\nthe following:\na. Submit a written explanation to the Director, Central Region, within 30\ndays following issuance of this Final Order, outlining what ONEOK\nbelieves to be its overpressure protection for the Heartland Pipeline and\nother similar pipeline facilities;\nb. ONEOK must submit a written plan to specify the inspection protocols for\nthe various levels of overpressure protection, i.e. soft kills, hard kills;\nc. ONEOK must complete the revision of all relevant operating and\nmaintenance procedures within 90 days following issuance of this Final\nOrder.\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that ONEOK maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-5005\nPage 6\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to qualify one of\nits welders to a welding procedure used to make a repair on an integrity\nmanagement dig in 2013;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(b)(1) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review with\npersonnel their performance in order to meet the objectives of ONEOK’s\nemergency-response training program, at intervals not to exceed 15 months;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\nadequate protective equipment to control the pressure within the maximum\noperating pressure of the pipeline at the Messena Pump Station;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\ndocument any preventive or mitigative measures taken under its integrity\nmanagement program for each line segment; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the\ninternal surface of the pipe section that was replaced on Line Segment 102.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 29, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320175005_Closure Letter_03302018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 30, 2018\nMr. Wes Christensen\nSenior Vice President of Operations\nONEOK NGL Pipeline LP\n100 West Fifth Street\nTulsa, OK 74102\nCPF 3-2017-5005\nDear Mr. Christensen:\nOn March 29, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to ONEOK NGL Pipeline LP a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided on December 8, 2017 and January 17, 2018 and confirmation of\npayment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of\nthis Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, OPS, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":35467}