# NORTENO PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420051003
- **title:** NORTENO PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2005-02-14
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.459, 192.481, 192.605(c), 192.609, 192.615, 192.705.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051003.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051003.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051003
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420051003
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving NORTENO PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.459,  192.481,  192.605(c),  192.609,  192.615,  192.705. The case was opened on 2005-02-14 and is reported as closed as of 2006-06-29. Proposed civil penalty: $30,000. Assessed civil penalty: $27,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420051003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06212006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06212006.pdf

420051003_decision on petition for reconsideration_06212006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_decision%20on%20petition%20for%20reconsideration_06212006_text.pdf

420051003_Final Order_02162006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_Final%20Order_02162006.pdf

420051003_final order_02162006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_final%20order_02162006_text.pdf

420051003_Petition for Reconsideration_03062006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_03062006.pdf

CPF NO  4-2005-1003 ONEOK INC NORTENO PIPELINE CO .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/CPF%20NO%20%204-2005-1003%20ONEOK%20INC%20NORTENO%20PIPELINE%20CO%20.pdf

CPF_NO_4-2005-1003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/CPF_NO_4-2005-1003.pdf

420051003_final order_02162006_text.pdf

U. S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
400 Seventh Street, S. W
Washington, D. C. 20590
FE8 l 6:;„;
Mr. John W. Gibson
President
Oneok, Inc. /Norteno Pipeline Company
Oneok Plaza
100 W 5tll St
Tulsa, OK 74103
Re: CPF No. 4-2005-1003
Dear Mr. Gibson:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrato
the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assess
$27, 500. It further finds that you have completed the actions specifi
to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalt
enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order c
49 C. F. R. g 190. 5.
for Pipeline Safety in
s a civil penalty of
d in the Notice required
is paid, this
nstitutes service under
Sincerely,
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Re istry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
N
DMINISTRATION
In the Matter of
)
Norteno Pipeline Company, )
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oneok, Inc.
, )
Respondent
CPF No. 4-2 05-1003
FINAL ORDER
On July 8 — 10, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, a representativ
Safety (OPS), Research and Special Programs Administration (RS
safety inspection of Respondent's facilities and records pertaining
systems in El Paso, Texas. ' As a result of the inspection, the Directo
issued to Respondent, by letter dated February 14, 2005, a Noti
Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In
$ 190. 207, the Notice alleged Respondent committed violations of
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $30, 000 for the alleged viol
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the al
of the Office of Pipehne
A), conducted a pipeline
o the Del Norte pipeline
Southwest Region, OPS,
e of Probable Violation,
ceordanee with 49 C F. R.
49 C. F. R. Part 192 and
tions. The Notice also
eged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Res
Notice by letter dated March 31, 200S. Respondent contested seve
provided information concerning corrective action it had taken. Res
hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.
ondent responded to the
al of the allegations and
ondent did not request a
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1B in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 491
(c) by failing to maintain
a record of each test, survey, or inspection required by 49 C. F. R. g 192.
81 in sufficient detail to
demonstrate the adequacy of atmospheric corrosion control measures.
he Notice alleged that at
the time of the inspection, Respondent was unable to provide docum
ntation that Respondent
examined exposed pipe for evidence of atmospheric corrosion
i The Norman Y Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement
118 Stat 2423 (2004), created the Pipehne and Hazardous Matenals Safety Ad
transferred the authority of RSPA exercised under chapter 601 of title 49,
Admimstrator of PHMSA See also 70 Fed Reg. 8299, 8301-8302 (2005)
Act, Pub. L. No 108-426,
inistration (PHMSA) and
nited States Code, to the



Section 192. 491(c) requires Respondent to maintain a record of ea
required by subpart I, including inspections required by $ 192.
demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a
exist. Section 192. 481(a) requires Respondent to inspect each on
pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmosp
every 3 calendar years, with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
stated that the Del Norte pipeline system does not have portions of
the atmosphere. Respondent also submitted a sample of a pipeline s
specific location on the pipeline system (Canutillo WGI) to show th t
Del Norte pipeline system since 2001 included inspections for atmos
test, survey, or inspection
81, in sufficient detail to
orrosive condition does not
hore pipeline or portion of
eric corrosion at least once
n its response, Respondent
ipeline that are exposed to
fety inspection report for a
annual inspections for the
heric corrosion.
Although Respondent contended that the pipeline system does not
pipeline, Respondent submitted a letter to OPS dated August 20, 20
exposed portions of pipeline, such as above-ground regulator stati
$$ 192. 481(a) and 192. 491(c), Respondent must inspect each expo
every 3 years ior evidence of atmospheric corrosion and maintain a
for at least 5 years. The documentation submitted by Respondent sho
checked the paint conditions at the Canutillo WGI location betw
documentation does not demonstrate compliance with respect to th
system at the time of the OPS inspection. Accordingly, I find
$$ 192. 491(c) and 192. 481 as alleged in the Notice.
have portions of exposed
3 that includes pictures of
4
ns. Accordingly, under
ed locations at least once
ecord of those inspections
s only that it had visually
en 2001 and 2005. The
entire Del Norte pipeline
that Respondent violated
Item 2B in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 1
documentation to show that a class location study had been perfor
population density indicated a change in class location. The Notice 81
inspection, Respondent was unable to provide documentation to s
performed a class location study to determine, among other things, th
the Del Norte pipeline system. The Notice noted that Respondent's 2
six miles of pipeline in Class 2; but the OPS inspector observed that t
six miles of Class 3 and only one mile of either Class 1 or Class 2.
2. 609 by failing to have
ed when an increase in
ged that at the time of the
ow that Respondent had
present class location of
02 annual report showed
e system was more likely
Section 192. 609 requires Respondent to perform a class location stud
whenever an increase in
population density indicates a change in class location for a segment
f the pipeline system. In
its response, Respondent submitted documentation that the Del
orte pipeline system is
approximately five miles of Class 3, approximately one-half mile of C
ass 2, and approximately
one mile of Class 1. The documentation is dated March 1, 2005,
and therefore, does not
demonstrate coinpliance at the time of the OPS inspection on July 8—
0, 2003. Accordingly, I
find that Respondent violated $ 192. 609 as alleged in the Notice.
Item 2C in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 19
documentation to show that liaison had been established with appropri
public officials. The Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection,
of contact with appropriate officials in New Mexico
. 615 by failing to have
te fire, police, and other
espondent had no record
Response, p 2
Response Attachment, Tab 1
OPS Gas Pipehne Safety Violation Report, Exhibit 1



Section 192. 615 requires Respondent to establish and maintain h i
son with appropriate fire,
police, and other public officials to: learn the responsibility and res
urces of each government
organization that may respond to a gas pipeline emergency; acq
aint the officials with the
operator's ability in responding to a gas pipeline emergency; identi
the types of gas pipeline
emergencies of which the operator notifies the officials; and plan ho
the operator and officials
can engage in mutual assistance to minimize hazards to life or propert .
In its response, Respondent submitted documentation of training a
conducted with local Texas and New Mexico public safety officials
took place on June 17, 2004, approximately one year after the OPS i
not demonstrated that it established liaison prior to the OPS inspect
find that Respondent violated $ 192. 615 as alleged in the Notice.
Item 2D in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 1
documentation to show that the pipeline system had been patrolled in
The Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection, Respondent di
patrolling history for the Del Norte ¹1 pipeline.
Section 192. 709 requires Respondent to maintain a record of each patr
test required by subparts L and M, including patrols required under $ 1
or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whi
192. 705 requires Respondent to perform patrols to observe surface co
the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction
affecting safety and operation. Patrols are to be performed at least
pursuant to g 192. 705(b).
In its response, Respondent submitted patrol records for the Del N
through 2004. Respondent stated that these documents existed at the
were maintained within other company records. Respondent explai
patrol records separate from other company records in the future.
documentation demonstrates that the Del Norte ¹1 pipeline was pat
2004, Respondent did not submitted records of patrols prior to 20
) 192. 709, Respondent must be able to produce records of patrols for
the OPS inspection (July 1998). Accordingly, I find that Respondent
192. 705 by failing to maintain for at least 5 years a record of each pa
Norte ¹1 pipehne in 1998 through 2001.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
d liaison that Respondent
The training and liaison
spection. Respondent has
on on July 8 — 10, 2003. I
2. 709 by failing to have
ccordance with g 192. 705.
not have a record of the
1, survey, inspection, and
2. 705, for at least 5 years
hever is longer. Section
ditions on and adjacent to
activity, and other factors
ually, if not more often
rte ¹1 pipeline for 2002
me of the inspection, but
ed that it will maintain
Although Respondent*s
oiled in 2002, 2003 and
2. In accordance with
t least five years prior to
violated $g 192. 709 and
ol conducted on the Del
Under 49 U. S. C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty no
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000
violations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $30, 000 for the
to exceed $100, 000 per
for any related series of
iolations.
49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determinin
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and
the amount of the civil
avity of the violation,



degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior o
to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achie
Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters
fenses, Respondent's abihty
e compliance, the effect on
s justice may require.
Item 1B in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for violat
ng 49 C. F. R. g$ 192. 491(c)
and 192. 481. Failure to inspect exposed pipelines for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion may
lead to corrosive conditions on the pipeline and pipeline failure.
Keeping adequate records
allows Respondent to review historical conditions on the pipeli
e and past practices and
procedures. Respondent has not submitted information that would
warrant a reduction in the
civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accor
ingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent
civil penalty of $5, 000 for
the violation of $$ 192 491(c) and 192 481.
Item 2B in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10, 000 for viol
Class 3 and Class 4 areas are more densely populated and includ
mu!tistoried buildings, places of public assembly and playgrounds
many pipeline safety regulations are more stringent in those areas.
location study when an increase in population density indicates
jeopardizes public safety. Subsequent to the OPS inspection, Respo
with respect to this violation. That action alone, however, does no
penalty for the violation because Respondent is under an affirmative d
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the ass
Respondent a civil penalty of $10, 000 for the violation.
ting 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 609
places where residences,
ay be prevalent. As such,
Failure to perform a class
change in class location
dent achieved compliance
justify reducing the civil
ty to achieve compliance.
ssment criteria, I assess
Item 2C in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for viola
Subsequent to the OPS inspection, Respondent achieved compli
violation. That action alone, however, does not justify reducing the ci
because Respondent is under an affirmative duty to achieve complia
submitted information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penal
Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the re
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for th
ing 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 615.
ce with respect to this
il penalty for the violation
ce. Respondent has not
y amount proposed in the
ord and considered the
violation.
Item 2D in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10, 000 for violati
and 192. 705 by failing to maintain for at least 5 years a record of eac
Del Norte ¹I pipeline. Failure to perform right-of-way patrols on a re
hazardous or potentially unsafe condition going undetected, such
construction activity in the vicinity of the pipeline. In its response, Re
records for the Del Norte ¹1 pipeline for the time period from 2002
Respondent could not demonstrate full compliance with $$ 192. 709 a
ability to demonstrate compliance with several years in question
reduction to the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the re
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $7, 50
g 49 C. F. R. $$ 192. 709
patrol conducted on the
ular basis may result in a
as a pipeline leak or
pondent submitted patrol
rough 2004. Although
d 192. 705, Respondent's
justifies a proportional
ord and considered the
for the violation.
Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
civil penalty of $27, 500. I find Respondent has the ability to pay this
affecting its ability to continue in business.
sess Respondent a total
enalty without adversely



Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of serv ce. Federal regulations (49
C. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire tr sfer, through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of t e U. S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerni g wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Av ation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, 0 73125; (405) 954-4719.
Failure to pay the $27, 500 civil penalty will result in accrual of inter st 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%) pe annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, fail re to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for app opriate action in a United
States District Court.
COMPI IAiYCK GRDKR
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2B, 2C
) 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas o
and 2D. Under 49 U. S. C.
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety st
who owns or operates a
Chapter 601. The Director, Southwest Region, OPS, has reviewed the
dards established under
Respondent and has indicated that the corrective action has achieved
corrective action taken by
those violations. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved, it
ompliance with respect to
the compliance terms in this order.
s not necessary to include
WARNING ITEMS
The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Ite
exposed pipe, and Item 2A, failing to keep records of abnormal operati
considered warning items. Respondent is warned that if it does not t
correct these items, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequ
violation.
1A, faihng to examine
ns. Therefore, these are
e appropriate action to
nt inspection reveals a
Under 49 C. F. R. g 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petiti
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Res
n for Reconsideration of
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). T
ondent's receipt of this
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Howev
e filing of the petition
r if Respondent submits
payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final admi
istrative action and the
right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditio
effe '
of this Final Order are
e on receipt.
St ce
Ass
Ger ard
ate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
FEH 16 i", '"
Date Issued

420051003_decision on petition for reconsideration_06212006_text.pdf

U. S. Department
of Transportation
Plpellne and
Haxardous Materials Safety
Admlnhtratlon
JUN 21 i00o
Mr. John W. Gibsorr
President
Oneolc, Inc. /Norteno Pipeline Company
Oneok Plaza
100 W 5 Street
Tulsa, OK 74103
Re: CPF No. 4-2005-1003
Dear Mr. Gibson:
Enclosed is a decision on the petition for reconsideration filed in
case. The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety has denied the
the payment of the remaining $27, 500 civil penalty is due immediatel
advised that appropriate corrective action regarding the Warning Item
Order must also be taken if such action has not already been complet
decision constitutes service under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.
Sincerely,
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Regis
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Cc: Sue Griffin, Assoc. General Counsel and Asst. Corporate Secre
CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RK UESTED
400 Seventh Street, S. N.
Washtngton, O. C. 20590
above-referenced
tition. Accordingly,
. In addition, please be
specified in the Final
. Your receipt of this



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY A
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
INISTRATION
)
In the Matter of )
)
Norteno Pipeline Company, )
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oneok, Inc. )
)
Petitioner. )
CPF N J 4-2005-1003
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDE ION
On February 16, 2006, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60112, the Associat
Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order in th
Petitioner had violated the pipeline safety regulations and assessing
amount of $27, 500. The Final Order warned Petitioner to take appr
action regarding some of Petitioner's practices for examining expos
data
administrator for
j case finding
civil penalty in the
riate corrective
pipe and recording
On March 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration of
petition, Petitioner sought reconsideration of one finding of violatio
identified as "Item 1B" for the failure to maintain a record of each te
inspection required by 49 C. F. R. f 192. 481 in sufficient detail to de
adequacy of atmospheric corrosion control measures.
e Final Order. In its
in the Final Order,
t, survey, or
onstrate the
Petitioner argues: "Norteno has no exposed 'pipeline or portion of
meters/regulators which are annually inspected for atmospheric corr
response to Item 1B, Petitioner submitted copies of its "Meter/Regul
Safety Inspection Reports" for five meter/regulator stations for the t
1998 to 2005. Petitioner states there are only five meter/regulator s
pipeline system, and therefore, those records are the only records req
demonstrate the adequacy of its atmospheric corrosion control meas
peline', only
sion. " In
tor Station
e period from
tions in the
ired to
es.
Section 192. 481 requires each operator to inspect "each pipeline or P rtion of
pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmosphe "c corrosion. "
A pipeline is "all parts of those physical facilities through which gas oves in
transportation, including pipe, valves, and other appurtenance attache to pipe,
compressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, delivery statio s, holders,



and fabricated assemblies. "' Any pipeline that is above ground is "
atmosphere. " All above-ground pipe must be inspected, including
intentionally above ground — not only pipe that has become expose
causes. Therefore, Petitioner is required to inspect for atmospheric
parts of those physical facilities through which gas moves in transp
above ground.
posed to the
i ethatis
ough natural
rrosion on all
iItation and are
Section 192. 491 requires each operator to maintain records of the in
performed under section 192. 481. Petitioner states it has only five
stations and submitted records demonstrating inspection for atmosp
of those five regulators/meters. Petitioner indicates that those recor
records required to show it performed the inspections required unde
192. 481.
actions
pter/regulator
prie corrosion
are the only
ection
Petitioner's statement that it has no exposed "'pipeline or portion of
meters/regulators" is incorrect. Petitioner's pipeline clearly has mor
locations where pipe is above ground. Petitioner's "System Protecti
Exposed Mains Patrol Checklist" identifies seventeen pages of locat
is exposed. Although some document indicates the pipe condition a
locations, it does not indicate the condition at others. Petitioner also
photos of above ground pipe at locations other than the five regulato
'ipeline', only
tliail five
p Department
$ns where pipe
Income
ubmitted
meter sites.
Section 192. 481 requires Petitioner to inspect all of the locations wi
for atmospheric corrosion, not just the regulator/meter sites. Petition
records of atmospheric corrosion inspections of five regulators/meter
exposed pipeline subject to section 192. 481. Petitioner did not prod
records for atmospheric corrosion inspections of all pipeline located
Of particular note, none of the documents produced by Petitioner rec
of the Del Norte ¹1 line.
exposed pipe
r produced
which are
,
e complete
bove ground.
rd inspections
I
The records Petitioner submitted do not demonstrate that it maintaine complete
records of its atmospheric corrosion inspections at all locations wher it has
exposed pipeline.
Relief Denied
I have considered Petitioner's request for reconsideration and the add
it submitted with its request. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
complete records of atmospheric corrosion inspections in sufficient d
demonstrate the adequacy of atmospheric corrosion control measures
all terms of the Final Order remain in effect, including assessment of
penalty in the amount of $27, 500.
tional records
it maintained
tail to„
Therefore,
e civil
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 da s of service. Federal
regulations (49 C. F. R. g 89, 21 fb)(3N require this payment be made b wire trans fer.
' 49 C F, R. g 192. 3.



through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to e account of
the U. S. Treasury. Questions concerning wire transfers should be d'r cted to:
Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Admin' tration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, 0 73125;
(405) 954-4719.
Failure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U. S. C. g 3717, 31 C. F. R. g 901. 9 and 49 . F. R. $ 89. 23.
Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six perce (6%) per
annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of se ice. Failure
to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Att gey General
for appropriate action in a United States District Court.
This decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action in is
proceeding. I
I
jJUN 21 204)
ate Issued
e
y Gerard
s c
iate Administrator
r Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 25044