# OKTEX PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420111005
- **title:** OKTEX PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2011-02-24
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.475(b), 192.739(a)(2), 192.805(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420111005.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420111005.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420111005
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420111005
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving OKTEX PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.475(b),  192.739(a)(2),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2011-02-24 and is reported as closed as of 2012-01-09. Proposed civil penalty: $35,700. Assessed civil penalty: $35,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420111005_AMENDED NOPV PCP PCO_ 04192011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111005/420111005_AMENDED%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_%2004192011_text.pdf

420111005_AMENDED NOPV PCP PCO_04192011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111005/420111005_AMENDED%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04192011.pdf

420111005_Final Order_12142011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111005/420111005_Final%20Order_12142011.pdf

420111005_Final Order_12142011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111005/420111005_Final%20Order_12142011_text.pdf

420111005_NOPV PCP PCO_02242011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111005/420111005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02242011.pdf

420111005_NOPV PCP PCO_02242011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111005/420111005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02242011_text.pdf

420111005_Operator Response to Amended NOPV PCP PCO_05192011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111005/420111005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Amended%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05192011.pdf

420111005_AMENDED NOPV PCP PCO_04192011.pdf

U.S. Department 8701 South Gessner, Suite 1110
of Transportation Houston, TX 77074
Pipeline a nd
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
AMENDED NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 19, 2011
Mr. Michel E. Nelson
President
OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
1 00 West Fifth Street
Tulsa, OK 74103-4298
CPF 4-2011-1005
Dear Mr. Nelson :
On February 24, 2011, OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. was issued a Notice of Probable
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Com'pliance Order (Notice). In your response
dated March 24, 2011, you explained that the regulation cited in Item 2 of the Notice may not
apply to the listed devices because they are not pressure relieving, but pressure
limiting/regulating devices. This Amended Notice is issued for the purpose of correcting the
regulatory citation in Item 2.
As specified in the original Notice, on October 18-22, 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code inspected your OKTEX Pipeline Company L.L.C.
- EI Paso (OKTEX) system
located in EI Paso, TX.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violation(s) are:
1. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.



(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the internal
surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion ....
OKTEX failed to perform the required inspection for' the evidence of internal corrosion on a
section of pipe removed from service in April 2010.
While performing pipeline patrols on March 3, 2010, OKTEX personnel discovered a Class 2
leak in a section of 3-inch pipe located on the Norteno # 4 pipeline. During the repair of this
leak, company personnel discovered a second corrosion leak nearby. As a result, OKTEX
removed a 12 foot section of the pipeline which included 3-inch and 4-inch pipe. The section of
pipeline was replaced with 12 feet of 4-inch Fusion Bonded Epoxy Steel pipe on April 7, 2010.
This replacement activity exposed the inside of the pipe and required that the internal surface
be inspected.
During the records review, PHMSA inspectors inquired about an internal corrosion inspection
record and learned that OKTEX personnel had not performed an internal inspection. Per
OKTEX procedure 40.102A, the inspection should be recorded on the form entitled "Pipeline
Inspection Program for Excavations." The Internal Corrosion section of the form has several
statements that require an answer. Each statement has a drop-down menu of possible choices:
'I\J/A, ' 'Yes, ' or 'No.' The statements have a default result of N/A that would mean the internal
surface of the pipe was not exposed and therefore not inspected. A 'Yes' answer means an
internal surface inspection was performed and evidence of corrosion was found. A 'No' answer
means the inspection was performed and evidence of corrosion was not found. OKTEX
"performed an internal pipe surface inspection" and updated the Internal Corrosion section of
the report on October 20, 2010. The inspection was performed using the coupon samples from
the stopple fittings.
2. §192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and
pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to
inspections and tests to determine that it is(2)
Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for
the service in which it is employed;
At the time of the inspection, OKTEX had not determined if the pressure regulating stations
have sufficient capacity to provide reliable service. to the downstream facilities . OKTEX
purchased the pipeline system in July 2006 from Norteno. OKTEX operates and provides the
overpressure protection for the Norteno #4 and #5 pipeline systems which includes five
pressure regulating stations.
There are four pressure regulating facilities on Norteno # 4:
1. Canutillo Delivery located at 6th & LA Mesa;
2. Strahan located on Strahan and La Mesa;
3. Gillette located on Gillette and La Mesa and
4. Gato located on Gato Road and La Mesa.
2



There is one pressure regulating facility on Norteno #5:
1. Anthony City Gate located on West Washington.
OKTEX is a subsidiary of the OI\JEOK Partners and utilizes the ONEOK procedures. ONEOK
procedure 0 KSo p3. 160.1 02, section 3.11 states:
"Inspection and test pressure regulators to assure that each:
3.11 .2 Is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the
service intended."
Section 6.3 states:
"Use forms OKSops3.160.1 02A Regulator Inspection and Testing ... "
During the inspection, PHMSA noted that OKTEX did not use the forms as specified in the
procedure. Instead, OKTEX provided excel spread sheet documents for pressure regulator
inspections. During discussions with company personnel it was noted that OKTEX had not
confirmed or determined the required capacity for the pipeline system pressure regulating
stations when it was acquired from Norteno. While it appears that annual checks are made it
cannot be determined if these results indicate adequate capacity since the original capacity was
not determined.
3. §192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified;
On December 7, 2006, OKTEX failed to ensure through evaluation that a Company inspector
was qualified to perform the covered task 831-0811 : Visual Inspection of Welding and Welds.
An individual conducted the visual inspection of all welds for the reconstruction of an existing 4inch
railroad crossing on the Norteno # 5 pipeline located in Anthony, TX and was not qualified
under 831-0811.
The 'Scope of Work' for the reconstruction project, section l\Jon-Destructive Testing, page 2,
states:
"All welds will be 100% visually inspected by the Company Inspector. Tie-in welds will
be visually inspected and leak (soap bubble or flame pack) tested".
To comply with the Scope of Work and meet the requirements of §192.241 and §192.805 (b), a
non-welder must be qualified to perform the task. The OKTEX Operator Qualification program
requires that an individual be qualified for covered task 831-0811 to perform visual weld
inspection. PHMSA reviewed the qualification records for this individual and they indicate he
has never been qualified for this task.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000
for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances
and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $35,700.00 as follows:
3



Item number PENALTY
2 $35,700.00
Warning Items
With respect to items 1 and 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents
involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty
assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s) . Be
advised that failure to do so may result in OKTEX being subject to additional enforcement
action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to OKTEX. Please refer
to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207(c), you have the opportunity to respond to this
Amended 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. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement
action is subject to being 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). If you
choose not to respond within 30 days of receipt of this Amended Notice, the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety will consider your letter dated March 24, 2011, to constitute
your response in this matter.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2011-1005 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
4



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of OKTEX
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the failure to determine the
capacity of pressure regulating stations installed on OKTEX pipelines facilities,
OKTEX must perform the required analysis and ensure that the pressure
regulators have adequate capacity to provide reliable service to the downstream
facilities as required by 49 CFR §192.739. If the pressure regulator capacity is
found to be insufficient, OKTEX must install/modify the equipment to provide the
required capacity.
OKTEX must complete item 1 of the Compliance Order within 30 days following
receipt of the Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. maintain
documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this
Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest
Region, 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) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
i nfrastru cture.
5

420111005_AMENDED NOPV PCP PCO_ 04192011_text.pdf

AMENDED NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 19, 2011
Mr. Michel E. Nelson
President
OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
100 West Fifth Street
Tulsa, OK 74103-4298
CPF 4-2011-1005
Dear Mr. Nelson:
On February 24, 2011, OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. was issued a Notice of Probable
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In your response
dated March 24, 2011, you explained that the regulation cited in Item 2 of the Notice may not
apply to the listed devices because they are not pressure relieving, but pressure
limiting/regulating devices. This Amended Notice is issued for the purpose of correcting the
regulatory citation in Item 2.
As specified in the original Notice, on October 18-22, 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code inspected your OKTEX Pipeline Company L.L.C. – El Paso (OKTEX) system
located in El Paso, TX.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violation(s) are:
1. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.



(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the internal
surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion….
OKTEX failed to perform the required inspection for the evidence of internal corrosion on a
section of pipe removed from service in April 2010.
While performing pipeline patrols on March 3, 2010, OKTEX personnel discovered a Class 2
leak in a section of 3-inch pipe located on the Norteno # 4 pipeline. During the repair of this
leak, company personnel discovered a second corrosion leak nearby. As a result, OKTEX
removed a 12 foot section of the pipeline which included 3-inch and 4-inch pipe. The section of
pipeline was replaced with 12 feet of 4-inch Fusion Bonded Epoxy Steel pipe on April 7, 2010.
This replacement activity exposed the inside of the pipe and required that the internal surface
be inspected.
During the records review, PHMSA inspectors inquired about an internal corrosion inspection
record and learned that OKTEX personnel had not performed an internal inspection. Per
OKTEX procedure 40.102A, the inspection should be recorded on the form entitled “Pipeline
Inspection Program for Excavations.
” The Internal Corrosion section of the form has several
statements that require an answer. Each statement has a drop-down menu of possible choices:
‘N/A,’ ‘Yes,’ or ‘No.’ The statements have a default result of N/A that would mean the internal
surface of the pipe was not exposed and therefore not inspected. A ‘Yes’ answer means an
internal surface inspection was performed and evidence of corrosion was found. A ‘No’ answer
means the inspection was performed and evidence of corrosion was not found. OKTEX
“performed an internal pipe surface inspection” and updated the Internal Corrosion section of
the report on October 20, 2010. The inspection was performed using the coupon samples from
the stopple fittings.
2. §192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and
pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to
inspections and tests to determine that it is-
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for
the service in which it is employed;
At the time of the inspection, OKTEX had not determined if the pressure regulating stations
have sufficient capacity to provide reliable service to the downstream facilities. OKTEX
purchased the pipeline system in July 2006 from Norteno. OKTEX operates and provides the
overpressure protection for the Norteno #4 and #5 pipeline systems which includes five
pressure regulating stations.
There are four pressure regulating facilities on Norteno # 4:
1. Canutillo Delivery located at 6th & LA Mesa;
2. Strahan located on Strahan and La Mesa;
3. Gillette located on Gillette and La Mesa and
4. Gato located on Gato Road and La Mesa.
2



There is one pressure regulating facility on Norteno #5:
1. Anthony City Gate located on West Washington.
OKTEX is a subsidiary of the ONEOK Partners and utilizes the ONEOK procedures. ONEOK
procedure OKSop3.160.102, section 3.11 states:
“Inspection and test pressure regulators to assure that each:
3.11.2 Is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the
service intended.”
Section 6.3 states:
“Use forms OKSops3.160.102A Regulator Inspection and Testing…
”
During the inspection, PHMSA noted that OKTEX did not use the forms as specified in the
procedure. Instead, OKTEX provided excel spread sheet documents for pressure regulator
inspections. During discussions with company personnel it was noted that OKTEX had not
confirmed or determined the required capacity for the pipeline system pressure regulating
stations when it was acquired from Norteno. While it appears that annual checks are made it
cannot be determined if these results indicate adequate capacity since the original capacity was
not determined.
3. §192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified;
On December 7, 2006, OKTEX failed to ensure through evaluation that a Company inspector
was qualified to perform the covered task B31-0811: Visual Inspection of Welding and Welds.
An individual conducted the visual inspection of all welds for the reconstruction of an existing 4-
inch railroad crossing on the Norteno # 5 pipeline located in Anthony, TX and was not qualified
under B31-0811.
The ‘Scope of Work’ for the reconstruction project, section Non-Destructive Testing, page 2,
states:
“All welds will be 100% visually inspected by the Company Inspector. Tie-in welds will
be visually inspected and leak (soap bubble or flame pack) tested”.
To comply with the Scope of Work and meet the requirements of §192.241 and §192.805 (b), a
non-welder must be qualified to perform the task. The OKTEX Operator Qualification program
requires that an individual be qualified for covered task B31-0811 to perform visual weld
inspection. PHMSA reviewed the qualification records for this individual and they indicate he
has never been qualified for this task.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000
for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances
and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $35,700.00 as follows:3



Item number PENALTY
2 $35,700.00
Warning Items
With respect to items 1 and 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents
involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty
assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Be
advised that failure to do so may result in OKTEX being subject to additional enforcement
action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to OKTEX. Please refer
to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207(c), you have the opportunity to respond to this
Amended 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. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement
action is subject to being 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). If you
choose not to respond within 30 days of receipt of this Amended Notice, the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety will consider your letter dated March 24, 2011, to constitute
your response in this matter.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2011-1005 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
4



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of OKTEX
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the failure to determine the
capacity of pressure regulating stations installed on OKTEX pipelines facilities,
OKTEX must perform the required analysis and ensure that the pressure
regulators have adequate capacity to provide reliable service to the downstream
facilities as required by 49 CFR §192.739. If the pressure regulator capacity is
found to be insufficient, OKTEX must install/modify the equipment to provide the
required capacity.
2. OKTEX must complete item 1 of the Compliance Order within 30 days following
receipt of the Final Order.
3. It is requested (not mandated) that OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. maintain
documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this
Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest
Region, 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) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.
5

420111005_NOPV PCP PCO_02242011_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 24, 2011
Mr. Michel E. Nelson
President
OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
100 West Fifth Street
Tulsa, OK 74103-4298
CPF 4-2011-1005
Dear Mr. Nelson:
On October 18-22, 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your
OKTEX Pipeline Company L.L.C. – El Paso (OKTEX) system located in El Paso, TX.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violation(s) are:
1. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.
(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the internal
surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion….
OKTEX failed to perform the required inspection for the evidence of internal corrosion on a
section of pipe removed from service in April 2010.



While performing pipeline patrols on March 3, 2010, OKTEX personnel discovered a Class 2
leak in a section of 3-inch pipe located on the Norteno # 4 pipeline. During the repair of this
leak, company personnel discovered a second corrosion leak nearby. As a result, OKTEX
removed a 12 foot section of the pipeline which included 3-inch and 4-inch pipe. The section of
pipeline was replaced with 12 feet of 4-inch Fusion Bonded Epoxy Steel pipe on April 7, 2010.
This replacement activity exposed the inside of the pipe and required that the internal surface
be inspected.
During the records review, PHMSA inspectors inquired about an internal corrosion inspection
record and learned that OKTEX personnel had not performed an internal inspection. Per
OKTEX procedure 40.102A, the inspection should be recorded on the form entitled “Pipeline
Inspection Program for Excavations.
” The Internal Corrosion section of the form has several
statements that require an answer. Each statement has a drop-down menu of possible choices:
‘N/A,’ ‘Yes,’ or ‘No.’ The statements have a default result of N/A that would mean the internal
surface of the pipe was not exposed and therefore not inspected. A ‘Yes’ answer means an
internal surface inspection was performed and evidence of corrosion was found. A ‘No’ answer
means the inspection was performed and evidence of corrosion was not found. OKTEX
“performed an internal pipe surface inspection” and updated the Internal Corrosion section of
the report on October 20, 2010. The inspection was performed using the coupon samples from
the stopple fittings.
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
At the time of the inspection, OKTEX had not determined that the relief devices have sufficient
capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. OKTEX purchased the pipeline
system in July 2006 from Norteno. OKTEX operates and provides the overpressure protection
for the Norteno #4 and #5 pipeline systems which includes five relief devices.
There are four devices on Norteno # 4:
1. Canutillo Delivery located at 6th & LA Mesa;
2. Strahan located on Strahan and La Mesa;
3. Gillette located on Gillette and La Mesa and
4. Gato located on Gato Road and La Mesa.
There is one device on Norteno #5:
1. Anthony City Gate located on West Washington.
OKTEX is a subsidiary of the ONEOK Partners and utilizes the ONEOK procedures. ONEOK
procedure OKSop3.160.102, section 3.10 states:
2



“Calculate the required capacity, or review a previous calculation, of each relief device.
Compare the required capacity to the rated capacity of the device. Review all
applicable parameters to ensure new calculations or past calculations are valid. …”
Section 6.1 states:
“Keep relief device capacity calculations done manually for the life of the particular
relief situation. Keep verifications of previous calculations until the subsequent year’s
confirmation is competed.”
Section 6.3 states:
“Use forms OKSops3.160.102A Regulator Inspection and Testing and
OKSops3.1002B Relief Valve Inspection and Testing”
During the inspection, PHMSA noted that OKTEX did not use the forms as specified in the
procedure. Instead, OKTEX provided excel spread sheet documents for relief device
inspections. During discussions with company personnel it was noted that OKTEX had not
confirmed or determined the required capacity for the pipeline system relief devices when it was
acquired from Norteno. While it appears that annual checks are made it cannot be determined
if these results indicate adequate capacity since the original capacity was not determined.
3. §192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified;
On December 7, 2006, OKTEX failed to ensure through evaluation that a Company inspector
was qualified to perform the covered task B31-0811: Visual Inspection of Welding and Welds.
An individual conducted the visual inspection of all welds for the reconstruction of an existing 4-
inch railroad crossing on the Norteno # 5 pipeline located in Anthony, TX and was not qualified
under B31-0811.
The ‘Scope of Work’ for the reconstruction project, section Non-Destructive Testing, page 2,
states:
“All welds will be 100% visually inspected by the Company Inspector. Tie-in welds will
be visually inspected and leak (soap bubble or flame pack) tested”.
To comply with the Scope of Work and meet the requirements of §192.241 and §192.805 (b), a
non-welder must be qualified to perform the task. The OKTEX Operator Qualification program
requires that an individual be qualified for covered task B31-0811 to perform visual weld
inspection. PHMSA reviewed the qualification records for this individual and they indicate he
has never been qualified for this task.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000
for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances
and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $35,700.00 as follows:
3



Item number PENALTY
2 $35,700.00
Warning Items
With respect to items 1 and 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents
involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty
assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Be
advised that failure to do so may result in OKTEX being subject to additional enforcement
action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to OKTEX. 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. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
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). 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.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2011-1005 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
4



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of OKTEX
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the failure to determine the
capacity of relief devices installed on OKTEX pipelines facilities, OKTEX must
perform the required analysis and ensure that the relief devices have adequate
capacity to protect the facilities as required by 49 CFR §192.743. If the relief
capacity is found to be insufficient, OKTEX must install/modify the equipment to
provide the required capacity.
2. OKTEX must complete item 1 of the Compliance Order within 30 days following
receipt of the Final Order.
3. It is requested (not mandated) that OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C. maintain
documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this
Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest
Region, 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) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.
5

420111005_Final Order_12142011_text.pdf

DEC 1 4 2011
Mr. Michel E. Nelson
Senior Vice President
OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
100 West Fifth Street
Tulsa, OK 74103-4298
Re: CPF No. 4-2011-1005
Dear Mr. Nelson:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $35,700. It further finds that OKTEX Pipeline Company
L.L.C. has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.
Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as
otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164202982368]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
OKTEX Pipeline Company, L.L.C., ) CPF No. 4-2011-1005
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From October 18-22, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of OKTEX Pipeline
Company, L.L.C. (OKTEX or Respondent) in El Paso, Texas. OKTEX is an interstate pipeline
company owned and operated by ONEOK Partners, L.P., with interconnects in Oklahoma, New
Mexico and Texas.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated April 19, 2011, an Amended2
Notice of Probable Violation,
Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that OKTEX violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.739(a)(2) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $35,700 for the alleged violation. The
Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged
violation. The warning items required no further action, but advised the operator that it may be
subject to future enforcement action, if OPS finds violation of these provisions in subsequent
inspections.
OKTEX responded to the Amended Notice by letter dated March 24, 2011 (Second Response).
The company did not contest the allegation of violation, but provided an explanation of its
actions, requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated, and provided
1 http://www.oneokpartners.com/Investor/FinancialInformation/SECFilings.aspx accessed November 2, 2011.
2 PHMSA issued the first NOPV related to this matter on February 24, 2011. On March 24, 2011, OKTEX’s First
Response noted that Item 2 of the NOPV cited to §192.743, which does not require capacity calculations and
comparison. OKTEX stated that no pressure relief devices exist at the five pressure regulating stations cited in the
Item 2 of the February 24, 2011 NOPV. PHMSA responded with an Amended NOPV that replaced the Item 2
violation for §192.743 with a new Item 2 for violation of §192.739. The Second Amended NOPV was considered in
the preparation of this Final Order. Both Respondent’s February 24, 2011 and May 19, 2011 Responses were
considered.



2
evidence that it took all actions required by the Proposed Compliance Order. Respondent did not
request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
In its Second Response, OKTEX did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated
49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a)(2), which states:
§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure
regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine that it
is—
(1) . . .
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the
service in which it is employed;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a)(2) by failing to determine
that its pressure regulating stations were adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability
of operation for the service in which they were employed. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
OKTEX did not perform initial capacity calculations on five pressure limiting devices so that it
could determine whether its devices were adequate, as to capacity or reliability. The Notice also
alleged that OKTEX failed to use the forms specified by its Operating Procedure for the
calculation of the required capacity for these pressure limiting devices.
In its Second Response, OKTEX acknowledged that “copies of the calculations and comparisons
firm delivery volumes are assigned to its downstream meters, further complicating the required
analysis. Therefore, in order to measure required versus actual capacity, OKTEX reviewed 39
months of historical delivery totals and arrived at the conclusion that sufficient capacity exists
done by the previous operator have not been located.”3 In addition, the Respondent noted that no
for these relief devices to protect the facilities to which they are connected.
However, at the time of the inspection, Respondent had not performed this analysis. Therefore,
while OKTEX performed required inspections and testing at the intervals required by
§ 192.739(a), no reliable baseline was established as a comparison point. Therefore, Respondent
could not determine adequacy of capacity and operation for these relief devices and therefore
was not in compliance with § 192.739(a)(2).
I will consider OKTEX’s request for elimination or modification of the proposed penalty i
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 47385