Tulsa council reduces hazmat charge to $500 after contractor hits gas line; cites ordinance language, marking disputes

Tulsa City Councilors voted unanimously to reduce a $4,950 hazardous-materials invoice to $500 for a plumbing contractor who struck a natural-gas line, concluding an appeal and debate over the city's hazardous-materials billing rules.

The appeal concerned a November incident in which a Roto-Rooter crew damaged an ONG (Oklahoma Natural Gas) pipeline. Michael Baker, Tulsa fire chief, asked the council to deny the appeal and said the department billed $1,800 per hour for a hazardous-materials response under the city code and that the company had not paid the ordinance's annual fee-in-lieu option.

Baker said the applicable rules are in Title 13, chapter 4, of the Tulsa code, including the definitions of a 'responsible party' and the conditions for exemptions. He told councilors the department's ordinance allows an annual fee in lieu of billed costs and that 'a company that deals with hazardous materials' can pay an annual fee (the fee schedule lists a $500 maximum for certain businesses) rather than being billed for individual incidents. Baker said the city attorney reviewed the case and agreed the department could bill for the response.

Appellant Kyle Briarley, introduced to the council as representing and owning Roto-Rooter, said his crew had an OGE/O NG locate mark but the live line had not been properly identified, and he said he had raised the matter with ONG and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. 'If I hit it, I was just gonna pay it,' Briarley said, adding that he had never before received a hazmat invoice and that contractors performing routine excavation were not typically offered or told about the city's fee-in-lieu program.

Councilors asked city staff about how the ordinance is applied in practice. The record showed the city treats the hazmat response as a 'hazmat response team' (the department's hazmat callout typically involves three apparatus) and applies the $1,800-per-hour charge to the incident. Staff also said the fire department and hazmat coordinator perform outreach to businesses in high-hazard industries but acknowledged contractors who excavate subterranean utilities may not always be aware of the fee-in-lieu option.

Council discussion repeatedly cited two issues: whether the contractor or ONG (or both) was a proximate cause because of marking/locating practices, and whether the city's outreach about the annual fee was adequate. Councilors also noted the city's limited authority over utilities' marking standards (those are regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission) and discussed possible follow-up with the commission and franchise negotiations.

After discussion, a councilor moved to waive $4,450 of the invoice and assess a $500 charge as the practical equivalent of the annual fee-in-lieu; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll call vote with all present councilors voting yes.

The council recorded the outcome as an adjusted fine rather than a full denial or full approval of the appeal. Councilors asked staff to bring back follow-up options for addressing unmarked or abandoned infrastructure in public easements, including potential steps with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and future franchise discussions.

Ending: The council's action closed the appeal by reducing the financial obligation to $500 and directing further review of utility marking, outreach about the fee-in-lieu program, and possible regulatory follow-up. The appeal record will remain available for any related civil or administrative claims outside this proceeding.