# ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 320135015  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2013-05-13

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.404(a)(1), 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.583.

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.404(a)(1),  195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.583. The case was opened on 2013-05-13 and is reported as closed as of 2026-05-19. Proposed civil penalty: $230,800. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10232018.pdf

320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10232018_text.pdf

320135015_Final Order_10132016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Final%20Order_10132016.pdf

320135015_Final Order_10132016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Final%20Order_10132016_text.pdf

320135015_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013.pdf

320135015_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013_text.pdf

320135015_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_11162016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11162016.pdf

320135015_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_07122013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_07122013.pdf

320135015_Operator_Response_to_Notice_07122013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator_Response_to_Notice_07122013.pdf

320135015_Region Closure Letter-Consent Agreement Termination_05192026_(08-121917S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Region%20Closure%20Letter-Consent%20Agreement%20Termination_05192026_(08-121917S).pdf

320135015_Region Closure Letter-Consent Agreement Termination_05192026_(08-121917S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Region%20Closure%20Letter-Consent%20Agreement%20Termination_05192026_(08-121917S)_text.pdf

320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018_text.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P., )
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C., and ) CPF Nos. 3-2013-5014
ONEOK Underground Storage ) 3-2013-5015
Company, L.L.C., collectively, ) 3-2013-5020
)
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER
Whereas, on May 13, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued two Notices of Probable Violation, Proposed
Civil Penalties, and Proposed Compliance Orders (NOPVs) to ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P.,
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C. (ONEOK NGL Pipeline), and ONEOK Underground Storage
Company, L.L.C. (ONEOK Underground Storage) (collectively, ONEOK or Respondents).1 On
July 3, 2013, OPS issued a third NOPV to ONEOK.2
Whereas, ONEOK NGL Pipeline operates approximately 11,500 miles of pipeline transporting
hazardous liquids, including approximately 11,000 miles transporting highly volatile liquids in
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and several other states.3 The ONEOK system includes natural gas
liquids (NGL) fractionation facilities and associated underground storage facilities located in
Bushton, Kansas (Bushton Plant). ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (ONEOK Hydrocarbon) is the
operator of the fractionation facilities and associated piping at the Bushton Plant. ONEOK
Underground Storage is the operator of the underground storage facilities and associated piping
at the Bushton Plant.
Whereas, at the request of Respondents and in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, informal
hearings were held in Kansas City, Missouri, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief
1 CPF No. 3-2013-5014 and CPF No. 3-2013-5015.
2 CPF No. 3-2013-5020. OPS issued an amended NOPV in CPF No. 3-2013-5020 on August 15, 2013.
3 This information is reported by Respondents for calendar year 2016 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 1



Counsel, PHMSA.4 The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issued Final Orders in all
three enforcement cases on October 12, 2016 (Final Orders), assessing civil penalties in the total
amount of $731,900 and adopting compliance orders requiring that ONEOK implement specified
actions at the Bushton Plant.5
Whereas, on November 16, 2016, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, and after receiving an
extension of time, Respondents filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding the compliance
order issued in CPF No. 3-2013-5015. On December 5, 2016, Respondents also filed a Payment
of Penalties Under Protest for CPF No. 3-2013-5020 and CPF No. 3-2013-5014 and paid a total
of $572,900 in civil penalties. On December 15, 2016, ONEOK filed a Compliance Action
Made Under Protest for CPF No. 3-2013-5014.
Whereas, on February 25, 2013, ONEOK Hydrocarbon, ONEOK Underground Storage, and
ONEOK NGL Pipeline filed a Petition for Review of certain PHMSA letters of interpretation in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in ONEOK Hydrocarbon,
et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, et al., No. 13-1040.
Whereas, on January 6, 2017, ONEOK Hydrocarbon, ONEOK Underground Storage and
ONEOK NGL Pipeline filed Petitions for Review of the Final Orders in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia in ONEOK Hydrocarbon, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of
Transportation, et. al., Nos. 17-1004, 17-1005, and 17-1006.
Whereas, on January 12, 2017, the court granted ONEOK’s unopposed motion to consolidate all
of the Petitions for Review and to hold the consolidated case in abeyance pending resolution of
the Petition for Reconsideration filed in CPF No. 3-2013-5015.6
Whereas, on June 14, 2017, a meeting between ONEOK and PHMSA (Parties) was held at
PHMSA Headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss resolution of the issues pending in these
enforcement cases. The Parties have engaged in good-faith discussions regarding the Final
Orders and have agreed that settlement of these proceedings will avoid further administrative
proceedings or litigation, and that entry of this Consent Agreement and Order is the most
appropriate means of resolving the Final Orders without additional adjudication of any issue of
fact or law.
4 A hearing concerning the NOPV in CPF No. 3-2013-5015 was held on November 14-15, 2013. A
separate hearing concerning the NOPVs in CPF Nos. 3-2013-5014 and 3-2013-5020 was held on January
15, 2014.
5 A Corrected Final Order was issued for CPF No. 3-2013-5015 on October 13, 2016, due to a
typographical error.
6 ONEOK Hydrocarbon, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, et al., D.C. Cir. Nos. 13-1040, 17-1004,
17-1005, and 17-1006 (consolidated under No. 13-1040).
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 2



NOW, THEREFORE, upon consent and agreement of the Parties, it is hereby Ordered and
Adjudged as follows.
A. PHMSA’s Jurisdiction and Regulatory Oversight
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ONEOK acknowledges, as operator of the Bushton Plant, that the Bushton Plant is subject to
PHMSA’s jurisdiction under the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § § 60101, et seq.,
and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder, as found by the Final Orders.
Although the parties agree that the Bushton Plant is subject to PHMSA’s jurisdiction, as
described in the Final Orders, for purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order, and subject
to conditions and limitations set forth herein, the Parties agree that PHMSA will exercise
regulatory oversight over certain portions of the Bushton Plant, identified as the “PHMSA
Regulated Piping” in the drawing attached as Exhibit A, and the photographs attached as
Exhibit B to this Consent Agreement and Order, which exhibits are incorporated herein by
reference. Such Exhibits shall be considered Business Confidential Information submitted
voluntarily by ONEOK pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and otherwise to
contain critical energy infrastructure information. The scope of the PHMSA Regulated
Piping and the Exhibits might change in the future, based on the reviews described by
Paragraph 6 below.
ONEOK acknowledges that it has marked its physical facilities and revised appropriate
drawings to identify the PHMSA Regulated Piping, as reflected in the Exhibits attached
hereto, and that, consistent with the provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order,
ONEOK will comply with 49 C.F.R. Part 195 with respect to the PHMSA Regulated Piping.
The piping at the Bushton Plant that is not identified in the Exhibits to this Consent
Agreement and Order as the PHMSA Regulated Piping, and the piping at the Bushton Plant
that is not identified as PHMSA Regulated Piping upon review as required in Paragraph 6 of
this Consent Agreement and Order, is subject to regulatory oversight by the United States
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and is referred to as “OSHA
Regulated Piping”. If OSHA expressly declines to apply Process Safety Management (PSM)
regulations to any portion of the OSHA Regulated Piping, PHMSA will assume regulatory
oversight of that portion. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order affects the
regulatory oversight of PHMSA and/or OSHA over any portion of the Bushton Plant not
specifically identified in the Exhibits to this Consent Agreement and Order.
For purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order, PHMSA Regulated Piping shall be
identified at the frequency described in Paragraph 6 in accordance with the following criteria:
a. For purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order and identifying PHMSA Regulated
Piping, the fractionation facilities at the Bushton Plant shall be deemed to be
“processing” facilities.
b. Piping located downstream of the first inbound pressure control device entering the
Bushton Plant and upstream of the last pressure control device leaving the Bushton
Plant is PHMSA Regulated Piping if the predominant use of such piping is to bypass
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 3



6. 7. processing (i.e., is used for a predominantly transportation purpose). If the
predominant use of such piping is for processing purposes or is only occasionally used
to bypass processing (such as to accommodate temporary maintenance or repairs or
other short-term events) such piping is OSHA Regulated Piping.
c. Piping that predominantly bypasses a pressure control device or that bypasses a
processing facility that is no longer in service is PHMSA Regulated Piping.
d. Piping that is located on the grounds of the Bushton Plant that connects two (2)
processing units, or is otherwise used for a processing purpose, is OSHA Regulated
Piping if the piping is located downstream of the first pressure control device entering
the Bushton Plant and upstream of the last pressure control device leaving the Bushton
Plant.
e. Pumps and associated controls used predominantly to move product for transportation
purposes are subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.
f. Piping associated with underground storage used for the purpose of managing the
processing facility inventory is OSHA Regulated Piping. Piping associated with
storage caverns used for transportation is PHMSA Regulated Piping.
ONEOK will review the predominant use of the PHMSA Regulated Piping and the OSHA
Regulated Piping at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,
to determine whether or not the predominant use of piping has changed. ONEOK will also
review the predominant use of any newly constructed pipe at the Bushton Plant upon
construction completion. If, after conducting the review required by this Paragraph, ONEOK
determines that any portion of the PHMSA Regulated Piping or newly constructed piping is
predominantly used for processing purposes, that portion shall thereafter be considered
OSHA Regulated Piping. If, after conducting the review required by this Paragraph,
ONEOK determines that any portion of the OSHA Regulated Piping or newly constructed
piping is predominantly used for transportation purposes, that portion shall thereafter be
considered PHMSA Regulated Piping. If any such changes occur, ONEOK will revise the
physical demarcations and appropriate drawings and procedures, and other relevant records,
consistent with current PHMSA regulations and policy or consistent with current OSHA
regulations and policy, as the case may be. ONEOK will revise its records, as necessary, to
incorporate new information obtained during these reviews. ONEOK will give written notice
to the Director of any changes to the classification of piping as PHMSA Regulated Piping or
OSHA Regulated Piping, and will submit to the Director copies of drawings, similar in form
to the Exhibits, that are revised as a result of a review undertaken pursuant to this Paragraph.
The Parties agree that, if PHMSA objects to any change in classification of piping as
PHMSA Regulated Piping or OSHA Regulated Piping, the parties will meet and confer to
resolve their disagreement.
The underground storage caverns at the Bushton Plant, which store hazardous liquid
petroleum products, are subject to the safety regulations and requirements of the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment. This does not preclude future regulation of
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 4



ONEOK’s underground storage caverns by PHMSA should PHMSA issue minimum safety
standards for underground hazardous liquid storage facilities.
B. Implementation of Part 195
8. According to the timing and deadlines set forth herein, and subject to the conditions and
scope limitations set forth herein, the PHMSA Regulated Piping shall be subject to
PHMSA’s 49 C.F.R. Part 195 regulations. With respect to existing piping that will become
PHMSA Regulated Piping on the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Order,
ONEOK shall implement the applicable requirements of Part 195 no later than 90 days after
such Effective Date. The date on which such implementation is completed will be the “In-
Service Date” for such piping. With respect to any OSHA Regulated Piping that becomes
PHMSA Regulated Piping in the future pursuant to Paragraphs 5 & 6 hereof, ONEOK shall
implement the applicable requirements of Part 195 no later than 90 days after the date that
ONEOK provides notification to the Director pursuant to Paragraph 6 hereof that such piping
has become PHMSA Regulated Piping. ONEOK may request an extension of time beyond
the 90-day period by providing a written request to the Director along with a reasonable basis
no later than fifteen (15) business days before the completion deadline. Not later than five
(5) business days following receipt of a request for an extension of time, the Director shall
grant or deny such request in writing. The Director shall provide a reasonable basis for any
denial of a request for an extension of time.
C. Record-Keeping
9. ONEOK will retain records relating to compliance with Part 195 with respect to piping that
becomes PHMSA Regulated Piping on or after the In-Service Date in conformance with the
recordkeeping provisions of Part 195.
10. Subject to the provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order, ONEOK’s historical (i.e., for
the time period prior to the In-Service Date of any piping that becomes PHMSA Regulated
Piping hereunder) records of maintenance and operations, pipeline integrity, and testing
related to the PHMSA Regulated Piping and OSHA Regulated Piping shall be available to
PHMSA for informational purposes. Such historical records include, but are not limited to,
records pertaining to inspections, corrosion control, leaks, abnormal operating conditions,
failure records, along with any related with root cause analysis reports, mill test reports
(MTR) and hydrostatic pressure testing. ONEOK will maintain any such historical records,
existing upon the Effective Date, for the life of the facility.
11. The Parties acknowledge that, with respect to the PHMSA Regulated Piping and the OSHA
Regulated Piping, Respondents do not possess complete historical documentation related to
compliance with Part 195 of PHMSA’s regulations. Therefore, this Consent Agreement and
Order shall not be interpreted as establishing an obligation or creating a liability with respect
to any provision of Part 195 for the period before any In-Service Date on which piping
becomes PHMSA Regulated Piping pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order.
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 5



12. ONEOK agrees to maintain records of review, demarcation, and drawings related to the
facility reviews that ONEOK will perform under Paragraph 6 for a period of at least five (5)
years following completion of each review.
13. For any review documentation or other deliverables required to be submitted to PHMSA
pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order, ONEOK may assert a claim of business
confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by PHMSA,
covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this
Consent Agreement and Order in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7. Any claim of
confidentiality shall be marked in writing on each page, and shall include a statement
specifying the grounds for each claim of confidentiality. PHMSA will determine whether to
release any such information submitted pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order in
accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the Freedom of information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and
PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders.
D. The Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
14. PHMSA accepts the payment of $572,900 which ONEOK remitted under protest to PHMSA
on December 5, 2016, as full accord and satisfaction of Respondents’ civil penalty
assessment in these enforcement proceedings.
15. Immediately upon the Effective Date, the Parties will file a joint motion of voluntary
dismissal asking the Court to dismiss, with prejudice, the Petitions for Review filed in
ONEOK Hydrocarbon, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, et al., D.C. Cir. Nos. 13-1040,
17-1004, 17-1005, and 17-1006 (consolidated under No. 13-1040), with each Party bearing
its own costs and fees.
16. Upon issuance of this Consent Agreement and Order and the Court’s dismissal of the
Petitions for Review, these enforcement proceedings will be closed, and ONEOK’s Petition
for Reconsideration of the Final Order issued in CFP No. 3-2013-5015 and protests will be
deemed moot.
E. Miscellaneous Provisions
17. The terms of this Consent Agreement and Order shall become effective (i.e. “Effective
Date”) upon the last day of execution by the Parties’ respective authorized representatives.
This Consent Agreement and Order may be modified only by written agreement signed by
both Parties.
18. ONEOK consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Order, and hereby waives
any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. ONEOK waives all rights to
contest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of this Consent Agreement and Order,
including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals; provided, however, that
any dispute concerning the implementation of this Consent Agreement and Order shall be
resolved in the manner provided in Paragraph 28.
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 6



19. This Consent Agreement and Order affirms and upholds all findings of violation of PHMSA
regulations set forth in the Final Orders. This Consent Agreement and Order supersedes the
Compliance Order contained in the Corrected Final Order issued by PHMSA in CPF No. 3-
2013-5015 on October 13, 2016. Each allegation of violation cited in the Notice may be
considered by PHMSA as a prior offense in any future enforcement action brought against
Respondents by PHMSA. This Consent Agreement and Order, however, does not constitute
a finding of violation of any other Federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil
proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of
the violation of any law, rule, regulation or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce
the provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order.
20. This Consent Agreement and Order shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and its
successors and upon ONEOK and its successors and assigns. ONEOK agrees to provide a
copy of this Consent Agreement and Order to the officers of ONEOK NGL Pipeline and
ONEOK Underground Storage who are responsible for pipeline operations. A copy of this
Consent Agreement and Order and any incorporated work plans and schedules will be
maintained at the Bushton Plant and will be made available to ONEOK employees whose
duties might reasonably include compliance with the terms of the Consent Agreement and
Order.
21. For all transfers of ownership interests or operating responsibility of the Bushton Plant,
ONEOK shall provide a copy of this Consent Agreement and Order to the prospective
transferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer and subsequently shall provide written notice
of any such transfer to the Director not more than 60 days following any such transfer.
22. All references to “Director” in this Consent Agreement and Order shall refer to the Director,
Central Region, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety. Information, reports, and notifications
required by this Consent Agreement and Order shall be submitted to: Director, Central
Region, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety, 901 Locust Street, Suite 462, Kansas City, MO
64106.
23. Subject to the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order, no provision contained herein
affects or relieves ONEOK of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of
the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders
issued thereunder regarding the PHMSA Regulated Piping. Nothing in this Consent
Agreement and Order shall limit or reduce PHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and
information-gathering or its authority to bring enforcement actions against ONEOK pursuant
to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other
applicable provision of Federal or State law.
24. This Consent Agreement and Order does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local
laws or regulations that are applicable to ONEOK’s pipeline systems. This Consent
Agreement and Order is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal,
State, or local laws or regulations. ONEOK remains responsible for achieving and
maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and
permits.
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 7



25. This Consent Agreement and Order does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to,
any third person not a party to this Consent Agreement and Order. The U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising
from acts or omissions of ONEOK or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work
required by this Consent Agreement and Order.
26. This Consent Agreement and Order shall be subject to all enforcement authorities available
to PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including
administrative civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $205,638 per violation for
each day the violation continues. This shall include any failure of ONEOK to comply with
the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order. All maps, drawings, schematics, and
associated schedules set forth or referenced in this Consent Agreement and Order, or attached
as an exhibit to this Consent Agreement and Order, shall be automatically incorporated into
this Consent Agreement and Order and shall be enforceable in the same manner.
27. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement
and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this
Consent Agreement and Order, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations,
agreements or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained
in this Consent Agreement and Order.
28. The Director and ONEOK will attempt to resolve any disputes arising under this Consent
Agreement and Order informally. If Respondents and the Director are unable to informally
resolve the dispute within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Respondents’ written notice
invoking dispute resolution, Respondents may request in writing, within fifteen (15) days
thereafter, a written determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator for
Pipeline Safety, along with all information that Respondents believe is relevant to the
dispute. If the request is submitted as provided herein, the Associate Administrator will issue
a final determination in writing. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of
matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for
completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the pendency of the
dispute resolution process, except as otherwise agreed by the Director or the Associate
Administrator in writing.
F. Ratification
29. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the
terms and conditions of this Consent Agreement and Order and to execute and legally bind
each such Party.
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 8



30. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Consent Agreement and Order:
For PHMSA: For Respondents:
_________________________ _______________________
Alan K. Mayberry Wesley Christensen
Associate Administrator Senior Vice President,
for Pipeline Safety Operations
_________________________ ________________________
Date Date
Consent Agreement and Order Page | 9

320135015_Final Order_10132016_text.pdf

October 13, 2016
Mr. Terry K. Spencer
President and CEO
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P.
100 W. Fifth Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Re: CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Dear Mr. Spencer:
With regard to the above-referenced case, this Order is being corrected due to a typographical
error in Item 1 of the Civil Penalty Assessment. The Final Order makes findings of violation,
withdraws one alleged violation, assesses a civil penalty of $159,200, and specifies actions that
need to be taken by ONEOK to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.
The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid
and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region,
this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order is made pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS
Mr. Vince Murchison, Murchison Law Firm, PLLC
325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2700, Dallas, Texas 75201
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
___________________________________
In the Matter of )
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P., )
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C., and ) CPF No. 3-2013-5015
ONEOK Underground Storage )
Company, L.L.C., collectively, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
During the period from May 2008 to April 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives
of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline
Safety (OPS), conducted a compliance review of the natural gas liquids facility of ONEOK NGL
Pipeline, L.P., ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C., and ONEOK Underground Storage Company,
L.L.C. (collectively, ONEOK or Respondent) in Bushton, Kansas.1 ONEOK operates 11,500
miles of pipeline transporting hazardous liquids, including approximately 11,000 miles
transporting highly volatile liquids in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and several other states.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order to Respondent on
May 13, 2013 (Notice).3 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged that
Respondent committed six violations of the hazardous liquids pipeline safety regulations and
proposed a civil penalty of $230,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed
corrective action for two of the alleged violations.
After receiving an extension of time, ONEOK responded to the Notice on July 12, 2013.
ONEOK contested the jurisdiction of PHMSA, contested the merits of the alleged violations and
requested a hearing. Additional written materials were submitted by Respondent on October 15
1 The three entities own and operate different portions of the Bushton facility. ONEOK Post-hearing
Jurisdictional Brief at 5 (Mar. 14, 2014).
2 This information is reported by Respondent for calendar year 2015 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.
3 The Director also issued two additional notices of probable violation to Respondent. They were dated
May 13, 2013 (CPF No. 3-2013-5014) and July 3, 2013 (CPF No. 3-2013-5020). Final Orders are being
issued in those cases separately.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 2
and November 4, 2013. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held in Kansas
City, Missouri on November 14-15, 2013, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief
Counsel, PHMSA.4 After the hearing, Respondent submitted additional written materials on
March 17, 2014, and May 6, 2016. Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written
evaluation of Respondent’s response material on April 1, 2016.
JURISDICTION AND GENERAL ARGUMENTS
As a general matter, Respondent contested the authority of PHMSA to enforce the pipeline
safety regulations at the Bushton facility and argued the Notice, proposed civil penalty and
proposed compliance order should all be withdrawn due to jurisdictional uncertainty, failure to
provide fair notice, and other reasons. These arguments were raised in the related proceedings,
CPF No. 3-2013-5014 and CPF No. 3-2013-5020. In the Final Order for CPF No. 3-2013-5014,
I addressed these arguments. In particular, I determined the Pipeline Safety Act applies to the
Bushton facility because the facility engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids by
pipeline. I also determined that an exception in the Act for “refining” does not apply.
Respondent’s general arguments for withdrawing the Notice, proposed civil penalty and
proposed compliance order are dismissed for the same reasons set forth in CPF No. 3-2013-5014.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent committed six violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes
made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall
be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and
appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare all of the written
procedures that are required for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and for
handling abnormal operations and emergencies at the Bushton facility in accordance with 49
C.F.R. Part 195. The Notice alleged that ONEOK had a manual of procedures for the facility,
4 Separate hearings concerning the notices of probable violation in CPF No. 3-2013-5014 and CPF No.
3-2013-5020 were held on January 15, 2014.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 3
but the procedures were for “Process Safety Management” or worker safety and did not meet the
pipeline safety requirements under 49 C.F.R. Part 195.
Respondent argued the alleged violation should be withdrawn because ONEOK provided several
hundred pages of procedures and the Notice failed to explain why the procedures do not comply.
For example, Respondent asserted that it has procedures for normal startup and shutdown of
certain equipment relevant to § 195.402(c)(7); emergency shutdown of certain piping relevant to
§ 195.402(e)(4); and inspection, maintenance and calibration of certain equipment relevant to
§ 195.402(c)(3). Respondent argued OPS never explained why the procedures do not comply
with the regulation.
In response to this argument, I find the Notice did allege specifically that Respondent “failed to
prepare all written procedures necessary” to comply with the regulation.5 The Notice also
referenced at least 24 subparagraphs of the regulation that Respondent’s procedures allegedly
failed to comply with. Accordingly, the Notice appropriately notified Respondent of the
allegation that it failed to have procedures meeting all of the requirements of § 195.402(a).
Respondent’s citation to a 1997 enforcement decision does not support withdrawing the
allegation of violation. In Sonat Exploration Co., CPF No. 43906, 1997 WL 34614789 (Aug. 1,
1997), PHMSA withdrew several alleged violations of § 195.402 after the operator demonstrated
that the company had written procedures that met the regulatory requirements. The final order in
that case noted the “vagueness” of certain allegations in the notice, but the Agency determined
the operator had submitted records to prove compliance and otherwise the company’s
contentions of compliance were not contradicted in the record.
The present case differs because ONEOK has not made a showing that its procedures comply
with each of the requirements in § 195.402. Whereas the operator in Sonat Exploration argued
that its procedures complied with the regulations and pointed to specific documents in support,
ONEOK has not made such an assertion and showing. Instead, Respondent claimed that its
procedures were prepared to comply with OSHA PSM requirements,6 and that some of those
procedures are “relevant” to some of the provisions in § 195.402.7 A review of Respondent’s
written procedures in the record reveals no apparent correlation between its procedures and each
of the requirements in § 195.402.8
Respondent argued further that OPS should have issued a notice of amendment rather than a
notice of probable violation. A notice of amendment may be issued pursuant to § 190.206 to
determine if an operator’s plans or procedures are “inadequate to assure safe operation.” This
enforcement tool is often used by the Agency to require an operator to correct issues in its
written procedures that might not rise to the level of a regulatory violation.
5 Notice at 2.
6 ONEOK Post-hearing Merits Brief at 53 (Mar. 14, 2014).
7 ONEOK Post-hearing Merits Brief at 54.
8 OPS Violation Report, Exhibit H.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 4
When an operator’s procedures fail to comply with a regulatory requirement, however, it is more
appropriate to issue a notice of probable violation pursuant to § 190.207. In the present case, the
Notice alleged that Respondent “failed to prepare all written procedures . . . to meet the
requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.” Since the allegation is that Respondent failed to comply
with a regulation, issuance of a notice of probable violation in this case was appropriate.
For the above reasons, having reviewed the record, I find Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by
failing to have written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities
and for handling abnormal operations and emergencies.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), quoted above, by
failing to perform a documented review of its manual of written procedures at intervals not to
exceed 15 months, but at least once each calendar year for 2008, 2009 or 2010.
Respondent contested the alleged violation only on jurisdictional grounds. Having already
rejected those arguments, I find the record demonstrates Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by
failing to perform a documented review of its manual of written procedures at the requisite
intervals.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(1) and (3), which
states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its
pipeline systems that include at least the following information:
(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities . . .
(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;
(iv) Pipeline valves;
(v) Facilities to which § 195.402(c)(9) applies . . .
(vii) Safety devices to which § 195.428 applies . . .
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.404(a)(1) and (3) by failing to maintain
current maps and records of its pipeline systems at the Bushton facility. The Notice referenced
evidence of ONEOK’s Siemens Analysis Pressure Relief System Discussion List, which allegedly
described 45 records that were not current. OPS also alleged piping and instrumentation
diagrams (P&ID) did not match the actual facility. Finally, OPS alleged that Respondent failed
to have any documentation validating maximum operating pressure (MOP) of certain piping
including incoming and outgoing manifolds with interconnecting piping and storage field piping.
Respondent contested the alleged violation on two grounds, first arguing there were not 45
incorrect or missing records, but at most 5 records issues. Second, Respondent produced MOP
records and asserted that OPS never requested such records during the inspection.
With regard to the 45 alleged instances of violations, Respondent argued there were actually only
eight separate P&IDs that contained issues, and three of those P&IDs related exclusively to



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 5
fractionation or truck facilities that are not regulated.9 In the Agency’s post-hearing
recommendation, the Regional Director did not object to Respondent’s contention. I find the
record supports Respondent’s argument that only five P&IDs were inaccurate and noncompliant
with § 195.404(a)(1).
Second, Respondent argued that MOP records were available but were never requested by OPS
at the time of the inspection. The Regional Director did not object to Respondent’s contention
that the submitted records demonstrate compliance with § 195.404(a)(3). Accordingly, I am
withdrawing the violation with respect to MOP records.
In conclusion, I find Respondent violated § 195.404(a)(1) by failing to have accurate records
with respect to five P&IDs. The remaining alleged violations of § 195.404(a)(1) and (3) are
withdrawn.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a) . . . .
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine
that it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.420(b) by failing to perform documented
inspections of 124 mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least twice
during the 2008 calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ONEOK did not perform and
document inspections prior to July 15, 2008, and did not perform and document a second round
of inspections prior to December 31, 2008. The Notice alleged that a total of 248 valve
inspections were missed during this period. OPS produced a “DOT Valve” list from ONEOK
that documented valve inspections in 2009, but not 2008.
Respondent argued the regulation does not apply to the valves in question because they are not
“mainline valves.” Respondent noted that mainline valves are required to be located at certain
places on a pipeline pursuant to § 195.260, but none of the valves at issue in this item are located
in any of those places. Rather all of the valves are on Respondent’s access-controlled facility.
Moreover, Respondent noted that prior enforcement decisions by the Agency have found
mainline valves are those integral to safe operation of the pipeline system, such as those used to
isolate a pump station,10 or used for station isolation, segment isolation and water crossings.11 In
contrast, Respondent argued the valves at issue here are “not used in the least to protect any
pipeline.”12
9 At the hearing, OPS acknowledged the regulations do not currently apply to fractionation equipment or
facilities used for non-pipeline modes of transportation.
10 Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., CPF No. 55501, 2000 WL 35501193, at *5 (Nov. 30, 2000).
11 Cenex Harvest State Coop., CPF No. 5-2001-5003, 2003 WL 25429837, at *3 (Feb. 10, 2003).
12 ONEOK Post-hearing Merits Brief at 79.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 6
The list of valves in evidence does not identify them as mainline valves, but only as “DOT
valve[s].” Labeling them as DOT valves may imply the valves are subject to the requirements in
§ 195.420(a) and (c), applicable to all valves, but does not necessarily prove the valves are
mainline valves subject to the additional requirements in § 195.420(b).13 Respondent, on the
other hand, produced evidence that the valves are not mainline valves due to their location and
function at the facility.
Given the weight of evidence suggesting the valves in question are not mainline valves subject to
the requirements set forth in § 195.420(b), I find OPS has failed to prove the alleged violation.
Accordingly, this alleged violation is withdrawn.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection
systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year . . . inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve,
pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to
determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition,
and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation
for the service in which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and perform
documented capacity testing of 80 relief valves at least twice each year during calendar years
2008, 2009 and 2010. In total, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to conduct and
document 147 inspections during the period.
Respondent argued the alleged violation should be withdrawn because “it is not possible to
ascertain with any precision the evidence upon which OPS relied.”14 I reject this argument
because Exhibit K of the Violation Report contains approximately 55 pages of ONEOK records,
including ONEOK’s Thorco PSV listing with devices that require inspection twice each calendar
year, and ONEOK’s relief valve inspection documents. OPS also included a spreadsheet
prepared by OPS to summarize ONEOK’s relief valve maintenance activities.
Respondent further argued that 103 of the 147 alleged instances of the violation should be
withdrawn for the following reasons: 50 alleged instances from calendar year 2010 should be
withdrawn because the valves had been permanently removed from service; 49 alleged instances
should be withdrawn because the valves are not used in transporting hazardous liquids; and 4
13 See, e.g., NuStar Logistics, L.P., CPF No. 4-2005-5048, Item 5(3), 2009 WL 1211363, at *6 (Mar. 11,
2009) (withdrawing a number of valves from the alleged violation of § 195.420(b) because the operator
had included “all valves” on the list and not just mainline valves).
14 ONEOK Post-hearing Merits Brief at 90.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 7
alleged instances should be withdrawn because ONEOK performed documented tests as required
under § 195.428(a).
In the Agency’s post-hearing recommendation, the Regional Director did not object to
Respondent’s contention. I find the record supports Respondent’s argument that 103 alleged
instances should be withdrawn and that no more than 44 alleged violations occurred.
Having reviewed the record, I find Respondent violated § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and
perform documented capacity testing on relief valves 44 times during the calendar years of 2008
and 2009. The remaining 103 alleged instances of violation are withdrawn.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583, which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is
exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as
follows:
If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but
with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Offshore At least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months.
(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at
soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings,
at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over
water.
(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must
provide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.583 by failing to conduct adequate
inspections for atmospheric corrosion on pipeline exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that Respondent failed to give particular attention to a pipe under thermal
insulation at the Buckeye Water Knockout. During the OPS inspection, inspectors found the
pipe had severe atmospheric corrosion. OPS produced photos of the severely corroded pipe.
Respondent contested the alleged violation only on grounds of jurisdiction and fair notice.
Those arguments have already been rejected. Respondent did not otherwise contest the
allegation of violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record, I find Respondent violated
§ 195.583 by failing to inspect for atmospheric corrosion on pipeline exposed to the atmosphere.
The findings of violation in this Final Order will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent
enforcement action taken against Respondent.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 8
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations.15 The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $230,800 for the
violations cited above in Items 1 through 6.
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on Respondent’s ability to
continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the
pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the
violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice
may require.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a). Respondent failed to prepare written procedures required for conducting normal
operations and maintenance activities and for handling abnormal operations and emergencies at
the Bushton facility in accordance with at least 24 separate subparagraphs of § 195.402(a).
The proposed penalty was based on assertions in the Notice and Violation Report relevant to the
penalty assessment criteria in § 190.225. With regard to the nature of the violation, the
Violation Report noted the violation concerned a failure to have procedures, which is more
serious than a records violation, but less serious than a failure of equipment or a facility. With
regard to circumstances, the Violation Report noted the violation was discovered by PHMSA
rather than being self-reported by the Operator and that the violation started January 1, 2008.
Respondent argued any consideration of the timeframe from January 1–May 12, 2008 would
violate the five-year statute of limitations. Disregarding that period of time has no impact on the
amount of the civil penalty.
With regard to gravity, the Violation Report suggested that pipeline integrity or safe operation
was significantly compromised in an area other than a high consequence area (HCA). This
selection is less serious than a violation that compromised safety in an HCA or that caused an
accident, but more serious than a violation that minimally affected safety. Respondent argued
this selection is unsupported by the record.
Respondent’s argument is rejected because the record supports finding that ONEOK’s failure to
have written procedures for the safe transportation of hazardous materials constitutes a
significant safety risk, particularly when the procedures fail to meet at least 24 separate safety
15 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a),
125 Stat. 1905 (Jan. 3, 2012) increased the maximum civil penalty for a violation of the pipeline safety
standards to $200,000 per violation for each day, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of
violations. These amounts are periodically adjusted for inflation. Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 81 Fed. Reg. 42564 (Jun. 30, 2016).



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 9
requirements. Respondent also argued it was improper for the Violation Report to mention that
an accident occurred. I find that reference to an accident does not impact the amount of the civil
penalty.
With regard to the degree of Respondent’s culpability, the Violation Report suggested a credit
because Respondent was cognizant of the regulatory requirement and took some steps to have
written procedures. Respondent argued the penalty should be further reduced due to the
jurisdictional uncertainty surrounding the Bushton facility. Respondent’s jurisdictional
uncertainty argument is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously.
With regard to the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply, the Violation Report
suggested no credit. Respondent argued that it demonstrated good faith by asking PHMSA for
clarification of its jurisdiction on several occasions, even though the Agency has not clearly
articulated an answer. This argument is rejected for the same reasons previously discussed with
respect to jurisdiction.
With regard to the history of Respondent’s prior offenses, the Violation Report noted a total of
two prior offenses in the five-year period prior to issuance of the Notice.
I find the proposed penalty amount is appropriate under the assessment factors. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, PHMSA assesses a civil
penalty of $40,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a). Respondent failed to perform a documented review of its procedures at requisite
intervals.
The proposed penalty was based on assertions in the Notice and Violation Report relevant to the
penalty assessment criteria in § 190.225. With regard to nature and circumstances, OPS noted in
the Violation Report that this violation concerned a failure to have records, which is the least
serious nature of violation. It was also discovered by PHMSA. With regard to gravity, OPS
noted that safe operation was potentially compromised in a non-HCA area and the violation
occurred for three annual review cycles. With regard to culpability and good faith, the Violation
Report suggested no credit under these factors.
With respect the penalty for Item 2, Respondent submitted many of the same arguments that I
rejected in Item 1. I find the proposed penalty amount is appropriate under the required
assessment factors. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, PHMSA assesses a civil penalty of $23,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $8,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.404(a)(1) and (3). Respondent failed to have accurate records for five P&IDs in violation
of § 195.404(a)(1), but the remaining alleged violations of § 195.404(a)(1) and (3) were
withdrawn.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 10
With regard to nature and circumstances, OPS noted in the Violation Report this violation
concerned a failure to have accurate records and was discovered by ONEOK. With regard to
gravity, OPS noted that pipeline integrity or safe operation was minimally affected and there
were 45 alleged instances of the violation. Because I found only 5 instances of violation, the
penalty must be reduced.
With regard to culpability and good faith, the Violation Report suggested a credit under both
factors because Respondent had the records but they were not current. Respondent argued the
penalty should be further reduced because the time period of the violation stated in the Violation
Report was unsupported and there was an improper reference to overpressure violations. I find
these assertions do not impact the amount of the civil penalty. Respondent also submitted other
arguments that have already been rejected.
The proposed penalty amount must be reduced because there were only 5 instances of the
violation, not 45. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, PHMSA assesses a civil penalty of $4,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.404(a)(1).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $61,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.420(b). Since this alleged violation is withdrawn, a civil penalty is not assessed.
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $66,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.428(a). Respondent failed to inspect and perform documented capacity testing on relief
valves 44 times during the calendar years of 2008 and 2009. The remaining 103 alleged
instances of violation were withdrawn.
With regard to nature and circumstances, OPS noted in the Violation Report this violation
concerned a failure to perform inspections and the violation was discovered by PHMSA. With
regard to gravity, OPS noted that safe operation was significantly compromised in a non-HCA
area and there were 147 alleged instances of the violation. Because I found only 44 instances of
the violation, the penalty must be reduced. With regard to culpability and good faith, the
Violation Report did not suggest a credit under either factor.
With respect to the civil penalty for Item 5, Respondent submitted the same arguments that I
have already rejected in the Items above. The proposed penalty amount must is reduced to
reflect that only 44 instances of the violation occurred. Accordingly, having reviewed the record
and considered the assessment criteria, PHMSA assesses a reduced civil penalty of $60,000 for
Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).16
16 When a civil penalty is assessed for more than one instance of a violation (e.g., 44 valves with missed
inspections), each additional instance beyond the first typically elevates the total penalty by less than the
amount assessed for the first instance, with each additional instance representing a smaller increase in
proportion to the total. See, e.g., Plains Pipeline, L.P., CPF No. 4-2013-5007, n.61, 2015 WL 4397455, at
*17 (May 22, 2015) (explaining each additional tank out of compliance elevated the civil penalty by less
than the amount assessed for the first tank out of compliance).



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 11
Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.583. Respondent failed to inspect a pipeline for atmospheric corrosion.
With regard to nature and circumstances, OPS noted in the Violation Report this violation
concerned a failure to perform an inspection and was discovered by PHMSA. With regard to
gravity, OPS noted that safe operation was significantly compromised in a non-HCA area. With
regard to culpability and good faith, the Violation Report did not suggest a reduction under either
factor.
With respect to the civil penalty for Item 6, Respondent submitted the same arguments that I
have already rejected in the Items above. I find the proposed penalty amount is appropriate
under the required assessment factors. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered
the assessment criteria, PHMSA assesses a civil penalty of $31,200 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.583.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $159,200.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require the payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire) to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S Macarthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $159,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest 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%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violations cited above in Item 1 and
Item 3. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of
hazardous liquids by pipeline or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply
with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.
Item 1. Respondent submitted several arguments for withdrawing the proposed compliance
order for Item 1. First, Respondent argued that the terms of the proposed compliance order
exceed the authority of the Agency. In particular, Respondent argued the cited regulation that
was violated, § 195.402(a), concerns only procedures, but the proposed compliance order



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 12
requires extensive activities and testing related to MOP, communication systems, and other
areas.
Section 60118(b) of title 49, United States Code, authorizes PHMSA to “issue orders directing
compliance with . . . a regulation prescribed under this chapter.” Pursuant to that authority, 49
C.F.R. § 190.217 states that a Regional Director may issue a notice of probable violation to
determine the extent of any violations “and for the issuance of an order directing compliance.”
PHMSA has determined that ONEOK violated § 195.402(a). This regulation requires
Respondent to have written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. The regulation also requires
Respondent to follow those procedures. PHMSA therefore has the authority to order compliance
with § 195.402(a) by requiring actions on the part of ONEOK to demonstrate not only that it has
the mandated written procedures for its Bushton facility, but also that it has implemented and is
following those procedures. Respondent’s argument that the compliance order must be limited
only to the amendment of procedures is rejected.
Respondent is correct, however, that OPS has not established a sufficient basis in the Notice for
some of the corrective actions proposed in Item 1. For example, the Notice did not allege any
violations with regard to Part 199 drug and alcohol testing regulations, yet OPS proposed actions
to comply with Part 199. OPS also proposed certain testing and other activities that were not
included in the allegation of violation. Accordingly, I am revising the compliance order to
follow the text of the regulation more closely, while still ordering that Respondent complete
those actions necessary to comply with § 195.402.
Second, Respondent argued the proposed compliance order is vague and ambiguous in that it
fails to identify the components of the Bushton facility subject to Part 195. Respondent’s
argument is rejected because as the operator of the pipeline system, ONEOK is in the best
position to prepare a Part 195 Analysis that identifies all pipeline and storage facilities and all
other operations at the Bushton facility that are required to be covered by a manual of written
procedures under § 195.402. Respondent must submit its Part 195 Analysis to the Director for
review and prior approval. Given the differences among unique pipeline systems, it is not
unusual for PHMSA to order a respondent to develop a plan for coming into compliance.17
Third, Respondent argued many of the dates in the proposed compliance order have passed.
Respondent is correct. The dates are therefore revised to run from the date of issuance of this
order.
Fourth, Respondent argued OPS has not explained why a proposed compliance order is
warranted. Respondent’s argument is rejected. The record supports finding that the risks posed
by the transportation of hazardous liquids without written procedures that comply with the
established minimum safety standards warrants ordering Respondent to come into compliance.
17 See, e.g., Florida Gas Transmission Co., CPF No. 4-2013-1019, at 11, 2015 WL 9943167, at *8
(Dec. 14, 2015) (ordering an operator to identify actions that must be taken to ensure future compliance
and to create a schedule for completing those actions within six months).



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 13
A compliance order is also necessary in light of the fact that ONEOK has previously made
assurances to OPS that it would take certain steps to comply with the pipeline safety regulations
and then failed to do so.
Finally, Respondent objected to ONEOK NGL Pipeline being named in the proposed compliance
order. This argument is rejected because Respondent has previously stated the named parties
own and operate various parts of the Bushton facility. In conclusion, the compliance terms for
Item 1 are included in this Order, subject to the revisions discussed above.
Item 3. Respondent argued the terms of the proposed compliance order for Item 3 exceed the
authority of the Agency because they go beyond § 195.404 recordkeeping requirements to order
physical testing to validate records.
Section 195.404 requires an operator to maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems. These maps and records must be accurate. The Agency is within its authority to
require that Respondent produce documents to support the accuracy of its records. I agree,
however, that OPS has not established a basis in this proceeding to require additional testing
provided there are other ways Respondent can validate the accuracy of its records. The proposed
compliance order is revised to follow the text of the regulation more closely and to ensure
compliance with § 195.404, while removing the reference to MOP records that was withdrawn
from the alleged violation.
Second, Respondent argued OPS has not explained why a proposed compliance order is
warranted. Respondent’s argument is rejected for the same reasons outlined above in Item 1.
Finally, Respondent argued the proposed compliance order is vague and ambiguous in that it
fails to identify the components of the Bushton facility subject to Part 195. This argument is also
rejected for the same reasons outlined above.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 1), ONEOK must develop and submit to
the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director) for approval an Analysis, Plan, Schedule, and
Procedures that comply with this Paragraph and that ensure the pipeline and storage facilities
located on the grounds of the Bushton facility are operated and maintained in accordance
with written procedures that comply with § 195.402(a). ONEOK must perform the
following:
(a) Not later than 60 days from issuance of this Compliance Order, ONEOK must prepare
and submit to the Director for prior approval a Part 195 Analysis that identifies all
pipeline and storage facilities and all other operations at the Bushton facility required to
be covered by a manual of written procedures under § 195.402.
(b) Not later than 90 days from issuance of this Compliance Order, ONEOK must prepare
and submit to the Director for prior approval a manual of written Procedures that



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 14
complies with § 195.402 and a Plan and Schedule for taking all actions necessary to
ensure the pipelines, storage facilities, and operations at the Bushton facility are governed
by the Procedures.
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. At a minimum, the manual of written Procedures
prepared under this Item must include procedures for the following to provide safety
during maintenance and normal operations:
(1) Making construction records, maps, and operating history available as necessary for
safe operation and maintenance.
(2) Gathering of data needed for reporting accidents under 49 C.F.R. Part 195, subpart B
in a timely and effective manner.
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each of
the requirements of Part 195, subparts F and H.
(4) Determining which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an
immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities
failed or malfunctioned.
(5) Analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes.
(6) Minimizing the potential for hazards identified under paragraph (c)(4) of this section
and the possibility of recurrence of accidents analyzed under paragraph (c)(5) of this
section.
(7) Starting up and shutting down any part of the pipeline system in a manner designed to
assure operation within the limits prescribed by § 195.406, consider the hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide in transportation, variations in altitude along the pipeline,
and pressure monitoring and control devices.
(8) In the case of a pipeline that is not equipped to fail safe, monitoring from an attended
location pipeline pressure during startup until steady state pressure and flow
conditions are reached and during shut-in to assure operation within limits prescribed
by § 195.406.
(9) In the case of facilities not equipped to fail safe that are identified under
§ 195.402(c)(4) or that control receipt and delivery of the hazardous liquid or carbon
dioxide, detecting abnormal operating conditions by monitoring pressure,
temperature, flow or other appropriate operational data and transmitting this data to
an attended location.
(10) Abandoning pipeline facilities, including safe disconnection from an operating
pipeline system, purging of combustibles, and sealing abandoned facilities left in
place to minimize safety and environmental hazards. For each abandoned offshore



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 15
pipeline facility or each abandoned onshore pipeline facility that crosses over, under
or through commercially navigable waterways the last operator of that facility must
file a report upon abandonment of that facility in accordance with § 195.59 of this
part.
(11) Minimizing the likelihood of accidental ignition of vapors in areas near facilities
identified under paragraph (c)(4) where the potential exists for the presence of
flammable liquids or gases.
(12) Establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate public
officials to learn the responsibility and resources of each government organization
that may respond to a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline emergency and
acquaint the officials with the operator's ability in responding to a hazardous liquid
or carbon dioxide pipeline emergency and means of communication.
(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and
taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.
(14) Taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect personnel from the
hazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and making available when
needed at the excavation, emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing
apparatus and, a rescue harness and line.
(15) Implementing the applicable control room management procedures required by
§ 195.446.
(d) Abnormal operation. The manual must also include Procedures for the following to
provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded:
(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of:
(i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns;
(ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal operating limits;
(iii) Loss of communications;
(iv) Operation of any safety device;
(v) Any other malfunction of a component, deviation from normal operation, or
personnel error which could cause a hazard to persons or property.
(2) Checking variations from normal operation after abnormal operation has ended at
sufficient critical locations in the system to determine continued integrity and safe
operation.
(3) Correcting variations from normal operation of pressure and flow equipment and
controls.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 16
(4) Notifying responsible operator personnel when notice of an abnormal operation is
received.
(5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking corrective
action where deficiencies are found.
(e) Emergencies. The manual must include Procedures for the following to provide safety
when an emergency condition occurs:
(1) Receiving, identifying, and classifying notices of events which need immediate
response by the operator or notice to fire, police, or other appropriate public officials
and communicating this information to appropriate operator personnel for corrective
action.
(2) Prompt and effective response to a notice of each type emergency, including fire or
explosion occurring near or directly involving a pipeline facility, accidental release of
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide from a pipeline facility, operational failure
causing a hazardous condition, and natural disaster affecting pipeline facilities.
(3) Having personnel, equipment, instruments, tools, and material available as needed at
the scene of an emergency.
(4) Taking necessary action, such as emergency shutdown or pressure reduction, to
minimize the volume of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that is released from any
section of a pipeline system in the event of a failure.
(5) Control of released hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide at an accident scene to
minimize the hazards, including possible intentional ignition in the cases of
flammable highly volatile liquid.
(6) Minimization of public exposure to injury and probability of accidental ignition by
assisting with evacuation of residents and assisting with halting traffic on roads and
railroads in the affected area, or taking other appropriate action.
(7) Notifying fire, police, and other appropriate public officials of hazardous liquid or
carbon dioxide pipeline emergencies and coordinating with them preplanned and
actual responses during an emergency, including additional precautions necessary for
an emergency involving a pipeline system transporting a highly volatile liquid.
(8) In the case of failure of a pipeline system transporting a highly volatile liquid, use of
appropriate instruments to assess the extent and coverage of the vapor cloud and
determine the hazardous areas.



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 17
2. 3. 4. 5. (9) Providing for a post-accident review of employee activities to determine whether the
procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where
deficiencies are found.
(10) Actions required to be taken by a controller during an emergency, in accordance
with §195.446.
(f) Safety-related condition reports. The manual must include Procedures and instructions
enabling personnel who perform operation and maintenance activities to recognize
conditions that potentially may be safety-related conditions that are subject to the
reporting requirements of § 195.55.
With respect to ONEOK’s submissions to satisfy this Compliance Order, the Director may:
(a) approve, in whole or in part, the submission; (b) approve the submission on specified
conditions; (c) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission, or (d) any combination of the
foregoing. In the event the Director disapproves all or any portion of a submission, ONEOK
must correct the deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit it for
approval. Upon approval by the Director, ONEOK must implement the submission as
approved.
ONEOK must submit documentation that demonstrates: the Plan has been completed
according to the Schedule approved by the Director; the Procedures approved by the Director
are being followed at the Bushton facility; and Paragraph 1 of this Compliance Order has
been satisfied in full no later than 30 days after completion of the Plan.
With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a)(1) (Item 3), ONEOK must submit maps and
records of its pipeline systems that include, at a minimum, the location and identification of
the following pipeline facilities: scraper and sphere facilities; pipeline valves; facilities to
which § 195.402(c)(9) applies; and safety devices to which § 195.428 applies. All pipe,
valves, fittings, and components must be identified and accompanied by supporting
documentation to demonstrate accuracy. ONEOK must also submit its procedures for
documenting changes made to the system and for reflecting those changes in the records,
drawings, maps, and other records of the Bushton facility. This information must be
submitted to the Director no later than 30 days from issuance of this Compliance Order.
It is requested that ONEOK maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. 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.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed the amounts set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 (currently $205,638 for each violation for



CPF No. 3-2013-5015
Page 18
each day the violation continues) or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590, no later than 20 days after receipt of the
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
____________________________ ____________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320135015_Region Closure Letter-Consent Agreement Termination_05192026_(08-121917S)_text.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
1100 Main Street, Suite 800
Kansas City, MO 64105
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: randy.lentz@oneok.com
May 19, 2026
Randy Lentz
EVP, Chief Operating Officer
ONEOK
100 West 5th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
RE: CPF Nos. 3-2013-5014, 3-2013-5015, and 3-2013-5020
Dear Mr. Lentz:
On October 23, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement entered into between
PHMSA and ONEOK in the above-referenced cases.
The Consent Agreement included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessments. Based on
our review of the documentation provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has
been determined that ONEOK has complied with the terms of the Consent Agreement and Order.
No outstanding or ongoing obligations remain under the Consent Agreement and Order.
Accordingly, these cases are now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in these cases. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
AJ McKean
Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Charles Misak, Director - Integrated Operations Services, ONEOK, charles.misak@oneok.com
Scott D. Schingen, SVP Operations and Engineering, ONEOK, scott.schingen@oneok.com

320135015_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
VIA FACSIMILE and UPS NEXT DAY AIR
May 13, 2013
Mr. Wes Christensen
Senior Vice President of Operations
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P.
ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C.
ONEOK Underground Storage Company, L.L.C.
100 West Fifth Street
Tulsa, OK 74102
CPF 3-2013-5015
Dear Mr. Christensen:
Between May 2008 and April 2011, representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States
Code, conducted an ongoing compliance review following its investigation of repeated
overpressure events that occurred on May 17, 2008 at ONEOK’s natural gas liquids (NGLs)
facility in Bushton, Kansas (the Bushton facility). Initial site investigations were conducted
on May 22, 2008 and May 23, 2008. Site investigation activities were also conducted the
week of April 11, 2011. ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P., ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C., and
ONEOK Underground Storage Company, L.L.C. are subsidiaries of ONEOK Partners, L.P.
The Bushton facility includes, among other types of pipeline facilities, storage fields used to
store liquid hydrocarbons, a dedicated control room, piping manifold systems, and a
fractionation plant that separates Y-grade NGLs into purity products such as liquid propane,
butane, ethane-propane mix, and natural gasoline. The products received from the incoming
pipelines include both Y-grade NGL mix and purity products. The incoming purity products



are either sent to storage wells or are sent on to other outgoing pipelines. The incoming Y-
grade NGL mix is sent either to the fractionation plant for processing, to the storage wells for
storage, or are sent on to outgoing pipelines through pipeline manifolds. NGLs can be moved
directly through the Bushton facility in continued transportation by pipeline.
During the period from May 2008 and April 2011, PHMSA and ONEOK had additional
communications and correspondence involving engineering modeling and evaluation of the
circumstances and contributing factors involved in the accident and the overall level of safety
and compliance. ONEOK provided procedures, drawings, studies and maintenance records
requested by PHMSA. Additionally, ONEOK provided new information to PHMSA in 2011
during a site visit PHMSA reviewed some of these procedures with personnel. ONEOK had
replaced two dehydration units with filters and coalescers, installed an accumulator tank
monitor with alarm to the newer control room, connected the flare drain system to the plant
flare from the storage flare, and the Buckeye Water Knock Out was changed to a manual drain
which was locked out of service.
As a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The probable violations
are:
1. § 195.402 Procedure manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall
be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is
effective.
ONEOK failed to prepare all written procedures necessary for conducting normal
operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies for its system to meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. ONEOK
submitted a manual of written procedures to PHMSA on April 8, 2011. These
procedures appeared to have been prepared for purposes of Process Safety
Management and worker safety, not Part 195 compliance. Following a Request for
Specific Information dated June 23, 2011, and a follow-up email, ONEOK repeated its
prior statement that these were the procedures in effect at the time of the 2011
inspection.
PHMSA’s review of the procedures provided to PHMSA in 2011 finds that they failed
to include provisions to provide safety in conducting normal operations and
maintenance as required by Part 195 in the following areas:
2



(1) Making construction records, maps, and operating history available as necessary
for safe operation and maintenance. [see § 195.402(c)(1)]
(2) Gathering of data needed for reporting accidents under Subpart B of this part in a
timely and effective manner. [see § 195.402(c)(2)]
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part. [see § 195.402(c)(3)]
(4) Determining which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an
immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities
failed or malfunctioned. [see § 195.402(c)(4)]
(5) Analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes. [see § 195.402(c)(5)]
(6) Minimizing the potential for hazards identified under paragraph (c)(4) of this
section and the possibility of recurrence of accidents analyzed under paragraph (c)(5)
of this section. [also see § 195.402(c)(6)]
(7) Starting up and shutting down any part of the pipeline in a manner designed to
assure operation within the limits prescribed by paragraph §195.406, consider the
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in transportation, variations in altitude along the
pipeline, and pressure monitoring and control devices. [also see § 195.402(c)(7)]
(8) In the case of pipeline that is not equipped to fail safe, monitoring from an
attended location pipeline pressure during startup until steady state pressure and flow
conditions are reached and during shut-in to assure operation within limits prescribed
by §195.406. [also see § 195.402(c)(8)]
(9) In the case of facilities not equipped to fail safe that are identified under
§195.402(c)(4) or that control receipt and delivery of the hazardous liquid or carbon
dioxide, detecting abnormal operating conditions by monitoring pressure, temperature,
flow or other appropriate operational data and transmitting this data to an attended
location. [also see § 195.402(c)(9)]
(10) Abandoning pipeline facilities, including safe disconnection from an operating
pipeline system, purging of combustibles, and sealing abandoned facilities left in place
to minimize safety and environmental hazards. For each abandoned offshore pipeline
facility or each abandoned onshore pipeline facility that crosses over, under or through
commercially navigable waterways the last operator of that facility must file a report
upon abandonment of that facility in accordance with §195.59 of this part. [also see §
195.402(c)(10)]
(11) Minimizing the likelihood of accidental ignition of vapors in areas near facilities
identified under paragraph (c)(4) of this section where the potential exists for the
presence of flammable liquids or gases. [also see § 195.402(c)(11)]
3



(12) Establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate
public officials to learn the responsibility and resources of each government
organization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or pipeline emergency and
acquaint the officials with the operator's ability in responding to a hazardous liquid or
carbon dioxide pipeline emergency and means of communication. [see §
195.402(c)(12)]
(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator to determine the effectiveness
of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective
action where deficiencies are found. [see § 195.402(c)(13)]
(14) Taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect personnel from the
hazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and making available when needed at
the excavation, emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing apparatus and, a
rescue harness and line. [see § 195.402(c)(14)]
A review of the procedures provided to PHMSA in 2011 finds them inadequate to
provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded regarding the
following:
(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of;
(i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns;
(ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal operating limits;
(iii) Loss of communications;
(iv) Operation of any safety device;
(v) Any other malfunction of a component, deviation from normal operation, or
personnel error which could cause a hazard to persons or property.
(2) Checking variations from normal operation after abnormal operation has ended at
sufficient critical locations in the system to determine continued integrity and safe
operation.
(3) Correcting variations from normal operation of pressure and flow equipment and
controls.
(4) Notifying responsible operator personnel when notice of an abnormal operation is
received.
(5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking corrective
action where deficiencies are found.
4



2. A review of the procedures provided to PHMSA in 2011 finds that they failed to
include provisions to provide safety during abnormal operations and emergencies in
the following areas:
(1) Receiving, identifying, and classifying notices of events which need immediate
response by the operator or notice to fire, police, or other appropriate public officials
and communicating this information to appropriate operator personnel for corrective
action. [see § 195.402(e)(1)]
(2) Prompt and effective response to a notice of each type emergency, including fire
or explosion occurring near or directly involving a pipeline facility, accidental release
of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide from a pipeline facility, operational failure
causing a hazardous condition, and natural disaster affecting pipeline facilities. [see §
195.402(e)(2)]
(3) Having personnel, equipment, instruments, tools, and material available as needed
at the scene of an emergency. [see § 195.402(e)(3)]
(4) Taking necessary action, such as emergency shutdown or pressure reduction, to
minimize the volume of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that is released from any
section of a pipeline in the event of a failure. [see § 195.402(e)(4)]
(5) Control of released hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide at an accident scene to
minimize the hazards, including possible intentional ignition in the cases of flammable
highly volatile liquid. [see § 195.402(e)(5)]
(6) Minimization of public exposure to injury and probability of accidental ignition by
assisting with evacuation of residents and assisting with halting traffic on roads and
railroads in the affected area, or taking other appropriate action. [see § 195.402(e)(6)]
(7) Notifying fire, police, and other appropriate public officials of hazardous liquid or
carbon dioxide pipeline emergencies and coordinating with them preplanned and
actual responses during an emergency, including additional precautions necessary for
an emergency involving a pipeline transporting a highly volatile liquid. [see §
195.402(e)(7)]
(8) In the case of failure of a pipeline transporting a highly volatile liquid, use of
appropriate instruments to assess the extent and coverage of the vapor cloud and
determine the hazardous areas. [see § 195.402(e)(8)]
(9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether
the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where
deficiencies are found. [see § 195.402(e)(9)]
§ 195.402 Procedure manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
5



(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall
be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is
effective.
ONEOK did not perform a documented review of the manual of written procedures at
intervals not to exceed 15 months, but at least once each calendar year for the years of
2008, 2009 or 2010.
3. §195.404 Maps and Records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems that include at least the following information;
(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities;
(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;
(iv) Pipeline valves;
(v) Facilities to which §195.402(c)(9) applies;
(vii) Safety devices to which §195.428 applies.
(2)…
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
ONEOK failed to maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems at the
Bushton facility. ONEOK’s Siemens Analysis Pressure Relief System Discussion List
describes 45 records that were not current. The piping and instrumentation diagrams
(P&ID) reviewed by PHMSA in 2011 were also found to not match the actual facility
devices.1 ONEOK also failed to maintain documentation validating the maximum
operating pressure of certain facility piping including incoming and outgoing
manifolds with interconnecting piping and storage field piping.
4. § 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least twice
each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning
properly.
ONEOK failed to perform documented inspections on 124 mainline valves at intervals
not to exceed 7 1/2 months but at least twice for the calendar years of 2008. ONEOK
1 Violation Report Exhibit I containing Siemens Review and Pressure Relief and Discussion.
6



5. did not perform and document the first round of inspections by July 15, 2008 and the
second round of inspections by December 31, 2008. A total of 248 valve inspections
were not performed and documented in this period.2
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the
case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7
½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure
limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control
equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical
condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which it is used.
ONEOK failed to inspect, perform and document capacity testing on 80 relief valves at
least twice each year from the calendar years of 2008, 2009 and 2010 to determine that
they were functioning properly and to confirm the relief valve adequacy from the
standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which they were
used. A total of 147 inspections were not conducted and documented during this
period.3
6. §195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the
atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore………………… At least once every 3 calendar years, but with
intervals not exceeding 39 months
At least once each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 15 months
(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air
interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports,
in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.
(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must provide
protection against the corrosion as required by Sec. 195.581.
ONEOK failed to conduct an adequate inspection for atmospheric corrosion on its
pipeline exposed to the atmosphere at the Buckeye Water Knockout at the Bushton
2 Violation Report Exhibit J ONEOK DOT Valves List
3 Violation Report Exhibit K ONEOK Thorco PSV Listing and PHMSA Spreadsheet Pressure and Control
Maintenance, ONEOK Relief Valve Inspection Documents for 2008, 2009, 2010
7
Offshore………………...



Facility that gave particular attention to pipe under thermal insulation. During its
April 12, 2011 inspection PHMSA found the Buckeye Water Knockout to have severe
atmospheric corrosion which was confirmed by ONEOK's Senior Corrosion
Technician. The piping was covered with insulation which when removed the
technician found the following.
On April 15, 2011, I inspected 4" and 1" drop out piping on SFT B-91 Tank at Bushton Storage facilities.
The 1" pipe was horizontal above ground and laying on a concrete support. The measured wt. was
187" - 191". The vertical 4" riser, measured wt. of 195" - 197" and was coated with x-tru plastic
coating. Moisture was found under the disbonded coating as well as corroded pipe. The transition area
as well as just above this area showed the most severe corrosion.
I did not continue the inspection, due to the substantial amount of heavy scale and rust on the pipe.
This line is attached to a flare line. Further inspection can be completed if the line could be isolated or
taken out of service.
The technician's photos showed the severe corrosion as described and graded per an
attachment titled Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection Guideline. 4
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000
for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the
maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty
not to exceed $1,000,000 for a 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
$230,800 as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
1
$40,400
2
$23,100
3
$ 8,700
4
$61,200
5
$66,200
6
$31,200
4 Violation Report Exhibit L Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection, Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection Guideline
and PHMSA Photo.
8



Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1 and 3, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to ONEOK
NGL Pipeline, L.P. 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 3-2013-5015 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
David Barrett
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
9



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P. (ONEOK) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the
compliance of ONEOK with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice, ONEOK must develop and submit to the Director,
Central Region, PHMSA, (Director) a plan and schedule to ensure the pipeline and storage
facilities located on the grounds of the Bushton facility that are covered by 49 C.F.R. Part
195 are operated and maintained in compliance with Parts 195 and 199. The plan and
schedule must include, among other things, the following:
(a) No later than July 1, 2013, prepare and submit to the Director, a Part 195 gap analysis
that identifies all aspects of Bushton facility operations involving pipeline and storage
facilities and operations that require action to bring such facilities and operations into
compliance with Part 195 including, but not limited to, requirements for the preparation of
plans and procedures; inspections, testing, evaluations, and analysis; personnel
qualification and training; and any maintenance and repair work.
(b) No later than August 1, 2013, prepare and submit to the Director for his approval, a
comprehensive written plan and schedule for taking action to bring facilities and
operations into compliance with Part 195 that addresses all of the gaps identified by the
gap analysis (the Plan). At a minimum, the Plan shall provide for the following:
PART 195 SUBPART B – ANNUAL, ACCIDENT, AND SAFETY RELATED
CONDITION REPORTING
1. ONEOK must have and follow procedures to include the ONEOK Bushton
jurisdictional facilities in the 2012 Annual Report required by § 195.49.
2. ONEOK must complete procedures for filing all other reports required by this Subpart
by June 30, 2013.
SUBPART F –OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1. ONEOK must prepare a manual of written procedures in accordance with 195.402 and
submit these procedures to PHMSA by September 30, 2013.
2. ONEOK must establish and implement an Emergency Response training program for
ONEOK Bushton personnel in accordance with 195.403 by September 30, 2013.
3. ONEOK must assemble current maps and records for the Bushton ONEOK facilities in
accordance with 195.404 by September 30, 2013.
10



4. ONEOK must establish Maximum Operating Pressures (MOP) for all portions of the
ONEOK Bushton jurisdictional facilities in accordance with 195.406 by June 30, 2013.
5. ONEOK must confirm to PHMSA that its communication system meets the
requirements of 195.408 by June 30, 2013.
6. ONEOK must prepare a list of valves that are necessary for the safe operation of the
ONEOK Bushton jurisdictional facilities and submit that list to PHMSA by June 30, 2013.
7. ONEOK must prepare a procedure to determine that each of the valves in the list in (6)
above will function properly by August 31, 2013.
8. ONEOK must initiate testing of the valves identified in (6) above in accordance with
195.420 by October 31, 2013 and complete initial testing of these valves by December 31,
2013.
9. ONEOK must confirm compliance of the ONEOK Bushton scraper trap facilities with
195.426 to PHMSA by September 30, 2013.
10. ONEOK must identify all overpressure protection devices that protect ONEOK
Bushton jurisdictional facilities and provide a list of those devices to PHMSA by June 30,
2013.
11. ONEOK must submit testing procedures to PHMSA by August 31, 2013 for all
overpressure protection devices identified in (10) above to insure the devices meet the
requirements of 195.428.
12. ONEOK must confirm that the set pressure of all overpressure protection devices
identified in (10) above has been set to maintain the MOP established in (4) above by
August 31, 2013.
13. ONEOK must commence testing of the overpressure protection devices identified in
(10) above by October 31, 2013 and must complete testing of the devices by December 31,
2013.
14. ONEOK must develop a list of the firefighting equipment available at the ONEOK
Bushton facility and must insure that all equipment is maintained in proper working order
in accordance with 195.430 by June 30, 2013.
15. ONEOK must incorporate the ONEOK Bushton jurisdictional facilities in their Public
Awareness Plan by June 30, 2013.
16. ONEOK must develop a plan to bring the relevant control room(s) into compliance
with PHMSA’s Control Room Management requirements and bring the control room(s)
into compliance with the regulations by October 31, 2013. As an alternative ONEOK may
submit documentation that demonstrates that the control room management rules are not
applicable.
11



2. 3. 4. 17. ONEOK must identify any portions of the Bushton facility that could affect an HCA
by June 30, 2013.
18. ONEOK must incorporate the ONEOK Bushton jurisdictional facilities in their
Integrity Management Program by December 31, 2013.
SUBPART H –CORROSION CONTROL
1. ONEOK must submit a written corrosion control program describing its procedures to
comply with Subpart H to PHMSA by September 30, 2013.
2. ONEOK must identify and evaluate its steel pipelines to be protected against corrosion
by December 31, 2013.
3. ONEOK must complete atmospheric corrosion evaluations by September 30, 2013.
4. ONEOK must inspect all above ground jurisdictional piping and paint piping as
needed by June 30, 2014.
PART 199 - DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING
1. ONEOK must insure compliance with Part 199 Drug and Alcohol Testing by
September 30, 2013.
In regard to Item 3 of the Notice, submit plan and schedule to conduct documented testing
as necessary to validate the maximum operating pressure of the lines as required by 49
CFR Part 195. The records used to validate the MOP must be traceable, reliable, and
complete. The pipe characteristics must be validated by appropriate records or by actual
measurements and destructive testing using coupons taken from the pipeline in various
specified locations. All pipe, valves, fittings, and components must be identified and
accompanied by supporting documentation for the rated operating pressure. ONEOK
must also define and implement a means to document any changes made to the system and
reflect these changes in the records, drawings, maps, etc., of the Bushton facility.
Documentation of completion of all items in each subpart must be provided to the Director
within 30 days of the completion date of that subpart.
It is requested that ONEOK NGL Pipeline, LP maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to
David Barrett, Director, Central, 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.
12

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320135015>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `d64277045d0c39c9994e5382795c6f895b9365674cec1ea19b5438e588c9f4f3`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T20:07:42.106Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-320135015`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "320135015",
  "operator": "ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC",
  "region": "Central",
  "pipelineType": "INTERSTATE LIQUID ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.402(a)",
    "195.404(a)(1)",
    "195.420(b)",
    "195.428(a)",
    "195.583"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 11,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10232018.pdf",
      "bytes": 1106937,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10232018_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 669843,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Final Order_10132016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Final%20Order_10132016.pdf",
      "bytes": 1271787,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Final Order_10132016_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Final%20Order_10132016_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 162331,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013.pdf",
      "bytes": 968603,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 76547,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_11162016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11162016.pdf",
      "bytes": 1160407,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_07122013.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_07122013.pdf",
      "bytes": 509023,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Operator_Response_to_Notice_07122013.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator_Response_to_Notice_07122013.pdf",
      "bytes": 90046,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Region Closure Letter-Consent Agreement Termination_05192026_(08-121917S).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Region%20Closure%20Letter-Consent%20Agreement%20Termination_05192026_(08-121917S).pdf",
      "bytes": 167199,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320135015_Region Closure Letter-Consent Agreement Termination_05192026_(08-121917S)_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Region%20Closure%20Letter-Consent%20Agreement%20Termination_05192026_(08-121917S)_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 199991,
      "category": "agency_document"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 4,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC"
}
```