{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320135015","title":"ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-05-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.404(a)(1), 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.583.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320135015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320135015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320135015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320135015","body":"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.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10232018.pdf\n\n320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10232018_text.pdf\n\n320135015_Final Order_10132016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Final%20Order_10132016.pdf\n\n320135015_Final Order_10132016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Final%20Order_10132016_text.pdf\n\n320135015_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013.pdf\n\n320135015_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013_text.pdf\n\n320135015_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_11162016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11162016.pdf\n\n320135015_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_07122013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_07122013.pdf\n\n320135015_Operator_Response_to_Notice_07122013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320135015/320135015_Operator_Response_to_Notice_07122013.pdf\n\n320135015_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\n\n320135015_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\n\n320135015_Consent Agreement and Order_10232018_text.pdf\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P., )\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C., and ) CPF Nos. 3-2013-5014\nONEOK Underground Storage ) 3-2013-5015\nCompany, L.L.C., collectively, ) 3-2013-5020\n)\nRespondents. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER\nWhereas, on May 13, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued two Notices of Probable Violation, Proposed\nCivil Penalties, and Proposed Compliance Orders (NOPVs) to ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P.,\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C. (ONEOK NGL Pipeline), and ONEOK Underground Storage\nCompany, L.L.C. (ONEOK Underground Storage) (collectively, ONEOK or Respondents).1 On\nJuly 3, 2013, OPS issued a third NOPV to ONEOK.2\nWhereas, ONEOK NGL Pipeline operates approximately 11,500 miles of pipeline transporting\nhazardous liquids, including approximately 11,000 miles transporting highly volatile liquids in\nTexas, Oklahoma, Kansas and several other states.3 The ONEOK system includes natural gas\nliquids (NGL) fractionation facilities and associated underground storage facilities located in\nBushton, Kansas (Bushton Plant). ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (ONEOK Hydrocarbon) is the\noperator of the fractionation facilities and associated piping at the Bushton Plant. ONEOK\nUnderground Storage is the operator of the underground storage facilities and associated piping\nat the Bushton Plant.\nWhereas, at the request of Respondents and in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, informal\nhearings were held in Kansas City, Missouri, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief\n1 CPF No. 3-2013-5014 and CPF No. 3-2013-5015.\n2 CPF No. 3-2013-5020. OPS issued an amended NOPV in CPF No. 3-2013-5020 on August 15, 2013.\n3 This information is reported by Respondents for calendar year 2016 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 1\n\n\n\nCounsel, PHMSA.4 The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issued Final Orders in all\nthree enforcement cases on October 12, 2016 (Final Orders), assessing civil penalties in the total\namount of $731,900 and adopting compliance orders requiring that ONEOK implement specified\nactions at the Bushton Plant.5\nWhereas, on November 16, 2016, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, and after receiving an\nextension of time, Respondents filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding the compliance\norder issued in CPF No. 3-2013-5015. On December 5, 2016, Respondents also filed a Payment\nof Penalties Under Protest for CPF No. 3-2013-5020 and CPF No. 3-2013-5014 and paid a total\nof $572,900 in civil penalties. On December 15, 2016, ONEOK filed a Compliance Action\nMade Under Protest for CPF No. 3-2013-5014.\nWhereas, on February 25, 2013, ONEOK Hydrocarbon, ONEOK Underground Storage, and\nONEOK NGL Pipeline filed a Petition for Review of certain PHMSA letters of interpretation in\nthe United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in ONEOK Hydrocarbon,\net al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, et al., No. 13-1040.\nWhereas, on January 6, 2017, ONEOK Hydrocarbon, ONEOK Underground Storage and\nONEOK NGL Pipeline filed Petitions for Review of the Final Orders in the United States Court\nof Appeals for the District of Columbia in ONEOK Hydrocarbon, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of\nTransportation, et. al., Nos. 17-1004, 17-1005, and 17-1006.\nWhereas, on January 12, 2017, the court granted ONEOK’s unopposed motion to consolidate all\nof the Petitions for Review and to hold the consolidated case in abeyance pending resolution of\nthe Petition for Reconsideration filed in CPF No. 3-2013-5015.6\nWhereas, on June 14, 2017, a meeting between ONEOK and PHMSA (Parties) was held at\nPHMSA Headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss resolution of the issues pending in these\nenforcement cases. The Parties have engaged in good-faith discussions regarding the Final\nOrders and have agreed that settlement of these proceedings will avoid further administrative\nproceedings or litigation, and that entry of this Consent Agreement and Order is the most\nappropriate means of resolving the Final Orders without additional adjudication of any issue of\nfact or law.\n4 A hearing concerning the NOPV in CPF No. 3-2013-5015 was held on November 14-15, 2013. A\nseparate hearing concerning the NOPVs in CPF Nos. 3-2013-5014 and 3-2013-5020 was held on January\n15, 2014.\n5 A Corrected Final Order was issued for CPF No. 3-2013-5015 on October 13, 2016, due to a\ntypographical error.\n6 ONEOK Hydrocarbon, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, et al., D.C. Cir. Nos. 13-1040, 17-1004,\n17-1005, and 17-1006 (consolidated under No. 13-1040).\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 2\n\n\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, upon consent and agreement of the Parties, it is hereby Ordered and\nAdjudged as follows.\nA. PHMSA’s Jurisdiction and Regulatory Oversight\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ONEOK acknowledges, as operator of the Bushton Plant, that the Bushton Plant is subject to\nPHMSA’s jurisdiction under the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § § 60101, et seq.,\nand the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder, as found by the Final Orders.\nAlthough the parties agree that the Bushton Plant is subject to PHMSA’s jurisdiction, as\ndescribed in the Final Orders, for purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order, and subject\nto conditions and limitations set forth herein, the Parties agree that PHMSA will exercise\nregulatory oversight over certain portions of the Bushton Plant, identified as the “PHMSA\nRegulated Piping” in the drawing attached as Exhibit A, and the photographs attached as\nExhibit B to this Consent Agreement and Order, which exhibits are incorporated herein by\nreference. Such Exhibits shall be considered Business Confidential Information submitted\nvoluntarily by ONEOK pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and otherwise to\ncontain critical energy infrastructure information. The scope of the PHMSA Regulated\nPiping and the Exhibits might change in the future, based on the reviews described by\nParagraph 6 below.\nONEOK acknowledges that it has marked its physical facilities and revised appropriate\ndrawings to identify the PHMSA Regulated Piping, as reflected in the Exhibits attached\nhereto, and that, consistent with the provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order,\nONEOK will comply with 49 C.F.R. Part 195 with respect to the PHMSA Regulated Piping.\nThe piping at the Bushton Plant that is not identified in the Exhibits to this Consent\nAgreement and Order as the PHMSA Regulated Piping, and the piping at the Bushton Plant\nthat is not identified as PHMSA Regulated Piping upon review as required in Paragraph 6 of\nthis Consent Agreement and Order, is subject to regulatory oversight by the United States\nOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and is referred to as “OSHA\nRegulated Piping”. If OSHA expressly declines to apply Process Safety Management (PSM)\nregulations to any portion of the OSHA Regulated Piping, PHMSA will assume regulatory\noversight of that portion. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order affects the\nregulatory oversight of PHMSA and/or OSHA over any portion of the Bushton Plant not\nspecifically identified in the Exhibits to this Consent Agreement and Order.\nFor purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order, PHMSA Regulated Piping shall be\nidentified at the frequency described in Paragraph 6 in accordance with the following criteria:\na. For purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order and identifying PHMSA Regulated\nPiping, the fractionation facilities at the Bushton Plant shall be deemed to be\n“processing” facilities.\nb. Piping located downstream of the first inbound pressure control device entering the\nBushton Plant and upstream of the last pressure control device leaving the Bushton\nPlant is PHMSA Regulated Piping if the predominant use of such piping is to bypass\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 3\n\n\n\n6. 7. processing (i.e., is used for a predominantly transportation purpose). If the\npredominant use of such piping is for processing purposes or is only occasionally used\nto bypass processing (such as to accommodate temporary maintenance or repairs or\nother short-term events) such piping is OSHA Regulated Piping.\nc. Piping that predominantly bypasses a pressure control device or that bypasses a\nprocessing facility that is no longer in service is PHMSA Regulated Piping.\nd. Piping that is located on the grounds of the Bushton Plant that connects two (2)\nprocessing units, or is otherwise used for a processing purpose, is OSHA Regulated\nPiping if the piping is located downstream of the first pressure control device entering\nthe Bushton Plant and upstream of the last pressure control device leaving the Bushton\nPlant.\ne. Pumps and associated controls used predominantly to move product for transportation\npurposes are subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nf. Piping associated with underground storage used for the purpose of managing the\nprocessing facility inventory is OSHA Regulated Piping. Piping associated with\nstorage caverns used for transportation is PHMSA Regulated Piping.\nONEOK will review the predominant use of the PHMSA Regulated Piping and the OSHA\nRegulated Piping at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nto determine whether or not the predominant use of piping has changed. ONEOK will also\nreview the predominant use of any newly constructed pipe at the Bushton Plant upon\nconstruction completion. If, after conducting the review required by this Paragraph, ONEOK\ndetermines that any portion of the PHMSA Regulated Piping or newly constructed piping is\npredominantly used for processing purposes, that portion shall thereafter be considered\nOSHA Regulated Piping. If, after conducting the review required by this Paragraph,\nONEOK determines that any portion of the OSHA Regulated Piping or newly constructed\npiping is predominantly used for transportation purposes, that portion shall thereafter be\nconsidered PHMSA Regulated Piping. If any such changes occur, ONEOK will revise the\nphysical demarcations and appropriate drawings and procedures, and other relevant records,\nconsistent with current PHMSA regulations and policy or consistent with current OSHA\nregulations and policy, as the case may be. ONEOK will revise its records, as necessary, to\nincorporate new information obtained during these reviews. ONEOK will give written notice\nto the Director of any changes to the classification of piping as PHMSA Regulated Piping or\nOSHA Regulated Piping, and will submit to the Director copies of drawings, similar in form\nto the Exhibits, that are revised as a result of a review undertaken pursuant to this Paragraph.\nThe Parties agree that, if PHMSA objects to any change in classification of piping as\nPHMSA Regulated Piping or OSHA Regulated Piping, the parties will meet and confer to\nresolve their disagreement.\nThe underground storage caverns at the Bushton Plant, which store hazardous liquid\npetroleum products, are subject to the safety regulations and requirements of the Kansas\nDepartment of Health and Environment. This does not preclude future regulation of\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 4\n\n\n\nONEOK’s underground storage caverns by PHMSA should PHMSA issue minimum safety\nstandards for underground hazardous liquid storage facilities.\nB. Implementation of Part 195\n8. According to the timing and deadlines set forth herein, and subject to the conditions and\nscope limitations set forth herein, the PHMSA Regulated Piping shall be subject to\nPHMSA’s 49 C.F.R. Part 195 regulations. With respect to existing piping that will become\nPHMSA Regulated Piping on the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Order,\nONEOK shall implement the applicable requirements of Part 195 no later than 90 days after\nsuch Effective Date. The date on which such implementation is completed will be the “In-\nService Date” for such piping. With respect to any OSHA Regulated Piping that becomes\nPHMSA Regulated Piping in the future pursuant to Paragraphs 5 & 6 hereof, ONEOK shall\nimplement the applicable requirements of Part 195 no later than 90 days after the date that\nONEOK provides notification to the Director pursuant to Paragraph 6 hereof that such piping\nhas become PHMSA Regulated Piping. ONEOK may request an extension of time beyond\nthe 90-day period by providing a written request to the Director along with a reasonable basis\nno later than fifteen (15) business days before the completion deadline. Not later than five\n(5) business days following receipt of a request for an extension of time, the Director shall\ngrant or deny such request in writing. The Director shall provide a reasonable basis for any\ndenial of a request for an extension of time.\nC. Record-Keeping\n9. ONEOK will retain records relating to compliance with Part 195 with respect to piping that\nbecomes PHMSA Regulated Piping on or after the In-Service Date in conformance with the\nrecordkeeping provisions of Part 195.\n10. Subject to the provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order, ONEOK’s historical (i.e., for\nthe time period prior to the In-Service Date of any piping that becomes PHMSA Regulated\nPiping hereunder) records of maintenance and operations, pipeline integrity, and testing\nrelated to the PHMSA Regulated Piping and OSHA Regulated Piping shall be available to\nPHMSA for informational purposes. Such historical records include, but are not limited to,\nrecords pertaining to inspections, corrosion control, leaks, abnormal operating conditions,\nfailure records, along with any related with root cause analysis reports, mill test reports\n(MTR) and hydrostatic pressure testing. ONEOK will maintain any such historical records,\nexisting upon the Effective Date, for the life of the facility.\n11. The Parties acknowledge that, with respect to the PHMSA Regulated Piping and the OSHA\nRegulated Piping, Respondents do not possess complete historical documentation related to\ncompliance with Part 195 of PHMSA’s regulations. Therefore, this Consent Agreement and\nOrder shall not be interpreted as establishing an obligation or creating a liability with respect\nto any provision of Part 195 for the period before any In-Service Date on which piping\nbecomes PHMSA Regulated Piping pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order.\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 5\n\n\n\n12. ONEOK agrees to maintain records of review, demarcation, and drawings related to the\nfacility reviews that ONEOK will perform under Paragraph 6 for a period of at least five (5)\nyears following completion of each review.\n13. For any review documentation or other deliverables required to be submitted to PHMSA\npursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order, ONEOK may assert a claim of business\nconfidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by PHMSA,\ncovering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this\nConsent Agreement and Order in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7. Any claim of\nconfidentiality shall be marked in writing on each page, and shall include a statement\nspecifying the grounds for each claim of confidentiality. PHMSA will determine whether to\nrelease any such information submitted pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the Freedom of information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and\nPHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders.\nD. The Administrative and Judicial Proceedings\n14. PHMSA accepts the payment of $572,900 which ONEOK remitted under protest to PHMSA\non December 5, 2016, as full accord and satisfaction of Respondents’ civil penalty\nassessment in these enforcement proceedings.\n15. Immediately upon the Effective Date, the Parties will file a joint motion of voluntary\ndismissal asking the Court to dismiss, with prejudice, the Petitions for Review filed in\nONEOK Hydrocarbon, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, et al., D.C. Cir. Nos. 13-1040,\n17-1004, 17-1005, and 17-1006 (consolidated under No. 13-1040), with each Party bearing\nits own costs and fees.\n16. Upon issuance of this Consent Agreement and Order and the Court’s dismissal of the\nPetitions for Review, these enforcement proceedings will be closed, and ONEOK’s Petition\nfor Reconsideration of the Final Order issued in CFP No. 3-2013-5015 and protests will be\ndeemed moot.\nE. Miscellaneous Provisions\n17. The terms of this Consent Agreement and Order shall become effective (i.e. “Effective\nDate”) upon the last day of execution by the Parties’ respective authorized representatives.\nThis Consent Agreement and Order may be modified only by written agreement signed by\nboth Parties.\n18. ONEOK consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Order, and hereby waives\nany further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. ONEOK waives all rights to\ncontest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of this Consent Agreement and Order,\nincluding all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals; provided, however, that\nany dispute concerning the implementation of this Consent Agreement and Order shall be\nresolved in the manner provided in Paragraph 28.\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 6\n\n\n\n19. This Consent Agreement and Order affirms and upholds all findings of violation of PHMSA\nregulations set forth in the Final Orders. This Consent Agreement and Order supersedes the\nCompliance Order contained in the Corrected Final Order issued by PHMSA in CPF No. 3-\n2013-5015 on October 13, 2016. Each allegation of violation cited in the Notice may be\nconsidered by PHMSA as a prior offense in any future enforcement action brought against\nRespondents by PHMSA. This Consent Agreement and Order, however, does not constitute\na finding of violation of any other Federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil\nproceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of\nthe violation of any law, rule, regulation or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce\nthe provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order.\n20. This Consent Agreement and Order shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and its\nsuccessors and upon ONEOK and its successors and assigns. ONEOK agrees to provide a\ncopy of this Consent Agreement and Order to the officers of ONEOK NGL Pipeline and\nONEOK Underground Storage who are responsible for pipeline operations. A copy of this\nConsent Agreement and Order and any incorporated work plans and schedules will be\nmaintained at the Bushton Plant and will be made available to ONEOK employees whose\nduties might reasonably include compliance with the terms of the Consent Agreement and\nOrder.\n21. For all transfers of ownership interests or operating responsibility of the Bushton Plant,\nONEOK shall provide a copy of this Consent Agreement and Order to the prospective\ntransferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer and subsequently shall provide written notice\nof any such transfer to the Director not more than 60 days following any such transfer.\n22. All references to “Director” in this Consent Agreement and Order shall refer to the Director,\nCentral Region, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety. Information, reports, and notifications\nrequired by this Consent Agreement and Order shall be submitted to: Director, Central\nRegion, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety, 901 Locust Street, Suite 462, Kansas City, MO\n64106.\n23. Subject to the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order, no provision contained herein\naffects or relieves ONEOK of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of\nthe Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders\nissued thereunder regarding the PHMSA Regulated Piping. Nothing in this Consent\nAgreement and Order shall limit or reduce PHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and\ninformation-gathering or its authority to bring enforcement actions against ONEOK pursuant\nto the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other\napplicable provision of Federal or State law.\n24. This Consent Agreement and Order does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local\nlaws or regulations that are applicable to ONEOK’s pipeline systems. This Consent\nAgreement and Order is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal,\nState, or local laws or regulations. ONEOK remains responsible for achieving and\nmaintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and\npermits.\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 7\n\n\n\n25. This Consent Agreement and Order does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to,\nany third person not a party to this Consent Agreement and Order. The U.S. Department of\nTransportation (DOT) is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising\nfrom acts or omissions of ONEOK or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work\nrequired by this Consent Agreement and Order.\n26. This Consent Agreement and Order shall be subject to all enforcement authorities available\nto PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including\nadministrative civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $205,638 per violation for\neach day the violation continues. This shall include any failure of ONEOK to comply with\nthe terms of this Consent Agreement and Order. All maps, drawings, schematics, and\nassociated schedules set forth or referenced in this Consent Agreement and Order, or attached\nas an exhibit to this Consent Agreement and Order, shall be automatically incorporated into\nthis Consent Agreement and Order and shall be enforceable in the same manner.\n27. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement\nand understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this\nConsent Agreement and Order, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations,\nagreements or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained\nin this Consent Agreement and Order.\n28. The Director and ONEOK will attempt to resolve any disputes arising under this Consent\nAgreement and Order informally. If Respondents and the Director are unable to informally\nresolve the dispute within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Respondents’ written notice\ninvoking dispute resolution, Respondents may request in writing, within fifteen (15) days\nthereafter, a written determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety, along with all information that Respondents believe is relevant to the\ndispute. If the request is submitted as provided herein, the Associate Administrator will issue\na final determination in writing. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of\nmatters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for\ncompletion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the pendency of the\ndispute resolution process, except as otherwise agreed by the Director or the Associate\nAdministrator in writing.\nF. Ratification\n29. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the\nterms and conditions of this Consent Agreement and Order and to execute and legally bind\neach such Party.\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 8\n\n\n\n30. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Consent Agreement and Order:\nFor PHMSA: For Respondents:\n_________________________ _______________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Wesley Christensen\nAssociate Administrator Senior Vice President,\nfor Pipeline Safety Operations\n_________________________ ________________________\nDate Date\nConsent Agreement and Order Page | 9\n\n320135015_Final Order_10132016_text.pdf\n\nOctober 13, 2016\nMr. Terry K. Spencer\nPresident and CEO\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P.\n100 W. Fifth Street\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74103\nRe: CPF No. 3-2013-5015\nDear Mr. Spencer:\nWith regard to the above-referenced case, this Order is being corrected due to a typographical\nerror in Item 1 of the Civil Penalty Assessment. The Final Order makes findings of violation,\nwithdraws one alleged violation, assesses a civil penalty of $159,200, and specifies actions that\nneed to be taken by ONEOK to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid\nand the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order is made pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS\nMr. Vince Murchison, Murchison Law Firm, PLLC\n325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2700, Dallas, Texas 75201\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n___________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.P., )\nONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C., and ) CPF No. 3-2013-5015\nONEOK Underground Storage )\nCompany, L.L.C., collectively, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring the period from May 2008 to April 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted a compliance review of the natural gas liquids facility of ONEOK NGL\nPipeline, L.P., ONEOK NGL Pipeline, L.L.C., and ONEOK Underground Storage Company,\nL.L.C. (collectively, ONEOK or Respondent) in Bushton, Kansas.1 ONEOK operates 11,500\nmiles of pipeline transporting hazardous liquids, including approximately 11,000 miles\ntransporting highly volatile liquids in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and several other states.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order to Respondent on\nMay 13, 2013 (Notice).3 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent committed six violations of the hazardous liquids pipeline safety regulations and\nproposed a civil penalty of $230,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\ncorrective action for two of the alleged violations.\nAfter receiving an extension of time, ONEOK responded to the Notice on July 12, 2013.\nONEOK contested the jurisdiction of PHMSA, contested the merits of the alleged violations and\nrequested a hearing. Additional written materials were submitted by Respondent on October 15\n1 The three entities own and operate different portions of the Bushton facility. ONEOK Post-hearing\nJurisdictional Brief at 5 (Mar. 14, 2014).\n2 This information is reported by Respondent for calendar year 2015 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.\n3 The Director also issued two additional notices of probable violation to Respondent. They were dated\nMay 13, 2013 (CPF No. 3-2013-5014) and July 3, 2013 (CPF No. 3-2013-5020). Final Orders are being\nissued in those cases separately.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2013-5015\nPage 2\nand November 4, 2013. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held in Kansas\nCity, Missouri on November 14-15, 2013, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief\nCounsel, PHMSA.4 After the hearing, Respondent submitted additional written materials on\nMarch 17, 2014, and May 6, 2016. Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written\nevaluation of Respondent’s response material on April 1, 2016.\nJURISDICTION AND GENERAL ARGUMENTS\nAs a general matter, Respondent contested the authority of PHMSA to enforce the pipeline\nsafety regulations at the Bushton facility and argued the Notice, proposed civil penalty and\nproposed compliance order should all be withdrawn due to jurisdictional uncertainty, failure to\nprovide fair notice, and other reasons. These arguments were raised in the related proceedings,\nCPF No. 3-2013-5014 and CPF No. 3-2013-5020. In the Final Order for CPF No. 3-2013-5014,\nI addressed these arguments. In particular, I determined the Pipeline Safety Act applies to the\nBushton facility because the facility engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids by\npipeline. I also determined that an exception in the Act for “refining” does not apply.\nRespondent’s general arguments for withdrawing the Notice, proposed civil penalty and\nproposed compliance order are dismissed for the same reasons set forth in CPF No. 3-2013-5014.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed six violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall\nbe prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare all of the written\nprocedures that are required for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and for\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies at the Bushton facility in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. Part 195. The Notice alleged that ONEOK had a manual of procedures for the facility,\n4 Separate hearings concerning the notices of probable violation in CPF No. 3-2013-5014 and CPF No.\n3-2013-5020 were held on January 15, 2014.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2013-5015\nPage 3\nbut the procedures were for “Process Safety Management” or worker safety and did not meet the\npipeline safety requirements under 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nRespondent argued the alleged violation should be withdrawn because ONEOK provided several\nhundred pages of procedures and the Notice failed to explain why the procedures do not comply.\nFor example, Respondent asserted that it has procedures for normal startup and shutdown of\ncertain equipment relevant to § 195.402(c)(7); emergency shutdown of certain piping relevant to\n§ 195.402(e)(4); and inspection, maintenance and calibration of certain equipment relevant to\n§ 195.402(c)(3). Respondent argued OPS never explained why the procedures do not comply\nwith the regulation.\nIn response to this argument, I find the Notice did allege specifically that Respondent “failed to\nprepare all written procedures necessary” to comply with the regulation.5 The Notice also\nreferenced at least 24 subparagraphs of the regulation that Respondent’s procedures allegedly\nfailed to comply with. Accordingly, the Notice appropriately notified Respondent of the\nallegation that it failed to have procedures meeting all of the requirements of § 195.402(a).\nRespondent’s citation to a 1997 enforcement decision does not support withdrawing the\nallegation of violation. In Sonat Exploration Co., CPF No. 43906, 1997 WL 34614789 (Aug. 1,\n1997), PHMSA withdrew several alleged violations of § 195.402 after the operator demonstrated\nthat the company had written procedures that met the regulatory requirements. The final order in\nthat case noted the “vagueness” of certain allegations in the notice, but the Agency determined\nthe operator had submitted records to prove compliance and otherwise the company’s\ncontentions of compliance were not contradicted in the record.\nThe present case differs because ONEOK has not made a showing that its procedures comply\nwith each of the requirements in § 195.402. Whereas the operator in Sonat Exploration argued\nthat its procedures complied with the regulations and pointed to specific documents in support,\nONEOK has not made such an assertion and showing. Instead, Respondent claimed that its\nprocedures were prepared to comply with OSHA PSM requirements,6 and that some of those\nprocedures are “relevant” to some of the provisions in § 195.402.7 A review of Respondent’s\nwritten procedures in the record reveals no apparent correlation between its procedures and each\nof the requirements in § 195.402.8\nRespondent argued further that OPS should have issued a notice of amendment rather than a\nnotice of probable violation. A notice of amendment may be issued pursuant to § 190.206 to\ndetermine if an operator’s plans or procedures are “inadequate to assure safe operation.” This\nenforcement tool is often used by the Agency to require an operator to correct issues in its\nwritten procedures that might not rise to the level of a regulatory violation.\n5 Notice at 2.\n6 ONEOK Post-hearing Merits Brief at 53 (Mar. 14, 2014).\n7 ONEOK Post-hearing Merits Brief at 54.\n8 OPS Violation Report, Exhibit H.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2013-5015\nPage 4\nWhen an operator’s procedures fail to comply with a regulatory requirement, however, it is more\nappropriate to issue a notice of probable violation pursuant to § 190.207. In the present case, the\nNotice alleged that Respondent “failed to prepare all written procedures . . . to meet the\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.” Since the allegation is that Respondent failed to comply\nwith a regulation, issuance of a notice of probable violation in this case was appropriate.\nFor the above reasons, having reviewed the record, I find Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by\nfailing to have written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities\nand for handling abnormal operations and emergencies.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), quoted above, by\nfailing to perform a documented review of its manual of written procedures at intervals not to\nexceed 15 months, but at least once each calendar year for 2008, 2009 or 2010.\nRespondent contested the alleged violation only on jurisdictional grounds. Having already\nrejected those arguments, I find the record demonstrates Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by\nfailing to perform a documented review of its manual of written procedures at the requisite\nintervals.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(1) and (3), which\nstates:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities . . .\n(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;\n(iv) Pipeline valves;\n(v) Facilities to which § 195.402(c)(9) applies . . .\n(vii) Safety devices to which § 195.428 applies . . .\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.404(a)(1) and (3) by failing to maintain\ncurrent maps and records of its pipeline systems at the Bushton facility. The Notice referenced\nevidence of ONEOK’s Siemens Analysis Pressure Relief System Discussion List, which allegedly\ndescribed 45 records that were not current. OPS also alleged piping and instrumentation\ndiagrams (P&ID) did not match the actual facility. Finally, OPS alleged that Respondent failed\nto have any documentation validating maximum operating pressure (MOP) of certain piping\nincluding incoming and outgoing manifolds with interconnecting piping and storage field piping.\nRespondent contested the alleged violation on two grounds, first arguing there were not 45\nincorrect or missing records, but at most 5 records issues. Second, Respondent produced MOP\nrecords and asserted that OPS never requested such records during the inspection.\nWith regard to the 45 alleged instances of violations, Respondent argued there were actually only\neight separate P&IDs that contained issues, and three of those P&IDs related exclusively to\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2013-5015\nPage 5\nfractionation or truck facilities that are not regulated.9 In the Agency’s post-hearing\nrecommendation, the Regional Director did not object to Respondent’s contention. I find the\nrecord supports Respondent’s argument that only five P&IDs were inaccurate and noncompliant\nwith § 195.404(a)(1).\nSecond, Respondent argued that MOP records were available but were never requested by OPS\nat the time of the inspection. The Regional Director did not object to Respondent’s contention\nthat the submitted records demonstrate compliance with § 195.404(a)(3). Accordingly, I am\nwithdrawing the violation with respect to MOP records.\nIn conclusion, I find Respondent violated § 195.404(a)(1) by failing to have accurate records\nwith respect to five P&IDs. The remaining alleged violations of § 195.404(a)(1) and (3) are\nwithdrawn.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.420(b) by failing to perform documented\ninspections of 124 mainline valves at intervals not ex","truncated":true,"body_characters":106055}