# ONEOK NGL PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

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 ex
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 106055