# DCP MIDSTREAM — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 420175032  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2017-08-24

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.452(i)(4), 195.567(c), 195.573(a)(1), 195.579(c), 195.581(a), 195.64(c)(2)(v).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving DCP MIDSTREAM. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.452(i)(4),  195.567(c),  195.573(a)(1),  195.579(c),  195.581(a),  195.64(c)(2)(v). The case was opened on 2017-08-24 and is reported as closed as of 2018-11-05. Proposed civil penalty: $27,600. Assessed civil penalty: $27,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420175032_Closure Letter_11052018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Closure%20Letter_11052018.pdf

420175032_Closure Letter_11052018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Closure%20Letter_11052018_text.pdf

420175032_Final Order_04122018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Final%20Order_04122018.pdf

420175032_Final Order__04122018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Final%20Order__04122018_text.pdf

420175032_NOPV PCP PCO_08242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08242017.pdf

420175032_NOPV PCP PCO_08242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08242017_text.pdf

420175032_Operator Response to Notice_10272017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10272017.pdf

420175032_Final Order__04122018_text.pdf

April 12, 2018
Mr. Wouter van Kempen
Chairman and CEO
DCP Midstream, LP
370 17th Street, Suite 2500
Denver, CO 80202
Re: CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Dear Mr. van Kempen:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $27,600. It further specifies actions that need to be taken
by DCP Midstream, LP, 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 satisfied, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of
mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Brent Backes, Group Vice President and General Counsel, DCP Midstream, LP
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 )
DCP Midstream, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2017-5032
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On multiple dates between May and December, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a
representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of DCP Midstream, LP (DCP or Respondent), in Texas and Oklahoma. DCP is a limited
partnership owned by Phillips 66 and Enbridge, Inc., that operates more than 64,000 miles of
natural gas liquid (NGL) pipeline and 12 natural gas processing facilities in approximately 16
states.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 24, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49
C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
DCP had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty
of $27,600 for one alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action
but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement
action.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, DCP responded to the Notice by
letter dated October 27, 2017 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of
violation, and agreed to complete certain corrective actions, as provided in the proposed
compliance order. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to
one.
1 DCP Midstream website, available at http://www.dcpmidstream.com/getattachment/Utility-Pages/Explore-
Footprint/DCP Mid Corp Glance Fact Sheet Q32016 Enbridge Consolidation.pdf.aspx (last accessed January 3,
2018).



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, DCP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to
protect the high consequence area? - (1) . . . .
(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator
determines that an EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high
consequence area in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, an
operator must install the EFRD. In making this determination, an operator
must, at least, consider the following factors—the swiftness of leak
detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity
carried, the rate of potential leakage, the volume that can be released,
topography or pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, proximity to power
sources, location of nearest response personnel, specific terrain between the
pipeline segment and the high consequence area, and benefits expected by
reducing the spill size.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) by failing to determine
whether EFRDs were needed on two DCP pipeline segments running through high consequence
areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to perform an initial evaluation
on the company’s Panova to Red River and Red River to Mount Belvieu segments. Both
§ 195.452(i)(4) and section IP 008 of DCP’s own written Integrity Procedure, IP 008 (version
3.1, dated December 2012), required that DCP consider whether EFRDs should be added as a
preventive and mitigative measure on the listed pipeline segments.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) by failing to determine
whether EFRDs were needed on two pipeline segments in order to protect HCAs.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric
corrosion and what coating material may I use?
(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is
exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric
corrosion.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to clean and coat
each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 3
discovered numerous instances of deteriorated coating on its pipeline when conducting
atmospheric pipe inspections. However, for 40 of the pipeline portions identified as having
deteriorated coatings, DCP failed to remediate the deteriorated coatings by cleaning and coating
the pipeline.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to clean and
coat numerous portions of its pipeline that were exposed to the atmosphere.
Item 6: 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 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to follow Section 4 of its Integrity Management
Manual – Risk Management Manual, Subsection 4.4.5: Pipeline Facilities Risk Assessment.
Subsection 4.4.5 provides, in relevant part, that Respondent must use the checklist in DCP Form
50 to assist in “determining the most credible release scenario and impact on any affected
HCAs.”
During its inspection, PHMSA noted that DCP had facilities in Teague, Lockwood, and Panova,
all of which are in HCA or HCA-could-affect areas. When the PHMSA inspector asked DCP for
copies of the Form 50 checklist generated for these three facilities, as required under Subsection
4.4.5, DCP was not able to provide them.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its
own manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine
whether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with
§195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. . . .



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 4
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct
tests on one of its cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to conduct
tests at five locations on its 16-inch Lockwood Station to Teague Station pipeline at least once
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. By failing to test at these five
locations, DCP was unable to demonstrate adequate levels of cathodic protection under
§ 195.573(a)(1).
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct
tests on one of its cathodically protected pipelines at least once per calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.2
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; and any effect that the penalty may have on its 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. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $27,600 for the violation in Item 8 above.
Item 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(a)(1), for failing to conduct tests on one of its cathodically protected pipelines at least
once per calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. DCP neither contested the
allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $27,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited
above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $27,600.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 5
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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $27,600 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 Items 4, 5, and 6 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(i)(4), 195.581(a), and 195.402(a), respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who
owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards
established under chapter 601. 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 § 195.452(i)(4) (Item 4), Respondent must
perform a study, based on a current high consequence area list, to determine whether
EFRDs are needed on pipeline segments to protect high consequence areas in the
event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release to enhance public safety. Respondent
must complete this compliance item and submit documentation to the Director within
90 days of receipt of this Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.581(a) (Item 5), Respondent must provide
evidence that the 40 identified locations with deteriorated coating have been
adequately cleaned and coated. Respondent must complete this compliance item and
submit documentation to the Director within 180 days of receipt of this Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 6), Respondent must conduct a
thorough review using the Form 50 checklist to determine the most credible release
scenario and impact on HCAs and HCA-could-affect areas to enhance public safety.
Respondent must complete this compliance item and submit documentation to the
Director within 90 days of receipt of this Order.
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 and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 6
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.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 2, 3, and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did
not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered
to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.64(c) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to notify PHMSA
that DCP had divested a pipeline asset;
49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to perform an
inspection of the internal surface of a segment of pipeline removed during a “hot
tap;”
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its own
manual of written procedures with respect to pipeline-assessment scheduling; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.567(c) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain test
lead wires in a condition that enabled DCP to determine whether cathodic
protection complied with § 195.571.
DCP presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address
the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
April 12, 2018
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420175032_NOPV PCP PCO_08242017_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 24, 2017
DCP Midstream
Mr. Bent Backes
General Counsel and Vice President
370, 17th Street Suite 2500
Denver, CO 80202
CPF 4-2017-5032
Dear Mr. Backes:
On multiple dates between the months of May and December 2016, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to
Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected DCP Midstream (DCP) NGL Pipeline systems in Texas
and Oklahoma.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s)
are:
1. § 195.64 National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators.
(c) Changes. Each operator must notify PHMSA electronically through the National Registry
of Pipeline and LNG Operators at http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov, of certain events.



(2) An operator must notify PHMSA of any following event not later than 60 days after the
event occurs:
(v) The acquisition or divestiture of an existing pipeline facility subject to this part.
DCP Southern Hills sold the Galena Park extension (12.1 miles) of the Southern Hills Pipeline System to
Phillips 66 on April 22, 2014. A Type D notification (divestiture of asset) is required to filed by no later
than June 23, 2014.
DCP submitted this notification to PHMSA on June 7, 2016 only after the PHMSA inspector brought this
to their attention.
2. §195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you must inspect the internal
surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If you find internal corrosion requiring
corrective action under §195.585, you must investigate circumferentially and longitudinally
beyond the removed pipe (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine
whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the removed
pipe.
DCP Southern Hills failed to perform an inspection of the internal surface of a hot tap coupon from their
pipeline system for evidence of corrosion.
During the inspection, DCP did not have information or documentation to support that an internal
inspection was performed when DCP made a hot tap to connect new Woodford Express Meter Station to
the Chitwood lateral pipeline at 2.8 miles southeast from MLV 58C. DCP performed the hot tap January
2015 and a coupon was removed. However, this inspection report was not available, and an internal
inspection was not performed during this project.
3. §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.
DCP failed to follow their Integrity Manual.
2



DCP’s procedure, IP-002: Integrity Assessment Method Selection states,
To select appropriate assessment method, PIPELINE SERVICES DEPARTMENT will:
 Conduct a risk assessment and perform information analysis (review leak and repair history,
results of previous assessments, exposed pipe reports, and other pertinent information). See
Integrity Management Plan – Hazardous Liquids and Integrity Management Plan – Gas
Transmission, Section 5 Continual Assessment Process.
 Identify risk drivers and applicable threats.
 Complete DCP Form 55: Integrity Assessment Method.
 Use the decision flow in the flowcharts presented as Figures 1 through 6 in DCP Form 55:
Integrity Assessment Method to make a selection. When selecting a specific ILI technology, or
when both pressure test and ILI are acceptable as assessment methods, use Tables 1 and 2 as
further guidance in making the determination.
 Justify and document the reason if different method is chosen than indicated by the flowcharts.
Obtain an approval from the DIRECTOR, PIPELINE COMPLIANCE & INTEGRITY.
 Document the final assessment method and schedule in the BAP and the IAP.
 Inform PIPELINE INSPECTION MANAGER about selected method(s) and proposed assessment
schedule.
Document results in DCP Midstream Form 55: Integrity Assessment Method.
While reviewing DCP’s Integrity Assessment Method, Form 55 dated February 28, 2014, for Southern
Hills pipeline, Segment SOH-1 – Jacksboro to Teague, the PHMSA inspector learned that DCP scheduled
the next assessment for June 2014. DCP documented the rationale indicating this line is susceptible to
SCC, External Corrosion and Third Party Damage. When the PHMSA inspector reviewed the assessment
for this pipeline, it was found that it was not assessed until December 2015. As a result, this assessment
was late by 18 months.
4. § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(i) What preventative and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect the high
consequence area?
(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator determines that an EFRD
is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high consequence area in the event of a
hazardous liquid pipeline release, an operator must install the EFRD. In making this
determination, an operator must, at least, consider the following factors-the swiftness of leak
detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate of
potential leakage, the volume that can be released, topography or pipeline profile, the
potential for ignition, proximity to power sources, location of nearest response personnel,
specific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high consequence area, and benefits
expected by reducing the spill size.
DCP delayed its process to determine if EFRDs were needed on certain pipeline segments to protect high
consequence areas in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release.3



DCP’s Integrity Procedure, IP 008 (version 3.1 dated December 2012) states preventative and mitigative
measures should include consideration of Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD) or Emergency
Flow Valves (EFVs). In general, EFRDs and EFVs are an added optional safety device that has no effect
on the flow resulting from a small leak, such as a leak caused by corrosion or a small crack. These valves
do not prevent accidents; instead, they help mitigate the consequences of accidents where there has been
a substantial or catastrophic line break. Where installed, they are complementary to damage prevention
programs, one-call systems, and other pipeline safety efforts that focus on preventing accidents caused by
outside forces.
In reviewing potential mitigation options, DCP Midstream should consider if automatic shut-off valves or
remote control valves represent an efficient means of adding protection to potentially affected high
consequence areas.
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector learned that DCP failed to perform the initial EFRD
evaluation on the following pipelines:
Panova to Red River
Red River to Mount Belvieu.
5. §195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what coating
material may I use?
(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the
atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.
DCP did not adequately clean and coat portions of pipeline that were exposed to the atmosphere and at
soil-to-air interfaces (transition zone) to protect against atmospheric corrosion.
DCP’s standard operating procedure, CORR-5020: Atmospheric Pipe Inspection (dated 10/31/2014),
Section 1.1.3 Soil-to-Air Interface states:
1.1.3.1 Inspect all piping that is located at the soil-to-air interface.
1.1.3.1.1 Piping that is located in the soil-to-air interface is especially prone to coating damage.
1.1.3.1.2 If visual examination of the piping at the soil-to-air interface shows evidence of corrosion or
coating damage, excavation of the interface may be necessary to complete the inspection.
Section 2.2.3 Poor states:
Extensive visible deterioration of coating. (21 – 99% deterioration)
2.2.3.1: If left unremediated, pitting corrosion may develop which affect the safe operation of the pipeline
before the next scheduled inspection.
4



While reviewing records associated with the DCP’s atmospheric corrosion inspection, the PHMSA
inspector noted that, at the following locations, DCP failed to remediate poor coating condition prior to
the next inspection cycle as noted below:
1) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 0.449 had poor coating on 9/10/2012. It was not checked
again until the time of the inspection. DCP also failed to document the condition of corrosion at
this location
2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 0.730, had poor coating on 11/14/2013 and 7/14/2016
Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 6.147, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and 7/14/2016
Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 6.147, had poor coating on 11/14/2013 and 7/14/2016
Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 11.632, had poor coating on 9/11/2012 and 7/19/2016
Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 11.632, had poor transition zone on 9/11/2012 and 7/19/2016
7) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 11.632, was rated as “poor” in corrosion category on
9/11/2012 and 7/19/2016
8) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 13.480, had poor coating on 11/15/2013 and 7/19/2016
9) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 13.480, had poor transition zone on 11/15/2013 and
7/19/2016
10) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 16.999, had poor coating on 9/12/2012 and 7/19/2016
11) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 16.999, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and
7/19/2016
12) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 17.559, had poor coating on 9/12/2012 and 7/19/2016
13) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 17.559, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and
7/19/2016
14) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 18.265, had poor coating on 11/14/2013 and 7/20/2016
15) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 18.265, had poor transition zone on 9/12/2012 and 7/20/2016
16) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 19.290, had poor coating on 9/13/2012 and 8/27/2016
17) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 19.290, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and
8/27/2016
18) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 20.517, had poor coating on 9/13/2012 and 7/20/2016
19) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 20.517, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and
7/20/2016
20) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 23.383, had poor transition zone on 11/15/2013 and
7/22/2016
21) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 24.894, had poor coating on 9/14/2012 and 7/22/2016
22) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 24.894, had poor transition zone on 9/14/2012 and 7/22/2016
23) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 24.894, was rated as “poor” in corrosion category on
9/14/2012 and 7/22/2016
24) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 24.894, was rated as “poor” in corrosion category on
9/14/2012 and 7/22/2016
25) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 28.058, had poor coating on 9/18/2012 and 7/22/2016
5



26) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 28.058, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and
7/22/2016
27) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 31.730, had poor coating on 11/15/2013 and 7/25/2016
28) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 31.730, had poor transition zone on 11/15/2013 and
7/25/2016
29) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 32.206, had poor coating on 9/19/2012 and 7/25/2016
30) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 32.206, had poor transition zone on 9/19/2012 and 7/25/2016
31) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 35.675, had poor coating on 11/14/2013 and 7/27/2016
32) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 35.975, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and
7/27/2016
33) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 35.770, had poor coating on 9/19/2012 and 7/27/2016
34) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 35.770, had poor transition zone on 11/14/2013 and
7/27/2016
35) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 44.410, had poor coating on 11/15/2013 and 7/28/2016
36) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 44.410, had poor transition zone on 11/15/2013 and
7/28/2016
37) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 44.504, had poor coating on 9/19/2012 and 7/28/2016
38) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 44.523, had poor coating on 9/19/2012 and 7/28/2016
39) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 44.523, was rated as “poor” in corrosion category on
9/19/2012 and 7/28/2016
40) Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipe, MP 44.523, had poor transition zone on 9/19/2012 and 7/28/2016
6. §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.
DCP did not follow their Integrity Manual.
DCP’s Integrity Management Manual, Section 4 – Risk Management Manual, Sub Section 4.4.5: Pipeline
Facilities Risk Assessment, states:
The comprehensive risk assessment process for the pipeline stations includes a thorough review of the
incident history of the pipeline stations. One example of the difference between the line pipe and facilities6



is that for the line pipe, the primary cause for a release is corrosion, while for a station the primary cause
of a release is equipment leaks at pumps, valves and fittings. The checklist in DCP Form 50: Pipeline
Facilities Checklist assists in determining the most credible release scenario and impact on any affected
HCAs.
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector noted DCP has facilities located at Teague, Lockwood and
Panova, all in HCA or in HCA could-affect zones. When the PHMSA inspector requested Form 50:
Pipeline Facilities Checklist, DCP was not able to provide it.
7. §195.567 Which pipelines must have test leads and what must I do to install and maintain
the leads?
(c) Maintenance. You must maintain the test lead wires in a condition that enables you to
obtain electrical measurements to determine whether cathodic protection complies with
§195.571.
DCP failed to maintain all CP test leads in a condition that enabled it to obtain electrical measurements to
determine whether cathodic protection complies with §195.571.
The December 2013 and September 2014 annual CP surveys at mile post (MP) 42.080 along the 16-inch
Jacksboro Station to Teague Station pipeline showed p/s readings of 0.000mV and 0.000mV, respectively.
These p/s readings were indicative of a broken test lead. DCP corrected this and determined there was
adequate cathodic protection during July 2015 annual survey.
8. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic protection
required by this subpart complies with §195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately
protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least
once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
DCP did not conduct tests on the cathodically protected pipeline segments to monitor external corrosion
control, at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months.
During the inspection, DCP provided records that demonstrated that the 16” Lockwood Station to Teague
Station pipeline at MP 31.330, 65.840, 88.990, 90.760 and 97.840 were not tested as required by
§195.573(a)(1) to demonstrate adequate levels of cathodic protection.
MP 31.330 was last surveyed on 12/13/2014 and was not surveyed again until 1/22/2016
MP 65.840 was last surveyed on 12/12/2013 and was not surveyed again until 1/25/2016
7



MP 88.990 was last surveyed on 12/12/2013 (no access) and was not surveyed again until 7/28/2015
MP 90.760 was last surveyed on 12/12/2013 and was not surveyed again until 7/28/2015
MP 97.840 was last surveyed on 12/12/2013 and was not surveyed again until 7/28/2015
Proposed Civil Penalty
As of April 27, 2017, under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty
not to exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,090,022 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 $27,600 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
8 $ 27,600
Warning Items
With respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 7 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents
involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment
proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Failure to do so may result in
additional enforcement action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 4, 5 and 6 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to DCP Southern Hills. 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. All material you
submit in response to this enforcement action may be 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.
8



In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2017-5032 and for each document you
submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Frank Causey
Acting Director, SW 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 DCP Southern Hills (DCP) a Compliance Order incorporating the
following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of DCP with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to DCP failure to determine if EFRDs
were needed on pipeline segments to protect high consequence areas in the event of a
hazardous liquid pipeline release, DCP must perform a study based on a current high
consequence area list to determine that an EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect
a high consequence area in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release to enhance
public safety.
In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to inadequately cleaned and coated
soil-to-air interfaces on the portions of Panova to Cushing, 18” idle pipeline which is
identified in DCP’s atmospheric inspection records (2012 to 2016). DCP must provide
evidence when the coating at these locations have been completed to verify that DCP has
complied with this compliance order item.
In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to DCP’s failure to perform the
comprehensive risk assessment process for the pipeline stations that includes a thorough
review using the checklist provided in DCP’s Form 50, DCP must determine the most
credible release scenario and impact on HCAs to enhance public safety
DCP must complete item 1 and 3 in 90 days and item 2 in 180 days.
It is requested (not mandated) that DCP maintain documentation of the safety improvement
costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Acting
Director, Southwest, 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.
10

420175032_Closure Letter_11052018_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 5, 2018
Brent L. Backes
DCP Midstream
General Counsel and Vice President
370, 17th Street, Suite 2500
Denver, Colorado 80202
CPF 4-2017-5032
Dear Mr. Backes:
On April 12, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to DCP Midstream (DCP), a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a
Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. DCP submitted the required information on
October 15, 2018. Based on our review of the documentation provided, a subsequent meeting with
DCP officials to provide additional clarification on actions taken, and confirmation of payment of
the civil penalty, it has been determined that DCP has complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

420175032_Final Order_04122018.pdf

of Transportation
U.S. Department
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington DC 20590
Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
APR 1 2 2018
Mr. Wouter van Kempen
Chairman and CEO
DCP Midstream, LP
370 17th Street, Suite 2500
Denver, CO 80202
Re: CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Dear Mr. van Kempen:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
by DCP Midstream, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $27,600. It further specifies actions that need to be taken
terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order satisfied, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of
mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Man
Vant Ma
Mayberry 4
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
CC:
Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Brent Backes, Group Vice President and General Counsel, DCP Midstream, LP
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
DCP Midstream, LP,
CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Respondent.
FINAL ORDER
On multiple dates between May and December, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a
representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of DCP Midstream, LP (DCP or Respondent), in Texas and Oklahoma. DCP is a limited
partnership owned by Phillips 66 and Enbridge, Inc., that operates more than 64,000 miles of
natural gas liquid (NGL) pipeline and 12 natural gas processing facilities in approximately 16
states.!
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 24, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49
C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
DCP had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty
of $27,600 for one alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action
but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement
action.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, DCP responded to the Notice by
letter dated October 27, 2017 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of
violation, and agreed to complete certain corrective actions, as provided in the proposed
compliance order. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to
one.
' DCP Midstream website, available at http://www.dcpmidstream.com/getattachment/Utility-Pages/Explore-
Footprint/DCP_Mid Corp_ Glance_Fact_ Sheet 032016_Enbridge Consolidation.pdf.aspx (last accessed January 3,



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, DCP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a)
(i)
What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to
protect the high consequence area? - (1) ...
(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator
determines that an EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high
consequence area in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, an
operator must install the EFRD. In making this determination, an operator
topography or pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, proximity to power
sources, location of nearest response personnel, specific terrain between the
pipeline segment and the high consequence area, and benefits expected by
reducing the spill size.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) by failing to determine
whether ErDs were needed on two DCP pipeline segments running through high consequence
areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to perform an initial evaluation
on the company's Panova to Red River and Red River to Mount Belvieu segments. Both
§ 195.452(i)(4) and section IP 008 of DCP's own written Integrity Procedure, IP 008 (version
3.1, dated December 2012), required that DCP consider whether EFRDs should be added as a
preventive and mitigative measure on the listed pipeline segments.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) by failing to determine
whether EFRDs were needed on two pipeline segments in order to protect HCAs.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric
corrosion and what coating material may I use?
(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is
exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric
corrosion.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to clean and coat
each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 3
discovered numerous instances of deteriorated coating on its pipeline when conducting
atmospheric pipe inspections. However, for 40 of the pipeline portions identified as having
deteriorated coatings, DCP failed to remediate the deteriorated coatings by cleaning and coating
the pipeline.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to clean and
coat numerous portions of its pipeline that were exposed to the atmosphere.
Item 6: 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 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to follow Section 4 of its Integrity Management
Manual - Risk Management Manual, Subsection 4.4.5: Pipeline Facilities Risk Assessment.
Subsection 4.4.5 provides, in relevant part, that Respondent must use the checklist in DCP Form
50 to assist in "determining the most credible release scenario and impact on any affected
HCAs."
During its inspection, PHMSA noted that DCP had facilities in Teague, Lockwood, and Panova,
all of which are in HCA or HCA-could-affect areas. When the PHMSA inspector asked DCP for
copies of the Form 50 checklist generated for these three facilities, as required under Subsection
4.4.5, DCP was not able to provide them.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its
own manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine
whether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with
$195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months....



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 4
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct
tests on one of its cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to conduct
tests at five locations on its 16-inch Lockwood Station to Teague Station pipeline at least once
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. By failing to test at these five
locations, DCP was unable to demonstrate adequate levels of cathodic protection under
§ 195.573(a)(1).
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct
tests on one of its cathodically protected pipelines at least once per calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.?
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; and any effect that the penalty may have on its 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. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $27,600 for the violation in Item 8 above.
Item 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,600 for Respondent's violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(a)(1), for failing to conduct tests on one of its cathodically protected pipelines at least
once per calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. DCP neither contested the
allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $27,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited
above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $27,600.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 5
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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $27,600 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 Items 4, 5, and 6 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(i)(4), 195.581(a), and 195.402(a), respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who
owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards
established under chapter 601. 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 § 195.452(i)(4) (Item 4), Respondent must
perform a study, based on a current high consequence area list, to determine whether
EFRDs are needed on pipeline segments to protect high consequence areas in the
event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release to enhance public safety. Respondent
must complete this compliance item and submit documentation to the Director within
90 days of receipt of this Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.581(a) (Item 5), Respondent must provide
evidence that the 40 identified locations with deteriorated coating have been
adequately cleaned and coated. Respondent must complete this compliance item and
submit documentation to the Director within 180 days of receipt of this Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 6), Respondent must conduct a
thorough review using the Form 50 checklist to determine the most credible release
scenario and impact on HAs and HCA-could-affect areas to enhance public safety.
Respondent must complete this compliance item and submit documentation to the
Director within 90 days of receipt of this Order.
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 and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is



CPF No. 4-2017-5032
Page 6
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.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 2, 3, and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did
not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered
to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.64(c) (Item 1) — Respondent's alleged failure to notify PHMSA
that DCP had divested a pipeline asset;
49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) (Item 2) - Respondent's alleged failure to perform an
inspection of the internal surface of a segment of pipeline removed during a "hot
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) - Respondent's alleged failure to follow its own
manual of written procedures with respect to pipeline-assessment scheduling; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.567(c) (Item 7) — Respondent's alleged failure to maintain test
lead wires in a condition that enabled DCP to determine whether cathodic
protection complied with § 195.571.
DCP presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address
the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Nathan,
APR 1 2 2018
Ałan K. Mayberry
Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420175032>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `d04d242486e02b1d7a45e91496b4a57b230d643bc35372fc7ff7143fce5f4f38`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T15:44:45.950Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-420175032`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "420175032",
  "operator": "DCP MIDSTREAM",
  "region": "Southwest",
  "pipelineType": "INTERSTATE LIQUID ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.402(a)",
    "195.452(i)(4)",
    "195.567(c)",
    "195.573(a)(1)",
    "195.579(c)",
    "195.581(a)",
    "195.64(c)(2)(v)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 7,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "420175032_Closure Letter_11052018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Closure%20Letter_11052018.pdf",
      "bytes": 19627,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420175032_Closure Letter_11052018_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Closure%20Letter_11052018_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 233402,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420175032_Final Order_04122018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Final%20Order_04122018.pdf",
      "bytes": 1133388,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420175032_Final Order__04122018_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Final%20Order__04122018_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 122480,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420175032_NOPV PCP PCO_08242017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08242017.pdf",
      "bytes": 162734,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420175032_NOPV PCP PCO_08242017_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08242017_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 175211,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420175032_Operator Response to Notice_10272017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175032/420175032_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10272017.pdf",
      "bytes": 178207,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "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": "DCP MIDSTREAM"
}
```