{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320091011W","title":"DCP MIDSTREAM — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-07-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.905(b)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091011w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091011w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091011w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320091011W","body":"Warning Letter involving DCP MIDSTREAM. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.905(b)(1). The case was opened on 2009-07-27 and is reported as closed as of 2009-07-27. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320091011W_Warning Letter_07272009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091011W/320091011W_Warning%20Letter_07272009.pdf\n\n320091011W_Warning Letter_07272009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091011W/320091011W_Warning%20Letter_07272009_text.pdf\n\n320091011W_Warning Letter_07272009_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 27, 2009\nBrent Backes\nGeneral Vice President and General Counsel\nDCP Midstream\n370 17th Street, Suite 2500\nDenver, Colorado 80202\nCPF 3-2009-1011W\nDear Mr. Backes:\nOn October 16-20, 2006 and October 30-November 1, 2006, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code inspected the Duke Energy Field Services (DEFS) integrity management\nplan and procedures in Denver, Colorado.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violation(s) are:\n§192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn operator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see\n§192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity management\nprogram, as information is gained and incorporated into the program. An operator must\nmake continual improvements to its program. The initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements. (When indicated,\n\n\n\nrefer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (ibr, see §192.7) for more detailed information on the listed\nelement.)\n1. §192.911 (a) An identification of all high consequence areas, in accordance with\n§192.905.\nItem 1A: §192.905(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified\nsite, for purposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained\nfrom routine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with\nsafety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to the\noperator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria. These\npublic officials could include officials on a local emergency planning commission\nor relevant Native American tribal officials.\n(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning\nresponsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to\nidentify an identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as\nappropriate, to identify these sites.\n(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or\n(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government\nagency; or\n(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map\nmaintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency and\navailable to the general public.\nDEFS did not use input from public officials with safety or emergency response or\nplanning responsibilities during the process to locate “identified sites” as required.\nAdditionally, in the absence of public official input, DEFS did not utilize facility\nlicensing registration data or one of the other alternatives, to assist in the determination\nof “identified sites.”\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000\nfor any related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement\naction or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s)\nidentified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in DCP Midstream being subject to\nadditional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 3-2009-1011W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion\nof your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along\nwith the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the\n2\n\n\n\nportions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you\nbelieve the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nIvan A. Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":4893}