# DCP MIDSTREAM — Warning Letter

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

Official case documents:

320091011W_Warning Letter_07272009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091011W/320091011W_Warning%20Letter_07272009.pdf

320091011W_Warning Letter_07272009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091011W/320091011W_Warning%20Letter_07272009_text.pdf

320091011W_Warning Letter_07272009_text.pdf

WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
July 27, 2009
Brent Backes
General Vice President and General Counsel
DCP Midstream
370 17th Street, Suite 2500
Denver, Colorado 80202
CPF 3-2009-1011W
Dear Mr. Backes:
On October 16-20, 2006 and October 30-November 1, 2006, representatives of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code inspected the Duke Energy Field Services (DEFS) integrity management
plan and procedures in Denver, Colorado.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violation(s) are:
§192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?
An operator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see
§192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity management
program, as information is gained and incorporated into the program. An operator must
make continual improvements to its program. The initial program framework and
subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements. (When indicated,



refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (ibr, see §192.7) for more detailed information on the listed
element.)
1. §192.911 (a) An identification of all high consequence areas, in accordance with
§192.905.
Item 1A: §192.905(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified
site, for purposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained
from routine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with
safety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to the
operator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria. These
public officials could include officials on a local emergency planning commission
or relevant Native American tribal officials.
(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning
responsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to
identify an identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as
appropriate, to identify these sites.
(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or
(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government
agency; or
(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map
maintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency and
available to the general public.
DEFS did not use input from public officials with safety or emergency response or
planning responsibilities during the process to locate “identified sites” as required.
Additionally, in the absence of public official input, DEFS did not utilize facility
licensing registration data or one of the other alternatives, to assist in the determination
of “identified sites.”
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000
for any related series of violations. 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 correct the item(s)
identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in DCP Midstream being subject to
additional enforcement action.
No reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer
to CPF 3-2009-1011W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this
enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion
of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along
with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the
2



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).
Sincerely,
Ivan A. Huntoon
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
3
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 4893