{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420185004","title":"DCP MIDSTREAM — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-02-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.561(a), 195.579(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420185004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DCP MIDSTREAM. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.561(a),  195.579(c). The case was opened on 2018-02-09 and is reported as closed as of 2019-04-03. Proposed civil penalty: $44,200. Assessed civil penalty: $44,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420185004_Final Order_04032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_Final%20Order_04032019.pdf\n\n420185004_Final Order_04032019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_Final%20Order_04032019_text.pdf\n\n420185004_NOPV PCP_02092018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_NOPV%20PCP_02092018.pdf\n\n420185004_NOPV PCP_02092018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_NOPV%20PCP_02092018_text.pdf\n\n420185004_Operator Response to Notice_03212018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03212018.pdf\n\n420185004_Final Order_04032019_text.pdf\n\nApril 3, 2019\nMr. Wouter van Kempen\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nDCP Midstream, LP\n370 17th Street, Suite 2500\nDenver, CO 80202\nRe: CPF No. 4-2018-5004\nDear Mr. van Kempen:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $44,200. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated March 28, 2018. This enforcement action is now\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Brent Backes, Group Vice President and General Counsel, DCP Midstream, LP\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nDCP Midstream, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2018-5004\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple dates between June 25 and August 25, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of DCP Midstream, LP’s (DCP or Respondent), Black Lake highly volatile liquid (HVL)\npipeline system in Texas and Louisiana. DCP is a master limited partnership owned by Phillips\n66 and Enbridge, Inc., that operates more than 64,000 miles of natural gas liquid pipeline and 12\nnatural gas processing facilities in approximately 16 states.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 9, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that DCP\nhad violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.561(a) and 195.579(c) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$44,200 for the alleged violations.\nDCP responded to the Notice by letter dated March 21, 2018 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $44,200. In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate Administrator to make\nfindings of violation and to issue this final order without further proceedings.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, DCP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\n1 DCP website, available at http://www.dcpmidstream.com/getattachment/Utility-Pages/Explore-\nFootprint/DCP_Mid_Corp_Glance_Fact_Sheet_Q32016_Enbridge_Consolidation.pdf.aspx (last accessed December\n11, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-5004\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a), which states:\n§ 195.561 When must I inspect pipe coating used for external corrosion\ncontrol?\n(a) You must inspect all external pipe coating required by § 195.557 just\nprior to lowering the pipe into the ditch or submerging the pipe.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a) by failing to inspect the\nexternal pipeline coating prior to lowering the pipe into the ditch. Specifically, the construction\nfield report for the CrossTex Lateral, which was constructed on June 24, 2013, only noted that a\npipe-inspection “jeep” was at the job site,2 but did not indicate whether the pipe had actually\nbeen inspected prior to lowering it into the ditch. Additionally, DCP failed to follow its own\ncorrosion-control procedure (Procedure CORR-2160), dated April 17, 2013. Sections 3.1, 3.4,\nand 3.5 of CORR-2160 require DCP representatives to inspect the pipeline coating visually and\n100 percent electrically using the conductive contact with the holiday detector. Section 3.7 also\nspecifies that the coating inspections and repairs should be documented on DCP Form 13 –\nexposed Pipeline Inspection Report or a similar form demonstrating compliance with the\nprocedure.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. In its Response, DCP stated that no\ninspection report or other documentation was found to demonstrate that the pipeline coating had\nbeen inspected prior to lowering the pipe into the ditch.3 Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a) by failing to inspect\nthe external pipeline coating prior to lowering the pipe into the ditch.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) …\n(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you\nmust inspect the internal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If\nyou find internal corrosion requiring corrective action under § 195.585, you\nmust investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the removed\npipe (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether\nadditional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the\nremoved pipe.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) by failing to inspect the\ninternal surface of pipe for evidence of corrosion when the pipe was removed from the pipeline\nsystem. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to provide documentation to support\nthat an internal inspection was performed when hot tap coupons were removed from the pipeline.\nDCP made four hot taps to connect the Hull Lateral, the Ada Lateral, the CrossTex Lateral, and\n2\nPipelines are coated and/or wrapped with special materials to prevent corrosion. Coating integrity is confirmed\nthrough detection of bare spots with special detectors known as “jeeps.”\n3 Response, at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-5004\nPage 3\nthe Goldonna Lateral, which were all connected to meter stations. The four meter station\nreceipts were installed in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Furthermore, according to DCP Corrosion and\nCompliance representatives, inspection reports were not available since the internal surface of\nthe pipe had not been inspected for evidence of corrosion during these projects. DCP also failed\nto follow its corrosion-control procedure (Procedure CORR-3010). Sections 3, 4, and 8 of\nCORR-3010 indicate that when the pipe is cut, including hot taps coupons, the internal surface\nmust be inspected.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. In its Response, DCP stated that no\ninspection reports for the hot taps conducted in 2013, 2014, and 2015, were found for the Hull\nLateral, the Ada Lateral, the CrossTex Lateral, and the Goldonna Lateral.4 Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) by\nfailing to inspect the internal surface of pipe for evidence of corrosion when the pipe was\nremoved from the pipeline system.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.5 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $44,200 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.561(a), for failing to inspect the external pipeline coating prior to lowering the pipe into\nthe ditch. DCP neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $21,600\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.579(c), for failing to failing to inspect the internal surface of pipe for evidence of corrosion\n4 Response, at 1.\n5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,\n83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-5004\nPage 4\nwhen pipe was removed from the pipeline system. DCP neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $44,200, which was paid in full by\nwire transfer on March 23, 2018.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nApril 3, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11165}