{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42022009NOPV","title":"DCP MIDSTREAM — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-01-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(a)(1)(ii), 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.452(i)(4), 195.583(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022009nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022009nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022009nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42022009NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DCP MIDSTREAM. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(a)(1)(ii),  195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.452(i)(4),  195.583(b). The case was opened on 2022-01-21 and is reported as closed as of 2022-11-17. Proposed civil penalty: $157,100. Assessed civil penalty: $157,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42022009NOPV_Closure Letter_11172022_(21-199753).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022009NOPV/42022009NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11172022_(21-199753).pdf\n\n42022009NOPV_Closure Letter_11172022_(21-199753)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022009NOPV/42022009NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11172022_(21-199753)_text.pdf\n\n42022009NOPV_Final Order_06152022_(21-199753).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022009NOPV/42022009NOPV_Final%20Order_06152022_(21-199753).pdf\n\n42022009NOPV_Final Order_06152022_(21-199753)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022009NOPV/42022009NOPV_Final%20Order_06152022_(21-199753)_text.pdf\n\n42022009NOPV_Operator Response to Notice and Request Time Extension_02172022_(21-199753).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022009NOPV/42022009NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20Time%20Extension_02172022_(21-199753).pdf\n\n42022009NOPV_PCP PCO_01212022_(21-199753).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022009NOPV/42022009NOPV_PCP%20PCO_01212022_(21-199753).pdf\n\n42022009NOPV_PCP PCO_01212022_(21-199753)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022009NOPV/42022009NOPV_PCP%20PCO_01212022_(21-199753)_text.pdf\n\n42022009NOPV_Final Order_06152022_(21-199753)_text.pdf\n\nJune 15, 2022\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: grgreen@dcpmidstream.com\nMr. George Green\nGroup Vice President and General Counsel\nDCP Midstream, LP\n6900 E. Layton Avenue, Suite 900\nDenver, Colorado 80237\nRe: CPF No. 4-2022-009-NOPV\nDear Mr. Green:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $157,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken by DCP\nMidstream, LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance\norder completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt as provided 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\nMs. Alison Barry, Assistant General Counsel, DCP Midstream, aebarry@dcpmidstream.com\nMr. John Pontious, Pipeline Compliance Manager, DCP Midstream,\njdpontious@dcpmidstream.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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. 4-2022-009-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFrom February 22, 2021, through September 24, 2021, 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 DCP Midstream,\nLP’s (DCP Midstream or Respondent) storage field in Marysville, Michigan (Marysville Storage\nField). DCP Midstream’s Marysville Storage Field consists of 4.321 miles of storage field\npipeline and four pumps that transport and store natural gas liquids.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 21, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).2 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that DCP had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $157,100 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included\nan additional three warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nDCP Midstream responded to the Notice by letter dated February 17, 2022 (Response).3\nRespondent did not contest the probable violations or proposed civil penalty, but contested the\nproposed compliance order for Item 2 of the Notice, and asked PHMSA to allow it 120 days\nfrom the receipt of the Final Order to submit the results and analysis required by the proposed\nCompliance Order for Item 3. DCP Midstream also responded to warning Items 1, 4, and 5 of\nthe Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINAL ORDER\n1 See PHMSA Safety Violation Report (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, CPF No. 4-2022-009-\nNOPV (Jan. 21, 2022) (on file with PHMSA).\n3 Response to Notice of Probable Violation Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, CPF 4-2022-\n009-NOPV (Feb. 17, 2022) (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2022-009-NOPV\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nDCP Midstream did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195,\nas follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way at intervals not exceeding three\nweeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA\nreviewed patrol records for calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021 and found 15 inspections that\nexceeded the three-week (21-day) interval during the three calendar years reviewed. In addition,\nPHSMA found that patrols were not performed 26 times per year for calendar years 2019 and\n2020, and patrol records show a total of only 29 patrols from June 30, 2019, to September 24,\n2021. During the inspection, the Notice alleged, DCP Midstream’s Plant Supervisor stated that\ndaily shift patrols and weekly patrols were performed at Marysville Storage Field; however, DCP\nMidstream could not reference any procedures that detailed this requirement. Respondent’s\nwritten Liquid Pipeline O&M Manual, Procedure Number F-18, Inspection of: Right of Way,\nCrossings and Under Navigable Water, Procedure 1 – Onshore Inspections (Date Revised\n10/28/2020) required that onshore inspections be performed at intervals not exceeding three\nweeks (21 days), but at least 26 times each calendar year.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface\nconditions on or adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way at intervals not exceeding three weeks, but\nat least 26 times each calendar year.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that\nit is functioning properly.\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each\n4 On April 8, 2022, PHMSA issued a final rule amending § 195.420(b). See “Pipeline Safety: Requirement of\nValve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards,” 68 FR 20940. The version of § 195.420(b) in effect\non the date of the Notice is quoted here.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2022-009-NOPV\nPage 3\nmainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA reviewed\nDCP Midstream’s records of mainline valve inspections and found 218 inspections that exceeded\nthe required 7 ½ month interval during calendar years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. PHMSA\nalso discovered that inspections were not performed twice each calendar year for 231 inspections\nin calendar years 2019 and 2020. PHMSA also found that the valve inspection records appeared\nto be inaccurate, in that the DOT valves were listed on both DOT Liquid Valve Inspection Forms\nand Non-DOT Liquid Valve Inspection Forms.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each\nmainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year.\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\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $157,100 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(a), for failing to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-\nway at intervals not exceeding three weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. DCP\nMidstream neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a\nreduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $75,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $81,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b), for failing to inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning\n5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2022-009-NOPV\nPage 4\nproperly at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year. DCP\nMidstream neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a\nreduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $81,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b).\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 $157,100.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $157,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 2 and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412(a) and 195.420(b), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.412(a) (Item 2), in the proposed Compliance Order,\nPHMSA stated that DCP Midstream must update its procedures to address patrolling facilities,\nspecifically the daily shift and weekly patrols mentioned by DCP personnel.\nIn its Response, DCP Midstream argued it determined that daily and weekly right-of-way patrols\nare not practicable at the Marysville Storage Field, nor are they required by its standard operating\nprocedures. Respondent stated it would use a scheduling application to ensure timely completion\nof patrols, performed at intervals not exceeding three weeks (21 days), but at least 26 times each\ncalendar year. DCP Midstream requested that the Compliance Order reflect its decision to\nfollow the right-of-way inspection procedure already included in its Liquid O&M Plan.\nThe Southwest Region reviewed this request and agreed with DCP Midstream that if it elects to\nnot perform daily and weekly right-of-way patrols, then it need not amend its procedure to\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2022-009-NOPV\nPage 5\naddress the daily shift and weekly patrols mentioned by the Plant Supervisor. The Southwest\nRegion therefore recommended withdrawing the proposed compliance order associated with\nItem 2. I agree with this recommendation, and hereby order that the proposed Compliance Order\nassociated with Item 2 be withdrawn.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.420(b) (Item 3), in the proposed Compliance Order,\nPHMSA stated that DCP Midstream must determine which valves at Marysville Storage Field\nare DOT jurisdictional valves that are integral to the safe operation of the pipeline system, which\ncomponents at Marysville Storage Field fall under federal jurisdiction, and update its procedure\nand records to ensure regulated pipe and components are included in its records as jurisdictional.\nThe proposed Compliance Order further stated that the list of DOT valves and other components\nthat fall under federal jurisdiction at the facility, and associated drawings used to make\njurisdictional determinations, must be provided to PHSMA within 30 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\nIn its Response, DCP Midstream stated that it will conduct an analysis of the valves, pumps, and\nother components of Marysville Storage Field to determine which components fall under the\npipeline safety regulations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Respondent further stated it expects this\nreview to take longer than the 30 days allowed by the proposed compliance order. DCP\nMidstream requested that the Compliance Order be amended to allow it 120 days from the date\nof receipt of the Final Order to submit the requested documentation to PHSMA.\nThe Southwest Region reviewed this request and recommended allowing Respondent the\nadditional requested time. I agree with this recommendation, and hereby order that the proposed\nCompliance Order be modified to allow Respondent 120 days from the date of receipt of the\nFinal Order to provide the list of DOT valves and other components that fall under federal\njurisdiction at the facility, and associated drawings used to make jurisdictional determinations.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.420(b) (Item 3), Respondent must determine\nwhich valves at Marysville Storage Field are DOT jurisdictional valves that are\nintegral to the safe operation of the pipeline system, such as those used for station\nisolation and segment isolation. DCP Midstream must also determine which\ncomponents at the Marysville Storage Field, including pumps, fall under federal\njurisdiction, and update its procedures and records to ensure regulated pipe and\ncomponents are included in its records as jurisdictional. The list of DOT valves and\nother components that fall under federal jurisdiction at the facility, and associated\ndrawings used to make jurisdictional determinations, must be provided to PHMSA\nwithin 120 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2022-009-NOPV\nPage 6\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 4, and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195, but\nidentified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(1)(ii) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\ncurrent records of its jurisdictional pipeline systems, including pumps;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct an\nEFRD analysis to consider all factors provided in § 195.452(i)(4) to determine\nwhat preventative and mitigative measures must be taken to protect high\nconsequence areas; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583(b) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to monitor its\npipelines for atmospheric corrosion by giving particular attention to pipe at pipe\nsupports.\nDCP Midstream presented information in its Response showing that it will take certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nbrief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing\nof a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of\nthe order, including any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order\nbecomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2022-009-NOPV\nPage 7\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 15, 2022\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n42022009NOPV_Closure Letter_11172022_(21-199753)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL\nNovember 17, 2022\nMr. George Green\nGroup Vice President and General Counsel\nDCP Midstream, LP\n6900 E. Layton Avenue, Suite 900\nDenver, Colorado 80237\nCPF 4-2022-009-NOPV\nDear Mr. Green:\nOn June 15, 2022, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an onsite\npipeline safety inspection of DCP Midstream (DCP) Marysville Storage Field in Marysville,\nMichigan. As a result of the inspection, DCP was issued a Final Order (Order) in the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.\nBased on PHMSA’s review of the documentation DCP provided and with confirmation of payment\nof the civil penalty, it has been determined that DCP has complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Ms. Alison Barry, Assistant General Counsel, DCP Midstream,\naebarry@dcpmidstream.com\nMr. John Pontious, Manager, Pipeline Compliance, DCP Midstream,\njdpontious@dcpmidstream.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":22441}