# ANADARKO E & P COMPANY LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 520095007
- **title:** ANADARKO E & P COMPANY LP — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2009-02-19
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(f)(1).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095007.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095007.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095007
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520095007
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ANADARKO E & P COMPANY LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.452(f)(1). The case was opened on 2009-02-19 and is reported as closed as of 2011-04-12. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

520095007_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04122011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_04122011.pdf

520095007_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04122011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_04122011_text.pdf

520095007_FinalOrder_04022010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_FinalOrder_04022010.pdf

520095007_FinalOrder_04022010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_FinalOrder_04022010_text.pdf

520095007_NOPV PCO_02192009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_NOPV%20PCO_02192009.pdf

520095007_NOPV PCO_02192009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_NOPV%20PCO_02192009_text.pdf

520095007_operator response_03162009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_operator%20response_03162009.pdf

520095007_Petition For Reconsideration_04152010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095007/520095007_Petition%20For%20Reconsideration_04152010.pdf

520095007_FinalOrder_04022010_text.pdf

APR 2 2010
Mr. Dan J. Rea
Vice President, Midstream
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
1201 Lake Robbins Drive
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Re: CPF No. 5-2009-5007
Dear Mr. Rea:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and finds that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation has completed the actions specified in
the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed.
Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as
otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 2360]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
______________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, ) CPF No. 5-2009-5007
)
Respondent. )
______________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On September 24, 2008, 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 Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko or Respondent) in Green River, Wyoming. Anadarko is an
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company that operates several
hazardous liquid pipeline systems through its subsidiaries in Wyoming.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 19, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Anadarko had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1) and proposed ordering Respondent
to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.
Anadarko failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of service of the Notice. Such failure to
respond constitutes a waiver of Respondent’s right to contest the allegations in the Notice and
authorizes the entry of this Final Order.2
1 http://www.anadarko.com/About/Pages/Overview.aspx (last accessed March 23, 2010).
2 § 190.209(c). Respondent submitted an untimely response to the Notice by letter dated May 21, 2009 (Response).
Anadarko did not contest the allegations of violation in that Response, but provided information concerning the
corrective actions it had taken.



2
FINDING OF VIOLATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence
areas.
(a) Which pipelines are covered by this section? This section applies to
each hazardous liquid pipeline and carbon dioxide pipeline that could
affect a high consequence area, including any pipeline located in a high
consequence area unless the operator effectively demonstrates by risk
assessment that the pipeline could not affect the area. . . .
(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An
integrity management program begins with the initial framework. An
operator must continually change the program to reflect operating
experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,
and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of
consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must
include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written
integrity management program:
(1) A process for identifying which pipeline segments could affect a
high consequence area….
The Notice alleged that Anadarko violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1) by improperly reducing the
total mileage of segments in the Wamsutter crude oil pipeline system that could affect a high
consequence area (HCA). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent stated that it had 30
miles worth of those segments in its 2005 Annual Report, but that it only listed 1 mile in its next
two annual reports in 2006 and 2007. The Notice further alleged that the Respondent offered no
technical justification for making that reduction, and that the information in the National Pipeline
Mapping System (NPMS) showed that it had underrepresented its HCA mileage. As already
noted, Anadarko has waived its right to contest these allegations.
review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1) by failing
to follow a process for identifying and reducing the total mileage of pipeline segments that could
affect an HCA.
3 Accordingly, based upon a
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
3 In its untimely Response, Anadarko questioned whether an abandoned subdivision should be designated as an
“other populated area” in the NPMS. I note that such designations, which are based on data obtained from the U.S.
Census Bureau, cannot be unilaterally changed by OPS. Although an operator is not necessarily bound by a NPMS
designation when determining whether a pipeline segment could affect an HCA, the company must follow a process
for identifying mileage of pipeline segments that could affect an HCA.



3
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1). 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. The Director has
indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance
order:
1. In its Response, Anadarko stated that it had 11.9 miles of pipeline
segments that could affect HCAs and submitted a third-party
technical report describing the methodology used in making that
determination. The Director has reviewed that information and
determined it satisfies the terms of the proposed compliance order.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520095007_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04122011_text.pdf

APR 12 2011
Mr. Dan J. Rea
Vice President, Midstream
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
1201 Lake Robbins Drive
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Re: CPF No. 5-2009-5007
Dear Mr. Rea:
Enclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It
grants your Petition for Reconsideration. Service of the Decision by certified mail is deemed
effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 3658]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
_______________________________
In the Matter of )
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, ) CPF No. 5-2009-5007
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
_______________________________)
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
In an April 2, 2010 Final Order, I found that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko or
Petitioner) violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1) by improperly reducing the total mileage of
segments in its Wamsutter crude oil pipeline system that could affect a high consequence area
(HCA). By letter dated April 15, 2010, Anadarko filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration
(Petition) of that Final Order with the Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA.
Petitioner asks that I reconsider the finding in the Final Order that it failed to submit a timely
written response to the February 19, 2009 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice) in this case. In support of that request, Anadarko notes that it first
responded to the Notice in a March 16, 2009 letter to the Western Region, PHMSA.
The Pipeline Safety Regulations permit the filing of a petition for reconsideration of a final
reconsideration is an opportunity to present the agency with previously unavailable information
order. It is not a right of appeal or to seek a de novo review of the record.1 Rather,
and, if appropriate, to request that any errors in the final order be corrected. That is why the
Associate Administrator does not consider repetitious information or arguments on
reconsideration. It is also why a petitioner must provide a valid reason for consideration of facts
or arguments that were not raised on its behalf in a timely manner.
To be timely, a respondent must submit a written response “within 30 days of receipt of a notice
of probable violation.”2 Petitioner’s March 16, 2009 letter to the Western Region met that
requirement in all respects.
3
Accordingly, I am withdrawing the finding in the Final Order that
Anadarko failed to submit a timely written response in this case.
1 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(a)-(e).
2 49 C.F.R. § 190.209.
3 Due to a clerical error, this letter was not included in the case file until after the issuance of the Final Order.



2
As Anadarko did not contest the allegation of probable violation in that response or request any
further relief in its Petition, I am affirming the remainder of the Final Order without
modification.
RELIEF GRANTED
Based on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the relevant portions of the record,
and for the reasons stated above, I am withdrawing the finding in the Final Order that Anadarko
failed to submit a timely written response in this case. The remainder of the Final Order is
affirmed without modification.
This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
_____________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 12068