{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520160016","title":"MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-09-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.13(c), 192.603(b), 192.615(a), 192.705(b), 192.739(a), 192.745(a), 192.807(a)(4), 192.807(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520160016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.13(c),  192.603(b),  192.615(a),  192.705(b),  192.739(a),  192.745(a),  192.807(a)(4),  192.807(b). The case was opened on 2016-09-07 and is reported as closed as of 2019-08-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520160016_Closure Letter_08142019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Closure%20Letter_08142019.pdf\n\n520160016_Closure Letter_08142019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Closure%20Letter_08142019_text.pdf\n\n520160016_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06272019.pdf\n\n520160016_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06272019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06272019_text.pdf\n\n520160016_Final Order_08242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Final%20Order_08242017.pdf\n\n520160016_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Final%20Order_08242017_text.pdf\n\n520160016_NOPV PCO_09072016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_NOPV%20PCO_09072016.pdf\n\n520160016_NOPV PCO_09072016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_NOPV%20PCO_09072016_text.pdf\n\n520160016_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_09152017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09152017.pdf\n\n520160016_Operator Response to Notice_10072016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10072016.pdf\n\n520160016_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06272019_text.pdf\n\nJune 27, 2019\nMr. Donald R. Macpherson, Jr.\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nMacpherson Oil Company\n100 Wilshire, Suite 800\nSanta Monica, California 90401\nRe: CPF No. 5-2016-0016\nDear Mr. Macpherson:\nEnclosed please find my Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Macpherson Oil\nCompany in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants,\nin part, and denies, in part, the Petition. The Decision modifies several terms of the Compliance\nOrder contained in the Final Order that was issued by PHMSA on August 24, 2017. When the\nterms of the Compliance Order, as modified, have been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the\nfinal administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this Decision is made pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Tim Lovley, Director HSE, Macpherson Oil Company, PO Box 5368, Bakersfield,\nCalifornia 93388\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 )\nMacpherson Oil Company, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0016\n)\n)\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nFrom June 22 through 25, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Macpherson Oil\nCompany (Macpherson or Petitioner) at its Kern County Gas Line facilities in Bakersfield,\nCalifornia.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Petitioner,\nby letter dated September 7, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance\nOrder (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Macpherson had committed various\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action but warned the\noperator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nMacpherson responded to the Notice by letter dated October 7, 2016 (Response). It did not\ncontest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective actions it\nhad taken, as well as the financial burdens that would result from compliance with the Proposed\nCompliance Order. Macpherson did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one.\nPursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of Petitioner’s response\nmaterial on January 31, 2017 (Recommendation).\nOn August 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this\nproceeding, finding that Macpherson had committed violations of Part 192, as alleged in the\nNotice. The Final Order included a Compliance Order (Compliance Order) that ordered\nMacpherson to take certain corrective actions, among others, related to violations of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.13(c). The Final Order did not modify Item 1(a) of the Proposed Compliance Order based\non the estimated costs raised by Macpherson because the information submitted by the company\n1 The Kern County Gas Line is a 6.8-mile, 6” gas transmission line. See, Pipeline Safety Violation Report\n(Violation Report), (Sept. 7, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 2\ndid not provide sufficient detail to justify modification.\nIn accordance with § 190.243, Macpherson objected to this portion of the Compliance Order and\nfiled a timely Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order on September 15, 2017,\nseeking reconsideration of Compliance Order Item 1(a) based on “the disproportionate financial\nburden relative to any risk reduction gained by such requirements.”2\nMacpherson did not seek reconsideration of the finding that it had violated § 192.13(c) by failing\nto maintain the plans and programs that it was required to establish under Part 192 for the Kern\nCounty Gas Line. Specifically, the Final Order found that the company was unable to document\nthat:\n(1) the pipeline was welded using a qualified welding procedure(s) per § 192.225(a);\n(2) each welding procedure was recorded in detail, including the results of the qualifying\ntests, and the record was retained and followed whenever the procedure was used per\n§ 192.225(b);\n(3) welders were qualified in accordance with the appropriate referenced standard(s) per\n§ 192.227(a);\n(4) pipeline welds were visually inspected by a qualified individual per § 192.241(a);\n(5) pipeline welds were nondestructively tested in accordance with § 192.243; or\n(6) the pipeline was initially installed with the minimum cover required by § 192.327.\nIn its Petition, Macpherson objected to the terms of the Compliance Order, Item 1(a), which\nrequired that Macpherson take certain corrective actions, including the development of a Fitness\nfor Service (FFS) plan that would assess the condition of the pipeline system to demonstrate its\nsafety and integrity. Under the terms of the Compliance Order, the FFS plan was required to\ninclude the following measures relating to girth welds on the pipeline:\n(1) Destructive Testing – Cut out at least one in-line girth weld and destructively test it in\naccordance with § 192.225;\n(2) Nondestructive Testing – Write a nondestructive testing (NDT) procedure in\naccordance with § 192.243 to NDT girth welds. Excavate and NDT: (a) at least 40\ngirth welds equally spaced along the entire pipeline, (b) all tie-in girth welds made\nafter the post-construction pressure testing in 1998, and (c) all known fabricated and\nstation girth welds;\n(3) Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth weld repaired or\nreplaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld; and\n(4) Hydrotest the entire pipeline in accordance with the requirements in Part 192 if more\nthan three girth welds fail the NDT.\nIn response to the Petition, on November 3, 2017, pursuant to § 190.243(d), I requested that\nMacpherson provide additional information to determine the proper disposition of the Petition.\nSpecifically, I requested that Macpherson present any probative evidence demonstrating that the\nproposed compliance terms would impose a substantial financial burden on the company. I also\n2 Petition, at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 3\nrequested that the Director, Western Region, evaluate the information contained in the Petition\nand consult with Macpherson, if appropriate, on the issues raised in the Petition regarding the\nCompliance Order.\nPetitioner provided additional information on December 1, 2017 (Petition Addendum No. 1) and\non April 20, 2018 (Petition Addendum No. 2). As directed, on June 27, 2018, the Director,\nWestern Region, submitted a Revised Region Recommendation regarding the disposition of the\nPetition (Revised Recommendation).\nLegal Standard of Review\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. Reconsideration does not constitute an\nappeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. It is, instead, an opportunity for\na petitioner to request that errors in the final order be corrected or to present information that was\nnot previously available, provided the petitioner submits a valid reason explaining why such\ninformation was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. PHMSA may grant or deny,\nin whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, but may request\nadditional information or comment if deemed appropriate. Under § 190.243(b), the petitioner\nmust submit reasoning why any additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to\nissuance of the final order.\nAnalysis\nAs noted above, Petitioner requested relief from Item 1(a) of the Compliance Order, relating to\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c), on the grounds that the requirements would impose a\n“disproportionate financial burden relative to any risk reduction gained by such requirements.”\nMacpherson stated that the primary cost driver of its objections was related to the loss of\nproduction, i.e., lost revenue, by eliminating steam injection into the reservoir for a period of\ntime to meet the compliance obligations in the Compliance Order.\nThe Western Region reviewed Macpherson’s additional financial documentation and explained\nthat Macpherson’s system requires a continuous supply of natural gas for the production of oil in\nthe Round Mountain oil field. It uses the gas to: (1) generate steam for injection into the Round\nMountain oil field formation; (2) generate heat for oil dehydration; (3) pressurize oil measuring\nequipment; and (4) make up gas for Air Permitting Compliance.3 Macpherson produces oil from\nthe Round Mountain field by injecting steam into the formation, heating the oil and enabling it to\nmigrate to the production wells. The oil produced at the Round Mountain field is a heavy oil that\nrequires extensive and continuous steam injection to heat the oil. Removing the steam injection\nhas an adverse effect on oil production by allowing the oil-field formation to cool, thus slowing\nor stopping the migration of oil to the production wells.4 Shutting down the system in order to\n3 Revised Recommendation (on file with PHMSA), at 2.\n4 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 4\ncomply with the terms of the Compliance Order would introduce risks and negatively impact\nreservoir behavior and well productivity.5\nMacpherson provided three sets of documents in support of this statement.6 Macpherson\nprovided direct cost totals for such requirements, indirect costs, costs associated with performing\nthe requested work, reduction in production, 10 days without heat for oil processing, and\nrecovery time for the reservoir heat.7\nIn support of its Petition, Macpherson stated that its pipeline was low risk, decreasing the threat\nof eliminating or modifying Compliance Order, Item 1(a). Specifically, Macpherson stated that:\n(1) the gas pipeline passed a hydrostatic test prior to being placed into service in 1998; (2) a\ncathodic-protection system has been in use since the line’s initial commissioning; (3) non-\ndestructive testing performed on both buried and exposed piping indicate wall strength that\nmeets design and operation conditions; and (4) the gas pipeline is in a remote location with no\nroad crossing and a low population.8 Macpherson indicated that it relies exclusively on the\npipeline to provide natural gas to fuel the steam generators that make oil production possible in\nthe Round Mountain oil field, meaning that shutting down the gas pipeline would adversely\naffect oil production in the Round Mountain oil field and would place an unreasonable financial\nburden on Macpherson.9\nI agree that the Compliance Order, as issued, would adversely affect oil production in the field\nand could place an unreasonable financial burden on the company. Therefore, based on the\nfinancial documents provided, the estimates of the cost of complying with the Compliance Order\nas written, and certain alternative actions proposed by Macpherson to ensure compliance with the\npipeline safety regulations, I find that it is reasonable and prudent to order certain modifications\nto the Compliance Order. These modifications allow Macpherson to achieve compliance with\npipeline safety regulations using less financially burdensome means than those originally\nrequired by the Compliance Order.10\nAccordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, I order\nthat Paragraph 1(a) of the Compliance Order be amended. Petitioner is ordered to develop, and\nsubmit for approval within 90 days of receipt of this Decision, a written FFS plan to assess the\ncondition of the pipeline system to demonstrate its safety and integrity. The FFS plan must\naddress those actions required in Paragraphs 1(a)(i) through 1(a)(iii) of the Compliance Order, as\nmodified below:\n5 Petition, at 1.\n6 Petition; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, and Petition Addendum No. 2.\n7 Petition at 1; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, at Att. A.\n8 Petition, at 3-4; Revised Recommendation, at 2.\n9 Petition, at 1 (stating that a total shut down of the Round Mountain field could result in the estimated losses of\n$5.9M or potentially the loss of the entire field production); Revised Recommendation, at 3.\n10 Petition Addendum No. 1 at Att. A, Petition Addendum No. 2, at Att. A.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 5\n Paragraph 1(a)(i): Destructive Testing - Cut out at least one in-line girth weld and\ndestructively test it in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the strength of the weld.\nIn its Petition, Macpherson stated that “given the location of the pipeline, original hydrotest, that\nexposure of the pipeline presents opportunities to damage the factory applied coating, and 20\nyears of safe operation, [paragraph 1(a)(i)] seems like an unnecessary and costly requirement.”\nInstead, it proposed that the terms of Item 1(a)(i) be modified to “if a girth weld is replaced, as\noutlined below, it shall be destructively tested in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the\nstrength of the weld. Any other methods proposed for determining the strength of the girth weld\nshall be approved by the PHMSA.”\nBased on the estimate of the direct costs associated with this item and Macpherson’s proposed\nalternative,11 I find that compliance with this item as originally written constitutes an\nunreasonable financial burden on Macpherson, and that Macpherson’s alternative achieves\ncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations. I therefore amend Item 1(a)(i) to require that if\na girth weld is replaced, as required in Item 1(a)(iii), it shall be destructively tested in accordance\nwith § 192.225 to establish the strength of the weld. Any other methods proposed for\ndetermining the strength of the girth weld shall be approved by the Director.\n Paragraph 1(a)(ii): Nondestructive Testing - Write an NDT procedure in accordance\nwith § 192.243 to test girth welds. Excavate and NDT at least 40 girth welds equally\nspaced along the entire pipeline, all tie-in girth welds made after the post-construction\npressure testing in 1998, and all known fabricated and station girth welds.\nIn its Petition, Macpherson proposed an alternative to “ensure that piping located at the tie in\npoints have been NDT tested, further reducing the risk profile of the pipeline.”12 It suggested\nremoving the requirement to excavate and NDT at least 40 girth welds equally spaced along the\nentire pipeline, and added the sentence that “[a]ny other methods for determining acceptability of\nwelds shall be approved by the PHMSA.”13\nBased on the estimate of the direct costs associated with this item and Macpherson’s proposed\nalternative,14 I find the proposed alternative would not achieve an acceptable level of compliance\nwith § 192.243 and that excavating and NDT of at least 40 girth welds equally spaced along the\npipeline would not impose an unreasonable financial burden on Macpherson. Given that\nMacpherson has not produced documentation showing that the welds were visually and non-\ndestructively tested, and NDT does not affect pipeline or oil production operations, I find that\nNDT of the required 40 welds is appropriate to demonstrate compliance with §§ 192.13(c),\n192.241 and 192.243. I therefore decline to modify Item 1(a)(ii) of the Compliance Order.\n11 Petition, at 1; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, at Att. A.\n12 Petition, at 4-5.\n13 Petition, at 4.\n14 Petition, at 1; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, at Att. A.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 6\n Paragraph 1(a)(iii): Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth\nweld repaired or replaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld.\nIn its Petition, Macpherson proposed modifying Item 1(a)(iii) of the Compliance Order from\nrequiring that \"for every girth weld repaired or replaced, excavate and NDT (x-ray radiograph)\none additional girth weld,” to excavating and NDT the closest girth weld to any girth weld that\nfails NDT.\nI find that Macpherson’s alternative achieves compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. I\ntherefore amend Item 1(a)(iii) to require that Macpherson repair or replace all girth welds that\nfail the NDT and for every girth weld repaired or replaced, excavate and NDT one additional\ngirth weld closest to the weld that failed the NDT.\n Paragraph 1(a)(iv): Hydrotest the entire pipeline in accordance with the requirements in\nPart 192 if more than three girth welds fail the NDT.\nIn its Petition, Macpherson requested removal of the requirement to hydrotest the entire pipeline,\nand proposed to hydrotest all segments of replacement pipe in the shop in accordance with Part\n192. In support, Macpherson stated that removing the hydrotest requirement of the entire\npipeline will “eliminate the need to fill the line with water and creating [sic] a potentially\ncorrosive environment.”15\nI have considered both the financial documents provided by Petitioner, as well as its argument\nthat the pipeline passed a hydrotest prior to operation, that the pipeline has a safe operational\nhistory, and that the line is in a Class 1 location.16 Based on this review, and at the\nrecommendation of the Director, I find that Item 1(a)(iv) of the Compliance Order is not\nnecessary to demonstrate compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. I therefore remove\nItem 1(a)(iv) from the Compliance Order.\nConclusion\nBased on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby grant, in\npart, and deny, in part, the Petition and modify the Compliance Order, Item 1(a), for the reasons\nset forth above. Paragraph 1(a) of the Compliance Order is amended to read as follows:\na. Girth Welds – Macpherson must develop a written Fitness for Service (FFS) plan for girth\nwelds and submit the FFS to the Director, Western Region, OPS, for review and approval\nwithin 90 days of receipt of this Decision. The FFS for girth welds must include the\nfollowing at a minimum:\ni. If a girth weld is replaced, as outlined in paragraph 1(a)(iii), it shall be destructively\ntested in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the strength of the weld. Any other\n15 Petition, at 5. Macpherson’s recommended change is a restatement of the requirements of § 192.503(a).\n16 Petition, at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 7\nmethods proposed for determining the strength of the girth weld shall be approved by\nthe Director.\nii. Nondestructive Testing – write a nondestructive testing (NDT) procedure in\naccordance with § 192.243 for testing girth welds. Excavate and NDT at least 40 girth\nwelds equally spaced along the entire pipeline, all tie-in girth welds made after the\npost-construction pressure testing in 1998, and all known fabricated and station girth\nwelds.\niii. Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth weld repaired or\nreplaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld closest to the weld that failed\nthe NDT.\niv. [Removed]\nAll other terms of the Final Order remain in effect.\nThis Decision constitutes final agency action taken by PHMSA in the enforcement proceeding.\nThe terms and conditions of this Decision are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 27, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520160016_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf\n\nAugust 24, 2017\nMr. Donald R. Macpherson, Jr.\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nMacpherson Oil Company\n100 Wilshire, Suite 800\nSanta Monica, CA 90401\nRe: CPF No. 5-2016-0016\nDear Mr. Macpherson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Macpherson Oil Company to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor as otherwise 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: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Tim Lovley, Director HSE, Macpherson Oil Company, P.O. Box 5368, Bakersfield,\nCA 93388\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nMacpherson Oil Company, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0016\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 22-25, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Macpherson Oil\nCompany (Macpherson or Respondent), a subsidiary of Macpherson Energy Corporation, at its\nKern County Gas Line facilities in Bakersfield, California. The Kern County Gas Line is a 6.8-\nmile, 6” gas transmission line.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 7, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Macpherson had\ncommitted five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action,\nbut warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible enforcement action.\nMacpherson responded to the Notice by letter dated October 7, 2016 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken and requested that certain portions of the Proposed Compliance Order be\nmodified, as discussed more fully below. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Macpherson did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Sept. 7, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1. See also,\nhttp://www.macphersonenergy.com (last accessed July 20, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.13 What general requirements apply to pipelines regulated\nunder this part?\n(a) No person may operate a segment of pipeline [after March 12, 1971]\nunless:\n(1) The pipeline has been designed, installed, constructed, initially\ninspected, and initially tested in accordance with this part . . . .\n(c) Each operator shall maintain, modify as appropriate, and follow the\nplans, procedures, and programs that it is required to establish under this\npart.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c) by failing to maintain the\nplans and programs it was required to establish under Part 192 for its Kern County Gas Line,\nwhich was constructed and placed into service in 1998. The Federal pipeline safety regulations\nin § 192.13(a)(1) required the Kern County Gas Line to be designed, installed, constructed,\ninitially inspected, and initially tested in accordance with the applicable regulations in Part 192.\nSection 192.13(c) required the operator to maintain the plans, procedures, and programs it used\nto design, install, construct, initially inspect, and initially test its pipeline in accordance with\nPart 192.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection when the OPS inspector queried\nMacpherson personnel about the construction, installation, initial inspection, and initial testing of\nthe Kern County Gas Line, Respondent did not provide any records or any other documentation\nto demonstrate compliance with § 192.13(c).\nBecause Macpherson did not maintain all the plans and programs it was required to establish\nunder Part 192 for the Kern County Gas Line, it was unable to document that (1) the pipeline\nwas welded using a qualified welding procedure(s) per § 192.225(a); or (2) each welding\nprocedure was recorded in detail, including the results of the qualifying tests, and the record was\nretained and followed whenever the procedure was used per § 192.225(b). Further, Macpherson\ncould not document that: (3) the welders were qualified in accordance with the appropriate\nreferenced standard(s) per § 192.227(a); (4) pipeline welds were visually inspected by a qualified\nindividual per § 192.241(a); (5) pipeline welds were nondestructively tested in accordance with\n§ 192.243; or (6) the pipeline was initially installed with the minimum cover required by\n§ 192.327.\nRespondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c) by failing to maintain\nthe plans and programs it was required to establish under Part 192 for the Kern County Gas Line.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(a), which states:\n§ 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the\nhazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency . . . .\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(a) by failing to establish\nwritten procedures to minimize the hazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency. During the\ninspection, Macpherson failed to provide the OPS inspector with any written emergency\nprocedures for its Kern County Gas Line.\nIn its Response, Macpherson did not contest the allegation and explained that it had updated its\nmanual of written procedures during the June 2015 OPS inspection, and had subsequently\nprovided a copy of the revised manual, dated September 6, 2016. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(a) by failing to\nestablish written procedures for minimizing the hazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), which states:\n§ 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.\n(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface\nconditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for\nindications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety\nand operation.\n(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the\noperating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant\nfactors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in\nthe following table:\nMaximum interval between patrols\nClass loca-\ntion of line\n1, 2 . . . . . . At highway and railroad\ncrossings At all other places\n71∕2 months; but at least twice\n15 months; but at least once\n3 . . . . . . . . each calendar year\n41∕2 months; but at least four\neach calendar year.\n71∕2 months; but at least twice\n4 . . . . . . . . each calendar year.\n41∕2 months; but at least four\ntimes each calendar year\n41∕2 months; but at least four\ntimes each calendar year\ntimes each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to patrol its Kern\nCounty Gas Line at a frequency determined by the size of the line, the operating pressures, the\nclass location, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, but with intervals between patrols not\nbeing longer than prescribed in the above table. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the pipeline\nwas located entirely within a Class 1 location and that Respondent failed to patrol it at least once\neach calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 15 months, since 1998.\nIn its Response, Macpherson submitted its right-of-way procedures and reports from September\n20, 2016; June 11, 2015; July 29, 2014; May 7, 2013; and May 29, 2012, but did not submit\ndocumentation to demonstrate the pipeline had been patrolled prior to 2012. Accordingly, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to patrol its pipeline at the required\nintervals.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 4\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ninspections and tests to determine that it is—\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation\nfor the service in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or\nrelieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of\n§ 192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect and test\nthe pressure limiting relief device on its Kern County Gas Line at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it was in good mechanical\ncondition, adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is employed, set to control or relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure\nlimits of § 192.201(a), and properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions\nthat might prevent proper operation.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection, the OPS inspector observed that the\nKern County Gas Line was connected to an upstream gas pipeline. The inspector observed a\npressure-relief device on the Kern County Gas Line that was set to relieve pressure. While there\nis a relief device installed on the Kern County Gas Line, it is located in a fenced-in area\ncontrolled by the upstream gas provider. Respondent allegedly did not have access to the relief\ndevice and did not inspect or test it.\nAccording to the Notice, Respondent relied on the gas provider’s personnel to perform these\nfunctions, but Respondent’s personnel did not witness the inspections or testing of the relief\ndevice. Furthermore, the Notice alleged that Respondent did not provide any records, as\nrequired by § 192.709(c), to show that the relief device was inspected or tested at the required\nintervals. According to the Notice, Respondent also did not provide any records as required by\n§ 192.807 to show that the gas provider’s personnel were Operator Qualified to perform this\ncovered task on the Kern County Gas Line. Lastly, Respondent allegedly did not provide any\nwritten documents to show that it had an agreement with the gas provider to inspect and test the\nrelief device.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect and\ntest the pressure limiting relief device on its Kern County Gas Line at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 5\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states:\n§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any\nemergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate the transmission line valves on its Kern County Gas Line that might be required\nduring an emergency, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had not inspected or partially operated the\nvalves since the line was placed into service in 1998.\nIn its Response, Macpherson stated that it had procedures for the valve inspections and had\nperformed the required manual valve operation and inspections on September 2, 2015, and\nSeptember 20, 2016. Respondent did not submit documentation to demonstrate the valves had\nbeen inspected and partially operated at least once each calendar year prior to 2015.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate the valves at the requisite intervals.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.13(c), 192.615(a), 192.705(b), 192.739(a), and 192.745(a),\nrespectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601.\nThe Director has indicated that Macpherson submitted the required written procedures and\nrecords to demonstrate that appropriate action has been taken to ensure compliance with the\nviolations cited in Items 3, 4, and 6. Macpherson also provided additional information to show\nthat the actions required under Item 1(c) of the Proposed Compliance Order had been satisfied.\nTherefore, it is not necessary to include compliance actions associated with these Items in this\nFinal Order.\nMacpherson provided additional information on the actions it had taken to address Items 1 and 5\nfor the violations of §§ 192.13(c) and 192.739(a), respectively, and requested that certain\nchanges be made to those provisions in the Compliance Order. I have considered these\nsuggestions and modified those items as set forth below.\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:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 6\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.13(c) (Item 1), Macpherson must develop a\nwritten Fitness for Service (FFS) plan to assess the condition of the pipeline system to\ndemonstrate its safety and integrity. Macpherson must submit the written FFS to the\nDirector, Western Region, OPS, for review and approval within 90 days of the date of\nissuance of the Final Order. At a minimum, the FFS must include the following:\na. Girth Welds\ni. Destructive Testing – cut out at least one in-line girth weld and\ndestructively test it in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the strength\nof the weld.\nii. Nondestructive Testing – write a nondestructive testing (NDT) procedure\nin accordance with § 192.243 to NDT girth welds. Excavate and NDT: at\nleast 40 girth welds equally spaced along the entire pipeline; all tie-in girth\nwelds made after the post-construction pressure testing in 1998; and all\nknown fabricated and station girth welds.\niii. Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth weld\nrepaired or replaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld.\niv. Hydrotest the entire pipeline in accordance with the requirements in Part\n192 if more than three girth welds fail the NDT.\nb. Depth of Cover\ni. Perform a Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) survey and depth of\ncover survey over the entire pipeline. Repair all coating anomalies found\nduring the DCVG survey that are classified as “moderate” (i.e., 35% IR\nand above) or “severe,” based on NACE International Standard Practice\n0502-2010, “Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment\nMethodology” (NACE SP 0502-2010) (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 192.7). A minimum of two coating survey assessment classifications\nmust be excavated, classified and/or remediated per each survey crew each\ntime the survey is performed.\nii. Conduct spot checks over the entire pipeline, remediate any cover depths\nthat do not meet the requirements in § 192.327, and submit dig reports that\nshow depth-cover.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.739(a) (Item 5), Respondent must:\na. Prepare (or amend) and follow written test and inspection procedures for the\npressure limiting device on its Kern County Gas Line to ensure it is tested and\ninspected in accordance with § 192.739. Submit the written procedures to the\nDirector within 120 days of the date of issuance of the Final Order.\nb. Test and inspect the pressure limiting device on the Kern County Gas Line\nwithin 30 days of the date of issuance of the Final Order. Submit records or\nother documentation to show this has been completed within 45 days of the\ndate of issuance of the Final Order.\nIt is requested that Macpherson maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Western\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0016\nPage 7\nRegion, OPS. It is requested that these costs be ","truncated":true,"body_characters":44663}