# MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520160016_Closure Letter_08142019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Closure%20Letter_08142019.pdf

520160016_Closure Letter_08142019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Closure%20Letter_08142019_text.pdf

520160016_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06272019.pdf

520160016_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

520160016_Final Order_08242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Final%20Order_08242017.pdf

520160016_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Final%20Order_08242017_text.pdf

520160016_NOPV PCO_09072016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_NOPV%20PCO_09072016.pdf

520160016_NOPV PCO_09072016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_NOPV%20PCO_09072016_text.pdf

520160016_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_09152017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09152017.pdf

520160016_Operator Response to Notice_10072016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160016/520160016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10072016.pdf

520160016_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06272019_text.pdf

June 27, 2019
Mr. Donald R. Macpherson, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Macpherson Oil Company
100 Wilshire, Suite 800
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Dear Mr. Macpherson:
Enclosed please find my Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Macpherson Oil
Company in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants,
in part, and denies, in part, the Petition. The Decision modifies several terms of the Compliance
Order contained in the Final Order that was issued by PHMSA on August 24, 2017. When the
terms of the Compliance Order, as modified, have been completed, as determined by the
Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the
final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this Decision is made pursuant to 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Tim Lovley, Director HSE, Macpherson Oil Company, PO Box 5368, Bakersfield,
California 93388
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Macpherson Oil Company, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0016
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
From June 22 through 25, 2015, 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 Macpherson Oil
Company (Macpherson or Petitioner) at its Kern County Gas Line facilities in Bakersfield,
California.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Petitioner,
by letter dated September 7, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance
Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance
with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Macpherson had committed various
violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain measures to
correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action but warned the
operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.
Macpherson responded to the Notice by letter dated October 7, 2016 (Response). It did not
contest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective actions it
had taken, as well as the financial burdens that would result from compliance with the Proposed
Compliance Order. Macpherson did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one.
Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of Petitioner’s response
material on January 31, 2017 (Recommendation).
On August 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this
proceeding, finding that Macpherson had committed violations of Part 192, as alleged in the
Notice. The Final Order included a Compliance Order (Compliance Order) that ordered
Macpherson to take certain corrective actions, among others, related to violations of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.13(c). The Final Order did not modify Item 1(a) of the Proposed Compliance Order based
on the estimated costs raised by Macpherson because the information submitted by the company
1 The Kern County Gas Line is a 6.8-mile, 6” gas transmission line. See, Pipeline Safety Violation Report
(Violation Report), (Sept. 7, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 2
did not provide sufficient detail to justify modification.
In accordance with § 190.243, Macpherson objected to this portion of the Compliance Order and
filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order on September 15, 2017,
seeking reconsideration of Compliance Order Item 1(a) based on “the disproportionate financial
burden relative to any risk reduction gained by such requirements.”2
Macpherson did not seek reconsideration of the finding that it had violated § 192.13(c) by failing
to maintain the plans and programs that it was required to establish under Part 192 for the Kern
County Gas Line. Specifically, the Final Order found that the company was unable to document
that:
(1) the pipeline was welded using a qualified welding procedure(s) per § 192.225(a);
(2) each welding procedure was recorded in detail, including the results of the qualifying
tests, and the record was retained and followed whenever the procedure was used per
§ 192.225(b);
(3) welders were qualified in accordance with the appropriate referenced standard(s) per
§ 192.227(a);
(4) pipeline welds were visually inspected by a qualified individual per § 192.241(a);
(5) pipeline welds were nondestructively tested in accordance with § 192.243; or
(6) the pipeline was initially installed with the minimum cover required by § 192.327.
In its Petition, Macpherson objected to the terms of the Compliance Order, Item 1(a), which
required that Macpherson take certain corrective actions, including the development of a Fitness
for Service (FFS) plan that would assess the condition of the pipeline system to demonstrate its
safety and integrity. Under the terms of the Compliance Order, the FFS plan was required to
include the following measures relating to girth welds on the pipeline:
(1) Destructive Testing – Cut out at least one in-line girth weld and destructively test it in
accordance with § 192.225;
(2) Nondestructive Testing – Write a nondestructive testing (NDT) procedure in
accordance with § 192.243 to NDT girth welds. Excavate and NDT: (a) at least 40
girth welds equally spaced along the entire pipeline, (b) all tie-in girth welds made
after the post-construction pressure testing in 1998, and (c) all known fabricated and
station girth welds;
(3) Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth weld repaired or
replaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld; and
(4) Hydrotest the entire pipeline in accordance with the requirements in Part 192 if more
than three girth welds fail the NDT.
In response to the Petition, on November 3, 2017, pursuant to § 190.243(d), I requested that
Macpherson provide additional information to determine the proper disposition of the Petition.
Specifically, I requested that Macpherson present any probative evidence demonstrating that the
proposed compliance terms would impose a substantial financial burden on the company. I also
2 Petition, at 1.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 3
requested that the Director, Western Region, evaluate the information contained in the Petition
and consult with Macpherson, if appropriate, on the issues raised in the Petition regarding the
Compliance Order.
Petitioner provided additional information on December 1, 2017 (Petition Addendum No. 1) and
on April 20, 2018 (Petition Addendum No. 2). As directed, on June 27, 2018, the Director,
Western Region, submitted a Revised Region Recommendation regarding the disposition of the
Petition (Revised Recommendation).
Legal Standard of Review
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. Reconsideration does not constitute an
appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. It is, instead, an opportunity for
a petitioner to request that errors in the final order be corrected or to present information that was
not previously available, provided the petitioner submits a valid reason explaining why such
information was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. PHMSA may grant or deny,
in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, but may request
additional information or comment if deemed appropriate. Under § 190.243(b), the petitioner
must submit reasoning why any additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to
issuance of the final order.
Analysis
As noted above, Petitioner requested relief from Item 1(a) of the Compliance Order, relating to
violations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c), on the grounds that the requirements would impose a
“disproportionate financial burden relative to any risk reduction gained by such requirements.”
Macpherson stated that the primary cost driver of its objections was related to the loss of
production, i.e., lost revenue, by eliminating steam injection into the reservoir for a period of
time to meet the compliance obligations in the Compliance Order.
The Western Region reviewed Macpherson’s additional financial documentation and explained
that Macpherson’s system requires a continuous supply of natural gas for the production of oil in
the Round Mountain oil field. It uses the gas to: (1) generate steam for injection into the Round
Mountain oil field formation; (2) generate heat for oil dehydration; (3) pressurize oil measuring
equipment; and (4) make up gas for Air Permitting Compliance.3 Macpherson produces oil from
the Round Mountain field by injecting steam into the formation, heating the oil and enabling it to
migrate to the production wells. The oil produced at the Round Mountain field is a heavy oil that
requires extensive and continuous steam injection to heat the oil. Removing the steam injection
has an adverse effect on oil production by allowing the oil-field formation to cool, thus slowing
or stopping the migration of oil to the production wells.4 Shutting down the system in order to
3 Revised Recommendation (on file with PHMSA), at 2.
4 Id.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 4
comply with the terms of the Compliance Order would introduce risks and negatively impact
reservoir behavior and well productivity.5
Macpherson provided three sets of documents in support of this statement.6 Macpherson
provided direct cost totals for such requirements, indirect costs, costs associated with performing
the requested work, reduction in production, 10 days without heat for oil processing, and
recovery time for the reservoir heat.7
In support of its Petition, Macpherson stated that its pipeline was low risk, decreasing the threat
of eliminating or modifying Compliance Order, Item 1(a). Specifically, Macpherson stated that:
(1) the gas pipeline passed a hydrostatic test prior to being placed into service in 1998; (2) a
cathodic-protection system has been in use since the line’s initial commissioning; (3) non-
destructive testing performed on both buried and exposed piping indicate wall strength that
meets design and operation conditions; and (4) the gas pipeline is in a remote location with no
road crossing and a low population.8 Macpherson indicated that it relies exclusively on the
pipeline to provide natural gas to fuel the steam generators that make oil production possible in
the Round Mountain oil field, meaning that shutting down the gas pipeline would adversely
affect oil production in the Round Mountain oil field and would place an unreasonable financial
burden on Macpherson.9
I agree that the Compliance Order, as issued, would adversely affect oil production in the field
and could place an unreasonable financial burden on the company. Therefore, based on the
financial documents provided, the estimates of the cost of complying with the Compliance Order
as written, and certain alternative actions proposed by Macpherson to ensure compliance with the
pipeline safety regulations, I find that it is reasonable and prudent to order certain modifications
to the Compliance Order. These modifications allow Macpherson to achieve compliance with
pipeline safety regulations using less financially burdensome means than those originally
required by the Compliance Order.10
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, I order
that Paragraph 1(a) of the Compliance Order be amended. Petitioner is ordered to develop, and
submit for approval within 90 days of receipt of this Decision, a written FFS plan to assess the
condition of the pipeline system to demonstrate its safety and integrity. The FFS plan must
address those actions required in Paragraphs 1(a)(i) through 1(a)(iii) of the Compliance Order, as
modified below:
5 Petition, at 1.
6 Petition; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, and Petition Addendum No. 2.
7 Petition at 1; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, at Att. A.
8 Petition, at 3-4; Revised Recommendation, at 2.
9 Petition, at 1 (stating that a total shut down of the Round Mountain field could result in the estimated losses of
$5.9M or potentially the loss of the entire field production); Revised Recommendation, at 3.
10 Petition Addendum No. 1 at Att. A, Petition Addendum No. 2, at Att. A.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 5
 Paragraph 1(a)(i): Destructive Testing - Cut out at least one in-line girth weld and
destructively test it in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the strength of the weld.
In its Petition, Macpherson stated that “given the location of the pipeline, original hydrotest, that
exposure of the pipeline presents opportunities to damage the factory applied coating, and 20
years of safe operation, [paragraph 1(a)(i)] seems like an unnecessary and costly requirement.”
Instead, it proposed that the terms of Item 1(a)(i) be modified to “if a girth weld is replaced, as
outlined below, it shall be destructively tested in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the
strength of the weld. Any other methods proposed for determining the strength of the girth weld
shall be approved by the PHMSA.”
Based on the estimate of the direct costs associated with this item and Macpherson’s proposed
alternative,11 I find that compliance with this item as originally written constitutes an
unreasonable financial burden on Macpherson, and that Macpherson’s alternative achieves
compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. I therefore amend Item 1(a)(i) to require that if
a girth weld is replaced, as required in Item 1(a)(iii), it shall be destructively tested in accordance
with § 192.225 to establish the strength of the weld. Any other methods proposed for
determining the strength of the girth weld shall be approved by the Director.
 Paragraph 1(a)(ii): Nondestructive Testing - Write an NDT procedure in accordance
with § 192.243 to test girth welds. Excavate and NDT at least 40 girth welds equally
spaced along the entire pipeline, all tie-in girth welds made after the post-construction
pressure testing in 1998, and all known fabricated and station girth welds.
In its Petition, Macpherson proposed an alternative to “ensure that piping located at the tie in
points have been NDT tested, further reducing the risk profile of the pipeline.”12 It suggested
removing the requirement to excavate and NDT at least 40 girth welds equally spaced along the
entire pipeline, and added the sentence that “[a]ny other methods for determining acceptability of
welds shall be approved by the PHMSA.”13
Based on the estimate of the direct costs associated with this item and Macpherson’s proposed
alternative,14 I find the proposed alternative would not achieve an acceptable level of compliance
with § 192.243 and that excavating and NDT of at least 40 girth welds equally spaced along the
pipeline would not impose an unreasonable financial burden on Macpherson. Given that
Macpherson has not produced documentation showing that the welds were visually and non-
destructively tested, and NDT does not affect pipeline or oil production operations, I find that
NDT of the required 40 welds is appropriate to demonstrate compliance with §§ 192.13(c),
192.241 and 192.243. I therefore decline to modify Item 1(a)(ii) of the Compliance Order.
11 Petition, at 1; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, at Att. A.
12 Petition, at 4-5.
13 Petition, at 4.
14 Petition, at 1; See also Petition Addendum No. 1, at Att. A.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 6
 Paragraph 1(a)(iii): Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth
weld repaired or replaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld.
In its Petition, Macpherson proposed modifying Item 1(a)(iii) of the Compliance Order from
requiring that "for every girth weld repaired or replaced, excavate and NDT (x-ray radiograph)
one additional girth weld,” to excavating and NDT the closest girth weld to any girth weld that
fails NDT.
I find that Macpherson’s alternative achieves compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. I
therefore amend Item 1(a)(iii) to require that Macpherson repair or replace all girth welds that
fail the NDT and for every girth weld repaired or replaced, excavate and NDT one additional
girth weld closest to the weld that failed the NDT.
 Paragraph 1(a)(iv): Hydrotest the entire pipeline in accordance with the requirements in
Part 192 if more than three girth welds fail the NDT.
In its Petition, Macpherson requested removal of the requirement to hydrotest the entire pipeline,
and proposed to hydrotest all segments of replacement pipe in the shop in accordance with Part
192. In support, Macpherson stated that removing the hydrotest requirement of the entire
pipeline will “eliminate the need to fill the line with water and creating [sic] a potentially
corrosive environment.”15
I have considered both the financial documents provided by Petitioner, as well as its argument
that the pipeline passed a hydrotest prior to operation, that the pipeline has a safe operational
history, and that the line is in a Class 1 location.16 Based on this review, and at the
recommendation of the Director, I find that Item 1(a)(iv) of the Compliance Order is not
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. I therefore remove
Item 1(a)(iv) from the Compliance Order.
Conclusion
Based on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby grant, in
part, and deny, in part, the Petition and modify the Compliance Order, Item 1(a), for the reasons
set forth above. Paragraph 1(a) of the Compliance Order is amended to read as follows:
a. Girth Welds – Macpherson must develop a written Fitness for Service (FFS) plan for girth
welds and submit the FFS to the Director, Western Region, OPS, for review and approval
within 90 days of receipt of this Decision. The FFS for girth welds must include the
following at a minimum:
i. If a girth weld is replaced, as outlined in paragraph 1(a)(iii), it shall be destructively
tested in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the strength of the weld. Any other
15 Petition, at 5. Macpherson’s recommended change is a restatement of the requirements of § 192.503(a).
16 Petition, at 2.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 7
methods proposed for determining the strength of the girth weld shall be approved by
the Director.
ii. Nondestructive Testing – write a nondestructive testing (NDT) procedure in
accordance with § 192.243 for testing girth welds. Excavate and NDT at least 40 girth
welds equally spaced along the entire pipeline, all tie-in girth welds made after the
post-construction pressure testing in 1998, and all known fabricated and station girth
welds.
iii. Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth weld repaired or
replaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld closest to the weld that failed
the NDT.
iv. [Removed]
All other terms of the Final Order remain in effect.
This Decision constitutes final agency action taken by PHMSA in the enforcement proceeding.
The terms and conditions of this Decision are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
June 27, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520160016_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf

August 24, 2017
Mr. Donald R. Macpherson, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Macpherson Oil Company
100 Wilshire, Suite 800
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Dear Mr. Macpherson:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Macpherson Oil Company to comply
with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been
completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be
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,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Tim Lovley, Director HSE, Macpherson Oil Company, P.O. Box 5368, Bakersfield,
CA 93388
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Macpherson Oil Company, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0016
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On June 22-25, 2015, 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 Macpherson Oil
Company (Macpherson or Respondent), a subsidiary of Macpherson Energy Corporation, at its
Kern County Gas Line facilities in Bakersfield, California. The Kern County Gas Line is a 6.8-
mile, 6” gas transmission line.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated September 7, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Macpherson had
committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action,
but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible enforcement action.
Macpherson responded to the Notice by letter dated October 7, 2016 (Response). The company
did not contest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective
actions it had taken and requested that certain portions of the Proposed Compliance Order be
modified, as discussed more fully below. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has
waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Macpherson did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated
49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Sept. 7, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1. See also,
http://www.macphersonenergy.com (last accessed July 20, 2017).



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c), which states in
relevant part:
§ 192.13 What general requirements apply to pipelines regulated
under this part?
(a) No person may operate a segment of pipeline [after March 12, 1971]
unless:
(1) The pipeline has been designed, installed, constructed, initially
inspected, and initially tested in accordance with this part . . . .
(c) Each operator shall maintain, modify as appropriate, and follow the
plans, procedures, and programs that it is required to establish under this
part.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c) by failing to maintain the
plans and programs it was required to establish under Part 192 for its Kern County Gas Line,
which was constructed and placed into service in 1998. The Federal pipeline safety regulations
in § 192.13(a)(1) required the Kern County Gas Line to be designed, installed, constructed,
initially inspected, and initially tested in accordance with the applicable regulations in Part 192.
Section 192.13(c) required the operator to maintain the plans, procedures, and programs it used
to design, install, construct, initially inspect, and initially test its pipeline in accordance with
Part 192.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection when the OPS inspector queried
Macpherson personnel about the construction, installation, initial inspection, and initial testing of
the Kern County Gas Line, Respondent did not provide any records or any other documentation
to demonstrate compliance with § 192.13(c).
Because Macpherson did not maintain all the plans and programs it was required to establish
under Part 192 for the Kern County Gas Line, it was unable to document that (1) the pipeline
was welded using a qualified welding procedure(s) per § 192.225(a); or (2) each welding
procedure was recorded in detail, including the results of the qualifying tests, and the record was
retained and followed whenever the procedure was used per § 192.225(b). Further, Macpherson
could not document that: (3) the welders were qualified in accordance with the appropriate
referenced standard(s) per § 192.227(a); (4) pipeline welds were visually inspected by a qualified
individual per § 192.241(a); (5) pipeline welds were nondestructively tested in accordance with
§ 192.243; or (6) the pipeline was initially installed with the minimum cover required by
§ 192.327.
Respondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.13(c) by failing to maintain
the plans and programs it was required to establish under Part 192 for the Kern County Gas Line.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(a), which states:
§ 192.615 Emergency plans.
(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the
hazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency . . . .



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 3
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(a) by failing to establish
written procedures to minimize the hazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency. During the
inspection, Macpherson failed to provide the OPS inspector with any written emergency
procedures for its Kern County Gas Line.
In its Response, Macpherson did not contest the allegation and explained that it had updated its
manual of written procedures during the June 2015 OPS inspection, and had subsequently
provided a copy of the revised manual, dated September 6, 2016. Accordingly, based upon a
review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(a) by failing to
establish written procedures for minimizing the hazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), which states:
§ 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.
(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface
conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for
indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety
and operation.
(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the
operating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant
factors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in
the following table:
Maximum interval between patrols
Class loca-
tion of line
1, 2 . . . . . . At highway and railroad
crossings At all other places
71∕2 months; but at least twice
15 months; but at least once
3 . . . . . . . . each calendar year
41∕2 months; but at least four
each calendar year.
71∕2 months; but at least twice
4 . . . . . . . . each calendar year.
41∕2 months; but at least four
times each calendar year
41∕2 months; but at least four
times each calendar year
times each calendar year.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to patrol its Kern
County Gas Line at a frequency determined by the size of the line, the operating pressures, the
class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, but with intervals between patrols not
being longer than prescribed in the above table. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the pipeline
was located entirely within a Class 1 location and that Respondent failed to patrol it at least once
each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 15 months, since 1998.
In its Response, Macpherson submitted its right-of-way procedures and reports from September
20, 2016; June 11, 2015; July 29, 2014; May 7, 2013; and May 29, 2012, but did not submit
documentation to demonstrate the pipeline had been patrolled prior to 2012. Accordingly, I find
that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to patrol its pipeline at the required
intervals.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 4
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states:
§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and
testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),
and pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to
inspections and tests to determine that it is—
(1) In good mechanical condition;
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation
for the service in which it is employed;
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or
relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of
§ 192.201(a); and
(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other
conditions that might prevent proper operation.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect and test
the pressure limiting relief device on its Kern County Gas Line at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it was in good mechanical
condition, adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in
which it is employed, set to control or relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure
limits of § 192.201(a), and properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions
that might prevent proper operation.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection, the OPS inspector observed that the
Kern County Gas Line was connected to an upstream gas pipeline. The inspector observed a
pressure-relief device on the Kern County Gas Line that was set to relieve pressure. While there
is a relief device installed on the Kern County Gas Line, it is located in a fenced-in area
controlled by the upstream gas provider. Respondent allegedly did not have access to the relief
device and did not inspect or test it.
According to the Notice, Respondent relied on the gas provider’s personnel to perform these
functions, but Respondent’s personnel did not witness the inspections or testing of the relief
device. Furthermore, the Notice alleged that Respondent did not provide any records, as
required by § 192.709(c), to show that the relief device was inspected or tested at the required
intervals. According to the Notice, Respondent also did not provide any records as required by
§ 192.807 to show that the gas provider’s personnel were Operator Qualified to perform this
covered task on the Kern County Gas Line. Lastly, Respondent allegedly did not provide any
written documents to show that it had an agreement with the gas provider to inspect and test the
relief device.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect and
test the pressure limiting relief device on its Kern County Gas Line at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year.



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 5
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states:
§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.
(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any
emergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and
partially operate the transmission line valves on its Kern County Gas Line that might be required
during an emergency, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had not inspected or partially operated the
valves since the line was placed into service in 1998.
In its Response, Macpherson stated that it had procedures for the valve inspections and had
performed the required manual valve operation and inspections on September 2, 2015, and
September 20, 2016. Respondent did not submit documentation to demonstrate the valves had
been inspected and partially operated at least once each calendar year prior to 2015.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and
partially operate the valves at the requisite intervals.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.13(c), 192.615(a), 192.705(b), 192.739(a), and 192.745(a),
respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas
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 Macpherson submitted the required written procedures and
records to demonstrate that appropriate action has been taken to ensure compliance with the
violations cited in Items 3, 4, and 6. Macpherson also provided additional information to show
that the actions required under Item 1(c) of the Proposed Compliance Order had been satisfied.
Therefore, it is not necessary to include compliance actions associated with these Items in this
Final Order.
Macpherson provided additional information on the actions it had taken to address Items 1 and 5
for the violations of §§ 192.13(c) and 192.739(a), respectively, and requested that certain
changes be made to those provisions in the Compliance Order. I have considered these
suggestions and modified those items as set forth below.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 6
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.13(c) (Item 1), Macpherson must develop a
written Fitness for Service (FFS) plan to assess the condition of the pipeline system to
demonstrate its safety and integrity. Macpherson must submit the written FFS to the
Director, Western Region, OPS, for review and approval within 90 days of the date of
issuance of the Final Order. At a minimum, the FFS must include the following:
a. Girth Welds
i. Destructive Testing – cut out at least one in-line girth weld and
destructively test it in accordance with § 192.225 to establish the strength
of the weld.
ii. Nondestructive Testing – write a nondestructive testing (NDT) procedure
in accordance with § 192.243 to NDT girth welds. Excavate and NDT: at
least 40 girth welds equally spaced along the entire pipeline; all tie-in girth
welds made after the post-construction pressure testing in 1998; and all
known fabricated and station girth welds.
iii. Repair or replace all girth welds that fail the NDT. For every girth weld
repaired or replaced, excavate and NDT one additional girth weld.
iv. Hydrotest the entire pipeline in accordance with the requirements in Part
192 if more than three girth welds fail the NDT.
b. Depth of Cover
i. Perform a Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) survey and depth of
cover survey over the entire pipeline. Repair all coating anomalies found
during the DCVG survey that are classified as “moderate” (i.e., 35% IR
and above) or “severe,” based on NACE International Standard Practice
0502-2010, “Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment
Methodology” (NACE SP 0502-2010) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 192.7). A minimum of two coating survey assessment classifications
must be excavated, classified and/or remediated per each survey crew each
time the survey is performed.
ii. Conduct spot checks over the entire pipeline, remediate any cover depths
that do not meet the requirements in § 192.327, and submit dig reports that
show depth-cover.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.739(a) (Item 5), Respondent must:
a. Prepare (or amend) and follow written test and inspection procedures for the
pressure limiting device on its Kern County Gas Line to ensure it is tested and
inspected in accordance with § 192.739. Submit the written procedures to the
Director within 120 days of the date of issuance of the Final Order.
b. Test and inspect the pressure limiting device on the Kern County Gas Line
within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Final Order. Submit records or
other documentation to show this has been completed within 45 days of the
date of issuance of the Final Order.
It is requested that Macpherson maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Western



CPF No. 5-2016-0016
Page 7
Region, OPS. It is requested that these costs be 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 44663