{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420181004W","title":"FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P. — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-03-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 193.2301.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420181004w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420181004w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420181004w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420181004W","body":"Warning Letter involving FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 193.2301. The case was opened on 2018-03-22 and is reported as closed as of 2018-03-22. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420181004W_Warning Letter_03222018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420181004W/420181004W_Warning%20Letter_03222018.pdf\n\n420181004W_Warning Letter_03222018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420181004W/420181004W_Warning%20Letter_03222018_text.pdf\n\n420181004W_Warning Letter_03222018_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 22, 2018\nMr. Mark Mallett\nVice President\nFreeport LNG Development, L.P\n333 Clay Street, Suite 5050\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2018-1004W\nDear Mr. Mallett:\nOn February 13-15, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code were onsite and\ninspected Freeport LNG Development (FLNG) Liquefaction Facility’s 26-inch Vacuum Insulated\nPipe (VIP) in Freeport Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The item inspected and the probable\nviolation is:\n1. §193.2301 Scope.\nEach LNG facility constructed after March 31, 2000 must comply with requirements\nof this part and of NFPA 59A-2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 193.2013). In the\nevent of a conflict between this part and NFPA-59A, this part prevails.\nNFPA 59A Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural\nGas (LNG) 2001 Edition\n6.6 Inspection and Testing of Piping.\n\n\n\n6.6.1 Pressure Testing. Pressure tests shall be conducted in accordance with ASME B 31.3,\nProcess Piping, Section 345.\nASME B31.3 Process Piping, 1996 Edition\n345 TESTING\n345.1 Required Leak Test\n(c) Where the owner considers both hydrostatic and pneumatic leak testing\nimpracticable, the alternative specified in para. 345.9 may be used if both of the following\nconditions apply:\n(1) a hydrostatic test would damage linings or internal insulation, or contaminate a\nprocess which would be hazardous, corrosive, or inoperative in the presence of moisture,\nor would present the danger of brittle fracture due to low metal temperature during the test;\nand\n(2) a pneumatic test would present an undue hazard of possible release of energy\nstored in the system, or would present the danger of brittle fracture due to low metal\ntemperature during the test.\n345.9 Alternative Leak Test\nThe following procedures and leak test method may be used only under the conditions\nstated in para. 345.1(c).\n345.9.1 Examination of Welds. Welds, including those used in the manufacture of\nwelded pipe and fittings, which have not been subjected to hydrostatic or pneumatic leak\ntests in accordance with this Code, shall be examined as follows.\n(a) Circumferential, longitudinal, and spiral groove welds shall be 100%\nradiographed in accordance with para. 344.5.\n(b) All welds, including structural attachment welds, not covered in (a) above, shall\nbe examined using the liquid penetrant method (para. 344.4) or, for magnetic materials, the\nmagnetic particle method (para. 344.3).\n345.9.2 Flexibility Analysis. A flexibility analysis of the piping system shall be made\nin accordance with para. 319.4.2(c) and (d).\n345.9.3 Test Methods. The system shall be subjected to a sensitive leak test in\naccordance with para. 345.8.\nFLNG failed to show that both hydrostatic and pneumatic leak testing were impracticable before\nspecifying an Alternative Leak Test (per ASME B31.3 para. 345.9). The ASME B31.3 standard is\na requirement of NFPA 59A, which is incorporated by reference in Part 193. ASME B31.3 para.\n345.1 requires that at least one condition pertaining to the hydrostatic test, plus at least one\ncondition pertaining to the pneumatic test must be met for the leak test to be deemed impracticable.\nFor hydrostatic testing, the conditions include potential damages to linings or internal insulation,\nprocess contaminations by moisture, or brittle facture due to low metal temperature. For pneumatic\ntesting, the conditions include undue hazard of possible release of energy stored in the system, or\n2\n\n\n\nbrittle fracture failure due to low metal temperature. FLNG’s documentation titled “Outgoing\nTechnical Query” (Doc No 1008-CZJV-FPT-RFI-00087.0001 Rev. 1, dated November 15 2017)\nand the supporting material (Doc No 1008-CZJV-FPT-RFI-00087.0005 Rev. 0, dated November\n15 2017) did not adequately address any of the above-mentioned conditions.\nSpecifically, the supporting material (Doc No 1008-CZJV-FPT-RFI-00087.0005 Rev. 0, dated\nNovember 15 2017) implied that pneumatically testing the entire Vacuum Insulated Pipe (VIP)\nsystem at once might be impracticable due to the excessively large exclusion zone imposed by\nhigh stored energy. The same documentation, however, did not adequately show that\npneumatically testing the VIP in smaller segments, which contain less stored energy and therefore\nrequire a smaller exclusion zone, would be impracticable.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related\nseries of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in\nthis case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item identified in this letter. Failure to do\nso will result in FLNG being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 4-2018-1004W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":6739}