{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42023033NOPV","title":"COVE POINT LNG, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-04-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 193.2505(b), 193.2521, 193.2605(b)(1), 193.2637, 193.2801.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023033nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023033nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023033nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42023033NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COVE POINT LNG, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 193.2505(b),  193.2521,  193.2605(b)(1),  193.2637,  193.2801. The case was opened on 2023-04-21 and is reported as closed as of 2024-10-22. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42023033NOPV_Closure Letter_10222024_(22-249322).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023033NOPV/42023033NOPV_Closure%20Letter_10222024_(22-249322).pdf\n\n42023033NOPV_Closure Letter_10222024_(22-249322)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023033NOPV/42023033NOPV_Closure%20Letter_10222024_(22-249322)_text.pdf\n\n42023033NOPV_Final Order_05302024_(22-249322).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023033NOPV/42023033NOPV_Final%20Order_05302024_(22-249322).pdf\n\n42023033NOPV_Final Order_05302024_(22-249322)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023033NOPV/42023033NOPV_Final%20Order_05302024_(22-249322)_text.pdf\n\n42023033NOPV_Operator RtN and Request Time Extension_06142023_(22-249322).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023033NOPV/42023033NOPV_Operator%20RtN%20and%20Request%20Time%20Extension_06142023_(22-249322).pdf\n\n42023033NOPV_PCO_04212023_(22-249322).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023033NOPV/42023033NOPV_PCO_04212023_(22-249322).pdf\n\n42023033NOPV_PCO_04212023_(22-249322)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023033NOPV/42023033NOPV_PCO_04212023_(22-249322)_text.pdf\n\n42023033NOPV_Closure Letter_10222024_(22-249322)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: paul.ruppert@bhegts.com\nOctober 22, 2024\nMr. Paul Ruppert\nPresident, Gas Transmission and Storage\nCove Point LNG, LP\n6603 West Broad Street\nRichmond, Virginia 23200\nCPF 4-2023-033-NOPV\nDear Mr. Ruppert:\nOn May 30, 2024, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Cove Point LNG, LP, a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Mr. Daniel Woods, Vice President, LNG Operations, daniel.woods@bhegts.com\nMr. Michael Ferguson, Manager, Pipeline Integrity, mike.ferguson@bhegts.com\nMr. Drew Mongold, Pipeline Integrity Engineer, drew.mongold@bhegts.com\n\n42023033NOPV_Final Order_05302024_(22-249322)_text.pdf\n\nMay 30, 2024\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: paul.ruppert@bhegts.com\nPaul Ruppert\nPresident, Gas Transmission and Storage\nCove Point LNG, LP\n6603 West Broad Street\nRichmond, Virginia 23200\nRe: CPF No. 4-2023-033-NOPV\nDear Mr. Ruppert:\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 to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order\nby e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nfor Alan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure (Final Order)\ncc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Daniel Woods, Vice President, LNG Operations, Cove Point LNG, LP,\ndaniel.woods@bhegts.com\nMr. Michael Ferguson, Manager, Pipeline Integrity, Cove Point LNG, LP,\nmike.ferguson@bhegts.com\nMr. Drew Mongold, Pipeline Integrity Engineer, Cove Point LNG, LP,\ndrew.mongold@bhegts.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCove Point LNG, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2023-033-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 15 through September 29, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an inspection of Cove Point LNG, LP’s (CPLNG or Respondent) liquefied\nnatural gas (LNG) facility in Lusby, Maryland. CPLNG is an LNG export facility with a storage\ncapacity of over 14 billion cubic feet of natural gas.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 21, 2023, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 193 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included\nan additional warning item pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.\nCPLNG responded to the Notice by letter dated June 14, 2023 (Response), contesting two items\n(Items 1 and 2), and providing additional information addressing post-inspection compliance\nactions. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 193, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2521, which states:\n§ 193.2521 Operating records.\nEach operator shall maintain a record of results of each inspection,\ntest and investigation required by this subpart. For each LNG facility that is\ndesigned and constructed after March 31, 2000 the operator shall also\n\n\n\nmaintain related inspection, testing, and investigation records that NFPA-\n59A-2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 193.2013) requires. Such\nrecords, whether required by this part or NFPA-59A-2001, must be kept for\na period of not less than five years.\nThe Notice alleged that CPLNG failed to maintain a record of results of each inspection, test and\ninvestigation required by Subpart F in accordance with § 193.2521. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that CPLNG failed to maintain inspection records for leak checks carried out following a\n“trip off” incident that occurred June 14, 2022, on the main cryogenic heat exchanger (MCHE)\nin accordance with § 193.2505(b)1 and CPLNG’s procedures.2\nRespondent contested Item 1, stating that a cooldown stabilization was not required after the\nJune 14, 2022 trip off incident, and therefore the requirement to conduct and record leak checks\nunder § 193.2505(b) was not applicable. CPLNG explained that after the facility tripped off, the\nMCHE was restarted using procedure MCHE 5E505. CPLNG stated that the MCHE 5E505\nprocedure “is used to start equipment that is already at cooldown stabilization.”3 The Response\nexplained that a CP0002 Piping/Equipment Cooldown Checklist (required by procedure SOP-\n020-01, Cooldown Leak Checks) did not need to be completed because a cooldown was not\nrequired. CPLNG noted that other procedures for performing a cooldown from near atmospheric\ntemperature do include a requirement for a leak test.\nHaving reviewed the relevant procedures, I note that although Respondent states that MCHE\n5E505 addresses the startup of equipment that is already at cooldown stabilization, that\nprocedure by its terms is not so limited. There is not language in the procedure specifying it may\nonly be used when cooldown stabilization is not impacted by the trip off. To the contrary, the\nlist of precautions in section 3 of the procedure indicates that temperature may not be stable\nfollowing a trip off incident and that temperature changes can and do occur.4 Additional\nprocedures address temperature changes, including section 8.2, which addresses warming up the\nMCHE after a trip and section 8.4, which contains MCHE cool down procedures. Given the\npotential for temperature changes following an unplanned trip of the MCHE, cooldown is not\nstabilized unless or until the associated equipment is returned to normal operations.5 Finally, the\nMCHE 5E505 procedure addressing the startup process does not appear to address the separate,\nand distinct, requirement under § 193.2505(b) that “[a]fter cooldown stabilization is reached,\ncryogenic piping systems must be checked for leaks in areas of flanges, valves, and seals.”\n1 Section 193.2505(b) states: “After cooldown stabilization is reached, cryogenic piping systems must be checked\nfor leaks in areas of flanges, valves, and seals.”\n2 A “trip off” incident is generally understood as an unplanned shutdown due to either faulty instrumentation or an\nabnormal operation, such as pressure, flow, or temperature outside of normal ranges.\n3 Response, at 2.\n4 The precautions in section 3 warn against exceeding certain limits on cool-down and warm-up rates, temperature\ndifferences, and other temperature limitations, any of which if exceeded require further action by the operator.\n5 SOP-020-01, section III.A.1, states that cooldown leak checks must commence as soon as cooldown of any\ncomponent begins and must continue until all cooled down piping and components have stabilized.\n\n\n\nAfter the MCHE was restarted following the trip off incident and cooldown stabilization was re-\nachieved and normal operations resumed,\n6 no records reflect CPLNG performed the required\nleak checks under § 193.2505(b) and CPLNG’s relevant procedure (SOP-020-01, Cooldown\nLeak Checks). According to SOP-020-01, section III.A.1, cooldown leak checks must\ncommence as soon as cooldown of any component begins and must continue until all cooled\ndown piping and components have stabilized. Depending on the duration of a trip off, fluid may\nremain relatively cold and require less operator action to return to normal operating conditions.\nHowever, a lesser level of warmup does not negate the requirements of § 193.2505(b) regarding\nchecking for leaks when cooldown stabilization has been lost. The required leak checks help\nensure cryogenic systems are functioning safely once cooldown stabilization has been achieved.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 193.2521.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b)(1), which states:\n§ 193.2605 Maintenance procedures.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written\nprocedures for the maintenance of each component, including any required\ncorrosion control. The procedures must include:\n(1) The details of the inspections or tests determined under paragraph\n(a) of this section and their frequency of performance;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s manuals of written procedures for the maintenance of each\ncomponent failed to include the details of the inspection or tests determined under § 193.2605(a)\nin accordance with § 193.2605(b)(1).7 Specifically, the Notice alleged that CPLNG failed to\ndevelop procedures for the inspection and testing of high temperature detector sensors and low\ntemperature detector sensors.\nIn its Response, CPLNG stated that applicable reference documents, which it explained were\npreviously available to technicians, have now been combined into a single procedure, GD-0007\nInstrument Testing, to provide guidance to technicians performing maintenance on the high- and\nlow-temperature detector sensors. The Director’s recommendation for final action8 in this case\nstates that on June 21, 2023, Respondent provided a training roster showing that CPLNG had\ntrained its personnel on the new procedure.\nHaving reviewed the record, including the explanation of the alleged violation in Item 2 and\nCPLNG’s Response, I find certain reference documents were available to personnel, but the\nrequisite procedures related to the inspection and testing of high- and low-temperature detector\n6 See Exhibit A-4 in the case file.\n7 Section 193.2605(a) states: “Each operator shall determine and perform, consistent with generally accepted\nengineering practice, the periodic inspections or tests needed to meet the applicable requirements of this subpart and\nto verify that components meet the maintenance standards prescribed by this subpart.”\n8 Submitted pursuant to § 190.207(b)(7).\n\n\n\nsensors were not, at the time of the inspection, part of the manual of procedures specifically\nrequired by § 193.2605(b)(1).\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 193.2605(b)(1).\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2801, which states:\n§ 193.2801 Fire protection.\nEach operator must provide and maintain fire protection at LNG plants\naccording to sections 9.1 through 9.7 and section 9.9 of NFPA-59A-2001\n(incorporated by reference, see § 193.2013). However, LNG plants existing\non March 31, 2000, need not comply with provisions on emergency\nshutdown systems, water delivery systems, detection systems, and\npersonnel qualification and training until September 12, 2005.\nThe Notice alleged that CPLNG failed to maintain fire protection at its LNG facility in\naccordance with NFPA-59A-2001 and § 193.2801. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CPLNG\nfailed to conduct an adequate evaluation to determine the spacing and location of fire detectors in\nits 106H building in accordance with NFPA-72-1999.\nCPLNG did not contest Item 4. In its Response, CPLNG stated that it would conduct a follow-\nup NFPA 59A evaluation on the UV/IR detectors in the 106H building and submit the evaluation\nrecords within 60 days of the issuance of this Final Order.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 193.2801.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\nactions against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 4 for violations of 49\nC.F.R. §§ 193.2521, 193.2605(b)(1), and 193.2801, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility\nis required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The\nDirector has indicated that Respondent has already completed the actions proposed in the Notice\nto correct the violation described in Item 2. Therefore, it is not necessary to include the proposed\ncompliance terms for Item 2 in this Final Order.\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\n1. With respect to the violation of § 193.2521 (Item 1), CPLNG must provide\ndocumentation to the Director within 60 days of issuance of this Final Order that it\nwill complete and maintain records of leak checks in accordance with its procedures.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 193.2801 (Item 4), CPLNG must provide adequate\nrecords or conduct an evaluation that demonstrates consideration of the size of the\nflaming fire to be detected, and addresses the requirements in sections 2-4.3.2.1, 2-\n4.3.2.2, and 2-4.3.2.3 of NFPA-72-1999 and submit the evaluation to the Director\nwithin 60 days of issuance of this Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 193 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be warning item\nunder § 190.205. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 193.2637 (Item 3) - Respondent’s alleged failure to take prompt corrective\nor remedial action after learning that atmospheric, external, or internal corrosion is not\ncontrolled as required by Subpart G in accordance with § 193.2637 and CPLNG’s\nprocedures.\nCPLNG stated in the Response that the cathodic protection did not impact gas, LNG, or\nenvironmentally sensitive piping. Respondent also stated that the cathodic protection on the fire\nwater system is independent, and that it had remediated these items as of September 28, 2022.\nUnder § 190.205, PHMSA does not adjudicate warning items to determine whether a probable\nviolation occurred. If OPS finds a violation of this item in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\n\n\n\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of\nthe order, including any corrective actions, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nMay 30, 2024\n___________________________________ _________________________\nfor Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":18687}