148 FERC ¶ 61,244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Chairman;

 Philip D. Moeller, Tony Clark,

and Norman C. Bay.

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP Docket No. CP13-113-000

ORDER GRANTING SECTION 3 AND SECTION 7 AUTHORIZATIONS

(Issued September 29, 2014)

Paragraph Numbers

I. Background ............................................................................................................................3.

II. Proposal.................................................................................................................................7.

A. Dominion’s Cove Point Liquefaction Project..................................................................7.

B. Virginia Facilities.............................................................................................................12.

C. Services.............................................................................................................................18.

III. Public Notice .......................................................................................................................20.

IV. Discussion ...........................................................................................................................26.

A. Dominion’s Cove Point Liquefaction Project..................................................................26.

B. Virginia Facilities.............................................................................................................34.

1. Subsidization.................................................................................................................37.

2. Existing Customers.......................................................................................................38.

a. Turnback of Service Opportunity.............................................................................38.

b. Impacts on Existing Pipeline Service.......................................................................49.

3. Existing Pipelines .........................................................................................................57.

4. Landowners ..................................................................................................................58.

5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................59.

C. Rates.................................................................................................................................60.

1. Virginia Facilities .........................................................................................................60.

a. Recourse Rates .........................................................................................................62.

b. Negotiated Rate ........................................................................................................64.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 2 -

2. Fuel and other Surcharges ............................................................................................65.

3. Tariff Proposals ............................................................................................................69.

a. GT&C Section 30.....................................................................................................72.

b. Tariff Provisions and Existing Import Customers ...................................................79.

c. Non-Conforming Provisions ....................................................................................87.

d. Receipt and Delivery Points.....................................................................................89.

D. Accounting .......................................................................................................................95.

E. Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................................98.

1. Pre-Filing Review ........................................................................................................98.

2. Application Review ......................................................................................................101.

3. Major Environmental Issues Addressed in the EA.......................................................108.

a. Earthquakes and the Moran Landing Fault Zone .....................................................108.

b. Foundations Soil Conditions....................................................................................111.

c. Subsidence and Sinkholes ........................................................................................114.

d. Groundwater/Aquifers..............................................................................................116.

e. Ballast Water ............................................................................................................126.

f. Aquatic Resources/Offsite Area B............................................................................131.

g. Terrestrial Wildlife, Vegetation, and Protected Species..........................................136.

h. Light Emissions/Visual Resources...........................................................................143.

i. Property Values.........................................................................................................146.

j. Environmental Justice ...............................................................................................148.

k. Socioeconomic Impacts............................................................................................151.

l. Shipping Impacts.......................................................................................................153.

m. Population Estimates...............................................................................................154.

n. Traffic.......................................................................................................................156.

o. Air Emissions ..........................................................................................................160.

p. Air Modeling ............................................................................................................172.

q. Noise.........................................................................................................................178.

r. Public Safety .............................................................................................................184.

s. Consequence Modeling ............................................................................................218.

t. Indirect Impacts.........................................................................................................225.

u. Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................238.

v. Climate Change ........................................................................................................243.

w. Segmentation ...........................................................................................................249.

x. Alternatives ..............................................................................................................264.

y. Sufficiency of the EA...............................................................................................265.

4. Environmental Conclusions .........................................................................................281.

F. Sufficiency of Evidence on the Record ............................................................................283.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 3 -

1. On April 1, 2013, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Dominion)1 filed an 

application for authority under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)2 and Part 153 of 

the Commission’s regulations3 to site, construct, and operate facilities for the liquefaction 

and export of domestically-produced natural gas (Cove Point Liquefaction Project) at 

Dominion’s existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Calvert County, 

Maryland.4

 Dominion also seeks authority under section 7(c) of the NGA5 and Part 157 

of the Commission’s regulations,6 to construct and operate facilities at its existing 

compressor station and metering and regulating (M&R) site in Fairfax County, Virginia, 

and at its M&R site in Loudoun County, Virginia (collectively, Virginia Facilities).

2. For the reasons discussed below, we will authorize Dominion’s proposal under 

section 3 to construct and operate the Cove Point Liquefaction Project. We will also 

authorize Dominion’s proposal under section 7(c) to construct and operate the Virginia 

Facilities. The authorizations issued to Dominion are subject to the conditions discussed 

below. 

I. Background

3. Dominion, a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of 

Delaware, is a natural gas company as defined by section 2(6) of the NGA engaged in the 

business of transporting natural gas in interstate commerce.7

 Dominion owns the existing 

Cove Point LNG Terminal (Cove Point Terminal) near Lusby, in Calvert County, 

Maryland, as well as an 88-mile-long gas pipeline (Cove Point Pipeline) that extends 

west from the terminal to connections with interstate pipelines in Loudoun and Fairfax 

Counties, Virginia. The Cove Point Terminal and Cove Point Pipeline were initially 

authorized in 1972 to receive LNG imports and transport natural gas to U.S. markets.8

 

 1 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP is a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc.

2 15 U.S.C. § 717b (2012).

3 18 C.F.R. Part 153 (2014).

4 The Cove Point LNG Terminal was initially authorized by the Commission in 

1972 and commenced service in 1978. See infra note 8.

5 15 U.S.C. § 717f (2012).

6 18 C.F.R. Part 157 (2014).

7 15 U.S.C. § 717a(6) (2012).

8 On June 28, 1972, the Commission authorized Columbia LNG Corporation 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 4 -

The original terminal had four LNG storage tanks with 5.0 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of 

capacity and the certificated capacity of the Cove Point Pipeline was 1.0 Bcf per day. An 

underwater tunnel connects the onshore facilities with an offshore pier used to receive 

LNG offloaded from arriving ships.

4. Shipments of LNG to the terminal commenced in the spring of 1978 but were 

suspended in 1980 due to market forces. In 1994, the Commission authorized 

Dominion’s predecessor to construct a liquefaction unit to liquefy domestic natural gas in 

order to provide LNG peaking and storage services.9

 In 2001, the Commission 

authorized Dominion’s predecessor to construct new facilities, including an additional 

LNG storage tank that increased the total facility capacity to 7.8 Bcf, and to reactivate 

existing facilities to resume imports and provide terminal services for shippers.10 The 

LNG import facilities were placed in service and began to receive LNG shipments in the 

fall of 2003. 

5. In 2006, the Commission approved the Cove Point Expansion Project involving

the expansion of the Cove Point Terminal and the Cove Point Pipeline, as well as the 

construction of related downstream pipeline and storage facilities.11 The sole expansion 

customer, Statoil Natural Gas LLC (Statoil), entered into a non-open access service 

agreement for all of the expanded capacity. The expanded facilities were placed into 

 

and Consolidated System LNG Company to construct and operate the Cove Point

Terminal and the Cove Point Pipeline. Opinion No. 622, 47 FPC 1624 (1972), aff’d and 

modified, Opinion No. 622-A, 48 FPC 723 (1972). Subsequently, the Commission 

authorized (1) Consolidated System LNG Company to abandon its undivided one-half 

interest in the LNG facilities in Consolidated System LNG Co., 42 FERC ¶ 61,078 

(1988); and (2) Columbia LNG Corporation to abandon all of its jurisdictional facilities 

by transfer to Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership in Cove Point LNG Limited 

Partnership, 68 FERC ¶ 61,128 (1994). In 2002, Dominion Resources, Inc. acquired the 

equity shares of the two companies comprising Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership, 

and later that year, Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership became Dominion Cove Point 

LNG, LP. See Dominion March 10, 2014 Data Response.

9 Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership, 68 FERC ¶ 61,377 (1994). 

10 Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership, 97 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2001).

11 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 115 FERC ¶ 61,337 (2006), order on reh’g, 

118 FERC ¶ 61,007 (2007), vacated and remanded sub nom. Washington Gas Light Co. 

v. FERC, 532 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2008), order on remand, 125 FERC ¶ 61,018 (2008), 

order on reh’g and clarification, 126 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2009), petition for review denied 

sub nom. Washington Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 603 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 5 -

service in January 2009, and included two new LNG storage tanks and additional 

vaporization facilities that increased the combined storage capacity at the terminal to 

seven tanks with a total capacity of 14.6 Bcf and a peak send-out rate of 1.8 million 

dekatherms (Dth) per day. 

6. In 2009, the Commission approved the Pier Reinforcement Project,

12 which 

authorized Dominion to upgrade, modify, and expand the existing offshore pier at the 

Cove Point LNG terminal. The Pier Reinforcement Project allowed the offshore pier to 

accommodate more modern ships with cargo capacities of up to 267,000 cubic meters of 

LNG.

II. Proposal

A. Dominion’s Cove Point Liquefaction Project

7. Dominion’s proposed Cove Point Liquefaction Project, combined with its existing 

facilities, would enable it to either receive and vaporize imported LNG or liquefy

domestically-produced natural gas for loading onto LNG vessels for export.13 Dominion 

states that it will use its facilities initially to provide liquefaction and export service, and 

will likely continue to do so barring significant changes to worldwide gas markets. 

Nevertheless, Dominion states that to maintain flexibility, the liquefaction project will 

allow for bi-directional import or export service. Dominion explains that it cannot 

provide both export and import services at the same time for Pacific Summit Energy, 

LLC (Pacific Summit)14 and a U.S. subsidiary of GAIL (India) Limited,15 (collectively, 

Export Customers) that have initially contracted for export service, but rather, the Export 

Customers may make a joint election once a year whether to receive import and 

regasification service, or liquefaction and export service.

8. Dominion proposes under section 3 of the NGA to construct and operate one 

liquefaction train that is expected to have a nameplate capacity of up to 5.75 million 

 12 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 128 FERC ¶ 61,037 (2009), petition for review 

denied sub nom. Washington Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 603 F.3d 55.

13 The LNG vessels will be owned and operated by third parties.

14 Pacific Summit is a United States (U.S.) subsidiary of Sumitomo Corporation, a 

Japanese trading company.

15 GAIL Limited is the largest natural gas processing and distribution company in 

India. In an October 30, 2013 filing, Dominion requested that GAIL Global (USA) LNG, 

LLC (GAIL Global) be used as the identified export customer.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 6 -

metric tons per annum (MTPA) of LNG.16 The liquefaction train contains gas turbinedriven refrigerant compressors, draft air coolers, process vessels, pumps, and heat 

exchangers for liquefying natural gas. Other equipment within the liquefaction train 

battery includes waste heat recovery systems, fire and gas detection and safety systems, 

control systems and electrical infrastructure, utility connections and distribution systems, 

piping, pipe racks, foundations, and structures. In addition, gas treatment equipment will 

be installed to remove impurities from the gas supply stream that have no heating value, 

have corrosive potential, or will crystallize during the liquefaction process.

9. The Cove Point Liquefaction Project will use two new natural gas-fired turbines17

to drive the main refrigerant compressors.18 The waste heat from the gas-fired turbines 

will be used to generate electric power on-site to meet the power demands of the 

liquefaction facilities.19 

10. Dominion proposes to use its existing storage tanks at the LNG terminal to store 

LNG produced by the liquefaction unit. LNG will be pumped from the storage tanks

through the existing underwater tunnel to the offshore pier for loading onto LNG vessels 

for export. Dominion states that no additional marine facilities are required for the 

liquefaction project, and that only limited modifications to the existing marine gas 

processing systems will be necessary.20 Specifically, to enable the existing offshore pier 

 16 Dominion’s front end engineering design (FEED) study that established design 

parameters and production estimates determined that the facilities will have a base LNG 

production capacity of 5.25 million MTPA. Dominion states that its review of 

production capability for global liquefaction plants supports its projection that during 

operation, the actual capacity will exceed 5.25 million MTPA by as much as ten percent. 

For this reason, Dominion requests authorization to construct and operate liquefaction 

facilities with an LNG production capacity of up to 5.75 million MTPA.

17 Dominion will use General Electric Frame 7EA gas turbines.

18 Dominion will employ the Air Products C3/split MR process as its liquefaction 

technology. This process uses a propane pre-cooled, mixed-refrigerant refrigeration 

system with a proprietary main cryogenic heat exchanger to cool the natural gas feed 

stream and produce LNG.

19 Dominion’s load calculations indicate that approximately 80 megawatts (MW)

of power will be needed for the Cove Point Liquefaction Project. This power will be 

provided by two 65 MW steam turbine generators using the waste heat from the gas 

turbines to produce steam and generate power.

20 Dominion states that check valves in some existing piping will be modified to 

enable bi-directional flow, depending on whether the ships are loading or offloading. 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 7 -

to serve both offloading and loading function, existing suction drums will be removed to 

make room for two new vapor return blowers that will be installed on each of two pier 

platforms.21 

11. Dominion states that it will construct the liquefaction facilities on its existing

property at the Cove Point Terminal and will use approximately 190.1 acres of additional 

offsite property in Calvert County (Offsite Areas A and B)22 for temporary construction 

laydown, parking areas, and an area for offloading material from barges. 

B. Virginia Facilities

12. Dominion also requests authority under section 7(c) of the NGA to add 

compression at its existing Pleasant Valley Compressor Station and to modify the 

existing Pleasant Valley and Loudoun M&R sites. Dominion states that the additional 

proposed compression and modifications, together with the use of capacity from a 

terminated contract, will enable it to transport up to 860,000 Dth per day of natural gas on 

a firm basis from existing pipeline interconnects near the west end of the Cove Point 

Pipeline to the Cove Point Terminal for the Export Customers.23

 

Additionally, Dominion states that it will modify the LNG transfer piping in the tunnel to 

meet the LNG flow rates required for the export service. Dominion states that this work 

will require replacement of the existing 100 expansion joints in the liquid lines.

21 Dominion states that the suction drums, originally used to facilitate transfer of 

LNG from the delivery vessels, have not been used for approximately 25 years and serve 

no function because ships now use their own pumps to offload the LNG without the 

assistance of pumps and suction drums on the platform. Dominion states that the vapor 

return blowers help manage vapor displacement during the loading of LNG ships.

22 Offsite Area A would consist of approximately 179.1 acres near Lusby, 

Maryland used for terminal construction-related activities. Offsite Area B would consist 

of approximately 11 acres adjacent to the Patuxent River and is the site of a temporary 

barge unloading facility.

23 The Cove Point Pipeline interconnects with three interstate natural gas pipeline 

systems owned by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Dominion 

Transmission Inc.; and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. Dominion contends

that the proposed facility design will allow for as much as 720,000 Dth per day to be 

received at its Loudoun Compressor Station without the addition of any incremental 

compression, with the remaining 140,000 Dth per day being received at Pleasant Valley. 

Alternatively, Dominion states that it can also meet its firm transportation obligations if

the Export Customers designate all of their gas for receipt at Pleasant Valley, or other 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 8 -

13. The existing Pleasant Valley Compressor Station is located on a 37-acre parcel of 

land in an existing industrial site in Centreville, Fairfax County, Virginia, approximately 

seven miles southwest of Dulles International Airport. Dominion asserts that 3.9 acres 

will be permanently developed due to the additional compression. Dominion states that 

an additional 3.3 acres of land will be temporarily disturbed to allow for a pipeline rightof-way and to connect additional compression units to the Pleasant Valley M&R site.

14. Dominion states that there are currently two, 3,000 horsepower (hp) electric 

compressor units at the compressor station. Dominion proposes to install four 

additional electric-driven compressor units at the compressor station for a total increase 

of 62,500 hp. Two 20,000 hp units and one 15,000 hp unit will be housed in a new 

building within the existing site boundary. Additionally, an existing building will be

extended to accommodate one 7,500 hp unit. 

15. To support the operation of the compressor station, Dominion also proposes to 

replace (lift and lay) the existing 1,200 feet of 16-inch-diameter discharge pipeline 

(TL-531) with a 36-inch-diameter pipeline, extending from the Pleasant Valley 

Compressor Station to the existing Pleasant Valley M&R site. Additionally, at the 

compressor station, Dominion will install approximately 1,200 feet of 36-inch-diameter 

suction pipeline extending from the compressor station to the existing Pleasant Valley 

M&R site.24 In addition, Dominion proposes miscellaneous piping and measurement 

upgrades, including additional meter runs and/or pipe, fittings, and valves. 

16. The Loudoun M&R site is located on a 2.4-acre parcel of land in an existing 

industrial site on the east side of Virginia State Route 860 (Watson Road) in Leesburg, 

Loudoun County, Virginia, approximately eight miles northwest of Dulles International 

Airport. The Loudoun M&R site is adjacent to the Loudoun Compressor Station. 

17. Dominion states that miscellaneous piping and measurement upgrades will be 

required, including additional meter runs and/or pipe and fittings. Dominion explains 

that gas received at the Loudoun M&R site will flow directly to the Pleasant Valley site, 

where the gas will be compressed at the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station for further 

downstream transportation to the Cove Point Terminal. 

 

combinations in between. Dominion states that the flexibility of the project’s design is 

critical to the Export Customers’ primary receipt point selection and will improve 

secondary receipt point flexibility for all of Dominion’s transportation customers.

24 The new suction pipeline will be located between the existing TL-530 and 

TL-531 pipelines within the existing right-of-way.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 9 -

C. Services

18. The Export Customers have fully contracted the service to be provided by the 

proposed project. Each customer is entitled to 50 percent of the available capacity. 

Dominion asserts that the Export Customers have entered into 20-year service 

agreements at the Cove Point Terminal, as well as accompanying 20-year service 

agreements for firm transportation on the existing Cove Point Pipeline. Dominion states 

that the Export Customers will be responsible for procuring their own supplies and 

transporting the supplies to or from the Cove Point Terminal.

19. Dominion conducted an open season, as well as a reverse open season, for 

transportation capacity on the Cove Point Pipeline in the spring of 2012. While no 

entities signed up for service or turned back their existing service during the open season, 

Dominion and Statoil agreed to terminate Statoil’s Cove Point Expansion service 

agreement.

III. Public Notice

20. Notice of Dominion’s application was published in the Federal Register on April 

19, 2013, with interventions and protests due on or before May 3, 2013.25 Timely, 

unopposed motions to intervene were filed by the parties listed in Appendix A of this 

order.26 

21. Allegheny Defense Project, Chesapeake Climate Action Network (Chesapeake

Climate), Clean Air Council, Cove of Calvert Homeowners Association, Keys Energy 

Center, LLC, PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC, and Wild Virginia filed untimely 

motions to intervene. These movants have demonstrated an interest in this proceeding 

and granting those parties intervention status at this stage of the proceeding will not cause 

undue delay or disruption or otherwise prejudice the applicant or other parties.27 Thus, 

we will grant the late motions to intervene. 

22. As indicated in Appendix A, certain parties filed comments with their motions to 

intervene. Statoil’s motion to intervene included a request for a technical conference. 

EarthReports, Inc. (dba Patuxent Riverkeeper); Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc.; Shenandoah 

 25 78 Fed. Reg. 23,552 (April 19, 2013).

26 Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted pursuant to 

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 

(2014).

27 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(d) (2014).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 10 -

Riverkeeper; Sierra Club; and Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. (collectively,

EarthReports) included a request for a hearing in its motion to intervene. In addition, 

numerous other entities filed comments on Dominion’s proposal.

23. BP Energy Company (BP), Shell NA LNG LLC (Shell LNG), and Washington 

Gas Light Company’s (Washington Gas)28 motions to intervene included protests. Shell

LNG’s protest also included a request for a technical conference. Dominion filed an 

answer to the comments and protests. Statoil filed an answer to BP’s protest. BP filed an 

answer to Dominion and Statoil, which was followed by another round of answers from 

Dominion and Statoil and then an additional answer from BP. Although the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure do not permit answers to protests or 

answers to answers,29 we find good cause to waive its rules and admit these pleadings 

because they provide information that assisted our decision making.

24. The protestors raise concerns regarding the opportunity for existing customers to 

turnback service, the impact of Dominion’s proposals on existing pipeline service, and 

the adequacy of Dominion’s proposed tariff provisions. 

25. On June 13, 2014, the Commission issued an order requiring Dominion to provide 

Earthjustice30 with certain previously undisclosed Critical Energy Infrastructure 

Information (CEII) and privileged materials pursuant to a protective agreement.31 The 

order allowed Earthjustice to file additional comments based on the CEII and privileged 

material within 21 days after receipt of the information. On July 11, 2014, Earthjustice 

filed a request asking that it be given until August 1, 2014 to file additional comments 

and on July 14, 2014, we granted an extension of time until August 1, 2014. On 

August 1, 2014, Earthjustice requested an additional extension to August 4, 2014. On 

August 4, 2014, Earthjustice filed comments based on its review of the CEII and 

privileged material.

 28 Washington Gas filed a limited protest asking Dominion to better explain its 

statements that the addition of export facilities will not degrade current west-to-east 

services on the Cove Point Pipeline.

29 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2) (2014).

30 Earthjustice represents EarthReports, Inc., doing business as Patuxent 

Riverkeeper, an intervenor in this proceeding.

31 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 147 FERC ¶ 61,202 (2014).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 11 -

IV. Discussion

A. Dominion’s Cove Point Liquefaction Project

26. Because the proposed LNG liquefaction facilities will be used to export natural 

gas to foreign countries, the construction and operation of the proposed facilities and site 

of their location require approval by the Commission under section 3 of the NGA.32

While section 3 provides that an application for the exportation or importation of natural 

gas shall be approved if the proposal “will not be inconsistent with the public interest,” 

section 3 also provides that an application may be approved “in whole or in part, with 

such modification and upon such terms and conditions as the Commission may find 

necessary or appropriate.”33

27. Section 311(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)34 added a new 

NGA section 3(e)(3) providing that, before January 1, 2015, the Commission shall not 

condition an order approving an application to site, construct, expand, or operate an LNG 

terminal on: (1) a requirement that the LNG terminal offer service to customers other 

than the applicant, or any affiliate of the applicant securing the order; (2) any regulation 

of the rates, charges, terms, or conditions of service of the LNG terminal; or (3) a 

requirement to file schedules or contracts related to the rates, charges, terms, or 

conditions of service of the LNG terminal.

28. Earthjustice35 and Chesapeake Climate36 contend that the Cove Point Liquefaction 

Project would cause significant increases in natural gas prices either individually or in 

 32 The regulatory functions of section 3 were transferred to the Secretary of 

Energy in 1977 pursuant to section 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization 

Act, Pub. L. No. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. In reference to regulating the imports or 

exports of natural gas, the Secretary subsequently delegated to the Commission the 

authority to approve or disapprove the construction and operation of natural gas import 

and export facilities and the site at which such facilities shall be located. The most recent 

delegation is in DOE Delegation Order No. 00-044.00A, effective May 16, 2006. 

Applications for authorization to import or export natural gas must be submitted to DOE. 

The Commission does not authorize importation or exportation of the commodity itself.

33 For a discussion of the Commission’s authority to condition its approvals of 

facilities under section 3 of the NGA, see, e.g., Distrigas Corp. v. FPC, 495 F.2d 1057, 

1063-64 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 834 (1974), and Dynegy LNG 

Production Terminal, L.P., 97 FERC ¶ 61,231 (2001).

34 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 311, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).

35 Earthjustice filed comments on behalf of EarthReports.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 12 -

concert with exports from other facilities and would have negative impacts on the U.S. 

economy. In addition, West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, 

AFL-CIO and its division the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation (Trades 

Council) filed comments expressing its concerns with export of domestically-sourced 

natural gas as LNG. 

29. Section 3 of the NGA provides, in part, that “no person shall export any natural 

gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign 

country without first having secured an order of the Commission authorizing it to do so.” 

In 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act transferred the regulatory functions 

of section 3 of the NGA to the Secretary of Energy. Subsequently, the Secretary 

delegated to the Commission authority to “[a]pprove or disapprove the construction and 

operation of particular facilities, the site at which such facilities shall be located, and with 

respect to natural gas that involves the construction of new domestic facilities, the place 

of entry for imports or exit for exports....”37 However, the Secretary has not delegated to 

the Commission any authority to approve or disapprove the import or export of the 

commodity itself.38 

30. In 2011, the Department of Energy (DOE) authorized Dominion to export up to 

the equivalent of 1.0 Bcf per day of domestically-produced natural gas by vessel to Free 

Trade Agreement (FTA) Nations.39 DOE subsequently authorized Dominion to export 

up to 0.77 Bcf per day of natural gas to non-FTA nations, finding the potential export of 

such volumes to be not inconsistent with the public interest.40

 36 Chesapeake Climate is an organization dedicated to fighting global warming in 

Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

37 DOE Delegation Order No. 00-004.00A (effective May 16, 2006).

38 See supra note 31. See also National Steel Corp., 45 FERC ¶ 61,100, 

at 61,332-33 (1988) (observing that DOE, “pursuant to its exclusive jurisdiction, has 

approved the importation with respect to every aspect of it except the point of 

importation” and that the “Commission’s authority in this matter is limited to 

consideration of the place of importation, which necessarily includes the technical and 

environmental aspects of any related facilities”).

39 DOE/FE Order No. 3019 (2011).

40 DOE/FE Order No. 3331 (2013). The export volume authorized in both the 

FTA Order and the non-FTA Order mirror the liquefaction capacity of the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project estimated at the time each application was submitted, and thus are 

not additive. The lesser level approved in the non-FTA Order reflects the level found in 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 13 -

31. In conditionally granting Dominion long-term authorization to export LNG, DOE 

recognized substantial evidence of economic and other public benefits concluding that

the authorization was not inconsistent with the public interest. We recognize DOE’s 

public interest findings in issuing our order. Among other things, DOE found that 

exporting natural gas will lead to net benefits to the U.S. economy and can counteract 

concentration within global LNG markets, thereby diversifying international supply 

options and improving energy security for U.S. allies and trading partners.

32. The proposed Cove Point Liquefaction Project is located on, and adjacent to, the 

footprint of the previously-approved Cove Point Terminal. Much of the land in the area 

was previously disturbed during construction of the LNG terminal and, as a result, the 

proposed project’s environmental impacts are expected to be relatively small in number 

and well-defined. 

33. We conclude that, with the conditions required herein, the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project results in minimal environmental impacts and can be constructed 

and operated safely. Accordingly, we find that, subject to the conditions imposed in this 

order, Dominion’s proposals are not inconsistent with the public interest.

B. Virginia Facilities

34. Since Dominion’s proposed Virginia Facilities will be used to transport natural gas 

in interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the construction and 

operation of the facilities are subject to the requirements of subsections (c) and (e) of 

section 7 of the NGA.41 

35. The Certificate Policy Statement provides guidance for evaluating proposals to 

certificate new construction.

42 The Certificate Policy Statement established criteria for 

determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether the proposed 

project will serve the public interest. The Certificate Policy Statement explained that in 

deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new natural gas facilities, the 

Commission balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences. 

The Commission’s goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of 

competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by 

 

Dominion’s FEED study that was submitted after the non-FTA export application.

41 15 U.S.C. §§ 717f(c) and 717f(e) (2012).

42 Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC 

¶ 61,227 (1999), clarified, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128, further clarified, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000) 

(Certificate Policy Statement).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 14 -

existing customers, the applicant’s responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, the 

avoidance of unnecessary disruptions of the environment, and the unneeded exercise of 

eminent domain in evaluating new pipeline construction.

36. Under this policy, the threshold requirement for existing pipelines proposing new 

projects is that the pipeline must be prepared to financially support the project without 

relying on subsidization from the existing customers. The next step is to determine 

whether the applicant has made efforts to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects the 

project might have on the applicant’s existing customers, existing pipelines in the market 

and their captive customers, or landowners and communities affected by construction. If 

residual adverse effects on these interest groups are identified after efforts have been 

made to minimize them, the Commission will evaluate the project by balancing the 

evidence of public benefits to be achieved against the residual adverse effects. This is 

essentially an economic test. Only when the benefits outweigh the adverse effects on 

economic interests will the Commission then proceed to complete the environmental 

analysis where other interests are considered.

1. Subsidization

37. We find that existing customers will not subsidize the expansion of the Cove Point 

Pipeline. The Certificate Policy Statement presumes an incremental rate for firm service 

is appropriate when the incremental rate would be in excess of the maximum system 

rate.43 Dominion’s proposed $5.5260 per Dth incremental recourse reservation rate is 

higher than the current Rate Schedule FTS recourse rate of $0.4388 per Dth. Thus, since 

Dominion proposes an incremental FTS recourse rate as an initial rate for the incremental 

service, and since other sources of potential subsidization such as fuel retainage and 

power requirements will be appropriately addressed in a section 4 proceeding prior to the 

in-service date of the expansion, we find there will be no subsidization of the proposed 

Cove Point Pipeline facilities by existing customers.

2. Existing Customers

a. Turnback of Service Opportunity

38. In 2001, the Commission authorized Dominion’s predecessor to construct new 

facilities and reactivate the existing LNG terminal to recommence LNG imports. BP was 

 43 Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 at 61,744 (“[w]hen a pipeline 

proposes to charge a cost-based incremental rate (establishing separate costs-of-service 

and separate rates for the existing and expansion facilities) higher than its existing 

generally applicable rates, the Commission usually approves the proposal.”).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 15 -

one of three customers that contracted for NGA section 7 LNG terminal service under 

rate schedule LTD-1.44

39. In 2006, the Commission authorized the Cove Point Expansion Project, with 

Statoil as the sole expansion customer.

45 Dominion requested, and was granted, marketbased rate treatment, under Hackberry LNG Terminal, L.L.C.,

46 for the expansion 

capacity and entered into a non-open access service agreement with Statoil for section 3 

LNG terminal service using the expanded capacity. In addition, Statoil subscribed to 

jurisdictional service through rate schedule FTS for service on the expanded Cove Point 

Pipeline. Dominion and Statoil agreed to include tariff provisions to ensure that existing 

and expansion customers are treated in a not unduly discriminatory manner. 

40. To support the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, Dominion held an open season 

and a reverse open season for transportation capacity on the Cove Point Pipeline in the 

spring of 2012 and received no requests under either open season.47

41. Dominion and Statoil agreed to an early termination of the non-open access Cove 

Point Expansion service agreement for Statoil’s section 3 terminal service and section 7 

Cove Point Pipeline capacity. 

42. In its protest, BP contends that Dominion acted in an unduly discriminatory 

manner by allowing Statoil to relinquish both its section 3 terminal service and its section 

7 pipeline capacity, while Dominion offered BP the opportunity to relinquish only its 

section 7 pipeline capacity. BP asserts that it is a similarly situated customer48 with firm

entitlements utilizing pre-expansion storage and regasification capacity authorized under 

 44 Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership, 68 FERC ¶ 61,377.

45 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 115 FERC ¶ 61,337.

46 Hackberry LNG Terminal, L.L.C., 101 FERC ¶ 61,294 (2002).

47 Washington Gas contends that Dominion provided inadequate notice of the open 

season. Dominion states that the notice cited by Washington Gas as having been 

provided too late to allow for adequate consideration simply corrected a formatting error 

in the original notice, which was posted at the outset of the open season. 

48 BP asserts that Dominion stated that the 2005 expansion facilities would be

operated on an integrated basis with the then-existing import facilities and pledged that

wherever the expansion services “interact” with existing services, both existing and 

expansion customers would be treated in a not unduly discriminatory manner. BP Protest 

at 2, footnotes 2, 3.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 16 -

section 7 of the NGA, but that it was given no opportunity to relinquish its import 

capacity at the LNG terminal.49 BP asks that the Commission require Dominion to offer 

BP an opportunity to turnback its terminal service. 

43. In its answer, Dominion asserts that Statoil, as the Expansion Customer with nonopen access terminal service, and BP with open-access LTD-1 terminal service are not 

similarly situated. Dominion contends that while Statoil and BP are both customers of 

Dominion, they receive service under completely different regulatory regimes and 

therefore cannot be similarly situated. 

44. Likewise, Statoil states that Dominion was under no obligation to provide BP with 

the same opportunity to turn back terminal capacity because BP is not a similarly situated 

shipper.50 Statoil states that its early termination of Cove Point Expansion Project service 

was negotiated pursuant to its section 3, non-open access expansion service contract, 

which is exempt from section 7 regulation.51 Statoil contends that Dominion is not 

required to give BP, an open access, section 7 shipper, the same opportunities.52

Commission Response

45. EPAct 2005 amended the NGA to prohibit undue preferences and undue 

discrimination in the context of LNG terminals providing service authorized under both 

sections 3 and 7 of the NGA, which is the case at Cove Point:

An order issued for an LNG terminal that also offers service 

to customers on an open access basis shall not result in 

subsidization of expansion capacity by existing customers, 

degradation of service to existing customers, or undue 

discrimination against existing customers as to their terms or 

 49 BP May 3, 2013 Protest at 1-2.

50 Statoil May 20, 2013 Answer at 5 (citing Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 

103 FERC ¶ 61,388, order on reh’g, 105 FERC ¶ 61,373 (2003) (finding that a section 7 

pipeline may provide early termination rights to one group of shippers and not to others 

because the two shipper groups are not similarly situated on account of different risks 

faced)).

51 Statoil May 20, 2013 Answer at 6. In addition to the Expansion Project service, 

Statoil also obtains LTD-1 service from Dominion.

52 Statoil May 20, 2013 Answer at 3.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 17 -

conditions of service at the facility, as all of those terms are 

defined by the Commission.53

46. BP contends that it has suffered undue discrimination as to the terms or conditions 

of its service. As described in more detail below, Dominion has not proposed to change 

the terms and conditions of service for BP in this proceeding. The operational 

requirements contained in section 30 of Dominion’s tariff will continue to ensure no 

discriminatory treatment of service. 

47. Further, it is well-established that not all discrimination is undue, and only 

similarly situated customers need to be treated similarly.54 BP is a LTD-1 shipper, 

receiving open access terminal services provided under section 7 of the NGA, while 

Statoil is an expansion customer receiving non-open access service under NGA section 3. 

The section 7 and section 3 terminal services are distinguishable, thus BP and Statoil are

not similarly situated. Finally, we are not concerned with the fact that in addition to 

relinquishing section 3 terminal service Statoil also turned back section 7 service on the 

Cove Point Pipeline because Dominion held an open season providing all shippers an 

opportunity to turnback this service. 

48. BP’s request that we require Dominion to offer a turnback of terminal capacity is 

denied. 

b. Impacts on Existing Pipeline Service

49. Washington Gas,

55 a current west-to-east transportation customer on the Cove 

Point Pipeline, asserts that Dominion failed to state how current firm west-to-east 

transportation service would be coordinated with the export service west-to-east 

transportation. Washington Gas states that an explanation is necessary to demonstrate 

that the addition of export facilities does not degrade current west-to-east services.

50. Washington Gas contends that historically, secondary access to the Cove Point 

Pipeline at the Loudoun and Pleasant Valley interconnections has often been physically 

unavailable and that Dominion has provided no reasons for denial of secondary access. 

 53 15 U.S.C. § 717b(e)(4) (2012). 

54 See Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1987), 

cert. denied sub nom. Interstate Natural Gas Ass’n v. FERC, 485 U.S. 1006 (1988);

Cities of Bethany v. FERC, 727 F.2d 1131, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 

917 (1984).

55 Washington Gas is engaged primarily in the retail sale and delivery of natural 

gas in the District of Columbia and surrounding portions of Maryland and Virginia.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 18 -

Washington Gas asserts that Dominion has not detailed any plans to mitigate secondary 

access conditions at its interconnections with the Cove Point Pipeline, even though 

Dominion claims that the proposals will improve secondary receipt point flexibility for 

all transportation customers. Washington Gas states it is concerned that such flexibility 

in the receipt of gas and ability to move it to the delivery points could be illusory unless 

Dominion is willing to make some contractual receipt point adjustments along with its 

proposed changes to the operation of compression on its system. Washington Gas 

proposes that existing west-to-east shippers be permitted to aggregate their firm 

nominations into Dominion’s three receipt points, providing comparable choices for 

flexibility as are being given to the Export Customers.

51. Washington Gas contends that the peaking service under Rate Schedule FPS, 

which relies on a single liquefier and storage tanks at the LNG terminal, may have 

operational changes in the absence of availability of east-to-west transportation. 

Washington Gas states that Dominion has not described how the peaking service will 

function after the in-service date of the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, including 

whether the FPS service will basically become an exchange service.

52. Dominion states that Export Customers are not being permitted to aggregate their 

nomination into the three different receipt points on the Cove Point Pipeline. Dominion

states that the aggregation of points suggested by Washington Gas would be a significant 

change in Dominion’s operations and that if Washington Gas desires to change its current 

primary receipt point selections, it should request the change and Dominion will allow it 

to the extent operationally possible. 

53. Regarding peaking service under Rate Schedule FPS, Dominion states that it 

currently provides east-to-west transportation service for the FPS service and will 

continue to do so. In addition, Dominion asserts that given the recent lack of LNG 

imports, the addition of the proposed new services should create additional flexibility not 

currently available to the FPS customers. Dominion states that it is not proposing any 

changes to the existing FPS service and the service will not be transformed into an 

“exchange service.”56

Commission Response

54. Washington Gas proposes that existing west-to-east shippers (i.e., Rate Schedule 

FTS shippers) be permitted to aggregate their firm nominations into Dominion’s three 

receipt points. As noted by Dominion, this right is not being given to the Export 

Customers. Dominion’s tariff currently contains provisions providing all shippers, 

 56 Dominion May 2013 Answer at 31.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 19 -

existing as well as the Export Customers, the option to change a primary receipt point.57 

Thus, we will reject Washington Gas’ protest.

55. Dominion asserts that there will be no adverse impacts for existing Rate Schedule 

FTS and FPS customers, and, at this time, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that 

Dominion’s proposals will adversely affect existing Rate Schedule FTS and FPS 

customers. If disputes do arise concerning terminal operations once liquefaction 

commences, we anticipate that those matters will be resolved pursuant to the terms of the 

various agreements. Alternatively, if an existing shipper believes that its service has 

indeed been adversely affected, it can bring the issue to the Commission’s attention in the 

form of a complaint. In addition, Dominion is required to submit proposed tariff records 

to implement its proposals in a future section 4 proceeding. Should Dominion propose 

any tariff revisions regarding Rate Schedule FTS or FPS service, parties may address any 

issues in that proceeding.

56. We conclude that Dominion’s proposals, along with conditions imposed herein, 

will result in no adverse impacts to existing customers. 

3. Existing Pipelines

57. No pipelines or their captive customers filed adverse comments regarding 

Dominion’s proposals. Thus, we find that Dominion’s proposal will not adversely impact 

existing pipelines in the market and their captive customers. 

4. Landowners 

58. We find that Dominion’s Virginia Facilities have been designed to minimize 

impacts on landowners and the environment, since the proposed facilities associated with 

the enhancements to the Cove Point Pipeline would be located within existing Dominionowned land and/or right-of-ways. Thus, there would be minimal adverse impacts to 

landowners.

5. Conclusion

59. The proposed Virginia Facilities, together with the use of turnback capacity, will 

enable Dominion to transport up to 860,000 Dth per day of natural gas on a firm basis 

from existing pipeline interconnects near the west end of the Cove Point Pipeline to the 

Cove Point Terminal for the Export Customers. Dominion has entered into 20-year 

agreements for transportation with the Export Customers. Based on the benefits the 

 57 Dominion Cove Point, LP, FERC NGA Gas Tariff, Dominion_DATABASE; 

Tariff Record 40.8, GT&C – Flex Prim and Sec Rec and Del Points, 0.0.0.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 20 -

project will provide and the minimal adverse impacts on existing customers, other 

pipelines and their customers, and landowners and surrounding communities, we find, 

consistent with the Certificate Policy Statement and section 7(c) of the NGA, that 

Dominion’s proposal, as conditioned below, is required by the public convenience and 

necessity. 

C. Rates

1. Virginia Facilities

60. Dominion explains that it will provide firm transportation services for the Export 

Customers using the turnback capacity it negotiated with Statoil and the capacity created 

by the proposed increase in compression. Dominion states that the Export Customers 

will have firm entitlements for transportation from west-to-east on the Cove Point 

Pipeline to the Cove Point Terminal. Dominion asserts that in the event of a change to 

import/regasification service, the Export Customers will be entitled to switch their 

primary receipt and delivery points to provide for transportation flowing east-to-west 

away from the Cove Point Terminal. Dominion asserts that no customer or potential 

customer is harmed because the capacity only becomes available upon the import 

election.58

61. Dominion proposes to establish an incremental firm transportation recourse rate to 

recover the cost of the transmission facilities utilized for service provided to the Export 

Customers. Consistent with Commission policy, Dominion states that the service is 

priced incrementally because the rate required to recover the incremental costs exceeds 

the existing system rates for firm service under Rate Schedule FTS.59

a. Recourse Rates

62. Dominion proposes to charge a firm incremental transportation rate of $5.5260 per 

Dth and a commodity charge equal to the currently-effective commodity charge rate 

under Rate Schedule FTS to recover the cost of the proposed facilities. The proposed 

recourse rates are designed using straight-fixed variable rate design with annual billing 

determinants of 10,320,000 Dth per day. Dominion proposes a first year cost of service 

of $57,028,578. The cost of service is based on: (1) Operation and Maintenance expense 

of $34,074,164; (2) depreciation expense of $3,561,449; (3) other taxes of $2,033,310; 

 58 During import/regasification service, the Export Customers’ firm receipt point 

rights at the LNG Terminal will be limited to 330,000 Dth per day, to match the 

terminal’s send-out capacity.

59 The currently applicable Rate Schedule FTS rate is $0.4388 per Dth. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 21 -

and (4) a pretax return of $17,359,655. This cost of service is based upon Dominion’s 

last approved pre-tax rate of return of 14.00 percent and a depreciation rate of 2.82 

percent, as agreed to as part of its rate case settlement in Docket No. RP11-2137-000.60 

Dominion states that the cost of service reflects the costs of the new transmission 

facilities and the annual costs associated with the turned-back Cove Point Expansion 

transportation capacity that will be dedicated to the project.61 Firm transportation service 

will be provided under the terms and conditions of Dominion’s existing Rate Schedule 

FTS. Dominion proposes to use the generally-applicable Rate Schedule ITS rate, 

currently $0.0144 per Dth, as the rate for interruptible service.62

63. The Certificate Policy Statement presumes an incremental rate for firm service is 

appropriate when the incremental rate would be in excess of the maximum system rate.63 

Dominion’s proposed $5.5260 per Dth incremental recourse reservation rate is higher 

than the current Rate Schedule FTS recourse rate of $0.4388 per Dth. Thus, we will 

approve Dominion’s proposed incremental FTS recourse rate as an initial rate for the 

incremental service. 

b. Negotiated Rate

64. Dominion states that the Export Customers will pay a negotiated rate for the firm 

transportation service. The agreed-upon negotiated rate is a fixed rate, which will not 

vary over the term of the service agreement, of $0.1930 per Dth. Dominion indicates that 

in accordance with General Terms and Conditions (GT&C) section 29, it will file prior to 

the commencement of negotiated rate transportation service either the service agreement 

or numbered tariff records stating the name of any shipper paying a negotiated rate, the 

negotiated rate or rate formula, the applicable rate schedule, the applicable receipt and 

delivery points, contract quantities, contract duration and an affirmation that the 

agreement does not deviate in any material respect from the Form of Service Agreement. 

Dominion will be required to keep separate and identifiable accounts for any quantities 

transported, billing determinants, rate components, surcharges and revenue associated 

with its negotiated rates in sufficient detail so that they can be separately identified in 

future rate cases.

 60 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 140 FERC ¶ 61,013 (2012).

61 Dominion valued the Cove Point Expansion transmission capacity at the 

currently applicable Rate Schedule FTS incremental recourse rate of $3.8367 per Dth.

62 Dominion October 16, 2013 Data Response.

63 See supra note 42.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 22 -

2. Fuel and Other Surcharges

65. Noting that the Export Customers will have responsibility for the fuel used to 

provide their Cove Point Liquefaction Project service, Dominion states that fuel 

consumption will be tracked to ensure that no existing customer will be responsible for 

costs associated with the fuel used to provide the liquefaction services to Export 

Customers. Dominion asserts that additional modifications to its tariff will be required to 

accommodate the addition of the new services for the Export Customers. Specifically, 

Dominion states that it expects changes will be required in the tariff provisions 

concerning “cooling quantities” and the allocation of fuel retainage, electric costs, and 

boil-off. Dominion contends that because these proposed tariff revisions affect not only 

the Export Customers, but other Dominion customers as well, they will be filed in a NGA 

section 4 proceeding, rather than this proceeding.64 Dominion states that it plans to 

submit a NGA section 4 tariff filing 30 to 60 days before the in-service date of the 

project.

66. Shell LNG65 and Statoil state that Dominion has not explained adequately the 

impact of the project on fuel retainage, power requirements, and LNG boil-off at the 

terminal. In addition, Shell LNG notes that Dominion has not explained the impact of the 

project on the fuel and electric costs associated with Dominion’s proposal to use the 

compression at Pleasant Valley as its primary source for transportation, or the anticipated 

allocation of lost and unaccounted for gas on the Cove Point Pipeline. Further, 

Washington Gas states that Dominion should be required to provide current shippers with 

the substance of the planned or anticipated tariff or service changes at this time, so that 

the Commission and shippers can review them as part of this proceeding.

67. The Commission has previously permitted a pipeline to submit tariff records 

concerning a certificate proceeding in a section 4 proceeding, rather than the section 7 

proceeding, when the proposed tariff revisions would affect not only project customers, 

but other customers as well.66 We find that reasoning applies here. Thus, we will require 

Dominion to submit additional tariff provisions in a future section 4 NGA filing 30 to 

60 days before the in-service date of the project. We note that requiring Dominion to 

submit proposed tariff records in a future filing is without prejudice and customers may 

voice any concerns in that proceeding.

 64 In addition, Dominion states these issues will be part of the agenda in upcoming 

Dominion customer meetings. Dominion May 20, 2013 Answer at 23.

65 Shell LNG is an LNG import customer at the Cove Point LNG Terminal.

66 Dominion Transmission, Inc., 135 FERC ¶ 61,239, at P 34 (2011). 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 23 -

68. Dominion also proposes to assess the currently-effective applicable surcharges 

(including electric power costs) and fuel retainage percentage for Rate Schedule FTS 

service contracted by the Export Customers. We will approve this proposal.

3. Tariff Proposals

69. NGA section 3(e)(3) provides that agreements between customers and an LNG 

terminal operator under section 3 of the NGA need not be filed with the Commission. 

Nevertheless, Dominion and the Export Customers have agreed to incorporate key 

operational provisions of the non-open access agreements into Rate Schedule LTD-1 

(Regasification Services) and the GT&C by reference to define the Export Customers’ 

regasification and import service. Dominion contends that this approach will ensure that 

the Export Customers, when electing import services, and the existing LTD-1 shippers 

are treated in a not unduly discriminatory manner. Dominion states that this approach is 

consistent with that taken for Statoil, the existing Cove Point Expansion customer.

70. Dominion proposes to revise GT&C section 30, “Notice of Incremental Services,”

to reflect certain operational terms of the import and regasification service for the Export 

Customers. Existing GT&C section 30 provides that the firm services offered by 

Dominion under NGA section 3 are generally defined by and performed under separate 

contracts between Dominion and its customers. Existing GT&C section 30 applies to 

Statoil and outlines the sections of the GT&C and Rate Schedule LTD-1 that apply to 

Statoil. Dominion’s proposed GT&C section 30(a)(1) provides that section 3 service 

shall be treated as equivalent to service under Rate Schedule LTD-1, except for certain 

provisions. GT&C section 30(a)(2) provides that certain provisions of the GT&C are not 

incorporated and are not part of the section 3 firm service. In addition, GT&C section 30 

provides that the Export Customers may utilize the “Coordinating Buyer” provisions of 

section 2.5 of Rate Schedule LTD-1.67

71. In addition, Dominion expects minor changes will be needed to incorporate the 

Export Customers into the existing ship scheduling provisions. Dominion asserts that 

changes in these tariff provisions required to accommodate the new service will not 

degrade service to its existing customers.

 67 Section 2.5 of Rate Schedule LTD-1 provides that, “In the event more than one 

Buyer is receiving firm LNG tanker discharging service under this Rate Schedule LTD-1, 

any or all of such Buyers may elect to coordinate among themselves their operations at 

Operator's facilities, including the joint scheduling of LNG arrivals, injections into 

storage, scheduling of vaporization and other activities required for the use of Operator's 

facilities.” Dominion Cove Point, LP, FERC NGA Gas Tariff, Dominion_DATABASE; 

Tariff Record 20.1.2, LTD-1 Rate Schedule - Applicability and Character of Service, 

0.0.0.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 24 -

a. GT&C Section 30

72. Statoil and Shell LNG contend that Dominion has not explained why changes to 

GT&C section 30 are necessary. Statoil questions why the changes are necessary, if the 

section 3 import service contracted for by the Export Customers is the same as or 

substantially similar to its section 3 import service.

73. BP asserts that the open season process, discussed above, “fatally infect[ed]” the 

currently-effective GT&C section 30, which is designed to address the interaction 

between different classes of customers, and any proposed modification to it. BP requests 

that the Commission require Dominion to file a new GT&C section 30 to govern the 

interaction among the various classes of customers on Dominion’s facilities.

74. Dominion states that section 30 needs to be revised because existing section 30 

concerns only the Cove Point Expansion Project service, which will terminate by the time 

the proposed section 30 will become effective.68 Dominion contends that proposed 

section 30 will serve a similar purpose as the existing version, but for the service to the 

new Export Customers. Dominion states that proposed sections 30(a)(1), 30(a)(2) and 

30(a)(3) concern import service for the Export Customers, if and when they elect to take 

it.69 Further, Dominion asserts that proposed section 30 assumes that the new import 

service for the Export Customers will be treated as equivalent to Rate Schedule LTD-1 

service, and lists only the exceptions to Rate Schedule LTD-1 and the GT&C. In 

contrast, Dominion states that existing section 30 lists the provisions of Rate Schedule 

LTD-1 and the GT&C that apply to the Cove Point Expansion service.

75. Dominion states that proposed section 30(a)(4) provides that the Export Customers 

may participate as part of the “Coordinating Buyer,” as provided in section 2.5 of Rate 

Schedule LTD-1, if they and the LTD-1 customers so desire, and section 30(a)(5) 

provides that Export Customers may engage in inventory transfers with existing shippers 

pursuant to existing tariff provisions. Dominion contends that these provisions will not 

harm existing shippers and could potentially provide benefits to them. In addition 

Dominion states that proposed section 30(a)(6) simply acknowledges that the Export 

Customers may fully participate in Dominion tariff proceedings.70

Commission Response

 68 Dominion May 20, 2013 Answer at 20.

69 Id.

70 Id. at 21.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 25 -

76. As noted above, we found that Dominion did not act in an unduly discriminatory 

manner in allowing Statoil to turn-back its terminal capacity. Thus, we will reject BP’s 

request to require Dominion to file a new GT&C section 30.

77. Dominion’s proposed revised section 30 is different than existing section 30 

because it lists the exceptions to the tariff for the Export Customers’ service, rather than 

listing the provisions of its tariff that apply to Statoil. We find that Dominion’s proposed 

GT&C section 30 is reasonable and agree that it is appropriate that Dominion revise

section 30 with the termination of the service for Statoil and the commencement of 

service for the Export Customers.

78. In accepting Dominion’s existing section 30, we found that “while section 30 does 

allow for some differences in Dominion’s services to Statoil and the LTD-1 customers, 

we are satisfied that there will be no undue discrimination against existing LTD-1 

customers as to their terms and conditions of service in the critical tariff areas, such as 

nominations, scheduling and operating conditions.”71 We continue to be satisfied that 

there will be no undue discrimination against existing LTD-1 customers regarding 

proposed section 30. 

b. Tariff Provisions and Existing Import Customers

79. Dominion states that there will be no changes to the existing LNG shipping 

arrangements and that LTD-1 customers will not be adversely affected in their shipping 

scheduling rights as a result of its proposal. Shell LNG notes that Dominion plans to use 

the approach previously agreed upon with the existing import shippers to resolve 

scheduling conflicts between Statoil and the LTD-1 customers. Shell LNG argues that it 

is unclear whether LTD-1 customers will be adversely affected by Dominion’s shipping 

proposal. Likewise, Statoil states that details regarding the procedures for scheduling 

import and export vessels must be examined further to ensure that service to existing 

LTD-1 shippers is not degraded. 

80. Shell LNG states that Dominion has not explained whether LTD-1 customers will 

be able to import LNG while the Export Customers are in export mode. Statoil argues 

that Dominion has not explained how granting import and export service equal priority 

does not degrade current LTD-1 service.

81. Shell LNG requests additional information about potential outages at the LNG 

terminal while Dominion integrates the Cove Point Liquefaction Project. In addition, 

Shell LNG contends that Dominion has not identified how it plans to resolve any gas 

quality issues that may arise from simultaneous LNG imports and exports.

 71 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 115 FERC ¶ 61,337 at P 150.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 26 -

82. Dominion contends that the Export Customers will have the same priority as the 

existing import shippers and that the total authorized marine traffic will not be increased. 

Dominion states that the difference in time to offload or load a ship is immaterial and 

that, consistent with historical practice, it will schedule only one ship for loading or 

offloading on any one day. In addition, Cove Point asserts that two berths are available at 

the LNG terminal pier to facilitate back-to-back operations as quickly as possible.

83. Dominion contends that the only possible shipping conflict is if two shippers seek 

to schedule an arrival at the pier on the same day. In the event this happens, Dominion 

states that it will use the current approach (agreed upon with the existing import 

shippers), which provides that the first time two shippers request an arrival on the same 

day, the first shipper will be awarded the desired date and the second shipper will be 

given the closest available date and that the next time those two shippers request the same

day, the second shipper will be awarded the preferred date, and so on with alternating 

winners. Dominion maintains that there have never been any scheduling conflicts at the 

Cove Point Terminal among the LTD-1 shippers (including Statoil in its role as the 

Expansion Shipper).72

84. Dominion states that LTD-1 customers will be able to import LNG when the 

Export Customers are in export mode; that it will be able to load LNG onto a ship one 

day and offload LNG from another ship the next, and vice versa; and liquefy gas for the 

Export Customers at the same time that it re-gasifies LNG for the LTD-1 customers.73 

Dominion states that it does not anticipate any gas quality issues resulting from the Cove 

Point Liquefaction Project and that it is not proposing any changes in the gas quality 

specifications applicable to transportation on the Cove Point Pipeline or in the LNG 

specifications applicable to LTD-1 service.74

Commission Response

85. Dominion has not projected that its liquefaction project will result in an increase in 

the number of vessels permitted to dock at the LNG terminal in a given year. Moreover, 

there is no indication that Dominion’s existing vessel scheduling system will not continue 

to be adequate when the proposed Export Service commences.75 During its review of the 

 72 Dominion May 20, 2013 Answer at 14. 

73 Id. at 13.

74 Id. at 17.

75 The number of ships received in the last several years is as follows: 2009 – 25 

ships, 2010 – 15 ships, 2011 – 5 ships, 2012 – 1 ship, 2013 – 2 ships, and 2014 through 

June – 1 ship.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 27 -

waterway for the Cove Point Expansion Project, the Coast Guard determined that the 

Chesapeake Bay, from Cape Henry, Virginia, to Cove Point, Maryland, can 

accommodate 200 LNG ships per year.

86. Dominion will continue to provide import, regasification, and storage services to 

customers under existing LTD Agreements. In its pleadings, Dominion emphasizes that 

there is no physical limitation to simultaneous operation of the existing regasification and 

proposed liquefaction capabilities. Thus, at this time, there is not sufficient evidence 

demonstrating that the rights of existing terminal customers would be jeopardized by 

construction and operation of the liquefaction project. If disputes arise concerning

terminal operations once liquefaction commences, we anticipate that those matters will be 

resolved pursuant to the terms of the various agreements or that allegations of undue 

discrimination or anticompetitive behavior can be brought to the Commission’s attention 

in the form of a complaint.76

c. Non-Conforming Provisions

87. Dominion notes that the Rate Schedule FTS Service Agreements contain the 

following provisions that deviate from the Rate Schedule FTS pro forma service 

agreement: (1) contract extension and termination rights, which reflect specific 

characteristics relating to the Project, including the right to terminate the service 

agreement if Dominion is no longer providing terminal service for reasons other than a 

default by the Export Customer; (2) the right to reverse its primary receipt and delivery 

points to correspond to the export/import elections, and under certain circumstances, an 

election to revise the primary receipt points after the Commission issues an order 

regarding the project;77 and (3) credit-worthiness provisions that reflect higher risks, and 

significant financial commitments, associated with the Project. Dominion requests that 

the Commission rule on these non-conforming provisions in this proceeding.

88. As required by the Commission’s regulations, Dominion states it intends to file the 

firm transportation agreements and negotiated rate agreements and identify any material 

deviations or non-conforming provisions in each agreement. However, Dominion 

requests the Commission address the potentially non-conforming provisions in this 

proceeding.

 76 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,039, at P 24, order on reh’g, 

140 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2012).

77 Dominion notes that the Export Customers have yet to finalize their primary 

receipt point selections.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 28 -

d. Receipt and Delivery Points

89. Shell LNG states that Dominion has not sufficiently explained the impact of its 

proposal to allow the Export Customers to switch their primary receipt points and 

delivery points on the Cove Point Pipeline. Shell LNG contends that it requires more 

information about the contract extension and termination rights Dominion proposes for 

the Export Customers.

90. Dominion states that offering the Export Customers the option to switch their 

primary receipt points and delivery points corresponds with the bi-directional service that 

is proposed to be offered at the LNG terminal.

78 Dominion asserts that no existing 

customer will be harmed in the event that an Export Customer elects to switch its receipt 

and delivery points as the revised points can only be made available on a primary basis 

due to the fact that such points will not be used in the reverse flow during the same 

period.79 

91. Dominion states that the contract extension provisions of the Export Customers’ 

FTS service agreements reflect specific characteristics relating to the proposals herein

and certain extension rights based on the individual customer's needs. Dominion asserts

this is consistent with GT&C section 5(b)(1) of its tariff, which allows the period of time 

covered by the service agreement to be "determined by agreement between the parties."80 

In addition, Dominion states that the termination rights proposed in the Export 

Customers’ FTS service agreements are consistent with GT&C section 5(b)(2) of the 

tariff, which allows it to agree to the termination of an existing service agreement prior to 

its expiration date contingent upon negotiated conditions.81

Commission Response

92. Although we have made upfront determinations regarding non-conforming 

provisions in service agreements in certificate proceedings in the past under similar 

circumstances,82 we have more recently indicated that it is only appropriate to do so when 

the pipeline files redline/strikeout versions of the service agreements. On October 16, 

 78 Dominion October 16, 2013 Data Response. 

79 Id.

80 Id.

81 Id.

82 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 144 FERC ¶ 61,219 (2013).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 29 -

2013, in response to a data request, Dominion submitted redline/strikeout versions of the 

service agreements with the Export Customers.83 

93. We find that the incorporation of the non-conforming provisions described above 

in the Export Customers’ service agreements constitutes a material deviation from 

Dominion’s pro forma service agreement. However, we have found in the past that nonconforming provisions may be necessary to reflect the unique circumstances involved 

with the construction of new infrastructure and to provide the security needed to ensure 

the viability of a project. We find the non-conforming provisions identified by Dominion 

are permissible because they do not present a risk of undue discrimination, do not affect 

the operational conditions of providing service, and do not result in any customer 

receiving a different quality of service. Regarding the Export Customers’ right to reverse

primary receipt and delivery points to correspond with export/import elections, we find

that there is no substantial risk of undue discrimination in this situation where the reversal 

of primary receipt and delivery points involves shippers with export/import capacity at 

the LNG terminal. As Dominion explains, the Export Customers’ reversal of their

primary receipt and delivery points on the Cove Point Pipeline would be done only in 

concert with their switching between export and import service at the terminal. Thus, 

existing customers’ service would not be impacted.

84 We note that any future customers 

with export/import service should receive similar terms. As discussed further below, 

when Dominion files its service agreements, we will require Dominion to identify and 

disclose all non-conforming provisions or agreements affecting the substantive rights of 

the parties under the tariff or service agreement. This required disclosure includes any 

such transportation provision or agreement detailed in a precedent agreement that 

survives the execution of the service agreement.

94. Dominion must file not less than 30 days, or more than 60 days, before the inservice date of the proposed facilities, an executed copy of each non-conforming 

agreement reflecting all non-conforming language and a tariff record identifying these 

agreements as non-conforming agreements consistent with section 154.112 of the 

Commission’s regulations. In addition, we emphasize that the above determinations 

relate only to those items as described by Dominion in section VII of its application and 

not to the entirety of the precedent agreements or the language contained in the precedent 

agreements.

 83 Dominion requested that the service agreements be accorded privileged and 

confidential treatment and included a Form of Protective Agreement in its filing as 

required by section 388.112 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

84 Dominion Application at 31.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 30 -

D. Accounting

95. Dominion requests that the Commission clarify whether generally applicable cost 

reporting and accounting requirements apply to its proposed LNG export service and, if 

so, waive those requirements. Dominion states that the Commission previously denied 

such a waiver for its existing LNG import service on the basis that it had both cost of 

service and market-based rates.85 However, Dominion asserts that its new LNG export 

service will only be provided on a non-open access basis. 

96. In denying Dominion’s waiver request for its expansion project to serve Statoil,

86

we explained that our accounting and reporting rules require the maintenance of books 

and records and the preparation and filing of financial statements for the entire 

jurisdictional entity. Accounting and reporting rules, for example, do not allow the 

preparation of an Income Statement, which excludes revenues and costs related to part of 

an entity’s operations. Additionally, many of the assets, liabilities, and capital of a 

reporting entity are applicable on a joint and non-severable basis to all the business 

activities of an entity. Consequently, it is not possible to waive reporting requirements 

for only part of the operations of a natural gas company that has both cost-of-service and 

market-based rate activities, as to do so would render its financial statements incomplete 

and misleading. It is irrelevant that part of an entity’s operations are related to noneconomically regulated services, as all activities are performed by the same entity. 

97. Finally, Dominion refers to two orders in which the Commission granted 

waivers.

87 In neither of the two cases, however, did the respective entities have cost 

based rates, which Dominion does. We have consistently denied waiver of our 

accounting and reporting requirements in cases where the reporting entity has both cost 

and market based operations within the same reporting entity. We will continue to do so 

here.88

 85 Dominion Application at 55.

86 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, 115 FERC ¶ 61,337.

87 D’Lo Gas Storage, LLC, 140 FERC ¶ 61,182, at P 43 (2012); Broadwater 

Energy LLC, 122 FERC ¶ 61,255, at P 42 (2008).

88 Hackberry LNG Terminal, L.L.C., 101 FERC ¶ 61,294 at PP 67-68; PECO 

Energy Co., 88 FERC ¶ 61,330, at 62,020 (1999); Transok, L.L.C., 97 FERC ¶ 61,362, at 

62,683 (2001).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 31 -

E. Environmental Analysis

1. Pre-Filing Review 

98. On June 26, 2012, Commission staff granted Dominion’s request to use the 

prefiling process in Docket No. PF12-16-000. On September 24, 2012, the Commission 

issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment (NOI). This notice 

was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2012 and mailed to over 720 

interested parties on the environmental mailing list including federal, state, and local 

officials; agency representatives; environmental and public interest groups; Native 

American tribes; local libraries and newspapers in the project areas; and property owners 

in the vicinity of proposed project facilities.89 

99. On July 16, July 17, and July 18, 2012, Commission staff participated in public 

open houses sponsored by Dominion in the project area to explain our environmental 

review process to interested stakeholders. On October 9, and October 10, 2012, 

Commission staff conducted public scoping meetings in Lusby, Maryland and Ashburn, 

Virginia to provide an opportunity for agencies and the general public to learn more 

about the project and to participate in the environmental analysis by identifying issues to 

be addressed in the environmental analysis (EA). A total of 40 speakers presented 

comments at the scoping meetings. A transcript of the scoping meetings and all written 

scoping comments were placed into the public record for the proceeding.

100. We received comments in response to the NOI from landowners in proximity to 

the project; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; the U.S. Department of Defense; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the 

Maryland Department of Planning; the Maryland Environmental Service; the Virginia 

Department of Health; the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Montgomery County, Maryland; Prince 

George’s County, Maryland; Loudoun County, Virginia; and Fairfax County, Virginia. 

The primary issues raised during the public scoping process concerned: the need for the 

project; preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) rather than an EA; 

erosion and sedimentation; geological hazards; impacts on groundwater wells and surface 

water quality; impacts on wetlands, fish, wildlife, vegetation, and ecosystems; ballast 

water impacts; forest fragmentation and invasive species; impacts on state and federally 

listed threatened and endangered species; impacts on the Chesapeake Bay, Elklick 

Woodlands State Natural Area Preserve, and Calvert Cliffs State Park; socioeconomic 

impacts including, property values, shipping impacts, and traffic; noise impacts; air 

impacts; greenhouse gas emissions; safety during construction and operation, including 

 89 77 Fed. Reg. 59,601 (Sept. 28, 2012). 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 32 -

evacuation routes; need for a quantitative risk assessment; cumulative impacts; and 

alternatives. 

2. Application Review

101. After the application for the Cove Point Liquefaction project and Virginia 

Facilities was filed, Commission staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts of 

the proposed facilities in the EA in accordance with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).90 The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Fossil Energy (DOE-FE), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), U.S. Department 

of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources (Maryland DNR) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the 

EA.

102. On May 15, 2014, Commission staff placed the EA into the public record.91 The 

analysis in the EA addresses geology, soils, water resources, wetlands, vegetation, 

fisheries, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreation, visual 

resources, cultural resources, air quality, noise, safety, socioeconomics, cumulative 

impacts, and alternatives. All substantive comments received in response to the NOI and 

during the public scoping process were addressed in the EA. 

103. A 30-day public comment period followed the issuance of the EA. Commission 

staff held a public comment meeting on May 31, 2014, in Lusby, Maryland, and 

Commission staff placed a transcript of the public comment meeting into the public 

record. A total of 106 speakers provided comments at the meeting, and over 650 

additional stakeholders submitted written comments in response to the EA.

104. The Commission received comments on the EA from Dominion; the EPA; 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Maryland Department of the Environment; 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Virginia Department of Conservation 

and Recreation; Sierra Club; Calvert County, Maryland; Fairfax County, Virginia; the 

City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; and approximately 640 individuals and organizations

during the comment period. In addition, approximately 125,000 copies of various form 

letters were submitted as written comments in response to the EA. The majority of the 

comments on the EA revisited matters previously raised in scoping comments that were 

 90 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (2012). See 18 C.F.R. pt 380 (2014) for the 

Commission’s NEPA-implementing regulations. 

91 The Commission published notice of the EA in the Federal Register on May 22, 

2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 29,435 (May 22, 2014).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 33 -

fully addressed in the EA.92 Substantive comments that required clarification to issues 

addressed in the EA are addressed in this order. These issues include concerns associated 

with the following topics: earthquakes and the Moran Landing Fault Zone; foundations 

soil conditions; subsidence and sinkholes; groundwater/aquifers; ballast water; aquatic 

resources/Offsite Area B; terrestrial wildlife, vegetation, and protected species; light 

emissions/visual resources; property values; environmental justice; future gas prices; 

socioeconomic impacts; shipping impacts; population estimates; traffic; air emissions and 

modeling; noise; public safety, and alternatives.

105. On June 16, 2014, Dominion provided comments and updates to information in 

the EA and responded to several comments filed on the EA by others. Among these 

issues are site locations and mapping updates, specifics on facility design, updated permit 

data regarding stream impacts, work force numbers, topsoil restoration, and timing of 

non-jurisdictional facility construction. Our review finds that none of these comments

and update changes are significant, nor do they alter our conclusions with respect to the 

environmental impacts resulting from the project. Clarifications regarding various 

mitigation plan requirements (Forest Preservation Plan, Nighttime Noise Mitigation Plan, 

final landscaping plan, final lighting distribution plan, Oyster Mitigation Plan, and 

Artificial Reef Plan), vegetative buffers, and hydrostatic test water volumes are further 

discussed in this order.

106. On July 24, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) communicated to 

Commission staff that it had reviewed Dominion’s methodology and data for establishing 

 92 These issues include: general opposition or support of the project; the need for 

the project; a request for the extension of the comment period; preparation of an EIS 

rather than an EA; erosion and sedimentation; geological hazards and land subsidence; 

impacts on groundwater wells and aquifers; surface water quality impacts from 

construction and ship transits; ballast water impacts, including invasive species; impacts 

on wetlands, fish, wildlife, vegetation, and ecosystems; forest fragmentation and invasive 

species; impacts on state and federally listed threatened and endangered species; impacts 

on the Chesapeake Bay; socioeconomic impacts including, property values, future gas 

prices, shipping impacts, population estimates, and traffic; light emissions; noise impacts; 

air impacts; greenhouse gas emissions; safety during construction and operation, 

including evacuation routes and proximity to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant; 

national security concerns; need for a quantitative risk assessment; cumulative impacts, 

especially regarding shale gas extraction; and alternatives, including Atlantic Sunrise 

Pipeline, alternatives to Offsite Area B, desalination as an alternative water source, and 

onshore ballast water collection alternatives.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 34 -

the wind speeds to be used in the facility design.93 The PHMSA found that the approach 

taken by Dominion complied with its regulatory requirements under 49 C.F.R. § 

193.2067(b). Therefore, Recommended Condition 35 from the EA, which required

further consultation with the DOT regarding design wind speed requirements under 

Part 193, is no longer needed and has not been included as a condition of this order.

94

107. On August 8, 2014, Dominion filed supplemental information regarding 

Recommended Conditions 10, 16, 17, and 19 from the EA. Dominion filed 

documentation of compliance with Recommended Condition 10 from the EA (requiring

that Dominion receive all applicable authorizations under federal law), and 

Recommended Condition 19 from the EA (requiring concurrence from the Maryland 

Department of the Environment that the project is consistent with the Maryland Coastal 

Zone Management Program). Therefore, Recommended Conditions 10 and 19 from the 

EA are no longer needed and have not been included as conditions of this order. 

Recommended Conditions 16 and 17 from the EA are discussed in greater detail below 

under aquatic resources/Offsite Area B and terrestrial wildlife, vegetation, and protected 

species, respectively. 

3. Major Environmental Issues Addressed in the EA

a. Earthquakes and the Moran Landing Fault Zone

108. Commenters question whether the Moran Landing Fault and other faults have 

been adequately considered in the determination of seismic design ground motions for the 

LNG terminal,95 and hypothesize that vibration from the steam generators and 

liquefaction equipment would trigger an “LNG-induced” earthquake. June Sevilla 

indicates that she provided a report to the Commission on April 9, 2014, regarding the 

2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings on the Moran Landing Fault and

recommends including an evaluation of the report in Commission staff’s environmental 

assessment. 

 93 PHMSA has the authority to establish and enforce safety standards for onshore 

LNG facilities. PHMSA’s regulations specify the wind forces that LNG facilities must 

be designed to withstand. 

94 Appendix B sets forth the environmental conditions that are part of the 

authorizations.

95 Seismic design ground motions are the specified level of earthquake ground 

shaking at a site that are used to determine the seismic forces for design. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 35 -

109. Section 2.1.1 of the EA addresses the Moran Landing Fault and the existing 

natural gas pipeline crossing over the fault. The EA indicates that there is no evidence 

that this fault is active and states that the existing Dominion gas pipeline is not part of the 

proposed project. Also section 2.1.1 of the EA recognizes that Central Virginia had a 

magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred 100 miles from the Cove Point LNG facility and 

70 miles from the existing compressor station locations in Virginia. The source of the 

Central Virginia earthquake was well known to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and 

its epicenter occurred at the location of previous earthquakes. On July 15, 2014, the 

USGS released the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Maps. The resulting 

mapped values for the 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 year earthquake are 

about the same as in previous versions of the maps and are similar to those Dominion 

considered as the seismic design ground motions for the LNG Facility, and as such, does 

not alter the conclusions in the EA. 

110. Section 2.1.2 of the EA concludes that the project is located in an area that 

presents several potential challenges related to geology, foundation conditions, and 

natural hazards; however, these conditions can be effectively managed through proper 

engineering design or may be shown to be minimal through additional evaluation. The 

EA states that the proposed front-end engineering design has provided feasible seismic 

design criteria for the project. Information regarding the final design will be reviewed by 

Commission staff prior to implementation, as required in Environmental Condition 15

included in the appendix to this order. We concur with the conclusions in the EA 

regarding the appropriateness of Dominion’s seismic design for the Liquefaction Facility, 

including its consideration of the Moran Landing Fault. Further, we find no evidence that 

the proposed equipment could trigger a “LNG-induced” earthquake. 

b. Foundations Soil Conditions

111. Commenters express concerns that the existing foundation soil conditions for the 

Cove Point Liquefaction project would be unsuitable for support foundations at the site. 

June Sevilla expresses concern that Appendix A of the EA provides no details of soil type 

or suitability of the soil type for the foundation of the proposed facilities. 

112. Section 2.1.2 of the EA states that Dominion would use pile foundations to 

support the heat recovery steam generator and the gas and steam turbines to ensure 

settlement and vibration control and thus negate any foundation support issues. 

Section 2.1.3 of the EA describes the soils affected by the project and references 

Appendix A for details. Appendix A was not intended for use with foundation design.

113. The EA concludes that proposed seismic design ground motions for the site are 

sufficiently low; therefore, soil liquefaction96 would not occur when subjected to ground 

 96 Soil liquefaction occurs when all of the following conditions exist: (1) moderate 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 36 -

shaking. Further, the proposed foundation criteria and concepts for the project are 

sufficient to support the equipment as intended for operation and were designed based on 

the potential natural hazard design conditions.97 We concur with the EA determination.

c. Subsidence and Sinkholes

114. June Sevilla expresses concern that gas turbine vibrations at the Liquefaction 

Facility will cause the area surrounding the Liquefaction Facility to subside faster. 

Commenters also express concern that sinkholes could be caused by pumping 

groundwater to supply the project with water. Miriam West states concern about the 

effect of land subsidence on the pipeline and questions whether operating conditions 

could cause sinkholes. 

115. Section 2.1.1 of the EA addresses subsidence and sinkholes and indicates that the 

Liquefaction Facility is not underlain by near-surface carbonate bedrock units and that no 

karst terrain is in proximity to the proposed facilities.98 The EA concludes that 

subsidence due to liquefaction, karst terrain, or mine collapse is not likely to cause 

significant impacts on the Liquefaction Project.

99 Additionally, the EA indicates that the 

Maryland Public Service Commission’s (Maryland PSC) Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity, requires Dominion to fund a subsidence monitoring program 

for the project area as further mitigation that will be conducted by the Maryland 

Geological Survey.100 The EA concludes that proper foundation design would eliminate 

the potential for vibration induced subsidence from occurring at the Liquefaction Facility. 

Therefore, we find no reason to believe that the turbine vibrations will cause the area 

surrounding the Liquefaction Facility to subside faster. 

 

or strong ground shaking at a site; (2) loose to medium dense sands and silts exist within 

the top 60 feet of the subsurface; and (3) shallow ground water is present. Soil 

liquefaction results in a loss of bearing capacity, settlement, and lateral movement of near 

surface soils.

97 Natural hazard design conditions define the specified hazard parameters (i.e. 

wind speed, seismic ground motion, flood elevation, etc.) that are used to determine the 

design forces for that hazard.

98 Near-surface carbonate bedrock and karst terrain may contain solution cavities 

and its absence makes it unlikely that the site would be subject to subsidence associated 

with ground collapse.

99 EA at 40.

100 Id.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 37 -

d. Groundwater/Aquifers

116. Anthony Brescia questions how groundwater use at the project would be metered, 

monitored, and enforced. He also asks whether the reviewing state agency has any 

metering or monitoring capability. Commenters also raise concerns regarding the volume 

of groundwater that Dominion would remove from an aquifer on a daily basis, impacts on 

their personal wells, potential for contamination of their drinking water, saltwater 

intrusion, drawdown impacts, and drinking water shortages in the future. Mark Giuffrida 

recommends desalination of Chesapeake Bay water as an alternative water source for the 

project and June Sevilla questions the source of hydrostatic test water at the LNG 

Terminal and its impacts on water quality. 

117. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Water Management 

Administration comments that the EA overstates the potential impacts on groundwater 

and should have presented the actual appropriation amounts of groundwater granted by 

Maryland. MDE Land Management Administration, Hazardous Waste Program 

expresses concern that temporary storage of released materials in the LNG Terminal 

impoundments could cause groundwater contamination issues, but that it could not 

determine the likelihood of any release from information presented in the EA. 

118. Regarding groundwater monitoring and enforcement, we refer to Maryland PSC’s

condition D-11 of its final Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which 

requires that Dominion use a flow meter to measure all groundwater withdrawn, and 

report monthly totals of groundwater use to MDE Water Management 

Administration. The required reports must be submitted twice a year to allow MDE to 

verify that groundwater users are operating within their allocated appropriations.

119. Section 2.2.1 of the EA addresses the potential groundwater and aquifer impacts. 

The actual groundwater appropriation, a daily average of 233,000 gallons of water from 

the Lower Patapsco Aquifer, was approved by the Maryland PSC on May 30, 2014. The

EA, released prior to the Maryland PSC approval, based its analysis on the originallyproposed average of 250,000 gallons of water per day requested by Dominion. The EA 

acknowledges that because Dominion will limit its water withdrawal to the amounts 

recommended by the reviewing state agencies, the resulting drawdown in the Lower 

Patapsco Aquifer from Dominion’s pumping well will be less than Dominion’s initial 

estimates. 

120. As stated in the EA, the MDE Water Management Administration determined that 

a daily average withdrawal of 233,000 gallons per day and 275,000 gallons per day

maximum monthly withdrawal would not exceed the sustained yield of the Lower 

Patapsco Aquifer.101 They also determined that when combined with regional drawdown 

 101 Id. at 46.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 38 -

from other users, these withdrawals would have a minimal impact on the 1,025 feet of 

available water-level drawdown in the aquifer. This includes the calculated drawdown 

amount to minimize the risk of saltwater intrusion. The MDE Water Management 

Administration’s distance-drawdown analysis also shows that additional water-level 

drawdown in the Lower Patapsco Aquifer over a 12-year pumping period will be on the 

order of 5 feet and 4 feet at distances of one-half mile and one-mile, respectively from 

Dominion’s pumping well. As a result, Dominion’s proposed water withdrawals will 

have no discernable effect on water available to the Calvert County Department of Public 

Works for potable water at a distance of 14 miles.

121. As stated above and as an additional mitigation measure, the EA indicates that the 

Maryland PSC’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity requires Dominion to 

fund a subsidence monitoring program for the project area that will be conducted by the 

Maryland Geological Survey.102 The EA concludes that, based on the predicted water 

drawdown for construction and operation of the liquefaction facilities and the substantial 

capacity of the Lower Patapsco Aquifer, Dominion’s water withdrawal from the Lower 

Patapsco Aquifer as recommended by the reviewing state agencies (which includes the 

MDE and the Maryland DNR, among others) will not significantly impact the aquifer or 

other groundwater users in the area.103 We agree.

122. Section 3.5 of the EA analyzes alternative water sources for the Liquefaction 

Project, including the use of water from the Chesapeake Bay. The EA states that 

Dominion does not have an existing water intake system in the Chesapeake Bay and 

environmental covenants on the property preclude installation of such a line.104 In 

addition, the EA states that the use of brackish water would require costly treatment, 

which would generate large volumes of wastewater that would need to be properly 

managed. The EA concludes that the use of water from the Lower Patapsco Aquifer 

would not significantly impact the aquifer or other groundwater users and that there are 

no other viable, environmentally preferable sources of water for the facility. We concur 

with this determination.

123. The EA states that groundwater contamination from surface spills of hazardous 

materials during construction will be minimized with the implementation of measures in 

Dominion’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan).

105 During 

 102 Id. at 40.

103 Id. at 47.

104 Id. at 178-179.

105 Id. at 48.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 39 -

operation, the spill containment system, which is constructed of concrete, will contain 

any process liquid spills (i.e., LNG, refrigerants, condensates, and amines) to prevent 

migration of these materials offsite, including into groundwater. As stated in the EA, the 

spill containment system includes trenches that direct liquid releases into appropriately 

sized impoundments.106 Any storm water collected within the spill containment system 

would be analyzed for contamination prior to being sent to the holding pond. Therefore, 

the EA properly concludes that the project, including the potential for spills, would not 

significantly impact the aquifer or other groundwater users in the area.

124. Dominion clarifies that the volume of water required for hydrostatic testing over 

the life of the project could be up to 6,750,000 gallons. We note that Dominion 

submitted this information to the Power Plant Research Program in the Maryland PSC 

case regarding the amount of water required for hydrostatic testing. While this represents 

an increase from the original proposal, we find that Dominion’s compliance with its 

water use permits for hydrostatic testing will minimize impacts on water resources from 

the withdrawal.

125. Comments were also received regarding sewer system impacts. June Sevilla states 

that the existing air separation units at the LNG Terminal collect a condensate that 

requires treatment prior to discharge to a marsh and claims that this is a violation of water 

discharge regulations that would be allowed to continue. We disagree. Dominion 

proposes to eliminate these actions associated with the current operation of the facility 

and proposes to construct a new sewer system at the LNG Terminal that connects to the 

Calvert County sewer extension. The EA indicates that Dominion has submitted permits 

for the on-site sewer system to Calvert County and the MDE.

107 The commenter 

erroneously concludes that the condensate has been disposed of through water discharge 

into a wetland. However, this is not the case and we see no violation of water discharge 

regulations. 

e. Ballast Water

126. Commenters, including Dr. Mario Tamburri, Mike Tidwell, Earthjustice and 

others, express concern over the potential introduction of invasive species from ballast 

water discharge; impacts on water quality and aquatic populations from low dissolved 

oxygen levels from ballast water releases; potential contamination from ships originating 

from India and Japan; and surface contamination/biofouling from ships arriving at the 

LNG Terminal. Commenters also request additional mitigation measures, including 

explicit means to comply with Coast Guard regulations to remove fouling organisms at 

 106 Id. at 145-146.

107 Id. at 17.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 40 -

the port of origin, and incorporation of onshore ballast water collection and treatment. 

The EA addresses ballast water impacts in section 2.2.2. Further, Dominion clarifies in 

its comments on the EA that it will not be implementing a separate ballast water 

management plan, but rather the LNG ships and barges will be required to comply with 

U.S. laws, regulations and policies. 

127. The MDE Science Services Administration clarifies that the newest Coast Guard

rules that phase in more aggressive ballast water management standards will be in effect 

before the in-service date of the project. The MDE Science Services Administration also 

states that because the project does not entail increased shipping traffic over and above 

prior approvals, there is no anticipated increased risk of ballast water introductions from 

the project. The MDE Science Services Administration opines that the EA sufficiently 

addresses ballast water issues. We concur with these comments.

128. The EA acknowledges that there are risks of invasive species introduction and 

water quality impacts even with federal controls.108 We recognize that potential impacts 

from ballast water releases and biofouling could include impacts on water quality and 

aquatic populations from low dissolved oxygen levels from ballast water releases and 

potential contamination from ships originating from other countries. Dominion does not 

own the LNG carriers visiting the terminal or control mitigation measures occurring at 

the port of origin. However, the currently-required measures for all ships entering U.S. 

waters, including offshore ballast water exchange, provide best management practices to 

minimize risks from invasive species and contamination from non-U.S. ports. The EA 

states, as indicated by the MDE Science Services Administration, that new rules and 

discharge standards approved by the Coast Guard would further minimize the 

introduction and establishment of nonindigenous species. 

129. Dominion will be required to comply with current and future Coast Guard

regulations. Given these factors, in addition to the fact that Maryland does not currently 

require more stringent standards than the federal ballast water program, the Commission 

has no grounds to presume the established regulations are not satisfactory for maintaining 

the quality of the environment in the project area. Therefore, the EA properly concludes 

that ballast water discharges will not have any noticeable, long-term impact on the 

Chesapeake Bay or aquatic resources beyond those that have already occurred within the 

Chesapeake Bay.

130. Commenters also request an alternatives analysis for a land-based ballast water 

treatment facility. This alternative would require adapting the vessels visiting the LNG 

Terminal with the infrastructure to pump ballast water to shore, and building a land-based 

ballast water treatment facility, similar to a municipal waste water plant. As previously 

 108 Id. at 53-54.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 41 -

stated, Dominion does not own or control the LNG carriers visiting the terminal and will, 

therefore, not be capable of requiring adaptations to the vessels to allow for pumping 

ballast water into an onshore system. Additionally, environmental covenants on 

Dominion’s property make the acreage requirements for an onshore facility an unviable 

alternative. A commenter notes that this option has been considered in other cases, but 

has been discounted because of port and vessel operations, logistical, and cost 

constraints. We conclude that an on-site ballast water treatment facility is not a viable, 

environmentally preferable alternative to the proposed action. 

f. Aquatic Resources/Offsite Area B

131. Commenters express concern for impacts on essential fish habitat, critical habitats 

or scenic viewsheds, oysters and other species at Offsite Area B and the Patuxent River, 

as well as concern with contamination of the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA questions how 

the project would comply with regulations regarding essential fish habitat, water 

discharges, and whether dredging would be required during operation of the facility. 

132. To address the EPA’s questions regarding essential fish habitat, we note that the 

EA indicates that consultation regarding essential fish habitat was completed with NMFS 

in February 2013, and concludes that the project would not have a substantial adverse 

effect on essential fish habitat or managed fish species.109 Any water discharges 

associated with the project will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal water 

quality permits and regulations. In addition, measures to minimize spills, soil erosion, 

and sedimentation will be employed. Lastly, regarding dredging, the EA clarifies that 

dredging is not proposed for construction or operation of the project and concludes that 

no permanent impacts will occur at Offsite Area B.110 

133. The EA addresses impacts on wetlands, water resources, aquatic species, and 

protected species, including at Offsite Area B, and concludes that impacts on these 

resources will be adequately minimized.111 Concurrent with issuance of the EA, the 

MDE Water Management Administration issued its Wetlands Report and 

Recommendations on May 13, 2014, that concludes that the proposed use of Offsite Area 

B with the required mitigation measures will not cause significant deleterious impacts on 

marsh vegetation, submerged aquatic vegetation, finfish, shellfish, or navigation. The 

Tidal Wetlands License conditions include use of an approved Oyster Mitigation Plan 

and an Artificial Reef Plan, time of year restrictions, pre- and post-construction erosion 

 109 Id. at 57.

110 Id. at 53.

111 Id. at 50-59. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 42 -

surveys and restoration, and Coast Guard-recommended mooring pile marker beacons.112

Recommended Condition 16 of the EA would require Dominion to file the final Oyster 

Mitigation Plan and Artificial Reef Plan prior to their implementation. On August 8, 

2014, Dominion filed supplemental information, including the final Oyster Mitigation 

Plan and the July 28, 2014 statement incorporating revisions provided by the Maryland 

DNR and rendering the plan approved. The Artificial Reef Plan has not yet been 

finalized with the Maryland DNR. Therefore, we have revised Environmental Condition 

16 to this order to require submittal of the final Artificial Reef Plan prior to its 

implementation. We note that both the Oyster Mitigation Plan and Artificial Reef Plan 

will be enforceable under Maryland state permits, ensuring proper implementation. As 

such, we find that the EA properly concludes that construction and use of Offsite Area B 

will result in temporary impacts on the Patuxent River and aquatic resources and that 

impacts will be adequately minimized.113 

134. Commenters also express concerns regarding historically significant areas and 

scenic viewsheds at Offsite Area B. As the EA states, to further minimize impacts on 

potential submerged cultural resources adjacent to Offsite Area B, Dominion will 

maintain avoidance distances from the resources, as established by the Maryland 

Historical Trust.114 We agree these measures are adequate to protect submerged cultural 

resources. Regarding visual impacts, the EA states that temporary impacts on visual 

resources would occur during construction from the Thomas Johnson Bridge, but that no 

scenic or unique viewsheds are associated with the site.115 Therefore, impacts on scenic 

viewsheds associated with Offsite Area B will be temporary and limited.

135. A commenter states that the EA failed to take a hard look at an alternative for 

Offsite Area B located at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The commenter states 

that security issues and disruptions of operation at the plant could be controlled and 

would result in less environmental impact than Offsite Area B. We disagree that 

addressing security and operational issues at a nuclear facility will be a minor 

undertaking with minimal impact. Additional mitigation measures may be possible to 

address the disruptions, with the consent of the operators of the plant, including extensive 

coordination and reinforcements or improvements to their pier and roadway. However, 

 112 The tidal wetland license for the project was issued by the Board of Public 

Works on July 23, 2014. Dominion indicated that the Draft Artificial Reef Plan was filed 

with the Maryland DNR on June 6, 2014.

113 EA at 57.

114 Id. at 94.

115 Id. at 85.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 43 -

we do not find that a more detailed review was needed based on the EA conclusion that 

the proposed location will be environmentally acceptable with the mitigation measures 

developed. As such, we concur that the project’s use and restoration of Offsite Area B 

will result in temporary impacts on the resources identified and will be adequately 

minimized. 

g. Terrestrial Wildlife, Vegetation, and Protected Species

136. Commenters state concern regarding impacts on forested habitat for wildlife and 

migratory birds; wetlands and vegetation; invasive species; and protected species, 

including the Puritan tiger beetle, bald eagles, and the North Atlantic right whale. The 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation comments regarding concern for 

natural heritage resources.

137. Dominion notes that condition B-6 of the Maryland DNR’s Final Recommended 

License Conditions for the project requires Dominion to submit for approval a draft 

Forest Preservation Plan to the Maryland DNR and Calvert County at least sixty days 

prior to clearing or construction within Offsite Area A.116 Dominion’s draft Forest 

Mitigation Plan provides mitigation and preservation proposals to offset the temporary 

and permanent loss of forest land. The Maryland DNR approved the draft Forest 

Mitigation Plan, item B-6, on July 14, 2014. We have reviewed the Forest Mitigation 

Plan and conclude that Recommended Condition 17 from the EA, that would require a 

Forest Preservation Plan for Offsite Area A approved by the Maryland DNR, has been 

met. Therefore, Recommended Condition 17 from the EA is no longer necessary and is 

not included as a condition to the order.

138. Dominion clarifies that it will maintain at least a 100-foot buffer of existing 

vegetative growth around wetlands and waterbodies and other sensitive resources within 

Offsite Area A. In its comments on the EA, Dominion provides clarification that the 

seven specimen trees at Offsite Area A will be located within a defined 100-foot 

protective buffer of the streams, wetlands, and steep slopes; however, an individual 

specimen tree will not have its own 100-foot buffer. Dominion indicates that it will 

modify the limits of disturbance to ensure that the critical root zone of each tree will be 

kept within the protective buffer. We find this acceptable to protect the specimen trees. 

139. The EA analyzes impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the project area, including 

wetlands (section 2.2.4), forested habitat (section 2.3.1), general wildlife (section 2.3.2), 

and protected species (section 2.3.3). The EA indicates that wetlands impacts would be 

minor and would be minimized by mitigation measures required by the U.S. Army Corps 

 116 Dominion indicated that it submitted its draft plan to the Maryland DNR and 

Calvert County on March 28, 2014. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 44 -

of Engineers and state agencies.117 To minimize wildlife and habitat impacts, Dominion 

will implement its Invasive Species Management Plans. In addition, Environmental 

Condition 17 of this order requires Dominion to conduct bird nest surveys prior to tree 

clearing to avoid active nests. The Forest Preservation Plan will further ensure that 

impacts on forested vegetation will be adequately offset. The EA concludes that the loss 

of forested habitat would not result in population-level impacts on migratory birds. We 

find that the EA properly concludes that impacts on vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife 

will not be significant. 

140. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation recommends strict 

adherence to erosion and sediment control measures at the Loudoun M&R Station in 

order to protect adjacent aquatic ecosystems containing the green floater.118 The EA 

states that Dominion would implement measures to prevent water quality degradation and 

concludes that these measures would effectively avoid impacts on the green floater. The 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation also provides data from the Virginia 

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries identifying the wood turtle as occurring within 

2 miles of the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station. The EA concludes that the stream 

and riparian upland habitat required by this species would not be affected in the project 

area; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

141. NMFS provides comments to further clarify its September 11, 2013 determination 

that there was no need for endangered species consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. NMFS clarifies that a June 14, 2012 letter from Dominion 

requested information on listed species, and that its review in June 2012 did not include 

Offsite Areas A and B, which was addressed in later correspondence. The Commission 

accepts these clarifications and notes that NMFS’ September 11, 2013 determination of 

effect on listed species remains valid. Thus, consultation with NMFS regarding listed 

species is complete. 

142. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did not identify any nesting bald eagles 

or the Puritan tiger beetle in the project area, and Commission staff concluded its 

Endangered Species Act consultations with the FWS in August 2013.119 Commenters 

question the impacts on the North Atlantic right whale from increased vessel transits. 

The EA notes that the analyses for LNG vessels were previously assessed for up to 200 

vessels, while the currently proposed project will consist of about 42 barges and an 

 117 EA at 60.

118 The green floater is a small, rare, freshwater mussel species.

119 EA at 70.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 45 -

estimated 85 LNG vessels per year.120 In addition, Dominion will be required to comply 

with the measures established for protected species during the previous review of the 

LNG Terminal including its Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Injured and Dead 

Protected Species Reporting Plan.

121 The EA determines that the project is not likely to 

adversely affect the North Atlantic right whale and that consultation is complete for this 

species. Therefore, the EA properly concludes that the project will have no substantial 

impact on protected species in the project area.

h. Light Emissions/Visual Resources

143. We received additional comments on the visual impacts of the project, especially 

concerning the appearance of the sound barrier wall and light emissions at the facility. 

The EA discusses visual resources and concludes that implementation of a landscaping 

plan and a lighting distribution plan will serve to reduce the potential visual impacts 

associated with the sound barrier and project lighting.122 Pursuant to Environmental 

Condition 19 to this order, the final lighting distribution plan will be filed with the 

Secretary of the Commission for the review and written approval by the Director of the 

Office of Energy Projects (OEP).

144. Dominion’s EA comments clarify that the sound barrier at the LNG Terminal will 

be constructed of concrete (not of sound absorbing panels), that the concrete will be 

sound attenuating/reflecting rather than sound absorbing, and that, if colored, the color 

will be blended in the concrete (the sound barrier will not be painted). We find these 

measures are acceptable to minimize potential visual impacts.

145. Dominion further requests revisions to Recommended Conditions 20 and 21 of the 

EA (regarding the final landscaping plan and the final lighting distribution plan) to 

require the submittal of these plans prior to operation, rather than prior to construction, as 

indicated in the EA. We have determined that the filing of these plans prior to operation 

will provide responsive mitigation measures reflecting as-built conditions. We note that 

this result is consistent with the Maryland PSC’s Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity conditions; therefore, we have revised the recommended environmental 

conditions from the EA (as Environmental Conditions 18 and 19 to this order) to require 

submittal of these plans prior to commissioning of the Cove Point Liquefaction Project.

 120 Id. at 71.

121 See the Environmental Impact Statement for the Cove Point Expansion Project, 

April 2006, Docket No. CP05-130-000 et al. and EA for the Pier Reinforcement Project, 

May 2009, Docket No. CP09-60-000. 

122 EA at 84.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 46 -

i. Property Values

146. Commenters raise concerns about the potential for the Cove Point Liquefaction 

Project to affect property values in the vicinity of the facility. A project’s impact on land 

values depends on many factors, including the entire project size, the existence of other 

energy projects and infrastructure, the current value of the land, and current land use. 

Each potential purchaser will have varying criteria, considerations, and capabilities for 

purchasing land and the addition of liquefaction facilities to an existing LNG terminal, 

especially when not visible to the surrounding community, may be irrelevant to a 

prospective purchaser. 

147. The EA explains that Dominion’s proposed liquefaction facilities will be located 

entirely within the existing Cove Point LNG Terminal, which is an operating industrial 

facility. Further, the EA explains that 323 of the 377 residential structures within 1 mile 

of the facility were built after the existing facility commenced operation in 1978. 

Dominion’s proposed sound barrier, which will be installed to mitigate the impacts 

associated with noise generated by the new facilities, will also result in visual screening 

of the existing industrial facility from nearby residences.123 Based on this information, 

the EA properly concludes that the Cove Point Liquefaction Project should not result in a 

significant impact on nearby property values.

j. Environmental Justice124

148. The EPA comments that the EA does not provide analysis to determine whether 

there are potentially affected low-income or minority populations. We reviewed 

additional demographic and income characteristic data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 

the State of Maryland, Calvert County, and Census Tracts 8609.00 (which covers Offsite 

Areas A and B), 8610.01 (which includes the LNG Terminal and the area south and east 

of the terminal), and 8610.04 (which includes the area south and west of the LNG 

Terminal).125 

 123 Id. at 91.

124 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice, 

applies to agencies other than independent agencies, which are “requested to comply with 

the provisions of this order.” See, Eagle Crest Energy Co., 147 FERC 61,220 (2014); 

Idaho Power Co., 110 FERC ¶ 61,345 (2005); Sound Energy Solutions, 107 FERC 

¶61,263, at P 109 (2004).

125 U.S. Census Bureau: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2008-2012 

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Table DP05); Selected Economic 

Characteristics, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Table 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 47 -

149. Census Tracts 8609.00 and 8610.04 have somewhat higher minority percentages 

(25 percent and 21 percent, respectively) than Calvert County as a whole (18 percent). In 

addition, the per capita income for these census tracts ($37,059 and $26,640, 

respectively) is also lower than the county as a whole ($37,641), and the percent of the 

population below the poverty level (7 percent and 9 percent, respectively) is higher than 

the county as a whole (5 percent). Census tract 8610.01 (which includes the LNG 

Terminal and the area south and east of the terminal) has a lower minority percentage (11 

percent), higher per capita income ($44,076), and lower percentage of population below 

the poverty level (3 percent) than Calvert County as a whole. 

150. As discussed in the EA, the proposed Cove Point Liquefaction Project would be 

constructed within an existing, industrial facility owned by Dominion, and the use of 

Offsite Areas A and B will be temporary and short-term, with these areas being restored 

following construction to their previous use or in accordance with the landowner’s 

request. Further, the project will have some positive socioeconomic effects, including 

generating new jobs and economic activity in the region.126 While the census tracts 

associated with Offsite Areas A and B, and for the area to the south and west of the LNG 

Terminal can be characterized as having lower incomes and higher minority populations 

than average, the potential impacts associated with the project will affect all communities 

surrounding the Cove Point Liquefaction Project and Offsite Areas A and B, and will not 

disproportionately impact the referenced census tracts. As such, the EA properly 

concludes that construction and operation of the project will not disproportionately affect 

any population group, including low-income and minority populations. 

k. Socioeconomic Impacts

151. We received comments regarding the potential socioeconomic impacts of the 

project, including both comments that the project would have beneficial impacts on the 

local economy, and that the project would negatively affect the local economy, or that the 

beneficial impacts would be short-term. In addition, commenters (including professors 

King of the University of Maryland and Nicholas of the University of Florida) claim that 

information filed by Dominion overstates the economic impacts of the project on Calvert 

County. 

152. Section 2.5.6 of the EA addresses the potential that the proposed export of LNG 

could result in adverse economic impacts, including increased natural gas prices.127

 

DP03).

126 EA at 92.

127 Id. at 92.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 48 -

Section 1.5.2 of the EA addresses the DOE-FE’s authority to determine whether the 

export of natural gas is consistent with the public interest, and describes that the DOEFE’s decision whether to authorize the project considers economic and other factors.128 

The DOE-FE, in its Order No. 3331, concluded that the exports proposed by Dominion 

“are likely to yield net economic benefits to the United States.”129 Therefore, the EA 

properly concludes that the project would provide socioeconomic benefits locally and

nationwide.

l. Shipping Impacts

153. Numerous comments on the EA state that increased LNG ship traffic would 

require additional tug boats, affect recreational and commercial fishing activities on the 

Chesapeake Bay, and increase shoreline erosion from ship wakes. As part of the Pier 

Reinforcement project and Cove Point Expansion project, the Commission previously 

analyzed impacts associated with increased vessel transits and support vessels, including 

impacts on recreational and commercial fishing and shoreline erosion and these analyses 

were included by reference in the EA.130 The EA identifies that there would be no 

increase in ships beyond the maximum of 200 per year previously studied.131 Based on 

the Coast Guard’s review of Dominion’s Waterway Suitability Assessment, the Coast 

Guard issued a Letter of Recommendation indicating that the waterway was suitable for 

LNG transit. For the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, the Coast Guard confirmed that 

construction and operation of the project will not require modification of either the 

existing Waterway Suitability Assessment or the current Letter of Recommendation.132 

Regarding shoreline erosion, the EA concludes that the waves generated by LNG ships 

will not erode the Cove Point peninsula shoreline and will be within the normal range of 

waves due to wind and other ship traffic.133 Because the project does not result in any 

 128 Id. at 20.

129 DOE-FE Order No. 3331 at 6.

130 EA at 2.

131 Id. at 20.

132 The Coast Guard’s Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Dominion 

Cove Point Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal Expansion Project: LNG Ship Transit 

in United States Waters, March 5, 2008, indicates that a minimum of three tractor tugs of 

at least 50-ton bollard pull each would be available when the LNG vessel is mooring or 

getting underway and concluded that the escort tugs would not have a significant impact 

on the environment.

133 EA at 52.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 49 -

increases in shipping traffic from what has been previously evaluated, the EA properly 

concludes that no additional ship-related impacts will result during operation of the 

project.

m. Population Estimates

154. We received comments that the population data provided by Dominion in its 

application and/or in the EA were incorrect and did not accurately reflect the population 

immediately adjacent to the LNG Terminal that will be affected by the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project. Commenters contend that Dominion selectively reported only a 

portion of the available population data and did not adequately account for the population 

of Lusby, Maryland.

155. The population and demographic data provided in the EA was based on data filed 

in the docket, as well as data developed independently by Commission staff to identify 

the existing demographic and socioeconomic conditions for the counties affected by the 

project.134 The EA noted that the U.S. Census Bureau determined the population of 

Calvert County to be 88,737 in 2010. Because Lusby, Maryland is within Calvert 

County, its population was accounted for in the census data used in Commission staff’s 

analysis. Accordingly, the EA’s conclusions regarding impacts on population are 

adequate.

n. Traffic

156. We received comments regarding impacts from construction vehicles, including 

trucks operating at night transporting equipment from Offsite Area B to the Liquefaction 

Project, blocking the entrances to the Ranch Club community, and the potential closing 

of the Thomas Johnson Bridge. 

157. Regarding comments that entrances to the Ranch Club community would be 

blocked, equipment trucks associated with the project will not stand idle at intersections 

along the route between Offsite Area B and the Liquefaction Project. Thus, no 

intersections along the route between the offsite area and the facility will be blocked 

during construction of the project. 

158. Regarding the Thomas Johnson Bridge, Dominion will be required to submit a 

mobile Maintenance of Traffic plan to the Maryland State Highway Administration for 

approval of the transportation of large loads over state highways. We note that the bridge 

will not be crossed to deliver materials from Offsite Area B to Offsite Area A and we are 

 134Id. at 87.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 50 -

unaware of any security requirements in the plan that will necessitate the closing of the 

Thomas Johnson Bridge. 

159. The EA addresses potential impacts on traffic associated with equipment transport 

between Offsite Area B and the Liquefaction Project. As described in the EA, Dominion 

completed a traffic impact analysis to address public concerns regarding increased traffic 

and to satisfy requirements from the Maryland State Highway Administration and Calvert 

County Department of Public Works to address impacts from construction traffic on 

public roadways. Based on Dominion’s analysis, and as required by the Maryland State 

Highway Administration and Calvert County, Dominion has begun construction of 

various road improvements intended to reduce impacts on traffic. In addition, Dominion 

will continue to consult with the Maryland State Highway Administration and Calvert 

County to identify any additional modifications that may be required before the start of 

construction.135 Accordingly, the EA properly concludes that Dominion’s use of local 

roads during construction to transport equipment and materials from Offsite Area B will 

result in only a temporary and short-term impact on local traffic.

o. Air Emissions 

160. We received several comments concerning the risk of radon exposure associated 

with natural gas originating from the Marcellus shale region. As discussed below, due to 

the interconnected nature of the natural gas pipeline systems, the source of natural gas for 

this project may include gas from any production area in the lower-forty-eight states. 

However, any gas that is supplied from the Marcellus shale region would not result in 

significant risk of exposure to radon. Although radon is inert, long-term (chronic) 

exposure to its decay products can be carcinogenic (causing lung cancer), with increased 

risk to smokers. The EPA identifies that the average indoor radon level is 1.3 picocuries 

per liter (pCi/L) and recommends that indoor levels be less than 2 to 4 pCi/L. In 

addition, Congress passed the Indoor Radon Abatement Act in 1988, establishing the 

long-term goal that indoor air radon levels be equal or better than outdoor air radon levels 

(average of 0.4 pCi/L).

161. In early 2012, an academic paper raised concern regarding radon levels in natural 

gas from Marcellus shale (Resinkoff 2012). However, this paper used theoretical 

calculations to estimate Marcellus shale sourced radon concentrations in the home at 

0.0187 to 0.482 pCi/L. Subsequent studies by the USGS and natural gas industry, based 

on natural gas samples measured at the wellhead and in pipelines sourced from the 

Marcellus shale region, presented measured radon concentrations in natural gas 

pipelines.136 In-home concentration levels based on the pipeline measurements were 

 135 Id. at 16-17. 

136 Rowan, E.L. and T.F. Kraemer. 2012. Radon-222 Content of Natural Gas 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 51 -

estimated at 0.0042 to 0.0109 pCi/L. These levels are less than the average indoor and 

outdoor EPA action levelsfor radon.137

162. We also received comments that the 130-MW power plant associated with the 

Liquefaction Project would emit significant amounts of criteria air pollutants, greenhouse 

gases (GHG), and hazardous air pollutants, and that the EA did not effectively limit the 

amount of power plant emissions in accordance with state regulations. The EA states that 

the 130-MW power plant would be powered by two steam turbines. The steam for these 

turbines would be created through waste heat recovery units from the liquefaction 

refrigerant turbine exhaust.138 Therefore, the operation of the 130-MW power plant 

would not result in the emission of any pollutants.139 

163. Commenters believe that the EA is deficient because it fails to address the 

applicability of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Acid Rain Program, and the EPA’s

June 2, 2014 proposed rulemaking to cut carbon emissions from power plants. The Clean 

Air Interstate Rule and Acid Rain Program only applies to electric generating units where 

the electricity produced is sold. The EPA’s June 2, 2014 proposed rulemaking was 

 

Samples from Upper and Middle Devonian Sandstone and Shale Reservoirs in 

Pennsylvania: Preliminary Data. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Available 

online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1159/ofr2012-1159.pdf.

Anspaugh, L.R. 2012. Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas, Texas 

Eastern Transmission, LP and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, New Jersey-New 

York Expansion Project, Docket No. CP11-56. Prepared at Request of Counsel for 

Applicants, Henderson, Nevada. Available online at http://energyindepth.org/wpcontent/uploads/marcellus/2012/07/A-Anspaugh-Report.pdf

137 Further, while the Commission has no regulatory authority to set, monitor, or 

respond to indoor radon levels, many local, state, and federal entities (e.g., the EPA) 

establish and enforce radon exposure standards for indoor air.

138 EA at 8.

139 The EA explains that the operation of the Cove Point Liquefaction Project and 

the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station will result in long-term air emissions. EA at 95. 

Tables 2.7.1-6, and 2.7.1-7 of the EA include a list of each emission source and the 

associated emissions. The two electric generating turbines are not on the list of emission 

sources. EA at 112. The Maryland Department of the Environment is the lead air 

permitting authority for the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality administers the federal and state air quality 

standards for the Virginia Facilities, including the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 52 -

announced after the EA was issued and has not yet been finalized.

140 Similarly, it 

proposes to apply to electric generating units constructed before January 8, 2014, where 

the electricity produced is sold. The steam turbines associated with the 130 MW power 

plant would not produce electricity for sale and would be constructed after the date 

specified in the EPA proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, the referenced programs are not 

applicable and the EA appropriately addressed the relevant air programs for the project. 

164. Commenters question whether Dominion is required to have a risk management 

plan under the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, applicable 

to stationary sources of air pollution, and requested that the Commission prepare an EIS 

to address this omission. The EA explains that because the operation of the proposed 

facilities is subject to the DOT’s jurisdiction under 49 C.F.R. Part 193, these facilities 

would not be required to comply with 40 C.F.R. Part 68.

141 However, the federal 

regulations for the safety and siting of LNG facilities (49 C.F.R. Part 193) require an 

applicant to consider any distinct hazard that could affect the safety of the public or 

personnel. These hazards include flammable and toxic releases, explosions, and fires. 

When assessing these hazards, Commission staff evaluated endpoints that are similar or 

exceed those in EPA risk management plan regulations to evaluate the potential impact to 

the public. We conclude that the EA adequately addressed the hazards associated with 

the project.

165. The Clean Air Council142 believes that the EA inappropriately dismisses 

significant air impacts by relying on permitting performed by other agencies and 

regulations of other statutes. We disagree. The EA does include an air modeling analysis 

to identify the impacts of the project.143 This analysis included marine vessel emissions 

which are not analyzed through the air permitting process or other statutes. Also, because 

the project will be subject to permitting by other agencies and to the regulations in other 

statutes, it is reasonable to assume the project’s compliance with these permits and 

regulations under the NEPA analysis. Therefore, we find that the EA independently 

assessed impacts of the project and conclude that emissions will be below the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

 140 Indeed, the proposed rule gives states the ability to design their own plan to 

meet emission rate reductions.

141 EA at 105 and 144.

142 The Clean Air Council is a non-profit organization headquartered in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

143 EA at 113-115.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 53 -

166. Commenters believe that the project would illegally emit pollutants in excess of 

the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) “limits” and question whether the best 

technology has been evaluated and required to minimize air emissions. The NNSR 

thresholds are not a limit as commenters indicate, but are an evaluation criteria used to 

determine whether a specific type of permitting applies to a project. Facilities may 

exceed the thresholds, as in the case of the proposed project, which prompts further 

review, emission controls, and permitting requirements by the Maryland PSC. The EA 

states that as part of the air permitting process performed by the Maryland PSC, it

reviewed the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rates (LAER) proposed by Dominion.

144

167. The Power Plant Research Program comments that the EA failed to identify 

several of the BACT and LAER for some equipment. The EA is a summary document 

identifying proposed air emissions, mitigation measures, and impacts. The EA identifies 

that the project is subject to air permitting under the Maryland PSC, which includes 

compliance with all applicable BACT and LAER measures.145

168. The Power Plant Research Program requests clarification that the 625 tons of 

nitrogen oxides emission reduction credit offsets identified under General Conformity 

may also be used during operation for Nonattainment New Source Review. The Power 

Plant Research Program also identifies that the necessary documentation was provided to 

MDE for the purchase of these offsets, and MDE has approved the transfer of the 

emission reduction credits. The EA identifies that the emission reduction credits far 

exceed the projected non-permitted emissions.

146 Dominion may use the offsets for 

NNSR and General Conformity, such that the total offsets needed simultaneously in the 

same year does not exceed the amount purchased. Further, Dominion provided 

documentation demonstrating that 944 tons of emission reduction credits were purchased 

and MDE and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality have concurred that offset 

requirements for General Conformity have been met.147 Therefore, on August 18, 2014, 

we issued a final General Conformity Determination for the project and Recommended 

Condition 23 from the EA is not included in this order.

169. Several commenters believe that the analysis of local air impacts is flawed because 

Dominion’s plan to purchase offsets in Frederick County, Maryland, will allow it to 

 144 Id. at 111.

145 Id. at 100-101.

146 Id. at 106.

147 Dominion’s August 5, 2014 supplemental filing.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 54 -

pollute locally. Earthjustice states that the EA provides no basis for concluding that 

offsets obtained elsewhere within the region for ozone would avoid local 1-hour nitrogen 

dioxide impacts during construction. 

170. The EA identifies that the project is located within the Washington, DC ozone 

nonattainment air quality control region. The Clean Air Act defines nonattainment areas 

as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area 

that does not meet) that national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the 

pollutant.” The EA explains that in order to achieve improved air quality within a 

nonattainment area, reductions are required throughout the entire air quality control 

region. The General Conformity Regulations require that offsets be purchased “within 

the same nonattainment or maintenance area (or a nearby area of equal or higher 

classification provided the emissions from that area contribute to the violations, or have 

contributed to violations in the past).” Frederick County is also within the Washington, 

DC ozone nonattainment air quality control region and Dominion has purchased more 

than the required amount of offsets for the project, at a rate of 2.9 to 1, which will 

sufficiently mitigate nitrogen dioxide emissions from the project, both as a precursor to 

ozone and for direct emissions. Also, the EA includes nitrogen dioxide air modeling for 

operation of the project, marine vessels, and other offsite sources that concludes impacts 

will be below the NAAQS. The emissions from these sources exceed those nitrogen 

dioxide emissions from any individual construction year. For these reasons, we find that 

the EA appropriately accounted for offsets to mitigate for nitrogen dioxide emissions.

171. Earthjustice comments that an EIS is required because the EA fails to identify how 

the recommended revised fugitive dust control plan would fully mitigate impacts and it 

must be enforceable. We disagree. The EA identifies that Dominion prepared a fugitive 

dust control plan that identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust. Many of these 

measures are proven mitigation recommended by EPA and other state or local agencies to 

reduce fugitive dust emissions by 50 percent or greater from various sources. The EA 

states that Dominion’s plan lacks specificity in how these measures will be implemented 

and the individuals with authority and accountability. Therefore, the EA recommends 

and we have included Environmental Condition 21, requiring Dominion to provide the 

additional details in their Fugitive Dust Control Plan about how the various mitigation 

measures will be implemented to ensure awareness and compliance and the individuals 

responsible for enforcement. We agree with the EA’s conclusion that construction will 

result in short-term impacts on air quality.

p. Air Modeling

172. Commenters also believe that an EIS is warranted because hazardous air pollutant 

or toxic air pollutant emissions from the project would be significant, citing the number 

of different hazardous air pollutants, quantities that would be emitted, and health impacts 

of these pollutants. The EA thoroughly addresses hazardous air pollutant emissions by 

quantifying the amount of hazardous air pollutants that will be emitted during 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 55 -

construction and operation, and discussing the various regulatory programs that minimize 

hazardous air pollutant emissions. The EA also states that the LNG Terminal would 

continue to remain a minor source of hazardous air pollutant emissions following 

construction of the Liquefaction Project.

148 The EA further presents discussion of the 

toxic air pollutant assessment performed in compliance with Maryland air permitting 

regulations as part of the Maryland PSC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

application. The EA concludes that applicable sources would comply with toxic air 

pollutant BACT, minimize emissions, and modeled results will be well below Maryland’s 

acceptable ambient levels. Maryland’s acceptable ambient levels are concentrations of a 

toxic air pollutant in the atmosphere that provide a margin of safety to protect the public 

health from toxic, noncarcinogenic effects that may be caused by the toxic air 

pollutant.

149 Therefore, hazardous air pollutant or toxic air pollutant emissions resulting 

from the project will not be significant, and an EIS is not required.

173. Commenters state that the EA fails to address the health impact resulting from air 

emissions from constructing and operating the project within zip code 20657, 

surrounding the terminal. Earthjustice believes that any amount of nitrogen dioxide 

emissions have been linked to significant health impacts. Further, one commenter states 

that the sulfates and nitrates generated from the project would degrade the environment. 

174. The EA states that the NAAQS have been developed by EPA to protect human 

health and public welfare, including the health of sensitive populations, such as children 

and those with chronic respiratory problems, and economic interests, visibility, 

vegetation, animal species, and other concerns not related to human life.150 While the 

EPA may consider available studies and re-evaluate the need to change the applicable 

thresholds for each NAAQS in the future, the project was evaluated based on the current 

standards that were issued by EPA, following a proposed rulemaking and public 

comment period. The EA presents the amount of emissions that will result from 

construction each year and recommends a revised Fugitive Dust Control Plan to further 

reduce particulate matter emissions.151 We have included this recommendation as 

Environmental Condition 21 to this order. The EA also includes the results of an air 

dispersion modeling analysis for operating the project. The modeling analysis included 

other sources of emissions within 54 kilometers (33.5 miles) of the terminal and presents 

impacts from the terminal outer fence line to 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) away. This 

 148 EA at 103.

149 COMAR 26.11.15.01.B.1.

150 EA at 96.

151 Id. at 109-110.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 56 -

distance adequately covered the entire zip code 20657 and beyond. The modeling 

demonstrates that impacts from the terminal, marine vessels, and other nearby sources 

will be below the primary and secondary NAAQS at all locations.152 Therefore, we find 

that the EA adequately considered the air impacts from the project, including sulfates and 

nitrates, and appropriately concluded it will not result in significant impacts on human 

health or public welfare.

175. Earthjustice believes that the air modeling results presented in the EA understate 

the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide impacts because the results were not rounded to 

two or three significant digits.153 We disagree. Earthjustice inappropriately cites an EPA 

guidance memorandum that is applicable to the calculation and reporting of the emission 

rates for New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, not the modeled impact values. Rather, EPA guidance 

indicates that modeled values should not be rounded because the thresholds are 

considered absolute limits.154 Therefore, the EA correctly concludes that modeled 

impacts for the project are below the NAAQS for all pollutants.

176. A few commenters noted that the EA references ambient air quality monitored 

from three locations, the closest at 46 miles from the project. Commenters believe that 

we should require a new monitoring station be established near the LNG Terminal 

(within 5 miles). Under the Clean Air Act, each state is required to establish a network of 

air monitoring stations. There are currently no monitors within 5 miles of the LNG 

Terminal. As part of Dominion’s air modeling with marine vessels, it provided sufficient 

justification for the use of monitors located further from the LNG Terminal. The 

monitors selected are also within the Washington DC air quality control region and 

represent similar or more conservative ambient conditions. EPA or MDE may establish 

additional monitors as needed through their monitoring network programs or air 

permitting requirements. We also note that MDE has an ozone monitor in Calvert 

County, about 15 miles from the LNG Terminal.

177. Commenters believe the EA did not adequately address air emissions from the 

associated LNG vessels and Earthjustice states that the air modeling is missing a second 

possible LNG vessel and the emissions from LNG vessel transits. LNG vessels within 

state waters entering the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia to the terminal were evaluated in 

the EA as part of the General Conformity Applicability and Determination. The EA also 

 152 Id. at 113-114.

153 Earthjustice cites the EPA Performance Test Calculation Guidance June 6, 

1990.

154 53 Fed. Reg. 40,657 (Oct. 17, 1988).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 57 -

presented the emissions from other marine vessels, including tugboats and escort 

vessels.155 To cumulatively address impacts associated with the project, the EA presents 

the results of an air modeling analysis that includes marine vessel emissions in addition to 

the stationary sources at the terminal. The EA addresses modeling for a “worst-case 

scenario” and two vessels, stating that the LNG Terminal would average less than one 

vessel per day, resulting in a low likelihood of two vessels docked at one time.156 To 

clarify, based on the emission estimates, the LNG Terminal will average between two 

and three vessels per week, further supporting the reasonable assumption of one vessel 

modeled at a time. Also, the modeling conservatively assumes that the one vessel would 

emit continuously 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year. We find that the EA 

sufficiently addressed emissions from marine activities.

q. Noise

178. Commenters believe that an EIS is warranted to address the health effects of 

exposure to the constant noise from operating the project. Further, several commenters 

state that the proposed 60-foot-tall noise wall is an unproven design and therefore, cannot 

be relied upon to determine that noise would be effectively mitigated. Commenters also 

disagree with the identification of noise sensitive areas (NSA) and request that an 

additional NSA be considered to the east of the terminal.

179. The EA states that we have adopted a criterion of 55 decibels on the A-weighted 

scale (dBA) day-night sound level (Ldn) to evaluate noise impacts based on EPA’s 

published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public 

Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

157 The EA includes a reasonable 

analysis of the noise impacts, including Dominion’s commitment to install a 60-foot-tall 

sound barrier and additional other noise control measures, and concludes noise levels 

would be below our criterion. However, recognizing actual noise conditions may vary, 

the EA recommends, and we have included, Environmental Condition 24 to this order

requiring Dominion to demonstrate compliance with this criterion by performing a noise 

survey of the facilities in operation.

180. The residences located to the east of the LNG Terminal are about 0.9 mile from 

the noise-producing project equipment. Based on this distance and the significant 

amount of vegetative buffer between the LNG Terminal and these residences, noise 

 155 EA at 106 and Appendix B.

156 Id. at 113.

157 Id. at 117. EPA’s document indicates that an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the 

public from indoor and outdoor activity interference.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 58 -

levels are unlikely to exceed our noise criterion. However, because the noise wall does 

not extend to the east side of the terminal, and the residences are within a distance that 

could experience noise impacts from the project, we agree that the residences located east 

of the terminal are considered an NSA. Therefore, we have revised Environmental 

Condition 24 to this order to require Dominion to include a measurement position at 

Chesapeake Drive in Lusby, Maryland in its operating noise survey, demonstrating noise

levels from operations at the terminal at this location do not exceed our noise criterion.

181. Commenters request that an EIS be performed to address noise impacts along the 

pipeline. The project does not include any modifications to the existing pipeline or any 

new pipeline facilities. The EA does address the noise impacts associated with the 

increased compression at the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station which will be well 

below our 55 dBA Ldn criterion.158 Environmental Condition 25 requires Dominion to 

demonstrate compliance with our 55 dBA Ldn noise criterion after placing the 

modifications into service.

182. Commenters believe noise during construction would be significant. Based on the 

information available in Dominion’s application, the EA identifies the noise levels of 

construction equipment and concludes that most construction activities would be limited 

to daylight hours thereby leaving nighttime noise levels unaffected.159 Dominion 

commented on the EA that it will construct at the terminal and Offsite Area A up to 7 

days per week, 24 hours per day. Dominion provided a nighttime construction noise 

analysis and mitigation plan. In general, results of this analysis demonstrate that noise 

levels will be within the Maryland noise regulations prior to completion of the 60-foottall noise wall, and within the Commission’s 55 dBA Ldn criterion after completion of 

the noise wall. Dominion states the wall will be completed by the second quarter of 

2016. Further, the projected noise levels prior to completion of the noise wall are less 

than three decibels above our criterion, and will not be perceptible compared to our

criterion level. The Commission also agrees, as identified in Dominion’s noise 

mitigation plan, that implementation of multiple construction shifts and therefore,

nighttime construction, will reduce safety risks to workers and maintain the construction 

schedule, preventing impacts from occurring for a longer duration.

183. However, we find that the overall nighttime construction noise analysis and 

mitigation plan lacks specificity for implementation (e.g. height and material of moveable 

barriers, some measures are identified as “may be used” or “if available”), fails to 

identify all noise sensitive areas and noise impacts within one half mile of Offsite Area 

A, is unclear in the number of each type of equipment included in the evaluation of 

 158 Id. at 121-123.

159 Id. at 118-119.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 59 -

impacts at the terminal and whether the sound levels evaluated included back-up alarms, 

and does not mention the status of noise levels in the notification procedures. Therefore, 

we have added Environmental Condition 23 to this order to require a revised nighttime 

noise construction analysis and mitigation plan prior to any nighttime construction. We 

conclude that the project, as conditioned herein, will not have a significant impact on the 

environment.

r. Public Safety

184. A number of organizations and individuals, including Earthjustice and Chesapeake 

Climate, question Dominion’s use of the 2001 edition of the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of LNG, 

as the basis for its siting analysis and suggest that the 2013 edition of NFPA 59A would 

be more appropriate. Earthjustice comments that it is not appropriate to discard the more 

current 2013 edition of NFPA 59A without further demonstration. As stated in the EA, 

Dominion’s facility must comply with the DOT’s Federal Safety Standards for Liquefied 

Natural Gas Facilities in 49 C.F.R. Part 193.160 Those regulations incorporate by 

reference portions of the 2001 and 2006 edition of NFPA 59A. The 2013 edition of 

NFPA 59A is not currently part of the federal regulations covering LNG. In order to 

make it so, the DOT would need to initiate a rulemaking and provide for adequate public 

notification and comment prior to adopting the 2013 edition into 49 C.F.R. Part 193. 

185. We received multiple comments that a quantitative risk assessment, as detailed in 

Chapter 15 of the 2013 edition of NFPA 59A, should be required as part of any public 

safety analysis due to the sensitive nature of the Chesapeake Bay area. Commenters 

stated that a quantitative risk assessment would likely show the proposed liquefaction 

project would exceed the tolerability threshold selected by the Maryland DNR in its 2006 

study on the Cove Point LNG terminal expansion.161 Earthjustice further comments that, 

rather than conducting a quantitative risk assessment, as required by the 2013 edition of 

NFPA 59A, Commission staff only indicated that efforts are underway to develop a 

quantitative risk assessment method for LNG facility siting. 

186. As stated in the EA, there are multiple unresolved issues with the NFPA 59A

quantitative risk assessment methodology requiring the establishment of specific 

assumptions, inputs, databases, and models on which to base such an analysis.162 

 160 Id. at 142.

161 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Report: DNR 12-7312006-147; 

PPRP-CPT -01. “Cove Point LNG Terminal Expansion Project Risk Study.” Issued 

June 28, 2006 and Revised January 14, 2010.

162 EA at 148.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 60 -

Earthjustice recognizes that “(e)stablishing specific assumptions/databases/models on 

which to base the risk methodology that is compliant with both NFPA 59A and 49 C.F.R. 

Part 193 is critically important to ensuring that results of quantitative risk assessments are 

consistent and meaningful....” A quantitative risk-based siting methodology must be 

able to produce consistent results when used by different parties examining the same 

installation. Until these issues are resolved, the methods provided for conducting a 

quantitative risk assessment can be manipulated to achieve widely divergent results, 

which questions their appropriateness as a siting methodology. In addition, there are no 

quantified acceptance criteria for acceptable or tolerable risks in the U.S. regulatory 

framework.163 Even after issues such as equipment failure frequency and selection of 

appropriate consequence models are settled, there are no established criteria on which to 

judge the resulting numerical estimates of risk. As a result, the Commission relies on an 

assessment of whether the proposed facilities would be able to operate safely and 

securely and minimize potential public safety impacts.164 This review is based on a 

technical review of the facility engineering design, as well as a review of the siting 

analysis that Dominion must perform in order to comply with the DOT’s regulations in 

49 C.F.R. Part 193.

187. We received numerous comments that the proposed equipment would be located 

within a small footprint and that any incident would escalate to a major event. In 

addition, we received comments that reliance on safety measures such as vapor barriers 

and gas detectors as being 100 percent effective is not credible. Other comments state 

that several key issues were not addressed in staff’s analysis or the EA. Chesapeake 

Climate states there were four key scenarios left unaddressed: a 41 percent increase in 

capacity in Dominion’s natural gas pipeline system; loss of containment of propane and 

LNG; spill duration; and release of nitrosamines into the atmosphere or surface waters.

188. Chesapeake Climate adds the export capacity to Dominion’s existing import 

capacity of 1.8 billion standard cubic feet (BSCF) per day and states that the new 

capacity of the facility and the associated pipeline has increased by 41 percent. 

Chesapeake Climate estimates this throughput increase to be associated with a 41 percent 

increase in the length of the pipeline supplying facility and an increased risk to the 

population surrounding this pipeline.

189. This is incorrect. Dominion is changing the direction of flow, but is not increasing 

the pipeline capacity or adding additional transmission pipeline. The compressor station 

 163 Although the 2013 edition of NFPA 59A presents individual and societal risk 

acceptability criteria (Tables 15.10.1 and 15.10.2, respectively), these have not been 

reviewed and incorporated into the federal regulations on LNG facility siting.

164 EA at 125.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 61 -

modifications included in this project are to allow the pipeline to provide gas to the 

facility, but it will be at rates less than 1.8 BSCF per day. Discussion of the existing 

pipeline is outside the scope of our environmental analysis.

190. Chesapeake Climate states that the presence of four propane tanks and the 

liquefaction train necessitate an analysis of potential safety impacts at offsite locations 

using the largest spills possible. Chesapeake Climate comments that fire and explosion 

hazards from the propane and LNG inventory need to be considered, specifically boiling 

liquid expanding vapor explosions.

191. We find that these issues were adequately addressed in the EA. Failure scenarios 

to be used in siting calculations, including propane and LNG, are governed by the DOT’s 

regulations for LNG facilities in 49 C.F.R. Part 193. As discussed in the EA, the spills 

used to set the consequence distances were developed by Dominion in consultation with 

the DOT.165 Dominion analyzed over 400 piping segments, including 160 propane 

segments, using failure frequency criteria established by the DOT. From these spills, 

Dominion modeled flammable vapor dispersion, radiant heat, and overpressure effects. 

While the final determination on whether this facility complies with Part 193 will be 

made by the DOT, Commission staff reviewed these calculations in order to estimate 

whether there would be an impact to public safety from these spills. We agree with the 

EA’s finding on this issue. In addition, we note that the EA addresses the potential for 

boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions of these propane tanks by describing 

Dominion’s plan to protect them by burial and mounding.166 

192. Chesapeake Climate comments that the record does not support the limitation of 

release scenarios to a 10-minute period. We disagree. As discussed above, the selection 

of release scenarios, including duration, is set by criteria established by the DOT. As 

allowed by the DOT regulations, this duration is “(f)or 10 minutes or for a shorter time 

based on demonstrable surveillance and shutdown provisions acceptable to the authority 

having jurisdiction.”167 As discussed in the EA, the DOT provided Commission staff a 

letter allowing use of Dominion’s release scenarios for establishing the Part 193 siting 

requirements.168 The 10 minute duration of the spills was included in the information 

that Dominion provided to the DOT. In addition, Commission staff has reviewed the 

 165 Id. at 146.

166 Id. at 128.

167 Sections 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4 of NFPA 59A (2001 edition) as incorporated by 

reference in 49 C.F.R. § 193.2059 (2014).

168 EA at 147.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 62 -

engineering design, specifications, instrumentation, hazard detection, and shutdown logic 

and concludes that the design would have the ability to monitor, shutdown, and isolate 

equipment and piping as needed.

193. Earthjustice states that additional information in the EA or the docket is needed to 

address navigation hazards, wind damage, heat exchanger operation, facility security 

measures, and mercury releases. Earthjustice states that the EA safety analysis only 

focused on the proposed LNG liquefaction train and ignored the on-site power generation 

equipment, the mixed refrigerant system, new blowers at the offshore pier, the concrete 

tunnel for LNG piping,169 the instrument and plant air system, and ground flares.

194. The EA’s principal focus in summarizing potential hazards is on facilities that may 

pose a hazard to the public. Staff reviewed the engineering design, specifications, safety 

instrumented systems, emergency shutdown systems, hazard detection, hazard control, 

fire protection, and siting requirements for all proposed equipment including the 

liquefaction facilities, power generation equipment, the mixed refrigeration system, 

offshore gas blowers, gas flares, and the plant air system. However, the hazards of such 

equipment were only discussed to the extent staff determined a potential impact to public 

safety. 

195. Commission staff’s review focused on the engineering design and safety concepts 

of the various protection layers, as well as the projected operational reliability of the 

proposed facilities.170 These layers would be independent of one another so each could 

perform its function of preventing an incident or of mitigating the severity of an incident, 

regardless of the failure of any other protection layer. As discussed in section 2.8.4 of the 

EA, these protections include a process design capable of handling the operating 

conditions, instrumentation to control and monitor the process, hazard detection to alert 

operators of incidents, hazard control equipment to mitigate a release scenario, spill 

containment systems to ensure any spill is contained on-site, fire protection to enable 

equipment to withstand a fire, fire suppression systems to extinguish fires, emergency 

isolation and shutdown systems, and remotely activated firewater monitors. We find that 

the EA properly concludes that the inclusion of such protection systems or safeguards in 

a facility design would minimize the potential for an initiating event to develop into an 

incident that could impact public safety.

 169 As discussed in the EA, Dominion plans to modify the LNG transfer piping 

within the concrete-lined tunnel to provide bi-directional loading and unloading of LNG 

to and from ships. The existing leak monitoring instrumentations and hazard detection 

devices would detect and isolate an LNG release within the tunnel. Changing the LNG 

flow direction within the tunnel would not have any impact on public safety.

170 EA at 132.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 63 -

196. Commenters were also concerned that fires from the facility may spread beyond 

the fence line and could start a forest fire. The closest fire source from an impoundment 

would be located over 200 feet from the fence line. In addition, a 60-foot-tall concrete 

sound barrier will be constructed along the fence line and will separate the proposed 

process areas from the adjacent trees. Therefore, any potential fire at the proposed 

facilities is likely to be confined to the process areas. In addition, the radiant heat from 

such fires would not reach levels sufficient to cause surrounding trees to ignite.

197. We received comments on toxic chemicals being stored at the proposed facility. 

In particular, Earthjustice commented that potential releases of mercury were not 

addressed in staff’s review. The toxic chemicals stored on-site would be stabilized 

condensate and ammonia. As discussed in the EA, the toxic vapor dispersion distances to 

a non-disabling and reversible exposure level from stabilized condensate and ammonia 

releases will remain within Dominion’s property.171 We agree with staff’s conclusion in 

the EA that releases of stabilized condensate and ammonia would not present a 

significant impact to the public. 

198. Other toxic components present in the feed gas stream include mercury and

hydrogen sulfide (H2S). As described in the EA, mercury would not pose a hazard to the 

public since it would be removed in the pre-treatment process via chemical reactions in 

the Mercury Removal Units.172 The Mercury Removal Units consist of sulfur beds that 

react with mercury to form a stable mercuric sulfide compound. At the end of its service 

life, the spent adsorbent will be shipped by truck to an appropriate recycling plant or 

disposed of in a hazardous waste disposal facility. 

199. We received comments that the EA does not address the release of amines or the 

formation of nitrosamines and any potential impacts to the atmosphere and water bodies. 

As discussed in the EA, the amine process used for treating the natural gas coming into 

the plant will include spill containment systems to prevent leaks entering any surrounding 

water bodies.173 The pressure relief valves from the natural gas pretreatment process 

would not discharge directly into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the amine system is not 

used to control emissions at the facility.174 Although the Fresh Amine Storage Tank and 

 171 Id. at 153-154.

172 Id. at 125-126.

173 Id. at 146.

174 Nitrosamines form by reaction of amines with agents such as nitrogen oxides, a 

product of combustion. During amine regeneration, the acid gas stream containing 

carbon dioxide would be directed to the Thermal Oxidizer. Amine would not be present 

in this acid gas stream nor come into direct contact with nitrogen oxide emissions at the 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 64 -

the Contaminated Amine Storage Tank may vent to atmosphere, they are located 

approximately 500 feet away from the closest combustion exhaust stack.

200. We received comments that toxic and flammable chemicals would be trucked to 

and from the facility. The federal requirements for the transportation of hazardous 

materials are contained within the DOT’s regulations in Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Within the DOT, the PHMSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration are charged with administering the safety aspects of hazardous materials 

transportation. The PHMSA establishes requirements for packaging, labeling, emergency 

response, and security for the transportation of hazardous material in the United States. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration establishes driver licensing and 

qualification requirements and standards for routing either by the motor carrier or by a 

state. Any transportation of hazardous materials would have to comply with the DOT 

regulations.

201. Earthjustice comments that navigation hazards and potential marine LNG releases 

caused by submerged obstructions were not addressed in staff’s analysis. It also believes 

that the EA should address the impacts of more significant climate change-induced 

storms and hurricanes on the LNG ships traveling up and down the Chesapeake Bay. We 

note that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over LNG maritime transportation. 

Oversight of LNG transport is performed by the U.S. Coast Guard as part of its 

responsibilities under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Magnuson Act, the 

Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, and the Safety and Accountability for 

Every Port Act. If related to a proposed project, ship transits associated with the onshore 

facilities under review by the Commission are discussed as a connected action in staff’s 

NEPA document. Impacts from those LNG ship transits are considered by the 

Commission in deciding whether to authorize those onshore facilities.

202. However, in this case, the project does not involve larger ships or more frequent 

ship visits than were previously covered by the Commission’s analysis in Dockets 

CP05-130 and CP09-60 for the Cove Point Expansion Project and Pier Reinforcement 

Project. As stated in the EA, the U.S. Coast Guard determined that its previous analysis 

related to the size, frequency, and transit route of LNG carriers, performed for the 

existing import terminal, was adequate for the LNG carrier traffic associated with 

proposed project.175

203. Any navigational hazards arising from submerged obstructions, flooding, or 

hurricanes would be addressed during the U.S. Coast Guard’s day-to-day oversight of 

 

Thermal Oxidizer exhaust stack.

175 EA at 159.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 65 -

vessel traffic and/or facility control measures for ensuring navigational safety and 

maritime security.

204. Numerous commenters state that the proposed sound barrier walls are untested as 

vapor barriers and would not be sufficient to handle potential hazards at the facility. 

Dominion clarified the design of the wall in filings on June 16 and June 27, 2014. The 

60-foot-tall sound barrier would be constructed of concrete and would be 6 inches thick. 

We find it appropriate to accept that the design will act to retain flammable vapors in the 

way that Dominion’s dispersion modeling indicates. Nonetheless, Environmental 

Condition 66 requires that further information on the design of the vapor barriers, as well 

as the procedures used to maintain them for the life of the facility, be submitted to the 

Commission before any construction will be allowed at the project site. Also as 

discussed in the EA, the consequence analysis, which did not rely on these walls for 

overpressure protection, indicates that overpressures scenarios initiating from a 

refrigerant or natural gas liquids release would also remain within Dominion’s 

property.176

205. Commenters state that the existing single containment LNG storage tanks are 

outdated and are a safety hazard to nearby homes in the event of a LNG tank rupture. No 

new LNG storage tanks would be added to the facility with this project. Nonetheless, we 

note that the existing LNG storage tanks are subject to the DOT inspection and review 

under 49 C.F.R. Part 193, as well as Commission staff inspection as a condition of 

previous Commission authorizations. None of staff’s inspections have indicated a safety 

concern with the current LNG storage tanks.

206. We also received comments asserting that the current evacuation zone is 

insufficient and that the evacuation route is adjacent to the facility. Dominion’s 

Emergency Response Plan relies on existing local response agencies and evacuation 

plans. The local emergency management agencies identified in Dominion’s Emergency 

Response Plan include the Calvert County Sheriff’s Office, Maryland State Police, 

Maryland Natural Resources Police, Solomons Volunteer Rescue Squad and Fire 

Department, Saint Leonard Volunteer Fire Company, Maryland State Fire Marshall’s 

Office, and the Calvert County Emergency Management Division. Depending on the 

type of emergency, the appropriate organization(s) would be notified and the Calvert 

County Emergency Management Division would determine if an evacuation or shelter-inplace would be required. As noted in Dominion’s filing of June 27, 2014, the Calvert 

County Department of Public Safety has communicated to Dominion that the evacuation 

route is adequate. 

 176 Id. at 142.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 66 -

207. Commenters are also concerned with the capabilities of local first responders to 

respond to an incident at the Liquefaction Project. The commenters state that first 

responders are not adequately trained, are under-manned, are not prepared to deal with 

plant related emergencies, and that no specialized emergency response equipment has 

been developed or identified. 

208. For the existing facility, Dominion has routinely conducted drills with the local 

emergency management agencies and provides training to the local fire companies. 

These drills and other tabletop exercises further assist in identifying and addressing any 

resource gaps and ensure familiarization with the plant layout and emergency response 

equipment installed within the facility. In addition, on May 8, 2014, the Calvert County 

Sheriff’s Office filed a statement that the Special Operations Team routinely trains at the 

LNG plant, receives firefighting and hazardous materials response training, and acts as a 

HAZ-MAT team for Calvert County. Furthermore, Environmental Condition 31 to this 

order requires Dominion to update its existing Emergency Response Plan to include the 

Liquefaction Project and Environmental Condition 32 to this order requires Dominion to 

file a Cost Sharing Plan. Once these plans are provided, Commission staff will look for 

evidence of consultation and coordination with emergency responders and how any 

identified resource gaps will be addressed by Dominion.

209. Commenters also state that the facility would be a terrorist target due to its close 

proximity to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. As discussed in section 2.8.8 of the 

EA, Dominion will provide security for the LNG facility as detailed in the Facility 

Security Plan prepared in accordance with the Coast Guard’s regulations in 33 C.F.R. 

Part 105. The Coast Guard’s regulations require a Facility Security Assessment to 

identify site vulnerabilities, possible security threats and consequences from an 

intentional act, and to identify the facility’s protective measures. Dominion has an 

existing Facility Security Assessment and Plan that would be updated for the proposed 

facilities and provided to the Coast Guard for review.

210. Furthermore, commenters also state that hazards originating from the LNG facility 

could impact the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The facilities are located 

approximately 3 miles from each other and have agreed to coordinate in the event of an 

incident. Dominion’s Emergency Response Plan includes provisions for this 

coordination.

211. Earthjustice states that wind damage from hurricanes and tornadoes was not 

addressed in staff’s analysis. However, we note that the EA specifically discusses the 

design wind speeds required by the DOT for LNG facilities.177 During its review as a 

cooperating agency, the DOT notified Commission staff that the wind speeds Dominion 

 177 Id. at 132-133.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 67 -

proposed for its design may not meet the federal regulatory requirements. As discussed 

above, Dominion consulted with the DOT on the design wind speeds to be used at the 

facility. The DOT has notified Commission staff that Dominion’s approach for 

establishing design wind speeds for the facility complies with the regulatory requirements 

of 49 C.F.R. Part 193.

212. Earthjustice comments that effects of haze, smoke, or other atmospheric pollutants 

on the safe operation of the liquefaction heat exchangers was not addressed in staff’s 

analysis. Staff’s review included the design of the air cooled heat exchangers and 

associated piping, which includes instrumentation that monitors and isolates equipment, 

as well as notifies operators of upset conditions. The facility operators would be able to 

adjust process conditions as needed to address any atmospheric conditions. Therefore, 

any potential atmospheric effects on the heat exchangers would not pose a hazard to the 

public.

213. Earthjustice states that the security measures that would be used to protect the 

facility, as well as Offsite Areas A and B, and prevent trespassing were not addressed in 

staff’s analysis. As stated in the EA, Dominion proposes to provide security fencing, 

monitoring systems, and controlled access procedures to prevent unauthorized access into 

the LNG Terminal.178 These features must be in compliance with the DOT’s 49 C.F.R. 

Part 193 subpart J requirements.

214. Furthermore, Dominion was required to obtain Coast Guard approval of the 

Facility Security Plan covering the existing import facility subject to the Maritime 

Transportation Security Act of 2002. As described in the EA, the Coast Guard has 

instructed Dominion that the Facility Security Plan would need to be updated to address 

any changes to the operations associated with the project and that the Facility Security 

Plan would need to be submitted to the Coast Guard for approval prior to operation as an 

export facility.179

215. Offsite Areas A and B are laydown areas for equipment storage and would not 

contain LNG or refrigerants. Such areas are typically not required to be fenced unless 

they are within 25 feet of a residence, at which point residential site-specific plans with 

safety fencing must be submitted to the Commission. The closest residential areas to 

Offsite Areas A and B are 150 feet and 160 feet away, respectively.

 178 Id. at 134.

179 Id. at 159.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 68 -

216. Earthjustice states that the Commission has not addressed the potential for public 

exposure to cryogenic materials. We note the EA does address this issue.180 The EA 

notes that cryogenic liquid spills would be contained within the spill containment 

systems. Therefore, the cold temperatures from liquid spills would not present a hazard 

to the public, who would not have access to on-site areas.

217. Earthjustice states that the Commission has not addressed safety impacts of the 

project to on-site personnel and contractors. The analysis contained in the EA addresses 

public safety impacts. Other agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration and the DOT address on-site personnel safety.

s. Consequence Modeling

218. Earthjustice comments that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate 

mitigating measures, cannot be based on the conceptual nature of the safety analysis 

included in the EA. Earthjustice claims that the Commission has not ensured that the 

level of safety of the project is consistent with the standards for “consequence and health 

hazards administered by the DOT under 49 U.S.C. Part 193, Chapter 601” and that staff’s 

analysis only addresses single accidental releases rather than multiple equipment failures.

219. The Commission is not responsible for ensuring facility compliance with DOT’s 

regulations. If the facility is constructed and operated, compliance with the requirements 

of 49 C.F.R. Part 193 would be addressed as part of DOT’s inspection and enforcement 

program. We note however that, as discussed in the EA, Dominion consulted with the 

DOT on the failure probability of over 400 piping segments and process vessels for the 

purpose of selecting design spills to show compliance with the DOT’s regulations.181

220. While Earthjustice recognizes that Dominion considered releases from the mixed 

refrigerant liquid process system, the propane pre-cool system, and the heavy 

hydrocarbon removal system at the liquefaction process area, it questions why only 

design spills that produced the highest release rates were discussed in the EA. The design 

spills with the highest release rate result in the largest vapor cloud with the greatest 

potential to impact public safety. For this reason, only these spills were used as inputs in 

the hazard consequence modeling discussed in the EA.

221. Earthjustice comments that, although hazards from overpressures were addressed 

in section 2.8.6 of the EA, there was no explanation for why the hazard distances 

calculated with the Process Hazard Analysis Software Tool (PHAST) model, which 

 180 Id. at 126-127.

181 Id. at 147-148.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 69 -

extended beyond the property boundary, were discarded in lieu of the Flame Acceleration 

Simulator (FLACS) modeling of the same scenario. These FLACs results showed the 

overpressure scenario would not leave the property boundary.

222. FLACS is a computational fluid dynamics model that is able to take into account 

site-specific geometry (i.e., obstructions and congestion from equipment, piping, tanks, 

buildings, and vapor barriers). However, that ability increases the computational time 

needed for simulations. PHAST, which cannot account for the effects of obstructions, 

requires less computing time but will generally over-predict the hazard area. In cases 

where a large number of simulations need to be performed, a model such as PHAST can 

be used to identify scenarios that should be subjected to further intensive modeling 

incorporating site-specific factors.

223. Earthjustice states that damaging overpressures and detonations due to the ethane 

and propane concentrations in the feed gas stream proposed for the facility were not 

evaluated properly. Earthjustice further comments that the analysis provided in the EA is 

insufficient as it does not address comingled ethane and propane plumes, but only 

analyzes releases of propane or ethane individually.

224. Staff’s assessment in the EA is based on the review of the feed gas compositions 

and the pre-treatment system design limitations provided by Dominion in Resource 

Report 13. The expectant feed gas compositions would consist of lower ethane and 

propane concentrations than specified in the U.S. Coast Guard tests referenced in the 

EA.182 Dominion’s liquefaction process would consist of a mixed refrigerant stream that 

would consist of significantly higher concentrations of ethane and propane compared to 

those in the feed gas stream. A release from a mixed refrigerant piping would result in a 

comingled vapor cloud consisting of methane, ethane, and propane. The mixed 

refrigerant related overpressure modeling for this stream was discussed in section 2.8.6 of 

the EA.

t. Indirect Impacts

225. Commenters state that the EA fails to address potentially significant indirect 

impacts of the project. Specifically, commenters state that the EA fails to consider the 

indirect effects of induced natural gas production in the Marcellus shale region in 

response to demand from Dominion’s export customers. Earthjustice contends that 

increased natural gas production to meet the demand of the Cove Point Liquefaction 

Project customers “is fairly understood as indirectly caused by the project,” and that 

 182 Id. at 129 and 154.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 70 -

consequently the environmental effects of that development must be considered in the 

EA.183 

226. The EA notes that commenters on Dominion’s application contend that the export 

of natural gas will spur the development of natural gas derived from shale formations 

and, therefore, the environmental impacts associated with gas development should be 

included in the environmental review of the project.184 The EA explains that the potential 

impacts of Marcellus shale region drilling activities are not sufficiently causally related to 

this project to warrant consideration of those impacts.185 Further, the EA explains that 

natural gas may be sourced for export from various locations using various methods and 

that consequently, the impacts associated with production of natural gas are not 

reasonably foreseeable or quantifiable.186 

227. The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations require 

agencies to consider the indirect impacts of proposed actions. Indirect impacts are 

“caused by the proposed action” and occur later in time or farther removed in distance 

than direct project impacts, but are still “reasonably foreseeable.”187 Indirect impacts 

may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the 

pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and 

water.188 For an agency to include consideration of an impact in its NEPA analysis as an 

indirect effect, approval of the proposed project and the related secondary effect must be 

 183 Earthjustice June 16, 2014 Comments at 30 (citing Natural Res. Def. Council, 

Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 564 F.3d 549, 559-60 (2d Cir. 2009) (agency properly 

considered indirect and cumulative impacts of induced growth caused by construction of 

new airport); City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 674-77 (9th Cir. 1975) 

(environmental review for highway project needed to analyze impact of induced 

development despite uncertainty about pace and direction of development); Border 

Power Plant Working Group v. Dept. of Energy, 260 F.Supp.2d 997, 1028-29 (S.D. Cal. 

2003) (requiring consideration of environmental impacts, such as increased carbon 

dioxide and ammonia emissions, from additional electricity generation spurred by 

construction of energy transmission lines subject to federal approval).

184 EA at 24.

185 Id. at 163.

186 Id. at 25. 

187 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b) (2014).

 188 Id. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 71 -

causally related, i.e., the agency action and the effect must be “two links of a single 

chain.”189

228. Potential environmental effects associated with Marcellus shale region production 

are not sufficiently causally related to the Cove Point Liquefaction Project to warrant 

detailed analysis as indirect impacts.190 Marcellus shale production is not an essential 

predicate for the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, which can receive natural gas through 

interconnects with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. Further, development of 

the Marcellus shale region will likely continue regardless of whether the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project is approved.

229. The cases cited by Earthjustice to support its argument are not applicable here. 

The environmental impacts at issue in the cases, including impacts of development 

spurred by a new federal highway project, construction of a new airport, and emissions 

caused by new electricity generation made possible by a new transmission line, are

effects that, unlike here, would not have occurred had the specific federal authorizations

not been granted. Natural gas development, including development of the Marcellus 

shale region, will continue and indeed is continuing, with or without the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project, because multiple existing and proposed transportation alternatives 

for production from the region are available. Thus, there is an insufficient causal link 

between the proposed project and additional development of the Marcellus shale region 

for such development to be considered an indirect impact under NEPA and CEQ’s 

regulations.

230. Moreover, even if such a causal relationship were shown, the scope of the impacts 

from any such induced production is not reasonably foreseeable as contemplated by 

CEQ’s regulations and case law. An impact is reasonably foreseeable if it is “sufficiently 

likely to occur that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a 

decision.”191 Courts have noted the starting point of any NEPA analysis is a “rule of 

reason,” under which NEPA documents “need not address remote and highly speculative 

 

 189 Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 884 F.2d 394 (9th Cir. 1980).

190 The Commission has been upheld in finding that it need not consider the 

environmental impacts of Marcellus shale region production when authorizing projects 

that may (or may not) make use of such supplies. Central NewYork Oil and Gas Co., 

LLC, 137 FERC ¶ 61,121, at PP 81-101 (2011), order on reh’g, 138 FERC ¶ 61,104, at 

PP 33-49 (2012), petition for review dismissed, sub nom., Coalition for Responsible 

Growth, et al. v. FERC, 485 Fed. Appx. 472, 2012 WL 1596341 (2nd Cir., Apr. 17, 

2012) (unpublished opinion).

191 Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 72 -

consequences.”192 While courts have held that NEPA requires “reasonable forecasting,” 

an agency is not required “to engage in speculative analysis” or “to do the impractical, if 

not enough information is available to permit meaningful consideration.”193 

231. As the Commission has consistently found under the circumstances presented to 

date, impacts from additional shale gas development supported by LNG export projects 

are not reasonably foreseeable within the meaning of the CEQ regulations.194 While it is 

axiomatic that natural gas exports require natural gas supplies, the source of the gas to be 

exported via any individual project is speculative and would likely change throughout the 

operation of the project. The Cove Point Liquefaction Project will receive natural gas 

through the Cove Point Pipeline, which, as described above, will interconnect with three 

interstate natural gas pipeline systems. Those interstate pipelines cross multiple shalegas, as well as conventional-gas, plays and through their interconnections with still other 

pipeline systems effectively provide access to essentially all of the production areas in the 

lower-forty-eight states. Thus, assessing where the gas processed by the project will 

originate, much less where the wells, gathering line locations and the potential associated 

environmental impacts will occur, would require significant speculation. Accordingly, 

the level of analysis commenters seek would require the Commission to engage in 

speculative analysis that would not provide meaningful information to inform our 

decision here.195

232. Earthjustice asserts that a portion of the natural gas used by the project will likely 

come from the Marcellus shale region. In support, Earthjustice notes that in December 

2013, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation reported it had executed a gas sale and purchase 

agreement with one of Dominion’s export customers, Pacific Summit.196 Earthjustice 

 192 Hammond v. Norton, 370 F.Supp.2d 226, 245-46 (D.D.C. 2005).

193 N. Plains Res. Council v. Surface Transp. Board., 668 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th 

Cir. 2011).

194 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,039 at PP 94-99, order on 

reh’g, 140 FERC ¶ 61,076 at PP 8-22; Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P., 145 FERC ¶ 

61,074, at PP 51-60, order on reh’g, 145 FERC ¶ 61,074, at PP 8-19 (2013).

195 See Habitat Education Center v. U.S. Forest Service, 609 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 

2010) (an environmental impact would be considered too speculative for inclusion in the 

NEPA document if at the time the document is drafted the impact cannot be described 

with sufficient specificity to make its consideration useful to a reasoned decision maker).

196 Earthjustice June 16, 2014 Comments at 34 (citing Press Release, Cabot Oil & 

Gas Corporation Provides Corporate Update, Announces Agreement to Provide Natural 

Gas to the Dominion Cove Point LNG Terminal (Dec. 19, 2013), reprinted in Wall Street 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 73 -

states that under the contract, Cabot has agreed to sell Pacific Summit 240,000 million 

British thermal units per day of natural gas from Marcellus shale region supplies for a 

term of 20 years, commencing on the in-service date of Dominion’s export terminal. 

Earthjustice asserts that Cabot’s wells are clustered in and near Susquehanna County, 

Pennsylvania and states that it is virtually certain that Cabot’s gas for the project will 

come from its holdings in this area. Earthjustice further asserts that because Cabot’s 

contract with Pacific Summit is a significant commitment above its current customer 

commitments, it is reasonably foreseeable that Cabot will need to drill additional wells to 

meet the contract with Pacific Summit. 

233. We disagree that the information cited by Earthjustice provides a level of certainty 

sufficient to support a meaningful analysis of any impacts of increased natural gas 

production. Pacific Summit’s purchase and sale agreement with Cabot has not been 

submitted as part of the record in the proceeding, and therefore nothing in the record 

indicates where gas will originate over the contract’s 20 year period. However, Cabot’s 

press release announcing its agreement with Pacific Summit suggests that it intends to 

use Marcellus shale region supplies. Assuming arguendo that this is so, the record in this 

case still lacks sufficient specificity for a meaningful analysis of potential impacts from 

production. The Commission has found the impacts of production to be beyond the 

scope of our review, even when particular producers were known to be shippers on the 

proposed pipeline.197 The tie between Dominion’s customers’ gas supplier and the 

project is more attenuated than in those cases where the producer was a customer of a 

pipeline project. Moreover, knowing the identity of a supplier, and even the area where 

its existing wells are located, does not alter the fact that the number, location, and impacts 

associated with any additional production that producer may engage in to supply 

Dominion’s customers are matters of speculation.

234. In further support of its contention that induced production is reasonably 

foreseeable, Earthjustice points to a U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2012 

report that estimates about 60 to 70 percent of increases in natural gas exports will be 

satisfied by increased natural gas production with the remaining portion supplied by 

 

Journal, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131219-905979.html).

197 See, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 139 FERC ¶ 61,138, at PP 70-73, order 

on reh’g, 141 FERC ¶ 61,043, at PP 37-41 (2012); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 

139 FERC ¶ 61,161, at PP 178-200, order on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 61,025, at PP 72-87 

(2012), rev’d on other grounds, Delaware River Keepers Network v. FERC, Case 

No. 13-1015 (D.C. Cir., June 6, 2014); Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 

141 FERC ¶ 61,091, at P 127-141 (2012), order on reh’g, 143 FERC ¶ 61,132, at PP 49-

60 (2013).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 74 -

natural gas that would have been consumed domestically.198 Earthjustice asserts that the 

specific details of potential future production are not necessary for the Commission to 

analyze the impacts of induced production using tools referenced in the EIA report. 

235. The EIA report includes the caveat that projections involving energy markets are 

highly uncertain and “subject to many events that cannot be foreseen.”199 Accordingly, 

we find that using the modeling tools referenced in the EIA report, such as the National 

Energy Modeling System, to predict potential impacts based on a snapshot of market 

conditions at a particular time is not meaningful for our analysis. Even if the report did 

not include a disclaimer about the foreseeability of future events impacting the analysis

of impacts associated with increased production generally, the report makes no findings 

with regard to induced production caused by the specific project before us. 

236. In addition, some commenters note that the Office of Fossil Energy of the DOE 

has issued for public comment a “Draft Addendum” related to unconventional gas 

production for use in its environmental review of LNG exports.200 While the DOE Draft 

Addendum provides certain general estimates about the environmental impacts associated 

with natural gas production, those impacts have no particular relationship to Dominion’s 

proposal. In its notice of the Draft Addendum, DOE itself explained:

By including this discussion of natural gas production 

activities, DOE is going beyond what NEPA requires. While 

DOE has made broad projections about the types of resources 

from which additional production may come, DOE cannot 

meaningfully estimate where, when, or by what method any 

additional natural gas would be produced. Therefore, DOE 

cannot meaningfully analyze the specific environmental 

impacts of such production, which are nearly all local or 

regional in nature.201

 198 Earthjustice June 16, 2014 Comments at 32 (citing EIA, Effect of Increased 

Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets 6, 10 (2012), available at 

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/pdf/fe_lng.pdf).

199 EIA Export Study at 3.

200 See “Notice of Availability of Draft Addendum to Environmental Review 

Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States,” issued May 29, 

2014, available on the DOE website at: http://energy.gov/fe/draft-addendumenvironmental-review-documents-concerning-exports-natural-gas-united-states.

201 Id. at 4.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 75 -

237. This reasoning, of course, is consistent with the established Commission policy 

summarized above. The existence of the DOE Draft Addendum, and future comments on 

it, provide no basis to alter the conclusions of the EA or to delay the Commission’s order 

here.

u. Cumulative Impacts

238. Earthjustice and others contend that the EA failed to adequately analyze 

cumulative impacts of projects related to natural gas development and gathering, 

including Marcellus shale development, natural gas transportation, and natural gas 

distribution in areas that are outside of the proposed project area. 

239. We disagree. Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQ as the “impact on the 

environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.”202 A cumulative impacts 

analysis may require an analysis of actions unrelated to the proposed project if they occur 

in the project area being analyzed.

203 CEQ states that “it is not practical to analyze the 

cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the list of environmental effects must 

focus on those that are truly meaningful.”204 An agency is only required to include “such 

information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation 

of the project rather than to be so all-encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it 

would become either fruitless or well nigh impossible.”205 

240. The EA explains that cumulative impacts can result from the construction of other 

projects in the same vicinity and impacting the same resource areas as the proposed 

facilities. In such a situation, although the impacts associated with each project might be 

minor, the cumulative impact resulting from all projects being constructed in the same 

general area could be greater.206

241. Thus, the cumulative impacts analysis in the EA evaluates other projects in the 

vicinity of the proposed project that affect the same resources in the same approximate 

 202 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (2014).

203 CEQ Guidance, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, (January 1997).

204 Id. at 8.

205 New York Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Kleppe, 429 U.S. 1307, 1311 

(1976) (citing Natural Res. Def. Council v. Calloway, 524 F.2d 79, 88 (2d. Cir. 1975)).

206 EA at 159.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 76 -

time frame. The EA considered several such projects including a proposed addition to 

the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, road and bridge upgrades and improvements, 

residential development, and sewer system construction.207 The EA evaluated the 

potential cumulative impacts of those projects on geology and soils; waterbodies and 

wetlands; vegetation and wildlife; land use, recreation, and visual resources; 

socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; climate changes; and safety. 

The EA concluded that the adverse cumulative impacts that could occur in conjunction 

with the project would be temporary and minor, and that, overall, the project would not 

result in significant cumulative impacts. 

242. The EA notes that we received comments suggesting that we analyze the 

cumulative impacts of projects related to natural gas development and gathering,

including Marcellus shale development, natural gas transportation, and natural gas 

distribution in areas that are outside of the proposed project area.208 The EA explains that 

a specific analysis of Marcellus shale upstream facilities is outside the scope of this 

analysis because the exact location, scale, and timing of future facilities are unknown. 

The EA notes that the specific details, including the timing, location, and number of 

additional production wells that may or may not be drilled, are speculative.209 As 

discussed above, the scope of any impacts associated with upstream production and 

transportation are not “reasonably foreseeable.”210 Therefore, such impacts are not 

within the appropriate scope of our cumulative impacts analysis; instead, we find that the 

EA adequately addressed potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project.

 207 Id. at 160-163.

208 Id. at 163. The EA noted that the use of process fuel gas would yield 

substantial GHG emission reductions for a facility of this size and that the use of low 

carbon containing fuels (natural gas and process fuel gas) would also minimize GHG 

emissions. Id. at 170. The EA states that the total annual potential emissions for the 

project would increase energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in Maryland by 

approximately 2.6 percent based on 2010 emissions for Maryland. Id.

209 Id. at 25.

210 See also Medina Cnty. Envtl. Action Ass’n v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 

687, 702 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Our case law shows that even the broader ‘reasonably 

foreseeable’ standard requires a substantial degree of certainty before a cumulative 

impacts analysis will be required.”).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 77 -

v. Climate Change

243. Commenters state that the EA does not adequately analyze direct, cumulative, and 

indirect impacts on climate change from GHG emissions. The GHG emissions 

associated with the construction and operation of the project were identified and 

quantified in section 2.7.1 of the EA.211 However, with respect to impacts related to 

climate change, the EA explains that there is no standard methodology to determine how 

a project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions would result in physical effects on 

the environment, either locally or globally. 

244. Several commenters contend that the EA’s use of the global warming potential 

(GWP)212 in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth 

Assessment Report of 25 for methane over a 100-year period in its analysis of GHG 

emissions associated with the construction and operation of the project is improper 

because the IPCC has published its Fifth Assessment Report estimating this value to be 

36 over a 100-year period and 86 over a 20-year period. Specifically, Earthjustice 

believes the use of the 100-year period is inappropriate given the importance of timely 

action with regard to climate change. 

245. When the EA was issued, the EPA-accepted GWP value for methane was 25 over 

a 100-year period. The EA relied on this value over other published GWPs and 

timeframes because this is the value EPA established on November 29, 2013, for 

reporting GHG emissions.213 Similarly, in this final rulemaking, EPA supported the 

adoption of the published IPCC Fourth Assessment Report GWP values over the Fifth 

Assessment Report values. We therefore find the EA’s use of the EPA-accepted GWP 

value for methane to be reasonable. We will ensure that Commission staff request the 

use of any revised EPA GWP values in future NEPA evaluations.

246. The EA explains that there is no standard methodology to determine how a 

project’s incremental contribution to GHGs would result in physical effects on the 

 211 EA at 95-116.

212 The global warming potential is a ratio relative to carbon dioxide that is based 

on the properties of the GHG’s ability to absorb solar radiation as well as the residence 

time within the atmosphere. Id. at 98.

213 EPA supported the 100-year time period over the 20-year period in its summary 

of comments and responses in the final rulemaking, 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially 

Revised Data Elements, establishing the methane GWP at 25. 78 Fed. Reg. 71,904 

(November 29, 2013). 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 78 -

environment, either locally or globally. We agree with the EA’s determination that 

because we cannot determine the project’s incremental physical impacts on climate 

change, it is not possible to determine whether or not the project’s contribution to 

cumulative impacts on climate change will be significant.214 We also received comments 

that the EA fails to consider upstream and downstream emissions of GHG pollutants and 

that the Commission should consider the DOE’s recent reports on this topic, including the 

Draft Addendum discussed above.215 As discussed above, the future development of 

upstream production is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable. Upstream production 

is therefore outside the scope of our environmental analysis. The same principle holds 

true for potential downstream GHG emissions. As described above, the EA considered 

air emissions, including GHG emissions, attributable to the construction and operation of 

the project. We had no cause to attempt to assess air emissions, or the climate change 

impacts of such emissions, from the ultimate consumption of gas exported from the Cove 

Point LNG Project because the end use is not part of the project before us. We therefore 

find that the DOE’s life cycle reports and comments we received regarding the reports are 

not informative to our decision making here. 

247. The EPA and Earthjustice request that the EA address the measures in place to 

protect the proposed facilities from future climate change impacts. The EA identifies the 

potential climate change impacts most likely to affect the facilities would be from 

increased sea level rise and storm surge. Further, the EA states that the project facilities 

 214 Patuxent Riverkeeper asked the Commission to analyze the impact of the 

proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions using the social cost of carbon protocol 

citing a recent court decision cautioning that although NEPA does not require an explicit 

cost-benefit analysis, where such an analysis is included it cannot be misleading. High 

Country Conservation Advocates, et al. v. United States Forest Service, et al. No. 13-cv01723-RBJ, 2014 WL 2922751 (D. Colo. June 27, 2014). There, the court stated that 

“[e]ven though NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis, it was nonetheless 

arbitrary and capricious to quantify the benefits of the lease modification and then 

explain that a similar analysis of the costs was impossible when such an analysis was in 

fact possible and was included in an earlier draft EIS.” Our environmental analysis did 

not attempt to quantify anticipated benefits of project approval while excluding potential 

costs from a cost-benefit analysis. We therefore find that an assessment of the social cost 

of carbon would not be useful for our analysis.

215 After issuance of the EA, the DOE prepared two documents, Life Cycle 

Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting LNG from the U.S and Draft Addendum to 

Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the U.S,

which were released for comment on May, 29, 2014. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 79 -

would be constructed at sufficient elevation to avoid conflict with future projected sea 

level rise and storm surge. 

248. Finally, commenters believe that the project would have significant fugitive 

emissions of methane due to leaks along the pipeline route and at the LNG Terminal and 

state that the EA did not quantify these emissions. The emissions associated with leaking 

components from the Liquefaction Project and Pleasant Valley Compressor Station are 

provided in tables 2.7.1-6 and 2.7.1-7 of the EA, respectively. As shown in those tables, 

the emissions associated with leakage will be minimal. In addition, the project does not 

include any modifications or new installation of pipeline that will result in additional 

fugitive emissions along a pipeline.

w. Segmentation

249. Commenters assert that the EA inappropriately segmented the review of upstream 

pipeline infrastructure that may be used to transport gas supplies to the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project. Improper segmentation of a project occurs when interrelated 

projects are artificially divided into smaller, less significant components in order to avoid 

comprehensive environmental review. NEPA and its implementing regulations direct 

federal agencies to consider whether proposed actions are “[c]onnected actions, which 

means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact 

statement.”216 The regulations provide that actions are “connected” if they:

Automatically trigger other actions which may require 

environmental impact statements.

Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken 

previously or simultaneously.

Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the 

larger action for their justification.217

250. The purpose of the connected action requirement is “to prevent agencies from 

engaging in segmentation . . . by breaking up one project into smaller projects and not 

studying the overall impacts of the single overall project.”218 Courts typically employ an

“independent utility” test when determining whether actions are “connected.” This test 

 216 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1) (2014).

217 Id.

218 Webster v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 685 F.3d 411, 426 (4th Cir. 2012).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 80 -

“asks whether each project would have taken place in the other’s absence. If so, they 

have independent utility and are not considered connected actions.”219

251. Commenters note that Cabot has entered into a precedent agreement to be an 

anchor shipper on the proposed “Atlantic Sunrise Project” proposed by Transcontinental 

Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) to connect gas supplies in northeastern Pennsylvania to 

various demand centers on the Atlantic Seaboard.220 However, we note that Cabot has 

announced that it will use its Atlantic Sunrise Project capacity not only to deliver the 

contracted volumes for Pacific Summit to Cove Point, but also to deliver an even larger 

quantity (500,000 MMBtu per day) to Washington Gas Light, the Washington, DC-area 

local distribution company.221 Moreover, Cabot is just one of nine announced shippers 

for the Atlantic Sunrise Project, which includes facilities to transport gas as far south as 

Alabama.

252. Regardless of Cabot’s participation, neither the Atlantic Sunrise Project nor any 

other upstream transportation project is a “connected action” here within the meaning of 

NEPA. The Cove Point Liquefaction Project is in no way connected with, or dependent 

upon, the Atlantic Sunrise Project, or any other upstream transportation project. The 

Cove Point Liquefaction Project can go forward regardless of whether the Atlantic 

Sunrise Project or any other upstream pipeline project is authorized by the Commission. 

Furthermore, the Atlantic Sunrise Project, which is intended to serve purposes that are 

independent of Dominion’s plans, is not yet fully developed enough for the Commission 

to consider it in its EA in this case: Transco has yet to file an application for the project. 

Of course, the Atlantic Sunrise Project would be subject to full Commission scrutiny, 

including NEPA analysis, and its own Commission order before it could be constructed.

253. Other commenters raise segmentation “connected action” claims with respect to a 

compressor station to be located in Myersville, Maryland, which was authorized by the 

Commission as part of the Allegheny Storage Project proposed by Dominion’s affiliate 

Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion Transmission).222 The Allegheny Storage 

 219 See, e.g., id.; Wilderness Workshop, 531 F.3d 1220, 229 (10th Cir. 2008); 

Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir. 2006).

220 On April 4, 2014, the Commission granted Transco’s request to use the

Commission’s pre-filing process for its Atlantic Sunrise Project in Docket No. PF14-8. 

221 See “Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Announces New Agreements for LongTerm Sales and Pipeline Takeaway Capacity,” Feb. 20, 2014, available at: 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cabot-oil--gas- corporation-announces-newagreements-for-long-term-sales-and-pipeline-takeaway-capacity-246409701.html.

222 That project was certificated at Dominion Transmission, Inc., 141 FERC 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 81 -

Project significantly predated the Cove Point Liquefaction Project and is not in any way 

connected with it. The Allegheny Storage Project consists of compression, pipeline, and 

storage facilities to be located on the Dominion Transmission system in Frederick 

County, Maryland; Monroe County, Ohio; Lewis County, West Virginia; and Tioga 

County, Pennsylvania, including the Myersville Compressor Station— a 16,000 

horsepower compressor station in Frederick County, Maryland. The compressor station 

serves to facilitate the transportation of natural gas on Dominion Transmission for 

deliveries into the Cove Point Pipeline. Those deliveries, however, are for Washington 

Gas Light, which has a series of gate stations into its distribution system along the Cove 

Point Pipeline. The Commission properly rejected claims of a connection between the 

Cove Point Liquefaction Project and the Allegheny Storage Project when it certificated 

the latter project, and reaches the same conclusion here.

254. In its December 20, 2012 order certificating the Allegheny Storage Project, the 

Commission rejected arguments by project opponents that the Myersville Compressor 

Station was being constructed to support Dominion’s LNG exports, stating that “[t]here is 

no indication in the record that any of the customers that have subscribed to the capacity 

created by the proposed facilities contemplate using that capacity to export natural 

gas.”223 In its order denying rehearing on this same point, the Commission explained that 

it was “not convinced that the Myersville Compressor Station reflects overbuild and that 

the gas transported by the project will ultimately be exported through the Cove Point 

LNG Terminal.”224 The Commission added, “[i]n addition to the fact that the capacity 

associated with the Allegheny Storage Project is fully subscribed, the project proposal 

stems from a 2007 agreement related to natural gas storage and firm transportation 

services, and is not associated in any way with the Cove Point LNG Terminal or potential 

export authority at the terminal.”225 

255. The commenting parties raising the same issue here have offered no new 

information that changes the Commission’s prior analysis. Earthjustice presents an 

analysis by Mr. Richard Kuprewicz that addresses whether Dominion Transmission’s

Myersville Compressor Station and related existing downstream mainline pipelines (PL1, PL-2, and TL485) were designed or positioned to help transport gas to the Cove Point 

 

¶ 61,240 (2012), order on reh’g, 143 FERC ¶ 61,148 (2013), petition for review pending

in Myersville Citizens for Rural Community v. FERC, D.C. Cir. Docket No. 13-1219. 

The project is currently under construction.

223 Dominion Transmission, Inc., 141 FERC ¶ 61,240 at n.16 (2012).

224 Dominion Transmission, Inc., 143 FERC ¶ 61,148 at P 32 (2013).

225 Id. at 33.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 82 -

Liquefaction Project for export.226 Mr. Kuprewicz reviewed non-public Critical Energy 

Infrastructure Information (CEII) material provided by Dominion in this proceeding, 

including the project Exhibit G flow diagrams, as well as the FERC Form 567 Annual 

Flow Diagram of both Dominion and Dominion Transmission.

227 Based upon his review 

of this data, Mr. Kuprewicz believes the evidence strongly suggests a connection between 

the two projects.228 Mr. Kuprewicz also claims there is a possibility that the Myersville 

Compressor Station was needed to achieve the capacity proposed in the Allegheny 

Storage Project. Mr. Kuprewicz relies on his observations of the design pressures from 

the flow diagrams in order to support his claims; he has not provided a hydraulic analysis 

of either the Dominion or Dominion Transmission system. Mr. Kuprewicz acknowledges

that additional information is needed to verify his conclusions; however, as discussed in 

more detail below, the records in the pending proceeding as well as in the Allegheny 

Storage Project do not support Mr. Kuprewicz’s claims.

256. Dominion asserts that the two projects are not linked or connected in any way with

each other. Dominion explains that the Myersville Compressor Station was designed to 

allow for the introduction of gas supplies to the Cove Point Pipeline in order to provide 

the new contractual obligations for Washington Gas Light to be delivered to multiple gate 

stations along the Cove Point Pipeline to serve customers in Virginia, Maryland, and 

Washington, DC.229 Dominion maintains that the Commission properly rejected the 

arguments by the opponents of the Allegheny Storage Project that the project was not 

needed in its December 20, 2012 Order certificating the project.230 

257. Commission staff has reviewed all the information provided by Dominion 

Transmission in the Allegheny Storage Project and by Dominion in the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project, paying particular attention to the design constraints within each 

hydraulic model used by the companies for each proceeding. Based upon our review of 

the information, the Commission concludes that, contrary to Earthjustice’s claims, 

Dominion and Dominion Transmission have designed each project as a separate or 

unlinked project. When evaluating the need for the Myersville Compressor Station in the 

 226 Earthjustice August 14, 2014 Comments at 1.

227 18 C.F.R. § 260.8 (2014).

228 Earthjustice August 14, 2014 Comments at 3.

229 In addition, the Myersville Compressor Station is needed to transport the 

contractual obligations of Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, the other shipper on the 

Allegheny Storage Project.

230 Dominion Transmission, Inc., 141 FERC ¶ 61,240 at P 66.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 83 -

Allegheny Storage Project, Commission staff paid close attention to the design/operating 

conditions that each compressor unit would encounter under design Peak Day conditions. 

For example, the Commission staff reviewed pressure losses and gas velocities along 

Dominion Transmission’s system downstream of the proposed Myersville Compressor 

Station for both the existing and proposed scenarios. In each case, all compressor units 

were operating within their design constraints and all gas velocities were within 

Dominion Transmission’s design constraints as well. As a result, all design delivery 

pressures were maintained above their minimum requirement, which is essential to 

meeting Dominion Transmission’s Peak Day market demand to its shippers.

258. In response to Earthjustice’s comments, Commission staff has re-confirmed the 

need for the Allegheny Storage Project’s Myersville Compressor Station, independent of 

Dominion’s proposed Cove Point Liquefaction Project. Staff’s review of the models 

shows that without the Myersville Compressor Station, while transporting the Allegheny 

Storage Project expansion volumes, the inlet pressures to Dominion Transmission’s

compressor stations (Quantico and Leesburg) located downstream of the proposed 

Myersville Compressor Station on Dominion Transmission’s existing mainline (PL-1, 

PL-2 and TL485) would be below the minimum operating design requirements. As a 

result of the minimum design pressures at the downstream compressor stations not being 

met, the compressor units could potentially shut down and not operate. This would cause 

the pipeline system to fail to meet both the pre-existing and the proposed Allegheny 

Storage Project gas transportation requirements simultaneously. Further, without the 

proposed Myersville Compressor Station, the gas velocities on Dominion Transmission’s

system would increase and two pipeline segments would approach or exceed Dominion 

Transmission’s upper design limit for gas velocities of 83 feet per second.231 As a result 

of this review, the Commission reaffirms its conclusion in the December 20, 2012 Order 

that the Myersville Compressor Station is required to meet the Allegheny Storage Project 

obligations to Dominion for further delivery to Washington Gas’ multiple gate stations on

the Dominion Cove Point Pipeline. 

259. The Commission notes that the Myersville Compressor Station will be used to 

meet peak contractual requirements and will be operated primarily during periods of high 

demand (operated on an intermittent basis) under a peak day scenario whereby adequate 

system pressure must be maintained on Dominion Transmission’s Line PL-1 mainline

system to meet required gas deliveries to customers during the anticipated peak gas 

demand periods experienced by Dominion Transmission’s shippers.232 It is under these 

conditions that Dominion Transmission’s need and use of the Myersville Compressor 

 231 Dominion Transmission’s response to Question No. 5 of Staff’s August 22, 

2012 Data Request at 5.

232 Dominion’s Draft EA at 90.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 84 -

Station is required to maintain system operating pressures while providing Washington 

Gas and Baltimore Gas and Electric their peak day delivery requirements necessary to 

meet their respective market demand. The Commission is aware that there will be times 

when the horsepower of compression will not be fully utilized. At those times, Dominion 

Transmission will be able to offer available capacity on its system to provide storage 

injection service, firm, and interruptible service to different markets. Depending upon 

the daily nominations, Dominion Transmission may be able to provide additional gas 

supplies, if nominated, to the Dominion Cove Point Pipeline for liquefaction. This 

situation is no different than operating conditions on other Commission regulated 

pipeline facilities. 

260. Mr. Kuprewicz also provides comments on the Cove Point Pipeline’s ability to 

reverse flow to allow for the export of LNG. Mr. Kuprewicz makes several observations 

regarding the design of the compression facilities proposed by Dominion in the Cove 

Point Liquefaction Project proceeding. Through his examination of the gas flowing 

pressure labeled on the flow diagrams, Mr. Kuprewicz makes the following observations: 

(1) the 600 psig pressure in the western portion of the pipeline may be caused by limits 

from upstream pipelines; and (2) it would appear that Dominion has elected to optimize 

overall compression at the Pleasant Valley Relay Compressor Station to reduce the 

required compression requirements within the Cove Point Liquefaction facility. Mr. 

Kuprewicz states that because the flow diagrams filed by Dominion in this proceeding, 

the Form 567 Annual Flow Diagrams for both Dominion and Dominion Transmission, 

and flow diagrams filed by Dominion Transmission in the Allegheny Storage Project

were incomplete, there are unanswered questions. 

261. The Commission has reviewed the information in the record, such as the Exhibit G

Flow Diagrams, and the hydraulic models, of both the Allegheny Storage Project and the 

Dominion Cove Point Liquefaction Project and concludes that Dominion and Dominion

Transmission have provided enough information in both proceedings to allow the 

Commission to properly evaluate and make an informed and reasoned determination

regarding the public convenience and necessity finding for both projects. Although much 

of the information regarding the proposed projects was incorporated in Dominion’s and 

Dominion Transmission’s Exhibit G Flow Diagrams, additional and more specific 

information was contained in the flow models submitted in both proceedings.

233 This is 

 233 Dominion Transmission and Dominion currently use the SynerGEE Gas 

pipeline simulation software to examine the flow characteristics and pipeline hydraulics. 

The Commission is currently licensed to use this and another commercially available 

pipeline simulation software package, Gregg Engineering, in order to review all pipeline 

related applications before the Commission. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 85 -

how the Commission was able to review the operating conditions on the pipeline 

facilities in order to reach a determination regarding the physical need for facilities. 

262. Mr. Kuprewicz’s concern regarding the receipt pressure of 600 psig is without 

merit. Although not stated by Dominion, the use of the 600 psig interconnect pressure 

will provide upstream interconnecting pipelines the ability to effectuate deliveries into 

the Cove Point Pipeline under widely diverse operating conditions on their respective 

systems. This will allow the upstream pipelines to maximize deliveries to Dominion’s 

system without the need for additional compression facilities on their respective systems. 

Based upon Dominion’s proposed design, the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station will 

re-pressurize the gas receipts from multiple pipelines, Dominion Transmission, Columbia 

Gas Transmission, and Transco, for further transportation on the Cove Point Pipeline 

with the opportunity to provide peak day gas requirements to Washington Gas and/or the 

Cove Point plant for liquefaction for export. Thus, we conclude that the 600 psig used as 

the design inlet pressure into Dominion’s facilities is appropriate to allow upstream 

pipelines greater operational flexibility to transfer gas volumes to Dominion’s facilities. 

263. Whether the commenting parties’ segmentation arguments focus on Dominion 

Transmission’s Myersville Compressor Station, Transco’s Atlantic Sunrise Project or any 

other upstream project, the facts here bear no resemblance to the situation in the recent 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline case cited by some commenters where multiple pipeline projects 

were found by the court to be “connected.”234 There, Tennessee proposed, in rapid 

succession, a series of four projects on a single pipeline facility which the court found,

combined, constituted “a complete overhaul and upgrade that was physically, 

functionally, and financially connected and interdependent.”235 The Court found “a clear 

physical, functional, and temporal nexus between the projects,” where “[t]he end result is 

a new pipeline that functions as a unified whole thanks to the four interdependent 

upgrades.”236 That is not the case here. The Cove Point Liquefaction Project is not in 

any way dependent upon, or physically, functionally, or financially connected with any 

upstream pipeline project. Therefore, the EA correctly concluded that there was no need 

to evaluate the effects of any upstream pipeline project.

 234 Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. FERC, Case No. 13-1015 (D.C. Cir., 

June 6, 2014).

235 Id., slip op. at 5.

236 Id. at 6.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 86 -

x. Alternatives

264. Commenters request further review of alternatives, including the no action 

alternative, and renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind. Commenters also 

state that building the facility will take focus away from developing renewables and 

transitioning off of fossil fuels. While alternative energy sources could be advanced in 

the future, it is speculative and beyond the scope of the EA analysis to predict the effect 

this would have on the use of natural gas for this project. The EA reviews the no action 

alternative and alternative energy sources and concludes that they will not meet the 

project objectives.237 While commenters may disagree with the project purpose, that 

purpose is to export gas for Dominion’s customers; as stated in the EA, the source of the 

natural gas supply and final uses of the gas are beyond the control of Dominion.238 As 

such, we find that the EA properly reviewed available alternatives to the project.

y. Sufficiency of the EA

265. Earthjustice states that the EA does not provide sufficient evidence that the project 

application included the environmental report information specified by 18 C.F.R.

§ 380.12. Specifically, Earthjustice requests that the Commission provide the exact 

location, including the docket accession and page number for several items listed in 18 

C.F.R. § 380.12(o)(1)-(5) including: detailed plot plans showing the location of all major 

components; detailed layouts of the fire protection system; layouts of the hazard detection 

system; detailed layouts of the spill containment system; and specifications and drawings 

of the fail-safe shut-off valves for the marine loading area.

266. This information was contained in Resource Report 13 of the application filed on 

April 1, 2013, as verified by staff prior to the April 12, 2013 Notice of Application issued 

in accordance with 18 C.F.R. § 157.9. Dominion provided overall plot plans showing the 

locations of the liquefaction area, pretreatment area, refrigerant and condensate storage 

area, new LNG loading pump area, marine transfer area, power generation area, and 

utility area. Resource Report 13 included overall plot plans showing the layout of 

firewater and foam piping, as well as locations of post indicator valves, hydrants, 

monitor, deluge valves, and sprinklers. The firewater monitor coverage area plot plan 

indicated sufficient protection of the major equipment. Dominion also provided the 

firewater tie-in locations to the existing firewater piping system.

267. The application and Dominion’s subsequent filings provided detailed unit plot 

plans for each area showing fire detectors, flammable gas detectors, low temperature, 

 237 EA at 175.

238 Id. at 18.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 87 -

hydrogen sulfide detector, alarm horn, strobe, and manual fire alarm pull station. 

Dominion provided a plot plan showing the spill containment system serving potential 

spills from equipment, as well as the associated impoundment basins, curbing, and 

trenches. Resource Report 13 also included a list of all shut-off valves and manufacture 

data and specification. The piping and instrumentation diagrams show locations of failsafe shut-off valves on the ship loading header and vapor return header. 

268. Earthjustice also states that the EA lacks a clear and comprehensive discussion of 

all the safety and hazard concerns to allow an independent reviewer to confirm staff’s 

conclusion regarding public safety impacts. Earthjustice comments that the Commission 

should provide clear citations to the record delineating the information used by staff to 

reach the conclusions contained in the EA. Specifically, Earthjustice states that the 

Commission must provide a listing of the page numbers and accession numbers for the 

detailed drawings depicting the proposed equipment, fire protection system, hazard 

detection system, and spill containment system that staff considered in preparing the EA.

269. We disagree. NEPA documents are intended to be succinct, plain language 

summaries of the proposed project and associated environmental impacts. The 

documents are not intended to provide a point-by-point description of staff’s review 

process or to serve as a directory for where information is located in the docket. Staff’s 

conclusions in the EA were based on the engineering information contained in Resource 

Report 13, as filed in the initial application and supplemented in data responses. This 

information, which is voluminous and technically complex, spans approximately 11,000 

pages, and includes descriptions of the facility equipment, the design basis, process 

systems, safety instrumentation, security systems, plant layout drawings, piping and 

instrumentation diagrams, spill containment, fire protection measures, hazard detection 

equipment, and electrical systems. As is done for all of the Resource Reports required 

for an application, staff independently reviews and verifies the information provided by 

the applicant. The EA summarizes staff’s review of the material contained in Resource 

Report 13 but is not intended to provide a detailed roadmap to all of the details in the 

application.

270. Earthjustice also contends that because many documents regarding facility 

compliance and operation have yet to be created or provided to the Commission, we 

cannot make a finding of no significant impact. In support of this argument, Earthjustice 

provides examples such as the Implementation Plan, the Operations Manual, and the Spill 

Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan) as documents necessary 

prior to any determination of impacts to public safety.

271. The Implementation Plan, as required by Environmental Condition 7, will describe 

how Dominion will comply with the requirements of this order. It cannot be completed 

until the Commission has issued a decision on authorizing the facility. The Operations 

Manual, as required by Environmental Condition 71, will address startup, shutdown, and 

routine operations of the export facilities. This manual will be based on the final design 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 88 -

information Dominion will develop after this order is issued. The SPCC Plan will 

specify procedures and measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts from fuel and 

oil spills during project construction. The SPCC Plan is not intended to address process 

fluids such as LNG and refrigerants during operation of the facility.

272. Notwithstanding the fact that all of this information will need to be provided to the 

Commission as required by the environmental conditions attached to this order, we find 

that the information available for use in preparing the EA was sufficient for our analysis 

of adverse impacts and development of appropriate mitigation measures. Accordingly, 

we conclude that the record is sufficient to make a “finding of no significant impact” of 

the project as conditioned.

273. The EA concludes that the project, as mitigated by the measures specified in the 

EA, does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment.239 In their comments on the EA, Earthjustice240 and others contend 

that the project is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

environment for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is warranted.241

274. Though the CEQ regulations do not provide an explicit definition of the term 

“significant impacts,” they do provide that whether a project’s impacts on the 

environment will be considered “significant” depends on both “context” and 

“intensity.”242 Context means that the “significance of an action must be analyzed in 

several contexts,” including “the affected region, the affected interest, and the 

locality.”243 With regard to “intensity,” the CEQ regulations set forth 10 factors agencies 

should consider, including: the unique characteristics of the geographic area, the degree 

to which the effects are highly controversial or highly uncertain or unknown, the degree 

to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions, whether the action is 

 239 EA at 186.

240 Commenting on behalf of Chesapeake Climate, EarthReports, Inc. doing 

business as Patuxent Riverkeeper; Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc.; Shenandoah Riverkeeper; 

Sierra Club; and Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc.

241 Earthjustice June 16, 2014 Comments at 4-29.

242 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (2014).

243 Id.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 89 -

related to other actions with insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts, and the 

degree to which the action may adversely affect threatened and endangered species.244

275. Commission staff determined that an EA was appropriate in this case because the 

proposed facilities would be within the footprint of the existing LNG terminal and 

because the relevant issues that needed to be considered were relatively small in number 

and well-defined. The impacts listed are discussed in detail above, and we are satisfied 

that the potential impacts are not significant. The EA concludes, and we agree, that the 

project would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. 

Thus, an EIS is not required. 

276. As detailed in the EA, the proposed Liquefaction Project will be located on just 

59.5 acres within the existing, fenced 131-acre operating industrial area which, in turn, is 

within the more than 1,000 acres of existing LNG Terminal property. Dominion also will 

make temporary use of approximately 190 acres of nearby off-site property. The new 

Virginia Facilities are limited to work at an existing compressor station and two existing 

metering and regulation sites on Dominion’s existing pipeline. The small amount of land 

involved in the project makes an EA adequate and appropriate to fully consider all 

environmental issues. Moreover, all previous construction at the LNG Terminal has 

already been extensively studied for environmental impacts in compliance with NEPA, 

and previously approved by the Commission.

277. The Commission’s reasoning regarding the Sabine Pass LNG export project is on 

point here. There, the Commission explained: “the staff determined that an EA was 

appropriate because all the proposed facilities would be within the footprint of the 

existing LNG terminal, which was previously the subject of an EIS, and the relevant 

issues that needed to be considered were relatively small in number and well-defined. 

The EA concludes, and we agree, that the Liquefaction Project would not have a 

significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Thus, an EIS is not 

required.”245

278. The commenters calling for an EIS here emphasize broad national issues of 

increased gas production and LNG exports. The Commission properly rejected these 

same general arguments when advanced by the Sierra Club seeking an EIS for the Sabine 

Pass LNG export project. As the Commission explained there: 

 244 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b) (2014).

245 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,039 at P 46, order on reh’g, 

140 FERC ¶ 61,076.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 90 -

Sierra Club appears to seek a much broader, nationwide 

review of the costs and benefits of LNG export and its 

impacts.... This expansive policy proposal is not before the 

Commission. What is before us is the Liquefaction Project, 

which will be located entirely within the footprint of the 

previously approved and currently operating Sabine Pass LNG 

terminal site. As a result, the project’s environmental impacts 

are relatively small in number and well-defined. The fact that 

Sierra Club disputes the Commission’s finding that it cannot, 

nor is it required to, undertake a comprehensive analysis of 

LNG exports and their associated potential environmental 

impacts, does not amount to a ‘controversy’ requiring the 

preparation of an EIS.246

This holding is equally applicable in the present case.

279. Several individuals reiterated comments received during the environmental 

scoping and review process indicating that the project is significant because the Cove 

Point Liquefaction Project would be one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in 

Maryland and would contribute to climate change. The EA states that the emissions 

identified for the project represent the maximum potential to emit with continuous 

operation, and are not directly comparable to past actual emissions from the LNG 

Terminal or other regional sources.

247 These other sources report emissions based on 

their actual operating loads and hours (which may be notably lower than the projected 

maximum potential to emit). Further, the new Liquefaction Project GHG sources are 

subject to prevention of significant deterioration permitting and must control the 

emissions to BACT levels. 

280. Finally, some commenters also argue that an EIS is appropriate because the 

project is “highly controversial,” citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4). As used there, “[t]he 

term ‘controversial’ refers to cases where a substantial dispute exists as to the size, 

nature, or effect of the major federal action rather than to the existence of opposition to a 

use.”248 There is no such controversy about the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, and the 

number of individuals or organizations opposing the project cannot create one.

 246 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, 140 FERC ¶ 61,076 at P 28, order on reh’g, 

140 FERC ¶ 61,076.

247 EA at 111.

248 Town of Cave Creek v. FAA, 325 F.3d 320, 331 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting from 

Found. For N. Am. Wild Sheep v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 681 F.2d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 

(continued ...)
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 91 -

4. Environmental Conclusions 

281. We have reviewed the information and analysis contained in the EA regarding the 

potential environmental effects of the project. Based on our consideration of the analysis 

in the EA and the discussion above, we conclude that if constructed and operated in 

accordance with Dominion's application and supplements, and in compliance with the 

environmental conditions in Appendix A/B to this order, our approval of this proposal 

would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment.

282. Any state or local permits issued with respect to the jurisdictional facilities 

authorized herein must be consistent with the conditions of this authorization. The 

Commission encourages cooperation between interstate pipelines and local authorities. 

However, this does not mean that state and local agencies, through application of state or 

local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities 

approved by this Commission.249

F. Sufficiency of Evidence on the Record

283. Earthjustice filed a request for a formal hearing to review the environmental 

impacts and public need for the proposed project. Although our regulations provide for a 

hearing, neither NGA sections 3, 7, nor our regulations require that such hearings be trialtype evidentiary hearings. When, as is usually the case, the written record provides a 

sufficient basis for resolving the relevant issues, it is our practice to provide for a “paper 

hearing.”250 That is the case here. We have reviewed the motions filed by Earthjustice 

 

1982).

249 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); National 

Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service Commission, 894 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1990); and 

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 52 FERC ¶ 61,091 (1990) and 59 FERC 

¶ 61,094 (1992).

250 See NE Hub Partners, L.P., 83 FERC ¶ 61,043, at 61,192 (1998), reh'g denied, 

90 FERC ¶ 61,142 (2000); Pine Needle LNG Co., LLC, 77 FERC ¶ 61,229, at 61,916 

(1996). Moreover, the courts have repeatedly recognized that even where there are 

disputed issues “[the Commission] need not conduct such a [evidentiary] hearing if they 

may be adequately resolved on the written record.” Moreau v. FERC, 982 F.2d 556, 568 

(D.C. Cir. 1993). See also Environmental Action v. FERC, 996 F.2d 401, 413 (D.C. Cir. 

1993); Alabama Power Co. v. FERC, 993 F.2d 1557, 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 92 -

and conclude that all issues of material fact relating to Dominion’s proposal are capable 

of being resolved on the basis of the written record. Therefore, there is no need for a 

trial-type evidentiary hearing. 

284. Statoil and Shell LNG requested a technical conference. We conclude that all 

material facts related to the issues raised by Statoil, Shell LNG, and other parties have 

been resolved on the basis of the written record, as discussed above. Thus, we find no 

reason to convene a technical conference in this proceeding.

285. The Commission on its own motion received and made a part of the record in this 

proceeding all evidence, including the application and exhibits thereto, and all comments 

submitted, and upon consideration of the record,

The Commission orders:

(A) Dominion’s application for authorization under NGA section 3 to construct, 

modify and operate LNG liquefaction and terminal facilities to export domestically 

produced natural gas, as detailed in its application, is granted as discussed in the body of 

this order.

(B) Dominion’s application for authorization under NGA section 7 to construct, 

install, own, operate and maintain facilities associated with the Cove Point Pipeline to 

transport natural gas to the LNG terminal, as detailed in its application, is granted as 

discussed in the body of this order.

(C) Dominion shall comply with the environmental conditions contained in 

Appendix B to this order.

(D) The construction of the proposed facilities shall be completed and made 

available for service within five years of the date of issuance of this order.

(E) Dominion must file not less than 30 days, or more than 60 days, before the 

in-service date of the proposed facilities an executed copy of the non-conforming 

agreements reflecting the non-conforming language and a tariff record identifying these 

agreements as non-conforming agreements consistent with section 154.112 of the 

Commission's regulations.

(F) Dominion must file not less than 30 days, or more than 60 days, before the 

in-service date of the proposed facilities, all negotiated rate agreements or a tariff record 

describing the negotiated rate agreements associated with this project.

(G) Dominion’s proposed incremental FTS recourse rate is approved.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 93 -

(H) Dominion must file not less than 30 days, or more than 60 days, before the 

in-service date of the proposed facilities, actual tariff records implementing the project.

(I) Dominion shall notify the Commission’s environmental staff by telephone, 

e-mail, or facsimile of any environmental noncompliance identified by other federal, 

state, or local agencies on the same day that such agency notifies Dominion. Dominion 

shall file written confirmation of such notification with the Secretary of the Commission

within 24 hours. 

By the Commission.

( S E A L )

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 94 -

Appendix A

Timely Interventions

Atlanta Gas Light Company and Virginia Natural Gas, Inc. (collectively)

CPV Maryland, LLC

EarthReports, Inc. (dba Patuxent Riverkeeper); Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc.; Shenandoah 

Riverkeeper; Sierra Club; and Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. 

(collectively) plus request for hearing

Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association 

Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia, Inc.

Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc.

BP Energy Company++

Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc.

Shell NA LNG LLC++

Statoil Natural Gas LLC+

Washington Gas Light Company+

+ Intervention included comments

++ Intervention included protest
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 95 -

Appendix B

Environmental Conditions

1. Dominion shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data 

requests) and as identified in the EA, unless modified by this order. Dominion 

must:

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a 

filing with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary);

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions;

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of 

environmental protection than the original measure; and

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of the Office of Energy 

Projects (OEP) before using that modification.

2. For the LNG facilities, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take all 

steps necessary to ensure the protection of life, health, property and the 

environment during construction and operation of the project. This authority shall 

include:

a. stop-work authority and authority to cease operation; and

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed 

necessary to assure continued compliance with the intent of the conditions 

of this order.

3. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary 

to ensure the protection of all environmental resources during construction and 

operation of the project. This authority shall allow:

a. the modification of conditions of the Order; and

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed 

necessary (including stop-work authority) to assure continued compliance 

with the intent of the environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or 

mitigation of adverse environmental impact resulting from project 

construction

4. Prior to any construction, Dominion shall file an affirmative statement with the 

Secretary, certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 96 -

Environmental Inspectors (EI), and contractor personnel will be informed of the 

EI’s authority and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the

environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming 

involved with construction and restoration activities. 

5. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EA, as supplemented by 

filed drawings and plans. As soon as they are available, and before the start of 

construction, Dominion shall file with the Secretary any revised detailed 

drawings or plans at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all 

facilities approved by this order. All requests for modifications of environmental 

conditions of this order or site-specific clearances must be written and must 

reference locations designated on these drawings or plans.

6. Dominion shall file with the Secretary detailed drawings or plans and aerial 

photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments 

or facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and 

other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been previously 

identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be 

explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a 

description of the existing land use/cover type, documentation of landowner 

approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or 

endangered species would be affected, and whether any other environmentally 

sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified 

on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by 

the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area.

This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by our Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and/or minor field 

realignments per landowner needs and requirements that do not affect other 

landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands.

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all facility location changes 

resulting from:

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures;

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species 

mitigation measures;

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or 

could affect sensitive environmental areas.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 97 -

7. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the authorization and before construction

begins, Dominion shall file an Implementation Plan for the review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP. Dominion must file revisions to the plan as 

schedules change. The plan shall identify:

a. how Dominion will implement the construction procedures and mitigation 

measures described in its application and supplements (including responses 

to staff data requests), identified in the EA, and required by this order;

b. how Dominion will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid 

documents, construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and 

specifications), and construction drawings so that the mitigation required at 

each site is clear to on-site construction and inspection personnel;

c. the number of EIs assigned for the facility sites, and how the company will 

ensure that sufficient personnel are available to implement the 

environmental mitigation;

d. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies 

of the appropriate materials;

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and 

instructions Dominion will give to all personnel involved with construction 

and restoration (initial and refresher training as the project progresses and 

personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the 

training session(s); 

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Dominion’s 

organization having responsibility for compliance;

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Dominion will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project 

scheduling diagram), and dates for:

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports;

(2) the environmental compliance training of on-site personnel;

(3) the start of construction; and

(4) the start and completion of restoration.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 98 -

8. Dominion shall employ at least two EIs for the project, one for the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project and one for the Virginia Facilities. The EIs shall be:

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation 

measures required by this order and other grants, permits, certificates, or 

other authorizing documents;

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of 

the environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see 

condition 6 above) and any other authorizing document;

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental 

conditions of this order, and any other authorizing document;

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors;

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions 

of this order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements 

imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies; and

f. responsible for maintaining status reports.

9. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Dominion shall file updated 

status reports on a monthly basis for the project until all construction and 

restoration activities are complete. On request, these status reports will also be 

provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting responsibilities. 

Status reports shall include:

a. an update on Dominion’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal 

authorizations;

b. the construction status of the project sites, work planned for the following 

reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in 

other environmentally-sensitive areas;

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance 

observed by each EI(s) during the reporting period (both for the conditions 

imposed by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit 

requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies);

d. a description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all 

instances of noncompliance, and their cost;

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented;
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 99 -

f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to 

compliance with the requirements of this order, and the measures taken to 

satisfy their concerns; and

g. copies of any correspondence received by Dominion from other federal, 

state, or local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, 

and Dominion’s response.

10. Dominion shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution 

procedure. The procedure shall provide landowners with clear and simple 

directions for identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation 

problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the project

facility sites. Prior to construction, Dominion shall mail the complaint 

procedures to each landowner whose property would be adjacent to the project or 

within 0.5 mile of the project facilities.

a. In its letter to landowners, Dominion shall:

(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with 

their concerns; the letter should indicate how soon a landowner 

should expect a response;

(2) instruct the landowners that if they are not satisfied with the 

response, they should call Dominion’s Hotline; the letter should 

indicate how soon to expect a response; and

(3) instruct the landowners that if they are still not satisfied with the 

response from Dominion’s Hotline, they should contact the 

Commission’s Dispute Resolution Division Helpline at 877-337-

2237 or at ferc.adr@ferc.gov.

b. In addition, Dominion shall include in its monthly status report a copy of a 

table that contains the following information for each problem/concern:

(1) the identity of the caller and date of the call;

(2) the location of the affected property;

(3) a description of the problem/concern; and

(4) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will 

be resolved, or why it has not been resolved.

11. Dominion must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP prior to 

introducing hazardous fluids into the project facilities. Instrumentation and 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 100 -

controls, hazard detection, hazard control, and security components/systems 

necessary for the safe introduction of such fluids shall be installed and functional.

12. Dominion must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before

placing into service the project facilities. Such authorization will only be 

granted following a determination that the facilities have been constructed in 

accordance with Commission approval and applicable standards, can be expected 

to operate safely as designed, and the rehabilitation and restoration of the right-ofway and other areas affected by the project are proceeding satisfactorily.

13. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, Dominion shall 

file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company 

official:

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable 

conditions, and that continuing activities will be consistent with all 

applicable conditions; or

b. identifying which of the authorization conditions Dominion has complied 

with or will comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas 

affected by the project where compliance measures were not properly 

implemented, if not previously identified in filed status reports, and the 

reason for noncompliance.

14. Dominion shall file the following information, stamped and sealed by the 

professional engineer-of-record, with the Secretary for review by the Director of 

OEP:

a. structure and foundation design drawings and calculations of the Cove 

Point Liquefaction Project;

b. foundations and pile design drawings and calculations for all vibratory 

equipment, including gas turbines, heat recovery steam generators, steam 

generators, and compressors supported on piles; and 

c. quality control procedures to be used for design and construction. 

In addition, Dominion shall file, in its Implementation Plan, the schedule for 

producing this information.

15. Prior to starting any work on the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station, 

Dominion shall file the results of the geotechnical investigation, foundation 

recommendations, project design, and construction details with the Secretary for 

review by the Director of OEP.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 101 -

16. Dominion shall file with the Secretary the final Artificial Reef Plan before 

implementation of the plan.

17. Within 7 days prior to the start of tree clearing in the Fenced Area and 

Offsite Area A between the dates of April 1 and August 31, Dominion shall 

conduct a survey to identify whether any nesting Birds of Conservation Concern 

(BCC) birds are present in the Fenced Area and Offsite Area A. If nesting BCC 

birds are identified, Dominion shall avoid tree clearing and other project activities 

within 50 feet of active nests until young have fledged the nest and vacated the 

project area, or it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest has been 

abandoned. We note that the Fenced Area is defined as the 131-acre area that 

includes the land-based components of the LNG Terminal.

18. Prior to commissioning of the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, Dominion

shall file with the Secretary the final landscaping plan, developed in consultation 

with the Maryland DNR, for the LNG Terminal sound barrier.

19. Prior to commissioning of the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, Dominion

shall file the final lighting distribution plan for the Cove Point Liquefaction 

Project, developed in consultation with the Maryland DNR, with the Secretary for 

review and written approval by the Director of OEP.

20. Prior to construction, Dominion shall install protective fencing around the buffer 

area for site 18CV505 at Offsite Area A.

21. Prior to construction, Dominion shall file a revised Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. The 

plan shall specify the precautions that Dominion will take to minimize fugitive 

dust emissions from construction activities and identify additional mitigation 

measures to control fugitive dust emissions of Total Suspended Particulates, 

particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5. 

microns (PM2.5), including:

a. identifying how Dominion will implement these measures (e.g., 

identification of speed limits, usage of speed limit signage, use of gravel at 

construction entrances to reduce track-out);

b. clarifying that the EI has the authority to determine if/when water or a 

palliative needs to be used for dust control; and

c. clarifying that the EI has the authority to stop work if the contractor does 

not comply with dust control measures.

22. Prior to commissioning of the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, Dominion

shall file with the Secretary the specific noise mitigation measures that would be 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 102 -

used on the ground flares and a noise analysis demonstrating that the noise from 

all of the equipment operated during commissioning (including ground flares) 

would not exceed a day-night sound level (Ldn) of 55 decibels on the A-weighted 

scale (dBA) at the nearby noise sensitive areas (NSA).

23. Prior to construction at the Terminal or Offsite Area A during nighttime 

hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am), Dominion shall file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a revised nighttime construction 

noise analysis and mitigation plan. The revised plan shall include:

a. clear identification of all NSAs within one half mile of Offsite Area A, the 

projected noise levels of construction activities at night at the NSAs, and 

the mitigation measures Dominion commits to implementing at Offsite 

Area A;

b. specifications regarding the input parameters that were modeled 

(particularly the number of each equipment and the consideration of backup alarms);

c. details for mitigation measures (e.g. height and material of moveable 

barriers, when back-up alarms over a spotter are required, the availability of 

lower-pitched back-up alarm equipment); and

d. noise information related to construction in the quarterly public newsletter, 

and clarification identifying who will receive this newsletter.

24. Dominion shall file a full load noise survey at the Cove Point Liquefaction Project

with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the Cove Point 

Liquefaction Project in service. If a full load condition noise survey is not 

possible, Dominion shall provide an interim survey at the maximum possible 

operation within 60 days of placing the Cove Point Liquefaction Project in service 

and file the full load operational survey within 6 months. If the noise attributable 

to the operation of all of the equipment at the LNG Terminal, under interim or full 

load conditions, exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Dominion shall 

file a report on what changes are needed and shall install the additional noise 

controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Dominion shall 

confirm compliance with the above requirement by filing a second noise survey 

with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise 

controls.

In its full load noise survey at the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, Dominion 

shall establish an additional measurement position representing a noise sensitive 

area to the east of the LNG Terminal. This position shall be located at the closest 

residence along Chesapeake Drive in Lusby, Maryland.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 103 -

25. Dominion shall file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days after 

placing the modified Pleasant Valley Compressor Station in service. If a full load 

condition noise survey is not possible, Dominion shall provide an interim survey 

at the maximum possible horsepower load and provide the full load survey within 

6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at the 

compressor station, under interim or full horsepower load conditions, exceeds an 

Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Dominion shall file a report on what changes 

are needed and should install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 

1 year of the in-service date. Dominion shall confirm compliance with the above 

requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 

60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

Measures 26 to 76 shall apply to the proposed Cove Point Liquefaction Project at 

Dominion Cove Point’s LNG Terminal. Information pertaining to these specific 

recommendations shall be filed with the Secretary for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP either: prior to initial site preparation; prior to construction of final 

design; prior to commissioning; prior to introduction of hazardous fluids; or prior to 

commencement of service, as indicated by each specific condition. Specific 

engineering, vulnerability, or detailed design information meeting the criteria specified in 

Order No. 683 (Docket No. RM06-24-000), including security information, should be 

submitted as critical energy infrastructure information pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 388.112. 

See Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 683, 71 Fed. Reg. 58273 

(Oct. 3, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,228 (2006). Information pertaining to items 

such as: offsite emergency response; procedures for public notification and evacuation; 

and construction and operating reporting requirements, will be subject to public 

disclosure. All information shall be filed a minimum of 30 days before approval to 

proceed is requested.

26. Prior to initial site preparation, Dominion shall provide procedures for 

controlling access during construction.

27. Prior to initial site preparation, Dominion shall file the quality assurance and 

quality control procedures for construction activities.

28. Prior to initial site preparation, Dominion shall file a plot plan of the final 

design showing all major equipment, structures, buildings, and impoundment 

systems.

29. Prior to initial site preparation, a technical review of facility design shall be 

filed that: 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 104 -

a. identifies all combustion/ventilation air intake equipment and the distances 

to any possible hydrocarbon release (LNG, flammable refrigerants, 

flammable liquids, and flammable gases); and 

b. demonstrates that these areas are adequately covered by hazard detection 

devices and indicate how these devices would isolate or shutdown any 

combustion equipment whose continued operation could add to or sustain 

an emergency.

30. Prior to initial site preparation, Dominion shall resize the Trucking Area Sump 

to adequately contain the maximum content of a condensate truck.

31. Prior to initial site preparation, Dominion shall file its updated Emergency 

Response Plan (ERP) to include the Cove Point Liquefaction Project as well as 

instructions to handle on-site refrigerant and NGL-related emergencies. 

32. Prior to initial site preparation, Dominion shall file an ERP that includes a CostSharing Plan identifying the mechanisms for funding all project-specific 

security/emergency management costs that would be imposed on state and local 

agencies. In addition to the funding of direct transit-related security/emergency 

management costs, this comprehensive plan shall include funding mechanisms for 

the capital costs associated with any necessary security/emergency management 

equipment and personnel base. 

33. The final design shall include information/revisions pertaining to Dominion’s

response numbers 3, 19, 21, and 64 of its July 16, 2013 filing, which indicated 

features to be included or considered in the final design.

34. The final design shall include change logs that list and explain any changes made 

from the Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) provided in Dominion’s

application and filings. A list of all changes with an explanation for the design 

alteration shall be provided and all changes shall be clearly indicated on all 

diagrams and drawings.

35. The final design shall provide up-to-date Process Flow Diagrams with heat and 

material balances and piping and instrumentation designs (P&IDs), which include 

the following information: 

a. equipment tag number, name, size, duty, capacity, and design conditions; 

b. equipment insulation type and thickness; 

c. valve high pressure side and internal and external vent locations;

d. piping with line number, piping class specification, size, and insulation type 

and thickness; 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 105 -

e. piping specification breaks and insulation limits; 

f. all control and manual valves numbered; 

g. relief valves with set points; and

h. drawing revision number and date. 

36. The final design shall provide P&IDs, specifications, and procedure that clearly 

show and specify the tie-in details required to safely connect the project to the 

existing facility.

37. The final design shall provide an up-to-date complete equipment list, process and 

mechanical data sheets, and specifications.

38. The final design shall provide complete drawings and a list of the hazard 

detection equipment. The drawings shall clearly show the location and elevation 

of all detection equipment. The list shall include the instrument tag number, type 

and location, alarm indication locations, and shutdown functions of the hazard 

detection equipment.

39. The final design shall provide complete plan drawings and a list of the fixed and 

wheeled dry-chemical, hand-held fire extinguishers, and other hazard control 

equipment. Drawings shall clearly show the location by tag number of all fixed, 

wheeled, and hand-held extinguishers. The list shall include the equipment tag 

number, type, capacity, equipment covered, discharge rate, and automatic and 

manual remote signals initiating discharge of the units.

40. The final design shall provide facility plans and drawings that show the location 

of the firewater and foam systems. Drawings shall clearly show: firewater and 

foam piping; post indicator valves; and the location of, and area covered by, each 

monitor, hydrant, deluge system, foam system, water-mist system, and sprinkler. 

The drawings shall also include P&IDs of the firewater and foam system.

41. The final design shall include an updated fire protection evaluation of the 

proposed facilities carried out in accordance with the requirements of National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 59A 2001, chapter 9.1.2 as required by 49 

C.F.R. Part 193. A copy of the evaluation, a list of recommendations and 

supporting justifications, and actions taken on the recommendations shall be filed.

42. The final design shall specify that for hazardous fluids, piping and piping nipples 

2 inches or less are consistent with the existing facility’s piping specifications.

43. The final design shall include drawings and details of how process seals or 

isolations installed at the interface between a flammable fluid system and an 

electrical conduit or wiring system meet the requirements of NFPA 59A. 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 106 -

44. The final design shall provide an air gap or vent installed downstream of process 

seals or isolations installed at the interface between a flammable fluid system and 

an electrical conduit or wiring system. Each air gap shall vent to a safe location 

and be equipped with a leak detection device that: shall continuously monitor for 

the presence of a flammable fluid; shall alarm the hazardous condition; and shall 

shutdown the appropriate systems.

45. The final design shall provide electrical area classification drawings.

46. The final design shall provide spill containment system drawings with dimensions 

and slopes of curbing, trenches, and impoundments.

47. The final design of the hazard detectors shall account for the calibration gas when 

determining the lower flammability limit (LFL) set points for methane, propane, 

ethane, and condensate.

48. The final design shall include a hazard and operability review of the completed 

design prior to issuing the P&IDs for construction. A copy of the review, a list of 

recommendations, and actions taken on the recommendations, shall be filed.

49. The final design shall include the cause-and-effect matrices for the process 

instrumentation, fire and gas detection system, and emergency shutdown (ESD) 

system. The cause-and-effect matrices shall include alarms and shutdown 

functions, details of the voting and shutdown logic, and set points.

50. The final design shall include a drawing that shows the location of the ESD 

buttons. ESD buttons shall be easily accessible, conspicuously labeled, and 

located in an area which would be accessible during an emergency.

51. The final design shall include a plan for clean-out, dry-out, purging, and tightness 

testing. This plan shall address the requirements of the American Gas 

Association’s Purging Principles and Practice required by 49 C.F.R. Part 193, and 

shall provide justification if not using an inert or non-flammable gas for cleanout, 

dry-out, purging, and tightness testing.

52. The final design shall include the sizing basis and capacity for the final design of 

pressure and vacuum relief valves for major process equipment, vessels, and 

storage tanks.

53. The final design shall provide the procedures for pressure/leak tests which address 

the requirements of ASME VIII and ASME B31.3, as required by 49 C.F.R. Part 

193.

54. The final design shall provide the specifications, procedures, and schedule to 

modify the tunnel expansion joints.
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 107 -

55. The final design shall either set the pressure relief valves at the Mole Sieve Gas 

Dehydrators to the design pressure of the closed loop system or design the Mole 

Sieve Gas Dehydrators and the associated hot piping system for the regeneration 

design temperature and the feed gas design pressure of the pretreatment system. 

56. The final design shall include double isolation for each sulfur removal vessel. 

Manual isolation valves shall be installed upstream of the inlet pneumatic valve 

and downstream of the outlet pneumatic valve with vent and purge connections 

between the manual and pneumatic valves.

57. The final design shall provide coarse mesh strainers in the bottom outlet piping of 

the adsorbers to prevent support material and molecular sieve migrating from 

Mole Sieve Gas Dehydrators to the piping system. 

58. The final design shall provide a redundant low temperature shutdown system for 

the Flash Gas Compressors. The set point shall be set at no less than -50°F. 

59. The final design of the Ethane Make-Up Drum and associated piping system shall 

include stress analysis of the system at the equilibrium temperature of the Ethane 

at barometric pressure.

60. The final design shall provide all tests, investigations, and reports to ensure the 

existing firewater system’s compatibility and reliability. 

61. The final design shall equip the hydrocarbon removal unit (HRU) Column with 

permanent drainage piping to the cold flare, designed for cryogenic conditions. 

62. The final design shall provide drainage piping to the cold flare from the Nitrogen 

Stripper Reboiler bottom inlet piping and Nitrogen Stripper bottom outlet piping 

upstream of the shutoff valve. 

63. The final design shall equip the Stabilizer with permanent drainage piping to the 

flare system. 

64. The final design of the refrigerant and stabilized condensate storage system shall 

provide dual full capacity relief valves that allow the isolation of individual 

pressure relief valves while providing full relief capacity during pressure relief 

valve maintenance or testing. 

65. Dominion shall certify that the final design is consistent with the information 

provided to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as described in the 

design spill determination letter dated February 27, 2014 (Accession Number 

20140227-4004) and supplemental information filed by Dominion on March 7, 

2014 (Accession Numbers 20140307-5050 and 20140307-5051), March 14, 2014 

(Accession Numbers 20140314-5099 and 20140317-5100), and April 11, 2014 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 108 -

(Accession Numbers 20140411-5252 and 20140411-5253). In the event that any 

modifications to the design alters the candidate design spills on which the Title 49 

C.F.R. Part 193 siting analysis was based, Dominion shall consult with DOT on 

any actions necessary to comply with Part 193.

66. The final design shall include the details of the vapor fences as well as procedures 

to maintain and inspect the vapor barriers provided to meet the siting provisions of 

49 C.F.R. § 193.2059.

67. Prior to commissioning, Dominion shall file plans and detailed procedures for: 

testing the integrity of on-site mechanical installation; functional tests; 

introduction of hazardous fluids; operational tests; and placing the equipment into 

service.

68. Prior to commissioning, Dominion shall provide a detailed schedule for 

commissioning through equipment startup. The schedule shall include milestones 

for all procedures and tests to be completed: prior to introduction of hazardous 

fluids; and during commissioning and startup. Dominion shall file documentation 

certifying that each of these milestones has been completed before authorization to 

commence the next phase of commissioning and startup will be issued.

69. Prior to commissioning, Dominion shall tag all equipment, instrumentation and 

valves in the field, including drain valves, vent valves, main valves, and car-sealed 

or locked valves.

70. Prior to commissioning, Dominion shall file a tabulated list and drawings of the 

proposed hand-held fire extinguishers. The list shall include the equipment tag 

number, extinguishing agent type, capacity, number, and location. The drawings 

shall show the extinguishing agent type, capacity, and tag number of all hand-held 

fire extinguishers.

71. Prior to commissioning, Dominion shall file updates addressing the liquefaction 

facilities in the operation and maintenance procedures and manuals, as well as 

safety procedures.

72. Prior to commissioning, Dominion shall maintain a detailed training log to 

demonstrate that operating staff has completed the required training.

73. Prior to introduction of hazardous fluids, Dominion shall complete a firewater 

pump acceptance test and firewater monitor and hydrant coverage test. The actual 

coverage area from each monitor and hydrant shall be shown on facility plot 

plan(s).

74. Prior to introduction of hazardous fluids, Dominion shall complete all pertinent 

tests (Factory Acceptance Tests, Site Acceptance Tests, Site Integration Tests) 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 109 -

associated with the Distributed Control System and the Safety Instrumented 

System that demonstrates full functionality and operability of the system.

75. Prior to commencement of service, Dominion shall label piping with fluid 

service and direction of flow in the field in addition to the pipe labeling 

requirements of NFPA 59A.

76. Prior to commencement of service, progress on the construction of the proposed 

systems shall be reported in monthly reports filed with the Secretary. Details 

shall include a summary of activities, problems encountered, contractor 

non-conformance/deficiency logs, remedial actions taken, and current project

schedule. Problems of significant magnitude shall be reported to the Commission

within 24 hours.

Measures 77 to 79 shall apply throughout the life of the facility:

77. The facility shall be subject to regular Commission staff technical reviews and site 

inspections on at least an annual basis or more frequently as circumstances 

indicate. Prior to each Commission staff technical review and site inspection, 

Dominion shall respond to a specific data request, including information relating 

to possible design and operating conditions that may have been imposed by other 

agencies or organizations. Up-to-date detailed P&IDs reflecting facility 

modifications and provision of other pertinent information not included in the 

semi-annual reports described below, including facility events that have taken 

place since the previously submitted semi-annual report, shall be submitted.

78. Semi-annual operational reports shall be filed with the Secretary to identify 

changes in facility design and operating conditions, abnormal operating 

experiences, activities (including ship arrivals, quantity and composition of 

imported and exported LNG, liquefied and vaporized quantities, boil-off/flash gas, 

etc.), plant modifications, including future plans and progress thereof. 

Abnormalities shall include, but not be limited to: unloading/loading/shipping 

problems, potential hazardous conditions from off-site vessels, storage tank 

stratification or rollover, geysering, storage tank pressure excursions, cold spots on 

the storage tanks, storage tank vibrations and/or vibrations in associated cryogenic 

piping, storage tank settlement, significant equipment or instrumentation 

malfunctions or failures, non-scheduled maintenance or repair (and reasons 

therefore), relative movement of storage tank inner vessels, hazardous fluids 

releases, fires involving hazardous fluids and/or from other sources, negative 

pressure (vacuum) within a storage tank and higher than predicted boil-off rates. 

Adverse weather conditions and the effect on the facility also shall be reported. 

Reports shall be submitted within 45 days after each period ending June 30 and 

December 31. In addition to the above items, a section entitled “Significant Plant 

Modifications Proposed for the Next 12 Months (dates)” also shall be included in 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 110 -

the semi-annual operational reports. Such information would provide Commission

staff with early notice of anticipated future construction/maintenance projects at

the LNG facility.

79. Significant non-scheduled events, including safety-related incidents (e.g., LNG, 

condensate, refrigerant, or natural gas releases, fires, explosions, mechanical 

failures, unusual over pressurization, and major injuries) and security-related 

incidents (e.g., attempts to enter site, suspicious activities) shall be reported to 

Commission staff. In the event an abnormality is of significant magnitude to 

threaten public or employee safety, cause significant property damage, or interrupt 

service, notification shall be made immediately, without unduly interfering with 

any necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or other emergency 

procedure. In all instances, notification shall be made to Commission staff within 

24 hours. This notification practice shall be incorporated into the LNG facility’s 

emergency plan. Examples of reportable hazardous fluids related incidents 

include:

a. fire; 

b. explosion;

c. estimated property damage of $50,000 or more;

d. death or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization;

e. release of hazardous fluids for 5 minutes or more;

f. unintended movement or abnormal loading by environmental causes, such 

as an earthquake, landslide, or flood, that impairs the serviceability, 

structural integrity, or reliability of an LNG facility that contains, controls, 

or processes hazardous fluids;

g. any crack or other material defect that impairs the structural integrity or 

reliability of an LNG facility that contains, controls, or processes hazardous 

fluids; 

h. any malfunction or operating error that causes the pressure of a pipeline or 

LNG facility that contains or processes hazardous fluids to rise above its 

maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) (or working pressure for 

LNG facilities) plus the build-up allowed for operation of pressure limiting 

or control devices; 

i. a leak in an LNG facility that contains or processes hazardous fluids that 

constitutes an emergency; 
Docket No. CP13-113-000 - 111 -

j. inner tank leakage, ineffective insulation, or frost heave that impairs the 

structural integrity of an LNG storage tank;

k. any safety-related condition that could lead to an imminent hazard and 

cause (either directly or indirectly by remedial action of the operator), for 

purposes other than abandonment, a 20 percent reduction in operating 

pressure or shutdown of operation of a pipeline or an LNG facility that 

contains or processes hazardous fluids; 

l. safety-related incidents to hazardous fluids vessels occurring at or en route 

to and from the LNG facility; or

m. an event that is significant in the judgment of the operator and/or 

management even though it did not meet the above criteria or the guidelines 

set forth in an LNG facility’s incident management plan.

In the event of an incident, the Director of OEP has delegated authority to take 

whatever steps are necessary to ensure operational reliability and to protect human 

life, health, property, or the environment, including authority to direct the LNG 

facility to cease operations. Following the initial company notification, 

Commission staff would determine the need for a separate follow-up report or 

follow-up in the upcoming semi-annual operational report. All company followup reports shall include investigation results and recommendations to minimize a 

reoccurrence of the incident.