{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220071003W","title":"BBT ALATENN, LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-01-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.459, 192.475(b), 192.625(b)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220071003w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220071003w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220071003w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220071003W","body":"Warning Letter involving BBT ALATENN, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.459,  192.475(b),  192.625(b)(1). The case was opened on 2007-01-26 and is reported as closed as of 2007-01-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220071003W_Warning Letter_01262007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220071003W/220071003W_Warning%20Letter_01262007.pdf\n\n220071003W_Warning Letter_01262007.pdf\n\nU.S. Deporlmenl\nof Tronsporfotion\nPlpetlne ond\nHozqrdous ilotedols Sofety\nAdminlclrstlon\n233 Peachtree Street Ste. 600\nAdanta, GA 30303\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\nJanuary 26,2007\nMr. Rich Adams\nVice President\nEnbridge Pipelines (AlaTenn) LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nSuire 3300\nHouston. Texas77002\ncPF 2-2007-1003W\nDear Mr. Adams:\nOn 18 to 20 December 2006, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nrecords in Muscle Shoals, Alabama and facilities in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n$192.459 External corrosion control: Examination of buried pipeline when\nexposed. Whenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried\npipeline is exposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence of external\ncorrosion ifthe pipe is bare, or ifthe coating is deteriorated. Ifexternal corrosion\nrequiring remedial action under $$192.483 through 192.489 is found, the operator\nshall investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed portion\n(by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether additional\ncorrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinify of the exposed portion.\nEnbridge did not have records indicating the external examination for corrosion ofpipe\nexposed as part of work involved with a Teruressee Departrnent of Transportation\n\n\n\n)\n3.\nproject on US Highway 64 near Selmer, Tennessee. Subsequent to the PHMSA\ninspection, Enbridge documented the examination when personnel examined a piece of\nthe removed pipe held in their yard. Enbridge also reviewed project records and\ninterviewed project personnel. Enbridge found no evidence of corrosion on the pipe,\nnone was documented in daily project records, and project personnel did not see any\nwhen they checked the pipe as it was removed.\nS192,475 Internal corrosion control: General'\n(b) whenever any pipe is removed from a pipetine for any reason, the internal\nsurface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion.\nEnbridge did not have records indicating the intemal examination for corrosion of pipe\nremoved as part of work involved with a Tennessee Department of Transportation\nproject on IJS Highway 64 near Selmer, Tennessee. Subsequent to the PHMSA\ninspection, Enbridge documented the inspection when personnel examined a piece of\nthe removed pipe held in their yard. Enbridge also reviewed project records and\ninterviewed project personnel. Enbridge found no evidence of corrosion on the pipe'\nnone was documented in daily project records, and project personnel did not see any\nwhen they checked the pipe as it was removed.\n9192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be\nodorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit'\nthe gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.\n(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a Class 3\nor class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this\nsection unlessl\n(1) At least 50 percent of the length of the line downstream from that location is in\na Class I or Class 2 location\nThe last 3.93 miles of Enbridge's l0\" and 12\" Decaturto Huntsville pipelines are in\nClass 3 areas in Madison County, Alabama. The natural gas is not odorized.\nUnder 49 United States Code, S 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violations persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000\nfor any related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action\nor penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified\nin ihis letter. Be advised that failwe to do so will result in Enbridge Pipelines (AlaTenn) LLC\nbeing subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\ncPF 2-2007-1003W.\no\n\n\n\nSincerely,\n.h w6\n/ Linda Daugherty\nDirector, Southern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safetv Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":4980}