{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-09-0020","title":"Illinois Commerce Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-08-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-09-0020 response to Illinois Commerce Commission concerning 192.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0020","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2010/PI-09-0020.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nof Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nAUG 1 1 2010\nMr. Darin R. Burk\nManager, Pipeline Safety\nIllinois Commerce Commission\n527 East Capitol Avenue\nSpringfield,IL 62701\nDear Mr. Burk:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nOctober 14, 2009, you requested an interpretation regarding the applicability ofthe pipeline\nsafety regulations to certain pipelines operated by United States Steel Corporation (USS) in the\nvicinity of its Granite City Works (GCW) steelmaking complex in southern Illinois. These\npipelines consist of: (1) natural gas pipelines transporting natural gas supplied by Centerpoint\nEnergy's Mississippi River Transmission (MRT) pipeline to various GCW facilities; and (2) a\npipeline transporting coke oven gas produced in one GCW facility and transported to another\nGCW facility for processing and burning. You stated that the GCW complex consists of a\nnumber of facilities separated by one State highway and several public streets which are\naccessible to the public. You asked whether the pipeline safety regulations applied to these lines\nand if so whether they should be classified as distribution lines or transmission lines.\nNatural Gas Pipelines\nWith respect to the natural gas pipelines, you stated that the GCW complex receives the natural\ngas through four taps from the MRT pipeline. Three of the taps are located on the grounds of\nGCW facilities and connect to an interconnected system of pipes within and between the\nfacilities. You stated that the system of piping that connects to the three taps leave the GCW\nproperty boundaries six times. You stated the fourth tap is off of a separate MRT transmission\nline and is located outside of the facility's property. You stated that you had no indication that\nthe natural gas pipelines operate above 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS).\nThe Federal pipeline safety laws in 49U.S.C. 60101 et seq. apply to the gathering, transmission,\nand distribution of natural and other gas by pipeline. Typically, a transmission pipeline\ntransporting gas to a destination facility such as a large volume customer is subject to the\npipeline safety laws and regulations up to the point where pressure control changes from the\npipeline operator to the destination facility operator (which can be on the grounds of the facility).\nBeyond that point, piping operated by the facility operator entirely on the grounds ofthe facility\nis considered \"in-plant piping\" and would not be subject to the pipeline safety regulations\nalthough it may be subject to State building codes or other regulations. In this case, however, the\nnatural gas pipelines operated by GCW are not located entirely on the geographically contiguous\ngrounds of a facility. Rather, these lines depart GCW facilities and cross roads and highways\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the fonn of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts\npresented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to\nhelp the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\naccessed by the public, albeit for relatively short distances. To the extent such lines are not on\nplant property they are subject to the pipeline safety laws. Historically, PHMSA has elected not\nto apply the Federal gas pipeline safety regulations to such lines ifthey are associated with the\nplant, meaning they are operated by plant personnel, run between plant buildings, and are less\nthan one mile in length. PHMSA, however, would not object to a State regulating the portions of\nsuch lines that are not on plant property ifthe State determined there was a need. Note that a\nState that regulates its intrastate gas pipelines under a Public Utility Commission (PUC) may\nneed to determine whether the PUC is restricted to only regulating \"public utilities\" which GCW\npresumably is not.\nWith respect to the question of whether such a line is a transmission line or a distribution line,\nPHMSA has not taken a position on that since we currently do not regulate such lines as stated\nabove. If a State decided to begin regulating such lines, one possible approach the State could\ntake would be to provide advance notice to operators of such lines that it would treat a line\noperated below 20% SMYS as a distribution line and a line operated above 20% SMYS as a\ntransmission line, provide an opportunity for comment as appropriate under State procedures,\nand publish a final policy.\nCoke Oven Gas Pipeline\nWith respect to the coke oven gas pipeline, you stated that a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons\nproduced by the facility is transported several thousand linear feet before it is burned. You\nfurther stated that most ofthis distance is located under the public right of way, some of which\nruns beneath a public sidewalk outside the fence from the facility in which the gas is burned.\nBecause the coke oven gas is produced in one GCW facility and is transported to another GCW\nfacility under public right-of-way and public sidewalk, this pipeline is subject to the pipeline\nsafety regulations. With respect to classifying such a line as a transmission or a distribution line,\nyou could take a similar approach as the one suggested above.\nWe were pleased to see that you secured a commitment by USS to comply with Illinois' pipeline\nsafety requirements as evidenced by its letter of May 1, 2009. Your participation in the\nFederal/State pipeline safety program is greatly appreciated.\nI hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me\nat (202) 366-4046.\nS~9J Y\" -~\\\n/ll~7 ~>U\n!~k6ale0\nI Director, Office of Regulations\n!\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and\nare provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nPHP Controlled Correspondence Sheet\nPHMSA Control Number: Action Office: PHP- 30\nPHP Control Number: 10-0010 Due Date:12/16/2009\nWriter: Darin R. Burk\nSubject: ; Re: Jurisdictional issues related to transportation of gas in\nand near industrial facility\nAction: Interpretation\nDate Action Action by\nDate Note Note by\nFor more information please contact:\nGlenda Marshall, Glenda.marshall@dot.gov\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS\nILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION\nOctober 14, 2009\nOCT 15 2009\nMr. Jeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator of Pipeline Safety\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\nMail Stop: E24-455\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nRE: Jurisdictional issues related to transportation of gas in and near industrial facility\nDear Mr. Wiese:\nI would like to request a pipeline safety regulatory interpretation letter concerning\nthe application of the United States Department of Transportation's pipeline safety rules\nat 49 CFR 192 (\"Part 192\") to several sets of facts and circumstances related to the\ntransportation of gas in southwestern Illinois. The Illinois Commerce Commission\n(\"ICC\") has adopted Part 192 by reference as its Minimum Safety Standards for\nTransportation of Gas and for Gas Pipeline Facilities (83 III. Adm. Code 590.10), under\nauthority of the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act (220 ILCS 20).\nEach of the questions below relates to the transportation of gas by a corporation\nthat owns and operates a large steelmaking facility (the \"facility\"). This letter refers to\nthe corporation as the \"operator,\" consistent with the definition of that term at 49 CFR\n192.3. One state highway and several public streets run through the facility, separating\nit into at least four separate parcels of real property. Two different types of gas are\ninvolved: (1) gas from several taps off of the transmission lines of a federally regulated\ninterstate natural gas pipeline (referred to below as \"natural gas\"), and (2) flammable\nhydrocarbon gas derived from the process whereby coal is heated in an oven to make\ncoke (referred to below as \"coke oven gas\"). The facts and circumstances as we\nunderstand them, and our questions, are as follows:\nNatural Gas\nPlease refer to the diagram entitled \"GCW Natural Gas System.\" There are four\ntaps through which the facility receives natural gas from an interstate pipeline operated\nby Mississippi River Transmission Corporation I Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission\n(\"MRT/Centerpoint\"). Three of these taps (shown as MRT 1 through MRT 3) are\nlocated on property owned by the operator of the facility, and connect to an\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, JIlinois 62701 [TDD (\"VITTY\" (217) 782-7434}\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nMr. Jeffrey D. Wiese\nOctober 14, 2009\nPage 2\ninterconnected system of pipes, partly on and partly not on the facility operator's\nproperty, that transport natural gas to several locations within the facility, where it is\nused in steelmaking processes. The fourth tap is off of a separate MRT/Centerpoint\ntransmission line, is not located on the facility operator's property, and connects to pipe\n(referred to by the operator as the \"South Plant Line\") that carries natural gas to a\nfacility in the \"South Plant\" portion of the facility.\nOne question is related to the system connected to the three taps, and one\nquestion relates both to that system and to the South Plant Line.\nNatural Gas System other than South Plant Line\nThe MRT/Centerpoint line is shown with arrows at each end on the attached\ndiagram. The three taps off of this line all exist on the property of the facility owner, but\nthe system of piping to which they connect leaves the property six times: twice on\nEdwardsville Road (Illinois Route 203), twice on 21st Street, and twice on 20th Street.\nThe pipeline system operates at a pressure of 150 psig. Our understanding is that the\ninterstate pipeline operator odorizes the pipeline gas at .25 pounds/MMCF, as\ncompared to the .50 to .75 pounds/MMCF level at which most gas on distribution\nsystems in our region is odorized.\nWe have reviewed PHMSA's diagram entitled \"Operator Responsibility - Drawing\n3\" which addresses \"Operator Responsibility - Intrastate Direct Sales LateraL\" That\ndrawing shows the portion of an intrastate direct sales lateral that is jurisdictional to the\nstate in two different scenarios. In addition, we have reviewed PI#-97-008 and PI#-96002,\nto which we were referred by a representative of the operator.\nNeither portion of the drawing, and neither of the cited Pipeline Interpretations\ndirectly addresses the situation about which we are inquiring, in which the interstate\npipeline tap, along with any metering and pressure regulation, is located inside the\nproperty line of the factory, but the system piping leaves the factory property and enters\ngovernmental property (that is a public street or highway) six times before finally\nentering the portion of the property on which the natural gas is consumed.\nOur question is whether the Natural Gas System other than the South Plant Line\ncontains pipeline over which the Illinois Commerce Commission has pipeline safety\njurisdiction under Part 192, including the definitions in 49 CFR 192.3.\nQuestion Concerning GCW Natural Gas System, including South Plant Line\nAgain, please refer to the diagram entitled \"GCW Natural Gas System.\" This\nquestion applies to all portions of the GCW Natural Gas System over which the Illinois\nCommerce Commission is determined to have pipeline safety jurisdiction under Part\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 [TDD (\"VITTY\" (217) 782-7434}\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nMr. Jeffrey D. Wiese\nOctober 14, 2009\nPage 3\n192: Does all or any part of the system consist of transmission line? In terms of the\ndefinition of \"transmission line\" in 49 CFR 192.3, it can be assumed for purposes of this\nquestion that the line is not a gathering line, that none of the relevant transportation of\ngas takes place in a storage field. Also, we have received no indication that any of the\npipeline operates at a hoop stress of 20% or more of specified minimum yield strength.\nThe question thus revolves around whether the line, in effect, \"transports gas\nfrom a gathering line or storage facility to a distribution center, storage facility, or large\nvolume customer that is not down-stream from a distribution center.\" In considering this\nquestion, we have reviewed PHMSA Interpretation PI#-77-028, which stated that a line\nwas a transmission line even though it was not connected to storage facilities or\ngathering lines, but was connected to an interstate transmission line. We have also\nreviewed the Discussion of Comments that accompanied the Federal Register\npublication of the final rule that included the Section 192.3 definition of \"transmission\nline\" in its current form. Included with the discussion was the following:\nWe did not specify a minimum volume of gas a pipeline must transport to\na customer to qualify as transmission. Volumes vary, and setting an\narbitrary threshold might unfairly reclassify some existing lines. However,\nsince \"large volume customer\" and \"distribution center\" each mark the end\nof transmission under the definition, operators may use the volume of gas\nsupplied to distribution centers as a guide to identifying large volume\ncustomers. [61 Fed. Register at 28772]\nTo reiterate, our question is whether any of the GCW Natural Gas System fits\nwithin the definition of \"transmission line\" at 49 CFR 192.3.\nGCW Coke Oven Gas\nOur understanding of the coke gas process is that the coke oven heats coking\ncoal to a point that yields a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons, certain liquids, and other\nchemicals. This flammable gaseous output is collected and transported to downstream\nfacilities at which liquids and some other substances are removed, after which the coke\noven gas is transported by pipeline to the point at which it will be burned. A detailed\ndescription and drawing of the process from the heating of coking coal in the ovens\nthemselves to the point at which the coke oven gas is metered and piped to the hot strip\nmill is attached.\nOur understanding is that between the point at which the coke oven gas is\nmetered and the point at which it is burned, there is piping extending for a distance of\nseveral thousand linear feet, most of which is located under public rights of way, and\nsome of which is buried under a public sidewalk outside the fence from the steel plant in\nwhich the gas is burned. In response to communications we have received from the\noperator, we have reviewed a number of documents to which the operator has referred\nus, including PHMSA Interpretations #PI-76-041, 92-010, 92-046, and 93-060, as well\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701/TDD (\"VITTY\" (217) 782-7434J\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nMr. Jeffrey D. Wiese\nOctober 14, 2009\nPage 4\nas 92 CFR 192.1 (b)(5)(ii) and the 92 CFR 95.2 definition of \"production facility.\" We\ncannot, however, reach the operator's conclusion that the thousands of linear feet of\npipeline situated underneath publicly owned right-of-way are not jurisdictional to the\nICC. We would appreciate your thoughts on this issue.\nIf your conclusion is that the pipeline is jurisdictional to the ICC, we have another\nquestion, related to the proper classification of the line. We have reviewed the definition\nof \"transmission line\" at 49 CFR 192.3, the application of which depends in large\nmeasure upon the meaning of the term \"gathering line,\" which in turn appears to be\ndetermined in accordance with 49 CFR 192.8 and Recommended Practice 80 of the\nAmerican Petroleum Institute (incorporated by reference at 49 CFR 192.7).\nOur question is whether any portion of the pipeline used to transport coke oven\ngas from the facility in which it is produced to the facility in which it is burned falls within\nthe definition of \"transmission line,\" or whether all of this pipeline is properly classified\nas \"distribution line\" under 49 CFR 192.3.\nConclusion\nWe have enclosed, as background to our inquiry, correspondence that has\npassed between the operator and the staff of the Commission. If you require any\nfurther information in order to answer our questions, or if you have any other questions\nconcerning these inquiries, please contact me.\nSincerely,\nDarin R. Burk\nManager-Pipeline Safety\nEnclosures:. Drawing-\"GCW Natural Gas System\"\nDrawing-\"Coke Plant Process Flow\"\nCorrespondence between ICC and Operator\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 fTDD (\"VITTY\" (217) 782-7434J\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nI\n\\\n• GCW Coke Oven Gas\nGCW Coke Oven Gas System\n------_._._._._-_._._._.-. ---_._._._._._.-\n1\nr'-'-'-'-' r'-'-'-'-'-'\n,...._._._._._._.-\n.-' -'1\n.'.\n1-._._._._.-._. 1\n1\n\" ,\n. _ . _ . _ . _ . _l ._ . _ \"\n---I GCW Line!]\n'- -l-'-'-'-\n,\n'I\n( .\n18\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nGCW Natural Gas System\nr' _. _. _. -' _. -' _. -1~ronMaki~g-'\n- i _. _. _.\nr . - . - . - 1- . - '.\nI--~ -~-I\nNorth Plant r-' -.,\nL'_'_'_'_'_'_._._ j\n\" ,\n1..._ ......\n[Steel~orks-\nMRT owned/operated\nFuel Gas Piping GCW owned/operated\nSouth Plant Line GCW owned/operated\n- . - . - . - GCW Propery Lines\n-_.--_._._._._-\n, '.\nGCW Property\nLines\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS\n. .\nILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION\nMay 22,2008\nMr. Jeffrey Parmley\nUnited States Steel Corporation\nGranite City Works\n1951 State Street\nGranite City, Illinois 62040\nDear Mr. Parmley\nPer our discussion during our meeting on May 6, 2008, the following has been\ndetermined.\nThe Gas piping owned and operated by United States Steel Corporation (USS) is\njurisdictional under the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act identified as 220A ILCS 20\n(copies were supplied to your staff during our meeting). Under these requirements both\nthe Coke Gas Pipeline and the piping transporting natural gas downstream of the\nMRT/Centerpoint meter facility will be jurisdictional, due to transportation of a flammable\ngas as defined in Section 2.02 of the Act.\nThe jurisdiction for the Coke gas line will begin at the outlet of the gas purification\nprocess upstream of the two compressors and will end at the point furthest downstream\nwhere the pipeline enters the last building wall. If there are branches off this line, each\nbranch will also be included up to the point of entry to each building it serves. The\njurisdiction will include the operation and maintenance of the compressor units.\nThe 150 psig lateral downstream of the point of delivery from MRT (Centerpoint)\nbecomes jurisdictional at the point of transfer (usually a station outlet valve or isolation\nflange) up to the point of entry to the last building served by this pipeline. This also\nincludes any branches off the main line.\nBoth lines will be classified as Transmission Lines due to the lack of supplying a\ndistribution system. With the Transmission requirements defined in Part 192, the\nnumber of pipeline patrols and leak surveys will be determined by applying the\nappropriate class location as defined in 192.5 Class Location. The line will be\nconsidered as transporting unodorized gas and will require leak surveys to be\nperformed, using leak detection equipment at the prescribed intervals, as defined by\n192.706.\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Rlinois 62701lTDD (\"VnTY\" (217) 782-7434J\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nMr. Jeffrey Parmley\nMay 22,2008\nPage 2\nJurisdiction requires that USS follow the applicable requirements specified under\nPart 191,192, 199, defined in CFR Title 49, which was adopted as the Minimum Safety\nStandards applicable to the operation of a pipeline transporting a flammable gas within\nthe boundaries of the State of Illinois.\nThese requirements include the establishment of a Procedural Manual for\nOperations, Maintenance and Emergencies applicable to the pipelines being operated\nby USS. This requirement is defined in CFR 49 Part 192.605. After creating and\napproving such manual, USS is to supply a copy to the Pipeline Safety Section of the\nICC for review. The manual will remain on file for Mure reference. As this manual is\nupdated, revised, or changed in any manner by USS, a copy of those revisions shall be\nsent to the Pipeline Safety Section for review and updating of our file copy. If a review\nidentifIeS the plan fails to meet the requirements as defined in Part 192 or Illinois\nAdministrative Codes adopted by the Commission, Staff will request the applicable\nsection(s) to be revised.\nAny construction, repairs, or replacement of jurisdictional piping, or components\nshall meet the minimum requirements for pipeline design as specified in Subpart 0 of\nPart 192. All pipelines and appurtenance must be constructed with qualified materials\nas defined by Subpart B and C of Part 192, or Company requirements whichever is\nmore stringent. When piping is installed or replaced, qualified joining procedures shall\nbe established to ensure the process being used will produce joints with sufficient\nstructural integrity for the application and pressures being used. The persons\nperforming the joining must also be qualified to perform the joining (welding or plastic\nfusion) as defined by Subpart E and/or F within Part 192. Any new piping or\ncomponents installed must be pressure tested to ensure their integrity as defined in\nSubpart J or K of Part 192.\nIf the piping transporting the flammable gas is constructed of steel, the piping\nshall be adequately coated and protected against corrosion as defined by Subpart I of\nPart 192.\nPersons or employees of USS, or contractors working for USS must be qualified\nto perform covered tasks as defined in Subpart N of Part 192. This section requires\nUSS to establish an Operator Qualification Plan and implement a qualification program,\nto ensure that the persons performing covered tasks have the required skills and\nabilities to conduct the task safely, react to Abnormal Operating Conditions. The State\nof Illinois has a training requirement identified as Illinois Administrative Code Part 520\nincludes training requirements. A copy of the Code is available through the\nCommission web site at www.icc.illinois.gov.This Part stipulates the requirement for\nproviding the necessary training to ensure your employees have the ability to perform\ntheir jobs when working on or near gas pipelines. To ensure USS is performing the\nrequired surveys, tests and maintenance the Pipeline Safety Section of the ICC will\nconduct annual audits of the records completed per the requirements of part 191, 192\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, minois 62701 {TDD (\"VITTY\" (217) 782-7434/\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nMr. Jeffrey Parmley\nMay 22, 2008\nPage 3\nand 199. If deficiencies are noted during this audit the Commission has the ability to\ninitiate enforcement actions that can include civil penalties.\nEmployees or individuals performing work on or near the pipeline will also be\nrequired to be included in a Drug and Alcohol testing program as defined in Part 199 of\nCFR49.\nIf high consequence areas are identified along either of the pipeline systems, an\nIntegrity Management Program may be required under Subpart 0 of Part 192. Staff\nrequests that the Potential Impact Radius be established using the available guidelines\nas defined in 192.903 and 192.905.\nUSS will also be required to establish a Public Awareness Program as defined in\n192.616 of Subpart L Operations. This is required to inform the public living near the\nfacility, the Local Public Officials, and Emergency Responders of the hazards that could\noccur due to the transportation of a flammable gas. The information should include the\nplans and procedures in place to operate the system in a safe manner, as well as a\nmethod to report a pipeline emergency.\nThis is a brief overview of the requirements as defined in CFR Part 191, 192, and\n199. Part 191 establishes the annual reporting requirements for operators of a\nTransmission Pipeline system and incident reporting requirements. If you have any\nquestions, feel free to call me at 217-414-9609.\nincerelY\nI iJ~·\n~ Jim Watts\nPipeline Safety Analyst\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 {TDD (\"ViITY\" (217) 782-7434J\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS\nILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION\nApril 2, 2009\nMr. Anthony Bridge\nVice President-Operations, East\nUnited States Steel\n600 Grant Street\nPittsburgh, PA 15219-2800\nDear Mr. Bridge:\nOn May 5, 2008, the Illinois Commerce Commission (\"ICC\") Pipeline Safety\nProgram, received National Response Center (\"NRC\") Incident Report #869878 from\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (\"PHMSA\") Central Region\nOffice. The report stated that there had been a release of materials from an\nunderground internal pipeline due to a hole in a line at US Steel Granite City Works\n(\"USS\"). The incident occurred May 4,2008, at 18:26 local time. The reporting party\nwas Carl Hannon of USS. The material released was identified as coke oven gas.\nMr. Hans Shieh of the PHMSA Central Region Office reported that he had\nspoken to Mr. Hannon of USS. Mr. Shieh identified the pipeline as an intrastate line\nfalling under ICC regulatory jurisdiction. He requested that the ICC conduct an\ninvestigation.\nOn May 13, 2008, ICC Pipeline Safety Program Staff (\"Staff\") met with\nrepresentatives of the USS Maintenance, Services and Utilities Department. The USS\nrepresentatives stated that they currently operated two pipelines in the Granite City area\nto supply gas to the USS facility.\nOne line carried coke gas and other carried natural gas. USS representatives\nstated that they had experienced multiple releases on the 16\"and 18\" pipeline used to\ntransport coke gas generated by the coke manufacturing process. The coke gas is\ngathered and compressed to 20-25 psig using two compressor units. The pipeline is\nconstructed of 16\"and 18\" steel, is approximately 10,000 feet in length and is\nconstructed of 1950 to 1990 vintage steel. ICC Staff requested that USS initiate weekly\nleakage surveys of the coke gas pipeline based on the leakage history and the condition\nof the pipeline as indicated by the photographs taken by USS.\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, fflinois 62701 {TDD (\"V/1TY\" (217) 782-7434J\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nMr. Anthony Bridge\nApril 2, 2009\nPage 2\nStaff determined and informed the USS representatives that both pipelines\noperated at USS fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the ICC. Staff summarized the\nconstruction, operation, maintenance, qualification, anti-drug testing and reporting\nrequirements contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (\"CFR\"), Title 49, Parts 190,\n191,192 and 199.\nStaff sent a letter to Mr. Jeffery Parmley of USS on May 22, 2008. The letter\nadvised USS that the two pipelines owned and operated by USS were jurisdictional to\nthe ICC under the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act (220 ILCS 20). The letter stated that\nthe coke gas pipeline was jurisdictional from the outlet of the gas purification process,\nupstream of the two compressors, to the point downstream where the pipeline enters\nthe last building wall, and that any branch lines off of the main pipeline would also fall\nunder ICC jurisdiction. The letter also identified as jurisdictional the second pipeline\noperated by USS, that is, certain piping from the MiSSissippi River Transportation\ncustody transfer point to the last building served by the pipeline. Based on the\ninformation available at that time, both pipelines were classified as transmission\npipelines. The letter summarized parts of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,\nas well as requirements of 83 III. Adm. Code 520 applicable to the two pipelines.\nOn February 24,2009, a meeting was held with USS representatives and ICC\nStaff. Discussions during the meeting revealed that USS had not yet come into\ncompliance with the CFR Title 49 or Illinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements.\nStaff has determined that USS is in apparent noncompliance with the following\nSubparts of CFR Title 49 requirements:\nCFR Part 192 Subpart A - General\nUSS does not have plans and procedures relating to the\nmaintenance of the pipelines.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart B - Materials\nUSS has not demonstrated that the pipelines are constructed of\nsuitable materials.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart C - Pipe Design\nUSS has not demonstrated that the pipelines meet design\nrequirements.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart D - Design of Pipeline Components\nUSS has not demonstrated that each component of the pipelines\nmeet the design requirements.\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701/TDD (\"WlTY\" (217) 782-7434/\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nMr. Anthony Bridge\nApril 2, 2009\nPage 3\nCFR Part 192 Subpart E - Welding of Steel in Pipelines\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the\npipelines were joined by qualified welders performing the welding in\naccordance with qualified welding procedures.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart F - Joining of Materials Other than by Welding\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the\npipeline components were joined as required.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart H - Customer Meters, Service Regulators, and\nService Lines '\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the\nservice regulators and service lines meet the minimum\nrequirements.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart I - Requirements for Corrosion Control\nUSS has not installed, monitored, and maintained corrosion control\non the pipelines.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart J - Test Requirements\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the\npipelines and components were tested as required.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart L - Operations\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the\npipelines have been operated in compliance with this Subpart.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart M - Maintenance\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the\npipelines have been maintained as require by this Subpart.\nCFR Part 192 Subpart N - Operator Qualification\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that covered\ntasks performed on the pipes have been conducted by qualified\nindividuals.\nCFR Part 199 Subpart A - General\nUSS has not provided documentation demonstrating that\nindividuals performing tasks on the pipelines are subject to an antidrug\nand alcohol testing program.\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 {TDD (\"V/lTY\" (217) 782-7434/\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nMr. Anthony Bridge\nApril 2, 2009\nPage 4\nCFR Part 199 Subpart B - Drug Testing\nUSS has not maintained and followed a written anti-drug testing\nplan.\nCFR Part 199 Subpart C - Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program\nUSS has not maintained and followed a written alcohol misuse\nplan.\nIn addition, depending on the configuration of pipeline facilities and the\npressure at which gas is transported, USS may be in violation of one or both of\nthe following: 49 CFR 192, Subpart G (General Construction Requirements for\nTransmission Lines and Mains), and 49 CFR 192, Subpart 0 (Transmission\nPipeline Integrity).\nStaff has also determined that USS is in apparent noncompliance with Illinois\nAdministrative Code, Title 83: Public Utilities, Chapter I: Illinois Commerce Commission,\nSubchapter d: Gas Utilities, Part 520, Training Programs for Natural Gas System\nOperating Personnel. USS has not demonstrated that individuals performing tasks on\nthe pipelines are trained as required.\nDue to the findings of apparent noncompliance with both the applicable sections\nof the Code of Federal Regulations and the Illinois Administrative Code identified above,\nyou are requested to reply in writing, within 30 days of receipt of this letter, as to why\nUnited States Steel should not be found in noncompliance with Section 6, and subject to\npenalty assessments as allowed under Section 7, of the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act\n(220 ILCS 20/6 and 7). Your response should also include what steps United States\nSteel has taken or expects to take, and the dates when those steps will be taken to\nbring your natural gas pipeline facilities and the operation of those pipelines into\ncompliance with the Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, and Illinois Administrative\nCode Title 83 requirements. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please\ncontact me at (217) 785-1165.\nSincerely,\n;t9~~4£~\nDarin R. Burk\nManager - Pipeline Safety\nCc: Ms. Kathryn M. Scotti, Attorney, United States Steel Corporation\n527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, lUinois 62701{TDD (\"VI1TY\" (217) 782-7434}\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nUnited States Steel Corporation\n600 Grant Street\nPittsburgh, PA 15219-2800\nMay 1,2009\nMr. Darin R. Burk\nManager-Pipeline Safety\nIllinois Commerce Commission\n527 East Capitol Avenue\nSpringfield, IL 62701\nREceIVED\nMAY 042009\nIllinois Commerce Commission\nGAS PIPELINE SAFETY\nDear Mr. Burk,\nIn your letter, dated April 2, 2009, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC)\nrequested that United States Steel Corporation (USS) specifically reply to several items.\nUSS, with full reservation of rights, replies as follows!:\n1. United States Steel Corporation should not be penalized nor found in\nnoncompliance with the Illinois Pipeline Safety Act.\nThe coke oven gas (COG) line, to the best of our knowledge, was planned and\ninstalled in three parts. The first portion of the line was designed and installed in 1951\nand 1952. A second section was designed and installed in 1961 and a third section was\ndesigned and installed in 1967. Most sections of the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations,\ndirectly related to the Illinois Pipeline Safety Regulations, were implemented in 1970.\nThe sections relating to design and construction are not retroactive before the date that\nthe applicable sections were implemented. See Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,\nSection 192.13.\nTherefore, even if inadequacies exist, USS should not be subject to any penalties nor\nfound in noncompliance for inadequate design or construction, including inadequate\nmaterials, pipe design, design of pipe components, welding requirement, or joining\nrequirements, for any parts of the COG pipelines that were in use prior to 1970 or 1971.\nUSS voluntarily and pro-actively self-reported the May 4, 2008 leak in our COG line\nto the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) which\napparently forwarded the report to the National Response Center (NRC). According to\nyour letter, the NRC informed the ICC of the leak, and requested the ICC complete an\ninvestigation.\nI United States Steel Corporation hereby reserves the right to challenge this application of the Illinois\nPipeline Safety Act and, by extension, the Federal Pipeline Safety Act to USS pipelines located at USS's\nGranite City Works, for any reason.\n\n<<<PAGE 18>>>\n\n. 'v\nUSS is a manufacturing operation, not a pipeline company or a utility. Thus, USS did\nnot consider that the COG or natural gas pipelines might be subject to Federal or state\npipeline safety regulations.\nNevertheless, upon receipt of the ICC's notification that USS's Granite City Works\nCOG pipeline was potentially out of compliance with Federal and state regulations, USS\nimmediately and voluntarily moved towards compliance by taking the following actions:\n•\nFirst, USS immediately retained an OS qualified contractor,\nUtility Safety and Design, Inc. (USDI) , to perform pipeline\nleak surveys. These surveys have been consistently negative\nfor leaks.\n•\nSecond, USS immediately replaced the COG pipeline segment\nresponsible for the May 4, 2008 leak.\nNow that USS is aware that the COG and natural gas pipelines may be subject to\nFederal and state pipeline safety regulations despite USS's status as a manufacturer, USS\nintends to bring the COG and natural gas pipelines into full compliance with any\napplicable codes, regulations or requirements.\nTo that end, USS retained M.K. Technologies to assist USS in bringing Granite City\nWorks pipelines into full compliance with any applicable codes, regulations or\nrequirements.\nThese actions clearly show that USS was and is moving towards compliance with\nSection 6 of the Illinois Pipeline Safety Act, and thus should not be subject to any penalty\nassessments.\nIn addition, please note that USS currently has two opinions that the natural gas line\nis not a transmission line, but is rather a distribution line. The pipeline safety\nrequirements for transmission lines and distribution lines differ greatly. C. Lindsay\nEnloe, from USDI, and Larry Kotys and Paul Oleksa, from M.K. Technologies, have\neach shared their opinion with USS on this matter. Mr. Kotys' and Mr. Oleksa's written\nopinion is attached as \"Attachment A\" to this letter, and USS respectfully requests\nadditional dialogue with the ICC so this matter can be appropriately resolved. USS\nshould not be found in noncompliance nor subject to any penalty assessments for any\npotential deficiencies in the natural gas pipeline as apparently reasonable differences of\ninterpretation exist among consultants in this matter.\n2. Steps that United States Steel Corporation has taken and plans to take to\nbring itself into compliance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, and\nIllinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements.\n2 USDI is currently OQ qualified for other pipeline operators, and will become qualified to USS standards\nas soon as practicable after such standards have been developed.\n\n<<<PAGE 19>>>\n\nUSS is fully committed to becoming compliant with all applicable pipeline safety\ncodes, regulations and requirements. To that end, USS has dedicated various internal\nresources to this project. Additionally, USS has retained two firms mentioned above,\nM.K. Technologies and USDI, to assist USS in coming into full compliance with Title\n49, Code of Federal Regulations and Illinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements\non an accelerated time schedule.\nUSDI, an OQ qualified contractor, is performing weekly leak surveys.\nM.K. Technologies is experienced in planning and implementing Integrity\nManagement Programs and other pipeline safety regulations. USS has full confidence\nthat M.K. Technologies will appropriately and swiftly guide USS to full compliance with\nall applicable pipeline safety codes, regulations and requirements.\n3. Timeline to bring the USS Pipelines into compliance.\nThere are many steps necessary to bring the USS pipelines into full compliance with\nTitle 49, Code of Federal Regulations and Illinois Administrative Code Title 83\nrequirements, if it is assumed that such regulations and requirements are applicable. The\nsteps being taken by USS are enumerated below, and the requested timeline is available\nin graph form as \"Attachment B\". USS anticipates full compliance in the month of\nFebruary, 2010.\n1. a. b. c. 2. 3. Initial on-site inspection. (Completed the week of April 18.)\nMeet with USS personnel to review operation and maintenance ofthe\ntwo pipelines.\nMeet with USS personnel to review known operating characteristics of\nthe two pipelines.\nMake preliminary determination of High Consequence Areas (HCAs)\nfor purposes of an Integrity Management Program (IMP).\nLeak detection (To be completed the week of May 16,2009.)\na. To fully implement the ICC recommendation for weekly leakage\nsurveys, write the procedure for leakage surveys and patrols.\nb. c. Implement forms and records, as appropriate.\nGet appropriate operating personnel OQ qualified to perform patrols\nand leak detection surveys. This may require assistance from outside\nvendors (e.g., equipment manufacturers).\nWrite and implement an Emergency Manual. (Note that manuals are\n\"living documents\" and will be updated on a continuing basis.) (To be\ncompleted the week of June 6, 2009.)\na. Input from one or more Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to be supplied","truncated":true,"body_characters":123838}