# Illinois Commerce Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration AUG 1 1 2010 Mr. Darin R. Burk Manager, Pipeline Safety Illinois Commerce Commission 527 East Capitol Avenue Springfield,IL 62701 Dear Mr. Burk: In a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated October 14, 2009, you requested an interpretation regarding the applicability ofthe pipeline safety regulations to certain pipelines operated by United States Steel Corporation (USS) in the vicinity of its Granite City Works (GCW) steelmaking complex in southern Illinois. These pipelines consist of: (1) natural gas pipelines transporting natural gas supplied by Centerpoint Energy's Mississippi River Transmission (MRT) pipeline to various GCW facilities; and (2) a pipeline transporting coke oven gas produced in one GCW facility and transported to another GCW facility for processing and burning. You stated that the GCW complex consists of a number of facilities separated by one State highway and several public streets which are accessible to the public. You asked whether the pipeline safety regulations applied to these lines and if so whether they should be classified as distribution lines or transmission lines. Natural Gas Pipelines With respect to the natural gas pipelines, you stated that the GCW complex receives the natural gas through four taps from the MRT pipeline. Three of the taps are located on the grounds of GCW facilities and connect to an interconnected system of pipes within and between the facilities. You stated that the system of piping that connects to the three taps leave the GCW property boundaries six times. You stated the fourth tap is off of a separate MRT transmission line and is located outside of the facility's property. You stated that you had no indication that the natural gas pipelines operate above 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). The Federal pipeline safety laws in 49U.S.C. 60101 et seq. apply to the gathering, transmission, and distribution of natural and other gas by pipeline. Typically, a transmission pipeline transporting gas to a destination facility such as a large volume customer is subject to the pipeline safety laws and regulations up to the point where pressure control changes from the pipeline operator to the destination facility operator (which can be on the grounds of the facility). Beyond that point, piping operated by the facility operator entirely on the grounds ofthe facility is considered "in-plant piping" and would not be subject to the pipeline safety regulations although it may be subject to State building codes or other regulations. In this case, however, the natural gas pipelines operated by GCW are not located entirely on the geographically contiguous grounds of a facility. Rather, these lines depart GCW facilities and cross roads and highways The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the fonn of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations. <<>> 2 accessed by the public, albeit for relatively short distances. To the extent such lines are not on plant property they are subject to the pipeline safety laws. Historically, PHMSA has elected not to apply the Federal gas pipeline safety regulations to such lines ifthey are associated with the plant, meaning they are operated by plant personnel, run between plant buildings, and are less than one mile in length. PHMSA, however, would not object to a State regulating the portions of such lines that are not on plant property ifthe State determined there was a need. Note that a State that regulates its intrastate gas pipelines under a Public Utility Commission (PUC) may need to determine whether the PUC is restricted to only regulating "public utilities" which GCW presumably is not. With respect to the question of whether such a line is a transmission line or a distribution line, PHMSA has not taken a position on that since we currently do not regulate such lines as stated above. If a State decided to begin regulating such lines, one possible approach the State could take would be to provide advance notice to operators of such lines that it would treat a line operated below 20% SMYS as a distribution line and a line operated above 20% SMYS as a transmission line, provide an opportunity for comment as appropriate under State procedures, and publish a final policy. Coke Oven Gas Pipeline With respect to the coke oven gas pipeline, you stated that a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons produced by the facility is transported several thousand linear feet before it is burned. You further stated that most ofthis distance is located under the public right of way, some of which runs beneath a public sidewalk outside the fence from the facility in which the gas is burned. Because the coke oven gas is produced in one GCW facility and is transported to another GCW facility under public right-of-way and public sidewalk, this pipeline is subject to the pipeline safety regulations. With respect to classifying such a line as a transmission or a distribution line, you could take a similar approach as the one suggested above. We were pleased to see that you secured a commitment by USS to comply with Illinois' pipeline safety requirements as evidenced by its letter of May 1, 2009. Your participation in the Federal/State pipeline safety program is greatly appreciated. I hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (202) 366-4046. S~9J Y" -~\ /ll~7 ~>U !~k6ale0 I Director, Office of Regulations ! The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations. <<>> PHP Controlled Correspondence Sheet PHMSA Control Number: Action Office: PHP- 30 PHP Control Number: 10-0010 Due Date:12/16/2009 Writer: Darin R. Burk Subject: ; Re: Jurisdictional issues related to transportation of gas in and near industrial facility Action: Interpretation Date Action Action by Date Note Note by For more information please contact: Glenda Marshall, Glenda.marshall@dot.gov <<>> STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION October 14, 2009 OCT 15 2009 Mr. Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration East Building, 2nd Floor Mail Stop: E24-455 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Jurisdictional issues related to transportation of gas in and near industrial facility Dear Mr. Wiese: I would like to request a pipeline safety regulatory interpretation letter concerning the application of the United States Department of Transportation's pipeline safety rules at 49 CFR 192 ("Part 192") to several sets of facts and circumstances related to the transportation of gas in southwestern Illinois. The Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC") has adopted Part 192 by reference as its Minimum Safety Standards for Transportation of Gas and for Gas Pipeline Facilities (83 III. Adm. Code 590.10), under authority of the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act (220 ILCS 20). Each of the questions below relates to the transportation of gas by a corporation that owns and operates a large steelmaking facility (the "facility"). This letter refers to the corporation as the "operator," consistent with the definition of that term at 49 CFR 192.3. One state highway and several public streets run through the facility, separating it into at least four separate parcels of real property. Two different types of gas are involved: (1) gas from several taps off of the transmission lines of a federally regulated interstate natural gas pipeline (referred to below as "natural gas"), and (2) flammable hydrocarbon gas derived from the process whereby coal is heated in an oven to make coke (referred to below as "coke oven gas"). The facts and circumstances as we understand them, and our questions, are as follows: Natural Gas Please refer to the diagram entitled "GCW Natural Gas System." There are four taps through which the facility receives natural gas from an interstate pipeline operated by Mississippi River Transmission Corporation I Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission ("MRT/Centerpoint"). Three of these taps (shown as MRT 1 through MRT 3) are located on property owned by the operator of the facility, and connect to an 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, JIlinois 62701 [TDD ("VITTY" (217) 782-7434} <<>> Mr. Jeffrey D. Wiese October 14, 2009 Page 2 interconnected system of pipes, partly on and partly not on the facility operator's property, that transport natural gas to several locations within the facility, where it is used in steelmaking processes. The fourth tap is off of a separate MRT/Centerpoint transmission line, is not located on the facility operator's property, and connects to pipe (referred to by the operator as the "South Plant Line") that carries natural gas to a facility in the "South Plant" portion of the facility. One question is related to the system connected to the three taps, and one question relates both to that system and to the South Plant Line. Natural Gas System other than South Plant Line The MRT/Centerpoint line is shown with arrows at each end on the attached diagram. The three taps off of this line all exist on the property of the facility owner, but the system of piping to which they connect leaves the property six times: twice on Edwardsville Road (Illinois Route 203), twice on 21st Street, and twice on 20th Street. The pipeline system operates at a pressure of 150 psig. Our understanding is that the interstate pipeline operator odorizes the pipeline gas at .25 pounds/MMCF, as compared to the .50 to .75 pounds/MMCF level at which most gas on distribution systems in our region is odorized. We have reviewed PHMSA's diagram entitled "Operator Responsibility - Drawing 3" which addresses "Operator Responsibility - Intrastate Direct Sales LateraL" That drawing shows the portion of an intrastate direct sales lateral that is jurisdictional to the state in two different scenarios. In addition, we have reviewed PI#-97-008 and PI#-96002, to which we were referred by a representative of the operator. Neither portion of the drawing, and neither of the cited Pipeline Interpretations directly addresses the situation about which we are inquiring, in which the interstate pipeline tap, along with any metering and pressure regulation, is located inside the property line of the factory, but the system piping leaves the factory property and enters governmental property (that is a public street or highway) six times before finally entering the portion of the property on which the natural gas is consumed. Our question is whether the Natural Gas System other than the South Plant Line contains pipeline over which the Illinois Commerce Commission has pipeline safety jurisdiction under Part 192, including the definitions in 49 CFR 192.3. Question Concerning GCW Natural Gas System, including South Plant Line Again, please refer to the diagram entitled "GCW Natural Gas System." This question applies to all portions of the GCW Natural Gas System over which the Illinois Commerce Commission is determined to have pipeline safety jurisdiction under Part 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 [TDD ("VITTY" (217) 782-7434} <<>> Mr. Jeffrey D. Wiese October 14, 2009 Page 3 192: Does all or any part of the system consist of transmission line? In terms of the definition of "transmission line" in 49 CFR 192.3, it can be assumed for purposes of this question that the line is not a gathering line, that none of the relevant transportation of gas takes place in a storage field. Also, we have received no indication that any of the pipeline operates at a hoop stress of 20% or more of specified minimum yield strength. The question thus revolves around whether the line, in effect, "transports gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a distribution center, storage facility, or large volume customer that is not down-stream from a distribution center." In considering this question, we have reviewed PHMSA Interpretation PI#-77-028, which stated that a line was a transmission line even though it was not connected to storage facilities or gathering lines, but was connected to an interstate transmission line. We have also reviewed the Discussion of Comments that accompanied the Federal Register publication of the final rule that included the Section 192.3 definition of "transmission line" in its current form. Included with the discussion was the following: We did not specify a minimum volume of gas a pipeline must transport to a customer to qualify as transmission. Volumes vary, and setting an arbitrary threshold might unfairly reclassify some existing lines. However, since "large volume customer" and "distribution center" each mark the end of transmission under the definition, operators may use the volume of gas supplied to distribution centers as a guide to identifying large volume customers. [61 Fed. Register at 28772] To reiterate, our question is whether any of the GCW Natural Gas System fits within the definition of "transmission line" at 49 CFR 192.3. GCW Coke Oven Gas Our understanding of the coke gas process is that the coke oven heats coking coal to a point that yields a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons, certain liquids, and other chemicals. This flammable gaseous output is collected and transported to downstream facilities at which liquids and some other substances are removed, after which the coke oven gas is transported by pipeline to the point at which it will be burned. A detailed description and drawing of the process from the heating of coking coal in the ovens themselves to the point at which the coke oven gas is metered and piped to the hot strip mill is attached. Our understanding is that between the point at which the coke oven gas is metered and the point at which it is burned, there is piping extending for a distance of several thousand linear feet, most of which is located under public rights of way, and some of which is buried under a public sidewalk outside the fence from the steel plant in which the gas is burned. In response to communications we have received from the operator, we have reviewed a number of documents to which the operator has referred us, including PHMSA Interpretations #PI-76-041, 92-010, 92-046, and 93-060, as well 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701/TDD ("VITTY" (217) 782-7434J <<>> Mr. Jeffrey D. Wiese October 14, 2009 Page 4 as 92 CFR 192.1 (b)(5)(ii) and the 92 CFR 95.2 definition of "production facility." We cannot, however, reach the operator's conclusion that the thousands of linear feet of pipeline situated underneath publicly owned right-of-way are not jurisdictional to the ICC. We would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. If your conclusion is that the pipeline is jurisdictional to the ICC, we have another question, related to the proper classification of the line. We have reviewed the definition of "transmission line" at 49 CFR 192.3, the application of which depends in large measure upon the meaning of the term "gathering line," which in turn appears to be determined in accordance with 49 CFR 192.8 and Recommended Practice 80 of the American Petroleum Institute (incorporated by reference at 49 CFR 192.7). Our question is whether any portion of the pipeline used to transport coke oven gas from the facility in which it is produced to the facility in which it is burned falls within the definition of "transmission line," or whether all of this pipeline is properly classified as "distribution line" under 49 CFR 192.3. Conclusion We have enclosed, as background to our inquiry, correspondence that has passed between the operator and the staff of the Commission. If you require any further information in order to answer our questions, or if you have any other questions concerning these inquiries, please contact me. Sincerely, Darin R. Burk Manager-Pipeline Safety Enclosures:. Drawing-"GCW Natural Gas System" Drawing-"Coke Plant Process Flow" Correspondence between ICC and Operator 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 fTDD ("VITTY" (217) 782-7434J <<>> I \ • GCW Coke Oven Gas GCW Coke Oven Gas System ------_._._._._-_._._._.-. ---_._._._._._.- 1 r'-'-'-'-' r'-'-'-'-'-' ,...._._._._._._.- .-' -'1 .'. 1-._._._._.-._. 1 1 " , . _ . _ . _ . _ . _l ._ . _ " ---I GCW Line!] '- -l-'-'-'- , 'I ( . 18 <<>> GCW Natural Gas System r' _. _. _. -' _. -' _. -1~ronMaki~g-' - i _. _. _. r . - . - . - 1- . - '. I--~ -~-I North Plant r-' -., L'_'_'_'_'_'_._._ j " , 1..._ ...... [Steel~orks- MRT owned/operated Fuel Gas Piping GCW owned/operated South Plant Line GCW owned/operated - . - . - . - GCW Propery Lines -_.--_._._._._- , '. GCW Property Lines <<>> STATE OF ILLINOIS . . ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION May 22,2008 Mr. Jeffrey Parmley United States Steel Corporation Granite City Works 1951 State Street Granite City, Illinois 62040 Dear Mr. Parmley Per our discussion during our meeting on May 6, 2008, the following has been determined. The Gas piping owned and operated by United States Steel Corporation (USS) is jurisdictional under the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act identified as 220A ILCS 20 (copies were supplied to your staff during our meeting). Under these requirements both the Coke Gas Pipeline and the piping transporting natural gas downstream of the MRT/Centerpoint meter facility will be jurisdictional, due to transportation of a flammable gas as defined in Section 2.02 of the Act. The jurisdiction for the Coke gas line will begin at the outlet of the gas purification process upstream of the two compressors and will end at the point furthest downstream where the pipeline enters the last building wall. If there are branches off this line, each branch will also be included up to the point of entry to each building it serves. The jurisdiction will include the operation and maintenance of the compressor units. The 150 psig lateral downstream of the point of delivery from MRT (Centerpoint) becomes jurisdictional at the point of transfer (usually a station outlet valve or isolation flange) up to the point of entry to the last building served by this pipeline. This also includes any branches off the main line. Both lines will be classified as Transmission Lines due to the lack of supplying a distribution system. With the Transmission requirements defined in Part 192, the number of pipeline patrols and leak surveys will be determined by applying the appropriate class location as defined in 192.5 Class Location. The line will be considered as transporting unodorized gas and will require leak surveys to be performed, using leak detection equipment at the prescribed intervals, as defined by 192.706. 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Rlinois 62701lTDD ("VnTY" (217) 782-7434J <<>> Mr. Jeffrey Parmley May 22,2008 Page 2 Jurisdiction requires that USS follow the applicable requirements specified under Part 191,192, 199, defined in CFR Title 49, which was adopted as the Minimum Safety Standards applicable to the operation of a pipeline transporting a flammable gas within the boundaries of the State of Illinois. These requirements include the establishment of a Procedural Manual for Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies applicable to the pipelines being operated by USS. This requirement is defined in CFR 49 Part 192.605. After creating and approving such manual, USS is to supply a copy to the Pipeline Safety Section of the ICC for review. The manual will remain on file for Mure reference. As this manual is updated, revised, or changed in any manner by USS, a copy of those revisions shall be sent to the Pipeline Safety Section for review and updating of our file copy. If a review identifIeS the plan fails to meet the requirements as defined in Part 192 or Illinois Administrative Codes adopted by the Commission, Staff will request the applicable section(s) to be revised. Any construction, repairs, or replacement of jurisdictional piping, or components shall meet the minimum requirements for pipeline design as specified in Subpart 0 of Part 192. All pipelines and appurtenance must be constructed with qualified materials as defined by Subpart B and C of Part 192, or Company requirements whichever is more stringent. When piping is installed or replaced, qualified joining procedures shall be established to ensure the process being used will produce joints with sufficient structural integrity for the application and pressures being used. The persons performing the joining must also be qualified to perform the joining (welding or plastic fusion) as defined by Subpart E and/or F within Part 192. Any new piping or components installed must be pressure tested to ensure their integrity as defined in Subpart J or K of Part 192. If the piping transporting the flammable gas is constructed of steel, the piping shall be adequately coated and protected against corrosion as defined by Subpart I of Part 192. Persons or employees of USS, or contractors working for USS must be qualified to perform covered tasks as defined in Subpart N of Part 192. This section requires USS to establish an Operator Qualification Plan and implement a qualification program, to ensure that the persons performing covered tasks have the required skills and abilities to conduct the task safely, react to Abnormal Operating Conditions. The State of Illinois has a training requirement identified as Illinois Administrative Code Part 520 includes training requirements. A copy of the Code is available through the Commission web site at www.icc.illinois.gov.This Part stipulates the requirement for providing the necessary training to ensure your employees have the ability to perform their jobs when working on or near gas pipelines. To ensure USS is performing the required surveys, tests and maintenance the Pipeline Safety Section of the ICC will conduct annual audits of the records completed per the requirements of part 191, 192 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, minois 62701 {TDD ("VITTY" (217) 782-7434/ <<>> Mr. Jeffrey Parmley May 22, 2008 Page 3 and 199. If deficiencies are noted during this audit the Commission has the ability to initiate enforcement actions that can include civil penalties. Employees or individuals performing work on or near the pipeline will also be required to be included in a Drug and Alcohol testing program as defined in Part 199 of CFR49. If high consequence areas are identified along either of the pipeline systems, an Integrity Management Program may be required under Subpart 0 of Part 192. Staff requests that the Potential Impact Radius be established using the available guidelines as defined in 192.903 and 192.905. USS will also be required to establish a Public Awareness Program as defined in 192.616 of Subpart L Operations. This is required to inform the public living near the facility, the Local Public Officials, and Emergency Responders of the hazards that could occur due to the transportation of a flammable gas. The information should include the plans and procedures in place to operate the system in a safe manner, as well as a method to report a pipeline emergency. This is a brief overview of the requirements as defined in CFR Part 191, 192, and 199. Part 191 establishes the annual reporting requirements for operators of a Transmission Pipeline system and incident reporting requirements. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 217-414-9609. incerelY I iJ~· ~ Jim Watts Pipeline Safety Analyst 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 {TDD ("ViITY" (217) 782-7434J <<>> STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION April 2, 2009 Mr. Anthony Bridge Vice President-Operations, East United States Steel 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2800 Dear Mr. Bridge: On May 5, 2008, the Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC") Pipeline Safety Program, received National Response Center ("NRC") Incident Report #869878 from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ("PHMSA") Central Region Office. The report stated that there had been a release of materials from an underground internal pipeline due to a hole in a line at US Steel Granite City Works ("USS"). The incident occurred May 4,2008, at 18:26 local time. The reporting party was Carl Hannon of USS. The material released was identified as coke oven gas. Mr. Hans Shieh of the PHMSA Central Region Office reported that he had spoken to Mr. Hannon of USS. Mr. Shieh identified the pipeline as an intrastate line falling under ICC regulatory jurisdiction. He requested that the ICC conduct an investigation. On May 13, 2008, ICC Pipeline Safety Program Staff ("Staff") met with representatives of the USS Maintenance, Services and Utilities Department. The USS representatives stated that they currently operated two pipelines in the Granite City area to supply gas to the USS facility. One line carried coke gas and other carried natural gas. USS representatives stated that they had experienced multiple releases on the 16"and 18" pipeline used to transport coke gas generated by the coke manufacturing process. The coke gas is gathered and compressed to 20-25 psig using two compressor units. The pipeline is constructed of 16"and 18" steel, is approximately 10,000 feet in length and is constructed of 1950 to 1990 vintage steel. ICC Staff requested that USS initiate weekly leakage surveys of the coke gas pipeline based on the leakage history and the condition of the pipeline as indicated by the photographs taken by USS. 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, fflinois 62701 {TDD ("V/1TY" (217) 782-7434J <<>> Mr. Anthony Bridge April 2, 2009 Page 2 Staff determined and informed the USS representatives that both pipelines operated at USS fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the ICC. Staff summarized the construction, operation, maintenance, qualification, anti-drug testing and reporting requirements contained in the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), Title 49, Parts 190, 191,192 and 199. Staff sent a letter to Mr. Jeffery Parmley of USS on May 22, 2008. The letter advised USS that the two pipelines owned and operated by USS were jurisdictional to the ICC under the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act (220 ILCS 20). The letter stated that the coke gas pipeline was jurisdictional from the outlet of the gas purification process, upstream of the two compressors, to the point downstream where the pipeline enters the last building wall, and that any branch lines off of the main pipeline would also fall under ICC jurisdiction. The letter also identified as jurisdictional the second pipeline operated by USS, that is, certain piping from the MiSSissippi River Transportation custody transfer point to the last building served by the pipeline. Based on the information available at that time, both pipelines were classified as transmission pipelines. The letter summarized parts of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as requirements of 83 III. Adm. Code 520 applicable to the two pipelines. On February 24,2009, a meeting was held with USS representatives and ICC Staff. Discussions during the meeting revealed that USS had not yet come into compliance with the CFR Title 49 or Illinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements. Staff has determined that USS is in apparent noncompliance with the following Subparts of CFR Title 49 requirements: CFR Part 192 Subpart A - General USS does not have plans and procedures relating to the maintenance of the pipelines. CFR Part 192 Subpart B - Materials USS has not demonstrated that the pipelines are constructed of suitable materials. CFR Part 192 Subpart C - Pipe Design USS has not demonstrated that the pipelines meet design requirements. CFR Part 192 Subpart D - Design of Pipeline Components USS has not demonstrated that each component of the pipelines meet the design requirements. 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701/TDD ("WlTY" (217) 782-7434/ <<>> Mr. Anthony Bridge April 2, 2009 Page 3 CFR Part 192 Subpart E - Welding of Steel in Pipelines USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the pipelines were joined by qualified welders performing the welding in accordance with qualified welding procedures. CFR Part 192 Subpart F - Joining of Materials Other than by Welding USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the pipeline components were joined as required. CFR Part 192 Subpart H - Customer Meters, Service Regulators, and Service Lines ' USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the service regulators and service lines meet the minimum requirements. CFR Part 192 Subpart I - Requirements for Corrosion Control USS has not installed, monitored, and maintained corrosion control on the pipelines. CFR Part 192 Subpart J - Test Requirements USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the pipelines and components were tested as required. CFR Part 192 Subpart L - Operations USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the pipelines have been operated in compliance with this Subpart. CFR Part 192 Subpart M - Maintenance USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that the pipelines have been maintained as require by this Subpart. CFR Part 192 Subpart N - Operator Qualification USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that covered tasks performed on the pipes have been conducted by qualified individuals. CFR Part 199 Subpart A - General USS has not provided documentation demonstrating that individuals performing tasks on the pipelines are subject to an antidrug and alcohol testing program. 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701 {TDD ("V/lTY" (217) 782-7434/ <<>> Mr. Anthony Bridge April 2, 2009 Page 4 CFR Part 199 Subpart B - Drug Testing USS has not maintained and followed a written anti-drug testing plan. CFR Part 199 Subpart C - Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program USS has not maintained and followed a written alcohol misuse plan. In addition, depending on the configuration of pipeline facilities and the pressure at which gas is transported, USS may be in violation of one or both of the following: 49 CFR 192, Subpart G (General Construction Requirements for Transmission Lines and Mains), and 49 CFR 192, Subpart 0 (Transmission Pipeline Integrity). Staff has also determined that USS is in apparent noncompliance with Illinois Administrative Code, Title 83: Public Utilities, Chapter I: Illinois Commerce Commission, Subchapter d: Gas Utilities, Part 520, Training Programs for Natural Gas System Operating Personnel. USS has not demonstrated that individuals performing tasks on the pipelines are trained as required. Due to the findings of apparent noncompliance with both the applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations and the Illinois Administrative Code identified above, you are requested to reply in writing, within 30 days of receipt of this letter, as to why United States Steel should not be found in noncompliance with Section 6, and subject to penalty assessments as allowed under Section 7, of the Illinois Gas Pipeline Safety Act (220 ILCS 20/6 and 7). Your response should also include what steps United States Steel has taken or expects to take, and the dates when those steps will be taken to bring your natural gas pipeline facilities and the operation of those pipelines into compliance with the Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, and Illinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (217) 785-1165. Sincerely, ;t9~~4£~ Darin R. Burk Manager - Pipeline Safety Cc: Ms. Kathryn M. Scotti, Attorney, United States Steel Corporation 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, lUinois 62701{TDD ("VI1TY" (217) 782-7434} <<>> United States Steel Corporation 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2800 May 1,2009 Mr. Darin R. Burk Manager-Pipeline Safety Illinois Commerce Commission 527 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, IL 62701 REceIVED MAY 042009 Illinois Commerce Commission GAS PIPELINE SAFETY Dear Mr. Burk, In your letter, dated April 2, 2009, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) requested that United States Steel Corporation (USS) specifically reply to several items. USS, with full reservation of rights, replies as follows!: 1. United States Steel Corporation should not be penalized nor found in noncompliance with the Illinois Pipeline Safety Act. The coke oven gas (COG) line, to the best of our knowledge, was planned and installed in three parts. The first portion of the line was designed and installed in 1951 and 1952. A second section was designed and installed in 1961 and a third section was designed and installed in 1967. Most sections of the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations, directly related to the Illinois Pipeline Safety Regulations, were implemented in 1970. The sections relating to design and construction are not retroactive before the date that the applicable sections were implemented. See Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 192.13. Therefore, even if inadequacies exist, USS should not be subject to any penalties nor found in noncompliance for inadequate design or construction, including inadequate materials, pipe design, design of pipe components, welding requirement, or joining requirements, for any parts of the COG pipelines that were in use prior to 1970 or 1971. USS voluntarily and pro-actively self-reported the May 4, 2008 leak in our COG line to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) which apparently forwarded the report to the National Response Center (NRC). According to your letter, the NRC informed the ICC of the leak, and requested the ICC complete an investigation. I United States Steel Corporation hereby reserves the right to challenge this application of the Illinois Pipeline Safety Act and, by extension, the Federal Pipeline Safety Act to USS pipelines located at USS's Granite City Works, for any reason. <<>> . 'v USS is a manufacturing operation, not a pipeline company or a utility. Thus, USS did not consider that the COG or natural gas pipelines might be subject to Federal or state pipeline safety regulations. Nevertheless, upon receipt of the ICC's notification that USS's Granite City Works COG pipeline was potentially out of compliance with Federal and state regulations, USS immediately and voluntarily moved towards compliance by taking the following actions: • First, USS immediately retained an OS qualified contractor, Utility Safety and Design, Inc. (USDI) , to perform pipeline leak surveys. These surveys have been consistently negative for leaks. • Second, USS immediately replaced the COG pipeline segment responsible for the May 4, 2008 leak. Now that USS is aware that the COG and natural gas pipelines may be subject to Federal and state pipeline safety regulations despite USS's status as a manufacturer, USS intends to bring the COG and natural gas pipelines into full compliance with any applicable codes, regulations or requirements. To that end, USS retained M.K. Technologies to assist USS in bringing Granite City Works pipelines into full compliance with any applicable codes, regulations or requirements. These actions clearly show that USS was and is moving towards compliance with Section 6 of the Illinois Pipeline Safety Act, and thus should not be subject to any penalty assessments. In addition, please note that USS currently has two opinions that the natural gas line is not a transmission line, but is rather a distribution line. The pipeline safety requirements for transmission lines and distribution lines differ greatly. C. Lindsay Enloe, from USDI, and Larry Kotys and Paul Oleksa, from M.K. Technologies, have each shared their opinion with USS on this matter. Mr. Kotys' and Mr. Oleksa's written opinion is attached as "Attachment A" to this letter, and USS respectfully requests additional dialogue with the ICC so this matter can be appropriately resolved. USS should not be found in noncompliance nor subject to any penalty assessments for any potential deficiencies in the natural gas pipeline as apparently reasonable differences of interpretation exist among consultants in this matter. 2. Steps that United States Steel Corporation has taken and plans to take to bring itself into compliance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, and Illinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements. 2 USDI is currently OQ qualified for other pipeline operators, and will become qualified to USS standards as soon as practicable after such standards have been developed. <<>> USS is fully committed to becoming compliant with all applicable pipeline safety codes, regulations and requirements. To that end, USS has dedicated various internal resources to this project. Additionally, USS has retained two firms mentioned above, M.K. Technologies and USDI, to assist USS in coming into full compliance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations and Illinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements on an accelerated time schedule. USDI, an OQ qualified contractor, is performing weekly leak surveys. M.K. Technologies is experienced in planning and implementing Integrity Management Programs and other pipeline safety regulations. USS has full confidence that M.K. Technologies will appropriately and swiftly guide USS to full compliance with all applicable pipeline safety codes, regulations and requirements. 3. Timeline to bring the USS Pipelines into compliance. There are many steps necessary to bring the USS pipelines into full compliance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations and Illinois Administrative Code Title 83 requirements, if it is assumed that such regulations and requirements are applicable. The steps being taken by USS are enumerated below, and the requested timeline is available in graph form as "Attachment B". USS anticipates full compliance in the month of February, 2010. 1. a. b. c. 2. 3. Initial on-site inspection. (Completed the week of April 18.) Meet with USS personnel to review operation and maintenance ofthe two pipelines. Meet with USS personnel to review known operating characteristics of the two pipelines. Make preliminary determination of High Consequence Areas (HCAs) for purposes of an Integrity Management Program (IMP). Leak detection (To be completed the week of May 16,2009.) a. To fully implement the ICC recommendation for weekly leakage surveys, write the procedure for leakage surveys and patrols. b. c. Implement forms and records, as appropriate. Get appropriate operating personnel OQ qualified to perform patrols and leak detection surveys. This may require assistance from outside vendors (e.g., equipment manufacturers). Write and implement an Emergency Manual. (Note that manuals are "living documents" and will be updated on a continuing basis.) (To be completed the week of June 6, 2009.) a. Input from one or more Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to be supplied - **truncated:** true - **body characters:** 123838