[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18771]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PS-118; Notice 4]
RIN 2137-AB97
Excess Flow Valve Installation on Service Lines
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of reopening comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of reopening comment period invites public comment
on a rulemaking proposal submitted by a group designated as the Joint
Commenters. The Joint Commenters submitted the proposal as an
alternative to a previously issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposing requirements for the installation of excess flow valves
(EFVs) on certain new and replaced gas service lines to improve safety
and mitigate the consequences of service line incidents. EFVs shut off
the flow of gas by closing automatically when a line is broken. RSPA
solicits public comments on this alternative proposal for consideration
in this rulemaking.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
this proposed alternative by October 3, 1994; however, late filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable. All persons must
submit as part of their written comments all of the material that they
consider relevant to any statement of fact made by them.
ADDRESSES: Send comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, Room 8421,
Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street
SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Identify the docket and notice numbers
stated in the heading of this notice. All comments and other docketed
material will be available for inspection and copying in Room 8421
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each working day.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Willock, or Lloyd Ulrich at (202)
366-2392, regarding the subject matter of this notice, or the Dockets
Unit, (202) 366-4453, regarding copies of this notice or other material
in the docket that is referenced in this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information
In 1993, RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
(Docket PS-118; Notice 2; 58 FR 21524; April 21, 1993), titled ``Excess
Flow Valve Installation on Service Lines'' proposing to amend 49 CFR
Part 192 to require installation of EFVs on new and replaced single
residence service lines operating at a pressure of 10 psig or more.
This NPRM also proposed performance standards for EFVs and proposed
conditions under which EFVs must be installed. The comment period to
this NPRM closed June 21, 1993, but late filed comments were to be
considered to the extent practicable. The Joint Commenters filed Joint
Supplemental Comments on December 20, 1993. In this document, the Joint
Commenters propose regulatory language that those interests they
represent could support if RSPA were to adopt their proposal. The
entire Joint Commenters' proposal is available in the docket for
review.
The Joint Commenters represent diverse interests including EFV
manufacturers, a gas safety organization, and two gas pipeline
distribution company organizations. The Joint Commenters do not include
interests from state and local governments. Although not signatory to
the Joint Supplemental Comments, the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) agrees with their recommendations. NTSB's comments are
also available in the docket for review.
RSPA is reopening the comment period to seek public comment on the
safety merits of the Joint Commenters' proposed alternative. RSPA is
particularly interested in comments on whether it should adopt any or
all of the alternative proposed requirements, with comments specifying
which requirements and why.
Bypass Feature
RSPA is interested in receiving comments regarding the safety of
installing and operating EFVs with or without the bypass feature. The
NPRM proposed to disallow the bypass feature in an EFV whereas the
Joint Commenters proposed to allow the feature. The bypass allows the
EFV to reopen through use of a gas bleed-by that repressures the
service line after it has been repaired. Upon repressuring, the EFV
opens and service to the residence is restored.
Two large local distribution operators have pointed out potential
hazards caused by automatically resetting EFVs reopening after closure.
One of the distribution operators gave two examples of such hazards.
First, the operator explained that many older appliances, such as space
heaters and old conversion units, as well as many newer appliances, are
not equipped with safety shut off valves designed to close when the
flow of gas is interrupted, such as when a service line is severed. The
operator explained that without the protection of safety shut off
valves, such appliances would discharge raw gas into a building after
service has been restored through the bypass following an EFV
activation unless operator personnel visit each customer and manually
relight the appliances.
In the second example, the operator cited a situation where gas
would have been discharged into a residence even though safety shut off
valves were installed. The operator stated that during a manual relight
by operator personnel of about 200 customers after loss of service, it
discovered the safety shut off valves on two water heaters and one
furnace had failed to close and would have discharged raw gas into the
residences without the manual relight. This example of safety devices
failing to work again points out the potential danger involved in
automatic restoration of service absent operator personnel visiting
each customer to manually relight appliances.
Because of the potential danger pointed out in these two examples,
RSPA seeks comment on the conditions under which automatically
resetting EFVs should or should not be required in residential service
lines.
The other operator cited another potential hazard with automatic
resetting EFVs. This operator said that an automatic resetting EFV
could allow a damaging party to repair the service and place it back in
operation without informing the operator, resulting in greater danger
to the public from migrating gas than from the broken service itself.
The operator said because it is common for a contractor to pinch back a
line and fail to call the operator, the only way to ensure this does
not occur is to install manually resetting valves. Manually resetting
EFVs would require a service call by a service representative with
equipment capable of back-pressuring the line in order to restore
service. The service representative would not restore service without
checking and relighting all appliances.
As stated in the NPRM, RSPA believes that each operator needs to be
informed of all service line ruptures to assure that the line is
repaired properly and returned to service in a safe operating
condition. However, this operator indicated that because it is common
practice for a contractor to repair a line and not call the operator,
the operator is not assured that the repair is completed safely.
Furthermore, the NPRM discussed an incident in a commercial building
that resulted in eight deaths following an unreported, unsanctioned
repair to a service line. Although an EFV would not be required in
service to a commercial building under the proposed rule, the incident
points out the potential for misuse by someone making unauthorized
repairs.
RSPA seeks comment on the linkage between the bypass and
unauthorized repairs to damaged service lines. In particular, RSPA
seeks information on whether EFVs with the bypass would reduce pipeline
safety by protecting a damaging party who makes unauthorized repairs to
the damaged service line.
RSPA also seeks comment on all costs and benefits associated with
manually excavating and resetting EFVs that do not have a bypass or
reset feature. Of special interest are any benefits to be gained by
reducing the number of unauthorized repairs and the incidents resulting
therefrom.
Contaminants in the Gas Stream
Both the NPRM's and Joint Commenters' proposals do not require EFV
installation when contaminants in the gas stream would cause the EFV to
malfunction. In this regard, RSPA seeks information on criteria for
determining the pipeline areas where contaminants may preclude the
installation of EFVs.
Performance Standards
Due to the lack of industry standards for EFVs, the NPRM proposed
performance standards concerning EFV construction and operation to
assure an adequate level of safety. The Joint Commenters' proposal
eliminates most of these proposed standards. RSPA has become aware that
two pipeline safety standard committees, American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) F17 and American National Standards Institute/Gas
Piping Technology Committee (ANSI/GPTC) Z380, are studying EFVs. The
F17 group is developing standard test procedures for uniform
performance testing of EFVs and expects to issue emergency standards
soon. The emergency standards would expire upon completion of the
normal ASTM standard cycle and issuance of permanent standards.
The Z380 committee is evaluating the need for using EFVs. They are
also determining appropriate applications for the device. The
standardized requirements should provide a higher level of reassurance
about the reliability of EFVs. Reliability has been a concern due to
the past absence of participation by pipeline industry-sponsored safety
standard committees. Should RSPA await the completion of performance
standards by either or both of these professional committees before
proceeding with this EFV rulemaking?
Impact Assessment
RSPA prepared a regulatory evaluation to accompany the NPRM. This
evaluation is on file in the Docket. Each year, according to the
evaluation, about 300,000 new high pressure service lines are installed
and 600,000 existing high pressure service lines are replaced. At a
cost of $20 per EFV, the estimated annual impact of requiring EFV
installation as proposed in both alternatives would be $18 million.
Aggregate annual savings of $19-$31 million would result from reduced
deaths, injuries, fires, explosions and evacuations.
The Joint Commenters say that the regulatory evaluation contains
errors. RSPA seeks additional comments if new information is available.
RSPA seeks information on where specifically the analysis is in error,
and, if so, where specifically should it be changed? Please justify any
proposed changes with supporting data.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113 and 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 27, 1994.
George W. Tenley, Jr.,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 94-18771 Filed 8-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
