[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