P-81-038
P-81-038
NTSB safety recommendation P-81-038.
AS A RESULT OF SPECIAL STUDY PSS-81-1, THE NTSB RECOMMENDS THAT THE MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF THE RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: INITIATE RULEMAKING TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF EXCESS FLOW VALVES ON ALL NEW AND RENEWED SINGLE-FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL HIGH PRESSURE SERVICES WHICH HAVE OPERATING CONDITIONS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RATED PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS OF AT LEAST ONE MODEL OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE EXCESS FLOW VALVE. (P-81-038 and P-81-039 supersede P-73-002, P-76-009A, P-80-055, and P-81-009)
Priority: CLASS II
Overall Status: Closed - Unacceptable Action
Issued Date: 1981-09-24
Adopted Date: 1981-09-09
Overall Date Closed: 1988-09-27
Synopsis: THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD HAS CONDUCTED A STUDY OF EXCESS FLOW VALVES DESIGNED FOR USE IN GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (SPECIAL STUDY--PIPELINE EXCESS FLOW VALVES, NTSB-PSS-81-1). THESE DEVICES, INTENDED TO STOP THE FLOW OF GAS TO A CUSTOMER IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR LEAK IN THE GAS SERVICE, HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CONSIDERABLE CONTROVERSY IN RECENT YEARS.
Keywords: Excess Flow Valves
Ntsbnumber: 80564
Report Number: PSS-81-01
Addressee Name: RSPA
Addressee Status: Closed - Unacceptable Action
Addressee Date Closed: 1988-09-27
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1982-08-11
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Communication Contents: RSPA (MTB) LTR: WE HAVE LEARNED THAT THE GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (GRI) HAS UNDERTAKEN THE TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM YOU RECOMMENDED THEY CONDUCT, AND THAT THE RESULTS OF THEIR WORK SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR. THE RESULTS OF GRI'S WORK WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO ANY DECISION THE MTB MIGHT MAKE ON POSSIBLE RULEMAKING ACTION PROPOSING A REQUIREMENT FOR EXCESS FLOW VALVES. AS YOU KNOW, THE RULEMAKING PROCESS CAN BE RATHER LENGTHY AND INCLUDES THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE COST/BENEFIT DATA AND ANALYSES. IT NOW APPEARS PRUDENT TO ADDRESS THE ENTIRE EXCESS FLOW VALVE QUESTION IN ONE BROAD COMPREHENSIVE ACTION, IF SUCH RULEMAKING IS DEEMDED JUSTIFIED, RATHER THAN TO BEGIN THE PROCESS FOR THE ONE ASPECT (SINGLE-FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL HIGH PRESSURE SERVICES WHERE CONDITIONS IN THE OPERATION OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE USE OF THE VALVE). THEREFORE, WE ARE PLANNING TO AWAIT THE RESULTS OF THE GRI RESEARCH BEFORE DECIDING IF A RULEMAKING PROJECT ON EXCESS FLOW VALVES SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. WHEN WE RECEIVE GRI'S FINDINGS, WE WILL CAREFULLY REVIEW THEM AND BASED ON THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT TOGETHER WITH THE COSTS AND BENEFITS REFLECTED IN THEIR REPORT, WE WILL DECIDE IF AND TO WHAT EXTENT RULEMAKING IS WARRANTED.
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1986-03-17
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Communication Contents: SEE THE LOG FILE FOR A LENGTHY RESPONSE.
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1987-10-26
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Communication Contents: NO RESPONSE--FOLLOWUP LETTER.
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1982-10-25
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1986-08-11
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1987-10-26
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1988-06-01
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1988-09-27
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
Addressee Acronym: RSPA
Addressee Organization Type: G-Federal Government
Communication Date: 1988-01-14
Communication Type: Official Correspondence
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.