{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-83-019","title":"Utilities Material and Controls Corporation — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1983-10-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-83-019 response to Utilities Material and Controls Corporation concerning 192.727.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-83-019","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1983/PI83019.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nOctober 30, 1983\nMr. John B. McGowan, Jr.\nVice President, Utilities Material and Controls\nCorporation\nP.O. Box 991\nPaoli, PA 19301\nDear Mr. McGowan:\nThis is in response to your letter of September 19, 1983, requesting our interpretation of\n§192.727 of 49 CFR Part 192 relative to the use of your company's expandable polymer plug\nprocess for permanent abandonment of a service line.\nOur position remains the same as stated in the June 2, 1981, letter of Acting Associate Director\nMelvin A. Judah. The method would satisfy the requirements of §192.727(d)(2) whenever\nservice to a customer is discontinued. However, use of a plug device without disconnecting the\nservice from the source of gas would not meet the requirements of §192.727(b). We point out,\nalso, that the industry Code ANSI/ASME B31.8 - 1982 and the ASME Guide for Gas\nTransmission and Distribution Piping Systems - 1983 both state that abandoned lines should be\n\"physically disconnected\" or \"disconnected\" from all sources of gas as the first item listed under\n\"abandonment\" or \"abandoning\" relative to this matter.\nAs we stated in our letter of July 15, 1981, if you or gas opera-\ntors wish to request a rule change to permit use of the process for abandonment of gas services,\nthe guidelines in 49 CFR §106.31 would be applicable.\nI trust this information will be of assistance to you.\nSincerely,\nRichard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMr. Melvin A. Judah\nChief, Technical Division\nOPSR/MTB\nResearch & Special Programs Administration\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mel:\nThank you so much for your time and that of your staff on Friday, September 2, 1983. The\nmeeting was most informative and produc-\ntive.\nAs you know, our company is currently developing a process whereby a heat expandable polymer\nplug will be inserted in a service line, positioned at the second threaded joint of the tee and\nexpanded to permanently shut off gas flow on low pressure services. The pipe would then be\ninternally cut three feet from the basement wall of the dwelling, the stub removed and the wall\npatched.\nOur interpretation of 192.727 is that such a system satisfies the requirements for a permanent\nabandonment of a service line. You will recall some confusion about what this section provides\nfor service abandonments - it seems to be ambiguous.\nPlease consider this a formal request for your departments inter-\npretation of this section as it applies to our system for perma-\nnent abandonments. Enclosed for your perusal are two of my earlier correspondences with your\ndepartment concerning this matter.\nI anxiously await your response.\nSincerely,\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nJohn B. McGowan, Jr.\nVice President\nEnclosure\nDecember 30, 1980\nMr. Paul J. Cory\nMaterial Transportation Bureau\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Operations\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Paul:\nThis letter follows-up our recent telephone conversation concerning accepted and approved\nmethods of permanently abandoning or deactivating the service lines to customers of pubic gas\ndistribution utilities. -More specifically: Section 192.727-\"Abandonment or inactivation of\nfacilities\" of the Federal Code.\nOur company is currently interested in marketing an internal, heat expandable polymer plug,\nwhich would be inserted from the dwelling end of the service, out and expanded into the tee\nconnection at the main. This process would eliminate excavation, which is today one of the\ngreatest costs in a utility maintenance budge.\nIt is our interpretation that this method would be acceptable under Section (d), Part (2) of\n192.727. A number of our clients interpret the code to read that a physical disconnection, i.e.;\ncutting the service away from the main, is required. As I inter-\npret this section, a physical disconnect is only one of the options which can be followed.\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nIt would be helpful if you could send a written clarification on this question. Please include\nwhether physical disconnection of the service line from the main supply is optional or manditory\n[sic].\nIf you have any questions regarding our systems, please do not hesitate to contact our office.\nThanking you for your attention to this request, I am,\nSincerely,\nJohn B. McGowan\nPresident\nEnclosure\nJune 2, 1981\nMr. John B. McGowan\nPresident, Utilities Material\n& Controls Corporation\nP.O. Box 991\nPaoli, Pennsylvania 19301\nDear Mr. McGowan:\nThis responds to your recent question regarding 49 CFR §192.727(d)(2).\nThe method you describe to prevent the flow of gas by the inser-\ntion of an expandable plastic device into a service line would satisfy the requirements of\n§192.727(d)(2). This device may be used whenever service to a customer is discontinued.\nThe first paragraph of your letter mentions permanently abandon-\ning a service line. To avoid any misunderstanding about the application of the various paragraphs\nof §192.727, paragraph (b) deals with all pipelines which have been abandoned, and specifi-\ncally requires a physical disconnect. The use of a plug device without a physical disconnect\nwould not satisfy the requirements of §192.727(b).\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nSincerely,\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nJune 5, 1981\nMr. Melvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director\nfor Pipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Judah:\nRegarding the receipt of your letter dated June 2, 1981, in reference to the interpretation of 49\nCFR §192.727(d)(2).\nAs you know, we have developed a new system for the abandonment and/or the disconnection of\ngas service lines without excavation at the main which, of course, is a major cost to the consumer\nand the utilities, as well as the general nuisance to the general public. In addition to the general\nplugging system we have a method to physically disconnect service lines by internally cutting the\nservice, thus rendering it completely separated from the main.\nMr. Robert Langley, of your office, and myself had a lengthy phone conversation in regard to the\nparagraph §192.727(b), as to where the service line had to be disconnected.\nWe would very much like to invite you and your people involved in this area to visit our Frazer,\nPennsylvania (suburban Philadel-\nphia) laboratory, where we could demonstrate our present system so that your people could get\nfirst hand knowledge of how it works.\nWe feel that our system, which is a new state of art, could be considered for a rule change if the\nneed exists.\nWe thank you for your letter and hope that you will accept our invitation to visit our facilities.\nBest Regards,\nJohn B. McGowan\nPresident\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nJuly 15, 1981\nMr. John B. McGowan\nPresident, Utilities Material and Controls\nCorporation\nP.O. Box 991\nPaoli, PA 19301\nDear Mr. McGowan:\nThis responds to your letter of June 5, 1981, about your system for \"abandonment and/or the\ndisconnection of gas service lines\" and your kind invitation to our staff to visit your laboratory in\nFrazer, Pennsylvania.\nI am sure that we would find the demonstration of your new system most interesting.\nRegrettably, because of recent staff deple-\ntions and high workload priorities, we will not be able to accept your offer.\nIf you or the gas operators you supply wish to request a rule change to permit a system as you\nhave described to be used for the abandonment of gas services, we list the following guidelines for\nproposing rule changes. Of particular importance are the technical facts supporting any change\nproposed for the safety regulations.\nMTB's rulemaking procedures in 49 CFR §106.31, Petitions for rulemaking, state:\n(a) Any interested person may petition the Director to establish, amend, or repeal a\nregulation.\n(b) Each petition filed under this section must-\n(1) Set forth the tests or substance of the regulation or amendment proposed, or specify\nthe rule that the petitioner seeks to have repealed, as the case may be;\n(2) Explain the interest of the petitioner in the action requested; and\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n(3) Contain any information and arguments available to the petitioner to support the\naction sought.\nBy way of advice, the \"information and arguments\" of (b)(3) above should cover the following\npoints:\nü What is the safety problem relating to the action sought?\nü Why is the existing rule, or lack of rule, inadequate? Include history or origin of\nexisting safety situation with facts supporting need for change.\nü How will the proposed action solve the problem? Why is it the best of alternative\nsolutions to the problem in terms of costs, feasibility, etc.\nü State any anticipated benefits (quantify if possible).\nü What is the estimated cost, or the savings, of the proposal?\nI trust the above information will be of assistance to you.\nSincerely,\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director\nfor Pipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nNovember 2, 1983\nMr. Richard L. Beam, Associate Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Regulations\nMaterial Transportation Bureau\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Beam:\nI recently received a copy of your memorandum dated September 14, 1983, to Robert L.\nPaullin regarding a request for clarification of Section 192.614(b)(4). I was shocked to learn that\nthis memorandum completely contradicted a position your office took on this matter in June,\n1983. This turnaround concerns me greatly because the credibility of the Office of\nPipeline Safety Regulation has been seriously questioned by myself and many of my state pipeline\nsafety colleagues. I would expect that any verbal communication of positions would carry the\nsame weight or importance as any written position.\nBeing a strong supporter of the Federal/State partnership in pipeline safety, I believe we\nmust all work together to accomplish the task of fulfilling our responsibilities under the\nappropriate Federal and State pipeline safety laws. I would encourage your office to establish\nprocedures to inform interested persons of actions your office intends to take regarding inquiries\nfrom those interested people prior to circulating such material throughout the country. This\nshould help ensure that the issue being addressed was completely understood.\nI do not believe my June 17, 1983, letter to Mr. Edward Ondak regarding Section\n192.614(b)(4) was properly characterized or addressed in your September 14, 1983, answer to\nMr. Paullin's\nrequest for clarification. I am willing to discuss this matter with you or your staff and if additional\ninformation or further clarification is required, I will be pleased to work with you.\nI would appreciate your consideration in the matter and will indicate that we are not\nattempting to weaken the intent of the regulations but are recognizing that damage prevention\nprograms are different from state to state. The Michigan damage preven-\ntion legislation (1974 PA 53) and the one call communication system (MISS DIG) is the heart of\nthe damage prevention program in Michigan. This program, together with the cooperation of\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nexcavators and various utilities, has operated in an effective and efficient manner and it is my\ndesire to see that continue.\nVery truly yours,\nMichael J. Kidd, Supervisor\nOffice of Gas Operations\ndal\\192\\727\\83-10-30\n10","truncated":false,"body_characters":11668}