U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Environmental Assessment (EA)

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0009 September 2013 Prepared for: Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Prepared by: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Innovative Technology Administration#

Page 2DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I LIST OF ACRONYMS II 1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 2.1 INTRODUCTION 1 2.2 BACKGROUND 3 2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 4 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4 3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 4 3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION 5 3.4 ALTERNATIVE INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 6 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6 4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 6 4.1.1 Resources Not Affected 6 4.1.2 Physical Environment 8 4.1.3 Equipment Operators 8 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 9 4.2.1 Public Health & Safety 9 4.2.2 Socioeconomics 10 4.3 49 U.S.C. § 303 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS SECTION 4(F) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT) 11 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 12 5.1 PREPARERS 12 5.2 REFERENCES 12 September 2013 i#

Page 3DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences LIST OF ACRONYMS ANPRM CEQ CFR DOT EA EFV EIS FONSI LPG NEPA PHMSA RIA SCFH SFR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations United States Department of Transportation Environmental Assessment Excess flow valves Environmental Impact Statement Finding of No Significant Impact Liquefied petroleum gas National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NTSB National Transportation Safety Board Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Regulatory Impact Analysis Standard cubic feet per hour Single family residence U.S. United States September 2013 ii#

Page 4DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences 1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS This draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental consequences associated with adopting the proposed rule, “Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other than Single-Family Residences”. The rule proposes to require installation of excess flow valves on all new or replaced service lines for branched single-family residences, multi- family residences, and small commercial entities consuming gas volumes not exceeding 1,000 Standard Cubic Feet per Hour (SCFH). The Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is also proposing the use of curb valves (manual service line shut-off valves) for those facilities with known loads exceeding 1,000 SCFH. Chapter 1 offers background information regarding the proposed rule's purpose and need. Chapter 2 describes the Proposed Action and alternatives. Chapter 3 discusses the environment affected by the proposed rule, as well as potential environmental consequences resulting from the action and its alternative. This document focuses only on those resource categories that are of interest to the public and/or important to the decision: Public Health and Safety; Socioeconomics; and 49 U.S.C. § 303 (commonly referred to as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Chapter 4 includes the document's preparers and reviewers, and references consulted during the development of this document. 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This draft EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)1, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). This statute and the implementing regulations require that PHMSA assess the environmental impacts of any Proposed Federal Action; identify adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the Proposed Action be implemented; evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action, including a No Action Alternative; and describe the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action. This EA evaluates the potential individual and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the physical, human, and natural environment. If it is determined that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Action, then the determination will result in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). PHMSA would then publish a Final EA and the FONSI, completing the NEPA process. 1 42 U.S.C 4321 et seq. September2013 1#

Page 5DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences If significant impacts to the natural or human environment are indicated, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be prepared. An EIS is a more extensive study of the effects of the Proposed Action, and requires more rigorous public involvement. As stated in the Scope section, PHMSA is proposing to amend the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to require operators of gas distribution pipelines to install excess flow valves (EFV) where feasible on all new or replaced residential and small commercial service lines where the known load does not exceed 1,000 Standard Cubic Feet per Hour (SCFH). PHMSA is also proposing to require operators to install manual shutoff valves (curb valves) on all other new or replaced service lines with loads that exceed 1,000 SCFH. This amendment would expand the installation of EFVs beyond the single-family residence (SFR) service lines requirement included in the 2010 Distribution Integrity Management rule2 , to cover branched service lines, multifamily residences, and small commercial service lines. The proposed requirements would pertain to all distribution operators including liquefied petroleum gas LPG and master meter operators. However, Section 192.383 will continue to include exceptions for cases where installation of an EFV would not be feasible. These exceptions are currently listed in 192.383(b)(1)-(4). An EFV is a mechanical safety device installed inside the natural gas service line between the street and residential meter. The EFV will “trip” if there is damage to the line, to minimize the flow of gas through the line and thus, the amount that escapes into the atmosphere. During normal use, the valve is kept pushed open against oncoming gas flow by a spring. EFVs are designed so that general usage such as turning on appliances will not shut the valve. However during a significant increase in the flow of gas (e.g. due to a damaged line), the spring cannot overcome the force of gas and the valve will close and stay closed until the correct pressure is restored. When the correct pressure is restored, the EFV automatically resets itself. A curb valve is a valve installed in a natural gas service line that is used to manually shut off the gas supply to a building. Curb valves are installed underground at or near the property line, normally with protective curb boxes or standpipes installed over or around the valve. They are operated by use of a removable key or specialized wrench. 2 “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines”, Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 232. (December 4, 2009). September2013 2#

Page 6DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences 2.2 BACKGROUND Between 1999 and 2009, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified more than 16 significant incidents that could have been mitigated by the presence of an excess flow valve and has issued more than twenty recommendations concerning the installation of EFVs in both residential and commercial locations. The NTSB’s recommendations culminated in Safety Recommendation P-01-2, which recommends excess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines regardless of a customer’s classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves.” See PHMSA 2011-0009 for a copy of the NTSB Recommendation P- 01-02. On November 25, 2011, PHMSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that included an Interim Evaluation of NTSB Recommendation P-01-02. 3 The Interim Evaluation recommended that an economic analysis be performed that would take into account alternatives, including curb valves; differentiate among the various classifications of customers; and reflect the increase in EFVs already installed. The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule discusses the economic analysis findings. See PHMSA 2011-0009. In the ANPRM, PHMSA requested comments on, among other items, socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Comments on socioeconomics are addressed in detail in the RIA. One comment on environmental impacts addressed the potential adverse effects of EFVs on industrial users, which is not proposed by the rule, and the other noted a likely minor environmental benefit derived from expanding the use of EFVs. On January 3, 2012, while the ANPRM was open for comments, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90) (The Act) was signed into law. Section 22 of the law required PHMSA to expand the EFV requirement to branched and multi-family service lines and small commercial service lines, “if appropriate” and “after issuing a final report on the evaluation of the NTSB’s recommendation on excess flow valves in applications other than service lines serving one single family residence.” 4 3 “Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences”, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 76 Fed. Reg. 72666 (November 25, 2011). 4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, 125 Stat. 1904 (2012). September2013 3#

Page 7DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences 2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED Part of PHMSA’s mission is to ensure the safety of the natural gas system. The purpose of this proposed rule is to improve safety by mitigating the damages from sudden pipeline ruptures and breaks by quickly shutting off the released gas. EFVs are designed to automatically stop the flow of a gas when the flow increases suddenly and significantly, such as during a pipeline separation. They are used in the United States and around the world to mitigate damage resulting from a sudden pipeline rupture caused by a natural disaster, excavation damage, or other third party damage. Recognizing the safety benefits of excess flow valve installation in natural gas distribution systems, the Act directed PHMSA to expand EFVs to multi-family residential and small commercial entities. In addition, NTSB recommended that PHMSA “require that excess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer’s classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves.” Some companies are already installing excess flow valves beyond single family residences, so the proposed rule would bring all companies up to this safety standard, where economically and technically feasible, and require manual shut-off valves on all other new or replaced lines. 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES PHMSA considered the following alternatives to the proposed rule: no-action, the full implementation of NTSB’s Recommendation P-01-2 (requiring EFVs on service lines regardless of known load size), and the hybrid approach. This EA examines the environmental impacts of two alternatives: the No Action Alternative, which is required by NEPA and the hybrid approach, which is the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, PHMSA would not impose a new rule to amend the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to require operators of gas distribution pipelines to install EFVs or manual shutoff valves where it is feasible on all new and renewed gas service lines. The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA requires the analysis of a No Action Alternative, as the No Action Alternative is commonly used to define existing conditions of the natural and human-made environments. Under the Proposed Action, PHMSA would implement a new regulation which would require EFVs where it is feasible on all new or replaced residential and commercial service lines where the known load does not exceed 1,000 SCFH and curb valves on all other new or replaced lines not covered by an excess flow valve. September2013 4#

Page 8DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences 3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, PHMSA would not impose a new rule requiring operators of gas distribution pipelines to install EFVs or curb valves on new and replaced gas service lines. EFVs would continue to be required for single family residence service lines, per the 2010 Distribution Integrity Management rule. 5 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action would require operators of gas distribution pipelines to install EFVs on all new or replaced residential and commercial service lines where it is feasible and the known load does not exceed 1,000 SCFH and to install curb valves on all other new or replaced lines. This would expand the installation of EFVs beyond the single family residence service lines requirement to cover branched service lines, multifamily residences, and small commercial service lines serving a single customer with a known load that does not exceed 1,000 SCFH. Curb valves are an alternative that avoid a false closure but require a trained responder to be on site to shut the valve, lengthening the time that gas is being released after an incident. This alternative is a hybrid approach to the NTSB’s recommendation to require EFVs to be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer’s classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves. Each type of valve would be placed where it is most operationally effective and maximizes the overall safety benefit. EFVs, which provide greater safety benefits in an incident than manual shut-off valves, would be required on smaller, more stable loads similar to single-family residences. These properties would have few negative operational impacts and would be protected with automatic shut-off capabilities in the event of a pipeline rupture, saving life and property. Other lines, including those serving public establishments, large commercial or industrial customers, would receive some safety benefits from manual shut-off valves without potentially incurring the costs of a false closure. The Proposed Action would satisfy the requirements of the Act and respond to the NTSB’s recommendation, by ensuring service lines have adequate protection from either EFVs or curb valves, where feasible. 5 “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines”, Final Rule, 74 fed. Reg. 232. (December 4, 2009). September2013 5#

Page 9DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences 3.4 ALTERNATIVE INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED PHMSA has considered implementing NTSB’s full recommendation to require EFVs on all new and renewed gas service lines regardless of load amount. While EFVs provide safety benefits by snapping shut automatically and rapidly due to changes in gas pressure/flow, they also shut in response when customers suddenly increase their gas load, such as the turning on of an industrial oven, causing an inconvenience for the customer. A “false closure”, when the EFV shuts in response to a snap load rather than an incident, can cause considerable damage in certain cases. This could lead to harmful chemical releases if the gas used to burn chemical waste in factories was suddenly shut off. It would also have consequences in medical establishments, where a sudden loss of heat or hot water could cause serious harm. While EFVs can be sized to prevent most false closures, there is still a chance for it to occur, particularly for customers whose gas loads are more variable. In addition, the full implementation of Recommendation P-01-2 would have increased the potential economic impact of the proposed rule. Because the proposed rule is focused on ensuring safety and does not have a significant economic impact on small entities, PHMSA did not consider establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small entities. This alternative was considered, but dismissed from further analysis because the potential for false closures would make it impractical in many settings and because it would have increased the potential economic impact of the proposed rule. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter describes the conditions of the affected environment as it is relevant to the proposed rule. It first identifies resources that PHMSA expects would not be affected by the proposed rule and then describes resources that may be affected by the proposed rule. Finally, it describes the resulting impacts on Public Health and Safety, Socioeconomics, and Section 4(f) Compliance. 4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1.1 Resources Not Affected Consistent with CEQ regulations and guidance, this Draft EA discusses impacts of the alternatives in proportion to their potential significance and addresses only those September2013 6#

Page 10DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action. PHMSA anticipates that the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative would have negligible or no impact on several resources discussed below. Therefore these resources are not analyzed further. Topography, Geology, and Soils. Because EFVs would only be required in new or replaced lines, the Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground- disturbing activities that would affect topography, geology, or soils. Since the No Action Alternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities, this alternative would not affect topography, geology, or soils. Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste. PHMSA’s Proposed Action does not require any change in pipeline practices, but would require EFVs to prevent unintentional gas releases. EFVs would not be required at facilities where a “false closure” could lead to harmful chemical releases if the gas used to burn chemical waste in factories was suddenly shut off. Therefore, the Proposed Action may have a minor positive impact on Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste. Since the No Action Alternative would not require any changes to pipeline practices, this alternative would not affect hazardous materials, hazardous waste, or solid waste. Water Resources (including Wetlands and Floodplains). The Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground-disturbing activities or result in any emissions that would affect water resources, wetlands, and floodplains. Since the No Action Alternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities, this alternative would not affect water resources. Historical and Archeological Resources. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground-disturbing activities that would affect cultural, historical or archaeological resources, including resources protected by the National Historic Preservation Act. Since the No Action Alternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities, this alternative would not affect historical or archeological resources. Wildlife. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground- disturbing activities or result in any emissions that would affect wildlife, including wildlife protected by the Endangered Species Act. Since the No Action Alternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities, this alternative would not affect wildlife. Farmland Resources. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground-disturbing activities or result in any emissions that would affect farmland. Since September2013 7#

Page 11DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences the No Action Alternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities, this alternative would not affect farmland resources. Air Quality and Climate. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground-disturbing activities or result in any emissions that would affect air quality and climate. Additionally, the EFV requirement could prevent unintentional gas releases. Therefore, the Proposed Action may have a negligible positive impact on air quality or climate change. Environmental Justice. The Proposed Action would impact all pipelines that meet the criteria regardless of the geographic location. Therefore, Environmental Justice populations are not expected to be affected any differently than the general population. Consequently, consistent with Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2(a) and PHMSA Order 5610.2, PHMSA does not anticipate that either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternatives would result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. 4.1.2 Physical Environment PHMSA is responsible for regulating the safety of over two million miles of pipelines. These pipelines are located throughout the United States, onshore and offshore, and traverse a variety of environments - from highly populated urban sites to remote, unpopulated rural areas. The affected environment for the Proposed Action would be the land area in the United States where new service lines are installed or existing service lines are replaced. 4.1.3 Equipment Operators The gas distribution industry is complex, composed of some very small operators, which include master meter operators that serve only a few customers, medium-sized operators, many of which are municipal agencies, serving between 1,000 and 50,000 customers, and some larger companies operating sizable systems often in multiple states. The industry is also fluid, as companies may merge or municipalities decide to jointly provide services or offer a contract to a third party to operate a system. The Proposed Action would apply to all operators of gas distribution systems, including master meter and LPG systems regulated under 49 CFR Part 192. The 2011 annual report database contains 1,289 unique operators with 66 million service lines. Master meters and small LPG systems comprise another approximately 6,184 operators with an unknown September2013 8#

Page 12DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences number of lines. Benefit-cost analyses have assumed 100 lines per operator in this category, which leads to an additional 620,000 service lines potentially impacted. 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES NEPA requires analysis of environmental impacts and socioeconomic consequences; thus, impacts to the environmental resources and primary stakeholder group potentially affected by the rulemaking (described above) are discussed below. 4.2.1 Public Health & Safety No Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, it is likely that the number of significant incidents due to unintentional releases would not decrease. In fact, as the network of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines expands in the future, the number of significant incidents may increase. Incident-related fatalities, injuries, and property damage that could be mitigated by the use of the valves would not be mitigated and may also increase in number. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative may result in a negative impact to public health and safety. Proposed Action The primary purpose of the proposed rule is to improve safety by mitigating the damages from sudden pipeline ruptures and breaks by quickly shutting off the released gas, either automatically in the case of EFVs, or manually in the case of curb valves. Between January 1, 1999 and July 15, 2009, incidents that may have been prevented if an EFV or manual valve were in place resulted in a total of 40 fatalities and 256 injuries. 6 The proposed rule would improve public safety by requiring EFVs or curb valves for services that currently do not require the valves, thereby reducing the occurrence of significant incidents, including fatalities, personal injuries, and property damage, that could be mitigated by the presence of the valves. Therefore, the proposed rule would result in a positive impact to public health and safety. In addition to the positive impact of the proposed rule identified in the paragraph above, the 2010 Distribution Integrity Management rule has resulted in a positive impact to public health and safety by reducing the occurrence of significant incidences. Therefore, 6 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Interim Evaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess Flow Valves in Applications other than Service Lines Serving Single Family Residence (issued as part of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 76 Federal Register 227 72666-72671 (November 25, 2011). September2013 9#

Page 13DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences the cumulative impact of the two rules would result in a positive impact to public health and safety. 4.2.2 Socioeconomics As part of the rulemaking action, the costs and benefits of the regulations were assessed in a RIA. See Docket PHMSA 2011-0009. This section is a summary of that analysis. No Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, no new costs would be incurred by any party, as no new requirements would be imposed by the Federal government. Proposed Action Socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule may result, as the operators of the lines that would be impacted by the proposed regulatory changes would incur costs attributable to the proposed rule. Each EFV and curb valve would impose a cost on the operators of the lines that would be subject to the proposed rule. The cost of each EFV installation would be approximately 30 dollars. The cost of each curb valve installation would be approximately 55 dollars. For both types of valves, these costs may be slightly larger for smaller operators due to economies of scale in purchasing; however, the cost would remain minimal. Additionally, public operators and natural gas distributors would be able to pass on increased costs through rate adjustments, further minimizing impacts to those entities. For both types of valves, the one-time costs that would be incurred by the operators during the installation of new or replaced service lines would provide safety benefits for about 50 years after installation. The proposed rule is assumed to affect approximately 1,289 natural gas distribution operators and an average of 222,114 services per year. Based on the number and category of lines that were installed in 2011, the proposed rule would require EFVs to be installed on an additional 181,159 lines annually and curb valves to be installed on an additional 40,955 lines annually. Multi-family lines would constitute 85 percent of the additional lines on which EFVs would be installed and commercial lines would constitute 15 percent of the additional lines on which EFVs would to be installed. The total annualized benefits of the rule are $7.7 million when discounted at 7 percent, while the costs discounted at the same rate would be $10.5 million. These values assume September2013 10#

Page 14DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences that without the proposed rule, EFVs would be installed only in SFR lines, as required under existing regulations and no curb valves would be installed. The RIA found that while quantified economic benefits would not exceed the economic costs in all cases, the rule would have significant unquantifiable benefits, including mitigating the potential for fatalities, injuries and lost business activity. In addition, the benefits are based on high-cost, low-probability incidents. Key incidents identified by NTSB include the 1994 explosion at a nursing home in Allentown, PA, which resulted in a fatality, 66 injuries, and $5 million in property damage, and the 1998 explosion in St. Cloud, MN that demolished a pizzeria, apartments, a law office, and a bar and took four lives.7 Had the proposed rule been in place and prevented either incident, those avoided incident costs alone would have made the rule cost-effective. In addition to the positive impact of the proposed rule identified in the paragraph above, the 2010 Distribution Integrity Management rule has had significant unquantifiable benefits, including mitigating the potential for fatalities and injuries. Therefore, the two rules would result in a greater total cost effectiveness and therefore, a cumulative positive benefit. 4.3 49 U.S.C. § 303 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS SECTION 4(F) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT) 49 U.S.C. 303(c) (commonly referred to as section 4(f) of the DOT Act) requires agencies within the DOT to make special effort to preserve the natural beauty of historic sites and public parks and recreation lands; if a transportation program requires the use of public land in a public park, the program must include all possible planning to minimize harm to the park or historic area. Under the No-Action Alternative, no new requirements would be impacted by the Federal government and therefore, no activity would occur that would constitute a use under Section 4(f). The proposed rule would require installation of valves only on new or replaced lines, and therefore, would not cause any ground disturbing or other activity that would constitute a use under Section 4(f). 7 National Transportation Safety Board, UGI Utilities, Inc., Natural Gas Distribution Pipeline Explosion and Fire, Allentown, Pennsylvania, June 9, 1994, Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-96/01 (Washington, D.C.: NTSB, 1996) and National Transportation Safety Board, Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Subsequent Explosion, St.Cloud, Minnesota, December 11, 1998, Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-00/01 (Washington, D.C.: NTSB,2000) September2013 11#

Page 15DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences Therefore, a Section 4(f) statement is not required to be prepared for this rule. 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 5.1 PREPARERS This EA was prepared by the following DOT staff from PHMSA and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration): Preparers Volpe Preparers: Marla Engel, MRP, AICP, Environmental Protection Specialist Jennifer Papazian, MEM, Environmental Protection Specialist 5.2 REFERENCES Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines: 49 CFR 192 Final Rule. 74 Federal Register 232. (December 4, 2009). Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences, Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making. 76 Federal Register 227 72666-72671 (November 25, 2011). Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Interim Evaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess Flow Valves in Applications other than Service Lines Serving Single Family Residence (issued as part of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making), 76 Federal Register 227 72666-72671 (November 25, 2011). National Transportation Safety Board, UGI Utilities, Inc., Natural Gas Distribution Pipeline Explosion and Fire, Allentown, Pennsylvania, June 9, 1994, Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-96/01 (Washington, D.C.: NTSB, 1996). September2013 12#

Page 16DRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences National Transportation Safety Board, Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Subsequent Explosion, St. Cloud, Minnesota, December 11, 1998, Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-00/01 (Washington, D.C.: NTSB, 2000). September2013 13#