{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006481b75f46","title":"U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Environmental Assessment (EA)","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"U.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... DRAFT 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...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481b75f46.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481b75f46.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006481b75f46","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-2011-0009-0028/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nPipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow\nValves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications\nOther Than Single-Family Residences\nDraft Environmental Assessment\nDocket No. PHMSA-2011-0009\nSeptember 2013\nPrepared for:\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nPrepared by:\nJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center\nResearch and Innovative Technology Administration\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS I\nLIST OF ACRONYMS II\n1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 1\n2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1\n2.1 INTRODUCTION 1\n2.2 BACKGROUND 3\n2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 4\n3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4\n3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 4\n3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5\n3.3 PROPOSED ACTION 5\n3.4 ALTERNATIVE INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 6\n4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6\n4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 6\n4.1.1 Resources Not Affected 6\n4.1.2 Physical Environment 8\n4.1.3 Equipment Operators 8\n4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 9\n4.2.1 Public Health & Safety 9\n4.2.2 Socioeconomics 10\n4.3 49 U.S.C. § 303 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS SECTION 4(F) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF\nTRANSPORTATION ACT) 11\n5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 12\n5.1 PREPARERS 12\n5.2 REFERENCES 12\nSeptember 2013 i\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nLIST OF ACRONYMS\nANPRM\nCEQ\nCFR\nDOT\nEA\nEFV\nEIS\nFONSI\nLPG\nNEPA PHMSA\nRIA\nSCFH\nSFR\nAdvance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking\nCouncil on Environmental Quality\nCode of Federal Regulations\nUnited States Department of Transportation\nEnvironmental Assessment\nExcess flow valves\nEnvironmental Impact Statement\nFinding of No Significant Impact\nLiquefied petroleum gas\nNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969\nNTSB National Transportation Safety Board\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nRegulatory Impact Analysis\nStandard cubic feet per hour\nSingle family residence\nU.S. United States\nSeptember 2013 ii\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\n1.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS\nThis draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental\nconsequences associated with adopting the proposed rule, “Pipeline Safety: Expanding\nthe Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other than\nSingle-Family Residences”. The rule proposes to require installation of excess flow\nvalves on all new or replaced service lines for branched single-family residences, multi-\nfamily residences, and small commercial entities consuming gas volumes not exceeding\n1,000 Standard Cubic Feet per Hour (SCFH). The Pipeline & Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) is also proposing the use of curb valves (manual service\nline shut-off valves) for those facilities with known loads exceeding 1,000 SCFH.\nChapter 1 offers background information regarding the proposed rule's purpose and need.\nChapter 2 describes the Proposed Action and alternatives. Chapter 3 discusses the\nenvironment affected by the proposed rule, as well as potential environmental\nconsequences resulting from the action and its alternative. This document focuses only on\nthose resource categories that are of interest to the public and/or important to the\ndecision: Public Health and Safety; Socioeconomics; and 49 U.S.C. § 303 (commonly\nreferred to as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Chapter 4 includes\nthe document's preparers and reviewers, and references consulted during the development\nof this document.\n2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION\n2.1 INTRODUCTION\nThis draft EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of\n1969 (NEPA)1, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for\nimplementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). This statute and the implementing\nregulations require that PHMSA assess the environmental impacts of any Proposed\nFederal Action; identify adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the\nProposed Action be implemented; evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action, including\na No Action Alternative; and describe the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action.\nThis EA evaluates the potential individual and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action\nand the No Action Alternative on the physical, human, and natural environment.\nIf it is determined that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed\nAction, then the determination will result in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).\nPHMSA would then publish a Final EA and the FONSI, completing the NEPA process.\n1 42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.\nSeptember2013 1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nIf significant impacts to the natural or human environment are indicated, an\nEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be prepared. An EIS is a more extensive\nstudy of the effects of the Proposed Action, and requires more rigorous public\ninvolvement.\nAs stated in the Scope section, PHMSA is proposing to amend the Federal Pipeline\nSafety Regulations to require operators of gas distribution pipelines to install excess flow\nvalves (EFV) where feasible on all new or replaced residential and small commercial\nservice lines where the known load does not exceed 1,000 Standard Cubic Feet per Hour\n(SCFH). PHMSA is also proposing to require operators to install manual shutoff valves\n(curb valves) on all other new or replaced service lines with loads that exceed 1,000\nSCFH. This amendment would expand the installation of EFVs beyond the single-family\nresidence (SFR) service lines requirement included in the 2010 Distribution Integrity\nManagement rule2\n, to cover branched service lines, multifamily residences, and small\ncommercial service lines. The proposed requirements would pertain to all distribution\noperators including liquefied petroleum gas LPG and master meter operators. However,\nSection 192.383 will continue to include exceptions for cases where installation of an\nEFV would not be feasible. These exceptions are currently listed in 192.383(b)(1)-(4).\nAn EFV is a mechanical safety device installed inside the natural gas service line\nbetween the street and residential meter. The EFV will “trip” if there is damage to the\nline, to minimize the flow of gas through the line and thus, the amount that escapes into\nthe atmosphere. During normal use, the valve is kept pushed open against oncoming gas\nflow by a spring. EFVs are designed so that general usage such as turning on appliances\nwill not shut the valve. However during a significant increase in the flow of gas (e.g. due\nto a damaged line), the spring cannot overcome the force of gas and the valve will close\nand stay closed until the correct pressure is restored. When the correct pressure is\nrestored, the EFV automatically resets itself.\nA curb valve is a valve installed in a natural gas service line that is used to manually shut\noff the gas supply to a building. Curb valves are installed underground at or near the\nproperty line, normally with protective curb boxes or standpipes installed over or around\nthe valve. They are operated by use of a removable key or specialized wrench.\n2 “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines”, Final Rule, 74 Fed.\nReg. 232. (December 4, 2009).\nSeptember2013 2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\n2.2 BACKGROUND\nBetween 1999 and 2009, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified\nmore than 16 significant incidents that could have been mitigated by the presence of an\nexcess flow valve and has issued more than twenty recommendations concerning the\ninstallation of EFVs in both residential and commercial locations. The NTSB’s\nrecommendations culminated in Safety Recommendation P-01-2, which recommends\nexcess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines regardless of a\ncustomer’s classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily\navailable valves.” See PHMSA 2011-0009 for a copy of the NTSB Recommendation P-\n01-02.\nOn November 25, 2011, PHMSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking\n(ANPRM) that included an Interim Evaluation of NTSB Recommendation P-01-02.\n3 The\nInterim Evaluation recommended that an economic analysis be performed that would\ntake into account alternatives, including curb valves; differentiate among the various\nclassifications of customers; and reflect the increase in EFVs already installed. The\nRegulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule discusses the economic analysis\nfindings. See PHMSA 2011-0009.\nIn the ANPRM, PHMSA requested comments on, among other items, socioeconomic and\nenvironmental impacts. Comments on socioeconomics are addressed in detail in the RIA.\nOne comment on environmental impacts addressed the potential adverse effects of EFVs\non industrial users, which is not proposed by the rule, and the other noted a likely minor\nenvironmental benefit derived from expanding the use of EFVs.\nOn January 3, 2012, while the ANPRM was open for comments, the Pipeline Safety,\nRegulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90) (The Act) was signed\ninto law. Section 22 of the law required PHMSA to expand the EFV requirement to\nbranched and multi-family service lines and small commercial service lines,\n“if\nappropriate” and “after issuing a final report on the evaluation of the NTSB’s\nrecommendation on excess flow valves in applications other than service lines serving\none single family residence.” 4\n3 “Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications\nOther Than Single-Family Residences”, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 76 Fed. Reg. 72666\n(November 25, 2011).\n4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, 125 Stat.\n1904 (2012).\nSeptember2013 3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\n2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED\nPart of PHMSA’s mission is to ensure the safety of the natural gas system. The purpose\nof this proposed rule is to improve safety by mitigating the damages from sudden pipeline\nruptures and breaks by quickly shutting off the released gas. EFVs are designed to\nautomatically stop the flow of a gas when the flow increases suddenly and significantly,\nsuch as during a pipeline separation. They are used in the United States and around the\nworld to mitigate damage resulting from a sudden pipeline rupture caused by a natural\ndisaster, excavation damage, or other third party damage.\nRecognizing the safety benefits of excess flow valve installation in natural gas\ndistribution systems, the Act directed PHMSA to expand EFVs to multi-family\nresidential and small commercial entities. In addition, NTSB recommended that PHMSA\n“require that excess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines,\nregardless of a customer’s classification, when the operating conditions are compatible\nwith readily available valves.” Some companies are already installing excess flow valves\nbeyond single family residences, so the proposed rule would bring all companies up to\nthis safety standard, where economically and technically feasible, and require manual\nshut-off valves on all other new or replaced lines.\n3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES\n3.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES\nPHMSA considered the following alternatives to the proposed rule: no-action, the full\nimplementation of NTSB’s Recommendation P-01-2 (requiring EFVs on service lines\nregardless of known load size), and the hybrid approach. This EA examines the\nenvironmental impacts of two alternatives: the No Action Alternative, which is required\nby NEPA and the hybrid approach, which is the Proposed Action.\nUnder the No Action Alternative, PHMSA would not impose a new rule to amend the\nFederal Pipeline Safety Regulations to require operators of gas distribution pipelines to\ninstall EFVs or manual shutoff valves where it is feasible on all new and renewed gas\nservice lines. The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA requires the analysis of a No\nAction Alternative, as the No Action Alternative is commonly used to define existing\nconditions of the natural and human-made environments.\nUnder the Proposed Action, PHMSA would implement a new regulation which would\nrequire EFVs where it is feasible on all new or replaced residential and commercial\nservice lines where the known load does not exceed 1,000 SCFH and curb valves on all\nother new or replaced lines not covered by an excess flow valve.\nSeptember2013 4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\n3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE\nUnder this alternative, PHMSA would not impose a new rule requiring operators of gas\ndistribution pipelines to install EFVs or curb valves on new and replaced gas service\nlines. EFVs would continue to be required for single family residence service lines, per\nthe 2010 Distribution Integrity Management rule.\n5\n3.3 PROPOSED ACTION\nThe Proposed Action would require operators of gas distribution pipelines to install EFVs\non all new or replaced residential and commercial service lines where it is feasible and\nthe known load does not exceed 1,000 SCFH and to install curb valves on all other new\nor replaced lines. This would expand the installation of EFVs beyond the single family\nresidence service lines requirement to cover branched service lines, multifamily\nresidences, and small commercial service lines serving a single customer with a known\nload that does not exceed 1,000 SCFH. Curb valves are an alternative that avoid a false\nclosure but require a trained responder to be on site to shut the valve, lengthening the\ntime that gas is being released after an incident.\nThis alternative is a hybrid approach to the NTSB’s recommendation to require EFVs to\nbe installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer’s\nclassification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves.\nEach type of valve would be placed where it is most operationally effective and\nmaximizes the overall safety benefit. EFVs, which provide greater safety benefits in an\nincident than manual shut-off valves, would be required on smaller, more stable loads\nsimilar to single-family residences. These properties would have few negative operational\nimpacts and would be protected with automatic shut-off capabilities in the event of a\npipeline rupture, saving life and property. Other lines, including those serving public\nestablishments, large commercial or industrial customers, would receive some safety\nbenefits from manual shut-off valves without potentially incurring the costs of a false\nclosure.\nThe Proposed Action would satisfy the requirements of the Act and respond to the\nNTSB’s recommendation, by ensuring service lines have adequate protection from either\nEFVs or curb valves, where feasible.\n5 “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines”, Final Rule, 74 fed.\nReg. 232. (December 4, 2009).\nSeptember2013 5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\n3.4 ALTERNATIVE INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED\nPHMSA has considered implementing NTSB’s full recommendation to require EFVs on\nall new and renewed gas service lines regardless of load amount.\nWhile EFVs provide safety benefits by snapping shut automatically and rapidly due to\nchanges in gas pressure/flow, they also shut in response when customers suddenly\nincrease their gas load, such as the turning on of an industrial oven, causing an\ninconvenience for the customer. A “false closure”, when the EFV shuts in response to a\nsnap load rather than an incident, can cause considerable damage in certain cases. This\ncould lead to harmful chemical releases if the gas used to burn chemical waste in\nfactories was suddenly shut off. It would also have consequences in medical\nestablishments, where a sudden loss of heat or hot water could cause serious harm. While\nEFVs can be sized to prevent most false closures, there is still a chance for it to occur,\nparticularly for customers whose gas loads are more variable.\nIn addition, the full implementation of Recommendation P-01-2 would have increased the\npotential economic impact of the proposed rule. Because the proposed rule is focused on\nensuring safety and does not have a significant economic impact on small entities,\nPHMSA did not consider establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or\ntimetables for small entities.\nThis alternative was considered, but dismissed from further analysis because the potential\nfor false closures would make it impractical in many settings and because it would have\nincreased the potential economic impact of the proposed rule.\n4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL\nCONSEQUENCES\nThis chapter describes the conditions of the affected environment as it is relevant to the\nproposed rule. It first identifies resources that PHMSA expects would not be affected by\nthe proposed rule and then describes resources that may be affected by the proposed rule.\nFinally, it describes the resulting impacts on Public Health and Safety, Socioeconomics,\nand Section 4(f) Compliance.\n4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT\n4.1.1 Resources Not Affected\nConsistent with CEQ regulations and guidance, this Draft EA discusses impacts of the\nalternatives in proportion to their potential significance and addresses only those\nSeptember2013 6\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nresources that may be affected by the Proposed Action. PHMSA anticipates that the\nProposed Action and the No Action Alternative would have negligible or no impact on\nseveral resources discussed below. Therefore these resources are not analyzed further.\nTopography, Geology, and Soils. Because EFVs would only be required in new or\nreplaced lines, the Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground-\ndisturbing activities that would affect topography, geology, or soils. Since the No Action\nAlternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities, this\nalternative would not affect topography, geology, or soils.\nHazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste. PHMSA’s Proposed\nAction does not require any change in pipeline practices, but would require EFVs to\nprevent unintentional gas releases. EFVs would not be required at facilities where a\n“false closure” could lead to harmful chemical releases if the gas used to burn chemical\nwaste in factories was suddenly shut off. Therefore, the Proposed Action may have a\nminor positive impact on Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste.\nSince the No Action Alternative would not require any changes to pipeline practices, this\nalternative would not affect hazardous materials, hazardous waste, or solid waste.\nWater Resources (including Wetlands and Floodplains). The Proposed Action would\nnot require any construction or other ground-disturbing activities or result in any\nemissions that would affect water resources, wetlands, and floodplains. Since the No\nAction Alternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities,\nthis alternative would not affect water resources.\nHistorical and Archeological Resources. The Proposed Action would not require any\nconstruction or other ground-disturbing activities that would affect cultural, historical or\narchaeological resources, including resources protected by the National Historic\nPreservation Act. Since the No Action Alternative would not require any construction or\nground-disturbing activities, this alternative would not affect historical or archeological\nresources.\nWildlife. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or other ground-\ndisturbing activities or result in any emissions that would affect wildlife, including\nwildlife protected by the Endangered Species Act. Since the No Action Alternative\nwould not require any construction or ground-disturbing activities, this alternative would\nnot affect wildlife.\nFarmland Resources. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or other\nground-disturbing activities or result in any emissions that would affect farmland. Since\nSeptember2013 7\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nthe No Action Alternative would not require any construction or ground-disturbing\nactivities, this alternative would not affect farmland resources.\nAir Quality and Climate. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or\nother ground-disturbing activities or result in any emissions that would affect air quality\nand climate. Additionally, the EFV requirement could prevent unintentional gas releases.\nTherefore, the Proposed Action may have a negligible positive impact on air quality or\nclimate change.\nEnvironmental Justice. The Proposed Action would impact all pipelines that meet the\ncriteria regardless of the geographic location. Therefore, Environmental Justice\npopulations are not expected to be affected any differently than the general population.\nConsequently, consistent with Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2(a) and\nPHMSA Order 5610.2, PHMSA does not anticipate that either the Proposed Action or No\nAction Alternatives would result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or\nenvironmental effects on minority or low-income populations.\n4.1.2 Physical Environment\nPHMSA is responsible for regulating the safety of over two million miles of pipelines.\nThese pipelines are located throughout the United States, onshore and offshore, and\ntraverse a variety of environments - from highly populated urban sites to remote,\nunpopulated rural areas.\nThe affected environment for the Proposed Action would be the land area in the United\nStates where new service lines are installed or existing service lines are replaced.\n4.1.3 Equipment Operators\nThe gas distribution industry is complex, composed of some very small operators, which\ninclude master meter operators that serve only a few customers, medium-sized operators,\nmany of which are municipal agencies, serving between 1,000 and 50,000 customers, and\nsome larger companies operating sizable systems often in multiple states. The industry is\nalso fluid, as companies may merge or municipalities decide to jointly provide services or\noffer a contract to a third party to operate a system.\nThe Proposed Action would apply to all operators of gas distribution systems, including\nmaster meter and LPG systems regulated under 49 CFR Part 192. The 2011 annual report\ndatabase contains 1,289 unique operators with 66 million service lines. Master meters and\nsmall LPG systems comprise another approximately 6,184 operators with an unknown\nSeptember2013 8\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nnumber of lines. Benefit-cost analyses have assumed 100 lines per operator in this\ncategory, which leads to an additional 620,000 service lines potentially impacted.\n4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES\nNEPA requires analysis of environmental impacts and socioeconomic consequences;\nthus, impacts to the environmental resources and primary stakeholder group potentially\naffected by the rulemaking (described above) are discussed below.\n4.2.1 Public Health & Safety\nNo Action Alternative\nUnder the No-Action Alternative, it is likely that the number of significant incidents due\nto unintentional releases would not decrease. In fact, as the network of gas and hazardous\nliquid pipelines expands in the future, the number of significant incidents may increase.\nIncident-related fatalities, injuries, and property damage that could be mitigated by the\nuse of the valves would not be mitigated and may also increase in number. Therefore, the\nNo-Action Alternative may result in a negative impact to public health and safety.\nProposed Action\nThe primary purpose of the proposed rule is to improve safety by mitigating the damages\nfrom sudden pipeline ruptures and breaks by quickly shutting off the released gas, either\nautomatically in the case of EFVs, or manually in the case of curb valves. Between\nJanuary 1, 1999 and July 15, 2009, incidents that may have been prevented if an EFV or\nmanual valve were in place resulted in a total of 40 fatalities and 256 injuries.\n6 The\nproposed rule would improve public safety by requiring EFVs or curb valves for services\nthat currently do not require the valves, thereby reducing the occurrence of significant\nincidents, including fatalities, personal injuries, and property damage, that could be\nmitigated by the presence of the valves. Therefore, the proposed rule would result in a\npositive impact to public health and safety.\nIn addition to the positive impact of the proposed rule identified in the paragraph above,\nthe 2010 Distribution Integrity Management rule has resulted in a positive impact to\npublic health and safety by reducing the occurrence of significant incidences. Therefore,\n6 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Interim\nEvaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess Flow Valves in Applications other than Service Lines\nServing Single Family Residence (issued as part of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 76\nFederal Register 227 72666-72671 (November 25, 2011).\nSeptember2013 9\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nthe cumulative impact of the two rules would result in a positive impact to public health\nand safety.\n4.2.2 Socioeconomics\nAs part of the rulemaking action, the costs and benefits of the regulations were assessed\nin a RIA. See Docket PHMSA 2011-0009. This section is a summary of that analysis.\nNo Action Alternative\nUnder the No-Action Alternative, no new costs would be incurred by any party, as no\nnew requirements would be imposed by the Federal government.\nProposed Action\nSocioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule may result, as the operators of the lines that\nwould be impacted by the proposed regulatory changes would incur costs attributable to\nthe proposed rule.\nEach EFV and curb valve would impose a cost on the operators of the lines that would be\nsubject to the proposed rule. The cost of each EFV installation would be approximately\n30 dollars. The cost of each curb valve installation would be approximately 55 dollars.\nFor both types of valves, these costs may be slightly larger for smaller operators due to\neconomies of scale in purchasing; however, the cost would remain minimal. Additionally,\npublic operators and natural gas distributors would be able to pass on increased costs\nthrough rate adjustments, further minimizing impacts to those entities. For both types of\nvalves, the one-time costs that would be incurred by the operators during the installation\nof new or replaced service lines would provide safety benefits for about 50 years after\ninstallation. The proposed rule is assumed to affect approximately 1,289 natural gas\ndistribution operators and an average of 222,114 services per year.\nBased on the number and category of lines that were installed in 2011, the proposed rule\nwould require EFVs to be installed on an additional 181,159 lines annually and curb\nvalves to be installed on an additional 40,955 lines annually. Multi-family lines would\nconstitute 85 percent of the additional lines on which EFVs would be installed and\ncommercial lines would constitute 15 percent of the additional lines on which EFVs\nwould to be installed.\nThe total annualized benefits of the rule are $7.7 million when discounted at 7 percent,\nwhile the costs discounted at the same rate would be $10.5 million. These values assume\nSeptember2013 10\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nthat without the proposed rule, EFVs would be installed only in SFR lines, as required\nunder existing regulations and no curb valves would be installed.\nThe RIA found that while quantified economic benefits would not exceed the economic\ncosts in all cases, the rule would have significant unquantifiable benefits, including\nmitigating the potential for fatalities, injuries and lost business activity. In addition, the\nbenefits are based on high-cost, low-probability incidents. Key incidents identified by\nNTSB include the 1994 explosion at a nursing home in Allentown, PA, which resulted in\na fatality, 66 injuries, and $5 million in property damage, and the 1998 explosion in St.\nCloud, MN that demolished a pizzeria, apartments, a law office, and a bar and took four\nlives.7 Had the proposed rule been in place and prevented either incident, those avoided\nincident costs alone would have made the rule cost-effective.\nIn addition to the positive impact of the proposed rule identified in the paragraph above,\nthe 2010 Distribution Integrity Management rule has had significant unquantifiable\nbenefits, including mitigating the potential for fatalities and injuries. Therefore, the two\nrules would result in a greater total cost effectiveness and therefore, a cumulative positive\nbenefit.\n4.3 49 U.S.C. § 303 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS SECTION 4(F) OF\nTHE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT)\n49 U.S.C. 303(c) (commonly referred to as section 4(f) of the DOT Act) requires\nagencies within the DOT to make special effort to preserve the natural beauty of historic\nsites and public parks and recreation lands; if a transportation program requires the use of\npublic land in a public park, the program must include all possible planning to minimize\nharm to the park or historic area.\nUnder the No-Action Alternative, no new requirements would be impacted by the Federal\ngovernment and therefore, no activity would occur that would constitute a use under\nSection 4(f).\nThe proposed rule would require installation of valves only on new or replaced lines, and\ntherefore, would not cause any ground disturbing or other activity that would constitute a\nuse under Section 4(f).\n7 National Transportation Safety Board, UGI Utilities, Inc., Natural Gas Distribution Pipeline Explosion\nand Fire, Allentown, Pennsylvania, June 9, 1994, Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-96/01\n(Washington, D.C.: NTSB, 1996) and National Transportation Safety Board, Natural Gas Pipeline\nRupture and Subsequent Explosion, St.Cloud, Minnesota, December 11, 1998, Pipeline Accident Report\nNTSB/PAR-00/01 (Washington, D.C.: NTSB,2000)\nSeptember2013 11\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nTherefore, a Section 4(f) statement is not required to be prepared for this rule.\n5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS\n5.1 PREPARERS\nThis EA was prepared by the following DOT staff from PHMSA and Volpe National\nTransportation Systems Center (part of the Research and Innovative Technology\nAdministration):\nPreparers\nVolpe Preparers:\nMarla Engel, MRP, AICP, Environmental Protection Specialist\nJennifer Papazian, MEM, Environmental Protection Specialist\n5.2 REFERENCES\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of\nTransportation. Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution\nPipelines: 49 CFR 192 Final Rule. 74 Federal Register 232. (December 4, 2009).\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of\nTransportation. Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences, Advanced\nNotice of Proposed Rule Making. 76 Federal Register 227 72666-72671 (November 25,\n2011).\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of\nTransportation. Interim Evaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess Flow Valves\nin Applications other than Service Lines Serving Single Family Residence (issued as part\nof Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making), 76 Federal Register 227 72666-72671\n(November 25, 2011).\nNational Transportation Safety Board, UGI Utilities, Inc., Natural Gas Distribution\nPipeline Explosion and Fire, Allentown, Pennsylvania, June 9, 1994, Pipeline Accident\nReport NTSB/PAR-96/01 (Washington, D.C.: NTSB, 1996).\nSeptember2013 12\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nDRAFT EA: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas\nDistribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences\nNational Transportation Safety Board, Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Subsequent\nExplosion, St. Cloud, Minnesota, December 11, 1998, Pipeline Accident Report\nNTSB/PAR-00/01 (Washington, D.C.: NTSB, 2000).\nSeptember2013 13","truncated":false,"body_characters":33508}