[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31449-31459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15564]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PS-118; Amendment 192-79]
RIN 2137-AB97
Excess Flow Valve--Performance Standards
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the process of routine excavation activities, excavators
often sever gas service lines causing loss of life, injury, or property
damage by fire or explosion. Excess flow valves (EFVs) restrict the
flow of gas by closing automatically when a line is severed, thus
mitigating the consequences of service line failures. In this final
rule, RSPA has developed standards for the performance of EFVs used to
protect single-residence service lines. If an EFV is installed on such
a line, it must meet these performance standards.
DATES: This final rule takes effect July 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni (202) 366-4571, regarding
the subject matter of this final rule, or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-
4453, regarding copies of this final rule or other material in the
docket that is referenced in this rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Mandate
In 49 U.S.C. 60110 Congress directs the Department of
Transportation to issue regulations prescribing the circumstances under
which operators of natural gas distribution systems must install EFVs.
If the Department determines that there are no circumstances under
which EFVs should be installed, the Department is to report this
determination, and the reasons for the decision, to Congress. RSPA, on
behalf of the Department, has determined that there are no
circumstances under which the Department should require the
installation of EFVs, primarily because the costs far exceed the
benefits of such installation. RSPA has sent the report of its reasons
for this determination to Congress. The report to Congress (April 4,
1995) and the cost/benefit analysis of mandatory EFV installation are
available in the docket. Costs and benefits are also discussed later in
this document under ``Cost/Benefit Analysis.''
49 U.S.C. 60110 further requires the Department to develop
standards for the performance of EFVs used to protect service lines in
a natural gas distribution system. The development of these standards
is the subject of this rulemaking.
The statute also requires the Department to issue a rule requiring
operators to notify customers about EFV availability and to offer to
install EFVs that meet the performance standards, if the customer pays
for the installation. RSPA will initiate a separate notice of proposed
rulemaking for customer notification.
The Problem
Despite efforts, such as damage prevention programs, to reduce the
frequency of excavation-related service line incidents on natural gas
distribution service lines, such incidents persist and continue to
result in death, injury, fire, or explosion. During the period from
March 1991 through February 1994, 30 incidents with consequences that
might have been mitigated by an EFV were reported to RSPA. These
incidents, mostly excavation-related, resulted in 2 fatalities, 16
injuries, and an estimated $3,249,595 in property damage. Incident
history is explained in the November 1991 and January 1995 cost/benefit
studies evaluating mandatory EFV installation. Because damage
prevention measures are not foolproof, RSPA has sought to identify ways
to mitigate the consequences of these incidents. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and others have proposed EFVs as a
means of mitigation.
NTSB Recommendations
NTSB has recommended EFVs as a means of reducing or preventing
injury or death from incidents resulting from service line breaks or
ruptures. Since 1971, NTSB has issued seven recommendations regarding
the use of EFVs in service lines. NTSB's recommendations are summarized
and discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this rulemaking
(58 FR 21524; April 21, 1993).
The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
RSPA issued an ANPRM (55 FR 52188; December 20, 1990) seeking
information on the desirability of requiring the installation of EFVs
on gas distribution service lines to reduce the damage from service
line ruptures. The ANPRM also contained a questionnaire to collect
current operational data on the use of EFVs by natural gas distribution
operators. The results of the
[[Page 31450]]
ANPRM were summarized in the NPRM and are available in the docket.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
In 1993, RSPA published an NPRM (Notice 2: 58 FR 21524; April 21,
1993), titled ``Excess Flow Valve Installation on Service Lines,'' that
proposed 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 conditions under which EFVs must be installed. The initial
comment period for this NPRM closed June 21, 1993. The NPRM is
available in the docket.
RSPA received 140 written comments in response to the NPRM: 14 from
industry associations, 1 from an EFV manufacturer, 102 from local
distribution companies, 2 from consultants, 17 from Congress, state
agencies, and regulatory associations, 3 from transmission companies,
and 1 from a group of commenters, designated hereafter as the Joint
Commenters (see below).
The Public Meeting
RSPA held a public meeting on June 18, 1993 (58 FR 33064; June 15,
1993) to enable interested parties to present additional comments on
several of the issues presented in the NPRM. In the notice announcing
the public meeting, RSPA also extended the comment period to July 6,
1993, to allow those not able to attend the meeting to have access to
the transcript. Representatives of the American Gas Association (AGA),
UMAC (an EFV manufacturer), the Gas Safety Action Council (GASAC), the
National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), and
NTSB spoke at the meeting. The AGA representative objected to the
proposed rule, especially to the expected benefits estimated in the
cost/benefit study. GASAC, NTSB, and UMAC supported an EFV rule, but
not as proposed. The NAPSR representative noted that in NAPSR's
experience EFVs have not been cost beneficial.
The Joint Commenters
On December 20, 1993, a group, designating itself as the Joint
Commenters, filed comments that recommended language to include in an
EFV rule. The Joint Commenters included GASAC, EFV manufacturers, and
two gas pipeline distribution associations. Although not a signatory to
the comments, NTSB sent two letters to a pipeline association
supporting the Joint Commenters' recommendations. The NTSB letters are
available in the docket.
The Joint Commenters did not include representatives from the two
major state pipeline safety associations, NAPSR, and the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). NAPSR
originally participated in discussions with the Joint Commenters but
later dropped out because NAPSR members oppose a federal requirement to
install EFVs. The comments from NAPSR are available in the docket.
The Joint Commenters recommended regulatory language that their
signatories would support if RSPA were to adopt this recommendation as
a final rule. In a Notice of Reopening Comment Period, RSPA reopened
the comment period to solicit comment on the safety merits of the Joint
Commenters' recommended language (59 FR 39319; August 2, 1994). The
reopened comment period closed October 3, 1994. In addition to seeking
comments on the safety merits of the recommendation, RSPA also sought
comment on: whether to allow EFVs with a bypass feature; whether, and
to what extent, the presence of contaminants in the gas stream should
preclude installation of an EFV; and whether RSPA should delay issuing
a rule until industry performance standards for EFVs are developed.
An additional 70 comments were received in response to the Notice
of Reopening Comment Period: 7 from industry associations, 1 from an
EFV manufacturer, 56 from local distribution companies, 5 from
Congress, state agencies, and regulatory associations, and 1 from a
transmission company. A discussion of the 140 comments to the NPRM and
70 comments to the Notice of Reopening Comment Period and RSPA
disposition of these comments is found below.
Advisory Committee Review
The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) was
established by statute to evaluate the technical feasibility,
reasonableness, and practicability of proposed regulations. The TPSSC
met on August 3, 1993, in Washington, DC, to consider the EFV standards
proposed in the April 1993 NPRM. The TPSSC voted 11 to 0 against
adopting the proposed rule as written. In addition, the TPSSC voted 10
to 1 against RSPA issuing any rule on EFVs. However, the TPSSC voted 10
to 1 to respect the wishes of Congress and to provide support for the
Congressional mandate as implemented by RSPA. RSPA addresses each of
the TPSSC's recommendations in the discussion of comments below.
Petition for Rulemaking
On July 14, 1995, AGA submitted a petition for rulemaking on EFV
performance standards and customer notification requirements. In this
petition, AGA urged OPS to adopt industry performance and manufacturing
standards as soon as they are available and, in the interim, to adopt
the performance standards recommended by the Joint Commenters. RSPA is
not required to consider those comments in the petition pertaining to
performance standards since the comments were received well after the
close of the re-opened comment period. However, RSPA notes that those
comments do not raise any issues not already raised in prior comments
and addressed in this rule.
RSPA will consider the bulk of AGA's petition dealing with customer
notification requirements in the customer notification rulemaking.
Cost/Benefit Analysis (Mandating EFV installation)
RSPA recognizes the beneficial safety effects of EFVs. However,
after extensive study and rulemaking, RSPA has decided not to require
the installation of EFVs, primarily because the costs far exceed the
benefits of such installation.
Many comments to the NPRM and Notice of Reopening Comment Period
cited the need for RSPA to redo the cost/benefit study that had been
prepared to accompany the NPRM. Commenters said incident frequency,
fire and police response costs, and property damage costs were
overstated. The most frequent objection was that RSPA overestimated
property loss and fire fighting costs for incidents with less than
$5,000 in property damage. Commenters pointed out that leaks occur with
greater frequency than incidents and that, by equating leak repair
reports with incident reports, RSPA overstated the benefits to be
gained. Many commenters also said that the $20 estimated cost to
install an EFV was too low.
In light of the commenters' criticisms, RSPA thoroughly reexamined
the cost/benefit study. The revised study included updated data
regarding service line incidents and revised information on related
costs and anticipated benefits. In the most significant benefit change,
RSPA reduced its estimate of the number of nonreportable incidents that
could have benefitted from an EFV installation. Criticisms of its
estimates on nonreportable incidents led RSPA to conclude that the
original estimate, over
[[Page 31451]]
143 thousand per year, significantly overstated the number of
nonreportable incidents whose consequences might be mitigated by EFVs.
RSPA used a different approach to develop a more reasonable estimate,
approximately 13 thousand per year, for the final study. This revised
number of nonreportable incidents is largely responsible for the
decrease in the present value of the benefits from $21.02-$35.00 per
service in the draft study to $7.42 per service in the final study.
In other changes, RSPA revised its cost estimate by using the mid-
point of the cost-range in EFVs. The original estimate looked only at
the EFV cost to the largest current installers of EFVs, whereas the
revised estimate considered the EFV cost to all current installers of
EFVs. RSPA also used newer incident data to develop better estimates of
the consequences of incidents before and after an EFV installation.
As a result of RSPA's reexamination of the cost/benefit study, the
present value of costs changed from the draft study figure of $20.20
per installed EFV with a bypass to a final study figure of $30.29. In
addition, in the final study, the present value of costs for an EFV
with positive shutoff was estimated to be $37.09 per installed EFV.
The final cost/benefit study found the cost of installing an EFV to
exceed the benefits by a 4.5:1 ratio. This result, along with
consideration of other criticisms of a rule requiring installation,
discussed in more detail below, led RSPA to determine that it would not
require installation but would require that any EFV installed meet
certain performance criteria. The final cost/benefit study explains in
detail how each cost and benefit was calculated. Both the draft and
final cost/benefit studies examining EFV installation are available in
the docket.
The Final Rule
The final rule establishes a new section in the pipeline safety
regulations, Sec. 192.381, ``Service lines: Excess flow valve
performance standards.'' For the reasons previously explained, the
final rule does not require installation of EFVs. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 60110, the rule sets performance standards for any EFV that will
be used in a single-residence gas service line operating continuously
at not less than 10 psig. The final rule incorporates almost all the
performance standards that the Joint Commenters recommended, rather
than those RSPA proposed in the NPRM.
An EFV will have to be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer
according to an industry specification or a manufacturer's written
specification to ensure that the EFV will function properly up to its
rated maximum operating pressure and at all temperatures expected in
the service line's operating environment. An EFV, like any other valve,
will have to comply with subparts B and D of Part 192. The required
tolerance has been raised so that an EFV will be required to close at,
or not more than 50 percent above the rated flow, instead of at the
proposed 10 percent. As commenters requested, an operator will have the
choice of using an EFV with either a positive shutoff or bypass
feature. Upon closure an EFV must reduce the gas flow to no more than 5
percent of the manufacturer's specified minimum flow rate, up to a
maximum of 20 cubic feet per hour for a bypass-type EFV or 0.4 cubic
feet per hour for a positive shut off-type EFV. An operator will have
to mark or otherwise identify the presence of an EFV in the service
line.
Several proposed performance requirements have not been adopted. An
EFV will not have to comply with the requirements of Secs. 192.363 and
192.365 that apply to other service line valves. Service line capacity
will not have to exceed the manufacturer's EFV flow rating by 50
percent. An EFV will not be required to be tested upon installation and
each time a customer's meter is removed or replaced, or to close
automatically if the customer's meter, regulator or service valve is
sheared off. Furthermore, an operator will not be required to verify
the rated flow or replace an EFV that does not close automatically.
The final rule recommends that an operator locate an EFV beyond the
hard surface and as near as practical to the fitting connecting the
service line to its source of gas supply to ensure that the EFV
protects the maximum length of service line and to assist in locating
the EFV. The final rule also recommends that to augment performance
reliability, an operator not install an EFV where the contaminants in
the gas stream will cause the valve to malfunction or interfere with
necessary operation and maintenance activities on the service line,
such as blowing liquids from the line.
Discussion of Comments
Although comments were submitted in response to the proposal to
require installation of EFVs, these comments were also relevant to
developing a performance standards rule. Many of the comments focussed
on the performance criteria RSPA included in the proposal.
General Comments--Except for NTSB, valve manufacturers, and GASAC,
virtually all of the 140 commenters to the NPRM objected to the
proposed rule on installation. The major objections were that EFV
installation should not be federally mandated, that each state pipeline
authority should be allowed to establish the rules for its state; that
a positive shutoff EFV should not be required; that testing an EFV
while in service is unnecessary and overly expensive; that EFV
installation should be delayed until industry standards are developed;
and, that the cost/benefit study supporting the proposed rule is
flawed. The majority of commenters also maintained that EFV
installation should not be required where contaminants could cause the
EFV to malfunction and inadvertently shutoff service to the customer.
Nearly all of the 70 commenters responding to the Notice of
Reopening Comment Period proposed that RSPA adopt the Joint Commenters'
recommendations on performance language because the recommended
language was less objectionable than the NPRM's proposed language. The
commenters also favored giving an operator the option to install either
a bypass or positive shutoff EFV. Overall, because of concerns about
EFV reliability, gas distribution operators favored waiting until
industry standards are developed and accepted before requiring
installation of EFVs. Many commenters restated their objection to the
findings of the cost/benefit study.
Six large operators operating at least 9 million service lines (18
percent of all U.S. service lines) opposed both the NPRM's proposal and
the Joint Commenters' recommendations. The operators' major objections
were that the cost/benefit study grossly overstated benefits, that
industry standards are needed because EFVs do not operate reliably, and
that costs to remove EFVs after a malfunction are high.
Comments about the cost/benefit study have previously been
discussed. Other general comments are discussed below, as well as
specific comments about each RSPA-proposed performance standard and the
associated Joint Commenters' recommendation. To avoid repetition,
similar comments are discussed in only one section.
Discussion on State vs. Federal Mandate
Comments--NAPSR expressed opposition to any federal mandate to
install EFVs, arguing that any such regulatory requirements should be
at the state level. On two occasions NARUC passed resolutions proposing
that any requirement for EFVs be determined by
[[Page 31452]]
the individual state pipeline safety agencies. The NARUC Subcommittee
for Pipeline Safety polled the state regulatory agencies, gathered
data, and prepared a report of its findings. NARUC found that only two
states, Massachusetts and New York, favored a federal mandate to
install EFVs.
Six major operators (three operating in California) opposed any
federal requirement to install EFVs, arguing that states should be
allowed to determine the need for EFVs based on state- developed
criteria.
Response--Because of RSPA's decision not to issue a rule requiring
the installation of EFVs, each state will be able to determine if it
should require such installation based on circumstances unique to that
state.
Industry Standards
In the absence of standards by an industry-sponsored safety
standards committee, RSPA proposed several requirements for the
manufacture and operation of any EFV that would be installed in a
single-residence gas service line. The Joint Commenters' recommendation
also included performance standards for single- residence gas service
lines.
Comments on NPRM--Many commenters said RSPA should not issue a
final rule until industry manufacturing and performance safety
standards are prepared and adopted. The TPSSC recommended that RSPA
initiate the development of standards by The American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Testing Materials
(ASTM), or other nationally recognized and accredited organization for
the manufacture, testing, and operation of EFVs. The TPSSC further
recommended that when such standards are enacted, RSPA should issue an
NPRM for EFVs incorporating such standards for TPSSC review. The Gas
Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) commented that its ANSI/GPTC Z380
committee was developing performance, operating, and installation
guidelines for EFVs. GPTC said guidance will be offered on choosing
operating pressure ranges, flow rates, bleed-by, and reset
characteristics, length and diameter of service piping, inline
contaminants, purging procedures, joining methods, and service line
locations.
Comments to Notice of Reopening Comment Period--Many commenters
said RSPA should take no final action until industry standards are
available because standards would assure EFV reliability. Many others
said RSPA should issue a final rule but grant a one year delay in
implementation to give the industry committees time to complete
manufacturing and operational standards. Several commenters said the
ASTM F17 committee is preparing testing standards and the ANSI/GPTC
Z380 committee is preparing guidelines that should be completed in
1995.
Response--RSPA agrees that to achieve performance reliability and
the desired safety benefits, specifications are necessary to ensure
uniformity among EFVs installed in service lines. Because the NPRM
proposing required installation only sought comment on performance
standards applicable to EFVs installed in single-residence service
lines, this final rule limits EFV performance standards to that
application. Once industry standards are developed for EFVs used in
other applications, such as multiple residences and commercial
enterprises, RSPA will consider seeking comment on proposed performance
standards for those applications.
The final rule requires that when an EFV is installed in a single
residence service line, the EFV must be manufactured and tested by the
manufacturer according to an industry specification, or to a
manufacturer's written specification to ensure the EFV performs
specified minimum functions. These specifications will ensure that an
EFV functions properly up to the maximum operating pressure at which it
is rated and at all temperatures reasonably expected in the service
line's operating environment. These specifications will further ensure
that an EFV is sized to close within 50 percent of the rated closure
rate, to reduce gas flow upon closure to specified rates, and to not
close when the pressure and flow rates are less than the manufacturer's
specified minimums.
In addition, an EFV must comply with the general requirements of
Subparts B and D of part 192. While subparts B and D do not include
operational requirements specific to an EFV, they do include general
material and design standards applicable to any valve in a pipeline
system.
Many commenters, including several industry committees, indicated
that EFV standards are forthcoming. However, until industry finalizes
EFV standards, the requirement that an EFV perform specified functions
according to a manufacturer's written specifications will ensure that
an EFV performs reliably and safely. Moreover, final industry
performance specifications are likely to be similar to manufacturers'
specifications, because valve manufacturers are often members of the
industry organizations that develop such specifications.
Proposed Section 192.381(a)--(regarding Secs. 192.363 and 192.365
gas pipeline valve requirements)--RSPA proposed in the NPRM that EFVs
must comply with the requirements of Secs. 192.363 and 192.365. These
existing sections establish requirements for all valves in gas service
lines.
Comments--Several commenters stated that Secs. 192.363 and 192.365
should not apply to EFVs. Commenters pointed out that these
requirements apply to the design of service line manual shut-off valves
and would conflict with the proposed EFV requirements. For example,
commenters noted that the Sec. 192.365(c) requirement to locate valves
in a covered durable box or standpipe is intended to allow for ready
operation of a service line manual shut-off valve. Therefore, it would
be unnecessary and costly to apply this requirement to an EFV, which is
an automatic valve not requiring access for manual operation.
Response--After further study, RSPA agrees that valve requirements
concerning the use of a durable box or standpipe do not apply to EFVs,
and the other requirements of Secs. 192.363 and 192.365 apply only to
manual shut-off type valves, not EFVs. Accordingly, the proposed
requirement that EFVs comply with Secs. 192.363 and 192.365 has not
been adopted.
Proposed Section 192.381(a)--(10 psig requirement)-RSPA proposed
that an EFV be installed on each newly installed or replaced single
residence service line that operates at a pressure not less than 10
psig.
Comments--Many commenters to both the NPRM and the Notice of
Reopening Comment Period requested clarification of the 10 psig
threshold. Many commenters asked if the requirement would apply if
pressure in the pipeline system drops below 10 psig at any time during
the year.
Response--RSPA is not requiring operators to install EFVs on any
single-residence service line, whatever its operating pressure.
However, RSPA does not want an EFV, if installed, to cause a loss in
service, especially at a time when the service is most needed by the
consumer, such as during the winter heating season. Thus, the
performance standards have been established for EFVs that are installed
on a service line that operates at or above 10 psig continuously during
the year. Setting the performance standards at this threshold is
influenced by two of the largest users of EFVs who, as standard
practice, limit EFV installation to service lines in systems where
service line inlet pressure does not drop below 10 psig during the
year.
[[Page 31453]]
Because service line pressure will most likely be at its lowest
level during the coldest weather, especially in colder climates, an
operator should consider the pressure drop in the service line due to
the restriction of gas flow caused by an EFV. If pressure drop is
considered, an EFV should not cause a reduction in safety or loss of
service in any service line.
Proposed Section 192.381(a)--(replaced service lines)--RSPA
proposed that EFVs be installed on certain new and replaced service
lines.
Response--This proposal is no longer relevant since EFV
installation is not being required.
Proposed Section 192.381(b)(1)--(installation)--RSPA proposed in
the NPRM that an EFV be installed as close to the main or transmission
line as practicable. The Joint Commenters recommended installation in
or as near as practicable to the service line fitting connecting the
service line to its gas supply.
Comments--Many commenters suggested RSPA remove any reference to
transmission lines in the rule. Several commenters said EFVs are not
available that will withstand transmission line pressures. Others
stated that the statutory mandate was intended to apply only to
distribution systems. The TPSSC voted 7 to 4 that all references to
transmission lines be dropped from the proposed rule.
A few commenters objected to what they thought was the proposed
requirement to install EFVs immediately downstream of the service-to-
main connection when the line serves more than one residence (branch
service). Other commenters were concerned that the proposed rule would
require EFV installation below hard surfaces such as asphalt or
concrete, making installation very costly.
Response--In the NPRM, RSPA intended that all new and replaced
service lines, whether from a main or transmission line, where the
source of gas supply consistently operates above 10 psig, be required
to have an EFV installed. The reference to ``main'' and
``transmission'' lines was intended to cover farm taps, as farm taps
are also subject to the type of incident that could benefit from an
EFV. The final rule deletes the reference to ``main'' and
``transmission'' and sets performance standards for EFVs installed on
single-residence gas service lines. By referring to ``service'' line,
RSPA intends for the standards to apply if an EFV is installed on a
farm tap. A farm tap operates as a service line when a local
distribution company operates a metered farm tap on a transmission line
delivering gas to a farmer or other landowner. Accordingly, although
the rule does not require installation on any single-residence service
line, an EFV that meets the required performance standards can be
installed on a service line from a main or a branch off a transmission
line.
RSPA never intended that an EFV serve more than one family
residence. RSPA recognizes that an EFV would be difficult to size when
the gas supply is serving multiple residences because of widely varying
gas volume through the EFV. Because of this difficulty, the performance
standards in this final rule are limited to EFVs that are installed on
single-residence service lines.
RSPA agrees that removing an EFV under a hard surface would be
overly expensive if an EFV failed to function. Therefore, RSPA
recommends that an EFV be located beyond the hard surface and as near
as practical to the fitting connecting the service line to its source
of gas supply.
Proposed Section 192.381(b)(2)--(Section 192 Subparts B & D)--As
noted above, the NPRM proposed and the Joint Commenters recommended
that EFVs meet the applicable requirements of subparts B and D of part
192.
Comments--No substantive comments were received on this proposal.
Response--Subpart B establishes minimum requirements for selection
and qualification of materials to be used in pipelines. Subpart D
prescribes minimum requirements for the design and installation of
pipeline components and facilities. Since these requirements are
general performance requirements that apply to all valves, they are
included in the performance requirements applicable to EFVs.
Proposed Section 192.381(b)(3)--(bypass)--RSPA proposed that an EFV
be designed to prevent pressure equalization across the EFV after the
EFV closes, thereby prohibiting an operator from installing an EFV with
a bypass feature. The bypass feature allows pressure to equalize and
the EFV to automatically reopen after closure because it allows a small
amount of gas to pass through the EFV. In contrast, a positive shutoff
feature allows only minute amounts of gas to pass through the EFV after
it closes, and requires backpressuring downstream to reset the EFV. The
Joint Commenters' recommendation would allow either type of EFV.
In the Notice of Reopening Comment Period, RSPA sought comment on
the safety of using EFVs with or without the bypass feature and gave
two examples, provided by two large local distribution operators, of
potential dangers that might be caused by the bypass feature. RSPA also
asked for comments on the conditions under which automatically
resetting EFVs should or should not be required in residential service
lines and on the linkage between the bypass feature and unauthorized
repairs to damaged service lines.
Comments to NPRM--Many commented on the proposal prohibiting the
use of EFVs with a bypass feature. Commenters, including several at the
public meeting, were virtually unanimous in favor of an operator having
the option to select an EFV with either the bypass or positive shutoff
feature. Similarly, the TPSSC voted 9 to 2 in favor of an operator
having this option.
Various reasons were given for not prohibiting the installation of
bypass EFVs. Several commenters, including an industry association,
complained that RSPA proposed the positive shutoff requirement without
sufficient justification in the cost/benefit study. One commenter said
that additional costs of at least $250 per utility crew would be
incurred to provide backpressure downstream of the EFV to equalize the
pressure and reset the valve. This commenter said these services would
necessitate extra equipment, including a compressed natural gas tank or
portable natural gas compressor, and additional piping, fittings, and
hoses. Other commenters mentioned additional hazards to personnel in
hauling and connecting compressed natural gas. Another commenter was
concerned with customer inconvenience because a service call would be
necessary to backpressure the EFV, delaying restoration of service.
Many commenters argued that bypass-type EFVs do not pose a
significant safety risk. Commenters maintained that operators that
regularly install EFVs have had no incidents resulting from use of
bypass-type EFVs. Three of the largest voluntary users of EFVs (with
over 300,000 EFVs in service) commented that their data did not show an
incident having occurred due to a bypass- type EFV. An EFV manufacturer
commented that it has no knowledge of bypass gas ever contributing to a
natural gas incident. NTSB and many operators echoed these assurances.
Several commenters, including EFV users, said RSPA's concern that
the bypass feature would allow irresponsible excavators to make repairs
is unfounded. A few commenters said that positive shutoff EFVs would
cause more safety problems than bypass-type EFVs because an excavator
could sever a service line unknowingly if the
[[Page 31454]]
positive shutoff were to completely stop the gas flow and any released
odor from reaching the atmosphere. Conversely, these commenters argued
that a failed service line with a bypass would continuously release gas
and leave a readily detectable odor. Commenters noted other potential
problems with positive shutoff EFVs. For example, a commenter in Alaska
pointed out that an earthquake in the winter could cause EFVs to engage
and, if positive shutoff EFVs were used, each would have to be
backpressured and each customer's appliance re-lighted. During an
Alaskan winter this could take days.
The Gas Research Institute (GRI) stated that its tests of EFV
models showed all the tested models were affected by pressure surges of
5 psi or more and that opening, closing, or throttling a main line
valve could activate an EFV, causing a false closure. The research
organization said RSPA could infer from these results that the use of
EFVs without the bypass could cause extended distribution service
outages. GRI further stated that it knows of no reports of bypass flow
in an EFV having led to or increased the severity of an accident.
GASAC commented that RSPA should allow each operator to determine
the type of valves for its system. Other commenters echoed this
statement. Even among those operators opposed to a mandatary rule, most
said that if a rule were issued, the choice of which type of EFV to use
should be left to the operator.
Comments on the Joint Commenters' Recommendation - Many commenters
supported the Joint Commenters' recommendation to allow the use of a
bypass-type EFV. Many commenters said it is not appropriate to depend
on an EFV's design to prevent unauthorized repairs. Rather,
unauthorized repairs should be controlled by stiffer penalties and
better enforcement of damage prevention laws. These commenters
maintained that EFVs are used to provide safety when a service line is
severed, and should not be expected to perform functions beyond their
intended purpose.
Many commenters said excavators who damage service lines may make
unauthorized repairs regardless of whether a bypass-type EFV, a
positive shutoff EFV, or no EFV is installed. RSPA recognizes the
validity of this statement and that EFVs with either feature are not
likely to have a substantial effect in either reducing or increasing
the frequency of unauthorized repairs on a broken service line.
To dispel RSPA's concern about the potential danger of bypass- type
EFVs and gas discharge into a residence, an operator explained that
since natural gas is only about 0.6 times the density of air, any raw
gas passing through a vented appliance would exhaust to the atmosphere
through the chimney. The operator concluded that household gas ranges
(or space heaters) without burner safety pilots are the only paths for
raw gas to disperse through a building. The operator cited a recent
study by NOVA, a Canadian chemical and pipeline company, that
demonstrated that a rate of raw gas buildup in a small residence (300
square feet) would have to be about 60 cubic feet per hour to reach an
ignitable level in five hours. This allows a five hour period for
someone to discover the gas release before the ignitable level is
reached. A bypass-type EFV allows 20 cubic feet of gas per hour.
Therefore, natural gas that is passing through an EFV with a bypass
would take several hours to accumulate to the ignitable range in a
building.
Response--RSPA has been concerned that excavators could repair a
service line break equipped with an EFV with a bypass feature, the EFV
would automatically reset, and service would be restored without the
operator knowing that the line had been damaged. Consequently, gas
could then pass into and accumulate in a residence where the pilot
light on a gas appliance had been extinguished during the service line
break.
RSPA was also concerned that restoration of gas service with
unvented appliances would cause a rapid buildup of the gas/air mixture
to an ignitable level. Commenters have posed circumstances under which
such a buildup could occur. However, in response to its questions about
this problem, RSPA did not receive any information that such an
incident has actually occurred. Furthermore, an EFV manufacturer and
AGA have assured RSPA that bypass-type EFVs operate properly to avoid
unintended gas buildup within a building. An operator with 20,000
installed bypass-type EFVs stated that bypass gas from a tripped EFV
had never caused or contributed to an unsafe situation on its system.
Other operators made comparable statements. The NOVA study, described
above, further allays RSPA's concern. Therefore, based on the record in
this rulemaking, RSPA accepts the premise that EFVs with a bypass
feature are safe.
RSPA also finds acceptable the Joint Commenters' recommendation to
limit gas flow to 20 cubic feet per hour for bypass-type EFVs and to
0.4 cubic feet per hour for positive shutoff-type EFVs. Because EFVs
with positive shutoff features were proposed in the NPRM, RSPA did not
propose EFV flow limits. However, RSPA agrees that the limits
recommended by the Joint Commenters are reasonable and feasible design
requirements.
Accordingly, the final rule allows either bypass or positive
shutoff EFVs. Closure flow rates will be limited to 20 cubic feet per
hour for the bypass-type EFV and 0.4 cubic feet per hour for the
positive shutoff EFV.
Proposed Section 192.381(b)(4)--(installation testing)--RSPA
proposed that upon original installation of an EFV and each time the
meter is removed or replaced, the EFV be tested to determine if it
closes automatically. The Joint Commenters' recommendation deleted the
requirement.
Comments--All 37 commenters on this proposed requirement asked that
it be deleted. Most commenters stated that the test would require that
the service line be disconnected from the meter set, the service valve
at the meter opened, and gas vented to the atmosphere to trip the EFV.
Many commenters said that venting of the gas near the residence, or
inside the residence when the meter is indoors, would be hazardous and
would needlessly release methane into the atmosphere contrary to the
goals of the Clean Air Act.
An EFV user stated that it does not test the EFV when replacing
meters. This commenter stated that it replaces one-tenth of its meters
annually and provided RSPA a summary of the steps involved in testing
an EFV when a meter is replaced on an existing service. This commenter
further stated it would take a two person crew a full day to test an
EFV, resulting in substantial cost with no corresponding benefit. The
American Public Gas Association (APGA) commented that the proposed
testing would add significantly to the costs of using EFVs with no
corresponding safety benefits and noted that these costs were not
included in the cost/benefit analysis.
Several other commenters also noted that this proposed requirement
had not been covered in the cost/benefit analysis and provided data on
the costs that would be incurred for such tests. AGA estimated that 3
million services have meters removed each year, so that the tests could
cost $100 million per year, doubling RSPA's estimated installation cost
of $20 per EFV (with bypass feature). These same commenters contended
that testing positive shutoff EFVs would cost even more.
AGA and other commenters concluded that such tests would require
removing the service regulator or
[[Page 31455]]
installing a fitting to allow gas to be vented upstream of the service
regulator because the flow of gas passing through a service regulator
may be too small to cause the EFV to trip. These commenters said that
such a fitting would invite a resident to bypass the meter and steal
gas.
The TPSSC voted 8 to 2 that no in-service testing of an EFV be
required.
Response--Based on the comments about problems and costs of
installation testing, the final rule will not require an operator to
test the EFV when the EFV is installed or when the meter is removed or
replaced. However, the requirement that the EFV must be manufactured
and tested to an industry specification or manufacturer's written
specification to ensure that the EFV functions properly up to the rated
maximum operating pressure will certainly require random sample testing
at the manufacturer's plant. Such sample testing is routinely conducted
for all other valves in accordance with manufacturing standards.
Proposed Section 192.381(b)(5)--(automatic closure)--RSPA proposed
that an EFV must close automatically if the service line is severed or
if the customer's meter, regulator, or service valve is sheared off.
The Joint Commenters' recommendation did not include such a
requirement.
Comments--All seventeen commenters on this proposed requirement
argued that it should be deleted. Most commenters stated that operators
cannot guarantee that an EFV will perform as designed and warranted by
the manufacturer. One commenter said that it would be difficult to
comply with such a requirement because EFVs often fail to activate (due
to fluid friction) in longer service line lengths of \1/2\-inch pipe.
Also, even if the meter set is sheared off, the flow rate may not
exceed the EFV activation flow rate because the pipe may be squeezed
off at the point where it is sheared, or because there are other
restrictions in the line.
One EFV user stated that costs for assuring that an EFV closes
automatically would approach $1,000 per installation. This commenter
reasoned that an EFV is intended to help reduce the effects of dig-ins
on a service line in the area of the street, where most excavation
takes place, and requiring the EFV to do more than intended will
increase costs.
The TPSSC voted 7 to 3 that the proposed requirement be changed so
that an EFV ``be designed to close automatically if the service line is
ruptured downstream of the valve.''
Response--RSPA agrees with the commenters that flow rate may not
always exceed an EFV's activation flow rate because a long service line
could cause excessive pressure drop, or a line could be squeezed off at
the point where it is sheared, or there could be other restrictions in
the line. Therefore, RSPA is not including proposed Sec. 192.381(b)(5)
in the performance standards. However, the final rule (Sec. 192.381(c))
requires that an EFV be manufactured according to an industry
specification or manufacturer's written specification that will
establish shutoff requirements for conditions comparable to a service
line being severed or a meter set being sheared off.
Proposed Section 192.381(b)(6)--(sizing)--RSPA proposed that an EFV
be sized to close within 10 percent of the rated flow specified by the
manufacturer. The Joint Commenters recommended a closure rate not less,
and not more than 50 percent higher, than the manufacturer's specified
closure flow rate.
Comments to NPRM--The 32 commenters objected to this requirement.
Most commenters suggested that the proposed 10 percent tolerance be
raised to 50 percent because EFVs are not precision instruments. Some
commenters suggested a 25 percent tolerance. Most commenters said that
EFVs with 10 percent tolerance are not commercially available and would
be significantly more expensive. GASAC also opposed the requirement as
excessive.
AGA provided exhaustive information showing that EFVs with a 10
percent tolerance are not commercially available and may not be
possible to mass produce. AGA suggested a 50 percent tolerance and
cited a Gas Research Institute (GRI) study regarding EFV performance
repeatability. In 1985, GRI tested seven EFV models and found that
closure flows of a single copy were repeatable within a range of 6.4
percent to 20.8 percent, whereas closure flows between two arbitrary
copies of the EFVs were repeatable within the range of 15.4 percent and
87.9 percent. None of these models would have met the RSPA proposed
requirements. AGA provided an EFV manufacturer's graphs showing that
none of the currently available EFVs tested by that manufacturer closed
within 10 percent of the rated closure.
Comments on Joint Commenters' recommendation--A member of the Joint
Commenters said its analysis of service ruptures found that EFVs could
close as much as 50 percent over specified closure flow and still
reliably close in the type of accident EFVs are meant to address. Three
other commenters agreed with the Joint Commenters' recommendation.
The TPSSC voted 7 to 4 that the rule specify that an EFV must close
no lower than its rated flow and not more than 50 percent above rated
closure flow.
Response--Although no EFV is currently available at an acceptable
cost that will conform to a 10 percent tolerance, RSPA believes that
distribution operators must have a specified closure range for an EFV
that is reliable. The requirement that an EFV activate at, or 50
percent above, a specified flow level provides an acceptable closure
range in accordance with currently available EFVs. Accordingly, RSPA
will require an EFV be sized to close at or 50 percent above the rated
closure flow rate specified by the manufacturer.
Proposed Section 192.381(c)--(flow rate verification)--RSPA
proposed that the operator verify the manufacturer's rated flow for the
EFV by testing at a pressure of 10 psig for the gas to be transported
in the service line. The Joint Commenters recommended that the
manufacturer certify the EFV meets the manufacturer's written
performance specifications, rather than place this responsibility on
the operator.
Comments to NPRM--Thirty six commenters responded to RSPA's
proposed requirement. Virtually all commenters objected to any operator
responsibility for testing and suggested the requirement be deleted.
Most commenters contended that operators cannot guarantee the
performance of an EFV, but should be able to rely on the manufacturer
to certify that EFVs meet the applicable standards--the approach
allowed for other valves used in gas distribution systems. An EFV
manufacturer also agreed that it should be the manufacturer's
responsibility to test and certify EFVs. Most commenters stated that
the proposed requirement would significantly increase an operator's
costs.
Comments on Joint Commenters' recommendation--An industry
association agreed with the recommendation to allow an operator to rely
on the manufacturer's certification that EFVs meet performance
standards rather than have the operator test each EFV. The association
pointed out that RSPA allows such a procedure under Sec. 192.145.
Response--RSPA agrees with the commenters that the flow rate
verification test should be an EFV manufacturer's responsibility, not
the operator's. Thus, the final rule requires that an EFV be
manufactured and tested by the manufacturer according to an industry
specification, or
[[Page 31456]]
manufacturer's written specification to ensure that each valve will
perform specified minimum functions. This requirement should lead to a
random EFV testing program by the manufacturer, similar to testing for
other system valves. Currently, certain valves (cast iron and plastic)
are installed that meet the specified manufacturing tests in
Sec. 192.145. All other valves must be manufactured according to
specifications in American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 6D, which
also requires random testing by the manufacturer.
Proposed Section 192.381(d)--(replacement)--RSPA proposed that if
an EFV does not close automatically during installation testing or when
the service line is severed, it must be replaced with an EFV that
closes as required. The Joint Commenters' approach would remove any
requirement to assure that an EFV closes after installation.
Comments--None of those commenting on RSPA's proposal was entirely
satisfied with it. Seven commenters suggested changes that included
permitting the operator the option to repair or replace an EFV that
doesn't close. These commenters further proposed exempting a location
from the installation requirement after two EFVs do not perform
properly at that location.
One operator questioned what constitutes satisfactory closure by
explaining that minor accumulations of dust and dirt can interfere with
an absolute 100 percent shutoff. This commenter said that RSPA should
conduct additional studies to ascertain what long-term performance
characteristics can be expected and include acceptable criteria in the
rulemaking.
Eight commenters said the requirement was not needed or questioned
the apparent intent to require the operator to keep replacing an EFV
until one performs as required. Several said that the requirement
assumed that an EFV's failure to close is always the valve's fault.
Commenters explained that many factors influence the operation or
performance of an EFV, including changes in operating pressures and the
type of gaseous mixtures flowing through the service line. They
suggested the practical approach would be to allow the utility to
repair and replace an EFV at its own discretion as it does with other
valves in its system.
Response--RSPA's proposed requirement that an operator replace an
installed EFV if it fails during installation testing or during a
service line break, is no longer applicable since on-site testing and
mandatory EFV installation are not being required in this final rule.
Instead, an EFV must be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer
according to an industry specification or manufacturer's written
specification to ensure that the valve will function properly.
Furthermore, replacement or removal of a defective EFV will be left to
agreement between the customer and operator.
Section 192.381(e)--(manufacturing specifications)--RSPA proposed
that each EFV must be manufactured in accordance with written
specifications that assure the EFV meets the manufacturer's published
pressure and flow rate criteria. The Joint Commenters recommended that,
instead, an EFV be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer
according to a written specification to ensure that the EFV will
function properly up to the maximum rated operating pressure and at all
temperatures reasonably expected. The Joint Commenters further
recommended that an EFV not close when pressures are below the
manufacturer's minimum pressure.
Comments--Fourteen of the fifteen commenters responding to RSPA's
proposed requirement were dissatisfied with the wording and recommended
changes. These commenters stated that this provision appeared to shift
responsibility for quality assurance from the manufacturer to the gas
distribution operator who cannot assure that the manufacturer will
produce valves meeting the manufacturer's published pressure and flow
rate criteria. Commenters further stated that because of liability
concerns there should be an industry EFV standard by which the valves
should be manufactured. APGA also argued that manufacturers, not gas
distribution operators, should be responsible for assuring that EFVs
meet the necessary performance criteria.
Response--RSPA agrees that the proposed requirement was unclear as
to who would be responsible for assuring that an EFV meets the
specified performance requirements. Accordingly, the final rule
clarifies that an EFV will have to be manufactured and tested by the
manufacturer according to an industry specification or manufacturer's
written specification to ensure that each valve meets the specified
minimum performance standards.
Proposed Section Sec. 192.381(f)--(service line capacity)--RSPA
proposed that service line capacity must exceed the EFV manufacturer's
flow rating by 50 percent. The Joint Commenters' approach did not
include a similar requirement.
Comments on NPRM--Thirty three commenters responded to this
proposed requirement. Five commenters said that maintaining a flow rate
at least 50 percent over the rating of the EFV would severely restrict
an operator and increase costs. These commenters explained that such a
high flow rate would, in many cases, require the installation of
service lines larger in diameter than required for a customer's load
and also preclude the insertion of plastic tubing. These persons
recommended reducing the flow rate margin to 25 percent.
Most commenters opposed establishing arbitrary excess flow
capacity. These commenters stated that the sizing of service lines is
the operator's responsibility and that many factors must be considered,
such as costs, current and future loads, the possibility of future
insertions, and future maintenance requirements.
Response--RSPA agrees that a requirement to design a service line
with excess capacity is not necessary for an EFV to function properly
and would add unnecessary expense. Thus, the final rule does not
require that service line capacity exceed the EFV manufacturer's flow
rating by 50 percent. This approach is consistent with Part 192, which
does not require installation of service lines larger than required to
meet the customer's load.
Proposed Section 192.381(g)--(Marking)--RSPA proposed that each
service line with an EFV be physically marked or labeled in the field,
so that the label would be readily visible to gas company employees.
Comments on NPRM--Twelve commenters said that requiring service
lines with EFVs to be identified is unnecessary and is of little
benefit. One commenter, currently using EFVs and marking those service
lines, said it does not believe that marking should be required.
Several commenters stated that marking service lines is futile due to
customers painting the meter set, weather deterioration, and vandalism.
A few commenters suggested that the operator have the option to mark or
record the location of these valves. However, eight commenters
supported the requirement, saying it is a good safety practice for gas
company operator personnel, when arriving at a residence, to know if an
EFV is installed in that service line.
Comments on Joint Commenters' Recommendation--The Joint Commenters'
recommendation did not include a requirement to mark services in the
field. An industry association supported the Joint Commenters' approach
and further recommended that
[[Page 31457]]
the operator be allowed the option to mark services in the field or
record EFV installation on its maps and records.
Response--RSPA believes it is helpful for operating personnel to
know if an EFV is installed in a service line. In a service outage or
emergency, service personnel arriving at a residence might respond
differently depending on whether or not an EFV is installed. For
example, if service personnel find that a service line has been severed
and the line is marked or otherwise identified as having an EFV,
service personnel should recognize that the small amount of gas
escaping from the severed line is from an EFV with a bypass feature and
not from a pinched service line that could suddenly release a hazardous
flow of gas. With this knowledge, service personnel can initiate
correct repair procedures.
Accordingly, the rule will require that an operator must mark or
otherwise identify the presence of an EFV in the service line.
Proposed Section 192.381(h)--(Contaminants)--RSPA proposed that EFV
installation not be required on a service line where the operator can
demonstrate that contamination in the gas stream will cause an EFV to
malfunction. The Joint Commenters' approach eased the operator's burden
of proof by allowing the operator to document, rather than demonstrate,
an unsatisfactory level of contamination.
The Joint Commenters also recommended that EFV installation not be
required where the EFV would interfere with operation and maintenance
activities, such as blowing liquids from the line.
Comments on NPRM--Twenty-four commenters supported the proposal to
except EFV installation where prior experience indicates contaminants
will cause a malfunction. Several commenters stated, however, that it
is unclear how an operator could make such a demonstration. NTSB said
RSPA should state the requirements necessary to claim the exemption.
Several commenters said they hoped that an operator would not have to
install an EFV and wait for it to fail before being able to demonstrate
that contaminants should preclude installation. Two commenters argued
that if an operator has experience with clogging of valves, regulators,
or meters from liquids or solids in certain areas of its system, such
experience should be sufficient to demonstrate that an EFV should not
be installed on that part of the system.
An EFV manufacturer agreed that an EFV should not be installed
where contaminants would interfere with the proper operation of an EFV,
but based on its experience felt it unlikely that many systems have
sufficient contaminants to cause an EFV to malfunction. GASAC commented
that requests for an exemption should be subject to public disclosure
and a formal review process to prevent unwarranted exemptions.
Comments on Joint Commenters' recommendation--AGA argued that the
operator should determine whether to use EFVs in contaminated areas.
AGA said a company might cite previous experience with service lines
plugging with liquids or solids, plugging of other valves or service
regulators, or knowledge of liquids or solid debris in certain parts of
the system to justify not installing EFVs.
Another commenter said that iron oxide rouge from steel pipe mixed
with tiny amounts of compressor fluids forms a sticky residue and
prevented early model EFVs from successfully resetting following
closure. The commenter said it is likely that no EFV on the market
today is robust enough to withstand such contaminants and operate
properly for the minimum expected life of 50 years estimated in the
NPRM.
Response--RSPA agrees that an EFV is not recommended on a service
line where the operator has prior experience with contaminants in the
gas stream that could interfere with the EFV, cause loss of service to
a residence, or cause an operator to incur undue expense in removing an
inoperative EFV. An operator should, based on its previous history of
service line or equipment problems from contaminants, decide whether it
is appropriate to install an EFV. An operator should also consider if
an EFV installed on a service line could interfere with the operator's
operation and maintenance procedures.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866. Therefore, it was reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. In addition, the final rule is significant under DOT's
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979)
because it concerns a matter of substantial interest to the public and
Congress.
Cost/Benefit Analysis (EFV--Performance Standards)
Since the final rule does not require mandatory installation of
EFVs, the performance requirements of this rule will not impact gas
distribution systems not currently installing EFVs unless they begin
installing EFVs. This rule will impact manufacturers of EFVs. As
previously mentioned, OPS will be initiating a separate rulemaking to
propose that customers be notified that EFVs are available for
installation and will be installed at customer expense. This means that
all gas distribution systems may soon be installing EFVs, and, thus,
may be impacted by the new EFV performance standards.
The new EFV performance standards will help ensure that gas
distribution companies that currently install EFVs, as well as those
that begin to install EFVs on their own or because of a new
notification rule, properly install these EFVs. Furthermore, these
standards, by helping to ensure that newly installed EFVs are
manufactured to function properly (e.g., close when they are supposed
to and not close when they are not supposed to), will reduce the cost
of improper closure to both gas distribution system operators and the
general public. The standards will also help keep substandard valves
from entering the marketplace, thereby providing some assurance of
reliability to both operators and customers. As a further result of
these standards, reliable EFVs installed on compatible service lines
will help mitigate the consequences of incidents on service lines.
The cost/benefit study accompanying this rule estimates and
compares the benefits and costs of the EFV performance standards to
determine whether the standards, taken as a whole, would be cost
beneficial. This study estimates the expected benefits and costs of
installing one EFV and uses these estimates to calculate a benefit/cost
ratio. This approach yields the same benefit/cost ratio as an approach
considers the number of EFVs installed in each year, but is less
complicated and cumbersome, since it does not require the estimation of
(1) the number of services expected to be renewed each year, (2) the
number of new services expected to be installed each year, and (3) the
number of existing services that will be discontinued each year.
The primary sources of EFV data used in the analysis were (1) the
written submissions to the Docket for this rulemaking made by gas
distribution companies, EFV manufacturers, and other interested parties
and (2) direct contacts with gas distribution companies, EFV
manufacturers, and other interested parties.
The pipeline incident data used in this analysis was taken
primarily from the incident and annual report submissions made to OPS
by gas distribution companies. These
[[Page 31458]]
submissions are required under the Federal pipeline safety regulations.
All dollar figures in the study are given in nominal dollars,
unless otherwise indicated. Where deflation of nominal dollar figures
has been performed, the Producer Price Index, All Commodities, with
1993 as the base, has been used.
As summarized below, benefits, costs, and net benefits were
developed for (1) the standards for EFV installation, (2) marking
requirements, and (3) the performance requirements. The complete
Benefit/Cost Analysis for EFV Performance Standards, dated August 1995,
is available in the Docket.
Standards for EFV Installation
The final rule requires that an EFV installed on a single-family
residential gas service that always operates at 10 psig or greater (1)
must be rated by the manufacturer for use at the pressure and flow rate
anticipated on the service line and (2) must meet the applicable
requirements of Subparts B and D of Part 192. The final rule also
recommends that an installed EFV be placed as near as practical to the
main. Although this rule specifies standards for EFV installation, the
installation of EFVs is not mandatory. However, if an EFV is installed,
the regulatory standards will help ensure the EFV performs as expected
and protects the maximum length of the most vulnerable portion of a
service line.
The standards for EFV installation appear to be consistent with
current industry practice. Consequently, the benefits, costs, and net
benefits of the requirements are all expected to be $0 per EFV per
year.
Marking Requirements
The new marking requirement will enable gas distribution system
operating and service personnel to know if a service line has an EFV
installed when responding to a service outage or other service line
call. This will make it possible for the personnel to safely initiate
correct repair procedures. The new marking requirement is expected to
reduce deaths and injuries to gas distribution system personnel, and to
reduce damage to the system and nearby property.
The requirement to mark or otherwise identify services with EFVs is
consistent with current industry practice. As a consequence, the
benefits, costs, and net benefits are all expected to be $0 per EFV per
year.
Performance Requirements
The final rule sets performance requirements for all newly
installed EFVs on single-family residential services operating at 10
psig or greater. These performance requirements are to be ensured
through design, manufacturing, and testing by EFV manufacturers in
accordance with an industry specification or with the manufacturer's
written specifications.
The performance requirements will help ensure the reliability of
EFVs. Greater reliability will result in (1) the replacement of fewer
EFVs by gas distribution systems and (2) an increase in the number of
EFV actuations when there are catastrophic service line breaks. The
primary benefit of the new performance requirements will be an
increased average reliability of the EFVs on the market. This assumes
that all EFVs currently on the market are not fully consistent with the
new requirements, which appears to be the case. A secondary benefit
will be the assurance that the quality of EFVs will not degrade (with
respect to the performance characteristics covered by the new
performance requirements) in the future.
The new performance requirements for EFVs cover (1) rated maximum
operating pressure, (2) the impact of external temperature, (3) sizing,
(4) reduction in gas flow upon closure, and (5) inappropriate closure.
The requirements for rated maximum operating pressure, the impact of
external temperature, and sizing appear to be consistent with current
industry practice. The benefits of the new performance requirements are
expected to be between $15,675 and $1,254 per year. The costs are
expected to be $0 per year. Consequently, the net benefits are expected
to be between $15,675 and $1,254 per year.
The net benefits calculated for the performance requirements do not
include (1) the costs related to the redesign of EFVs, (2) the full
monetary value of the benefits accruing to gas distribution companies
that currently install EFVs, and (3) the monetary value of the benefits
that will accrue to gas distribution companies that install EFVs in the
future.
Present Value of the Net Benefits
The net benefits for the new performance requirements are the sum
of the net benefits of (1) EFV installation standards, (2) the marking
requirements, and (3) the EFV performance requirements. Since the net
benefits for the EFV installation standards and for the marking
requirements are expected to be greater than $0 per year, while the net
benefits for the new performance requirements are expected to be
between $15,674 and $1,254 per year, the total net benefits for the EFV
requirements specified in the final rule will be, at most, greater than
$15,674, and, at least, greater than $1,254 per year. Discounted over
50 years (the life of an EFV assumed by OPS) using a 7 percent discount
rate, the present value of the total net benefits is expected to be, at
most, greater than $223,768, and, at least, greater than $17,901. Since
costs are $0, their present value is also $0 and the cost-to-benefit
ratio is 0 at both the upper and lower bounds of the benefits.
Conclusion
The positive present value of the expected net benefits, as well as
the cost-to-benefit ratio of 0 at both the upper and lower bounds on
the benefits, indicate that the performance standards presented in the
final rule will be cost beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Based on costing assumptions discussed in the Cost/Benefit
Analysis, this rule will not have an undue impact on small operators.
Therefore, I certify under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
E.O. 12612
This rulemaking action will not have substantial direct effects on
states, on the relationship between the federal government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 12612
(52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
RSPA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined
that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No
Significant Impact are in the docket.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 192 is amended as follows:
PART 192--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 192 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 31459]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113 and 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.
* * * * *
2. Part 192 is amended by adding Sec. 192.381 to subpart H to read
as follows:
Sec. 192.381 Service lines: Excess flow valve performance standards.
(a) Excess flow valves to be used on single residence service lines
that operate continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less
than 10 psig must be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer
according to an industry specification, or the manufacturer's written
specification, to ensure that each valve will:
(1) Function properly up to the maximum operating pressure at which
the valve is rated;
(2) Function properly at all temperatures reasonably expected in
the operating environment of the service line;
(3) At 10 psig:
(i) Be sized to close at, or not more than 50 percent above the
rated closure flow rate specified by the manufacturer; and
(ii) Upon closure, reduce gas flow--
(A) For an excess flow valve designed to allow pressure to equalize
across the valve, to no more than 5 percent of the manufacturer's
specified closure flow rate, up to a maximum of 20 cubic feet per hour;
or
(B) For an excess flow valve designed to prevent equalization of
pressure across the valve, to no more than 0.4 cubic feet per hour; and
(4) Not close when the pressure is less than the manufacturer's
minimum specified operating pressure and the flow rate is below the
manufacturer's minimum specified closure flow rate.
(b) An excess flow valve must meet the applicable requirements of
Subparts B and D of this part.
(c) An operator must mark or otherwise identify the presence of an
excess flow valve in the service line.
(d) An operator should locate an excess flow valve beyond the hard
surface and as near as practical to the fitting connecting the service
line to its source of gas supply.
(e) An operator should not install an excess flow valve on a
service line where the operator has prior experience with contaminants
in the gas stream, where these contaminants could be expected to cause
the excess flow valve to malfunction or where the excess flow valve
would interfere with necessary operation and maintenance activities on
the service, such as blowing liquids from the line.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 1996.
D.K. Sharma,
Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-15564 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P