{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e8a8d3","title":"U.S. DOT/RSPA - Environmental Assessment - Revised August 2002 - Final Rule - High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"The document (an update to the January 2002 EA) describes RSPA’s final rule adding a new definition of high consequence areas for gas transmission pipelines, summarizes the definition’s elements (including Class 3 and Class 4 areas and specified radii around pipelines of different sizes/pressures), presents alternatives considered, and assesses environmental consequences. It states that the EA and prior analysis provide sufficient evidence that the final rule’s provisions are expected to have no significant environmental impact, notes the rule itself does not yet impose integrity-management requirements (those will be considered in a forthcoming rulemaking), and explains scope limitations (precise environmental consequences cannot be assessed until specific integrity management requirements are proposed).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8a8d3.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8a8d3.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8a8d3","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2000-7666-0162/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nUS. Department of Transportation\nEnvironmental Assessment - Revised August 2002\nFinal Rule\nHigh Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines\nDocket: RSPA-00-7666 -- I(J &\nRIN 2137-AD64\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nTable of Contents\nSummary\nA.\nB.\nPurpose and Need for Action\nDescription of Action\nC.\nAlternatives Considered\nD.\nAffected Environment\nE.\nE. 1\nEnvironmental Consequences of Action and Alternatives\nEnvironmental Consequences of Action\nE.2\nE.2.1\nE.2.2\nE.2.3\nEnvironmental Consequences of Altematives\nTake No Action\nDefine high consequence areas as Class 3 and Class 4 Areas\nDefine high consequence areas using the definition of high population areas from\ntj 195.450\nF.\nEnvironmental Justice Considerations\nG.\nInformation Made Available to States, Local Governments, and Individuals\nH.\nList of Agencies and Persons Consulted\nI.\nConclusion\n..\n11\ni ,i\n1\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n7\n7\n7\n8\n8\n9\n10\n10\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nSummary\nThis document is an update of the Environmental Assessment prepared in support of the\nproposed rule defining high consequence areas (67 FR 1108: Jan. 9,2002). The document was\nmodified to reflect changes that were made to the definition in response to public comments.\nThis document has been prepared in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National\nEnvironmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Section 4332), the Council on Environmental Quality\nregulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508), and Department of Transportation Order 5610.lc,\nProcedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. It was prepared to assist in the agency’s\nplanning and decision-making. This document describes the Research and Special Programs\nAdministration’s (RSPA) final rule to define high consequence areas for gas transmission\npipelines, the alternative definitions considered, the environment affected by this action, the\nconsequences to the environment of the action and the alternatives, and a list of the agencies ancl\norganizations consulted. This document, along with the Environmental Assessment prepared in\nJanuary 2002, provide sufficient evidence to determine that the provisions of the final rule are\nexpected to have no significant impact on the environment.\n...\n111\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nA. Purpose and Need for Action\nThe purpose and need for this action was described in the Environmental Assessment that\naccompanied the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing to define high consequence areas\n(67 Fed. Reg. 1108 Jan. 9, 2002). The Environmental Assessment is available in the Docket\n(#7666). This document updates the earlier analysis to reflect the provisions in the final rule.\nA number of individuals and organizations provided comment on the proposed rule described in\nthe NPRM. These comments are available in the Docket and summarized in the preamble to the\nfinal rule. In synthesizing this feedback, RSPA modified the proposed rule language, to provide\nfor small, low pressure pipelines; to clarify the definition of places where persons congregate;\nand to clarify the definition of buildings that contain persons who are confined, are of impaired\nmobility or would be difficult to evacuate. The provisions of the final rule are described in\nSection B.\nRSPA plans to propose rules on pipeline integrity management for interstate and intrastate\nnatural gas operators in the near fiture. The specific requirements of those rules and the\nenvironmental impacts associated with those requirements will be considered in the rulemaking\nprocess.\nB. Description of Action\nRSPA is adding a new section to 49 CFR 192 defining high consequence areas for gas\ntransmission pipelines. The definition includes -\nClass 3 areas under 0 192.5. Class 3 areas are defined as a class location units with 46 ,)r\nmore buildings intended for human occupancy. A class location unit is an area that\nextends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous one-mile length of\npipeline. A class 3 area is also an area where the pipeline lies within 100 yards of eithei a\nbuilding or a small, well-defined outside area, such as a playground, recreation area,\noutdoor theater, or other place of public assembly, which is occupied by 20 or more\npersons on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period. Neither the daj s\nnor the weeks need be consecutive.\nClass 4 areas under tj 192.5. A Class 4 area is any class location unit where buildings\nwith four or more stories are prevalent.\nFor a pipeline not more than 12 inches in nominal diameter and operating at a maximum\nallowable operating pressure of not more than 1200 p.s.i.g., an area which extends 300\nfeet from the centerline of the pipeline to the identified site (see definition in (0 below);\nFor a pipeline greater than 30 inches in nominal diameter and operating at a maximum\nallowable operating pressure greater than 1000 p.s.i.g., an area which extends 1000 feel\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nfrom the centerline of the pipeline to the identified site (see definition in (f) below);\nFor a pipeline not described in paragraph (c) or (d), an area which extends 660 feet from\nthe centerline of the pipeline to the identified site (see definition in ( f ) below).\nAn identified site. An identified site is a building or outside area that-\n(1) is visibly marked;\n(2) is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local agency;\n(3) is known by public officials; or\n(4) is on a list or map maintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local agency 01:\na publicly or commercially available database; and\n(5) is occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be\ndifficult to evacuate. Examples include, but are not limited to hospitals, prisons, school: #,\nday-care facilities, retirement facilities, and assisted-living facilities; or\n(6) there is evidence of use of the site by at least 20 or more persons on at least 50 days j n\nany 12-month period. (The days need not be consecutive.) Examples include, but are nl I t\nlimited to, beaches, playgrounds, recreational facilities, camping grounds, outdoor\ntheaters, stadiums, religious facilities, and recreational areas near bodies of water.\nThe high consequence area definition here has been changed from that included in the proposec\nrule (67 FR 1 108). The definition here has added a separate definition of high consequence are: s\naround small-diameter, low-pressure pipelines (under (c) above); this definition applies if sites\nthat contain persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility or would be difficult to evacua e\nor sites where persons congregate are located are within 300 feet of these pipelines. In addition\nthe definition here has clarified the definition of sites that contain persons who are confined, ar' ;\nof impaired mobility or would be difficult to evacuate (see (f)(l)-(5) above) and sites where\npersons congregate (see (f)( 1)-(4), (f)(6) above).\nC. Alternatives Considered\nRSPA considered alternatives in the decision process that led to the high consequence area\ndefinition given in Section B above. These alternatives are summarized below:\n1. Take No Action. In this alternative, RSPA would not define areas of high consequence but\nwould rely on the existing regulatory requirements to provide protection for all areas. This\nalternative would not be responsive to Congressional mandates or NTSB recommendations.\n2. Define high consequence areas as any Class 3 or Class 4 Area. In this alternative, high\nconsequence areas would be limited to pipeline segments adjacent to Class 3 or Class 4 areas.\nThis option would include populated areas but exclude sites occupied by persons who are\nconfined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate (e.g., hospitals, prisons,\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nschools, day-care facilities, retirement facilities, assisted-living facilities). It would also exclude\nsites where persons congregate (e.g., beaches, playgrounds, recreational facilities, camping\ngrounds, outdoor theaters, stadiums, religious facilities, and recreational areas near bodies of\nwater). This alternative definition would likely result in fewer areas receiving additional\nprotection.\n3. Define high consequence areas using the definition of high population areas from 6 195.450\nThe definition of high consequence areas for hazardous liquid pipeline integrity management\nrequirements (49 CFR 195.450) includes high population areas, which are urbanized areas, as\ndefined and delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau, that contain 50,000 or more people and have a\npopulation density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. Under this alternative, high\nconsequence areas for gas pipeline integrity management would use the Census Bureau definitil )n\nof high population areas. This would capture pipelines within the boundaries of larger towns\nand cities, many of the areas where a gas pipeline failure could have significant consequences.\nHowever, some of the areas that would be included under this alternative would not necessarily\nbe areas of high population density or heavy development, because the boundaries defined by tl Le\nCensus Bureau might include some areas of low population density. Also, some Class 3 or Class\n4 areas may be excluded by this alternative, if the Class 3 or Class 4 locations do not lie within\nthe boundaries of the Census Bureau units.\nRSPA believes the rule’s definition has certain features that make it superior to this alternative\nBy using the class location scheme contained in 49 CFR 192.5 to identify high consequence\nareas, gas pipeline operators will use information they are already required to obtain and maint %in\non the development and population density near pipelines. Including Class 3 and Class 4\nlocations ensures that areas where population density and development are greatest are protect :d.\nIn addition, the rule’s definition includes sites occupied by persons who are confined, are of\nimpaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate and sites where persons congregate, while\nthis alternative would not.\nD. Affected Environment\nThis rule defines high consequence areas throughout the United States that may be affected b! ’\ngas pipelines. The intent is that future rules will define requirements for integrity managemerit\non gas transmission pipeline segments that are in those high consequence areas. Thus, the are is\nof the environment potentially impacted are those that fall within the definition.\nAAer they are initially established, high consequence areas will be updated on a periodic basi ; to\nincorporate new information and data, For example, as communities and populations grow, tlie\nextent of Class 3 locations (as defined in §192S(b)(3)(i) and §192.5(b)(3)(ii)) may expand. IFSO,\nthe operator will need to apply any integrity management requirements to the expanded area.\nThe frequency at which these updates will be necessary has not been determined.\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nIn addition to the defined areas, the provisions of a proposed integrity management rule are likellf\nto affect areas of the environment beyond the high consequence area. For example, if integrity\nassessment is required, we expect some operators will choose to use internal inspection devices\nto fulfill the requirement. Due to economic and operational considerations, the launchers and\nreceivers used to insert and remove internal inspection devices are typically located at\ncompressor stations or other isolation points, which may be many miles apart. Even though a\nhigh consequence area may exist for only a short distance along the line, because of the location\nof inspection device launchers and receivers, operators will likely inspect the entire extended\nlength. Thus, in addition to the information about the condition of the line in a high consequenr e\narea, the operator will obtain integrity data about a much larger segment of pipe.\nE. Environmental Consequences of Action and Alternatives\nThis section describes the expected impact to the environment from the rule’s definition of hi@\nconsequence areas (Section E. 1) and the alternatives (Section E.2).\nGas transmission pipelines transport pressurized natural gas, which is lighter than air and\nflammable. If released as a result of a pipeline leak or rupture, natural gas can potentially ignitc ,\ncausing fires or explosions. Industry experience demonstrates that environmental consequence: I\nof pipeline rupture-initiated fires are almost always limited to localized damage to the vegetatic n\nand animal life in the area adjacent to the failure site. It is possible that a rupture occurring in a\nheavily forested area in the dry season could result in a forest fire, which would have a more\nextensive impact on wildlife and vegetation. However, the likelihood of such an occurrence is\nbelieved to be very low. Other than local damage in the event of a fire or explosion, there are r o\nsignificant environmental impacts from natural gas pipeline leaks or ruptures. Unlike hazardot is\nliquid pipelines, ruptures of gas pipelines would not result in liquid releases that could flow int I\nbodies of water and be transported further away from the failure site nor would gas fi-om the\nrelease impact groundwater.\nThis rule defines high consequence areas for natural gas transmission pipelines. The definition\nwill be used in a forthcoming rulemaking that addresses integrity management program\nrequirements for pipelines in and near these areas. Because there are no requirements yet, thc\nprecise environmental consequences to the high consequence areas cannot be assessed. We will\nevaluate these consequences when we propose integrity management program requirements.\nE. 1 Environmental Consequences of Action\nAs presented in the June 27,2001 Notice requesting information on gas pipeline integrity\nmanagement concepts (66 FR 343 18), at least seven elements are involved. The first element, A\ndefinition of high consequence areas, is the action covered here. The other six elements concc m\nthe additional actions pipeline operators could take for those pipeline segments that could affei:t a\nhigh consequence area. This section considers the potential general environmental effects on\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nhigh consequence areas of such actions.\n1. Identification and evaluation of the threats to pipeline integsity in each high conseauencc\narea. -\nA possible requirement would be for operators to conduct a comprehensive and integratc d\nanalysis of threats to a high consequence area from pipelines in the vicinity.\n2. Selection of assessment technologies\n3. 2. 3. Another possible action would be to require operators to perform a baseline assessment If\npipeline integrity along all segments that could affect a high consequence area. Such ar .\nassessment could determine which pipeline segments need to be repaired. Different\nassessment technologies will be more effective and practical, depending on the\ncharacteristics of the pipeline and the surrounding area. Some of the choices in\ntechnology (e.g., in line inspection, pressure testing) have minor environmental impacts\nassociated with their use, but these are more than offset by the positive effects of\nincreased prevention of pipeline failures assured by an effective baseline integrity\nassessment and repair of discovered problems. These issues are treated in depth in the\nEnvironmental Assessment (Docket # 99-6355) prepared for the Liquid Pipeline Integri y\nManagement Rule (65 FR 75378).\nDetermination of time frames to conduct a baseline integritv assessment and to make ar\nneeded repair.\nThis possible requirement would ensure that the baseline assessment and associated\nrepairs are carried out so that the highest risk segments are addressed first. Potential\nharmful effects on the environment from pipe failure would be addressed according to 1 he\nlevel of risk associated with each pipeline segment.\nIdentification and implementation of additional preventive and mitigative measures\nappropriate to manage significant threats.\nUnder such a requirement, an operator would examine the entire range of threats to\npipeline integrity and integrate information from all relevant sources. The objective of\nthis evaluation would be to identify location-specific conditions that might pose\nsignificant risks to a high consequence area, prioritize these risks, and consider what\nactions might be warranted to address the most important risks.\nContinual evaluation and reassessment at specified intervals.\nAnother possible requirement would be for operators to follow up the baseline integrit 1\nassessment with periodic reassessment of pipeline integrity. Continued protection of\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\npipeline integrity will help to prevent failures in and near the high consequence areas. A: L\nstated for element 2 above, some of the assessment technologies that operators might\nemploy in the reassessment have minor negative environmental impacts, but OPS\nconsiders these much lower than the positive effects of continued protection of pipelines\nand repair of any threats to integrity. A thorough discussion of this issue is included in tk e\nEnvironmental Assessment (Docket # 99-6355) prepared for the Liquid Pipeline Integrit:lr\nManagement Rule (65 FR 75378).\n4. Monitoring the effectiveness of the management process.\nThis element of an integrity management program would have operators evaluate the\neffectiveness of their integrity management program through performance measurement\nThis evaluation would assure that the program is continually effective in managing and\nreducing risk in high consequence areas.\nThe existing pipeline safety regulations already provide additional protection for populated are: s.\nRegulations for integrity management of gas transmission pipelines in the areas defined as higl L\nconsequence areas will add on to and extend these protections.\nThe definition of high consequence areas given here has changed from the definition included i n\nthe proposed rule (67 FR 1 108). This revised definition has potentially reduced the extent of hi i;h\nconsequence areas by reducing the distance from small-diameter, lower-pressure pipelines that is\nconsidered (300 feet vs. 660 or 1000 feet for larger-diameter, higher-pressure pipelines).\nAlthough this change may cause a smaller total area to defined within high consequence areas,\nthe small-diameter, low-pressure pipelines covered by the changes to the definition have a low :r\npotential for adverse impacts on the area surrounding the pipeline than pipelines that are larger or\noperate at higher pressure. The 300-foot zone around smaller, lower-pressure pipelines that is ( if\nconcern for sites that contain persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be\ndifficult to evacuate or sites where persons congregate covers the area that is likely to be\nimpacted by a pipeline failure. Therefore, the impact of this change to the definition does not\nhave a significant effect on the environment.\nSummarv of Expected Environmental Impacts for the Rule\nThe rule defines high consequence areas for gas pipeline integrity management. Although the\ndefinition of high consequence area does not, by itself, have any impact on the environment,\nOPS’s intent is to reduce the likelihood of gas pipeline failures in the vicinity of high\nconsequence areas. As discussed above, the revised definition of high consequence areas has\nresulted in potentially fewer areas being defined as high consequence areas, but this change is\nconsidered to have an insignificant effect on the risk of adverse impacts to the environment. 7 he\nexpected reduction of pipeline failures will reduce the impacts of pipelines on the environmelit,\nbut because the environmental impacts of releases from gas pipelines are limited, this reductii m\nin environmental risk is expected to be small.\n6\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nBased on this analysis, RSPA has determined that the definition of high consequence areas for\ngas pipelines will not have a significant environmental impact.\nE.2 Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives\nE.2.1 Take No Action.\nUnder this alternative, RSPA would not define high consequence areas that need additional\nprotection from gas pipeline failures. Existing pipeline operator integrity management activities’\n(both those required by Part 192, and those the operators perform voluntarily), as well as OPS\noversight, would continue. This alternative would have no additional impact on the\nenvironment. Any benefits to high consequence areas from requirements for increased integrity\nassessment and more formal and integrated approaches to integrity management would not be\nrealized under this alternative.\nE.2.2 Define high consequence areas as Class 3 and Class 4 areas\nUnder this alternative, only the first two parts of the definition in Section B above would be\nincluded. Only Class 3 and 4 areas would receive additional required protection. Thus, any\npositive effects on the environment would likely be realized for fewer segments of gas pipeline\nthan under the rule.\nE.2.3 Define high consequence areas using the definition of high Bopulation areas from\n3 195.450\nUnder this alternative, the Census Bureau’s definition of high population areas would be used ti )\ndefine high consequence areas for gas pipelines. As stated above in Section C, this alternative\ndefinition would likely cover many of the same areas covered by the definition in Section B\nabove. However, this alternative would not necessarily include all developed areas near gas\npipelines encompassed by Class 3 and Class 4 areas and might include areas that do not have a\nhigh density of buildings intended for human occupancy. Also, this alternative might not incluc le\nsites occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to\nevacuate and sites where persons congregate, if such sites are outside the boundaries of Census\nBureau high population areas.\nMost populated areas would receive additional protection under this alternative. However,\nbecause the Census Bureau’s definition does not necessarily coincide with the populated areas\nincluded under the rule, different areas would be likely to benefit from the increased protection\nSome areas that would be designated as high consequence areas under this alternative would not\nbe included under the rule. Similarly, some areas that would be included as under the definitio 1\nin Section B above would not be included under the Census Bureau’s definition. The overall\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\ndifference between the net environmental effect under this alternative and the net effect under th e\nrule cannot be ascertained precisely. Both are expected to realize net positive effects, but for\ndifferent areas. In neither case are the effects expected to be significant.\nF. Environmental Justice Considerations\nIn accordance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice i n\nMinority and Low-Income Populations), RSPA has considered the effects on minority and\nlow-income populations of the provisions of this rule. This rulemaking action defines high\nconsequence areas for gas transmission pipelines with the assumption that requirements for\nintegrity management for those pipeline segments in these defined areas will soon be proposed.\nThese future requirements will provide additional protection for those areas. The definition of\nhigh consequence areas in Section B above applies nation-wide and does not specifically target\nany community, based on the income or economic status of the community.\nThe additional protection that will be eventually proposed for the areas covered by the definitioii\nwill benefit all citizens in proximity to gas transmission pipelines, regardless of their economic\nor minority status. Therefore, the rule does not have disproportionately high or adverse health I )r\nenvironmental effects on any minority or low-income populations near gas transmission\npipelines.\nG. Information Made Available to States, Local Governments, and Individuals\nRSPA has made the following documents publicly available, and incorporates them by referenc :e\ninto this environmental assessment:\n0 “Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rulemaking High Consequence Areas for Gas\nTransmission Pipelines,” Docket: RSPA-00-7666, XXXX 2OOX.\n0 “Pipeline Safety: High Consequence Areas for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Notice of\nProposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 1108, January 9,2002.\n0 “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas\nTransmission Pipelines),’’ Notice of Request for Comments, 66 FR 343 18, June 27, 20 :)l.\n“Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardclus\nLiquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines),” Final Rule, 67 FR 2 136,\nJanuary 16,2002.\n0 “Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardws\nLiquid Operators With Less Than 500 Miles of Pipelines),” Notice of Proposed\n8\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nRulemaking, 66 FR 15821, March 2 1,2001.\n“Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas,” Final\nRule, 65 FR 75378, December 1,2000.\n“Environmental Assessment: Final Rule Pipeline Integrity Management in High\nConsequence Areas for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operators Operating 500 or More\nMiles of Pipe,” Docket: RSPA 99-6355, November 13, 2000.\n“Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas,” Notice c f\nProposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 2 1695, April 24,2000.\n“Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rulemaking Pipeline Integrity Management in\nHigh Consequence Areas for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operators Operating 500 or\nMore Miles of Pipe,” Docket: RSPA 99-6355, April 2000.\n“Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission\nand Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High-Consequence Areas,” Notice Extending\nComment Period and Establishing Electronic Public Discussion Forum, 64 FR 7 171 3,\nDecember 22, 1999.\n0\n“Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission\nand Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Areas,” 64 FR 56725, October 2 1,\n1999.\nH.\nList of Agencies and Persons Consulted\nDuring the process of developing the integrity management rule, RSPA interacted and consul1:ed\nwith numerous organizations. These participants included:\ne Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)\ne American Gas Association (AGA)\n0 Battelle Memorial Institute\n0 Gas Technology Institute (GTI)\n0 Western States Land Commissioners\n0 National Governors Association\ne National League of Cities\n9\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\n0 National Council of State Legislators\n0 Environmental Defense Fund\n0 Public Interest Reform Group\n0 Working Group on Communities Right-To-Know\nI. Conclusion\nGas pipeline failures that impact human health or the environment occur infrequently.\nNonetheless, RSPA believes additional assurance of a pipeline system’s integrity is important f lor\nareas where the consequences of a gas pipeline failure could be significant. This rule covers th :\nfirst step in providing this assurance, by defining the areas that will given additional protection\nthrough integrity management requirements. This Environmental Assessment has considered t lie\nimpacts of the definition, and has concluded that the risk associated with pipelines operating in\nhigh consequence areas should be reduced. However, because the environmental consequence i\nof gas pipeline failures are limited, the impact is expected to be limited. Therefore, RSPA has\nconcluded that the definition of high consequence areas for gas pipeline integrity management\nwill not have a significant environmental impact.\n10","truncated":false,"body_characters":27547}