Integrity Plus:

Pipeline Risk Analysis

Risk Algorithm Report
Revision B

Date: March 31, 2019

Prepared for:
Contents
1 Risk Methodology Overview ........................................................................................ 1
2 Probability of Failure.................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Third Party Damage PoF ...................................................................................4
2.1.1 Impacts Exposure ......................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Impacts Mitigation........................................................................................ 4
2.1.3 Excavation Exposure ..................................................................................... 5
2.1.4 Excavation Mitigation ................................................................................... 5
2.1.5 Third Party Damage Resistance .................................................................... 5
2.2 Incorrect Operations PoF .................................................................................5
2.2.1 Incorrect Operations Exposure..................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Incorrect Operations Mitigation ................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Incorrect Operations Resistance .................................................................. 6
2.3 Intentional Damage PoF ...................................................................................6
2.3.1 Intentional Damage PoD .............................................................................. 7
2.3.2 Intentional Damage Resistance .................................................................... 7
2.4 Natural Hazards PoF .........................................................................................7
2.4.1 Hydrological Exposure and Mitigation ......................................................... 8
2.4.2 Meteorological Exposure and Mitigation ..................................................... 8
2.4.3 Climatic Exposure and Mitigation................................................................. 9
2.4.4 Geological Exposure and Mitigation............................................................. 9
2.4.5 Natural Hazards Resistance .......................................................................... 9
2.5 External Corrosion PoF .....................................................................................9
2.5.1 External Corrosion Rate Measured ............................................................ 10
2.5.2 External Corrosion Rate Estimated............................................................. 10
2.5.3 Accelerated EC Rate Exposure and Mitigation ........................................... 11
2.5.4 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available ................................................................... 11
2.6 Internal Corrosion PoF .....................................................................................11
2.6.1 Internal Corrosion Rate Measured ............................................................. 11
2.6.2 IC Rate Estimated – Exposure and Mitigation ............................................ 12
2.6.3 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available ................................................................... 12
2.7 Cracking PoF .....................................................................................................12
2.7.1 Cracking Rate Estimated ............................................................................. 12
2.7.2 Cracking Pipe Wall Available ...................................................................... 13
2.8 Additional PoFs.................................................................................................13
3 Pipe Wall Available .................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available.........................................................................14
3.1.1 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Estimate ................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Pipe Wall Adjustment ................................................................................. 15
3.1.3 Sleeve.......................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Cracking Pipe Wall Available ............................................................................16
3.2.1 Cracking Pipe Wall Estimate ....................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Pipe Wall Adjustment ................................................................................. 16
3.2.3 Sleeve.......................................................................................................... 16
 3.3 Interacting Threats ...........................................................................................17
4 Gas Consequence of Failure ...................................................................................... 17
4.1 Business Costs ..................................................................................................17
4.1.1 Product Cost ............................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Service Interruption Cost............................................................................ 18
4.1.3 Repair Cost.................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Indirect Costs....................................................................................................18
4.3 Damage Costs ...................................................................................................19
5 Liquid Consequence of Failure................................................................................... 20
5.1 Business Costs ..................................................................................................20
5.1.1 Product Cost ............................................................................................... 21
5.1.2 Service Interruption Cost............................................................................ 21
5.1.3 Repair Cost.................................................................................................. 21
5.2 Indirect Costs....................................................................................................21
5.3 Damage Costs ...................................................................................................22
6 Appendix Summary.................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A: Data Sources ............................................................................................. 1
Appendix B: Model Elements, Calculations, and Units ................................................. 1
Appendix C: Defaults Report ......................................................................................... 1
Appendix D: Lookup Tables ........................................................................................... 2
Appendix E: Document Revision History ...................................................................... 3
1 Risk Methodology Overview

The methodology used for the risk assessment is designed to produce absolute, verifiable risk
estimates for every point along a pipeline. Since risk is defined in terms of an event likelihood and
consequence, the risk of failure (RoF) at any point on the system is therefore composed of two
components: the probability of failure (PoF) and the consequence of failure (CoF). This makes up
the basic relationship underlying the risk model:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Risk is calculated in two ways. One is rate of risk and the other is total risk. The main difference
between the two is their units. Rate of risk is measured in units of dollars per mile-year while total
risk is in units of dollars per year. To compute rate of risk, PoF is first estimated as the probability
per mile-year and then multiplied by CoF. A conversion is done to PoF when computing total risk.
Length of segment is used to convert PoF to units of probability per year which is then multiplied
by CoF to compute total risk. Rate of risk and total risk both provide valuable information. Rate of
risk allows for easy comparisons of one segment to another. Total risk quantifies how much each
segment is expected to cost.
To estimate a PoF for each failure mechanism, the calculation is broken into three components:
 Exposure: The unmitigated force or process which can damage the pipeline
 Mitigation: Measures which prevent the exposure from damaging the pipe
 Resistance: The pipe’s inherent survivability or ability to resist failure
Exposure is synonymous with attack and is the unmitigated force or process which can harm the
pipeline. Example exposures include an excavator digging near a pipeline or an unmitigated
corrosion growth rate eating through pipe wall. Mitigation can be thought of as defense, and
consists of the measures which prevent the exposure, or attack, from damaging the pipe. Example
mitigations include cathodic protection systems to prevent corrosion or depth of cover to prevent
third party damage. If an exposure makes it past all mitigations and begins causing damage to the
pipeline, the pipe has some inherent ability to resist failure. This third component, resistance, is
the survivability of the pipe based on pipe strength and wall thickness, with consideration for
existing defects or weaknesses.
Potential manufacturing and construction related weaknesses are addressed as part of the
resistance component. Failure potential related to specific equipment or components is similarly
captured when either of those elements are present. For comparison purposes, weaknesses will
also be expressed as PoF values, similar to failure mechanisms as described below.
PoF is estimated for each failure mechanism by assessing the unmitigated threat or exposure, all
mitigations applied, and the inherent resistance to the failure mechanism. The units of measure
and equation structure used to calculate PoF vary depending on the failure mechanism.
For time-independent failure mechanisms, PoF is estimated as:

1
 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 × (1 − 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 1 − 𝑒𝑒 −𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ×(1−𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)
In the time-independent PoF equation, probability of damage (PoD) is estimated in units of
probability per mile-year and resistance measured in percent resistance. An intermediate PoD
calculation is performed for each time-independent failure mechanism in which exposure is
measured in units of events per mile-year and mitigation in percent exposure reduction.

This intermediate PoD calculation is an important tool for model calibration. Failure data is limited
in availability and therefore not always accurate for use in comparison with PoF estimates
generated by the risk model. However, damage data produced by inspection is generally readily
available and can be used directly for model calibration based on comparison with PoD estimates.
For time-dependent mechanisms, PoF is estimated as:

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 1 − 𝑒𝑒 −1⁄𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐⁄(𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × (1 − 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀))
In the time-dependent PoF equation, time to failure (TTF) is estimated in years. An intermediate
TTF calculation is performed for each time-dependent failure mechanism in which exposure is
measured in units of mils per year (MPY), mitigation in percent exposure reduction, and resistance
in inches of pipe wall thickness.
The second component of the risk equation, CoF, evaluates the full range of possible consequence
scenarios, including the most probable and worst case. This includes consideration of all leak sizes,
from pinhole to rupture, and ignition scenarios for gas and hazardous liquid pipeline products. It
incorporates advanced analysis techniques to model release, dispersion, fire and thermal
radiation, and explosion. The total CoF includes business costs, such as product loss and service
interruption, damages to population, property, and the environment, and indirect costs such as
government fines and legal fees.
An overview of the high-level risk algorithm components is presented in Figure 1, Risk of Failure.

2
 Figure 1: Risk of Failure

Risk of Failure
(RoF)

Consequence of
Probability of Failure
Failure
(PoF)
(CoF)

Third Party Damage Incorrect operations Intentional Damage

Natural Hazards PoF Business Costs Indirect Costs Damage Costs
PoF PoF PoF

External Corrosion Internal Corrosion

Cracking PoF
PoF PoF

Threats to pipeline integrity are similar regardless of product transported. As a result, Section 2,
Probability of Failure, does not differentiate in high-level risk calculations between gas and liquid
pipeline. When calculating CoF, however, gas and liquid calculations are fundamentally different
based on units of measure, release dispersion models, and impacts to consequence receptors.
Section 4, Gas Consequence of Failure, and Section 5, Liquid Consequence of Failure, provide
explanations for gas and liquid pipelines, respectively.

2 Probability of Failure

ASME B31.8S lists nine ‘threats’ to consider in IMP risk assessments. In these risk assessments,
seven failure mechanisms are considered in the risk algorithm, which include the three weakness
categories (as specified in ASMA B31.8S). Together, these make up the PoF component of the risk
equation. The failure mechanisms, grouped by time-dependency, are as follows:
Time-independent mechanisms
 Third Party Damage
 Natural Hazards
 Incorrect Operations
 Intentional Damage
Time-dependent mechanisms
 Internal Corrosion
 External Corrosion
 Cracking
The weakness locations listed in ASME B31.8S are categorized as follows:
Resistance Locations

3
 Manufacturing
 Construction
 Equipment
2.1 Third Party Damage PoF
As introduced in Section 1, Risk Methodology Overview, the PoF for time-independent
mechanisms such as third party damage is calculated as a function of PoD and resistance. For third
party damage, the PoD is further categorized by impacts and excavation, and within those
categories, exposure and mitigation factors are presented. Resistance is divided into puncture
resistance and strain resistance. These factors are presented in Figure 2, Third Party Damage PoF.
Figure 2: Third Party Damage PoF

Third Party Damage

PoF

Third Party Damage Third Party Damage

PoD Resistance

Impacts PoD Excavation PoD

Excavation
Impacts Exposure Impacts Mitigation Excavation Exposure Puncture Resistance Strain Resistance
Mitigation

2.1.1 Impacts Exposure

Impacts exposure is comprised of moving objects and falling objects. Moving objects such as
airplanes, railcars, and automobiles expose the pipeline to failure by its proximity to roads,
railroads, or open access areas such as fields or cleared rights of way.
Utility poles and structures are identified as falling objects, and exposure increases as the
frequency of falling objects increases. As such, population density is a primary factor in
determining the falling object PoD.
2.1.2 Impacts Mitigation

In determining impacts PoD, mitigation due to depth of cover, casings, or concrete pads is applied.
Each of these factors protects the pipeline from damage by preventing impact to the pipeline.

4
2.1.3 Excavation Exposure

Excavation exposure is comprised of general construction activities, excavation activities, road

construction activities, and one call activities. General construction activities are based on
population density, and equate higher exposure to more populated areas. Excavation activities
are related to typical pipeline excavation activities and increase near foreign pipeline crossings.
Road construction activities are considered for pipelines near road crossings. Finally, one call
records are employed to determine where actual excavations requests occur.
2.1.4 Excavation Mitigation

In addition to the depth of cover, casing, or concrete pad mitigation factors employed for impacts,
excavation PoD is mitigated by patrols, underground warning tape, one call participation, and
public education.
2.1.5 Third Party Damage Resistance

The pipeline has inherent resistance to third party damage through two factors, puncture
resistance and strain resistance. Puncture resistance is a function of the pipe wall available,
outside diameter, and pipe tensile strength. Strain resistance compares pipe wall available and
outside diameter. In both cases, pipe wall available factors in metal loss and cracking pipe wall
calculations. Additional details of pipe wall available are provided in Section 3, Pipe Wall Available.
2.2 Incorrect Operations PoF
For the incorrect operations threat, the primary failure mechanism is overpressure and mitigation
is provided through numerous factors. As with third party damage, resistance consists of puncture
resistance and strain resistance. These factors are presented in Figure 3, Incorrect Operations PoF.
Figure 3: Incorrect Operations PoF

Incorrect Operations
PoF

Incorrect Operations Incorrect Operations

PoD Resistance

Incorrect Operations Incorrect Operations Normal Operating Minimum Internal

Exposure Mitigation Pressure Yield Pressure

2.2.1 Incorrect Operations Exposure

Incorrect operations exposure consist of three primary overpressure scenarios; fluid hammer
overpressure due to rapid valve closure, thermal overpressure from ambient or product

5
temperature changes, and operational overpressure due to human or system error. Each of these
exposures considers available pressure allowance as well as the frequency of occurrence.
2.2.2 Incorrect Operations Mitigation

Incorrect operations are mitigated by designing safety factors into pipeline operations to prevent
overpressure events. The algorithm accounts for the percent reduction of the exposure as a
measure of effectiveness in each of the following mitigation areas:
 SCADA
 Substance abuse programs
 Mechanical error preventers
 Procedures
 Training
 Control and safety systems
 Safety programs
2.2.3 Incorrect Operations Resistance

Incorrect operations resistance is based on the comparison of NOP to the pipe minimum internal
yield pressure. As the NOP approaches the value needed for failure, resistance is reduced. The
yield pressure is determined using pipe SMYS, diameter, and available wall thickness. Pipe wall
available factors in metal loss and cracking pipe wall calculations. Additional details of pipe wall
available are provided in Section 3, Pipe Wall Available.
2.3 Intentional Damage PoF
The intentional damage threat is based on the time-independent possibility that a person will
deliberately act on the pipeline to cause failure. Exposure is either internal (operator employee)
or external (third party), and mitigation is largely due to security measures. Resistance is based
on strain and puncture resistance. These factors are presented in Figure 4, Intentional Damage
PoF.

6
 Figure 4: Intentional Damage PoF

Intentional Damage
PoF

Intentional Damage Intentional Damage

PoD Resistance

Intentional Damage Intentional Damage

Puncture Resistance Strain Resistance
Exposure Mitigation

2.3.1 Intentional Damage PoD

Intentional damage exposure, consisting of employee or third party causes, considers vandalism
and terrorism threats. Mitigation for intentional damage is accomplished through active and
passive security measures, as well as physical protection for the pipeline. Security measures
include lighting, video surveillance, patrols, alarms, and facility staffing. Additional protection is
provided to the belowground pipelines through increased depth of cover.
2.3.2 Intentional Damage Resistance

Similar to third party damage, intentional damage resistance is comprised of puncture resistance
and strain resistance. Section 2.1.5, Third Party Damage Resistance, contains a more detailed
explanation.
2.4 Natural Hazards PoF
Natural hazards are time-independent failure mechanisms that exert forces or cause impacts on
the pipeline. Exposure and mitigation factors are grouped by type of hazard into hydrological,
geological, meteorological, and climatic. Resistance to natural hazard damage is based on
puncture and strain resistance of the pipe. These factors are presented in Figure 5, Natural
Hazards PoF.

7
 Figure 5: Natural Hazards PoF

Natural Hazards PoF

Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards PoD
Resistance

Hydrological PoD Meteorological PoD

Hydrological Hydrological Meteorological Meteorological

Puncture Resistance Strain Resistance
Exposure Mitigation Exposure Mitigation

Climatic PoD Geological PoD

Geological
Climatic Exposure Climatic Mitigation Geological Exposure
Mitigation

2.4.1 Hydrological Exposure and Mitigation

Hydrological exposure factors are comprised of flooding and stream erosion/scouring and exist in
flood zone areas and waterbody locations, respectively. Mitigation activities are provided through
impacts mitigation, as explained in Section 2.1.2, Impacts Mitigation, as well as use of river
weights to prevent movement due to waterway forces.
2.4.2 Meteorological Exposure and Mitigation

Meteorological exposures are based on historical occurrences in the vicinity of the pipeline for
the following events:
 High wind
 Heavy rainfall
 Hail
 Winter/Ice storm
 Tornado
 Tropical cyclone/Storm surge
 Lightning

8
Mitigation activities are provided through impacts mitigation, as explained in Section 2.1.2,
Impacts Mitigation.
2.4.3 Climatic Exposure and Mitigation

Climatic exposure factors are comprised of wildfire and freeze/frost heave zones. Mitigation
activities are provided through impacts mitigation, as explained in Section 2.1.2, Impacts
Mitigation.
2.4.4 Geological Exposure and Mitigation

Geological exposures are based on potential occurrences in the vicinity of the pipeline for the
following events:
 Earthquake
 Tsunami
 Landslide
 Mudslide
 Debris flow
 Rockslide
 Subsidence/ Erosion
 Avalanche
 Volcanic eruption
 Tree fall
Mitigation activities are provided through impacts mitigation, as explained in Section 2.1.2,
Impacts Mitigation.
2.4.5 Natural Hazards Resistance

Similar to third party damage, natural hazards resistance is comprised of puncture resistance and
strain resistance. Section 2.1.5, Third Party Damage Resistance, contains a more detailed
explanation.
2.5 External Corrosion PoF
Time-dependent failure mechanisms are based on a TTF calculation using the wall loss rate and
remaining pipe wall thickness. The external corrosion rate is either determined through actual
measurements and engineering analysis or by estimating the rate based on exposure and
mitigation factors. These factors are presented in Figure 6, External Corrosion PoF.

9
 Figure 6: External Corrosion PoF

External Corrosion
PoF

External Corrosion Metal Loss Pipe Wall

Rate (MPY) Available

EC Rate Measured
EC Rate Estimated
(Mitigated)

General EC Rate Accelerated EC Rate

General EC Accelerated EC Accelerated EC

General EC Exposure
Mitigation Exposure Mitigation

2.5.1 External Corrosion Rate Measured

The measured external corrosion rate provides a mitigated corrosion growth rate for the pipeline
dynamic segment and is considered to represent the overall influence of exposure and mitigation
factors. Measured in MPY, the measured corrosion rate is adjusted by a confidence factor that
accounts for the accuracy of the measurement and engineering analysis applied.
2.5.2 External Corrosion Rate Estimated

When calculating an estimated external corrosion rate, the sum of general corrosion and
accelerated corrosion failure mechanisms is considered.

2.5.2.1 GENERAL EC RATE EXPOSURE AND MITIGATION

General external corrosion is comprised of natural environmental exposures near the pipeline.
Corrosion caused by exposure to the atmosphere, soil, and the interface between aboveground
and buried pipe is estimated as appropriate for the pipe characteristics. General corrosion is
mitigated through the application of coating and cathodic protection, and mitigation calculations
consider inspection data to determine the effectiveness of coating and cathodic protection.

10
2.5.3 Accelerated EC Rate Exposure and Mitigation

Accelerated external corrosion is caused by exposure to stray currents which exceed those caused
by environmental exposure. Stray currents are identified as corresponding to foreign line
crossings. The exposure to stray currents is mitigated by installation of direct bonds, sacrificial
anodes, and zinc ribbons to redirect the stray current away from the pipeline.
2.5.4 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available

As a time-dependent failure mechanism, external corrosion resistance is identified through metal

loss pipe wall available. Details of the metal loss pipe wall available determination are provided
in Section 3.1, Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available.
2.6 Internal Corrosion PoF
Similar to external corrosion, the internal corrosion PoF is based on a time to failure calculation
using the corrosion growth rate and remaining pipe wall thickness. The internal corrosion rate is
either determined through actual measurements and engineering analysis or by estimating the
rate based on exposure and mitigation factors. These factors are presented in Figure 7, Internal
Corrosion PoF.
Figure 7: Internal Corrosion PoF

Internal Corrosion
PoF

Internal Corrosion Metal Loss Pipe Wall

Rate (MPY) Available

IC Rate Measured
IC Rate Estimated
(Mitigated)

IC Exposure IC Mitigation

2.6.1 Internal Corrosion Rate Measured

The measured internal corrosion rate provides a mitigated corrosion growth rate for the pipeline
dynamic segment and is considered to represent the overall influence of exposure and mitigation
factors. Measured in MPY, the measured internal corrosion rate is adjusted by a confidence factor
that accounts for the accuracy of the measurement and engineering analysis applied.

11
2.6.2 IC Rate Estimated – Exposure and Mitigation

The estimated internal corrosion rate consists of exposure and mitigation factors, primarily
related to the product transported in the pipeline. A general corrosion rate is provided for each
type of product considered and adjusted by flow characteristics which identify low points, low
flow, or geometry changes. Mitigation to internal corrosion is applied through use of chemical
inhibitors, maintenance pigging programs, or internal coating. Internal corrosion mitigation
effectiveness may also be measured through inspection programs and defect comparisons.
2.6.3 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available

As a time-dependent failure mechanism, internal corrosion resistance is identified through metal

loss pipe wall available. Details of the metal loss pipe wall available determination are provided
in Section 3.1, Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available.
2.7 Cracking PoF
Similar to external corrosion, the cracking PoF is based on a time to failure calculation that
combines the crack growth rate and remaining pipe wall thickness factors. The crack growth rate
estimate is determined based on cracking exposure and mitigation factors. These factors are
presented in Figure 8, Cracking PoF.
Figure 8: Cracking PoF

Cracking PoF

Cracking Rate (MPY) Cracking Pipe Wall

Estimated Available

Environmentally
Fatigue Cracking
Assisted Cracking
Rate
Rate

Environmentally Environmentally
Fatigue Cracking Fatigue Cracking
Assisted Cracking Assisted Cracking
Exposure Mitigation
Exposure Mitigation

2.7.1 Cracking Rate Estimated

When calculating an estimated cracking rate, the effects of fatigue cracking and environmentally
assisted cracking failure mechanisms are considered.

12
2.7.1.1 FATIGUE CRACKING RATE EXPOSURE AND MITIGATION

Fatigue cracking is influenced by internal and external pressure cycles. Internal pressure cycles
are driven by pipeline operations and the increase and decrease of operating pressure. External
pressure cycles are based on external loading from road, railway, or waterbody crossings. Fatigue
cracking is mitigated through coating, and mitigation calculations consider inspection data to
determine the coating condition and effectiveness.

2.7.1.2 ENVIRONMENTALLY ASSISTED CRACKING RATE EXPOSURE AND MITIGATION

Environmentally assisted cracking considers the susceptibility of the pipeline to stress corrosion
cracking (SCC) based on the environmental and operating conditions of the pipeline. A base SCC
growth rate is considered along with various susceptibility criteria to determine the estimated
environmentally assisted cracking rate.
2.7.2 Cracking Pipe Wall Available

As a time-dependent failure mechanism, cracking resistance is identified through cracking pipe

wall available. Details of the cracking pipe wall available determination are provided in Section
3.2, Cracking Pipe Wall Available.

2.8 Additional PoFs

In order to facilitate comparison with ASME B31.8s specified ‘threat’ categories, three additional
PoFs are generated by these algorithms. These cover the B31.8S categories of Equipment,
Construction, and Manufacturing ‘Threats’ (see discussion in Section 1). While these are not
failure mechanisms but rather possible weakness locations that must have some failure
mechanism acting upon them before failure can occur, they can nonetheless have PoF values
assigned. Again, these additional PoFs are created solely to allow direct links to the listed ‘threats’
in B31.8S.
Potential manufacturing, construction, and equipment related weaknesses are addressed as part
of the resistance estimate included in every failure mechanism PoF calculation. Therefore, these
possible weaknesses impact every failure mechanism, satisfying one of the ‘threat interaction’
modeling requirements as discussed in Section 3.3.
To produce PoF values specifically for these possible weaknesses, the following calculation is
performed. First, the penalties assigned due to these potential weaknesses are isolated from the
resistance estimates in each failure mechanism PoF calculation. Those penalties are detailed in
Section 3.1.2 Pipe Wall Adjustment. Then, weakness-specific PoFs are calculated that show only
the incremental increase in PoF that occurs in each failure mechanism, due to the potential
weaknesses. Finally, these PoFs are combined to show the total contribution to PoF solely from
the weaknesses.

13
3 Pipe Wall Available

A primary driver for resistance to failure is the amount of pipe wall available at any location on
the pipeline. Pipe wall available depends on the failure mechanism, or threat, being calculated.
Table 1, Failure and Resistance Mechanism, provides a listing of pipe wall resistance applicability
for each threat.
Table 1: Failure and Resistance Mechanism
Metal Loss Cracking
Threat
Resistance Resistance
Third Party Damage Yes Yes
Incorrect Operations Yes Yes
Intentional Damage Yes Yes
Natural Hazards Yes Yes
External Corrosion Yes No
Internal Corrosion Yes No
Cracking No Yes
3.1 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available
Metal loss pipe wall available provides an estimate of the wall thickness based on a measured or
conservative calculation adjusted to account for interactive threats added to the thickness of a
sleeve, if applicable. These factors are presented in Figure 9, Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available.
Figure 9: Metal Loss Pipe Wall Available

Metal Loss Pipe Wall

Available

Metal Loss Pipe Wall Pipe Wall

Sleeve
Estimate Adjustment

Metal Loss
NOP Inspection (ILI, Pressure Test Pipe Flaws Pipe Loadings Pipe Reinforcement
Direct Inspection)

Inspection Pipe Wall Metal Loss Growth

Pipe Manufacture Pipe Component
Thickness Estimate since Inspection

3.1.1 Metal Loss Pipe Wall Estimate

To identify the metal loss pipe wall thickness estimate, wall thickness estimates from physical
inspection results, pressure test results, and NOP are considered. In each of these cases, a known
wall thickness is measured or calculated at the time of inspection, test, or observed operating

14
pressure (baseline time). For physical inspections, such as ILI or direct inspection and pressure
tests, wall loss estimates since inspection are based on the EC and IC rates measured or estimated
in Section 2.5, External Corrosion PoF, and Section 2.6, Internal Corrosion PoF, respectively. In the
absence of inspection or pressure test data, the operating pressure at the time of analysis is
employed to determine a conservative value.
3.1.2 Pipe Wall Adjustment

The pipe wall estimate is adjusted to account for the potential presence of construction and
manufacturing defects, points of increased stress concentration, locations of unusual loadings,
reinforcements, and other features that suggest a stronger or weaker condition that is implied by
wall thickness alone. Note that while this factor is named ‘pipe wall’, it actually refers to the wall
of any component, including non-pipe appurtenances. The following factors are included:
Pipe Flaws
 Dent
 Seam anomaly
 Gouge
 Weld anomaly
Pipe Loadings
 Span
 Rail crossing
 Waterbody crossing
 Road crossing
Pipe Manufacture
 Toughness
 Girth weld type
 Manufacture tolerance
 Long seam type
Pipe Reinforcement
 Casing
 Sleeve
Pipe Component
 Tee
 Valve
 Tap
 Flange

15
3.1.3 Sleeve

In addition to estimating the pipe wall itself, an additional conservative wall thickness is added to
account for the presence of a sleeve.
3.2 Cracking Pipe Wall Available
Cracking pipe wall available provides an estimate of the wall thickness based on a measured or
conservative calculation, previously repaired conditions (sleeve), and an adjustment to account
for interactive threats. These factors are presented in Figure 10, Cracking Pipe Wall Available.
Figure 10: Cracking Pipe Wall Available

Cracking Pipe Wall

Available

Cracking Pipe Wall Pipe Wall

Sleeve
Estimate Adjustment

Cracking Inspection
NOP (ILI, Direct Pressure Test Pipe Flaws Pipe Loadings Pipe Reinforcement
Inspection)

Inspection Pipe Wall Crack Growth since

Pipe Manufacture Pipe Component
Thickness Estimate Inspection

3.2.1 Cracking Pipe Wall Estimate

To identify the cracking pipe wall thickness estimate, wall thickness estimates from physical
inspection results, pressure test results, and NOP are considered. In each of these cases, a known
wall thickness is measured or calculated at the time of inspection, test, or observed operating
pressure (baseline time). For physical inspections and pressure tests, wall loss estimates since
inspection are based on the cracking rate estimated in Section 2.7, Cracking PoF. In the absence
of inspection or pressure test data, the operating pressure at the time of analysis is employed to
determine a conservative value.
3.2.2 Pipe Wall Adjustment

The pipe wall adjustment for cracking is the same as that for metal loss, and is presented in Section
3.1.2, Pipe Wall Adjustment.
3.2.3 Sleeve

In addition to estimating the pipe wall itself, an additional conservative wall thickness is added to
account for the presence of a sleeve.

16
3.3 Interacting Threats
US regulatory guidance documentation uses the term ‘threat’ to refer to either failure
mechanisms or locations of increased vulnerabilities (weaknesses). Under this usage, there are
two general types of potential threat interaction:
• multiple failure mechanisms acting at same location
• any failure mechanism acting at location of any weakness
Both types are fully addressed in this risk assessment.
As noted in the above discussion, PoD and Resistance are functions of PoF for both time-
dependent and time-independent estimations.
In the example of third party damage threat, PoF(3rd Party Damage) = [3rd Party Damage PoD]*(1-
[3rd Party Damage Resistance])
A similar process is repeated for both the time independent as well as time dependent threats to
develop a PoF for each one. Then the individual threats are combined for each dynamic segment
as follows:
PoFdynseg=1-(1-PoF3rd party)*(1-PoFcracking)* … *(1-PoFxxx)
Because all threats in a probabilistic risk analyses are assumed to be active on a given dynamic
segment of pipe, individual threats are combined as noted in the PoFdynseg calculation. Therefore,
when individual threats coexist, there will result in a higher PoF for the dynamic segment. This
type of analysis ensures that the probability of failure for each threat is based on quantifiable data
and is combined in such a way as to produce a PoF that is proportional to the total probabilities
of each failure mechanism that might be active at any location.
Similarly, the Resistance estimation that accompanies every estimate of PoF (i.e. each PoF
includes an estimate of Resistance) includes consideration of all potential weaknesses that could
exist on a segment. Since this ‘weakness possibility’ is mathematically overlaid with all failure
mechanisms possibly acting at the same location, this type of threat interaction is also fully
incorporated into this risk assessment.

4 Gas Consequence of Failure

As explained in Section 2, Risk of Failure: Algorithm Overview, gas and liquid CoF are calculated
independently based on product type. Gas CoF is the sum of three factors resulting from a gas
pipeline failure: business costs, indirect costs, and damage costs.
4.1 Business Costs
Business costs are comprised of lost product, service interruption opportunity cost, and repair
cost. These factors are presented in Figure 11, Gas Business Costs.

17
 Figure 11: Gas Business Costs

Gas Business Costs

Product Loss Service Interruption Repair Costs

4.1.1 Product Cost

Product costs are a function of the unit cost of a product type and the amount of that product
released. For gas pipelines, the amount of product released is calculated in MMBTU and based on
the likelihood of a slow flow release (pinhole leak) or strong flow release (medium leak, large leak,
or rupture). A likelihood distribution of small, medium, and large release sizes and equivalent
diameters is employed to account for the potential range of consequences. Gas volume and
equivalent MMBTU is calculated by determining the release rate distribution and the duration of
release.
4.1.2 Service Interruption Cost

Service interruption cost is a measure of the opportunity cost lost by the company during
unplanned pipeline shutdowns. This cost is calculated by estimating the profit per unit of product
transported, and multiplying by the daily throughput and estimated amount of days of downtime.
4.1.3 Repair Cost

Repair cost is based solely on the cost of repair to the pipeline, including labor and materials. Cost
for repair to surrounding property and environment are included in Section 4.3, Damage Costs.
4.2 Indirect Costs
Indirect costs are applied to each release to account for costs not otherwise classified in CoF. The
indirect costs are calculated by estimating a base cost, applying a factor to account for population
receptors due to class location density or high consequence area (HCA) presence, and multiplying
by the total product release amount (as explained in Section 4.1.1, Product Cost). These factors
are presented in Figure 12, Gas Indirect Costs.

18
 Figure 12: Gas Indirect Costs

Gas Indirect Costs

Class Location and Product Release

Base Cost
HCA Factor Amount

4.3 Damage Costs

Damage costs are classified under three types of damage: property, environmental, and societal
(or population). For each type of damage, a hazard impact area is calculated by modeling the
release and potential fire and thermal radiation from ignition. Specific thermal radiation damage
thresholds are considered for each consequence receptor.
Property damage accounts for an estimated property value for residential parcels by state
multiplied a density of properties within the property hazard impact area and the probability of
gas product ignition. These estimates account for repair of the residential and commercial
structures that may be impacted in a pipeline failure.
Environmental damage accounts for land use categories classified as sensitive to damage form
gas release. Similar to property, environmental damage considers an estimated environmental
value based on land use category multiplied by the environmental hazard impact area and the
probability of gas product ignition.
Finally, societal impact, or population impact, accounts for the potential harm to people near the
pipeline. Similar to property and environmental damage, societal impacts account for an
estimated value based on per person impact multiplied by the population density within the
societal hazard impact area and the probability of gas product ignition. These factors are
presented in Figure 13, Gas Damage Costs.

19
 Figure 13: Gas Damage Costs

Gas Damage Costs

Environmental
Property Damage Societal Impact
Damage

Environmental Value of Statistical

Property Value
Impact Area Life

Property Density Ecosystem Value Population Density

Property Impact
Land Value Societal Impact Area
Area

Probability of Probability of Probability of

Ignition Ignition Ignition

5 Liquid Consequence of Failure

As explained in Section 1, Risk Methodology Overview, gas and liquid CoF are calculated
independently based on product type. Liquid CoF is the sum of three factors resulting from a liquid
pipeline failure: business costs, indirect costs, and damage costs.
5.1 Business Costs
Business costs are comprised of lost product, service interruption opportunity cost, and repair
cost. These factors are presented in Figure 14, Liquid Business Costs.

20
 Figure 14: Liquid Business Costs

Liquid Business
Costs

Product Loss Service Interruption Repair Costs

5.1.1 Product Cost

Product costs are a function of the unit cost of a product type and the amount of that product
released. For liquid pipelines, the amount of product released is calculated or estimated in gallons.
Volumes may be calculated in spill modeling software and used in analysis or estimated within
the CoF model and based on the likelihood of a slow flow release (pinhole leak) or strong flow
release (medium leak, large leak, or rupture). A likelihood distribution of small, medium, and large
release sizes and equivalent diameters to account for the potential range of consequences.
Estimated release volumes are adjusted by a flash fraction factor to account for highly volatile
liquid components. Drain down volumes are added to the release estimate to ensure pipe volume
consists of pumping release rate as well as remaining product gravity release.
5.1.2 Service Interruption Cost

Service interruption cost is a measure of the opportunity cost lost by the company during
unplanned pipeline shutdowns. This cost is calculated by estimating the profit per unit of product
transported, and multiplying by the daily throughput and estimated amount of days of downtime.
5.1.3 Repair Cost

Repair cost is based solely on the cost of repair to the pipeline, including labor and materials. Cost
for repair to surrounding property and environment are included in Section 5.3, Damage Costs.
5.2 Indirect Costs
Indirect costs are applied to each release to account for costs not otherwise classified in CoF. The
indirect costs are calculated by estimating a base cost, applying a factor to account for liquid HCA
receptors, and multiplying by the total product release amount (as explained in Section 5.1.1,
Product Cost). These factors are presented in Figure 15, Liquid Indirect Costs.

21
 Figure 15: Liquid Indirect Costs

Liquid Indirect Costs

Product Release
Base Cost HCA Factor
Volume

5.3 Damage Costs

Damage costs are classified under three types of damage: property, environmental, and societal
(or population). For each type of damage, a hazard impact area is calculated by modeling the
release, overland flow, and potential fire and thermal radiation from ignition. Specific thermal
radiation damage thresholds are considered for each consequence receptor. For pipelines
transporting highly volatile liquids (HVL), vapor dispersion is also modeled for consideration of
flash fire and vapor cloud explosion scenarios.
Property damage accounts for an estimated property value for residential parcels by state
multiplied a density of properties within the property hazard impact area and the probability of
product ignition. The property hazard impact area considers applicable release and ignition
scenarios based on the type of product being transported (liquefied gas jet, pool fire, flash fire,
vapor cloud explosion). These estimates account for repair of the residential and commercial
structures that may be impacted in a pipeline failure.
Environmental damage considers both freshwater and land impacts based on the location of
release and overland flow. Freshwater impacts are estimated using a base cost per unit of product
released into the waterbody, and modified based on type of waterbody and potential wildlife
impacted. Similar to property, land environmental damage accounts for an estimated land value
based on location (state) and modifiers for ecosystem types within the liquid pool area.
Finally, societal impact, or population impact, accounts for the potential harm to people in the
vicinity of the pipeline. Similar to property and environmental damage, societal impacts account
for an estimated value based on per person impact multiplied by the population density within
the societal hazard impact area and the probability of liquid product ignition. The societal hazard
impact area considers applicable release and ignition scenarios based on the type of product being
transported (liquefied gas jet, pool fire, flash fire, vapor cloud explosion).
Factors contributing to damage costs are presented in Figure 16, Liquid Damage Costs.

22
 Figure 16: Liquid Damage Costs

Liquid Damage Costs

Environmental
Property Damage Societal Impact
Damage

Freshwater Release Land Release

Environmental Value of Statistical

Property Value Pool Area
Damage Base Cost Life

Property Density Freshwater Modifier Ecosystem Value Population Density

Property Impact
Wildlife Modifier Land Value Societal Impact Area
Area

Probability of Liquid Release Probability of

Ignition Volume Ignition

6 Appendix Summary

The following Appendix is divided into four parts. Appendix A: Data Sources shows each field that
was used in the algorithm, along with the table and data source it came from. Appendix B: Model
Elements, Calculations, and Units displays each model element. This also contains the expression
it computes, units, and any relevant comments. Appendix C: Defaults Report gives the default
value for all data elements and constants. For each of these, the percentage of length is given for

23
how often defaults were applied in the absence of data. Appendix E: Lookup Tables lists the inputs
and corresponding outputs for each lookup table.

24
Appendix A: Data Sources

Data Sources
Source Table Pre-Processing Type Name Field Units Comments
Appendix B: Model Elements, Calculations, and Units

Model Elements, Calculations, and Units

Element Name Type Expression Units Comments
Appendix C: Defaults Report

Defaults Report
Defaulted
Model Element Name Model Element Type Default Value Total Length Percent Default
Length
Appendix D: Lookup Tables
Appendix E: Document Revision History

Rev
# Rev Date Revised By Summary of Changes
Rachell
A September 05, 2017 Mariano Changes noted in following table
Lisa Schock,
Justin
B January 23, 2019 Raimondi Changes noted in following table

Changes from Revision 0 to Revision A

Threat/
Consequence
Section Section Description of Change

Updated verbiage for Manufacturing,

1- Risk Methodology Overview Construction, and Equipment PoFs
Manufacturing
Construction 2- Probability of Failure Added resistance location category
and Added section to better explain the three
Equipment 2.8- Additional PoF's weaknesses
Updated to include manufacturing,
Appendix A, D construction, and equipment
Included additional features that would
General 3.1.2- Pipe Wall Adjustment affect pipe wall estimate

Changes from Revision A to Revision B

Threat/
Consequence
Section Section Description of Change

Paragraph added to explain rate of risk and

1- Risk Methodology Overview total risk.
General
3.3- Interacting Threats Added section.

Appendix A, B, C, D, E Updated and rearranged appendices.

This report presents findings and conclusions based on technical services and/or
analysis performed by Integrity Plus. The work addressed herein has been performed
according to the associated scope of services, information and data provided to
Integrity Plus. Services are conducted in accordance with commonly accepted
procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice. The report and the work
addressed herein is not, nor does it constitute, a guaranty or warranty, either express
or implied. Integrity Plus expressly disclaims any warranty or guaranty, either express
or implied, including without limitation any warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose. The analysis and conclusions provided in this report are for the sole use and
benefit of the party contracting with Integrity Plus to produce this report (the
“Client”). No information or representations contained herein are for the use or
benefit of any party, person, or entity, other than the Client. The scope of use of the
information presented herein is limited to the facts as presented and examined, as
outlined in this document. No additional representations are made as to matters not
specifically addressed within this report. Any additional facts or circumstances in
existence but not described or considered within this report may change the analysis,
outcomes and representations made in this report. Any use of or reliance on this
document by any party other than the Client shall be at the sole risk of such party. In
no event will Integrity Plus or any of its parent or affiliate companies, or any of its or
their respective directors, officers, shareholders, and/or employees be liable to any
other party regarding any of the findings.