2016 API EXHIBITION ON

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Application and Improvement of

Pipeline Integrity Management
Barry(Ping-Yun),Chen
pychen.chem3@fcfc.com.tw
Jan,14th 2016

Part1. Review on buried pipeline

explosion in Kaohsiung
city in Taiwan
Contents Part2. Improved pipeline integrity
management
Part3. Conclusion

PAGE 2
 [1]
Part
Review on buried pipeline
explosion in Kaohsiung

Photo:http://i.imgur.com/KHFCVFP.jpg
Date1st August,2014
LocationKaohsiung, Taiwan
Casualties 32 deaths321 injuries
LossBig loss and main roads were seriously damaged.
PAGE 3

[1]
Part
Review on buried pipeline
explosion in Kaohsiung
Root Cause
Photo:http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/
focus/paper/802196

Pic/FCFC PY-Chen

PAGE 4
[1]
Part
Review on buried pipeline
explosion in Kaohsiung
Swiss Cheese Mode
Major accidents happen when all the layers holes
line up.

Can be managed by RBI Can be managed by PSM

PAGE 5

[2]
Part
Improved Pipeline Integrity
Management(PIM)
Key Points
2.1 Work Flow Chart
2.2 Gathering Data
2.3 Segmentation
2.4 Identify Threats
2.5 Risk Assessment
2.6 Management Plan
2.7 Mitigation
2.8 Personnel Certification
PAGE 6
 2.1 Work Flow Chart

PIM Combined with RBI and PSM Risk management 30

8.Periodic audit and review

5.Management Plan
3.Identify all threats of 4.Risk
1.Gathering (including inspection
pipeline by RBI and Assessment
data /maintenance 6.Mitigation
2.Segmentation PHA. II (including near (estimation
(including plan, SOP,WP,PSSR,
miss) & MOC may &
PSI) MOC,Training,
trigger to check evaluation)
Contractors & ER)

7.Reassessment

PAGE 7

2.2 Gathering Data

1.Design, materials, construction data
2.Information of right of way
3.Operation, inspection, repair data
4.High consequence area survey data Liquid

5.Incident investigation report Gas

6.Process Safety Information

Product Chemical Relative gas Relative Boiling Auto-ignition Flammable
GHS Flash Point(,)
Name: Formula density density Points() temperature() Limits()

Propylene
Or C3H6 1.5 0.5139g/cm3 -107.8 -47.6 455 C 2-11
Propene

PAGE 8
2.3 Segmentation
1. Different probability of failure (age of pipeline, coating condition, soil
conditions, etc.)
2. Different consequence of failure (population density, drinking water
sources, etc.)
3. Special threats (near MRT, electrical tower, injection point, etc.)

Pic/FCFC PY-Chen

PAGE 9

2.4 Identify Threats API 1160

ASME B31.8S

Time-dependent threats Stable threats

External corrosion
Internal corrosion
Stress corrosion cracking
(SCC)
Time-independent threats
Damage inflicted by first,
second, or third parties
Previously damaged pipe such
as dents and/or gouges
Vandalism
Incorrect operational procedure
Cold weather
Lightning
Heavy rains and floods
Earth movement
Defective pipe, pipe seam, pipe
girth weld, fabrication weld
Wrinkle bend or buckle
Stripped threads/broken
pipe/coupling failure
Gasket or O-ring failure
Control/relief equipment
malfunction
Seal/pump packing failure
Miscellaneous
Unknown
The category of unknown is
not included in ASME B31.8S.

PAGE 10
2.5 Risk Assessment(1/3)
Pipeline Risk Assessment Manual by W. Kent Muhlbauer
Third party damaged Corrosion
Minimum depth of cover 20pts Atmospheric corrosion 10pts
Activity level 20pts
Aboveground facilities 10pts Internal corrosion 20pts
Line Location 15pts
Public education 15pts Subsurface corrosion 70pts
Right-of-way condition 15pts
Patrol 5pts Total 100pts
Total 100pts
Design Incorrect operation
Safety factor 35pts Design 30pts
Fatigue 15pts Construction 20pts
Surge potential 10pts 35pts
Operation
Integrity verifications 25pts
Maintenance 15pts
Land movements 15pts
Total 100pts Total 100pts
PAGE 11

2.5 Risk Assessment(2/3)

Consequence Ranking Failure mode 23
Qualitative Quantitative Catastrophic rupture
31 Very High Medium/large leak
>0.1
Small size leaks
Probability Ranking

High 0.1-0.01

Moderate 0.01-0.001

Low 0.001-0.0001
Unacceptable risk
Very Low <0.0001
32
COF A B C D E
Economic less than NT$0.3M to NT$3M to NT$30M to above
impacts NT$0.3M NT$3M NT$30M NT$300M NT$300M
Loss of less Loss of 4 hours Loss of 1 to 4 Loss of 1 to 6 More than 6
Business
than 4 hours of to 1 week weeks of months of months of
Interruption
production production production production production

PAGE 12
 2.5 Risk Assessment(3/3)
Specific threats analyzed by SMEs or other methods
Design, incorrect
operation, third party
damaged, analyzed by
Kent method (index
score assessment)

Corrosion threat
analyzed by RBI
PAGE 13

2.6 Management Plan(1/4)-PSM

ANSI/API Recommended OSHA 29 CFR2910.119
Practice 1173,Pipeline Safety
Management Systems, 1st Work SOP
Permit
Edition, July 2015
PLAN
Emergency
Leadership Response Pre-Startup
and -Safety
ACT Management DO Review
commitment

CHECK Management
Of Change

PSM could ensure safe production

PAGE 14
2.6 Management Plan(2/4)-Inspection Plan
Underground pipeline Interval
Aboveground pipeline Interval 1 Operation condition Continually
monitoring
1 Operation condition Continually
monitoring 2 Patrolling Daily
2 Patrolling Daily 3 CP monitoring Quarterly
3 Thickness By case 4 Short circuit, grounding, Yearly
measurement insulation check
4 Block valve test Yearly 5 PCM 5 yearly
5 Visual inspection for Yearly 6 CIPS 5 yearly
soil to air interface 7 Partial excavation By case
6 Penetration pipe check By case 8 Soil resistivity By case
9 Intelligent pigging By case
6 10 Casing part inspection By case 24

10
Pic.FCFC/PY-Chen 5,6,7

PAGE 15

2.6 Management Plan(3/4)-Repair Plan

Permanent Repairs Temporary Repairs 25
Deposit Pipe Patch Plate Type B Composite
Type of Anomaly
Welding Replacement Repair Sleeve Wrap Repair
29 Repair
Internal corrosion
(>80tn) NO YES NO YES NO
Internal corrosion
(<80tn) NO YES NO YES NO
External corrosion
(>80tn) YES YES NO YES NO
External corrosion
(<80tn) YES YES YES YES YES
Dent or stress
concentrator NO YES YES YES NO
Crack NO YES YES YES NO
PS.Due to the risk of hydrogen cracking, patch plate repair is not recommended for
high-strength line pipe.
PAGE 16
2.6 Management Plan(4/4)-
Emergency Response

Effective
Photo:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2956559/
PAGE 17

2.7 Mitigation(1/2)-Reduce POF by RBI

Thinning damage factors
Operation:3 Years Operation3 Years Effective Inspection 26
Ineffective Inspection 1 Usually Effective Inspection Art
Ineffective
Inspection Poorly
1 inspection
Fairly Usually Highly
4 SCH 40(Thk.6.02) 4 SCH 40(Thk.6.02) Effective Effective Effective Effcetive
0.02 1 1 1 1 1
CR=0.1/Y Art=0.3 CR=0.055/Y Art=0.12 0.04 1 1 1 1 1
0.06 1 1 1 1 1
0.08 1 1 1 1 1
33 0.1 2 2 1 1 1
0.12 6 5 3 2 1
0.14 20 17 10 6 1
0.16 90 70 50 20 3
0.18 250 200 130 70 7
0.2 400 300 210 110 15
0.25 520 450 290 150 20
0.3 650 550 400 200 30

Probability Category
Unacceptable Category Range
risk 1 Df-total2
2 2<Df-total20
Reduce to 3 20<Df-total100
4 100<Df-total1000
acceptance level
5 Df-total>1000
PAGE 18
 2.7 Mitigation(2/2)-Case Study

Risk = Probability Consequence

Consequence Ranking

>0.1 POF COF Risk

Probability Ranking

0.1-0.01 0.1/Y NT 10B NT 1B/Y

0.01-0.001 RBI could meet industry

0.001-0.0001
cost control requirements

<0.0001 0.0001/Y NT 10B NT 1M/Y

COF A B C D E
Economic less than NT$0.3M to NT$3M to NT$30M to above
impacts NT$0.3M NT$3M NT$30M NT$300M NT$300M
PAGE 19

2.8 Personnel Certification (Recommendation)

Task item Certification programs

1 Risk assessment API 580
2 Damage mechanism API 571
identification

3 Inspection API 1169,API 570 or NACE

certified programs

4 Welding repair API 577

PAGE 20
[3] Conclusion
Part

1. RBI could meet industry cost control

requirements.
2. PSM could ensure safe production
3. Improved PIM(RBI+PSM) is imperative
Significantly reduce risks
Greatly increase safety
4. Pipeline integrity management is
recommended to be performed by certified
personnel.
PAGE 21

Thank You!

Q&A
Failure modes Small-Medium-Large sized leaks
Small-hole-sized leaks

Pitting LC/GC

Catastrophic rupture/ cracks

Rupture

Photo: http://fj.sina.com.cn/news/s/2010-12-01/100882007.html

PAGE 23

NACE SP0502
Pipeline External Corrosion Direct
Assessment Methodology
1.Pre-Assessment
Collection and analysis for pipeline data

2.Indirect Examination
Cross-reference for both inspection methods like PCM & CIPS

3.Direct Examination
Excavation, thickness measurement

4.Post-Assessment
Root cause analysis , and remaining life analysis

PAGE 24
Temporary repair management
Pipeline location, Repair point record, Consequences simulation

Location:21 56' 42.44'' N

120 47' 58.01'' E
Date: 2015/10/15
Type: Temporary repair

PAGE 25