Page 376 - Pipeline Risk Management Manual Ideas, Techniques, and Resources

Program administration 151351
an?, portions of systems or facilities not included in RMP} are maximum point level of 100 points where higher points indi-
not currently included in this program. cate safer situations.
Leak impactfactor (LIF)-This is the consequence number of
Portions of the system lfe cycle to be considered the risk assessment model. Taking into account elements
such as maximum leak size, and immediate surroundings, a
Elements ofpipeline risk, from the system’s original design and numerical score is assigned to each pipeline section. A
construction through present-day operations will be consid- higher LIF indicates a higher potential leak consequence.
ered; however, the emphasis of this program is directed toward Netpresent value (NPV)-A measure of the value of a stream
current operations and maintenance activities that can impact of hture costs based on an assumed interest rate. This repre-
the risk picture. sents the cost, in today’s dollars, of future expenditures.
Hazard-The threat that a facility or activity presents.
Scope of’hazard (type ofrisks)
Riskassessment model
This program addresses the hazards to the public associated
with the transport and delivery of {fill in products covered in (Details ofthis model are described in the data dictionary docu-
risk assessment and risk management}. The release of large ment {add document name}
quantities of {product name} poses threats to life and property The risk assessment model of this program is an indexing
in areas that could he impacted by the event. Direct damage model. It is designed to capture all relevant risk information,
effects and secondary effects such as business losses are both statistically verifiable data and information based on
thought to be the main hazards. Larger diameter, higher pres- operator and industry experience. The results of an assessment
sure segments of pipeline, located in more densely populated using this model provide a relative ranking of risks between
areas, pose the greatest hazards. See {cross-reference to techni- areas of the pipeline system. Therefore, each area of the
cal documents} for further analysis ofthe hazards. pipeline system can be compared to every other area, from a
Based on industry accident rates, life-threatening pipeline risk standpoint.
accidents are very rare events. In this system, corrosion and In general, the possible pipeline failure modes are identified
third-party damages are the leading causes of failures and nor- and categorized into one of four indexes: third-party damage,
mally result in relatively minor leaks. The scope ofhazards will corrosion, design, and incorrect operations. Within each of
be revisited as part of the annual maintenance of the RMP. these indexes, all conditions and activities that impact the risk,
Additionally, the consequences of interruption of delivery either adding more risk or reducing the risk, are scored. More
capability is included in this assessment. important items command a higher point value by having a
higher “weighting.” Each index can score a maximum of 100
Scope ofrisk analysis points.
These index scores together are called the “index sum” and
All pipeline failure modes will he considered. Failure types are represent the likelihood of a pipeline failure. Possible index
grouped into four categories: sums range from the highest risk scenario of 0 points to the
safest condition of400 points. The index sum and each individ-
Third-party damage ual index value represent the likelihood of a failure overall and
Corrosion within each failure mode, respectively. Statistical data an4
Design when no data are available, expert judgments are used to set the
Incorrect operations weightings, which in turn set the relative likelihood of failure.
The index sum is divided by the leak impact factor (LIF),
The threat of sabotage is considered in a separate module. which is a measure of the potential consequences of a pipeline
failure. The LIF considers system aspects such as pressure, pipe
Definitions of the RMP Procedure size, and nearby population density.
The relative risk score (index sum divided by LIF) of each
The following definitions are offered to assist the reader in section of the system is expected to range between 0 and
using this procedure. Terms are defined specifically as they are 200 points, with higher scores representing safer (less risk)
used in this document and may slightly deviate from more situations.
generic definitions.
Riskcontrol and decision support
Risk-A combination of the likelihood and magnitude of an
event that can harm life and property and environment Inherent in this program is the belief that risks are controllable
Risk assessment-A formal evaluation of the amount of risk to a large degree. It is more practical and prudent to reduce
associated with a facility and how it is being operated the “likelihood” component of the risk rather than the “conse-
Risk management-A formal methodology to understand and quence” portion. This is done through the directed allocation of
manage the amount of risk associated with a facility and its resources (money, manpower, equipment, etc.) toward risk-
operating discipline reducing activities. Many of these activities are mandated by
Index-A category of the risk assessment model that corre- DOT regulations. Beyond those minimum requirements,
sponds to a failure mode. There are four indexes correspon- optional activities are chosen based on their relative costs and
ding to the failure mode categories of third-party damage, value in reducing risk. Costs and benefits are then collected and
corrosion, design, and incorrect operations. Each index has a analyzed in the risk management program.