PETRONAS TECHNICAL STANDARDS

DESIGN AND ENGINEERING PRACTICE

MANUAL

MANAGING SYSTEM INTEGRITY OF GAS PIPELINES

(AMENDMENTS/SUPPLEMENTS TO ASME B31.8S-2004)

PTS 30.40.60.13
January 2009

2010 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright owner.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 3 of 25
PREFACE
PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) publications reflect the views, at the time of publication,
of PETRONAS OPUs/Divisions.
They are based on the experience acquired during the involvement with the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of processing units and facilities. Where appropriate they are based
on, or reference is made to, national and international standards and codes of practice.
The objective is to set the recommended standard for good technical practice to be applied by
PETRONAS' OPUs in oil and gas production facilities, refineries, gas processing plants, chemical
plants, marketing facilities or any other such facility, and thereby to achieve maximum technical
and economic benefit from standardisation.
The information set forth in these publications is provided to users for their consideration and
decision to implement. This is of particular importance where PTS may not cover every
requirement or diversity of condition at each locality. The system of PTS is expected to be
sufficiently flexible to allow individual operating units to adapt the information set forth in PTS to
their own environment and requirements.
When Contractors or Manufacturers/Suppliers use PTS they shall be solely responsible for the
quality of work and the attainment of the required design and engineering standards. In
particular, for those requirements not specifically covered, the Company will expect them to follow
those design and engineering practices which will achieve the same level of integrity as reflected
in the PTS. If in doubt, the Contractor or Manufacturer/Supplier shall, without detracting from his
own responsibility, consult the Company or its technical advisor.
The right to use PTS rests with three categories of users:
1)
2)
3)

PETRONAS and its affiliates.

Other parties who are authorised to use PTS subject to appropriate contractual
arrangements.
Contractors/subcontractors and Manufacturers/Suppliers under a contract with
users referred to under 1) and 2) which requires that tenders for projects,
materials supplied or - generally - work performed on behalf of the said users
comply with the relevant standards.

Subject to any particular terms and conditions as may be set forth in specific agreements with
users, PETRONAS disclaims any liability of whatsoever nature for any damage (including injury
or death) suffered by any company or person whomsoever as a result of or in connection with the
use, application or implementation of any PTS, combination of PTS or any part thereof. The
benefit of this disclaimer shall inure in all respects to PETRONAS and/or any company affiliated
to PETRONAS that may issue PTS or require the use of PTS.
Without prejudice to any specific terms in respect of confidentiality under relevant contractual
arrangements, PTS shall not, without the prior written consent of PETRONAS, be disclosed by
users to any company or person whomsoever and the PTS shall be used exclusively for the
purpose they have been provided to the user. They shall be returned after use, including any
copies which shall only be made by users with the express prior written consent of PETRONAS.
The copyright of PTS vests in PETRONAS. Users shall arrange for PTS to be held in safe
custody and PETRONAS may at any time require information satisfactory to PETRONAS in order
to ascertain how users implement this requirement.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 4 of 25

Document No : PTS 31.40.60.13

Document Title : Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipeline
(Amendments/Supplements to ASME B31.8S-2004)

This is a controlled document

Acknowledgement
This document was jointly prepared with contribution from the following list of personnel

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

M Nazmi M Ali
Zaabah Abdullah
Md Aidi Rais
M Ashri Mustapha
Purnomo Setyawendha
Raja Zahirudin Raja Ismail
Aminuddin M Wirsat
Shaikh Abdullah Shaikh Othman

Principal Engineer (Pipeline Integrity)

Staff Engineer (Pipeline Integrity)
Senior Pipeline Engineer
Principal Engineer (Pipeline Integrity)
Senior Pipeline Engineer
Staff Engineer ( Pipeline Integrity)
Senior Pipeline Engineer
Staff Engineer ( Pipeline Integrity)

PGB
PGB
PCSB
PCSB
PCSB
PCSB
PS Pipeline
GTS

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 5 of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................6
SCOPE........................................................................................................................6
DISTRIBUTION, INTENDED USE AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS .........6
DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................6
CROSS-REFERENCES .............................................................................................7

PART II

AMENDMENTS/SUPPLEMENTS TO ASME B31.8S ........................................8

Introduction9

Integrity Management Program Overview

Consequences.. 11

Gathering, Reviewing, and Integrating Data.12

Integrity Assessment.13

Responses to Integrity Assessments and Mitigation (Repair and Prevention)14

Integrity Management Plan..17

Performance Plan..18

13

Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms..19

PART III

REFERENCES...25

10

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 6 of 25

PART I

INTRODUCTION

1.1

SCOPE
This PTS specifies requirements and gives recommendations for managing the
integrity of gas pipelines system in onshore and offshore installations. This PTS
is not applicable to liquid hydrocarbon pipelines system.
Part II of this PTS provides amendments and supplements to clauses of ASME
B31.8S. The Section numbering in Part II follows that of ASME B31.8S. Where
clauses of ASME B31.8S are not amended or supplemented by this PTS they
shall apply as written.
Design & Engineering Practice of Pipeline and Riser is addressed in PTS 20.214

1.2

DISTRIBUTION, INTENDED USE AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Unless otherwise authorised by PETRONAS, the distribution of this PTS is
confined to companies forming part of PETRONAS or managed by a Group
company, and to Contractors and Manufacturers/Suppliers nominated by them.
This PTS is intended for use in oil refineries, gas plants, chemical plants, oil and
gas production facilities, supply/marketing installations, and pipelines system
installations within PETRONAS Group.
If national and/or local regulations exist in which some of the requirements may
be more stringent than in this PTS, the Contractor shall determine by careful
scrutiny which of the requirements are more stringent and which combination of
requirements will be acceptable as regards safety, environmental, economic, and
legal aspects. In all cases, the Contractor shall inform the Company of any
deviation from the requirements of this PTS which is considered to be necessary
in order to comply with national and/or local regulations. The Company may then
negotiate with the Authorities concerned with the object of obtaining agreement
to follow this PTS as closely as possible.

1.3

DEFINITIONS

1.3.1

General definitions
The Authorities are governing bodies that regulate the operation and
maintenance of gas pipeline systems.
The Company is the party which owns part or all of the pipeline systems. The
Company will generally specify the technical requirements. The Company may
also include an agent or consultant authorised to act for, and on behalf of, the
Company.
The Contractor is the party which engaged by the Company to carry out integrity
management and/or maintenance and/or operation activities for the pipeline
systems.. The Company may undertake all or part of the duties of the Contractor.
The Consultant is the party which provides technical consultancy services and
expertise to perform duties specified by the Company.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 7 of 25
The Manufacturer is the party which manufactures and/or supplies equipment to
perform duties specified by the Company.
The Vendor is the party which supplies equipment and/or services to perform the
duties specified by the Company.

The word shall indicate a requirement.

The word should indicate a recommendation.
1.3.2

Specific definitions
Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS) is an integrated management
system consisting of documentation, database and tools established for the
purpose of managing integrity of gas pipeline systems throughout its life cycle.
Onshore Pipeline System: all parts of physical facilities including: pipe, valves,
fittings, flanges (including bolting and gaskets), regulators, pressure vessels,
pulsation dampeners, relief valves, and other appurtenances attached to pipe;
compressor units; metering stations; regulator stations; and fabricated
assemblies. Included within this definition are gas transmission and gathering
lines, transporting gas from production facilities to onshore locations, and gas
storage equipment of the closed-pipe type, which is fabricated or forged from
pipe or fabricated from pipe and fittings
Offshore Pipeline System: all components of a pipeline installed offshore for
transporting gas other than production facility piping. Tanker and barge loading
hoses are not considered as part of offshore pipeline system i.e. per Appendix Q
ASME B.31.8-2003

1.4

CROSS-REFERENCES
Where cross-references to other parts of this PTS are made, the referenced
section number is shown in brackets. Other documents referenced in this PTS
are listed in (Part III).

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 8 of 25

PART II

AMENDMENTS/SUPPLEMENTS TO ASME B31.8S-2004

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 9 of 25

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Scope
Page 1, 1st paragraph, first statement
Amend the statement as follows,
This Standard shall apply to onshore and offshore pipeline systems constructed with
ferrous materials and that transport of gas.

1.2

Purpose and Objectives

Page 1, 1st paragraph, fourth statement
Amend the statement as follows,
The use of this Standard as a supplement to the ASME B31.8 Code and other approved
pipeline design codes, standards and recommended practices will allow pipeline
operators to move closer to that goal.
Page 1, 4th paragraph, second statement
Amend the statement as follows,
This does not preclude conformance with the requirements of ASME B31.8 and other
approved pipeline design codes, standards and recommended practices.

1.3

Integrity Management
Page 1, 2nd paragraph, third statement

Amend the statement as follows,

Guidance for these activities is primarily provided in ASME B31.8 and other approved
pipeline design codes, standards and recommended practices.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 10 of 25

INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW

2.2

Integrity Threat Classification

Page 4, 1st paragraph
Add the following, under (a) Time-Dependent:
(4) Internal erosion

Add the following, under (c) Time-Independent, (1) third party / mechanical damage:
(d) Anchor / Trawler drag
(e) Dropped Object

Add the following, under (c) Time-Independent:

(4) Free span
(5) On-bottom stability

2.3

Integrity Management Process

2.3.4

Integrity Assessment
Page 6, 4th paragraph, last statement
Amend the statement as follows,
For local internal or external metal loss, ASME B31G, Modified ASME B31G,
RSTRENG, DNV RP F101 or similar analytical methods may be used.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 11 of 25

CONSEQUENCES

3.1

General
Page 7, 2nd paragraph, first statement:
Amend the statement as follows,
The B31.8 Code and other approved pipeline design codes, standards and
recommended practices manage risk to pipeline integrity by adjusting design and safety
factors, and inspection and maintenance frequencies, as the potential consequences of a
failure increase.

3.2.

Potential Impact Area

Page 8, last paragraph
Add the following at the end of section 3.2
Potential Impact Area for offshore pipeline is defined as per DNV OS F101 Section 2,
sub-section C 300 Location Classes.

3.3

Consequence Factors to Consider

Page 8, 1st paragraph,
Add the following item:
(j) Marine navigation zone

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 12 of 25
4

GATHERING, REVIEWING AND INTEGRATING DATA

Page 9, Table 1
Revised Table 1 as follows
Table 1 Data Elements for Prescriptive Pipeline Integrity Program
Category
Attribute data

Data
Pipe wall thickness
Diameter
Seam type and joint factor
Manufacturer
Manufacturing date
Material properties
Equipment properties

Construction

Year of installation
Bending method
Joining method, process and inspection results
Depth of cover
Crossings/Casings
Pressure test
Field coating method
Soil, backfill
Inspection reports
Cathodic protection installed
Coating type
Installation method
Sea bed profile
Bathymetry data
Metocean data
Type of riser
Free span

Operational

Gas quality
Flow rate
Normal maximum and minimum operating pressure
Leak/failure history
Coating condition
CP (cathodic protection) system performance
Pipe wall temperature
Pipe inspection reports
OD/ID corrosion monitoring
Pressure fluctuations
Regulator/relief performance
Encroachments
Repairs
Vandalism
External forces
Free span
Drop object

Inspection

Pressure test
In-line inspection
Geometry tool inspections
Bell hole inspections
CP inspections (CIS)
Coating condition inspection (DCVG)
Audits and reviews
ROV inspection
Side scan sonar
Top side riser inspection
Launcher/receiver skid inspection

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 13 of 25
6

INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

6.3

Pressure Testing

6.3.1

Time-Dependent Threats
Page 19, 1st paragraph, last statement
Amend the statement as follows,
Time-dependent threats are external corrosion, internal corrosion, stress corrosion
cracking, internal erosion and other environmentally assisted corrosion mechanisms.

6.4

Direct Assessment
Page 19, 1st paragraph
Amend the statement as follows,
Direct assessment is an integrity assessment method specifically for onshore pipeline
utilizing a structured process through which the operator is able to integrate knowledge of
the physical characteristics and operating history of a pipeline system or segment with
the results of inspection, examination, and evaluation, in order to determine the integrity.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 14 of 25

RESPONSES TO INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION (REPAIR AND

PREVENTION)

7.2.1

Metal Loss Tools for Internal and External Corrosion

Page 20, 1st paragraph, second statement
Amend the following the statement as follows,
This would include any corroded areas that have a predicted failure pressure level less
than 1.1 times the MAOP as determined by ASME B31G, Modified ASME B31G,
RSTRENG, DNV RP F101 or equivalent.

7.2.4

Limitations to Response Times for Prescriptive-based Program

Page 23, 1st paragraph, first statement
Amend the statement as follows,
When time-dependent anomalies such as internal corrosion, external corrosion, internal
erosion or stress corrosion cracking are being evaluated, an analysis utilizing appropriate
assumptions about growth rates shall be used to assure the the defect will not attain
ctical dimensions prior to the scheduled repair or next inspection.

7.5

Repair Methods
Page 24, 2nd paragraph, second statement
Amend the statement as follows,
All repairs shall be made with materials and processes that are suitable for the pipeline
operating conditions and meet PTS 31.40.60.12 Pipeline repairs (supplement to
ANSI/ASME B31.4 and B31.3) and/or ASME B31.8 requirements and/or other proven
international recognized code and standard and/or industrys best practices.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 15 of 25
Page 21 & Page 22
Amend Table 4 Acceptable Threat Prevention and Repair Method as follows

Prevention, Detection,
and Repair Method
Prevention / Detection
Aerial Photo
Foot Patrol
Visual Mechanical
Inspection
One-call system
Compliance Audit
Patrolling / Surveillance
Design specifications
Material specifications
Manufacturer
specifications
Transportation
inspection
Construction inspection

TPD(IF)

Third-Party Damage
PDP
Vand
Anch/Traw

Ext

Corrosion Related
Int
Int Ero

Gask/
Oring

Equipment
Strip/
Cont/
BP
Rel

Seal/
Pack

Incorrect
Operation
IO

CW

Weather
Related
L

HR/F

Pipe
Seam

Manufacturer
Pipe
Gweld

Fab
Weld

Construction
Co
WB/B
up

O-Force
EM

Free
span

Environment
SCC

X
X
_

X
X
_

X
X
_

_
_
_

_
X
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
X

_
_
X

_
_
X

_
_
X

_
_
_

X
X
X

X
X
_

X
X
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
X

_
_

X
X
_

_
_
_

X
X
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_
_
X

X
_
_
_
_
_
_

X
_
X
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
_
X
X
_

_
_
_
_
X
X
_

_
_
_
_
X
X
X

_
_
_
_
X
X
X

_
X
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
X
X

_
_
_
_
_
X
X

_
_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
X
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
X
_
_

_
X

X
X

X
_

_
_

_
_

_
X

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_
X

X
_
X

X
_
_

_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
X
_

X
_
_

_
_

X
_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

Strain monitoring
External protection
Maintain ROW
Increase wall thickness
Warning tape mesh
Install Concrete
Coating
Sand Monitoring
Flowrate Monitoring
Freespan Mitigation i.e
rock dumping, grouting,
sandbag, mattress
Hi Resolution ILI
strees/Stain

_
X
X
X
X
_

_
X
X
X
X
_

_
X
X
_
_

_
_
_
X
X

_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
X
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_

X
X
X
X
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

X
X
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_

_
_
_

CP Monitoring /
maintain
Internal cleaning
Leakage control
measures
PIG-GPS/Strain
measurement
Redude external stress
Install heat tracing

_
_

_
X

_
X

_
_

_
_

_
_

Preservice hydrostatic
test
Public education
Educate relevant
marine authorities
O&M procedures
Operator training
Increase marker
frequency
Anchor Pattern
Procedure

X
_
X
X

X
X

X
X

_
X

_
X

_
X

_
X

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
X

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

X
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
X

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

X
_

X
_

X
_

_
_

X
_

_
_

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 16 of 25
Prevention, Detection,
and Repair Method
Prevention / Detection
Line relocation /
Relocate Pipe
Rehabilation
Coating repair
Increase cover depth
Install Rock Armour
Operating temperature
reduction
Reduce moisture
Biocide / inhibiting
injection
Install thermal
protection

Prevention, Detection,
and Repair Method
Repairs
Pressure reduction /
Reduce Operating
Pressure
Replacement
ECA, recoat
Grind repair /ECA
Direct deposition weld
Type B, pressurized
sleeve
Type A , reinforcing
sleeve
Composite sleeve
Epoxy filled sleeve
Mechanical leak clamp
Install Mechanical
Sleeve

TPD(IF)

Third Pary Damage

PDP
Vand
Anch/Traw

Corrosion Related
Ext
Int
Int
Ero

Gask/
Oring

Equipment
Strip/
Cont/
BP
Rel

Incorrect
Oprtation
IO

Seal/
Pack

Weather Related
CW
L
HR/F

Manufacturer
Pipe
Pipe
Seam

Gweld

O-Force
WB/B

EM

Free
span

Enviroment
SCC

_
_

_
_
X
_
_

X
_

_
_

X
X

X
_

X
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
X

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
X

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

X
_

_
_

_
_
X
_
_

_
_

X
_
X
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

X
X
_
_
X

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

X
X

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

Incorrect
Operation
IO

CW

Weather
Related
L

HR/F

TPD(IF)

Third-Party Damage
PDP
Vand
Anch/Traw

Corrosion Related
Ext
Int
Int
Ero

Gask/
Oring

Equipment
Strip/
Cont/
BP
Rel

Seal/
Pack

Manufacturer
Pipe
Pipe
Seam

Gweld

Construction
Fab
Co
Weld
up

O-Force
WB/B

EM

Free
span

Environment
SCC

_
_
_
_
_

X
_
X

X
_
_
_
_

X
X

X
X

X
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_

X
X
X
_
_

X
_
_
_
_

X
X

X
_
_
_
_

X
_
X
X
X

X
X
X
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
X

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_

_
_
_

X
_
_

_
X
_
_

_
X
_
_

_
X

_
X

X
_
_

_
_
_
X

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

X
_
_

X
_
_

GENERAL NOTE : The abbreviation found in Table 4 relate to the 21 threats discussed in para.5 Explanations of the abbreviations are as follows:
Anch/Traw
Cont/Rel
Coup
CW
EM
Ext
Fab Weld
Gask/Oring
GWeld
HR/F
Int
IO
L
PDP
Pipe
Pipe Seam

Construction
Fab
Co
Weld
up

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Anchor / Trawler Drag

Control /Relief Equipment Malfunction
Coupling Failure
Cold Weather
Earth Movement
External Corrosion
Defective Fabrication Weld
Gasket or O-Ring
Defective Pipe Girth Weld
Heavy Rains or Floods
Internal Corrosion
Incorrect Operations Company Procedure
Lightning
Previously Damaged Pipe (delayed failure mode)
Defective Pipe
Defective Pipe Seam

SCC
Seal / Pack
Strip / BP
TPD(IF)
Vand
WB/B

=
=
=
=
=
=

Stress Corrosion Cracking

Seal / Pump Packing Failure
Stripped Thread / Broken Pipe
Damaged Inflicted by First, Second, or Third Party
Vandalism
Wrinkle Bend or Buckle

X
X

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 17 of 25

INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

8.1

General
Page 25, 2nd paragraph, second statement
Amend the statement as follows,
Repair activities shall be made in accordance with PTS 31.40.60.12 Pipeline repairs
(supplement to ANSI/ASME B31.4 and B31.3) and/or ASME B31.8 and/or other accepted
industry repair techniques and best practices.

Page 25, 3rd paragraph, third statement

Amend the statement as follows,
Prevention plays a major role in reducing or eliminating the threats from third-party
damage, external corrosion, internal corrosion, internal erosion, on-bottom stability, free
spanning, stress corrosion cracking, cold weather-related failures, earth movement
failures, problems caused by heavy rains and floods, and failures caused by incorrect
operations.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 18 of 25

PERFORMANCE PLAN

Page 30, Revised Table 9 Performance Metrics as follows

Threats
External corrosion

Performance Metrics for Prescriptive Programs

Number of hydrostatic test failures caused by external corrosion
Number of repair actions taken due to in-line inspection results
Number of repair actions taken due to direct assessment results
Number of external corrosion leaks

Internal corrosion

Number of hydrostatic test failures caused by external corrosion

Number of repair actions taken due to in-line inspection results
Number of repair actions taken due to direct assessment results
Number of external corrosion leaks

Internal erosion

Number of hydrostatics test failures caused by internal erosion

Number of repair actions taken due to in-line inspection results
Number of internal erosion leaks

Free spanning

Number of leaks or failures due to free spanning

Number of repairs conducted due to free spanning

Stress corrosion cracking

Number of in-service leaks or failures due to SCC

Number of repair replacement due to SCC
Number of hydrostatic test failures due to SCC

Manufacturing

Number of hydrostatic test failures caused by manufacturing defects

Number of leaks due to manufacturing defects

Construction

Number of leaks or failures due to construction defects

Number of girth welds/coupling reinforced/removed
Number of wrinkle bends removed
Number of wrinkle bends inspected
Number of fabrication welds repaired/removed

Equipment

Number of regulator valve failures

Number of regulator relief valve failures
Number of gasket or O-ring failures
Number of leaks due to equipment failures

Third-party damage

Number of leaks or failures caused by third party damage

Number of leaks or failures caused by previously damaged pipe
Number of leaks or failures caused by vandalism
Number of repairs implemented as a result of third party damage prior to leak or failure

Incorrect operations

Number of leaks or failure caused by incorrect operations

Number of audits/review conducted
Number of findings per audit/review, classified by severity
Number of changes to procedures due to audits/reviews

Weather related and outside

forces

Number of leaks that are weather related or due to outside force

Number of repair, replacement, or relocation actions due to weather-related or outside-force threats

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 19 of 25

13

TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Amend page 35, and add in the following:

Internal Erosion: material degradation on internal side of equipment due to contact with solid
particles caries by flowing fluid (liquid or gas).
Free Span: unsupported horizontal parts of sub sea pipeline.
Metocean: referring to meteorological and oceanographic.
Bathymetry data: referring to topographic maps of the sea floor.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 20 of 25

Page 39, amend and add in the following

NONMANDATORY APPENDIX A
THREAT PROCESS CHARTS AND PRESCRIPTIVE INTEGRITY
MANAGEMENT PLANS
A 10 INTERNAL EROSION THREAT
A 11 FREE SPANNING

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 21 of 25
A10

INTERNAL EROSION THREAT

A10.1 Scope
Paragraph A10 provides an integrity
management plan to address the threat, and
methods of integrity assessment and
mitigation, of internal erosion.
This paragraph outlines the integrity
management process for internal erosion in
general and also covers some specific
issues. Pipeline incident analysis has
identified internal erosion among the causes
of past incidents.
A10.2 Gathering,
Reviewing,
and
Integrating Data
The following minimal data sets should be
collected for each segment and reviewed
before a risk assessment can be conducted.
This data is collected in support of
performing risk assessment and for special
considerations, such as identifying severe
situations requiring more or additional
activities.
(a) year of installation
(b) pipe inspection reports
(c) leak/rupture history
(d) wall thickness
(e) diameter
(f) past hydrostatic test information
(g) gas, liquid, or solid analysis (particularly
hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, oxygen,
freewater, and chlorides)
(h) bacteria culture test results
(i) erosion detection devices (coupons,
probes, etc.)
(j)
operating
parameters
(particularly
pressure and flow velocity
(k) operating stress level (% SMYS)
(l) sand measurement
(m) cleaning pigging result especially sand
content
(n) Fe count
For this threat, the data is used primarily
for prioritization of integrity assessment
and/or mitigation activities.
Where the operator is missing data,
conservative assumptions shall be used
when performing the risk assessment or,
alternatively, the segment shall be prioritized
higher.

A10.3 Criteria and Risk Assessment

For new pipelines or pipeline segments,
the operator may wish to use the original
material selection, design conditions, and
construction inspections, as well as the
current operating history, to establish the
condition of the pipe. For this situation, the
operator
must
determine
that
the
construction inspections have an equal or
greater rigor than that provided by the
prescribed integrity assessments in this
PTS. In addition, the operator shall
determine that an erosive environment does
not exist.
In no case may the interval between
construction
and
the
first
required
reassessment of integrity exceed 3 years for
pipe operating above 60% SMYS, 5 years
for pipe operating above 50% SMYS and at
or below 60% SMYS, and 10 years for pipe
operating at or below 50% SMYS.
For all pipeline segments older than those
stated above, integrity assessment shall be
conducted using a methodology within the
specified response interval, as provided in
para. A10.5.
Previous integrity assessments can be
considered as meeting these requirements,
provided the inspections have equal or
greater rigor than that provided by the
prescribed inspections in this Standard. The
interval between the previous integrity
assessment and the next
integrity
assessment cannot exceed the interval
stated in this PTS.
A10.4 Integrity Assessment
The operator has a choice of two integrity
assessment methods: in-line inspection with
a tool capable of detecting wall loss, such as
an MFL tool; and performing a pressure test.
(a) In-Line Inspection. For in-line
inspection, the operator must consult para. 6
of this Standard, which defines the capability
of various ILI devices and provides criteria
for running of the tool. The operator selects
the appropriate tools and he/she or his/her
representative performs the inspection.
(b) Pressure Test. The operator shall
consult para. 6 of this Standard, which
defines how to conduct tests for both postconstruction and in-service pipelines. The

operator selects the appropriate test and

he/she or his/her representative performs
the test.
A10.5 Responses and Mitigation
Responses to integrity assessments are
detailed below.
(a) In-Line Inspection. The response is
dependent on the severity of erosion, as
determined by calculating critical failure
pressure of indications (see ASME B31G,
Modified ASME B31G, RSTRENG, DNV RP
F101 or equivalent) and a reasonably
anticipated or scientifically proven rate of
erosion. Refer to para. 7 for responses to
integrity assessments.
(b) Pressure Testing. The interval is
dependent on the hydrostatic test pressure.
If the test pressure was at least 1.39 times
MAOP, the interval is 10 years. If the test
pressure was at least 1.25 times MAOP, the
interval is 5 years (see para. 7).
If the actual operating pressure is less than
MAOP, the factors shown above can be
applied to the actual operating pressure in
lieu of MAOP for the purposes of insuring
integrity at the reduced pressure only.
The operator shall select the appropriate
repair methods as outlined in para. 7.
The operator shall select the appropriate
prevention practices as outlined in para. 7.
Data confirming that an erosive environment
exists should prompt the design of a
mitigation plan of action and immediate
implementation
should
occur.
Data
suggesting that an erosive environment may
exist should prompt an immediate reevaluation. If the data shows that no erosive
condition or environment exists, then the
operator should identify the conditions that
would prompt re-evaluation.

A10.6 Other Data

During the inspection activities, the operator
may discover other data that should be used
when performing risk assessments for other
threats. For example, when conducting an
ILI with an MFL tool, dents may be called
out on the top half of the pipe. This may
have been caused by third-party damage. It
is appropriate then to use this data when
conducting integrity assessment for the
third-party damage threat.

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 22 of 25
A10.7 Assessment Interval
The operator is required to assess
integrity periodically. The interval for
assessment is dependent on the responses
taken, as outlined in para. A10.5.
These intervals are maximum intervals.
The operator shall incorporate new data into
the assessment as data becomes available,
and that may require more frequent integrity
assessments. For example, a leak on the
segment that may be caused by internal
erosion would necessitate immediate
reassessment.
Changes to the segment may also drive
reassessment. This change management is
addressed in para. 11.
A10.8 Performance Metrics
The following performance metrics shall
be documented for the internal erosion
threat, in order to establish the effectiveness
of the program and for confirmation of the
integrity assessment interval:
(a) number of hydrostatic test failures
caused by internal erosion
(b) number of repair actions taken due to inline inspection results, immediate and
scheduled
(c) number of internal erosion leaks

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 23 of 25

Gathering, reviewing,
and integrating data

Criteria and Risk

Assessment

Determine reassessment
interval

Integrity Assessment
(ILI, pressure test or
other)

Responses and
Mitigations

Other information to
other threats

Performance Metrics

Fig. A10

Integrity Management
Process: Prescriptive)

Plan, Internal Erosion Threat (Simplified

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 24 of 25
A11
FREE SPANNING
A11.1 Scope
Paragraph A11 provides an integrity
management plan to address the threat, and
methods of integrity assessment and
mitigation, of free spanning.
This paragraph outlines the integrity
management process for free spanning in
general and also covers some specific
issues. Pipeline incident analysis has
identified free spanning among the causes
of past incidents.
A11.2 Gathering,
Reviewing,
and
Integrating Data
The following minimal data sets should be
collected for each segment and reviewed
before a risk assessment can be conducted.
This data is collected in support of
performing risk assessment and for special
considerations, such as identifying severe
situations requiring more or additional
activities.
(a) joint method
(b) topography and seabed conditions
(c) earthquake fault
(d) wall thickness
(e) diameter
(f) year of installation
(g) pipe grade, diameter, and wall thickness
(internal stress calculation added to external
loading; total stress not to exceed 100%
SMYS)
(h) Freespan
Where the operator is missing data,
conservative assumptions shall be used
when performing the risk assessment or,
alternatively, the segment shall be prioritized
higher.
A11.3 Criteria and Risk Assessment
Pipe may be susceptible to extreme
loading at the following locations:
(a) where the pipeline has historical
occurrence of free spanning
(b) where the pipeline is installed in rough
seabed condition
(c) where the pipeline is installed in high
water current i.e. changing seabed condition
At locations meeting any of the above, the
threat shall be evaluated.
A11.4 Integrity Assessment
For free spanning
threat, integrity
assessments,
including
inspections,

examinations, and evaluations, are normally

conducted per the requirements of the O&M
procedures. Additional or more frequent
inspections may be necessary, depending
on leak and failure information.
A11.5 Responses and Mitigation
Repairs or replacement of pipe shall be in
accordance with PTS 31.40.60.12 Pipeline
repairs (supplement to ANSI/ASME B31.4
and B31.3) and/or ASME B31.8 and/or other
accepted industry repair techniques and
best practices. Other methods of mitigation
may include stabilization of the seabed,
stabilization of the pipe or pipe joints and
relocation of the pipeline.
Prevention activities are most appropriate
for this threat. If a pipeline falls within the
listed susceptibilities, surveillance should be
used to perform assessments. In certain
locations, such as known changing seabed
condition, the progress of the movement
should be monitored.
A11.6 Other Data
During the inspection activities, the operator
may discover other data that should be used
when performing risk assessments for other
threats. For example, when a pipeline is
surveyed,
evidence
of
third-party
encroachment i.e. anchor drag may be
discovered. It is appropriate then to use this
data when conducting integrity assessment
for the third-party damage threat.
A11.7 Assessment Interval
Changes to the segment, or change in
seabed profile around the segment, may
drive reassessment if the changes affect
pipeline integrity. If no changes are
experienced, reassessment is not required.
Change management is addressed in para.
11.
A10.8 Performance Measures
The following performance measures shall
be documented for the free spanning threat,
in order to establish the effectiveness of the
program and for confirmation of the integrity
assessment interval:
(a) number of leaks/ruptures caused by free
spanning
(b) number of repair, replacement, or
relocation actions due to free spanning

PTS 31.40.60.13
January 2009
Page 25 of 25

PART III

REFERENCES

In this PTS, reference is made to the following publications:

NOTE: Unless specifically designated by date, the latest edition of each publication shall be used, together with any
amendments, supplements or revisions thereto.

PETRONAS STANDARDS
Index to PTS publications and standard specifications

PTS 00.00.05.05

Pipeline and Riser Engineering

PTS 20.214

Pipeline repairs (Supplements to ANSI/ASME B31.4 and B31.8)

PTS 31.40.60.12

AMERICAN STANDARD
Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines
ASME B31.8S-2004
Issued by:
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Three Park Avenue,
New York,
NY 10016-5990, USA.

NORWEGIAN STANDARD
Offshore Standards
DNV-OS-F101
Submarine Pipeline Systems
October 2007
Issued by:
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
Veritasveien 1,
NO-1322 Hvik,
Norway.