IBP1497_19

GAS PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT IN BRAZIL:

CALCULATION PREMISES AND THEIR
INFLUENCE IN RISK RESULTS
Edmilson P. Silva1

Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held
between 03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the
Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the
author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is
presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its
Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2019.

Abstract

In Brazil, the environmental licensing process requires the assessment of risks imposed by pipelines and other
hazardous facilities on the external public, which are evaluated in the form of individual risk (which depend mainly
on the characteristics of the facility) and societal risk (which also depend on the population around the facility).
After the risk calculations, the results have to be compared with the risk tolerability criteria established by
environmental agencies responsible for the licensing of the facility. With regard to the premises and criteria for
risk studies for environmental licensing purposes in Brazil, the Technical CETESB (São Paulo State Environment
Agency) Standard P4.261 has been adopted as a reference by most of the state environmental agencies and by the
federal environmental agency IBAMA - Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources.
In order to evaluate how the choice of calculation assumptions may influence the results of pipeline risk, a case
study has been performed using the different assumptions established in two versions of the technical CETESB
standard (P4261/2003 and P4261/2011 which replaced P4261/2003 and is in force since April 2014). As there are
premises that are not clearly defined in CETESB P4261/03, in such cases, the same assumptions defined in pipeline
risk studies of the period in which this version was in force have been used. The sensitivity analysis has been
performed for a generic section of a gas pipeline. The societal risk calculations have been performed for a
hypothetical densely populated community.

Keywords: Gas Pipelines. Risk Assessment. Brazilian Regulation.

1. Introduction

In Brazil, the risks of pipeline rights-of-way are assessed in the form of individual risk
and societal risk, which results are compared with the tolerability criteria established by the
environmental agencies, responsible for their licensing process. The individual risk can be
defined as the expected frequency, expressed on an annual basis, that an individual located in a
certain position in relation to the facilities under analysis will face some damage (usually
fatalities) because of accidents that may occur in these facilities. The societal risk represents
the risk to a group of people made up of communities exposed to the effects of accidents likely
to occur at the facilities under analysis.
In this paper, we present a case study which has been performed using the assumptions
of two versions of the CETESB Standard (P4.261/03 [1] and P4.261/11 [2]) with the objective
of evaluating how the choice of calculation assumptions may influence the risk results of gas
pipelines.

______________________________
1
DSC, Environmental Engineer - PETROBRAS
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

2. Pipeline Description

Figure 1 shows a schematic arrangement of a hypothetical pipeline corridor consisting

of two gas pipelines running parallel.

Figure 1. Pipelines arrangement.

The design and operational conditions that supported the present study are presented in
Table 1.

Table 1. Pipelines characteristics

Pipeline data Pipeline 1 Pipeline 2

Dp (in) 22 18
Po (kgf/cm2) 115 100
To (oC) 21.8 20

3. Characteristics of the Region

3.1. Population Data

A hypothetical densely populated region with 13 polygons has been defined, as shown
in Figure 2. The number of households and number of residents in each polygon is presented in
Table 2.

Table 2. Number of households and number of residents in each polygon.

Poligon Households Residents Poligon Households Residents

P01 83 249 P08 62 186
P02 82 246 P09 76 228
P03 133 399 P10 95 285
P04 110 330 P11 135 405
P05 38 114 P12 41 123
P06 25 75 P13 43 129
P07 32 96 - - -
2
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

P01

P02 P05 Pipeline corridor

P04 P06
P08 P03
P07
P09
P11

P10 P12

P13

Figure 2. Image with the representation of the hypothetical population for the risk calculations.

3.2. Meteorological Data

In this study the meteorological parameters (ambient temperature, relative humidity,

and average wind speed) suggested in P4.261/03 have been used as presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Weather data1 [1].

Parameter Day Night

Ambient temperature (oC) 25 20
Relative humidity (%) 80 80
Wind speed (m/s) 3.0 2.0
Pasquill stability C E

4. Natural Gas Pipelines Risk Assessment Premises Prior to Publication of P4.261/11

CETESB standard P4.261/03 was not explicitly clear as to the risk calculation
assumptions to be used in natural gas pipelines risk assessment. Therefore, the risk studies in
those cases had usually been carried out relying on international references to define the
premises that were not prescribed in the standard. Among the references that served as a basis
for assessing natural gas pipeline risks are the TNO colored books (Green book [3], yellow
book [4] and Purple Book [5]) as well as publications by the UK Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) [6]. The main premises are described in the following sections.

1
A uniform distribution of 8 wind directions has been used.
3
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

4.1. Representative Substances for the Simulation

CETESB Standard P4.261/03 do not define which substance should be used to

represent the simulations for natural gas. Therefore, the risk assessment used to consider
methane as a representative substance for natural gas.

4.2. Event Probability and Failure Frequency Analysis

The failure rates have been determined using the data available in the 9th EGIG
(European Gas Pipelines Incident Data Group) report [7], published in February 2015. Failure
rates concerning the period of 2009-2013 (1.58 × 10−4/km − year) have been used.

4.3. Hole Size Distribution

The hole sizes assumptions and their respective probabilities used in this case study
are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Hole size distribution.

Hole Definition Rupture Medium Small hole

Hole size 100% Dp 20% Dp 5% Dp
EGIG hole size Rupture Hole Pinhole + crack
Probability (%) 13.9 33.6 52.4

Where Dp is the pipeline diameter.

4.4. Event trees

Figure 3 presents the event tree for releases of natural gas from pipelines.

Figure 3. Event tree for natural gas pipeline release.

The corresponding event probabilities are presented in Table 5.

4
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Table 5. Event probabilities for natural gas releases.

Hole Definition Rupture Medium hole Small hole

P1 0.09 0.00 0.00
P2 0.09 0.04 0.02
P3 1/3 1/3 1/3
P4 0.5 0.5 0.5
P5 0.4 0.4 0.4

In terms of the factors of the presence of people in the day and night periods, as well
as the probability of presence indoor and outdoor, the data suggested in the Purple Book [5]
have been adopted, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Factors of presence used in societal risk calculations [5].

Period Presence (%) Indoor Outdoor

Daytime 70 0.93 0.07
Night time 100 0.99 0.01

It was also considered the occurrence of accidental hypotheses during the day and night
with the equal probability (50%).

4.5. Vulnerability

CETESB P4.261/03 establish the radiation levels of 12.5 and 37.5kW/m2 as

corresponding to 1% and 50% fatality. Nevertheless, most of the pipelines risk assessments
have made use of probit equations (Eq. 1):

ࡼ࢘ ൌ ࢇ ൅ ࢈࢒࢔ࢂ (1)

In this case the probit equation of Einsenberg has been used in which a=-38.48, b=2.56
and V=I4/3×t. The time exposure limit is equal to 20 seconds in the case of jet fire and in the
case of the fireball is equal to its duration.
Regarding the flash fire, it has been assumed the probability of fatality equal to 100%
inside the flame envelope, i.e., the lower flammability limit (LFL).
In case of overpressure caused by vapor cloud explosions (VCE), the following
thresholds used to be applied to estimate the effects of explosions on human beings: (i) 0.1bar:
1% fatality; (ii) 0.3bar: 50% fatality; (iii) 0.43bar: 99% fatality.

5
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

5. Natural Gas Pipelines Risk Assessment Premises Changed by CETESB Standard

P4.261/11

CETESB Standard P4.261/11 adopted most of the premises that used to be applied in
natural gas pipeline risk assessments, as described in the previous sections. The main changes
introduced by P4.261/11 Standard are discussed in the following sections.
Regarding the event trees in case of natural gas pipelines releases caused by ruptures
and holes, the changes introduced by CETESB is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Event tree for natural gas pipeline releases [2].

It is important to notice that P4.261/11 considers that a vapor cloud is not expected to
happen for underground natural gas pipelines releases. The new probabilities introduced by
P4.261/11 are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Revised event probabilities for natural gas releases [2].

Rupture Small hole Small hole 

Definition 
Condition Prob. Prob. Prob.
Dp < 16 in 0.103
Pignition 0.04 0.02
D p ≥ 16 in 0.32
M < 1000 kg 0.02
Pii 1000 kg ≤ M ≤ 10000 kg 0.04 0.00 0.00
M > 10000 kg 0.09

Where M is the fireball mass. In case of releases from underground pipelines,

P4.261/11 define the probabilities of 1/3 and 2/3 for vertical and angular directions,
respectively [2].
Provided that most of the premises introduced by CETESB standard P4.261/11 have
been based on the Reference Manual BEVI Risk Assessments [8], probit equation of Tsao and
Perry (Eq. 1) in which a=-36.38, b=2.56 and V=I4/3×t. with time exposure limit equal to 20
seconds in case of fire jet. In the case of the fireball, the exposure’s time is equal to its duration.
6
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

In addition, in case of thermal radiation (jet fire and fireball) above 35kW/m2, it has
been defined the likelihood of fatality equal to 100%. Even though the BEVI approach takes
account of the conservatism in this probit by applying a factor of 0.14 on the number of
fatalities for societal risk calculations, P4.261/11 proposes a factor of 0.2 if 25% of the body
is exposed and 0.8 if 70% of the body is exposed.

6. Risk Criteria

6.1. Individual Risk Criteria

Figure 4 presents the individual risk criteria established by the two versions of P4.261
standard. This criterion delimits three risk regions: tolerable, ALARP or “risk to be reduced”
and intolerable.

Figure 6. Pipelines individual risk criteria [1, 2].

As can be seen in Figure 6, the new individual risk criterion established by P4.261/11
is one order of magnitude stricter than the older one.
P4.261/11 also take into account the limits of the row to evaluate the individual risk.

7. Societal Risk Criteria

With the objective of evaluating the risk of pipelines on the communities near the right-
of-way, P4.261/11 proposed to use the same societal risk tolerability criteria of installations.
Therefore, the pipeline extension (500m) to calculate societal risk has been defined based on
the average perimeter of São Paulo State industrial sites [2]. The societal risk criterion is
shown in Figure 7.

7
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Figure 7. Societal risk criteria [2]

8.Multiple Pipelines Row

When multiples pipelines are laid in a corridor, P4.261/11 requires to calculate the
overall risk (summation of the risk of all the pipelines) whereas P4.261/03 used to require just
the calculation of the risk for the pipeline under the licensing process.

9.Risk Assessment

This analysis has been carried out using Phast Risk 6.7 software [9], developed by
DNVGL.

9.1. Individual Risk Results

The results of individual risk of the pipeline row, considering the premises used before
and after the publication of P4.261/11 are presented in Figure 8.

(a) P4.261/03 (b) P4.261/11

Figure 8. Individual risk for Gas Pipeline corridor.

8
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

According to the risk results presented in Figure 8, it is observed that the condition of
tolerability of the individual risk of the row is changed from “tolerable” to “risk to be reduced”.
In the latter case, it is necessary to evaluate mitigating measures to reduce the risk.

9.2. Societal Risk results

The results of societal risk of the pipeline row, considering the premises used before
and after the publication of P4.261/11 are presented in Figure 9.

(a) P4.261/03 (b) P4.261/11

Figure 9. Societal risk for Gas Pipeline corridor.

Likewise, the risk results presented in Figure 9 shows that the condition of tolerability
of the societal risk of the row is changed from “tolerable” to “risk to be reduced”. In the latter
case it is necessary to evaluate mitigating measures to reduce the risk, considering the costs as
well as their benefits.
The changes in tolerability conditions of individual and societal risks demonstrate that
P4.261/11 makes the evaluation of natural gas pipelines risks more restrictive.

10. Conclusion

This article evaluated the impact of the changes made by the revision of CETESB
P4.261 standard for risk assessment of natural gas pipeline risks. The new edition of the
standard (P4.261/11) introduced, based on the literature, the assumptions to be used in pipeline
risk assessment, which allows a greater standardization, avoiding the influence of the choice
of premises in the risk results. On the other hand, it has been observed from the case studied
in this work that the changes applied to the premises and tolerability criteria makes the
evaluation of natural gas pipelines risks more restrictive.

9
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

11. Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges André Soares and Giovani Dellamea for the support.

12. References

[1] CETESB, 2003. Manual for orientation to the preparation of risk assessment studies,
P4.261/03 1st ed. CETESB - Environmental Company of São Paulo State, São Paulo.
[2] CETESB, 2011. CETESB P.4261 - Risk of accident of technological origin - Method for
decision making and reference terms, P4.261/11 ed. CETESB – Environmental Company of
São Paulo State, São Paulo.
[3] Commitee for the Prevention of Disasters, 1992. Methods for the determination of possible
damage to people and objects resulting from releases of hazardous materials, 1st. ed. The
Netherlands Organization (TNO).
[4] Van de Bosch, C. J. H., and Weterings, R. A. P. M., 2005. Methods for the calculation of
physical effects Due to releases of hazardous materials (liquids and gases), 3rd. ed. The
Netherlands Organization (TNO).
[5] Uijt de Haag, P. A. M., and Ale, B. J. M., 2005. Guidelines for Quantitative Risk
Assessment, 2nd. ed. The Netherlands Organization (TNO).
[6] HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE (HSE). Report on a Second Study of Pipeline
Accidents using the Health and Safety Executive’s Risk Assessment Programs MISHAP and
PIPERS. Research Report 036, Liverpool, 2002.
[7] EGIG (European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group), 2015. Gas pipeline incidents. 9th
report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (period 1970 - 2013). Report EGIG
14.R.0403, EGIG, Groningen, February.
[8] NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT - RIVM,
2009. Reference manual bevi risk assessments (version 3.2).
[9] DNVGL, 2012. PHAST RISK - Process Hazard Analysis Software Tools.

10