A Quantitative Approach of Measuring Sustainability Risk in Pipeline Infrastructure Systems

Abstract

The secure and dependable functioning of pipeline infrastructure systems is pivotal for transporting vital energy resources during this transition era towards a more sustainable energy future. This paper presents a novel quantitative approach for assessing sustainability risk in pipeline infrastructure systems and provides insights for holistic sustainability design in pipeline operations. The proposed methodology introduces a comprehensive framework for quantifying sustainability risk by integrating probabilities of failure and cumulative consequences from social, environmental, and economic dimensions that impact pipeline integrity. Real-world pipeline incident data were employed to identify the main causes of pipeline incidents like corrosion failure, equipment malfunction, and excavation damage. The consequences arising from these incidents are categorized to measure the cumulative consequences of sustainability risk. By quantifying sustainability risk, operators of pipeline infrastructure systems can strategically mitigate and manage potential disruptions affecting long-term sustainability incentives. In doing so, the proposed approach significantly bolsters the vital role of pipeline infrastructure systems in fostering sustainable energy transportation, yielding substantial benefits for global communities and economies.

1. Introduction

In an era driven by rapid technological advancements and ever-increasing demand for energy resources, pipeline infrastructure systems play a pivotal role in facilitating the transportation of crucial commodities, such as oil and gas, by connecting producing areas to refineries, chemical plants, consumers, and other business areas [1]. While these pipeline systems form the lifeline of modern societies, they also face a myriad of challenges, ranging from natural disasters [2] and mechanical failures [3] to human-induced incidents and security threats [1,4]. To ensure the robustness and sustainability of pipeline infrastructures, a comprehensive understanding of sustainability risk has become an imperative part of pipeline operations and maintenance policies [5].

The importance of pipeline risk management in ensuring the secure and dependable transportation of crucial resources has attracted considerable attention. Kraidi et al. (2021) crafted a risk management strategy, examined risk factors, and assessed risk mitigation methods in oil and gas pipelines [6]. Additionally, studies, such as those introducing intelligent control strategies for multiphase pipelines in oilfields [7], underscore the significance of enhancing operational efficiency and safety, aligning with the broader trend of developing smart pipelines through data analysis and automated systems. These efforts collectively contribute to ensuring the safety and effectiveness of critical energy infrastructures. The integration of risk assessment, mitigation, and response strategies into pipeline operations is essential for preventing incidents and minimizing their impact. Risk is characterized by the combination of scenarios, frequency, and potential negative outcomes of events [8]. Risk assessment planning is critical for effectively managing pipeline data. Conducting comprehensive risk assessments helps identify potential hazards and vulnerabilities, which enables stakeholders to prioritize and implement targeted risk mitigation strategies [9]. This ensures the protection of the environment, enhances public safety, and optimizes resource allocation.

Over time, risk assessment methodologies have advanced to encompass diverse risk dimensions. In the transitional phase towards a more sustainable energy future, there arises a necessity to shift from conventional risk management frameworks to those that encompass a broader spectrum of sustainability considerations. Indeed, incorporating sustainable approaches into risk assessment ensures that the energy infrastructure is designed and operated in an environmentally responsible and socially equitable manner, along with economic significance. A comprehensive framework was introduced by Mahmood et al. (2023) to integrate social, environmental, and economic dimensions into risk, reliability, and resilience analysis with a goal of fostering sustainable pipeline infrastructure [10]. Furthermore, incorporating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into risk management practices is paramount, ensuring that risk mitigation aligns harmoniously with broader societal objectives [11]. This heightened emphasis on integrating sustainability principles is driven by the growing recognition of the intricate interplay between environmental, social, and economic dimensions within risk management processes and underscores the alignment with the United Nations SDGs [12].

The theoretical support for conducting this study is derived from the following key principles and frameworks: (1) sustainability principles, (2) risk management theories, and (3) interdisciplinary perspectives to address complex sustainability challenges in pipeline infrastructure systems. Sustainability risk management has risen as a pivotal cornerstone within contemporary organizational strategies, directed at addressing potential threats and uncertainties that could hinder the realization of sustainable objectives [13]. Moreover, methodologies for sustainability risk assessment have evolved to encompass the intricate nature of modern challenges. Navigating the intricacies of evaluating sustainability risks necessitates a comprehensive approach. To effectively integrate sustainable risk management into existing practices, the need for a cohesive framework that harmonizes diverse sustainability metrics for efficient risk assessment becomes apparent. As a response, this paper proposes a quantitative method for assessing sustainability risks based on the probability of failure and the potential consequences posed by threats to sustainability goals. By adopting quantitative approaches and integrating risk assessment from the pipeline’s inception, stakeholders can ensure the enduring sustainability and dependability of these critical infrastructures. The significance of anticipating risks in pipeline data resides in its capacity to proactively detect and mitigate potential hazards, averting accidents, disruptions, and environmental harm. This proactive risk anticipation reinforces the safety and dependability of the pipeline system, upholding public safety, environmental preservation, and the integrity of vital infrastructures. The research gap presented in this paper revolves around the need for further exploration and refinement of the sustainability risk assessment methodology for pipeline infrastructure systems. These include assessing the quality and availability of data, expanding the analysis to encompass additional sustainability dimensions, conducting real-world case studies to validate the methodology, and exploring specific risk mitigation strategies tailored to the identified sustainability risks. Bridging these research gaps is essential for enhancing the accuracy and applicability of sustainability risk assessments in pipeline operations, ultimately contributing to more resilient and sustainable energy transportation systems. The rest of this manuscript is arranged as follows. Section 2 details the related literature review to highlight existing knowledge or methods and the potential significance of the current study. Risk management methodology is highlighted in Section 3 with the necessary equations for calculating sustainability risk. Section 4 shows the details regarding the data source and data analysis. The results and discussion of the data analysis are highlighted in Section 5. Finally, the conclusion and remarks are drawn in Section 6.

2. Literature Review

The energy distribution infrastructure in the United States (US) comprises an extensive network of pipelines spanning more than 2.5 million miles [14]. Thus, a meticulously managed and well-protected pipeline network guarantees the uninterrupted flow of energy resources, mitigating the potential for supply disruptions, which is crucial for pipeline infrastructure. Numerous significant accidents bear witness to the magnitude of major explosions and hazardous toxic releases, imposing severe economic and environmental repercussions [15]. These incidents underscore the critical need for robust safety measures and risk management strategies within the realm of pipeline systems to prevent and mitigate such detrimental impacts.

According to Girgin and Krausmann (2016), analyzing historical incident data can unveil the fundamental triggers, failure modes, associated outcomes, and statistical trends of these significant disruptions [2]. Concentrating on natural hazard triggers, this research analyzed incidents involving onshore hazardous liquid pipelines. This historical analysis allowed a better understanding of incident mechanisms and helped the preparation of prevention and mitigation measures. Sovacool (2008) conducts an introductory assessment of societal and economic impacts linked to major energy-related accidents occurring between 1907 and 2007, highlighting the noteworthy aspects of fatalities, property damage, and frequency of occurrence [16]. In their study, Biezma et al. (2020) gathered the ten deadliest events in the history of oil and pipeline accidents to investigate the underlying factors in order to elevate the safety and advancement of the oil and gas pipeline transportation network [17]. Ramírez-Camacho et al. (2017) highlighted through a retrospective examination of 1063 onshore pipeline accidents the potential hazards of accidental containment and substantial consequences for populated areas, impacting people, equipment, and the environment [18]. The study by Restrepo et al. (2009) examined the causes and costs of accidents in US hazardous liquid pipelines, employing regression modeling to assess financial repercussions and offer insights to industry leaders for managing risks and allocating resources [19]. Similarly, Siler-Evans et al. (2014) examined US natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents, revealing decreased fatalities and injuries and increased property damage over time [20].

Various scholarly works have explored diverse aspects of quantitative risk analysis. Han and Weng (2010) introduced a comprehensive quantitative approach to assess risk within pipeline networks, encompassing probabilistic accident assessment, consequence analysis, and risk evaluation [21]. Probabilistic and deterministic approaches to pipeline corrosion risk assessment were compared by Lawson (2005), with an emphasis on the benefits of the probabilistic method in handling uncertainties and potentially optimizing risk management [22]. Risk analysis methodologies in pipeline applications often extend to include structural reliability assessment, data analysis, and decision-making tools to enhance the robustness of pipeline systems [23]. Some of the most recent developments in risk assessment of pipeline infrastructure are as follows. Li et al. (2022) proposed a risk assessment framework that considers uncertainty for corrosion-induced pipeline accidents as a pair of limit state functions and was solved by the Monte Carlo approach [24]. He et al. (2023) employed a quantitative risk assessment method based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) for a hot work pipeline infrastructure [25]. Liang et al. (2023) developed a risk assessment model for cascading failures that includes the calculation of the probability and severity of the cascading failure chain [26]. Additionally, quantitative risk models [10], such as hazard and operability (HAZOP) analysis [27], failure mode, effects, and critical analysis (FEMA/FMECA) [28], fault tree analysis (FTA) [29], bowtie analysis [30], or the Bayesian network-based approach [31], have been proposed and employed as risk assessment approaches in pipeline applications.

To complement the risk assessment efforts, several existing sustainability assessment frameworks and indices, such as United Nations SGDs, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Ratings, provide overviews of sustainability performance across various dimensions. These frameworks help organizations, governments, and stakeholders associated with the pipeline infrastructure systems to assess their sustainability efforts and make informed decisions. The United Nations SDGs are a set of 17 global goals adopted by United Nations member states to address social, economic, and environmental challenges, covering areas such as poverty, health, education, clean energy, climate action, and more [32]. The GRI offers organizations guidelines and metrics to report sustainability performance, facilitating stakeholders to comprehend sustainability impacts and commitments [33]. ESG Ratings are often employed to measure the impact of sustainable investments, with a typical score ranging from 0 to 100, and a score of 70 and above being considered good [34]. While these are valuable frameworks for measuring sustainability and assessing the social, environmental, and ethical performances of organizations, they are not typically used as direct tools for measuring sustainability risk.

Therefore, the main contribution of this paper lies in its holistic quantitative approach to assess sustainability risk within pipeline infrastructure systems. By integrating failure probabilities and cumulative consequences across social, environmental, and economic dimensions, the proposed methodology offers a comprehensive framework for evaluating pipeline integrity. This approach introduces a novel dimension by emphasizing risk measurement within the context of sustainability. This holistic analysis identifies various causes of pipeline incidents and quantifies their cumulative impacts on sustainability risk. Consequently, the paper equips pipeline stakeholders with the fundamental information needed to strategically develop and implement risk management strategies to address and manage potential disruptions. This profound insight, in turn, cultivates an environment conducive to promoting sustainable pipeline system design and development.

3. Methodology

3.1. Risk Management Framework

The risk management framework provides a comprehensive understanding of the potential impact of identified risks, ultimately promoting sustainable pipeline system design and development amid complex operational challenges and changing environmental landscapes [9]. The proposed sustainability risk quantification approach is rooted in the fundamental principles of the risk management framework for pipeline systems, as illustrated in Figure 1. This framework comprises four distinct steps that seamlessly align with the different phases of a typical pipeline performance curve following a potential threat.

The initial step (Step 1) involves identifying potential causes that pose a risk to pipeline integrity based on relevant datasets regarding pipeline operations and incidents [35]. This process thoroughly evaluates how these causes influence the performance of the pipeline system in normal operating conditions. This thorough understanding sets the stage for subsequent steps in the risk management process. A more detailed exposition of Step 1 in identifying potential causes and consequences will be provided through a pipeline incident data analysis featured in Section 4.

Once the causes and consequences are identified, the framework proceeds to quantify the sustainability risk associated with each cause in Step 2. This involves the probability of failure due to each potential cause and, subsequently, assessing the cumulative probability of resulting consequences. Additionally, the approach delves into quantifying social, environmental, and economic risks, which are the components vital to comprehensively characterizing the landscape of sustainability risk. This is the main contribution highlighted in this paper. In the upcoming subsections, a comprehensive breakdown of the risk quantification process of Step 2, delving into the intricate integration of failure probabilities and cumulative consequences, will be detailed.

By analyzing the individual elements of sustainability risk, pipeline stakeholders can gain insights into the overall resilience and capacity of the pipeline system to recover and sustain functionality in the face of unexpected disruptions [36]. With this knowledge, strategies are formulated and executed in Step 3 to mitigate or manage the identified risks [37]. Finally, the methodology culminates in the aftermath implementation and monitoring of the strategies in Step 4. This is where strategies and measures are put into action to mitigate risk, minimize performance loss when risk is unavoidable, and ensure ongoing sustainable pipeline operations [36].

Given that the efficacy of mitigation strategies (Step 3) hinges on the specifics of each application and situation, as well as the intricacies of rules, regulations, and meticulous monitoring (Step 4), it is imperative to acknowledge that the implementation of these strategies towards sustainability often unfolds as a long-term endeavor. The best strategy for dealing with sustainability risks may not be immediately apparent as many sustainability risks are new and emerging [38]. Delving into the exhaustive details of each possible strategy to mitigate risk and their long-term monitoring approach of the implemented strategies would be beyond the scope of this paper.

3.2. Risk Quantification

Calculating risk involves assessing the likelihood of a specific event or scenario occurring and the potential consequences or impacts associated with that event [39]. Risk assessment in the pipeline system constitutes a fundamental aspect of this study, as it enables stakeholders to evaluate the probability and potential impact of failures associated with specific causes. In pipeline systems, risk can be calculated by integrating the probabilities of failure due to specific cause i and cumulative consequences j attributed to the system due to specific cause i. Thus, the risk calculation can be presented as

$$R_i=P{f}_i\times {\omega }_{ij}$$

(1)

where $R_i$ is the risk due to cause $i$, $P{f}_i$ denotes the probability of failure due to cause $i$, and ${\omega }_{ij}$ quantifies the cumulative probability of consequence j of the failure due to cause $i$. By analyzing the interplay between the probability of failure and the associated consequences, valuable insights into the overall risk landscape are obtained [10,40]. Further, this risk assessment allows identifying high-risk areas and prioritizing targeted risk mitigation strategies through a risk matrix diagram, as shown in Figure 2. Depending on the subject of interest, the risk matrix can categorize risks as low, medium, or high based on their values and placement within the risk matrix.

3.2.1. Probability of Failure

One crucial aspect of the risk assessment process involves the calculation of the failure probability, $P{f}_i$, for each cause within the pipeline system. Calculating $P{f}_i$ involves estimating the likelihood of a specific event affecting the pipeline integrity or component failure occurring within a given time frame. The exact method employed can depend on the scale of the pipeline system, the available data, the complexity of the infrastructure, and the level of detail leading to the failure. The general assumptions while measuring the failure probability are narrated below.

• If historical failure data for the specific failure event or component failure are available, they can be used to calculate the failure rate [29]. The failure rate is the number of failures divided by the total operating time, which can be expressed as failures per unit of time, for example, failures per month or failures per year.
• If historical data are not sufficient, limited, unavailable, or unreliable, the failure rate can be estimated based on expert opinions [41], industry standards, similar components’ failure rates, or through simulation/experiment of the failure event.

Once the failure rate is obtained, the probability of failure within the defined time frame can be calculated as the failure rate multiplied by the time interval. For a specific cause i leading to a failure event, the probability of the failure event occurring within a specific time frame can be calculated by

$$P{f}_i=\frac{p_i}{N}$$

(2)

where $p_i$ is the failure count or the frequency of the failure occurrence due to cause $i$ in a specific time frame, and $N$ is the total number of attempts, or cumulative frequency of all failure causes within a particular time frame.

The failure probability, $P{f}_i$, can be expressed as the ratio of the number of failure events to the total number of opportunities for failure within that time frame. For example, suppose historical data on the number of pipeline failures due to incorrect operation within a year and the total number of pipeline failures in a year are available. In that case, this approach can be used to estimate the probability of pipeline failures due to incorrect operations within that particular year. By analyzing the frequency of cause occurrences relative to the cumulative circumstances, insights are obtained into the relative risk posed by each cause within the pipeline system in each time frame.

3.2.2. Consequences of Failure

The potential consequences of a pipeline failure extend to the social (public, operators, organizational, regulations), the environment, and the economic objectives of sustainable development [42,43]. Calculating the consequences of a failure scenario can be approached qualitatively or quantitatively. The qualitative approach typically categorizes the consequences as low, medium, and high. It is recommended to assign quantitative values whenever possible. For example, estimate the cost of repairs, the volume of material leaked, or the potential fines due to regulatory violations [42,44].

In this paper, the proposed steps for calculating the consequences are detailed as follows. When dealing with categorical data, each category is first transformed into numerical values based on the frequency of occurrence. Subsequently, the probability of each consequence is calculated using the following equation, which provides an estimate for each consequence j, capturing the relative likelihood of its occurrence:

$$C_{ij}=\frac{F_{ij}}{K_{ij}}$$

(3)

where $C_{ij}$ is the probability of consequence $j$ to happen due to the failure of cause $i$, $F_{ij}$ is the frequency of consequence $j$ due to the failure of cause $i$, and $K_{ij}$ is the total frequency of consequence $j$ due to the failure of cause $i$.

In scenarios where multiple consequences arise from the failure of cause $i,$ it is imperative to calculate the aggregate consequences before proceeding with risk measurement. This aggregate consequences probability, ω_ij, is determined by averaging the individual probabilities, $C_{ij}$, for all consequences $j$. Through the following equation, ω_ij is calculated, encompassing the combined impact of multiple consequences stemming from the failure of cause $i$:

$${\omega }_{ij}=\frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^M{C}_{ij}}{M}$$

(4)

where M is the total number of consequences considered.

There are several factors that need to be considered when quantifying the consequences of failure, for example, direct and indirect consequences, short-term and long-term effects, and the perspective of various stakeholders. Direct impacts can be immediate and obvious, while indirect impacts might occur later due to cascading effects [45]. Similarly, some consequences might have short-term impacts, like immediate pipeline shutdowns impacting supply chains, revenue, and operational efficiency. In contrast, others might have lasting implications; for example, cleaning up contamination from a pipeline failure can take years to restore affected areas, and this cleaning-up cost typically extends beyond immediate downtime costs [46]. Thus, different stakeholders might experience or value the consequences differently.

When assessing the social consequences of pipeline failure, it is essential to consider input from different stakeholders, including employees, communities, regulators, and customers. For instance, after the oil pipeline failure incident, residents might experience health concerns, displacement, and emotional trauma, impacting their well-being and community cohesion. These things considered, the designation of a “High Consequence Area” due to data failure can influence community perceptions of safety, potentially affecting property values and social dynamics in the area. These outcomes align with the criteria for social consequences, emphasizing their significant social impact. The criteria for economic consequences revolve around the financial impact of a pipeline incident, including direct costs, property damage, environmental violation fines or penalties, as well as revenue losses, emergency response expenses, and any other relevant financial impacts. Similarly, by looking at harm to ecosystems and species, including habitat disruption and biodiversity loss, potential risks to human health from the polluted soil or water might be considered as a criterion for environmental consequences.

3.3. Sustainability Risk

Sustainability risk in pipeline infrastructure refers to the potential negative impacts or failure cases that affect the ability of the pipeline infrastructure and stakeholders to achieve long-term sustainable outcomes [10]. It involves the possibility of adverse consequences that could hinder or compromise the goals, performance, and viability of sustainable initiatives in pipeline operations. Sustainability risk can encompass a wide range of factors, including [10,30]:

• Social risks are often associated with community relations, stakeholder engagement, labor practices, human rights, and social equity that could impact the social dimension of sustainability.
• Environmental risks are generally related to natural resource depletion, pollution, habitat destruction, climate change, and other ecological impacts that could threaten environmental sustainability.
• Economic risks are mainly linked to financial stability, economic viability, cost-effectiveness, and resource allocation, which could undermine sustainability’s economic dimension.

In this paper, only the three fundamental sustainability dimensions are considered. Other factors, such as technological risks, compliance risks, or supply chain risks, can be considered to quantify sustainability risks given the availability of the data. To quantify sustainability risk due to a specific cause i, SR_i, all factors related to sustainability should be considered, and Equation (1) can be modified to include the cumulative consequences from these factors as

$$S{R}_i=P{f}_i\times {\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^3{\omega }_{ij}=P{f}_i\times \left(S{C}_i+E{V}_i+E{C}_i\right)$$

(5)

where Pf_i is the probability of failure due to cause i, and j is the number of consequences. In this case, since there are three consequences considered (social, environmental, and economic), j = 3. SC_i is the social consequence due to cause i, EV_i is the environmental consequence due to cause i, and EC_i is the economic consequence due to cause i. Sustainability risk management involves identifying, assessing, and mitigating these individual risks to enhance the likelihood of achieving sustainable objectives [13,38]. By addressing sustainability risks, organizations and projects can make more informed decisions, reduce negative impacts, and enhance the overall sustainability of their actions and outcomes in the pipeline system.

4. Data Analysis

To demonstrate the proposed framework introduced in the previous section, real-world open-sourced data were employed. Returning to the initial Step 1 illustrated in Figure 1, in order to pinpoint potential causes and repercussions of pipeline failure, it is imperative to gather pertinent details concerning the failure event and the operational aspects of the pipeline. The available data were sourced from the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), providing a historical trend assessment of pipeline incidents over twenty years [47]. PHMSA, entrusted with the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including pipelines for various energy sources across the US, received incident data from pipeline operators in accordance with regulatory reporting requirements and prescribed incident report formats. To assess the latest incident trend, this study exclusively utilized the 20-year pipeline incident data spanning from 2003 to 2022, selected as a representative dataset. This dataset offers comprehensive information regarding pipeline incidents occurring in all states of the US between the years 2003 and 2022 [48]. Following this, the data underwent meticulous preprocessing to address missing data, arrange incidents according to potential failure causes, and categorize them based on these causes and their resulting consequences. The details are elaborated as follows.

4.1. Identifying Potential Failure Causes

Through rigorous analysis of the pipeline dataset, multiple causes of pipeline incidents were identified in the United States between 2003 and 2022, encompassing a diverse range of factors, as shown in Figure 3. Identifying these distinct causes provides a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by the pipeline system. It serves as a crucial foundation for implementing targeted risk mitigation strategies and bolstering the resilience of the infrastructure.

These causes of pipeline incidents are organized into the following eight categories:

• Corrosion failure refers to the degradation of pipeline materials, which can lead to leaks or ruptures, posing significant risks to the integrity of the pipeline system.
• Equipment failure, on the other hand, involves malfunctions in pipeline equipment, presenting operational and safety hazards that demand immediate attention.
• Excavation damage arises when the pipeline is inadvertently hit or punctured during digging or construction work, highlighting the importance of careful excavation practices.
• Incorrect operation incidents result from human error or inadequate maintenance practices, underscoring the need for comprehensive training and adherence to proper procedures.
• Material failure of pipe or weld indicates the presence of defects or weaknesses in the pipeline’s construction, calling for robust quality control measures during installation.
• Natural force damage, occurring from events like earthquakes, landslides, or severe weather, emphasizes the necessity of resilience against unpredictable natural occurrences.
• Outside (or external) force damage involves elements that go beyond the physical structure of the pipeline, encompassing occurrences like vehicle impacts or deliberate third-party actions (vandalism, sabotage, and terrorism) that can cause pipeline damage and subsequent failures.
• Additionally, the dataset reveals other incident causes, which encompass unspecified or external factors contributing to pipeline incidents, underscoring the complexity and multifaceted nature of potential risks.

4.2. Quantifying Failure Probability

As detailed in Section 3.1, measuring risk requires information on failure probability and consequences. Since the historical data are already available, by employing Equation (2), the failure probability of each of the causes identified from the pipeline dataset is summarized in

Table 1. Failure probability is categorized based on causes that lead to pipeline incidents.

Potential Failure Cause	Frequency	Failure Probability, Pfi
Corrosion Failure	689	0.281
Equipment Failure	1008	0.411
Excavation Damage	80	0.033
Incorrect Operation	364	0.148
Material Failure of Pipe or Weld	101	0.041
Natural Force Damage	104	0.042
Other Incident Cause	57	0.023
Other Outside Force Damage	49	0.020

. It also corresponds to Figure 3 in percentage values. Based on these results, it becomes evident that equipment failure, corrosion failure, and incorrect operation emerge as the top three primary causes responsible for disruptions in the pipeline system over the past 20 years. Remarkably, the cumulative failure probability of these three causes accounts for nearly 84% of the overall pipeline incidents.

4.3. Measuring Probability of the Consequences

After analyzing the dataset, the consequences can be categorized into three main sustainability domains: social, environmental, and economic [30], as shown in Figure 4. Please note that some factors can encompass more than one sustainability dimension, as shown in the overlapped representations of the Venn diagram in Figure 4. The probability distribution of different consequences based on the data analysis is summarized in

Table 2. The probability of social consequences.

Potential Failure Cause	Long-Term Assessment	Remediation Incident	Possible HCA	Commodity Reached HCA	Social Consequences
Corrosion Failure	0.288	0.389	0.297	0.308	0.321
Equipment Failure	0.235	0.300	0.379	0.374	0.322
Excavation Damage	0.098	0.059	0.027	0.027	0.053
Incorrect Operation	0.144	0.119	0.159	0.156	0.145
Material Failure of Pipe or Weld	0.121	0.054	0.044	0.042	0.065
Natural Force Damage	0.045	0.034	0.053	0.060	0.048
Other Incident Cause	0.015	0.024	0.020	0.014	0.018
Other Outside Force Damage	0.053	0.021	0.020	0.018	0.028

,

Table 3. The probability of environmental consequences.

Potential Failure Cause	Wildlife Impact Incident	Soil Contamination	Water Contamination	Environmental Consequences
Corrosion Failure	0.375	0.321	0.379	0.358
Equipment Failure	0.150	0.369	0.173	0.231
Excavation Damage	0.075	0.042	0.070	0.062
Incorrect Operation	0.050	0.145	0.103	0.099
Material Failure of Pipe or Weld	0.175	0.046	0.075	0.099
Natural Force Damage	0.050	0.036	0.084	0.057
Other Incident Cause	0.050	0.023	0.051	0.042
Other Outside Force Damage	0.075	0.018	0.065	0.053

and

Table 4. The probability of economic consequences (derived from various estimated costs).

Potential Failure Cause	Operator Paid	Gas Released	Property Damage	Emergency	Environment	Other Cost	Economic Consequences
Corrosion Failure	0.113	0.190	0.317	0.210	0.099	0.341	0.212
Equipment Failure	0.131	0.143	0.127	0.043	0.023	0.027	0.082
Excavation Damage	0.008	0.142	0.092	0.040	0.029	0.031	0.057
Incorrect Operation	0.027	0.153	0.170	0.057	0.020	0.135	0.094
Material Failure of Pipe or Weld	0.421	0.141	0.097	0.380	0.744	0.115	0.316
Natural Force Damage	0.106	0.148	0.108	0.169	0.016	0.300	0.141
Other Incident Cause	0.005	0.048	0.053	0.037	0.017	0.000	0.027
Other Outside Force Damage	0.188	0.036	0.036	0.064	0.051	0.051	0.071

.

The social dimension of sustainability encompasses various aspects of the well-being and quality of life of individuals and communities. Regulations can have significant social implications, such as ensuring public safety, protecting human health, preserving natural resources, and promoting equitable access to resources and opportunities [49]. The dataset analysis identifies regulatory consequences that require long-term assessment impacting society and remediation efforts. Additionally, these consequences involve the potential identification of high-consequence areas (HCAs) and incidents, wherein a commodity reaches an HCA limit. An HCA is a designated geographical area along a pipeline route where the potential consequences of a pipeline failure or incident could be more severe to the public or environment due to population density, environmental sensitivity, and proximity to essential other critical infrastructure or resources [50]. These regulatory implications underscore the need to adhere to stringent safety standards and proactive measures to ensure compliance with pipeline operations regulations, mitigating potential risks and protecting the environment and communities along the pipeline route. By employing Equations (3) and (4), the probability for social consequences for each potential failure cause threatening pipeline integrity can be calculated, and the results are listed in Table 2.

Under the environmental category, pipeline incidents may have significant impacts, such as affecting wildlife, resulting in soil contamination, and causing water contamination. These findings highlight the importance of addressing environmental concerns and implementing measures to safeguard ecosystems and natural resources in pipeline operations. This comprehensive categorization equips stakeholders with valuable insights into the diverse dimensions of consequences resulting from pipeline incidents, enabling them to make informed decisions and implement targeted measures to safeguard the environment, adhere to regulatory requirements, and effectively manage financial implications. The probability of environmental consequences for each potential failure cause threatening pipeline integrity is listed in Table 3.

Conversely, economic consequences related to the financial implications of the incidents encompass various factors such as estimated costs for the operator, expenses associated with gas released during the incident, property damage costs, emergency response expenditures, environmental restoration expenses, and other related financial outlays. Understanding these economic consequences is vital for pipeline operators and stakeholders to effectively manage resources, implement cost-effective risk mitigation strategies, and ensure the sustainable and efficient operation of the pipeline system. The probability of environmental consequences for each potential failure causing impending pipeline integrity is listed in Table 4.

Upon completing the quantification of consequences for each distinct sustainability dimension, the subsequent step entails amalgamating the social, environmental, and economic outcomes. This comprehensive aggregation culminates in assessing the overall sustainability risk, which encapsulates the collective implications across these dimensions. Further, the sustainability risk can be calculated using Equation (5).

5. Results and Discussions

5.1. Sustainability Risk Assessment, Monitoring, and Mitigation

Sustainability risk can be quantified based on (1) the failure probability and cumulative failure consequences or (2) the sum of social, environmental, and economic risks.

Table 5. Sustainability risk of each of the causes.

Potential Failure Cause	$\mathbf{Failure}\mathbf{Probability},\mathit{P}{\mathit{f}}_{\mathit{i}}$	Failure Consequences, ωij	$\mathbf{Sustainability}\mathbf{Risk},\mathit{S}{\mathit{R}}_{\mathit{i}}$
Corrosion Failure	0.281	0.891	0.250
Equipment Failure	0.411	0.635	0.261
Excavation Damage	0.033	0.172	0.006
Incorrect Operation	0.148	0.338	0.050
Material Failure of Pipe or Weld	0.041	0.480	0.020
Natural Force Damage	0.042	0.246	0.010
Other Incident Cause	0.023	0.087	0.002
Other Outside Force Damage	0.020	0.152	0.003

demonstrates the sustainability risk value associated with each of the causes. These tabulated data highlight corrosion failure, equipment malfunction, and incorrect operation as prominent causes of significant sustainability risks in pipeline incidents.

These values can also be converted into a risk matrix representation to retain qualitative and quantitative values, as introduced in Section 3.2. Figure 5 provides a holistic risk matrix for sustainability risks associated with each of the incident causes. Red shades indicate higher risk, yellow shades denote moderate or medium risk, and green shades denote low risk among the potential failure causes.

From the derived sustainability risk matrix, it becomes evident that while both corrosion failure and equipment failure present substantial sustainability risks to pipeline integrity, they entail varying degrees of social and economic risk. Through meticulous data analysis, it emerges that corrosion failure manifests as having comparatively lower social risk when compared with equipment failure. Conversely, equipment failure appears to give rise to lower economic risk in comparison to corrosion failure. The findings extracted from the sustainability risk matrix can pave the way for crafting appropriate risk mitigation strategies.

Navigating the realm of risk mitigation involves tailoring strategies to align with the unique demands of each pipeline system, considering factors such as the transported commodities, geographical location, technical infrastructure, and regulatory requirements. While corrosion failure and equipment failure emerge as noteworthy contributors to sustainability risk within pipeline integrity, it is imperative to recognize that these factors carry distinct social and economic implications and comparable environmental risks. As this understanding unfolds about sustainability risks, its emphasis is on the necessity of devising targeted and tailored mitigation strategies that account for the multifaceted nature of sustainability risks. This entails harnessing the insights from the risk matrix to formulate strategies that address the specific challenges posed by corrosion and equipment failure while balancing the corresponding social and economic concerns. These strategies encompass diverse tactics, encompassing enhanced inspections, robust maintenance routines [36], infrastructure upgrades, emergency response drills [51], and public awareness campaigns. However, the detailed level of the execution relies on countless factors specific to the application at hand.

Table 6. General risk mitigation strategies for corrosion, equipment failure, and incorrect operation [10,35,36,37,52].

Corrosion Failure	Equipment Failure	Incorrect Operation
Coating and cathodic protection	Condition monitoring	Comprehensive training
Regular inspections	Regular maintenance	Standard operating procedures
Corrosion monitoring	Spare parts inventory	Checklists
Material selection	Operator training	Automation and controls
Environmental assessment	Emergency shutdown systems	Feedback mechanisms
Advance sensors	Redundancy	Human–machine interface designs

lists various risk mitigation approaches for corrosion failure, equipment failure, and incorrect operation in pipeline applications.

Implementing mitigation strategies is not a one-time effort; rather, it entails an ongoing commitment to ensure the effectiveness of measures and adapt to dynamic circumstances. The regular assessment of the pipeline’s performance, continuous data collection, and responsive action in the face of new insights are all indispensable aspects. These strategies serve as general guidelines and may need to be tailored to the specific characteristics of each pipeline system, including factors like pipeline location, transported substances, and regulatory requirements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders, including pipeline operators, engineers, data analysts, and regulatory bodies, are crucial to successfully implementing these sustainability risk mitigation measures.

5.2. Discussions

The approach proposed for measuring sustainability risk in pipeline infrastructure systems employed an open-secured pipeline incident database. However, the numerical results showcased in this matrix are inherently interconnected with the intricate degrees embedded within the step-by-step data analysis process. Additionally, they are significantly influenced by a comprehensive grasp of the multifaceted concept of sustainability. While employing the same database and proposed approach, it is essential to note that the numerical outcomes and conclusions may vary due to divergent data processing methods and distinct interpretations of sustainability.

Potential limitations of the proposed approach are the reliance on historical data, the assumption that past failure rates will predict future risks, and the availability of future information for quantifying sustainability risks. The quality, completeness, and relevance of the data used could influence the accuracy of sustainability risk assessment. Additionally, the generalizability of the findings to different pipeline systems or geographical locations might be constrained by the specificity of the data analyzed. Other sustainability elements, such as technology and governance aspects, are not considered in the data analyzed due to a lack of information about these elements and the sustainability of pipeline infrastructure.

Moreover, the proposed quantitative approach might require multidimensional expertise in pipeline operations, sustainability, and data analysis. Quantifying sustainability risks in pipeline infrastructure involves a technical perspective and carefully considering the social, environmental, and economic dimensions. Only through such a complete lens can the outcomes genuinely reflect the intricacies of the sustainability risks involved and pave the way for meaningful and effective sustainability risk mitigation strategies in pipeline infrastructure systems.

Future work will address the limitations and advance the proposed approach outlined in this paper. One direction is to develop an adaptable framework capable of accommodating diverse datasets and facilitating more context-specific risk assessments. This effort accounts for the specificity of data analyzed in different pipeline systems or geographical locations. Another direction to pursue is to expand the scope of sustainability elements, such as integrating technology and governance dimensions into the sustainability risk assessment framework. Initiatives focused on collating relevant information across these dimensions could provide a more holistic perspective, resulting in a refined and all-encompassing sustainability risk assessment. Additionally, the proposed approach will attempt to incorporate forward-looking risk assessments for pipeline infrastructures, where the validation of the risk calculation results will be compared against actual pipeline incident data in a simulation environment.

5.3. Research Implications

The study has several theoretical, practical, and policy implications. These implications revolve around advancing the understanding of sustainability risk, providing practical tools for risk assessment and mitigation, and promoting alignment with global sustainability goals and regulatory frameworks.

• In terms of theoretical implications, this study contributes to a deeper theoretical understanding of how sustainability risks can be quantified in the context of pipeline infrastructure systems. It builds upon established sustainability principles and risk management theories. Additionally, the proposed theoretical framework in this study highlights the importance of integrating social, environmental, and economic dimensions when assessing sustainability risk, reflecting a holistic approach to risk management.
• In terms of practical implications, this study provides a quantitative approach for assessing sustainability risk in pipeline operations. Industry practitioners can apply this methodology to enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of risk assessments. By analyzing real-world data, this study identifies specific causes of pipeline incidents, such as corrosion failure and equipment malfunction. This practical insight can guide maintenance and operational decisions. Additionally, the findings from this study can inform the development of practical risk mitigation strategies tailored to the identified sustainability risks, helping organizations proactively manage and reduce disruptions.
• In terms of policy implications, incorporating SDGs into risk management practices, as proposed in the study, has policy implications by aligning risk mitigation efforts with broader societal and global sustainability objectives. Policymakers and regulators can (1) consider the insights from this study when developing or revising regulations related to pipeline infrastructure with a focus on sustainability and risk management, (2) encourage standardized data reporting practices in the industry to enhance transparency and risk evaluation, and (3) promote interdisciplinary collaboration between engineering, sustainability, data analysis, and policy experts to address the complex nature of sustainability risks in pipeline operations.

6. Conclusions

The study makes a noteworthy stride in quantifying sustainability risk in pipeline systems. This approach seamlessly combines failure probabilities and cumulative consequences across the social, environmental, and economic dimensions, furnishing a holistic framework for the evaluation of pipeline infrastructure. The methodology emphasizes sustainability risk and highlights the intrinsic link between risk assessment and sustainability. The comprehensive risk assessment identifies high-risk areas and emphasizes the significance of targeted risk mitigation strategies. Consequently, the study provides the pipeline stakeholders with valuable insights to make well-informed decisions. It enables them to strategically develop and implement risk management strategies that effectively address and mitigate potential disruptions. The results underscored equipment failure, corrosion failure, and incorrect operation as primary causes of sustainability risk in pipeline incidents. This study also underlines the necessity of data-driven methodologies in safeguarding the sustainability aspect of pipeline infrastructures. The insights gained can guide the decision makers in prioritizing risk mitigation measures, fostering adaptive capacities, and ensuring safe and reliable transportation of essential resources. As pipeline systems evolve within an ever-changing landscape, integrating sustainability risk assessment will remain paramount in shaping a sustainable and secure energy future.