Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
API RP 1160-2013: Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines – A Comprehensive Technical Overview
Understanding the scope, technical requirements, and compliance strategies of API’s recommended practice for pipeline integrity management.
API RP 1160-2013, titled Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, is a recommended practice published by the American Petroleum Institute (API). It provides a comprehensive framework for operators of hazardous liquid pipelines to develop, implement, and continuously improve integrity management programs. This article offers a detailed technical overview of the standard, covering its scope, core technical requirements, implementation considerations, and compliance notes.
Scope and Applicability
API RP 1160-2013 applies to onshore hazardous liquid pipelines that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gases (LPG), anhydrous ammonia, and other non-gas hazardous liquids. It is intended for pipeline systems used in gathering, transmission, and distribution services. The standard is applicable to both existing pipelines and the design of new pipelines, though its primary focus is on the operational phase of pipeline integrity management.
The recommended practice outlines a systematic approach to identify, assess, and manage risks to ensure the safe and reliable operation of pipeline systems. It aligns with regulatory requirements such as the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 49 CFR Part 195 and provides a basis for voluntary industry best practices beyond minimum compliance.
Key Insight: API RP 1160-2013 is a living document that emphasizes a continuous improvement cycle (plan-do-check-act) for pipeline integrity management. Operators are encouraged to tailor the framework to their specific system characteristics and risk profiles.
Technical Requirements
Integrity Management Program Elements
The standard defines the essential components of an integrity management program (IMP). These include:
- Risk Assessment: Systematic evaluation of threats (e.g., corrosion, third-party damage, manufacturing defects, ground movement) and consequences to determine high-consequence areas (HCAs) and prioritized actions.
- Integrity Assessment: Periodic inspection or testing using methods such as in-line inspection (ILI), hydrostatic pressure testing, or direct assessment (DA). The choice depends on threat type, pipeline characteristics, and feasibility.
- Prevention and Mitigation: Measures to reduce the likelihood of failure (e.g., cathodic protection, damage prevention programs, leak detection) and to mitigate consequences (e.g., emergency response planning, automatic shut-off valves).
- Performance Monitoring and Improvement: Tracking key performance indicators (KPIs) and incorporating lessons learned from failures, near-misses, and assessment results.
Risk Assessment and Threat Identification
API RP 1160-2013 provides guidance on qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative risk assessment approaches. It categorizes threats into time-dependent (e.g., corrosion), stable (e.g., manufacturing defects), and time-independent (e.g., third-party damage). Operators must identify all credible threats for each segment of the pipeline and evaluate their likelihood and consequence. The risk assessment must be documented and updated at least every five years, or more frequently if significant changes occur.
Integrity Assessment Methods
The standard specifies the use of recognized assessment techniques and their applicability to different threats:
| Assessment Method | Primary Threats Addressed | Typical Application |
|---|---|---|
| In-Line Inspection (ILI) | Metal loss, cracking, denting, wall thickness anomalies | Gas and liquid pipelines; requires pigging capability |
| Hydrostatic Pressure Testing | Strength defects, leak paths, manufacturing flaws | New pipelines, integrity reassessment at intervals |
| Direct Assessment (DA) | External corrosion, internal corrosion (if applicable) | Unpiggable pipelines; uses close-interval survey, dig verification |
| Guided Wave Ultrasonic (GWUT) | Corrosion under pipe supports, inaccessible sections | Aboveground or buried piperacks |
Operators must select the appropriate method(s) based on threat analysis, pipeline design, and operational constraints. The standard also requires that assessments be conducted at intervals not exceeding the risk-based reassessment interval, typically 5–7 years for ILI and 5–10 years for hydrotest.
Data Management and Integration
API RP 1160-2013 emphasizes the importance of integrating data from design, construction, operations, maintenance, and inspections. A robust data management system is essential to support risk analyses, track anomalies, and demonstrate compliance. The standard recommends using geographic information systems (GIS) to link integrity data with location-specific information such as HCAs and environmental sensitivity.
Important Consideration: Inadequate data integration is one of the most common deficiencies found during regulator audits. Operators must ensure that data from different sources (e.g., ILI vendors, cathodic protection surveys, soil resistivity) are harmonized and accessible for risk-based decision making.
Implementation Highlights
Implementing API RP 1160-2013 typically involves a phased approach:
- Gap Analysis: Compare existing practices against the standard’s requirements to identify deficiencies.
- Program Development: Tailor the integrity management framework to the pipeline system, including risk assessment models, assessment schedules, and prevention programs.
- Pilot Implementation: Test the program on a portion of the pipeline to refine procedures and validate methods.
- Full Rollout and Training: Train personnel on the IMP and deploy across the entire system.
- Continuous Improvement: Monitor KPIs, conduct management reviews, and update the program as new threats emerge or technology advances.
The standard encourages operators to seek third-party certification of their integrity management program to demonstrate conformance and improve stakeholder confidence.
Best Practice: Many operators integrate API RP 1160-2013 with other management system standards such as ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 to streamline processes and reduce duplication. This integrated approach can lead to greater efficiency and more robust risk management.
Compliance Notes
While API RP 1160-2013 is a voluntary consensus standard, it is widely referenced by regulatory bodies. In the United States, PHMSA’s integrity management regulations (49 CFR Part 195) for hazardous liquid pipelines incorporate many of the same elements as API RP 1160. Operators that fully implement the recommended practice are generally well-positioned to meet regulatory compliance.
Key compliance points include:
- Documentation: The IMP must be documented in a written procedure, and all assessments, decisions, and rationales must be retained.
- Audit Preparedness: Regulators and third-party auditors will review evidence of threat identification, risk assessment, assessment schedules, and execution of preventive actions.
- Management of Change (MOC): Changes in pipeline configuration, throughput, product type, or regulatory requirements must trigger a review of the IMP.
- Reporting of Failures: Integrity-related failures must be evaluated to determine root cause and to adjust the IMP as necessary.
It is important to note that API RP 1160-2013 does not replace regulatory requirements; rather, it provides a technical basis for achieving compliance. Operators should always verify which edition is recognized in their jurisdiction, as some regions may adopt earlier or later revisions.
Non-Compliance Risk: Failure to follow the principles of API RP 1160 can expose an operator to increased safety hazards, environmental liability, civil penalties, and loss of public trust. In jurisdictions where the standard is incorporated by law, non-compliance may lead to enforcement actions, fines, or shutdown orders.
API RP 1160-2013 is a critical resource for any pipeline operator committed to safety and reliability. Its systematic framework for integrity management helps organizations minimize failures, protect the environment, and extend the operational life of pipeline assets. Continuous updates—such as the ongoing work toward the next edition—reflect the evolving nature of pipeline threats and assessment technologies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is API RP 1160-2013 mandatory or voluntary?
A: API RP 1160 is a voluntary consensus standard. However, many of its provisions are adopted by reference in regulatory requirements such as the U.S. PHMSA Part 195. Operators may choose to implement it to demonstrate due diligence and to achieve regulatory compliance more efficiently. In some countries, it may be considered a recognized industry practice that courts reference in liability cases.
A: API RP 1160 is a voluntary consensus standard. However, many of its provisions are adopted by reference in regulatory requirements such as the U.S. PHMSA Part 195. Operators may choose to implement it to demonstrate due diligence and to achieve regulatory compliance more efficiently. In some countries, it may be considered a recognized industry practice that courts reference in liability cases.
Q: How often should a pipeline integrity assessment be performed under API RP 1160-2013?
A: The standard recommends that the reassessment interval be determined through a risk-based analysis. Typical reassessment periods are 5 years for ILI (or magnetic flux leakage/ultrasonic tools) in high-consequence areas and up to 10 years for hydrostatic testing, provided the pipeline has a stable threat profile. Direct assessment intervals vary but generally every 5–7 years. The operator must document the rationale for the chosen interval.
A: The standard recommends that the reassessment interval be determined through a risk-based analysis. Typical reassessment periods are 5 years for ILI (or magnetic flux leakage/ultrasonic tools) in high-consequence areas and up to 10 years for hydrostatic testing, provided the pipeline has a stable threat profile. Direct assessment intervals vary but generally every 5–7 years. The operator must document the rationale for the chosen interval.
Q: Can API RP 1160 be applied to pipelines that are not piggable?
A: Yes. The standard provides guidance for unpiggable pipelines, recommending alternative assessment methods such as direct assessment (for external corrosion), guided wave ultrasonic testing, or hydrostatic testing. The operator must develop a technically justified integrity assessment plan that adequately addresses the threats for such pipelines.
A: Yes. The standard provides guidance for unpiggable pipelines, recommending alternative assessment methods such as direct assessment (for external corrosion), guided wave ultrasonic testing, or hydrostatic testing. The operator must develop a technically justified integrity assessment plan that adequately addresses the threats for such pipelines.
Q: What is the difference between API RP 1160 and ASME B31.8S?
A: API RP 1160 specifically addresses hazardous liquid pipelines, while ASME B31.8S focuses on gas transmission and distribution pipelines. Both follow a similar risk-based integrity management framework but differ in threat identification, assessment methods, and regulatory alignment. API RP 1160 emphasizes liquid-specific issues such as product releases, leak detection, and cathodic protection.
A: API RP 1160 specifically addresses hazardous liquid pipelines, while ASME B31.8S focuses on gas transmission and distribution pipelines. Both follow a similar risk-based integrity management framework but differ in threat identification, assessment methods, and regulatory alignment. API RP 1160 emphasizes liquid-specific issues such as product releases, leak detection, and cathodic protection.
This article is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal or engineering advice. For authoritative implementation, refer to the latest edition of API RP 1160 and applicable jurisdictional regulations.
© 2026 Technical Standards Review. All rights reserved.