integrity of chocolate cake

In trying to get at the definition of integrity management, I started thinking outside the world of pipelines.  An interesting question comes to mind, how would the PHMSA rules for integrity apply to protecting something precious like my chocolate cake? 

Briefly put, the Gas IM Rule specifies how pipeline operators must identify, prioritize, assess, evaluate, repair and validate – through comprehensive analyses – the integrity of gas transmission pipelines…

PHMSA’s description of the gas rule

Depending on where you go on PHMSA’s site, these steps may be worded differently but conceptually they remain consistent from gas to liquid to facilities to the new distribution rules. I maintain that if this list is a good generic process I should be able to protect my chocolate cake.  What follows is an outline of my integrity program.

Program Elements:

Affected Assets:

Asset ID: Chocolate cake, 42
Asset Type: Point
Positioning: Kitchen counter
Coating: Frosted chocolate w/ sprinkles
Seam type: Pudding
Last Inspection/type: 15 minutes ago/ visual inspection

1) Threat Identification

• Third party:
  • Spousal encroachment
  • Theft by progeny
• Environmental:
  • Water fight at nearby sink
  • Seismic door slam
• Operational:
  • Transporting cake
  • Lighting candles

2) Risk Ranking (likelihood, consequence)

1. Ops: Transporting cake (high, extreme)
2. TP: Theft by progeny (high, high)
3. Ops: Lighting candles (high, med)
4. TP: Spousal encroachment (med, med)
5. Ops: Lighting candles (high, low)
6. Env: Water fight at nearby sink (low, med)

3) Assess for threats, by descending risk

Worst threat is transporting the cake.  For transporting the cake only we’ll perform a visual inspection of the transport path and identify real threats in the area. (We would have a similar set of assessments for each identified risk.  You can see how the complexity of the program balloons in scale as we get closer to the details…)

One question we might ask is does a visual inspection address any other threats?  If we look for spouse or progeny in the area, and confirm that there are none nearby, we can address all third party threats with the same inspection. (But for how long are we safe?)

Visual inspection: Chocolate cake, 42
Threats addressed: Ops: transport, TP: Progeny, TP: Spouse
Inspection results:

1. Water on the floor
2. Complex system of plates, trays, and wrapping
3. Giggling kid just outside the door
4. Tuna sandwich on table, cat on patrol

4) Evaluate threats and determine severity

1. Water on floor – monitor
2. Complex system of plates, trays, and wrapping – mitigate
3. Giggling kid – mitigate immediately
4. Tuna sandwich/cat situation – monitor

5) Repair per evaluation

1. Assess the water situation again in 5 minutes
2. Before transport, remove all but one plate
3. Bribe giggling kid
4. Assess the sandwich and cat during transport

6) Validate

1. Slipped in water – should have cleaned it up
2. Cardboard plate folded during transport
3. Bribed kid with hotdog – not interested, went for discarded wrapping
4. Startled cat jumped on counter, bumping transporter’s arm who slipped on water and dropped cake on kid

Program evaluation:

Cupcakes distribute the risk more evenly.  Next time, do cupcakes.

Happy Thanksgiving!

See ya next time!

– Craig