In this week’s episode of the Pipeliners Podcast, host Russel Treat welcomes guests Mark Piazza and Nikos Salmatanis to explore the importance of establishing a risk-based method for leak detection and response in pipeline operations.
They discuss the complexities of leak detection technologies, existing frameworks like API RP-1175, and the need for a comprehensive risk assessment tool to guide operators in selecting appropriate leak detection methods.
The conversation highlights ongoing industry efforts, including strategic research initiatives by organizations like PRCI and API, to develop standardized approaches that enhance pipeline safety and integrity management.
Developing a Risk Based Approach to Leak Detection and Response Show Notes, Links, and Insider Terms:
- Nikos Salmatanis is the Leak Detection Engineer/Loss of Containment SME at Chevron Technology Company. Connect with Nikos on LinkedIn.
- Mark Piazza is the Senior Policy Advisor at API. Connect with Mark on LinkedIn.
- API (American Petroleum Institute) represents all segments of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Its nearly 600 members produce, process and distribute most of the nation’s energy. The industry supports millions of U.S. jobs and is backed by a growing grassroots movement of millions of Americans. API was formed in 1919 as a standards-setting organization. In its first 100 years, API has developed more than 800 standards to enhance operational and environmental safety, efficiency and sustainability.
- API RP 1188, Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Facilities Integrity Management, is a recommended practice that provides a framework for pipeline operators to develop a comprehensive pipeline facility integrity management program to strengthen efficiencies, prevent incidents, and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- API 1173 established the framework for operators to implement Pipeline Safety Management Systems. The PSMS standard includes 10 core elements. The API Energy Excellence Program followed this model to establish its 13 core elements.
- The PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle) is embedded in Pipeline SMS (API RP 1173) as a continuous quality improvement model consisting of a logical sequence of four repetitive steps for continuous improvement and learning.
- API 1130 defines the requirements for leak detection in pipeline operations. API 1130 is incorporated by reference into the U.S. pipeline regulations in 49 CFR 195.134 and 49 CFR 195.444 for how pipeline operators should design, operate, and maintain their computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) systems.
- API 1175 establishes a framework for Leak Detection Program Management for hazardous liquid pipelines within the jurisdiction of the U.S. DOT (specifically, 49 CFR Part 195). API RP 1175 is specifically designed to provide pipeline operators with a description of industry practices in risk-based pipeline LDP management and to provide the framework to develop sound program management practices within a pipeline operator’s individual companies.
- API RP 1130, Computational Pipeline Monitoring for Liquids, focuses on the design, implementation, testing, and operation of CPM systems that use an algorithmic approach to detect hydraulic anomalies in liquid pipelines. The primary purpose of these systems is to provide tools that assist Pipeline Controllers in detecting commodity releases that are within the sensitivity of an algorithm.
- The PRCI (Pipeline Research Council International) is the preeminent global collaborative research development organization of, by, and for the energy pipeline industry.
- Pipeline SMS (Pipeline Safety Management Systems) or PSMS is an industry-wide focus to improve pipeline safety, driving toward zero incidents.
- The functional risk assessment is made according to the method- Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The Overall Risk resulting from the Risk Assessment has identified all potential failures requiring mitigating actions/controls.
- PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) is the federal agency within USDOT responsible for providing pipeline safety oversight through regulatory rulemaking, NTSB recommendations, and other important functions to protect people and the environment through the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials.
- Valve and Rupture Rule establishes requirements for rupture-mitigation valves, such as spacing, maintenance and inspection, and risk analysis. The final rule also requires operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to contact 9-1-1 emergency call centers immediately upon notification of a potential rupture and conduct post-rupture investigations and reviews.
- 49 CFR 195 is minimum safety requirements for pipeline facilities and the transportation of hazardous liquids by PHMSA-regulated pipeline.
- Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) is the process by which oil and gas, chemical, and/or petrochemical equipment is monitored for the location and volume of unintended leaks
- The PRCI (Pipeline Research Council International) is the preeminent global collaborative research organization of, by, and for the energy pipeline industry.
Developing a Risk Based Approach to Leak Detection and Response Full Episode Transcript:
Russel Treat: Welcome to the “Pipeliners Podcast,” “Episode 324,” sponsored by EnerSys Corporation, providers of POEMS, the Pipeline Operations Excellence Management System. Compliance and operations software for the pipeline control center to address control room management, SCADA, and audit readiness. Find out more about POEMS at enersyscorp.com.
[background music]
Announcer: The Pipeliners Podcast, where professionals, Bubba geeks, and industry insiders share their knowledge and experience about technology, projects, and pipeline operations. Now, your host, Russel Treat.
Russel: Thanks for listening to the Pipeliners Podcast. I appreciate you taking the time. To show the appreciation, we give away a customized YETI tumbler to one listener every episode. This week, our winner is Ryan Link with TC Energy. To learn how you can win this signature prize, stick around till the end of the episode.
This week, our guests are Mark Piazza and Nikos Salmatanis. We’re going to talk about the need and approach for establishing a risk-based method for leak detection and response.
Mark, Niko, welcome to the Pipeliners Podcast.
Nikos Salmatanis: Hey, thank you, Russel. This is Nikos Salmatanis. I appreciate being able to support you and Mark Piazza here from API.
Mark Piazza: Thanks, Russel, always a treat. Can I start it off with a corny line?
[laughter]
Russel: Yes, you can.
[crosstalk]
Russel: You’re now officially the second person to do that. I’m hoping that does not become a trend. [laughs]
Mark: I will say I did not hear the prior one, so I’m not stealing anybody’s…
[crosstalk]
Russel: That gives me junior high flashbacks, so let’s not go there. [laughs]
Mark: Thanks again for the invite. For those who are listening on the podcast, Mark Piazza with API. I’m a senior policy advisor working with our pipeline team, and addressing a lot of the issues that API is working on that relate to leak detection.
Russel: Perfect. Mark, can you tell us a little bit about your background, how you ended up in your current role?
Mark: Sure, Russel. It’s not really convoluted, but numerous roles within the industry. Started out in environmental work early in my career. Did environmental work for about 20 years. That led me to a position with a pipeline operating company doing their environmental program, managing their environmental program.
From there, took a position with Pipeline Research Council. I was there for about six and a half years. Then, assumed a role, again, for an operating company as the integrity management program manager. Then, moved from there to regulatory compliance, and most recently have joined API, sorry.
Been there a little over two years and enjoying the work at API, helping develop these industry standards. Help driving continuous improvement, implementing safety management systems, and all the things that we do at API to promote safety and integrity management.
Russel: Niko, the same question for you. People in leak detection recognize your name, but those of us that work in other domains might not know you or your background. Tell us a little bit about you, what you do, who you work for, all that.
Nikos: Sure. Thank you, Russel. I’m a graduate from the University of Houston, chemical engineer here.
I’ve been at Chevron for a little bit over 23, almost 24 years. Been doing leak detection that entire time. Prior to my role of doing leak detection here at Chevron, I’d worked for various different suppliers per se. Cybersecurity, SCADA automation, and what have you?
Wholeheartedly, it’s always been about this operational technology. Basically, operationalizing the technology space. It’s great to be able to continue to do that in the leak detection space, and all the variants that it entails.
Along the way, you have to study up on regulations and different standards and recommended practices, and what have you? I guess that goes without saying over those years. That’s a little bit about me.
Russel: 24 years of doing leak detection. I suspect we can talk about doing Fortran programming, and other kinds of arcane, ancient technologies that were probably what you were doing when you first started in the business.
Nikos: Definitely. 70, or Fortran 70. I got my first computer when I was five.
Russel: [laughs] Awesome. I asked you guys to come on and talk about what’s going on with developing a risk-based approach to leak mitigation. Particularly, to talk a little bit about the recent PRCI…What’s going on around PRCI and strategic research in this domain? Can you guys tell us about what’s going on there, and why you think it’s important?
Mark: Sure. I’ll start, Russel. The strategic research priorities that are being driven through PRCI research, like many programs in PRCI, the work on leak detection had been going on for many years, probably, even decades, but always focused on continuous improvement. The industry capabilities are getting better and better regarding leak detection.
It was about five years ago, or maybe even longer, that there was a realization that we were spread very thin doing many things. That led itself to the pace of completing research on significant industry issues being slower than we think we needed.
We were looking to enhance the progress, enhance the deliverables, and address strategic issues that are industrywide that you could argue every operator has to deal with, and push those forward. Like I said, a lot of this research have been going on for many years, if not decades.
The idea with the SRPs was, “Let’s take these research topics that we have been addressing for a long time and making progress on, but let’s push them over the finish line. Let’s get the right subject matter experts in the room. Let’s get the organization to commit funding as an organization versus individual operators funding projects.”
The concept was, “Let’s hit the big issues. Let’s drive them over the finish line. Let’s use that research to feed into recommended practices, industry standards, and change the paradigm for those things that we felt are truly strategic across the industry.”
There were processes developed within PRCI to look at, “What are those priorities? How do we use criteria and factors to consider in rating one above another?” Those processes were developed. We still use those in assessing strategic research priorities, but leak detection did rise to the top of the pile. We are now underway and pursuing the program through PRCI.
Russel: Gotcha. What kind of…? I’m stuttering a little bit because I don’t know how to frame this question.
What I’m trying to drive at is there’s an existing framework in 1175 around leak detection program management, but that’s not necessarily a risk framework per se. What do you think needs to happen to get to a risk framework? Do I even have that framed correctly? I might not even have that framed correctly.
Nikos: Russel, Nikos here, 1175 is a leak detection program. Programmatic approach or framework document on that program. Risk is part of that program. Now, it’s not a full-blown, “I’ll tell you exactly the likelihood consequence, and take you down those paths.” There’s a section or two about it.
At the end of the day, if you take a step back, when you look at many of the objectives of API RP-1175, it is a risk-based approach. How you choose your leak detection technology and method, how you apply it, how you test it, how you integrate it into your operations, all those different things are risk-based.
One of the things on the very front end of that framework is looking at the consequence. At the end of the day, when you look at a bow tie and integrity management, while prevention is the bigger piece right there on the left-hand side, the mitigation is that right-hand side, the first line of defense is leak detection.
Russel: Right. The quicker you can find a leak, the quicker you can locate a leak, the quicker you can stop the leak and clean it up.
Nikos: That’s right.
Russel: That sounds easy, but it’s not. There’s a lot that goes into that.
Nikos: That’s right. The framework lays out some objectives on what goes into that from a programmatic approach.
Russel: One of the things that I find interesting about this conversation, and one of the things that I think is needed by the industry is we got to get into the nitty-gritty details around all of this.
Understand that a leak on this size pipeline at this pressure with this product and this location has this kind of consequence. As a result, this type of leak detection which has this kind of cost is the right kind of thing to use in this situation. That is super complex when you start looking at all the factors that go into things.
What I wanted to dig into is, what’s the reality of that? What does the industry have to do to start getting value around that kind of analysis?
Nikos: No, I agree with you, Russel. The selection tool — that’s a little bit of this podcast, and teeing it up how Mark did — is, if we peel back the layers of the onion there on the selection of the technology, and how you apply that and why you apply it, there’s probably a recommended practice there or something there that could be extenuated, too.
There’s a lot of great public documents out there. Let’s go with the first one, CFR 195.452 I3. At the end of the day, you got to evaluate your means, your leak detection means. It advocates a leak detection capability evaluation. There’s FAQs associated with that.
There’s already even some framework there in the Code of Regulations. There’s 1130 and 1175. They give you some insight into that as well. You have some other API documents like 1160 on pipeline integrity management, and gives you some insight into that.
There’s some research documents out there from Kiefner and C-FER and GTI on selection of various different leak detection technologies both for liquids and gas. At the end of the day, your point’s well taken that maybe there’s an opportunity to culminate all those different and various documents and frameworks into a common tool.
Mark: Russel, I’ll add to that. I agree with you that it can get very complex. It can get very complex. There’s a lot of parameters, a lot of factors. They vary for each operating system within a company, and across different companies.
There are a lot of guidance documents, a lot of research documents. We understand the key parameters. This idea of developing a risk tool that provides a common framework for the industry is…That’s the idea.
Let’s take all of these disparate documents that fundamentally address similar issues, put those together. At least use those as the basis for, what are the parameters we would want to evaluate in assessing the risk of one pipeline segment versus another?
That’s looking at all the things you mentioned. Leak history, operating pressures, pipe grades, type of seam, all those factors, they’re very important in the evaluation of going through that process.
The concept here is let’s leverage what we know. As I mentioned earlier, we’ve been doing this for decades. Let’s leverage what we know. Let’s get a room of really smart people, get a lot of those smart people in a room. Let’s walk through what those key parameters are.
Not everybody’s going to have every parameter. We have to make it scalable, flexible for different operators. Again, put together a common framework that would allow operators, frankly, to do sensitivity analysis, to do risk management.
Russel: One of the things about leak detection — and you guys know that I’ve done work in this domain — is the level of knowledge that’s required.
The number of different things you have to have a grasp of between SCADA, leak detection algorithms, CPM, imagery, image analysis. The various kinds of methods for detecting that are non-CPM, but other methods of direct detection. Understanding that the breadth of that knowledge, it takes 20, 30 years to get there.
That’s one of the reasons that some kind of tool is so important. For operators that don’t have super deep or that don’t have the resources, having a tool that allows them to walk through that decision-making is important. The industry needs it as much as anything else.
Mark: Agreed, Russel. The concept of this risk tool, it’s been talked about quite a bit both within PRCI, but also API and LEPA. Every three years, API and LEPA put together a Pipeline Excellence Strategic Plan.
One of the elements in the 2023 to 2025 Strategic Plan is enhancing leak detection capabilities. A specific key objective and activity that we want to complete through that plan was, in fact, this preparing and implementing a leak detection program risk assessment tool.
Recognizing that this will advance the industry, and, again — this is liquids-focused — give liquid pipeline operators that common platform. Helps to benchmark even performance against the rest of the industry.
That’s one of the primary reasons that, from API’s perspective, we believe this is an important effort. We want to put some momentum behind this with all the stakeholders involved. Ultimately, we want this to be something that will have a broad uptake across the industry.
Russel: How do you go about making that happen? [laughs] That’s the million-dollar question right there.
Nikos: [laughs] The way, Russel, Mark stated at the very beginning, the strategic research through PRCI. That seems to be a great framework that could be leveraged in the industry. It looks like there’s a lot of commonality with what API and LEPA, and a lot of the industry members want to do.
As Mark said, the projects that are in the PRCI strategic research plan, those are the ones that rose to the top from the industry operators. One of those projects is a leak detection selection risk-based tool, so to speak. I’m lost for words on what idea number that is, Mark, but I know it’s one of them there.
Russel: We can look that up, and put that into the show notes as a reference.
Mark: I’d like to add, Russel, in addition to…The API-LEPA, as I mentioned, it’s focused on liquids pipelines. This risk-based tool, we are driving, as Nikos said, through the PRCI leak detection SRP.
We’re committing the resources to help support that effort, but the SRP goes beyond just liquids. It also looks at gas. Now, we’re dealing with the low-carbon energy sources. There’s a lot of discussion on leak detection capabilities for hydrogen and CO2.
You ask how we do this. That’s going to be a work in progress. It won’t be easy, but I’m sure we can get it done. All those factors to consider, criteria to evaluate, and they can vary across the types of products that you’re moving through your system. Those are big issues we’ll have to discuss as we develop this tool.
We have a great foundation on the liquids side based on all the RPS that are out there, and other documents that provide that risk-based framework. It’s a matter of, again, like you said, we’re going to have to dig into the details of how you actually get that done and build an effective tool.
Russel: I agree, there’s a ton of very good information that’s already out there. Assembling all that into a single framework is a non-trivial task.
Nikos: No disagreement there, Russel, if you think about all the various risk tools out there on the market, both commercially and from consultancy or supplier. Then, how much depth and breadth you need to configure one or make one run, or even understand what the outcome of it is. Can it be repeatable?
In and of itself is a bit challenging. To take on something like this for industry, and have commonality from operator to operator, and to be able to somewhat have the same kind of report or result that’s cohesive, that’s a challenge. The holy grail per se.
Russel: It’s complicated enough if you just focus on one thing. “I’m just going to focus on crude oil pipelines.” If you focus on that one thing to narrow the scope, it’s still radically complicated. [laughs] The minute you start throwing in other kinds of fluids, same thing. “We’re going to focus on crude oil transmission, but I need to do crude oil gathering.”
There’s so many permutations of the requirements set that…It’s a big task, but the right place to start is PRCI does great work. They have the ability to bring all the right kind of heads into the room. That’s a good place to start, for sure.
Mark: Russel, to add on to that, talking about the good heads in the room, we’ve also got some starting points, some information that we can utilize. A couple of months ago, in November, API sponsored a workshop on developing KPIs, the performance measures for leak detection systems, which will be input into this risk tool.
We had 100-plus people in the room working this issue from all across different areas of pipeline operation. We had compliance. We had integrity management. We had people who do cybernetics. We have people who specifically focus on leak detection.
Great input, great interaction amongst all the members who participated. That’ll be one of the primary pieces of information that we can use. Again, having the right people in the room, the bright minds, the people who do this every day who can help us establish what that foundation, what that framework needs to look like.
Russel: Certainly, that’s one of the things that API brings to the table that’s super important. You have such a broad reach within the industry, and you have so many connections. You’re the place that houses all the standards. API has to be a part of this, you have to be.
Mark: More than 800 standards. There’s plenty out there.
Russel: I think I’m familiar with 30 of them. That’s probably a lie because you can’t be familiar with 30 API standards. You can be familiar with maybe five or six. Intimately familiar, I mean.
Nikos: On my next podcast, I’ll expect you to be up to 35. We have a treat for you.
Russel: [laughs] There you go, there you go. For operators that want to get involved in this project and program, what do they need to do?
Nikos: From an operator perspective, there’s probably two avenues. One is, first and foremost, the API-LEPA leak detection sub-team reached out to Mark Piazza. There’s more than enough opportunity to volunteer and get on board. They have five different workgroups that are going on right now with a very set objective to get done this year.
Then, corollary, a lot of that work is then being streamlined already with the PRCI SRP. It’s not a secret that the PRCI SRP slate of projects happenstance are the same kind of projects and objectives that are lining up with API-LEPA.
Why do two different efforts? Well, we kill two birds with one stone there. There’s opportunity to get involved both on the PRCI front as well as the API front. I don’t know. Anything else to add there?
Mark: No, I think you’ve captured it. I would say, Russel, that we have a partnership with PRCI. We always want to bring the research results to support standards development, and hopefully lead the regulation. That’s the three steps in the process that we look to work with PRCI on, and then the regulators on the backend.
The leak detection sub-team, the API-LEPA leak detection sub-team, is very involved in the API-PRCI work. Sorry, I’m getting my acronyms mixed. That connection is very important. We are working with them to ensure that the strategic objectives of the liquids industry through this strategic plan are being worked through the leak detection SRP.
They are important. There are issues we want to drive forward. PRCI is our partner. Leveraging that relationship is going to help us move the needle and get these things moving quickly, get them completed, and give the industry the tools they need to improve their leak detection capability.
Russel: For the listeners that are interested in this, they can go to the pipelinepodcastnetwork.com website. Find and look up this episode. We always put all these kind of resources. We always link all this stuff up. Trying to do a Google search sometimes won’t get you exactly the place you need to go.
Nikos: Thank you, Russel. One other thing to add is we don’t turn down volunteerism. It’s great to have people interested with expertise to help develop these programs, and make them the best they can be.
Russel: Absolutely. Any final comments, or do you think this has covered it?
Nikos: No, I think we’ve covered it. The one final comment I would say is that if a pipeline operator is not part of API or PRCI membership but yet still wants to volunteer, I’m not sure what that avenue is. Ultimately, the easiest avenue would be to reach out to Mark.
Russel: Absolutely.
Mark: No, Russel, again, appreciate the time. Nothing to add other than, as you stated, it’s a challenging issue. We get better and better every day, continuous improvement, safety management systems, applying recommended practices. With the right representation helping us get this done, we’ll be successful despite that challenge.
Russel: I would add, too, my two cents is that this is needed and done well. It has the opportunity to transform how we think about operating a pipeline.
When you start getting into a risk-based approach to leak mitigation, you can’t do that without touching a whole bunch of things. It has the opportunity to transform and provide a lot of value to how we do pipeline safety.
This is great. I appreciate you guys taking the time to come on and talk about it. We’ll definitely get you to review the show notes, and make sure all the right resources have been linked up.
Mark: Thanks.
Nikos: Thank you, Russel, pleasure.
Russel: I hope you enjoyed this week’s episode of the Pipeliners Podcast and our conversation with Mark and Niko. A reminder before you go, you should register to win our customized Pipeliners Podcast YETI tumbler. Visit pipelinepodcastnetwork.com/win, and enter yourself in the drawing.
If you’d like to support us, best way to do that is to leave a review. You can do that on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify, wherever you listen. You can find instructions at pipelinepodcastnetwork.com.
[background music]
Russel: If you have ideas, questions, or topics you’d be interested in hearing about, please let me know on the Contact Us page at pipelinepodcastnetwork.com, or reach out to me on LinkedIn. Thanks for listening. I’ll talk to you next week.
[music]