Pipeline Leak Detection— Program Management

API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1175 FIRST EDITION, DECEMBER 2015

ERRATA: MARCH 2017

2-YEAR EXTENSION: JULY 2020

Date of Issue: 24 March 2017

Affected Publication: API RP 1175, Pipeline Leak Detection–Program Management, First Edition, December 2015

ERRATA

Page 55, Section 14 should read:

14 Management of Change (MOC)

Pipeline operators shall apply their formal MOC process as required in 49 CFR Part 195.446(f). The MOC process should include the requirements of API 1167, Section 14 and API 1160, Section 13. The requirements of the two API documents may be tailored to accommodate the unique aspects of LDSs.

Changes to any aspects of LDSs (technical, physical, procedural, and organizational) should follow the pipeline operator's formal MOC process.

Special Notes

API publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to particular circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed.

Neither API nor any of API’s employees, subcontractors, consultants, committees, or other assignees make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained herein, or assume any liability or responsibility for any use, or the results of such use, of any information or process disclosed in this publication. Neither API nor any of API's employees, subcontractors, consultants, or other assignees represent that use of this publication would not infringe upon privately owned rights.

API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; however, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with this publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting from its use or for the violation of any authorities having jurisdiction with which this publication may conflict.

API publications are published to facilitate the broad availability of proven, sound engineering and operating practices. These publications are not intended to obviate the need for applying sound engineering judgment regarding when and where these publications should be utilized. The formulation and publication of API publications is not intended in any way to inhibit anyone from using any other practices.

Any manufacturer marking equipment or materials in conformance with the marking requirements of an API standard is solely responsible for complying with all the applicable requirements of that standard. API does not represent, warrant, or guarantee that such products do in fact conform to the applicable API standard.

Users of this Recommended Practice should not rely exclusively on the information contained in this document. Sound business, scientific, engineering, and safety judgment should be used in employing the information contained herein.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Contact the Publisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.

Copyright © 2015 American Petroleum Institute

Foreword

Nothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters patent. Neither should anything contained in the publication be construed as insuring anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent.

Shall: As used in a standard, “shall” denotes a minimum requirement in order to conform to the specification.

Should: As used in a standard, “should” denotes a recommendation or that which is advised but not required in order to conform to the specification.

This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appropriate notification and participation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. Questions concerning the interpretation of the content of this publication or comments and questions concerning the procedures under which this publication was developed should be directed in writing to the Director of Standards, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Requests for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of the material published herein should also be addressed to the director.

Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn at least every five years. A one-time extension of up to two years may be added to this review cycle. Status of the publication can be ascertained from the API Standards Department, telephone (202) 682-8000. A catalog of API publications and materials is published annually by API, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.

Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the Standards Department, API, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, standards@api.org.

iii

1. Scope 1

2. Normative References 1

3. Terms, Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 1

   1. Terms and Definitions 1

   2. Acronyms and Abbreviations 5

4. Leak Detection Program 6

5. Leak Detection Culture and Strategy 7

   1. Leak Detection Culture 7

   2. Leak Detection Strategy 9

6. Selection of Leak Detection Methods 13

   1. Selection Process Overview 13

   2. Risk Assessment 13

   3. Incorporating Regulatory Requirements and RPs 16

   4. Leak Detection Strategy Requirements 18

   5. List and Classification of LDSs 19

   6. Evaluating and Selecting Suitable Technologies 20

   7. Modifying Selection for Particular Requirements of Individual Pipelines 21

   8. Periodic Review of Selection 21

7. Performance Targets, Metrics, and KPIs 22

   1. General 22

   2. Performance Metrics and Key Performance Indicators 22

   3. Performance Targets 25

8. Testing 28

9. Control Center Procedures for Recognition and Response 28

   1. Overview of Procedures 28

   2. Recognition of a Leak 29

   3. Analysis of a Leak Indication 29

   4. Response to a Leak Indication 30

   5. Validating the Leak Indication 32

   6. Reporting and Documentation 33

   7. Pipeline Restart 34

10. Alarm Management 34

    1. Alarm Management Purpose 34

    2. Data Collection 35

    3. Categorization 35

    4. Alarm Review 36

    5. Threshold Setting 39

    6. Tuning 41

11. Roles, Responsibilities, and Training 42

    1. Roles and Responsibilities 42

    2. Training 42

12. Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) for Leak Detection Equipment 46

    1. Maintenance Overview 46

       v

       
       

    2. RCM Process 46

    3. Leak Detection Component Identification 47

    4. Design 47

    5. Maintenance Tracking and Scheduling 49

13. Overall Performance Evaluation of the LDP 49

    1. Purpose and KPIs 49

    2. Internal Review 50

    3. External Review 50

    4. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 51

    5. Periodic Reporting 51

    6. Leading and Lagging Indicators 52

14. Management of Change (MOC) 55

15. Improvement Process 55

    1. Overview of Improvement Process 55

    2. Identifying and Defining Opportunities 56

    3. Initiating and Monitoring the Improvement Process 57

Annex A (informative) Risk Assessment 59

Annex B (informative) Developing a List of Selection Criteria 63

Annex C (informative) Factors Affecting Performance 67

Annex D (informative) Example of Performance Metrics and Targets 68

Annex E (informative) Roles in the Use of the LDSs 70

Annex F (informative) Example Training Program 74

Bibliography 83

Figures

1. Leak Detection Program Flow Diagram 8

2. Mitigating Risk with Leak Detection 16

3. Levels of Process Safety (similar to API RP 754) 53

C.1 Effects of Uncertainty Types 67

Tables

1. Visualization of an Example LDP 18

2. List and Classification of LDSs 19

3. Alarm Category Table 36

4. RACI Chart 43

5. Role and Content of Training 44

6. Level 1 KPIs 53

7. Level 2 KPIs 54

8. Level 3 KPIs 54

9. Level 4 KPIs 55

1. Consequence Factors 59

2. Likelihood Factors 60

3. Preventative Factors 61

4. IMP Factors 62

1. LDS Features 63

2. Types of Leak Monitoring 66

3. Types of Surveillance 66

4. Monitoring Performance Indicators 66

D.1 Example Performance Metric/Target Table 69

1. Other Commonly Used Names for Pipeline Controllers 70

2. Other Commonly Used Names for Leak Detection Analysts 70

3. Other Commonly Used Names for Leak Detection Engineers 71

4. Other Commonly Used Names for Control Center Staff 71

5. Other Commonly Used Names for Field Operations Staff 72

6. Other Commonly Used Names for IT Staff 72

7. Other Commonly Used Names for Trainers 72

8. Other Commonly Used Names for Management 72

9. Other Commonly Used Names for Leak Detection Support Staff 73

10. Commonly Used Names for Other Stakeholders 73

1. Roles and Level of Training 74

2. Roles and Methods of Training 80

0 Introduction

Background

The general public, Congress, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) have a high level of interest in the subject of pipeline leak detection. PHMSA has been exploring issues involving leak detection program (LDP) effectiveness for a number of years, including through proposed rulemaking. Recent Congressional mandates and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations are attempts to address gaps in LDPs. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 required the Secretary of Transportation to analyze technical, operational, and economic feasibility aspects on LDPs used by pipeline operators of hazardous liquid pipeline facilities and transportation-related flow lines. The Act also required a report to Congress and the issuance of rulemaking, if practical to do so. Along with this Recommended Practice (RP), PHMSA is working to address a leak detection related recommendation for natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines, as prompted by the NTSB. PHMSA has taken a number of initiatives to help address the congressional mandate and NTSB recommendation including sponsoring a public workshop on improving the effectiveness of LDPs in 2012, coordinating research and development forums and related solicitations in 2012 and 2014, and commissioning an independent study on leak detection in 2012.

PHMSA has communicated with industry on potential measures to further address leak detection effectiveness through related standards and asked the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL) for comment on whether expanding the existing API 1130, Computational Pipeline Monitoring for Liquids, or creating a new guidance document are viable options for addressing concerns of congressional mandates. In a joint response to PHMSA, API and AOPL chose the latter as the best approach to improve safety and made a commitment to develop this new RP for Pipeline LDP Management.

This pipeline LDP management Recommended Practice (RP) provides guidance to pipeline operators of hazardous liquid pipeline systems regarding a risk-based pipeline LDP management process.

This RP 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. It is important that pipeline operators understand system vulnerabilities, risks, and program management best practices when reviewing a pipeline LDP management process either for a new program or for possible system improvements.

It is recognized that this RP creates new requirements and practices that may take time to fully implement.

Objectives

This RP is written to provide guidance to pipeline operators for developing and maintaining management of pipeline LDPs. The elements of this RP are written to conform to current pipeline regulations and to encourage pipeline operators to “go beyond” and, in so doing, to promote the advancement or stronger utilization of LDPs in hazardous liquid pipelines.

This RP is intended to be used in conjunction with other industry-specified documents.

This RP builds on and augments existing requirements and is not intended to duplicate requirements of any other consensus standards or regulations.

While API 1175 is based on industry best practices, each pipeline operator is expected to tailor their LDP to their particular requirements.

vi

The goal of an operator is to operate their pipelines safely and reliably so that there are no adverse effects on the public, employees, the environment, or the pipeline assets. This pipeline LDP management RP aids in this primary goal by the following.

• Providing hazardous liquid pipeline operators with guidance on development, implementation, and management of a sustainable LDP to minimize the size and consequences of leak events.

  
  

• Providing pipeline operators with enhanced guidance on selection of leak detection systems (LDSs) using a risk- based approach and on establishing performance measures for the capabilities of LDSs unique to each pipeline to meet or exceed the requirements of 49 CFR Part 195, such as in 195.452(i)(3), pertaining to leak detection related preventive and mitigative measures a pipeline operator shall take to protect a sensitive area (SA).

  
  

• Addressing identified gaps and incorporating guidance into a comprehensive program document.

  
  

  The LDP decisions rely on a thorough assessment and analysis of risk and threats as they apply to leak detection and should integrate with the pipeline operator’s acceptable risk level. An LDP may reduce the consequence of a leak and contribute to the development from a “thinking to knowing” leak detection culture.

  
  

  The sections of this RP do not include the following:

  
  

• detailed technical design of LDSs (as this is pipeline operator, LDSs, and infrastructure dependent);

  
  

• SCADA system design (as this is already covered in other API documents, for example API 1113, API 1164, API 1165, or API 1167);

  
  

• specific performance metrics (an individual pipeline operator’s risk-based approach and engineering evaluation covers this);

  
  

• field response (as this is covered in a pipeline operator’s emergency response plan);

  
  

• presentation of information to Pipeline Controllers (covered in API 1165);

  
  

• equipment selection criteria (as these are specific to a pipeline operator, LDS, and vendor selection);

  
  

• a universal metric for pipeline leak detection performance (it is not a practical objective); or

  
  

• a definition of the relationship between emergency flow restriction devices (EFRDs) and leak detection (EFRDs and leak detection are two different mitigation systems).

Pipeline Leak Detection—Program Management

1. Scope

   API Recommended Practice (RP) 1175 establishes a framework for Leak Detection Program (LDP) management for hazardous liquid pipelines that are jurisdictional to the U.S. Department of Transportation (specifically, 49 CFR Part 195). This RP is an industry consensus document written by a representative group of hazardous liquid pipeline operators. API 1175 focuses on using a risk-based approach to each pipeline operator’s LDP. Reviewing the main body of this document and following the guidance set forth assists in creating an inherently risk mitigating LDP management system. API 1175 represents industry best practices in managing an LDP. All forms of leak detection used by a pipeline operator should be managed in a coordinated manner. The overall goal of the LDP is to detect leaks quickly and with certainty, thus facilitating quicker shutdown and therefore minimizing negative consequences. This RP focuses on management of LDPs, not the design of leak detection systems (LDSs), and therefore contains relatively little technical detail. As with API 1130, API 1175 applies to single-phase pipelines only; however, the approach may be applicable to pipelines that are not single phase.

   
   

2. Normative References

   The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document applies (including any addenda/errata).

   
   

   API Publication 1149, Pipeline Variable Uncertainties and Their Effects on Leak Detection Sensitivity

   
   

   API Recommended Practice 1130, Computational Pipeline Monitoring for Liquids, September 2007

   
   

   API Recommended Practice 1162, Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators, December 2010

   
   

   API Recommended Practice 1160 Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, September 2013 API Recommended Practice 1167, Pipeline SCADA Alarm Management, December 2010

   US DOT 1 49 CFR Part 195 (general) 2015

   
   

3. Terms, Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

3.1 Terms and Definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

3.1.1

continuous leak detection

Leak detection system that is operating in real time or near real time.

NOTE It is usually SCADA-connected or uses continuous telemetry.

3.1.2

consequence level

Ranking of the possible consequences of a leak based on a calculated value or a relative value of the consequences.

1 US Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington DC 20590, www.dot.gov.

1