API Pipeline Safety Management System PSMS Third-Party Assessment Program: A Valuable Tool to Help Industry Implement PSMS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa S. Burr ◽  
Colin M. Frazier ◽  
S. David Toth
Keyword(s):  
Management System ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Opportunity To Learn ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Safety Management System ◽  
Assessment Program ◽  
Pipeline Safety ◽  
Third Party Assessment

Abstract The American Petroleum Institute (API) represents all segments of the natural gas and oil industry, aiming to accelerate safety and environmental progress across operations while meeting global demand for affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy. Through API and in partnership with the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), state pipeline regulators, and other interested stakeholders, pipeline operators developed API Recommended Practice (RP) 1173: Pipeline Safety Management Systems. API RP 1173 users understand how to systematically manage pipeline safety and continuously measure progress to improve overall pipeline safety performance. The core principle of API RP 1173 is the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle. It requires the operator to determine the goals, objectives, and targets needed to be undertaken, complete those initiatives, and periodically review the Pipeline Safety Management System (PSMS) on an operator's determined cycle or at a minimum of a three-year cycle. API RP 1173 and the Pipeline SMS Maturity Model and Tools are primary resources to support API Energy Excellence® implementation. API Energy Excellence (launched in 2021) is another critical API program in which all API members commit to enhance the integrity of operations across the industry by applying standards, implementing workforce training programs, and participating in performance initiatives. Ultimately, these conditions drive the industry towards its zero-incident goal by ensuring that the PSMS's various components are regularly reviewed and continually evolving. To that point and as part of the industry's ongoing commitment to continuous pipeline safety improvements, API, in collaboration with industry partners, developed a not-for-profit Pipeline SMS Assessment Program in 2019 and fully launched the offering in January 2020. Unlike most Pipeline Safety or SMS assessments, the API Third-Party Assessment Program utilizes a diverse set of assessors with multiple affiliations, ranging from traditional SMS firms to retired industry executives who wish to give back to the industry by sharing their experience with others. API has conducted many assessments to date, and the benchmarking from these assessments helps operators gauge how their implementation is relative to their peers. Also, because API is the custodian of RP 1173, learnings from these assessments can naturally be fed back into the standards development process to ensure the next version of RP 1173 is an even better Plan-Do-Check-Act Process. The API Pipeline SMS Assessment (PSMS Assessment) program gives the operator access to the most experienced and knowledgeable assessors. It provides the operator with the opportunity to learn notable practices utilized across the pipeline industry. In 2021 and beyond, API looks forward to taking the assessment program worldwide, increasing industry lessons learned, cataloging good practices, looking for opportunities to increase effectiveness, and giving industry valuable benchmarking, all aimed at our shared goal of zero incidents

API RP 1173 Pipeline SMS Third-Party Assessment Program: A Key Industry Tool for Evaluating and Supporting Implementation of Pipeline Safety Management Systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa S. Burr ◽  
S. David Toth ◽  
Colin M. Frazier
Keyword(s):  
Safety Management ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Safety Performance ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Safety Management Systems ◽  
Assessment Program ◽  
Pipeline Safety ◽  
Third Party Assessment

Abstract Since the publication of API Recommended Practice (RP) 1173: Pipeline Safety Management Systems, in July 2015, the energy pipeline trade groups in North America (American Petroleum Institute, Association of Oil Pipelines, American Gas Association, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and the American Public Gas Association) have worked collaboratively to develop tools and programs to assist energy pipeline operators with the development and implementation of Pipeline Safety Management System (Pipeline SMS) programs and processes. These resources include a Planning Tool, Implementation Tool and Evaluation Tool, as well as an industry-developed Maturity Model that describes a continuum of implementation levels, based on conformance to RP 1173 as well as implementation effectiveness. These resources can be found online and are supplemented by the Pipeline SMS Third-Party Assessment Program developed by API. Applying API’s experiences with successful safety programs in other segments and with significant contributions from the Pipeline SMS Implementation Team (aforementioned trade groups and various industry operators), the Pipeline SMS Third-Party Assessment Program is designed to be a key tool to facilitate Pipeline SMS implementation and to share and benchmark information to drive improvements in safety performance. The assessments also provide the pipeline industry with an objective, third-party option to test their systems and address the conformity auditing (API RP 1173, Section 10.2.2) and performance and maturity evaluation (API RP 1173, Section 10.2.3 to 10.2.5) requirements of the recommended practice. In 2019, pilot assessments were conducted and in 2020 the Assessment Program is being implemented. Through the piloting process, significant insights were gained into the practical application of the industry Maturity Model and how the assessments can contribute to an operator’s journey improving safety performance. Aligning with the flexibility and scalability goals of RP 1173, the pilot experiences included liquids transmission and gas distribution operators with varying approaches to pipeline SMS implementation. We will discuss the lessons learned through the piloting process and how the plan-do-check-act cycle was applied to improve the processes for planning, staffing and conducting the assessments to ensure that value is being provided to the pipeline industry. An independent assessment through the API Pipeline SMS Third-Party Assessment Program can validate internal efforts to increase maturity of programs, as well as provide operators with benchmarking data so that they can understand where other operators are in their maturity journey.

Implementing API RP 1173, Pipeline Safety Management Systems: Tools and Resources to Facilitate Industry Implementation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Duke ◽  
Dave Murk ◽  
Bill Byrd ◽  
Stuart Saulters
Keyword(s):  
Program Implementation ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Planning Tool ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Safety Management Systems ◽  
Implementation Tool ◽  
Pipeline Safety

Since the publication of API Recommended Practice (RP) 1173: Pipeline Safety Management Systems, in July 2015, the energy pipeline trade groups in North America (API, AOPL, AGA, INGAA, APGA and CEPA) have worked collaboratively to develop tools and programs to assist energy pipeline operators with the development and implementation of appropriate programs and processes. These resources include a Planning Tool, Implementation Tool and Evaluation Tool, as well as a Maturity Model that describes a continuum of implementation levels. The Planning Tool is used to compare an operator’s existing management system to the RP requirements and develop action plans and assign responsibilities to close gaps. It is intended to help operators achieve Level 1 maturity (develop a plan and begin work). The Implementation Tool is used to evaluate and summarize implementation status by question, element and overall, and helps track development of program implementation to Level 3 maturity. The Evaluation Tool plays two key roles addressing the conformity and effectiveness of the system. This tool is used to assess and report the level of conformity to the requirements, the “shall” statements, of the RP and possible Level 4 maturity. The Evaluation Tool also provides the means to appraise the effectiveness of an operator’s programs in achieving the objectives of the RP, asking the key question, “Is the system helping and driving improvement?” These resources can be supplemented by the voluntary third-party audit program developed by API and the Peer-to-Peer sharing process.

How Do I Ensure “Staff Competency” in My Pipeline Safety Management System?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Collins ◽  
Michelle Unger ◽  
Amanda Dainis
Keyword(s):  
Management System ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Pipeline System ◽  
Safety Management System ◽  
Key Skills ◽  
Learning Programs ◽  
Knowledge Requirements ◽  
Pipeline Safety

Abstract Standards and regulations are clear: all staff who work on pipelines need to be both “competent” and “qualified.” Standards such as API 1173 are clear about competence within a safety management system: “The pipeline operator shall ensure that personnel whose responsibilities fall within the scope of the PSMS [Pipeline Safety Management System] have an appropriate level of competence in terms of education, training, knowledge, and experience.” The burden of defining and specifying competence falls on pipeline operators, but they have little guidance regarding the required skills, knowledge and levels of competency. Additionally, we are all biased — different operators will have different ideas and emphases on competencies, which will affect their decision-making. The only way to avoid these cognitive biases is to use consensus standards supported by rigorous surveys that capture the required competencies. This paper explores some of the more common biases that can affect decisions and presents the results of a controlled, independent, survey aimed at both specifying and quantifying the necessary competencies needed by a specific engineer working within a PSMS: a pipeline integrity engineer. The paper identifies and ranks these necessary competences. The survey was completed by 100 pipeline integrity engineers from 25 different countries. Its specific objective was to investigate the key skills and knowledge requirements needed in a junior engineering position (i.e., a pipeline engineer with less than three years of relevant experience) working under supervision to be ‘competent’. It listed eight core competencies (identified by subject matter experts) considered essential for a pipeline integrity engineer. Each of these core competencies contained a set of skills. Respondents were first asked to rank the eight core competences, and then rank the skills within the competency. An analysis of the data provides insights into how 100 pipeline integrity engineers view the key skills required to be “competent.” The results of the survey can assist pipeline companies in setting objective competency requirements for their engineering personnel, developing learning programs to address any gaps, and improve the overall safety of their pipeline system.

Unlocking the Power of Incident Investigation: Building a Strong Pipeline Safety Management System From a Solid Foundation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Weichel
Keyword(s):  
Management System ◽  
Gap Analysis ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Safety Management System ◽  
Near Misses ◽  
Incident Investigation ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
System Requirements ◽  
Pipeline Safety

As many pipeline operators embark on the journey of developing a Pipeline Safety Management System (PSMS), the first question is typically, “Where do we begin?” Management systems can be intimidating, and the thought of taking on the task of developing one can seem overwhelming. Companies want to know if it is necessary to start from scratch, if they can use existing processes or programs, and which step to take first for a successful PSMS. There are many ways to begin, but one of the most effective ways is to first ask two questions, “What do we already have?” and “What are our biggest problems?” Armed with these answers, a path forward can be developed, and the foundation for the management system can begin to take shape. One effective way to choose where to begin when developing the PSMS is to determine which elements have been related to the root causes of incidents and near misses in the past. Likewise, continuing to determine and monitor the causes of incidents after the implementation of the PSMS will provide guidance for continual improvement of the management system. Using the elements and sub-elements of existing management system standards or practices, such as API RP 1173, Pipeline Safety Management System Requirements [1], as a starting point for determining root causes is a good way to break down, categorize, and trend the causes of each incident. Combining these with a gap analysis of both the undocumented and documented processes and procedures will provide a basis for determining the priorities for development and implementation of each management system element.

Environmental Engineering Quality Safety Management System for Manufacturing Concrete Roof

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 03-04
Author(s):  
Kính Trịnh
Keyword(s):  
Performance Assessment ◽  
Management System ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Safety Performance ◽  
Environmental Engineering ◽  
Safety Management System ◽  
Assessment Program ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Environment Performance

The motivation behind this paper is to propose a coordinated administration arrangement of value, condition and wellbeing. The model depends on Product Liability Law, Industrial Standard for quality, Environment Performance Assessment Program for Environment Engineering, Industrial Standard for wellbeing, and Safety Performance Assessment Program. The model was planned and actualized in one of the greatest solid rooftop makers. The incorporated model at the contextual investigation is helpful as a rule to disposal of contentions between singular framework, essentially decrease of the inward reviewers and auditees' outstanding burden, just as production of new incentive in business.

Web-Based Risk and Hazard Identification and Screening

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Steele ◽  
Evaristo J. Bonano
Keyword(s):  
Management System ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Hazard Identification ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Safety Management System ◽  
Effective Manner

Abstract Organizations, both in the private and public sector, need to avoid to the extent practicable, workplace hazards and minimize the associated risks in order to comply with regulations. However, they have also recognized that this is a sound business practice that could result in significant cost savings by avoiding fines and penalties due to non-compliance and enhanced productivity. Consequently, many organizations have instituted safe work practices into their operations and those practices have become a major criterion in evaluating managers’ performance. This new philosophy is now commonly referred to as “Integrated Safety Management.” Per the direction of the Secretary of Energy, all U. S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) facilities across the country have been instructed to implement an Integrated Safety Management System. Different DOE facilities have taken various approaches to the implementation of the system. This paper describes the approach instituted at Sandia National Laboratories and a tool that was developed from lessons learned during that effort. The tool is the cornerstone for implementing an Integrated Safety Management System in a time and cost-effective manner. The tool is now commercially available and can be readily rendered applicable to any type of systematic assessment process.

Gas pipeline safety management system based on neural network

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Muhammad Mujtaba ◽  
Tamiru Alemu Lemma ◽  
Seshu Kumar Vandrangi
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Management System ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Gas Pipeline ◽  
Safety Management System ◽  
Pipeline Safety
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document