Development of a Pressure Equipment Integrity Management Program in a Multi-Jurisdictional Liquids Pipeline Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Demonstrated public safety and environmental responsibility is key to the reputation and success of pipeline companies. This sentiment extends not only to pipelines themselves, but to all facility equipment as well. That is why Enbridge Liquid Pipelines (Enbridge) developed a Pressure Equipment Integrity Management Program that is designed to ensure the safety, integrity, compliance, and operational reliability of all pressure vessels and boilers in Enbridge’s liquid pipeline facilities. A unique aspect of Enbridge’s Pressure Equipment Integrity Management Program is how it must identify and comply with regulatory requirements in a multitude of both federal and provincial/state jurisdictions in Canada and the United States. Depending on the type of pressure equipment and its location, it may be federally regulated, locally regulated, or potentially both if there is no clear delineation between regulatory authorities. These different requirements can be complex and difficult to follow for personnel tasked with maintaining pressure equipment integrity across the entire pipeline system. This paper will describe how a liquids pipeline company can structure a successful Pressure Equipment Integrity Management Program that is entrenched in the overall company Integrity Management System. The program must utilize clear, effective, and action-based processes and procedures that identify and comply with multi-jurisdictional requirements and are based on industry best practices. Stakeholder responsibilities shall be clearly outlined as well as process steps and required actions to be taken to effectively manage hazards and risks and maintain compliance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".