Asset integrity & process safety management with case study by ebrahim al qahtani qp @ risman-biznet

  • 730 views
Uploaded on

Asset integrity & process safety management with case study by Ebrahim Al-Qahtani QP Dukhan (presenter 1st Safety Challenges Forum Doha January 2013. organized by BPTC

Asset integrity & process safety management with case study by Ebrahim Al-Qahtani QP Dukhan (presenter 1st Safety Challenges Forum Doha January 2013. organized by BPTC

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
730
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Asset Integrity & Process Safety Management with Case study Qatar Petroleum - Dukhan
  • 2. Background Strategies Adopted Learning Challenges
  • 3. • SMS (Safety Management System) • Site audit conducted in 2010. • Audit report issued.
  • 4. • Four in-house Teams (committees) have been formed in QP-Dukhan Operations • Leadership. • PTW. • Emergency. • Asset Integrity and Process Safety ( AIPSM
  • 5. • A team for overseeing Process Safety (PS) is Chaired by Operations Engineering Manager (OED). • All assistant managers of OED, focal points from each asset, HS Departments are members. • Terms of reference.
  • 6. Reactive:  Terms of Reference translated into Action Plan.  Verification through KPI.  Provide PS Assurance to Management. Proactive:  Adopting Specific initiatives based on team discussions.  Review of applicable standards. Reporting:  Monthly and Quarterly status review.
  • 7. 17 KPIs developed. Analyzed on monthly basis and corrective actions are advised to Asset Owners. The following key business processes reviewed and recommendation provided: Alarm management system Incident reporting Deferments Overrides & Forces Turnaround Intervals
  • 8. Following PS related issues reviewed and corrective actions expedite: Outstanding Inspection reports have been reviewed and corrective actions have been implemented. Maintenance strategy for SDV & BDV reviewed and identified requirement of comprehensive review for RG plant
  • 9. Standing operating instructions of plants reviewed. Initiated process for conducting QRA for Dukhan plants. Established relation between KPI and structured business processes.
  • 10. Standardise definition of PS events Formalising ESD testing procedures Initiating Alarm rationalisation in NG plants Review of Failure Investigation Procedure - QPR-DKN-11 Review of structured business processes (GAME)
  • 11. PS data should be managed with care Continuous improvement of KPI definitions. Mandatory review by Asset Manager Focus on what numbers tell. The key question “Will this assure integrity of the operation?” Bench-mark Structured business processes assist PS assurance It’s important to separate PS events from other incidents Establishment of Standards & Gap analysis are torch to excellence.
  • 12. • Background: • Plants Operating in Dukhan are old built as per standards applicable in past • Objective: • Ensure compliance to latest engineering standards and HSE regulations • Mission: • Develop action plan to bring compliance • Immediate Target: • Identify specific AIPSM standards adopted in similar organizations
  • 13. Challenges • Background: • DCS plant control & ESD systems in old plants are not supported by vendors • Maintenance becomes difficult • Lack of reliability might cause PS issues and interruption to production • Objective: • Develop strategy to have updated, reliable control systems with established maintenance strategies • Mission: • Develop action plan to bring compliance • Immediate Target: • Investigate industry practice regarding upgrade/ replacement • Find latest technologies • Benchmark methodology for system migrations SMS - PS -Dukhan
  • 14. Challenges • Background: • Plant upgrades/ modifications should comply Process safety requirements • Objective: • Develop effective strategy for QRA/FRA/HAZOP and SIL reviews • Immediate Target: • Investigate industry best practices • Develop action plan for implementing using inhouse/ external services SMS - PS -Dukhan
  • 15. Challenges • Background: • Plants Operating in Dukhan are very old • HAZOP is done only for modifications • Objective: • Ensure all process risks for old plants are quantified and risk mitigation measures are recommended • Immediate Target: • Identify strategies followed in industry • Plant level or corporate level • In-house or Consultant • Applicable standards SMS - PS -Dukhan
  • 16. SMS - PS -Dukhan
  • 17. Dukhan Operations Alarm Management System Gas Recycling Plant (RG)
  • 18. Contents Background: RG Plant Alarm Management System (AMS) Project: Phase 1: In-House Phase 2: AMS Outcome Recommendations
  • 19. Background: RG Plant Capacity: 800 MMSCFD Condensate Gas NGL
  • 20. Background: RG Plant Instrument & Plant air Hot oil Flare Chemical Injection Inert Gas system Utility Water Emergency Power Gen Fuel Gas
  • 21. Background: RG Plant
  • 22. Background: RG Plant
  • 23. Background: Problems Complex process One central Control Room Configured alarms (>26000) Poor categorization & prioritization Alarm floods Possibility of safety-related events
  • 24. Background: Solution Phase 1: In-House Phase 2: AMS
  • 25. Background: AMS Definition Characteristics of A Good Alarm: Relevant (not false) Unique Timely Prioritized Understandable Diagnostic Advisory
  • 26. Background: AMS Lifecycle Philosophy Identification Rationalization Detailed Design Management of Change Audit Implementation Operation Maintenance Monitoring & Assessment Reference: ANSI/ISA-18.2-2009
  • 27. Background: AMS Priority Usage Response Time URGENT or EMERGENCY High risk of hazard OR major release OR major plant damage if operation continued Immediate action (< 5 min) HIGH Major production loss OR significant equipment damage OR moderate/low risk of hazard if uncorrected Immediate action (< 15 min) LOW Minor production loss OR increased aging of plant Prompt action (< 30 min) ALERT Minor operating deviation Prompt – but always after all alarms
  • 28. Background: AMS Target Normal Upset Operator Intervention Emergency Shutdown Control System
  • 29. Background: AMS Objectives: Notify Help prioritize response Reduce nuisance alarms Guide towards most appropriate response Result in: Safety: avoid hazardous situations Efficiency: avoid deviations from desired operating conditions Operator effectiveness increased
  • 30. Benchmarks KPI Value Average Alarm Rate In Steady Operation ≤ 1 (per 10 minutes) Alarms In 10 Minutes After Plant Upset ≤ 10 usefulness questionnaire nuisance score of 2.0 or less average number of standing alarms under 10 average number of shelved alarms under 30 Reference: EEMUA Publication 191 – Alarm Systems: A Guide to Design, Management and Procurement
  • 31. Benchmarks KPI Value Average Alarm Rate In Steady Operation ≤ 1 (per 10 minutes) Alarms In 10 Minutes After Plant Upset ≤ 10 usefulness questionnaire nuisance score of 2.0 or less average number of standing alarms under 10 average number of shelved alarms under 30 Reference: EEMUA Publication 191 – Alarm Systems: A Guide to Design, Management and Procurement
  • 32. In-House Project Short term Initiated in 2004 Survey Team Data analyzed Findings Alarm Rationalization.
  • 33. In-House Project Results Average Alarms in Steady Operation (per 10 minutes) 25 20 15 10 7 6.5 4.5 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
  • 34. AMS Project Long Term Follow the Alarm Management Lifecycle Alarm Philosophy Developed
  • 35. AMS Project Alarm Rationalization (≈800 Bad Actors) Implementations of Hardware & Software: Alarm Configuration Manager Master Alarm Boundary Database Enforcer
  • 36. AMS Project Role DCS Alarms Control Room
  • 37. AMS Project Role AMS ACM DCS Alarms Control Room
  • 38. AMS Project Results 2012 Average Alarms (per 10 minutes) 6.4 5.7 4.9 3.6 3.1 3 2.4 1.8 1.7 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2.1 Dec
  • 39. Outcome KPI Average Alarm Rate In Steady Operation (per 10 minutes) Target ≤1 AMS Before In-House 2011 25 4.5 1.5 AMS 2012 2.3
  • 40. Outcome Average Alarms in Steady Operation (per 10 minutes) 25 4.5 1.9 Before In-House AMS 1 TARGET
  • 41. Outcome Plant Performance And Safety Enhanced Operator Effectiveness Increased To Achieve Alarm KPI
  • 42. Recommendations Monitor & Improve Continue alarm rationalization Integrate new plant expansions/ upgrades to AMS
  • 43. The End