O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.
Asset Integrity &
Process Safety Management
with
Case study
Qatar Petroleum - Dukhan
Background
Strategies Adopted
Learning
Challenges
• SMS (Safety Management System)
• Site audit conducted in 2010.
• Audit report issued.
• Four in-house Teams (committees) have been formed in QP-Dukhan
Operations
• Leadership.
• PTW.
• Emergency.

• Asset Int...
• A team for overseeing Process Safety (PS) is Chaired by Operations
Engineering Manager (OED).
• All assistant managers o...
Reactive:
 Terms of Reference translated into Action Plan.
 Verification through KPI.
 Provide PS Assurance to Manageme...
17 KPIs developed.
Analyzed on monthly basis and corrective actions are advised
to Asset Owners.

The following key busine...
Following PS related issues reviewed and corrective actions
expedite:
Outstanding Inspection reports have been reviewed an...
Standing operating instructions of plants reviewed.
Initiated process for conducting QRA for Dukhan plants.
Established re...
Standardise definition of PS events
Formalising ESD testing procedures
Initiating Alarm rationalisation in NG plants
Revie...
PS data should be managed with care
Continuous improvement of KPI definitions.
Mandatory review by Asset Manager
Focus on ...
• Background:
• Plants Operating in Dukhan are old built as per standards
applicable in past
• Objective:
• Ensure complia...
Challenges

• Background:
• DCS plant control & ESD systems in old plants are not supported by
vendors
• Maintenance becom...
Challenges
• Background:
• Plant upgrades/ modifications should comply
Process safety requirements
• Objective:
• Develop ...
Challenges

• Background:
• Plants Operating in Dukhan are very old
• HAZOP is done only for modifications
• Objective:
• ...
SMS - PS -Dukhan
Dukhan Operations

Alarm Management System
Gas Recycling Plant (RG)
Contents
Background:
RG Plant
Alarm Management System (AMS)

Project:
Phase 1: In-House
Phase 2: AMS

Outcome
Recommendati...
Background: RG Plant
Capacity: 800 MMSCFD

Condensate
Gas
NGL
Background: RG Plant
Instrument
& Plant air

Hot oil

Flare

Chemical
Injection

Inert Gas
system

Utility
Water

Emergenc...
Background: RG Plant
Background: RG Plant
Background: Problems
Complex process
One central Control Room
Configured alarms (>26000)

Poor categorization & prioritiza...
Background: Solution
Phase 1: In-House
Phase 2: AMS
Background: AMS
Definition
Characteristics of A Good Alarm:
Relevant (not false)
Unique
Timely
Prioritized
Understandable
...
Background: AMS Lifecycle
Philosophy

Identification
Rationalization
Detailed Design

Management of
Change

Audit

Impleme...
Background: AMS
Priority

Usage

Response Time

URGENT or
EMERGENCY

High risk of hazard OR major release OR
major plant d...
Background: AMS

Target
Normal
Upset

Operator
Intervention

Emergency
Shutdown

Control
System
Background: AMS
Objectives:
Notify
Help prioritize response
Reduce nuisance alarms
Guide towards most appropriate response...
Benchmarks
KPI

Value

Average Alarm Rate In Steady Operation

≤ 1 (per 10 minutes)

Alarms In 10 Minutes After Plant Upse...
Benchmarks
KPI

Value

Average Alarm Rate In Steady Operation

≤ 1 (per 10 minutes)

Alarms In 10 Minutes After Plant Upse...
In-House Project
Short term
Initiated in 2004
Survey
Team
Data analyzed
Findings
Alarm Rationalization.
In-House Project Results
Average Alarms in Steady Operation (per 10 minutes)
25
20

15
10
7

6.5
4.5

2004

2005

2006

20...
AMS Project
Long Term
Follow the Alarm Management Lifecycle
Alarm Philosophy Developed
AMS Project
Alarm Rationalization (≈800 Bad Actors)
Implementations of Hardware & Software:
Alarm Configuration Manager
Ma...
AMS Project Role

DCS Alarms

Control
Room
AMS Project Role
AMS

ACM

DCS Alarms

Control
Room
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

...
Outcome
KPI
Average Alarm Rate In Steady Operation
(per 10 minutes)

Target

≤1

AMS
Before In-House
2011

25

4.5

1.5

A...
Outcome
Average Alarms in Steady Operation (per 10 minutes)
25

4.5
1.9
Before

In-House

AMS

1
TARGET
Outcome
Plant Performance And Safety Enhanced

Operator Effectiveness Increased
To Achieve Alarm KPI
Recommendations
Monitor & Improve

Continue alarm rationalization
Integrate new plant expansions/ upgrades to
AMS
The End
Próximos SlideShares
Carregando em…5
×

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

4.277 visualizações

Publicada em

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

Publicada em: Negócios, Tecnologia

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

  1. 1. Asset Integrity & Process Safety Management with Case study Qatar Petroleum - Dukhan
  2. 2. Background Strategies Adopted Learning Challenges
  3. 3. • SMS (Safety Management System) • Site audit conducted in 2010. • Audit report issued.
  4. 4. • Four in-house Teams (committees) have been formed in QP-Dukhan Operations • Leadership. • PTW. • Emergency. • Asset Integrity and Process Safety ( AIPSM
  5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9. Standing operating instructions of plants reviewed. Initiated process for conducting QRA for Dukhan plants. Established relation between KPI and structured business processes.
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 16. SMS - PS -Dukhan
  17. 17. Dukhan Operations Alarm Management System Gas Recycling Plant (RG)
  18. 18. Contents Background: RG Plant Alarm Management System (AMS) Project: Phase 1: In-House Phase 2: AMS Outcome Recommendations
  19. 19. Background: RG Plant Capacity: 800 MMSCFD Condensate Gas NGL
  20. 20. Background: RG Plant Instrument & Plant air Hot oil Flare Chemical Injection Inert Gas system Utility Water Emergency Power Gen Fuel Gas
  21. 21. Background: RG Plant
  22. 22. Background: RG Plant
  23. 23. Background: Problems Complex process One central Control Room Configured alarms (>26000) Poor categorization & prioritization Alarm floods Possibility of safety-related events
  24. 24. Background: Solution Phase 1: In-House Phase 2: AMS
  25. 25. Background: AMS Definition Characteristics of A Good Alarm: Relevant (not false) Unique Timely Prioritized Understandable Diagnostic Advisory
  26. 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. 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. 28. Background: AMS Target Normal Upset Operator Intervention Emergency Shutdown Control System
  29. 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. 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. 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. 32. In-House Project Short term Initiated in 2004 Survey Team Data analyzed Findings Alarm Rationalization.
  33. 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. 34. AMS Project Long Term Follow the Alarm Management Lifecycle Alarm Philosophy Developed
  35. 35. AMS Project Alarm Rationalization (≈800 Bad Actors) Implementations of Hardware & Software: Alarm Configuration Manager Master Alarm Boundary Database Enforcer
  36. 36. AMS Project Role DCS Alarms Control Room
  37. 37. AMS Project Role AMS ACM DCS Alarms Control Room
  38. 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. 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. 40. Outcome Average Alarms in Steady Operation (per 10 minutes) 25 4.5 1.9 Before In-House AMS 1 TARGET
  41. 41. Outcome Plant Performance And Safety Enhanced Operator Effectiveness Increased To Achieve Alarm KPI
  42. 42. Recommendations Monitor & Improve Continue alarm rationalization Integrate new plant expansions/ upgrades to AMS
  43. 43. The End

×