Managing Documentation for Process Safety Systems and S-84 (ISA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Managing Documentation for Process Safety Systems and S-84 (ISA 61511)

Brazos Section ISA October 10, 2013

Greg Geter, P.E. BSIE - LSU 1992

• The Vision

○ Ensure system health and compliance through consistent, clean data

• The Rock and the Hard Place

○ Good intentions meet practical limits in day-to-

day management

• The Approach

○ Unifying data “islands” into repeatable, auditable

reporting

• The Goal – Full Lifecycle Care

○ Complete. Correct. Compliant. **SAFE**

25 Minutes

ISA-61511 Requirements

• Identify Hazards
• Assign IPLs
• Engineer IPLs for:

○ specificity ○ independence ○ auditability ○ maintainability

• Implement per Design
• Maintain per Design

• Lack of information continuity across departmental

groups

• Multiple software packages and legacy processes

snag and slow communication, verification, and compliance efforts

Maint

PSM (PHA & LOPA)

SIS & Eng’g

Engineering (SRS) Inspection, Testing, & PM IPL List

O p s

Daily Operation “Are we compliant?”

Fundamental Challenge

• Typical PHA/LOPA output – 300-600 pages formatted

PDF or multiple Excel files in differing formats

• SRS (Safety Requirement Specification) – Word

document, 60-80 pages, lots of reference documents, and difficult to maintain, index, or search

• Engineering documents – too numerous to catalog
• Proof tests – Word documents scheduled in third-party

software

• And all of this…..

A Day in the Life…

…times 10-15 Units

• Bulky
• Minimal lookup abilities
• Lots of wasted man-hours
• But most importantly…

○ Not tied together

○ Not easily auditable for consistency

○ NOT SUSTAINABLE

• So, software to the rescue, right???

Software?

• YES! But, using what you already

have. ○ Simple and single portal:

“One stop – Soup to Nuts”

○ Cross-system audits:

“The Audit is the Rule”

○ Management reporting and executive

dashboards: “Real-time KPIs”

Engr’g Maint. PSM Manage- ment O p s .

The Goal

• Where We Want to Go

○ Plant-wide visibility of PHA data, LOPAs

• f Record to ensure LOPA consistency

○ IPL lists: SIF, SIS, SRA, and BPCS and Non-Instrumented IPLs (RVs, Mechanical Stops, Flares) ○ Centralized IPL Design Information ○ IPL assessment tracking with reporting ○ Maintenance and Operations data collection ○ Easy to answer “Are We Compliant?” ○ All in Sync -- All Accounted For

Engr’g Maint. PSM Manage- ment O p s .

Sounds like Unicorns and Rainbows How Do We Get There?

The Vision

L i v e F e e d s

PSM SIS/ Engineering Maintenance Third-party interfaces Scheduled test dates Live auditing LOPA of Records view IPL Registry PHA Pro data Summary tables IPL checklists Status charts SIL levels, etc. SRS tables Test dates Operations

Consistent, repeatable, reportable, and auditable information thread EPC/ Projects

• Single portal or group of reports
• Optimized for search
• Live feeds from data islands
• Flexible and comprehensive

Technology Choices

All have their place, but without proper planning, champion, and disciplines, they will all eventually fail.

Steps to Repeatable Auditing

1.Link Data Islands

• 1a. PHA, LOPA, & IPL Lists
• 1b. Engineering & SRS Data
• 1c. Operations & Maintenance Activities

2.Enforce Naming Conventions 3.Create Appropriate Reports

Step 1 – Link Data Islands

• Two Big Questions:

○ Where is compliance

related data?

○ What is common

across all?

LOPA & PHA IPL List Engineering Data Operate & Maintain

Step 1a – PHA, LOPA, & IPL Lists

What We Typically See Best Practice PDFs and Word docs Unstructured spreadsheets LOPA and PHA data separate Asset tags in long paragraphs or missing No standards verification

PHA and LOPA data should be structured in such a way as to allow for easy extraction of IPL and device lists. LOPA, PHA, and IPL List

Step 1a – PHA, LOPA, & IPL Lists

What We Typically See Best Practice PDFs and Word docs Unstructured spreadsheets LOPA and PHA data separate Asset tags in long paragraphs or missing No standards verification Structured spreadsheets Commercial PHA tools Dedicated Asset Tag columns Export to Word/PDF Database style, standards- driven process Checklists for verifying IPL compliance during study

LOPA, PHA, and IPL List PHA and LOPA data should be structured in such a way as to allow for easy extraction of IPL and device lists.

What Does It Look Like?

LOPA, PHA, and IPL List PHA and LOPA are structured to easily mine asset information and create IPL Lists.

Step 1b – Engineering & SRS Data

Engineering Data Design reports that read from all applications that store engineering data for consistency – The Audit is the Master.

What We Typically See Best Practice A system for every discipline Paper and spreadsheets Inconsistent tagging Where’s the SRS data?

Step 1b – Engineering & SRS Data

Engineering Data

What We Typically See Best Practice A system for every discipline Paper and spreadsheets Inconsistent tagging Where’s the SRS data? Systems consistent in tagging SRS data clearly documented Data exportable in structured format

Design reports that read from all applications that store engineering data for consistency – The Audit is the Master.

Structured Data & Consistent Tags

Goals: Easy to Export and Easy to Verify

• Why are we still accepting PDF and Word docs for SRSs?
• SRS can be executed in Excel or database with tables and

fields

• Do a mail merge to Word if it needs to be fancy!
• What better way to know you’re done and compliant?
• Plenty of commercial tools for this

What Does It Look Like?

Engineering Data Maintain links to LOPA through Asset tags and structurally describe underlying devices.

Step 1c – Operate, Maintain, and Proven in Use Statistics Support

Ops & Maint PIU Stats Feed Operations & Maintenance Systems with authoritative lists from your new streamlined process.

Paper-based systems Inconsistent tagging Older legacy systems Incomplete SAP implementations What We Typically See Best Practice

Step 1c – Operate, Maintain, and Proven in Use Statistics Support

Ops & Maint PIU Stats Feed Operations & Maintenance Systems with authoritative lists from your new streamlined process.

Paper-based systems Inconsistent tagging Older legacy systems Incomplete SAP implementations What We Typically See Best Practice Systems consistent in tagging SRS data clearly documented Data exportable in structured format

Linking It All Together

Ops & Maint PIU Stats Links through asset and instrument tags and device serial numbers allow for easy audit of entire information stream.

When Links Go Bad

!

Audit process will quickly show data that has no “home”.

Step 2 – Enforce Naming Conventions

• Garbage in, garbage out
• Critical for consistency and auditability

LT-101 LT101

• Lev. Trans
• n J-101

Step 3 – Measure Team Performance

• n Audit Report Results
• Clean audits

○ Reduce risks, Cost effective, Repeatable

• Examples of questions that are easy to answer

when clean data audits exist: ○ Does the LOPA IPL list match engineering IPL list

and “critical” flag in INtools?

○ Has ops scheduled maintenance work orders in SAP

per test intervals specified in the SRS?

○ How many safety critical devices failed inspection

last month?

○ How many BPCS loops are credited in IPLs

plantwide?

Fancy or Plain, Audit Reports Tie Everything Together

Easy to Say – Next Steps?

• The Good News

○ No need to replace well-functioning processes or

data management systems

○ Tools to accomplish these things are at-hand ○ Off-the-shelf tools exist

• The Challenge

○ All functional areas must understand the cultural

change of data audit enforcement

○ Cleanup, mapping data, and writing audit reports

can be daunting

• The Reward

○ Increased compliance oversight ○ Reduction in risk exposure ○ Clean data is addictive!

Easy to Say – Next Steps?

Conclusion

• Data islands slow down the ability to verify

compliance, so: ○ Establish consistency between systems ○ Identify compliance data in each ○ Write audit reports to enforce syncing of data across systems ○ Develop reports and exports to easily answer compliance questions

Questions?