A Step Change In Safety Management

Transcription

1 A Step Change In Safety Management An engica overview of safety management using electronic PTW systems with an Integrated Safe System of Work (ISSoW) Topics Safer Safety Management An Approach to Securing an Improved Safety System Electronic ISSoW Systems Industrial Sector Approaches Adoption and Implementation Synopsis Copyright: Engica Technology Systems Intenational 2003

2 Safer Safety Management All industries have issues with safety, some more than others and some who have had regrettable and unpleasant experiences. Industrial organisations have the responsibility to adhere to regulations, retain records, maintain standards, and if concerned improve in house safety standards. Under the umbrella of HSE directives, initiatives and a number of industrial safety focus groups there has been significant promotion of task risk assessment with the aim to improve safety. Within the UK oil & gas sector there is also an alignment of idea's associated with permits and naming practices to standardise certain core aspects. Participants demonstrate a positive proactive attitude to implementing such standards but adoption timetables are yet to be confirmed. This short review looks at various aspects of safety and software associated with work risk assessment and permit to work (PTW) systems in the energy and chemical industries. Its scope is to explain how an electronic software system can be used to assist the necessary processes. It also covers general aspects of implementation and the various issues associated with the adoption of software tools to make a step change in safety management. Safety Implications The Energy operators have a number of additional issues to handle influenced by international operation and rapid ownership and equity changes. The effects of increased asset disposal and acquisition, build and maintain life cycle contracts, global expansion, ageing experience, regional skills shortfalls, increased staff mobility and contract outsourcing to mention a few, all bring a strain on safety knowledge and local practice. These effects must be counter balanced with techniques not only to maintain levels of safety but to strive to improve them. Engica have been actively involved in work management techniques for over two decades and over the past five years have made substantial investment into a focused design and development group to construct an Integrated Safe System of Work (ISSoW) software system. The purpose is to consolidate the ideas and initiatives derived from the various focus groups to support our existing and prospective clients. The Q4 Safety ISSoW system is now being launched into active duty having undergone major verification and site acceptance trials to attain intrinsically safe certification. Most people would regard safety from the point of view of their own and colleagues well being and rightly so. There are however other drives stemming from commercial and production issues including insurance premiums, operational uptime and environmental laws. The combined requirements are now prompting organisations to seek and adopt more systematic approaches to enhance existing methods. Safety processes with the right distributed knowledge and correctly applied precautions will handle safety effectively, but this statement holds the key to the problem "distributed knowledge and correctly applied precautions". Each person often relies upon measures taken by other team members. If one reflects upon serious events in hindsight they all could have been avoided with appropriate precautions and controls. Lessons learned springs to mind. Management's key objective should be to establish intrinsically safe methods with near zero risk tolerance, and get them working without bankrupting the organisation in the process. Page 1 of 8

3 An Approach to Securing an Improved Safety System Engica's approach is not to assume that a single system with, say, preset permits will satisfy all organisations. It is recognised that radical changes in many cases could cause more problems than solutions. Staff in general are used to their existing paper based systems that have been derived over time within their organisation. What is beneficial in many cases is a step enhancement to strengthen the process rather than radical change. This does not go against the grain of standardising certain elements of safety which has been done successfully in many aspects such as hazardous substances definitions or lifting regulations. For example colour standards of the various permit and certificates would seem sensible in industrial sectors to help cross company working especially for contract personnel. Another item could be the standardisation of authorisation naming nomenclature. These aspects rely u pon government and organisation forums to establish common practices although it is worth noting that electronic systems are well positioned to adopt and impose such standards. In many cases, it is the application of current or slightly enhanced permit and certificate form formats within a new electronic system that will gain the acceptance of use. One should not ignore that changing practices takes time. The sensible approach is a step by step philosophy to accumulate a major step change. The industrial organisations we deal with in safety management range from power generation, oil & gas, chemical and process based industries. This has allowed Engica to draw upon the past and current practices in use in each sector during our research. It has presented us with the insight into systems advancement. This has and continues to be done, by critical analysis and by using the best methods from each sector. Our research into task risk assessment and its approach however has derived a method that fits all industries and provides integration from both work management and permit aspects. Although many may think that safety systems have already been made electronic or have an opinion that such systems do not improve the process, it should be noted that this article is discussing a more advanced and highly integrated safe system of work approach. Such systems are now being adopted in the energy and process industries and we believe they will become DE FACTO in the course of time. No doubt you will have opinions and Engica welcome comment and participation in related HSE forums. Page 2 of 8

4 Electronic ISSoW Systems Advanced electronic permit to work (PTW) systems are now being classified as Integrated Safe Systems of Work (ISSoW) and such systems have advanced well beyond the traditional print certificates forms mode or independent risk assessment module. The Q4 ISSoW system for example combines all the elements of work flow, hazard mitigation and permit procedural methods into a unified process supported with relational intelligence. The safety controls and execution activities are supported with intrinsically safe cross check methods to add real value in improving the safety process in its preparation, execution and return to service phases. The output is a safety work pack detailing the procedures and confirmation checks to make it safe. Knowledge based ISSoW processing of safety information such as risk assessments; plant isolations allied with lessons learnt provide safety engineers the tools to process permits and certificates in an informed and highly integrated manner. A rule based flow process can be applied to the Q4 ISSoW based system; configured to each permit or certificate type with authorisation signoffs. Each process provides an audit trail, an approach in principle to strengthen the safety checks and responsibility awareness. The managed flow of say a toolbox or pre-work check for example can be enforced by virtue of a signatory confirming its physical performance and risk acceptability. The risk assessment process of Q4 brings all aspects into the assessment process; this may even include other developed applications such as COSHH, MSDS, LOLER, ATEX, DSEAR as examples. Normally the result can be electronically glued to the main assessment using Q4's connection technology or it can be referenced. The risk assessment tree provides hazard counter measures with precautions and controls for each element or step of work. A risk matrix can be used on each hazard to classify the consequence and estimated probability. Q4's design allows the integration of an existing work systems into a seamless environment, for example, work orders and work packs (sometimes known as modules) are presented to the risk assessment process electronically bringing all of the elements into a unified process. One of the counter arguments to electronic systems is that a robotic electronic system could lead to disaster due to the use of provided information without due diligence. For example using a template that does not exactly detail the environmental circumstances of the work. This of course can happen in a paper based system, where people photocopy a past risk assessment for use. In the case of the Q4 system, the system either questions or requires a check statement on each element to induce a rigorous process. In addition the system groups each element in a fashion to give the big picture as well as the detail. For example isolations, lifting and material substance hazards are accessible as a unit via the risk assessment. Finally on this aspect, in all safety matters it must be understood that it is the responsibility of the Authorising Authority (AA), Senior Authorised Person (SAP) or equivalent to confirm its integrity and it is the responsibility of engineers to conform to the risk assessment and permit scope. This applies equally to paper or electronic system. A major advantage to highlight comes from procedural documents that are updated assuming they are encapsulated in the ISSoW electronic system. Such changes will immediately be fed to personnel within the appropriate domain of use. This in itself overcomes the problem of maintaining racks of hard copy procedural manuals and increases the chance that they will actually be read! Page 3 of 8

5 Electronic ISSoW Systems Practical ISSoW Usage Issues Assuming that a system has the necessary functionality and processes, successful adoption depends on two key factors: - ease of use, this one we classify as natural use and the other is the speed of use. "Speed of use is vital." Even the most functionally rich system if tediously slow will result in operators finding ways of bypassing the system. After all a good system is about providing information in order to give more time to the consideration of the safety issues, risk assessment and precaution precision with regard to the tasks at hand, not just to act as an executive safe guard to litigation. The measure should be at least equal if not quicker than manual methods. "Natural use is important." Systems designed for rocket scientists are only good for rocket scientists. This does not mean that a bit of training is not needed but it does mean that the system provides an intuitive and consistent interface at each stage or phase of the safety assessment or permit assembly. Q4 systems for example have been developed by standing over the shoulders of safety engineers and watching experienced and novice users use the system many times to refine its interface. We do not accept incoherency blaming it on technology shortfalls. This has led in one of its key features to represent on screen permits as if actual paper permits, or isolation certificates. The simulation of paper methods with data enhancing reflect natural processing rather than separate element screens. We call this WYSIWYG "what you see is what you get". Have you tried some web based systems where you fill out a segment, go back to another and your original input is lost and you feel lost. Yes it might be OK to purchase a book on-line but it's no good when you have spent a lot of time defining the isolation and lost your information! Other factors come to bear where certain types of repetitive work require processing. Processing that takes excessive time will inevitability be bypassed by staff like it or not. This situation has to be avoided and can be accomplished with risk assessment library and process route. This still ensures a risk assessment and signoff process but provides an effective streamlined method for this type of work. Page 4 of 8

6 Industrial Sector Approaches Our observation of the oil & gas, power generation and chemical sectors show that each has a framework of permits and certificates that reflect practices within that industrial sector. Taking the the Oil & Gas sector first, its "permit form" generally acts as a risk assessment along with references to applicable isolation and other related certificates. The Power Generation industry tends to provides risk and method statements that are attached to a work order along with specific PTW and isolations certificates that have to be obtained prior to work commencement. In essence both are similar but the presentation of information varies substantially. It is difficult to generalise in a short overview, but a brief synopsis is that the Oil & Gas industry in the UK feature a permit which contains a check approach to risk assessment with attached isolation certificates. Most systems provide a form of surrender and handover method with an emphasis on the permit valid duration and its expiry time. Power Generation in the UK tends to lead with an appropriate permit containing the isolations, controls and precautions with a risk and method statement attached to the work order. All sectors in UK use various arrangements of lockboxes and lock bars to secure permits and isolations. UK Power plants substantially utilise lockbox cross locking as a more common feature to derive cascaded permits. Cascaded locking introduces a more complex arrangement to manage in terms of permit planning and release but provides efficient lock arrangements and faster shutdown isolation to work release. Note the method does not compromise safety. USA power and oil operators on the other hand tend to rely on isolation lists which are a form of isolation certificate with plant tagging rather than lock box security. The nuclear power business in both UK and USA exhibit substantial additional safety cross checks and authorisation clearance. Chemical and process organisations seem to use a hybrid of such systems with process strength dependent on the danger rating of the site. Improved Safety Planning & Tracking Engica have introduced two new concepts and methods to support the safety process, one being the mechanism to plan shutdown safety requirements visually and efficiently. The other is an introduction of a digital dashboard to inform operational controllers of all work permit activities, permit location tracking and validity status. The Q4 ISSoW Safety System provides a unique and powerful integration with Microsoft Visio to develop visual isolation networks that can serve in the preparation of isolation documents for a plant outage or shutdown. The functions provide a visual drag and drop mechanism on Equipment and Isolations to provide a system, or sub-system network, that can be called upon to generate documents within the permit system. You can use Visio to draw your lock boxes or bars in any way that is convenient and clear. Then, drawing data directly from the safety database use our unique Visio integration to assign equipment, isolations and other information directly onto the Visio diagram. Draw on cascades and cross-locks for an outage and then save the entire design straight into the safety system as an outage or shutdown template. Page 5 of 8

7 Adoption and Implementation Safety is no doubt one of the top priorities to operators and introducing a step improvement change to safety methods needs a plan, resource and a supplier with the necessary expertise. An electronic system can be installed and configured quite quickly onto an organisation network. A summary of elements associated with an electronic system configuration are shown below. Configuration of Screen and Hardcopy Permit and Certificate Forms along with State Flow Logic Entry of Authorisation personnel and permissions Injection of Plant Isolation Information (note: - can be grown with system) Injection of Risk Assessment Information (note: - can be grown with system) Configuration of Site Drawing for Digital Dashboard (optional) Integration with existing Work Management System (optional) It is the definition and the adoption programme that needs special attention. As one might guess the definition stage presents a series of challenges to get agreement if methods are going to be improved over the existing process rather than a current system setup. For the oil and gas offshore people getting people together should be factored into the plan. Always put in place a project manager with the authority level to facilitate and make decisions. Allocate realistic timescales but with hard target milestones. All pretty obvious but needless to say are the reasons why many software systems get delayed. Engica are obviously here to help the process. Our UK office currently implements numerous major systems each year so we've seen and been there. We rely on success for our next job so we want our clients to shape up well. Quality training is central to the use of an Integrated Safe System of Work. Central to the use of the Q4 Permit system are a series of training packages to get the system working effectively for all your staff and contracting personnel. A series of purpose built training packages to get the system implemented across the field and onshore sites can be constructed to install confidence in the system and the discipline to use the systems correctly. In addition purpose built e-learning courses can be designed as part of the overall project. The e- learning courses are tailored around the necessary level of knowledge each user needs. Here are some aspects that pertain to offshore sites Project Management Awareness and Communication Campaign Purpose Built E-Training Adoption Package Procedure Manuals Super User and Administration System Training Mass Staff Training Offshore Handholding Page 6 of 8

8 Adoption and Implementation Operational Languages International installations with regard to native language operators such as China and Kazakhstan have to be borne in mind. The Q4 Safety system has been purposely designed for multi-lingual deployment. This can be in the pure native language which substantially applies to Power utilities, whilst oil and gas often uses English as its management language. Having a single language however may degrade its message functions to native staff. Engica overcome this by having dual language formats on both forms and data. This type of configuration takes longer to implement and increases the cost of a system due to providing dual language training and other elements. As a footnote our experience is that Polish translation represented one of the harder languages to present due to phrase and field label lengths. Chinese or symbolic script is surprisingly much easier but requires the whole system to be uni-coded which Q4 is. Another advisory point is to choose a system that has already undergone one system multi-language use or you will be waiting a long time for its delivery, Engica's first translation experience was Japanese over ten years ago and we had to learn many hard lessons about data base query language handling and other language interface factors. Engica are pleased to say that we have developed the necessary techniques to overcome these factors and have a track record of proven use in many languages. Life Cycle Considerations Situations vary depending upon the plants life cycle which can categorised into six basic phases; plant design, plant construction & commissioning, early life operation, mid-life operation, late-life operation but approaching retirement and finally decommissioning & disassembly. All require a comprehensive approach to safety but design to mid-life offer the best opportunities to apply new electronic systems if looking at the return on investment. The oil and gas industry have a good track record of early deployment of management systems and new design and builds offer a great opportunity to get systems set up even through the design phase ready for the construction and operation phases. Cost Considerations Recognising that safety should not be sacrificed for cost, it is however normal to factor the cost into a solution selection. With regard to a Software Safety Management System a view must be taken not only on the initial implementation which should encompass the necessary project elements to make the installation a success but also confirmation on the life running costs. Selection of the technology and its underlying architecture play a key role in keeping the costs fair with regard to system support, upgrades and development of new custom elements that may be needed. Sound advice is to always check with existing users and to question variation to contract costs as well as overall costs. Factors such as experience, size of user base, integration track record and international support may well affect a solution choice. The best is not necessarily the most expensive but the application choice must have a pedigree of proven use to avoid problems with a mission critical safety system. Engica feel well positioned in all of the aspects mentioned above and more, and can assess potential client requirements and prepare a detailed project plan with unambiguous costs for both the implementation project and its life cycle costs. Page 7 of 8

9 Synopsis The age of Integrated Safe System of Work ISSoW systems is taking shape and there are a number of further techniques not covered in this short article that can also assist a safety engineer. The next decade will see substantial improvements although a completely risk free environment is somewhat hard to envisage. Dealing with high energy, Mother Nature, harsh environments and absolute staff awareness all create a challenge to safety. For more information see Engica Technology provide software, implementation and integration for mission critical maintenance, work flow, safety and logistic management. Author: Ken Huskisson Copyright: Engica Technology Systems Intenational 2003 Page 8 of 8