Facility Change Proposal - · Web viewPR-1001a - Facility Change Proposal Printed 22/10/14 The...

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.Facility Change Proposal

Document ID PR-1001a

Document Type Procedure

Security Unrestricted

Discipline Engineering and Operations

Owner Functional Production Manager - UOP

Issue Date October 2014

Revision 5.1

Petroleum Development Oman LLC Revision: 5.1Effective: Oct-14

This page was intentionally left blank

PR-1001a - Facility Change Proposal Printed 06/05/23

The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink®. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.

Copyright: This document is the property of Petroleum Development Oman, LLC. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior written consent of the owner.


i Document AuthorisationAuthorised For Issue – September 2013




ii Revision HistoryThe following is a brief summary of the 4 most recent revisions to this document. Details of all revisions prior to these are held on file by the issuing department.

Revision No.

Date Author Scope / Remarks

5.1 Oct-13 Philip Hatherton UOP61

Revisions to incorporate minor amendments

5.0 Sep-13 Robin Norman UOP61 Major changes to align with new electronic form and process

4.0 Apr-11 Robin Norman UOP6 Major changes. See Addendum 2 for details

3.0 Mar-09 Robin Norman UOP6 Inclusion of separate Production Measurement activities on FCP Form and in Section 2.2 of procedure. Refer to Addendum 1 for full details

iii Related Business Processes

Code Business Process (EPBM 4.0)

EP.72 Maintain and Assure Facilities Integrity

iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF) Documents

The related CMF Documents can be retrieved from the CMF Business Control Portal.

Refer to Appendix 4



http://sww4.pdo.shell.om/CMFportal/Default.aspx


TABLE OF CONTENTS1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Background..................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Purpose........................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Distribution / Target Audience.........................................................................................6

1.4 Changes to the Document...............................................................................................6

1.5 Variance Approval...........................................................................................................6

2 Roles and Responsibilities....................................................................................................7

3 FCP Process Overview.........................................................................................................9

3.1 Overview of the FCP Process........................................................................................10

Appendix 1 – FCP Prioritisation Tool..........................................................................................11

Appendix 2 – HSE 1 and HSE 2 Risk Assessment Nomographs...............................................15

Appendix 3 - Monitoring the FCP Progress................................................................................16

Appendix 4 – Control of Critical Documentation.........................................................................19

Appendix 5 – Abbreviations........................................................................................................20

Appendix 6 – Reference Material and Related Documents........................................................21

Appendix 7 – User Feedback Form............................................................................................22




1 Introduction

1.1 BackgroundOperational requirements, modifications and safety of personnel and equipment during the life of the asset may require changes to systems / equipment configuration, critical documentation and operating parameters. Regardless of whether the change is of a temporary or permanent nature, if it is not ‘Like for Like’, it must be assessed and carried out in a controlled and accountable manner. Refer to CP-206 – Management of Change CoP for more details. Changes to Operational Facilities shall be assessed and carried out in accordance with this Procedure.

1.2 PurposeThe purpose of this procedure is to ensure that all Facility Change Proposals are executed in a consistent manner.

1.3 Distribution / Target AudienceThis procedure is intended for Area Engineering Operations, Engineering and Maintenance Contractor and Off-plot Development Contractors who have a requirement to develop or modify existing assets.

1.4 Changes to the DocumentResponsibility for the upkeep of the Document shall be with Functional Production Manager UOP, the Owner. Changes to this document shall only be authorised and approved by the Owner.

Users of the Document who identify inaccuracy or ambiguity can notify the Custodian or his/her delegate and request changes be initiated. The Requests shall be forwarded to the Custodian using the “User Feedback Page” provided in this Document.

The Document Owner and the Document Custodian should ensure review and re-verification of this procedure every 3 years.

1.5 Variance ApprovalNot applicable to this procedure.



http://mus-ws-003/livelink/livelink.exe?func=ll&objAction=download&objId=13359754



2 Roles and Responsibilities

All affected personnel shall read this procedure. If they do not understand something within the procedure they shall ask their line supervisor or The Operating Integrity Coordinator (Interior) to explain it. It is the line Supervisor’s Responsibility to ensure that all his subordinates have read and understood this procedure. When the procedure is read and understood they shall sign the Record of Procedure Understanding Form.

FCP Originator Identifying changes required for FCP

Raising FCP with clear scope proposal and submission to line / discipline supervisor.

Attach relevant supporting e.g. PEFS’s, SLD’s, Drawings, Photos, HSE reports, site scratch, etc.

Line / Discipline Supervisor

Screen the FCP (with other site discipline teams if required) to ensure that the proposed FCP is feasible and will provide value in terms of safety and production to the business.

Recommending Multi-Craft Site Review where considered appropriate

Supporting or Not Supporting the proposal

Ensure all technicians under his supervision read and understand the procedures and sign the Record of Procedure Understanding Form

Production / Maintenance Coordinator / Dept. Head – FCP Owner

Review and comment on the FCP

Recommend ‘Fast Track’

Supporting or Not Supporting the proposal (Endorse the FCP)

Ensure that the Record of Procedure Understanding Form is correctly completed and retained in a central location within each area.

Site Focal Point Ensures FCP is adequately supported with drawings and documentation

Record the FCP at area level

Forward to the FCP Coordinator for registration




FCP Coordinator Processes the FCP at directorate level

Allocate the FCP tracking number (not to be confused with the auto generated Serial No allocated when request is opened).

Identifies the Critical Documentation that must be delivered at completion of FCP.

Identify and Route the FCP through Technical Authority and Operations Support reviews or through to FCP panel if no engineering required.

Organise and attend FCP panel meetings (Area Wide) and issue minutes.

Day to day support on any related FCPs issues.

Close FCP on condition of all mandatory deliverables are in place.

Production Strategy and Support Team

Review FCP for Technical Implications and decide on the Technical Authority Review.

Provide comment and background to assist the TA’s

Nominate additional Critical Documentation if required.

Technical Authority Head (other Disciplines TA’s) Review Team

Review FCP technical content with regard to discipline safety and feasibility.

Attend FCP Panel review meeting if requested.

Nominate additional Critical Documentation if required.

FCP Panel Review the FCP and make comment

Allocate a priority

Recommend the source of funding for the work

Recommend ‘lateral’ and ‘site ‘ implementation

Agree Target Completion Date

Approve or Not Support the FCP or recommend a further review

Agree the Project Engineer who will be responsible for execution

FCP Implementer (e.g. Project Engineer)

Prepare budget estimate and monitors it against that allocated by FCP

Preparation of implementation documentation after FCP approval.

Prioritise FCP at implementation stage.

Updates the completion date and confirms implementation complete in FCP tool.

Oversee the implementation of the FCP in line with Brownfield modification process in PR-1666, and advice / update progress.

Commissioning Engineer / FCP Implementer

Presents final drawings to Station Operator for verification

Turns final drawing stamped as verified by Station Operator into As built Masters




Station Operator Checks the final drawings and stamps as verified

Asset Information Centre (AIC)

Release master information for further updates.

Publish electronic master files in corporate repository and notify concerned parties.

Confirm publishing of critical documentation against identified documentation list.

Monitor replication of electronic master documents to controlled hardcopies at selected locations.

Station Hardcopy Controller (SHC)

Prints, stamps and signs new revisions of controlled hardcopies on publishing of a master file in corporate electronic repository

Delivers new controlled hardcopies to selected location(s) and replaces old ones

Confirms replacement of the hardcopies to AIC

Perform periodic reviews to make sure old paper copies are removed / destroyed

Maintenance Staff Comply with this procedure

Ensure the procedures are read and understood and they sign the Record of Procedure Understanding Form




3 FCP Process OverviewThe flow diagram below is a graphical representation of Web based workflow that supports FCP process.




3.1 Overview of the FCP Process

1. The originator creates a new FCP proposal from the Web based application. Facilities Upgrade Management System. The originator will populate the FCP Proposal and ensure that all the required supporting documentation is attached. On completion the proposal will be sent electronically with the supporting documentation to the Line Supervisor.

2. The line supervisor will review the FCP proposal and ensure that the correct level of supporting documentation is attached. The supervisor may have the FCP proposal reviewed by other supervisors in the field. The approved FCP proposal is then sent to the Production Coordinator for endorsement.

3. The Production Coordinator will review and endorse the FCP proposal before sending to the FCP coordinator for registration and action. The Production Coordinator can recommend ‘Fast Track’ if he/she sees a business opportunity.

4. The FCP Coordinator (or Site Focal Point in the North) review the FCP proposal and register it (give it an FCP number). The FCP coordinator shall indicate in the FCP tool which Critical Documentation shall be required for handover before the FCP is closed out. The FCP Coordinator sends the FCP proposal for TA review.

5. The TA review shall ensure the FCP is technically sound. The TA’s can also identify further Critical Documents that require to be updated as part of the proposed changes.

6. Following the TA review a preliminary budget will be prepared and the FCP will be prioritised. This assist the FCP Panel in their decision making.

7. The FCP panel will convene and review the FCP proposal. If the FCP proposal is accepted it will approved for implementation either through project or engineering contract. The FCP panel will also review the Critical Documentation requirement and make recommendations if required.

8. The FCP proposal will be implemented. During implementation the nominated Critical Documentation will be updated submitted for review.

9. The FCP will closed out by the FCP Coordinator when it has been completed and all the nominated Critical Documentation has been submitted and approved for issue.

A more detailed description of the FCP process can be obtained from the HELP menu on the Facilities Upgrade Management System web page.



http://sww16.corp.pdo.om/FCPTOOL

http://sww16.corp.pdo.om/FCPTOOL


Appendix 1 – FCP Prioritisation ToolThe FCP Prioritisation tool will be used to provide useful information to the OxO2’s and the FCP panel when deciding FCP rankings of importance to the business.

The tool covers ‘Non-HSE FCP’s’ and ‘HSE & Technical Integrity FCP’s’.

Non-HSE can be defined as FCP’s that are associated with reliability, operability and improvement work. The affect of the FCP is generally localised.

HSE & Technical Integrity can be defined as FCP’s that are of a larger more complex nature and may have impact on other systems and equipment.

Each of the above use a points system to rate the FCP. The rating is then used to indicate the importance and whether the goals of the FCP can be achieved.

Non-HSE FCPAssess the FCP using the following processes.

1. Estimate the Cost Benefit of the FCP in terms of US$ saved per year

2. Using the results from 1 above calculate the number of years to payback the investment (cost of the FCP)

3. Calculate Priority of the FCP from the Economics Table

Annul Benefit US$

<10K 10K–25K 25K-50K 50K-100K >100K

Payb

ack

Tim

e

<3m Low Low Medium High High

<1Y Low Low Medium High

<2Y Low Low Medium

<2Y

Economics Table4. Assess the ‘Do-Ability’ of the FCP from the Do-Ability Table

Likelihood of Success Score

Has been done in PDO and proved successful 3

Has not been done in PDO but has proved successful in other business assets

2

Has never been tried or tested before 1

Simplicity of Project Score

Straightforward, uncomplicated and easy to implement 3

Relatively complex, but not too complicated 2

Very complex, high complication and associated risk 1

Do-Ability TableDo-Ability = Likelihood of Success x Simplicity of the Project




5. Determine Proceed or Consider as a function of Priority against Do-Ability using the Decision Table.

Do-Ability Score

1-2 3 4-9

Prio

rity

Rat

ing

High Consider Consider Proceed

Medium Low Feasibility Consider Proceed

Low Low Feasibility Low Feasibility Proceed

Decision Table6. The result of the Decision Table shall be submitted to the FCP Panel as

guidance for their decision. The result can also be used to determine if the OxO2’s can authorise the FCP provided it is within their scope.

HSE & Technical IntegrityAssess the FCP using the following processes.

1. Conduct a Risk Assessment - Qualification to determine the Risk Score. Use the Risk Nomograph HSE-1 in Appendix 2. Below is a worked example for clarification.

Example

Start on the ‘Likelihood’ (left side). In this example the ‘Likelihood’ of the identified risk is ‘conceivable but very unlikely’, however the ‘exposure’ to the risk is experienced ‘frequently (daily)’. Drawing a line (in red) from the ‘conceivable but very unlikely’ through ‘frequently (daily)’ to the ‘Tie Line’ provides the 1st point of reference.

Determine the ‘possible consequence’, safety or environment whichever has the greatest impact, and draw a line from the ‘Tie Line’ 1st intersect point through the consequence to the ‘Risk Score’

This value shall be the Risk Score for future calculations. From the example this is 6.




2. Conduct a Risk Assessment - Justification to determine the Justification Score. Use the Risk Nomograph HSE-2 in Appendix 2. Below is a worked example for clarification using the Risk Score of 6 (previous example).

Example

Locate 6 on the ‘risk score’ axis (left). Determine the risk reduction that the FCP will achieve, in this example ‘eliminate’, and draw a line (red) from 6 through ‘eliminate’ to the ‘Tie Line’.

From the intersect point on the Tie Line draw a line through the ‘cost correction’ axis at the point indicating the cost of the FCP. Extend this line to the Justification Score axis. The point where the axis is cut will be the justification score. From the example this is 3

3. Calculate Priority of the FCP using the HSE Table.

Justification Score

1-7 8-19 20-60

Ris

k Sc

ore

0 - 49 Low Feasibility Low Medium

50 - 199 Consider Medium High

200 - 500 Consider High High

HSE Table4. Assess the ‘Do-Ability’ of the FCP from the Do-Ability Table

Likelihood of Success Score

Has been done in PDO and proved successful 3

Has not been done in PDO but has proved successful in other business assets

2

Has never been tried or tested before 1

Simplicity of Project Score




Straightforward, uncomplicated and easy to implement 3

Relatively complex, but not too complicated 2

Very complex, high complication and associated risk 1

Do-Ability TableDo-Ability = Likelihood of Success x Simplicity of the Project

5. Determine Proceed or Consider as a function of Priority against Do-Ability using the Decision Table.

Do-Ability Score

1-2 3 4-9

Prio

rity

Rat

ing

High Consider Consider Proceed

Medium Low Feasibility Consider Proceed

Low Low Feasibility Low Feasibility Proceed

Decision Table6. The result of the Decision Table shall be submitted to the FCP Panel as

guidance for their decision. The result can also be used to determine if the OxO2’s can authorise the FCP provided it is within their scope.




Appendix 2 – HSE 1 and HSE 2 Risk Assessment Nomographs




Appendix 3 - Monitoring the FCP ProgressFUMS provides comprehensive facilities to track and monitor the status of the FCP.

It is not the objective of this procedure to duplicate the User Guide which can be accessed from the HELP dropdown menu.

However for the purpose of this procedure the Reports will be briefly covered.

The main functions from the above dropdown that are of interest to most personnel using the system are FCP KPI’s, New Proposal Tracker and View Status

FCP KPI Reports




New Proposal Tracker

View Status

When clicking ‘View’ the PCP is opened with all the entries shown

By clicking ‘View' Proposal Details’ the FCP will be opened in a format that can be printed and attached as a report etc.




Appendix 4 – Control of Critical DocumentationAll FCP projects or changes regardless of size shall be analysed to identify concerned critical documentation for delivery as part of FCP implementation.

Delivery and publishing of identified critical documentation shall be assured before FCP request can be closed.

As a minimum, Critical Documentation identified in CP-115 Operation of Surface Product Flow Assets – CoP shall be reviewed and be updated / produced as part of each FCP request. This is a mandatory requirement and part of the Management of Change process.

Verification of PEFS / Critical DrawingsThe Commissioning Engineer and / or FCP implementer shall with the involvement of the Station Operator, verify the accuracy of the final PEFS / critical drawings. The verification process shall involve if necessary ‘line walks’ and additional ‘red lining’. On completion the Station Operator will signify his acceptance of the final PEFS / critical drawings by stamping two sets and retaining one in the station control room until delivery of the final As-Built Master copies. Refer to PR-1666 - Engineering and Operations Document, Drawing and Data Control Procedure for full process.

Management of Controlled HardcopiesCritical documentation that requires additional Controlled Hardcopies to be maintained at various PDO locations shall be managed in accordance with PR-1666 - Engineering and Operations Document, Drawing and Data Control Procedure.

Identified Controlled Hardcopy documents shall be stamped and signed and maintained at the designated locations. Each controlled hardcopy shall be ‘manually synchronised’ with Corporate Electronic Master whenever a change is recorded. This process shall be consistent across PDO as a whole. Periodic audits shall be performed to ensure alignment between the Master and the Controlled Hardcopy in accordance with PR-1712 – AI-PS Assurance Procedure.

The Role and Responsibilities of Custodian of Controlled Hardcopies (CCH) shall clearly defined in PR-1666 - Engineering and Operations Document, Drawing and Data Control Procedure.

The AIC shall notify the CCH on publishing of new revision or a new document and ensure the CCH adherence to PR-1666 - Engineering and Operations Document, Drawing and Data Control Procedure.



http://mus-As-330/livelink/livelink.exe?func=ll&objAction=download&objId=95388













Appendix 5 – AbbreviationsAI-PSM Assets Integrity and Process Safety Management

AIC Asset Information Centre

CCH Custodian of Controlled Hardcopies

CFDH Corporate Functional Discipline Head

DCS Distributed Control System

FCP Facilities Change Proposal

FUMS Facility Upgrade Management System

HSE Health, Safety and Environment

MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure

MoC Management of Change

PDO Petroleum Development Oman

PEFS Process Engineering Flow Schematic

PLC Process Logic Control

PSV Pressure Safety Valve

RV Relief Valve

SCADA Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition

TA Technical Authority




Appendix 6 – Reference Material and Related DocumentsCodes of Practice

CP-114 - Maintenance & Integrity Management Code of Practice

CP-115 - Operate Surface Product Flow Assets - CoP

CP-206 – Management of Change CoP

Specifications

SP-1247 – Project Change Proposal and Standards Variance.

SP-2120 Specification for Change Management and Operations Varianc e Procedures

PR-1504 - Facility Change Proposal Procedure for Main Oil Line, South Oman Gas Line & MAF Terminal

PR-1666 - Engineering and Operations Document, Drawing and Data Control Procedure

PR-1712 – AI-PS Assurance Procedure













Appendix 7 – User Feedback Form

PR-1001a – Facilities Change Proposal User Feedback Page

Any user who identifies an inaccuracy, error or ambiguity is requested to notify the custodian so that appropriate action can be taken. The user is requested to return this page fully completed, indicating precisely the amendment(s) recommended.

Name:

Ref ID Date:

Page Ref: Brief Description of Change Required and Reasons

To:

Surface Operations and Integrity Team Leader (Custodian) Date:



Facility Change Proposal - · Web viewPR-1001a - Facility Change Proposal Printed 22/10/14 The...

Documents

Transcript of Facility Change Proposal - · Web viewPR-1001a - Facility Change Proposal Printed 22/10/14 The...