Overfill Prevention Customer Presentation
55
Overfill Prevention Johan Sandberg Rosemount Tank Gauging
Transcript of Overfill Prevention Customer Presentation
Overfill Prevention Customer Presentation2
Agenda
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
3
Typical overfill – best case scenario 380 m3 / 2 400 bbls jet fuel overfill
4
SW Florida power plant – 80 000 gallon fuel oil overfill
5
Costly clean up after tank overfill – typical cost ~350 000 USD
6Tank damages due to overfill
7
state of emergency
(= approx $1 000 mn) +
every 3 300 filling operations“
Atmospheric Storage Tanks – the Most Common Cause of Incidents
11
Protect Environment
Reduce Cost of Risk Unplanned down-time Insurance costs, fines, law-suits Emergency response activities Hand-gauging, maintenance
Increase Efficiency Quicker transfers Better tank utilization Less manpower
Improve Company Image Company HSE profile Local community interaction Investor & government relations
Protect Life & Health
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
14
Secondary Containment, Dike
Prevent
Mitigate
Passive protection layer
Emergency response layer
OPS Best Practices Are Documented in Global Standards • Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS/SIL)
–Widely accepted – IEC 61508/11, ANSI/ISA-84 –Encompasses the whole safety life-cycle –Offer certified gauges and failure statistics
• API 2350: Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks In Petroleum Facilities
–Edition 4 now a standard
16
How does API 2350 fit together with IEC 61511 “SIS/SIL”? • IEC 61511
– Generic in nature – Focus solely on SIS
• API 2350 – Specific for tank gauging – Wider scope than just SIS
• IEC 61511 an excellent way to comply with API 2350 – But it is only a requirement for Automatic Overfill Prevention Systems
(AOPS) – Most tanks do not yet use AOPS but this is rapidly changing
17
Prevent
Mitigate
Passive protection layer
Emergency response layer
Critical Parts of API 2350 • Management system • Risk assessment • Operations & procedures • Overfill Prevention System • Tank gauging
19
The first line of defense – Tank Gauging • The BPCS is used 24/7
– Tank Gauging system critical to prevent overfills – Safety layer used in case BPCS fails – Replacing old mechanical gauges and alarms with modern
equipment critical to reduce risk
20
21
22
Agenda
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
23
OPS-gauge for safety
Overfill Prevention System (OPS) What do you need in practice?
Detect Decide Act
Manual or Automatic OPS
• This is the minimum requirement in API 2350 for any modern facility
• Basic principles: – Automatic detection of HiHi level – Automatic HiHi-alarm – Manual decision – Manual action
• Fully automatic system – Detect, Decide and Act – In practice equipment shall conform
to IEC 61511 • This is the direction the industry is
heading • AOPS is a future-proof investment
Manual Overfill Prevention System (MOPS)
Automatic Overfill Prevention System (AOPS)
26
API 2350 compliance made easy • Part 1: API 2350 walkthrough
– Authored by Phil Myers, API 2350 committee chairman
• Part 2: API 2350 checklists • Part 3: Emerson solutions
• Go to Rosemount.com/TankGauging
5900S + 5900S+
5900S + switch+
5900S + 5900C+
5900S 2-in-1
5900S + 5300+
5900S + 5400+
29
Continuous measurement for overfill Pros • Remote proof-testing: quicker & safer • Real time automatic data
– Level rate & time to full tank • Delta-check between level and overfill
measurements for 24/7 sanity check • Multiple set points: HiHi/Hi/Lo/LoLo • Increased tank utilization • Lower Opex Cons • Higher Capex
The Future of Overfill Prevention Belongs to Continuous Measurements Point level for overfill Pros • Well-known • Lower Capex Cons • Difficult to know whether
it works or not • Manual proof-testing on top of the
tank • Usually no remote communication or
diagnostics • Higher Opex
tested remotely from the control room • Increases safety:
– No unnecessary tampering with device • Buncefield: incorrect handling of the high-level switch had left it inoperable
– No personnel in the field • Increases efficiency:
– Cost of traditional point level proof test: • 4 hours to test×2 tests/year×10 years×$100/hour = $8 000
– Cost of continuous gauge remote proof test:
• 0,5 hours to test×1 test/year×10 years×$100/hour = $500
From this:
To this:
Detect Decide Act
32
Best Practice: Always Use SIS Certified Level Gauges in OPS
5900S 5900C 5400 5300
34
Agenda
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
35
Rosemount 5900S SIL 2/SIL 3 Installations • What Safety Integrity Level do you reach with different configurations?
OPS: 5900S/5900C ”1-in-1”
ATG: seperate opening
OPS
ATG
36
2-in-1: Three Potential Concerns • The antenna is a common part – is this a problem? • What about technology diversification? • Does it comply with safety standards?
37
2 Radars, 1 Antenna – Is It a Problem? Statistics: in case of failure, where does it most often happen?
Electronics MTBF*:
194 years
Tank MTBF*:
Only
0,2% of failures will happen here
1% of failures will happen here
* MTBF = Mean Time Between Failure ** Source: Health and Safety Executive, UK
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Tank MTBF 10,000 years figure: UK HSE report ”Failure rate and event data for use within land use planning risk assessments”, 2010
42
Technology Diversification? • Some argue that technology diversification provides best safety • Case in point: Buncefield
– 1 servo gauge – stuck! – 1 high level switch – inoperable due to mistakes in device testing!
• Technology diversification will NOT save you • Technology diversification is NOT a requirement of API2350
or IEC 61511
43
The Essence of Technology Diversification How would you like to cross the desert?
2x Jeep 1 Jeep + 1 Tata Nano
44
Diversification Not Without Risks of its’ Own • IEC 61511-2, 11.2.4:
– ”Separation between the SIS and the BPCS may use identical or diverse separation.”
• Diverse separation – “reducing the probability of systematic faults”
• Identical separation – “reduces the likelihood of maintenance errors”
• The risk of technology diversification: – Many different device types to be familiar with – Many different procedures to know – Bigger risk of human error
E.g. like what happened to the high
level switch at Buncefield
Presentation Notes
Some facts: “Human factors caused more than 60 percent of maintenance related HSE incidents in the United Kingdom's oil and gas industries since 2001.” - Burton, M.J., et al., “Human factors guidance for selecting appropriate maintenance strategies for safety in the offshore oil and gas industry”, in HSE Research Report 213, 2004. A 2006 study of storage tank accidents in industrial facilities found: 74% of accidents occurred in petroleum refineries, oil terminals or storage. Fire and explosion account for 85% of the accidents. 30% of accidents were caused by human errors including poor operations and maintenance. -Chang, James I and Lin, Chen-Chung; ”A study of storage tank accidents”; Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industries, vol 19 p51-59; 2006
45
Is 2-in-1 Compliant with Safety Standards? • Yes! • Statements from 3rd party authorities and organizations confirming it
fulfills IEC 61511 and API 2350 standards
Statement from Phil E. Myers, API 2350 committe chairman
Statement from Dr William Goble, Principle Partner exida
46
• Faster installation & commissioning – Fewer devices & device-types – Single tank-penetration – Single mechanical installation
• Online verification with -check • Measurement has better quality
– High accuracy continuous measurement • HiHi, Hi, LoLo, and Lo-alarm in same device
47
Adding Point Level OPS Switch Sounds Simple But… • Many difficulties:
– Bridle mount, stilling well or side nozzle – Separate mounting – Hot work? – Taking tank out of service? – Re-strapping? – On-tank proof test
• Lots of: – Manpower – Money – Things that can go wrong
Internal floating roofs and external decks
require stilling wells or side mouted nozzles to
be installed
Eliminate Cost of a Second Still-pipe
Conservative estimate: Pipe material $3 200 Design work $3 000 Installation $3 000 Mounting arrangements, brackets etc. $3 000
Crane rental $1 000 Revenue loss from tank out of service $6 300/day
Re-strapping the tank $9,500 TOTAL $29,000 or more
49
50
...When You Can Make it Simple! • ATG and overfill prevention in single tank opening • Simplest way to become API2350 & IEC61511 compliant
51
52
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
54
It Takes More Than the Hardware... • API2350 is a comprehensive standard • Fulfilling it takes more than having the tank equipment
Detect
Decide
Act
Operations
55
Emersons Guide to API 2350 • Please watch this video: • API2350 Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abFvHEUBxU
56
Services Example • Safety audit at customer • Recommended actions how to comply with
safety standards • Checklists in our API2350 guide is a great
help in assessment
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
58
Protect Environment
Reduce Cost of Risk Unplanned down-time Insurance costs, fines, law-suits Emergency Response Activities Hand-gauging, Maintenance
Increase Efficiency Quicker transfers Better tank utilization Less manpower
Improve Company Image Company HSE profile Local Community Interaction Investor & Government Relations
Protect Life & Health
Why Invest in Overfill Prevention?
Slide Number 12
OPS Best Practices Are Documented in Global Standards
How does API 2350 fit together with IEC 61511 “SIS/SIL”?
Different Scopes
The first line of defense – Tank Gauging
API 2350 and IEC 61511 Covers Entire Safety Life-Cycle
Why System and Process Focus?
Agenda
Overfill Prevention System (OPS)
Manual or Automatic OPS
API 2350 compliance made easy
Emerson Offers Wide Range of Possibilities for ATG + OPS Level Measurement
MOPS Installation Example, Fixed Roof Tank
The Future of Overfill Prevention Belongs to Continuous Measurements
Continuous Measurement Greatly Simplifies Proof Testing
Automatic Overfill Prevention System (AOPS)
Best Practice: Always Use SIS Certified Level Gauges in OPS
Put Together it Becomes an Automatic Overfill Prevention System
Agenda
2-in-1: Three Potential Concerns
Technology Diversification?
Diversification Not Without Risks of its’ Own
Is 2-in-1 Compliant with Safety Standards?
User benefits with 2-in-1 for Overfill
Adding Point Level OPS Switch Sounds Simple But…
Eliminate Cost of a Second Still-pipe
So Why Make it Complicated…
...When You Can Make it Simple!
Faster and Easier OPS Installation…
…On Any Tank Type!
Emersons Guide to API 2350
Services Example
Slide Number 61
Agenda
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
3
Typical overfill – best case scenario 380 m3 / 2 400 bbls jet fuel overfill
4
SW Florida power plant – 80 000 gallon fuel oil overfill
5
Costly clean up after tank overfill – typical cost ~350 000 USD
6Tank damages due to overfill
7
state of emergency
(= approx $1 000 mn) +
every 3 300 filling operations“
Atmospheric Storage Tanks – the Most Common Cause of Incidents
11
Protect Environment
Reduce Cost of Risk Unplanned down-time Insurance costs, fines, law-suits Emergency response activities Hand-gauging, maintenance
Increase Efficiency Quicker transfers Better tank utilization Less manpower
Improve Company Image Company HSE profile Local community interaction Investor & government relations
Protect Life & Health
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
14
Secondary Containment, Dike
Prevent
Mitigate
Passive protection layer
Emergency response layer
OPS Best Practices Are Documented in Global Standards • Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS/SIL)
–Widely accepted – IEC 61508/11, ANSI/ISA-84 –Encompasses the whole safety life-cycle –Offer certified gauges and failure statistics
• API 2350: Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks In Petroleum Facilities
–Edition 4 now a standard
16
How does API 2350 fit together with IEC 61511 “SIS/SIL”? • IEC 61511
– Generic in nature – Focus solely on SIS
• API 2350 – Specific for tank gauging – Wider scope than just SIS
• IEC 61511 an excellent way to comply with API 2350 – But it is only a requirement for Automatic Overfill Prevention Systems
(AOPS) – Most tanks do not yet use AOPS but this is rapidly changing
17
Prevent
Mitigate
Passive protection layer
Emergency response layer
Critical Parts of API 2350 • Management system • Risk assessment • Operations & procedures • Overfill Prevention System • Tank gauging
19
The first line of defense – Tank Gauging • The BPCS is used 24/7
– Tank Gauging system critical to prevent overfills – Safety layer used in case BPCS fails – Replacing old mechanical gauges and alarms with modern
equipment critical to reduce risk
20
21
22
Agenda
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
23
OPS-gauge for safety
Overfill Prevention System (OPS) What do you need in practice?
Detect Decide Act
Manual or Automatic OPS
• This is the minimum requirement in API 2350 for any modern facility
• Basic principles: – Automatic detection of HiHi level – Automatic HiHi-alarm – Manual decision – Manual action
• Fully automatic system – Detect, Decide and Act – In practice equipment shall conform
to IEC 61511 • This is the direction the industry is
heading • AOPS is a future-proof investment
Manual Overfill Prevention System (MOPS)
Automatic Overfill Prevention System (AOPS)
26
API 2350 compliance made easy • Part 1: API 2350 walkthrough
– Authored by Phil Myers, API 2350 committee chairman
• Part 2: API 2350 checklists • Part 3: Emerson solutions
• Go to Rosemount.com/TankGauging
5900S + 5900S+
5900S + switch+
5900S + 5900C+
5900S 2-in-1
5900S + 5300+
5900S + 5400+
29
Continuous measurement for overfill Pros • Remote proof-testing: quicker & safer • Real time automatic data
– Level rate & time to full tank • Delta-check between level and overfill
measurements for 24/7 sanity check • Multiple set points: HiHi/Hi/Lo/LoLo • Increased tank utilization • Lower Opex Cons • Higher Capex
The Future of Overfill Prevention Belongs to Continuous Measurements Point level for overfill Pros • Well-known • Lower Capex Cons • Difficult to know whether
it works or not • Manual proof-testing on top of the
tank • Usually no remote communication or
diagnostics • Higher Opex
tested remotely from the control room • Increases safety:
– No unnecessary tampering with device • Buncefield: incorrect handling of the high-level switch had left it inoperable
– No personnel in the field • Increases efficiency:
– Cost of traditional point level proof test: • 4 hours to test×2 tests/year×10 years×$100/hour = $8 000
– Cost of continuous gauge remote proof test:
• 0,5 hours to test×1 test/year×10 years×$100/hour = $500
From this:
To this:
Detect Decide Act
32
Best Practice: Always Use SIS Certified Level Gauges in OPS
5900S 5900C 5400 5300
34
Agenda
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
35
Rosemount 5900S SIL 2/SIL 3 Installations • What Safety Integrity Level do you reach with different configurations?
OPS: 5900S/5900C ”1-in-1”
ATG: seperate opening
OPS
ATG
36
2-in-1: Three Potential Concerns • The antenna is a common part – is this a problem? • What about technology diversification? • Does it comply with safety standards?
37
2 Radars, 1 Antenna – Is It a Problem? Statistics: in case of failure, where does it most often happen?
Electronics MTBF*:
194 years
Tank MTBF*:
Only
0,2% of failures will happen here
1% of failures will happen here
* MTBF = Mean Time Between Failure ** Source: Health and Safety Executive, UK
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Tank MTBF 10,000 years figure: UK HSE report ”Failure rate and event data for use within land use planning risk assessments”, 2010
42
Technology Diversification? • Some argue that technology diversification provides best safety • Case in point: Buncefield
– 1 servo gauge – stuck! – 1 high level switch – inoperable due to mistakes in device testing!
• Technology diversification will NOT save you • Technology diversification is NOT a requirement of API2350
or IEC 61511
43
The Essence of Technology Diversification How would you like to cross the desert?
2x Jeep 1 Jeep + 1 Tata Nano
44
Diversification Not Without Risks of its’ Own • IEC 61511-2, 11.2.4:
– ”Separation between the SIS and the BPCS may use identical or diverse separation.”
• Diverse separation – “reducing the probability of systematic faults”
• Identical separation – “reduces the likelihood of maintenance errors”
• The risk of technology diversification: – Many different device types to be familiar with – Many different procedures to know – Bigger risk of human error
E.g. like what happened to the high
level switch at Buncefield
Presentation Notes
Some facts: “Human factors caused more than 60 percent of maintenance related HSE incidents in the United Kingdom's oil and gas industries since 2001.” - Burton, M.J., et al., “Human factors guidance for selecting appropriate maintenance strategies for safety in the offshore oil and gas industry”, in HSE Research Report 213, 2004. A 2006 study of storage tank accidents in industrial facilities found: 74% of accidents occurred in petroleum refineries, oil terminals or storage. Fire and explosion account for 85% of the accidents. 30% of accidents were caused by human errors including poor operations and maintenance. -Chang, James I and Lin, Chen-Chung; ”A study of storage tank accidents”; Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industries, vol 19 p51-59; 2006
45
Is 2-in-1 Compliant with Safety Standards? • Yes! • Statements from 3rd party authorities and organizations confirming it
fulfills IEC 61511 and API 2350 standards
Statement from Phil E. Myers, API 2350 committe chairman
Statement from Dr William Goble, Principle Partner exida
46
• Faster installation & commissioning – Fewer devices & device-types – Single tank-penetration – Single mechanical installation
• Online verification with -check • Measurement has better quality
– High accuracy continuous measurement • HiHi, Hi, LoLo, and Lo-alarm in same device
47
Adding Point Level OPS Switch Sounds Simple But… • Many difficulties:
– Bridle mount, stilling well or side nozzle – Separate mounting – Hot work? – Taking tank out of service? – Re-strapping? – On-tank proof test
• Lots of: – Manpower – Money – Things that can go wrong
Internal floating roofs and external decks
require stilling wells or side mouted nozzles to
be installed
Eliminate Cost of a Second Still-pipe
Conservative estimate: Pipe material $3 200 Design work $3 000 Installation $3 000 Mounting arrangements, brackets etc. $3 000
Crane rental $1 000 Revenue loss from tank out of service $6 300/day
Re-strapping the tank $9,500 TOTAL $29,000 or more
49
50
...When You Can Make it Simple! • ATG and overfill prevention in single tank opening • Simplest way to become API2350 & IEC61511 compliant
51
52
• Overfill Prevention – Why Bother?
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
54
It Takes More Than the Hardware... • API2350 is a comprehensive standard • Fulfilling it takes more than having the tank equipment
Detect
Decide
Act
Operations
55
Emersons Guide to API 2350 • Please watch this video: • API2350 Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abFvHEUBxU
56
Services Example • Safety audit at customer • Recommended actions how to comply with
safety standards • Checklists in our API2350 guide is a great
help in assessment
• How Protect Your Plant • Overfill Prevention In Practice • Safety Made Simple • Implementing Standards • Summary
58
Protect Environment
Reduce Cost of Risk Unplanned down-time Insurance costs, fines, law-suits Emergency Response Activities Hand-gauging, Maintenance
Increase Efficiency Quicker transfers Better tank utilization Less manpower
Improve Company Image Company HSE profile Local Community Interaction Investor & Government Relations
Protect Life & Health
Why Invest in Overfill Prevention?
Slide Number 12
OPS Best Practices Are Documented in Global Standards
How does API 2350 fit together with IEC 61511 “SIS/SIL”?
Different Scopes
The first line of defense – Tank Gauging
API 2350 and IEC 61511 Covers Entire Safety Life-Cycle
Why System and Process Focus?
Agenda
Overfill Prevention System (OPS)
Manual or Automatic OPS
API 2350 compliance made easy
Emerson Offers Wide Range of Possibilities for ATG + OPS Level Measurement
MOPS Installation Example, Fixed Roof Tank
The Future of Overfill Prevention Belongs to Continuous Measurements
Continuous Measurement Greatly Simplifies Proof Testing
Automatic Overfill Prevention System (AOPS)
Best Practice: Always Use SIS Certified Level Gauges in OPS
Put Together it Becomes an Automatic Overfill Prevention System
Agenda
2-in-1: Three Potential Concerns
Technology Diversification?
Diversification Not Without Risks of its’ Own
Is 2-in-1 Compliant with Safety Standards?
User benefits with 2-in-1 for Overfill
Adding Point Level OPS Switch Sounds Simple But…
Eliminate Cost of a Second Still-pipe
So Why Make it Complicated…
...When You Can Make it Simple!
Faster and Easier OPS Installation…
…On Any Tank Type!
Emersons Guide to API 2350
Services Example
Slide Number 61
