At one level, the objectives of FSM are quite simple – they define what should be done and who can do it.
As well as the “phases” shown down the centre of the lifecycle diagram, there are 3 “sidebars” that run the length of the diagram. These are labelled as follows:
You will note that these “sidebars” run the entire length of the lifecycle – the inference being that you should do what is described in the “sidebars” for each and every phase of the lifecycle – from H&RA to decommissioning. The “sidebars” together define and deliver FSM.
The work done to deliver each lifecycle phase should be planned. The plan should describe how FSM and compliance to IEC 61511 will be achieved. The plan may be developed as a single document covering the entire project or plans may be developed phase-by-phase. =Method’s preference is for the latter.
A typical safety plan would include:
Verification is an independent check, focused on the technical excellence of a piece of work. Competence to carry out verification is normally the same as that required to do the work itself.
Independence is an essential requirement. The Verifier should be carrying out a “cold eyes” review on a document that is entirely new to them. While this ensures the verifier is not swayed by any earlier involvement in the work, it also ensures that the documentation is written in such a way that it is understandable to someone who did not have the benefit of being involved in the work to generate the document.
IEC 61511 doesn’t provide guidance on what should actually be done for verification, instead it focusses on ensuring that verification is planned and carried out. We are at liberty to carry out verification in any way we see fit – as long as competent people have planned it. Checklists can be very useful tools here.
Note – many people use the term “Verification and Validation Plan” (sometimes “V&V Plan”). This implies that these two activities (verification and validation) would be best described in the same document. =Method’s view is that this is not the best approach (perhaps this phrase is used by those who don’t properly understand the difference between verifying and validating). A verification plan needs to be written for each lifecycle task (e.g. the verification plan for the HazOp study worksheets). A validation plan is typically a Site Acceptance Test plan. The two documents are written at very different times in the project lifecycle. This may be a bit mind-bending, but there also needs to be a verification plan for the validation. We’ll just let you think about that for a bit.
Competency is made up of 3 basic elements:
We can help you implement functional safety management on a project – helping to author safety plans, carrying out independent verification and helping you demonstrate competence.
Customised 1-day introduction to functional safety for steel manufacturer.Industry: Mining / Metal / Cement
Developing Functional Safety Management procedures for a downstream oil industry client. The need for FSM improvements were identified by an earlier Functional Safety Audit (P-2736).Industry: Oil and Gas Onshore
Providing "as required" support on functional safety activities to a drinks industry client.Industry: Brewing and Distilling
Developing IEC 61511 compliant safety plans to cover various lifecycle activities on behalf of a drinks industry client.Industry: Brewing and Distilling
Providing general support to a client project for gas storage - assistance to author project Safety plan, SRS and verifying PFD calculations using aeShield.Industry: Oil and Gas Onshore
E: firstname.lastname@example.org. T: 44 (0)1462 713313. W: www.methodfs.com