AGENDA

PROJECT
HSE Topic EXPERIENCES VS
LESSON LEARNED

POLLS QUESTIONS

1
HSE TOPIC (Later)

HSE Topic

2
Project Experiences Vs Lesson learned

PROJECT EXPERIENCES LESSONS LEARNED

Project Experiences refer to a past event (positive or
negative) from which you learned or improved. They
generally describes what happened, why it happened and
what was implemented in response to the event. This is
described in sufficient detail so that it can be meaningful
for other projects.
A Project Experience that creates the need for a new
work practice or changes to an existing practice.
The office Quality manager determines if a Project
Experience is a Lessons Learned

Authored by: Any Fluor employee(s) Authored by: Office / Project Quality manager

Project Experiences workshop or submitted directly Project Experiences workshop or submitted

Captured in: Captured in:
to a Quality manager directly to a Quality manager

Reviewed by: Office or Project Quality Manager Reviewed by: Office Quality Manager

Validated by: Applicable project discipline lead(s) and Subject Validated by: Applicable project discipline lead(s) and Subject
Matter Experts Matter Experts
Change to a Change to a
No Yes
practice? practice?

Approved by: Office Quality Manager Approved by: Claims Management & Key Process Owners

Published to: Project Experiences in KOL Published to: Fluor Numbered Documents
3
 1. Isometrics in Supplier Scope
♦What Happened
– For GRE Under ground Piping and above ground Piping, IFC isometrics included in the Supplier Scope.
– For PTFE Lined piping spools, IFC isometrics included in the supplier scope

♦Why Happened
– Limitation for S3D Modeling for GRE Piping.
– Limitation for S3D modeling for PTFE Flanged Piping with different accessories.
– GRE and PTFE Piping classes were not customized in the S3D.
– Vendor data was not available for special GRE Component and PTFE Pipe Fittings.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Detail Checking of Supplier Isometrics was performed.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– Do not include isometrics in supplier scope.
– Line Classes for such special piping shall be customized in MATMAN and S3D.
– Engage SME for such special required for MATMAN and S3D.
– If required to include in supplier scope, Prepare detail SOW for Supplier – Fluor Interface and responsibilities.
– Project quality check list shall be applied for the Isometrics in Supplier Scope.

4
 2. MatMan Database Customization
♦What Happened
– For GRE Under ground Piping and above ground Piping, Piping Class was not customized MATMAN.
– For PTFE Lined flanged piping spools and fitting, Piping Class was not customized MATMAN.

♦Why Happened
– Vendor data was not available for GRE and special GRVE Component and PTFE Pipe Fittings.
– Due to aggressive project schedule it was decided not to develop detail line classes.
– 3D modeling completed as per MATMAN master catalogue data.
– Vendor data received late due to late PO.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Detail Checking of Supplier Isometrics was performed.
– Isometrics for Special piping were included in the Supplier Scope.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– Line Classes for such special piping shall be customized in MATMAN and S3D in detail.
– Get advance data from supplier and update MATMAN Catalogue for Piping and valves.
– Engage SME for such special required for MATMAN and S3D.
– Do not issue IFC isometrics without final Vendor Data.

5
 3. MatMan Database Checking- SR Elbows
♦What Happened
– Short Radius Elbows were added in stainless piping classes for size range 2 inch to 4 inch.
– Same piping class was copied to create new similar piping class and same item code was copied.

♦Why Happened
– For Stainless Steel piping class development , additional item codes were copied from Fluor master Catalogue.
– During Copy Process “ Shor Radius – SR “ item code was copied by mistake where as “LR” was required.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Item code was corrected in the MATMAN.
– S3D model was updated for all lines where SR Radius Elbows were used.
– Almost 700 lines were impact.
– Issued isometrics were revised for this correction.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– Detail checking of catalogue to be performed.
– DAS or Catalogue Engineer highlight the use of such non standard fittings.
– Designer to check if they observe such items in the Piping Class.

6
 4. Support Span consideration for Grooved Couplings
♦What Happened
– Pipe support span “4 Meter” was not followed as per manufacturer catalogue for the Piping with Victaulic Couplings.

♦Why Happened
– No detail procedure or guidelines were prepared for the design team.
– Pipe Support span related requirement identified during stress isometric checking.
– Manufacturer catalogue was not review in detail for all the design requirements recommended by supplier.
– No previous experience for Piping with Grooved Joints.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Grooved Joints piping system changed to Welded Joints
– S3D model was updated for all lines where Grooved Couplings were used.
– Almost 300 lines were impact.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– For Manufacturer specialties, detail requirements for design to be identified.
– All stakeholder shall be involved for decision making.
– Fluor SME shall be involved.

7
 5. Datasheet Requirements for SS&EW
♦What Happened
– Circulation flow requirements was not specified on the data sheet prepared by HSE Engineer.
– Horn and Warning light cable requirements were not communicated to Elec Engg.

♦Why Happened
– Flow switch can not work with circulating flow through the shower and eye wash.
– Lack of coordination during data sheet preparation.
– Other missing information on the standard data sheet template.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Flow switch changed with Proximity switch.
– Requirements of horn and warning light was deleted from the data sheet.
– Schedule impact of 2 months.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– HSE, Process, Piping, CS and Elec should review the data sheet for requirements.
– Datasheet standard template shall be updated to include additional information.
– HSE Engineer shall highlight all requirement for the safe operation.

8
 6. Hydrotest Vent / Drain for UG Piping
♦What Happened
– Hydro static vent / drains were not considered for the UG GRE piping.
– MTO for the vent and drain connection missed from the scope.

♦Why Happened
– Only conceptual design was developed by design team.
– Details requirements were not included in the draft isometrics including vent / drain..
– FPI installation manual not consulted for design requirements.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Isometrics were revised to include vent / drain.
– Change order issued to supplier for additional saddle and blind flanges.
– Construction requested to delete drain / vent from the system due to installation limitation.
– Redline mark-up was issued for construction.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– Design requirements shall be identified at the start of project for Non metallic Piping.
– Manufacturer shall be consulted for such testing requirements.
– Construction team shall be involved for the UG design review.

9
 7. Line Class Notes were not followed
♦What Happened
– Piping Line Class notes were not followed for alternative type of materials in same line class.
– Wrong material purchased e.g Valves, Gasket, Bolt, etc

♦Why Happened
– Line class notes were not followed during valve take off from P&ID.
– Different type of valves were added in line class as per P&ID requirements with alternative notes.
– Designer picked up default items in the model and ignore the alternative type per P&ID or line class requirements.
– P&ID notes were not followed.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– New valves were purchased for BW vs FLG valves.
– For EO / PO services valves were substituted.
– New Gaskets were purchased for PTFE Piping

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– P&ID and Line Class notes to be followed by designer and Material Control Team.
– Special requirements to be clearly identified on the P&ID with notes.
– Checkers and MC to follow the hard copy of piping classes for material verification.

10
 8. ¾ Inch size For GRP Piping
♦What Happened
– For drain and vent connection, ¾” size branch saddles were considered in the GRE Piping.
– P&ID was not updated as per Supplier information and MC followed the P&ID for Valve takeoff

♦Why Happened
– Piping class changed from SS to GRP as per client comments.
– Valve sizes were not updated on the P&ID to align with GRP requirement since valve PO was already placed with ¾ inch size.
– Supplier standard was not followed.
– Supplier informed that they can supply saddle with SS nipple but did not informed that SS nipple and flange is to be free issued.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– SS nipples were free issued to supplier to fix on the saddle.
– Additional threaded flanges and blind flanges were purchased to fix with SS nipple.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– P&ID and Line Class notes to be followed by designer and Material Control Team.
– Valves and SP items shall be carefully reviewed if there is any change of material.
– Supplier recommendations shall be followed.

11
 9. Effort Hours Estimation for Piping RFQ
♦What Happened
– Piping Requisition were combined as single package during planning stage.
– Effort hours were estimated considering the EPC project Scope.
– Many change orders were issued for piping bulk materials and valves with no estimate.

♦Why Happened
– As per management instruction RFQ for piping bulk materials were combined as one requisition to reduce effort hours.
– It was assumed that single stockiest will supply all material from stock.
– After PO placement stockiest place sub orders to manufacturer which was not part of estimate
– Same was happened for the metallic Hoses.

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Project Management approved additional budget to support procurement activities.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– Do not combine Piping RFQ for similar components based on assumption that stockist will supply all materials.
– Stockiest do not stock SS materials in bulk quantity.
– CS pipe manufacturers do not manufacturer SS pipes, fittings flanges etc and shall be considered as separate RFQ.

12
 10. Couplings Not Considered for SB piping
♦What Happened
– SMP contractor issued RFI for missing socket weld couplings for small bore piping.
– Socket welded couplings were not modeled in the S3D for small bore piping for pipe to pipe joint.
– Small bore welded pipe for socket welded connection supplied in 6M length with out couplings

♦Why Happened
– During modeling couplings were not considered for long pipe runs e.g. 7M or more .
– S3D software do not recognized this issue or alert to add coupling
– This was also missed out during isometric checking by checker and MC

♦Solution applied on the Project

– Contractor was advised to considered couplings where required.
– Mark-up Isometric were issued to contractor.

♦What is recommended for Future Projects

– DAS to implement check in the S3D for small bore piping if Couplings has been considered for long runs
– Designer to add couplings during modelling after every 6 M ( or project specified minimum length )
– Check list shall be implemented even for small items to avoid any miss outs.

13
Thank You

14