Re: [foxboro] Recommended practices for assigning Alarm Priorities
- From: brad.s.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:09:22 -0600
We have 3 levels of alarms - 1, 2, 3
We have 3 levels of consequence of inaction - high, medium, and low
We have 3 levels of operator response to prevent the consequence - fast (<
15 mins), medium (15-45 mins), slow (> 45 mins)
A table balances consequence of inaction against urgency of operator
response to assign alarm levels.
For example,
a low consequence that requires a fast response is level 2
a medium consequence that requires a fast response is level 1
a medium consequence that requires a medium or slow response is level 2
a high consequence that requires a medium response is level 1
a high consequence that requires a slow response is level 2
The holes in this table are:
high consequence that requires a fast response - this should be handled by
a dedicated emergency shutdown system
low consequence that requires a medium or slow response should not be
categorized as alarms, but rather as alerts
How alerts are handled has been discussed on this list previously.
How to determine what high, medium and low consequence means is up to each
plant.
Foxboro I/A provides for 5 priorities, so there's enough flexibility to
expand this table, or handle alerts as PRI 5 "alarms".
Brad Wilson
Process Control Engineer
ExxonMobil Chemical Co
Edison Synthetics Plant
732-321-6115
732-321-6177 fax
Brad.S.Wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
