Team Name: Hazards Mitigators

Project Title: Sea Water Intake Guide Cleaning

 Plant in commercial operation since 2007
Current capacity of 1300MW
Equipped with 4x Gas turbine, 4 x HRSG and 3 Steam turbines

2
 TEAM MEMBERS
Miguel Benito Dols
(Station Manager)
Sendil Adebban
(Facilitator)

Project Execution Team

( KMC )

Ajayakumar Kevin Chew Ravi Balu Keith Ho Sivakanesh

Praveen Kumar
( Team Leader )

Project Implementation Team

( HITACHI )

Saravanan Illayaraja Karthi Tamil P. Murugan

Raja Sivanathan Rajakumar N Murugan Muthuvel

3
 PROJECT SELECTION & DEFINITION

4
 IDENTIFIED PROJECTS

1. Broad Base
Identified Problem : Most injuries on A- ladders results from falls while working at heights.

2. Stop gate guide cleaning

Identified Problem : A manual intervention(Divers) / hydro-jetting is required during outages to clean stop gate
guides for better sealing while performing maintenance works.

3. I’m Safe at Height

Identified Problem : Injuries due to slipping & tripping while erecting the scaffoldings due to inadequate
contact
surface.
5
 PROJECT SELECTION

Criteria Weight 1 point 2 point 3 point 4 point 5 point

5-6 month 2-3 month < month

A Execution time 15% >6month 4-5 month

B Cost 10% >5000 3k-5k 2K-3K 1K-2K <1K

C Frequency of activity 30% 1day/Annum 2day/Annum 3day/Annum 4day/Annum >5day/Annum

Impact on
D 45% 4 /Year 3 /Year 2 /Year 1 /Year 0 /Year
safety(Incident)

6
 PROJECT SELECTION
Decision Matrix Table
Rating Weightage Weightage Weightage Weightage Weightage
S.no Project Hazard Possibility Operation Maintenance Human Activity Duration Item Cost Rank
( 1- 10 ) ( 45) (30) (15) ( 10 ) (100)

Material 5000
Ladder Collapse Properity damage/Bodily injury 2
Manpower 2000
Design 2000
Fall from height Bodily injury 3
Fabrication 2500
1 Broad the base 25 0 1.5 hr/ day 0 15 2 Months 10 2 50 3
PE Approval 2000

Total 5 Documentation 1000

Total 14500

Suction due to sea water pump Material 500

Drowning 10
operation
Manpower 1000
Design 200
2 Online Guide Cleaning Bodily Injury Diver caught by submerged object 5 38 >5 day / year > 5 day/ Annum > 5 day / Annum 26 15 days 8 3 72 1
Fabrication 1000
PE Approval 0

Total 15 Documentation 200

Total 2900

Material 4500
Properity damage/Bodily injury 5 Manpower 2000
Design 1000
2
3 I am safe at height Fall from height 30 0 hr/day 0.05 hr/ day 3 hr/day 26 3 week 6 Fabrication 1000 62 2
Fatal 10 PE Approval 2000
Documentation 1000
Total 15 Total 11500

The online guide cleaning project was selected as the SIT project for year 2016 as it got the highest score of 72.

7
 KMC conducts regular inspections of intake channel screening equipment
which are submerged in the water on annual basis. Prior to the each
inspection, KMC do engages 3rd party contracts to conduct the inspection and
cleaning of the stop gate guides at the intake channel by hydro jetting / with
divers for better sealing during maintenance works.

Screening System

Stop gate Guide

8
 PROJECT SCHEDULE
2015 / 2016
S.no Activity Responsible
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Miguel
Sendil
Rajesh
1 Formation of Safety Innovation Team Guna

2 Identification of potential projects All

3 Selection of project and problem analysis All

4 Root cause analysis & implementation of immediate system remedies All

5 Risk assessment on identified process All

Praveen,Ajay,Ravi,
6 Analyzing alternative engineering solutions Keith , Siva

7 Fabricating and testing of selected engineering solution All

Karti,Sara,Tamil,
8 Implementation of prototype Murugan,Illayaraja

9 Re-assessment on the final product All

10 Documentation,procurement and application procedure All

11 Review of future SIT project theme All

12 Write-up on SIT project All

13 Adoption & implementation of selected engineering solution All

14 Presentation of SIT project All

9
 RISK ASSESSMENT (Before)
ACTIVITY - BASED RISK ASSESSMENT FORM
Company: Divetech Marine Services Pte Ltd Conducted by: Tan ling Sze- Risk Assesment team Leader.
Diving Operations to clean the stop (Name, Tan Pin Chun - Risk Assesment Team Member.
Process/Location: gate guides designations) Ethan Oh Rong- Risk assesment team member.
Approved by: (Date) 01-Sept-2015
(Name, designation) Alexis Chee Young Chaimm Last Review
01-Sept-2015 Next Riview date: 30-Aug-2016
(Date) Manager , 01 Sept 2015 Date:
1. Hazard Identification 2. Risk Evaluation 3. Risk Control
2d
1a. 1b. 1c. 1d. 2a. 2b. 2c. . 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e
Residual Risk
Possible Accident/ Action Officer
Existing Risk Additional Risk Control Index
No. Work Activity Hazard Ill Health &Persons S L R
control Measures Designation
at risk S L R
(Follow-up date

Safety clearances to
be signed
Suction due to Diver only to enter
Drowning 5 2 10
sea water pump when the dive site
declared safe to dive
Working inside
1C Diving supervisor
intake chambers
Divers briefed on floor
Divers equipped with
Diver caught by plan of site and potential
Bodily Injury surface supplied
the submerged 5 2 10 obstacles highlighted 5 1 5
or Fatal breathing gas,
object prior to dive
cameras and lights
commencement

Likelihood
Almost
Rare Remote Occasional Frequent
Certain
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
Severity
Catastrophic (5) 5 10 15 20 25
Major (4) 4 8 12 16 20
Moderate (3) 3 6 9 12 15
Minor (2) 2 4 6 8 10
Negligible (1) 1 2 3 4 5

10
 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE
MAN
Non-compliance of safety rules
MATERIAL
Feeling giddiness

Failure of oxygen supply

Improper Communication

Rushing to finish the job Failure of life guard/life line

Intake
Over confidence on the Job
channel
guide
cleaning
Administration control by divers
Online Camera

Diving in the sea water intake Muddy water

Oxygen Supply

Communication failure Caught by submerged object

MACHINE METHOD ENVIRONMENT

11
 EXISTING METHOD
Most preferred

Least preferred

12
 PROPOSED METHOD
Most preferred

Least preferred

13
 INNOVATION & AREA OF IMPROVEMENT

A cleaning device which keeps the stop gate guides clean eliminating the need for
any human entry into the seawater intake channels.

KMC explored the possibilities of developing a mechanical cleaning device to clean

the stop gate guides periodically to minimize the marine growth along the guides.

14
 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
Proposed Solution 1 :
To conduct the guide cleaning with “ Remote Operated Vessel” during plant in operation : A hydro jetting
nozzle attached on to the motor operated machine which can float and submerged in the water.
Advantages : Limitations :
1. Easy mobility within the channel 1. Not effective cleaning at corners due to jetting arrangement
2. No personnel is required to enter the intake channel 2. Not able to control at sea bed level due to under water current
during operation enter the intake channel during operation 3 . Total plant shutdown is required , to retract the ROV if it is entangled with
any objects.
4. Very few suppliers are available in the market
5. Heavy water consumption
6. Risk from high pressure hoses failure.

15
 Proposed Solution 2 :
To conduct the guide cleaning with “ In position hydro jetting” during plant in operation: A hydro jetting nozzle
attached on to a fixture and operated with lifting jig .
Advantages : Limitations :
1. Fit for purpose 1. Heavy Water consumption.
2. Hydraulic operated winches which are operated at 30000psi
3 . Frequent break down due to the machinery arrangement
4. Customized jig is required. Customer to bear the fabrication cost of the jig.
5. Heavy equipment mobilization and de-mobilization is required. Customer to bear the cost.

16
 Proposed Solution 3 :
To conduct the guide cleaning with “ Mechanical spring loaded Scrapers” during plant in operation : Online
cleaning with scrapers attached to the jig which performs cleaning of the guide channel along the way it
travels in the guide.
Advantages : Limitations :
1. Fit for purpose 1. Scraper replacement is required to suit to the guides for KMC I & II.
2. No water consumption at all
3. Effectiveness of the cleaning is achieved
4. Can be used on both KMC I & II intake
5. Easier mobilization compare to previous methods
6. Can be performed with lean manpower
7. No electrical source is required

17
 Spring Holder
Cleaning Jig

Channel Guide

Spring

Scraper

18
 Solution Decision : Rating table for selected solutions
Rating Table

Criteria Weight 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Meet objective 35- Meet objective 75- Meet objective 80- Meet objective >95
A Effective 0-100% Meet objective <35%
75% 85% 95% %

B Low cost 0-100% >40000 30000 20000 10000 <1000

C Avoid Fatality 0-100% Zero/1 Year Zero/5 Year Zero/ 10 Year Zero/15 Year Zero/25 year
D Easy to Implement 0-100% >600 400-600 200-400 100-200 <100 man hrs

E Modification on existing system 0-100% Major Considerable Moderate Minor Negligible

Solution Selection

Modification to Total
Solution Effective Low Cost Avoid Fatality Easy to Implement
Existing system Average
Rank

Cleaning with “ Mechanical

90 100 100 100 100 98 1
Scrapper “
Cleaning with “ Remote Operated
70 20 80 20 80 54 3
Vessels “
Cleaning with “ Hydro jetting
80 20 100 50 60 62 2
attached to fixed jig”

19
20
 Technical Specifications

Guide Beam : Spring :

Physical Dimensions : Physical dimensions :
Material : Carbon Steel Diameter of the spring wire , d : 10mm
Steel density : 7.85 g /cm3 Outer diameter of spring ,D outer : 110mm
C- Channel Length : 3820mm x 2 Inner diameter of the spring , D inner :90mm
Width : 90mm Spring constant , k : 9.905 N/mm
Thickness x Height : 13x230mm Maximum load , F max : 2667.7 N ( 272.03 Kgf )
Weight of Other accessories : 37.6 kg
Total fixture weight : 335.6 kg

Weight of the fixture when submerged in the water :

Mass of submerged object = Mass of object x ( 1 - ρfluid / ρ Object )

= 335.6 Kg x ( 1 – 1/ 7.85 )

= 292.84 Kg.

21
22
23
 RISK ASSESSMENT ( AFTER )
ACTIVITY-BASED RISK ASSESSMENT FORM
Y.V. Praveen Kumar – RA Team Leader
Conducted By : Vasudeva Kurup Ajayakumar - RA Team Member
Project: KEPPEL MERLIMAU COGEN PTE LTD (Names, Designations, Ravi Balu - RA Team Member
Date) Ho Wen Jun, Keith – RA Team Member
Sivakanesh - RA Team Member
Raking screen inspection Approved By :
Process/Location: Miguel Benito Dols - Power Station Manager
KMC-RA-MECH-018 (Name, Designation, Date)
No. Of Pages : 06 Last Review Date: 23-04-2016 Next Review Date: 22-03-2017
1. Hazard Identification 2. Risk Evaluation 3. Risk Control
1a. 1b. 1c. 1d. 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e
Residual Risk
Possible Accident/ Ill Action Officer
Existing Risk Additional Risk Index
No. Work Activity Hazard Health &Persons at S L R
control Control Measures Designation
risk S L R
(Follow-up date
Ensure proper
postures are adopted
Supervisor in-charge
Ergonomics Body injury when carrying out the 3 1 3 Continual reviewing 3 1 3
(On-going)
activities.
Appropriate training.
Cleaning of the stop
7
gate channel guides Use the right tool for
the job.
Do not use damage/ Supervisor in-charge
Sharp edges Hand injury 3 1 3 Continual reviewing 3 1 3
Modify tools. (On-going)
Wear proper hand
gloves.

Likelihood Almo
Rem Occasi Frequ st
Rare
ote onal ent Certa
(1)
(2) (3) (4) in
Severity (5)
Catastrophic (5) 5 10 15 20 25
Major (4) 4 8 12 16 20
Moderate (3) 3 6 9 12 15
Minor (2) 2 4 6 8 10
Negligible (1) 1 2 3 4 5

24
 TANGIBLE RESULTS

25
 INTANGIBLE RESULTS

26
 STANDARDISATION

1. Routine cleaning of the stop gate guides is implemented in CMMS.

2. Routine inspection of cleaning jig is implemented.
3. Routine inspection of lifting jig , gears and appliances are implemented.
4. Routine inspection for lifting A- Frame is implemented.
5. Workers were briefed and trained on the equipment.

27
28
 REVIEW OF THE PROJECT FOR FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS

1. To enhance the existing spring loaded scrapers with pneumatic tool to

eliminate manual hammering .

2. To attach an underwater camera for the inspection.

3. To replace manual chain blocks with pneumatic winches

29
 NEXT PROJECT PROPOSAL

1. Broad Base
Identified Problem : Most injuries on A- ladders results from falls while working at heights.

Proposed Solution : By installing the detachable wider supports to increase CG of the ladder.

2. I’m Safe at Height

Identified Problem : Injuries due to slipping & trippping while erecting the scaffoldings due to
inadequate contact surface.
Proposed Solution : To modify the scaffolding clamp with welded plate to step while erecting the
scaffoldings at highest elevations.

30