AI-PS Element Guide

Element 10: Technical Integrity

AI-PS Element Background Process Safety (AI-PS) describes the way we manage
our assets so that the process risk is As Low As
AI-PS in PDO Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

Assuring the safety of our people, our assets, the What it is

environment
Doc. Reference: and the companys reputation is a core
GU-XXX-10
value Asset Integrity Process Safety (AI-PS) is the means of
Version: Issueof
1.0PDO and providing assurance that we are
managing our major process safety risks is a critical ensuring that the people, systems, processes and
Date: 10 August 2011
aspect of our corporate governance. Asset Integrity resources, which deliver integrity, are in place, in use
Doc. Owner: Head of Technical Safety Engineering
(MSE4)
Element Owner: Head of Maintenance & Integrity
(UOM)
and fit for purpose throughout the whole lifecycle of Element 4: Workplace Involvement
the asset. The aim is to be able to confidently state Element 5: Stakeholder Outreach
that our assets are safe and we know it.
Element 6: Process Knowledge Management
Asset Integrity Process Safety Management is a Element 7: HEMP
complex area of expertise covering a wide range of Element 8: Plant Operating Manuals
components, all of which are essential to ensuring Element 9: PTW
systems, processes and equipment perform as Element 10: Technical Integrity
required. There are a number of Elements which make
up the Asset Integrity Process Safety management Element 11: Contractor Management
system. Element 12: Training and Performance Assurance
Element 13: Management of Change
Structure of AI-PS Assurance in PDO Element 14: Readiness for Start Up
Element 15: Conduct of Operations
PDO has a three-tiered approach to AI-PS assurance:
Element 16: Emergency Management
Level 1: Includes audits conducted on behalf of PDO's
Element 17: Incident Management
Internal Audit Committee (IAC) as part of the
Element 18: Measurements and Metrics
Integrated Audit Plan. This includes independent audits
carried out by external bodies, such as Shell. Element 19: Audit and Verification of Level 2 Process
Element 20: Management Review and Continuous
Level 2: Includes audits carried out on behalf of Asset
Managers as part of their own Asset level assurance Improvement
processes.
Element 10: Technical Integrity
Level 3: Includes task verification and assurance
activities that supplement the formal audit process. Background to Element
There are 20 elements in total within the PDO AI-PS Effective Technical Integrity management is
Management System as follows: fundamental to extracting maximum business value
from an Asset. It is a pre-requisite to achieving
Elements list: sustainable business success and an essential part of
the License to Operate upholding Company
Element 1: Process Safety Culture reputation.
Element 2: Compliance with Standards It is, therefore, imperative to be able to verify and
Element 3: Corporate Process Safety Competency demonstrate to regulators, shareholders and other
stakeholders that the Technical Integrity of the Assets
are being managed effectively and that a system
allowing continuous improvement is embedded in the Scope of Element
organisation with the appropriate work processes and
practices. The scope of this element applies to all PDO assets
and extends throughout the lifecycle of the facility.
Aims and Objectives of Element
AI-PS Element Guide Implementation
Technical Integrity ensures that equipment is properly
designed, fabricated, installed and maintained in Aims and Objectives of AI-PS Element Guide
accordance with recognised standards and codes, and
that it fulfils its design intent and remains fit for The aim of this AI-PS Element Guide is to provide
purpose until removed from operation. background to AI-PS and a structured and consistent
approach to carrying out Level 2 Self Assessments and
Technical Integrity is ensured by the existence and Level 3 Verification for all AI-PS Elements within PDO.
performance of a series of integrity barriers (Safety
Critical Elements SCE), which prevent or minimise The intended audience for the guide are the members
the consequences of a Major Accident Hazard (MAH). of the AI-PS Assurance Leadership Team
There are eight SCE Hardware Barriers as detailed (AIPSALT)although this can be used as a basis for
below: training and awareness for all staff at the asset.

Structural Integrity; Responsibilities and Accountabilities for AI-PS

Process Containment; Element Guide Implementation
Ignition Control;
Detection Systems; The Operations Manager is accountable for the Level 2
Protection Systems; Assurance process at the asset.
Shutdown Systems;
Completion of the Level 2 Self Assessment and Level 3
Emergency Response;
Verification Checklists, as provided in this element
Life Saving. guide, is the responsibility of the Element Champions
and AIPSALT. The Delivery Team Leader (DTL) is
The role of SCEs is to prevent or limit the escalation accountable for the AIPSALT.
and/or consequences of a Major Accident Hazard. For
each SCE identified at the asset, Performance AI-PS Assurance Leadership Team (AIPSALT)
Standards are developed which in turn inform the
maintenance, testing and inspection requirements to The AIPSALT is comprised of the asset DTL and Process
ensure the integrity of the system. Safety Element Champions (PSEC).
 Level 2 Audits are conducted annually at each
The DTL and PSEC roles include: reporting the status of Directorate but the frequency and duration may be
the Level 3 Verification activities for the relevant adjusted to reflect either positive or negative trends,
Element at the AIPSALT meeting; maintaining Key recent audit findings, emerging risks and alignment
Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Element; with other audit activities. The schedule of Level 2
monitoring the effectiveness of the Level 3 Verification audits is set in the Directorate HSE Plan.
activities in assuring AI-PS, and recommending
changes to improve effectiveness and efficiency as The frequency of Level 2 Self Assessment should also
appropriate; monitoring the progress of corrective reflect how well the asset is performing against all AI-
actions and improvement plans associated with that PS Elements and be performed no less than on an
Element; and leading Level 2 Self-Assessment of annual basis (ahead of the Level 2 Audit).
compliance with the requirements of that Element.
Level 2 Assurance Level 3 Verification Checklist
Level 2 Self Assessment and Audit Level 3 Verification Description

Level 2 assurance is provided by a series of AI-PS Level 3 Verification demonstrates compliance with the
audits carried out on behalf of Asset Directors and asset HSE Case barriers, HSE Critical Tasks,
Operations Managers as part of their own Directorate- operational procedures and other requirements
Level assurance processes. defined in the HSE Management System. These
activities provide an ongoing check that the
Level 2 Audits (and Level 2 Self Assessments) are procedures, tests and inspections necessary to
conducted at each Directorate using standard maintaining the functionality of Safety Critical
protocols and templates described in this series of AI- Elements and systems are completed as required so
PS Element Guides. that process risk is managed to a level that is As Low
As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
The Level 2 Self Assessment Checklist (provided in this
AI-PS Element Guide) can be viewed as a health In summary, the Level 3 Checklists are an operational
check of asset performance again the element. level sample check or mini audit completed by the
Completing the Level 2 Self Assessment will help the asset against PDO and asset based procedures. The
asset to identify areas for improvement ahead of the effectiveness of the Level 3 Verification process is
Level 2 Audit. assessed during the Level 2 Self Assessment process
and ultimately via the Level 2 Audit programme.
Frequency of Level 2 Assurance
Verification Checklists strong indication that the element is being
implemented at the system level (assessed via the
Level 3 Verification checklists have been developed for Level 2 Self Assessment and Level 2 Audits).
each AI-PS Element within PDO in order to provide a
structured and consistent approach to Level 3
Verification across all assets. The Level 3 Verification The Level 2 Self Assessment for this element is
checklists are structured as a sample check or specific provided below. The Level 3 Verification Checklist is
and localised audit of the Element in question. maintained by UOM please contact the Element
Owner (UOM) for details.
By successfully verifying that the Level 3 Verification
activities are being completed correctly it provides a
Level 2 Self Assessment
SN Protocol Y / N / NA & Evidence Possible Approach
Hardware Barrier Assessment (HBA),
EP2010-9002
10.1 Does the asset have a risk-based five-year Note that the minimum annual sampling is:
plan for Level 3 Technical Integrity Verification one (1) SCE group sampled from each barrier
(HBAs)? and a minimum of four (4) SCE groups
sampled from the Process Containment barrier
and two (2) from the Ignition Control barrier.
10.2 Have completed Level 3 Technical Integrity Review Level 3 verification documentation.
Verification (HBAs) been based on a site visit,
including a detailed facility walk-through, close
inspection of equipment and structured
interviews with field-based staff?
10.3 Has Level 3 Technical Integrity Verification Review Level 3 verification documentation.
(HBAs) taken place in the last twelve months?
10.4 Have the engineering TA-1s been involved in Review five year plan and discuss risk based
defining the risk-based five year plan for Level priorities with relevant TA-1.
3 Technical Integrity Verification (HBAs)?
10.5 Is the number and types of equipment
sampled in the Level 3 Technical Integrity
Verification (HBAs) for a selected SCE group
sufficient to form an opinion of Technical
Integrity?
10.6 Have all Technical Integrity Not Review outstanding actions in the tracking tool
Demonstrated findings and associated for accuracy, status and quality of close out.
corrective actions been logged in the AI-PS
Action Tracking Tool? Review SAP and FSR for associated
deviations and form an opinion on the
Have equipment corrective actions been adequacy of mitigation measures in place for
entered in SAP with due dates set using the the identified shortfall.
Corrective Maintenance Prioritisation Tool
(CMPT)?
10.7 Have copies of the Level 3 Technical Integrity
Verification (HBAs) been sent to CFDH of
Maintenance & Integrity?
10.8 Have Level 3 Technical Integrity Verification Review actions that have been open for 12
(HBAs) actions open for longer than 12 months or more and confirm CMPT
months been re-assessed for priority against prioritisation?
the Corrective Maintenance Prioritisation Tool
(CMPT)?
SN Protocol Y / N / NA & Evidence Possible Approach
SCE Management (Asset Setup), EP2009-
9009
10.9 Have all hardware barriers identified in the Sample equipment in the Asset Register and
Operations HSE Case been identified as SCE confirm that they have been assigned SCE
in the Asset Register? status in accordance with the HSE Case.
10.10 Has the SCE identification process been Check for description in the HSE Case or SCE
documented for the asset? identification report (on recent
projects/modifications).
10.11 Have operations Performance Standards Cross reference selected SCE from Asset
(including acceptance criteria) been identified Register and confirm Performance Standards
in the Asset Register for all identified SCEs? have been developed. Ensure that the
Performance Standards are valid for the asset.
10.12 Have the operations Performance Standards Review Performance Standards approval
been approved by the relevant Technical signatures and confirm approval by relevant
Authority? TA.

10.13 Is there a management of change process in Check for TA approval of changes.

place for SCEs and their performance
standards (additions, removal and
modifications)?
10.14 Have the asset SCE listing and Performance
Standards been reviewed in the last five
years?
SCE Management (Asset Execution),
EP2009-9009
10.15 Have performance assurance task results Sample check SAP for selected SCEs. Does
been accurately recorded in SAP? the record give clear information on whether
Performance Standard criteria was achieved,
e.g. with reference to instrument reading or
measurement value where appropriate?
10.16 Have deviations been raised against all non- How are non-conformances managed and
conformances? prioritised? Is there a risk based resolution?
Are deviations left in Draft status for extended
periods?
10.17 Have follow on corrective maintenance Inspect corrective maintenance plans to
notifications been prioritised using the CMPT? confirm application of CMPT
10.18 Have all temporary repairs been approved by Identify existing temporary repairs at the asset
the relevant Technical Authority? and review supporting technical assessment /
risk assessment confirm relevant TA sign off.
SN Protocol Y / N / NA & Evidence Possible Approach
10.19 Are approved deviations supported by a Review FSR for active deviations.
formal risk assessment, consultation of
Technical Authorities, and are the mitigating
actions in place and will remain in place for the
duration of the deviation?
10.20 Are all open deviations within their agreed Sample check open deviations and confirm
expiry date? expiry dates.
10.21 Does the Facility Status Report reflect the
current Technical Integrity status for all SCE
groups?
10.21.1 Structural Integrity
10.21.2 Process Containment (wells)
10.21.3 Process Containment (non-wells)
10.21.4 Ignition Control
10.21.5 Detection Systems
10.21.6 Protection Systems
10.21.7 Shutdown Systems
10.21.8 Emergency Response
10.21.9 Life Saving
10.22 Does the SCE Preventative Maintenance (PM)
and Corrective Maintenance (CM) compliance
values and trends indicate that the work is
adequately under control?
10.23 Does asset management regularly review Look for minutes of meetings.
maintenance compliance and FSR status?
Temporary and Third Party Equipment

10.24 Is there an integrity assurance plan for Have maintenance requirements for temporary
temporary equipment in PDO process facilities equipment been identified?
and hydrocarbon areas? Are requirements reviewed by relevant TA-2s?
10.25 Is the use of temporary equipment in
accordance with PR-1960 including
registration, inspection and maintenance
requirements?
SN Protocol Y / N / NA & Evidence Possible Approach
10.26 Is temporary equipment assessed for impact
on Major Accident Hazards and interfaces with
existing SCEs at the asset?

AI-PS Level 3 Technical Integrity Verification Checklist

The Technical Integrity Level 3 Verification Checklist is maintained by the UOM group please contact the Element Owner (UOM) for details.