AI-PS Element Guide

Element 6: Process Safety

Knowledge
AI-PS Element Background
AI-PS in PDO
Doc. Reference: GU-XXX-06
Version: Issue 1.0
Date: 10 August 2011
Doc. Owner: Head of Technical Safety Engineering
(MSE4)
Element Owner: EOIM Manager (UEPI)

Assuring the safety of our people, our assets, the

environment and the companys reputation is a core
value of PDO and providing assurance that we are
managing our major process safety risks is a critical
aspect of our corporate governance. Asset Integrity

Process Safety (AI-PS) describes the way we manage

our assets so that the process risk is As Low As
Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
What it is
Asset Integrity Process Safety (AI-PS) is the means of
ensuring that the people, systems, processes and
resources, which deliver integrity, are in place, in use
and fit for purpose throughout the whole lifecycle of
the asset. The aim is to be able to confidently state
that our assets are safe and we know it.
Asset Integrity Process Safety Management is a
complex area of expertise covering a wide range of
components, all of which are essential to ensuring
systems, processes and equipment perform as
required. There are a number of Elements which make
up the Asset Integrity Process Safety management
system.
Structure of AI-PS Assurance in PDO
PDO has a three-tiered approach to AI-PS assurance:
Level 1: Includes audits conducted on behalf of PDO's
Internal Audit Committee (IAC) as part of the
Integrated Audit Plan. This includes independent audits
carried out by external bodies, such as Shell.
Level 2: Includes audits carried out on behalf of Asset
Managers as part of their own Asset level assurance
processes.
Level 3: Includes task verification and assurance
activities that supplement the formal audit process.

There are 20 elements in total within the PDO AI-PS

Management System as follows:
Elements list:
Element 1: Process Safety Culture
Element 2: Compliance with Standards
Element 3: Corporate Process Safety Competency
Element 4: Workplace Involvement
Element 5: Stakeholder Outreach
Element 6: Process Safety Knowledge
Element 7: HEMP
Element 8: Plant Operating Manuals
Element 9: PTW
Element 10: Technical Integrity
Element 11: Contractor Management
Element 12: Training and Performance Assurance
Element 13: Management of Change
Element 14: Readiness for Start Up
Element 15: Conduct of Operations
Element 16: Emergency Management
Element 17: Incident Management
Element 18: Measurements and Metrics
Element 19: Audit and Verification of Level 2 Process
Element 20: Management Review and Continuous
Improvement

Element 6: Process Safety Knowledge

Background to Element

Process Safety Knowledge primarily consists of written

documents such as hazard information, process
technology
information,
and
equipment-specific
information.
Process Safety Knowledge primarily focuses on
information that can easily be recorded in documents,
such
as
written
technical
documents
and
specifications; engineering drawings and calculations;
specifications for design, fabrication, and installation of
process equipment; and other written documents such
as material safety data sheets (MSDS).

of the life cycle. Many facilities place special emphasis

on reviewing process knowledge for accuracy and
thoroughness immediately prior to conducting a risk
analysis or management of change review. Knowledge
of special hazards often becomes critical to safe
mothballing, decommissioning and demolition of
process units.
Knowledge is typically developed and maintained at a
number of physical locations, but, in general, process
knowledge should always be available to key
personnel at operating facilities.

The knowledge element involves work activities

associated with compiling, cataloguing, and making
available a specific set of data that is normally
recorded in paper or electronic format. However,
knowledge
implies
understanding,
not
simply
compiling data.

Scope of Element

Aims and Objectives of Element

The Process Safety Knowledge Element involves:

Risk understanding depends on accurate process

knowledge. Hence, this element underpins the entire
concept of risk-based process safety management; risk
management methodologies cannot be efficiently
applied without an understanding of risk.
Asset procedures, staff competency and training, asset
integrity, management of change, and incidents
elements all draw on information that is collected and
maintained as part of the knowledge element. Process
knowledge also supports many other AI-PS Elements.
Efforts continue through the design, hazard review,
construction, commissioning, and operational phases

Development
and
documentation
of
process
knowledge should start early in the asset lifecycle (i.e.
during design) and continue throughout the life cycle
of the asset or process.

Developing, collecting, storing and maintaining

Process Safety Knowledge;
Storing calculations, design data and similar
information in central files and in key locations
in both hard and soft copies;
Ensuring the Process Safety Knowledge remains
accurate and available;
Protecting Process Safety Knowledge from
inadvertent loss;
Documenting Process Safety Knowledge in a
user friendly manner;
Ensuring accuracy;

Subjecting Process Safety Knowledge related

information to the Management of Change
Process.

Process Safety Knowledge includes the following range

of diagrams and documents within PDO:
Process Safety Knowledge - Diagrams

Process Flow Scheme (PFS & PSFS);

Utility Flow Scheme (UFS);
Process Engineering Flow Schemes (PEFS);
Utility Engineering Flow Schemes (UEFS);
Cause and Effect matrix;
Hazardous Area Classifications;
Area Layout including, foundation location
layouts, instrument layouts, electrical layouts,
OHL layouts;
Site plan (sub-field layout) - General
arrangement drawings for piping, electrical,
civil, instruments;
Key Plan and Plot plan;
Escape Routes Plan;
Safety Equipment Layout;
Critical Valve List (including locked open and
locked closed valves);
Fire and Gas layouts;
Electrical - Single line diagram;
Instrumentation - List of alarms and trip setting;
Wiring Diagrams including ICTDs, FLDs FCS/DCS
configuration diagrams.

Process Safety Knowledge - Documents

Process Safeguarding Memorandum;

Operating Procedures including Standing Orders;
Asset HSE Case;
List of Safety Critical Elements (SCEs) with their
Performance Standards (in the Computerised
Maintenance Management System, CMMS);
SCE inspection programme and preventive
maintenance routines (in CMMS);
SCE maintenance history (in CMMS);
Alarm catalogue;
HAZOP reports;
Emergency Response Plan.

AI-PS Element Guide Implementation

Aims and Objectives of AI-PS Element Guide
The aim of this AI-PS Element Guide is to provide
background to AI-PS and a structured and consistent
approach to carrying out Level 2 Self Assessments and
Level 3 Verification for all AI-PS Elements within PDO.
The intended audience for the guide are the members
of the AI-PS Assurance Leadership Team (AIPSALT)
although this can be used as a basis for training and
awareness for all staff at the asset.
Responsibilities and Accountabilities for AI-PS
Element Guide Implementation
The Operations Manager is accountable for the Level 2
Assurance process at the asset.

Completion of the Level 2 Self Assessment and Level 3

Verification Checklists, as provided in this element
guide, is the responsibility of the Element Champions
and AIPSALT. The Delivery Team Leader (DTL) is
accountable for the AIPSALT.
AI-PS Assurance Leadership Team (AIPSALT)
The AIPSALT is comprised of the asset DTL and Process
Safety Element Champions (PSEC).
The DTL and PSEC roles include: reporting the status of
the Level 3 Verification activities for the relevant
Element at the AIPSALT meeting; maintaining Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Element;
monitoring the effectiveness of the Level 3 Verification
activities in assuring AI-PS, and recommending
changes to improve effectiveness and efficiency as
appropriate; monitoring the progress of corrective
actions and improvement plans associated with that
Element; and leading Level 2 Self-Assessment of
compliance with the requirements of that Element.

Level 2 Assurance
Level 2 Self Assessment and Audit
Level 2 assurance is provided by a series of AI-PS
audits carried out on behalf of Asset Directors and
Operations Managers as part of their own DirectorateLevel assurance processes.
Level 2 Audits (and Level 2 Self Assessments) are
conducted at each Directorate using standard
protocols and templates described in this series of AIPS Element Guides.

The Level 2 Self Assessment Checklist (provided in this

AI-PS Element Guide) can be viewed as a health
check of asset performance again the element.
Completing the Level 2 Self Assessment will help the
asset to identify areas for improvement ahead of the
Level 2 Audit.
Frequency of Level 2 Assurance
Level 2 Audits are conducted annually at each
Directorate but the frequency and duration may be
adjusted to reflect either positive or negative trends,
recent audit findings, emerging risks and alignment
with other audit activities. The schedule of Level 2
audits is set in the Directorate HSE Plan.
The frequency of Level 2 Self Assessment should also
reflect how well the asset is performing against all AIPS Elements and be performed no less than on an
annual basis (ahead of the Level 2 Audit).

Level 3 Verification Checklist

Level 3 Verification Description
Level 3 Verification demonstrates compliance with the
asset HSE Case barriers, HSE Critical Tasks,
operational procedures and other requirements
defined in the HSE Management System. These
activities provide an ongoing check that the
procedures, tests and inspections necessary to
maintaining the functionality of Safety Critical
Elements and systems are completed as required so
that process risk is managed to a level that is As Low
As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

In summary, the Level 3 Checklists are an operational

level sample check or mini audit completed by the
asset against PDO and asset based procedures. The
effectiveness of the Level 3 Verification process is
assessed during the Level 2 Self Assessment process
and ultimately via the Level 2 Audit programme.
Verification Checklists
Level 3 Verification checklists have been developed for
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

checklists are structured as a sample check or specific
and localised audit of the Element in question.
By successfully verifying that the Level 3 Verification
activities are being completed correctly it provides a
strong indication that the element is being
implemented at the system level (assessed via the
Level 2 Self Assessment and Level 2 Audits).
The Level 2 Self Assessment and Level 3 Verification
checklists for this element are provided below.

Level 2 Self Assessment

SN

Protocol

6.1

Has an asset document register been

developed at the asset to include all AI-PS
related documents? Is the register
maintained and up to date?

Y / N / NA & evidence

Possible approaches
Review and sample the drawing and
document index and cross reference
against the Process Safety Knowledge list
provided in the introduction of this guide.
Are the documents and drawings sampled
the most recent issue?

6.2

6.3

Has Process Safety Knowledge

(documents and drawings) available at the
asset been approved by the appropriate
Technical Authority?
Have obsolete versions of Process Safety
Knowledge been removed from use at the
asset and archived as necessary?

6.4

Are controlled copies of documents used

rather than uncontrolled or "local file"
versions?

6.5

Is the required information available and

accessible at all times to those who need
it?
Have potential users been trained in the
Process Safety Knowledge management
system - what information is available,
what it is for, how to access it and how to
get it updated?
Is there a list of recent plant modifications
available to review at the asset?

6.6

6.7

Review selected drawings and documents

and verify that the correct TA-2 has verified
and signed for the documents in use.
Is there an adequate filing and archiving
system?
is there a retention schedule for
documentation?

how often are files purged to

archive(s)?

how often are archives purged?

Is retrieval of records effective?

Ask, look. If copies of Process Safety
Knowledge documents are kept locally
check for unauthorised mark-ups, and
check version versus the official version.
Use the attached individual checklists for
the different types of information required.
Check training records. Ask.

Have the various drawings and manuals

been updated to reflect the plant
modifications identified?

SN

Protocol

6.8

Are ongoing construction activities

reflected in Process Safety Knowledge
documentation (e.g. As-Built drawings)?
Is AFC documentation communicated to
relevant personnel (including other
construction teams)?

6.9

Are operations/maintenance staff aware of

any anomalies with the available diagrams
and documents?
How are anomalies addressed at the
asset? Is the process adequate?

Ask. Check with a potential user of the

information (e.g. functional engineer, shift
leader, operator). How would the user
know whether such information available,
and where to find the current information?

6.10

In cases where shortfalls or missing

information has been identified, is there a
risk-based approach that has prioritised
targets for the provision of missing
information?

Is there a plan to rectify shortfalls or gaps

in information?
Look at the plan - how were priorities
decided?

6.11

Is there evidence that the asset makes use

of the Process Safety Knowledge
documentation available to them?
How are plant modifications communicated
between shifts?

6.12

6.13

Is there an adequate change control

process implemented at the asset to
ensure that modifications to Process
Safety Knowledge drawings and
documents are recorded and fully
communicated?
Have inconsistencies in organisational
arrangements between critical documents
and the current asset been addressed?
E.g. Description of process equipment or
normal mode of operation in POMs
different to actual, etc.

Y / N / NA & evidence

Possible approaches

Are the plans on schedule?

What are the documents being used for?
Are the documents most frequently used
up to date?
Where do they note differences between
as built drawings and actual situation?
What action do they take in these
circumstances?
Discuss with interior based staff what
changes are made locally without approval
and those that involve TA-2 approval.
Is the process consistently applied and
adequately controlled?
Ask Operations personnel if critical
documents are up to date.

SN

Protocol

Y / N / NA & evidence

Possible approaches

6.14

Is process piping and equipment

adequately marked, e.g.
Are valves tagged?
Is piping marked to show contents
and direction of flow?
Do vessels, tanks, compressors,
etc. have nameplates and
identities?
Are relief valve settings available?

Review and confirm that line markings

comply with requirements of SP-1166.

6.15

Are Process Safety Knowledge Level 3

Verification checks carried out in line with
the assets defined schedule?

Check Level 3 Verification schedule.

Review completed checklists. Review
minutes of AIPSALT for improvement
actions.

AI-PS Level 3 Process Safety Knowledge Verification Checklist

Asset __________________________________________________________________
Name (Interviewee)___________________________________

Date____________

Contractor / Ref. ID.____________________

Drawing or Document Number (Revision / Issue Date)_____

Yes
1
)

Sampling selected Process Safety Knowledge confirm

the following with the intended user or approver:
a)

Is the drawing or document the latest revision and

authorised for use?

b)

Is the drawing or document made available by the asset

to the intended users? E.g. available in control room,
CCR, LECC, etc.

c)

Are the intended users of the drawing or document

aware of it and know how to use it?

d)

Is the drawing or document readily available and

adequately stored?

e)

Does the drawing or document reflect current equipment

and operations? Confirm by site verification, e.g. walk
through a PEFS; check a section of the Plant Operating

No

Remarks

Manual against current operating conditions, etc.

f)

If marked up drawings or documents are found; have

the mark-ups been communicated to the document
custodian for review and revision?

g)

Have site visits been made to verify the accuracy of

existing project drawings and have they been updated
to reflect asset modifications?

Auditor overall comments

Auditor Name________________ Signature _______________ Indicator

________________

Date_____________