Transcript ???? HSE MS Audit ??? 2001 M-1 5/24/2016 SIEP EP-HSE

???? HSE MS Audit
??? 2001
M-1 5/24/2016
SIEP EP-HSE
Agenda






M-2 5/24/2016
Team introduction
Background
Terms of Reference for the Audit
Audit methodology
Reporting
Schedule
Team Members
????
M-3 5/24/2016
SIEP
EP-HSE (Audit Leader)
Group HSE Policy
Every Shell company:

has a systematic approach to HSE management, designed to
ensure compliance with the law and to achieve continuous
performance improvement;

sets targets for improvement and measures, appraises and
reports on performance;

requires contractors to manage HSE in line with this policy;

requires joint ventures under its operational control to apply this
policy, and uses its influence to promote it in its other ventures;

includes HSE performance in the appraisal of all staff and rewards
accordingly.
M-4 5/24/2016
HSE
Performance
“There must always be a gap
between … aspirations and
performance … But a gap
between policy and
performance is unacceptable”
Phil Watts - Shell EP HSE Conference
22 September 1997
M-5 5/24/2016


Terms of Reference
Objective
To appraise the quality and completeness of the HSE
MS in ???? and the adequacy and effectiveness of its
implementation
Scope
HSE MS implementation activities for all ???? Bus,
and their contractors.
Special attention will be given to:
•
•
•
Adherence to Group and Company HSE policies
Adherence to Group Minimum Environmental Expectations
Processes for the identification of HSE-related legislative
requirements, their dissemination, and for confirming
adherence to them
M-6 5/24/2016
Scope continued
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Audit scope
Identification of roles, responsibilities and competency
requirements for HSE critical activities
Implementation of HSE training programmes to close
competency gaps for those carrying out of HSE critical
activities
Effectiveness in HSE data and document management and HSE
performance monitoring
Availability and effectiveness procedures for the identification,
assessment and control of all significant hazards and effects
including the demonstration of ALARP
Adequacy of emergency response and contingency plans
Confirmation that findings from audits, inspections and
incident investigations have been satisfactorily addressed
Adequacy of the process for preparation and validation of the
HSE Annual Letter submitted to the ExCom
M-7 5/24/2016
Standards
The Audit will be conducted against the following
standards:
 Laws and regulations of ????
 ???? policies and procedures
 EP 95-0000
The Audit may also include comments on any shortfall
in the above in relation to generally accepted Shell and
industry standards
Audit will be conducted in accordance with methodology
in EP95 0130 (December 1999)
M-8 5/24/2016
HEMP
Leadership and Commitment
Policy and Strategic Objectives
Organisation, Responsibilities
Resources, Standards & Doc.
Hazard and Effects Management
Planning & Procedures
Implementation
ASSESS
IDENTIFY
HEMP
CONTROL
RECOVER
Hazard and Effects
Management Process
M-9 5/24/2016
Audit
Management Review
Corrective
Action
Monitoring
Corrective Action &
Improvement
Corrective Action &
Improvement
HSE Management System
SIEP-led Audit Focus
Harm to people and
damage to assets
or environment
Events and
Circumstances
BARRIERS
H
A
Z
A
R
D
Undesirable event with
potential for harm or damage
C
O
N
S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
S
Engineering activities
13
2 verification
sample whether
Sample
whether
that structured
these
these
risks
controls
risk
have
assessment
are
been
adequately
appropriately
has been
Maintenance activities
applied
assessed
implemented
to the
andand
key
the (HSE)
complied
correct
risk
controls
with
elements
have
ofbeen
the facility or
Operations
activities
activity
identified
Classification of
Findings
Each Finding is categorised as follows:
1. Category:
 People (P); Assets (A); Environment (E); or Reputation (R)
2. Severity level (from Weakness Classification Matrix):
 Serious (S); High (H); Medium (M); or Low (L)
3. Each Finding is assigned to one HSE MS element
4. A Finding is accompanied by the Significance and one
or more recommendations to address the gap
M-12 5/24/2016
Weakness Classification Matrix
People
Assets Environment
Reputation
No
injury
No
damage
No
effect
No
impact
1
Slight
injury
Slight
damage
Slight
effect
Slight
impact
2
Minor
injury
Minor
damage
Minor
effect
Minor
impact
3
Major
injury
Local
damage
Localised
effect
Considerable
impact
4
Single
fatality
Major
damage
Major
effect
National
impact
5
Multiple
fatalities
Extensive
damage
Massive
effect
International
impact
Severity
0
123
A
B
Never heard of
in
EP industry
Has
occurred in
EP industry
C
D
Happens
Has occurred in
several
times a
the audited OU
year in the
audited OU
E
Happens
several times a
year in the
audited facility
Low
Medium
High
Serious
Serious: Exposes OU to a major extent in terms of achievement of corporate HSE objectives or results.
High:
Though not serious, essential to be brought to Management attention. Includes medium weaknesses as repeat from previous reports.
Medium: Could result in perceptible and undesirable effect on achievement of HSE objectives.
Low:
No major HSE impact at process level, correction will assure greater effectiveness/efficiency in process concerned.
M-13 5/24/2016
Audit Assessment
Good Level of concern: Specific
No follow-up required by auditee’s function
head (IAC member)
Fair
M-14 5/24/2016
Level of concern: Overall scope for
enhancement
In addition to following up correction of any
High or Medium weaknesses the function
head should encourage general
improvement in controls awareness
Audit Assessment
of concern:
Unsatisfactory Level
Overall cause for concern
Poor
In addition to following up correction of
any Serious, High or Medium weaknesses
the function head should take affirmative
action to ensure that control standards in
this area are raised
Unacceptable
M-15 5/24/2016
Level of concern:
Overall cause for grave concern
In addition to following up correction of
any Serious, High or Medium weaknesses
the function head should satisfy the
senior management team concerning
affirmative action to raise control
standards in this area
Revised Audit Opinion
S
Key: F = few <20 My = many >40
Findings
Most Favourable Opinion
H M H+M
Unacc. Unsat. Fair
Good
/ Poor
0
0
0
0
1-2
0
>2
M-16 5/24/2016
0
0
F
F
My
-
0/F My F
F/My My
-







HSE MS Self Assessment Questionnaire
M-17 5/24/2016
HSE-MS Sub Element Assessment
4
System sustained and supported by an
ongoing improvement process and essentially
all elements satisfied.
3
System functioning and being verified, results
being measured, key system procedures
documented.
2
System is documented, approved, resourced
and being implemented with priority objectives
satisfied and the majority of objectives being
met.
1
System is under development and partially
implemented.
M-18 5/24/2016
EP-HSE Audit Method



Audit of HSE MS, fully covering H, S and E
Sampling Process
Questionnaire based
M-19 5/24/2016
Structure of Questionnaires
Generic Questionnaire (common to all HSE Audits)
 Leadership & Commitment
 Policy & Strategic Objectives
 Organisation, Responsibilities, Resources, Contractor Management.
Communications, HSE-MS Documentation, Standards & Change Control
 Hazards and Effects Management
 Planning & Procedures
 Implementation & Monitoring
 Audit
 Management Review
Subsidiary
Questionnaire
Subsidiary
Questionnaire
Subsidiary
Questionnaire
Subsidiary
Questionnaire
Facilities
Start-Up
Seismic
Drilling
M-20 5/24/2016
Subsidiary
Questionnaire
Subsidiary
Questionnaire
Environment
Health
EP-HSE Audit Method

Audit of HSE MS, fully covering H, S and
 Sampling Process
 Questionnaire based
 Focus on Risk
 OU Staff involved
 Based on OU / Contractor standards
 Bottom up Approach
 Significance & breadth of findings
 Assessment of the 33 HSE MS sub elements of
the HSE MS Self Assessment Questionnaire
(levels 1-4)
 Follow up: OU responsibility
M-21 5/24/2016
Audit Process
Familiarisation
• Terms of reference
• Audit programme
• EP95-0130
Review & Testing
Study
Documentation
Site visit
Interviews
Test findings
Reporting
Drafting
M-22 5/24/2016
Editing
Report
Finalisation
Agree findings
Present
Findings
HSE Audit Overview
 Auditors
will:
 operate in pairs (sometimes three)
 make an appointment to see you
 no surprise visits
 try to make it as easy as possible
 be only interested in facts, not speculation
(interested in your view in how to improve)
 possibly use a questionnaire in the interview
 ask open ended questions
 like “How ..”, “In what way…”
 interview a “vertical slice” of the organization
 look for the good as well as the less than adequate
M-23 5/24/2016
Audit Schedule
M-26 5/24/2016
End Opening Briefing
M-27 5/24/2016