alarp demonstration & documentation

The copyright in this document is vested in Agip KCO, as delegated Operator, for and on behalf of the Contracting Companies under the North Caspian Production Sharing Agreement dated 18th November 1997, as amended. All rights reserved. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent of Agip KCO.

CORPORATE HSE-Q

PROCEDURE

ALARP DEMONSTRATION & DOCUMENTATION

GE00.HSE.H20.PR.0005.000

REVISION A01

AUGUST 2004

ABSTRACT Summary of Document Purpose and Scope. This document identifies the requirements for ALARP demonstrations and sheet documentation completion.

Revision Record Write Initial and Surname in full in Responsible, Accountable and Endorsed columns (e.g. A. N. Other). No signatures required in this page.

A01 31-8-04 Issued for Information / Use S Van der Laan J. Payne T. Duckworth

P01 Jul-2004 Issued of Review and Comment S Van der Laan J. Payne T. Duckworth Rev. Date Reason for Issue Responsible Accountable Endorsed

NOTE: When editing this document, as it contains various automatic fields / links, please ensure that the instructions in “AK Templates User Guide” (GE00.KST.K61.GL.0001.000) are followed.

GE00.HSE.H20.PR.0005.000Rev. A01 - August 2004

of 15

ALARP Demonstration & Documentation

Document Verification Signatures are required in Approved Revisions. RACIE Record

R esponsible: Name: S R van der Laan Job Title: Corporate HSEQ - HSE Consultant

Signed:

Date: 31-Aug-2004

A ccountable: Name: J Payne Job Title: Corporate HSEQ - Head of Safety Standards

Signed:

Date: 31-Aug-2004

C onsulted: See distribution list on Page 3.

I nformed: See distribution list on Page 3.

E ndorsed: Name: T Duckworth Job Title: Corporate HSEQ Manager

Signed:

Date: 31-Aug-2004

RACIE Terms For further information please refer to “Guideline for identifying RACIE roles in Documents” (GE00.KST.K61.GL.0005.000).

R Responsible The person who actually produces the document.

A Accountable The person who has the answer for success or failure of the quality and timeliness of the document.

C Consulted Those who must be consulted before the document is published.

I Informed Those who must be informed after the document is published.

E Endorsed Those who must approve the document before publication.

Hold Record Marked Page Number (e.g. if there are hold paragraphs in pages 4 and 6 specify 4, 6)

<HOLD>

Agip KCO GE00.HSE.H20.PR.0005.000Rev. A01 - August 2004

of 15


Document Distribution

Consulted Distribution List Date Format (1) Addressee / Job Title Company Location

July 04 M Consiglio Agip KCO LHN Dec/Jan 04 G White Agip KCO LHN

July 04 S Harris Agip KCO LHN July 04 T WIckham Agip KCO LHN July 04 C Plummer Agip KCO LHN July 04 B Edmonds Agip KCO LHN July 04 C Crowley Agip KCO LHN July 04 B Vakilzadeh Agip KCO LHN July 04 J Morgan Agip KCO LHN July 04 R Cooke Agip KCO LHN July 04 B Marsh Agip KCO LHN July 04 HSE District Manager Agip KCO AT July 04 HSE Head of Safety Agip KCO AT July 04 T Duckworth Agip KCO DH July 04 J Payne Agip KCO DH July 04 A Zambelli Agip KCO DH July 04 M Persaud Agip KCO/SGSi DH July 04 P Bartlett Agip KCO DH July 04 S Knight Agip KCO DH July 04 A Carter Agip KCO DH July 04 M Hick Agip KCO DH July 04 J Bole Agip KCO/SGSi DH

Dec/Jan 04 C Killick Agip KCO/SGSi DH

Informed Distribution List Date Format (1) Addressee / Job Title Company Location

31-8-04 EDMS All Agip KCO Personnel Agip KCO All OHC Central Archive Agip KCO Tba

NOTE: (1) OHC – Original Hard Copy / EC–Electronic Copy / HC – Hard Copy / EDMS–Electronic Document Management System


of 15


Revision Tracking Specify significant changes from previous revisions of the document.

Rev. Date Description of Revision


of 15


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 6 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 6 1.2 DISTRIBUTION AND INTENDED USE 6 1.3 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 6 1.3.1 General Definitions 6 1.3.2 Specific Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations 6 1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND LINKS 7 2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7 3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 8 3.1 ASSESS REQUIREMENT FOR ALARP DEMONSTRATION 8 3.2 DEFINE ALARP REQUIREMENT, OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DEFINITION 8 3.3 DEVELOP LOGIC DIAGRAM 8 3.4 PREPARE ALARP DETAIL AND SUMMARY SHEETS 8 3.4.1 Log ALARP record sheet onto HSSES Hazard and Effects Register 9 3.4.2 Complete Title Box 9 3.4.3 Complete Problem Definition Box 9 3.4.4 Complete HSSES Issues and Potential Risk Box 9 3.4.5 Complete HSSES Standards and Risk Tolerability Criteria Box 9 3.4.6 Complete Options Considered Box 9 3.4.7 Complete Basis for Selection Box 9 3.4.8 Complete Justification for chosen option Box 9 3.4.9 Complete Residual Risk Box 9 3.4.10 Complete Recommendations for next Project phase Box 9 3.4.11 Complete Requirements for Operations HSE Plan Box 9 3.4.12 Implement ALARP sheet documentation management 9 3.5 REVIEW, UPDATE AND ACCEPT ALARP SHEETS 10 3.6 IMPLEMENT CHANGE CONTROL PROCESS REQUIREMENTS 10 3.7 REVIEW AND UPDATE HSSES CASE 10 3.8 ALARP DEMONSTRATION MAINTENANCE 10 3.9 AUDIT 10 3.10 CLOSEOUT ALARP SHEET AND ARCHIVE 10 ANNEX A. PROCEDURE FLOW CHART 11 ANNEX B. ALARP LOGIC DIAGRAM AND HSSE HAZARD REGISTER ENTRY– COMPLETED

EXAMPLE KASHAGAN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (EXPERIMENT PROJECT) 12 ANNEX C. ALARP RECORD SHEET – PROFORMA (WORD & EXCEL VERSIONS) 14 ANNEX D. ALARP SUMMARY AND DETAILED RECORD SHEETS – COMPLETED EXAMPLES 15


of 15


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this document is to ensure there is a consistent and rigorous approach to preparing suitable and sufficient ALARP demonstrations and ALARP record sheet documentation completion. It explains the stages for completing the record sheet.

The Corporate Health, Safety and Environment Management System (HSE-MS) identifies the Hazard and Effects Management Process (HEMP) as a critical element of the framework. HEMP is a number of varied processes having the purpose to identify hazards, asses their potential effects, control the threats and recover from the events, such that risks are reduced to a level that is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

This forms part of the HSSES Case and its subsidiary and reference documentation and essential demonstration that risks are ALARP.

This document shall apply to all Agip KCO managed activities. This is applied to the lifecycle of a Development as defined in the OPDS and DeMS, covering project, production, operations, modification and decommissioning phases.

1.2 DISTRIBUTION AND INTENDED USE Agip KCO may require relevant Contractors to adopt this procedure, as it is considered to be ‘good’ practice and will ensure consistency and continuity across the Company.

1.3 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1.3.1 General Definitions The Company is the party, which initiates the project and ultimately pays for its design and construction. The Company will generally specify the technical requirements. The Company may also include an agent or consultant authorized to act for, and on behalf of, the Company.

The Contractor is the party, which carries out all or part of the design, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning or management of a project, or operation or maintenance of a facility. The Company may undertake all or part of the duties of the Contractor.

The Supplier (Manufacturer/Vendor) is the party, which manufactures or supplies equipment and services to perform the duties specified by the Contractor.

The word shall is used to indicate that a provision is mandatory.

The word should is used to indicate that a provision is not mandatory, but recommended as good practice.

1.3.2 Specific Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations Term / Acronym / Abbreviation Explanation Major Accident Hazard "major accident" means an occurrence (including in particular,

a major emission, fire or explosion) resulting from uncontrolled developments in the course of the operation of any establishment and leading to serious danger to human health or the environment, immediate or delayed, inside or outside the establishment, and involving one or more dangerous substances1

Competence/Competency The ability to perform a particular job in compliance with performance standards.2

1 UK 1999 No. 743 Health and Safety, “The Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999”. 2 Agip KCO, “HR and Organisation Performance Appraisal Procedure” Doc No. GE00.HRO.K00.PR.0006.000.


of 15


Term / Acronym / Abbreviation Explanation ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable DeMS Development Management System HEMP Hazard and Effect Management Process HSE MS Health, Safety and Environment Management System HSSES Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social OPDS Opportunities and Project Development System QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment RAM Risk Assessment Matrix SD Sustainable Development SHEAMS Safety, Health and Environment Action Management System

1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND LINKS

Ref. Document Number / Link Title / Description (1) GE00.HSE.H20.SP.0001.000 As Low As Reasonably Practicable Demonstration Specification (1) GE00.HSE.H00.YT.0002.000 Asset Integrity Assurance Strategy (2) GE00.HSE.H20.SP.0002.000 AKCO Corporate HSSES Case Specification (3) EP95 0300 Overview Hazard ad Effects Management Process (4) EP95 0310 Implementing & documenting a HSE MS & HSE Case (5) EP95 0352 QRA

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The roles and responsibilities for this document are defined within the document RACIE (see page 2).

The roles of the various groups referred to within this document are to identify the requirement for an ALARP demonstration, preparation and documentation, give specialist advice, review and endorse.

Project, Operations, Modifications Managers

The nominated Line Manager shall be accountable for ensuring that the HEMP and ALARP processes and this procedure are followed and effectively documented. They shall endorse and verify the integrity of the ALARP process applied and record sheet. He shall be responsible for assuring all actions are effectively completed.

Technical Authority

Technical Authorities are responsible for assuring that the technical integrity of facilities is achieved and maintained during the project, production and close-out phases as defined in OPDS, by appropriate verification of the design and operational integrity, by carrying out activities as defined in the Agip KCO Technical Authority Strategy Document.

The Technical Authority is the position that shall be responsible for identifying the requirement for and preparing an ALARP demonstration and completing the ALARP record sheet. He shall ensure the ALARP record sheet is maintained as a ‘living’ document and incorporated into the relevant HSSES Case and revision. He should be responsible for confirming actions are effectively completed. The nominated discipline may change over the lifecycle of the Development.

Facilities Integrity Manager

The Facilities Integrity Manager shall be accountable to the Director, for assuring that the asset/facility has been verified by an independent competent body/person, throughout its lifecycle. He shall to be aware of ALARP demonstration commitments and their significance.

HSE Manager

The HSE Manager should be responsible for ensuring competent resources are in place to give timely advice, support and guidance. He should also assist in identifying the requirement for an ALARP demonstration.


of 15


HSE/SD Engineer/Adviser

The HSE/SD Engineer /Adviser should give specialist advice on matters related to Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social.

QRA Specialist

The QRA Specialist should give specialist advice on matters related to HEMP, ALARP and specifically to Quantitative Risk Assessment.

HSSES Case Coordinator

The HSSES Case Coordinator should ensure the ALARP record sheet, including subsequent revision, is incorporated in the relevant HSSES Case and Case text is incorporated or updated where appropriate.

Corporate HSEQ Manager

The Corporate HSEQ Manager shall be responsible for ensuring Corporate HSEQ Governance is implemented, to assure HEMP and ALARP have been effectively demonstrated by each Agip KCO Division . He should ensure this procedure is periodically reviewed and updated as part of the HSE MS continuous improvement process.

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The Agip KCO HSEQ HSE MS and standards, typically EP95 0300 and 0310, require ALARP demonstrations and documentation.

It is essential that this procedure and process be implemented at the earliest opportunity within the Development lifecycle and activity. An example of this is in the Project phase at the start of Concept Selection, as defined in the OPDS of DeMS.

The process is iterative and should be maintained ‘living’ for the entire Development lifecycle, Project through to and including Close-out (decommissioning).

Experience has demonstrated it is beneficial to run an ALARP workshop(s), for Management, Supervisors, Designers, Operations etc including both Company and Contractor personnel. This should be performed as early as possible and rerun periodically as required. These have been proven to add value as demonstrated for the Kashagan Experimental Programme Project during 2003.

Agip KCO Corporate HSEQ should be contacted for advice, guidance and support.

3.1 ASSESS REQUIREMENT FOR ALARP DEMONSTRATION A critical task is to determine whether a foreseeable HSSES hazard merits an ALARP demonstration. In some cases this maybe a ‘given’, such as a foreseeable Major Accident Hazard. The hazard should have been identified as part of the HEMP. This should be established with guidance from competent HSE and SD professionals.

3.2 DEFINE ALARP REQUIREMENT, OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DEFINITION Having established the requirement for an ALARP demonstration, now define the requirements and objective; followed by problem definition what is/are the HSSES issue(s).

3.3 DEVELOP LOGIC DIAGRAM Develop a Logic Diagram, using the proforma see Annex B. In certain cases there maybe numerous ALARP detail record sheets required for a particular issue. In this case a summary record sheet will be required to summarise the various detailed record sheets Where there is only one detailed ALARP record sheet no summary sheet will be required.

3.4 PREPARE ALARP DETAIL AND SUMMARY SHEETS As defined and established in 3.3, ALARP summary and/or detail record sheets should be prepared. There maybe a requirement to cross reference other Logic Diagrams and their associated ALARP record sheets.

To prepare a summary and/or record sheet follow the ALARP record sheet completion procedure below. MS EXCEL and WORD version proforma sheets are available in Annex C


of 15


and shall be used for consistency. An example of a completed summary and detailed record sheet are included in Annex D.

3.4.1 Log ALARP record sheet onto HSSES Hazard and Effects Register A unique ‘ALARP Reference & Hazard Reference Number’ shall be allocated for each ALARP record sheet and entered onto the relevant HSSES Hazard Register, including relevant description text, see Annex C for example. Where the register has no entry for this specific issue, through the change control process, arrange for it to be included onto the relevant register. Consult with the HSE Group who normally coordinate/administer this register. The reference number shall be included on the ALARP logic diagram and record sheet.

3.4.2 Complete Title Box Insert issue/decision title.

3.4.3 Complete Problem Definition Box Define the problem for which an ALARP demonstration is required.

3.4.4 Complete HSSES Issues and Potential Risk Box Summarise the HSSES issues and hazards. Describe the potential risk(s) and include the relevant unique ‘ALARP Reference & Hazard Reference Number’, see 3.4.1.

3.4.5 Complete HSSES Standards and Risk Tolerability Criteria Box Define the applicable HSE standards (Agip KCO, Government, Industry, etc.) and the tolerability criteria as applicable.

3.4.6 Complete Options Considered Box Summarise the options under consideration.

3.4.7 Complete Basis for Selection Box Discuss the basis for selecting the preferred option. Present the pros and cons of each option, the results of quantitative analysis, and the reasons why certain options are not viable. Give individual RAM classifications if appropriate. This section may refer to other HEMP studies and cost analysis work. Define applicable performance standards and operating/construction requirements that are integral to the selected option.

3.4.8 Complete Justification for chosen option Box Summarise the justification for a particular option. This may include justifying why alternative options where rejected.

3.4.9 Complete Residual Risk Box List the residual HSSES risks.

3.4.10 Complete Recommendations for next Project phase Box List any recommendations for the subsequent phases. There should be no design outstanding recommendations once the Operations HSSES Case is approved.

3.4.11 Complete Requirements for Operations HSE Plan Box List requirements for measurement and testing and operational performance standards.

An essential task here is to interface with the requirements of the Corporate HSEQ Asset Integrity Assurance Strategy. This relates to the setting and maintenance of Safety Critical Elements Performance Standards and their verification by Independent and Competent Body/Person. An interface with the Verification Written Scheme of Examination and Well Examination Scheme are required.

3.4.12 Implement ALARP sheet documentation management Ensure document management is included in the sheet footer, to included title, unique reference number, revision status and page numbering as a minimum. Additionally, the following notes need to be considered.

• Create new worksheets as required, such that there is one worksheet per ALARP demonstration.

• Establish a workbook and insert as an appendix to the ALARP Report and HSSES Case.


of 15


3.5 REVIEW, UPDATE AND ACCEPT ALARP SHEETS The review is a critical stage of the process. This should be attended by appropriate competent personnel who may include Corporate, Project, Operational, Functional and others input.

The Logic Diagram should be reviewed for completeness. The ALARP record sheet(s) should be subjected to a challenge to demonstrate all foreseeable HSSES issues and requirements have been identified, addressed, documented and ALARP has been demonstrated.

It is good practice to subject the ALARP record sheets for PEER review. Partner reviews have been proven to be helpful, particularly for complex issues and where risks are approaching the intolerable region.

The Corporate HSEQ Manager is identified in the review loop. Contractors that are identified as low risk, will not require Corporate to review their ALARP Sheets. Design Contractors such as KPDC should have their ALARP sheets reviewed by Corporate. There is an element of flexibility, Corporate HSEQ Manager should be consulted, where it can be demonstrated that there is no value in involving Corporate in the review loop. This should be an auditable process, thus requiring a record of the request and Corporate HSEQ Manager acceptance.

Post-review update the ALARP record sheets and Logic Diagram as required.

Thereafter seek Management approval.

3.6 IMPLEMENT CHANGE CONTROL PROCESS REQUIREMENTS The ALARP record sheet will record any actions required. These actions should be transferred to an relevant HSSES Hazard Register and monitored until management approved close out. A practical example of this in Agip KCO is, the Kashagan Project Division ‘Hazard and Effects Register Philosophy’ Document No. KE01.00.000.AK.H.YP.0004.000. The Design Contractor records the hazard action on the “HSE Hazard Register” and transfers it into “SHEAMS”.

3.7 REVIEW AND UPDATE HSSES CASE The relevant HSSES Case and its sections should be reviewed and updated and subject to change control process.

3.8 ALARP DEMONSTRATION MAINTENANCE Each ALARP record sheet shall be maintained as a ‘living’ demonstration over the life of the Development starting at Project Selection and ending once Closed-Out (Decommissioned) Phases. The ALARP sheet shall only be closed out when the activity, facility or relevant system has been decommissioned.

Change Control and HSSES Case periodical review and update will result in ALARP sheet review and update and visa versa.

3.9 AUDIT The ALARP process application and sheet implementation should be subject to Senior Management review and audit. This will ensure continuous improvement and compliance requirements are assured.

3.10 CLOSEOUT ALARP SHEET AND ARCHIVE As stated in 3.8 the end point is to close out the ALARP record sheet and it’s archive. Archiving is important so that the record is available for future purposes, such as investigations, reviews and lessons learned.


of 15


ANNEX A. PROCEDURE FLOW CHART

ALARP Demonstration & Documentation Procedure AGIP KCO Corporate HSEQGE00.HSE.H20.PR.0005.000 Head of Safety StandardsLegend

Responsible for Activity Start

Consulted in Additional Note

Informed about

Decision HSE Alert

Meeting (plus attendees)

Risk Alert End Activity Steps

3.1 Assess requirement for ALARP Demonstration

3.2 Define ALARP requirement, objective and problem definition

3.3 Develop Logic diagram

3.4 Prepare detail & summary ALARP sheet

3.4.1 Log ALARP record sheet onto HSSES Hazard & Effects Register

3.4.2 Complete Title Box

3.4.3 Complete Problem Definition Box

3.4.4 Complete HSSES Issues & Potential Risk Box

3.4.5 Complete HSE Standards and Tolerability Criteria Box

3.4.6 Complete Options Considered Box

3.4.7 Complete Basis for Selection Box

3.4.8 Complete Justification for chosen option Box

3.4.9 Complete Residual HSE Risks Box

3.4.10 Complete Recommendations for next Project Phase Box

3.4.11 Complete Requirements for Operations HSE Plan Box

3.4.12 Implement ALARP Sheet documentation management

3.5 Review, update & accept ALARP sheet

3.6 Implement Change Control process requirements

3.7 Review and update HSSES Case

3.8 ALARP demonstration maintenance

3.9 Audit

3.10 Closeout ALARP sheet & archive

HSE

/SD

Eng

inee

r/Adv

iser

Tech

nica

l Aut

horit

y

Spec

ialis

t (Q

RA

etc

)

Faci

litie

s In

tegr

ity M

anag

er

Mod

ifica

tion

Proj

ect M

ang

HSS

ES C

ase

Coo

rdin

ator

Proj

ect M

anag

er

Cor

p H

SE M

anag

er

Ope

ratio

ns M

anag

er

Proj

ect H

SE M

anag

er

PURPOSE, SCOPE, DEFINITIONS, PROCEDURE

DELIVERABLES,REVISION HISTORY

R

RISK

HSE

ST

END

YesNo

X X X

PROCEDURE FRONT SHEET

PROCEDURE RACIECI REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

R

ST

ST

R

R

R

C

R C C

C

I I

X X X X X X X X X X

I

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

C C C

C C C

C

C C

C

C C

C C

C C C

C

C CC C

R

R

R C CC C C

R R R RRC C C C C

C C C C

END

I I I

I I I

I

I I I I

I I I I

I

C

III I I I I II

I I I I I

I


of 15


ANNEX B. ALARP LOGIC DIAGRAM AND HSSE HAZARD REGISTER ENTRY– COMPLETED EXAMPLE KASHAGAN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (EXPERIMENT PROJECT)

ALARP LOGIC DIAGRAM

ON 10 OFF 9

ALARP Detail Sheet

ALARP Summary Sheet

LOGISTICS

Materials ON10B

People OFF9A

OFF09B (2)International

Movement Offshore –Fatality/Injury to Project Personnel

Onshore ON10

Offshore OFF9

Materials OFF9B

ON10B (2)International

Movement Onshore –Fatality/Injury to Project Personnel

ON10B (1)International

Movement Onshore–Damage to Project

Materials

ON10A (1)International Movement of

Personnel to Onshore

ON10A (2)Movement of

Personnel between Atyrau and Eskene

ON10A (3)Movement of

Personnel between Camp and Plant

OFF09B (1)International

Movement Offshore –Damage to Project

Materials

OFF09A (1)Steady State transfer

of Personnel

OFF09A (2)Construction Phase

transfer of Personnel –Offshore temp accommodation

People ON10A

OFF09A (3)Construction Phase

transfer of Personnel –Onshore temp

accommodation


of 15


HSE HAZARD & EFFECTS REGISTERRev: F11

Date Issued : 5-Dec-2003Sort Line Count: 25Total Line Count: 1

ALARP Reference Hazard ALARP & Hazard Ref. Title Code

Number

Free Text Free Text Free Text1 Onshore

SIMOPS ON-12 Onshore Plant

Location ON-23 Onshore Plant

Layout ON-34 Onshore Facilities

Loss of Containment ON-4

5 Not used ON-56 3rd Party Exposure

Risk ON-67 not used ON-78 Occupational

Health ON-89 Health -

Environm,ental Health ON-9

10 Logistics ON-1011 Pipeline - Loss of

Containment P112 SIMOPS - drill/

construction OFF-113 Mechanical

handling - Dropped Objects OFF-2

14 Offshore LayoutOFF-3

15 Drilling Layout Layo OFF-416 RGI Coolers OFF-517 Blowout OFF-618 EER OFF-719

Ice Management OFF-820 Logistics OFF-921 Clad Vessels OFF-1022

Contractor ManagemOn/Off 123

Offshore Logistsics24 Offshore Clad

Vessels

25Awaiting EIA to be issued EIA


of 15


ANNEX C. ALARP RECORD SHEET – PROFORMA (WORD & EXCEL VERSIONS)

Word Version

EXCEL Version

ABC PROJECT 1ALARP DEMONSTRATION RECORD SHEET RAM

Potential Risk HResidual Risk M

ASS

ESS

CO

NTR

OL

& E

VALU

ATI

ON

Problem Definition

HSE Issues and Potential Risk

HSE Standards and Tolerability Criteria

Options Considered

Basis for Selection & Uncertainties

Justification for Chosen Option

IDEN

TIFY

Residual HSE Risks

Recommendations for Next Project Phase

Requirements for the Operations HSE-Plan

NOTES FOR ALARP DISCUSSION

Heading NotesTitle Insert issue / decision titleProblem Definition Define the problem for which an ALARP

demonstration is required.HSE Issues and Potential Risk Summarise the HSE issues and hazards. Describe

the potential risk and reference to RAM as necessary.

HSE Standards and Tolerability Criteria Define the applicable HSE standards (Shell, OU, Government, etc.) and the tolerability criteria as applicable.

Options Considered Summarise the options under consideration.Basis for Selection Discuss the basis for selecting the preferred option.

Present the pros and cons of each option, the results of quantative analysis, and the reasons why certain options are not viable. Give individual RAM classifications if appropriate. This section may refer to other HEMP studies and cost analysis work. Define applicable performance standards and operating/construction requirements which are integral to the selected option.

Justification for Chosen Option Summarise the justification for a particular option. This may include justifying why alternative options where rejected.

Residual HSE Risks List the residual HSE risks.Recommendations for Next Project Phase List any recommendations for the subsequent

phases. There should be no outstanding recommendations once the Operations HSE Case is approved.

Requirements for the Operations HSE-Plan List requirements for measurement and testing and operational performance standards

User Notes

1. Create new worksheets as required, such that there is one worksheet per ALARP demonstration.2. Insert the entire workbook as an appendix to the HSE case.3. All RAM entries shall be kept identical to the equivalent entries in the HSE Register

Header Title to be completed ALARP DEMONSTRATION RECORD SHEET

Footer edit in Owner (TA) Rev No and Date page 1 of 1

Title Problem Definition HSE Issues and Potential Risk HSE Standard and Tolerability Criteria

IDEN

TIFY

Options Considered Basis for Selection & Uncertainties

ASS

ESS

Justification for Chosen Option Residual HSE Risks Recommendations for Next Project Phase Requirements for the Operations HSE-Plan

CO

NTR

OL

& E

VALU

ATI

ON


Page 15 of 15


ANNEX D. ALARP SUMMARY AND DETAILED RECORD SHEETS – COMPLETED EXAMPLES

Summary record sheet

Detailed record sheet

At FEED – Rev 1 page 1 of 3

KASHAGAN FIELD DEVELOPMENT ALARP DEMONSTRATION WORKSHEET

ON- 8a-g OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH – SUMMARY SHEET

Problem Definition

The location and nature of Agip KCO activities both onshore and offshore, will result in the workforce being potentially exposed to: ON-8a Radiological hazards ON-8b Ergonomic Hazards ON-8c Biological agents ON-8d Chemical Exposure ON-8e Thermal Stress (Heat/Cold) ON-8f Exposure to Vibration ON-8g Noise Exposure The above refer to specific ALARP Topic Sheets which give specific details and should be referenced. This summary sheet is merely a high level overview. The offsite risk is to the public who could be exposed, this could either result in health hazards resulting in acute or chronic effects and in worst case death or permanent disability. There is a potential to disrupt the environment both onshore and offshore, which could result in local species and thus biodiversity being affected. HSE Issues and Potential Risk The work force could be exposed to: • Death or permanent disability • chronic illness • acute illness, • minor health problems. The offsite risk is to the public who could be exposed, this could either result in health hazards resulting in acute or chronic effects and in worst case death or permanent disability. There is the potential for single and multiple fatalities. Potential to disrupt the environment both onshore and offshore could result in local species and thus biodiversity being affected. Hazards and Effects Register Reference ID 163 HSE Standard and Tolerability Criteria

IDE

NT

IFY

1. Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK) “Attestation of Workplaces” Order No2 1998 RoK Ministry of Labour and Social

Security. “Regulation on the Certification of Production facilities* with respect to Working Conditions.” [* Production Facilities seems to cover a multitude of workplace types in these Regs]

2. RoK Sanitary Norms on Occupational Health, and Law No 314 of 3/4/02, “Safety at Dangerous Industrial Facilities” Regulation No 1.01.001-94 “Basic Norms and Regulations on Health Protection at Workplaces – sanitary norms for design of Industrial Facilities”

3. RoK Ministry of Healthcare document Prikaz No440 of 21/10/93 “Pre-employment and periodic medical examination for employees exposed to Hazardous, harmful and adverse industrial factors”

4. Agip KCO HSE Policy and HSE MS and Plan, HSEQ Standards EP 95-000 and HSE Series 5. EP HSE MS and Plan and HSE Philosophies and design standards. 6. Agip KCO Contracts Schedule D. 7. European Directives and UK Legislation and Regulations 8. Industry good and best practice 9. OGP, WHO, FAO, ILO, IAEA, NEA(OECD), PAHO and Reports 10. Risk Tolerability Criteria set by Agip KCO management using standards and advanced QRA methods where

appropriate.


Options Considered 1. Four geographical onshore Plant Locations were considered 2. Plant and equipment layout, design and selection 3. Employment and Contractor Management. 4. Basis for Selection & Uncertainties The various EP95 000 and HSE Series of documents define the basis for assessment and exposure limits for the workforce, the public and the environment and guides on decision making. A demonstration that a hierarchy of controls has been adopted to mitigate reasonably foreseeable risks to ALARP is required. Detailed Design-stage input by competent persons with in-depth knowledge of control solutions, sound understanding of RoK legislative standards for workplace management. Robust Health Impact Assessments (HIA), Health Risk Assessments (HRA), Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are essential. Refer to Agip KCO studies and Reports:- • The Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessments were used to determine criteria for Pipeline and

Plant location selection see Kashagan EP Technical Substantiation for selection of Construction Options Volume 4 Contract AGIPKCO2001-431 Report dated 2002, Section 4.4.4 and Section 4.6.1 respectively. Environmental and socio-economics criterion were used to justify site selection.

• Initial SIA (ADL report Feb 2002) • Health Baseline Survey (ABT Associates Report Aug 2002) • Justification for Chosen Option

ASS

ESS

1. Of the four geographical locations for onshore plant relative to local communities, After extensive studies and

consultation with RoK and Local Authorities Location A North-East of Atyrau near to Karabatan and West of ESKINE was chosen. The Plant is located some 45km from Atyrau the largest community in the area and at least 10km from the nearest settlements. An exclusion zone around the plant has been defined, which will need to be managed to ensure settlements are not setup. See ALARP Sheet No. ON-2

2. Plant and equipment layout, design and selection to minimise worker and off-site hazardous substances exposure for both Onshore and Offshore should have included a Health Impact Assessment and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) and Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to aid decision making. The Project will define detail during the Detailed Design Phase as well as Operational Phase Controls. See ALARP Sheet Nos. ON-3a-h and OFF-3i) and 3ii)a-c.

3. The Company Human Resources Policies, Standards and procedures lay down strict employment selection criteria which also requires medical screening and immunisation. Contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with Contract Schedule D which specifies similar controls.

4. Residual HSE Risks All of the above risks cannot be eliminated completely. It represents ONLY the utilisation of good process and due diligence as part of the ALARP process. There is a potential for Settlements near to the onshore Plant. Recommendations for Next Project Phase

CO

NT

RO

L &

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is planned to be performed for the Plant onshore and offshore, during Detailed Design phase. Similarly, a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is planned. Three Environmental Assessments are in progress for the onshore, offshore and Pipelines. Recommendations need to be implemented into the design and operational phases. The hierarchy of controls should be used to mitigate these risks to ALARP. Detailed Design-stage input by competent persons with in-depth knowledge of hazardous substances control solutions and ability to influence purchasing policy. The hierarchy of Prevention, Mitigation followed by control should be applied during Detailed Design, so as to minimise the need for Procedures and Personnel Protective Equipment during the Operational Phase. Consideration given to equipment/technology/materials/substances/contractors/suppliers/personnel selection. Construction, HUC/Start-up phases need to be planned to ensure potential exposure to hazards are identified and controlled to appropriate standards and procedures and demonstrated to be ALARP.


Requirements for the Operations HSE-Plan For the Operations Phase, Operations Plans are required to ensure that all exposure to hazardous substance risks are identified and managed so they are ALARP. This will require close interface between the Operations and Design Teams during the Detailed Design Phase. A comprehensive monitoring programme should be implemented to ensure residual risk is minimised. Pre-employment medical examinations of all personnel (including Contractors) repeated as per industry norms to identify susceptible individuals (ie those with an existing or developing ill-health condition) must be rigidly enforced to allow baseline data to be collected and backed-up by annual review. Health surveillance and biological monitoring e.g. Lung function, skin examination, blood and urine testing. Provision of PPE/signage, information, instruction, training and supervision. Occupational Hygiene monitoring to quantify/predict airborne concentrations and potential exposure scenarios. Use of pre-employment and Periodical medical examinations. A comprehensive pre-employment medical and inoculation programme of all personnel (including Contractors) must be rigidly enforced. Robust maintenance philosophy and PTW systems.


KASHAGAN FIELD DEVELOPMENT ALARP DEMONSTRATION WORKSHEET

ON- 8g OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH – NOISE

Problem Definition

The nature of Agip KCO activities in both onshore and offshore, requires the workforce to perform tasks on facilities and equipment which emits Noise. Additionally, living adjacent to a plant such as offshore and being transported to and from work sites exposes the workforce to Noise. Furthermore, the workforce is exposed to Vibration which is transmitted as Noise. See ALARP Sheet ON-8f Occupational Health – Exposure to Vibration. There is also a potential for noise nuisance to the public such as settlements 10km from the onshore plant. There is also a potential to disrupt the environment both onshore and offshore HSE Issues and Potential Risk

The work force could be exposed to: • Permanent hearing loss. • Temporary hearing threshold shift. • Insomnia due to noise ingress to living quarters. • Loss of concentration in Control Rooms and office areas due to noise ingress. (Noise nuisance) • Inability to differentiate between alarms on the Plant • Psychological stress and fatigue. • Human Factors, Increased risk of accidents and incidents leading to Major Accidents resulting in potential

multiple fatalities and/or environmental impact such as oil spill to sea, due to the aforementioned. The public offsite could be exposed to nuisance noise. Potential to disrupt the environment both onshore and offshore could result in species and thus biodiversity being affected. Also see ALARP Sheet ON-f Occupational Health – Exposure to Vibration. Hazards and Effects Register Reference ID 163 HSE Standard and Tolerability Criteria

IDE

NT

IFY

1. Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK) “Attestation of Workplaces” Order No2 1998 RoK Ministry of Labour and Social

Security. “Regulation on the Certification of Production facilities* with respect to Working Conditions.” [* Production Facilities seems to cover a multitude of workplace types in these Regs]

2. RoK “Sanitary Regulations and Standards for Occupational Health in Industry – Noise” SanPiN No 1.02.007-94. “Sanitary Standards for permissible noise levels in Residential areas” SanPiN No 3.01.035-97

3. GOST document 12.1.003-83. “Noise protection methods and measurement 4. Agip KCO HSE Policy and HSE MS and Plan, HSEQ Standards EP 95-0324, 0370, 0371, 0372 & 0377 and

HSE 022, 023, 036, 048, 053, 061 and 070. Design Engineering Practice (DEP) 31.10.00.31 Dec 98. There are 106 DEPs which reference vibration controls in design.

5. EP HSE MS and Plan and HSE Philosophies and design standards. 6. Agip KCO Contracts Schedule D. 7. EC Directive and European Physical Agents Directive 2003. Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (UK) and

associated ACoP's. Offshore noise in accommodation areas criteria documents. (Health, Safety and Welfare). 8. See ALARP Sheet ON-8f Occupational Health – Exposure to Vibration.


Options Considered 1. Four geographical onshore Plant Locations were considered 2. Plant and equipment design and selection 3. Hand tools selection Basis for Selection & Uncertainties HSE 036 and 53 and DEP 31.10.00.31 defines the basis for assessment and exposure limits for the workforce and the public and guides on decision making. The control of noise in a plant is required for the following reasons:

• to conserve the hearing of personnel; • to reduce speech and work interference; • to provide quiet accommodation for personnel; • to prevent annoyance to the neighbouring community.

Noise should primarily be controlled at source.

i) Define noise limits before the design and purchase of new equipment and tools. Only install equipment with low noise emission.

ii) Use the engineering control principles of segregation and enclosure. iii) Maintain plant and tools properly: mechanical wear and tear may lead to increased noise emission.

Where it is not reasonably practicable to control noise at source: i) Reduce the number of exposed personnel by separating noisy from non-noisy work; ii) Reduce exposure times by job sharing and automation; iii) Provide personal hearing protectors.

A demonstration that a hierarchy of controls has been adopted to mitigate reasonably foreseeable risks to ALARP is required. Detailed Design-stage input by competent persons with in-depth knowledge of control solutions, sound understanding of RoK legislative standards for workplace management. Robust Health Impact Assessments (HIA), Health Risk Assessments (HRA), Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is essential and these must include vital components such as community, NGO and GO consultation and briefings. Refer to Agip KCO studies and Reports:- • The Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessments were used to determine criteria for Pipeline and

Plant location selection see Kashagan EP Technical Substantiation for selection of Construction Options Volume 4 Contract AGIPKCO2001-431 Report dated 2002, Section 4.4.4 and Section 4.6.1 respectively. Environmental and socio-economics criterion were used to justify site selection.

• Initial SIA (ADL report Feb 2002) • Health Baseline Survey (ABT Associates Report Aug 2002) Also see ALARP Sheet ON-8f Occupational Health – Exposure to Vibration. Justification for Chosen Option

ASS

ESS

1. Of the four geographical locations for onshore plant relative to local communities, After extensive studies and

consultation with RoK and Local Authorities Location A North-East of Atyrau near to Karabatan and West of ESKINE was chosen. The Plant is located some 45km from Atyrau the largest community in the area and at least 10km from the nearest settlements. An exclusion zone around the plant has been defined, which will need to be managed to ensure settlements are not setup. See ALARP Sheet No. ON-2

2. Plant and equipment design and selection to minimise worker and off-site noise exposure for both Onshore and Offshore should have included a Health Impact Assessment and Health Risk Assessment to aid decision making. The Project will define detail during the Detailed Design Phase as well as Operational Phase Controls.

3. The Project will define detail during the Detailed Design Phase as well as Operational Phase Controls.


Residual HSE Risks All of the above risks cannot be eliminated completely. It represents ONLY the utilisation of good process and due diligence as part of the ALARP process. Recommendations for Next Project Phase Health Risk Assessment is planned to be performed for the Plant onshore and offshore, during Detailed Design phase. The hierarchy of controls should be used to mitigate these risks to ALARP. Detailed Design-stage input by competent persons with in-depth knowledge of noise control solutions and ability to influence purchasing policy (e.g. quietest machine available that meets all operational criteria). Plant design & layout e.g. noise loading. Enclosure of noise generating equipment. Acoustic barriers. Segregation of workforce from noisy equipment e.g. restrict access to authorised personnel only. Job rotation. Provision of PPE/signage, information, instruction, training and supervision. Pre-employment audiometric evaluation, repeated as per industry norms (1 yearly as per RoK Legislation). Noise mapping exercise for all areas. The hierarchy of Prevention, Mitigation followed by control should be applied during Detailed Design, so as to minimise the need for Procedures and Personnel Protective Equipment during the Operational Phase. Consideration given to equipment/technology/materials/contractors/suppliers/personnel selection. Construction, HUC/Start-up phases need to be planned to ensure potential exposure to Noise are controlled to appropriate standards and procedures and demonstrated to be ALARP. Also see ALARP Sheet ON-8f Occupational Health – Exposure to Vibration. Requirements for the Operations HSE-Plan

CO

NT

RO

L &

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N

For the Operations Phase, Operations Plans are required to ensure that all exposure to Noise risks are identified and managed so they are ALARP. This will require close interface between the Operations and Design Teams during the Detailed Design Phase. Also see ALARP Sheet ON-8f Occupational Health – Exposure to Vibration. Noise must be controlled at source. Any modifications or expansion to plant should be systematically reviewed by an experienced person to minimise the risk of increasing noise exposures that may be prevented by proper planning and procurement. A comprehensive hearing conservation programme should be implemented to ensure residual risk is minimised. Pre-employment medicals of all personnel (including Contractors) must be rigidly enforced to allow baseline data to be collected and backed-up by annual review.

alarp demonstration & documentation

Documents

s harris agip kco lhn

r cooke agip kco lhn

c plummer agip kco lhn

c crowley agip kco lhn

b vakilzadeh agip kco

b edmonds agip kco lhn

b marsh agip kco lhn

j morgan agip kco lhn