ukcsts007_iss1am02

UK Operations Offshore Projects HSE Philosophy UKCS-TS-007
Contents
Authorisation for Issue

Amendment Record
Amendment Summary
Distribution List
Preface
List of Abbreviations
Paragraph Page
Uncontrolled
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Help Notes 1
2 Objectives of the Philosophy 2
3 Scope of the Philosophy 3
4 The XXX Project HSE Management System 3

4.1 The Project HSE Policy 3
4.2 GHSER – XXX Project Compliance 5
4.3 Offshore Legislation 9
4.4 Project HSE Organisation 10
4.5 Project HSE Plan(s) 11
4.6 HSE Responsibilities 12
4.7 HSE Competency 13
4.8 Technical Integrity 13
4.9 HSE Requirements of Contractors 13
4.10 Procurement 13
4.11 The Audit Programme 13
5 Risk Management of the Operation 14

5.1 The Policy on Risk 16
5.2 Performance Criteria 17
5.3 The Formal Safety Assessment Programme 20
June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 i

UKCS-TS-007 UK Operations Offshore Projects HSE Philosophy
Contents (cont’d)
Paragraph Page
6 Environmental Management 23
6.1 Environmental Policy 23
6.2 Environmental Programme 23
7 Safety Cases and Notifications Submission 24
Uncontrolled
Figure
1 XXX Operation HSE Programme Structure 4
2 HSE Risk Management Model for Projects 15
Addendum 1 References
ii June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

Authorisation for Issue
Issue Authority
Name: Jon Turnbull
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________
Position: Technology Unit Leader, UTG

Uncontrolled
Technical Authority
Name: David Aberdeen
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________
Position: Senior Safety Engineer, UTG
October 2001 Issue 1 iii/iv

Amendment Record
For Audit Use

Amendment Incorporated By
Checked
Number
Name Signature Date Signature Date
Uncontrolled
AMOSAF.171
October 2001 Issue 1 v/vi

Amendment Summary
Issue No Date Description

Issue 1 October 2001 First issue.
Issue 1/AM01 March 2002 The Offshore Projects HSE Philosophy added to
the Preface as a Word template (online only) and
distribution list updated.
Issue 1/AM02 June 2002 Document updated to remove references to HSQ
and include up-to-date document references.
Uncontrolled
Paragraph 2 reviewed and updated.

Format of the word template updated to match the
original ASK version and improve ease of use.
June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 vii/viii

Distribution List
Holders of Controlled Hard Copy
Copy Copyholder Location
01 Data Control Centre (DCC) ODL, Aberdeen
Virtual Copyholders
Copy Copyholder
Uncontrolled
01 Document Issue Authority (Jon Turnbull)

02 Document Technical Authority (David Aberdeen)
03 EoS Document Controller (Dave Taylor)
04 EoS Operations Excellence HSE Consultant (David Egan)
05 OIM, Magnus
06 OIM, North West Hutton
07 OIM, Thistle
08 NWH/Thistle HSE Adviser
09 BSG SMS Co-ordinator (Peter Malcolm)
10 MNS SMS Co-ordinator (Peter Faulkner)
11 MNS SMS Co-ordinator (Peter Thompson)
12 MNS SMS Co-ordinator (Carl Thomesen)
13 MNS SMS Co-ordinator (Justin Haigh)
14 CNS SMS Co-ordinator (Jim Blacklaws)
15 NBU SMS Co-ordinator (David Robertson)
16 NBU EPU SMS Co-ordinator (David Egan)
17 NBU SMS Co-ordinator (John Beaumont)
18 NSI SMS Co-ordinator (Ann Rosbrook)
19 SBU SMS Co-ordinator (Malcolm Watson)
20 SBU SMS Co-ordinator (Simon Robinson)
21 MNS SMS Co-ordinator (Bruce Morrison)
March 2002 Issue 1/AM01 ix/x

Preface
Purpose
This Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Philosophy is for UK operation’s offshore projects,
ranging in size from material changes (as defined in the Safety Case Regulations) to new major
Installations. It provides a framework and the guiding principles for a project HSE Management
System as the basis for compliance with Getting HSE Right (GHSER) and legislation.
The philosophy is given in the form of a template (see below) that can be made project specific.
(Please note that this template is available online only.)
Uncontrolled
Given the foundational nature of the Philosophy, some subjects inevitably relate to the entire
lifecycle of the operation, from concept through to decommissioning and abandonment. This is
particularly true for risk management.
In the case of an existing operation, the completed Philosophy will have been prepared by the
Business Unit and given over to the project who formally accept and comply with it.
In the case of a new project or a ‘Create Asset’, the Philosophy will normally be prepared as a
high-level document and feature initially in the operation’s suite of project manuals.
The Philosophy has equal weighting to the Statement of Requirements and the Operating and
Maintenance Philosophy.
An HSE functional endorsement of the completed Philosophy is required.
Document Status
The basic principles and much of the detail in this document is valid. However, it needs to be
updated to cover developments since it was issued in 1996.
Areas requiring update include:
• Paragraph 4.2 updating based on GHSER instead of Operations Integrity Assurance
System (OIAS)
• Paragraph 4.5 to incorporate the implications of the Capital Value Process (CVP)
• Paragraph 5 to incorporate the new Group Risk Acceptability Criteria when adopted
(expected by the end of 2Q 2001) and the interpretation of the requirements of the Design
and Construction Regulations (DCR)
• Paragraph 6 to include the latest environmental expectations and initiatives
• Updating of references to internal documents and legislation
March 2002 Issue 1/AM01 xi

Review and Update

This document will be subject to 12-monthly review and update, when document holders will
have the opportunity to express opinions and suggest improvements.
However, the document control system allows for continuous update of this document. As
such, any user may at any time identify an error or suggest an improvement using an
Amendment Proposal proforma which is available electronically on the UK Upstream SMS
website, from the Data Control Centre (DCC) Supervisor or from the Technical Authority.
All holders of this document are registered so that they can be sent updates and be kept
informed of changes or reviews.
Responsibility of Copyholders
Uncontrolled
It is the responsibility of the registered copyholder of controlled hard copy versions to
maintain the accuracy of the document by ensuring that all updates are promptly
incorporated and acknowledged.
Furthermore, the registered copyholder of controlled hard copy versions must at all times
maintain custody of this document unless prior approval is given by the relevant
Technical Authority.
The roles and responsibilities of copyholders and ‘virtual’ copyholders are detailed in Section 1
of the Document Control Procedure (UKCS-DCM-001).
xii October 2001 Issue 1

List of Abbreviations
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

CSA Concept Safety Assessment
CSE Concept Safety Evaluation
DCR Design and Construction Regulations
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
FEED Front-end Engineering Design
FSA Formal Safety Assessment
Uncontrolled
GHSER Getting HSE Right

HSE Health, Safety and Environment
IAU Internal Audit Unit
IR Individual Risk
MAR Management and Administration Regulations
OIAS Operations Integrity Assurance System
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PFEER Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency Response
PSR Pipelines Safety Regulations
QA Quality Assurance
QRA Quantified Risk Assessment
SoR Statement of Requirements
TR Temporary Refuge
June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 xiii/xiv

1 Introduction
The Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Philosophy is based on the standard SMS
document UKCS-TS-007, as applied to all BP UK projects and is compliant with BP's
Getting HSE Right (GHSER).
It incorporates only those changes appropriate to making it specific to the
named project.
1.1 Help Notes

Text in italic is given as an aid to the preparation of the Philosophy. Such text would not
normally appear in the final document. But there is no reason why appropriate sections
cannot be retained, completely or partly, as helpful background information.
Uncontrolled
Although presented in the context of projects, the Philosophy is applicable to the entire
operation. The phases of an operation are:
(1) Concept selection.
(2) Front-end Engineering Design (FEED).
(3) Detailed design.
(4) Construction, inclusive of fabrication, build, load-out, transportation, installation
and hook-up.
(5) Commissioning.
(6) The operating phase.
(7) Decommissioning.
(8) Abandonment.
The Philosophy may be introduced at any stage.
Ideally, for a new project or ‘Create Asset’, the Philosophy would be applied from the
beginning, at the concept selection.
The terms ‘will’ and ‘shall’ have been used in this template Philosophy as though from the
client issuing authority.
The Philosophy is applicable to an alliance arrangement also. In this respect,
the selection of all the alliance members would be influenced by this Philosophy and
based on their capability of complying with it to ensure consistency and compatibility
across all project areas.
Finally, a point worthy of note is that project HSE budgets, inclusive of study
programmes and loss control effort, historically, have been prone to underestimation.
A sensible guide is to allocate a budget of 1% of the capital cost of the ‘£50M’ project
and about £5M for the larger ‘£1 bn’ project.
Ordinarily the HSE Philosophy is prepared in conjunction with the project.
June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 1

The project is subject to the HSE Philosophy from which it develops its HSE
management system. A key component of this management system is the HSE plan.
For ‘Create’ and ‘Existing Assets’ the Philosophy would normally be prepared and owned
by the Asset.
In the case of a new project where an Asset is not yet established, the Philosophy may
be prepared on behalf of UK Operations Management for ownership by the
eventual Asset.
In any case, it is important to make the distinction that approval of the HSE Philosophy is
essentially independent of the project and that it is accepted and applied by the project.
Approved by: Name
Manager, XXX Asset Date:
Accepted by: Name
Uncontrolled
Manager, XXX Project Date:
Endorsed by: Name
Management, HSE Function Date:
Endorsement by an HSE function is in accordance with the ‘Asset Manager’s
HSE Obligations’, HSQ 00.02.02.
The overall HSE requirements for the XXX Project are set by BP’s HSE Commitment
(Addendum 1 Ref 1) and by GHSER (Addendum 1 Ref 2).
This HSE Philosophy has been prepared in line with the GHSER (Addendum 1 Ref 2).
It sets out the basic HSE framework and objectives required of XXX Project.
The Philosophy is a companion document of equal standing to the project Statement of
Requirements (SoR) and the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Philosophy and should
be read in conjunction with them.
Detailed HSE requirements will be addressed in a separate project HSE plan.
A model project HSE plan is available in the Guidelines for Preparing a Project HSE Plan
(UKCS-TS-008).
2 Objectives of the Philosophy

The project HSE Philosophy is the basis for compliance with GHSER and legislation.
The objectives are:
(1) To lay the foundation for the development of the project HSE management system.
(2) To define the set of HSE guiding principles by which the project will identify and
promote its HSE objectives.
(3) To provide the framework for a seamless and coherent interface across each area
of the project and, similarly, for handover to the Operator.
The objectives apply over the entire infrastructure of the project, inclusive of alliance
members, third-party services and vendors.
2 June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

3 Scope of the Philosophy

The scope of the Philosophy is illustrated in Figure 1.
A brief description of the project intent should be given here and the extent of the
programme to which the Philosophy is to be applied. For example, the Philosophy may
be applicable to Concept Selection alone or to FEED or Detail Design or to all three
and more.
A typical HSE programme is provided in Figure 1 which is intended to illustrate a project
in its entirety and where the Philosophy fits in. In this example (Figure 1), the Asset
already exists and the project is accountable to it.
4 The XXX Project HSE Management System

Uncontrolled
4.1 The Project HSE Policy

The HSE Policy is likely to vary for new projects, ‘Create Assets’ and for modifications to
existing Assets. Nevertheless, it is expected that the policy statements given in this
paragraph will be relevant to most.
Note: For guidance on what constitutes a ‘Material Change’ refer to UKCS-TS-005.
(1) The XXX Project shall be committed to the protection of people and the
environment.
(2) This commitment (Step (1)) will be achieved by establishing and sustaining
individual awareness of HSE by enrolling everyone in the delivery of excellence in
HSE performance.
(3) The project will provide safe systems of work through the effective application of
risk assessment and good industry practice and safety standards. All HSE risks will
be identified and managed to maintain the integrity of the operation.
(4) The project will set high standards for environmental protection and continue to
seek ways of improving performance.
(5) The project will ensure the success of its HSE undertaking through clear
accountabilities, roles and responsibilities, given to everyone in XXX.
(6) All project activities will comply with regulatory requirements, BP’s HSE
Commitment (Addendum 1 Ref 1) and GHSER (Addendum 1 Ref 2).
(7) By accepting this HSE Philosophy, the project management will formally accept
commitment to GHSER (Addendum 1 Ref 2).

Uncontrolled
Figure 1 XXX Operation HSE Programme Structure
4 October 2001 Issue 1

4.2 GHSER – XXX Project Compliance

GHSER (Addendum 1 Ref 2) comprises 13 elements, each of which contains the
expectations of senior management for all BP activities. Together, these 13 elements
provide a framework for organisation and responsibilities, technical integrity,
performance standards, planning, self-regulation and external audit, continuous
improvement, training and operation. In addition the Technical Integrity Performance
Standards (UKCS-TI-001) sets out in more detail good practice in relation to projects
meeting the technical integrity requirements of GHSER.
In the context of GHSER, a project is only one phase of an operation. As such, all of the
13 elements apply to the project.
Each of the 13 elements of GHSER are given below along with an interpretation that is
appropriate in the context of the project. However, there can be no substitute for
working verbatim with the actual GHSER. It is important, therefore, that GHSER be
Uncontrolled
thoroughly understood as it not only presents the 13 elements but lists also the
expectations of all BP senior management for all BP activities in direct response to the
BP’s HSE commitment.
It is imperative, therefore, that the project HSE management system is based on these
elements and the expectations that underpin them, and that nothing is missed.
(1) Leadership and Accountability
• The project management will be required to provide the perspective, establish
and implement a proactive HSE Management System and provide the
resources for success in HSE
• The project will be required to establish the scope, priority and programme of
HSE work for its phase of the operation. It will set the expectations and set the
performance criteria that equates to, or exceeds, current UK Upstream
Region equivalents
• Operations integrity will be assured through visible project management
leadership and commitment, and through accountability at all levels
(2) Risk Assessment and Management
• Risks, in respect of people, facilities and the environment, will require to be
identified and managed throughout the lifecycle of the operation
• The project will be required to establish a system of risk management which
ultimately will be continued by the operating Business Unit
• Risks will require to be minimised and reduced to a level As Low As Reasonably
Practicable (ALARP)
• There will be a process of continued management of HSE risks
• The project will be required to assign responsibilities and accountabilities
particular to risk management for its phase of the operation

• The project will be required to assess, proactively, the implications of all its
activities, set priorities, develop action plans and review progress regularly.
Accordingly, project will be required to:
- Identify sources of HSE risk and hazards
- Assess the consequences and probabilities
- Evaluate and implement a balance of prevention, control and mitigation
measures
• The project will be required to set performance standards against which the
acceptability of the new facilities may be assessed and demonstrated. In this
regard, the project will adopt the UK Operations (UK Ops) criteria and study
methods in its assessment and documentation of HSE risks
(3) People, Training and Behaviours
Uncontrolled
• A system will need to be established by project for the selection and placement
of qualified and competent personnel to meet specific job requirements against
detailed terms of reference
• The operating Business Unit will do likewise and set up systems of training and
performance assessment in readiness for operational input to project and
ultimately for commissioning and operating the facility
(4) Working with Contractors and Others
• Third-party services and performance requirements will require to be specified
by project
• Third parties will be evaluated and selected with due consideration of their HSE
management capabilities, performance and ability to integrate with project
• All Interface requirements will be identified
• The performance of third parties will require to be monitored throughout the
period of service
Note: Strictly, this element must apply to the selection of design contractors,
fabrication contractors, transportation, heavy lift contractors and other
service providers, and also to the selection of all members in an Alliance
arrangement.
(5) Facilities Design and Construction
• An SoR and an O&M Philosophy will require to be developed for the design,
construction, commissioning and intended operation
• It will be a requirement of project to meet or exceed legislation
• The project will be required to select and apply approved standards and best
practices which ensure inherent safety and ensure health and environmental
risks are minimised in the design, construction and intended operations
• Project systems will be required for the control, authorisation and recording of
deviations from practices and standards

• Systems of quality control and inspection will be required

• Project will be subject to independent review before startup of the operation to
confirm that all HSE matters have been properly addressed in compliance with
OIAS and that the HSE expectations and performance criteria have been met
(6) Operations and Maintenance
• The operations and maintenance needs will require to be established by project
together with full operator representation
• Operating, maintenance and inspection programmes and procedures will be
developed, (inclusive of the Permit to Work), to ensure continued safe and
effective management of the operation throughout its lifecycle
• Modification procedures, for both hardware and software, will require to be
developed to ensure operational and technical integrity is maintained
Uncontrolled
• The operating team will be required to become fully resourced and trained and
the operations HSE Management Systems fully implemented for the
commissioning and transition to the operating phase
• The change over to Business Unit will require to be a seamless and natural
progression of project’s HSE Management System
(7) Management of Change
• Systems will require to be put in place for the express purpose of identification,
management, authorisation and documentation of all temporary and permanent
changes that may be required during each phase of the project
• All proposed changes will be assessed as to the impact on HSE risks and
measures taken to ensure the risks remain acceptable against the UK
operations and legislative criteria, and project performance standards
(8) Information and Documentation
• Project will be required to operate and maintain an HSE information and
document control system that can be handed over and effectively continued by
the operating Business Unit. The system developed will be compatible with the
requirement of the operator
• Responsibility will be assigned for documentation control and systems set up
for safe storage and easy access of all drawings, hazard data files, facility
changes, maintenance and inspection records, HSE reports, correspondence,
codes, legislation and computer files
• Applicable regulations, permits, codes, workplace standards and practices will
be identified and conflicts resolved
• Project and Business Unit requirements will be documented and communicated
to all those affected
• Publication and distribution of HSE information within project will require to be
undertaken to accomplish a sound and positive HSE culture

(9) Customers and Products

To be advised.
(10) Community and Stakeholder Awareness
• A system will be required that ensures recognition of, and response to, the
public’s expectations and concerns about the operation
(11) Crisis and Emergency Management
• Open communications will require to be established and maintained across all
areas of the project. This will apply in respect of personnel, contractors,
regulators, the public, and the emergency services
• Emergency preparedness plans will be developed for each of the project and
operating phases
Uncontrolled
• Equipment, facilities and trained personnel to handle emergencies will be
defined and readily available, and exercises will be performed to ensure
continued preparedness in the event of an accident or incident
(12) Incidents Analysis and Prevention
• All safety and environmental accidents, incidents and significant near misses
will be subject to investigation and analysis
• A central system for reporting, investigation and assessment will need to be
developed by project which ultimately will be carried forward into the operating
phase of the operation
• Findings will be periodically examined to identify common themes which can be
targeted for preventative attention
• All accidents and incidents will be shared openly within the project
and operation and across BP as lessons learned. In this regard, project will
be required to take cognisance of lessons learned from other projects
and operations
Note: For projects involved with existing operations, the addition of a statement
to the effect that project will adopt the operation’s system of incident
investigation and analysis, might be more appropriate.
(13) Assessment Assurance and Improvement
• Measurable goals will require to be developed and performance against them
assessed to facilitate continuous improvement throughout each phase of
the operation
• A process for self assessment of progress toward operations integrity goals will
be developed
• The project and Business Unit alike will be subject to an agreed programme.
Systems will be put in place for the resolution of findings and for measuring the
effectiveness of the assessments

4.3 Offshore Legislation

A listing of offshore legislation is available in 'UK Offshore Safety Legislation', HSQ
01.05.13. This was last updated in 1996 and requires updating.
4.3.1 Key Health and Safety Legislation

• The Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 (MWA)
• The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain)
Order 1995, SI 1995/No 263
• Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act 1975
• Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/No 2885
• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, SI 1992/No 2051
Uncontrolled
• The Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (Management and Administration)

Regulations 1995, SI 1995/No 738 (MAR)
• The Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency
Response) Regulations 1995, SI 1995/No 743 (PFEER)
• The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction etc) Regulations 1996,
SI 1996/No 6 (DCR)
• The Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996, SI 1996/No 825 (PSR)
4.3.2 Key Environmental Legislation

• Coast Protection Act 1949
• The Energy Act 1976
• Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980
• Prevention of Oil Pollution Regulations 1984, SI 1984/No 1694
• Food and Environment Protection Act 1985
• Deposits in the Sea (Exemptions) Order 1985, SI 1985/No 1699
• The Petroleum Act 1987
• The Water Act 1989
• The Environmental Protection Act 1990
• The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/No 1680
• Radioactive Substances Act 1993
Environmental conditions are increasingly being included in licence requirements,
particularly since the 12th round. The licence conditions must therefore be checked and
all conditions and consultations observed.

The environmental aspects of individual project design is normally assessed by the

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in its consideration of the Annex B submission.
The DTI may comment or question the design proposals on specific details, and expects
these comments to be addressed and answered. However, the DTI does not issue a
formal acceptance of the environmental design.
4.4 Project HSE Organisation

An organisation will be set up which establishes responsibilities and relationships that
promote a positive HSE culture and secures the implementation and continued
development of the project HSE management system.
The project HSE organisation will be formalised in the project co-ordination procedures.
Systems will be set up which ensure:
Uncontrolled
• Commitment to GHSER throughout all areas
• Demonstration of:
- Compliance with GHSER
- Alignment with GHSER for third parties and contractors
- Compliance with the legislation
• The development of the design, construction, commissioning and intended operation
are HSE risk driven
• The selection of appropriate alliance members, third-party services and vendors are
compatible with the project’s HSE management system
• The HSE Philosophy and Plans are understood by all parties and project personnel
• Sufficient and competent resources are employed to meet the project’s HSE policy
• Responsibilities, accountabilities and lines of communication are clearly defined
• The project’s schedule of deliverables includes programmes of HSE-related
study work
• Safety Cases and notifications are prepared to the standard BP format and submitted
according to an agreed programme for Health and Safety Executive acceptance and
comment as appropriate
• Procurement of material, equipment and supplies includes consideration of HSE
requirements
• All necessary HSE information is made available to the appropriate personnel;
eg legislation, standards and codes of practice both internal and external to BP
• All HSE issues, recommendations and concerns are formally recorded and monitored,
and are satisfactorily addressed and closed out
• All decisions with HSE implications are recorded and the appropriate personnel are
made aware of them
• Quality and integrity of HSE study work is kept to an acceptable high standard

• All changes (design, construction etc), are subject to authorisation and the HSE
implications are assessed and recorded
• Deviations from accepted codes and standards are formally registered and authorised
• The project is subject to self-regulation
• Contractors are audited by the project against agreed performance criteria
• The project is subject to a formalised programme of external UK Operations audits,
inclusive of Quality Assurance (QA), technical safety, medical and environmental
• The HSE management system is robust to potential audit by Internal Audit Unit (IAU)
and/or the Health and Safety Executive
4.5 Project HSE Plan(s)

Uncontrolled
The project will be required to develop and implement an HSE plan, or plans covering:
(2) FEED.
(3) Detail design.
(4) Construction, inclusive of fabrication, build, site testing and site commissioning,
load-out, transportation and offshore hook-up.
(5) Offshore commissioning, inclusive of handover to the Operator.
Refer to Figure 1.
Paragraph 4.5 may be tailored to suit the size and type of project and the relationship
with existing operations. The model plan, HSQ 01.05.24, provides a basis for the
development of HSE plans.
The plan(s) will contain a statement on the Project Manager’s commitment to GHSER.
It (they) will give a detailed account of the project HSE management system for
achieving GHSER and legislative objectives.
The principal components of the plan(s) will be the project HSE management system,
risk management (refer to Paragraph 5), environmental management (Paragraph 6) and
Safety Case management (Paragraph 7). The plan(s) will detail also the HSE programme
of safety-related work and deliverables.
The HSE programme will be linked to the project schedule to ensure that all
safety-related work is performed proactively and in a timely manner to meet project
milestones and ensure that HSE activities are risk driven.

4.6 HSE Responsibilities

The XXX Manager has overall accountability for the HSE performance of the Operation.
The XXX Project Manager will report to him.
The paragraph above is correct as a principle of management.
For a ‘Create Asset’ where the BU Manager and Project Manager are one person,
then the paragraph could read: The XXX Manager has overall accountability for the HSE
performance of the operation and the project management team will report to him.
For an existing operation, the BU may be represented by a Team Leader in which case
the paragraph could read: The XXX Project Manager (or the XXX Project Team Leader)
will report to the XXX Team Leader. The XXX Manager, however, retains overall
accountability for the HSE performance of the operation.
The primary accountability for HSE matters for the project phase will lie with the Project
Uncontrolled
Manager and project line management. Accountability will be assigned and
demonstrated throughout the entire line management chain to ensure that there is
individual commitment for HSE at every level of the organisation.
The Project Manager will be formally responsible for identification and utilisation of the
necessary resources to ensure that legislation, GHSER objectives and the corresponding
project HSE policy can be met. He will ensure that at all times he has the necessary
competencies in his team to assure the efficient and safe discharge of his
responsibilities. In addition the Project Manager will be responsible for ensuring that
third parties, contractors and service providers employed by project have the capability
of an effective equivalent competency standard.
Where project activities take place within areas under the operational control of others,
the Project Manager will be directly responsible to the operational management for
these activities. In such circumstances, the project will ensure that its activities conform
to the requirements of the operational HSE management system.
An individual will be nominated with responsibility for co-ordinating and monitoring
implementation of the HSE plan(s) and will report direct to the Project Manager.
Responsibilities will also be assigned for the each of the HSE deliverables.

4.7 HSE Competency

The project will at all times ensure that it has sufficient people who are competent to
provide for HSE (Addendum 1 Ref 3). In this regard, the project will provide assurance as
to the competency of the individuals working on it and of third parties, contractors and
service providers.
4.8 Technical Integrity

The project will comply with the Technical Integrity Performance Standards (UKCS-TI-001).
Systems and procedures for QA will be developed and implemented for ensuring and
demonstrating technical integrity throughout all phases of the project. These systems
and procedures will specify the required levels of quality for all materials, products,
services and activities. They will be subject to continual development and monitoring.
Uncontrolled
A documentation system will be developed specifically as the principal means of

demonstrating technical integrity and as a record that stipulated standards are
being achieved.
4.9 HSE Requirements of Contractors

Contractors will have an equivalent HSE performance in accord with the projects.
In appropriate cases, depending on the potential HSE risks, the contractor will
be pre-audited to establish the existence of an effective and compatible HSE
management system.
The project will carry out periodic checks to ensure its objectives are being met in
respect of the contractor’s HSE performance.
Paragraph 4.8 would apply also to the selection and monitoring of Alliance members.
4.10 Procurement
The model contract clauses (Addendum 1 Ref 5) will be used in the procurement of
services and equipment.
4.11 The Audit Programme

The project will be required to develop and implement an audit programme on its HSE
activities and that of its third parties, contractors and service providers as a means of
insuring compliance with its HSE policy (refer to Paragraph 4.1).
In addition, the project will be subject to the system of an independent technical safety
audit (Addendum 1 Ref 6). The project may also be subject to audit by the IAU.

5 Risk Management of the Operation

By its very nature, risk management is foundational to the entire operation. The systems
set up by the project will therefore be crucial to the success and acceptability of the
operation. For this reason, Paragraph 5 places emphasis on the needs of the longer term
operation rather than the shorter term project.
From the Notes in Paragraph 1.1, an operation comprises:
(2) FEED.
(3) Detailed design.
(4) Construction, inclusive of fabrication, build, load-out, transportation, installation
and hook-up.
Uncontrolled
(5) Commissioning.
(6) The operating phase.
(7) Decommissioning.
(8) Abandonment.
Risk management for the operation will be based on the ‘Risk Management Model’ as
indicated in Figure 2, and will be developed integral to the HSE plan(s).
Risk management will ensure that all HSE risks appropriate to the operation are
satisfactorily addressed. It will provide compliance with GHSER (Addendum 1 Ref 2) and
the Safety Case Regulations (Addendum 1 Ref 8) and the PFEER Regulations
(Addendum 1 Ref 9).
For a material change to an existing operation the above paragraph could be: The Project
shall comply with the XXX Operation Risk Management to ensure that all HSE matters
are satisfactorily addressed in compliance with the requirements of GHSER,
and the Safety Case and PFEER Regulations (Addendum 1 Refs 8 and 9).
UK Operations’ definition for a material change can be found in Change Management
and Material Change Criteria (UKCS-TS-005).
The process of risk management will be started at the concept selection and be
progressively developed into maturity through the FEED and project phases and
continued in the operating phase. It will also include consideration of future
decommissioning and abandonment as required by the Safety Case Regulations
(Addendum 1 Ref 8).
In compliance with the offshore regulations and GHSER, risk management must be
inherent to the operation from the start, at the concept selection, and be continued
throughout each of the project phases, through the operating phase and onto
decommissioning and abandonment.

HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
PERFORMANCE GOALS
• FIRE/EXPLOSION (GIVEN)
HAZARD PREVENTION
• COLLISION
(FIRST PRIORITY) • CORPORATE HSE POLICIES
• TRANSPORTATION
• OCCUPATIONAL • OPERATIONS INTEGRITY
• OTHERS ASSURANCE SYSTEM
CONCEPT SELECTION • LEGISLATION
DESIGN OPTIMISATION
PERFORMANCE GOALS
(SELECTED)
OPERATIONS OPTIMISATION
• HSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
• HSE POLICIES
YES • INDUSTRY STANDARDS
CAN HAZARD BE PREVENTED? • BP CODES AND PRACTICES
• HSE PRACTICES
NO
Uncontrolled
HAZARD CONTROL
(SECOND PRIORITY)
HAZARD MITIGATION
(THIRD PRIORITY)
• HSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

• SAFETY SYSTEMS
• TEMPORARY REFUGE
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE IMPAIRMENT CRITERIA
• SAFETY EQUIPMENT
• OPERATING PROCEDURES
• WRITTEN SCHEME OF
EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
• OTHERS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT

• INDIVIDUAL RISK
• TEMPORARY REFUGE
• EER
RISK ANALYSIS
HSE MANAGEMENT • SMOKE AND GASING
SYSTEM • FREQUENCIES • EMERGENCY SYSTEMS
• CONSEQUENCES • SAFETY EQUIPMENT
• RISKS • OTHERS
CORRECTIVE MEASURES
• IMPROVE SYSTEM RISK ASSESSMENT

NO
PERFORMANCE
• IMPROVE EQUIPMENT ARE THE CRITERIA SATISFIED?
PERFORMANCE
• HARDWARE YES
• SOFTWARE
• ADD MORE SYSTEMS ALARP
• HAVE ALL PRACTICABLE

OPTIONS BEEN CONSIDERED?
• QUALITATIVE REASONING
• COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
• OTHER FACTORS
NO
IS ALARP ACHIEVED?
YES
SET FINAL PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR SYSTEM/
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION.
INSPECTION AND TESTING
REQUIREMENTS
INSTALLATION MEETS LEGISLATIVE AND OIS STANDARDS,

PLUS HAZARDS ARE MINIMISED AND
, SAFETY SYSTEMS ,
ARE EFFECTIVE TO THE EXTENT THAT IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE
UKCSTS007_002.ai
Figure 2 HSE Risk Management Model for Projects

Risk management is, in fact, a continuous process throughout the operation,

fundamental to ensuring:
• The concept selection includes for minimum risk to life as well as commercial and
technical factors
• Avoidance of carrying forward unrecognised problems which might require costly
corrective work at subsequent phases
• A progressive and seamless transition between each phase of the operation
5.1 The Policy on Risk

(1) HSE risks shall be identified, understood and assessed and shall be kept to an
acceptably low level by design, the method of construction and methods of
commissioning and operation.
Uncontrolled
(2) Risk reduction shall follow the priority:
(a) Elimination of the hazards as the preferred solution, and where this is
not possible.
(b) Provision of control measures as a second option only.
(c) Provision of mitigatory measures, as the very last option.
(3) The acceptability of the risks shall be judged against set performance criteria (refer
to Paragraph 5.2), inclusive of UK Operations and legislative criteria.
Note: The Health and Safety Executive has made it clear that it expects
‘new Installations to demonstrate significantly higher standards’; that is
to say, higher standards than those achievable on the older Installations
that existed at the time the Safety Case Regulations were introduced.
(4) The risks shall be reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and
ALARP shall be demonstrated (Addendum 1 Ref 10).
(5) The HSE risks shall be subject to a programme of continual improvement
throughout the lifecycle of the operation.
For modifications and material changes to an operation, an example policy
statement could be:
'The project will adopt a risk policy whereby any potential increase in risk that
might otherwise occur as a result of the new equipment will be offset by
implementation of identified risk reduction measures to existing systems.’
Under this statement, the overall risk picture may either remain unchanged or,
indeed, be reduced. The chances of an increase in risk will be low and, if it does
happen, will probably be marginal and, in any event, must be ALARP.

Another example might be:

‘Opportunities will be specifically sought to determine whether the overall risk
levels can be reduced by the introduction of measures which, when done in
conjunction with the project, can be justified even though they might already meet
the ALARP criteria when considered in isolation.’
(6) Specifically, the risk to people working in connection with the operation offshore,
shall be assessed in terms of the Individual Risk (IR) per annum (Addendum 1
Refs 10 and 11).
(7) The risk of impairment of the Temporary Refuge (TR) shall be assessed,
in accordance with the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992,
SI 1992/No 2885 (Addendum 1 Ref 8).
Note: The risk policy does not mention Asset protection, as such. Rather,
Uncontrolled
the focus is on measures applied to the operation for protecting people.

Protection of the Asset against total or partial loss is another issue which needs to
be addressed separately, although, it is generally accepted that Asset protection
will give some benefit to people protection.
5.2 Performance Criteria

GHSER (Addendum 1 Ref 2) will be used as the framework to develop and set derivative
performance criteria for each phase of the operation. The resultant performance criteria
shall be used to judge the acceptability of the risk levels calculated. They may be either
numerical or qualitative; appropriate to the type of assessment and value as a means of
achieving and demonstrating risk reduction.
In the case of work on an existing operation, the project performance criteria will mirror
the Assets. Additional objectives and measures may also be required that benefit the
operation as a whole in compliance with its risk reduction policy.
Ultimately, the performance criteria will be the overriding driver in all phases of the
project and throughout the entire life of the operation, since they form the key elements
in demonstrating protection of life.
In reality the Health and Safety Executive will exercise its authority on the basis of
commitments and claims made in the Safety Cases and the demonstration that these
commitments are being fulfilled and the claims are true.

5.2.1 Inherent HSE Merits by Design

The project will adopt those methods of risk reduction commonly used to ensure basic
HSE qualities are inherent to the operation.
They will include:
• Minimising inventory
• Minimising equipment, flanges and fittings
• Segregating and separating hazardous and non-hazardous areas
• Keeping the design and intended operating activities simple
• Using well-proven technology and techniques
• Minimising intervention requirements
Uncontrolled
5.2.2 IR Acceptability Criteria
The operation shall comply with the XEU risk acceptability criteria statement
(Addendum 1 Refs 10 and 11) in respect of individual risk. Accordingly, the IR shall be no
greater than 10-3 per annum for those at most risk and the IR shall be subject to the
ALARP principle.
5.2.3 Risk Impairment Criteria for the TR

The operation shall conform to the requirement laid down in Paragraph 117 of the Health
and Safety Executive Guidance on the Safety Case Regulations (Addendum 1 Ref 12).
-3
Accordingly, the TR impairment frequency shall be no greater than 10 per annum and
shall be reduced to a lower level wherever reasonably practicable. There shall be
convincing argument presented that it is not practicable to reduce the frequency
any further.
5.2.4 Performance Goals, Standards and Measures

Performance goals, standards and measures will be set in accordance with current
guidance:
• Guidance on PFEER (UKCS-TI-003)
• Guidance Notes on DCR (UKCS-TI-002)
• Emergency System Goals (UKCS-TS-006)
• Emergency Response Goals (UKCS-TS-017)

Essentially:
• Performance goals are high-level performance statements, eg an effective emergency
response will be developed
• Performance standards are applied precisely to systems or equipment where analysis
has shown the need for a performance better than the industry standard
• Performance measures are criteria that require to be validated by defined inspection
and testing routines in order to ensure the specified performance continues to be
achieved. Performance measures may be an industry standard or a performance
standard (defined above) or a combination of both
Performance goals will be applied to the operation as a whole and to major systems that
make up the operation.
Examples of high-level performance goals are:
Uncontrolled
• Emergency systems
• Emergency response
Performance standards and performance measures will be applied to the systems and
subsystems of the operation, particularly those that make a measurable contribution to
the protection of life.
Examples of performance standards and measures are:
• TR endurance time
• Fire and gas detection
• Process trips
• Human impairment, heat and smoke
• Firewall endurance times and performance
• Fire pump availability
• Air breathability in TR
In addition, the following references will require to be used in the development of the
criteria:
• Impairment criteria for personnel and Installation hardware (refer to UKCS-TI-012)
• Guidance on the Design of Instrumented Protective Systems (refer to UKCS-TI-022)
• Assessing smoke and gas ingress (Addendum 1 Ref 20)
• Ship collision risks (Addendum 1 Ref 21)
• Loss potent matrix (Addendum 1 Ref 22)

A list of actual performance criteria must be produced, perhaps as early as the concept
phase. If it does not make this document too cumbersome, then the list can be
produced here or as an appendix, otherwise it would be developed for the statement of
requirements or the basis of design and the HSE plan. The list can be altered at any time
but, be careful, such a move could severely impact concept selection or the design or
the intended operation.
For modifications and material change type projects, the performance criteria already
established for the operations would probably be applicable, especially those quoted in
the operations Safety Case.
In some cases, however, the operation may impose additional performance criteria such as:
• Environmental, emission are not to exceed (some factor); or
• Environmental emissions are to be reduced by (some factor)
Uncontrolled
5.3 The Formal Safety Assessment Programme
The scope and timing of the individual studies that make up the Formal Safety
Assessment (FSA) programme will be sufficient to enable informed and confident
decision-making in the development of the operation and to enable the demonstration of
acceptable risk and acceptable risk reduction.
From an HSE standpoint, the development of the operation is risk-driven. It follows that
the FSA programme is crucial to ensuring that HSE issues are addressed in a timely
manner so as to:
(1) Avoid delays.
(2) Avoid unplanned corrective expenditure.
(3) To ensure that CAPEX and OPEX is not wasted but is directed to areas that give
measurable effective risk reduction benefit.
The FSA programme as a discrete function within the HSE plan formalises the distinction
between the technical safety engineering work required of the risk management and the
general prevention and loss control type engineering.
Note: Steps (1) to (5) below may be edited corresponding to the scope and phase of
the project.
(1) Concept Selection
Risk management will be a major contributor to concept selection, equal to
technical and commercial needs. It will provide a generic view of the operation and
the hazards likely to be involved for each of the options under consideration.
Risk ranking will be performed to help in the selection process. It will include
consideration of construction, commissioning, operating, decommissioning and
abandonment.
It is likely that BP corporate high-level performance goals need only apply at this phase
unless the project is concerned with a material change to an existing operation.

At this stage, industry standards and generic data only may be used to provide the
appropriate level of accuracy required of the HSE studies.
Limiting the concept selection to industry standards and making use of generic
data is likely to be more than adequate at this stage. It simplifies the HSE study
work and, hence, saves on time and costs.
By using national and international codes, Company codes and lessons learnt, the
concept finally selected will be at least as good as the industry standard.
An HSE report will be required of concept selection. It will present the rationale
behind the option finally selected and give an account, specifically, that risks and
environmental issues have been addressed satisfactorily. It will give justification for
proceeding to FEED. The report will ultimately provide input to the Design
Safety Case.
Uncontrolled
(2) FEED
At this stage risk management becomes less generic and more specific to the
selected option.
A Concept Safety Evaluation (CSE) will be required of FEED. This will provide a
good indicator of the overall risk picture likely to be achieved and the major risk
drivers particular to the operation. In addition, it will provide demonstration of risk
minimisation and the potential for ALARP.
The CSE will include, but not be limited to:
• Fire and explosion
• Emergency response
• Smoke and gas ingress
• Emergency systems
• Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA)
Specifically, the IR and the TR impairment will be quantified to a degree sufficient
to confirm and demonstrate that the risks will be acceptable for the operation and
that there exists potential for further risk reduction.
Performance criteria specific to the operation will be established.
Assurances will be given that these performance criteria have been, or can be, met.
The CSE, together with the concept selection report, will provide the basis for the
preparation of the Design Safety Case.
The CSE is sometimes referred to as the CSA (Concept Safety Assessment).
For the smaller project, producing a distinct CSE(A) and then incorporating the
findings in the Design Safety Case may not be an efficient way of working. In such
cases it is in order to complete the CSE(A) study work for direct input to the
Design Safety Case rather than produce a separate CSE(A) report. The Design
Safety Case becomes, in effect, the CSE(A).

(3) Detail Design

The main thrust of risk management is undertaken at detail design and is very
much specific to the actual operation.
Risk management for the detail design phase will establish a comprehensive and
credible risk portfolio for the operation and for direct input to the Safety Cases
(Addendum 1 Ref 8). Accordingly, the FSA programme will confirm that the risk
policy, Paragraph 5.1, has been satisfied and will provide justification for continuing
with the operation.
The performance criteria will become firmly established. They will be continually
reviewed for applicability and accuracy and may be subject to improvement as the
detail design progresses.
The HSE study work will be undertaken as a progression of the CSE completed
Uncontrolled
during FEED. Risk-sensitive systems and equipment will be identified that may
require more detailed scrutiny and possible changes in order to meet the stipulated
performance standards.
HSE assumptions will either be validated or reworked to ensure that, in reality,
the performance criteria can actually be met.
The FSA programme, will provide the basis for the preparation of Safety Cases and
notifications required of the Safety Case Regulations (Addendum 1 Ref 8).
(4) Construction Phase
The minimisation of construction risks will be fundamental to construction.
Potential major accident events and occupational hazards will be addressed.
Construction tasks will be subject to Task Risk Assessments (TRAs) (Addendum 1
Ref 23) and in some cases may be subject to QRA.
(5) Offshore Commissioning and the Operating Phase
The risk management developed by the project will be taken over by the Operator
and integrated seamlessly into the Operations HSE Management System. It will be
maintained throughout the life of the operation until decommissioning.
The policy of reducing risk will be continued. For Installation alterations and
material changes, risk reduction will be a key factor to ensuring that the overall IR
and TR impairment risk levels and the standards of performance achieved continue
to be acceptable in compliance with GHSER and legislation.

6 Environmental Management
The project will set up and implement an environmental management process which will
aim to ensure that all environmental risks, regulatory and BP policy requirements have
been identified and addressed and appropriate measures have been taken.
6.1 Environmental Policy

(1) The project will implement the BP Environmental Policy (Addendum 1 Ref 24).
Accordingly, the project will protect the environment by seeking to minimise the
impact of its activities.
(2) The project will contribute to the BP objective to strive for progressive
improvement in environmental performance by giving consideration to the
Uncontrolled
reduction of emissions, waste and the use of energy in the design construction,
commissioning and intended operation of the new facilities.
(3) The new facilities will apply the best available pollution control techniques that are
commercially viable.
6.2 Environmental Programme

The environmental programme will start early at the pre-project phase and include:
• Environmental screening of the area at the licensing stage to identify principal
sensitivities
• Preparation of an Oil Spill Contingency Plan for exploration drilling for inshore and
other environmentally sensitive areas. This may include seabed surveys and coastal
sensitivity mapping
The environmental programme will continue throughout the life of the operation and will
involve close contact with the design engineers, consultation with regulators and
communications with a wide range of other technical disciplines.
The documents prepared will include, but not be limited to:
• A Preliminary Environmental Assessment which will be undertaken at the conceptual
design phase to identify environmental risks of the design, operating philosophy
and hardware
• An Environmental Assessment, prepared during FEED and the detailed design phase
and completed on completion of the design
• An Oil Spill Contingency Plan for which, unless there are particular environmental
sensitivities of the location (or oil type), the BP Exploration ‘Offshore Oil Spill
Contingency Plan, UK Continental Shelf’ will be used
During the construction and commissioning phases the environmental management
programme will embody the routine Asset management activities. This will include any
monitoring requirements, self-regulation and audit programmes as well as setting the
annual environmental performance targets.

7 Safety Cases and Notifications Submission

Safety Cases and Notifications will be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive in
accordance with the Safety Case Regulations (Addendum 1 Ref 8).
The project will be responsible for the preparation of Safety Cases and Notifications and
will be responsible also for submissions to the Health and Safety Executive.
The project will be required to set up a dedicated Safety Case team whose responsibility
will be to ensure the quality is to the standard established by UK Operations with all its
current Safety Cases. To this end, the Safety Cases will be subject to review by the
HSQ Department for consistency and acceptability.
The Safety Cases and Notifications will be prepared in accordance with the Safety Case
Guidance (UKCS-TS-004).
Uncontrolled
The Safety Case programme will be integral to the project HSE plan. It will be aligned to
the FSA programme and the project schedule to ensure that the project complies with
the legislative timing of the submissions and to ensure the ‘risk-driven’ objective of the
operation is not hindered in any way.

Addendum 1
References
(1) HSE Commitment: BP’s Commitment to Health, Safety and the Environment.
(2) BP ‘Getting HSE Right’ (GHSER), January 1999.
(3) Technical Integrity Performance Standards (UKCS-TI-001)
(4) Standard Contract HSE Clauses; HSQ 01.02.06, Rev 0a.
(5) Standard for Technical Safety Audits, HSQ 01.02.09, Rev 0.
(6) Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/No 2885.
Uncontrolled
(7) The Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency Response)
Regulations 1995 (PFEER), SI 1995/No 743.
(8) XEU UK Operations HSE Management System, Risk Acceptability Criteria, XEU
Statement of Policy; HSQ 01.01.01 Rev 0; November 1992.
(9) XEU UK Operations HSE Management System, Risk Acceptability Criteria, Application in
Offshore Safety Cases, Guidance Note; HSQ 01.06.01, Rev 0; November 1992.
(10) A Guide to the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/No 2885.
(11) Guidance on PFEER (UKCS-TI-003)
(12) Emergency System Goals (UKCS-TS-006)
(13) Impairment Criteria (UKCS-TS-012)
(14) Guidance on the Design of Instrumented Protective System (UKCS-TI-022)
(15) Emergency Response Goals (UKCS-TS-017).
(16) Methodology for Assessing Smoke and Gas Ingress to Accommodation and TR Volumes,
HSQ 01.03.01, Rev 0.
(17) Ship Collision Risk Assessment, HSQ 01.05.08, Rev 0.
(18) Guidance on the Loss Potential Matrix, HSQ 01.05.05, Rev 4.
(19) XEU HSE Practices; HSQ 00.04.01.
(20) HSE Policy Implementation & Environment, HSQ 03.01.01, Rev 0.
(21) Offshore Safety Case Overview and General Guidance (UKCS-TS-004)
References
June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 Add 1-1

ukcsts007_iss1am02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ukcsts007_iss1am02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK Operations Offshore Projects HSE Philosophy UKCS-TS-007

Authorisation for Issue

2 Objectives of the Philosophy 2

3 Scope of the Philosophy 3

4 The XXX Project HSE Management System 3

5 Risk Management of the Operation 14

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 i

7 Safety Cases and Notifications Submission 24

ii June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

Authorisation for Issue

Position: Technology Unit Leader, UTG

Position: Senior Safety Engineer, UTG

October 2001 Issue 1 iii/iv

For Audit Use

October 2001 Issue 1 v/vi

Issue No Date Description

Paragraph 2 reviewed and updated.

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 vii/viii

Holders of Controlled Hard Copy

Copy Copyholder Location

01 Data Control Centre (DCC) ODL, Aberdeen

01 Document Issue Authority (Jon Turnbull)

March 2002 Issue 1/AM01 ix/x

March 2002 Issue 1/AM01 xi

Review and Update

xii October 2001 Issue 1

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

GHSER Getting HSE Right

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 xiii/xiv

1.1 Help Notes

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 1

2 Objectives of the Philosophy

2 June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

3 Scope of the Philosophy

4 The XXX Project HSE Management System

4.1 The Project HSE Policy

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 3

Figure 1 XXX Operation HSE Programme Structure

4 October 2001 Issue 1

4.2 GHSER – XXX Project Compliance

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 5

6 June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

• Systems of quality control and inspection will be required

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 7

(9) Customers and Products

8 June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

4.3 Offshore Legislation

4.3.1 Key Health and Safety Legislation

• The Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (Management and Administration)

4.3.2 Key Environmental Legislation

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 9

The environmental aspects of individual project design is normally assessed by the

4.4 Project HSE Organisation

10 June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

4.5 Project HSE Plan(s)

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 11

4.6 HSE Responsibilities

12 June 2002 Issue 1/AM02

4.7 HSE Competency

4.8 Technical Integrity

A documentation system will be developed specifically as the principal means of

4.9 HSE Requirements of Contractors

4.11 The Audit Programme

June 2002 Issue 1/AM02 13