1. ???? HSE MS Audit
??? 2001
SIEP EP-HSE

2. Agenda Team introduction Background Terms of Reference for the Audit
Audit methodology
Reporting
Schedule

3. Team Members
???? SIEP EP-HSE (Audit Leader)

4. Group HSE Policy Every Shell company:
has a systematic approach to HSE management, designed to ensure compliance with the law and to achieve continuous performance improvement;
sets targets for improvement and measures, appraises and reports on performance;
requires contractors to manage HSE in line with this policy;
requires joint ventures under its operational control to apply this policy, and uses its influence to promote it in its other ventures;
includes HSE performance in the appraisal of all staff and rewards accordingly.

5. HSE Performance
“There must always be a gap between … aspirations and performance … But a gap between policy and performance is unacceptable”
Phil Watts - Shell EP HSE Conference September 1997

6. Terms of Reference Objective
To appraise the quality and completeness of the HSE MS in ???? and the adequacy and effectiveness of its implementation
Scope HSE MS implementation activities for all ???? Bus, and their contractors. Special attention will be given to:
Adherence to Group and Company HSE policies
Adherence to Group Minimum Environmental Expectations
Processes for the identification of HSE-related legislative requirements, their dissemination, and for confirming adherence to them

7. Audit scope Scope continued
Identification of roles, responsibilities and competency requirements for HSE critical activities
Implementation of HSE training programmes to close competency gaps for those carrying out of HSE critical activities
Effectiveness in HSE data and document management and HSE performance monitoring
Availability and effectiveness procedures for the identification, assessment and control of all significant hazards and effects including the demonstration of ALARP
Adequacy of emergency response and contingency plans
Confirmation that findings from audits, inspections and incident investigations have been satisfactorily addressed
Adequacy of the process for preparation and validation of the HSE Annual Letter submitted to the ExCom

8. Standards The Audit will be conducted against the following standards:
Laws and regulations of ????
???? policies and procedures EP
The Audit may also include comments on any shortfall in the above in relation to generally accepted Shell and industry standards
Audit will be conducted in accordance with methodology in EP (December 1999)

9. HEMP HSE Management System Hazard and Effects Management Process HEMP
Leadership and Commitment
Policy and Strategic Objectives
Organisation, Responsibilities
Resources, Standards & Doc.
Hazard and Effects Management
Corrective
Action
Planning & Procedures
Implementation
Monitoring
IDENTIFY
ASSESS
Audit
Corrective Action &
Improvement
HEMP
Corrective Action &
Improvement
Management Review
CONTROL
RECOVER
HSE Management System
+ HAZARD AND EFFECTS MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Hazard and Effects Management Process or Risk Evaluation and Management
This is what makes the HSE Management
System a specialised quality system.
Hazard and Effects
Management Process 12

10. HSE MANAGEMENT Hazard/ Risk WORK Undesirable outcome Barriers
or Controls
WORK
Undesirable
outcome
The Swiss cheese model: When there are gaps are present in the controls of a particular hazard / risk. Incidents often occur when these gaps ‘line up’ .
To prevent this requires a very systematic approach to manage HSE risks at all levels in an organisation and during several businesses processes. It requires competent managers, engineers, operations supervisors and operators, who all communicate with each other.

11. SIEP-led Audit Focus HAZARD
CONSEQUENCES
Harm to people and
damage to assets
or environment
Events and
Circumstances
BARRIERS
HAZARD
Undesirable event with
potential for harm or damage
Hazards: Undesirable event
moving equipment, vehicles trapped/crash
wires / ropes under tension uncontrolled whiplash
steep slopes fall
poor hygiene contaminated food/water
Line clearance in tropical erosion, deforestation rainforests
Barriers: equipment standards,competent workforce, work plans & procedures, good supervision
Equipment guards, seat belts, safety cut-out devices,
PPE, first aid, Emergency Plans
1 verification that structured risk assessment has been applied to the key (HSE) risk elements of the facility or activity
Engineering activities
Maintenance activities
Operations activities
2 sample whether these risks have been appropriately assessed and the correct controls have been identified
3 Sample whether these controls are adequately implemented and complied with 9

12. Classification of Findings
Each Finding is categorised as follows:
1. Category:
People (P); Assets (A); Environment (E); or Reputation (R)
2. Severity level (from Weakness Classification Matrix):
Serious (S); High (H); Medium (M); or Low (L)
3. Each Finding is assigned to one HSE MS element
4. A Finding is accompanied by the Significance and one or more recommendations to address the gap

13. Weakness Classification MatrixB C D E
Severity
People
Assets
Environ-
ment
Repu-
tation
Never heard of in
EP industry
Has
occurred in
EP industry
Has occurred in
the audited OU
Happens several times a year in the audited OU
Happens several times a year in the audited facility No
injury No
damage No
effect No
impact
123
Low
Slight
injury
Slight
damage
Slight
effect
Slight
impact 1 2
Minor
injury
Minor
damage
Minor
effect
Minor
impact
Medium
Consider-
able
impact 3
Major
injury
Local
damage
Localised
effect
High 4
Single
fatality
Major
damage
Major
effect
National
impact
Inter-
national
impact
Serious 5
Multiple
fatalities
Extensive
damage
Massive
effect A B C D
_____
total
High: Though not serious, essential to be brought to Management attention. Includes medium weaknesses as repeat from previous reports.
Low: No major HSE impact at process level, correction will assure greater effectiveness/efficiency in process concerned.
Serious: Exposes OU to a major extent in terms of achievement of corporate HSE objectives or results.
Medium: Could result in perceptible and undesirable effect on achievement of HSE objectives.

14. Audit Assessment Good Fair Level of concern: Specific
No follow-up required by auditee’s function head (IAC member)
Level of concern: Overall scope for enhancement
In addition to following up correction of any High or Medium weaknesses the function head should encourage general improvement in controls awareness
Good
Fair

15. Audit Assessment Unsatisfactory Poor Unacceptable
Level of concern: Overall cause for concern
In addition to following up correction of any Serious, High or Medium weaknesses the function head should take affirmative action to ensure that control standards in this area are raised
Level of concern: Overall cause for grave concern
In addition to following up correction of any Serious, High or Medium weaknesses the function head should satisfy the senior management team concerning affirmative action to raise control standards in this area
Unsatisfactory Poor
Unacceptable

16. Key: F = few <20 My = many >40
Revised Audit Opinion
Key: F = few <20 My = many >40
Findings Most Favourable Opinion
S H M H+M Unacc. Unsat. Fair Good / Poor
/F 
My 
F F 
F F/My My  
My 
> 

17. HSE MS Self Assessment Questionnaire

18. HSE-MS Sub Element Assessment
System sustained and supported by an ongoing improvement process and essentially all elements satisfied.
System functioning and being verified, results being measured, key system procedures documented.
System is documented, approved, resourced and being implemented with priority objectives satisfied and the majority of objectives being met.
System is under development and partially implemented. 4 3 2 1

19. EP-HSE Audit Method Audit of HSE MS, fully covering H, S and E
Sampling Process
Questionnaire based x

20. Structure of Questionnaires
Generic Questionnaire (common to all HSE Audits)
Leadership & Commitment
Policy & Strategic Objectives
Organisation, Responsibilities, Resources, Contractor Management.
Communications, HSE-MS Documentation, Standards & Change Control
Hazards and Effects Management
Planning & Procedures
Implementation & Monitoring
Audit
Management Review
Subsidiary Questionnaire
Facilities
Subsidiary Questionnaire
Facilities
Subsidiary Questionnaire
Start-Up
Subsidiary Questionnaire
Seismic
Subsidiary Questionnaire
Drilling
Subsidiary Questionnaire
Environment
Subsidiary Questionnaire
Health

21. EP-HSE Audit Method Audit of HSE MS, fully covering H, S and
Focus on Risk
OU Staff involved
Based on OU / Contractor standards
Bottom up Approach
Significance & breadth of findings
Assessment of the 33 HSE MS sub elements of the HSE MS Self Assessment Questionnaire (levels 1-4)
Follow up: OU responsibility
Audit of HSE MS, fully covering H, S and
Sampling Process
Questionnaire based x

22. Audit Process Familiarisation Review & Testing Reporting
Terms of reference
Audit programme EP
Review & Testing
Study Documentation
Site visit
Test findings
Interviews
Reporting
Agree findings
Present Findings
Drafting
Editing
Report Finalisation

23. HSE Audit Overview Auditors will: operate in pairs (sometimes three)
make an appointment to see you
no surprise visits
try to make it as easy as possible
be only interested in facts, not speculation
(interested in your view in how to improve)
possibly use a questionnaire in the interview
ask open ended questions
like “How ..”, “In what way…”
interview a “vertical slice” of the organization
look for the good as well as the less than adequate

24. Report Index 1 Introduction 2 Executive Summary
Audit opinion and justification
HSE MS element summary
3 Audit Findings and Recommendations
HSE Management System (Tables)
Subsection for each of HSE-MS sub elements
Appendices
Definitions of Audit opinion and classification
Classified recommended actions
Terms of Reference
Abbreviations
HSE MS sub element assessment

25. Report Principles Report is SIEP advice under TSA
OU remains owner of EP report
Report is collective view of team
no reference to sources
whole team review whole report
facts reported are as agreed by all the team
judgements are by consensus as far as practicable
wording agreed to as to intended meaning
Audit leader has casting vote in case of disagreement
where possible, root causes identified
Final draft report before team disbands
no later changes, only minor (punctuation, grammar) editing in CO
final report within two weeks

26. Audit Schedule

27. End Opening Briefing