Guidance On Practice
Guidance On Practice
Guidance On Practice
GP 04-80
Applicability
Group
Date
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
BP GROUP
ENGINEERING TECHNICAL PRACTICES
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Foreword
This document is the first of two of Group Engineering Technical Practices ETP GP 04-80 and
GP 04-81 on the development and implementation of an UXO RMS.
The aim of these Guidelines is to ensure that BPs people, projects and reputations are protected from
the affects of encountering UXO contamination as part of the HSSE plan.
The guidelines are in two parts:
GP 04-80 supports business development managers and projects to evaluate the potential
threat to their programme posed by UXO contamination in order to then develop the
appropriate RMS.
Copyright 2005, BP Group. All rights reserved. The information contained in this
document is subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement or contract under which
the document was supplied to the recipients organization. None of the information
contained in this document shall be disclosed outside the recipients own organization
without the prior written permission of Director of Engineering, BP Group, unless the
terms of such agreement or contract expressly allow.
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.
Scope .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.
Normative references............................................................................................................. 5
3.
4.
5.
Application ........................................................................................................................... 11
5.1. General..................................................................................................................... 11
5.2. Principles .................................................................................................................. 11
5.3. Schematic................................................................................................................. 11
5.4. Alignment of UXO RMS to capital value process ...................................................... 12
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Training ............................................................................................................................... 27
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
23 November 2005
1.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Scope
This GP defines the process and detailed procedures for the production of an UXO RMS and is in line
with International Standards developed by the United Nations as the IMAS, ISO 9001, and ISO
Guides 51 and 2859.
Whereas IMAS is centred on the removal of landmines in regions of conflict by humanitarian
organisations, this GP uses these established standards of good practice for operations containing all
manner of unwanted explosive ordnance. Therefore, where IMAS refers to mines, this GP refers to
UXO both on land and offshore. The key premise of IMAS is that the contaminated area in question
should be made fit for purpose while ensuring the safety of both the site users and the EOD
Contractors through the internal adoption and external verification of a prescribed quality management
regime.
The overall objective of the UXO RMS is to assure the client Business Unit that a systematic process
for identifying and assessing the potential risk posed by UXO to personnel and projects is in place in
order to determine and implement the most appropriate and proportionate means of risk mitigation. It
provides quantifiable assurance that land or seabed is fit for purpose. The assurance that the land or
seabed is fit for purpose is provided by the processes used and by reviewing the project at various key
stages in its development to ensure the right things are happening at the right time and being done to
the correct standard.
UXO RMS is an element of a projects HSSE Plan; as such, it should look at not only the safety and
security issues surrounding UXO contamination but the environmental ones as well. This GP provides
guidance for Business Unit Leaders and Project Managers on the development of a UXO RMS and
indicates links with the CVP (Ref. 2). UXO RMS contributes to the HSSE element of the Decision
Support Package required at each gate of the CVP.
It should be noted that this GP is written around the development and implementation of a UXO RMS
in support of the main construction activity for a project. Business Unit Leaders need to consider their
duty of care to their Survey, Drilling, and Environmental assessment teams that deploy early to a site.
The process and options remain the same just the scale of activity is likely to differ.
The O&G industrys experience of UXO shows that it can have a significant impact on projects.
2.
Normative references
The following normative documents contain requirements that, through reference in this text,
constitute requirements of this technical practice. For dated references, subsequent amendments to, or
revisions of, any of these publications do not apply. However, parties to agreements based on this
technical practice are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of
the normative documents indicated below. For undated references, the latest edition of the normative
document referred to applies.
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
BP
GP 48-50
GP 48-1
3.
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
understanding of the type, level and extent of the UXO contamination within a specified area to a
specified depth. Such areas may have been identified during the general mine action assessment or
have been otherwise reported.
UneXploded Ordnance (UXO)
Explosive ordnance that has been primed, fused, armed, or otherwise prepared for use or used. It may
have been fired, dropped, placed, launched, or projected yet remains unexploded either through
malfunction or design, or for any other reason.
Note: For the purpose of GP 04-80 & GP 04-81 the term includes
all explosive ordnance, munitions or parts thereof that might
be encountered, irrespective of whether it has been
prepared for use or not.
UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy
A systematic process for identifying and assessing the risk posed by UXO to personnel and projects in
order to determine and implement the most appropriate and proportionate means of mitigation. It
provides quantifiable assurance that land and seabed is fit for purpose.
War Grave
Ship or aircraft containing human remains or individual bodies that are casualties of war.
4.
BUL
CVP
DSP
EIA
ESIA
EOD
FEL
HSSE
IMAS
MRE
PIG
PHSSER
QA/QC
SPA
23 November 2005
5.
5.1.
5.2.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
UXO
Unexploded Ordnance
RMS
Application
General
a.
This GP shall be applied to projects in which BP has a majority interest or has the project
lead. This GP, or a demonstrably equivalent procedure, shall be applied to other projects in
which BP has an interest.
b.
2.
3.
A major modification that cannot be satisfactorily reviewed using the site review
procedures for plant modifications.
4.
c.
Each BU should appoint a person that has SPA for application of this GP. BUL should
identify a leadership position as the SPA for the application of the UXO GP and local
UXO related regulatory requirements. (For guidance, as HSSE leads on this subject, the
role should be fulfilled by the BU or Project HSSE Manager after receiving relevant
training).
d.
Each BU, with the guidance of the SPA, should define its strategy for application of this
GP. A part of that strategy should include a definition of the projects that fall outside of the
realm of this GP that should be reviewed in accordance with an equivalent Site Technical
Practice.
e.
Projects should apply the principles in this GP to ensure full understanding of UXO hazard
potential so that the risks are effectively managed to deliver acceptable performance.
Projects can decide on how best to apply the UXO RMS process to account for unique
circumstances of the project. If the UXO RMS process is not to be fully applied, the
project shall develop and clearly document, in a variance request, its rationale and describe
how it will assure that the associated UXO risks are effectively managed.
Principles
The principles on which this GP is based can be found at Annex A. These principles should be
used as a guide when interpreting the action required under this GP.
5.3.
Schematic
5.3.1.
General
A schematic of the UXO RMS can be found at Annex B. It divides the process into four phases.
These phases are summarized as follows:
5.3.2.
During the planning phase, the project needs to determine whether they have enough
information to establish whether UXO poses a risk to the project. The project needs to establish
with the local authorities where the various responsibilities and authorities for conducting EOD
operations lie, and what permits are needed. The project needs to establish the modalities for
quality management of EOD support services. This includes how accreditation (prequalification), QA monitoring, and QC inspection of all EOD contractors will be conducted. If a
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 11 of 35
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
UXO risk has been established, the project needs to allocate resources to manage the issue.
Finally, the project needs to commission an Initial Assessment to define the threat in more
detail. The Initial Assessment needs to be developed as the Projects options evolve. The work
should determine whether the UXO threat can only be resolved by EOD operations being
conducted.
Note Accreditation is an IMAS term. The first part of
accreditation, called organisational accreditation, covers
for what within BP is referred to as contractor prequalification. The second part is operational accreditation
which ensures that EOD capability is ready to operate and is
conducted on site.
5.3.3.
Phase two is about preparing the Project to conduct EOD Clearance operations. In order to do
this, the project needs to contract EOD specialists to conduct Technical Investigation to
determine the specific site and levels of UXO contamination. The aim of this work is to define
more clearly the Clearance requirements. Having defined that there is an EOD risk, the Project
needs to establish a package of education to alert every person on site as to the risk, and the
correct course of action to be taken to mitigate those risks. During Preparation, the Project
needs to establish the detailed EOD work required and determine through a pre-qualification
process whether the contractor will be able to deliver what is required.
5.3.4.
Phase three is the conduct of the Clearance operation. This starts with ensuring that the EOD
teams deployed to the site task can perform to the standards required within the contract. Phase
three also covers the Quality Assurance process to ensure that the EOD work is being done to
the standards required and that the destruction of any UXO found is being performed in the
prescribed manner.
5.3.5.
The Post Clearance Evaluation starts with the Quality Control process established (using the
agreed sample size) to ensure that results required by the contract have been achieved. Once the
quality levels have been met, then the project needs to receive the post-clearance land release
certification specified in the contract. The Project also needs to conduct a Post Project review to
collect lessons learned for the benefit of the wider BP. Any Lessons Learned need to be passed
to the Functional SPA and any documentation needs to be archived. (As a general rule, the
documentation should be handed over to the staff operating the facility).
5.4.
6.
6.1.
Strategic options
General
In developing their UXO RMS, Business Unit or Project should consider their strategic options
within a Risk Management Framework. In many cases, the strategic options would only be open
to the Business Unit or Project if the issue was identified early enough in the project. This is
consistent with the practice of FEL. It should be noted that a project team needs to take a
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 12 of 35
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
holistic view of their project; they might still adopt different options for different sites within
their project. The UXO RMS Strategic Options open are:
6.2.
Do nothing
Often, there is no evidence to suggest that UXO is likely to become a relevant safety or
schedule issue for the project. If the Project Manager has confidence that this is the case, then
no further action needs to be taken. Before taking this option, a Project Manager needs to
consider what action he would need to take should UXO be subsequently found during the
construction or operation of the facility. For guidance on these actions see GP 04-81, clause 9.3.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
6.6.
6.6.1.
6.6.2.
a.
The Project Manager should usually only consider UXO clearance operations as a final
option. Under these circumstances, if the problem has been clearly identified, specialist
EOD contractors should be contracted to conduct a clearance operation prior to other work
starting on the site.
b.
Project Managers need to be aware that while the preferred option from clearance operations is
to dispose of the UXO as they are found, this may not always be possible. It may be the case
that under national rules only national bodies have the authority to conduct the final disposal. In
these circumstances, consideration should be given as to how the UXO should be stockpiled
safely before final disposal. Consideration should also be given to the method, location, and
timing of the final disposal operation and how this may effect the main project.
23 November 2005
6.6.3.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
War graves
Project Managers also need to be aware that during EOD operations, there is the possibility of
finding human remains in circumstances in which they could be classified as War Graves. If
War Graves are found, liaison is usually required with the host nation and the participants in the
conflict to ensure that any remains are handled in an appropriate and sympathetic manner.
6.6.4.
Environmental consideration
Finally, Project Managers need to be aware that UXO may be considered to present an
environmental hazard. These hazards include noise or the destructive effect if detonated; the
UXO is also likely to contain material that is considered to be toxic to the environment and
certain disposal techniques may produce byproducts that are considered to be unacceptable.
Project Managers should ensure that they are aware of the environmental impact of their chosen
course of action and that the necessary permits have been granted before they proceed.
7.
7.1.
7.2.
Land use
a.
Under IMAS, the aim of any Clearance operation is to remove all UXO from the
contaminated area. A Project Manager needs to decide the level of confidence that they
require to determine that this has been achieved. This decision should be based on the
proposed Land Use. In this context, the term Land Use also refers to seabed.
b.
Depending on the sensitivity of the Land Use they may be allocated a category between 1
and 3 (referred to as LU1, LU2 and LU3). Within IMAS, the example given for LU1 is
tracks and footpaths, and areas around wells, housing and schools whereas LU3 would
be land of little agricultural use and poorly frequented.
c.
The LU category dictates the size of QC sample to be used to provide assurance that the
Clearance operation has been effective. Selection of category LU1 means that the QC
sample would be approximately double the size that taken if the areas had been categorised
LU3. It is important to note that the LU categorisation does not indicate a difference in
level of clearance or any compromise in the safety during the EOD operations, but rather a
difference in level of confidence that the work has achieved the required standard. If no
UXO is found during the QC sampling process using LU1, there is normally a 95%
confidence that the specified quality of clearance has been achieved. If LU3 had been
chosen, the corresponding confidence level would be 75%. (These percentages refer to the
objective mathematical probability of achieving the required level of confidence).
d.
The higher the LU category chosen, the bigger the QC sample to be taken. The larger the
sample taken, the greater the level of confidence the client has that all UXO has been
successfully removed from a defined area. The disadvantage is that a bigger sample is
more expensive and that the process takes longer to complete. However, the extra expense
is marginal as:
1.
Much of the cost associated with QC sampling is due to the mobilisation of personnel
and equipment to site. [A doubling of sample size would not double the cost of QC
sampling as a rule of thumb it is likely to add between 10% and 20% to the cost of
sampling].
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 14 of 35
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
2.
e.
7.3.
7.4.
Should UXO still be found during construction, the cost of Schedule delays would
dwarf the costs of the extra QC effort.
Projects should therefore sub-categorise their site by the sensitivity of its use; the more
valuable the asset, the more hazardous the substances on that site or the larger the number
of people at risk, then the more sensitive is the Land Use. If there is a national mine action
authority, the project must determine whether a national policy has been established and
whether it applies to the projects activities. If no level is specified, the highest confidence
level, LU1, should be the default setting. It would not be considered unreasonable
therefore if a project were to allocate a category of LU1 to all of its construction areas and
not attempt to differentiate between lands of differing sensitivity.
General assessment
a.
The General UXO Assessment is the rolling process by which a comprehensive UXO Risk
dossier is developed. It contains all reports of suspected UXO contamination and
articulates the potential quantities and types of explosive hazards that may be present. This
is created in order to assess the scale and impact of the UXO problem likely to be faced by
the Project.
b.
A rolling General Assessment should initially be developed and used by Business Unit
Leader and then passed on to the Project Manager and finally on to the Operating
Manager.
c.
2.
The Initial Assessment may be a single or series of Desk Studies. These studies
gather historical evidence of activities that may have resulted in UXO contamination.
The widest range of data should be sourced, gathered, collated, evaluated, and
analysed to determine the level and types of military related activities that have taken
place on the project site and in the surrounding areas. Ideally, this should start as
early as possible. This may be prior to Appraise (during Access) by the
development cells within a Business Unit and be updated and continually enhanced as
necessary by the Project Manager, up to Sanction and beyond.
3.
Should the Business Unit or Project determine from the Initial Assessment that a
more detailed understanding of the local situation is required, he could initiate a
Technical Investigation. This would involve a detailed physical investigation of the
site using visual and technical (equipment) search techniques of a percentage of the
site in order to provide more accurate data on what UXO may be present. While this
may happen before sanction, it is more likely to be geared around or occur before
enabling work conducted on the site.
4.
During all Stages of the CVP, there is a need to review the UXO General Assessment
to determine whether any new information has come to light which affects the
Business Unit or Projects assessment of the UXO risk to his project. Risk
Workshops should be used to determine the probability of UXO contamination and
consequence that may have on the project.
Environment assessment
The first indications of possible UXO contamination should be picked up during the ESIA
process. This would usually be conducted during Access Phase. If UXO contamination is
suspected, it would be recorded as an identified project risk and the ESIA would recommend
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 15 of 35
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
that further, more detailed assessments be done. The ESIA would be developed throughout the
life of the project under the auspice of the Environmental Stewardship Operating Practice, the
progress of which would be reviewed during the PHSSER.
Note The GP for Environmental Stewardship Operating Practice
is to be rolled out in late 2005.
7.5.
ALERT
ALERT is the process by which a projects business risks are captured in terms of their potential
financial impact on the project. The ALERT workshop is currently scheduled to take place to
1/3 of the way through the Appraise phase (it should be noted that this may be changed to 1/3 of
the way through the Select phase). It is the responsibility of the Business Unit Leader to initiate
the ALERT process. Any potential risk to the project from UXO should be captured within
category C06 Safety & Security of Personnel incl. UXO. This risk category covers The plans
in place, together with the degree of associated costs, for the safety & security of our staff
working in countries where there is a perceived threat to their well being. This should include
separate consideration where the perceived threat is different at working sites to cities (e.g.,
Columbia). Specific consideration should be given to the threat posed by UXO. The aim, at this
stage, is to identify whether there is sufficient evidence of military related activity within the
geographical area of concern to warrant the production of an Initial Assessment. In order to
make this judgement, an Early Assessment needs to have been conducted. The Early
Assessment should also consult any group that may have already been on the ground in the
areas of concern; these might include Survey, Drilling, or Environmental teams. The Business
Unit HSSE managers advice should be sought on both the production of any Early Assessment
and the appropriate input to ALERT.
7.6.
Initial assessment
7.6.1.
Desk studies should seek to determine whether evidence can be found of Military-related
Activities that could have caused UXO contamination of the area of interest. The primary
concern of any study is to determine the quantity and types of UXO that may be found within
defined geographical boundaries. If relevant, the failure rate of each type of UXO needs to be
determined under the conditions pertaining to the location in question. Military-related
Activities could include:
7.6.2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Sources of evidence
a.
The Initial Assessment information needs to be collected from any appropriate and
accessible source. Sources may range from the following:
1.
2.
Academic institutions.
3.
4.
23 November 2005
b.
7.6.3.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Within the host nation, the information normally resides with the Ministry of the Interior
or Armed Forces. It should be noted that these organizations may:
1.
2.
3.
View UXO as a legacy of conflict that should not be advertised in order to avoid
deterring potential investors in the region.
4.
c.
During the time when the information gathered is collated and assessed, the data needs to
be graded according to its perceived reliability. This grading should take into account the
credibility of the source and the perceived accuracy and completeness of the data. This
grading should enable the recipients of the Initial Assessment to determine the weight that
should be given to the presented data within the decision making process.
d.
2.
3.
4.
Reports
a.
b.
Business Units or Projects need to be able to assess the validity of any report on the UXO
contamination issue for their site. They should consider whether:
1.
The information refers specifically to the Project site or just to the general region.
2.
The assessment has covered the full history of the area or has concentrated only on
the main or most obvious events.
3.
The full range of military activity that has taken place in the area has been revealed or
just the most obvious.
4.
The assessment has included a good sample of sources and whether the sources have
been assessed for their credibility.
5.
The report has clearly separated researched facts from assessment and assumption.
6.
Facts have been properly referenced to enable them to be more readily verified.
The Initial Assessment should indicate whether UXO is likely to be an issue for the project
sites. This should not determine whether the area has had a problem, but whether, in the
future, each project site is likely to be affected by any UXO contamination. This
assessment should assign to future project work areas UXO risk categories depending on
the level of perceived risk. This might be indicated by using a scale of 1 to 10, or it could
be articulated as will, may, might, unlikely, or will not be affected. For ease of
communication, these categories could be colour-coded. The project manager needs to
agree the categories most appropriate to the project. An example of a coloured
categorisation is as follows:
1.
GREEN evidence suggests that UXO hazards are unlikely to be encountered on this
part of the project.
2.
23 November 2005
7.6.4.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
3.
4.
RED evidence exists of UXO contamination in a specific project area that presents
a risk to project activity. Action needs to be taken to mitigate the UXO risk.
The format for an UXO Risk Evaluation can be found at on the UXO RMS Website.
7.7.
Technical investigation
7.7.1.
General
IMAS refers to this subject as Technical Survey. However, as the term survey is understood
within the Oil & Gas industry to have a specific meaning, this GP uses the term Technical
Investigation.
7.7.2.
The purpose of the Technical Investigation is to determine, through on-site investigation, the
numbers, sizes, types, and possible location of potential UXO contamination on the project site
through the collection of objective (scientifically repeatable) data. The data is collected using
both visual and technical (equipment-based) search techniques.
7.7.3.
a.
If the Initial Assessment indicates the probability of UXO contamination occurring on the
project site, the Project Manager should use Technical Investigation to confirm the level of
contamination within specific bounded areas. For ease of management, large project sites
could be divided into task sites. In turn, large task sites may be sub-divided into more
manageable lots of land or seabed.
b.
c.
Technical Investigation involves conducting 100% visual search of the prescribed area for
UXO and UXO indicators. Offshore, the equivalent of the visual search is usually
conducted with high frequency side scan sonar. Indicators include, but are not limited to,
shell casings, shrapnel, craters, mine sinkers, and other bits of military detritus. Typically,
in a location where UXO is expected, there are more indicators than visible or easily
located items of UXO.
d.
2.
The types of activity and its ability to generate influences that might disturb any UXO
in the vicinity.
3.
23 November 2005
7.7.4.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
e.
f.
Locations where visual and sonar search or any other instruments indicate the possible
presence of UXO should be physically excavated as required in order to confirm that it is
an item of UXO; this method enables a precise record of the site, including the footprint of
the contamination, to be established.
g.
Representative Sampling should provide the Project Manager with information on which
areas of the Project are contaminated with UXO. In certain circumstances, the Project
Manager may decide that, before he authorises a UXO Clearance Operation, he wants to
have a better understanding of what needs to be cleared from the site. In certain cases, he
may ask for a 100% coverage using detection instruments to be conducted in which each
item of UXO is located and marked but not otherwise disturbed. This would enable the
Project Manager to have a clearer idea of what the full Clearance operation would cost. A
100% instrument search is only likely to be appropriate if a limited number of large items
of UXO are likely to be found at depth.
h.
If UXO, or UXO contamination indicators, are identified on the site, full Clearance should
be conducted if they cannot be avoided or a solution re-engineered. Irrespective of the
requirement for Clearance, the objective information gained during Technical Investigation
provides an increased understanding of the overall UXO situation and should be
continuously used to develop the General Assessment.
7.8.1.
General
a.
UXO Risk Workshops may be held at a number of points during the CVP process once a
risk has been identified. Workshops may be considered as follows:
1.
Prior to the deployment, any personnel on to the ground during Access, Appraise, and
Select. The aim of the workshop would be to ensure those deploying were aware of
the risk and that appropriate mitigation plans were in place.
2.
Following the Early Assessment, conducted for ALERT, a workshop may be needed
to consider the scope of the Initial Assessment required and the modalities that need
to be adopted (Phase One).
3.
Once the project has developed its options during Select, Workshop should be
conducted to determine whether any TI is required prior to the Project going firm on
its favoured option. The outcome would be to inform the Select process on any
relocation or reengineering options open to the project (Phase Two).
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 19 of 35
23 November 2005
7.8.2.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
4.
Should earlier work determine that Clearance (Phase Three) is required during
preparatory work or during the main Execute phase, a workshop should be used to
confirm that the Project UXO risks have been fully identified and that the mitigation
planned is appropriate.
5.
If EOD work has been conducted on site, a workshop shall be conducted, before the
Construction PHSSER. This workshop (Phase Four) is to determine whether the
quality of the EOD work is to a standard that the level of risk on site can be
considered to be ALARP.
b.
The aim of the Workshops should be to help the Business Unit or Project to come to a
conclusion as to how the perceived UXO risk is likely to affect their project. These
Workshops should review the action taken so far and the up to date risk assessment data in
order to determine the appropriate next step.
c.
Participation
Participation of the workshop should promote a single perspective within the project of the
UXO risk and the mitigation required. The workshop should be facilitated by an EOD
consultant and stakeholders should be invited to attend. Participation may therefore vary
through the life of a project. The following functions with the Project should be represented:
7.8.3.
7.8.4.
1.
2.
3.
HSSE.
4.
Survey/Exploration.
5.
Drilling.
Risk identification
a.
In line with IMAS, UXO only constitutes a risk if it poses an unacceptable hazard to a
particular project activity; for instance, a small item of UXO may be a hazard to men
working unprotected, whereas the same type of UXO would not be considered to be a
hazard to offshore dredging or piling operations.
b.
A subject matter expert should explain the nature of UXO considered potentially present
on the Project footprint and the possible effect of UXO on those activities. This data
should then be used to populate a matrix to show what type of UXO should be considered
a hazard to each type of project activities and therefore where UXO presents a risk to the
project. An example of the matrix can be found at Annex D.
c.
The project shall identify any evidence that would help them to determine whether any
action has already taken place that might mitigate any potential UXO risk.
Quantitative Analysis
a.
The risks identified shall be modelled for their probability and judged against the risk
acceptability criteria set down at GP 48-50.
b.
Where assumptions are made about any factor in the model, a sensitivity analysis shall be
conducted. The sensitivity analysis should identify a range of possible values for each
factor and the model should be rerun using those values. Should any value change the
potential recommendation, the project should consider conducting further research in order
to determine the value to be used.
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 20 of 35
23 November 2005
7.8.5.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
a.
The output from the Risk Identification should be compared with the likely pathways that
could link a hazard with an activity and therefore present a risk. This is used to assess what
would be the most significant or likely UXO hazard to affect each construction activity.
The resultant risks should then be assessed in terms of their effects on the Project Business
Risk and their potential Harm to People. An example of a PIG (also referred to as a Risk
Matrix) can be found at Annex E.
b.
c.
For the activities found to be at risk by Risk Estimation, a range of operational risk
mitigation options shall be considered across the construction footprint. These options
should be part of a graduated response that escalates in cost and time.
d.
Recommended risk mitigation actions for each at risk activity should be summarised on a
chart; an example can be found at Annex F.
7.8.6.
7.8.6.1.
General
7.8.6.2.
a.
b.
For the UXO to function as designed, the firing train (electrical or mechanical) needs to be in
place, the power supply required still needs to be viable, and any self-sterilising feature needs to
have malfunctioned. Some UXO are designed with anti-handling devices and other booby-traps
that are designed to injure those interfering with the device.
7.8.6.3.
The EOD industry perception is that there is a substantial risk of a UXO exploding if it is
disturbed; this is supported by empirical data. There are many reasons for this, but they are
generally due to some form of malfunction within the UXO. Reasons might include:
7.8.7.
1.
Explosives break down, especially those used in detonators and boosters. They can
become more sensitive with time so that even a minor shock might cause them to
explode.
2.
A mechanical hang-up (in which something within the initiation mechanics has
stopped part way through the initiation process) is released by some external
stimulus.
3.
Internal component corrosion that generates conditions within the UXO that may
make it very sensitive to external stimulus.
Safety distances
If an item of UXO has exploded, it is often not possible to determine whether it has functioned
as designed or whether it has malfunctioned. Therefore, when planning EOD operations, safety
distances are based on the weapons effect rather than probability of an explosion. Best practice
dictates that it would be negligent to assume that an item of UXO would not detonate if it is
disturbed in any way. Safe practice is considered to be keeping people or vulnerable material
outside the explosive effects range of any known or suspected UXO until the appropriate risk
mitigation strategy has been implemented and the risk is deemed to be ALARP.
23 November 2005
7.8.8.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Operational options
The following range of operational options should be considered by the project team:
8.
8.1.
a.
b.
Conducting further Technical Investigation to define the UXO problem more specifically.
This may be up to and including the location and identification of specific items to
determine whether they represent a UXO hazard. (This later phase may not be required if
the General Assessment has provided sufficient evidence that a Clearance operation is
required).
c.
Mark and avoid known sites of UXO contamination; informing and educating personnel.
d.
e.
Build protective works in order to reduce the potential hazard from UXO.
f.
Make arrangements for EOD Teams to be on-call in order to provide close support to
construction activity and react quickly to UXO incidents.
g.
h.
Conduct EOD clearance to remove a UXO hazard from the area of concern to a location
where the project and its personnel are no longer considered to be at risk.
i.
Conduct Disposal operations to reduce a UXO to a condition in which it, or its component
parts, no longer present a hazard of any type. (This should by preference be run
simultaneously with the Clearance operation).
For the purpose of this GP, the UXO RMS model is geared around UXO clearance
operations taking place just before the start of construction work. Business Units or
Projects need to note that this may not always be the case. Localised UXO clearance may
be required at any stage of a new venture or project starting with Exploration and Drilling
operations.
b.
The potential impact of UXO may vary greatly from project to project. The strategy
adopted for a particular project should acknowledge the specific issues that are faced by
the project team. In these cases, the responsible person needs to adapt the UXO RMS
model accordingly. While this GP links a particular UXO RMS activity to a stage of the
CVP, this is not to suggest that the activity cannot be done at a different stage for a specific
project, provided that the full scope of UXO RMS is addressed and the project has the
approval of the appropriate engineering authority and positive agreement by the Business
Unit, Project Manager, and CVP Gatekeeper.
c.
If UXO is determined to be an issue for the Project, the developing UXO RMS should be
formally reviewed to ensure it is in line with the central needs of the Project. As a Health
and Safety issue, the timings of these reviews should be related to the HSSE planning
process within the CVP (see GP 48-1). It would, therefore, be expected that, if appropriate,
the UXO RMS would be reviewed as part of the PHSSER. In outline, the UXO RMS
should be developed as follows:
1.
During the Access Phase, the objective of the UXO RMS would be to ensure that
individuals conducting exploration or drilling operations are not injured by UXO.
This would be the responsibility of the local Business Unit.
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
2.
3.
During Select and Define, the general assessment should be developed to enable the
Project Manager to determine the most appropriate strategic options available. If the
project covers a wide span of terrain, different options may be appropriate on the
different task sites.
4.
The period around Sanction and in the early stages of Execute is likely to be the most
intense period for the UXO RMS. The key here is to ensure that the EOD programme
has a minimal impact on the construction programme.
5.
If UXO has been an issue, it can never be assumed that the site is 100% clear. Post
Clearance, the Project Manager and, subsequently, the Operations Manager, need to
ensure that they consider the potential disruption that UXO might cause follow on
operations up to and including the de-commissioning of the site. This is referred to as
Managing Residual Risk.
d.
If an EOD contractor is required to support the Project in any capacity, this should be
considered to be an EOD Programme.
e.
The principle behind the UXO RMS is that at each stage of the CVP, the risks to
personnel, the Project, and BPs reputation posed by UXO are considered to enable timely
action to be taken. This is to ensure that the UXO risk should cause the minimal adverse
impact on the overall project.
8.2.
Access phase
8.2.1.
Objective
To ensure that no BP personnel or contractors are put at unnecessary risk by entering areas of
UXO contamination without being aware of the risks and having the appropriate mitigation in
place.
8.2.2.
8.2.3.
Actions
a.
During the Access Phase, the major UXO RMS consideration should be the safety of
personnel on the ground. An initial assessment should be conducted and, in extreme cases,
EOD support may be needed. This responsibility of managing this risk, therefore, falls to
the relevant Business Unit.
b.
The Business Unit should collate any UXO risk assessments done by or on behalf of their
survey, drilling, or environmental teams, or any other activity that has taken place on the
proposed project site.
Formal review
8.3.1.
Objective
a.
To confirm that any UXO risk that could affect the viability of the potential project has
been identified and that the information required to assess risks, liabilities, regulatory
compliance, and adverse impacts have been correctly specified.
b.
To confirm that an adequate risk management plan is in place for development in sensitive
areas.
23 November 2005
8.3.2.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Actions
During the Appraise Stage, the UXO RMS should be focused on determining whether the level
and type of potential UXO contamination is such that it could threaten the strategic business
option under consideration. The following should be considered:
8.3.3.
a.
Determine whether any UXO related activity took place during the Access Phase. If so,
review that activity for lessons learnt.
b.
Conduct an Early Assessment for the Project to support the ALERT workshop, building on
any work done during the Access Phase.
c.
Conduct a UXO RMS Workshop to assess the likely impact of UXO on the project. If no
evidence of UXO has been found, this may be done in-house; if evidence of UXO is found,
the Business Unit Leader should consider using a Subject Matter Expert to facilitate the
workshop.
Review
8.4.1.
Objective
8.4.2.
a.
To confirm with the Host Nation where responsibilities and authority lie for EOD
operations. This should include any permits needed and whether the Nation Authority has
an EOD contractor Accreditation scheme. The detail may need to determine that
appropriate arrangements are in place for the temporary storage and final disposal of UXO
that has been cleared from the project site.
b.
To confirm the modality and standards for safety and quality management that is expected
of EOD contractors supporting the project.
c.
To confirm that any UXO risks relating to the characteristics of the full lifecycle of the
project and the nature of the location have been identified.
d.
To confirm that an adequate UXO RMS (including the objective evaluation of the site
through Technical Investigation) has been established.
e.
To verify that UXO studies, including specialist reviews have been satisfactorily addressed
and followed up.
f.
To verify that resources and training for UXO RMS management have been established for
identified individuals.
g.
To confirm UXO RMS (including any UXO Clearance operation necessary prior to the
start of construction) is in place prior to the commencement of construction.
h.
Actions
a.
During the Select and Defines stages, the UXO RMS should be focused on refining the
UXO General Assessment. This may consist of producing more detailed work to elaborate
on the Initial Assessment and Technical Investigation. The aim of the Technical
Investigation would be to determine the boundaries of the UXO contamination and then to
conduct more detailed ground work to determine the type and level of contamination and,
in the case of large munitions, their possible location. The aim of this work would be to
enable the project team to develop a clear understanding of the EOD support that they
require.
b.
In putting together their RMS, the Project Team needs to consider the following issues:
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 24 of 35
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
1.
To enable the project manager to exploit all the options open to him, a key component
of any UXO RMS is the Contracting Strategy. As the EOD contractor base is small
and the industry is immature, the Contracting Strategy needs to be developed ahead of
the perceived need for contractor support to ensure that contractors of the right
quality are available if required.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Projects often begin their enabling activities before Sanction. This activity may
require EOD support operations up to and including Clearance. If Clearance is not
required for enabling work, its timing may span Sanction depending on whether the
clearance is required to be completed prior to any construction work or whether the
Project Manager is content for it to be completed just before the scheduled start of
construction. The first option may have up-front cost implications; whereas, the
later may risk schedule delay should the clearance fall behind schedule.
7.
If the project may be delayed by the discovery of UXO, where the responsibility for
the resulting costs lie.
8.
If UXO is deemed to be a potential risk, ensure all concerned are made aware of the
risk to themselves and understand the appropriate measure to mitigate the risk.
9.
In the planning of EOD Clearance operations, the project team needs to consider local
laws and the national authorities who may prescribe who is to conduct this task. In
these circumstances, the project team should focus on the quality systems that ensure
the EOD work is completed to the prescribed standard.
10. If an EOD Clearance operation is required, this should include both the clearance and
disposal of all items of UXO. The areas undergoing clearance and depth need to be
defined to meet the Project engineering requirement.
11. Ensure that best practice is adopted for work done within the UXO programme.
Guidelines for running a UXO programme can be found in GP 04-81. International
Standards require that the quality of EOD work is validated (QA & QC) both
internally within the EOD contractor and by an external independent third party
representing BP. It is through this mechanism that the Project Team gains assurance
that the work is done to the required standard and that the land is fit for purpose.
12. Should Disposal not run concurrent with the location and removal of UXO, the
Project Manager needs to consider the temporary safe storage of UXO items. The
policy for the Safe Storage of UXO needs to articulate the rules for storage. The
Project Manager needs to make clear which standards (national or international best
practice) are to be used and in what specific circumstances it is an acceptable risk to
store fused UXO. The project team needs to review constantly the safety and security
of these storage sites. This should consider the responsibilities, probability, and
consequence of there being an accident involving the storage site.
13. Wherever there is UXO, there is also the possibility of finding unmarked War Graves.
Issues arise involving the competing nationalities and cultural practices for dealing
with War Graves. Planning needs to take into account the sensitivities and national
considerations of all parties when dealing with these matters.
14. How Lessons Learnt during the process are captured and used to continually improve
the UXO RMS.
15. HSSE recording and reporting mechanisms.
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 25 of 35
23 November 2005
8.4.3.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Formal reviews
The UXO RMS should be reviewed as part of both the Select and Pre-Sanction PHSSERs. The
Project Manager should consider the following requirements when reviewing the outcome of
the PHSSERs.
a.
Should Technical Investigations of the site be required, then an EOD programme has to be
initiated between the Select and Pre-Sanction PHSSER.
b.
In extreme circumstances, clearance operations may also be required before the PreSanction PHSSER is conducted.
8.5.
CVP execute
8.5.1.
Objective
8.5.2.
a.
To confirm that UXO General Assessment is up to date and the lessons leant in the
previous stage have been fully incorporated.
b.
c.
d.
To confirm that the residual risk from UXO to the project (including stored UXO) and
individuals is understood, and is managed appropriately, including promulgation of
instructions on the action to be taken should UXO be discovered unexpectedly are in place
and understood.
e.
To confirm EOD support is available in a timely and cost effective manner when required.
f.
To ensure that non-EOD contractors are given advice on mitigating any possible UXO risk
to their personnel and activities.
Actions
a.
b.
8.5.3.
During the Execute stage, the UXO RMS focus should be on:
1.
Personnel Safety.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The safe and secure storage and disposal of UXO found during Clearance operations.
The guidance that may be made available to non-EOD contractors involved in the project
concerning risk mitigation measures taken by BP and their own recommended actions and
responsibilities can be found in GP 04-81. This includes guidance on the action to be taken
in the event of encountering UXO anywhere in the project site or locality.
Formal review
a.
During the Execute stage, the Project Manager has three formal opportunities to review the
development of his UXO RMS. These are the Detailed Engineering, Construction and
Pre-startup PHSSERs. At the Detailed Engineering PHSSER, the key issue is likely to
be whether EOD clearance operations have been concluded safely. From then on the issue
should be to ensure that the residual UXO risk problem is managed safely and effectively.
b.
The number and timing of PHSSERs during the Execute Stage is determined by
construction issues and the introduction of hazardous materials to the site. If appropriate,
the UXO RMS should be considered during these reviews.
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
8.6.
CVP operate
8.6.1.
Objective
Besides managing the residual risk, the operations manager should be aware of how the
potential UXO risk may change during the life of the project due to environmental changes and
when modification or demolition of the facility is considered.
8.6.2.
Actions
During the Operate Stage the UXO RMS main focus is likely to be managing the residual risk:
see GP 04-81. This may include the security and disposal of stored UXO previously cleared
from the site or offshore and maintenance activity to monitor their status and condition.
8.6.3.
Formal review
The final PHSSER is conducted 12 months after Commissioning. This is to review the safe
operation of the facility and lessons learnt. Managing the residual UXO risk may also need to be
considered.
9.
9.1.
9.2.
a.
The GP is reviewed (quarterly), is kept up-to-date and reflects commercial EOD Best
Practice.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
GP implementation
The Operational SPA for implementing this GP is with the Business Unit until a Project
Manager/Director is nominated; the responsibility finally would be passed to the Operations
Manager. The Business Unit is responsible for initiating the UXO RMS during Access or
Appraise, whichever is deemed to be appropriate. The responsibility would normally be
delegated to the HSSE manager who requires the following competencies:
a.
b.
c.
10. Training
a.
The training available to enable managers and HSSE staff to develop a viable UXO RMS
can be found on the UXO RMS Website.
b.
Lessons learnt should be entered into the Projects and Engineering Shared Learning
System.
Downloaded Date: 1/16/2007 10:03:16 PM
The latest update of this document is located in the BP ETP and Projects Library
Page 27 of 35
23 November 2005
c.
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
For instant notifications for new validated shared learnings individuals should fill an
interest Profile in the Projects and Engineering Shared Learning System.
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Annex A
(Informative)
Page 29 of 35
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Annex B
(Normative)
Planni ng
Start Project Gen eral As sessmen t
Early Ass essmen t (to su ppo rt ALER T)
th en
Co mmis sion th e In itial Asses smen t
Pr e par ation
On -s ite Techn ical Inv es tig ation to
estab lish h ard d ata on th reat lev el
Leg end
Mo dified IMAS
Sch ematic
Ad ditio n al
ex p lan ation o f
action s
Org an ization al
Accred itation
C on tractu al Ag reemen t fo r
Tech n ical Inv estig ation
Sp ecify th e clearan ce
req u irements and respo ns ibilities
Cle ar anc e
Safe an d Effect iv e
/Efficient
o perat ion s t hro ugh
p ro cess qualit y
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Annex C
(Normative)
A gr e e the
B udge t
(c onfir m the
pr e s umption)
Inc e ption
M a jor Proje c t Le a de r
a ppointe d
A gr e e the
Pr oje c t (w ith
r e s e r vations )
HSE M a nge r
a ppointe d
Site
Re store d
Sa nc tion
?
ACCES S
AP P RAISE
SELECT
DEF INE
EXECUTE
O P ERATE
Eva lua te a s s e t toe ns ure pe rforma nc e to
s pe c ific a tions a nd ma ximum re turn to the
s ha re holde rs .
Pro j ect M a n a g er
O pera t io n s M a na g er
En ab lin g
W o rk s
Opera ti o ns o n Si te
Ex p lo r atio n Tea m
O n - S ite Su p er v iso r s
D r ill in g Team
G en er al O n - S it e S taf f
EO D Op e ra t io n s
H S S E P lan s
Environme nt Soc ia l
Impa c t As s es s me nt
Pla nni ng
A LER T
A pp ra ise
S e lect
Pre- S a nct io n
PHS S ER s
EO D Co n tr ac tin g S tr a teg y
U X O Risk A sses smen t B ased o n D esk S tu d ies
U XO R MS
U X O Tech n ica l
I n v estig at io n
Op era t e
7 M ar 0
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Annex D
(Informative)
Land Survey
Land Earthworks manual
Land Earthworks
mechanical
Land Piling
Land Clearing
(grubbing)
Land Tree Cutting
Bach LCT landing
Beach Piling
Beach Dredging
Beach HDD
Ammo
up to
12,5 mm
Ammo
12,5 mm
to
30 mm
Ammo
30 mm
and
above
100 lb
Bomb
250 lb
Bomb
500 lb
Bomb
1 000 lb
Bomb
Sea
Mines
2 000 lb
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Remarks
At start of
drilling
only
Page 32 of 35
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Annex E
(Informative)
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Project
Business
Risk
Harm to
people
Greater
than $20m
More than 1
fatility
kq
ln
Greater
than $10m
1 fatility
Greater
than $5m
Serious Injury
abo
fi
Greater
than $1m
gjms
Less than
$1m
First Aid /
Less than
$1m
Construction Activity
Location
LNG Onshore / Beach
Hazard
Land Survey
30 mm
30 mm
1 000 lb Bomb
Land Piling
1 000 lb Bomb
LNG Onshore
500 lb Bomb
LNG Onshore
30 mm
Beach
30 mm
Beach Piling
500 lb Bomb
Beach Dredging
30 mm
Beach HDD
LNG Onshore
1 000 lb Bomb
Near/Offshore Piling
Sea Mine
S/B
Near/Offshore Anchoring
Sea Mine
S/B
Near/Offshore Dredging
LNG Nearshore
30 mm
Near/Offshore Trenching
Offshore
Sea Mine
S/B
Offshore
Sea Mine
Near/Offshore Diving
Offshore
30 mm
Offshore
Sea Mine
Near/Offshore Spudding
Offshore
Sea Mine
Sea Mine
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Annex F
(Informative)
Risk
Category
EOD Close
Support One
EOD Technician
with detector
Un-identified
Object (UO)
Survey
(offshore
activity)
Technical Investigation
(Sampling Survey to
confirm extent of UXO
contamination)
Land Piling
High
Yes
Yes
NA
Land Earthworks
- mechanical
High
Yes
Yes
NA
Near/Offshore
Anchoring
High
Yes
NA
Yes
Near/Offshore
Trenching
High
Yes
NA
Yes
High
Yes
Yes
NA
Near/Offshore
Piling
Medium
Yes
NA
Some Done
Beach Piling
Medium
Yes
Yes
Some Done
Beach Dredging
Medium
Yes
Yes
Some Done
Land Tree
Cutting
Medium
Yes
Yes
NA
Near/Offshore
Pipe Laying
Medium
Yes
NA
Yes
Offshore
Spudding
Medium
Yes
NA
Yes
Land Survey
Low
Yes
Tolerable
NA
Land Earthworks
manual
Low
Yes
Tolerable
NA
Near/Offshore
Rock Dump
Low
Yes
NA
Yes
Beach LCT
landing
Low
Yes
Tolerable
NA
Beach HDD
Low
Yes
Tolerable
NA
Near Shore
Dredging
Low
Yes
NA
Done
Near/Offshore
Survey
Refraction
Low
Yes
NA
Yes
Offshore Diving
Low
Yes
NA
Yes
23 November 2005
GP 04-80
Guidance on Practice for UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
Bibliography
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]