Safety Audit: Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Complex S/K Cracker Project Al-Jubail, Saudi Arabia Rev. 0 Page 1 of 4

Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Complex S/K Cracker Project
Al-Jubail, Saudi Arabia Rev. 0

Page 1 of 4
10. SAFETY AUDIT
Part of having a successful safety and health process in place is also having a method of performance
measurement evaluation that continually identifies those areas needing improvement to meet established
goals or standards of excellence.
This safety audit/assessment will be performed by the OWNER each quarter and may include
participation of CONTRACTOR Management and/or CONTRACTOR Safety Personnel.
Representatives of CONTRACTOR Corporate Safety may also be invited to participate.
The health and safety assessment process provides a systematic method of evaluating and quantifying
performance in a detailed but uncomplicated fashion, and evaluates the administrative and housekeeping
elements separate from the field execution elements. All three portions are ultimately combined to form
the full report.
This evaluation process gives those performing the assessment an agenda of critical items to review, and
when performing follow-up evaluation, can prompt the evaluator to revisit past deficiencies for the
purpose of measuring improvement and/or verifying abatement.
For OWNER, CONTRACTOR Management and supervision, the final report presents the bottom line
results. The scores also play an important role in the Project Safety Incentive Plan to determine winners
in the categories of Administration, Housekeeping and Field Execution.
In addition to providing a consistent means of evaluation, this process is well suited to both those
performing the evaluation and those who will use the information to improve their safety culture.
Evaluation Scoring
The health and safety evaluation process is designed to "score" the level of compliance achieved against
OWNER, OSHA, applicable ANSI, OWNER safety standards, and regulatory safety and health
requirements.
To achieve a compliance score, each element (line item) in the evaluation has been given a numeric
value, which represents the maximum possible score for full compliance.
When evaluating each element, the assessor will determine whether, full, partial or zero score is
warranted based on inspection and observation.
It is recommended that the use of whole numbers, exclusively, be avoided. To accurately express the
observed level of compliance it may require a decimal numeral.
When determining the compliance score of each line item, the evaluator (OWNER) will consider
several factors such as:
 The seriousness (injury potential) of the deficiency (actions or conditions)

 What percentage of the observations made, of the line item, were deficient.
 Is the deficiency a general condition or isolated case.
 How does the deficiency influence the compliance level of other activities or conditions,
 Is the deficiency a repeat action or condition of a previous evaluation
These considerations will help determine the gravity of the deficiency and give the assessor the
justification for the score given.
579615249.doc GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY PROCEDURES

Page 2 of 4
Line items that do not apply to the operation being reviewed are excluded by simply marking N/A in the
score column and removing the maximum possible points from the total possible. These items will be
left in the report to show that they were considered and are not applicable or are not able to be evaluated
at that particular time.
Reduction Points
Reductions in the score, due to penalty points, must be considered as well. There are two types of
penalty reductions
 Repeat deficiency
 Imminent danger
Both penalty reduction categories offer significant impact against the final score. The repeated
deficiency reduction highlights the importance of correcting problems once discovered. The imminent
danger reduction makes it nearly impossible for the project to achieve the minimum standard even if all
other elements are in good order.
Reduction Points - Repeat Deficiency
Penalty points for repeated deficiencies should be used judiciously by the evaluator. The intent of this
penalty feature is to penalize a project for allowing a known action or condition to exist after having
been warned/advised of it's existence during any prior documented inspection or audit.
When considering whether or not to assign the penalty reduction, the following will be considered:
 Has this condition been noted in a previous assessment?

 Has the condition been ignored since last assessed?
 Is management knowledgeable of the condition?
 Is the condition exactly the same or worse than previously noted?
If the answer to all of these is "Yes", it is most certainly a condition worthy of penalty point reduction.
Reduction Points - Imminent Danger
Imminent danger is defined as a condition or action in the work place which could reasonably be
expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the action or condition of
imminence of such danger can be eliminated through enforcement or engineering.
It is not the intention of the evaluation process to find imminent danger. The purpose is to assess
program strengths. However, conditions or actions that clearly pose imminent danger cannot be ignored
and must be factored into the final assessment. Imminent danger should not be present.
If imminent danger is observed, the assessor cannot leave the situation without making certain the
corrective action has been made immediately. If measures to stop work or immediately correct the
imminent situation are not started at once, by the management or supervision present, it becomes the
duty of the auditor/assessor to initiate correction.
An imminent danger situation results in a reduction of the final subtotal by 15% per occurrence. The

Page 3 of 4
final score reflects the total points assessed minus all imminent danger reductions.
Final Scoring
At the conclusion of each section, there is a score subtotal. The results of the evaluation of that section
will show:
 Maximum possible points

 Assessors score
 Amount of repeat reductions (if any)
 The number of imminent danger instances observed (if any)
 Amount of imminent danger reductions (if any)
The summary of all sections is divided into the administrative, housekeeping and field execution
portions. The score subtotals from each section are listed on these summary pages.
The detailed assessment score summary shows, by section name:
 Maximum possible points

 Total points awarded
 The minimum set standard (85% of max. possible points)
 Standard met/not met (above or below 85% of the max. possible points).
 Reduction due to repeated deficiencies or imminent danger conditions or actions.
The total points are then transferred to the final score page. At this point the administrative,
housekeeping and field execution subtotals are brought together and the final score calculated. It is also
at this point that the imminent danger reductions (IDR), if any, are factored into he final score
calculation.
The score number (compliance score) is a percentage of the maximum possible score, derived by
dividing the assessed total by the maximum possible total. This score is given for the administrative
section, field execution, housekeeping section and the combined total of the three.
Total Assessed Score = Compliance Score (Section)

Total Maximum Possible

Page 4 of 4
The final assessment score is a result of dividing the total maximum possible points into the total
assessed score, minus the IDR penalty, if applicable. The final score should be figured to the first
decimal and so displayed.
Total Assessed Score - I.D.R. = Final Score

Total Maximum Possible
ATTACHMENT A: AUDIT FORM

Safety Audit: Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Complex S/K Cracker Project Al-Jubail, Saudi Arabia Rev. 0 Page 1 of 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safety Audit: Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Complex S/K Cracker Project Al-Jubail, Saudi Arabia Rev. 0 Page 1 of 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Safety Audit: Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Complex S/K Cracker Project Al-Jubail, Saudi Arabia Rev. 0 Page 1 of 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Complex S/K Cracker Project

Al-Jubail, Saudi Arabia Rev. 0

10. SAFETY AUDIT

 The seriousness (injury potential) of the deficiency (actions or conditions)

579615249.doc GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY PROCEDURES

Reduction Points - Repeat Deficiency

 Has this condition been noted in a previous assessment?

Reduction Points - Imminent Danger

579615249.doc GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY PROCEDURES

 Maximum possible points

The detailed assessment score summary shows, by section name:

 Maximum possible points

Total Assessed Score = Compliance Score (Section)

579615249.doc GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY PROCEDURES

Total Assessed Score - I.D.R. = Final Score

ATTACHMENT A: AUDIT FORM

579615249.doc GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY PROCEDURES

You might also like