Internal Assessment: 412020-000080 PEGAGA

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - MERCURY REMOVAL UNIT

Project Engineering Delivery

Assessment Report
Assessment ID: TBA

05-May-2020

Level 23, Menara AIA Cap Square, No.10, Jalan Munshi Abdullah, 50100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Telephone: +60 3 2039 9888
Facsimile: +60 3 2163 9064
www.worleyparsons.com

© Copyright 2020 WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd

 DISCLAIMER
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the assessed organization, and is
subject to, and issued in accordance with, agreements between assessed organization and
WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use
of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

Copying this report without the written permission of assessed organization or Ranhill Worley is not
permitted.

PROJECT: 412020-000080 PEGAGA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - MERCURY REMOVAL UNIT

Rev Description Originator Review Ranhill Worley Date Customer Date
Approval Approval

A Issued for HHC ND BL 05-May-20

Assessment Team Name Name Name
Review

0 Issued for Use HHC ND BL 08-May-20

Name Name Name

Name Name Name

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Overall Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Strengths ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Key Findings................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Observations (OBS) and Areas for Improvement (AFI) ................................................................. 3

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Background and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Detailed Scope ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Assessment Value ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Assessment Team ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.5 Date and Location .......................................................................................................................... 5

2.6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5

3. ACTION REQUESTS – NONCONFRMANCE, OBSERVATIONS, AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT .. 6

3.1 Master Copy ................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Color Coding .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.3 Check Print – Document and Drawing ........................................................................................... 7

3.4 Location Save File .......................................................................................................................... 7

4. DETAILED FINDINGS......................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Engineering Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX A: VISIT PROGRAM .....................................................................................................................14

APPENDIX B: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ........................................................................................................15

APPENDIX C: LIST OF KEY DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ...............................................................................16

APPENDIX D: RISK MATRIX ...........................................................................................................................18

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 ii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Overall Conclusion

The assessment has established that Ranhill Worley Project Management and Engineering Delivery Teams
of 412020-000080 Pegaga Development Project - Mercury Removal Unit are directing considerable efforts
towards implementation of, and maintaining adherence to, the company’s key policies and procedures.

This assessment is a:

▪ Compliance Audit on project QMS and electronic management requirements.

Details of the scope of the assessment, assessment team, methodology, interviewees and documents
reviewed are included in section 2 of this report. Detailed findings and recommendations in respect to each
of the assessment criteria are included in Section 4.

1.2 Strengths
No key strength was identified.

1.3 Key Findings

Section 3 includes actionable findings with risk ranked as follows:

Extreme 0 High 0 Medium 3 Low 1

In summary, there are four (4) Non-conformances, one (1) Observations and one (1) Areas for Improvement
established through the findings, these are:

Note: For details, see Section 4:

A. Engineering Delivery:

1. Master Copy (NC #1)

– No date indicates on Master Copy stamp
– Master Copy not available in project/discipline folder.
– prepare Master Copy before Audit in discipline folder (e.g. save file date 1 day before Audit where
the deliverables already issue 3 weeks back)

2. Color Coding (NC #2)

– YELLOW highlight for “Engineering Check” no practice.

3. Check Print (NC #3)

– “Backdrafted” column is signed however “Backchecked” column not signed as claim combine
signed with “Engineering Checker” column.
– IFR Check Print not available as claim combine IDC Check Print due to no comment during IDC.
– No date indicates on Check Print stamp and no signature available on “Engineering Checker”
column on few samplings Check Print where deliverables already issued IFR.
– evidence GREEN highlight applies in deliverables however “Backdrafted” column in Check Print
no signed.
– Check Print stamp not available.

4. Location Save File (NC #4)

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 1
 – Some of the Check Print records saved in Engineering Drive instead of Project Folder.
– Check Print records and native file saved in GID Server instead of Project Folder

Summary Audit Findings:

NCR 01 NCR 02 NCR 03 NCR 04

Discipline Location Save

Master Copy Color Coding Check Print File

- - X -
Process

X X - -
Mechanical

X X - -
Piping Engr

X X X -
Piping Design

X X X -
Electrical

X - - X
Instrument

X X X X
Structural

X X X -
Safety

Remark: This is high level summary finding based on sampling approach where
auditor uses random sampling.

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 2
1.4 Observations (OBS) and Areas for Improvement ( AFI)
Apart from the abovementioned findings, followings Observations and Areas for Improvement are also
identified:

Observations / Areas for Improvement

1 E-Signature on document and drawing: OBS

• Some discipline use Black colour for signature, whereby standard practice for wet signature is
using Blue colour.
• Some discipline using Initial and some using Signature on title block. (inconsistency practice).

2 For good practice E-Filing System in Project Folder: AFI

Doc Type>>>Doc Title>>>>A-Latest>>>>Rev (IDC/ IFR/ IFA/ AFC)

>>>>Check Print

>>>>SUPERSEDED

>>>>Client Comment

>>>>Master Copy (Note: for mark-up comment if any)

We welcome a discussion on any of the report findings and associated risk rankings. On receipt of
feedbacks, the assessment Team Leader will update and issue the final Report and Action Plan.

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 3
2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background and Objectives

This assessment is an internal assessment on 412020-000080 Pegaga Development Project - Mercury
Removal Unit under the Kuala Lumpur Office. It is aimed at assessing the level of preparedness of
management systems and processes employed by Project Management and Engineering Delivery Teams.

The Project Background / Detail:

• Project Name: Pegaga Development Project - Mercury Removal Unit

• Project Number: 412020-00080
• Customer: Sapura Fabrication Sdn Bhd (SFSB)
• CSG: Hydrocarbon
• Project Risk Classification: Moderate
• Project Classification: Medium
• Delivery Model: DDE
• Project Phase: Define

The objectives of this assessment were to:

• Evaluate the implementation of Project Quality Management System, including Actions Tracking (e.g.
TQ/TDR, workshop actions etc.)
• Assess availability and accessibility of Codes and Standards.
• Assess the establishment of key project deliverables according to SoW.
• Assess the adequacy and effectiveness of design management system (including design checking and
change control) in electronic implementation.
• Assess the effectiveness of Document Control process requirement

The assessment was sponsored by:

Name Title
Mohamad Embong Chief Executive Officer
Paul Cleary Chief Operating Officer

2.2 Detailed Scope

The assessment examined the following areas:

• Engineering Delivery
• Design Basis (Input)
• Design Control and Review
• Management of Change (including Design Change Control)
• Workshop / Review - Actions and Close-Out

2.3 Assessment Value

Owing that the establishment of internal control system (e.g; procedures, plans, etc) are in place for Kuala
Lumpur Office small projects, the adequacy and preparedness of Project Quality Management System
governance and implementation was measured throughout the assessment.

The fact that it is a schedule driven project, this assessment examined the degree of project compliance
towards relevant plans under the pressure of schedule.

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 4
2.4 Assessment Team
The review team was comprised of:

Name Title
Ho Hak Cheang Lead Assessor
Neil Demaisip Observer
Halimatus Saadiah Shamsuri Observer

2.5 Date and Location

The assessment was carried out from 27th & 28th Apr 2020 via Skype Meeting.

See APPENDIX A: Visit Program for details.

2.6 Methodology
The assessment was carried out using a risk based assurance methodology. The assessment was
completed by review of key documentation and by conducting interviews with selected personnel with
questioning based on the detailed scope provided in section 2.2 above. Additionally, the provision of
objective evidence was requested to confirm that stated practices were being followed and key
documentation was reviewed and found to be suitable and implemented.

Findings were assessed in accordance with the Risk Matrix as shown in APPENDIX D: Risk Matrix, and
ranked either: Extreme (E), High (H), Medium (M) or Low (L). High and Extreme risk items will generally be
subjected to Root Cause Analysis.

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 5
3. ACTION REQUESTS – NONCONFRMANCE, OBSERV ATIONS,
ARE AS FOR IMPROVEMEN T

3.1 Master Copy

Consequence: Likelihood:
Risk: Medium
[Minor] [Might]

Description of 1. Safety and Electrical - No indicate date on Master Copy stamp

Issue/Opportunity: 2. Instrument (GID), Piping Engineering, Piping Design and Structural - Master
Copy not available in project/discipline folder.
3. Electrical and Mechanical – prepare Master Copy before Audit in discipline
folder (e.g. save file date 1 day before Audit where the deliverables already
issue 3 weeks back)
Note: Instrument (GID) do not have access to Aconex for downloading signed PDF
as Master Copy.

Causes: Lack of understanding on Master Copy requirements

Consequences: Not in line with Worley standard.
Agreed Actions: To conduct refresher briefing on Electronic Checking Procedures according to
‘Drawing Checking and Approval Procedure’ (MS-EP-PRO-0077) and ‘Document
Checking and Approval Procedure’ (MS-EP-PRO-0075).
Assignee: Lead Mechanical, Piping Due Date: 29-May-2020
Engineering, Piping Design,
Electrical, Instrument, Structural,
and Safety

3.2 Color Coding

Consequence: Likelihood:
Risk: Medium
[Moderate] [Might]

Description of Piping Engineering, Piping Design, Safety, Structural, Electrical, Mechanical –

Issue/Opportunity: YELLOW highlight for “Engineering Check” no practice.

Causes: Confused with the checking color coding

Consequences: Inconsistence practice among the discipline
Agreed Actions: To conduct refresher briefing on Electronic Checking Procedures according to
‘Engineering Checking and Stamps Standard’ (MS-EP-STD-0074).
Assignee: Lead Mechanical, Piping Due Date: 29-May-2020
Engineering, Piping Design,
Electrical, Structural and Safety

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 6
 3.3 Check Print – Document and Draw ing

Consequence: Likelihood:
Risk: Medium
[Minor] [Might]

Description of 1. Process – “Backdrafted” column is signed however “Backchecked” column not

Issue/Opportunity: signed as claim combine signed with “Engineering Checker” column.
2. Electrical – IFR Check Print not available as claim combine IDC Check Print
due to no comment during IDC.
3. Structural – No indicate date on Check Print stamp and no signature available
on “Engineering Checker” column on few samplings Check Print where
deliverables already issued IFR.
4. Structural – evidence GREEN highlight applies in deliverables however
“Backdrafted” column in Check Print no signed.
5. Piping Design, Safety – Check Print stamp not available.

Causes: Lack of governance by the Lead Discipline Engineer

Consequences: Inconsistence practice among the discipline
Agreed Actions: To conduct refresher briefing on Electronic Checking Procedures according to
‘Drawing Checking and Approval Procedure’ (MS-EP-PRO-0077) and ‘Document
Checking and Approval Procedure’ (MS-EP-PRO-0075).
Assignee: Lead Process, Piping Design, Due Date: 29-May-2020
Electrical, Structural and Safety

3.4 Location Save File

Consequence: Likelihood:
Risk: LOW
[Minor] [Unlikely]

Description of 1. Structural – Some Check Print records saved in Engineering Drive instead of
Issue/Opportunity: Project Folder.
2. Instrument – Check Print records and native file saved in GID Server instead
of Project Folder

Causes: Lack of governance by the Lead Discipline Engineer

Consequences: Lost of traceability of records
Agreed Actions: All project related records shall keep in Project Folder.

Assignee: Lead Structural and Instrument Due Date: 29-May-2020

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 7
4. DETAILED FINDINGS
# Risk
4.1 Engineering Delivery
4.1.1 Project fails to deliver an
efficient report that is free
of discrepancies and is not
consistent with project
objectives due to lack of
adequate internal review.
QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6
Control
▪ Project Progress
Measurement Standard
(MS-PC-STD-0019, Rev 0)
Assessment Procedure/Criteria Results AR Ref
▪ Confirm if there is a reporting Sighted the Weekly Progress Report (WE 17Apr20) which
mechanism in place prepared by Project Management.
▪ Check and confirm if progress
reporting is accurate and is
reflecting actual project condition.
8
# Risk
4.1.2 Engineering fails to
maintain the quality of its
deliverables due to lack of
consistent review and
approval process leading
to re-work, and negative
impacts to schedule,
budget, customer
satisfaction and/ or
reputation.
QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6
Control
▪ Engineering maintains the
quality of its deliverables
through:
▪ Self-checking
▪ Discipline checking
▪ Squad Check Reviews are
established.
▪ Check Prints process shall
be practiced together with
the color coding to ensure all
the comments are
addressed in the next
revision/submission to
Customer.
▪ References:
- ‘Document Checking
and Approval
Procedure’ (MS-EP-
PRO-0075)
- ‘Drawing Checking and
Approval Procedure’
(MS-EP-PRO-0077)
- ‘Engineering Checking
and Stamps Standard’
(MS-EP-STD-0074)
- Squad Check Review
Matrix
Assessment Procedure/Criteria
▪ Check if the Check Print process
is implemented as per the
procedure and with the
availability of documents and
drawings check prints.
▪ Check if the Color coding
process is implemented as per
the procedure and with the
availability of color highlight.
▪ Obtain and review the Customer
comment copy on the
deliverables and evident the
incorporation of the comments
into next revision.
Results AR Ref
1. It was noted IFR checking process was carried out and NC #03
was evidence by document and drawing Check Prints;
changes were randomly verified.
- Process – “Backdrafted” column is signed however
“Backchecked” column not signed as claim combine
signed with “Engineering Checker” column.
- Electrical – IFR Check Print not available as claim
combine IDC Check Print due to no comment during
IDC.
- Structural – No indicate date on Check Print stamp
and signature not available on “Engineering Checker”
column on few samplings of Check Print where
deliverables already issued IFR.
- Structural – evidence GREEN highlight applies in
deliverables however “Backdrafted” column in Check
Print no signed.
- Piping Design, Safety – Check Print stamp not
available.
2. Checking Color coding employed in marking-up the
NC #02
documents and drawings were randomly verified.
- Piping Engineering, Piping Design, Safety, Structural,
Electrical, Mechanical – YELLOW highlight for
“Engineering Check” no practice.
9
# Risk Control Assessment Procedure/Criteria Results AR Ref

4.1.3 Poor control and ▪ Project directory (Project ▪ Check if the project deliverables Sighted the location saved file were filed in the project drive NC #04
traceability of project folder) as stated in PEQP. record available in project folder ‘O:\412020xxx\412020-00080’. However:
documents e.g. original, as stated in PEQP. 1. Structural – evidence some of the Check Print records
working copy, mark-up saved in Drive N - Engineering Drive instead of Project
copy, design checking Folder.
records, client comment 2. Instrument – evidence the Check Print records and native
etc. due to ineffective e- file saved in GID Server instead of Project Folder.
filling management system
which leads to losing of
original deliverables,
records and incorrect
information / status.

4.1.4 The requirements for ▪ Drawing Checking and
checking and stamps
applied as part of the
Engineering and Design ▪ Document Checking and
process to ensure that
deliverables are
appropriately checked and ▪
correct before being
issued are defined. The
management of master
copies and check-prints
associated with new
issues of deliverables are
not being followed.
▪ Check if Master and Superseded 1. Safety and Electrical - No indicate date on Master Copy NC #01
Approval Procedure (MS- stamps are being used in stamp.
EP-PRO-0077) engineering deliverables 2. Instrument (GID), Piping Engineering, Piping Design and
Structural - Master Copy not available in project/discipline
▪ Check if engineering teams are
Approval Procedure (MS- folder.
aware of the usage of Master
EP-PRO-0075) Note: Instrument (GID) do not have access to Aconex
Copy and Superseded stamps
Engineering Checking and (EDMS) for downloading signed PDF as Master Copy.
▪ Confirm Master Copies are 3. Electrical and Mechanical – prepare Master Copy before
Stamps Standard (MS-EP-
available in all revision of Audit in discipline folder (e.g. save file date 1 day before
STD-0074)
documents and drawings, Audit where the deliverables already issue 3 weeks back)
including Superseded Master
Copies.

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 10
# Risk
4.1.5 Queries / deviations are
not correctly resolved /
addressed, closed out and
documented in a traceable
and easily retrievable
manner.
4.1.6 Project fails to identify
engineering deliverables
that have missing finalized
information at the time of
AFC. Where the design is
not finalized, either an
Assumption or a Hold is
placed on the deliverable
to allow issuing.
Engineering HOLDS not
properly tracked with the
possibility of not releasing
all the HOLDS in drawings.
QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6
Control Assessment Procedure/Criteria Results AR Ref
▪ Technical Query (TQ) and ▪ Check and confirm if Technical There was no TQ issued at the time of Audit for the Project.
Technical Deviation Queries are recorded and in the
Procedure (MS-EP-PRO- agreed format.
0070) ▪ Check if Technical Queries are
▪ Technical Query Form (MS- filled-up completely by the
EP-FRM-0071) originator and responded by the
Client.
▪ Check and confirm if Technical
Queries are responded and
properly closed in the TQ form
and the relevant documents and
drawings.
▪ Holds and Assumptions ▪ Check if system for engineering Sighted HOLDs item managed by Process team in the IFR
Management Procedure HOLDS management is deliverables where HOLDs List is include in the Project
(MS-EP-PRO-0073) available. Document Template. The HOLDs is due to pending Vendor
▪ Check if engineering HOLDS are data.
identified in relevant drawings. - HOLDs Register (if any) to be established once AFC
deliverables are issued.
▪ Check if engineering HOLDS and
Assumptions Register is in place
to record the summary.
11
# Risk Control Assessment Procedure/Criteria Results AR Ref

4.1.7 Potential change to key ▪ Key documents should be
documents are not identified at the beginning of
communicated to other project
stakeholders resulting in ▪ KDCN form should be used
poor design integrity.
▪ All design change shall be
registered and followed-up.
▪ ‘Key Document Change
Notice Procedure’ (MS-EP-
PRO-0100)
▪ Confirm KDCN process in place There was no KDCN issued at the time of Audit for the
for key documents. Project.
▪ Check if review of stakeholders
(affected disciplines) in place.
▪ Sample 10% of the KDCN to
check the traceability, actions
and close-out for
appropriateness.

4.1.8 Customer comments are ▪ Comment Resolution Sheet ▪ Understand and review the Sighted the Customer comments for deliverables received by
not duly closed out due to shall be used to manage the process of response and discipline and responded through ‘Comments Response
lacking of systematic Customer comment or incorporation Customer Sheet’ for next revision e.g. IFA submission.
follow-up - which may lead feedback. comment.
to comments being ▪ Review Customer comment and
unattended and resolved. incorporation into next revision of
the deliverables.

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 12
# Risk Control Assessment Procedure/Criteria Results AR Ref

4.1.9 Obsolete deliverables may ▪ Obsolete deliverables shall ▪ Assess whether the obsolete Sighted “SUPERSEDED” stamp on the electronic (PDF) on
be taken as current due to identify as “SUPERSEDED” deliverables been identified with the obsolete revision by discipline.
absence of identification stamp to avoid misuse old “SUPERSEDED” stamp and
leading to unintended use version. segregate out.
of obsolete documents.

QMF-0037-COR-EN Rev:6 13
APPENDIX A: VISIT PROGRAM
Time
24-Apr-20 (Friday)
1400 – 1430 hours (30min)
27-Apr-20 (Monday)
1000 – 1045 hours (45min)
1100 – 1145 hours (45min)
1200 – 1300 hours
1315 – 1400 hours (45min)
1415 – 1500 hours (45min)
1515 – 1600 hours
1615 – 1700 hours
28-Apr-20 (Tuesday)
1000 – 1045 hours (45min)
1100 – 1200 hours
1200 – 1300 hours
Send via email on 1st-May-2020
QMF-0037-COR-EN
Rev:6
Scope & Participation
Venue: Skype Meeting
Opening Meeting
Venue: Skype Meeting
Process
Topics: Engineering Delivery
Assessed: Wong Jor Ken & Rosie Mensan
Auditors: Ho Hak Cheang
Electrical
Topics: Engineering Delivery
Assessed: Mohamad Zaid & Ernest Wong
Auditors: Ho Hak Cheang
Lunch
Mechanical
Topics: Engineering Delivery
Assessed: Tan Beng Huat & Aniza Zainal Abidin
Auditors: Ho Hak Cheang
Piping Engineering and Piping Design
Topics: Engineering Delivery
Assessed: Ir. Mat Zaini Surip & Muhd Mustakim Azri
Auditors: Ho Hak Cheang
Structural
Topics: Engineering Delivery
Assessed: Ir. Tom Wong & Tan Pick Wan
Auditors: Ho Hak Cheang
Instrument
Topics: Engineering Delivery
Assessed: Ir. Azizi Ahmad & Azlan Mohamad
Auditors: Ho Hak Cheang
End - Day 1
Venue: Skype Meeting
HSE (Safety)
Topics: Engineering Delivery
Assessed: Girish Jose Pakkuparampil & Mohd Ammar Abidin
Auditors: Ho Hak Cheang
Auditor Discussion – Finalize Audit Findings if any
Lunch
Closing Meeting: Discuss and agree on the findings of audit.
End - Day 2
14
APPENDIX B: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
Personnel interviewed included:

Name Title
Charles Tay K H Senior Project Engineer
Wong Jor Ken Lead Process Engineer
Rosie Mensan Senior Process Engineer
Mohamad Zaid Lead Electrical Engineer
Azlan Mohamad Senior Instrument Engineer
Biju, Bhaskar (Hyderabad) Lead Instrument Engineer
Aniza Zainal Abidin Senior Mechanical Engineer
Wan Faris Irfan Wan Mohammad Mechanical Engineer
Dzulkarnain Dahalan Mechanical Engineer
Ir. Tom Wong Lead Structural Engineer
Tan Pick Wan Senior Structural Engineer
Salim Mamit Lead Structural Designer
Mohd Ammar Abidin Senior HSE Engineer
Safrul Heizaq Ali Khan Lead Piping Engineer
Mohd Faizul Lead Piping Designer

QMF-0037-COR-EN
Rev:6 15
APPENDIX C: LIST OF KEY DOCUMENT S REVIEWED
The following key documents were reviewed:

Document ID Document Title Revision

PGCA-PM-PEP-1-001 ‘Project Execution and Quality Plan’ 2.3
PGMB-PM-PRC-0-001 ‘Project Document Control Procedure’ 4.2
MS-EP-PRO-0077 ‘Drawing Checking and Approval Procedure’ 0
MS-EP-PRO-0075 ‘Document Checking and Approval Procedure’ 0
MS-EP-STD-0074 ‘Engineering Checking and Stamps Standard’ 0
MS-MC-PRO-0002 ‘Management of Project Change Procedure’ 0
MS-EP-PRO-0100 ‘Key Document Change Notice Procedure’ 0
MS-AS-PRO-0009 ‘Action Request Procedure’ 0
MS-AS-PRO-0038 ‘Lessons Learned Workshop Procedure’ 0
MS-EP-PRO-0073 ‘Holds and Assumptions Management Procedure’ 0
Step (Method) of adding a signature to a PDF (For Project)
PGCA-PM-WPR-1-011 Weekly Progress Report (WE 17Apr20)
Minute of Meeting
Master Deliverables Register
Scope of Work
ISO9001:2015
PGCA-ST-REP-2-203 Gas MRU Transportation Analysis Report
PGCA-ME-LIS-1-003 Master Equipment List (MRU)
PGCA-ME-BOD-1-002 Mechanical Design Premise (MRU)
PGCA-PR-BOD-1-001 Process Design Premise
PGCA-IN-IND-1-101 Instrument and F&G Drawings
PGCA-PI-SCH-1-003-1 Tie-In Schedule
PGCA-IN-SCH-1-105 Instrument and Fire & Gas Junction Box Schedule
PGCA-IN-SPC-1-101 System Modification Specification
PGCA-PI-LIS-1-023 CPP Critical Line List
PGCA-PI-LIS-1-022 Pipe Stress Critical Line List
PGCA-PI-DTS-1-003 Datasheet for SP Item
PGCA-SA-REP-1-034 Escape, Evacuation and Rescue Analysis (EERA) Report
(MRU)
PGCA-IN-REP-2-802 3D Fire and Gas Mapping
PGCA-SA-LAY-1-001 Escape Route, Fire Fighting and Safety Equipment Layout
Drawing Index
PGCA-ST-DWG-2-303-1 Gas MRU Module Steel Framing Plan - Main Deck
PGCA-ST-DWG-2-305-1 Gas MRU Module Steel Framing Plan - Cellar Deck
PGCA-ST-REP-2-201 Gas Module Inplace Analysis Report
PGCA-ME-LIS-1-003 Master Equipment List (MRU)
PGCA-ME-BOD-1-002 Mechanical Design Premise (MRU)
PGCA-ME-REP-1-003 Material Handling Study Report (MRU)
PGMB-EL-CAL-002 Illumination Level Calculation Report
QMF-0037-COR-EN
Rev:6 16
 PGCA-PR-REP-1-003 Flare, Vent & Blowdown Report
PGCA-PR-PID-1-032 PID Condensate MRU System
PGCA-PR-PID-1-056 PID Gas Mercury Removal Unit Bed Vessel an Dust Filter
(WHD)

QMF-0037-COR-EN
Rev:6 17
 Consequence
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Critical Likelihood
1 2 3 4 5
The event is very likely to occur in most circumstances on annual basis. Almost certain
Medium High High Very high Very high
A

Rev:6
The event is likely to occur in most circumstances, Likely
Low Medium High Very high Very high
or several times or more within business over 10 years. B
The event might occur at some time, once in business Possible
Low Medium Medium High Very high
or has occurred within similar industries and may occur within our business. C

QMF-0037-COR-EN
The event is unlikely to occur given current practices and procedures, or has Unlikely
Low Low Medium High Very high
occurred within similar industries but unlikely to occur in our business. D
The event would only occur in exceptional circumstances, Rare
Low Low Medium Medium High
or have never heard of this occurring within industry. E

Consequence table
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Critical Control Effectiveness Guide
Health Safety & Environment
First Aid Case or less. Medical Treatment Case, or Lost Workday Case. Single fatality or Multiple fatalities.
Restricted Workday Case. Disability/Permanent illness Fully effective Controls are as good as realistically possible, both well-designed and implemented as well as
APPENDIX D: RISK MATRIX

Major customer expressing concern over safety Close to being excluded from bid list with major Excluded from bid list with major global customer they can be OR Management believes that they are effective and reliable at all times.
performance. customer due to poor safety performance. due to poor safety performance.
Substantially effective Controls are generally well designed and well implemented but some improvement is
No impact on baseline environment and localized Localized within site boundaries. Recovery Moderate harm with possible wider effect. Recovery Significant harm with local effect. Significant harm with widespread effect. Recovery possible in their design or implementation OR Management has doubts about operational effectiveness and
to point source. Recovery can be successfully measurable 1 week - 1 month of impact. in 1 month - 1 year. Recovery longer than 1 year. longer than 1 year. Limited prospect of full reliability.
achieved in < 1 week. recovery.
Financial Partially effective Controls are well designed but are not implemented that well OR While the implementation
is diligent, it is clear that better controls could be devised
< $A200k. $A200k - $A2m. $A2m- $A25m. $A25 - $A75m. > $A75m.
Critical cash shortfall extending beyond credit lines Cash shortfall unable to be met by facilities or
Largely ineffective There are significant gaps in the design or in the effective implementation of controls –
and delaying critical payments. capital raising.
much more could be done
Reputation & Customer experience
Some customer complaints Loss of a medium sized customer Loss of severral medium sized customers Loss of a major customer Loss of 3 or more global major customers Totally ineffective Virtually no credible controls relative to what could be done OR Management has no
confidence that any degree of control is being achieved due to poor control design and/or very limited
Limited local or industry media coverage. Regional media coverage (e.g. State/provenance), Any Australian, national or limited international Sustained Australian, national or international
operational effectiveness
excluding Australia media coverage. media coverage.

Change in rating outlooks from market analysts. Prolonged negative rating outlooks from market Prolonged loss of confidence by investors and
analysts. including financers.

Can have an impact on share price (0-15%). Can have a major impact on share price >15%. Suspension of shares by ASX or complete loss of
confidence in business.

Business Operations
Short term disruption to local operations. Medium term disruption to local operations. Prolonged disruption to a major office. Prolonged outage or disruption preventing ongoing Sustained outage or disruption preventing ongoing
continuity of operations to multiple major offices. continuity of operations across multiple
geographies / business lines.

Minor project delivery issue(s) that can be Multiple project delivery issues on a project or Individual or multiple project delivery issues that Major project issue that requires escalation beyond Project failure requiring escalation to GMD/CEO.
managed within the project team. portfolio of projects that can be managed within requires local escalation (i.e. within office, location the immediate location or operation (i.e. Region). Includes potential for significant re-work/write-off.
the project team. or operation). Includes potential for re-work/write-off.

18
Legal and Regulatory compliance
Minor legal issue or regulatory non-compliance that Regulatory non-compliance, prosecution or Major regulatory breach, prosecution or litigation Major regulatory breach, prosecution or litigation
may be resolved through normal business activities. litigation costing up to $A2m or involving with damages/fines $A2m - $A75m. with damages/fines >$A75m.
substantial senior management time.