GP 04-80-UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy For Projects - Developm

Document No.
GP 04-80
Applicability Group
Date 23 November 2005
Guidance on Practice for

UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy for Projects
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 BP’s 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.
• GP 04-81 provides guidance on the implementation of the selected UXO RMS.
These guidelines show how UXO RMS is aligned to the CVP.
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 recipient’s organization. None of the information
contained in this document shall be disclosed outside the recipient’s own organization
without the prior written permission of Director of Engineering, BP Group, unless the
terms of such agreement or contract expressly allow.
Page 2 of 36
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword.......................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Scope...................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Normative references.............................................................................................................. 5
3. Terms and definitions.............................................................................................................. 6
4. Symbols and abbreviations...................................................................................................10
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. Strategic options................................................................................................................... 13
6.1. General...................................................................................................................... 13
6.2. Do nothing..................................................................................................................13
6.3. UXO risk education....................................................................................................13
6.4. Avoid contaminated sites............................................................................................13
6.5. Re-engineer the solution............................................................................................13
6.6. UXO clearance operations.........................................................................................13
7. UXO risk assessment............................................................................................................ 14
7.1. Conduct of assessments............................................................................................14
7.2. Land use.................................................................................................................... 14
7.3. General assessment..................................................................................................15
7.4. Environment assessment...........................................................................................16
7.5. ALERT........................................................................................................................ 16
7.6. Initial assessment.......................................................................................................16
7.7. Technical investigation...............................................................................................18
7.8. UXO risk workshops...................................................................................................20
8. UXO RMS development........................................................................................................22
8.1. General...................................................................................................................... 22
8.2. “Access” phase..........................................................................................................23
8.3. CVP appraise stage...................................................................................................24
8.4. CVP select & define stages........................................................................................24
8.5. CVP execute..............................................................................................................26
8.6. CVP operate...............................................................................................................27
9. UXO RMS management........................................................................................................27
9.1. GP maintenance.........................................................................................................27
9.2. GP implementation.....................................................................................................28
10. Training................................................................................................................................. 28
Page 3 of 36
Annex A (Informative) UXO RMS Principles...................................................................................29

Annex B (Normative) Schematic of the UXO RMS.........................................................................30
Annex C (Normative) Alignment of UXO RMS to CVP....................................................................31
Annex D (Informative) Typical Risk Analysis – Hazard Identification..............................................32
Annex E (Informative) Project UXO Hazard Analysis Risk Matrix...................................................33
Annex F (Informative) Project UXO Risk Mitigation Recommendations..........................................34
Bibliography................................................................................................................................... 35
Page 4 of 36
1. 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 project’s 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 industry’s 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.
International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)

IMAS 01.10 Guide for the application of International Mine Action Standards.
IMAS 04.10 Glossary of Terms and Definitions.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

ISO 9000 Quality management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary.
ISO 9001 Quality management systems – Requirements.
ISO Guide 51 Safety aspects – Guidelines for their inclusion in standards.
Page 5 of 36
ISO Guide 2859 Sampling procedures for inspection by attributes.
BP
GP 48-50 Guidance on Practice for Major Accident Risk Process.
GP 48-1 Guidance on Practice for HSSE Review of Projects.
E&P risk management guidelines for major projects.
3. Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this GP, the following terms and definitions apply:
AAP6
AAP 6 is the document that defines NATO terms.
Alert (http://projects.bpweb.bp.com/alert/)
ALERT is a structured and facilitated session to discuss the risk and uncertainties of a project. It is
usually conducted in the Appraise stage of project development to enable early management
intervention and to promote development of effective risk management and opportunity capture plans.
Accreditation
The procedure by which an organisation is formally recognised as being competent and able to plan
and manage UXO risk mitigation activities safely, effectively and efficiently.
Bomblet, (see submunition)
Clearance (explosive ordnance clearance)

Tasks or actions to reduce or eliminate the explosive ordnance (EO hazard) from a specified area in
order to provide land fit for use. [NATO study 2187]. This can also be referred to as Explosive
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) operations.
Cleared Area
An area that has been physically and systematically processed by a demining organisation to ensure
the removal and /or destruction of all mine and UXO hazards to a specified depth. [IMAS]
Destroy (destruction) in situ [“blow in situ”]

the destruction of any item of ordnance by explosives without moving the item from where it was
found, normally by placing an explosive charge alongside.
Disarm
The act of making a mine (munition) safe by removing the fuse or igniter. The procedure normally
removes one or more links from the firing train.
Disposal
The final acts that removes the hazards presented by a UXO. The final disposal of explosive ordnance
which may include demolition or burning in place, removal to a disposal area or other appropriate
means. [AAP-6]
Note: In a number of countries, the final “Disposal” of UXO

remains the responsibility of the national authority.
Page 6 of 36
Early Assessment (EA)

The first part of a GA the aim of which is to determine whether there is evidence of potential UXO
contamination within a broad project footprint and local environs.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)/ Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)
A process to assess the potential impact and environmental (/ social) improvement opportunities of all
stages of the future development on the surrounding environment (and social conditions).
Explosive Ordnance
All munitions containing explosives, nuclear fission or fusion material, and biological and chemical
agents. This includes bombs and warheads, guided and ballistic missiles; artillery, mortar, rocket and
small arms ammunition; all mines, torpedoes and depth charges; pyrotechnics; clusters and dispensers;
cartridge and propellant devices; electro-explosive devices; clandestine and improvised explosive
devices; and all similar or related items or components explosive in nature [AAP-6].
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)

The deliberate searching for (detection), identification, evaluation, render safe, recovery/removal and
destruction/fin al disposal of unexploded ordnance.
Note: For the purpose of GP 04-80 & GP 04-81, the term EOD
should be considered to cover all the services provides by
an EOD authorities, agencies, and contractors in support of
a project’s UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy including the
delivery of Mine Risk.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Consultant

EOD Consultants provide advice on managing EOD programmes. This may include putting in place
management systems, the conduct of UXO Risk assessments, the production of UXO RMS and the
audit of working systems.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Contractors

This covers contractors employed to deliver Mine Risk Education, Technical Investigation (TI),
Clearance, Disposal and QA/QC.
Note: In a number of countries the final “Disposal” of UXO remains

the responsibility of the national authorities.
Explosive Ordnance Safety and Awareness Briefing (or Training), (see Mine Risk Education).
General Assessment (GA)

The continuous process by which a comprehensive inventory can be obtained, and developed, of all
reported and/or suspected locations of UXO contamination, the quantities and types of explosive
hazards, and information on local land and sea conditions. This includes but is not limited to: soil
characteristics, vegetation, geology, hydrography and climate; and assessment of the scale and impact
of the UXO problem on the project or activity.
Note: For the purpose of GP 04-80 & GP 04-81, the term GA

covers the rolling assessment of the UXO risk to a project or
activity. The GA encompasses the Early Assessment, the
Initial Assessment, the Risk Estimation, the Risk Workshops
and Technical Investigations.
Hazard
Potential source of harm from items of UXO or component parts.
Page 7 of 36
[based on ISO Guide 51:1999(E)]
Initial Assessment (IA)

A stage in the General Assessment the aim of which is to quantify, by type, the potential UXO
contamination within a project footprint. The IA examines:
• The probability of the risk event occurring.

• The potential impact of the risk if it occurs.
• The ranges of uncertainty in impact and probability.
• The risk rating (a function of probability and impact).
• And advice on how easily the risk can be managed.
International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)

IMAS provides a framework of international standards and guidelines, sponsored by the United
Nations, for Mine action. The aim is to improve safety and efficiency in mine action by promoting the
preferred procedures and practices at both headquarters and field level.
Note: IMAS provides the only internationally agreed standards that

cover EOD operations.
Note: IMAS allows for National and other Military standards to be

at variance the central standard.
Mine Risk Education

A process that promotes the adoption of safer behaviours by at-risk groups, and that provides the links
between affected communities, other mine action components, and other sectors. [IMAS 04.10].
Note: For the purpose of GP 04-80 & GP 04-81 the term MRE
cover the training and education of Company and contractor
staff in the risks associated with operating in a UXO
contaminated area and the measures that they need to take
in order to mitigate the risk they face.
Munitions
(Also “Ammunition”) - A complete device charged with explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics,
initiating composition, or nuclear, biological or chemical material for use in military operations,
including demolitions [AAP-6].
Neutralise
The act of replacing safety devices such as pins or rods into an explosive item to prevent the fuse or
igniter from functioning.
Note: It does not make an item completely safe as removal of the

safety devices will immediately make the item active again.
Note: A mine is said to be neutralised when it has been rendered,

by external means, incapable of firing on passage of a
target, although it may remain dangerous to handle. [AAP-6]
Probability Impact Grid

A diagram depicting the importance of a risk and which plots probability on the x-axis and impact on
the y-axis
Page 8 of 36
Quality Assurance (QA)

Part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be met
[ISO 9000].
Note: The purpose of QA is to confirm that management practices

and operational procedures for EOD are appropriate and will
achieve the stated requirement in a safe, effective and
efficient manner. Internal QA will be conducted by EOD
organizations themselves; but, external inspections by an
external monitoring body should also be conducted.
Quality Control (QC)

Part of quality management focused on fulfilling quality requirements [ISO 9000].
Note: QC relates to the inspection of a finished product. The

'product' is safe cleared land.
Random Sampling
The selection of samples by a process involving equal chances of selection of each item. Used as an
objective or impartial means of selecting areas for test purposes.
Render Safe Procedure (RSP)

The application of special EOD methods and tools to provide for the interruption of functions or
separation of essential components to prevent an unacceptable detonation.
Remedial EOD Work

EOD work completed by Project coordinated EOD resources when an item of UXO is discovered on
the Project construction footprint after it has been released for construction.
Residual UXO Risk

The risk from UXO that remains at a location when a Project releases an area to a contractor for
construction or other activities.
Risk Estimate
An appraisal of the UXO risk to a project or associated activity that identifies the hazards, assesses
their impact and proposes response options.
Sampling
A defined procedure whereby part or parts of an area of cleared land are taken, for testing, as a
representation of the whole area.
Small Arms Ammunition (SAA)

Ammunition with a calibre of less than 12,5 mm.
Note: Although potentially dangerous the risk posed is less than

that posed by UXO.
Submunition
Any munition that, to perform its task, separates from a parent munition. [AAP-6]
Technical Survey (TS)/ Investigation (TI)

The detailed investigation of known or suspected UXO contaminated area identified during the
planning phase employing visual techniques and equipment in order to gain a more detailed
Page 9 of 36
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. Symbols and abbreviations
For the purpose of this GP, the following symbols and abbreviations apply:
ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable
BUL Business Unit Leader
CVP Capital Value Process (project management process)
DSP Decision Support Package
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal
FEL Front End Loading
HSSE Health, Safety, Security and Environmental
IMAS International Mine Action Standards
MRE Mine Risk Education
PIG Probability Impact Grid
PHSSER Project Health, Safety, Security and Environmental Review
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
SPA Single Point of Accountability
Page 10 of 36
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
RMS Risk Mitigation Strategy
5. Application
5.1. 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. A project is defined as any development comprising:
1. A new process plant, manufacturing installation, pipeline, and associated facilities.
2. A new Research and Development installation.
3. A major modification that cannot be satisfactorily reviewed using the site review
procedures for plant modifications.
4. Decommissioning, restart after mothball, or turnaround of a process plant.
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.
5.2. 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. Phase one – planning

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 (pre-
qualification), QA monitoring, and QC inspection of all EOD contractors will be conducted. If a
UXO risk has been established, the project needs to allocate resources to manage the issue.
Page 11 of 36
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 Project’s 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 “pre-
qualification”. 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 – preparation

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 – clearance

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. Phase four – post clearance evaluation

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. Alignment of UXO RMS to capital value process

Annex C shows the alignment of the development of the UXO RMS to the CVP. This is based
on any clearance operation being required just prior to construction during “Execute”. If
seismic, drilling or any other explorations takes place early in a project and are thought to be at
risk from UXO, then a limited EOD support operation may have to be mounted earlier than
shown. In such cases, the same process will have to be adopted.
6. Strategic options
6.1. 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
Page 12 of 36
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. UXO risk education

A desk study may indicate that while the particular project site might not be at risk from UXO,
there may be a risk to project personnel from UXO contamination in the vicinity of the site. In
these cases, the Project Manager may wish to ensure that personnel receive education on the
risks they face and on the appropriate measures to be taken by the individual and the Project
level. (It should be noted that IMAS refers to this activity as “Mine Risk Education”). This shall
include the warning of other contractors as the potential risk on site the UXO may pose.
Guidance on this subject can be found on the UXO RMS website.
6.4. Avoid contaminated sites

In circumstances that allow it, the Business Unit or Project may wish to consider the option of
avoiding any area of significant UXO contamination by re-routing or re-siting the affected
facility, if that option is feasible.
6.5. Re-engineer the solution

If re-routing or re-siting is not a viable option, the Business Unit or Project may consider
alternative local engineering solutions such as redesigning the affected part of a facility to avoid
UXO.
6.6. UXO clearance operations
6.6.1. UXO clearance options

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. In other circumstances, such as on a site in which there is judged to be a low probability of
encountering UXO (ALARP has been achieved), the Project Manager may decide that in
order to manage the Residual Risk, rather than doing nothing, it would be more appropriate
to have specialist EOD contractors “on call” to deal with UXO if they are encountered
during the planned project activity. Here, he may wish to have an EOD team on site or
based off-site but be able to deploy to site within a prescribed timeframe.
6.6.2. Storage of UXO & final disposal

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.
Page 13 of 36
6.6.3. 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. UXO risk assessment
7.1. Conduct of assessments

UXO risk assessments should be started at the earliest possible opportunity and are most
appropriately lead by suitably qualified and experienced personnel. The Business Unit or
Project should consider engaging an external organization to conduct their risk assessment. The
same organization should be used to facilitate a UXO Risk Management Workshop in order help
the Project Manager identify strategic options.
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].
Page 14 of 36
2. Should UXO still be found during construction, the cost of Schedule delays would
dwarf the costs of the extra QC effort.
e. 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 project’s 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.
7.3. 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. The General Assessment includes an Early Assessment, Initial Assessments, Technical
Investigations, and UXO Risk Workshops.
1. An Early Assessment is a superficial desk study, prepared to support the ALERT
workshop. The aim of the Early Assessment to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence of military-related activity in the area of concern to justify the production of
an Initial Assessment.
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 Project’s 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.
7.4. 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
that further, more detailed assessments be done. The ESIA would be developed throughout the
Page 15 of 36
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 project’s business risks are captured in terms of their potential
financial impact on the project. The ALERT workshop is currently scheduled to take place ¼ 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 manager’s 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. Evidence of military-related activity

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:
a. Warlike (warfare or insurgency) operations.
b. Military training areas.
c. Depots or stockpile of munitions.
d. Munitions manufacturing sites.
e. Munitions dumping or other disposal areas.
7.6.2. 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. National achieves of the combatant or host nations.
2. Academic institutions.
3. Open source literature (libraries, newspapers and magazines, or the internet).
4. Local contacts and non-governmental organisations.
b. 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:
Page 16 of 36
1. Be reluctant to provide information.

2. Be unaware of the full extent of the UXO contamination.
3. View UXO as a legacy of conflict that should not be advertised in order to avoid
deterring potential investors in the region.
4. Have a limited indigenous capability to deal with UXO.
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. The information gathered should help the analyst to determine the:
1. Types of UXO that may be found.
2. Area(s) in which UXO may be found including the depth.
3. Quantities used or stored within the prescribed area.
4. Failure rate of UXO within the theatre of operations where it is relevant to a
munitions type in order to determine the likely numbers of UXO contamination
present by type.
7.6.3. Reports
a. 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.
b. 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. YELLOW – while evidence exists of a general UXO contamination problem in the
geographical area of the project this should not present a risk to a specific project
activity. The risk assessment needs to be kept under review.
Page 17 of 36
3. AMBER – evidence exists of a general UXO contamination problem in the

geographical area of the project that could present a threat to specific project activity.
Options to mitigate the UXO risk need to be considered.
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.
7.6.4. UXO risk evaluation format

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. Purpose of technical investigation

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. Conduct of technical investigations

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. Technical Investigation should be conducted by trained and equipped teams whose
working practices are tested, monitored, and inspected for quality, in order to provide
objective information on the risk from UXO on a particular Task Site.
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. The visual search is followed by Representative Sampling. Representative Sampling uses
specialist instrument search down to a depth appropriate to the planned construction
activity plus a safety margin. IMAS gives that safety margin as 0,5 m (2 ft). For instance, if
footings are being constructed 4,0 m (13 ft) below existing ground level, the technical
investigation would be conducted to a depth of 4,5 m (15 ft) in the location of the footings;
whereas, if an area was to be used for a laydown with only surface levelling, the technical
investigation may be conducted down to 0,5 m (2 ft). Projects should determine their own
safety margin depending on:
1. The accuracy to which construction activity will be performed.
2. The types of activity and its ability to generate influences that might disturb any UXO
in the vicinity.
3. The types of UXO that may be present.
Page 18 of 36
e. The level of Representative Sampling is typically conducted at 12, 8 or 4% of the area

being investigated depending on the UXO risk level that has been determined by the Initial
Assessment and agreed with the Project Manager. It is the process by which the
identification of items of UXO, or indicators, triggers full clearance of specific areas. It
provides an overall level of confidence in excess of 99,5% that a correct determination will
be made as to which specific areas are contaminated with UXO and which, therefore, need
to be cleared.
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.
7.7.4. Technical investigation – offshore considerations

Offshore Technical Investigation is predominately conducted using a combination of high
frequency side scan sonar (> 500 kHz), visual search (if high frequency side scan sonar can not
be used) and magnetometer in order to identify items that could potentially be UXO. This could
be conducted by a competent non-EOD contractor monitored by appropriate Geophysical and
EOD BP Representatives who will lead on the data analysis. If the area of potential UXO
contamination identified cannot be avoided, there is a requirement to investigate each potential
item of UXO detected by the sensors in order to confirm or discredit it as UXO. ROV or EOD
divers monitored by a BP EOD Representative complete this identification process.
7.8. UXO risk workshops
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).
Page 19 of 36
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. The Workshop should be a facilitated session with representatives of all disciplines
concerned within the Project groups in attendance. The project team should define the
types of construction activity planned and their location and then consider which potential
types of UXO may be encountered by each activity.
7.8.2. 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:
1. Representative from each site within the project.
2. Representatives of each discipline.
3. HSSE.
4. Survey/Exploration.
5. Drilling.
7.8.3. 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.
7.8.4. 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.
Page 20 of 36
7.8.5. Risk assessment and response

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. The risk shall be monetized.
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. Risk of explosive event
7.8.6.1. General
In general, items of UXO may explode for two main reasons:
a. They may function as designed, or
b. They may malfunction.
7.8.6.2. Risk from UXO “functioning as designed”

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. Risk from UXO malfunctioning

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:
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.
7.8.7. 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 weapon’s 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.
Page 21 of 36
7.8.8. Operational options

The following range of operational options should be considered by the project team:
a. Initiating or enhancing further UXO Risk Awareness Education.
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. Avoid sites of UXO contamination by re-siting BP activity, if possible.
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. Deployment of EOD Close support teams to provide immediate EOD response to a
perceived potential threat or the discovery of UXO.
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).
8. UXO RMS development
8.1. General
a. 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.
Page 22 of 36
2. During CVP stage Appraise, an Initial Assessment should be conducted to determine

whether the quantity and type of UXO present are significant enough to affect the
shape of the business strategy.
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 BP’s 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. 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.
8.2.3. Formal review

There is no formal review process done at this stage of the project.
8.3. CVP appraise stage
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.
Page 23 of 36
8.3.2. 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:
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.
8.3.3. Review
The UXO RMS should be reviewed as part of the Appraise PHSSER.
8.4. CVP select & define stages
8.4.1. Objective
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. To confirm that the on-site workforce receives appropriate MRE training.
8.4.2. 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:
Page 24 of 36
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. Development of Media strategy and plan.
3. Consider insurance issues.
4. Environmental Impact planning (EIA, ESIA).
5. Guidelines on the selection of Contractors and contracts.
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.
Page 25 of 36
8.4.3. 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 Pre-
Sanction PHSSER is conducted.
8.5. CVP execute
8.5.1. Objective
a. To confirm that UXO General Assessment is up to date and the lessons leant in the
previous stage have been fully incorporated.
b. To confirm that the on-site workforce is receiving appropriate MRE training.
c. To confirm that the UXO RMS is being implemented effectively.
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.
8.5.2. Actions
a. During the Execute stage, the UXO RMS focus should be on:
1. Personnel Safety.
2. The execution of continuing Clearance operations.
3. The reaction to the discovery of, or incidents involving, UXO.
4. The timely and cost effective availability of EOD contractor support.
5. The safe and secure storage and disposal of UXO found during Clearance operations.
b. 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.

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.
Page 26 of 36
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.

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. UXO RMS management
9.1. GP maintenance
The Functional SPA responsibility for developing and maintaining this GP is the Team Leader
HSE, EPTG Sunbury. His responsibilities are to ensure:
a. The GP is reviewed (quarterly), is kept up-to-date and reflects commercial EOD Best
Practice.
b. The website is reviewed (quarterly) and is kept up-to-date.
c. Those projects receive advice on commercial EOD Best Practice.
d. If project deviates from Best Practice, that the reasoning is sound.
e. The EOD contractor accreditation is conducted to a uniformly high standard throughout
BP.
f. Subject Matter Experts are available to PHSSER team leaders as required.
9.2. 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. Be able to perform a leadership role.
b. Have received a HSSE UXO Management Awareness Briefing.
c. Know the UXO network of contacts within BP.
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.
Page 27 of 36
c. For instant notifications for new validated shared learnings individuals should fill an
interest Profile in the Projects and Engineering Shared Learning System.
Page 28 of 36
Annex A
(Informative)
UXO RMS Principles
Page 29 of 36
Annex B
(Normative)
Schematic of the UXO RMS
Planni ng St art to Develop a UXO RM S P ro cess

Start Project Gen eral Assess men t – Es tab lish mod ality fo r th e
Estab lish Nation al Autho rity an d Project
Early Assess men t (to su ppo rt ALER T) Org an isatio n al Accred itation
Gath er d ata fo r UXO R MS resp onsibilities fo r EOD in clu ding
th en an d Op eration al Accred itation
Stand ard s to b e used – d efau lt IMAS
Co mmission th e In itial Assessmen t o f EOD Co n tracto rs
Estab lish EOD fun d ing
Dev elo p th e Gen eral Assessmen t Es tab lish mod ality fo r
(R ev iew & refin e In itial Ass essmen t as th e QA (mon ito ring )
scop e o f p ro ject d ev elop s) Prio ritise areas to b e Dev elo p EOD C on tracting Strategy & QC (in sp ection ) o f
assessed fo r UXO EOD Co ntracto rs
Pr e par ation UXO Risk Ed u cation

C on tractu al Ag reemen t fo r
Tech n ical Inv estig ation fo r o th er wo rk ers
on th e site
On -site Techn ical Inv estig ation to
estab lish h ard d ata on th reat lev el
– Tech n ical Ins p ection – Co llect d ata to en ab le
• Div id e area in to Lo ts and clearan ce requ irement to b e d efin ed , in clud in g areas Leg end
• As sess R isk at each Lot to b e cleared and th e d ep th o f clearan ce Mo dified IMAS
• Ag reed Sample Size fo r th e Sch ematic
p ro ject (at 4 ,8 o r 12 % ) Co ntra ctua l Ag reem ent fo r
Clea ra nce Ad ditio n al
ex p lan ation o f
Sp ecify th e clearan ce Org an ization al action s
req u irements and respo nsibilities Accred itation
Cle ar anc e Field insp ectio ns to co n firm op eration al

accred itatio n du rin g mob ilisatio n “ Safe an d E ffect iv e
/Efficient
Detection , remov al &d estru ctio n o f Mo nito ring an d In sp ection s o perat ion s t hro ugh
all UXO h azard s (Qu ality Assu ran ce)
Po s t-Clea ra nce E va lua tion
p ro cess qualit y”
In sp ection o f C leared Land by
Samp le Size p res crib ed
samp ling (Qu ality C on trol)
Lesso n s Lear n t p assed to U X O R MS O w n er
Prep are h and ov er Do cu men tation D o cu men tat io n sen t to ag r eed d ep o sito r y
C ond u ct Po st-Pro ject R ev iew
22 M a r 05
Page 30 of 36
Annex C
(Normative)
Alignment of UXO RMS to CVP
A gr e e the
B udge t
(“c onfir m the
pr e s umption”)
Sit e
H SE M a nge r
Inc e ption M a jor Proje c t Le a de r Agr e e the a ppointe d R e store d
a ppointe d Pr oje c t (w ith Sa nc tion
r e s e r vations )
?
ACCES S AP P RAISE SELECT DEF INE EXECUTE O P ERATE
D e te rmine the pote ntia l va lue & de live ry D e te rmine proje c t fe a s ibility a nd a lignme nt Se le c t the pre fe rre d proje c t option Fina liz e proje c t Sc ope , c os t a nd s c he dule a nd ge t Produc e a n ope ra ting a s s e tc ons is te nt w ith Eva lua te a s s e t to e ns ure pe rforma nc e to
s c he dule for ne w bus ines s opportunitie s a fte r w ith bus ine s s s tra te gy the proje c t funde d s c ope , c os t a nd a sc he dule s pe c ific a tions a nd ma ximum re turn to the
a c c ounting for a c c e ss c os t & as s oc ia te d ris ks [A gre e funda me nta l via bility a nd options ] s ha re holde rs .
A pp r aisal P lan (ru n at S egmen t Lev el)

Bu sin ess D ev e lo p men t M a n a g er Pro j ect M a n a g er O pera t io n s M a n a g er
Opera ti o ns o n Site En ab lin g

W ork s
Co n str u ctio n Co n tr acto r s
Ex p lo r atio n Tea m O n - S ite S u 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 SS E P lan s
A LER T
Environme nt Soc ia l
Impa c t As s es s me nt
A pp ra ise S e lect Pre- S a n ct io n D et a i led Eng in e ering P re- St a rt u p Op era t e

Pla nni ng PHS SER s C o n st ru ct io n
EO D Co n tr ac tin g Str a teg y

U X O D isp o sal/ D estr u ct io n
U X O Risk A sses smen t B ased o n D esk S tu d ies U X O Tech n ica l
U X O Cle ar an ce
I n v estig at io n U X O Man ag in g R esid u al R isk
U XO R MS "Min e R isk Ed u ca tio n ”
7 Mar 0
Page 31 of 36
Annex D
(Informative)
Typical Risk Analysis – Hazard Identification
Minimum Calibre of UXO Constituting a Hazardous Item

Construction Activity Ammo Ammo Ammo 100 lb 250 lb 500 lb 1 000 lb Sea Remarks
up to 12,5 mm 30 mm Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Mines
12,5 mm to and 2 000 lb
30 mm above
Land Survey No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Land Earthworks - No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
manual
Land Earthworks – No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
mechanical
Land Piling No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Land Clearing – No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
(grubbing)
Land Tree Cutting No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Bach LCT landing No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Beach Piling No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Beach Dredging No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Beach HDD No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA At start of
drilling
only
Near/ Offshore Piling No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Near/ Offshore No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Anchoring
Near/ Offshore/ No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dredging
Trenching
Near/ Offshore Rock No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dump
Near/ Offshore Diving No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Near/ Offshore Pipe No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Laying
Spudding
Near/ Offshore Survey No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Refraction
Page 32 of 36
Annex E
(Informative)
Project UXO Hazard Analysis Risk Matrix
PROBABILITY
CONSEQUENCE Very Low Low Medium High Very High
Project
Harm to
Business
people 1 2 3 4 5
Risk
Greater More than 1

than $20m fatility A kq ln d
Greater
than $10m
1 fatility B r h e c
Greater Serious
than $5m Injury C abo fi
Days off work

Greater
than $1m
/ Greater D gjms
than $1m
Firs t Aid /
Les s than
$1m
Less than E p
$1m
Page 33 of 36
Annex Construction Activity Location Hazard F

a Land Survey LNG Onshore / Beach 30 mm S
b Land Earthworks - manual LNG Onshore / Beach 30 mm S
c Land Earthworks - mechanical LNG Onshore / Beach 1 000 lb Bomb S
d Land Piling LNG Onshore / Beach 1 000 lb Bomb S
e Land Clearing – (grubbing) LNG Onshore 500 lb Bomb S
f Land Tree Cutting LNG Onshore 30 mm S
g Beach LCT landing Beach 30 mm S
h Beach Piling Beach / LNG Nearshore 500 lb Bomb S
i Beach Dredging Beach / LNG Nearshore 30 mm S
j Beach HDD LNG Onshore 1 000 lb Bomb B
k Near/Offshore Piling LNG Nearshore / Offshore Sea Mine S/B
l Near/Offshore Anchoring LNG Nearshore / Offshore Sea Mine S/B
m Near/Offshore Dredging LNG Nearshore 30 mm S
n Near/Offshore Trenching Offshore Sea Mine S/B
o Near/Offshore Rock Dump Offshore Sea Mine B
p Near/Offshore Diving Offshore 30 mm S
q Near/Offshore Pipe Laying Offshore Sea Mine B
r Near/Offshore Spudding Offshore Sea Mine B
s Near/Offshore Survey Refraction Offshore Sea Mine B
S – Risk determined by Safety
B - Business
(Informative)
Project UXO Risk Mitigation Recommendations
Construction Risk Risk Mitigation Options

Activity Category UXO Risk EOD Close Un-identified Technical Investigation
Education/ Support One Object (UO) (Sampling Survey to
Awareness EOD Technician Survey confirm extent of UXO
with detector (offshore contamination)
activity)
Land Piling High Yes Yes NA
Land Earthworks High Yes Yes NA
- mechanical
Near/Offshore High Yes NA Yes Only if coincides with UO
Anchoring and cannot be realigned
Near/Offshore High Yes NA Yes Only if coincides with UO
Trenching and cannot be realigned
Land Clearing - High Yes Yes NA
(grubbing)
Near/Offshore Medium Yes NA Some Done Only if coincides with UO
Piling and cannot be realigned
Beach Piling Medium Yes Yes Some Done
Beach Dredging Medium Yes Yes Some Done
Land Tree Medium Yes Yes NA
Cutting
Near/Offshore Medium Yes NA Yes Only if coincides with UO
Pipe Laying and cannot be realigned
Offshore Medium Yes NA Yes Only if coincides with UO
Spudding and cannot be realigned
Land Survey Low Yes Tolerable NA
Page 34 of 36
Land Earthworks Low Yes Tolerable NA

– manual
Near/Offshore Low Yes NA Yes
Rock Dump
Beach LCT Low Yes Tolerable NA
landing
Beach HDD Low Yes Tolerable NA
Near Shore Low Yes NA Done Only if coincides with UO
Dredging and cannot be realigned
Near/Offshore Low Yes NA Yes
Survey
Refraction
Offshore Diving Low Yes NA Yes
Page 35 of 36
Bibliography
[1] Getting HSSE Right, A Guide for BP Managers - http://hse.bpweb.bp.com/ghser/default.asp
[2] BP Capital Value Process - http://cvp.bpweb.bp.com/cvp/index.htm
[3] BP Environmental and Social Impact Management Process
[4] Getting HSSE Right for Projects - http://projects.bpweb.bp.com/hse/index.htm
[5] Engineering Technical Practices - http://technical_practices.bpweb.bp.com/
[6] Getting Security Right - http://gbcweb.bpweb.bp.com/BPSecurity/
[7] International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) - http://www.mineactionstandards.org/imas.htm
Page 36 of 36

GP 04-80-UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy For Projects - Developm

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GP 04-80-UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy For Projects - Developm

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Document No.

Guidance on Practice for

The guidelines are in two parts:

Annex A (Informative) UXO RMS Principles...................................................................................29

Whereas IMAS is centred on the removal of landmines in regions of conflict by humanitarian

International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

ISO Guide 2859 Sampling procedures for inspection by attributes.

3. Terms and definitions

Bomblet, (see submunition)

Clearance (explosive ordnance clearance)

Destroy (destruction) in situ [“blow in situ”]

Note: In a number of countries, the final “Disposal” of UXO

Early Assessment (EA)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Consultant

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Contractors

Note: In a number of countries the final “Disposal” of UXO remains

General Assessment (GA)

Note: For the purpose of GP 04-80 & GP 04-81, the term GA

[based on ISO Guide 51:1999(E)]

Initial Assessment (IA)

• The probability of the risk event occurring.

International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)

Note: IMAS provides the only internationally agreed standards that

Note: IMAS allows for National and other Military standards to be

Mine Risk Education

Note: It does not make an item completely safe as removal of the

Note: A mine is said to be neutralised when it has been rendered,

Probability Impact Grid

Quality Assurance (QA)

Note: The purpose of QA is to confirm that management practices

Quality Control (QC)

Note: QC relates to the inspection of a finished product. The

Render Safe Procedure (RSP)

Remedial EOD Work

Residual UXO Risk

Small Arms Ammunition (SAA)

Note: Although potentially dangerous the risk posed is less than

Technical Survey (TS)/ Investigation (TI)

UneXploded Ordnance (UXO)

UXO Risk Mitigation Strategy

4. Symbols and abbreviations

ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable

BUL Business Unit Leader

CVP Capital Value Process (project management process)

DSP Decision Support Package

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal

FEL Front End Loading

HSSE Health, Safety, Security and Environmental

IMAS International Mine Action Standards

MRE Mine Risk Education

PIG Probability Impact Grid

PHSSER Project Health, Safety, Security and Environmental Review

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

SPA Single Point of Accountability

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

RMS Risk Mitigation Strategy

5.3.2. Phase one – planning

Note “Accreditation” is an IMAS term. The first part of

5.3.3. Phase two – preparation