RP 50-1

GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF

CRITICALITY RATINGS
May 1993

Copyright The British Petroleum Company p.l.c.

Copyright The British Petroleum Company p.l.c.

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 organisation. None
of the information contained in this document shall be disclosed outside
the recipient's own organisation without the prior written permission of
Manager, Standards, BP International Limited, unless the terms of such
agreement or contract expressly allow.

BP GROUP RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERING

Issue Date
Doc. No.

RP 50-1

May 1993

Latest Amendment Date

Document Title

GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF

CRITICALITY RATINGS
(Replaces BP Engineering Code of Practice)

APPLICABILITY
Regional Applicability:

International

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

This Recommended Practice provides a conceptual guide to the establishment of
engineering priorities throughout the life of an asset. It is intended as a management
document, which aims to stimulate a methodical and consistent approach, rather than to
offer prescriptive instructions for applying Criticality Ratings. Illustrative models which
can be used at specific stages of the operational life cycle are referenced to assist in this
task, and can be obtained from the Custodian of this Recommended Practice, if required.

AMENDMENTS
Amd
Date
Page(s)
Description
___________________________________________________________________

CUSTODIAN (See Quarterly Status List for Contact)

Quality Management Group, ESS

Issued by:-

Engineering Practices Group, BP International Limited, Research & Engineering Centre

Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7LN, UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 1932 76 4067
Fax: +44 1932 76 4077
Telex: 296041

CONTENTS
Section

Page

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................ ii
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1
2. OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 2
3. METHOD AND PROCEDURES ........................................................................... 3
3.1 Criticality Definitions ........................................................................................... 4
3.2 Criticality - General Principles.............................................................................. 4
3.3 Criticality Rating Procedure................................................................................. 5
3.3.1 Use of the Procedure..................................................................... 5
3.3.2 Evaluation of Failure Consequence................................................ 6
3.3.3 Assessing the Costs....................................................................... 7
4. ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Categorisation ..................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Individual Rating Methods................................................................................... 8
5. CRITICALITY........................................................................................................ 8
5.1 Equipment ........................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Process Systems .................................................................................................. 9
5.3 Operations........................................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 1 ................................................................................................................... 10
OVERVIEW OF CRITICALITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM ........................................ 10
FIGURE 2 ................................................................................................................... 11
GENERAL CRITICALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .................................. 11
FIGURE 3 ................................................................................................................... 12
SUB-SYSTEM CRITICALITY RATING METHOD ............................................. 12

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE i

FOREWORD
Introduction to BP Group Recommended Practices and Specifications for Engineering
The Introductory Volume contains a series of documents that provide an introduction to the
BP Group Recommended Practices and Specifications for Engineering (RPSEs). In
particular, the General Foreword sets out the philosophy of the RPSEs. Other documents in
the Introductory volume provide general guidance on using the RPSEs and background
information to Engineering Standards in BP. There are also recommendations for specific
definitions and requirements.
Value of this Recommended Practice
This Recommended Practice has been prepared to offer a basic philosophy for the consistent
application of Criticality Rating, throughout the life of an asset. Its intent is to ensure that a
methodical approach to establishing priorities is adopted for all Engineering activity. This will
assist the appropriate allocation of scarce resources, whilst ensuring that equipment integrity,
Company revenue and operational safety are not compromised.
Application
Text in italics is commentary. Commentary provides background information which supports
the approach proposed in the Recommended Practice, and may offer alternative sources of
information.
The responsibility to ensure compliance with legislation and other statutory requirements, lies
with the user. The user should adapt or supplement this document to ensure compliance in
specific applications.
Changes from Previous Edition
BP CP 53 was developed as a guide to the application of the ISO 9000 series of International
Quality System standards. The Yellow Page Supplement included a guide to application of
criticality ratings. The use of the ISO 9000 series of standards is now mature, therefore the
BP guide to ISO 9000 is withdrawn, and this new document is an update of the former
Yellow Page Supplement.
Feedback and Further Information
Users are encouraged to feed back any comments or experiences in the application of RPSEs,
to assist in the process of continuous improvement.
For feedback and further information, please contact Standards Group, BP International or
the Custodian. See Quarterly Status Lists for contacts.

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE ii

1.

INTRODUCTION
"The Core of Management is the Art of Mobilising and putting together the
Intellectual Resources of All Employees, in the Service of the Firm."
K. Matsushita - 1979
The quotation above encapsulates the intention of this document; not to define any
prescribed methodology, but to encourage the adoption of a consistent methodical
approach to setting engineering priorities, by increased networking across disciplines
throughout asset life. Engineering, in this context, is the design, procurement,
fabrication, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of an asset and the
management of these functions.
There are individual Criticality Rating models listed in Section 5 of this Recommended Practice.

A Criticality Rating is evolved by evaluating the combined effect of the likelihood of

failure, and it's consequence i.e. financial, safety or environmental risk to a project or
modification, their development and operation. This document proposes guidelines for
a rating procedure which is applicable to, among others:
-

management processes for project development and asset operation

plant maintenance and operating practices
equipment selection
fluid systems

Its scope encompasses project and operations management, process systems and
equipment.
In order that the document is appropriate for all phases of BP Group engineering activities, the
principles contained within it must be part of a general philosophy relevant to an asset's life cycle.

The philosophy assists the identification, management and control of risk. This applies
to Health, Safety and the Environment, to the Group's investment and production
returns, and in all engineering areas of the Group's activities.
It is particularly valid in the context of the strategic shift which now allocates increased
accountability to external suppliers undertaking traditional BP roles.

A considerable amount of valuable work has been undertaken within the BP Group to
provide Criticality Rating guidelines for specific disciplines and phases in an asset's
operational life cycle.
The generic principles described in this document are drawn from these guidelines.

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 1

Criticality Rating will not provide a direct solution to any engineering problems in any
phase of project or operational life. It is intended to supply quantitative input to the
engineering decision making process.
The rating process is dynamic. The results obtained at each stage of the asset life cycle may feed
into the next stage. Changes in operational requirements may alter the inputs to the rating process,
as may the results of inspection activity. Criticality Rating should be an iterative exercise, and may
be revisited regularly throughout asset life. Modifications and refinements can be undertaken at
each stage of the asset life cycle, as a result of feedback from other stages.

This document does not attempt to replace or simplify available existing techniques
which are considered appropriate by specific businesses.
The primary purpose of the document is to consolidate the work in existing guidelines
and build them into a readily understood and uniform conceptual approach to the
assessment and analysis of Criticality.
For some years criticality rating models have been available which enable procurement Quality
Assurance activities to reflect the importance of equipment in terms of the risks associated with
failure. In recent years models have also been developed which enable similar focusing of
engineering activities, in particular for pressure systems, inspection planning, piping system
engineering and latterly for maintenance planning.
It has recently been recognised that the concept of criticality rating has a wide range of application
throughout the life cycle of an asset and for specific items of equipment. An important tool in
planning and management of engineering activity and expenditure, criticality rating enables
assessment of relative risk.
With this in mind it was concluded that a generic document describing the principles of criticality
rating was needed, to which existing detailed procedures could be linked, and which would provide
the basis for development of any other required procedures.
It is important that users should develop their own procedures for specific applications, so as to
achieve full understanding of the concepts involved.
The power of criticality rating models lies not so much in the ability to generate a comforting set of
numbers, rather in the focus that is brought to key areas of management, design and items of process
systems and equipment with the possibilities for teams to achieve consistent, ongoing understanding
of what is important, and what is not.

2.

OBJECTIVES
The essential requirements of a Criticality Rating procedure are that it must be:(i)

Straightforward, universal and effective.

(ii)

Sufficiently flexible to be appropriate to all aspects of production systems,

equipment and management processes in engineering.

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 2

(iii)

Capable of future enhancement without a requirement to repeat the analysis

process from the beginning.

(iv)

Adaptable to computerisation.

(v)

Able to incorporate the experience available from the BP Group and allow
transfer of information within it.

(vi)

The focus for the approach to engineering practice for the whole life of an
operation.

The principles in this document are structured to apply to the following definition of
an operational life cycle:
(1)

CONCEPT
Every engineering proposal can be assessed in terms of the criticality of the
processes involved and the equipment required for them.

(2)

DEVELOPMENT
Sub systems within the proposal can be assessed in terms of their process and
management applications. This will encompass the long term health, safety and
environmental effects and the investment considerations for the proposal.

(3)

PROCUREMENT
Equipment included within a project or modification can be assessed for its
specific criticality and the optimum quality standards determined.

(4)

CONSTRUCTION
Areas and systems can be assessed for their risk impact on completion,
investment and future operation.

(5)

OPERATION
The assessment of all systems, sub-systems, equipment and spares may be
required. This should encompass modification, inspection and integrity,
maintenance and operating activities. It should also consider the optimisation
and/or minimisation of these activities, and the economic impact of equipment
replacement.

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 3

3.

METHOD AND PROCEDURES

It should be stressed that to obtain an acceptable level of objectivity in any method of
Criticality Rating, the involvement of engineers from several disciplines and areas of
activity is recommended.
As a fundamental aim is to define engineering priorities methodically, any attempt to reduce
subjective bias is valuable.

3.1

Criticality Definitions
Criticality Rating as described in Section 1 relates to systems, subsystems, or the components within those systems.
The evaluation process may be used to select the appropriate design,
procurement, construction, commissioning and operational strategy for
all engineering systems and related items of equipment.
This process may have a different objective for different stages of the
asset life cycle.
For example, the inputs to (and hence outputs of) criticality rating during the
procurement stage will differ from those during the operating stage.

Risks are analysed in terms of two criteria: a) health, safety and

environmental impact, and b) economic effect. The results of these
analyses will frequently differ and conflict. A separate analysis for each
criterion is therefore recommended.
The 'unit' of risk is determined by the dimension of consequence. For economic
effect a monetary value will result. When Health, Safety and Environmental
consequences are considered there has traditionally been a reluctance to measure
them in cost terms and high, medium or low type measures are often assigned.

An additional factor, described as the hidden consequence, may also be

included in the analysis. Whilst failure may have no direct impact on
health, safety, environment or cost, there may be an impact which
occurs when a secondary failure follows. Examples of this are
monitoring or protective systems, such as fire alarms or gas detection.
3.2

Criticality - General Principles

The analysis procedure evaluates the system, sub-system and equipment
item in terms of safety and economy. This enables those items which
are non-critical, due to their insignificant failure consequences, to be
objectively identified.
Those systems or equipment items whose failure consequences are
significant, and where serious risks to health, safety and environment,
or where unacceptable economic impact will result, can be afforded a
high level of engineering attention. Procedures for management,

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 4

design, procurement, inspection and operations may then be clearly

defined and followed.
Systems or equipment items which are critical may be further analysed
in terms of their sub-systems or components.
Priorities can thus be set such that management and engineering effort is focused
accordingly.

The methods of evaluation have been developed to produce the most

efficient return on engineering activity.
They also permit the same methodology to be applied irrespective of
the quality or quantity of data available to the evaluator and engineer.
If specific quantified data is not available, then qualified judgement may
be applied. High, medium or low impact is selected, based on
experience, or comparable information from other similar systems or
equipment types. A schematic representation of the approach is
illustrated in Fig. 1.
3.3

Criticality Rating Procedure

The use of a criticality rating method does not replace any other requirements for
health, safety and environmental assessment, or statutory activities. The procedure
assists in the identification of critical systems or equipment, but allows
modification of engineering controls and procedures only in areas where individual
engineering discretion is permissible.

3.3.1

Use of the Procedure

A spreadsheet for initial definition is included, see Fig. 2. This may
assist in identifying the areas for further analysis or increased priority.
(a)

Define and list all Systems or Main Equipment Items

The system or equipment items and their boundaries should be
defined and listed. For established or operational areas,
drawings may be used to ensure that all equipment is identified
and considered. The separating boundaries and interfaces
should be clearly specified. Where the systems are documented
in other locations, procedures or computer packages, there
should be consistency with the definitions and descriptions
already adopted.
For new designs or proposals, a uniform and logical approach
to the separation of main systems and equipment items should
be adopted and recorded.
For practical evaluation purposes, a complete system may be
too large and complex for comprehensive analysis. It may, for
the purposes of assessing criticality for procurement, be

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 5

appropriate to consider individual main equipment items

without the need for further segregation into components.
The analysis of Sub-system criticality can be performed using a
specific methodology, relevant to the stage in the asset life cycle
of the engineering activity.
e.g. Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) may be used early in
equipment/asset life-cycles to help establish criticalities.
The general Sub-system criticality rating method is illustrated
diagrammatically in Fig. 3.
(b)

Comments and Clarification

Having defined the system to be analysed, it is useful to include
additional comments which assist in explaining its nature or
function.
These may contain information regarding the
complexity of the process in which the system is involved, or
methods by which failure in the system may be overcome.

(c)

Mode of Failure and effects of Failure

Further clarification of the likely mode of failure, and its effects,
is essential in the subsequent evaluation of the consequence
classification below.

3.3.2

Evaluation of Failure Consequence

One or more of the following classifications should be allocated to the
sub-system or equipment item to indicate the nature of the failure
consequences:
S - Safety/Environmental
This classification applies to those sub-systems or equipment whose
failure will result in a direct risk to personnel or the environment. It is
also applicable to systems which are designed to mitigate the effects of
serious failures (e.g. lifeboats).
H - Hidden
This classification applies when failure does not result in immediate
consequences but a further failure must occur before consequences are
apparent. For sub-systems or equipment in this category, the
consequence of further failure should be considered, and the H
classification prefixed by that of the further failure. (A monitoring or
protection system, such as a Fire Alarm, will be classified as SH, for
example).

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 6

E - Economic
Failure of the sub-system or equipment item will have an impact on
revenue or investment return.
The rate at which this impact may become significant should also be
considered.
It may help to consider where the failure will result in immediate economic loss,
where a loss will occur after a delay, as may be expected with a storage vessel, and
where the economic loss is hidden, or dependent on a knock-on effect. The last
case would be relevant where stand-by units are available The economic impact
will not become apparent until failure of the stand-by occurs.

N - None
Failure results in none of the consequences defined above.
3.3.3

Assessing the Costs

This evaluation is to assist in the preliminary rating of the system or
equipment item, in any phase of the asset life cycle.
An estimate of the economic consequence of loss of the system or
equipment item, during operation, should first be recorded.
An evaluation of the actual cost of the engineering activity, at the
specific stage of the asset life, may then be added.
Completion of this general spreadsheet then allows more detailed
analysis to be performed where appropriate.

4.

ANALYSIS
The systematic approach to criticality analysis may be assisted by the use of an
appropriate computer package, adapted for the specific application. This could take
the form of a proprietary spreadsheet or database program.
4.1

Categorisation
The sub-systems or equipment items should now be sorted according to
Consequence of Failure classification.
The Safety categories may be sorted by engineering activity cost.
Sorting by the cost of the engineering activity allows a further analysis to be made
of systems and equipment which consume the greatest amount of resources. A
diesel fire water pump whose failure consequence is unequivocally safety related
appears as a critical item on the second sort because of its typical maintenance
costs.

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 7

The engineering activity encompasses design calculations, inspection techniques

and maintenance and spares requirements.

The economic category may be sorted on the basis of the level of

economic impact, and the timescale in which it is likely to occur.
Those in the 'N' category of failure consequence are sorted by
engineering activity cost.
An item with an 'N' failure consequence may be re-assessed according to the
typical cost of engineering - maintenance, inspection, design - associated with it. It
may then be reappraised to establish whether this engineering is justified.

The category defined with a critical safety classification requires the

maximum engineering effort and procedural definition. All items in this
category may be further analysed at sub-system and component level.
Categories with economic impact will be sorted on the basis of that
impact. The upper items can be further analysed at sub-system and
component level. The lower, may merit reduced engineering activity
and priority.
Those sub-systems and equipment items which are classified as having
no consequent safety or economic failure implications will be afforded
the level of engineering activity proportional to the cost of performing
that activity. For example, it is unlikely that any sub-system or
equipment item in this category will merit the use of advanced
engineering analysis techniques or extensive inspection procedures.
4.2

Individual Rating Methods

In order to carry out a full assessment on critical sub-systems or
equipment items, the adoption of a model worksheet or checking plan
appropriate to the stage of the asset life, is recommended.
The Figures in this Recommended Practice give examples of models which may be
applied at individual stages. Instructions for the use of these models are available
through the custodian.

Completion of this analysis will enable the appropriate strategy to be

applied to the engineering activity.

5.

CRITICALITY
It is strongly recommended that although these models are useful as examples, maximum benefit will
be gained from use of the criticality concept if users think through their own requirements, bearing in
mind the principles outlined in this account, in order to develop a model and systems which cater for
their own needs.

The following models available from the BP businesses have been developed for use in
specific applications.

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 8

Copies are available through the Custodian of this Recommended Practice.

5.1

5.2

5.3

Equipment
1.

BP Chemicals Ltd. - QSP/QAS/002 "The Setting of Criticality

Ratings" by P.F. Scarlett

2.

BP Exploration Ltd., Kinneil Terminal Expansion Project "Criticality Ratings and Quality Programmes".

3.

BP
Exploration
Ltd.,
Pipelines
402/CPOM/Q/71615 "Criticality Ratings".

4.

BPE Andrew Project - "Guide to Criticality Ratings".

5.

BP Engineering Ltd., (for ADGAS Liquefaction Co. Ltd.)

DAS/A3/PE/154 "Criticality Rating of Equipment applying QA
Requirements".

6.

BP Group Recommended Practice RP 42-1 - Piping Systems.

Project

Group -

Process Systems
1.

BP Chemicals Ltd., - QSP/QAS/002 "The Setting of Criticality

Ratings" by P.F. Scarlett.

2.

BP Oil Grangemouth Refinery Ltd. - "HF Alkylation Unit:

Criticality Assessment"

3.

BP Chemicals Ltd Baglan Bay -"Ethanol Plant Criticality

Assessment"

Operations
1.

BP Exploration UK Ltd., Operations - "Asset Criticality

Analysis Guidelines" by P.J. McCrory.

2.

BP Exploration UK Operations - "New Fields Division

Maintenance Guide" by S. Pearson.

3.

BP Chemicals Ltd. - QSP/QAS/002 "The Setting of Criticality

Ratings" by P.F. Scarlett.

4.

BP Exploration Ltd., Kinneil Terminal Expansion Project

"Criticality Ratings and Quality Programmes".

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 9

Define Systems,
Sub-systems,
Equipment Item

Sub-system
Criticality Analysis

Component or Further
Sub-system Analysis

Reduced Engineering Effort

Simplified Procedures
Optimal Inspection Program

Engineering Priority and Effort

Defined

FIGURE 1
OVERVIEW OF CRITICALITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE10

SYSTEM EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS

MODE/EFFECT OF
FAILURE

CONSEQUENCE OF
FAILURE

ECONOMIC
IMPACT

ENGINEERING
COST

FIGURE 2
GENERAL CRITICALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 11

ANALYSE CONSEQUENCE OF
SUB-SYSTEM OR EQUIPMENT
FAILURE

CONSEQUENCE
CLASSIFICATION

SAFETY

ECONOMIC

NONE

List by Engineering Activity

Cost

List by Revenue Loss or

Investment Impact

List by Engineering Activity

Cost

Re-evaluate top items by

Sub-system or Equipment Item

Re-evaluate top items by

Sub-system or Equipment Item

Access extent for top items

Otherwise define minimum
Engineering Requirements

HIDDEN

Evaluate Consequence of
Hidden Failure

FIGURE 3
SUB-SYSTEM CRITICALITY RATING METHOD

RP 50-1
GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF
CRITICALITY RATINGS

PAGE 12