GUIDE

Evaluation of asset integrity

management system (AIMS)
 GUIDE

Evaluation of asset integrity

management system (AIMS)
 Reference
The recommended reference for this publication is:
Foreword
Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2012, Evaluation An asset integrity management system (AIMS) allows
of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide: operators, particularly those with large-scale petroleum
Resources Safety, Department of Mines and Petroleum, facilities, to demonstrate that, as far as is reasonably
Western Australia, 23 pp. practicable, they have ensured the integrity of their assets.
ISBN 978 1 921163 98 2 This guide is based on Departmental tools for assessment
© Department of Mines and Petroleum 2012 of safety system documentation. It comprises a section
answering frequently asked questions in relation to managing
Except where the Copyright Act otherwise allows, the integrity of assets for petroleum operations, a checklist
reproduction in whole or part of this publication will be to help operators evaluate an AIMS, and a series of diagrams
permitted only with the prior written permission of the and information to help operators develop an effective AIMS.
Department of Mines and Petroleum. Applications for
permission should be addressed to the Communications
Manager, Resources Safety.
Other resources
This publication is also available in digital format (PDF)
online at www.dmp.wa.gov.au/ResourcesSafety Further information on asset integrity is available at:
Further details of publications produced by Resources www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/knowledgecentre/AssetIntegrity.cfm
Safety can be obtained by contacting:
www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/415.pdf
Resources Safety — Publications
Department of Mines and Petroleum
100 Plain Street
EAST PERTH WA 6004

Telephone +61 8 9358 8002 (general queries)

+61 8 9358 8154 (publication orders)

NRS 13 36 77
Facsimile +61 8 9358 8000
Email ResourcesSafety@dmp.wa.gov.au
(general queries)

RSDcomms@dmp.wa.gov.au
(publication orders)

Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is provided in
good faith and believed to be reliable and accurate at the
time of publication. However, the information is provided
on the basis that the reader will be solely responsible for
assessing the information and its veracity and usefulness.
The State shall in no way be liable, in negligence or
howsoever, for any loss sustained or incurred by anyone
relying on the information, even if such information is or
turns out to be wrong, incomplete, out-of-date or misleading.
In this disclaimer:
State means the State of Western Australia and includes
every Minister, agent, agency, department, statutory body
corporate and instrumentality thereof and each employee or
agent of any of them.
Information includes information, data, representations,
advice, statements and opinions, expressly or implied set out
in this publication.
Loss includes loss, damage, liability, cost, expense, illness
and injury (including death).

iv Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 Contents

Foreword....................................................................................................................... iv

1 Frequently asked questions.........................................................................................2

2 AIMS evaluation checklist............................................................................................5

Overview....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Considerations.............................................................................................................................................. 5

3 Guidance.................................................................................................................20
Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 20
1. Fitness for purpose (FFP) graph............................................................................................................... 20
2. Risk-based inspection (RBI) wheel........................................................................................................... 22
3. RBI flowchart......................................................................................................................................... 23
 1 Frequently asked questions

The information provided below is for guidance only, and is not a substitute for reading the relevant occupational health and
safety legislation for petroleum operations in Western Australia.

QQ. What is integrity?

AA. Integrity, sometimes referred to as fitness for purpose (FFP), can be defined as
• the ability of an asset to perform its required function effectively and efficiently
while

• safeguarding the safety and health of persons engaged in an operation, other protected persons, and the environment
by

• t he reduction of hazards and risks

–– to a level as low as reasonably practical in normal operating conditions
or

–– i n an emergency, to an extent as specified in the safety management system of an operation, or as well as could
reasonably be expected in an emergency situation.
The related management activities ensure that the people, systems, processes, procedures, resources and plans to deliver
integrity are in place, in use, and fit for purpose over the whole lifecycle of the asset.

QQ. Is there any legislation relating to the integrity of petroleum operations?

AA. In relation to integrity, specific requirements (e.g. structural integrity) under the Petroleum Pipelines (Management of Safety
of Pipeline Operations) Regulations 2010, Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Safety of Offshore Facilities)
Regulations 2007 and Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources (Management of Safety) Regulations 2010 call for
structures, machinery, electrical systems and instrumentation controls at an operation to be kept in good condition and be fit
for purpose.
Other regulations are applied in relation to integrity regarding duties, obligations, responsibilities, supporting documentation,
methods and practices involved in the implementation and ongoing management of an asset integrity management system,
which are part of the overall safety management system.

QQ. What are some examples of the application of the regulations?

AA. The regulatory requirements relevant to the integrity of petroleum operations are summarised below.
Generalised content of a safety case or safety management system that relates to:

• several pages in Schedule 1 of the Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969 and Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act
1967, and Schedule 5 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 regarding operator, employer, obligations, duties,
and responsibilities acknowledgement (e.g. policy statement)
• the systems and procedures to be employed (e.g. permit to work or PTW, safety operating procedures or SOPs,
document control)
• the performance and ongoing maintenance of the systems and procedures initiated (e.g. audits, reviews, key
performance indicators or KPIs, technical change management)

Hazards, inspection, testing and maintenance:

• identification of hazards (e.g. PTW, job hazard safety analysis or JHSA, risk assessment)
• inspection, testing and maintenance (e.g. inspection, maintenance and repair or IMR; corrosion maintenance inspection
or CMI; safety critical function test or SCFT)

2 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 Implementation and improvement:

• implementation and ongoing improvement (e.g. AIMS, technical change management)

• identification of deficiencies (e.g. audit, KPIs, reviews)

Skills, training and ability:

• tasks that may reasonably be given (i.e. AIM manager job description form or JDF)

Co-ordination and control of safe performance of all work:

• persons to authorise and supervise work (e.g. PTW, JHSA, SOPs and policies)

Note: In some instances, other sections within the case for safety will have already dealt with these subjects. For example,
the policy integrity statement may be a separate policy solely addressing integrity, but usually the company’s occupational
safety and health policy statement will suffice. The same applies to PTW, SOPs and JHSAs, which may be covered in the
case for safety section detailing a “system for the safe performance of work”.

QQ. The level of documentation required to cover integrity appears to be quite substantial. What do I need to
provide in an SMS submission for acceptance by the Minister?
AA. The level of documentation detailed in an SMS should be appropriate for the size, scope, complexity, and level of risk for an
operation. For integrity, this may range from a few paragraphs for small operations with a low level of risk, through to several
pages for large, complex facilities or operations with a much higher level of risk.

QQ. Using examples of components or considerations relating to asset integrity management , when would a
paragraph or two on integrity suffice as opposed to several pages in a case for safety?
A1. A paragraph or two

In a simple low-risk operation, an asset register is created and populated on a simple electronic maintenance management
system (MMS) covering all assets of the operation or facility. Using a pressure vessel as an example, the vessel’s details
are recorded in the asset register, its inspection frequency and type are established in accordance with Australian Standard
AS/NZS 3788:2006 Pressure equipment – In-service inspection (the hazard rating determines the inspection intervals for
internal and external inspections if and when required) and this information is entered into the MMS.

When the vessel is close to the inspection date, the system “flags” the vessel with a work order and inspection SOPs and/or
checklists and procedures are generated. The tasks are then carried out according to the system for the safe performance
of work (PTW, JHSA, SOPs and policy), with a record of the subsequent findings, repairs, corrosion rates and other outcomes
retained in electronic and/or hard copy format once the vessel is found to satisfy FFP requirements and returned to service.
The next inspection date is entered into the MMS.

A2. Several pages

Large-scale operations of far greater complexity may have several plans that fall under the AIMS, and therefore require a
brief summary of each plan, and its respective components where applicable.

Components that might be considered when determining an appropriate AIMS are listed below.

Note: Some of the items have the same intent but have acquired different names and acronyms during industry use.

Methodologies

• Reliability-centred maintenance (RCM)

• Risk-based inspection (RBI)
• Planned maintenance inspection (PMI)

Plans and systems

• Corrosion management, inspection and repair (CMIR)

• Corrosion monitoring inspection (CMI)

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 3

 • Corrosion monitoring inspection plan (CMIP)
• Structural integrity management system (SIMS)
• Pipeline integrity management system (PIMS)
• Pipeline management plan (PMP)
• Safety critical function maintenance and testing management system (SCFT)
• Safety critical element management (SCEM)
• Well operations management plan (WOMP)
• Field development plan (FDP)

Procedures and checklists

• Vessel inspection procedures

• Intelligent pigging procedure, selection and reporting
• Corrosion monitoring inspection procedure
• Safety critical element checklists (weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually)
• Safety critical function testing procedure
• SOPs (including elements from machinery manuals)
Note: Items such as document control, change management, policy, training registers and permits to work are covered
under other sections of the case for safety.
• Piping anomaly management procedure
• Technical change management procedure
• Integrity management personnel and competencies
• Well integrity inspections and testing procedures
2 AIMS evaluation checklist

Overview

Documentation isQ.Q.Q. Y/N Comments

Easy to read – format and layout clear
Quick to reference – check reference several aspects at random
Concise – clear and to the point
Minimal narrative – use of bullet points in checklists; use of
tables and flowcharts in preference to wordy explanations

Considerations

AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments

(N/A – not applicable)
1 Document control and preface
1.1 Document control register
1.2 Table of document name, document number, edition, version,
date issued
1.3 Distribution list
1.4 Revision procedure
2 Contents
2.1 Plan structure – diagram format
2.2 Table of contents
2.3 List of figures, charts and tables
3 Introduction
3.1 Purpose
3.2 Scope
3.2.1 Integration or relationship of plans:

• corrosion management inspection and repair

• planned maintenance inspection
• risk-based inspection
• reliability-centred maintenance
3.2.2 Integration with other company plans
3.3 Objectives
3.4 Location details

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 5

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
4 General
4.1 The AIMS addresses the following main elements as a minimum:

• corrosion management inspection and repair (e.g. vessels,

pipelines, instrumentation)
• safety critical elements (e.g. emergency shut down and
isolation equipment, fire protection and detection for plant
and equipment)
• instrumented protective functions
• planned maintenance inspection and repair, and fitness-for-
purpose (e.g. mobile plant)
• well head and subsurface well integrity
4.2 The AIMS delegates duties, responsibilities, authorities
and accountabilities with respect to its development and
implementation.
4.3 The AIMS demonstrates that any future development or activities
can be addressed
4.4 All relevant personnel have access to relevant AIMS
documentation and records
4.5 The AIMS incorporates or links to a quality management system
as a mechanism for assisting in meeting the AIMS performance
standards or key performance indicators (KPIs). KPIs should be
readily available from the AIMS, such as:

• percentage of programme completed

• months of backlog
• backlog of critical items
• percentage emergency work
• weekly schedule compliance

KPIs are regularly reviewed by supervisors and managers.

Reports of outstanding critical maintenance and other exception
reports are approved by the manager responsible for facility
integrity
5 Facility or operation description
5.1 General
5.1.1 The facility or operation is sufficiently described to
allow a clear understanding of the purpose of the
asset and its activities and the controls in place
to ensure that risks are managed to as low as
reasonably practicable

6 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
5.1.2 The description includes as a minimum, where
applicable:

• the physical controls in place to ensure that

identified risks are managed to as low as
reasonably practicable
• key parties and responsibilities
• the geographical location and a site location plan
• key crossings
• environment description (e.g. oil, gas, sweet,
sour)
• flora and fauna
• site meteorological conditions
• geotechnical considerations
• interaction with existing facilities
5.1.3 There is an overview of key plant and utilities,
including:

• lighting
• water
• fuel supply
• power
• communications
• fire protection, suppression and detection
• office and control rooms
• processing, storage and handling areas
6 Policy leadership, commitment and strategy
6.1 General
6.1.1 There is a documented policy with strategic
objectives for managing the integrity of the facility
that:

• is clear, specific and useable by the workforce

• defines objectives, strategies, plan, performance
standards, performance indicators and
continuous improvement strategy
• clearly identifies systems, assets and equipment
to be monitored by specific programmes,
including on-line inspection
• clearly defines the process of validation and
verification against regulatory requirements

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 7

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
6.1.2 Mechanisms are in place to ensure the
accountability of senior management for the
achievement of asset integrity management, such
as:

• facility integrity is part of operator’s overall

business management system
• top management regularly reviews the technical
health of the facility and effectiveness of its
monitoring
• every level of workforce has access to relevant
integrity information and regular briefings by
management
6.1.3 • Integrity assessment procedures and guidelines
are in place, such as pipeline integrity
management system
• structural integrity management system
• technical change management system
• maintenance management manual
• inspection and corrosion engineering manual
• small bore piping integrity manual
• safety critical function maintenance and testing
management system
• asset information system (documented asset
register)
• well head and subsurface well integrity
management

8 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
6.1.4 There is a documented maintenance strategy or plan
that is derived from the policy for maintenance of
systems and equipment, and is clear and actionable
and includes:

• risk-based decision making to set appropriate

maintenance options (i.e. preventive, predictive
and run to failure)
• reliability-centred maintenance concept applied
(i.e. focus on systems and equipment with safety
consequences and frequent failure)
• describes the resources provided to achieve the
plan, and how they are provided
• describes how maintenance performance is
monitored and measured
• describes how technical support is provided, and
from whom
• defines safety critical elements
• specifies the process for identifying safety
critical elements and their corresponding
performance standards in preventing or
mitigating the initiation of a major accident event
Note: Safety critical elements are any part of the
facility, plant or computer programmes whose failure
will either cause or contribute to a major accident, or
the purpose of which is to prevent or limit the effect
of a major accident
6.1.5 Periodic review of the AIMS are scheduled to ensure
its relevance and that objectives are met
6.2 Organisation and responsibility
6.2.1 All personnel involved in the AIMS are informed of
their roles, responsibilities and accountabilities such
that:

• the custodian of facility integrity is clearly

identified, with job description and authority
• the roles, responsibilities and communication
between the operations, maintenance and
technical integrity group are clear
• the roles and responsibilities of other personnel
such as support staff, contractors and specialists
are unambiguous
6.2.2 Key personnel have signed off on their
understanding of their AIMS roles, responsibilities
and accountabilities
6.2.3 Responsibilities and accountabilities under the AIMS
are reviewed regularly and when with organisational
changes are made

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 9

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
6.2.4 The AIMS responsibilities and accountabilities of all
personnel align with their skills and training:

• key personnel involved in safeguarding the

facility integrity are identified
• there is a procedure for identifying the training
needs of these personnel, and a training or skills
matrix
• there are competency requirements for
personnel responsible for specific areas of
integrity safeguarding such as corrosion or
erosion, pressure system, pipework and safety
critical elements
• specific skills that are outsourced are identified,
and the work output and performance
monitoring approach described
• external accreditation required for specific skills
of personnel (own and contractors) is defined
• there is a competency assessment procedure
• personnel are trained in root cause analysis,
HAZID, HAZOP and risk management
• training records are maintained and audited
6.2.5 Interface between key personnel is clearly defined
6.3 Employee involvement and communication
6.3.1 “Front line” maintenance technicians are consulted
when assessing risk, problem solving and devising
maintenance work schedules and procedures:

• they are involved in task risk assessments (e.g.

job safety analyses or JSAs) and the provision of
feedback to improve procedures
• they are involved in devising work schedules as
required

10 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
6.3.2 Maintenance issues are discussed between the site-
based technicians or supervisors and office-based
support staff

There is a daily communication protocol between

site frontline staff and office-based support staff

There is a mechanism for problems encountered on

site by the technicians to be discussed and resolved
with office based support staff

Contact can be made:

• daily for immediate issues

• monthly for planning purposes
• quarterly and annually for medium- and long-
term planning
7 Planning: responsibility, hazard identification and risk management
7.1 General
7.1.1 Plans and procedures are in place to achieve the
strategic objectives of safeguarding the facility
integrity, such as:

• clear identification of critical activities and

threats to integrity
• integrity management manual
• plan and procedures for inspection, audits and
change management
• methodologies defined (i.e. risk-based
inspections, reliability-centred maintenance,
instrumented protective function)
• clear process for defining safety critical elements
and their performance standards, plans and
procedures for each type of asset, equipment
or system (e.g. pipe work, pressure system,
corrosion and erosion, structures)
7.1.2 Assumptions made within the AIMS are justified and
backed by relevant information
7.1.3 Risk assessments are based on, and reference,
appropriate standards (e.g. risk-based inspection -
API 581)

Note: See Part 3 of this guideline for simplified

guidance on fitness-for-purpose and risk-based
inspection

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 11

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
7.2 Objectives, plans and performance standards
7.2.1 The AIMS objectives, plans and standards are
defined and verifiable, such as:

• pipeline integrity management system

• structural integrity management system
• technical change management system
• maintenance management manual
• inspection and corrosion engineering manual
• small bore piping integrity manual
• safety critical function maintenance and testing
management system
• asset information system
• well head and subsurface well integrity
management
7.2.2 The AIMS objectives, plans and standards reflect the
responsibilities, legislative requirements and AIMS
commitments
7.2.3 Plans are updated to reflect changes in performance
standards, or outcomes of appraisals of the AIMS
effectiveness
8 Safe operating procedures
8.1 Deferral of safety critical elements
8.1.1 There are procedures or documentation describing
how deferrals are authorised and justified, and
ensuring:

• any deferrals of safety critical items follow the

change management system of the SMS
• when a deferral is approved, it is stipulated
whether that work item is still referenced as a
backlog
Note: All work requests that have not been
completed are “backlog” by definition
8.1.2 If maintenance of a safety critical element is
deferred, the steps taken to identify and implement
additional measures to restore the integrity of the
barriers weakened by the deferral are described

12 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
8.1.3 Procedures and guidelines are in place for
temporary measures or repairs, and are subject to
an engineering assessment and given a “defined
life” prior to implementation

When temporary measures are put in place, they

must be limited to a specified time period and
authorised in accordance with change management
procedures, including a risk assessment.

Note: Any change in the design of safety critical

systems or equipment must be subject to change
management system procedures and authorisation
levels

A work order is generated on the maintenance

scheduling software to record the defined life and
to schedule when the temporary repair should
be inspected, maintained and replaced with a
conventional repair within the defined life
8.2 Maintenance and repair
8.2.1 A program has been developed and implemented on
site for the routine inspection and maintenance of
plant and equipment
8.2.2 Inspection and maintenance schedules are in place
and are in line with manufacturers’ and legislative
requirements, work practices and recommendations
8.2.3 Planned maintenance activities are conducted in line
with procedures contained within the AIMS and:

• there is a mechanism to prioritise maintenance

tasks, and any differences between the priorities
for corrective maintenance and those for
planned maintenance are identified
• work orders are screened for matters such as
scope, planning and parts availability
• risk assessment methodology is applied
consistently to determine the time frame within
which safety critical work is to be completed
• safety critical work that is not completed by the
nominated “required by date” is the subject of an
exception report requiring management approval
• priority is given to corrective maintenance that is
necessary to avoid serious safety consequences

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 13

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
8.2.4 A process is in place to ensure that safety critical
elements are identified and maintenance scheduled
accordingly, and scheduled maintenance is
prioritised with consideration for the safety and
integrity impact of equipment, such as:

• critical function tests based on a checklist with

acceptance parameters
• safety critical element acceptance criteria laid
out in written schemes of examination (WSE)
• performance measures in integrity manuals
for security critical elements or critical function
testing
• performance standards defining the minimum
acceptable standards for a safety critical
element in terms of functionality, reliability or
availability, and survivability
• failed functions not immediately repaired
being the subject of a management-of-change
report for sign off by the operation’s person in
charge, with contingency measures in place for
safe operation inclusive of an appropriate risk
assessment
• separate reports for the backlog of safety critical
elements and equipment that is not safety
critical
8.2.5 Procedures are in place for the periodic review of
maintenance procedures to ensure:

• maintenance is being undertaken and equipment

is safe and fit for purpose before being returned
to service
• potential improvements to the maintenance
process are identified
• work is undertaken in accordance with
documented procedures
• safety critical procedures include a checklist to
be filed on completion
• the AIMS maintenance system includes
performance monitoring arrangements with
agreed performance standards and performance
indicators
• office support staff analyse, monitor and
verify the maintenance performance against
appropriate key performance indicators, and
these prompt queries and discussion between
site- and office-based staff for compliance and
continuous improvement

14 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
8.2.6 The AIMS plant and equipment register is used
to record plant and equipment inspections,
maintenance, repairs or modifications
8.2.7 Operations vehicles and plant are inspected by
operations-authorised drivers or operators, and the
results are recorded in a logbook
8.2.8 Plant or equipment found to be defective or
dangerous is taken out of service and tagged as “out
of service” until such time as a qualified technician
has made suitable repairs or the equipment is
replaced
8.2.9 Appropriate procedures and training are in place
to ensure all maintenance activities and tasks are
conducted in line with the AIMS
8.2.10 There is a documented procedure to ensure that
defective or dangerous plant and equipment is
reported

If equipment is allowed to continue operating when

it is known to be defective (e.g. a passing valve),
there are procedures in place to identify what other
barriers and defences need to be implemented to
compensate.

Note: A risk assessment is required to arrive at

mitigating measures for continued operation
8.3 Employee selection competency and training
8.3.1 A competency and skills matrix defines the
competency criteria and safety attributes of each
position
8.3.2 Evidence of statutory competencies is required for
relevant positions and copies of certificates are
retained on site
8.3.3 There is a process to capture the review of position
specifications
8.3.4 All personnel are aware of their roles and
responsibilities upon commencement of employment
8.3.5 Employee competence is assessed as part of a
periodic performance review
8.3.6 Training programs are adequately funded and
reviewed, and reassessed periodically to ensure
effectiveness

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 15

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
8.4 Workplace environment
8.4.1 The project management team has developed
the AIMS to ensure and promote a safe working
environment
9 Inspection, testing, monitoring and reporting
9.1 General
9.1.1 There are processes covering the inspection, testing
and monitoring of site activities, plant and equipment
for the operation, including:

• procedures for ensuring plant is checked before

use
• planned regime of workplace AIMS inspections
• work activity observations
• pre-operation inspections of vehicles and plant
• inspections and testing of electrical equipment
• inspections and testing of cranes and lifting
equipment
• inspections and testing of pressure vessels and
pressure testing equipment
• inspections and testing of emergency, first aid,
fire and spill control equipment
• inspections and testing of well integrity
9.1.2 Inspections follow an agreed format and are
documented
9.1.3 A corrective action register prioritises, tracks and
closes-out actions and improvements
10 Audit, verification, review and improvement
10.1 Asset integrity audit
10.1.1 The audit and review approach of the AIMS is
demonstrated through:

• key performance indicators used in daily and

monthly operations reports
• monthly facility integrity reports
• monthly facility technical change reports
• validation and verification schemes
• regular internal and external audits and reviews

16 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
10.1.2 The system and program of AIMS audits includes
both internal and independent audits
10.1.3 The AIMS audits enable verification that the
AIMS arrangements meet specified performance
standards and allow opportunities for system
improvement to be identified
10.1.4 The methodology for conducting AIMS audits is
described, including:

• scope and objectives

• criteria for selection of audit teams and leaders
• reporting requirements
10.1.5 The AIMS audits are conducted by suitably
competent personnel and the AIMS personnel are
involved, and:

• there is a policy and procedure for facility

integrity audit
• the planning for audits is described, including
whether they are based on the status and
importance of the activity
• the selection of personnel to conduct each audit
is described
• independent competent persons are used for
audits and verification
10.1.6 Corrective actions are prioritised, assigned
responsibility, and allocated expected completion
dates
10.1.7 The AIMS audit findings are submitted in a formal
report along with any corrective action requests to
appropriate project personnel
10.1.8 Follow-up actions on audit findings are monitored for
suitable resolution and timely close-out
10.1.9 The AIMS audit reports are disseminated to involved
stakeholders and authorities
10.2 Review and improvement
10.2.1 A process is in place to capture corrective actions
and follow-up requirements resulting from the audit
or assessment, and ensure close-out in a timely
manner
10.2.2 The AIMS performance is benchmarked against
other organisational, operational and industry data

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 17

 AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
11 Document and record control procedures
11.1 In general, the AIMS describes whether records are centrally
kept and:

• integrity records are maintained to demonstrate achievement

of the performance standards of the systems and equipment
• records are maintained for non-compliances, deviations,
deferrals, corrective actions and remedial measures taken
• the validation and verification results of specialist contractors
are recorded
• records accessible to relevant (i.e. site and office) personnel
• the form in which the records are kept and what the
retention time is
11.1.1 There is a document identification system that
allows each document to be uniquely identified
11.1.2 All documents developed utilise the document
identification system
11.1.3 All documents are developed in line with an agreed
format
11.1.4 All documents intended solely for the operation and
developed by external parties are reproduced (with
consent of the external party) in line with the agreed
format and identification system
11.1.5 Where a document hierarchy exists, this is detailed
within the document control procedures
11.1.6 Document development is undertaken by personnel
who are suitably qualified and competent
11.1.7 All documents are subject to a defined review
process that includes the participation of relevant
personnel
11.1.8 The review of documents is recorded either on the
document master drafts or by some other means
(e.g. document review register)
11.1.9 All documents are subject to a defined authorisation
process that includes those peoples whose
responsibility it falls under, as per the organisation
structure
11.1.10 The authorisation of documents is recorded either
on the document final draft or by some other means
(e.g. document authorisation register)
11.1.11 Where applicable, documents include references to
material gathered from other documentation, either
internal or external to the operation’s organisation

18 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

AIMS evaluation and considerations Y/N Comments
(N/A – not applicable)
11.1.12 An effective document change management process
is in place to ensure that:

• changes to the operation (any internal or

external factors or references) are captured in
the corresponding documents
• dissemination of altered documentation is timely
and effective
• relevant personnel are made aware of changes
to documentation
• superseded or redundant documents are
replaced at all locations on site and within the
organisation
11.1.13 The document control process captures all
correspondence that will, or has the potential to
influence the AIMS aspects of the operation
11.1.14 Documents are marked as either controlled or
uncontrolled as is applicable, and this process is
managed effectively
11.1.15 Documentation is archived in accordance with
statutory requirements

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 19

 3 Guidance

Introduction
The three guidance diagrams included here are not suitable for all industrial applications, operations, and facilities. Care should
be exercised in their use as they are only provided for guidance on the basic principles of integrity or fitness for purpose and
risk-based inspection.

1. Fitness for purpose (FFP) graph

STANDARD ASSET LIFE

Failure frequency

DESIGN

INSTALLATION

DECOMMISSIONING
OBSOLESCENCE
COMMISSIONING

EXTENSION OR
DESIGN LIFE
PLANNED
ose
for purp
Decreasing Fi tness Increasing
failure frequency failure frequency

Periods of constant and/or random failures

INSPECTION Schedule determined by applicable standards

AND
CORROSION Risk-based approach to determine schedule
MONITORING
Increased inspection and monitoring
ASSET
INTEGRITY Formulate strategies, policies, Design reappraisal Additional measures
procedures and schemes for AIMS
MANAGEMENT Time

Using the FFP graph

The FPP guidance chart has many applications, including mobile plant and equipment, pumps, motors, compressors, pipelines
and pressure vessels. The red line traces the typical failure frequency pathway over the life time of an asset. The following
example demonstrates how the chart describes the life cycle of a pressure vessel, hazard rating 2, used on a petroleum
production facility.

Before commissioning or start-up of the pressure vessel in the plant, plans should be formulated for corrosion and inspection
management, inspection maintenance and repair, systems, procedures and practices. The strategy adopted for corrosion
management and inspection of the pressure vessel is likely initially to be a planned maintenance schedule determined by
Australian Standards, moving to a risk-based inspection (RBI) schedule once sufficient operational data are available to
support the decision-making process.

20 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

The pressure vessel will be subject to design reappraisal when considering a change from planned inspection and monitoring
intervals as referenced in Australian Standard AS/NZS 3788:2006 Pressure equipment – In-service inspection to RBI intervals.
For the pressure vessel in this example, the change to an RBI regime will not occur for at least five years, after the vessel has
been inspected at commissioning, and there have been internal inspections after one year and then a further four years of
operation. After this five-year period, the following information will be available, allowing an informed decision to be made about
whether to retain the standards-based inspection and monitoring regime, or decrease or increase the intervals under an RBI
approach.

• The vessel walls will have undergone baseline ultrasonic testing (UT), with documented results.
• Quality assurance or quality control (QA /QC) design and/or fabrication flaws (if any) will have been detected and repaired.
• Non-destructive test (NDT) results will have been established for corrosion rate calculations.
• The suitability of design and materials for operational conditions will have been confirmed (refer to sections 4.4.3 and
4.4.4.1 of AS/NZS 3788:2006 for guidance).
• Design excursions (e.g. levels above and below design pressures, temperature, sweet to sour transition) and operational
history will have been established.

The inspection frequencies determined at the project inception and/or design reappraisal stages may need to be increased
when:

• the remaining life assessment is conducted following completion of 60 per cent of the design life. Where no design life
is evident, refer to section 5.1 of AS/NZS 3788:2006 for guidance (e.g. 100,000 operating hours or second inspection
interval)
• the failure or repair rates increase
• the vessel sustains damage.

Note: Wastage rates are considered to be the controlling factor in pressure vessel life expectancy, and may be determined from
UT readings over a period of time (refer to section 4.4.4.2 of AS/NZS 3788:2006 for guidance).

To extend the design life of the pressure vessel, additional measures may be required in the form of additional safety
equipment, procedures, practices, inspections, monitoring, testing, revisions of recommended practices and standards, and
analysis and calculation of the rates of corrosion, fatigue, creep and hydrogen attack if the vessel is re-lifed.

At some point, a finite asset life is achieved when the key performance indicators (e.g. frequency of failure at inspection, number
of repairs, wastage) reach levels that are considered to be intolerable, with associated risks and hazards not being as low as
reasonably practicable (ALARP). The asset is then decommissioned.

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 21

 2. Risk-based inspection (RBI) wheel

BACK
FEED
RIS
KA
11.

SS
Feedback 1. Review

ES
2.

SM
10. Design

ENT
Verification reappraisal
3.
9. Define Development
RIS K M

8. Statement 4. RBI
7. 5. matrices

ON
ANA

6.

C TI
GE

Data Inspection

PE
Reporting
ME

IN S
NT

SE

D
A
K-B
RIS

Using the RBI wheel

1. Undertake historical review (e.g. inspection records, repairs, corrosion rates, damage).
2. Reappraise design (e.g. in-service records, planned and unplanned shut-downs and start-ups, pressure and temperature
excursions and durations over and below original design operational parameters).
3. Assess and develop systems, procedures, practices and plans.
4. Develop RBI matrices (see page 21).
5. Carry out non-destructive testing (NDT) and inspections on assets such as plant, equipment, vessels and pipelines.
6. Interpret data acquired, compare with baseline NDT results and inspections, populate database and analyse findings.
7. Report on interpretations, produce required action lists in order of criticality.
8. Produce statements on corrosion condition and integrity of assets.
9. Define the solutions for FFP inspection frequency, methodology and practices.
10. Third party to verify RBI process, methodology, techniques and data.
11. Feed lessons learned back into the system.

22 Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide

3. RBI flowchart

D = diameter P = pressure T = temperature V = volume v = velocity

Evaluation of asset integrity management system (AIMS) – guide 23

Resources Safety
Department of Mines and Petroleum
100 Plain Street
EAST PERTH WA 6004

Telephone +61 8 9222 3597

NRS 13 36 77
Facsimile +61 8 9222 3383
Email psb@dmp.wa.gov.au
Website www.dmp.wa.gov.au/ResourcesSafety
RSDJul12_808