Audit Performance and Monitoring

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Performance indicators
Audit plan
References

Performance indicators

The general definition of auditing is the organized, independent and documented procedure for gathering audit evidence and appraising it objectively to resolve the level of the organizations compliance with the international safety regulations. The audit procedure, in an organization dealing with nuclear reactors, involves doing a number of actions.

Such an audit would be incomplete without investigating the security procedures, checking out the emergency exits and fire alarms, ensuring that there are regulations regarding the areas of the organization where it is safe to have the phone on and whether there are sufficient facilities such as washrooms, emergency handling department and a safe place for taking meals.

Such thorough scrutiny ensures that the people in that organization are safe from the danger posed by the hazards, which might include inhaling the dangerous substances, food poisoning as well as the danger of fire outbreaks. A good example of a case, which could have been prevented by carrying out an audit, includes the Texas City refinery fire outbreak.

The fire was fatal as it led to a considerable loss in property and peoples lives. Suppose an effectual audit and investigation had been performed, the problem that caused the accident could have been identified prior to the loss and necessary measures could have been taken to prevent it.

This is the main reason why the world association of nuclear operators insists on having in place an audit and monitoring system. There are specific procedures to be followed when doing an audit. Agius (2010, p 35) notes, These procedures identify unsafe acts and conditions before the occurrence of the accidents.

The importance of this system was brought about by the increased intolerance to risk in the society, the increase in the compensation tendency, public demand for transparency in the operations and the tendency for the media to cause retribution on the people who cause harm to human life and property.

Organizations handling dangerous chemicals are therefore expected to uphold serious audit and monitoring standards which are in accordance with the international auditing standards and which ensure that the people working in the organization are safe.

Performance indicators in the audit environment are used as reference points to check on the effectiveness of the safety management system in the organization. Generally, performance indicators are classified into three broad categories, which include the safety indicators, operational performance indicators and management performance indicators.

According to Bozidar (2009, p 12), These indicators represent the most important factors in the linkage between a possible cause of an accidental occurrence and its consequences. The safety management systems in the organizations that deal with chemicals include the structure of the organization, responsibilities, performances, processes and the resources required in the determination and implementation of the most crucial accident deterrence policies.

Such organizations are required to come up with written policies, which set the general goals and standards with regards to preventing and controlling the occurrence of key accidents hence ensuring that the people working in the environment are safe in an appropriate manner.

The main purpose of the performance indicators is to act as tools which are used as input values in the context of the safety management system (Blandford, 2006, 7). Safety is a complex idea since it mostly impossible to be a hundred percent assured of it, yet it is the most essential element in any organization.

It involves both the external and internal factors, which can be either intangible features or measurable parameters. Performance indicators just work towards determining the reference policy objectives illustrating the extent that the safety management system is varied from the desired level. Besides this function, the performance indicators also supply the organization with information on the possible problems that may affect safety in the environment.

This ensures that the management takes any possible precautions to safeguard against these safety threats. It offers support to the policy development procedure by providing the information on the major factors that pose any given risk. It also assists in the development of the action plans and finally it provides a monitoring system on the effects of the policy responses.

The performance indicators that are currently in place in the WANO industry include the chemistry performance indicator, the chemistry effectiveness indicator, unplanned automatic scrams indicator, unit capability indicator, fuel performance indicator, collective radiation exposure indicator, total industrial safety accident rate, safety system performance and the forced loss rate.

The chemistry performance indicator examines the efficiency of the general control in the chemistry department based on the level of impurity concentration and corrosive products (Agius, 2010). The chemistry effectiveness indicator is a more inclusive indicator, which measures the general chemistry performance in relation to the long-term effects of material degradation.

Unplanned automatic scrams indicator measures the level of the unanticipated run off. Industries with a low rate of unplanned scram are considered to be operating in efficiency. The unit capability indicator on the other hand determines the period of time over which the industry is in operation and producing electricity.

A high rate is an indication of success in the reduction of the unplanned incidents. The other indicator, which is the fuel performance indicator, indicates the total percentage of the units that are in operations without failure, which safeguard the containers handling fuel substances. The long-term goal in any industry is to operate with a no possibility of developing fuel failures.

The collective radiation exposure is the measure of the effectiveness of the operations that lower the exposure to radiation emitted by the reactors. If the rate of exposure in low then the attention of the management towards radiation protection is considerably high.

This means that measures have been taken to reduce the dangers posed by the radiation emitting operations such as the boiling water reactors and the pressurized water reactors.

The total industrial safety-accident rate indicator provides a record of the rate of accidental occurrences. It also indicates the consequences of these accidents, which may include the number of fatalities brought about, by these accidents in a specified period of time, the loss experienced in work time and the restricted working conditions, which are because of the accidents.

The safety system performance indicator measures and monitors the accessibility of the safety systems in times of emergency (Bozidar, 2009). Finally is the forced loss rate indicator that determines the outage time and failure in the power supply resulting from human errors, the unanticipated failure in equipment and other unavoidable conditions, which come in the way of the power generation and distribution.

The performance indicators that are in operation in WANO industries are effective in ensuring that there is sufficient safety in the organization. This however does not imply that they are the most effective policies. In order, therefore, to strengthen these policies, further regulatory indicators should be included in the safety system.

On top of this list is the economic loss indicator. This measures the level of loss in profits that is brought about by the hazards in the organization. If the operations endanger the lives of the employees, then the level of productivity will reduce owing to the shortage of labor.

The result of this is that the few employees in the organization will be overworked hence exposing them to more risks especially in relation to their health. This affects the output and makes it difficult for the organization to attain its economic objectives. The economic loss indicator should therefore be included since it will safeguard against many economic failures that may be experienced in the long term.

The second performance indicator in hierarchy is the operation hours indicator. This determines the amount of time that the plant can be in operation and producing at its optimal level. This is an important indicator of performance since it provides the management with information regarding the optimal plant functioning hence enabling them to plan a sequence of machine operations.

This ensures that their production level is high at all times owing to the fact that the plants operate within the time at which they are at their best (Bozidar, 2009). This also ensures that fuel is not wasted on plants that have already reached their maximum operation time, beyond which the level of output will begin to decrease.

Plants with a high rate of operation hours indicator are the most effective since they will produce at their optimal capacity for a long period of time before beginning to reduce the level of output produced.

The third performance indicator is the quantity of spilled substances indicator. This measures the level of resources that spill to unproductive areas. The most likely example of this can be a leakage in the fuel containers leading to a considerable loss. A high rate of this indicator implies that there is a high level of spillage and this may lead to a loss in profits besides the danger it possesses to the people working in the vicinity.

Fuel leakage is one of the major causes of fire outbreaks in the organizations dealing with chemicals. WANO specifically faces this risk since it deals with nuclear reactors and any leakage in this can lead to a serious disaster, which involves explosions.

The result of this could be an explosion of the whole plant and loss of many lives since it might be impossible to evacuate the workers from the premises and to rescue any property. This indicator therefore determines the likelihood of such occurrences based on past experiences and the measures taken by the organization to prevent spillage.

Fourth on the list of performance indicators is the component malfunction indicator. This measures the possibility of failure in the performance of the components, based on the useful lives. It categorizes the components in the organization according to the time of acquisition and the anticipated life years.

The components that are expected to fail depending on the number of years of its operation should be used to carry out the simple operations while the recently acquired ones can handle the difficult tasks. The component malfunction indicator provides the measure for determining which components are still effective and which ones are almost through with their useful period.

As a result, the management will be in a position to make wise and relevant replacement decisions. If the rate of this indicator on any given component is high, that is an indication that the component will not be functioning at its best capacity and therefore calls for a replacement.

Next is the contamination indicator, which determines the level of pollution in the environment. This measures the rate at which the substances contaminate the environment hence posing a hazard to people as well as the ecosystem. Contamination leads to the deprivation of the natural resources such as pure air, productive land and clean, resourceful water bodies (Porter, 1999).

If the contamination indicator reveals a high rate of contamination, then the management of the plant is expected to come up with measures of reducing if not completely eliminating the contamination. The level of pollution is determined scientifically by measuring the chemical content in soil, air and water and comparing the resultant values with the previous ones. An increase in these values is an indication that the level of pollution is on the rise.

The other performance indicators include the delay in the maintenance of critical components indicator, non-authorized access indicator and the hospitalization indicator. The hospitalization indicator measures the number of casualties that are hospitalized in a week owing to accidental occurrences such as the danger of falling objects and food contamination, which may result into food poisoning.

If the rate of this indicator is high, it is an indication that there are insufficient safety measures and so action needs to be taken to improve on this. The non-authorized access indicator determines the security level in the organization with regards to the areas that have restricted access.

This indicator measures the rate at which such areas are accessed by unauthorized persons creating a possible threat to the organizations confidential information. If this rate is high, it is an implication that the security level is low and hence calling on the management to beef it up.

Finally is the delay in the maintenance of critical components indicator. This simply measures the time taken to bring a faulty component back to operation. This should be as low as possible to ensure that the level of output is not affected by component breakdowns (Blandford, 2006).

Audit plan

An audit plan is a process developed to ensure that the auditing and monitoring process is carried out effectively and as accurately as possible. The driving force behind carrying out auditing procedures include the duty of care to the environment, risk reduction agenda, provision of an input to training and development of the employees and ensuring an internal interchange of experience and suggestions.

When preparing an audit plan therefore, the management should have in mind the reason why they are taking the action, determine their current position in relation to the whole plan and consider what they want to achieve out of it. They should also come up with the framework and tools that will aide in the achievement of the stated vision and the implementation plan (Heron, 1999).

There should be a specified measure of the current progress and the improvements that should be put in place to ensure a better performance. Measurement and improvement are continuous processes, which need to be to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that the plan is up to date with the current trends.

Before developing an audit plan, it is important to consider the international guidelines for quality and environmental management systems auditing (Bender and Globe Staff, 2009). According to these standards, auditing is performed with the aim of ensuring ethical conduct or professional conduct is maintained.

Auditing is also done with the aim of fair presentation, which creates an obligation for a truthful and accurate reporting. Professional care, which is the application of diligence and fair judgment, is demanded by these standards and independence, which is the foundation of the impartiality of the audit procedure, is very crucial.

Finally, an evidence based approach, which is the coherent method of attaining reliable audit conclusions in a methodological audit process has to be employed (Bender and Globe Staff, 2009).

Audit planning involves three broad steps, which are preparation, auditing and reporting. More elaborately, Audit planning refers to the process consisting of several steps (Bender and Globe Staff, 2009). The first step in audit planning is defining the scope and purpose of the audit.

This is followed by defining the standards that will be used to govern the audit process and understanding the operations that are supposed to be audited. Then the auditor plans for the interviews and the sites that have to be visited and consults with the audit team towards finally preparing the audit schedule (Bender and Globe Staff, 2009).

A properly defined audit schedule is vital in the whole process since it determines the timings and the appointments besides acting as a reminder to the audit team (Bender and Globe Staff, 2009).

The members of the team should have considerable experience in the practice, expertise in the subject matter, knowledge of the locality, experience acquired independently and the suitable levels of seniority (Bender and Globe Staff, 2009). In the cases where the auditor is expected to carry out the procedure single handedly, he should be in possession of most of these qualities if not all of them.

The main responsibilities of the team leader in the audit scenario are to ensure that every other member adheres to the audit schedule and scope and that the relevant evidence is gathered sufficiently and recorded accurately (Porter, 1999).

He is also expected to coordinate communication within the team members alongside ensuring that the relationship between the auditors and the client remains within professional boundaries. Besides these roles, the team leader is expected to support the reports prepared by the members in case they are challenged during the final presentation.

Therefore, he needs to ensure that every member is acquainted to the process, the key personnel are identified, everybody is familiar with the standards, the scope, the audit schedule is accurately prepared, and any necessary relations have been created before the auditing process begins (Porter, 1999).

The auditor in UNROLL is expected to perform audit operation on the operating reactor which I under his control and the decommissioning reactor which is under the control of the UNDOES manager but is still within his overall responsibility. In the first case, he will conduct an internal audit while in the second one he will consider it as an external audit procedure.

The auditor should first come up with the objectives, which he aims at achieving by carrying out the auditing procedure. In this case, the auditing procedure is aimed at establishing the risks on the site and coming up with the measures for dealing with these risks; to either eliminate them or reduce the effects that they can cause should they occur.

The next step is to define the standards for both the internal and external audits an example of this being ISO 9001 for quality assurance audits and ISO 14001 for the environmental based audit and so on (Audit commission, 2006).

He should then prepare an audit schedule for both operations. An audit schedule is a documentation of the entire audit process from the first day of initiation to the final day where the report is presented. The first item on the schedule is the date for the initial meeting between the leader and the audit team members where they are expected to brief each other on their responsibilities throughout the whole process.

At this meeting, they are also expected to schedule the interviews with the auditee, which is the next item on the schedule (Bender and Globe Staff, 2009). In this case, the auditors will plan meetings with the employees of both the operations reactors site and the decomposing reactors site. In the later, they audit team leader will also be expected to interview the manager so as to determine the extent of the safety measures that have been put in place.

After scheduling the interviews, the next agenda on the audit schedule is to review the relevant documents provided by the department that deals with safety in the organization. This can be done concurrently with the interviews since the idea of having an audit team is so that the responsibilities can be segregated.

The next agenda is to review the progress so far. This will require the team to set time for a meeting so that they can bring together the information gathered from the interviews and site visits and the document review. The evidence gathered is what will provide the auditors with the foundation of drawing conclusions and preparing a report.

In fact, the next item on the audit schedule is the development of a report, which is done using the findings of each member with regards to safety issues in the two sites. This is then discussed with the auditees, who are the management of the sites. In compliance with auditing standards, the audit leader should not be part of the team that reviews the operations reactors site since he is the manager (Milton, 2001).

This should be done by independent auditors who can be a part of the whole team. The next thing on the plan is to present the discoveries that have been made and to issue the final report to the relevant authority for implementation.

After scheduling the audit procedures, the next thing is to plan the main audit. This involves making decisions on the type of interviews that should be carried out and the timing of these interviews, arrange daily meeting among the auditors to discuss the progress by the end of each day and deciding on the method to be used when recording the interviews.

The auditors at this point should ensure that they have the necessary understanding of the risk control systems with regards to the nuclear reactors (Audit commission, 2006). They should maintain the scope of the audit, which is to determine the safety levels in these nuclear reactors sites and to find out the solutions to any safety loophole that may be identified. The questions should also be planned to ensure that they are relevant to the scope.

After the audit process has been planned for, it is necessary to consider the significance of the evidence obtained. It should be noted that poor evidence that has no proof can lead to loss of certification to the audit team, loss of other prospective contracts, increased cost of insurance to the organization and job insecurity (Turner, 2006, p 44).

Evidence together with its supporting records should be obtained for each topic that has been identified. Evidence for the findings can be in the form of interview sheets, photos or documents which should be provided alongside the final report. It should be noted that unsupported audit evidence can be challenged in court and the auditing team can end up losing its credibility.

Some of the questions that the auditors should ask themselves when performing the audit procedures in the nuclear reactors sites should be, first whether the systems and procedures in the organizations are appropriate enough and adequate in meeting the necessary standards.

The second question is on whether these systems and procedures are being followed correctly, third, whether prior findings have been considered and fourth, whether the appropriate documentary records are available. The fifth question is on whether the sites are endowed with the required facilities to meet the safety standards and whether these facilities are in good condition.

Next, the auditors should find out whether there is complete awareness on the operation of the health and safety controls and whether the people working in these environments are adequately equipped with the relevant knowledge on the safety hazards around them. Finally, they need to identify how the organization responds to the emergencies that are relevant to the scope of the audit.

In the course of the audit, at times it becomes difficult to determine the actions to take especially when the workers are acting in ways that are not safe. This is where the difference between the internal and the external audit will be identified. When conducting an internal audit such as the one for the operations reactors site, the auditor can address this issue directly by intervening and advising the workers accordingly (Hughes, 2005).

The auditor in this case should observe the situation and get the attention of the workers without creating any commotion, which might lead to effects that are more adverse. Once the workers are out of the danger zone, the auditor should comment about the safety issue addressing the consequences that might have occurred because of the action. He should then suggest safer ways of handling the job to ensure that the mistake is not repeated.

In the case of the decomposing reactor site, it is not possible for the auditor to address the risk as above since he is not part of the organization. He should therefore report such incidents to the management and ensure that action is taken by explaining to them the urgency of the problem.

It is then upon the management to decide on how they will handle this issue, but the auditors should include it in their reports and try to establish whether it is just an independent problem or a part of a more serious safety issue (Milton, 2001). The auditor, in this case, however, also plays a role in the decomposing reactor site and is not a complete stranger.

He works in the organization, and what goes on in the decomposing reactor site is part of his responsibility. The best way, therefore, is for him to handle this issue by discussing the possible solutions with the management and giving way for some other independent individual to do the implementation.

References

Agius, R., 2010. Standards and Audit in Occupational health. Web.

Audit Commission. 2006. Audit of Performance Indicators and Best Value Performance Plan.

Bender, B., and Globe Staff, 2009. Audit: Nuclear Reactors Safer, But Still Vulnerable. Web.

Blandford, S., 2006. Risk Based Safety Performance Indicators for Nuclear Power plants. Web.

Bozidar, M., 2009. Performance Indicators for Monitoring Safety Management Systems In Chemical Industry. Web.

Heron, R., 1999. Audit and Responsible Care in the Chemical Industry. Web.

Hughes, G., 2005. Safety Audit in Chemical Industry. Web.

Milton, J., 2001. UK Indicators of Performance. Web.

Porter, W., 1999. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. Web.

Turner, S., 2006. Audit Planning and Monitoring. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Audit Performance and Monitoring

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)