commissioning and start-up - pdo€¦ · web view · 2016-06-21refer to appendix 6 for table of...

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.

Document Title: Commissioning and Start-Up

Document ID PR-1159

Document Type Procedure

Security Unrestricted

Discipline Engineering and Operations

Owner UOP - Functional Production Manager

Issue Date November 2011

Revision 2.0

Petroleum Development Oman LLC Revision: 2.0Effective: Nov-11

This page was intentionally left blank

PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11

The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink®. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.

Keywords: This document is the property of Petroleum Development Oman, LLC. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior written consent of the owner.


i Document AuthorisationAuthorised For Issue November 2011




ii Revision HistoryThe following is a brief summary of the 4 most recent revisions to this document. Details of all revisions prior to these are held on file by the issuing department.

Revision No.

Date Author Scope / Remarks

2.0 Nov-11 Robin Norman UOP6 Aligned document with Shell Commissioning and Start-up Project Guide 14b – See Addendum for details

Apr-11 Robin Norman UOP6 Added Section 1.7 ALARP

1.0 Oct-10 Robin Norman UOP6 Amended text for phasing out of WinPCS and introduction of CMS

Reviewed and revised as required for re-issue

Rev 0 May-08 UOP6 New document combining PR-1159 and PR-1169

iii Related Business Processes

Code Business Process (EPBM 4.0)

EP.64 Design, Construct, Modify and Abandon Facilities

EP.65 Execute Operations Readiness and Assurance Activities

EP.71 Produce Hydrocarbons

EP.72 Maintain and Assure Facilities Integrity

iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF) Documents

The related CMF Documents can be retrieved from the CMF Business Control Portal.

Doc. ID Document TitleCP-115 Operate Surface Product Flow Assets

CP-117 Project Engineering Code of Practice

GU-623 Guidelines for CMS Users

PR-1172 Permit to Work System PR-1612 Procedure for Operations Readiness & Assurance

PR-1695 Quality Management System



http://sww1.pdo.shell.om/dept_applications/Infrastucture/IMandT/TAXI/cmf/index.htm


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction..............................................................................................................9

1.1 Background..............................................................................................................9

1.2 Purpose................................................................................................................... 9

1.3 Scope...................................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Distribution / Target Audience.................................................................................10

1.5 Changes to the Document......................................................................................10

1.6 Step-out Approval...................................................................................................10

1.7 ALARP...................................................................................................................10

2 Definitions and Terminology....................................................................................11

2.1 Field Engineering Definitions..................................................................................11

2.2 Commissioning Process.........................................................................................11

2.3 Commissioning Process Definitions........................................................................12

2.3.1 Mechanical Completion.....................................................................................13

2.3.2 Pre-Commissioning..........................................................................................13

2.3.3 Commissioning.................................................................................................13

2.3.4 Ready for Operations (RFO).............................................................................14

2.3.5 Ready for Startup (RFSU)................................................................................14

2.3.6 Verification Certificate of Readiness (VCR).......................................................15

2.3.7 Transfer of Custodianship to Operations...........................................................16

2.3.8 Statement of Fitness........................................................................................16

2.3.9 Initial Start-Up..................................................................................................17

2.3.10 Project to Asset Handover................................................................................18

3 Commissioning and Startup Execution Map and Execution Model...........................23

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................23

3.2 Commissioning Strategy.........................................................................................23

3.3 Verification.............................................................................................................23

3.4 Commissioning and Start-Up Plan..........................................................................24

3.4.1 CSU Interfaces.................................................................................................26

3.4.2 Integrated CSU Schedule Development............................................................26

3.4.3 Activity Listing..................................................................................................27

3.4.4 CSU Logic........................................................................................................27

3.4.5 Integrated CSU Schedule.................................................................................28

3.5 Commissioning and Startup Delivery......................................................................31

3.5.1 Identify and Assess Phase................................................................................31

3.5.2 Select Phase....................................................................................................31

3.5.3 Define Phase....................................................................................................32

3.5.4 Execute Phase.................................................................................................34

3.5.5 Operate Phase.................................................................................................36 PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



3.6 Commissioning and Startup Execution....................................................................36

3.7 Implementation.......................................................................................................39

3.7.1 Commissioning Involvement through Project Cycle...........................................39

3.7.2 Commissioning Involvement in Design and Procurement..................................39

3.7.3 Commissioning Preparation Phase...................................................................40

3.7.4 Preservation Maintenance................................................................................41

3.8 Testing Guidelines..................................................................................................41

3.8.1 Introduction......................................................................................................41

3.8.2 Commissioning and Test Procedures................................................................41

3.8.3 Factory Acceptance Tests................................................................................42

3.8.4 Offsite Systems Integration and Testing............................................................43

3.8.5 Offsite Testing Objective..................................................................................43

3.8.6 Commissioning Temporary Systems.................................................................43

3.8.7 Commissioning Modes of Operation.................................................................44

3.8.8 Offsite Commissioning Proposals and Statements of Intent...............................44

3.8.9 Preparation for Shipment..................................................................................44

3.9 Onsite Commissioning............................................................................................45

3.9.1 SIT and SAT at Site..........................................................................................45

3.9.2 Systems Handovers.........................................................................................45

3.9.3 Handover Documentation.................................................................................49

3.9.4 Handover Timing..............................................................................................50

3.9.5 Start-up and Initial Operations..........................................................................50

3.10 Integration of Operations into Commissioning and Startup......................................53

4 Organisation........................................................................................................54

4.1 Resources..............................................................................................................54

4.1.1 Project..............................................................................................................54

4.1.2 Contractor........................................................................................................54

4.1.3 Commissioning Vendor’s Effectiveness.............................................................55

4.2 Commissioning Organisation..................................................................................55

4.3 Roles and Responsibilities......................................................................................56

4.3.1 Project Team Responsibility..............................................................................56

4.3.2 Contractor’s Responsibility................................................................................57

4.4 Training.................................................................................................................. 58

5 Planning and Scheduling........................................................................................59

5.1 Objective................................................................................................................59

5.2 Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks............................................59

5.3 Milestone Setting....................................................................................................60

5.4 Commissioning Budget...........................................................................................60

5.4.1 Project Counter Estimate..................................................................................60 PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



6 Management, Administration and Control................................................................69

6.1 Main Contractor Pre-qualification and Bid Evaluation..............................................69

6.1.1 Qualification and Bid Evaluation Matrix.............................................................69

6.1.2 Critical Areas for Examination...........................................................................69

6.2 Technical Support to Commissioning......................................................................69

6.2.1 Design Authority...............................................................................................69

6.2.2 Impact of Design Changes................................................................................70

6.3 Management, Administration and Control Procedures.............................................70

7 Integrity and Verification.........................................................................................71

7.1 Commissioning Integrity.........................................................................................71

7.2 Operational Integrity...............................................................................................72

7.3 Management of Change.........................................................................................72

8 Commissioning Tools.............................................................................................73

8.1 Systems Key Drawings...........................................................................................73

8.2 Statements of Intent...............................................................................................73

8.3 Completions /Pre-commissioning Management Systems........................................73

8.4 Checksheets..........................................................................................................74

8.4.1 ‘A’ Construction Checksheets...........................................................................74

8.4.2 ‘B’ Checksheets................................................................................................74

8.5 Punch Lists............................................................................................................74

8.6 Proforma and Templates........................................................................................75

8.7 Spares, Consumables, Test Equipment and First Fills............................................75

9 Commissioning Documentation Deliverables...........................................................79

9.1 Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Start-up Procedures.................................79

9.2 Startup on Paper....................................................................................................79

9.3 Recording...............................................................................................................79

9.4 Critical Information, Pre-requisites and Exceptions..................................................80

9.5 Operations Management System (OMS)................................................................80

10 Interface Management (Internal and External)........................................................83

11 Health, Safety, Environment and Security (HSES)..................................................84

11.1 HSE in Commissioning and Start-Up......................................................................84

11.1.1 Summary of HSE-Critical Activities in Construction and Commissioning............84

11.1.2 Impact of Concurrent Operations......................................................................85

11.1.3 Hazards Specific to Commissioning..................................................................85

11.1.4 Special Consideration for Sour Gas Environments............................................85

11.1.5 Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Risk Assessments...............................85

11.1.6 Safety Campaigns............................................................................................86

11.1.7 Communication................................................................................................86

11.1.8 Main HSE Risks During Commissioning and Start-Up.......................................86 PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



11.1.9 Monitoring and Continuous Improvements........................................................87

11.2 Permit to Work System...........................................................................................87

11.3 Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Risk Assessments.....................................88

12 Flawless Project Delivery (FPD).............................................................................89

12.1 Overview................................................................................................................89

12.2 Continuous Improvement / Lessons Learnt.............................................................89

12.3 Key Performance Areas (The Q Areas)..................................................................90

Appendix 1 – Check Lists.......................................................................................................91

Appendix 2 - Main HSE Risks During Commissioning and Start-Up.........................................94

Appendix 3 – Typical Commissioning, Management, Administration and Control Procedure Documentation.........................................................................................95

Appendix 4 - Guidance for the Demarcation of Systems and Subsystems...............................98

Appendix 5 - Generic Functional Requirements of CMS System...........................................103

Appendix 6 – Table Contents Pages for Typical Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Startup Procedures........................................................................................................110

Appendix 7 - Abbreviation.....................................................................................................112

Appendix 8 – Other Related Documents...............................................................................114

Appendix 9 - User Feedback Page.......................................................................................115

Addendum of Changes at Revision 2....................................................................................116

Figure and Tables

Figure 2.3 – Typical Commissioning and Startup Process Flow...............................................12

Figure 3.1 – Commissioning and Startup Delivery...................................................................29

Figure 3.4 – Activities Interface Chart.....................................................................................38

Figure 3.5 Commissioning and Startup Deliverables...............................................................40

Figure 3.7 – Handover Steps..................................................................................................47

Table 3.8 – Post Startup KPI’s................................................................................................52

Figure 4.2 – Project and / or Contractor Commissioning Teams’ Organisation Chart...............56

Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks.........................................61

Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks (Continued)......................62

Figure 6.1 – Main Contractor Assessment for Commissioning and Startup..............................63

Figure 6.1 – Main Contractor Assessment for Commissioning and Startup (Continued)...........64




Figure 8.1 – Commissioning Technical Documentation Map for Execution and Handover........77

Figure 10.2 – Risk Assessment Standard...............................................................................88




1 Introduction

1.1 BackgroundEfficient and successful project delivery requires thorough preparation and accurate execution during the contracting, design, procurement, construction, commissioning and Startup phases. This document addresses the Commissioning and Startup element of project delivery and presents the commissioning preparation execution strategy to be adopted for all PDO projects1.

The commissioning phase is carried out over a relatively short period of time providing that all the upstream processes including design, procurement, and construction and pre-commissioning have been accurately performed and integrated. Critical to overall project success is commissioning involvement in these upstream processes to eliminate the need for later resolution of avoidable problems in the field.

1.2 PurposeThe purpose of this procedure is to provide Projects, Contractors and Operations personnel with a standardised approach to the preparation, organisation and execution of commissioning, completion, start-up and project-to-asset transfer activities on their projects. This will help to achieve consistency in the definition, division of responsibilities and execution across all projects.

Successful execution of CSU activities and achieving a flawless start up is dependent upon:

having a fully detailed CSU scope

having a correct CSU contracting strategy, agreed by all parties

ensuring fully integrated planning

having experienced resources available

ensuring there is sufficient preparation time

delivering the project using effective processes.

Once start-up activities commence on site, there is little opportunity left within the project schedule for rework or for recovery from flaws.

1.3 ScopeThis document addresses the management, technical preparation and subsequent execution of facility pre-commissioning and commissioning activities, up to the point where the facility is ready for Startup. It also covers Startup and testing of the facility to achieve steady-state operations and handover to the future asset owner’s organisation.

It addresses preparation and execution of commissioning and related activities for all types of developments, i.e. oil, gas or power generation projects, Greenfield or brownfield etc, along with execution considerations related to the execution strategies adopted. This document should be used in conjunction with .the guideline for Project to Asset Handover to ensure all requirements for project completion are met.

1 This Procedure has superseded PR-1169 – Commissioning Procedure Operations Input and PR-1159 – Initial Startup Procedure.




1.4 Distribution / Target AudienceThis document is based upon the latest Opportunity Realisation Processes (ORP's), lessons learnt and best practices. The document shall be made available to all Project Contractor and Operations personnel who are involved in Pre-commissioning and Commissioning / Startup phases of a project.

1.5 Changes to the DocumentResponsibility for the upkeep of the Document shall be with Corporate Functional Discipline Head (CFDH) for Functional Production Team Leader UOP, the Owner. Changes to this document shall only be authorised and approved by the Owner.

Users of the Document who identify inaccuracy or ambiguity can notify the Custodian or his/her delegate and request changes be initiated. The Requests shall be forwarded to the Custodian using the “User Feedback Page” provided in this Document.

The Document Owner and the Document Custodian should ensure review and re-verification of this document every 3 years.

1.6 Step-out ApprovalNot applicable to this document.

1.7 ALARPALARP is the acronym for ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’ which simplified means, ‘reducing the risk to a level at which the cost and effort (time and trouble) of further risk reduction are grossly disproportionate to the risk reduction achieved’. Full Compliance to PDO Standards and Procedures is a key element in achieving ALARP.

For more details refer to ALARP Definition



http://sww3.pdo.shell.om/livelink/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=12347089&objAction=Open&viewType=1&nexturl=%2Flivelink%2Flivelink.exe%3Ffunc%3Dll%26objid%3D12347189%26objAction%3Dbrowse%26sort%3Dname%26viewType%3D1


2 Definitions and Terminology

2.1 Field Engineering DefinitionsThe following definitions are consistent with ORP Phases 1 to 4:

Concept Selection That part of front-end engineering that leads to the production of the Concept Selection Report.

Concept Definition That part of front-end engineering from completion of the Concept Selection Report until completion of the project specification.

Define (FEED) All field engineering activities from opportunity inception until the production of the project specification.

Detailed Design All design work from the production of the project specification needed to produce a commissioned asset.

Follow-on Engineering

Closeout of site queries, punch list items, completion of manuals (post-commissioning) and as-built drawings.

2.2 Commissioning ProcessThe Commissioning Process verifies that equipment and systems that have not been operated before, or have been modified, are brought into operation safely and in the correct sequence.

The objectives of the process2 are:

To demonstrate and record that equipment or systems that have been modified or newly installed are able to perform in accordance with specified requirements;

To bring the equipment or system safely into service and hand it over to the asset owner;

For re-commissioning, to demonstrate and record that following repair, overhaul or routine maintenance, equipment or systems that have previously been in service are able to perform in accordance with specified requirements.

The workscopes of some brownfield projects may require existing facilities or systems to be taken out of service or to be modified, for which a de-commissioning process will be necessary.

The objective of de-commissioning3 is:

To demonstrate and record that equipment or systems have been removed from service in a controlled, safe and environmentally acceptable manner in accordance with specified requirements and procedures.

2 Whilst the extent and type of facility / project may vary, e.g. Greenfield or brownfield, the objectives remain the same.3 De-commissioning activities should be undertaken without impact or disruption to adjacent facilities and operations. De-commissioned equipment and systems must be left in a known, verified and documented condition.




2.3 Commissioning Process Definitions The OR&A process define those steps which are important in enabling a project to deliver its operational requirements.

Figure 2.3 – Typical Commissioning and Startup Process FlowThe following definitions are used in the OR&A4 process.

4 For more information on OR&A follow the link - http://sww.shell.com/ep/projects/operations_readiness_and_assurance/oranda_homepage.html



http://sww.shell.com/ep/projects/operations_readiness_and_assurance/oranda_homepage.html


2.3.1 Mechanical CompletionMechanical completion is a milestone achieved when all specified work is complete and subsequent acceptance inspection and physical testing is satisfactorily performed and documented.

Typically, inspection and testing activities performed to achieve mechanical completion will be carried out on a single discipline basis, by construction workpacks, building to systems / subsystems. Such activities will not require equipment or systems to be energised, but may include bench calibration of instruments, electrical insulation tests, electrical continuity tests, hydrotesting of pipes and integrity testing of valves.

Mechanical completion will be documented on checksheets which will be generated and managed by the Project Certifications and Commissioning Management Systems5 to ensure that asset integrity can be verified and demonstrated. On achievement of mechanical completion, responsibility for the facility will transfer from those responsible for construction to those responsible for pre-commissioning and commissioning.

2.3.2 Pre-CommissioningPre-commissioning6 activities undertaken after mechanical completion, but prior to commissioning, are to prove and validate the functioning of equipment. Such activities could involve the introduction of fluids into systems, but not hydrocarbons.

Typically, pre-commissioning activities will verify that documentation to support mechanical completion is in place, and not repeat work carried out to achieve mechanical completion. Such activities are carried out on a single discipline basis, by system / subsystem, and require equipment or systems to be energised, but do not require the introduction of process fluids. Activities include instrument loop checks, panel function tests, energising electrical equipment and running motors without loads. They are documented on checksheets, which will also be generated and managed by the Project Certifications and Commissioning Management System (CCMS) to ensure that asset integrity can be verified and demonstrated.

At the start of pre-commissioning the Completions Management System (CMS) needs to be ready, operational and maintained up to date and the commissioning Permit to Work (PTW) System7 activated.

Normal dump flushing is typically a construction activity but specialist flushing and cleaning, e.g. chemical and hydraulic cleaning, drying, oxygen freeing etc, falls within the integrated Commissioning Team’s responsibility.

2.3.3 CommissioningThese activities are those undertaken after pre-commissioning to dynamically verify functionality of equipment and to ensure that systems, or facilities forming part of a system, are in accordance with specified requirements to bring that system into operation.

5

6 Utility and life support systems could be pre-commissioned and commissioned prior to the pre Startup audit.7 For Brownfield projects that are being carried out concurrent with operational systems the Operations PTW system will be used.




Typically, commissioning activities undertaken after pre-commissioning will be carried out on a system basis by a multidiscipline team of engineers and operations staff under simulated conditions. Commissioning responsibility may necessitate nitrogen and helium testing, which shall normally be executed by specialist contractors and supported by the commissioning personnel.

The Commissioning Startup (CSU) Team will start up and operate the non-hydrocarbon systems during commissioning activities until these systems are fully proven and provisional handover to Operations can be carried out. For hydrocarbon systems, provisional handover will take place after all pre-commissioning and commissioning activities have been completed up to the point of hydrocarbon introduction. The Operations group takes responsibility for the introduction of hydrocarbons, the Startup activities and operation of hydrocarbon process systems. Co-ordination between the Operations and CSU is essential and particularly so on brownfield sites. In this instance, a Commissioning Leader may report to an asset owner for the duration of CSU activities.

The commissioning plan and Startup sequence shall be developed for the Integrated Production System (IPS) during the Front-end Engineering Design (FEED) and detailed design; with clear distinction between non-hydrocarbon systems e.g. firewater, utility air, sewage etc and hydrocarbon systems e.g. process system, fuel gas, drains/vents etc.

At some point commissioning requires the introduction of fluids (process or non-process) and operation of the system. This will be documented using a procedure which shall be compiled specifically for the project and provide for signature on completion of each step. The procedure shall form part of the Commissioning Management System (CMS) to ensure that asset integrity can be verified and demonstrated.

2.3.4 Ready for Operations (RFO)RFO status applies to all non-hydrocarbon systems and means that a system is fully commissioned, charged with its normal operating medium, and has been tested at operating conditions. An RFO Acceptance Certificate shall be raised on completion of the commissioning procedure scope, and presented to the Asset Operator for acceptance before any system (or sub-system) is placed into operation.

Operations shall have the opportunity to witness the system commissioning and verify any integrity or system performance criteria included in the commissioning procedures, and to agree the Punch List before formal acceptance.

2.3.5 Ready for Startup (RFSU)RFSU is considered as the point when all activities necessary to support the introduction of hydrocarbons, including all utility and process utility, safeguarding and shutdown systems have been pre-commissioned, commissioned and integrity verified.

2.3.5.1 Pre Start-up Audit or Review (PSUA)A Pre Start Up Audit (PSUA) shall be carried out prior to the initial start up of an asset on main hydrocarbon feedstock. The PSUA is a formal process carried out by an approved external audit team and is used to determine the following;

Facilities are constructed as per design;

Operations philosophy is complied with;

Asset integrity is verified and can be demonstrated;

Necessary vendor support identified and scheduled;




Operations staff are sufficiently trained and competent;

OMS is operable and ready for steady-state operations;

Commissioning ‘imperatives’ are in place and complied with;

Project assurance in place (TR, TI and MIMS);

HSE-MS is in place.

It may be preferable for the project to carry out a Pre-Start Safety Review (PSSR) prior to the PSUA to provide the project with the assurance that all preparations for readiness for start up are in place and are being managed effectively. This is to ensure all necessary pre-conditions for Facility start-up are in place. The PSSR shall aim to identify actions that need to be completed prior to the formal request for a PSUA.

2.3.5.2 Start-up on Paper ExercisePreparations for start-up will also include all personnel involved being part of the Start-Up On Paper (SUOP) exercise. The SUOP exercise ensures the Start-Up/Ramp-Up (SURU) procedure for the initial start-up is fully understood, the requirements in event of an emergency are known, the roles and responsibilities are identified, the necessary interfaces are known and the communication protocol for the start-up phase is fully understood.

Once commissioning checks are completed and signed off for each hydrocarbon system (which may include operation of the systems on inert fluids such as running of compressors on nitrogen), the Project Hardware Team shall issue an RFSU Certificate or similar document to Operations for acceptance of Custodianship. It is a requirement that all ESD/PSD testing has been carried out prior to start up and a full ESD test will be carried out post initial start-up.

Before formally accepting Custodianship, the Asset Operator shall:

review all systems status and assure themselves that integrity criteria have been demonstrated and required test criteria verified

verify that any necessary approvals have been received

ensure that remaining punch list items/exception list is agreed in terms of scope, cost and schedule.

Only when both the Project and the Asset Owner agree that systems have reached RFSU status can start-up activities with hydrocarbons commence in line with an approved initial start-up procedure.

On large projects or projects that have multiple Asset interfaces, or have a phased introduction of hydrocarbons, verification of the RFSU status will be required and included in the Verification Certificate of Readiness (VCR) documentation.

2.3.6 Verification Certificate of Readiness (VCR)The VCR is a process that has been used in recent large projects as part of the Project to Asset Transition Process. A preliminary version is developed during the Define phase and further detailed as the project moves to the detailed execution phase. It is more common to projects made up of multiple Assets. It can, however, be used in single Asset projects with different phases of start-up, e.g. Offshore/Onshore Oil Processing, Gas Processing and Gas Export, Chemical Processing and Shipping and Export.

The VCR is a checklist that is signed by all the necessary delivering parties and the receiving party to confirm that the plants and Assets, or parts thereof, have been verified as complete not only in relation to the hardware, but also in relation to the necessary supporting elements e.g. documentation, competency requirements, permits




and legislative issues. The VCR verification can be used to support the introduction of hydrocarbons to bring the Asset, or part of the Asset, into early operation and allow export of the product to another phase of the project, e.g. offshore oil via a subsea pipeline to an onshore production Facility.

The VCR covers not only the final sign off and acceptance of hardware elements of the project(s) completion activities but also the key project(s) and operational deliverables. These include, but are not limited to, legislative and regulatory requirements, operational HSE requirements, audit action status, related contractual requirements, interfaces and dependencies and competency and training requirements. The VCR provides both the delivering party and the receiving party with a clear list of items completed or in place in readiness for initial start-up and operation. It is designed to address the dependencies and interfaces of the equipment and processes.

NOTE: VCR sheets can be used in support of, but do not replace, the Statement of Fitness.

If an item within a VCR cannot be signed off as complete, a formal qualification shall be raised between the delivering and receiving parties. A qualification is NOT a Punch List item; it carries much more weight and responsibility and requires acceptance and sign off at the highest level in the project(s) and Operations organisation. A qualification will require assessment of the item, a mitigation plan and timing for the satisfactory completion and close out of the item and will include the details of the party(s) responsible for ensuring the close-out takes place within the required time frame.

When the VCR is complete, and any necessary qualifications agreed and signed, the responsible Operations Team(s) can commence the introduction of hydrocarbons and commence the initial start-up and ramp-up.

2.3.7 Transfer of Custodianship to OperationsUpon completion of a satisfactory pre-startup audit, closeout of all high priority PSUA and ‘punch list’ action items and verification of the facilities are ready for startup, custodianship for the facilities can be transferred from the Project Team to Operations. However from this time, through startup and up to final handover, Projects (including the contractor if applicable) will remain responsible for integrity performance, preservation and maintenance of the facility, and will supply all relevant procedures, materials and consumables, and supporting manpower, including technical support, to allow safe operation and performance verification of the facilities.

2.3.8 Statement of FitnessBefore hydrocarbons can be introduced into the Facility, a Statement of Fitness is required to be assured by the discipline authorities and signed by the Project Manager and Asset Manager. This is generally on initial start-up or prior to commencement of live commissioning.

The objective of the Statement of Fitness is to uniformly and consistently ensure that key Asset Integrity Process Safety activities and deliverables have been completed and verified by competent persons ensuring that hydrocarbons can be safely introduced and effectively managed with an acceptable level of risk (ALARP). The Statement of Fitness is the final sign off by the Project and Asset managers prior to feed hydrocarbons being introduced.

The key elements identified for the Statement of Fitness are as follows.

A Hazard and Effect Management Process (HEMP) is followed and documented to ensure selected concept/design carries residual risk that is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and tolerable.




The Asset Register, Safety Critical Equipment (SCEs), Performance Standards (PSs) acceptance criteria and Maintenance Routines are identified and loaded into the maintenance management system (SAP) before start-up.

All Process Safety Management (PSM) design and engineering standards are met (DEM2 PSBRs and PS aspects of DEM1 as a minimum).

The development and implementation of the design and operational HSE Cases is complete.

Provision of clear operating integrity envelopes and operating procedures.

Provision of as-built drawings, documentation and data pertinent to maintaining Asset integrity and process safety.

Confirmation that all activities and studies have been completed by approved and competent persons.

That a management system is in place for operating and maintaining the facility, including a Management of Change (MOC) procedure using Technical Authority framework.

The Statement of Fitness is a DCAF control element (ATA2 PE&C, RTA2 Surface Production MC&I, HSSE) and the DCAF process has a defined escalation path if parties do not agree on sign off.

NOTE; It is not the intent that the Statement of Fitness will be a substitute or replacement for commissioning acceptance dossiers with copies of documentation, derogations etc. It is simple way of verifying that the requirements and supporting information to allow the safe introduction of hydrocarbons have been addressed, documented and signed as agreed by the relevant responsible parties.

2.3.9 Initial Start-UpAfter signing of the Statement of Fitness, verification of close out of all PSUA action items and confirmation of RFSU status, the new asset is ready for the initial introduction of hydrocarbons and the phased ramp-up to full production. This is one of the most critical phases of a project, where the potential to harm people and damage equipment is very high. As such, it needs to be very carefully planned and managed, utilising a dedicated start-up manual.

During the initial start-up and ramp-up period, the plant is still subject to commissioning and performance validation, including the requirement to prove shutdown systems under flowing conditions. These shutdown tests and their implementation programme should be recognised within the first start-up and ramp-up timeline and be used to estimate planned flaring requirements. It is prudent at this time to include an allowance for ‘spurious’ or unplanned shutdowns (along with the impact on flaring) and to develop ‘what if’ scenarios and their impact, if problems are encountered.

The responsibility for the introduction of hydrocarbons into the facility lies with the future asset owner. This will be undertaken in accordance with commissioning and start-up procedures, overseen by commissioning staff, until all process, safety and functional checks have been completed and the facility has been fully tested for conformance with design.

During initial operation, certain equipment may be sensitive to fluctuating conditions, e.g. temperature swings on printed circuit heat exchangers affecting the service life of the installation. As such, initial start-up procedures shall incorporate steps and activities to ensure that the procedure can be safely aborted in the event of external intervention, unexpected results or malfunction.

From commencement of start-up through to final handover, the project (contractor) will retain responsibility for integrity and performance of the facility and will supply all relevant procedures, materials and consumables, and supporting manpower, including




technical support to allow safe operation and performance verification of the facility to demonstrate and achieve First On-spec Export. When export quality is met, export of hydrocarbons can start.

Before commencing Start-Up, all mandatory pre- Start-Up audit findings must be closed.

The following phases are normally recognised in a start-up plan:

Condition the plant for Start-Up (e.g. line walking, valve line-ups, emergency response exercise, etc).

Complete dynamic commissioning of process systems with hydrocarbons.

Initiate Start-Up in accordance with Start-Up and Ramp-Up (SURU) plan.

Test ESD systems and critical AI-PSM systems

2.3.10 Project to Asset HandoverProject to Asset handover or transfer is a parallel process to the commissioning and start-up activities, which serves to formalise the transfer of ownership of the new assets from the Project Manager to the Asset Manager.

2.3.10.1 System Handover and AcceptanceSystem Handover and Acceptance preparations mainly consist of the development of a Handover procedure. Main themes of this Handover procedure are:

elements for handover (what)

definition of handover work process (how)

definition of timing and priorities (when)

roles and responsibilities of all parties involved (who).

During early stages of Detailed Engineering, a handover procedure needs to be developed by the respective contractor(s), under guidance of and the framework provided by Owner and PMC.

Early preparation and alignment of System Handover definitions and priorities with all parties, e.g. Owner, PMC, EPC and other Contractor(s) is recommended. During Engineering, all the Asset data is developed and maintained in various electronic tools. This data needs to be developed into a database for control and management of System Handover, applying the Work Breakdown Structure as the database hierarchy.

The handover procedure also describes:

information management (how and in what format data and documentation is transferred)

change management (how to deal with changes on the Project)

dispute management (how to deal with differences of opinion, disputes between Contractor(s) and Owner, claims from Contractor(s), etc.).

System Handover is a phased process, System-by-System, until a complete Unit or Plant is handed over from Contractor(s) to Owner. The method for a phased system handover is the following illustration.




Method of Phased System HandoverTiming and priorities for System Handover contain the following.

Start-up sequence (from Systemisation)

Priorities for System handover

Timing for Handover of System files (Handover Dossiers)

Timing for Handover of Spare parts and Tools

Integration with Construction Schedule

Integration with CSU Schedule.

2.3.10.2 Execution and ToolsSystem Handover and Acceptance execution mainly consist of the Tools to be in place for:

Punching and Check-out (Protocols for Completion)

Acceptance and Sign-off (Notifications and Certificates)

Information management (Data and Documentation)

Preparation of System Files (Handover dossiers)

Material management (Spares and Tools)

Training programme




2.3.10.3 AssuranceSystem Handover and Acceptance assurance mainly consist of the following:

Quality Assurance Plan (part of Project Quality plan)

Definition of LIs and KPIs (Intermediate step targets and end targets)

Audit plan (Health-checks)

The procedure for System Handover and Acceptance assurance should be part of the total Project Quality procedure. Meeting the agreed quality is one of the main success factors on any project. All Contractor(s) (PMC, EPC and others) need to integrate System Handover assurance into the total Quality Assurance plans.

Leading Indicators (LIs) are intermediate measurement targets during the life-cycle of a Project. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are the end targets to be met at Start-up of the plant.

Leading Indicators for System Handover and Acceptance work process are, for example:

Systemisation fully implemented

Definition of key milestones clear

System Handover procedure agreed and issued

Dry run for System Handover successful

Audit schedule (health checks) issued

Handover of first System on target.

Key Performance Indicators for System Handover and Acceptance work process are, for example:

Zero days delay in Commissioning activities for Systems handed over (Ready for Commissioning)

Zero days delay in Start-up (due to ineffective System Handover)

No overload of resources during Commissioning activities

100% complete data and documentation available at System Handover (or Unit Start-up)

100% complete spare parts and tools available at System handover (or Unit Start-up).

An Audit plan, defining various health checks during the lifecycle of a project, is part of the System Handover and Acceptance Quality plan. Health checks will be organised at regular intervals to check if System Handover pre-conditions are in place and System Handover preparations are on track. A report will be prepared with the findings, recommendations, corrective actions and general action points.




2.3.10.4 Performance Acceptance CriteriaOnce initial start-up, ramp-up and availability have been confirmed, the focus will be on performance of the Asset. Performance criteria are defined prior to the FEED and could be further matured during FEED and detailed design. It is important to fully agree on the performance and acceptance criteria as soon as the design has been finalised. This detail forms the basis of the Project to Asset handover agreement and assists in the transfer of the Asset and signifies the end of the Project Team’s contractual commitment for project delivery. The Project Team shall prepare and agree with Operations, performance test procedures and criteria. The Operations Directorate, as Operator, shall be responsible for the introduction of hydrocarbons and operating the Facilities to prove them capable of transforming feedstock into products meeting specifications. A Facility Acceptance Certificate (FAC) is required to be signed by both the delivering and receiving parties as proof that all performance criteria has been met and exceptions (if any) agreed.

Performance Testing includes:

operate the Facilities under various conditions to determine the operating range or envelop for the Facilities

measure plant performance, which shall include measurement of feed composition and trending of Pressure, Temperature, and product streams for capacity and quality

compare actual performance to design intent, predicted performance and/or specifications and verify that target availability can be achieved

report findings. Identify corrective actions and responsible parties.

2.3.10.5 Approvals, Permits and LicensesIn addition to the internal handover process, transition planning for completion of the Facilities shall follow the requirements of regulatory premises and compliance as set out in the Project Approvals and Compliance Procedures and Plans.

At the RFC milestone assurance is provided to validate that equipment is installed in compliance with Design Standards, Building Codes and Technical Specifications and that the equipment is accepted for comprehensive testing.

Regional departments and agencies have a legal duty to ensure that their respective areas of the Project/Operator comply with the law in relation to the design, construction and operation of the new Facilities. Any medium and major changes to what was approved by local agencies and regulators shall be subject to management of change and the appropriate approvals by appropriate department and agencies. Any final permits required prior to the Facility starting to operate shall be identified and discussed in transition plans (or referenced to/with other documents), including but not limited to:

permits for flaring and atmospheric emissions

arrangements for effluent disposal and waste management

arrangements for emergency and spill response

permits/approvals required to operate process and transport products from the subject Facilities.

Thereafter, numerous operational Licences, Permits and Approvals have to be maintained for the life of the Facility to ensure ongoing regulatory compliance. The handover and acceptance of these ongoing operational Licences, Permits and Approvals shall be referenced and/or detailed in the transition plans.




2.3.10.6 Sustainable Steady-State OperationsSustainable steady-state operations is further proof that the project has delivered an Asset that meets the design integrity in terms of reliability and efficiency and needs to be achieved prior to completion of the Execution phase and final acceptance by the receiving party. It is often part of the required performance criteria. It has to be agreed in the early stages of the contract and the conditions fully agreed by both the delivery party and the receiving party. Sustainable steady-state operations is often the final ’reliability’ test that signifies the agreement of the transfer of the Asset from the project delivery team to the Operations directorate.

2.3.10.7 Transfer of OwnershipUpon completion of a satisfactory Facility Acceptance Test, the ownership of the Asset can be transferred to the Asset owner, which closes the project Execution phase. It is important to develop and agree what the relevant Facility Acceptance Criteria is between the delivery group and the receiving party in the early development of the project delivery plan. This will ensure that they both fully understand who has the responsibility for provision of support and resources during the final test phase and what the acceptance criteria shall be. Transfer of Ownership of a Facility from the Project Director/Manager to the Asset Holder (Operations Director/Operations Manager) shall take place in its entirety after suitable and satisfactory performance testing of the Facility, and through formal agreement via a Final Acceptance Certificate (FAC).

From the time of formal handover of Ownership, the Asset Holder becomes owner of the Facilities, systems, and sub-systems and the Project Director/Manager resigns from all responsibility for operating and maintaining the Asset. The following pre-conditions apply regarding Ownership handover and acceptance:

The Facilities shall be demonstrably safe, efficient and continuous, and shall meet performance acceptance criteria, including availability.

Asset Holder shall be ready to receive the Facility (all support services and organisations are in place).

All contracts closed or transferred.

All associated data and documentation handed over and in a pre-agreed format.

Certain activities may be outstanding at transfer of Ownership and any outstanding work shall be captured in a Punch List agreed between the Project Manager and the Asset Holder along with budget provision for completion of such works and confirmation that these activities can be completed without undue risk.

NOTE: The transfer of the Asset process is more formally agreed within the Project to Asset Transfer documents that are part of the key project guidance documents. Further information on the P2A transfer process, including the associated ground rules with delivery and receiving parties, are documented in the “P2A Transfer Guide”, which is maintained in the CSU toolbox, available from the Operations Readiness web site.




3 Commissioning and Startup Execution Map and Execution Model

3.1 IntroductionThe commissioning and Startup model should provide a systematic approach to commissioning, which identifies key success and influencing factors.

It should incorporate proven best practice, including implementation guidelines, which if followed will deliver and flawless Startup and sustained operation; delivering the project safely, on time and in accordance with strategic objectives. Reference should be made to Figures 3.1 and 3.2 for a graphical summary.

3.2 Commissioning StrategyExecution and contracting strategies will / may vary from project to project and are dependent upon market place and local requirements. Responsible parties for executing engineering, construction and installation, mechanical completion, pre-commissioning and commissioning up to the point of introduction of hydrocarbons (ready for Startup) may also vary with the complexity of the project. However, at Operations Readiness8 (refer to Figure 2.3) the future asset owner, supported by the project / contractor’s commissioning and engineering teams, will take control of the introduction of hydrocarbons from the reservoir (Startup), performance and endurance runs in accordance with procedures developed by the CSU Team (which should include engineering, projects and operations personnel).

3.3 VerificationEach stage of pre-commissioning and commissioning may involve the introduction of high pressures, high temperatures, electrical energy, hydraulic energy, hazardous and corrosive process fluids etc for the first time. As a consequence, it is essential that the quality, integrity and functionality of systems are verified at each stage as commissioning progresses from mechanical completion through to Startup and operation. To achieve this, the necessary controls, procedures and discipline shall be in place to formally record and hand over between those responsible for each stage of the work, e.g.:

From those responsible for construction (mechanical completion) to those responsible for pre-commissioning;

From those responsible for pre-commissioning / commissioning up to RFSU;

From those responsible for RFSU to those responsible for the introduction of hydrocarbons and operations thereafter.

All mechanical (construction) completion, pre-commissioning, commissioning and Startup activities must be auditable with records of the activities undertaken, their results and performance. These should only be formally accepted when in compliance with acceptance criteria and performance standards previously defined in checksheets or procedures.

8 This may not be the same for Small Projects which may not have complex teams for commissioning and startup. The introduction of hydrocarbons will still be under the control of operations, but the involvement of staff commissioning engineers may be greater.




It should be ensured that the future asset owner, or a delegated representative, is included in defining acceptance criteria for mechanical completion and commissioning activities such as flushing, blowing, flange torque, cleanliness, performance test measurement parameters and performance evaluation.

This, together with Witness and Hold points, should be defined in the contract such that it enables the future asset owner to select the important inspections. It is recommended to define Witness / Hold points at an early stage and to waive at a later stage where appropriate.

It is very important that project, future asset owner and contractor define / agree on the (communication) procedure, terminology definition and protocol associated with Holds and Witness points.

The following definitions on Hold and Witness points are stated in DEP 82.00.10.10-Gen – Project Quality Assurance (Manual), Section 5.2 Determination of Principal's Involvement:

Hold point – process shall not proceed without Principal's written approval of procedure to be used and the successful completion of the activity (e.g. welding procedures);

Witness point – process shall not proceed without Principal's attendance or written approval.

Other definitions may include:

Observation point – Principal shall be notified, but activity may proceed if not present;

Surveillance point – activity subject to ongoing surveillance during the progress of the work, no notification required;

No involvement in execution – sight of records required;

No involvement.

Where considered necessary / critical for the safe startup and integrity of the asset, tests and results shall be witnessed by project commissioning personnel, operations (asset owner) representatives, certifying authorities and regulatory bodies.

A Management of Change process should be applied if equipment is to be used outside of its operating window (e.g. stainless steel vessels used to store chlorine-containing flush / hydrotest mediums).

3.4 Commissioning and Start-Up PlanThe CSU Plan describes the methodology to be used for carrying out all Commissioning and Completions activities for the project.

The main objective is to define the documentation, procedures and philosophy used in the preparation for, and carrying out of, the mechanical completion, pre-commissioning and commissioning activities.

During this phase the contents of the Verification Certificate of Readiness, Statement of Fitness and Performance Test Criteria also begin to be defined. The CSU plan should cover the following components in detail:

a. Mechanical Completion Scope

b. Pre-Commissioning Scope

c. Commissioning Scope (Safety Check, System Commissioning)

d. System Boundary Limits (sub/system and discipline boundaries)




e. Piping Test Packs

f. Electrical and Instrument circuit/loop Inspection and Test Plan

g. Mechanical Completion Inspection Test Procedures

h. Pre-Commissioning Inspection Test Procedures

i. Mechanical Completion and Pre-Commissioning Verification and Punch Listing

j. Punch list Management

k. Management of Change (TQs, PCNs, etc.)

l. Mechanical Completion Dossiers

m. Commissioning Dossiers

n. Completions Database and Progress Reporting

o. Agreed process for exceptions or exemptions

p. Test and Verification Documentation:

FAT Inspection

Mechanical Completion Inspection Test Reports

Pre Commissioning Inspection Test Reports

Commissioning Test Procedures

q. Initial start-up procedures

In developing the above, the following Engineering Documentation Requirements and References should be considered:

Cable Diagrams/Schedules

Instrument Indexes

Piping Line Lists (including Pipe Class)

Marshalling Box/Junction Box Schedules

Vendor Lists

Vendor Manuals including all vendor documents/drawings, Contractor CSU and Operating Manuals

Commissioning Spares Lists

Valve Lists

Cause and Effects Charts

Trip Register/Schedule

System P&IDs

HVAC P&IDs

Schematic Diagrams for Piping

Isometric drawings

Tagging Spreadsheets

Equipment Data Requisition Sheets




3.4.1 CSU InterfacesThere are many interfaces both within and outside the project which are critical to CSU success. For instance, interfaces with the engineering discipline teams, the contractor design engineers, the future operators and technicians, across different hardware groupings within the project etc. It is essential to detail CSU interfaces in terms of roles and responsibilities in RACI charts as well as mutual deliverables and associated risks and opportunities. During Execute, the interfaces will need to be worked via workshops and regular progress meetings to ensure schedule and quality compliance.

3.4.2 Integrated CSU Schedule DevelopmentSuccessful development of a fully integrated CSU Schedule requires Systemisation to be implemented early in the Project. Terms and definitions of Project phases and milestones need to be clearly defined and agreed as part of the Project Handover process. The Roadmap and the sequence of activities to develop an integrated CSU Schedule are illustrated below.

Integrated CSU Schedule Roadmap PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



3.4.3 Activity ListingAfter the system definition has been completed (and hence the Assets are broken up into smaller parts) the process of defining activities for each system can be started. It is recommended to start the activity definition after Systemisation has been finished and prior to determining the relationships between the activities of different systems.

The activity list defines activity description, relationships, consumables required, duration, man hours, resources and special (temporary) equipment requirements.

3.4.4 CSU Logic All the information contained in the activity lists can be visualised into a Work Execution Flow Scheme (WEFS) which is shown below.

The WEFS shows the logical sequence of activities to be performed in all identified systems and, therefore, the total scope of CSU work. It includes all horizontal and vertical logic links between activities for each System and reflects interfaces with supporting and temporary systems.

The layout is such that on the left hand side of the drawing all the systems are listed vertically, starting with basic utility systems first, then the rest of the utility systems, then auxiliaries and finally the process systems.

Example of a Work Execution Flow Scheme (WEFS)




3.4.5 Integrated CSU ScheduleThe CSU schedule should contain the work scope, resources, contractual milestones, logical relationships and interfaces with the outside world. It should present the timeline of the CSU phase. The information from the activity lists and the Work Engineering Flow Schemes, which can be read as a PERT chart, is used to produce a CSU network schedule for the Facility. Once the durations of activities and the start dates for commissioning per system are added, a Gantt chart can be produced. By developing these flow schemes of activities and determining the timeline for the scope, it will be possible to look at the resources and support requirements that will be required for the execution and management of the scheduled tasks. The understanding of how to build a resource loaded schedule will almost certainly have an impact on the overall integrated schedule.




Figure 3.1 – Commissioning and Startup Delivery



Legend

DG Decision Gate

HO Hand Over

MC Mechanical Completion

PC Pre-commissioning

RFC Ready for Commissioning

RFO Ready for Operations

RFSU Ready for Start-Up

HOC Handover of Custodianship

FHC Final Handover Certificate


Figure 3.2 – Project Completion Flowchart – Construction through Commissioning into Operations




3.5 Commissioning and Startup DeliveryWith reference to Figure 3.1 – Commissioning and Startup Delivery summary, those activities to be implemented relating to commissioning and Startup delivery commence in the Identify and Assess phase and progress through to Operate phase:

3.5.1 Identify and Assess Phase1. Review each of the development options considered and determine the associated

CSU issues and requirements.

Identify and assess the key CSU issues (e.g. regional constraints, sales agreements, resourcing constraints, permits, environmental restrictions, etc).

Review the CSU delivery options for each development option in turn.

Compile the findings for each option for input to the feasibility report.

3.5.2 Select Phase1. Provide input to the concept selection process by developing CSU philosophies

and selection criteria for each concept option.

For each concept in turn interrogate the Lessons Learnt and PWR databases with respect to establishing specific data for each concept.

Compile a register of key issues (e.g. CSU duration, cost, regional constraints, HSF impact, etc) for each concept.

Prepare CSU philosophies for each concept on the key issues.

Identify the impact of the CSU philosophies on the concept selection criteria.

2. Identify and appoint a resource with the required CSU competency to lead the CSU delivery process.

Establish job description and competency profile for the position.

Establish timing and budget for concept definition and FEED phase.

Initiate recruitment process and appoint competent CSU Lead.

3. For selected concept, define the high-level CSU strategy and incorporate in the preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP).

Refine CSU philosophy for selected concept.

Validate key CSU criteria (e.g. costs, schedule, resources, startup logic, etc) by peer review/ benchmarking.

Determine CSU objectives and align with / influence project delivery milestones.

Develop the strategy to achieve CSU objectives.

Integrate the CSU philosophy and high-level CSU strategy into the Project Execution Plan.

Align the CSU philosophy with the operations philosophy and key acceptance criteria.

Integrate the CSU philosophy and strategy across the different hardware delivery groups (e.g. pipelines, upstream, downstream, etc) within the project.




4. Develop itemised cost estimates for all CSU activities associated with the selected concept, integrated commissioning logic and plans, in support of the overall project cost estimate and master schedule.

For each major hardware delivery area identify:

- High level CSU logic, durations and schedule.

- CSU execution resources and support requirement for each activity.

- Costs (line items) associated with each CSU execution activity.

- Resources, schedule and cost for preparing CSU deliverables.

- Resources, schedule and cost for supporting engineering, Factory Acceptance Trials (FAT's) and temporaries.

- Roll up to consolidate estimates and phasing for both project and contractor CSU activities.

Integrate major hardware delivery schedules into one integrated schedule to support and validate the project delivery assumptions and master schedule.

Benchmark costs and schedule against most recent similar projects.

3.5.3 Define Phase1. Develop project-specific CSU requirements for the Basis for Design (BfD), and

define the activities/ deliverables for the Front End Engineering Design (FEED) contractor and incorporate these in the Invitation to Tender (ITT) for FEED.

Based on the high-level CSU strategy, determine the project specific CSU requirements for inclusion in the BfD.

Identify the activities to be carried out by the FEED contractor (e.g. validation of the CSU philosophy and strategy, inputs to major equipment specifications including FAT's, etc).

Define the CSU deliverables to be provided by the FEED contractor during the FEED (e.g. system based commissioning and startup schedule, high-level logic, costs, interfaces, risks, etc).

Ensure the CSU activities and deliverables for the FEED contractor are clearly defined within the FEED ITT.

Review the final BfD and FEED ITT documents prior to issue to ensure the CSU requirements / deliverables are fully and clearly defined.

2. To ensure that the CSU requirements are fully and clearly addressed within the FEED deliverables (project and FEED contractor) and are suitable for the Final Investment Decision (FID) and EXECUTE phase.

Evaluate CSU content within tender submissions in support of FEED contractor selection.

Guide and assist the FEED contractor(s) to implement the CSU requirements within the FEED deliverables.

Ensure CSU requirements are included in FEED deliverables (Project Specifications).

Provide CSU requirements to the project control estimates, schedules, resources, performance criteria, contracting and implementation strategies, etc.




3. Finalise the CSU strategy and develop the detailed requirements to facilitate implementation of the strategy.

Define detailed CSU implementation requirements, including KPI's, systems definition, and minimum conditions for Startup, Testing and Handover, etc.

Identify integrated CSU organisation and resources including the agreement to deploy operations personnel within the CSU teams.

Develop roles, responsibilities and mobilisation schedule, (relevant to project locations).

Initiate pre-mobilisation of CSU team/ resources in accordance with the mobilisation schedule.

Delineate between project, contractor and operations roles and accountabilities, including project/ contractor to asset transfer.

Identify all CSU deliverables and prepare delivery schedule.

Validate budget control estimates for CSU costs.

Develop timeline and identify key CSU milestones

Confirm alignment and integration of key activities across all hardware delivery groups.

Finalise the CSU strategy document to incorporate the detailed implementation requirements and align with the project contracting strategy.

4. Specify within the EXECUTE phase ITT the controls, procedures and management structures necessary to ensure compliance with CSU requirements.

Based on the CSU strategy and detailed requirements, determine the CSU requirements for inclusion in the project execution ITT.

Identify and clearly define the activities to be carried out by the EXECUTE contractor(s) (e.g. FAT's, mechanical completion, pre-commissioning, commissioning, etc).

Define the CSU deliverables to be provided by each EXECUTE contractor (e.g. completions management system, pre-commissioning and commissioning procedures, first-start procedures, construction/ CSU integrated schedule, team and resources, etc).

Prior to issue, review the final EXECUTE ITT documents for each hardware delivery group to ensure the final CSU requirements/ deliverables are fully and clearly defined.

5. Verify that the final CSU requirements are fully defined for the project EXECUTE phase, and that cost estimates and plans are refined to reflect this.

Evaluate CSU content within tender submissions in support of EXECUTE contractor(s) selection.

Verify CSU requirements are included in EXECUTE deliverables of the selected contractor(s).

Finalise the CSU plans, milestones and budgets based upon the EXECUTE contractor(s) tender submission.

Validate CSU Startup and delivery plans (e.g. Startup volumes, costs, schedule, etc) are in accordance with FID promise.




3.5.4 Execute Phase1. Mobilise the CSU execution team in accordance with the mobilisation plan to

facilitate implementation of CSU requirements.

Deploy key personnel (project and contractor), as identified on the mobilisation plan.

Ensure personnel are fully aware of their roles and responsibilities, tasks and targets.

Ensure appropriate work terms and conditions are in place (e.g. location, work cycle, transition arrangements, etc).

Ensure all personnel are fully familiar with the CSU strategy, plans and work completed to date.

Ensure that the training needs (e.g. completion system, permit to work, HSE, etc) of the CSU team are identified.

Initiate the vendor mobilisation plan.

2. Provide CSU support during detailed design and procurement.

Provide CSU requirement to detailed design, procurement and contracting, FAT, commissioning spares, vendor documentation, first fill, etc.

Develop the systems and sub-systems breakdown structure with appropriate input to P&ID's (e.g. isolations, temporary systems, etc).

Initiate the punch list process for vendor skids.

Identify and engineer temporary systems.

Align the Engineering and Commissioning databases.

Finalise project specific equipment check sheets.

3. Develop a detailed CSU execution plan and related CSU deliverables for each hardware delivery group to support their execution of the CSU requirements during the Execute and Startup phase.

Develop detailed CSU execution plans – Level 4 (including resources) for each hardware delivery group.

Align CSU plans with construction plans to create an integrated Mechanical Completion/ CSU plan (Completions Milestones).

Develop a CSU deliverables plan for each hardware delivery group in support of the execution plans.

Identify all hold/ witness points, including certifying/ verification authorities, and include on plan.

Develop procedures and work instructions for control, administration and management of CSU activities.

Develop technical procedures for commissioning and set up system / sub-system dossiers.

Develop initial Startup procedures, inclusive of coarse “Startup on paper” exercises.




4. Execute the pre-commissioning phase in accordance with CSU principles and requirements.

Verify the mechanical completions of systems/ sub-systems by the construction contractor(s) (Punch Lists).

Execute pre-commissioning activities in accordance with system / sub-system check lists as maintained in CMS.

Verify all pre-commissioning activities for a system / subsystem has been completed ready for commissioning (Punch Lists).

Manage and report progress on pre-commissioning activities.

5. Execute site commissioning in accordance with CSU principles and requirements.

Re-instate systems post-installation to ready for commissioning status.

Execute commissioning activities in accordance with system / sub-system commissioning procedures and check lists as maintained in system / sub-system dossiers.

Witness the System Acceptance Trials (SAT's).

Verify all commissioning activities for a system / sub-system have been completed and handed over to asset operator.

Operate and maintain commissioned systems in support of other commissioning activities.

Conduct pre-Startup ESD and Shutdown tests and verify process integrity.

Conduct final “Startup on Paper” exercise and finalise procedures.

Manage and report progress on site commissioning activities.

Verify overall completion and readiness for Startup through project to asset transfer and obtain necessary approvals to Startup.

6. Initiate facility Startup in preparation for Ramp-Up and performance testing.

Conduct Pre-Startup Audit and agree action on findings.

Condition the plant for Startup (e.g. line walking, valve line-ups, emergency response exercise, etc).

Initiate Startup in accordance with Startup plan.

Introduce hydrocarbons and conduct live ESD and Shutdown testing programme.

Complete dynamic commissioning of process systems with hydrocarbons.

7. Ramp-Up the facility in accordance with the predetermined Ramp-Up profile and measure performance against project expectations.

Complete commissioning and Startup of remaining systems.

Evaluate and record performance.

Verify Steady-State performance can be achieved and maintained.

Conduct Final Acceptance Audit.

Conduct final handover from project to operations.




3.5.5 Operate Phase1. Conduct an exercise to capture Lessons Learnt and PWR's during the CSU

delivery process.

Review CSU issues and concerns captured during the project.

Finalise the Flaws and Lessons Learnt/ PWR worksheets for upload into the Lessons Learnt and PWR databases (if applicable).

Present key findings to management.

Submit final Flaws and Lessons Learnt/ PWR database (if applicable) to process owner.

3.6 Commissioning and Startup ExecutionThe generic commissioning and startup execution process to be followed is shown in Figure 3.2 – Commissioning and Startup Execution. This process is based on mechanical completion, pre-commissioning and commissioning being executed on a subsystem or system basis.

A system is a composite assembly of equipment, instruments, electrical supplies etc, which can be defined as having a singular purpose. It is a section of the assets for which a clear function can be identified, and to a significant extent can be commissioned and brought into operation either in isolation or with primary support e.g. power from adjacent systems.

A subsystem can be defined as part of a system that can be commissioned in its own right before being combined with other subsystems of the same system. Additionally, to facilitate or achieve commissioning milestones, subsystems / systems may be aligned with subsystems from a different system, or with other systems, to provide a commissioned entity.

A rational breakdown and ‘ring fencing’ of systems and subsystems to define the minimum required to achieve major milestones will facilitate construction (mechanical completion) workscope definition and aid planning. This will also result in efficient and logical milestones that support the delivery of the project in accordance with the execution strategy.

This approach lends itself to the systematic and logical flow of activities from mechanical completion through to pre-commissioning, commissioning and operations, and will result in an overlap of these different tasks. The benefits of a ‘subsystem’ approach can be seen in Figure 3.3 – Subsystem Approach to CSU.

Indicative activities to be carried out at the construction, pre-commissioning, commissioning and Startup phases are shown in Figure 3.4 – Activities Interface Chart.

These overlapping activities will conflict e.g. Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPS) and careful work management is required to ensure that the correct segregation, control and safety precautions are applied. SIMOPS might also occur between construction and introduction of first hydrocarbons, for example:

Hot oil drying with the use of a running furnace while construction is still completing hot work in areas receiving hot oil;

Ongoing construction of gas processing facilities while wells are being operated.



Petroleum Development Oman LLC Revision 2.0Effective: Nov-11

Figure 3.3 – Subsystem Approach to CSU




Figure 3.4 – Activities Interface Chart




3.7 Implementation

3.7.1 Commissioning Involvement through Project CycleThe effectiveness of commissioning will be enhanced if expert advice and input is provided at an early stage in the project (Identify and Assess, and Select phases). This is a necessity if the principles of CSU and flawless project delivery are to be implemented and benefits realised.

Strategically, from a schedule and cost perspective, it is beneficial to identify and resolve problems and issues at the earliest opportunity.

A problem found early, i.e. during select, design, procurement and procedure review, FAT or offsite commissioning, can normally be resolved with only limited or even no impact on the overall project schedule. The same problem found during site commissioning when the activity is on the critical path will add day for day. Therefore plan to:

- Maximise what can be tested at the vendors or commissioned at the fabrication / integration sites. This will find problems at an early stage but can come at some cost, e.g. the design of ‘fit-for-purpose’ temporaries at these integration and fabrication sites. Balance potential benefit against cost, impact on construction and schedule. Workscopes should not be repeated from site to site, but ‘travel well’ tested only.

- Incorporate steps and measures that address key technical issues likely to give problems during commissioning at the appropriate time in the development and execution schedule, e.g. system cleanliness, pressure envelope integrity, prototypes, complexity etc.

- Use incentives such as assigning contractor personnel to the Commissioning Team, which locks the contractor into rewards, based on the performance and up-time of the plant (as well as cost and schedule). Where the contractor is undertaking the work on an EPC basis it is important that the contractor’s scope, role and responsibilities clearly define where the contractor’s responsibilities end and where the project / owner takes over. A rewards strategy will encourage early attention in design through to build quality in providing trouble-free operation.

3.7.2 Commissioning Involvement in Design and ProcurementIn order to incorporate features that make the facility commissioning friendly, e.g. temporary strainers / breakout spools, isolation valves, drains, vents etc, and also eliminate bad practice and integrate lessons learnt from other projects, additional project, contractor commissioning and vendor presence should be incorporated into the Project Team as early as the FEED phase.

Additionally, early identification (during the design phase) of spares, preservation routines, consumables, first fills and documentation etc will ensure their availability when required. Similarly, early preparation of commissioning deliverables and identification of resources is essential. Early commissioning planning should influence the sequencing of the construction and procurement plans, and lead to a build sequence that delivers mechanically complete systems in accordance with the commissioning handover schedule. Refer to Section 11 – Flawless Project Delivery for more information.




3.7.3 Commissioning Preparation PhaseThe respective project and contractor organisations need to be resourced in sufficient time to prepare all deliverables necessary to control and manage the work, develop and populate the databases, identify the tools required to execute the work, and to prepare the procedures necessary to commission and startup the facilities. Figure 3.5 Commissioning and Startup Deliverables9 gives an overview of the requirements. A document hierarchy should be developed based on the PEP.

To ensure that all deliverables and resources will be in place in time for execution, a Deliverables Development Plan must be prepared and progressed by the respective responsible parties. This should be a controlled document subject to normal project control, updating and reporting procedures.

Figure 3.5 Commissioning and Startup Deliverables

9 Also refer to Section 8.3 Management, Administration and Control Procedures and Section 9 Commissioning Tools. PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



3.7.4 Preservation MaintenanceCovered by Flawless Project Delivery.

http://sww.shell.com/ep/projects/operations_readiness_and_assurance/ORAKLE/more_1-02_fpd.html

3.8 Testing Guidelines

3.8.1 IntroductionTesting prior to and during the commissioning and start-up phases comprises FAT’s, Systems Integration Tests (SIT’s) and Site Acceptance Tests (SAT’s).

The prime objective of the FAT is to ensure that any design and manufacturing errors are identified and remedied under controlled conditions at the place of manufacture. The SIT’s and SAT’s provide further field checks and ensures that the integrated process, control and safety protective systems function correctly before hydrocarbons are introduced into a new or modified facility. These three phases of testing should be planned to ensure that there is the minimum duplication of testing but that control and integrity prior to startup are assured.

3.8.2 Commissioning and Test ProceduresCommissioning Test Procedures shall provide a clear and detailed breakdown of the scope and requirements to commission the equipment and plant safely. Commissioning Test Procedures shall be produced by experienced and competent Commissioning engineers with input from relevant discipline or system engineers, Operations teams and from vendors where required. In some cases, the vendors commissioning procedure will need to be used; this should, however, be screened and approved to ensure it follows the project documentation requirements and that all safety measures are in line with the project HSE requirements for Commissioning. Commissioning procedures are written at system level and should include a listing of all support and temporary equipment, and the necessary interfaces.

Commissioning procedures will be signed off jointly by the relevant Commissioning engineer from the project and a member of the Operations Acceptance Team. Commissioning procedures shall, as a minimum:

indicate the responsibility of individual parties

describe, in sufficient detail, the step-by-step tasks

indicate the correct sequence of tasks

reflect any procedural implications from design reviews

indicate relevant vendor procedures and vendor requirements where required

provide a clear indication of the system boundaries and interfaces with other systems, or other plant or Assets and the relevant responsible party who will manage these interfaces

describe individual discipline elements and overall system requirements

indicate where the work is to be executed

indicate the conditions under which the work is carried out

list the material requirements that are required for execution.

Commissioning and start-up procedures will be further defined and finalised during the detail design phase.






3.8.3 Factory Acceptance TestsINTRODUCTION

Vendors are required to carry out performance and acceptance tests on their equipment. These tests will be carried out in accordance with approved procedures prepared prior to the tests. In order to be satisfied that test results conform to equipment specifications, the tests shall be witnessed by the project and contractor’s package engineer and / or inspection and commissioning / operations representatives. Due to physical, process and equipment constraints, final testing may only be possible later in the build when all contract equipment, controls and processes are available.

COMMISSIONING INVOLVEMENT

The integrated CSU Team should identify those items of equipment where their input is required from the facility equipment list. It must be ensured that they are on the FAT procedure review distribution and that the documentation requested, via purchase orders, is sufficient to record all information and results necessary to verify the equipment’s performance at the FAT. These procedures and documentation requirements must be finalised prior to the actual tests and equipment acceptance.

PERFORMANCE TEST WITNESSING

To ensure that FAT’s are conducted correctly witness and performance test results should be tied to milestone payments and it should also be specified in the purchase order if regulatory bodies need to witness these types of tests. It is considered good practice for representatives from the asset to be present at the tests in order to familiarise themselves with the equipment and its operation and maintenance.

FAT PROCEDURES

For all such packages, vendors are normally required to submit their proposed FAT procedure in advance of the scheduled activity (for example 8 weeks), along with the acceptance criteria for each check, and test for later validation and comment. FAT’s should begin with a listing of hardware checks and follow with systematic installation and function tests of the software and component parts. In order not to unnecessarily delay production, asset owner requirements for witness, inspection or review of vendor’s work stages must be specified in advance, together with notification procedures for the project / contractor to provide the required inspectors at the specified hold or witness points.

Where possible all practical testing in the factory should be incorporated and all FAT activity must be incorporated into one dynamic schedule, be maintained up to date, and with commissioning resources allocated to attend the FAT’s.

All system-based (dynamic) testing during FAT’s should be incorporated into the integrated commissioning and start-up plans.

EQUIPMENT RELEASE / PUNCH LISTS

Any deficiencies, punch list items and performance shortfalls must be recorded and agreed with the vendor prior to shipment. The way ahead for any rectification or punch list clearance agreed with the vendor should also be recorded and entered into the CCMS against the relevant subsystem, for tracking as an action item. Costs associated with clearance of punch list items by the vendor should be to the vendor’s account.

TRANSPORTATION AND SHIPMENT

After factory acceptance it is essential that cleaned and partially tested equipment does not deteriorate during transport and initial storage. In the case of vendor supplied equipment, whether a single item such as a vessel, or a complicated machinery package, the scope of cleaning, testing and preservation for shipment and initial storage at field destination must be clearly specified and implemented. Failure to consider protection against corrosion, shock load and humidity during transport (particularly in the desert) and initial lay down of equipment packages in field locations




(often also in an aggressive desert environment) can have serious project cost and schedule impact later. Equipment packages which are sensitive to damage by shock or climatic extremes, e.g. Distributed Control System (DCS) equipment, justify special consideration during all stages of transport.

3.8.4 Offsite Systems Integration and TestingAs an intermediate step it will often be strategically prudent to arrange equipment onto skids or into modules prior to transportation, e.g. compression and power packages.

With commissioning support and input to layout and equipment orientation issues, significant testing and commissioning can be performed at the assembly site / yard and be a critical activity in the project implementation strategy.

For control, safeguarding and fire and gas systems supplied by one vendor, the FAT should embrace the physical interconnection of all panels and monitors, where possible with remote control stations.

Software should be downloaded in, as far as practical, its final development state such that all field inputs can be simulated including alarm set points and loop tuning parameters, and expected outputs validated. Additionally, graphics should be standardised and have Operations personnel state their requirements which shall, where appropriate, be included into design, layout and acceptance.

Where multiple vendors are engaged to supply the equipment and software, it may be necessary for the prime or main supplier to set up a staged assembly area (controlled environment) to achieve the above.

Software validation against cause and effect charts and control philosophy must be systematic with all faults recorded for rectification and re-testing. Where design change or design immaturity leads to the engineering of ‘modification packs’ then implementation, testing and validation should be completed, if not during the offsite integration test, then onsite but prior to the facility going live.

The implementation of ‘modification packs’ during commissioning or after start-up will lead to downtime, planned and spurious, with repeated testing to validate the changes.

3.8.5 Offsite Testing ObjectiveIt should be a project objective to conduct as much pre-commissioning, commissioning and testing offsite prior to load-out or transportation to site. The project should identify within the PEP what commissioning activities should be carried out prior to transportation to site, and these activities should be included in a pre-delivery checklist. This will minimise onsite testing to ‘travel well’ testing and incremental subsystem and system testing once skids and components have been interconnected, pipelines laid and final interfaces made.

Within the constraints of weight, size and transportation logistics, facilities should, as far as practical, be laid out and packaged to facilitate subsystem testing at the fabrication / integration site.

In some cases it will be possible to temporarily interconnect related skids to achieve maximum functionality or integration testing, e.g. field auxiliary rooms to the equipment they control. Interconnection should as far as practical be with the full contract equipment, or when constraints exist with temporary systems.

3.8.6 Commissioning Temporary SystemsWhere temporary systems such as power, air etc are to be used, these should be engineered to appropriate project standards, risk assessed and HAZOP’ed as necessary.




3.8.7 Commissioning Modes of OperationAll non-standard modes of operation (i.e. using simulated process inventories) must be confirmed as suitable by the vendor and any design or operational limitations imposed adhered to. All offsite package / skid pre-commissioning, commissioning and testing must be subject to the same standard of controls, procedures, standards, planning, detail and documentation as those on site.

The CSU Team, which shall include members of the operations staff, will be responsible for all such dynamic testing. Where required key vendors shall be used to review or prepare the procedures and support / supervise the activity. Projects shall require to approve such procedures, witness the execution and agree the performance evaluation.

3.8.8 Offsite Commissioning Proposals and Statements of IntentIn order to understand the contractor’s proposals for maximising the amount of offsite testing, the contractor shall advise their capability / proposals with respect to dynamic testing on each major system / module / skid, for example, compressor recycle runs on gas or simulated inventories, dehydration system fluid circulation and heating etc. This shall be reported in a similar format to the following:

OFFSITE COMMISSIONING STATEMENT of INTENT

Facility (e.g. CPF)

Skid(s)/Module/Systems Reference

Dynamic Testing Proposed

HSE Requirements / Issues / Barriers

Performance Verification Possible

Temporary Interconnections and Support Systems

Qualifications and Assumptions

A catalogue of all offsite testing proposals should be submitted with the contractor’s technical bid.

3.8.9 Preparation for ShipmentOn de-commissioning of the skids/equipment for transportation to site, suitable preservation and protection shall be applied, maintained and recorded. Care needs to be taken to ensure systems have been dried, internally preserved and properly sealed.

Where special requirements need to be established for receipt and storage of equipment and packages, either on ‘import receipt’, in transit storage or on site, these need to be managed to ensure that there are no delays on import and that all storage and preservation needs are operational from the first day of these transition periods.




3.9 Onsite CommissioningCommissioning at site should not repeat commissioning carried out at the integration or module / skid assembly sites. However, it is necessary to sufficiently check that no damage or degradation has occurred during transportation and time standing idle. When systems have been broken down to facilitate transportation or depowered and preserved, then ‘travel well’ tests should be carried out to verify the status.

Where problems have occurred, e.g. foreign matter ingress or damage, it will be necessary to re-establish integrity and performance once remedial actions have been carried out.

These activities need to be integrated into the pre-commissioning / commissioning procedures to ensure that checks, tests and any remedial actions are captured.

3.9.1 SIT and SAT at SiteThere can be no guarantee that equipment is not disturbed during transit and generally not all testing is possible in the factory, or at intermediate integration site(s). Packaged equipment and control systems are normally tested (SAT, SIT) onsite prior to start-up, where actual process and utility fluids are available.

Preparation for SIT is most critical and must be co-ordinated by a nominated specialist, usually the Project Lead Instrument and Controls Engineer, to assure that when the packages are connected to the controls and safeguarding systems at site the communication protocols and connectivity are fully compatible. It is not uncommon for the anti-surge control system, local control panel, DCS, condition monitoring system, and fire and gas detection and protection systems associated with a centrifugal compressor, to be supplied and independently factory tested by different vendors.

There must be checks and procedures applied to ensure that everything will work first time when integrated tests are carried out at the site. This process must be driven early into the design phase to assure compatibility of databases and equipment, as well as cable tagging and engineering across the involved vendor packages in accordance with specified codes and standards. The greater the fragmentation of supply contracts, the greater the complexity of this process. Failure to cross-check during engineering and manufacture can lead to slippage in the field as a result of undetected incompatibilities lying dormant until discovered during pre-commissioning, with the resultant requirement for field changes leading to schedule delay, claims and counter claims.

Site acceptance tests are incorporated into the system commissioning dossiers. In certain cases this may require the presence of the vendor for installation and function checks and training of operations and maintenance staff. Where such onsite vendor involvement is identified, workscope and durations must be specified in purchase orders for later administration and monitoring by the CSU team(s).

During the engineering and construction phases, proposed vendor checks and tests will be reviewed by asset owner and commissioning discipline specialists to determine the acceptability of the proposed checks, dynamic testing procedures and the associated documentation. Should any shortfalls be identified in meeting the project’s mechanical completion and pre-commissioning checksheet requirements, the vendor will be requested to provide supplementary information, either in their own or in the project’s format, whichever is more convenient. Full details for all such checks will be recorded in the project’s progress tracking and certification system.

3.9.2 Systems HandoversFigure 3.2 highlights that point at which transfer / handover of responsibility for the next operation occurs through:




Mechanical completion;

Pre-commissioning;

Commissioning;

Commissioning up to ready for start-up;

Handover of custodianship;

Final acceptance.

The Project Contracting Strategy will dictate responsibility for all activities up to RFSU, the handover steps must be followed for the reasons explained earlier even if the same parties are responsible.

Each handover and acceptance must be supported with the relevant documentation as required by the CCMS and be agreed by both parties. Figure 3.7 – Handover Steps illustrates handover points, scope, prerequisites, documentation and handover/acceptance parties.




Handover Point Scope Prerequisites Documentation From / Acceptance By

Mechanical Completion By System / Subsystem (WBS)

Discipline Joint PunchConstruction / Pre-Commissioning

Construction Handover Cert. As-Built's

Construction Responsible PersonPre-Commissioning Responsible Person

By Discipline System Acceptance Cert. / Verification of Completion Checksheets

Pre-Commissioning Completion (RFC)

By System / Subsystem (WBS)

Discipline Punch Review Discipline Checksheet ReportSystem Checksheet Report

Pre-Commissioning Responsible PersonCommissioning Responsible Person

By Discipline

Commissioning Complete (in support of milestone phase or RFSU)

By System / Subsystem or Milestone (WBS)

Commissioning / Operations Joint Punch List

Commissioning Dossier / System Handover Cert. / As-Builts / Verification of Completion Checklist Completed

Commissioning Responsible PersonOperations Responsible Person

Ready for Startup (Interim for Operational Purposes)

By System / Subsystem or Milestone (WBS)

Area Handovers / Pre-Startup Audit / Punch List Review / Startup Procedures / Performance Test Procedures / Operations Readiness Deliverables / Emergency Response Preparedness

Verification of Readiness for Startup Checklist

Commissioning Responsible PersonAsset Operator

Handover of Custodianship By Asset / Full Facility Pre-Startup Audit carried outA Class Outstanding Punchlists cleared

Project to Asset Manager

Final Handover / Acceptance Full Facility Achieve Nameplate Performance / Commence Normal Operation / Guarantee Period Starts / Transfer of Outstanding Actions and Scopes

Final Acceptance Certificate / Performance Reliability and Capacity verification / Outstanding Scope Definition and Budget

Project toAsset Manager

Figure 3.7 – Handover Steps




This page is intentionally blank




3.9.3 Handover DocumentationCertification and Commissioning Management Systems are used to ensure that the strict requirements and safety regulations in accordance with International Oil & Gas installation practices are met.

CCMS shall be used to control and monitor the mechanical completion, pre-commissioning, commissioning and hand-over of the project against the components introduced (or modified) in the design phase by the design consultant. It will improve and maintain the quality, consistency and completeness of construction, pre-commissioning and commissioning. It will also facilitate consistent progress monitoring and reporting from construction to commissioning, and provide a tool for the communication and management of engineering queries and punch-list items.

During detailed design the project is broken down into independent commissionable systems and sub-systems. The identified systems and sub-systems are populated with mechanical, electrical and instrument components / items as identified from the Process Engineering Flow Schematic (PEFS) and other pertinent drawings and documentation. Each component/item is assigned the required mechanical completion and commission check sheets prior to Approved for Construction (AFC). These check sheets shall be issued to the construction contractor as an integral part of the AFC package. Each component / item identified shall be installed and commissioned as per the relevant PDO/project standards and specifications and verified against the applicable certification and commissioning system check sheets.

Throughout the construction, pre-commissioning and commissioning phases, the check-sheets shall be maintained and completed at site by the construction contractor and / or commissioning engineer, as applicable, and their status shall be entered regularly (at most weekly) into the certification and commissioning system by the appointed coordinator to enable actual progress to be monitored.

The hierarchical nature ensures that all low-level components / items will be completed before a high level structure such as a sub-system, system, package or area is complete. The completion status gradually moves upward in the hierarchy, as the project moves forward, until reaching the top-component which marks the whole project complete.

All documentation such as punch lists, Field Trouble Reports (FTRs), queries, notes etc., will be entered / cleared through certification and commissioning system to enable an audit trail to be maintained.

The certification and commissioning system will facilitate systematic registration and tracking of all details of the project and will be used to monitor and verify the project completion status as reported by the construction contractor.

Construction, commissioning and final handover certificates will be generated through CCMS and will be available from the CCMS coordinator / construction supervisor / commissioning engineer on completion / acceptance of all ‘A’ punch list items and the required check sheets.

For mechanical completion and pre-commissioning, handover documentation will comprise a series of certificates, generated by the CCMS.




3.9.4 Handover TimingAs systems are pre-commissioned and commissioned leading up to RFSU, it is to be encouraged that initial acceptance is carried out in a sequential fashion as systems become available. If not, the combined activity of accepting all systems at RFSU will delay start-up. After a system handover (commissioned) is completed, it is necessary for the asset owner to accept custody for the operation of the system within its design envelope and administer the Health, Safety and Environment – Management System (HSE-MS) procedures.

A sequenced handover process will lead to SIMOPS with the introduction of hydrocarbons while construction work is still ongoing in adjacent areas. Consequently this will require careful management and segregation of operational and non-operational areas / systems, e.g. spade blind/ isolation management procedures.

3.9.5 Start-up and Initial OperationsINDEPENDENT VERIFICATION – PRE START-UP AUDIT

Prior to start-up, an independent Pre Startup Audit (PSUA) will be conducted in accordance with the OR&A process or, for downstream; an operational readiness review / process start-up safety review will be conducted. This should be scheduled as a mandatory activity and should be conducted no earlier than 3 months from the start-up date, but no later than 4 to 6 weeks from start-up.

This audit must be scheduled by the project and comprise an independent team with skills and background to ascertain whether:

The facility has been constructed as per design;

Design integrity has been maintained since AFC issue;

Checks performed during commissioning were adequate to demonstrate integrity;

Operations are sufficiently prepared to undertake the normal running of the facility.

In order to prepare for the pre start-up audit, projects are encouraged to perform an internal assessment to establish their own baseline / checklist of issues and problems requiring to be addressed in advance, to satisfy the pre start-up audit. This should be completed against a Pre Start-up Audit Checklist. Further information is provided in the following, accessible through the OR&A toolkit:

- OR&A Pre Start-up Audit Report Kit User Guide EPP-RIJ-V99-00002;

- PSUA Terms of Reference EPP-RIJ-V99-00006;

- PSUA Topics Spreadsheet;

- GS.06.50034 HSE Assurance for Capital Projects, Project Guide 1 – Pre Start-up Safety Review and Operational Readiness Review.

VERIFICATION OF READINESS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF HYDROCARBONS

In accordance with the project phases, the project / contractor will undertake all activities up to the point of introduction of hydrocarbons. At this point, a provisional handover will transfer the asset (as defined in the phase boundaries) from the project / contractor to the future asset owner.

Verification of readiness for the introduction of hydrocarbons will be conducted as a joint exercise between the project, contractor and the asset owner. The purpose of this exercise is to confirm that all actions and activities necessary for the introduction of hydrocarbons have been satisfied and that any exceptions have been identified, recorded and any mitigation steps implemented.




At this point it will be confirmed by the project / contractor and asset owner that:

All systems, facilities, processes, skills and procedures required to control, safeguard and support the introduction of hydrocarbons / well fluids for live process systems testing, and subsequent production operations, are available, proven and commissioned (function checked and / or dynamically tested), and

The change of status of the site has been planned and that the controls are adequate to manage the ongoing activities.

Refer to Appendix 1 for example checklists of requirements for introduction of first hydrocarbons.

PLANT LINE-UP

The asset owner will, with the support of the contractor, validate and confirm that the plant has been lined up in accordance with the ‘line-up’ schedule in the commissioning and startup procedure and that all prerequisites have been satisfied.

INITIAL START-UP

All operational activities will be under the control of the asset owner, supported by the project / contractor as outlined in Section 4.3.

STARTUP, RAMP-UP, ENDURANCE, RELIABILITY AND INITIAL OPERATION

For a complex project where there may be several hardware delivery groups or sub-projects, an integrated startup and ramp-up model should be developed, taking into account all interfaces / interdependencies (e.g. feedstock management, flaring minimisation etc). ‘What if’ startup scenarios should be tested upfront? This model should be easy to use, interactive and dynamic and, in some situations, may be used for training and process simulation / tuning purposes.

During the startup, the model should be used to assess different startup conditions with actual plant responses and to predict the anticipated plant performance.

The project / contractor will support the above steps with specific procedures, technical back-up, materials, spares and labour through to provisional acceptance of the facility, i.e. after all operational parameters have been satisfied and demonstrated to be in compliance with the facility performance specifications during an initial (agreed) operations period of the full integrated facility.

During the initial startup and ramp-up steps, the procedures will incorporate sufficient shutdown and safeguarding actions to verify the operability of these systems under dynamic flowing conditions, e.g. tripping of individual wells, unit shutdowns, surface facility shutdown, including shutdown to a hot standby and / or to depressurised condition, total process shutdown etc.

The conditions under which these tests will be run, information to be recorded, performance interpretation and acceptance criteria will be agreed in advance, as part of the project/contractor’s procedure development process. This should incorporate regulatory checks as necessary.

During the initial startup and ramp-up period, the plant is still subject to commissioning and performance validation, including the requirement to prove shutdown systems under flowing conditions. These shutdown tests and their implementation programme should be recognised within the first startup and ramp-up timeline and be used to estimate planned flaring requirements. It is prudent at this time to include an allowance for ‘spurious’ or unplanned shutdowns (along with the impact on flaring) and to develop ‘what if’ scenarios and their impact, if problems are encountered.




During the initial startup period and for the first year of operation10, Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) will be measured against the Final Investment Decision (FID) promise to evaluate the effectiveness of startup and operation. Refer to Table 3.8 – Post Startup KPI’s.

Lessons learned from the findings shall be captured in the Flaws and Lessons Learnt Database.

No. Key Performance Indicator Comments / Remarks

1 1st Year Production Volumes (boe) since 1st Hydrocarbons introduced

Include Startup and ramp-up volumes regardless if Steady State has been reached in 1st year or not.

2 Integrated Production System effectiveness from wellbore to sales / export point

Expressed in terms of Operability Index (from Independent Project Analysis)

3 Schedule Dates for::

PSUA

RFSU

1st Hydrocarbon

1st Injection into hydrocarbon formation

1st Sales/Export

Steady State Flow

Steady State Operations

Final Acceptance Audit/Review

4 Startup Period Duration between RFSU and Steady State

5 Startup Efficiency (%), i.e. Planned vs. Theoretical Volumes Assuming 100% Flawless + immediate Ramp-up (from Produce the Limit) during Startup Period

6 Start-up Performance (%), i.e. Actual vs. Planned Volumes during Startup Period

7 Startup Value (boe / US$) i.e. 1st Year Production Volumes vs. Total Capital Spent (CAPEX)

8 Startup Cost (US$ / boe) i.e. OPEX during 1st Year Production vs. 1st Year Production Volumes

9 HSE

Table 3.8 – Post Startup KPI’s

10 To be agreed in Contract PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



3.10 Integration of Operations into Commissioning and StartupThe incorporation of asset owner staff initially in the project team, and also later in the CSU Team and contractor’s commissioning organisation, will give early exposure to and invaluable experience of the facility.

Initially, the operations (and commissioning) representatives in the project team should be of sufficient seniority and experience to provide expert advice and be capable of articulating the requirements of operations and commissioning within the defining phases, i.e. Identify / Select / Define, and to FEED and strategic documents.

Later, operations supervisors and operations / maintenance staff should be seconded to the project to develop their knowledge, through involvement in FAT and preparation of procedures. This leads to hands-on involvement in commissioning tasks related to those systems for which the operator / technician is to be responsible. The opportunity can be taken to cycle staff through the Commissioning Team. This will provide consolidation of classroom training for operations personnel and contribute to operational competency development.

There is a tangible advantage in using experienced Operations Supervisors in key positions, e.g. Lead Commissioning Engineers or Systems Startup Team Leaders, as they are used to leading multidiscipline activities, compared to Discipline Engineers who prefer to stay within their discipline.

The responsibility for the introduction of hydrocarbons into the facility lies with the future asset owner. This will be undertaken in accordance with commissioning and startup procedures, overseen by CSU, until all process, safety and functional checks have been completed and the facility has been fully tested for conformance with design. To facilitate this it is normal to hand over hydrocarbon / process systems on a provisional basis until testing has been completed and full performance / acceptance is agreed.

NOTE: The OR&A activities associated with the asset owner preparation and readiness to accept the facility from the project is not addressed in this document, but would be examined during the pre startup audit as a parallel accountability of the asset owner.




4 Organisation

4.1 Resources

4.1.1 ProjectThe CSU team shall be engaged within the project team to provide expert advice during project framing, concept selection, strategy definition and development of scopes of work and contractual documentation, and to oversee the contractor in fulfilment of his duties under the contract. The number, skills required and roles and responsibilities of personnel will vary dependent upon the project phase, but normally personnel will be required for the following:

Facility concept selection and FEED including the development of execution strategies;

Definition of scope of work, contract bidding and contractor selection for execution phases, i.e. for detailed engineering, equipment supply, construction and commissioning;

Commissioning preparation phase activities;

Implementation phase, up to RFSU;

Start-up, initial operation and ramp-up to verify performance and reliability up to Operations’ full acceptance.

Project commissioning resources must be sufficient and in position in time to:

Fulfil the project inputs in support of the above;

Provide surveillance, witnessing and acceptance of activities that verify contractor and equipment / systems performance.

Where the project is accountable for execution of pre-commissioning and / or commissioning, CSU team mobilisation will need to be planned during the Define phase and built up from the start of Detailed Design.

4.1.2 ContractorIn execution of their contract duties the contractor will be required to develop a pre-commissioning and commissioning strategy that incorporates its pre-commissioning and commissioning organisation. Depending on their role, the core team of this organisation could / should include the following:

Commissioning/Startup Manager;

Lead Commissioning Engineers;

Non-hydrocarbon Systems Startup Co-ordinator;

Discipline Commissioning Engineers;

Senior Discipline Commissioning Technicians;

Discipline Commissioning Technicians;

Commissioning Planner;

Vendor Co-ordinator;

HSE / Permit to Work Manager / Administrators;

Completions / Certification Engineer;

Document Controller. PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



The contractor’s commissioning team should be drawn from designers, experienced operators and vendors as well as seasoned and experienced commissioning supervisors, commissioning discipline engineers and technicians. The CV’s of contractor staff should be submitted to the project and their capabilities verified. Where the contractor has limited operational experience, consideration should be given to having a project commissioning representative on the contractor Commissioning Team.

The project / contractor’s organisation must be resourced and staffed in sufficient time to develop all inputs, deliverables, plans and procedures necessary for the safe execution of pre-commissioning, dynamic commissioning and hydrocarbon start-up in accordance with the OR&A phase requirements.

The project / contractor’s CSU organisation must be capable of:

Completion(s) and handover management;

Process integrity testing;

Integrated (Process Control Systems / Emergency Shut Down / Fire & Gas) systems testing;

Verification testing;

System dynamic testing and commissioning;

Safety management during commissioning including PTW administration.

4.1.3 Commissioning Vendor’s EffectivenessVendor field engineers and their availability at the correct time to suit the construction / commissioning programme needs forward planning. As an expensive resource, they will be underutilised if brought in too early and contribute to slippage if brought in too late. It is normal to appoint a vendor co-ordinator to manage this.

Placing contracts for field service engineers will normally be outside the scope of purchase orders but rates for such personnel should be requested at purchase order stage.

Where the project has significant dependency on one vendor demanding a large number of service engineers (often of different skills), spares and equipment, consideration should be given to incorporating a vendor representative as a member of the CSU Team. The vendor representative shall be responsible for co-ordinating all elements of vendor interface with the parent company, e.g. personnel scheduling, technical issues, documentation, spares and procedures. In the case of a large vendor presence being identified, an incentive can be applied to encourage superior performance.

It may also be prudent to include any aftercare requirements in the project requisitions as an added incentive.

4.2 Commissioning OrganisationA typical generic commissioning organisation will contain most of the positions indicated on Figure 4.2 – Project and / or Contractor Commissioning Teams’ Organisation Chart. This shall be tailored to suit specific project requirements, configuration of facilities, sites, timing, roles and responsibilities etc for both the project and contractor.




ProjectManager

IntegratedCommissioningTeam Manager

SCEFlowlines / Pipelines

SCEHydrocarbon

Systems

SCEUtility

Systems

SCEOffsite Integrated

Testing

CommissioningPlanningEngineer

Certification / Documentation

Discipline Commissioning Engineers(Vendor, Mechanical, Process, Electrical, Instrument etc)

Discipline Commissioning TechniciansOperations Technicians

OperationsSuperintendentStartup Coord.

OperationsSuperintendentStartup Coord.

OperationsSuperintendent

Logistic / VendorCall Off etc,

Training

Technical / Engineering

Support

HESSupport

ContractSupport

Number and positions facility dependent

Interface to Commissioning Team Manager

Figure 4.2 – Project and / or Contractor Commissioning Teams’ Organisation Chart

4.3 Roles and Responsibilities

4.3.1 Project Team ResponsibilityDuring the Define phase, the CSU team shall provide requirements for commissioning and startup scopes of work, FEED and execution for the Invitation to Tender (ITT) documents and also evaluate the expertise of potential contractors, relative to the contracting strategy adopted, and rank them for inclusion on the bid lists.

A CSU representative shall be appointed within the project whose role during the early stages of the project will be to give expert advice and input to the activities detailed in 4.1.1.

After tenders have been submitted, the CSU representative shall review and evaluate technical submissions for compliance with the contract requirements providing input to the overall clarification and selection process.

Once the contractor(s) is selected and mobilised, the role of the CSU representative will be to provide assurance and guidance to the contractor in framing strategy and organisation and in developing plans, tools and procedures to conform to the requirements of the contract and this document.




Throughout the FEED and detailed design, reviews will be conducted of key design documents, technical procedures, commissioning and operational documents. The reviews will also address information developed as part of the contractor deliverables, e.g. FAT procedures, commissioning spares recommendations, commissioning and start-up procedures etc.

During implementation, the project CSU Team shall witness, agree, note and sign that all performances, records and handovers are conducted to meet the project specifications or, depending on contractual strategies, take full accountability for execution as an integrated or stand-alone team, as detailed in 4.3.2.

4.3.2 Contractor’s ResponsibilityIn Engineering, Procurement Construction (EPC) contracting environment, the contractor’s responsibility shall be to prepare, plan, control and manage / execute all activities necessary to bring the facilities to RFSU, i.e. ready for the introduction of hydrocarbons. This shall include commissioning of all utilities, process utilities, control and safeguarding systems necessary to support the introduction of hydrocarbons.

The contractor shall develop adequate plans, procedures and processes to manage and control construction, mechanical completion, pre-commissioning and commissioning, with verification processes to confirm that all necessary preceding activities have been completed and that it is safe to proceed to the next activity. Verification shall be subject to witnessing and review by the project. Commissioning and start-up planning shall be part of the integrated project plan as per OPMG Chapter 4 (Work Planning and Scheduling). Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) will be used to organise and define the overall scope of the project. The EPC commissioning team, along with project engineers and supply chain management, need input into the project plan to ensure that the WBS will meet their needs for planning, monitoring and controlling.

Emphasis should be made to develop a WBS that allows for logical activity sequencing, identifying and documenting dependencies amongst scheduled activities and creating a precedence network.

During detailed design the contractor’s commissioning personnel shall develop an understanding of the facility to be commissioned, provide input to the detail design to ensure commissioning requirements are addressed and develop the technical procedures necessary to commission and start up the facility, along with the tools to support the activity.

The contractor shall ensure that all mechanical completion, pre-commissioning, commissioning and verification documentation will contain all information necessary to demonstrate full compliance with the BfD and form part of the handover documentation suite to the asset owner.

On completion of the PSUA the facility the custodianship will be handed over to the asset owner who will be responsible for the introduction of hydrocarbons in accordance with first startup procedures developed by the contractor, and agreed with the project and asset owner. These procedures will incorporate sufficient steps and safeguarding actions to verify that it is safe to startup the plant, to increase throughput to nameplate volumes and to hold at a steady state for an agreed, uninterrupted period. After achieving steady state operations performance testing shall be carried out.

At all times during startup, the contractor shall retain responsibility for plant performance and technical integrity. Only after demonstration of fully compliant performance will the facility is accepted by the asset owner (ownership).

During the initial startup, functional and integrity tests, capacity test and reliability proving periods, up to provisional acceptance of the plant, the project / contractor shall support the asset owner with sufficient technical support, labour and materials to evaluate performance, and to identify and rectify technical malfunction or breakdown.




Depending on the contract, the contractor may have little responsibilities post start-up, e.g. warranty issues. It may be necessary for the future asset owner to take ownership / leadership of follow-on activities with technical assistance taken from in-house engineering contractor or the project engineering contractor under the direction of the integrated startup team.

4.4 TrainingThe contractor shall normally be responsible for providing technical training to the asset owner at all appropriate levels, in accordance with specific requirements of the contract.

Commissioning (both the project and the contractor) shall facilitate the practical hands-on exposure of the asset owner’s operators, which shall be an integral element of their overall training plans. This training shall be agreed for each individual, be monitored and assessed by the contractor’s representative responsible for such training and be overseen by the project’s Operational Training Manager / representative. Operations / Maintenance Team members integrated into the CSU Team will fulfil a commissioning role, as compared to those retained by the future asset owner witnessing and accepting handover etc.

The project and contractor will be required to integrate asset owner’s staff into the respective CSU Teams. This will give early exposure to the facility through involvement in FAT and preparation and review of procedures and hands-on involvement in commissioning tasks. These tasks should relate to systems for which the operator / technician is to be responsible. The opportunity should also be taken to cycle staff through the CSU Teams.

The integration of such resources into the contractor organisation must be without detriment or reduction in the contractor’s obligations under the contract. The contractor shall agree the number and timing / profile of operators that can be effectively integrated into his CSU Team.

Competence assessment remains the responsibility of the training organisation and is not a commissioning function.




5 Planning and Scheduling

5.1 ObjectiveThe OPMG highlights that the thoroughness of the planning phase of Opportunity Management has a significant impact on the subsequent progress and ultimate project cost.

It has been repeatedly show that many of the problems identified in Value Assurance Review (VAR) 5 can be traced back to indifferent and poorly managed planning in ORP Phases 2 and 3. There is often a compelling requirement to fast-track projects, but in this situation it is of utmost importance to dedicate sufficient time and resources to get the design and execution elements right first time.

An overriding focus on schedule by those responsible only for the early processes tends to promote a misconception that problems or incomplete work can be sorted out at a later stage. This never happens. Even worse, the gaps rarely resurface until the final commissioning phase when functionality checks reveal design or construction deficiencies. Care must be taken when working the plan to avoid this trap.

To realise production from a project at the earliest possible dates, it will be beneficial to define project phases and to set targets which focus the implementation, commissioning and startup in a structured and logical sequence.

To meet the production demands of a phased project delivery or sequence, wells, flowlines, manifolds, transport and export lines must be integrated into the appropriate project phase and boundary interfaces managed.

To sustain production from one phase while completing and commissioning subsequent phases, the project / contractor should be satisfied that there are adequate isolations and boundaries to incrementally connect new facilities into the operating facility with a minimum of downtime to its operation.

For complex multi-contractor projects a requirement should be to develop an integrated commissioning and startup schedule on system level taking into account the phased handover concept.

Specific attention should be given to the planning of interfaces (e.g. timing of interface point availability for joint commissioning activities such as flushing, drying etc) and systems integrated performance tests, followed by the planning of interfaces for facilitating the complete / integrated startup.

5.2 Commissioning Planning Process and Building BlocksThe project implementation strategy should scope and define the main project phases and set the priority or interdependencies for their implementation sequence. Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks gives an overview and shows inter-relationships of the main phases in an offshore project, leading to the detailed development of systems completions, pre-commissioning, commissioning and startup logic.




5.3 Milestone SettingMilestones will be generated as part of the development of high-level logic for commissioning and startup of the facility, in accordance with the project phases.

The identification of these milestones will provide focus and structure to close out systems, and verify their readiness for dynamic commissioning and full commissioning. Each milestone shall include the relevant process control, ESD and F&G elements with ‘verification of readiness (VOR)’ confirmed.

The milestones should be incorporated into the EPC contract to minimise the risk of schedule compression at handover, leading to resource overload of the project / future asset owner. This could lead to accepting handovers without sufficient quality checking.

5.4 Commissioning BudgetThe commissioning budget will be made up of the project CSU Team costs, phased across the project lifecycle, as well as the contractor’s lump and / or reimbursable sums for preparing and executing the work. Typically commissioning man-hours would represent approximately 10% of construction man-hours.

The contractor’s commercial bid it shall contain commissioning (lump) sums for the following:

First fills (including chemicals and catalysts);

Commissioning spares (as against operational spares);

Contractor’s Commissioning Team (with deployment phasing);

Vendor and contract support services (as against operational support);

Test equipment;

Consumables, e.g. test mediums, gas for fire and gas detectors, fuses etc.;

Lubes;

Temporary facilities;

Temporary systems;

Subcontracts such as hydraulic system flushing and/or chemical cleaning;

Integrity testing (nitrogen/helium) etc.

5.4.1 Project Counter EstimateThe contractor’s bid should be evaluated by reference to a counter estimate of the above line items and for preparation, pre-commissioning, commissioning and startup support phases, including supervision, staff and technician costs.

The counter estimate should include allowances for productivity, mobilisation, rectification and growth based on uplifts to the estimated base workscope, man-hour content and line items.

Contingency provision, as a percentage of forecast costs, must be applied to account for unplanned events, delays or malfunctions. Assumptions made in this respect must be documented to facilitate reporting and cost forecasting.

The development of a base man-hour counter estimate should be built up by the application of man-hour ‘norms’ for discipline pre-commissioning checks using equipment, tag and loop counts. Commissioning estimates should be based on system knowledge, experience, start-up steps and the logic envisaged.




Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks




Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks (Continued)




COMMISSIONING ATRRIBUTES

HIGH RATING MEDIUM RATING LOW RATING SCORE AVG. SCORE

WEIGHTING

COMMISSIONING SUBMISSION

Overall Comprehensiveness

Exceeds tender requirement Tender compliant Deficient

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Scope Understanding Exceeds tender requirement Tender compliant Deficient

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORECOMMISSIONING ORGANISATION

Staff Level Staffing robust Staffing sufficient Under staffed

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Staff Experience All experienced Mostly experienced Limited experience

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Engagement Timing In time to influence design Just in time Too late

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Operator Involvement / Integration

Full & early involvement Minimum involvement Not committed

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Key position Job Descriptions

All identified and submitted Some identification – Top positions

Little or none

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORECOMMISSIONING PLAN

Understanding Fully understands / represents requirements

Generally meets requirement

Little or no understanding

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Logic Well developed / thought out Adequate / meets requirement

Inadequate / No logic applied

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Figure 6.1 – Main Contractor Assessment for Commissioning and Startup

COMMISSIONING HIGH RATING MEDIUM RATING LOW RATING SCORE AVG. WEIGHTING




ATRRIBUTES SCORE SCORE GIVEN

Schedule Fully meets schedule Marginally exceeds / underestimates

Does not meet expectations

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Commissioning Man-hours to execute

Within 10% of counter estimate

Within 15% of counter estimate

Over / Under estimated

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Execution Method Statements / Temporaries

Plan fully explained and credible

Plan & Methods outlined

Little or no explanation

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Resource Histogram Complies with resources by discipline

Overall outline Uncertain / Mismatched

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORECOMMISSIONING DELIVERABLES

Comprehensiveness Fully comprehensive list Some shortfalls Inadequate

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CMS Comprehensive Meets requirements Inadequate

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Administration Procedures

Fully comprehensive Some shortfalls Inadequate

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Commissioning Procedures

All identified & fully compliant Not complete No indication of numbers or content

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Preservation / 1st Fills / Lube Schedules

All identified & fully compliant Not complete No indication of numbers or content

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORE

Figure 6.1 – Main Contractor Assessment for Commissioning and Startup (Continued)






WEIGHTING

COMPANY EXPERIENCE

Similar Size / type of Projects

Excellent track record Has managed similar Little experience of similar

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Similar Location Long term experience of region or similar

Limited experience of similar

Little or no experience

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

In Country Support Established base Will provide base Will do minimum to satisfy

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORE

VENDOR MANAGEMENT

Involvement Commissioning involvement in FAT’s

Some involvement in FAT’s

No involvement in FAT’s

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Site Support Exceeds expectations / minimum requirement

Satisfies requirement Inadequate site support

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Vendor Procedures / Documents

Exceeds expectations / minimum requirement

Satisfies requirement Inadequate does not comply

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Training Modules Training plan / deliverable submitted

Satisfies requirement Inadequate commitment

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORE







WEIGHTING WEIGHTED SCORE

EVIDENCE OF SCORE GIVEN

SAFETY IN COMMISSIONING

Overall Commitment Full and comprehensive submission

Largely compliant Below required commitment

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Permit to Work Working system System meets minimum requirement

Inadequate system

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1



WEIGHTING WEIGHTED SCORE

EVIDENCE OF SCORE GIVEN

Risk Assessment methodology

Good process applied to all procedures

Process and application adequate

No process or commitment

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Safety management System / Plan

Good process, tried and tested Satisfies minimum requirement

Inadequate

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORE

ENVIRONMENT IN COMMISSIONING

Overall Commitment Full and comprehensive submission

Largely compliant Below required commitment

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Environmental Risk Assessment

Good process, tried and tested Satisfies minimum requirement

No process or commitment

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORE







WEIGHTING

STARTUP AND INITIAL OPERATION

RFSU criteria Outlined Minimum conditions for RFSU understood

Concept understood Little or no comprehension

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Handover Process Fully complies and responsibilities noted

Concept understood Little comprehension

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Verification Process Assurance Process in place Concept understood Little comprehension

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1st Startup Procedure Format / Contents Compliant Adequate outline provided

Inadequate outline provided

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Startup Timeline Fully mapped meets expectations

Adequate outline provided

Inadequate outline provided

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

TOTAL SCORE

MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORE




Petroleum Development Oman LLC Revision: 2.0Effective Nov-11

6 Management, Administration and Control

6.1 Main Contractor Pre-qualification and Bid Evaluation

6.1.1 Qualification and Bid Evaluation MatrixA matrix of key areas to be scrutinised during the pre-qualification of potential bidders is provided in Figure 6.1 – Main Contractor Assessment Commissioning and Start-up. The overall capability rating must be merged within the overall assessment process to arrive at a decision as to the total capability of the contractor.

The same matrix may be used as the basis for the technical evaluation of the bids received. It can also be used as a checklist to ensure that contractors are requested to provide sufficient information to enable a comprehensive assessment to be made.

Each key area heading has subheadings against which a rating (score) is given according to the assessment of the information and response provided. The individual scores are averaged for each main heading and then weighted according to their criticality to the commissioning and start-up process.

6.1.2 Critical Areas for Examination Overall submission;

Commissioning organisation;

Commissioning plan (relative to facility systems and project milestones);

Commissioning deliverables (including CMS);

Contractor experience and capability;

Vendor management;

Safety in commissioning including Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPS) and

testing;

Environment in commissioning;

Start-up and initial operations.

6.2 Technical Support to CommissioningDuring the Execution phase of commissioning it is likely that problems will arise, stemming from either the quality of the build, e.g. debris in piping systems etc or as a result of a technical issue preventing unit, system or facility performance is in line with the design intent.

6.2.1 Design AuthorityNormally the CSU team does not have any design authority to modify or change the design to rectify a technical issue, but they are able to suggest acceptable solutions.

All such issues must be reported via the Project Change Control or FTR procedures (PR-1247 and PR-1153 respectively) back to the Detailed Design contractor and to the responsible design authority. Where a solution has also been developed, this should be included for ratification by the design authority.




6.2.2 Impact of Design ChangesThe impact of design change may range from being significant, requiring the implementation of an engineering design change package (including HAZOP), to minor, e.g. wiring termination or software change. Either way the change must be authorised by the appropriate authority (with vendor input / support as required) and be reflected in revised engineering drawings / deliverables or, for minor changes, on the ‘as-built’ drawings.

Software changes must also be controlled by a Management of Change (MOC) procedure, which clearly identifies authorities for specific levels and types of changes.

Design changes affecting PEFS, Process Control Narrative (PCN), Instrument Safeguarding Narrative (ISN), Instrumented Protection System (IPF) documents etc need Project Team process design approval. However, field changes required for the timely resolution of clashes, termination details etc during the later part of construction and pre-commissioning, which do not impact operational or process functionality, may be approved by the discipline engineering authorities.

The implementation of design changes may delay progress on the critical path to RFSU or to some other major milestone post start-up. In order to minimise the effect of such issues, it is important that a core team of design engineers (authorities) be retained on the project through to the conclusion of the capacity and reliability tests. Thereafter provision is required for access to personnel familiar with the facilities.

If agreed in the contract ‘key personnel’ from the project may be retained by the asset to assist with ‘sustained running’ tests and / or ‘knowledge transfer’ to the asset personnel..

6.3 Management, Administration and Control ProceduresThese procedures manage, control and administer execution of commissioning. Such procedures will reflect the project implementation strategy, e.g. EPC, integrated team etc, with both the project and the contractor having complementary procedures related to their roles, responsibilities and interactions.

In a multi-project / site / subcontracting environment, the adoption of common project procedures across sites / contractors will save time and effort in managing interfaces between each. The need to work to common procedures and those critical for work interfacing and standardisation should be made explicit in the contracts.

The procedures required and their contents will vary depending on the contractual arrangements and local conditions. However, the generic functions covered from a technical perspective will by and large be common.

During the implementation phase, such procedures will control, administer, record and report physical progress and ensure safe systems of work, verification and documentation are maintained. Both the project and contractors should be audited to ensure that the procedures are being followed, are adequate for the work being undertaken and address interface requirements between the two groups and contractual requirements.

A listing of typical procedures is shown in Appendix 6 and whether the project or contractor have sole ownership, or where there are interaction / interface actions between project and contractor, highlighting where dual but complementary procedures may be required.




7 Integrity and Verification The commissioning process is a fundamental part of the verification that equipment has been installed and tested as per project and design standards. The quality and content of the commissioning documentation such as Inspection and Test plans and Inspection and Test records and the use of experienced and qualified engineers and technicians to interpret the test criteria and physically verify these tests in the yard or at site is the basis of the Technical Integrity Verification (TIV) process. The PDO Asset Integrity Process Safety Management Standard states as one of its foundation principles that all PDO assets shall, in their design, construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and abandonment; comply with applicable laws and regulations. That is why it is extremely important to ensure that all commissioning documentation and verification of testing complies with this standard, and the applicable laws and regulations. It is also important to ensure that Safety Critical Elements (SCE’s) are tested per the values specified in the SCE Performance Standards. These values shall be reflected in the relevant commissioning test documentation.

The CSU Manager/Lead for the project is accountable to track and verify the SCE requirements and ensure this is properly recorded and transferrable as part of the handover documentation e.g. Statement of Fitness.

7.1 Commissioning IntegrityEach stage of pre-commissioning and commissioning may involve the introduction of high pressures, high temperatures, electrical energy, hydraulic energy, hazardous and corrosive process fluids, etc. for the first time. It is, therefore, essential that the quality, integrity and functionality of systems are verified at each stage as commissioning progresses from mechanical completion through to start-up and operation. To achieve this, the necessary controls, procedures and discipline shall be in place to formally record and handover to those responsible for each stage of the work, i.e.

construction (mechanical completion) to pre-commissioning

pre-commissioning/commissioning up to ready for start-up

ready for start-up to the introduction of hydrocarbons and operations thereafter.

It is very important that project, future Asset owner and contractor define and agree on the (communication) procedure, terminology definition and protocol associated with Holds and Witness points.

Hold point – process shall not proceed without Principal's written approval of procedure to be used and the successful completion of the activity, e.g. welding procedures.

Witness point – process shall not proceed without Principal's attendance or written approval.

Where considered necessary and/or critical for the safe start-up and integrity of the Asset, tests and results shall be witnessed by project Commissioning personnel, Operations (Asset owner) representatives, certifying authorities and regulatory bodies.




7.2 Operational IntegrityAssets may be subject to ‘phased’ start-up, which can range from the commissioning of utility systems to the commencement of hydrocarbon introduction in the form of gas for initial fuel gas, oil for oil processing and refining and gas for gas liquefaction and export. This can happen whilst Construction and Commissioning activities are ongoing. On brownfield projects, Operations may continue whilst plant modification is taking place. Whatever the situation, it is vitally important that operational integrity is maintained whilst continuous Construction and Commissioning activities are taking place.

The commissioning of plant and equipment and the verification process used is a key contributor to assuring items identified as Safety Critical Elements (SCEs) are installed and functionally tested as per their design intent. The testing process, the competency of personnel, specific design change or modifications identified during testing, are all part of Asset integrity management and many of these requirements are outlined in the Performance Standards, Verification Certificates and Statement of Fitness documents.

7.3 Management of ChangeAll changes or deviations relative to Basis for Design (BfD) must be processed via the change control or technical deviation process before handover acceptance. In preparation for handover, each Project hardware team shall review its change register to check that any changes that could potentially affect the pre-commissioning, commissioning and approvals have been subject to a HAZOP review, addressed and closed out.

Modification requests shall be processed and controlled in accordance with the Project Change Control Procedure (PR-1247- Project Change Control & Standards Variance Procedures) before transfer of operatorship. After transfer of operatorship, modification requests shall be processed and controlled in accordance with the Asset Management of Change (MOC) process.



http://mus-ws-003/livelink/livelink.exe?func=ll&objAction=download&objId=96999



8 Commissioning Tools

8.1 Systems Key DrawingsKey drawings shall be marked up to delineate and identify system / subsystem boundaries. Typically these are Process Engineering Flow Schematics (PEFS’s) or Piping and Instrument Diagrams (P&ID’s) and single line drawings. Within the boundary of each system / subsystem, all tags for that system / subsystem are to be captured and maintained up to date in the CMS.

Where specific project milestones or phases have been identified, e.g. minimum facilities to achieve first gas, then that scope should be identified by grouping those systems and subsystems making up the minimum facility or milestone.

Guidance for the demarcation of systems and subsystems is contained in Appendix 4.

8.2 Statements of IntentHigh-level definition of the commissioning to be carried out, including the methods and key performance indicators (KPI's) for each system, should embrace design through to full dynamic commissioning and handover.

8.3 Completions /Pre-commissioning Management SystemsAn electronic database system (CMS) is normally utilised to capture and track the status of all system tags, subsystems and systems, and associated punch lists in a structured manner, enabling verification and recording completion of checksheets and punch list items.

Such systems normally attach the single discipline Mechanical Completion ‘A’ Checksheets (to be completed by Construction) and the single discipline Pre-commissioning ‘B’ Checksheets (to be completed by Commissioning) to each tag.

Some systems may also capture and record progress of dynamic commissioning procedural steps and will also maintain the system punch lists and handover documentation from Construction to Commissioning to future asset owner.

Systems may also document construction tests which are area based or cross subsystem boundaries, e.g. hydrotest packs and area handovers.

Change control must be rigorously applied to ensure databases and key drawings / documents are maintained up to date and reflect ongoing design change and the impact of engineering and site queries. The structuring of systems, tags, line numbers etc linked to checksheets can facilitate the population of the database by electronic transfer.

Major contractors may have their preferred or in-house system. Such systems will be reviewed, with reference to the project’s functional specification for the system, and accepted by the project if suitable. Where the contractor has no suitable system then the project will recommend suitable commercially available systems, e.g. CCMS, PWCom, and Pathmaker. Refer to Appendix 5 for generic functional requirements of the CMS.




8.4 ChecksheetsChecksheets for mechanical completion and pre-commissioning are normally project specific, related to project equipment, standards, functionality and integrity specifications, and are discipline based. Input and guidance for the development of project checksheets can be taken from engineering standards, equipment specifications and codes of practice (local/national and international), good engineering practice and Company standards. Normally generic and / or checksheets used on other projects will serve as the starting point.

Checksheets proposed for use by the contractor should be subject to review by the project to ensure that all critical steps have been included; ensuring the level of detail is fit for purpose, and is appropriate to the equipment being specified for the project. Input will be necessary from the engineering disciplines (contractor and project) and the future asset owner who may wish to nominate Witness and Hold points. Where the contractor does not have their own suite of checksheets, the project may issue these generic sheets for the contractor to make them project specific. These must be reviewed by the project.

8.4.1 ‘A’ Construction Checksheets‘A’ checksheets are single discipline construction checksheets by tag and discipline, related to the equipment incorporated into the facility. In some cases, several discipline checks may be relevant to the same tag.

NOTE: Mechanical completion and handover of a system / subsystem to pre-commissioning can be on a discipline by discipline basis until all disciplines relevant to that system have been handed over.

8.4.2 ‘B’ Checksheets‘B’ checksheets list, by tag, single discipline pre-commissioning checks to be carried out and recorded on a discipline by discipline basis. Pre-commissioning represents the first time that energy is applied to a component or tag, or is an activity considered critical for normal operation, e.g. vessel inspection immediately prior to final closure. When all the lists are complete, it generally means that the system is ready for multidiscipline dynamic commissioning. Checksheets should be specific to the equipment being incorporated into the facility and will normally record results and values.

8.5 Punch ListsAt the points of handover, e.g. at mechanical completion, ready for commissioning and ready for handover, it is normal for all systems to be jointly punched out (by the handover parties including involvement of the future asset11 owner’s operations and maintenance personnel). The punch list should record each incomplete item, the action required and the party responsible for closeout (refer to Appendix 5 for Punch Listing Flowchart).

11 The future asset owner should be encouraged to conduct early walk-downs ahead of formal punch listing exercises in order that any major issues are addressed in advance. Any issue raised should be documented and reported.




Punch list items are normally divided into two categories; Category A and Category B. Items which would represent a safety hazard if not closed out are designated Category A and the associated system or tag cannot be energised and brought into service until the required action is completed. Non-safety critical items are designated Category B and the system may be commissioned without detriment to performance with the action still outstanding.

A system or subsystem cannot be accepted for pre-commissioning / commissioning without mitigating steps being taken to effectively downgrade an ‘A’ item to a Category B.

Custody of the punch list and its administration, utilising the CMS database, shall lie with the Certification Engineer. However, responsibility for item closure will lie with the Construction Team / CSU Team as agreed during punch out.

Access to clear an item, post mechanical completion, must be given by the system / subsystem custodian (Commissioning or Operations) and be planned to suit ongoing activity.

Where custody of a system is transferred from one delivery group to another, e.g. construction to commissioning, and where responsibility for certain ongoing activities such as preservation is also transferred, these records must also be transferred and be subject to punch listing along with any other items of information required including vendor reports, as-builts etc.

8.6 Proforma and TemplatesThe Asset Register shall be populated by the Main Contractor using the templates provided by the Master Data Team. The information from these templates shall be verified and uploaded by the Master Data Team in to SAP.

8.7 Spares, Consumables, Test Equipment and First FillsThe contractor shall identify all spares, consumables, 1st fills and test equipment for delivery and storage at the appropriate location or site in a timely fashion in order to allow the work to proceed unhindered. This shall include certification documentation, and safe handling and storage information.

The contractor is required to maintain registers of all the above commodities, detailing the order status, delivery dates, location, usage rates and replacement orders. Additionally, calibration records for test equipment should be available, and the contractor must maintain these records and equipment ‘in certification’. The records shall be subject to project review and be available at all times.

Commissioning spares are normally recommended by equipment suppliers along with operational spares for up to 2 years of operation. The final selection of these spares rests with the CSU Team and Operations.

Commissioning spares should be confined to ‘soft parts’, i.e. seals, filters, strainers etc. This is on the proviso that where spares outside the maintained commissioning spares range are required during commissioning or the initial operational period, it will be acceptable to utilise the normal operational spares. The use of operational spares in such circumstances is subject to project approval and satisfactory arrangements being in place for replacement.




The level and types of spares ordered should be agreed upon, recognising the logistics and delivery lead times necessary to get equipment on site. Clear roles and responsibilities should be defined to identify who will order commissioning and initial spares to ensure that they are available on time. Vendors will be expected to specify their recommended commissioning and initial spares electronically in Electronic Spares Part Interchangeability Record (ESPIR)12 format. Commissioning spares should be itemised and not referred to simply as a ‘lot’.

Relief valves and other equipment subject to certification shall be re-certified for service no longer than 3 months prior to going into operation, or in accordance with local statutory requirements, such that the time in service to next re-certification is maximised. Depending on local capability, testing may be carried out either onsite by specialists, trained future operatives or require the equipment to be removed offsite for testing.

12 Refer to DEP 70.10.90.11 for more detail. PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



Figure 8.1 – Commissioning Technical Documentation Map for Execution and Handover




9 Commissioning Documentation Deliverables

9.1 Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Start-up ProceduresProject specific pre-commissioning, commissioning and start-up procedures are required and need to be comprehensive to ensure a clear understanding of workscopes, checks and tests, and to meet supporting information requirements. Refer to Appendix 6 for table of content of typical pre-commissioning, commissioning and start-up procedures.

Vendor packages for pre-commissioning and commissioning should be supplied with procedures. The Contractor shall ensure that the contents and format of the procedures is sufficient that they can be incorporated in to the main procedures which very little editing and re-write. Where this is not the case, the contractor shall be required to supplement or reformat the documentation to achieve acceptable quality.

It shall also be necessary in some cases to develop stand-alone integrity test procedures for process and safety systems. These procedures must be reviewed and agreed by the project CSU and operations personnel as they form the basis for the technical acceptance of the facilities. These documents will also form part of the documentation suite to be handed over to the asset owner and contain technical information (including as-built drawings) required to finalise the asset integrity monitoring, maintenance and operations procedures. Refer to Figure 8.1 – Commissioning Technical Documentation Map for Execution and Handover requirements.

9.2 Startup on PaperIn order to validate procedures, and also to familiarise those personnel directly involved in the startup, benefit can be achieved by conducting a Startup on Paper exercise. This should review, at the lowest level of detail, the steps and activities proposed for operability, risks, compliance with design and clarity.

Startup / ramp-up scenarios should be validated with the help of a startup model or dynamic simulator if available. All possible modes of operation and ‘what if’ scenarios should be tested. The methodology adopted should ensure risks and ‘what ifs’ are taken into account for each startup step.

A coarse start-up on paper exercise is recommended when the first draft of the procedures is available, followed by a detailed exercise just prior to implementation with those directly involved.

9.3 RecordingOnce executed, a procedure should contain all results, performances and records to demonstrate that the subsystem, system or facility performance is in compliance with the BfD. Compliance with the BfD should be by reference to and comparison with ‘acceptance criteria’.

The witnessing of checks, test and results must be recorded to verify that the project CSU / asset owner’s personnel agree with and confirm the results.

Where offsite module integration and pre-commissioning is to take place, the activity execution should be subject to the same level of detail, formats and contents. The procedures produced for the offsite activity should also cover preparations for shipment and intervening preservation requirements. It may be necessary to make provision for monitoring conditions which, if breached during transportation, may compromise




integrity e.g. pressure monitoring of nitrogen blankets, monitoring for shock loading of sensitive equipment.

The onsite procedures should commence from this point and deal with any ‘travel well’ testing to confirm that no degradation or damage has occurred during the transportation period. Without justification, there should be no repeat of tests carried out offsite.

9.4 Critical Information, Pre-requisites and ExceptionsProcedures must be fully comprehensive and require recording of sufficient information to act as the base document for the subsystem, system or facility handover to the project / asset team.

Where it has not been possible to fully demonstrate compliance because of constraints, sub-optimum performance etc, and then these shortfalls should be recorded as punch list items and follow-up action for their resolution agreed between project / operations and the contractor.

Procedures should also contain sufficient steps to verify that subsystems, systems and facilities are prepared and ready for pre-commissioning / commissioning and / or the introduction of hydrocarbons (RFSU).

During operation, certain equipment may be sensitive to fluctuating conditions, e.g. temperature swings on printed circuit heat exchangers affecting the service life of the installation.

Procedures must also incorporate steps and activities to ensure that the procedure can be safely aborted in the event of external intervention, unexpected results or malfunction.

9.5 Operations Management System (OMS)The Operations Management System (OMS) comprises processes, practices and procedures that ensure the effective management of an asset from conception to abandonment. The Operations Management System (OMS) consists of the following items, as a minimum:

Single asset register with a single hierarchy

Asset Integrity Verification System. CMMS (Computerised Maintenance Management System), E-SPIRs, Spares

Operations standards, guidelines & procedures (start-up, shutdown procedures)

Hydrocarbon management & accounting

IAP (Integrated Activity Planning), SIMOPS (Simultaneous Operations), MOPO (Manual of Permitted Operations), PTW (Permit to Work)

ARP (Asset Reference Plan), MRP (Maintenance Reference Plan)

OPEX MODEL (OPE$T)

Engineering Information System (EIS)

Figure 8.2 provides a simplified overview of the requirements for effective management of an asset.

For a ‘greenfield project’ the OMS may comprise all or part of that shown in Figure 8.2 and require that all levels of management documentation and structures are provided. For ‘brownfield projects’ where the work may comprise only of expansion or modification a majority of the OMS may be in place and the requirement is production and / or modification of elements at ‘specific’ level only. Ideally the OMS should be in




place at an early stage of the Commissioning and Startup process, but shall be before RFSU.




Figure 8.2 – Simplified Operation Management System Overview




This page is intentionally blank




10 Interface Management (Internal and External)In a multifaceted project where there is a range of different contractors with EPC or varying types of contracts, e.g. drilling, pipeline and process facilities, it is imperative that the interface points between each contract scope and facility are identified with clear and unambiguous boundaries (system and scope limits).

All identified interfaces should be maintained on a project interface register and be routinely reviewed and updated to ensure deliverables, timing, technical information and action parties are clear, and any discrepancies or misunderstanding of responsibilities resolved. The Commissioning Interface Focal Point will work these issues within the CSU Team as related to design, design deliverables, FAT, construction, offsite site, tie-ins, Operations and third parties.

In complex combined upstream / downstream projects, the integration of facilities and their operation across different project delivery groups needs particular attention, e.g. the integrated CSU logic, schedule, constraints and accountabilities within joint commissioning procedures for cross-boundary services, supply and delivery points. The impact of cross-boundary testing should also be well understood, e.g. shutdown testing, preparatory work, conditioning required and HSE controls.

Where the project interfaces with, or ties in to, other organisations or facilities, then the same approach will be necessary. This may require a higher level of management intervention when issues related to scope, budgets and action parties are in doubt or dispute.




11 Health, Safety, Environment and Security (HSES)

11.1 HSE in Commissioning and Start-UpThroughout the Construction phase of any project, personnel and site safety and HSE requirements are governed by the Projects HSE Plan and HSE Manuals and Policies. During the transition between project construction and Asset operation, HSE for commissioning can often become a grey area. It is, therefore, especially important that the safety requirements and standards for Commissioning activities are drafted, agreed and firmly in place well before these Commissioning activities commence. This is often referred to as HSE in Transition.

The HSE requirements for commissioning have to be developed well before the Project and Operational HSE Plans are finalised. As each project is different in relation to plant/equipment type, location, personnel and scope, the HSE requirements and awareness will also be different. It is, therefore, essential that all aspects of the project, the work, the location and the competences of the teams challenged with carrying out the commissioning scope is subject to review and the risks documented. This should be done early enough to ensure adequate time is available for the correct mitigation measures to be put in place to reduce these risks to ALARP.

11.1.1 Summary of HSE-Critical Activities in Construction and CommissioningThe HSE-critical activities in Construction and Commissioning can be summarised under the following stages (associated project management phase shown bold in parentheses).

Identify the major construction and commissioning hazards (Project Specification).

Define the general construction HSE requirements to be met in the detailed design stage (Project Specification).

Define the contracting strategy, the OU HSE MS and contractor HSE prequalification criteria (Project Execution Plan).

Develop the framework for the HSE Plan and specify the requirements of the contractors in developing the HSE Plan (Project Execution Plan).

Develop the design support documentation for Construction and Commissioning HSE (by design contractor) (Design).

Evaluate each contractor's HSE Plan and award contract (Construction). Tailor HSE management system to be site and activity specific

(Construction). Develop detailed method statements (by construction contractor) using HEMP

methodology to mitigate hazards to “Continuous Improvement” level as per the risk assessment matrix, where not already prepared (Construction).

Execute construction and commissioning in accordance with the HSE Plan (by construction and commissioning contractor and vendor representatives) (Construction and Commissioning).




11.1.2 Impact of Concurrent OperationsIt is important that a safe system of work is introduced to manage the risks and potential for harm to individuals, Assets and environment from the work to be executed.

A full operational Permit to Work (PTW) System (refer to Section 11.2) should be introduced when starting pre-commissioning as, at this point, energy will be introduced for the first time to individual components or units. The system will need to embrace ongoing construction work in parallel with commissioning and systems operation (including hydrocarbon operations) as the activities may conflict.

11.1.3 Hazards Specific to CommissioningThe commissioning period can be a time of increased risk due to the occurrence of some, or all, of the factors listed below.

Transition through temporary stages

Existence of concurrent activities

Introduction of different hazards

These characteristics can be exacerbated by the factors listed below.

Unfamiliarity

Time constraints

Personnel constraints

Clash of construction and operating cultures

Transfer of responsibility

Temporary waste streams

Commissioning must be specifically planned with these points in mind to avoid the occurrence of incidents.

11.1.4 Special Consideration for Sour Gas EnvironmentsThe increased hazards and risks that are present during Commissioning and Start-up are significantly increased in environments where sour gas such as H2S is present.

SP-1190 - Design for Sour Service Specification provides details of the risks of operating in sour gas environments as well as providing guidelines on minimising risks and mitigation measures including competency requirements for personnel working in sour gas environments.

11.1.5 Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Risk AssessmentsAll commissioning procedures shall be subject to a risk assessment, which should also cover environmental aspects, using the RAM (refer to Section 11.3). If necessary, steps to minimise or mitigate risks to as low as is reasonably practical shall be incorporated in the procedures.





11.1.6 Safety CampaignsAs a minimum, all commissioning and start-up activities shall be subject to the level of safety campaigns detailed and approved in the Shell, project and contractor safety management plans. Dependent upon the nature of the activity, and given the frequently changing job site conditions, more stringent campaigns shall be introduced as required and any security issues should be addressed. Typically, these campaigns include the following elements in addition to the common project HSE elements.

Coverage in Contractor (steering committee) HSE meetings

CSU induction (mandatory for staff needing access to CSU areas)

Barricading of CSU areas with sign posting and access control (for large, onshore projects)

Bulletin boards and poster campaigns

Tool box talk crib sheets

The safety campaigns to be adopted at offsite module and/or integration sites shall comply with the requirements detailed above.

11.1.7 CommunicationThe commissioning period poses special demands on the need for effective communication systems between members of the Commissioning Team. The normal plant-wide system may be insufficient for this purpose and may need to be supplemented, e.g. by two-way radio or extra telephone links. The necessary reliability of such communications must be considered as part of the provision of adequate hazard controls and recovery measures.

11.1.8 Main HSE Risks During Commissioning and Start-UpNo HSE Risk Close-out Response

1 Non-Hydrocarbon or Hydrocarbon systems leaks.

Use of Flange Management programme in place and emergency response training specifically for leaks.

2 Introduction of pressurised nitrogen for testing. Provide training to all staff about nitrogen. Ensure all procedures for pressurised plant are followed. Ensure all vent paths and lines are clearly indicated.

3 Shortcutting of procedures (e.g. safeguarding) or human errors due to stress (or alarm overkill).

Set up procedures with help from start-up operators who have experience. Provide training to all staff about start-up plan.

4 Non-adherence to commissioning procedures or start-up plans.

Develop start-up plan with assistance of experienced start-up personnel. Essential personnel on site for CSU only. Provide training to all staff about start-up plan and process and apply consequence management (Lifesaving rules).

5 Inadequate identification of energised equipment.

Follow tagging/lock procedure. Provide clear identification of live equipment and lines.

6 No clear demarcation between construction and live areas of plant.

Barricade the live area and plant with striped plastic tape, hang relevant warning signs and control access.

7 SIMOPS and CONOPS Development of a SIMOPS/CONOPS Procedure. Communicate and educate personnel on site. Clearly identify live lines and isolations with coloured spades, warning signs and tape and monitor closely to avoid unauthorized removal. Use of the PTW process.

8 Change from one Permit to Work system to another.

Provide training to all staff about PTW. Clearly communicate change to all personnel on site.

9 Drainage system becomes live (hydrocarbon contamination).

Observe drainage specification. Clearly identify live systems.




No HSE Risk Close-out Response

10 Inadequate or incorrect identification of system boundaries and isolation points.

System boundaries reviewed by senior commissioning engineers. All system boundary drawings and isolation points marked up and frozen. Changes made via the change management process only.

11 High-temperature lines, un-insulated flanges, etc.

Use cages or guards to cover the high-temperature flanges/valves/lines. Barricade area.

12 Commissioning personnel and resources not familiar with equipment.

Ensure adequate timing for hiring personnel and determine the correct competency levels for all commissioning staff. Competency assessments carried out.

13

Overfilling of flare KO system during commissioning.

Train operators. Use correct commissioning procedure.

14 No clear or unclear line responsibility during start-up.

Agreed responsibility matrix and strict communication protocol developed and put in place pre-Start-up.

15 Lack of understanding of CSU hazards/awareness of the frequently changing site conditions

Provide training to all staff. Use HSE meetings, bulletin boards and Tool box talks to update affected workforce of changing site conditions.

16 Use of sub-standard temporary equipment (e.g. hoses, heaters, burners).

Make sure that all temporary equipment is subject to engineering discipline review to confirm technical integrity and that CSU personnel are trained in their use. Removal of temporary equipment such as temporary cables and hydrotest gaskets shall also be considered.

17 Use of hazardous chemicals. Use MSDS and HEMP to identify necessary controls.

11.1.9 Monitoring and Continuous Improvements In order to ensure efficient and successful implementation of the CSU specific HSE controls, the associated framework needs to include regular management review (within the project and with the Asset Team), Contractor HSE meetings, high frequency site surveillance and safety scoring.

11.2 Permit to Work SystemIt is important that a safe system of work be introduced to manage the risks and potential for harm to individuals, assets and environment from the work to be executed.

A full PTW System should be introduced at commencement of pre-commissioning, as at this point energy will be introduced for the first time to individual components or units. The system will need to embrace construction work going on in parallel with commissioning and systems operation (including hydrocarbon operations) as the activities may conflict (refer to Figure 3.2).

The Permit to Work System adopted shall be dependent on the type of project and the phase at which the project is at.

For example:

On a ‘greenfield’ project where no hydrocarbons are present but utility systems have been commissioned and are being operated by the contractor on the client’s behalf, the contractors PTW system can be accepted, provided that it has been approved by PDO.

OR

On a ‘brownfield’ project where work is outside of existing facility perimeter and no hydrocarbons are present but utility systems have been commissioned and are being operated by the contractor on the client’s behalf, the contractors PTW system can be accepted, provided that it has been approved by PDO.




OR

On a ‘brownfield’ project where work is outside of existing facility perimeter and no hydrocarbons are present but utility systems are supplied by PDO, then the PTW system adopted will be that of PDO.

OR

On a ‘brownfield’ project where work is inside the existing facility perimeter then the PTW system adopted will be that of PDO.

Any activities to tie in existing hydrocarbon producing / processing facilities and for the introduction of hydrocarbons and subsequent activities, including ongoing construction and commissioning on nearby facilities, shall be administered by the operations utilising the PDO PTW System.

Note: A Manual of Permitted Operations (MOPO) must be produced to bring awareness to the management of any potentially conflicting activities.

The contractor may elect to adopt the PDO PTW System from the onset, subject to training of contractor personnel in its operation, assessment of personnel to fulfil their duties under the system and appointment of authorities.

11.3 Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Risk AssessmentsAll commissioning procedures shall be subject to a risk assessment. The Company’s standard for risk assessment is shown in Figure 11.1 – Risk Assessment Standard. If necessary, steps to minimise or mitigate risks to as low as is reasonably practical shall be incorporated in the procedures. Risk assessments should also cover environmental aspects.

A list of main HSE risks occurring during commissioning and start-up of a hydrocarbon producing and processing facility in included in Appendix 2.




Figure 11.1 – Risk Assessment Standard




12 Flawless Project Delivery (FPD)

12.1 OverviewFlawless Project Delivery13 (FPD) is defined as a focused and systematic approach to influence successful commissioning, start-up and first cycle operation. Its objective is to achieve trouble-free startup and sustained operational performance for the total project including first cycle operation. It is the adoption of processes and actions by which risks to this objective will be identified, assessed and addressed during engineering, procurement and site implementation, in a proactive manner. The approach used implements proven best practices, applies contractor’s own and asset owner’s lessons learnt, encourages co-operation in the application of flaw mitigation and risk management, and utilises the resulting improvement of normal work processes.

Commissioning is not in isolation responsible for FPD within a project, but will contribute towards its implementation and be the main vehicle through which its objectives will be realised.

The FPD tool has four key enabling elements, all of which require to be followed if the full potential of the tool is to be realised. These four elements are:

Flaws and Lessons Learnt Database;

FPD Implementation Roadmap;

Q specification definitions;

Use of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) in the FPD Initiative.

For further details refer to


12.2 Continuous Improvement / Lessons LearntIn order to provide feedback on commissioning experience, with the objective of continuously improving project performance and helping to realise FPD, it is important that both positive and negative experience be captured. This experience database – Flaws and Lessons Learnt Database, maintained by EPT-PO – is accessible to current and future project groups, and can be accessed to extract information and to submit flaws and lessons learnt from the project. A template is available in the EPT-PO Flaws / Lessons Learnt Database for management of project flaws and submission into the global database. It is important to utilise this template for submission in order that the flaws are reviewed efficiently.

13 Refer to http://sww.shell.com/ep/projects/operations_readiness_and_assurance/ORAKLE/dm_1-02_fpd.html for more detail PR-1159 - Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11




http://sww.shell.com/ep/projects/operations_readiness_and_assurance/ORAKLE/dm_1-02_fpd.html

http://sww.shell.com/ep/projects/operations_readiness_and_assurance/ORAKLE/dm_1-02_fpd.html


12.3 Key Performance Areas (The Q Areas)The key performance areas are:

Tightness;

Cleanliness;

Integrity ;

Process;

Static mechanical;

Rotating machinery;

Instrument;

Electrical;

Civil;

Operability/maintainability;

Health, Safety and Environment (HSE);

Prototypes;

Complexity;

Testing;

Experience;

Coinciding events;

Information;

Integration.

The delivery of quality in each of these 12 Q Areas is impacted by technical, commercial and organisational decisions taken throughout all project phases, from conceptual design through to commissioning and start-up. Monitoring against KPIs set during the project Select phase and taking appropriate remedial action ensures that the different Q Area performances stay on track. Guidance on setting KPIs and monitoring against them is given in the document Key Performance Indicators within the FPD Initiative.

http://knowledge.europe.shell.com/GetDoc?dataid=1347666&instance=publsiep&guest=true






Appendix 1 – Check Lists

Area Completion ChecklistThis list of disciplines and associated areas of passive completion inspection are for guidance and are not intended as a comprehensive statement, and may be added to as necessary for each designated area.

Discipline Inspection AreasArchitectural General Equipment

Platform Sanitary Equipment

Galley/Catering

Offices, Recreation, Cabin Areas, Control/Switchgear/

Local Equipment Rooms

Workshops

Stores

Electrical Installation and Distribution

Panels

General Racking/Earthing/Banding of Cables/Heat Shielding

Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Safety Equipment

Safety Signs and Routes

Instruments Installation

Insulation Insulation Area Checks

Structural Padeye and Runway Beams

Doors and Hatches

Walkways, Stairs, Vertical Ladders, Handrails and Grating

Bulkheads, Decks, Cladding and Penetrations

Surface Protection Painting

Fireproofing

Piping/Mechanical Flow Coding

Temporary Supports and Lifting Aids

Boundaries Clearly Specified and Isolated from Adjacent Area / Systems

Site General Access Routes/Roads

Access to Equipment

Surface Drains

Landscaping

Boundary Fencing and Security

Laydown Areas

Miscellaneous Housekeeping

Scaffolding

Temporary Plant and Equipment




'Ready for Hydrocarbons' ChecklistsChecklist of requirements for Introduction of 1st Hydrocarbons:

No Critical Items Action Party

Signature

1 HSE&S:

Site Security Plan

Emergency Response Plan

Conduct drills and debrief all personnel on site

Concurrent Operations Plan

Standing Instructions for bypass line

ERT procedures on site

Helipad availability

Standby emergency rescue boat

Site clinic with 24hr Duty Nurse

Safety equipment and safety signs installed in the plant

2 Documents:

As-built drawings – PEFS, one-line diagrams,

C&E diagrams, P&ID’s

Operating manual

Maintenance manual

Gas-in/gas-out procedure

Standing Instructions

3 Commissioning:

Closed out and accepted systems for gas-in

Commissioning and PSUA Team to confirm

HAZOP study – all items completed

Utility systems fully commissioned and tested

System Readiness Certificate for HC introduction. All systems required for gas-in must be signed off before gas-in

4 Communication:

Continuous voice communication (telecoms functional)

Continuous e-mail connection (telecoms functional)

Communication line test

Radio Room manning 24hr operations

Test ECC line with Duty Manager before gas-in. All key personnel will be equipped with walkie-talkies for the period of gas-in

5 Audits:

Pre Start-up Audit (PSUA) items closed

Pipeline PSUA items are all closed out

PSUA items are all closed out

6 Punch List: Category ‘A’ items closed out




No Critical Items Action Party

Signature

7 Equipment/Process/System: Leak test performed for facilities/flowlines/ pipelines and

risers

N2 purging completed

Walk-the-line exercise completed and confirm that all breaks and blinds are in place as per the PEFS

Site queries/field change request duly implemented and signed off

Accommodation and site office functional (including hook-up to data/voice network)

8 Meetings:

Pre gas-in meeting before introduction of hydrocarbons to all crew onboard. Essential personnel will only be allowed in the vicinity of the plant during first gas-in

9 Roles and Responsibilities Defined: Site Manager

Commissioning Manager

Start-up Superintendent

CSU Team Leader

Name & Signature Ref Ind. Date

Proposed By

Proposed By

Agreed By

Agreed By




Appendix 2 - Main HSE Risks During Commissioning and Start-Up

No HSE Risk Closeout Response

1 Hydrocarbon leakages (pressurising, temperature increase).

Tightness programme in place and emergency response training specifically for leakages.

2 Introduction of nitrogen. Provide training to all staff about nitrogen.

3 Shortcutting of procedures (e.g. safeguarding) or human errors due to stress (or alarm overkill).

Set up procedures with help from start-up operators who have experience. Provide training to all staff about start-up plan.

4 Non-adherence to start-up plan. Set up start-up plan with help from start-up operators who have experience. Provide training to all staff about start-up plan.

5 Inadequate identification of energized equipment.

Follow tagging/lock procedure.

6 No clear demarcation between construction and live blocks.

Barricade the live blocks with striped plastic tape and hang the warning board to control access.

7 Live lines running through construction areas.

Follow spade blind management procedure.

8 Change from one Permit to Work system to another.

Provide training to all staff about PTW.

9 Drainage system becomes live (hydrocarbon contamination).

Observe drainage specification.

10 (Running) equipment failure. Set up emergency plan for equipment failure and train staff.

11 High-temperature lines, un-insulated flanges etc.

Use cages or guards to cover the high-temperature flanges / valves / lines.

12 Overfilling of flare system. Train operators.




Appendix 3 – Typical Commissioning, Management, Administration and Control Procedure DocumentationNote: Accountability as indicated by an X may change dependent upon project execution and contracting strategies.

Subject Project EPC Contractor

STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Project Commissioning Execution and Planning Strategy X

Contractor Commissioning Strategy X

Project Phase Definitions X

ITT Commissioning and Start-up Workscopes and Strategy X

PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

Mobilisation Schedule and Procedures X X

Job Card Preparation Procedure X

Commissioning Planning Procedure X

SAFETY

Commissioning Procedure Safety and Environmental Assessments X X

Permit Requirements for Process Envelope

(N2/He Leak, Air) Testing

X X

Leak Testing Pre Test Notification and Acceptance Procedure X

Inspection of Electrical Equipment for use in Haz Areas X

Permit to Work X X

Electrical Competence X X

Safety/Technical Training and Competency X X

MECHANICAL COMPLETION/PRE-COMMISSIONING TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONTROL

Project Tagging System X

Demarcation of Commissioning Systems and Subsystems X

Commissioning Temporary Requirements X

Offsite/Fabrication/Module Assembly Yard Commissioning

Management and Control

X

Commissioning Database Control X

Subsystem Numbering X

Commissioning Procedure/Dossier Numbering X

CMS Operating Procedure X

CMS Functional Specification and Management Procedure X X

Mechanical Completion Checksheets (A) X X





Pre-commissioning Checksheets (B) X X

Control of Prime Drawings X

As-built Requirements X X

COMMISSIONING PROCEDURES

Commissioning Procedure Preparation, Contents and Approvals X X

Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Implementation and Acceptance

X X

INTEGRITY VERIFICATION

Nitrogen/Helium Leak Testing X

PSV Testing and Certification X

Control of temporary links X X

Commissioning Strategy for Testing and Validation of ICCS X X

Software Configuration Change Control X X

Disturbed and Witnessed Joint Register X X

VOR Integrated Test Procedure X X

SYSTEMS HANDOVER

Handover Procedure and Documentation – Construction to CSU to Operations

X X

Punch Listing Procedure X X

Area Completion and Handover X X

Commissioning Documentation X X

Pre Start-up Audit Preparations X

STARTUP PROCEDURES

Venting and Flaring Monitoring and Control X

Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Preparation, Reviews and X X

Simulation

Capacity and Endurance Test Procedures X X

De-commissioning and Disposal Procedures X

Commissioning Input to Operating Procedures X X

FAT

Factory Acceptance Test Procedure Review/Approval X X

Factory Acceptance Testing – all requirements X X

PRESERVATION, SPARES, CONSUMABLES AND TEST EQUIPMENT

Preparation and Application of Preservation Procedures X

Calibration, Inspection and Control of Test Equipment X





Identification, Ordering and Control of Commissioning Spares X X

VENDORS

Vendor Support Contracts – Administration and Callout Procedure X X

Vendor Support Contracts Administration X




Appendix 4 - Guidance for the Demarcation of Systems and Subsystems

The following rules will apply for determining interface points for consistency of application across projects.

1. Interfaces Between Process and Utility Systems 1.1 General Rules (refer to Figures 1 and 2)

The physical limit of a process system or subsystem will be, wherever possible, an isolation valve allocated to that system or subsystem that has to be commissioned first.

Where a blind is necessary for positive isolation, the system limit will be at the most suitable flange. This is often at a package limit providing that the blind may be safely removed later with the system in operation.

In the case of expanded or de-bottlenecked projects, tie-in points will define system limits.

Where fully rated blinds are required for system isolation integrity, care must be taken to ensure that piping systems are designed to accommodate a temporary blind otherwise a permanent spectacle blind shall be provided in the design.

1.2 Instrument Air SystemThe instrument air compressor and drier package together with all of the distribution system will be considered as part of the same instrument air system. During design of major projects, consideration shall be given to the inclusion of additional section isolation valves or flanges to create subsystems that can be segregated for progressive pre-commissioning and commissioning of, say, utility, storage and process facilities.

It may be desirable to include package limits to facilitate separate pre-commissioning of the package equipment at the manufacturer’s premises and the distribution systems locally. Otherwise limits will be at the root valve of each instrument impulse line to transmitters and field devices.

1.3 Flare SystemsFlare systems will include provision of single block valves between the process system and upstream flange of the relief valve or other relief device to permit removal of the relief device for periodic maintenance. Relief devices shall belong to the process or utility stem discharging to the flare header. Consequently it follows that flare system limits will be at flanges downstream of:

Relief valves

Blowdown ESDV valves

Choke valves

Pressure control valves

1.4 Open and Closed Drains Systems

Treat as detailed in 1.3.




Figure 1 – Typical Subsystem Limit Definition

Figure 2 – Discipline Breakdown within Subsystem Limits




1.5 Fuel Gas SystemsSystem limits to user systems will be downstream of the last manual supply isolation valve to each user. All flow devices, pressure reducing valves, ESD or blowdown valves will be part of the user system.

1.6 Inert Gas SystemsAs for Fuel Gas, system limits to user systems will be downstream of the last manual supply valve.

1.7 Chemical Injection SystemsThe system limit(s) will be downstream of the supply isolation valve at each injection point into the process or utility system.

1.8 Heat ExchangersHeat exchangers will be part of the process system regardless of whether they require air or a utility fluid such as hot oil, steam, tempered water or cooling water to moderate the temperature of a process or utility stream.

The exception to this is refrigeration heat exchangers operating on the principal of evaporation or condensation of a refrigerant, such as propane. These will be considered as part of the refrigeration loop.

During the design phase it must be verified that the heat transfer fluid or the process fluid may be circulated independently without causing damage to the exchanger.

2. Interfaces for Instrument Subsystems2.1 Process and Utility Subsystems

Process control loops will be allocated to the system where the active device is installed. Safeguarding loops will be similarly allocated.

Distributed control systems are to stand alone as a system with the system limits at the input / output marshalling racks. Connecting wiring to individual measuring elements or field devices will be assigned to process or utility systems as open or closed loops as defined by the loop diagrams.

2.2 Emergency Shutdown Systems (ESD)ESD programmable logic controller-based systems will stand alone as subsystems from the marshalling input/output racks as for distributed control systems. Input / output loops will be classified as open loops and will be allocated to subsystems in the same way as the outgoing wiring of distributed control systems.

2.3 Fire and Gas Systems (F&G)With the consideration that there could be a breakdown into subsystems based upon designated fire detection and suppression areas, F&G programmable logic controller-based systems will also stand alone as a system from the marshalling racks. Loops will be classified as open loops and assigned to the F&G System.

2.4 Compressor Anti-Surge Control Systems (ASC)ASC programmable logic controller-based systems will also stand alone as a system from the marshalling racks. Loops will be classified as open loops and assigned to the ASC system. Communication protocols with the DCS and local control panels must be aligned during the design phase.

2.5 Instrument / Electrical Systems InterfacesWhere there are interfaces between electrical and instrument systems, the instrument limit will normally be at the terminals of the item of electrical equipment shown on the instrument loop diagram.




3. Power Distribution and Electrical Subsystems3.1 Power Distribution Networks

Power distribution networks will be divided into subsystems according to the distribution voltage e.g.:

33.3kV

6.6kV

440V

24V dc

UPS

In addition, distribution networks may be subdivided according to complexity and category of service e.g.:

Normal supply

Back-up supply

Emergency service

Switchboards and distribution boards are dedicated to a service to form the basis of an electrical subsystem, each of which stands alone in terms of its capability for safe isolation for pre-commissioning and commissioning (and maintenance) independently of adjacent systems.

The interface isolation points between subsystems will be determined by consideration of the required commissioning energisation sequence and availability during breakdown and routine maintenance.

Typical subsystem limits are:

Transformers

Incoming breakers on switchboards and distribution boards

An electrical subsystem will contain all items relative to the distribution network but excluding starters, contactors, switches and fuses etc where the electrical device is allocated to a process or utility system. For example, where the electrically powered device is a motor, then the starter, control cable, power cable, start switch and motor will all be included in the relevant subsystem. The interface with the instrument system will be at the point of termination of any electrical control or signal into an instrument device e.g. marshalling cabinet, F&G cabinet etc.

3.2 Trace HeatingFor ease of commissioning with the associated piping systems, trace heating will be treated differently from the rationale described above. The circuit-breaker/fuse, cabling and associated junction boxes will be grouped within an electrical subsystem. Trace heating tapes will then be zoned according to the process or utility system to which the piping is allocated.

3.3 Multi-core CablesFor all multi-core cables, the cores or pairs which are connected to equipment belonging to different subsystems will be included in a specific multi-core subsystem or control and safeguarding systems, e.g. ESD, fire and gas, DCS etc. The subsystem limits will be:

At the output racks of the marshalling cabinet or equipment cabinet

At field junction boxes




The junction boxes will be part of the multi-cores sub-system. Multi-core cables, where all cores are connected to a single subsystem, will belong together with the junction box to that subsystem.

4. Mechanical EquipmentItems of mechanical equipment will fall within the limits of the parent process or utility system. In some cases it may be justified to designate complete vendor packages as subsystems for optimal utilisation of manufacturing resource with pre-commissioning activities. Additionally, spared equipment may be designated as complete subsystems for the purpose of later streamlining completions activities to achieve earliest oil and or gas production. In this case, positive isolation of piping, control, crossover and any associated fire and gas protection/detection must again be addressed during design. Typical examples are:

Gas compression Train 1

Instrument air compressor/drier A

6.6kV transformer B

Flare drum recovery pump A

5. Telecommunications5.1 Radio System

When line-of-sight multi-channel techniques are utilised, the multiplexer will be included in the radio system. The multiplexer device will interface between telephones, computers and telefax devices. The limits of this subsystem will be the input terminals on the multiplexer.

In cases where a telephone patch interface is used to patch a public address system and/or radio into a telephone system, the telephone patches will be included in the telephone or the radio system depending upon the design.

5.2 TelephonesThe telephone subsystem will include PABX, operator console, facsimile, telex; main distribution frame and cabling out to the multiplexer and/or single unit radio transceiver, together with cabling to the public address control panels.

5.3 Public AddressThe public address system will include alarm racks, amplifier, control panel, override station, loudspeakers and interconnecting cabling. The limit of the subsystem will be the input/output terminals on the control panel and the input loop terminals on the alarm rack from the F&G detection system.

6. Other Special CasesIn the event that the above delineation rules do not cover a particular case, then the EPC contractor will develop a proposal and submit for Company approval.




Appendix 5 - Generic Functional Requirements of CMS System

1. IntroductionThe purpose of a Completions Management System (CMS) is to provide a systems-based completions protocol which documents all phases of mechanical completion from construction through to the end of pre-commissioning (static commissioning activities), such that it can be demonstrated that all systems are ready for dynamic commissioning.

CMS documentation will provide an auditable trail for each stage of the completions process both by area and by system, and provide both electronic and hard copy versions to satisfy handover requirements.

2 Completions Management System Selection StrategySelection of a CMS must include provision to deliver the functional specification of project requirements. The functional specification requirements are to be included in any Invitation to Tender (ITT) for CMS selection. These deliverables are to be reviewed by qualified project personnel prior to acceptance of any specific CMS. Only when a proposed CMS does not include or cannot meet project functional specifications will any influence in choice or content of the system be offered to the contractor.

There are could be a number of different CMS’s that could be used available, but there will only be one that is best for the project in question. Prior to final selection a thorough evaluation of any specific completion system will be carried out by the project CSU Lead to ensure that all aspects of OR&A and flawless start-up processes are incorporated in the Select, Define and Execute phases of the project.

Selection of any specific completion system will be dependent on the type of project contracting philosophy the project will operate under. Selection criteria for a completion system will be distinctly different for an EPC managed contract or a project managed completion.

The system requirements set out below shall be formally reviewed prior to selection of a project-specific system. The reviews will be carried out and recommended to the project management team by a combination of the project CSU Lead, OR&A Subject Matter Expert or FPD Lead, as early as the concept selection phase, through the ITT, execution and operational project phases. All of the subjects described require evaluation by experienced project personnel to ensure that the project business case is met, with respect to the value impact of influence, over future change costs. Non-compliance of any single aspect of the chosen project completion system will determine breakdown in flawless start-up practices. This will severely erode the basic OR&A project principles leading to inefficient completion, delaying facility start-up and planned production ramp-up.

3 Verification and DocumentationStarting at project concept selection, a construction / commissioning completions system is required as the project tool that provides auditable proof of:

Verification and documentation of integrity throughout all project phases

Verification and documentation of KPI for each project area

Verification and documentation of project specifications and commissioning imperatives, e.g. tightness, cleanliness etc

Verification and documentation of construction mechanical completion by area or system. System / area handover completion documentation required from Construction to CSU

Verification and documentation of test procedures




Utilising the CMS within the Commissioning and Startup Execution Process Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11




Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11



Verification and documentation of multidiscipline pre-commissioning activities by subsystem completion

Verification and documentation of dynamic system commissioning completion

Verification and documentation of project VOR, e.g. VOR habitation, VOR first oil, VOR first gas, VOR export and VOR asset transfer from project to Operations

The system shall also provide project performance and completion status reports for construction, pre-commissioning and system dynamic commissioning project phases.

4. Compliance with Flawless Startup and OR&A InitiativesTo ensure flawless start-up and OR&A initiatives are adopted for the project lifecycle, the completions system must include:

Practices Worth Replicating (PWR)

Previous project experience. Successes, failures, lessons learnt located on OR&A database

Project-specific completions package contains: suitability/capability/compatibility/ manoeuvrability/reliability and accessibility

System integrity verification criteria and process

Quality – control and documentation

Standards – project specific and industry standards

Project life costs

Training requirements

Manning requirements / system maintenance and overheads

5. Minimum Selection Requirements and DeliverablesThe minimum CMS selection requirements and deliverables must include, but are not limited to:

System demarcation

o Construction completion limits

o Completion by area and system, aligned to CSU provided start-up logic and schedule

o Pre-commissioning CSU system and subsystem limits

o System/subsystem nomenclature

o System/subsystem numbering

Project tagging

o Data reliability – review, monitor, audit

o Schedule development from data contained in completions system – review, monitor, audit

6. Control of Change – Review, Monitor, Audit Management and control of database

o Verification of project data prior to input – review, monitor, audit

o Management of change for design and equipment/tag changes




o Management of change for controls automation systems software changes

Mechanical completeness – pre-commissioning and CSU system dossiers

o Produce construction completion data by area and system

o Produce pre-commissioning completion data and documentation in conjunction with pre-commissioning system dossiers

o Produce CSU completion data and documentation in conjunction with CSU system dossiers

o Produce system handover documentation in conjunction with specific project predetermined VOR phases

Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT)

o Provide suitable documentation standard regarding data record and capture from project equipment FAT schedule

Preservation

o Preparation, application and execution procedures for all equipment and facility preservation requirements

o Preservation schedules

o Preservation records

o System cleanliness data

Punch lists

o Control of punch list input and closeout of discipline punch list items.

NOTE: The following Flow Sheet illustrates typical punch listing flow.




Punch Listing Flow Chart




Appendix 6 – Table Contents Pages for Typical Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Startup Procedures

Pre-Commissioning Procedure1. Objective and Scope of the Document

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Method

1.3 Procedure – Construction, Pre-commissioning, Punch Lists

1.4 Safety

2. Systems Limits

3. System Checks

3.1 Construction

3.2. Pre-commissioning

4. Verification of Readiness for Commissioning

5. Supplementary and Supporting Information

Commissioning Procedure Contents1. Objective and Scope of the Document

2. Systems Descriptions, Performance Standards, Limits and Interfaces

3. Commissioning Logic and Plan

4. Safety and the Environment

5. Verification of Readiness for Commissioning

6. Commissioning Procedures

7. Verification of Readiness for Introduction of Hydrocarbons

8. Supplementary and Supporting Information

8.1 Vendor Support

8.2 Equipment Preservation/De-preservation

8.3 Commissioning Materials, Spares, Test Equipment, Consumables and Temporary Services

8.4 FAT Test Records and Reports

9. Handover Documentation, Punch Lists and Closeout

10. Notes and Correspondence

Appendix

Commissioning Procedure HS&E Risk Assessment




Startup Procedure1. Objective

1.1 General Statement – Introduction

1.2 Statement of Intent

1.3 Start-up Planning

2. Hydrocarbon Start-Up Overview

2.1 Hydrocarbon Start-up Overview

2.2 Performance Standards

3. HS&E

3.1 General Safety

3.2 Toolbox Talks

3.3 Environment

4. Vendors AND Systems Testing Prerequisites

4.1 Vendor List for Startup

4.2 Systems List and Pre-commissioning/Commissioning Status for Start

5. Inventories and First Fills for First Startup

6. Start-up Scope and Procedure

6.1 Overview and Remarks on Detailed Procedure

6.2 Different Modes of Operation

6.3 Start-up Flowchart

6.4 Pre-conditions and Plant Requirements

6.4.1 Verification Readiness to Startup

6.4.2 Handover and Acceptance Documentation for Pre-commissioning and Commissioning of Systems up to RFSU

6.4.3 Punch List – Agreed and Signed Off

6.5 Valve Lists and Line-up (Verified and Signed Off)

6.6 Detailed Start-up Procedure Steps

6.6.1 Detailed Steps (to be validated and signed off)

6.6.2 Dynamic Flowing Shutdown Testing

7. Start-up Test Records and Reports

7.1 Test Logs Required for Start-up

7.2 Test Logs Required for Associated System

7.3 Start-up Procedure Mark-ups for POPM Review/Validation

8. Reference Drawings

9. Acceptance and Handover Documents

9.1 System Acceptance Certificates

9.2 Handover Punch Lists

10. Appendices

Holds List




Appendix 7 - AbbreviationThe following list of abbreviations is applicable to this document and the subject matter contained within.

BfD Basis for Design

boe Barrel of Oil Equivalent

C&E Cause and Effects

CMS Completions Management System

CCMS Project Certifications and Commissioning Management Systems

CMMS Computerised Maintenance Management System

CSU Commissioning and Startup

DCS Distributed Control System

DEP Design and Engineering Practice

ECC Emergency Control Coordinator

EP Exploration & Production

EPC Engineer , Procure and Construct

ERT Emergency Response Team

ESDV Emergency Shutdown Valve

ESPIR Electronic Spares Part Interchangeability Record

FAT Factory Acceptance Test / Testing

FEED Front End Engineering & Design

FPD Flawless Project Delivery

GS Global Solutions

HAZID Hazard Identification

HAZOP Hazard & Operability Study

HC Hydrocarbon(s)

HSES Health, Safety, Environment & Security

HSE-MS Health, Safety and Environment Management Study

ICCS Integrated Control and Communications System

IPF Instrumented Protection System

ISN Instrument Safeguarding Narrative

ITT Invitation to Tender

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MoC Management of Change

MOPO Manual of Permitted Operations

MTBF Mean Time Between Failure

MTTR Mean Time to Repair

OMS Operations Management System

OPMG Opportunity and Project Management Guide




OR&A Operations Readiness and Assurance

ORP Opportunity Realisation Process

P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram

PCE Production Critical Equipment

PCN Process Control Narrative

PEFS Process and Engineering Flow Scheme

PEP Project Execution Plan

PSUA Pre-Startup Audit

PTW Permit to Work

PWR Practices Worth Replicating

RFSU Ready for Startup

SAP System Application and Product Database

SAT System Acceptance Trial

SIMOPS Simultaneous Operations

SIT Site Integration Test / Testing

SME Subject Matter Expert

T&OE Technical and Operational Excellence

VAR Value Assurance Review

VOR Verification of Readiness

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

PSSR Pre-Start Safety Review

SUOP Start-Up On Paper

SURU Start-Up/Ramp-Up




Appendix 8 – Other Related Documents

DEP 30.10.73.33 Installation and Commissioning of Cathodic Protection Systems

DEP 31.40.40.38 Hydrostatic Pressure Testing of New Pipelines

DEP 31.40.50.30 Pre-commissioning of New Pipelines

DEP 31.76.10.11 Installation, Testing and Balancing and Commissioning of HVAC Systems

DEP 61.10.08.11 Field Inspection Prior to Commissioning of Mechanical Equipment

DEP 63.10.08.11 Field Commissioning and Maintenance of Electrical Equipment

Standard EA/50 Part 1 Commissioning, Planning and Administration

Part 2 Mechanical Commissioning

Part 3 Electrical Commissioning

Part 4 Instrument Commissioning

Part 5 Telecommunications Commissioning

Part 6A Construction Work Instructions (Checksheets)

Part 6B Pre-commissioning Work Instructions (Checksheets)

GP-03 Integrated Activity Planning

GP-12 Operations Readiness and Assurance

GP-16 Integrity Assurance

GP-23 Practices Worth Replicating

EP2006-5500 Opportunity and Project Management Guide




Appendix 9 - User Feedback Page

PR-1159 – Commissioning and Startup User Feedback Page

Any user who identifies an inaccuracy, error or ambiguity is requested to notify the custodian so that appropriate action can be taken. The user is requested to return this page fully completed, indicating precisely the amendment(s) recommended.

Name:

Ref ID Date:

Page Ref: Brief Description of Change Required and Reasons

UOP4

Custodian of Document Date:




Addendum of Changes at Revision 2

Section 2.3.4 “Ready for Operations (RFO)” added

Section 2.3.6 “Verification Certificate of readiness (VCR)” added

Section 2.3.7 “Transfer of Custodianship to Operations” added

Section 2.3.8 “Statement of Fitness” added

Section 2.3.9 “Initial Startup” added

Section 2.3.10 “Project to Asset handover” added

Original sections 2.3.7 thru to 2.3.12 removed

Section 3.4 New Sub Section “Commissioning and Startup Plan” added comprising 3.4.1 thru 3.4.5

Section 7 New Section Integrity and Verification added

Section 11.1 New Sub-section “HSE in Commissioning and Startup” added comprising 11.1.1 thru 11.1.9

