Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure

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: 2.0
Effective: Nov-11
This page was intentionally left blank
Page 2 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.

Effective: Nov-11
i Document Authorisation
Authorised For Issue November 2011

Effective: Nov-11
ii Revision History
The 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 Title
CP-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

Effective: Nov-11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i Document Authorisation...........................................................................................................3
ii Revision History.......................................................................................................................4
iii Related Business Processes...................................................................................................4
iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF) Documents.........................................4
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................10
1.1 Background.....................................................................................................................10
1.2 Purpose..........................................................................................................................10
1.3 Scope.............................................................................................................................10
1.4 Distribution / Target Audience........................................................................................11
1.5 Changes to the Document..............................................................................................11
1.6 Step-out Approval...........................................................................................................11
1.7 ALARP............................................................................................................................11
2 Definitions and Terminology..................................................................................................12
2.1 Field Engineering Definitions..........................................................................................12
2.2 Commissioning Process.................................................................................................12
2.3 Commissioning Process Definitions ..............................................................................13
Figure 2.3 – Typical Commissioning and Startup Process Flow.........................................13
2.3.1 Mechanical Completion..............................................................................................14
2.3.2 Pre-Commissioning....................................................................................................14
2.3.3 Commissioning..........................................................................................................14
2.3.4 Ready for Operations (RFO)......................................................................................15
2.3.5 Ready for Startup (RFSU)..........................................................................................15
2.3.6 Verification Certificate of Readiness (VCR)...............................................................16
2.3.7 Transfer of Custodianship to Operations...................................................................17
2.3.8 Statement of Fitness..................................................................................................17
2.3.9 Initial Start-Up............................................................................................................18
2.3.10 Project to Asset Handover.......................................................................................19
3 Commissioning and Startup Execution Map and Execution Model.......................................24
3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................24
3.2 Commissioning Strategy.................................................................................................24
3.3 Verification......................................................................................................................24
3.4 Commissioning and Start-Up Plan.................................................................................25
3.4.1 CSU Interfaces...........................................................................................................27
3.4.2 Integrated CSU Schedule Development....................................................................27
3.4.3 Activity Listing............................................................................................................28
3.4.4 CSU Logic .................................................................................................................28
3.4.5 Integrated CSU Schedule..........................................................................................29
Figure 3.1 – Commissioning and Startup Delivery..............................................................30
3.5 Commissioning and Startup Delivery.............................................................................32

Effective: Nov-11
3.5.1 Identify and Assess Phase.........................................................................................32
3.5.2 Select Phase..............................................................................................................32
3.5.3 Define Phase..............................................................................................................33
3.5.4 Execute Phase...........................................................................................................35
3.5.5 Operate Phase...........................................................................................................37
3.6 Commissioning and Startup Execution...........................................................................37
Figure 3.4 – Activities Interface Chart.................................................................................39
3.7 Implementation...............................................................................................................40
3.7.1 Commissioning Involvement through Project Cycle..................................................40
3.7.2 Commissioning Involvement in Design and Procurement.........................................40
3.7.3 Commissioning Preparation Phase............................................................................41
Figure 3.5 Commissioning and Startup Deliverables..........................................................41
3.7.4 Preservation Maintenance.........................................................................................42
3.8 Testing Guidelines..........................................................................................................42
3.8.1 Introduction................................................................................................................42
3.8.2 Commissioning and Test Procedures........................................................................42
3.8.3 Factory Acceptance Tests..........................................................................................43
3.8.4 Offsite Systems Integration and Testing....................................................................44
3.8.5 Offsite Testing Objective...........................................................................................44
3.8.6 Commissioning Temporary Systems.........................................................................44
3.8.7 Commissioning Modes of Operation..........................................................................45
3.8.8 Offsite Commissioning Proposals and Statements of Intent......................................45
3.8.9 Preparation for Shipment...........................................................................................45
3.9 Onsite Commissioning....................................................................................................46
3.9.1 SIT and SAT at Site...................................................................................................46
3.9.2 Systems Handovers...................................................................................................46
Figure 3.7 – Handover Steps...............................................................................................48
3.9.3 Handover Documentation..........................................................................................50
3.9.4 Handover Timing.......................................................................................................51
3.9.5 Start-up and Initial Operations...................................................................................51
Table 3.8 – Post Startup KPI’s............................................................................................53
3.10 Integration of Operations into Commissioning and Startup..........................................54
4 Organisation..........................................................................................................................55
4.1 Resources.......................................................................................................................55
4.1.1 Project........................................................................................................................55
4.1.2 Contractor..................................................................................................................55
4.1.3 Commissioning Vendor’s Effectiveness.....................................................................56
4.2 Commissioning Organisation..........................................................................................56
Figure 4.2 – Project and / or Contractor Commissioning Teams’ Organisation Chart.........57
4.3 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................57

Effective: Nov-11
4.3.1 Project Team Responsibility......................................................................................57
4.3.2 Contractor’s Responsibility.........................................................................................58
4.4 Training...........................................................................................................................59
5 Planning and Scheduling.......................................................................................................60
5.1 Objective........................................................................................................................60
5.2 Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks..................................................60
5.3 Milestone Setting............................................................................................................61
5.4 Commissioning Budget...................................................................................................61
5.4.1 Project Counter Estimate...........................................................................................61
Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks....................................63
Figure 6.1 – Main Contractor Assessment for Commissioning and Startup........................65
6 Management, Administration and Control ............................................................................71
6.1 Main Contractor Pre-qualification and Bid Evaluation....................................................71
6.1.1 Qualification and Bid Evaluation Matrix.....................................................................71
6.1.2 Critical Areas for Examination...................................................................................71
6.2 Technical Support to Commissioning.............................................................................71
6.2.1 Design Authority.........................................................................................................71
6.2.2 Impact of Design Changes.........................................................................................72
6.3 Management, Administration and Control Procedures...................................................72
7 Integrity and Verification ......................................................................................................73
7.1 Commissioning Integrity.................................................................................................73
7.2 Operational Integrity.......................................................................................................74
7.3 Management of Change.................................................................................................74
8 Commissioning Tools............................................................................................................75
8.1 Systems Key Drawings...................................................................................................75
8.2 Statements of Intent.......................................................................................................75
8.3 Completions /Pre-commissioning Management Systems..............................................75
8.4 Checksheets...................................................................................................................76
8.4.1 ‘A’ Construction Checksheets.....................................................................................76
8.4.2 ‘B’ Checksheets..........................................................................................................76
8.5 Punch Lists.....................................................................................................................76
8.6 Proforma and Templates................................................................................................77
8.7 Spares, Consumables, Test Equipment and First Fills...................................................77
Figure 8.1 – Commissioning Technical Documentation Map for Execution and Handover 79
9 Commissioning Documentation Deliverables........................................................................81
9.1 Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Start-up Procedures......................................81
9.2 Startup on Paper............................................................................................................81
9.3 Recording.......................................................................................................................81
9.4 Critical Information, Pre-requisites and Exceptions........................................................82
9.5 Operations Management System (OMS).......................................................................82

Effective: Nov-11
10 Interface Management (Internal and External)....................................................................85
11 Health, Safety, Environment and Security (HSES).............................................................86
11.1 HSE in Commissioning and Start-Up...........................................................................86
11.1.1 Summary of HSE-Critical Activities in Construction and Commissioning................86
11.1.2 Impact of Concurrent Operations.............................................................................87
11.1.3 Hazards Specific to Commissioning........................................................................87
11.1.4 Special Consideration for Sour Gas Environments..................................................87
11.1.5 Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Risk Assessments....................................87
11.1.6 Safety Campaigns....................................................................................................88
11.1.7 Communication........................................................................................................88
11.1.8 Main HSE Risks During Commissioning and Start-Up.............................................88
11.1.9 Monitoring and Continuous Improvements .............................................................89
11.2 Permit to Work System................................................................................................89
11.3 Commissioning and Start-up Procedure Risk Assessments.........................................90
Figure 11.1 – Risk Assessment Standard............................................................................90
12 Flawless Project Delivery (FPD) ........................................................................................91
12.1 Overview......................................................................................................................91
12.2 Continuous Improvement / Lessons Learnt..................................................................91
12.3 Key Performance Areas (The Q Areas)........................................................................92
Appendix 1 – Check Lists........................................................................................................93
Appendix 2 - Main HSE Risks During Commissioning and Start-Up.......................................96
Appendix 3 – Typical Commissioning, Management, Administration and Control Procedure
Documentation...........................................................................................................................97
Appendix 4 - Guidance for the Demarcation of Systems and Subsystems...........................100
Appendix 5 - Generic Functional Requirements of CMS System.........................................105
Appendix 6 – Table Contents Pages for Typical Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and
Startup Procedures...................................................................................................................112
Appendix 7 - Abbreviation.....................................................................................................114
Appendix 8 – Other Related Documents...............................................................................116
Appendix 9 - User Feedback Page........................................................................................117
Addendum of Changes at Revision 2....................................................................................118
Figure and Tables
Figure 2.3 – Typical Commissioning and Startup Process Flow................................................13
Figure 3.1 – Commissioning and Startup Delivery.....................................................................30
Figure 3.4 – Activities Interface Chart........................................................................................39
Figure 3.5 Commissioning and Startup Deliverables.................................................................41
Figure 3.7 – Handover Steps.....................................................................................................48
Table 3.8 – Post Startup KPI’s...................................................................................................53
Figure 4.2 – Project and / or Contractor Commissioning Teams’ Organisation Chart...............57

Effective: Nov-11
Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks..........................................63
Figure 6.1 – Main Contractor Assessment for Commissioning and Startup...............................65
Figure 8.1 – Commissioning Technical Documentation Map for Execution and Handover.......79
Figure 11.1 – Risk Assessment Standard..................................................................................90

Effective: Nov-11
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Efficient 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 Purpose
The 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 Scope
This 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.

Effective: Nov-11
1.4 Distribution / Target Audience
This 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 Document
Responsibility 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 Approval
Not applicable to this document.
1.7 ALARP
ALARP 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

Effective: Nov-11
2 Definitions and Terminology
2.1 Field Engineering Definitions
The 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 Process
The 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 Flow
The 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

Effective: Nov-11
2.3.1 Mechanical Completion
Mechanical 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-Commissioning
Pre-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 Commissioning
These 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.
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
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.

Effective: Nov-11
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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 Exercise
Preparations 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,

Effective: Nov-11
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 Operations
Upon 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 Fitness
Before 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.

Effective: Nov-11
• 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-Up
After 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.

Effective: Nov-11
• 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 Handover
Project 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 Acceptance
System 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.

Effective: Nov-11
Method of Phased System Handover
Timing 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 Tools
System 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

Effective: Nov-11
2.3.10.3 Assurance
System 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.

Effective: Nov-11
2.3.10.4 Performance Acceptance Criteria
Once 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 Licenses
In 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.

Effective: Nov-11
2.3.10.6 Sustainable Steady-State Operations
Sustainable 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 Ownership
Upon 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.

Effective: Nov-11
3 Commissioning and Startup Execution Map and Execution
Model
3.1 Introduction
The 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 Strategy
Execution 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 Verification
Each 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 Plan
The 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

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
3.4.1 CSU Interfaces
There 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 Development
Successful 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

Effective: Nov-11
3.4.3 Activity Listing
After 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)

Effective: Nov-11
3.4.5 Integrated CSU Schedule
The 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
Figure 3.2 – Project Completion Flowchart – Construction through Commissioning into
Operations

Effective: Nov-11
3.5 Commissioning and Startup Delivery
With 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 Phase
1. 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 Phase
1. 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 Phase
1. 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.5.4 Execute Phase
1. 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.5.5 Operate Phase
1. 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 Execution
The 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 2.0
Effective: Nov-11
Figure 3.3 – Subsystem Approach to CSU

Effective: Nov-11
Figure 3.4 – Activities Interface Chart

Effective: Nov-11
3.7 Implementation
3.7.1 Commissioning Involvement through Project Cycle
The 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 Procurement
In 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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.7.3 Commissioning Preparation Phase
The 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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.7.4 Preservation Maintenance
Covered 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 Introduction
Testing 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 Procedures
Commissioning 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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.8.3 Factory Acceptance Tests
INTRODUCTION
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

Effective: Nov-11
climatic extremes, e.g. Distributed Control System (DCS) equipment, justify special
consideration during all stages of transport.
3.8.4 Offsite Systems Integration and Testing
As 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 Objective
It 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 Systems
Where 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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.8.7 Commissioning Modes of Operation
All 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 Intent
In 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 Shipment
On 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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.9 Onsite Commissioning
Commissioning 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 Site
There 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 Handovers
Figure 3.2 highlights that point at which transfer / handover of responsibility for the next
operation occurs through:
• Mechanical completion;

Effective: Nov-11
• 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.

Effective: Nov-11
Handover Point Scope Prerequisites Docume
Mechanical Completion By System / Subsystem
(WBS)
Discipline Joint Punch
Construction / Pre-Commissioning
Construction Han
As-Built's
By Discipline System Acceptan
Verification of Co
Checksheets
Pre-Commissioning Completion
(RFC)
By System / Subsystem
(WBS)
Discipline Punch Review Discipline Checks
System Checkshe
By Discipline
Commissioning Complete (in
support of milestone phase or
RFSU)
By System / Subsystem or
Milestone (WBS)
Commissioning / Operations Joint
Punch List
Commissioning D
System Handove
Builts / Verificatio
Completion Chec
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 Re
Startup Checklist
Handover of Custodianship By Asset / Full Facility Pre-Startup Audit carried out
A Class Outstanding Punchlists
cleared
Final Handover / Acceptance Full Facility Achieve Nameplate Performance /
Commence Normal Operation /
Guarantee Period Starts / Transfer of
Outstanding Actions and Scopes
Final Acceptance
Performance Reli
Capacity verificat
Outstanding Scop
and Budget
Figure 3.7 – Handover Steps

Effective: Nov-11
This page is intentionally blank

Effective: Nov-11
3.9.3 Handover Documentation
Certification 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.

Effective: Nov-11
3.9.4 Handover Timing
As 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 Operations
INDEPENDENT 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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.

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
3.10 Integration of Operations into Commissioning and Startup
The 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.

Effective: Nov-11
4 Organisation
4.1 Resources
4.1.1 Project
The 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 Contractor
In 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;

Effective: Nov-11
• Document Controller.
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 Effectiveness
Vendor 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 Organisation
A 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.

Effective: Nov-11
Project
Manager
Integrated
Commissioning
Team Manager
SCE
Flowlines /
Pipelines
SCE
Hydrocarbon
Systems
SCE
Utility
Systems
SCE
Offsite Integrated
Testing
Commissioning
Planning
Engineer
Certification /
Documentation
Discipline Commissioning Engineers
(Vendor, Mechanical, Process, Electrical, Instrument etc)
Discipline Commissioning Technicians
Operations Technicians
Operations
Superintendent
Startup Coord.
Operations
Superintendent
Startup Coord.
Operations
Superintendent
Logistic / Vendor
Call Off etc,
Training
Technical /
Engineering
Support
HES
Support
Contract
Support
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 Responsibility
During 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 Responsibility
In 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 Training
The 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.

Effective: Nov-11
5 Planning and Scheduling
5.1 Objective
The 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 Blocks
The 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.

Effective: Nov-11
5.3 Milestone Setting
Milestones 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 Budget
The 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 Estimate
The 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.

Effective: Nov-11

Effective: Nov-11
Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks

Effective: Nov-11
Figure 5.2 –Commissioning Planning Process and Building Blocks (Continued)

Effective: Nov-11
COMMISSIONING
ATRRIBUTES
HIGH RATING MEDIUM RATING LOW RATING SCORE AVG.
SCORE
WEIGHTING WEIGHTED
SCORE
EVIDENCE OF SCORE
GIVEN
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 SCORE
COMMISSIONING 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 SCORE
COMMISSIONING 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
ATRRIBUTES
SCORE
WEIGHTING WEIGHTED
SCORE
EVIDENCE OF SCORE
GIVEN

Effective: Nov-11
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 SCORE
COMMISSIONING 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)
COMMISSIONING
ATRRIBUTES
SCORE
W
COMPANY EXPERIENCE

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
COMMISSIONING
ATRRIBUTES
SCORE
W
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
COMMISSIONING
ATRRIBUTES
SCORE
W
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

Effective: Nov-11
COMMISSIONING
ATRRIBUTES
SCORE
WEIGHTING WEIGHTED
SCORE
EVIDENCE OF SCORE
GIVEN
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

Effective: Nov-11

Effective Nov-11
6 Management, Administration and Control
6.1 Main Contractor Pre-qualification and Bid Evaluation
6.1.1 Qualification and Bid Evaluation Matrix
A 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 Commissioning
During 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 Authority
Normally 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.

Effective Nov-11
6.2.2 Impact of Design Changes
The 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 Procedures
These 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.

Effective Nov-11
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 Integrity
Each 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.

Effective Nov-11
7.2 Operational Integrity
Assets 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 Change
All 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.

Effective Nov-11
8 Commissioning Tools
8.1 Systems Key Drawings
Key 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 Intent
High-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 Systems
An 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.

Effective Nov-11
8.4 Checksheets
Checksheets 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 Lists
At 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.

Effective Nov-11
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 Templates
The 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 Fills
The 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.

Effective Nov-11
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.

Effective Nov-11
Figure 8.1 – Commissioning Technical Documentation Map for Execution and Handover

Effective Nov-11

Effective Nov-11
9 Commissioning Documentation Deliverables
9.1 Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Start-up Procedures
Project 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 Paper
In 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 Recording
Once 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.

Effective Nov-11
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 Exceptions
Procedures 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.

Effective: Nov-11
Figure 8.2 – Simplified Operation Management System Overview

Effective: Nov-11
This page is intentionally blank

Effective: Nov-11
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.

Effective: Nov-11
11 Health, Safety, Environment and Security (HSES)
11.1 HSE in Commissioning and Start-Up
Throughout 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 Commissioning
The 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).

Effective: Nov-11
11.1.2 Impact of Concurrent Operations
It 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 Commissioning
The 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 Environments
The 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 Assessments
All 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.

Effective: Nov-11
11.1.6 Safety Campaigns
As 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 Communication
The 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-Up
No 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 System
It 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.

Effective: Nov-11
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 Assessments
All 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

Effective: Nov-11
12 Flawless Project Delivery (FPD)
12.1 Overview
Flawless 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
http://sww.shell.com/ep/projects/operations_readiness_and_assurance/ORAKLE/more_1-
02_fpd.html
12.2 Continuous Improvement / Lessons Learnt
In 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

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
Appendix 1 – Check Lists
Area Completion Checklist
This 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 Areas
Architectural • 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

Effective: Nov-11
'Ready for Hydrocarbons' Checklists
Checklist 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

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
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.

Effective: Nov-11
Appendix 3 – Typical Commissioning, Management,
Administration and Control Procedure Documentation
Note: 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

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
Vendor Support Contracts – Administration and Callout
Procedure
X X
Vendor Support Contracts Administration X

Effective: Nov-11
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 System
The 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 Systems
Flare 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.

Effective: Nov-11
Figure 1 – Typical Subsystem Limit Definition
Figure 2 – Discipline Breakdown within Subsystem Limits
1.5 Fuel Gas Systems

Effective: Nov-11
System 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 Systems
As for Fuel Gas, system limits to user systems will be downstream of the last manual
supply valve.
1.7 Chemical Injection Systems
The system limit(s) will be downstream of the supply isolation valve at each injection
point into the process or utility system.
1.8 Heat Exchangers
Heat 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 Subsystems
2.1 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 Interfaces
Where 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 Subsystems
3.1 Power Distribution Networks

Effective: Nov-11
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 Heating
For 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 Cables
For 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 Equipment

Effective: Nov-11
Items 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. Telecommunications
5.1 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 Telephones
The 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 Address
The 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 Cases
In 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.

Effective: Nov-11
Appendix 5 - Generic Functional Requirements of CMS System
1. Introduction
The 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 Strategy
Selection 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 Documentation
Starting 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

Effective: Nov-11

Effective: Nov-11
Utilising the CMS within the Commissioning and Startup Execution Process
Page 107 Commissioning and Startup Printed 17/11/11

Effective: Nov-11

Effective: Nov-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 Initiatives
To 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 Deliverables
The 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

Effective: Nov-11
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.

Effective: Nov-11
Punch Listing Flow Chart

Effective: Nov-11
Appendix 6 – Table Contents Pages for Typical Pre-
commissioning, Commissioning and Startup Procedures
Pre-Commissioning Procedure
1. 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 Contents
1. 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

Effective: Nov-11
Startup Procedure
1. 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

Effective: Nov-11
Appendix 7 - Abbreviation
The 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

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
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

Effective: Nov-11
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:

Effective: Nov-11
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

Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure

More Related Content

What's hot

Recently uploaded

Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure