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.

Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure

Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure

Similar to Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Pr 1159 - commissioning and start-up procedure