1

Developing an Effective Strategy for Commissioning Capital Projects in Existing Process

Facilities

To be presented at the annual AIChE (Central Florida) Clearwater Convention

At Sand Key, Clearwater, Florida

June 6-8, 2014

Randolph D. Williams, P.E.,

Commissioning Manager, Hatch, Tampa, Florida

ABSTRACT

Increases in fertilizer commodities prices over the past decade and new environmental

regulations have resulted in many fertilizer manufacturers debottlenecking to increase

production, add high value products to their production lines, or reduce emissions and effluents.

Upgrades to existing facilities frequently require significant process and utility tie-ins to existing

operations; consequently, new projects present challenges to engineering, construction and

commissioning. Specifically, during commissioning and start up, upsets to existing operations

must be avoided and commissioning must be properly sequenced to the existing operations to

allow for effective startup of the newly added capital equipment. Developing effective

strategies for commissioning these capital projects in existing process facilities can minimize the

risks inherent in integrating new equipment. The benefits of avoiding risks - delayed startup and

loss of production, damage to equipment, injury or death, outweigh the costs and justify the need

for an effective commissioning plan. An effective commissioning strategy, often the key to

successful project, is comprised of determining commissioning scope, defining commissioning

systems, establishing commissioning logic for system prioritization, estimating manpower and

schedule, management of the handover process. The strategy will be presented as a guideline for

use and illustrated with two examples: commissioning of a Haber- Bosch process anhydrous

ammonia plant and commissioning of an isothermal vacuum crystallizer phosphoric acid reactor.

INTRODUCTION

The successful start up of a facility depends upon a close integration of all of the players

involved in a project. Although, commissioning is responsible for preparing a facility for start-

up, commissioning success depends upon the proper integration of all involved parties. The

commissioning strategy defines the integration of the various aspects of the project required to

commission a facility and this strategy is outlined in the commission plan. The specific strategy

will vary depending upon the project, owner, and technology to be commissioned. Specific tasks

executed by commissioning will generally be similar for most projects; however, the roles and

2

responsibilities for these activities and the interaction between the owner, contractors, vendors,

and project personnel form the strategy. The strategy is identified in the commissioning plan.

IDENTIFY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of commissioning is to deliver a process (facility and equipment) to the

owner operations group that performs according to the design intent. This design intent should

have already been established by the designer, equipment supplier, and the operations group,

prior to commissioning involvement. Commissioning prepares the process to be in a ready for

start up (RFSU) state, and ensures that the process is in compliance with a set of standards before

the facility or equipment can be declared as RFSU. The scope is typically developed from a set

of piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) and other design documents which detail the

design of the facility. These documents, developed by the project team, are typically mechanical

equipment lists, piping line lists, instrument lists, motor and electrical equipment lists, loop

drawings, motor schematics, one line drawings, and P&IDs. From the scope of work the roles

and responsibilities can be agreed upon by the parties involved.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

There are four main groups of personnel that will implement the project strategy. The

four groups are the design team, construction team, commissioning team, and operations team.

Often the operations team is the owner who has contracted the designer or project team. The

design team is tasked by the owner or operating facility to meet the design intent. The design

intent may be improving an existing production line, designing a new facility, meeting

environmental and safety compliances, or preparing an existing facility for turnarounds. The

operations team typically contracts the designer or their in house design department to develop

the project. The construction team is responsible for the building of the equipment and facility.

The commissioning group will be responsible for checking out the construction build and

ensuring the process meets the design intent. The operations team is responsible for the

continuous running of the process, and may or may not be responsible for the initial start up or

performance guarantee of the process. The owner may determine who will comprise the

commissioning team and the operations team. Often, the owner, being familiar with operating

procedures, will be part of the commissioning team. This involvement will help to facilitate a

smooth transfer of equipment from commissioning to operations, as often times operations will

be called upon to witness commissioning activities. Operations involvement in commissioning

is, of course, dependent upon the already established scope of work and method for executing the

project.

3

Since much of the commissioning work involves validating the design, construction and

installation, the construction team should never be in charge of the commissioning effort. It is an

effective strategy, although not essential, to include the designers as part of the commissioning

team since these personnel with be thoroughly familiar with the design intent, the project scope

and project history. Nevertheless, the commissioning team involvement should be an unbiased

assessment of the process, equipment, or facility with the already stated objective of declaring a

process as RFSU. The commissioning team objective is not to assign fault to the project,

designer, owner or contractor, but rather to ensure that equipment will function safely and as

designed. This responsibility has inherent risks that may or may not be mitigated by the

operations team based on their acceptance of the process facilities from the commissioning team.

For example, operations may be advised of the risks associated with starting up a piece of

equipment as a consequence of not completing necessary commissioning checks on the new

process or equipment. Commissioning must always present the outcome of all recommended

testing and advice upon RFSU or RFSU with exceptions, if necessary. The status of RFSU will

ensure that the operations team is fully aware of the state that a facility or equipment is being

handed over for start up. From this discussion, it is clear that an effective commissioning

strategy must then be one that ensures all procedures and practices between the designer,

construction team, contractors and operations are aligned. These aligned practices will define

the construction completion sequence and/or schedule, the sequence for handover to pre-

commissioning and commissioning, and the handover to operations. The practices are agreed

upon by the owner/operations team and identified in the commissioning plan. A typical

definition of the tasks and responsibilities for each team and some common tasks associated with

each team is shown in Table 1. The names assigned to these stages may be different depending

upon the project – it is more important that the roles are identified and agreed upon by all

contractually involved and as early as possible in the project. Once each group completes its

responsibilities, a milestone is achieved. The basic milestones are defined as the construction

completion certificate (or mechanical completion) and the commissioning completion certificate.

The responsible group/team certifies that the responsibilities are completed within their scope

and their work is properly documented. The team that accepts the work from the previous party,

verifies that the work is completed satisfactorily and accepts responsibility for the newly

transferred equipment/facility until their responsibilities are complete. The final acceptance of

the project will typically be by the operations plant manager and or owner project manager from

commissioning to operations.

Table 1 indentifies specific stages in the project where a team takes control over areas or

systems. These stages of transfer of care and custody are defined as handover. At each handover

there are inspections to ensure that the system is complete. The care and custody transfer of areas

is important in both new and existing facilities. In existing facilities, the owner may transfer

equipment from operations to construction for debottlenecking or turnaround projects. The

owner cannot operate equipment in the areas that have been transferred to the construction

group. Likewise, once equipment has been handed over from construction to commissioning,

4

construction cannot work on the equipment that has been handed over to commissioning without

permission from commissioning. This is necessary to ensure that equipment is not re-

contaminated or the integrity of a commissioned system is not compromised. More importantly,

handovers are necessary to ensure the safety of personnel working in the construction or

operating areas.

Table 1. Roles and responsibilities, with handover defined

Construction Pre-Commissioning / Commissioning Operations Production

Installation Energize Instrument

calibration

Introduce process

gas

Sustained production

Inspections Motor rotation bump

tests

Loop tests Heat up

Air/Steam

Performance Check

Alignment Equipment tests

/Adjustments

Control and

interlock check

Start up / Ramp

up

I/O checks Flushing/Cleaning/

Lubrication

Equipment

configuration

Loop tuning

Handover to

Commissioning

Leak tests Catalyst Loading Catalyst

Reduction

Equipment checks Plant Purging/Leak

test

Handover to

Operations

Prime Responsibilities

Construction

Manager

Commissioning

Manager

Commissioning

Manager

Operations

Manager

Operations Manager

Support Responsibilities

Contractors Contractors Contractors Commissioning

Team

Commissioning

Team

Equipment Vendors Equipment Vendors Equipment Vendors Equipment

Vendors

Equipment Vendors

Engineering

Support Team

Engineering Design

Support Team

Engineering Support

Team

Engineering

Support Team

Engineering Support

Team

Operations Operations

SYSTEMIZATION AND PRIORITIZATION

Systemization is the identification of boundaries between process equipment and piping.

Electrical and control equipment may also be systemized. The system boundaries are identified

by “marking up” design documents such as P&IDs, single line diagrams, and control schematics.

The purpose of systemization is to:

Clearly identify boundaries between two or more systems for safety isolation

Identify a group of related equipment that collectively form a function for pre-commissioning

and commissioning testing

To facilitate an effective handover of areas from construction to commissioning

To identify meaningful boundaries to drive start up.

5

The identification of systems is also based upon the operations group requirements for

start up. The operations group requirements for systems are typically process driven; however,

the construction group typically completes the build by areas. Consequently, commissioning

systemization must also try to accommodate area completion as much as possible. Examples of

systemization are show in Figure 1 for a Haber-Bosch ammonia production facility and Figure 3

for a phosphoric acid plant isothermal reaction process. The operations group requirements can

be determined through a review of the standard operating procedures. In debottlenecking of

existing facilities, the operating plant determines the availability of utility and process systems

for commissioning. The successful identification of commissioning systems will then identify

process systems based upon the piping and equipment tie-ins to the existing facilities and when

these tie-ins can be completed.

Once the system boundaries are identified, the systems are given names or tags for

identification purposes. These tags are transferred to design documents such as process flow

diagrams, P&IDs, control architecture, piping line lists, motor and electrical equipment lists,

mechanical equipment lists and instrument lists. A review of the equipment manuals and other

design documents is then used to determine which pre-commissioning testing and

commissioning testing is required for each system as shown in Table 2 for the ammonia plant. In

Table 2, the ammonia plant is first segregated into a front end (equipment from the methane gas

feed to the high temperature shift converter) and back end (downstream of the high temperature

shift converter). Within each of the front end and the back end, process systems are identified.

The next step is to determine how to prioritize the systems for start up. To determine

commissioning priority, the complexity of the equipment or process system is considered. For

example problems with equipment such as process air compressors, refrigeration compressors,

and the synthesis gas compressors (in the ammonia plant) may require significant time to correct

(1). In general, however, systems are prioritized in order to complete in the order below:

1. Safety first

2. Electrical second

3. Controls third

4. Process utilities fourth

5. Process systems

This order of prioritization is shown in Figure 1. The logical systems are identified with tags

(U-1 to U-4 and R-1 to R-7) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The start of the isothermal

reactor system R-6 depends upon the commissioning of the seal water to pumps and other

equipment seals (U-4), scrubbing water (R-1), equipment ventilation and vacuum (R-2),

scrubbing and condensing of effluent gases (R-3 and R-4), and a hold point for overflow from

the reactor (R-5). Other system startup dependencies are shown under “Startup Logic” in Figure

2. Material handling facilities are prioritized in the order of the start up or shut down sequences

for groups of equipment. Isolation boundaries for material handling facilities, where isolation

6

U-1

Safety Showers

U-2

Instrument Air

U-3

Utility Air & Water

U-4

Seal Water

R-1

Potable Water

R-2

Vent Fumes

R-3

Fluorosilic Acid

Recovery

R-4

Barometric

Condenser

R-5

Filter Feed

R-6

Reactor & Reactor

Feeds

Figure 1. Systemization and logic for prioritizing a phosphoric acid plant reaction area

FC

FC

FE

FC

LT LT

SC

FT

Isothermal

Reactor

Fluorsilic Acid

Recovery Scrubber

Filter Feed Acid

Tank

Barometric

Condenser

Safety Showers

Reactor Drain

Pump

Filtration Acid

Pump

Scrubber

Recirculation Tank

Reactor Hotwell

Filtration Wash

Water Pumps

Scrubber

Recirculation Pump

Vacuum Pump

Separator &

Muffler

Scrubbing Water

Utility Water

Utility Air

Potable Water

Exhaust

Seal Water Return

Seal Water

Make-up Water

Wash Water

Acid to Filtration

Instrument Air

Instrument Air

Instrument Air

Rock Slurry

Seal Water

Sulfuric Acid

Recycle Filtration Acid

U-3

U-3

U-1

U-3

U-3

R-7

R-6

R-6

U-4

R-6

R-6

R-2

R-1

R-6

R-6

R-5

R-6

R-3

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2

U-4

R-1

R-4R-4

R-4

R-4R-3

R-3

R-3

R-3

R-3

R-3

R-3

R-3

R-5

R-5

R-5

R-1R-1

U-2

SYSTEMS

U-1 : Safety Showers

U-2 : Instrument Air

U-3 : Utility Water & Utility Air

U-4 : Seal Water

R-1 : Scrubber Water

R-2 : Fume Vent

R-3 : Fluorosilic Acid Scrubbing

R-4 : Barometric Condensing

R-5 : Filter Feed

R-6 : Reactor & Feeds

R-7 : Sulfuric Acid

START UP LOGIC

U-1 Dependents: R-1, R-7

U-4 Dependents: R-2, R-6

R-2 Dependents: R-3, R-4, R-6

R-3 & R-4 Dependents: R-1, R-2, U-2, U-4

R-6 Dependents: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, U-4

Figure 2. Process diagram systemization of a phosphoric acid plant reaction area

7

Figure 3. Systemization and logic for prioritization of an ammonia production facility

13 kV Substation

Transformer

Motor Control

Centers

Un-interrupted

Power SupplyControl Systems

Cooling Water

Potable Water

Instrument Air

Deaerator & Boiler

Feed Water

Feed Gas

Pre-Treatment

Fuel Gas

Front End Vent

Nitrogen

SynGas Generation

Temporary Boiler

Steam

Steam Condensate

Process Condensate

Process Air

Compressor Turbine

Lube Oil Flush

Process Air

Compressor Turbine

Overspeed Trip

Absorber/Scrubbing

Systems

SynGas Purification

Front End Start Up & Reductions

SynGas Loop

Ammonia

Refrigeration

Purge Gas Recovery

Ammonia

Absorption & Flare

Ammonia Storage

Back End Start

Up &

Reductions

Tune & Ramp Up

Production

Performance

Testing

First Ammonia

Production

SynGas Compressor

Turbine Lube Oil

Flush & Overspeed

Trip

Ammonia

Compressor Turbine

Lube Oil Flush &

Overspeed Trip

8

Table 2. Systems and commissioning activities for startup of an ammonia facility

Start up Step System Required Commissioning Activity

Leak Test Front End Front End up to High

Temperature Shift (HTS) Leak check

Fire Auxiliary Boiler Instrument Air Chemical clean, motor run

Fuel Gas Blow and leak check

Nitrogen Blow and leak check

City Water Safety showers tested

Cooling Water Flush, turbine overspeed trip (OS)

Primary Reformer Fan lube oil flush / test fire burners

Boiler Feed Water (BFW) Chemical clean / turbine OS trip

BFW Chemical Treatment Leak check tubing

Steam (All Levels) Steam blow

Condensate Steam blow

Produce Steam for High Pressure Blow - Steam blow

High Pressure Steam at Start-up

Run Process Air Compressor Turbine Process Air Compression Air compressor turbine OS trip

Surface Condenser Condenser pump motor run

Reformer and HTS Heat up - -

Introduce Process Steam Primary Tubes Feed Gas Treatment -

Preheat Desulfurizers - Load ZnO drum

Introduce Natural Gas Feed - -

Reduce Primary & Secondary Reformer

Catalyst - -

Heat HTS with Medium Pressure Steam

Shift Conversion and

Methanation Air blow, load catalyst

Transfer Vent Downstream of HTS/Reduction - -

Move Venting to Absorber Inlet Absorber Vent -

Establish Absorber System Operating CO2 Removal Chemical clean

Transfer Vent Downstream of Absorber Process Condensate Stripping Flush

Stabilized CO2 Removal Operation

- - Move Vent to Syn Gas Suction Drum/

Methanation Reduction

Perform LTS Reduction - Catalyst loading

Refrigeration Compressor - Establish

Refrigeration Loop Conditions Refrigeration Compression Leak test, purge

Pressure Syn Loop with Front End Gas Syn Loop Leak test, purge

Syn Gas Machine Start up -Establish

Circulation Loop Syn Gas Compression Leak test, purge

Test Fire Start up Heater Burners Start up Heater Blow, leak test

Heat Converter using Start up Heater - Leak test, purge

Start Converter Catalyst Reduction (First

Ammonia Production) - -

Ready Ammonia System Ammonia Export and Storage Leak test, purge

Purge Gas Recovery Air blow, leak test, purge

Inventory Refrigeration System with

Ammonia

Process Flare Leak test

Refrigeration Leak test, purge

9

valves not likely to be part of the design, can be identified where there is volume storage, such as

storage silos, hoppers, or bins. The effective identification and prioritization of systems is the

key to an effective commissioning and start up.

COST, MANPOWER AND SCHEDULE

Table 3 shows a summary of statistics on start up costs and durations (5). Data in Table 3

was compiled from a review of the start up of up to 53 plants. From the data reported, pre-

commissioning and commissioning cost can be initially estimated as a total of 5 percent of the

capital cost of a project (5).

Table 3. Start up cost and durations

Measure

Mean

Median

Standard

Deviation

Range

Number

of Plants

Months of

Startup

8.0

4.0

8.9

0-30

53

Startup Costs

as % of Capital

Through Construction

5.5

3.6

6.1

0-20

51

When the scope of the project and the scope of the commissioning services are finalized,

a more detailed estimate of commissioning cost can be determined. Methods for determining

detailed estimates of commissioning manpower have already been developed (2). Table 4

provides a preliminary estimate of commissioning cost based solely upon manhours to complete

pre-commissioning and commissioning testing activities. Estimates for commissioning, based on

Table 4, show that the project commissioning cost can be largely due to one of two types of

commissioning categories:

A highly automated design facility that is reliant upon electrically driven/actuated

equipment

Or a facility that is more complex in the chemical process design.

Table 4 can be used to determine the manpower required in each commissioning discipline. The

example in Table 4 is based upon an assumed seven month commissioning duration.

The minimum permanent members of the commissioning team should be a

commissioning manager, a programmer, a mechanical discipline engineer or technician, an

electrical discipline engineer or technician, a safety officer (responsible for maintaining lock out

tag out, permits, and authorization for energization) and an instrumentation engineer or

technician. On complex process driven projects, it may also be beneficial to include a piping

designer or piping engineer. Other areas that require expertise during commissioning can be

called upon as required (1). An example organization chart is shown in Figure 4.

10

The commissioning schedule can be developed from the commissioning systems and the

estimates in Table 4. This schedule can then be used to determine the commissioning cost. The

commissioning schedule is developed in conjunction with the construction team as early as

possible. This early schedule will take into consideration the initial estimated duration for each

system, construction contract schedules, and construction progress. The schedule will forecast

the commissioning to operations handover dates for each system. The schedule durations and

manpower is further refined when specific commissioning procedures and resource loading are

developed.

Table 4. Pre-commissioning manhours estimation example

Electrical, Instrumentation and Process Controls

Equipment Count

IO per

Unit

Total

IO

Hours

per IO /

Item Total Hours Discipline

Motors 50 5 250 2 500 Electrical

Variable Speed Drives 20 7 140 2 280 Electrical

Instruments Analog 100 1 100 3 300 Controls

Instruments Digital 200 1 200 2 400 Controls

Interlocks 50 - - 5 250 Controls / Process

Interlock Integration 50 - - 5 250 Controls / Process

Administration - - - - 1485 (75% of Total Hours)

Electrical & Controls Total - - 690 - 3465

Schedule Duration 1750

(Based upon a 7 month duration)

Manpower Required 1.98

Electrical and Controls Personnel Required

Mechanical and Piping

Pumps 40 - - 6 240 Mechanical / Process

Fans 10 - - 10 100 Mechanical / Process

Vessels & Tanks 30 - - 2 60 Mechanical / Process

Piping - Utilities 50 - - 3 150 Piping

Piping - Process Liquid 300 - - 5 1500 Piping

Piping - Process Gas 100 - - 5 500 Piping

Couple/Alignment 50 - - 5 250 Mechanical

Run Test 50 - - 5 250 Mechanical / Process

Administration - - - - 2288 (75% of Total Hours)

Mechanical & Piping Total - - - - 5338

Project Total Hours 8803

Schedule Duration 1750 (Based upon a 7 month duration)

Manpower Required 3.05 Mechanical and Piping Personnel Required

11

Owner Project

Manager

Designer Project

Manager

Commissioning

Manager

Commissioning

Engineers

Electrical

Instrumentation

Mechanical

Programmer/Process

Controls

Equipment Vendors

Commissioning

Skilled Laborers

Millwrights

Pipefitters

Riggers

Electrical/

Instrumentation

Technicians

Commissioning

Support

Construction

Manager

Construction Management Team

Electrical/ Instrumentation

Superintendant

Mechanical Superintendant

Project Controls

Project Engineer

Safety Manager

Quality Assurance Manager

Quality Control Inspector

Electrical Contractor

Construction Manager

Electrical

Quality Assurance/

Control Manager

Construction Electrical/

Instrumentation

Technicians

Mechanical Contractor

Construction Manager

Mechanical

Quality Assurance/

Control Manager

Construction Skilled

Laborers

Millwrights

Pipefitters

Riggers

Owner Commissioning

Manager/Operations Manager/

Plant Manager

Operators

Maintenance

Manager

Rotating Equipment

Specialist

Vibration Analysis

Mechanical Alignment

Millwrights

Electrical/

Instrumentation

Manager

Electrical/

Instrumentation

Support Technicians

Figure 4. Organization chart

PUNCHLISTING: A MEANS TO CONTROL SYSTEM HANDOVER

A deficiency list or punchlist is a list of items that serve as a verification of the

construction build, an inspection of the quality of the build, and the operability and safety of a

system. The deficiency list is written up from a thorough review of each commissioning system

and formally issued to contractors for rectification. The punchlist is not simply a visual

inspection of the build; it is a line by line, equipment by equipment check using the P&IDs and

other design documents to determine what rectifications are required to ensure the safe

commissioning of that system. It has been reported that 61 percent of start up problems were

related to equipment deficiencies, 10 percent due to design inadequacies, 16 percent due to

construction deficiencies, and 13 percent due to human error (5). In another study of 53 plants a

total of 30 plants reported failures due to equipment and or equipment and design failures (5).

Therefore, potentially 50 to 97 percent of deficiencies can be identified and rectified through

punchlisting.

The commissioning team manages the process for developing and maintaining the

deficiency list. An example of a process for punchlisting is depicted in Figure 5. The process

begins with all parties agreeing upon the categorization of priorities for rectification of

12

deficiencies. The example process for punchlisting, shown in Figure 5, may vary. The

involvement of the owner in this process may vary depending upon the project; the process is

agreed upon by all parties during the formation of the commissioning strategy. It is

recommended, however, that construction produce its own internal punchlist. Based upon the

status of construction deficiencies, construction shout notify commissioning when a system is

ready for commissioning to punchlist.

Typically commissioning will begin inspection of construction progress at approximately

80% construction completion (1). The percentage of construction completion can be determined

from the overall schedule construction completion status. The commissioning punchlisting can

also serve as a verification of construction status as reported in the schedule. Since

commissioning begins inspection at 80% construction completion, commissioning is fully

cognizant that there will be deficiencies in the systems. The purpose of punchlisting prior to

100% construction completion is to work alongside construction, not after. This strategy also

ensures that potential pitfalls that may require rework of equipment or piping is avoided. For

instance, relocating piping as identified in a commissioning deficiency list, prior to completing

piping stress analysis and prior to hydrotesting, will be advantageous to the overall project

budget and schedule. From the punchlist process shown in Figure 5, priority 1 is defined as

deficiencies to rectify to ensure safe/reliable pre-commissioning; priority 2 is defined as

deficiencies to rectify to ensure safe/reliable commissioning; and priority 3 is defined as

deficiencies to rectify to complete prior to handover to operations for start up. Examples of

punchlist findings, which demonstrate the value of punchlisting, are depicted in Figure 6.

Figure 5. Punchlisting process

13

Figure 6. Deficiencies identified during punchlisting

Deficiencies shown in Figure 6 are listed below:

A. Loose hold down bolts on a vibrating feeder motor

B. Incorrect spray nozzle orientation in a fluorine recovery ductwork

C. Shipping brackets not removed in a weight belt feeder

D. Nozzle projection on a radar level transmitter is longer than the radar cone

E. Longer than designed dip pipe distance from hotwell floor

F. Butterfly valve difficult to operate due to pinching with rubber lined pipe spool

G. Valve handle is a pinch point with grating

H. Broken off leads on gas heater potentiometer

I. Ground wire hanging inside a sump, wire should be terminated to sump metal cover

If the deficiency list items are properly categorized, the completion of punchlist items by

priority becomes the source for determining whether a system can advance from one handover

stage to the next. The authorization to safely introduce hazardous process fluids into a system is

determined when all priority punchlist items are rectified. The responsible parties should not

14

sign handover from one stage to another without verification that the punchlist items are

rectified. The final handover from commissioning to operations can be accomplished when all

priority items required for start up are completed. Since the punchlist can prevent the acceptance

of system handover at any stage, the punchlist is the most critical documentation in the

commissioning system documents.

RISK AND CONTINGENCY

The value of commissioning is realized through the reduced life cycle costs and increased

reliability of the commissioned assets. The investment in commissioning is at the discretion of

the owner and the owner’s acceptance of risk. It may not be feasible or economical to test all

scenarios and circumstances during commissioning; however, not testing everything and having

an asset fail, may be a greater risk. This is where experience and commissioning expertise can

make valued input to projects and make recommendations for what are essential commissioning

testing requirements to declare a commissioning system as ready for start up. Commissioning

can identify the major risks during pre-commissioning, system handover to commissioning,

commissioning and handover to operations. Commissioning can then determine preventative

steps, contingency plans and monitoring for credible and significant risks. At a minimum,

commissioning considers risks as construction handover delay, insufficient personnel

knowledge, potential for high overtime, non-availability of critical utilities, non-availability of

parts, production of off specification product or byproducts, or transient operating conditions

during commissioning. Additionally, methods are available for evaluating these risks using

failure modes and effects analysis, risk ranking, and comparing the actual commissioning cost to

the failure modes (3).

CONCLUSION

The successful commissioning depends upon many factors. Some of these factors have

been identified in this paper as items to include in an effective commissioning strategy. In

summary critical factors for an effective commissioning strategy are:

Early integration of operations personnel in commissioning

Properly identifying and staffing commissioning roles/teams

A quality design as verified by the detailed pre-commissioning checks and

deficiency lists

Early start up planning, properly managing the handover process, identifying

scheduling and cost

Wwell developed commissioning procedures and plans

Proper and detailed commissioning documentation

Proper systemization and prioritizing of the facilities or assets

Alignment of the commissioning scope and objectives with the owner and project

teams.

15

REFERENCES

1. Mukherjee, Siddhartha (2005), “Preparations for Initial Startup of a Process Unit,”

Chemical Engineering, pp. 36-42.

2. Bailey, Barry, “Commissioning – The Interface Between Construction and Operations,”

in First Extractive Metallurgy Operators’ Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia,

November 7-8, 2005.

3. Venters, David G., et. al, “Rolling the Dice: Using Risk Tolerance to Define

Commissioning Scope,” in National Conference on Building Commissioning, April 19-

21, 2006.

4. Lager, Thomas, “Startup of new plants and process technology in the process industries:

organizing for an extreme event,” Journal of Business Chemistry, February, 2012.

5. Myers, Christopher and Ralph F. Shangraw, Understand Process Plant Schedule

Slippage and Startup Costs, Santa Monica, California, Rand, 1986, pp. 31-53.

6. Kris Lawry and Dirk John Pons, “Integrative Approach to the Plant Commissioning

Process,” Journal of Industrial Engineering, vol. 2013, Article ID 572072, 12 pages,

2013.

ACKNOWLEGEMENT

I would like to thank Martin Killcross (Sasol), George Colman (KBR), Bob Skorcz (J. R.

Simplot), Mel Weber (PotashCorp) and Joel Rivers (Potash Corp).