DNV DSS-314 (2010) - Verification of Hydrocarbon Refining and Petrochemical Facilities

SERVICE SPECIFICATION
DNV-DSS-314
VERIFICATION
OF HYDROCARBON REFINING
AND PETROCHEMICAL FACILITIES
OCTOBER 2010
DET NORSKE VERITAS

FOREWORD
DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) is an autonomous and independent foundation with the objectives of safeguarding life,
property and the environment, at sea and onshore. DNV undertakes classification, certification, and other verification and
consultancy services relating to quality of ships, offshore units and installations, and onshore industries worldwide, and
carries out research in relation to these functions.
DNV service documents consist of amongst other the following types of documents:
— Service Specifications. Procedual requirements.
— Standards. Technical requirements.
— Recommended Practices. Guidance.
The Standards and Recommended Practices are offered within the following areas:
A) Qualification, Quality and Safety Methodology
B) Materials Technology
C) Structures
D) Systems
E) Special Facilities
F) Pipelines and Risers
G) Asset Operation
H) Marine Operations
J) Cleaner Energy
O) Subsea Systems
The electronic pdf version of this document found through http://www.dnv.com is the officially binding version
© Det Norske Veritas
Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com

For subscription orders or information about subscription terms, please use distribution@dnv.com
Computer Typesetting (Adobe Frame Maker) by Det Norske Veritas
If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of Det Norske Veritas, then Det Norske Veritas shall pay compensation to
such person for his proved direct loss or damage. However, the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged for the service in question, provided that
the maximum compensation shall never exceed USD 2 million.
In this provision "Det Norske Veritas" shall mean the Foundation Det Norske Veritas as well as all its subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf
of Det Norske Veritas.
Service Specification DNV-DSS-314, October 2010
Changes – Page 3
Background
The experience gained from past projects specific to an oil refinery and a petrochemical plant is incorporated
in this Service Specification.
Scope of document
This Service Specification:
— describes DNV's verification services for oil refineries and petrochemical facilities,
— provides guidance for facility Owners and others for the selection of the level of involvement of those carrying
out the certification and verification activities, whether by simple trigger questions or as a result of a quantitative
risk assessment
— provides a common platform for describing the scope and extent of verification activities.
— identifies typical risk critical equipment and the appropriate level of verification activities recommended
to meet the verification objective and requirements.
Changes
Two new DNV service document types have been introduced as from October 2010 to be used for services that
are not limited to offshore and/or not to be considered as DNV Rules for classification of Ships or HSLC/NSC.
The documents have been named; DNV Service Specifications (DSS) and DNV Standards (DS).
This service specification; DSS-314: “Verification of Hydrocarbon Refining and Petrochemical Facilities”
replaces the previous version of the document with short name; DNV-OSS-314. There are no changes in
content, only how the document is referred to, as OSS now will be used for Service Specifications intended for
Offshore use.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 4 – Contents
CONTENTS
Sec. 1 Introduction To Risk-based Verification ......................................................................................... 8

A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8
A 100 Function of this Document ................................................................................................................................... 8
A 200 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
A 300 Scope of Application for Verification................................................................................................................... 8
A 400 Structure of this Document ................................................................................................................................... 8
B. Risk-based Verification................................................................................................................................................... 9
B 100 General.................................................................................................................................................................. 9
B 200 Verification’s Role in Hazard Management ......................................................................................................... 9
B 300 Risk-based Verification Planning ....................................................................................................................... 10
B 400 Certificate of Conformity.................................................................................................................................... 10
C. Definitions..................................................................................................................................................................... 10
C 100 Verbal Forms ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
C 200 Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
D. Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
E. References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Sec. 2 Principles of Risk-based Verification ............................................................................................. 14
A. Purpose of Section ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
A 100 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
B. Verification Principles .................................................................................................................................................. 14
B 100 Purpose of Verification ....................................................................................................................................... 14
B 200 Verification as a Complementary Activity ......................................................................................................... 14
B 300 Risk-based Levels of Verification ...................................................................................................................... 14
C. Selection of Level of Verification ................................................................................................................................ 15
C 100 Selection Factors................................................................................................................................................. 15
C 200 Overall Safety Objective..................................................................................................................................... 16
C 300 Assessment of Risk ............................................................................................................................................. 16
C 400 Technical Innovation and Contractor Experience............................................................................................... 17
C 500 Quality Management Systems ............................................................................................................................ 17
D. Communications ........................................................................................................................................................... 17
D 100 Notification of Verification Level ...................................................................................................................... 17
D 200 Obligations.......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Sec. 3 Service Overview .............................................................................................................................. 19
A. Purpose of Section ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
A 100 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
B. Service Process ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
B 100 General Principles............................................................................................................................................... 19
B 200 Scopes of Work................................................................................................................................................... 19
C. FEED............................................................................................................................................................................. 20
C 100 Verification During FEED.................................................................................................................................. 20
D. Project Design, Construction and Commissioning ....................................................................................................... 20
D 100 General................................................................................................................................................................ 20
D 200 Verification of Overall Project Management...................................................................................................... 20
D 300 Verification during Design ................................................................................................................................. 21
D 400 Verification During Construction ....................................................................................................................... 22
D 500 Verification During Commissioning .................................................................................................................. 23
E. Operations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25
E 100 General................................................................................................................................................................ 25
E 200 Verification of Overall Operations Management ............................................................................................... 25
E 300 Verification During Operations .......................................................................................................................... 25
F. Facility Modifications ................................................................................................................................................... 26
F 100 Reasons for Modifications .................................................................................................................................. 26
F 200 Particular Aspects of Modifications to Hydrocarbon Facilities.......................................................................... 26
F 300 Verification During the Design of Modifications............................................................................................... 27
F 400 Verification During the Construction of Modifications...................................................................................... 27
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Contents – Page 5
F 500 Verification During the Commissioning of Modifications................................................................................. 27

App. A Selection of Verification Level ........................................................................................................ 29
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 29
A 100 General Principles............................................................................................................................................... 29
B. Quantitative Risk Assessment....................................................................................................................................... 29
B 100 Use of a Quantitative Risk Assessment .............................................................................................................. 29
B 200 Scope of a QRA .................................................................................................................................................. 30
B 300 Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 30
B 400 Hazard Identification .......................................................................................................................................... 30
B 500 Frequency Estimation ......................................................................................................................................... 30
B 600 Consequence Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... 31
B 700 Consequence Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 31
B 800 Domino Effect Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 31
B 900 Risk Summation and Evaluation......................................................................................................................... 31
B 1000 Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 31
B 1100 Assessment of Risk Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 31
C. Trigger Questions.......................................................................................................................................................... 31
C 100 Use of Trigger Questions .................................................................................................................................... 31
C 200 Overall Safety Objective..................................................................................................................................... 32
C 300 Assessment of Risk ............................................................................................................................................. 32
C 400 Technical Innovation .......................................................................................................................................... 32
C 500 Contractors’ Experience...................................................................................................................................... 32
C 600 Quality Management Systems ............................................................................................................................ 32
App. B Verification Documents ................................................................................................................... 34
A. Purpose of Appendix..................................................................................................................................................... 34
A 100 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 34
A 200 Issue and Filing of Certificates ........................................................................................................................... 34
A 300 Validity of Verification Documents.................................................................................................................... 34
B. DNV Certificate of Conformity .................................................................................................................................... 34
B 100 Definition ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
B 200 Scope of Verification to Obtain a DNV Certificate of Conformity.................................................................... 34
C. Statement of Compliance ............................................................................................................................................. 35
C 100 Definition ............................................................................................................................................................ 35
C 200 Scope of Verification to Obtain a Statement of Compliance.............................................................................. 35
D. Other Verification Documents ...................................................................................................................................... 35
D 100 Verification Reports............................................................................................................................................ 35
D 200 Verification Comments Sheets ........................................................................................................................... 35
D 300 Visit Reports ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
E. Use of Quality Management Systems .......................................................................................................................... 36
E 100 General................................................................................................................................................................ 36
E 200 Quality Plans....................................................................................................................................................... 36
E 300 Inspection and Test Plans ................................................................................................................................... 37
E 400 Review of Quality Management Programme ..................................................................................................... 37
F. Verification Forms ........................................................................................................................................................ 37
F 100 Specimen Forms ................................................................................................................................................. 37
F 200 Certificate of Conformity.................................................................................................................................... 38
F 300 Statement of Compliance.................................................................................................................................... 39
F 400 Verification Comments Sheet ............................................................................................................................. 40
F 500 Visit Report......................................................................................................................................................... 41
App. C Generic Detailed Verification Scopes of Work Tables ................................................................. 45
A 100 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 45
B. Description of Terms Used in the Scope of Work Tables ............................................................................................ 45
B 100 Abbreviations and Terms.................................................................................................................................... 45
B 200 Audit ................................................................................................................................................................... 45
B 300 Surveillance ........................................................................................................................................................ 45
B 400 Hold Point ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
B 500 Review ................................................................................................................................................................ 46
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 6 – Contents
C. Overall Project Management ........................................................................................................................................ 46

C 100 Availability of Documents.................................................................................................................................. 46
C 200 Detailed Scope of Work for Overall Project Management................................................................................. 46
D. Design ........................................................................................................................................................................... 46
D 100 General................................................................................................................................................................ 46
D 200 Design Verification............................................................................................................................................. 46
D 300 Low Level Design Verification .......................................................................................................................... 47
D 400 Medium Level Design Verification .................................................................................................................... 47
D 500 High Level Design Verification.......................................................................................................................... 47
D 600 Safety-critical Elements and Components .......................................................................................................... 47
D 700 Scope of Work for Design .................................................................................................................................. 49
E. Construction .................................................................................................................................................................. 62
E 100 General................................................................................................................................................................ 62
E 200 Construction Verification ................................................................................................................................... 62
E 300 Low Level Construction Verification ................................................................................................................. 63
E 400 Medium Level Construction Verification........................................................................................................... 63
E 500 High Level Construction Verification ................................................................................................................ 63
E 600 Verification of Work in Progress........................................................................................................................ 63
E 700 DNV Final Report............................................................................................................................................... 64
E 800 Scope of Work for Construction ......................................................................................................................... 64
F. Commissioning ............................................................................................................................................................. 71
F 100 General................................................................................................................................................................ 71
F 200 Commissioning Verification............................................................................................................................... 71
F 300 Low Level Commissioning Verification ............................................................................................................ 72
F 400 Medium Level Commissioning Verification ...................................................................................................... 72
F 500 High Level Commissioning Verification............................................................................................................ 72
F 600 Verification of Work in Progress........................................................................................................................ 72
F 700 DNV Final Report............................................................................................................................................... 72
F 800 Scope of Work for Commissioning Verification ................................................................................................ 72
G. Operations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 77
G 100 General................................................................................................................................................................ 77
G 200 Operations Verification....................................................................................................................................... 77
G 300 Low Level Operations Verification .................................................................................................................... 77
G 400 Medium Level Operations Verification .............................................................................................................. 77
G 500 High Level Operations Verification.................................................................................................................... 77
G 600 DNV Final Report............................................................................................................................................... 77
G 700 Scope of Work for Operations Verification........................................................................................................ 77
H. Modifications or Upgrades............................................................................................................................................ 86
H 100 General Principles............................................................................................................................................... 86
H 200 Verification of Design of Modifications............................................................................................................. 86
H 300 Verification of Construction of Modifications ................................................................................................... 87
H 400 Verification of Commissioning of Modifications............................................................................................... 87
App. D Major Accident Hazards Versus Safety-critical Elements ........................................................... 88
A 100 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 88
App. E Guidance on the Development of Verification Plans .................................................................... 92
A 100 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 92
B. The Verification Plan’s Part in Facility Risk Management .......................................................................................... 92
B 100 Risk Reduction in Principle ................................................................................................................................ 92
B 200 The Major Accident Hazard Process and Integrity Management....................................................................... 92
C. Independent Third-Party Verification ........................................................................................................................... 93
C 100 What is Verification? .......................................................................................................................................... 93
C 200 How Verification Is Carried Out......................................................................................................................... 93
C 300 Content of Verification Plan ............................................................................................................................... 93
C 400 Formal Guidance on Verification Plans and Practices ....................................................................................... 94
D. Verification Plan ........................................................................................................................................................... 94
D 100 Development of the Verification Plan ................................................................................................................ 94
D 200 Development of Examination Scope of Work Documents................................................................................. 94
D 300 Methods of Examination..................................................................................................................................... 94
D 400 Project Phase....................................................................................................................................................... 94
D 500 Control of Verification........................................................................................................................................ 95
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Contents – Page 7
E. Verification Reporting .................................................................................................................................................. 95

E 100 Control of Verification Reports .......................................................................................................................... 95
E 200 Verification Status Reporting ............................................................................................................................. 96
F. Review and Revision of the Verification Plan.............................................................................................................. 96
F 100 Continuous Review of the Plan .......................................................................................................................... 96
F 200 Events Initiating Revisions ................................................................................................................................. 96
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 8 – Sec.1
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION TO RISK-BASED VERIFICATION
A. Introduction
A 100 Function of this Document
101 This Service Specification gives criteria for and guidance on third-party verification of the safety and
integrity of hydrocarbon refineries and petrochemical facilities during new developments, operations and
during modifications to existing facilities.
102 This document is an object-specific Service Specification conforming to the philosophy defined in DNV-
OSS-300 Risk-based Verification, ref. Sec.1 E.
A 200 Objectives
201 The objectives of this document are to:
— describe DNV’s verification services for hydrocarbon refineries and petrochemical facilities during:
— design
— construction
— commissioning
— operations
— modification.
— provide guidance for facility Owners and other parties for the selection of the level of involvement of those
carrying out verification activities, whether quantitatively as a result of a quantitative risk assessment or
qualitatively by simple trigger questions.
— provide a common platform for describing the scope and extent of verification activities.
A 300 Scope of Application for Verification
301 This DSS may be adopted for the verification of all parts of all hydrocarbon refineries or types of
petrochemical facilities or selected project phases.
302 This DSS describes the principle of a levelled verification involvement, where the extent of verification
involvement is linked to the risks associated with part or all of the facility.
303 The primary scope of DNV’s verification work is the verification of the integrity of hydrocarbon
facilities and the safety of its personnel and those in close proximity to it. Other aspects, such as the verification
of the environmental impact of the facility, or its ability to meet the Owner’s business objectives, may be
included in DNV’s scope of work if desired by the Owner.
304 Statutory verification (or certification) of hydrocarbon facilities to the requirements of National
Authorities is not included specifically in the scope of application of this DSS. Such verification (or
certification) shall be governed by the regulations of the relevant Authority. However, if detailed procedures
are not given by these Authorities, this DSS will be used by DNV as a guideline for its work.
A 400 Structure of this Document
401 This document consists of three sections and five appendices:
— Section 1, this section, explains the relationship between this document and DNV’s overall risk-based
verification process.
— Section 2 explains the principles of DNV’s verification process with its risk-based levels of involvement,
and how the level of involvement for a particular project is defined.
— Section 3 describes the verification process and the activities for each of the project phases.
— Appendix A gives guidance on the selection of verification level, preferably as the result from a quantitative
risk assessment or alternatively, qualitatively as a result of the posing of trigger questions.
— Appendix B gives examples of verification documents. The use of quality management systems is
addressed here.
— Appendix C gives a generic detailed scope of work tables for all phases and all levels of involvement. These
tables are the basis for the development of project-specific scopes of work tables.
— Appendix D gives typical refinery hazards and their interface with safety-critical elements and risk
mitigation measures.
— Appendix E gives guidance on the formulation of plans for the verification of the design, construction and
commissioning of hydrocarbon facilities.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.1 – Page 9
B. Risk-based Verification
B 100 General
101 This DSS describes the principles of verification of the safety and integrity of hydrocarbon facilities for
all phases.
102 The risk based verification concept is described in DNV-OSS-300 and visualized in Figure 1 overleaf.
103 The Verification Plan is the pivot element, with the Asset Specification, Risk Assessment and Definition
of Verification Involvement as input and the Verification Execution being the implementation.
B 200 Verification’s Role in Hazard Management
201 Major Accident Hazards are identified in a Formal Safety Assessment by an analysis of the risks to the
facility’s personnel using suitable definitions of such accidents.
202 Safety-critical Elements are those hardware-related measures, including computer software, designed to
reduce the risk to the facility’s personnel.
203 Performance Standards are the definitions of how these safety-critical elements perform their risk
reduction functions.
204 Verification Plan is how an independent examination of these safety-critical elements is planned to
confirm that they are suitable and fulfil the safety and integrity requirements of the facility’s Owner.
A graphical representation of this process is shown in Figure 2 overleaf.
Guidance note:
Further details of these terms are given in Appendix E B200.
---e-n-d---of---G-u-i-d-a-n-c-e---n-o-t-e---
Asset Planned
Asset Specification
including overall company acceptance criteria,
performance requirements and
verification objectives
Risk Assessment
including identification of hazards and
ranking of hazards based on risk evaluation
Definition of Verification Involvement

including detailing of acceptance criteria, and
performance requirements
Verification Plan
including list of verification activities
Verification Execution
including reporting of compliance or
non-compliance
Asset Completed
Figure 1
DNV Risk-based Verification Flow Chart
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 10 – Sec.1
1 Hyd rocarbon
Co ntainment
Formal 2 P rimary Struc ut re

3 S MS
4 ESD
5 F & GS ystems etc
Safety etc... . .
6
7
Assessment Major Ac cident 8

9
10
11
Hazards
Safety
Critical Wri tten
Sc heme o f
Elements Performance Exam ination
Standards
Verification
Plan
Figure 2
Verification as Part of Hazard Management
B 300 Risk-based Verification Planning

301 The selection of the level of verification shall depend on the level of risk a particular item adds to the
overall risk to the facility. The planning can be simplified or detailed. This is further described in DNV-OSS-
300.
302 This Service Specification addresses both approaches as input into the preparation of a verification plan.
Guidance note:
Risk can be evaluated based on safety, environmental impact, business, schedule, public relations, reputation or other
criteria set by the Owner.
The generic scopes of work tables are generated based on safety and integrity risks. Where other risks, such as
environment or business, are required by the Owner to be considered during the verification process, the principles
set out in this document may be used to modify the generic scopes of work tables given in Appendix C.
303 In view of the complexity of most hydrocarbon facilities, DNV recommends strongly that the
verification level be derived from the results of a quantitative risk assessment of the facility.
Guidance note:
Only in the simplest of hydrocarbon facilities, with consequently lower levels of risk would DNV consider that
simplified qualitative verification planning using the trigger questions set out in Appendix A be justifiable.
For novel technology for which there are no applicable standards to verify against, Technology Qualification
according to procedures as defined in “DNV-RP-A203 Qualification Procedures For New Technology” can be used
as input for Verification.
B 400 Certificate of Conformity

401 A Certificate of Conformity may be issued by DNV to confirm compliance according to the scope of
work. An example is given in Appendix B.
402 The DNV Certificate of Conformity confirms that, after performing verification according to a DNV
defined scope of work, DNV has found the hydrocarbon facility to conform to a given DNV Standard or
acceptable international standard.
403 Usually DNV performs the complete scope of work. However, in some circumstances, DNV may accept
external Independent Review Certificates, for example for pressure vessels. This shall be reflected in the
Certificate text.
404 A Statement of Compliance is issued in all instances where Certificate of Conformity is not applicable.
See Appendix B for further details.
C. Definitions
C 100 Verbal Forms
101 “Shall”: Indicates requirements to be followed in order to conform to this DSS and from which no
deviation is permitted.
102 “Should”: Indicates that among several possibilities, one is recommended as being particularly suitable,
without mentioning or excluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily
required. Other possibilities may be applied subject to agreement.
103 “May”: Verbal form used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of this DSS.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.1 – Page 11
C 200 Definitions
201 Certificate of Conformity: A document signed by a qualified party affirming that, at the time of
assessment, the product or service met the stated requirements (BS 4778: Part 2), ref. Sec.1 E.
Guidance note:
For this DSS, a Certificate is a short document (often a single page) stating compliance with specified requirements.
The results from the associated verification activities shall be contained in a separate (single or multiple volumes)
report.
202 Commissioning (phase): The phase, after mechanical completion, where the facility is made ready for
operation. This phase includes any contractual performance trials.
203 Commissioning Completion: is the completion of the commissioning phase where the hydrocarbon
facility is capable of performing to its design specification. This may include contractual performance trials.
204 Construction (phase): All activities during construction, including fabrication, installation and testing up
to mechanical completion.
205 Design: All related engineering to design the facility including process, structural, mechanical, electrical
and instrumentation disciplines as well as materials and corrosion.
206 Design (phase): An initial project phase that takes a systematic approach to the production of
specifications, drawings and other documents to ensure that the facility meets specified requirements
(including design reviews to ensure that design output is verified against design input requirements).
207 Fabrication: Activities related to the assembly of objects such as structural assemblies, pressure vessels,
piping or tanks. These may be built fully on-site or built offsite in parts and transferred to site for assembly or
integration.
208 Hazard: A physical situation with the potential to cause harm, such as injury or death to workers, damage
to property, disruption of business or pollution of the environment.
209 HAZOP (HAZard and OPerability study): The application of a formal systematic detailed examination
of the process and engineering intention of new or existing facilities to assess the hazard potential of operation
outside the design intention or malfunction of individual items of equipment and their consequential effects on
the facility as a whole.
210 Manufacture: is the making of articles or materials for the facility. In relation to hydrocarbon facilities,
this typically refers to activities for the production of various components under contracts from one or more
contractor or supplier.
211 Mechanical Completion: is the completion of the construction phase (qv) where all equipment, such as
pumps and compressors, may be energised and pressure vessels may be filled with their contents to enable
commissioning to take place.
212 Modifications: Alterations to an existing hydrocarbon facility by modifying an existing part of the
facility or adding new parts.
Guidance note:
In hydrocarbon facilities, this is referred to frequently as “upgrading”.
213 Operations (phase): The phase when the facility is being used for the purpose for which it was designed.
214 Risk: The qualitative or quantitative likelihood of an accident or unplanned event occurring, considered
in conjunction with the potential consequences of such a failure: in quantitative terms, risk is proportional to
the quantified probability of a defined failure mode times its quantified consequence.
215 Risk Reduction Measures: Those measures taken to reduce the risks to the operation of the hydrocarbon
facility and to the health and safety of personnel associated with it or in its vicinity by:
— Reduction in the probability of failure.
— Mitigation of the consequences of failure.
Guidance note:
The usual order of preference of risk reduction measures is:
- inherent safety
- prevention
- detection
- control
- mitigation
- emergency response.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 12 – Sec.1
216 Safety Objectives: The safety goals in terms of functionality, reliability/availability and survivability for
the design, construction and operation of the hydrocarbon facility including acceptance criteria for the level of
risk acceptable to the Owner.
217 Verification: An examination to confirm that an activity, a product or a service is in accordance with
specified requirements.
Guidance note:
The examination shall be based on information, which can be proved true, based on facts obtained through
observation, measurement, test or other means.
It should be noted that there is a distinct difference between verification and certification.
The scope of work for verification is ultimately decided by the customer, while the scope of work for certification is
ultimately decided by DNV (or the national authorities when DNV issues certificates on their behalf).
218 Verification Plan: A plan, which defines the scope of the work for verification; it includes verification
objectives, acceptance criteria, elements to be verified, level of involvement by party and type of verification
activity.
D. Abbreviations
ALARP As Low as Reasonable Practicable
BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
D&ID Ducting and Instrumentation Diagram
ESD Emergency Shutdown
ESDV Emergency Shutdown Valve
FEED Front End Engineering Design
FERA Fire and Explosion Risk Assessment
FGS Fire and Gas System
FMEA Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
HAZID Hazard Identification
HAZOP Hard and Operability Study
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
ICS Integrated Control System
NDT Non-destructive Testing
OSS (Offshore) Service Specification
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
PCS Process Control System
PFD Process Flow diagram
PFP Passive Fire Protection
PLEM Pipeline End Manifold
PS Performance Standard
PSD Process Shutdown
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
SCE Safety-critical Element
SIL Safety Integrity level
SPM Single Point Mooring
UFD Utility Flow Diagram
UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
VAR Verification Activity Report
VCE Vapour Cloud Explosion
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.1 – Page 13
E. References
DNV-OSS-300 Risk Based Verification, 2004, Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway
ISO 8402 Quality -Vocabulary, 1994 (withdrawn), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems - Fundamentals and Vocabulary, 2005, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva
ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems - Requirements, 2008, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva
ISO 10005 Quality Management Systems – Guidelines for Quality Plans, 2005, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva
ISO TR 10013 Guidelines for Quality Management System Documentation, 2001, International Organization
for Standardization, Geneva
EN 10204 Metallic Products - Types of Inspection Documents, 2004, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels
BS 4778 Quality Vocabulary, Part 2 Quality Concepts and Related Definitions, 1991, British Standards
Institute, London
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, HMSO London, ISBN 0 10 543774 3
The Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005, Statutory Instrument 2005 number 3117, HMSO
London, ISBN 0 11 073610 9
A Guide to the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005, HSE Books London, ISBN 0 7176 6184 9
Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 Concerning the Modules for the Various Phases of the
Conformity Assessment Procedures and the Rules for the Affixing and Use of the CE Conformity Marking,
which are Intended to be Used in the Technical Harmonisation Directives, Official Journal L 282 of 17/11/93.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 14 – Sec.2
SECTION 2
PRINCIPLES OF RISK-BASED VERIFICATION
A. Purpose of Section
A 100 Objectives
101 The objectives of this section are to provide:
— an introduction to the principles of verification the safety and integrity of hydrocarbon refineries and
petrochemical facilities,
— an introduction to the principles of risk-based levels of verification activity and
— guidance on the selection of levels of verification.
B. Verification Principles
B 100 Purpose of Verification
101 Verification constitutes a systematic and independent examination of the various phases in the life of a
hydrocarbon facility to determine whether it has sufficient integrity to meet its safety objectives.
102 Verification activities are expected to identify errors or failures in the safety and integrity-related work
associated with the hydrocarbon facility and to contribute to reducing the risks to its operation and to the health
and safety of personnel associated with it or in its vicinity.
103 Verification is primarily focused on integrity and human safety, but business risk (cost and schedule)
may be addressed also if required by the Owner.
B 200 Verification as a Complementary Activity
201 Verification shall be complementary to routine design, construction and operations activities and not a
substitute for them. Therefore, although verification will take into account the work, and the assurance of that
work, carried out by the Owner and its contractors, it is possible that verification will duplicate some work that
has been carried out previously by other parties involved in the hydrocarbon facility.
202 The verification plan shall be developed and implemented in such a way as to minimise additional work
and cost, and to maximise its effectiveness. The development of the verification plan shall depend on the
findings from the examination of quality management systems, the examination of documents and the
examination of project activities.
B 300 Risk-based Levels of Verification
301 To achieve a DNV Certificate of Conformity for a hydrocarbon facility a verification of the activities
described by the scope of work defined within this DSS first shall take place.
302 The level of verification activity is differentiated according to the overall risk to the facility and to
individual parts of it. If the risk to the facility (or a particular part) is higher, the level of verification
involvement is higher. Conversely, if the risk to the facility (or a particular part) is lower, the level of
verification activities can be reduced, without any reduction in their effectiveness.
303 Verification of hydrocarbon facilities is categorised into Low, Medium and High. A summary of the
levels of involvement is given in Table 2-1.
304 It is the prerogative of the Owner of the hydrocarbon facility to choose the level of verification. The
selection should consider the factors given in Sec.2 C. The selection of the most suitable verification level may
be guided by using the information gained from a Quantitative Risk Assessment, or alternatively qualitatively
by trigger questions, as described in Appendix A. Further guidance is provided in OSS-300 Risk Based
Verification.
305 Where DNV is issuing the Certificate of Conformity for the facility, DNV will decide on the appropriate
scope and use the same type of questions to evaluate the suitability of the selected level.
306 Different levels of verification can be chosen for different phases of the hydrocarbon facility’s design,
construction or commissioning, or even within the same phase if necessary. For example, the design of a
particular component or unit may be innovative and considered high risk whereas the construction and
installation methods are well-known and considered low risk. The converse might be true also.
307 The level of verification can be reduced or increased during a phase if the originally chosen level is
considered too rigorous or too lenient, as new information on the risks to the hydrocarbon facility becomes
available.
308 Verification should be planned in close co-operation with the Owner and each of its contractors, to
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.2 – Page 15
provide a scope of work that is tailor-made to the schedule of each production process or activity, i.e. to make
the verification activities, surveillance and hold points, an integrated activity and not a delaying activity.
Guidance note:
Many contractors have adequate quality control systems and quality control departments, with competent personnel
to perform, for example, inspection at pressure vessel manufacturers.
In that case, not all verification work need be done by DNV personnel. Where applicable, the various inspections may
be carried out by competent persons other than DNV personnel.
In that situation DNV’s verification activities may comprise:
- reviewing the competence of the contractor’s personnel,
- auditing their working methods and their performance of that work, and
- reviewing the documents produced by them.
309 Verification will direct greatest effort at those elements of the hydrocarbon facility whose failure or reduced
performance will have the most significant impact on safety and integrity.
310 The degree of confidence placed in a certificate by its users depends on their degree of confidence in the
verification carried out. Therefore, the level of verification will be stated on the Certificate of Conformity for
the facility.
311 If more than one verification level has been used for a phase, then the lowest level will be reported on
the facility’s certificate, and the additional verification activities will be identified and described in the
verification report.
C. Selection of Level of Verification

C 100 Selection Factors
101 The selection of the level of verification shall depend on the criticality of each of the elements that have
an impact on the management of hazards and associated risk levels of the facility. This is illustrated by Figure
1 below.
102 The contribution of each element shall be judged qualitatively and/or quantitatively and shall use, where
possible, quantified risk assessment data to provide a justifiable basis for any decisions made.
Table 2-1 Levels of Verification - Summary of Involvement
Level Description of involvement Guidance for application on the level of involvement
— Review of general principles and production — Proven facility designs with relatively harmless
systems during design, construction and contents and/or installed in benign
commissioning environmental conditions
— Review of principal design documents, — Established design; manufacturing and
Low construction and commissioning procedures and installation by experienced contractors
qualification reports — Low consequences of failure from a safety point
— Site attendance only during system testing of view (or environmental or commercial, if
— Less comprehensive involvement than level required)
Medium — Relaxed to normal completion schedule
— Review of general principles and production
systems during design, construction and
commissioning — Facilities in moderate or well-controlled
— Detailed review of principal and other selected environmental conditions
design documents with support of simplified — Facilities with a moderate degree of novelty
Medium independent analyses — Medium consequences of failure from a safety
— Detailed review of construction and point of view, (or environmental or commercial,
commissioning procedures if required
— Full time attendance during (procedure) — Ordinary completion schedule
qualification and review of the resulting reports
— Audit-based or intermittent presence at site
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 16 – Sec.2
Table 2-1 Levels of Verification - Summary of Involvement (Continued)

Level Description of involvement Guidance for application on the level of involvement
— Review of general principles and production
systems during design, construction and
commissioning — Facilities with a high degree of novelty or large
— Detailed review of most design documents with
leaps in technology
support of simplified and advanced independent — Extreme environmental conditions
analyses — Inexperienced contractors or exceptionally tight
High — Detailed review of construction and
completion schedule
commissioning procedures — Very high consequences of failure from a safety
— Full-time attendance during (procedure) point of view (or environmental or commercial,
qualification and review of the resulting reports
if required
— Full time presence at site for most activities
— More comprehensive involvement than level
Medium
Guidance note:
Completion schedules affect verification involvement in an indirect but important way. The effect of a tight
completion schedule is pressure on the project team to take less time to carry out the various tasks. Tight completion
schedules are more prone to run late, thus adding more pressure on the project team. Problems which have been
encountered in this situation in the past have included:
- design reviews not carried out
- incomplete welding
- non-destructive testing incomplete
- missing structural members
- commissioning incomplete.
103 Selection factors are the:

— overall safety objectives for the facility,
— assessment of the risks associated with the facility and the measures taken to reduce these risks,
— degree of technical innovation in the facility,
— experience of the contractors in carrying out similar work,
— quality management systems of the Owner and its contractors.
Increasing
High Risk
HIGH
Probability MEDIUM
of Failure
LOW
Low
Consequence of Failure High
Figure 1
Selection of the Required Level of Verification
C 200 Overall Safety Objective

201 An overall safety objective covering all phases of the hydrocarbon facility from design to operation shall
be defined by the Owner. The safety objective should address the main safety goals as well as establishing
acceptance criteria for the level of risk acceptable to the Owner. Depending on the facility and its location, the
risk could be measured in terms of human injuries as well as environmental, political and economic
consequences.
C 300 Assessment of Risk
301 A systematic review should be carried out to identify and evaluate the probabilities and consequences of
failures in the hydrocarbon facility. The extent of the review shall reflect the criticality of the facility, the
planned operation and previous experience with similar facilities. This review shall identify the risk to the
operation of the facility and to the health and safety of personnel associated with it or in its vicinity.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.2 – Page 17
302 Once the risks have been identified, their extent can be reduced to a level as low as reasonably practicable
by means of one or both of:
— reduction in the probability of failure,
— mitigation of the consequences of failure.
Guidance note:
Reasonable Practicability
The term “as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP)” has come into use through the United Kingdom’s “The Health
and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974”.Ref Sec. E109. Reasonable Practicability is not defined in the Act but has acquired
meaning by interpretations in the courts.
It has been interpreted to mean that the degree of risk from any particular activity can be balanced against the cost,
time and trouble of the measures to be taken to reduce the risk.
Therefore, it follows that the greater the risk the more reasonable it would be to incur substantial cost, time and effort
in reducing that risk. Similarly, if the risk were very small it would not be reasonable to expect great expense or effort
to be incurred in reducing it.
Further guidance on the principles and application of ALARP may be obtained from the United Kingdom’s Heath and
Safety Executive web-site at http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp.htm (July 2009).
303 The result of the systematic review of these risks is measured against the safety objectives and used in
the selection of the appropriate verification activity level.
C 400 Technical Innovation and Contractor Experience
401 The degree of technical innovation in the hydrocarbon facility system shall be considered. Risks to the
facility are likely to be greater for a facility with a high degree of technical innovation than with a facility
designed, manufactured and installed to well-known criteria in well-known locations.
402 Similarly, the degree of risk to the facility should be considered where contractors are inexperienced or
the work schedule is tight.
403 Factors to be considered in the selection of the appropriate verification level include:
— degree of difficulty in achieving technical requirements,
— knowledge of similar facilities,
— knowledge of contractors’ general experience,
— knowledge of contractors’ experience in similar work.
C 500 Quality Management Systems
501 Adequate quality management systems shall be implemented to ensure that gross errors in the work for
facility design, construction and operations are limited.
502 Factors to be considered when evaluating the adequacy of the quality management system include:
— whether or not an ISO 9001, ref. Sec.1 E or equivalent certified system is in place
— results from external audits
— results from internal audits
— experience with contractors’ previous work
— project work-force familiarity with the quality management system, e.g. has there been a rapid expansion
of the work force or are all parties of a joint venture familiar with the same system.
D. Communications
D 100 Notification of Verification Level
101 An assessment of the required level of verification for a project should be made by the Owner before
preparing tender documents for design and construction activities. The Owner can then specify this level in
Invitations to Tender. This will give contractors clear guidance and reference when estimating the extent and cost
of efforts associated with verification activities.
102 The required level of verification can be assessed by the Owner using this DSS. However, if the Owner
requires the Contractor to carry out this assessment as part of his response to an Invitation to Tender the Owner
should provide the necessary information to enable the Contractor to carry out this work. This information
should include overall safety objectives for the hydrocarbon facility as well as particulars, such as temperatures,
pressures, contents and environmental criteria, commonly contained in a design brief.
D 200 Obligations
201 To achieve the purpose and benefits of verification the involved parties shall be mutually obliged to share
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 18 – Sec.2
and act upon all relevant information pertaining to the verification scope.
202 The Owner shall be obliged to:
— Inform DNV about the basis for selecting the level of verification and the investigations and assumptions
made in this context.
— Give DNV full access to all information concerning the verification scope for the hydrocarbon facility and
ensure that clauses to this effect are included in contracts for parties acting on behalf of the Owner and
parties providing products, processes and services covered by the verification scope. If information is
proprietary and not available, exclusion from verification shall be mutually agreed with DNV.
— Ensure that DNV is involved in the handling of deviations from specified requirements within the
verification scope.
— Act upon information provided by DNV with respect to events or circumstances that may jeopardise the
safety or integrity of the facility and/or the purpose and benefit of verification
— Ensure that the Safety Objective established for the facility is known and pursued by parties acting on
behalf of the Owner and parties providing products, processes and services covered by the verification
scope.
203 Second parties shall be obliged to:
— Perform their assigned tasks in accordance with the safety objectives established for the project.
— Provide the Owner and DNV with all relevant information pertaining to the verification scope.
204 DNV will be obliged to:
— Inform the Owner if, in the opinion of DNV, the basis for selecting the level of verification or the
assumptions made in this respect are found to be in error or assessed incorrectly.
— Inform the Owner of events or circumstances that, in the opinion of DNV, may jeopardise the safety or
integrity of the facility and/or the purpose and benefit of verification.
— Effectively perform all verification work and adjust the level of involvement according to the actual
performance of parties providing products, processes and services covered by the verification scope.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.3 – Page 19
SECTION 3
SERVICE OVERVIEW
A. Purpose of Section
A 100 Objectives
101 The objectives of this section are to provide, for hydrocarbon refining and petrochemical facilities:
— an overview of verification activities
— details of DNV’s verification activities for aspects of the facility’s development, operation or modification.
B. Service Process
B 100 General Principles
101 The process of DNV’s verification of hydrocarbon facilities is based on distinct project phases and the
recognition of key milestones.
102 The risk based verification process follows the common project phases:
FEED (optional):
— conceptual design
Project Design and Construction:
— project management
— detail design
— construction
— manufacturing and fabrication of components and assemblies
— site assembly and integration
Project Completion
— commissioning
— issue of as-built and as-installed documentation
Facility Operations
— operations, maintenance and inspection
Facility Modifications:
— design, construction and commissioning of modifications and alterations
Verification tasks need not be performed as part of a complete verification (or certification) of a hydrocarbon
facility but can be stand-alone service for all or part of a project.
B 200 Scopes of Work
201 An overview of the scopes of work for verification, at the three levels of verification Low (L), Medium
(M) and High (H), are given in the tables in this section.
202 Note that the activity “Audit of the quality management system” may be omitted if there exists a quality
management system in accordance with ISO 9001, certified by an accredited third party for the scope of work
being carried out in the project.
203 Typical generic detailed scopes of work descriptions, which show all the activities to be verified, are
given in Appendix C.
204 A specific scope of work description shall be made for each particular project. This description should
be similar to the tables in Appendix C and will be part of the final DNV verification report.
205 For operations, which are not mentioned specifically in the tables, but which are still found critical for a
particular project, the same general levels will be described.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 20 – Sec.3
C. FEED
C 100 Verification During FEED
101 Verification during FEED, or the conceptual and/or feasibility studies of a project, is not a prerequisite
for verification. However, verification of the early stages of a project can reduce the extent, depth and cost of
verification required during the design, construction and commissioning phases or indicates areas where
verification would be difficult to achieve without further work being undertaken.
102 Design verification during FEED can be combined with additional reviews, where required by the
Owner, of:
— environmental aspects
— project schedule
— cost.
103 The FEED design documents shall be reviewed on a sample basis to ensure that the requirements of the
project’s specifications and standards have been incorporated.
104 Verification during FEED is the examination of the assumptions, methods and results of the design
process and is performed to ensure that the specified requirements of the project will be achieved.
105 FEED verification will consist of one, or more, of reviewing:
— specifications for design
— design reports and drawings
— calculations
— specifications for construction and operation, resulting from design.
106 Definition of the scope of work for verification of FEED will follow Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Scope of work for verification of FEED

Level
Verification activity L M H
Review of reports and specifications for construction and operation by 1)
— spot check of critical aspects x x x
— spot check review of main specifications and reports x x
— thorough review of main specifications and reports x
1) Services related to safety and integrity risks only.
However, optional verification services, relating to environmental, business or other risks, when requested by the Owner, may be
carried out in the same manner.
D. Project Design, Construction

and Commissioning
D 100 General
101 All design, construction and commissioning aspects, relevant to hydrocarbon facility safety and
integrity, shall be covered by the verification process.
102 Verification describes the individual activities undertaken by DNV at the various stages of the design,
construction and commissioning of the hydrocarbon facility to confirm that the safety and integrity
requirements of the Owner have been fulfilled.
D 200 Verification of Overall Project Management
201 Verification of the overall project management is the examination of the means of controlling the whole
hydrocarbon facility project.
202 This verification is to ensure that the necessary controls are in place to ensure information flows between
the various interfaces. This is especially important where separate contractors have been employed for different
phases of the project.
203 Definition of the scope of work for verification of overall project management will follow Table 3-2.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.3 – Page 21
Table 3-2 Scope of work for verification of overall project management

Level
Review of the project management process by
— review of project quality management documentation. x x x
— audit of the quality management system x x
— review of sub-contractor control x x
— review of interface controls x x
— review of methods of information flow including document control x x
D 300 Verification during Design
301 Design verification is the examination of the assumptions, methods and results of the design process and is
performed at the specified level of verification to ensure that the specified requirements of the hydrocarbon facility
will be achieved.
302 Design verification will consist of one or more, of the following:
— reviewing the design process
— reviewing specifications for design
— reviewing design reports and drawings
— review of technology qualification program and associated results (for new technology)
— performing independent parallel calculations
— audit of project quality management system reviewing specifications for construction and operation,
resulting from design.
303 Typical design aspects that shall be verified during the design of hydrocarbon facilities are:
Civil and Structural
— geotechnical report
— civil works and foundations
— structures.
Plant Facilities
— general plant layout and equipment
— process safety systems
— emergency shutdown and alarm systems
— hazardous area classification and ventilation.
— passive and active fire protection philosophy
— fire and gas detection and alarm system
— electrical system
— emergency lighting
— process and utility piping systems
— mechanical system
— material selection and corrosion management.
304 Definition of the scope of work for verification of design will follow Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Scope of work for verification of design

Level
Review of the design process by
— review of design quality management documentation x x x
— audit of design quality management system x x
Review of specifications for design by
— review of the design basis with emphasis of the survey results and environmental data:
x x x
evaluation of the design criteria
Review of design reports and drawings by
— review of the main documentation to ensure that the main criteria have been accounted
for in design, that the governing conditions are identified, and that the chosen design x x x
philosophies are in accordance with specified codes and standards
— evaluation of the main methods used and spot checks of the input data and the calculation
x x
results
— detail review of main design reports x
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 22 – Sec.3
Table 3-3 Scope of work for verification of design (Continued)

Level
Performing independent parallel calculations by
— check of pressure containment or overall integrity x x x
— simplified independent analysis/ calculation(s) performed by spot checks x x
— advanced independent analysis/ calculation(s) performed by spot checks x
Review of specifications for construction and operation by
— spot check of critical aspects x x x
— review of main specifications x x
— thorough review of main specifications x
Review of specific operational challenges
— general principles x x x
— review of main documents supported by simplified analyses x x
Guidance note:
Design verification activities may be split up between Basic Design and Detailed Design, or other sub-phase,
depending on type of contract.
D 400 Verification During Construction

401 Verification during construction is carried out by means of full time attendance, audits, inspection or spot
checks of the work, as appropriate, in sufficient detail to ensure that the specified requirements of the
hydrocarbon facility will be achieved.
402 Verification of these activities relates not only to the contractor’s work but also to the monitoring of this
work carried out by the Owner.
403 During construction verification shall consist of one, or more, of:
— reviewing the construction process
— reviewing construction procedures
— reviewing qualification processes and results
— surveillance during construction activities
— reviewing final documentation.
404 Typical site activities to be verified during construction and up to mechanical completion are:
Civil and Structural
— civil and structural works
— equipment supports
— storage tank foundations
— structural fire protection.
Mechanical
— mechanical equipment installation
— process piping installation
— welding procedures qualification and control
— welders’ qualification and welders’ identification control
— welding quality records
— non-destructive testing methods and reports
— pressure and leak tests of process piping system
— set pressures for relief valves.
Electrical and Instrumentation
— electrical equipment and instrumentation in hazardous areas
— insulation resistance and continuity tests on equipment and cables
— equipment earthing
— electrical installation work
— relevant tests of electrical and instrumentation equipment, especially calibration of instruments and setting
of protective devices if any.
Common
— material control and identification system
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.3 – Page 23
— final inspection reports of procured items.

405 The documents that should be produced in the project and submitted for review typically are:
— construction procedures and method statements; including test requirements, test procedures and
acceptance criteria, repairs, personnel qualification records, etc.
— material specifications and data sheets
— drawings
— quality plans including Inspection and test plans
— welding procedure specifications and welding procedure qualification record
— NDT procedures.
406 The final documentation to be submitted after construction that should reflect the ‘as-built’ status of the
facility, should include but not be limited to:
— construction test records; visual, NDT, test samples, dimensional, heat treatment, etc.
— hydrostatic test reports
— as-built drawings.
407 Definition of the scope of work for verification of construction shall follow Table 3-4 for manufacturing
and fabrication of critical, high-risk, components, Table 3-5 for manufacturing and fabrication of components
not considered to be high-risk and Table 3-6 for site construction activities.
408 Component risk of shall be defined preferably by a quantitative risk assessment but qualitative methods
may be used for lower-risk facilities.
Table 3-4 Scope of work for verification of manufacturing and fabrication of HIGH-RISK
components
Level
Review of the manufacturing & fabrication process
— Review of manufacturing and fabrication management systems x x x
— Audit of the quality management system x x
Review of manufacturing & fabrication procedures
— Review manufacturing, fabrication and inspection procedures for confirmation of x x x
compliance with the manufacturing specification
— Review method statements x x
Review of qualification process
— Review the Manufacturing Procedure Specification, (MPS), Manufacturing Procedure
x x x
Qualification Test (MPQT), if applicable
— Full time attendance during MPQT, if applicable, or first day production x x
Surveillance during manufacturing and fabrication activities
— Visit-based attendance during testing, to ensure, based on spot checks, that the delivered
x x x
products have been produced in accordance with the manufacturing specification
— Visit-based or full-time attendance during manufacturing and fabrication to ensure, based
on spot checks, that the delivered products have been produced in accordance with the x x
manufacturing specification
— Full-time attendance during manufacturing and fabrication to ensure, based on spot checks,
that the delivered products have been produced in accordance with the manufacturing x
specification
Review of final documentation x x x
Guidance note:
Materials may be ordered with certificates of independent third-party verification (e.g. 3.2 according to EN 10204,
ref. Sec.1 E). This can this be integrated in the overall verification activities, so not to duplicate work.
Additionally, credit may be given to components that are CE-marked, providing that the appropriate conformity
assessment modules have been used, e.g. for equipment for which the verification plan requires verification of design,
Module H is insufficient and Module H1 is required, irrespective of the requirement of the particular Directive ref.
Sec.1 E.
D 500 Verification During Commissioning

501 Verification during commissioning is carried out by means of full time attendance, audits, inspection or
spot checks of the work, as appropriate, in sufficient detail to ensure that the specified requirements of the
hydrocarbon facility will be achieved.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 24 – Sec.3
502 Verification of these activities relates not only to the contractor’s work but also to the monitoring of this
work carried out by others.
503 During commissioning verification shall consist of one, or more, of:
— reviewing the commissioning process
— reviewing commissioning procedures
— surveillance during commissioning activities
— reviewing final documentation.
Table 3-5 Scope of work for verification of manufacturing and fabrication of non-HIGH-RISK
components
Level
Review of the manufacturing & fabrication process
— Review of manufacturing and fabrication management systems x x
Review of manufacturing & fabrication procedures
— Review manufacturing, fabrication and inspection procedures for confirmation of
x x
compliance with the manufacturing specification
— Review the Manufacturing Procedure Specification, (MPS), Manufacturing Procedure
x x x
Qualification Test (MPQT), if applicable
— Full time attendance during MPQT, if applicable, or first day production x
Surveillance during manufacturing and fabrication activities
— Visit-based attendance during testing, to ensure, based on spot checks, that the delivered x x
products have been produced in accordance with the manufacturing specification
— Visit-based attendance during manufacturing and fabrication to ensure, based on spot
checks, that the delivered products have been produced in accordance with the x
manufacturing specification
Table 3-6 Scope of work for verification of site construction

Level
Review of the construction process
— Review of construction management systems x x x
Review of construction procedures
— Spot check of construction procedures, including erection procedures x x x
— For critical operations (identified from the FMEA and HAZOP studies or QRA) review the
x x
method statements
— For critical operations, review the qualification process, e.g.
— welding x x x
— non-destructive testing
— site heat treatment
— Full time attendance during qualification tests x x
Surveillance during construction activities
— Visit-based attendance during start of each critical operation x x x
— Full time attendance during each critical operation x x
— Full time attendance for all construction operations x
504 Typical site activities to be verified during commissioning, including any contractual performance test,
are:
Document Review
— commissioning schedule
— checking and testing procedures for commissioning work
— performance test procedures
— audit of as built documentation.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.3 – Page 25
Witnessing Activities
— alarm, fire and gas and shut-down systems tests in accordance with the cause and effect matrix
— function and commissioning tests
— performance tests
— conduct of all commissioning work is carried out in accordance with procedures previously approved.
505 Definition of the scope of work for verification of commissioning will follow Table 3-7.
Table 3-7 Scope of work for verification of site commissioning

Level
Review of the commissioning process
— Review of commissioning management systems x x x
Review of commissioning procedures
— Spot check of commissioning procedures x x x
— For critical operations (identified from the FMEA and HAZOP studies or QRA) review the
x x
method statements
Surveillance during commissioning activities
— Visit-based attendance during start of each critical operation x x x
— Full time attendance during each critical operation x x
— Full time attendance for all commissioning operations x
E. Operations
E 100 General
101 All operations aspects, such as operations, maintenance and inspection, relevant to hydrocarbon facility
safety and integrity, shall be covered by the verification process.
102 Verification describes the individual activities undertaken by DNV during the operation of the
hydrocarbon facility to confirm that the safety and integrity requirements of the Owner continue to be fulfilled.
E 200 Verification of Overall Operations Management
201 Verification of the overall operations management is the examination of the means of controlling the
operation of the whole hydrocarbon facility.
202 This verification is to ensure that the necessary controls are in place to ensure information flows between
the various interfaces. This is especially important where separate contractors have been employed for different
aspects of operations.
203 Definition of the scope of work for verification of overall project management will follow Table 3-8.
Table 3-8 Scope of work for verification of overall operations management

Level
Review of the project management process by
— review of project quality management documentation. x x x
— audit of the quality management system x x
— review of sub-contractor control x x
— review of interface controls x x
— review of methods of information flow including document control x x
E 300 Verification During Operations
301 Verification during operations is carried out by means of audits, inspection or spot checks of the work,
as appropriate, in sufficient detail to ensure that the specified requirements of the hydrocarbon facility continue
to be achieved.
302 Verification of these activities relates not only to the Owner’s work but any work, relevant to the integrity
of the facility and the safety of personnel, carried out by contractors.
303 During operations verification shall consist of one, or more, of:
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 26 – Sec.3
— reviewing the operations, maintenance and inspection processes

— reviewing operations, maintenance and inspection procedures
— surveillance during operations, maintenance and inspection activities
— reviewing documentation of the results of these processes.
Guidance note:
The operations processes, procedures and activities to be verified are only those concerned, wholly or in part, with the
integrity of the hydrocarbon facility or the safety of personnel within or in close proximity.
Operations processes, procedures and activities that are not concerned with facility integrity or personnel safety will
not be verified.
304 Typical activities to be verified during operations are:

Document Review
— integrity management strategies
— operations, maintenance and inspection procedures
— preventative maintenance routines
Witnessing Activities
— alarm, fire and gas and shut-down systems tests in accordance with the cause and effect matrix
— function tests
— conduct of all operations, maintenance and inspection work is carried out in accordance with procedures
previously approved.
305 Definition of the scope of work for verification of operations will follow Table 3-9.
Table 3-9 Scope of work for verification of operations

Level
Review of the operations, maintenance and inspection processes
— Review of integrity management strategies x x x
— Review of operations, maintenance and inspection management
x x
systems
Review of operations, maintenance and inspection procedures
— Review of operations, maintenance and inspection procedures x x x
— Review of preventative maintenance routines x x
Surveillance during operations, maintenance and inspection activities
— Visit-based attendance during conduct of each critical operation x x x
— Full time attendance during shutdowns (or turn-arounds) x x
Review of operations, maintenance and inspection documentation x x x
F. Facility Modifications
F 100 Reasons for Modifications
101 Hydrocarbon facilities are modified or upgraded throughout their lives. Reasons for these modifications
are varied but common reasons are:
— changes in market conditions, e.g. requirements for low-sulphur fuel
— changes in source of crude oil, e.g. higher sulphur crudes have to be used instead of low-sulphur as designed
— technological change i.e. new, more efficient, processes are developed
— changes in facility output, i.e. new products being made requiring new processes to be installed.
102 It is not common that like-for-like replacements are made due to corrosion or other degradation
mechanisms.
F 200 Particular Aspects of Modifications to Hydrocarbon Facilities
201 The essential steps for verification of modifications to hydrocarbon facilities are identical to those in a
new facility. However, the effects on units upstream and downstream of the new or modified unit and units in
physical proximity must be considered.
202 The design of these existing units may have to be reviewed to ensure that the modified unit has no
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec.3 – Page 27
harmful effects on parts of the existing facility.

203 Process Proximity. Consideration must be given during the design of the modification to other parts of
the existing hydrocarbon facility that are in process proximity to the modifications. The effects on units
upstream or downstream must be considered in terms of, for example:
— incoming or outgoing product composition
— corrosion potential of changes in product composition
— changes in product:
— flowrates
— temperatures
— pressures.
204 Physical Proximity. Existing units may be in physical proximity although they may have little or no
process proximity. The effects on units in physical proximity must be considered in terms of, for example:
— fires and explosions
— release of toxic vapour, i.e. HF Alkylation
— changes to escape routes and emergency vehicle access.
F 300 Verification During the Design of Modifications
301 The scope of work for verification of the design of hydrocarbon facility modifications will follow Table
3-3 previously with the addition of specific aspects related to modifications shown in Table 3-10.
F 400 Verification During the Construction of Modifications
401 The scope of work for verification of the construction of hydrocarbon facility modifications will follow
Tables 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6 previously with the addition of specific aspects related to modifications shown in Table
3-11.
402 No additional verification activities have been identified for the verification of manufacturing and
fabrication of components.
Table 3-10 Scope of work for verification of design of modified facilities
Level
Review of specifications for design by
— review of the design basis including the effects on existing units x x x
Review of effects on existing units upstream and downstream
— review main documentation to ensure that the main process effects, including the effects
on units upstream and downstream, have been considered, that the governing conditions
x x x
are identified, and that the chosen design philosophies are in accordance with specified
codes and standards
— evaluation of the main methods used during this consideration with spot checks of the
x x
input data and the calculation results
Review of effects on existing units in physical proximity
— review main documentation to ensure that the main physical proximity effects have been
considered, that the governing conditions are identified, and that the chosen design x x x
philosophies are in accordance with specified codes and standards
— evaluation of the main methods used during this consideration with spot checks of the
input data and the calculation results x x
Table 3-11 Scope of work for verification of site construction of modified facilities
Level
Surveillance during construction activities
— Spot checks of physical effects on existing units, paying particular attention to aspects that
may not have been readily apparent during design, such as:
x x x
— access ways and escape routes
— valve access.
F 500 Verification During the Commissioning of Modifications
501 The scope of work for verification of the commissioning of hydrocarbon facility modifications will
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 28 – Sec.3
follow Table 3-3 previously with the addition of specific aspects related to modifications shown in Table 3-12.
Table 3-12 Scope of work for verification of site commissioning of modified facilities
Level
Surveillance during commissioning activities
— Spot-checks during commissioning, paying particular attention to the continued proper
operation of safety systems in existing units, such as fire and gas and emergency shutdown x x x
systems
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.A – Page 29
APPENDIX A
SELECTION OF VERIFICATION LEVEL
A. Introduction
A 100 General Principles
101 The selection of the level of verification depends on the criticality of each of the elements that have an
impact on the management of risks to the hydrocarbon facility.
102 Verification shall direct greatest effort at those elements of the hydrocarbon facility where the risk is
highest and whose failure or reduced performance will have the most significant impact on the safety and
integrity of the facility. Other risks such as:
— environmental risks
— economic risks.
may be considered if required by the Owner.
103 Suitable selection factors include, but are not limited to, the:
— overall safety objectives for the facility
— assessment of the risks associated with the facility and the measures taken to reduce these risks
— degree of technical innovation in the facility or any of its equipment
— experience of the contractors in carrying out the work
— quality management systems of the Owner and its contractors.
104 Due to the diversity of various hydrocarbon and petrochemical facilities, their contents, their degree of
innovation, the geographic location, etc., it is not possible to give precise guidelines on how to decide what
level of verification is appropriate for each particular facility.
105 In view of the complexity of most hydrocarbon facilities, DNV recommends strongly that the
verification level be derived from the results of a quantitative risk assessment of the facility.
Guidance note:
Only in the simplest of hydrocarbon facilities, with consequently lower levels of risk, would DNV consider that
simplified qualitative verification planning using the trigger questions set out in part C is justifiable.
B. Quantitative Risk Assessment

B 100 Use of a Quantitative Risk Assessment
101 The outcome of a Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) should be a ranking of the risks associated with
particular parts or equipment of the hydrocarbon facility.
102 This ranking shall be used to set the verification level for particular parts of the facility as well as for the
facility as a whole as shown in Figure 1.
Risk Ranking
Verification Effort
Figure 1
Risk Ranking versus Verification Effort
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 30 – App.A
B 200 Scope of a QRA

201 The scope of QRA shall include tasks typically required to assess risks from hazard events to human life,
facility equipment and environment. It shall include:
— hazard identification
— frequency estimation
— consequence criteria
— consequence analysis
— domino effect analysis
— risk summation and evaluation
— sensitivity analysis
— assessment of inherent safety, detection, prevention, control, mitigation and emergency response measures.
B 300 Risk Assessment
301 Risk Assessment should be carried out using Event Tree Analysis and probabilistic analysis and based
on the following requirements:
— The results of the probabilistic analysis should be utilized in the Event Tree Analysis to estimate the
frequencies associated with different hazardous outcomes.
— A probability analysis should then conducted to estimate the fatality probability associated with a
hazardous consequence.
— Risk summation should be conducted using modern computer programs.
302 The results of the study should be presented in terms of individual risk and societal risk from the facilities
as follow:
— The individual risk should be presented in the form of iso-contours.
— Societal risk should be provided in terms of F-N curves.
— Potential Loss of Life will be utilized in assessing the relative risk contribution of different facilities.
303 Risk criteria or guidelines shall identify a level of risk, which is:
— unacceptable or intolerable
— acceptable or negligible.
304 The ALARP area, lying between two ranges above, is the area within which risks must be reduced to
levels As Low As Reasonably Practicable.
305 The reasonable practicality of risk reduction should be established by consideration of cost versus risk
reduction achieved. Preliminary selection of conceptual measures will be effected by consideration of technical
practicality.
306 The project documents to be reviewed for risk assessment are:
— PFDs, UFDs and P&IDs
— stream composition, inventory of hazard substances, operating and design conditions in different
equipment or piping items, failure of which can result in one of the identified hazardous events
— scale plan of the site showing location of all identified failure sources
— description of the processes or storage involving the hazardous substances
— area distribution of on-site population
— other document deemed necessary by the verifier to review for risk assessment.
B 400 Hazard Identification
401 The hazard identification should include the:
— review of previous safety studies or hazard assessment reports
— review of hazardous material data sheets
— identification of hazard locations
— identification of the ways which hazards from every location could become a reality (failure mode analysis)
— classification and ranking of hazardous events in terms of accident potential.
B 500 Frequency Estimation
501 This task has to involve the estimation of the frequency of each representative event identified.
Frequency estimation should comprise two basic steps:
— quantification of the frequency of the initiating events (different failures)
— quantification of the frequency of the various hazardous outcomes (e.g. BLEVE, toxic releases, flash fire,
pool fire, jet fire, tank fire, explosion, etc.).
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.A – Page 31
B 600 Consequence Criteria

601 Consequence criteria should be determined for all effects. More than one criterion determination for an
effect should be carried out where possible.
B 700 Consequence Analysis
701 An accurate assessment of the consequences resulting from a hazard event shall be provided as an
important element of risk assessment. The impacts on surrounding population of each identified hazard events
shall be determined considering consequences arising from hazard events.
702 Advanced models shall be used for investigation of consequences of each identified hazardous event.
703 The results of the major failure events having high damage potential must be represented graphically to
depict potential hazard zones.
704 Significant hazard distances (hazard diagrams) with respect to surrounding areas shall be provided in
both tabular and illustrative forms.
B 800 Domino Effect Analysis
801 The analysis of Domino Effect events (i.e. escalation of initial events to cause more widespread and
serious consequences) shall cover the potential on-site escalation and off-site escalation.
B 900 Risk Summation and Evaluation
901 The risks shall be summarised and assessed in three parts:
— individual risks
— group risks
— other, non-personnel, risks.
902 Individual risks shall be expressed in terms of location-specific and individual-specific risks, by means
of:
— individual risks per year
— fatal accident rate.
903 Group risks shall be expressed in terms of:
— FN curves, showing the relationship between the cumulative frequency (F) and number of fatalities (N).
— Annual fatality rates, in which the frequency and fatality data is combined into a convenient single measure
of group risk.
904 Other risks, depending on the Owner’s requirements, may be expressed in terms of:
— damage risks
— deferred production
— oil spills.
B 1000 Sensitivity Analysis
1001 A sensitivity analysis shall be conducted on the risk assessment results to determine how significantly
any particular estimate is concerning the overall risk calculation.
B 1100 Assessment of Risk Mitigation Measures
1101 A preliminary identification and analysis of possible risk mitigation measures, i.e. Inherent Safety,
Prevention, Detection, Control, Mitigation and Emergency Response, shall be carried out in accordance with
ALARP principle. Practical and cost-effective risk mitigation measures based on the risk assessment results
shall be identified. Societal risk concerns should be incorporated if appropriate taking into consideration
aggregate risk posed to the hydrocarbon facility neighbouring community.
Guidance note:
Appendix D gives typical refinery hazards and the interface with safety-critical elements and risk mitigation
measures.
1102 This assessment shall be reported by means of a cost-benefit analysis.
C. Trigger Questions
C 100 Use of Trigger Questions
101 In the simplest of hydrocarbon facilities, with consequently lower levels of risk DNV consider that
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 32 – App.A
simplified qualitative verification planning using the trigger questions may be justifiable.
102 Guidance is given as a series of questions that should be answered when deciding the appropriate level
of verification for a simple hydrocarbon facility. This list is not exhaustive and other questions should be added
to the list if appropriate for a particular facility.
103 It must be emphasised that the contribution of each element should be judged qualitatively and/or
quantitatively.
104 Depending of the stage of the project, the activities may not have taken place yet in which case the
questions can also be posed in another form, i.e. “Is …. planned to be?”
C 200 Overall Safety Objective
— Does the safety objective address the main safety goals?
— Does the safety objective establish acceptance criteria for the level of risk acceptable to the Owner?
— Is this risk (depending on the type of facility and its location) measured in terms of human injuries?
Guidance note:
Environmental, economic and political risks, amongst others, may be considered if required by the Owner.
C 300 Assessment of Risk

— Has a systematic review been carried out to identify and evaluate the probabilities and consequences of
failures in the hydrocarbon facility?
— Has this review judged the contribution of each element qualitatively and/or quantitatively and used, where
possible, quantified risk assessment data to provide a justifiable basis for any decisions made?
— Does the extent of the review reflect the criticality of the facility, the planned operation and previous
experience with similar facilities?
— Does this review identify the risk to the operation of the facility and to the health and safety of personnel
associated with it or in its vicinity?
— Has the extent of the identified risks been reduced to a level as low as reasonably practicable by means of
one or both of:
— reduction in the probability of failure?
— mitigation of the consequences of failure?
— Has the result of the systematic review of the risks been measured against the Owner’s safety objective?
— Has the result of this review been used in the selection of the appropriate verification activity level?
C 400 Technical Innovation
— Has the degree of technical innovation in the facility been considered?
— Has it been considered that risks to the facility are likely to be greater with a high degree of technical
innovation than with a facility designed, manufactured and installed to well-known criteria in well-known
locations?
— Have factors been considered in the selection of the appropriate verification level such as:
— degree of difficulty in achieving technical requirements?
— knowledge of similar facilities?
— effect of the new facility on the surrounding area?
C 500 Contractors’ Experience
— Has the degree of risk to the facility been considered where design, construction or installation contractors
are inexperienced?
— Has the degree of risk been considered where the contractors are experienced but not in similar work?
— Has the degree of risk been considered where the work schedule is tight?
C 600 Quality Management Systems
— Have all parties involved in the facility implemented an adequate quality management system to ensure that
gross errors in the work are limited?
— Do these parties include the:
— owner?
— design contractor?
— construction contractors?
— Do the factors being considered when evaluating the adequacy of the quality management system include:
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.A – Page 33
— whether or not an ISO 9001 or equivalent certified system is in place?

— results from external audits?
— results from internal audits?
— experience with contractors’ previous work?
— project work force familiarity with the quality
management system?
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 34 – App.B
APPENDIX B
VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS
A. Purpose of Appendix
A 100 Introduction
101 This appendix defines the documents used by DNV in the verification (and certification) of hydrocarbon
refineries and petrochemical facilities.
102 The following documents are included, with samples where necessary:
— Certificate of Conformity
— Statement of Compliance
— Verification Comments Sheet
— Verification Report
— Visit Report.
103 Guidance in the use of quality management systems during verification activities is given also.
A 200 Issue and Filing of Certificates
201 The DNV Regional office is responsible for preparation and issue of the certificates. The certificate shall
be given a unique regional number and be signed according to DNV’s Chart of Authority.
202 The Regional office is responsible also for archiving of the certificate and maintaining overview of
certificates issued.
A 300 Validity of Verification Documents
301 Verification documents are, in principle, documents confirming that an examination has been carried out,
and are valid only at the time of issue.
B. DNV Certificate of Conformity

B 100 Definition
101 The DNV Certificate of Conformity confirms that, after performing verification according to a DNV
defined scope of work, DNV has found the hydrocarbon facility to conform to a given DNV Standard or
acceptable international standard.
102 Table B-1 below shows the essential differences between a DNV Certificate of Conformity and a
Statement of Compliance.
103 An example of a typical Certificate of Conformity is shown at the end of this Appendix.
B 200 Scope of Verification to Obtain a DNV Certificate of Conformity
201 The scope and depth of the verification necessary to obtain a DNV Certificate of Conformity shall be as
defined in this Service Specification. The basis for the DNV Certificate of Conformity shall always be a
Verification Plan tailor-made to the project and in accordance with this Service Specification.
202 Part of the Plan may be that DNV relies on Independent Review Certificates to document the work
performed by Others.
203 The issue of a DNV Certificate of Conformity shall be based on a dedicated verification report.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.B – Page 35
Table B-1 Certificates and Statements Issued by DNV

Certificate of Conformity Statement of Compliance
Shall be used when the scope and depth of the To be used in all instances where
verification is defined in this Service Specification
Use (DNV-DSS-314);
Certificate of Conformity is not
applicable
or defined by the legislation of National Authorities
Scope defined by
Scope responsibility Scope defined by DNV and/or a National Authority.
Customer
DNV normally performs the complete scope.
However, DNV may accept an external Independent The preferred option when DNV accepts
Scope execution an Independent Review Certificate from
Review Certificates: this shall be reflected in the
an external party.
certificate text
Complete hydrocarbon refineries or petrochemical
facilities
Objects covered As for Certificate of Conformity
Standalone equipment, or equipment in self-contained
packages
C. Statement of Compliance
C 100 Definition
101 A Statement of Compliance is issued in all instances where Certificate of Conformity is not applicable.
102 A Statement of Compliance can be issued on completion of each particular project phase, or a part
thereof, and shall be based on a dedicated verification report.
C 200 Scope of Verification to Obtain a Statement of Compliance
201 A Statement of Compliance shall be issued as a formal statement confirming that verification of
documents and/or activities, has found that the hydrocarbon facility, a part thereof, complies with the
requirements applicable for that particular scope of work.
202 An example of a typical Statement of Compliance is shown at the end of this Appendix.
D. Other Verification Documents

D 100 Verification Reports
101 Verification Reports are issued to confirm that the verification of the relevant hydrocarbon facility has
been completed in accordance with specified requirements.
102 The report shall include information such as:
— hydrocarbon facility description and unit or equipment number, if relevant
— application (operational limitations and conditions of use) for which the hydrocarbon facility is intended
— codes and standards in conformance with the hydrocarbon facility has been verified
— clear statement of the conclusion from the verification (does it or does it not meet the specified
requirements)
— codes and standards used as reference
— documentation on which the verification report is based (documents, drawings, correspondence, including
revision numbers)
— project-specific scope of work tables
— any comments
— identification of any non-conformances.
103 The Verification Report shall always be dated and have two signatures, the originator and the DNV
internal verifier.
D 200 Verification Comments Sheets
201 Reviews of documents shall be reported using Verification Comment Sheets (often called VerComs).
These documents give details to the client of aspects of hydrocarbon facility design and construction that DNV:
— considers do not meet the specified requirements
— does not have enough information to make a decision
— offers advice based on its own experience.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 36 – App.B
Guidance note:
Verification Comments Sheets shall be issued, stating, “DNV has no comments to this document”, when DNV has no
comments to make. This will provide evidence that verification of the document has been carried out.
202 Only in the first two instances does DNV expect a response from the Owner or its contractors.
203 Comments Criticality:
— NC – Non Conformance. May be critical with respect to safety and/or integrity of the hydrocarbon facility
and is not in accordance with the referred rules, standards or specifications. Needs to be closed before the
document can be accepted.
— TQ – Technical Query. May be critical with respect to safety and/or integrity of the hydrocarbon facility.
Needs to be closed before the document can be accepted.
— A – Advice. Does not need any action.
204 Comment Status:
— O – Open comment: The comment has not been answered or not answered satisfactorily and the comment
is still open.
— C – Closed comment: The comment has been closed.
— CN – Conditionally closed: The comment has been closed based on a reply from the Owner. The comment
is to be implemented (e.g. document revision) or the acceptance is based on applicable conditions (e.g. site
inspection).
205 An example of a typical Verification Comment Sheet is shown at the end of this appendix.
D 300 Visit Reports
301 Visit reports are the documentation of attendance activity by DNV.
Guidance note:
Visit reports may be called by different names, such as Survey Report, Inspection Report, Site Report, or others.
302 A visit report shall contain enough information to identify clearly the hydrocarbon facility, or part thereof,
that has been examined, the operating conditions or specifications to which it has been examined and the
conclusion reached by DNV.
303 The visit report shall be printed on the relevant form and shall contain as much information as possible
in accordance with the standard headings in the form. In addition, the report number shall be shown.
304 An example of a typical Visit Report is shown at the end of this appendix.
E. Use of Quality Management Systems

E 100 General
101 The assurance of hydrocarbon facility safety and integrity requires that gross errors during design,
construction and commissioning be minimised. The likelihood of such gross errors shall be reduced in a
systematic manner by the operation of a quality management system adequate for the work being carried out.
102 Quality management systems frequently are documented at three levels:
— The quality manual and related procedures document how the organisation, as a whole, manages the quality
of all its products and services.
— The quality plan documents the specific procedures related to a particular project.
— The inspection and test plan documents how the quality control activities for a particular project shall be
carried out and recorded.
103 Guidelines on the formation of quality plans may be found in ISO 10005 2005 Quality Management
Systems – Guidelines for Quality Plans, ref. Sec.1 E.
Guidance on the use of quality management documentation in general may be found in ISO TR 10013 2001
Guidelines for Quality Management System Documentation ref. Sec.1 E.
E 200 Quality Plans
201 The basic function of a quality plan is to be a memory aid in the management of a project. In an
organisation with many quality procedures for a variety of functions, the quality plan states those that are
applicable to that particular project. The quality plan acts as a route map through the complexities of
management of the project and highlights those activities relevant to quality management.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.B – Page 37
202 The project quality plan normally consists of two parts; firstly, a narrative description of the means of
controlling the project, and secondly, a tabular description of the inspections and tests to be carried out during
the work.
E 300 Inspection and Test Plans
301 The tabular description of the inspections and tests to be carried out during the work frequently is known
as the inspection and test plan.
302 The following items should be checked for inclusion within the inspection and test plan:
— Each inspection and test point and its relative location in the production cycle should be shown.
— The characteristics to be inspected and tested at each point should be identified.
— The use of sub-contractors should be indicated and details of how the verification of sub-contractor’s
quality shall be carried out should be shown.
— Hold points established by the constructor, the operator or a third party, where witness or review of the
selected inspection or test is required, should be shown.
E 400 Review of Quality Management Programme
401 The contractor’s quality manual shall be reviewed for compliance with ISO 9001. The contractor’s
operations should be audited to establish compliance with the documented system.
402 If the contractor has a quality system certified by an accredited third party certification body for the scope
of work to be undertaken, this may be taken as evidence of a satisfactory quality system provided the certificate
is relevant to the contractor’s scope of work for the project. However, the last two years’ periodical audit
reports shall be reviewed to identify if any recurring non-conformities have been revealed.
403 Any weaknesses revealed during this audit, or review of periodical audit reports, shall be considered
when planning the contractor monitoring activities.
404 Surveillance of the continuing acceptability of the contractor’s quality management system is carried out
by observing a selection of audits carried out by the contractor as part of its internal audit system. The audits
to be observed should be selected over the length of the project at suitable intervals and should cover as wide
a selection of activities as possible.
405 Contractor’s inspection and test plans for the various activities undertaken during their scope of work for
the hydrocarbon facility shall be reviewed and accepted, if adequate.
F. Verification Forms
F 100 Specimen Forms
101 Specimen forms are shown overleaf. These forms may be modified to suit specific projects, providing
that these modified forms contain the minimum information shown here.
102 The forms are:
— Certificate of Conformity
— Statement of Compliance
— Verifications Comments Sheet
— Visit Report
— Appendix 1 Welding Activities
— Appendix 2 Non-destructive testing Activities
— Appendix 3 Hydrostatic Testing Activities.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 38 – App.B
F 200 Certificate of Conformity
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.B – Page 39
F 300 Statement of Compliance
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 40 – App.B
F 400 Verification Comments Sheet
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.B – Page 41
F 500 Visit Report
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 42 – App.B
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.B – Page 43
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 44 – App.B
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 45
APPENDIX C
GENERIC DETAILED VERIFICATION SCOPES OF WORK TABLES
A 100 Introduction
101 This appendix gives the format of the generic detailed scope of work tables for all types of hydrocarbon
facility.
102 The detailed project-specific scope of work tables for the chosen level of verification shall be based on
these tables.
103 For hydrocarbon facilities with aspects or components not covered in this Appendix, similar tables, with
the same degree of detail, shall be developed.
B. Description of Terms Used

in the Scope of Work Tables
B 100 Abbreviations and Terms
101 The following abbreviations have been used:
A = audit
S = surveillance
H = hold point
R = review.
102 These abbreviations are DNV’s preferred terms and will be used in DNV-generated documents.
However, other terms, for example monitoring or witnessing, will be used by DNV if these are the terms
commonly used in documents, such as Inspection and Test Plans, generated by others. In that case, it is
expected that these other terms will be defined in these documents.
B 200 Audit
201 Systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it
objectively to determine the extent to which audit criteria are fulfilled. (ISO 9000:2005) ref. Sec.1 E.
Guidance note:
This activity differs from the Surveillance by being focused on the adherence to procedures including their
completeness and robustness and not a detailed review of the results of the procedures (although this is not ignored).
Further, the audit is normally a ‘one-off’ activity as opposed to the continuity of surveillance.
202 Note that the activity “Audit of quality management system” may be omitted if there exists a quality
management system in accordance with ISO 9001, certified by an accredited third party for the scope of work
being carried out in the project.
B 300 Surveillance
301 Continual monitoring and verification of the status of an entity and analysis of records to ensure that
specified requirements are being fulfilled (ISO 8402:1994) ref. Sec.1 E.
Guidance note:
Other commonly used terms for Surveillance are Monitoring or Witnessing.
302 The amount of work involved in surveillance is not described in detail in the tables. This shall be part of
the final contractual scope of work, which shall define the frequency of surveillance based on the overall
surveillance and the quality control performed by other parties as well as DNV’s experience.
303 The following shall are typical descriptions of the frequencies, if nothing else is defined specifically:
S1 = Surveillance on a visit basis
S2 = Surveillance frequency minimum once per day
S3 = Surveillance frequency minimum once per shift
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 46 – App.C
Guidance note:
These surveillance frequencies may be modified to correspond with production work flow.
B 400 Hold Point

401 A point, defined in an appropriate document, beyond which an activity must not proceed without the
approval of a designated organization or authority (ISO 8402:1994).
B 500 Review
501 Systematic examination of reports and documentation. The depth of review will depend both on the type
of document and the level of involvement.
502 The following shall be used to describe the extent of the review if nothing else is defined specifically:
I = for information only
1 = review of principles and general aspects
R2 = comprehensive review.
503 A recommended depth of verification (I, R1, R2, S1, S2, S3) is specified for each generic verification
item is given in Tables C for the three Verification Levels Low, Medium and High described in D200, D300
and D500.
Guidance note:
The Verification Level of Low, Medium High defines the overall verification effort for the project. The verification
depth defines the depth of the verification effort for each identified verification activity.
504 Documents that are reviewed by DNV will not be signed and stamped, unless otherwise agreed.
C. Overall Project Management

C 100 Availability of Documents
101 The project quality management documentation shall be available at the early stages of the project, preferably
before design is underway, to ensure that the necessary controls are in place
C 200 Detailed Scope of Work for Overall Project Management
201 A detailed scope of work for the overall project management is given in Table C-1.
Table C-1 Overall Project Management Level
Item Description Low Medium High
1. Review of project quality management documentation R1 R2 R2
2. Audit of project quality management system A A A
3. Review of sub-contractor control R1 R2 R2
4. Review of interface controls R1 R2 R2
5. Review of methods of information flow - - R2
D. Design
D 100 General
101 For design verification, a list similar to that given in Tables C-3.2 to C-3.28 shall be made for the specific
hydrocarbon facility.
102 It is preferred that the documentation of the items in Table C-3.2 shall be available at the early stages of
the design.
D 200 Design Verification
201 Design of a hydrocarbon facility shall cover all development phases including construction,
commissioning and operation.
202 Tables C-3.3 to C-3.27 describe the issues to be verified and Table C-3.28 identifies the extent of
independent analyses/calculations included in the three verification levels. Sections D300, D400 and D500
following, describe the verification for each of the levels.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 47
D 300 Low Level Design Verification

301 Low level design verification consists of a detailed document review of the design basis, risk assessment
and analysis documentation, quality management documentation and design method or design philosophy
documents. The presumed critical aspects of the project shall be identified by DNV from the initial review and
conveyed to the Owner and designer for discussion and agreement on a common understanding.
302 The subsequent verification consists of a document review of the calculations and analysis methods used
to conclude the critical aspects. Other design documents are used as information and a few will be spot-checked
for confirmation of the quality control.
303 Implementation of the transfer of conclusions from design calculations and reports into drawings and
specifications is not included.
D 400 Medium Level Design Verification
401 Medium level design verification consists of a review of all main design documents related to the safety
and integrity of the hydrocarbon facility. Less critical aspects will be spot-checked. The review will be detailed
for all critical aspects and if deemed necessary independent calculations may be performed to support findings.
402 Implementation of the conclusions from design calculations and reports into drawings and specifications
will be included on a spot check basis.
D 500 High Level Design Verification
501 High level design verification consists of a full review of most of the produced documents related to the
safety an integrity of the hydrocarbon facility. The review will be detailed for all critical aspects and
independent checks will be performed.
502 Implementation of the conclusions from design calculations and reports into drawings and specifications
is included.
503 The main specifications are also checked for clearness and ambiguity.
D 600 Safety-critical Elements and Components
601 Based on the results of the HAZID, HAZOP or other safety assessments, hydrocarbon refinery and
petrochemical facilities are likely to have many or most of the following safety-critical elements present.
602 Verification of design is broken down into consideration of these safety-critical elements and
components in isolation but the many interactions between them must not be forgotten.
603 Typical Safety-critical Elements for a hydrocarbon facility are shown in Table C-2. These Safety-critical
Elements shall be modified to suit a specific facility.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 48 – App.C
Table C-2 Refinery and Petrochemical Plants - Typical SCEs and Components
Function Safety Critical Elements (SCE) Component
Layout All
Inherent Safety Hydrocarbon Inventory/
Measures Leak Source All
Minimisation
SPM (Single Point Mooring)
Flexible Riser
Offloading and Loading Facilities Crude Oil Pipelines (including pig launcher/receiver and
Integrity any manifolds)
Jetties
Loading and Unloading Arms
Process System
Relief Valves and Relief System
Hazard
Process Facilities Integrity Structural Integrity
Prevention Measures
Above Ground Storage Tanks
Control Systems
Vehicles
Fired Heaters, Hot Surfaces and Exhaust
Control of Ignition
Electrical items
Lightning Protection, Static and Earthing
Dropped Object and Impact All
Protection
Smoke and Gas Detection for Site Buildings
Fire and Gas Detection - External Areas
Fire and Gas Detection Fire and Gas Detection - Machinery Enclosures
Fire and Gas Control (part of ICS)
Personal Toxic Gas Detection and Protection
Visual
CCTV
Monitoring
Emergency Shutdown System ESD Control System
(ESD) Emergency Shutdown Valves (ESDVs)
Hazard Detection and Blowdown Header & Flare System All
Control Measures Control Room All
Fire Water Storage
Firewater Pumps
Active Fire Firewater Distribution Ring main
Fighting Systems Firewater and Foam Supply
Gaseous Fire Fighting Systems
Fire-fighting Vehicles
Passive Fire All
Protection
Bunding and Drainage All
Emergency Emergency Power
Services Emergency Communications and Alarms
Internal and External
Hazard All
Communications
Mitigation Measures
Personnel Toxic Gas Protection All
Uninterruptible power source All
HVAC All
Egress and Escape Routes
Emergency Response Evacuation System Muster Area
Measures Emergency
Services Emergency Lighting
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 49
D 700 Scope of Work for Design

701 Detailed scopes of work for design are given in Tables C-3.2 to Table C-3.28.
Table C-3.1 Summary Table – Design Review

Table No. Table Description
C-3.2 General Design Matters
C-3.3 Safety, Environmental or Other Functional Requirements
C-3.4 Layout
C-3.5 Hydrocarbon Inventory and Leak Source Minimisation
C-3.6 Pressure Vessels
C-3.7 Offloading and Loading Facilities
C-3.8 Jetties
C-3.9 Loading and Unloading Arms
C-3.10 Process System
C-3.11 Relief Valves and Relief System
C-3.12 Structural Integrity
C-3.13 Above Ground Storage Tanks
C-3.14 Control Systems
C-3.15 Control of Ignition
C-3.16 Dropped Object and Impact Protection
C-3.17 Fire and Gas Detection
C-3.18 Emergency Shutdown System
C-3.19 Blowdown Header and Flare System
C-3.20 Control Room
C-3.21 Active Fire Fighting Systems
C-3.22 Passive Fire Protection
C-3.23 Bunding and Drainage
C-3.24 Emergency Power and Uninterruptible Power Supply
C-3.25 Communications and Alarms
C-3.26 HVAC
C-3.27 Egress and Evacuation System
C-3.28 Independent Calculation
i) Blow-down
ii) Piping flexibility
iii) Pressure vessels and storage tanks
Table C-3.2 General Design Matters Level

1. Safety objective - R1 R2
Confirmation that the various contractors and sub-contractors’ quality systems meet
2. the requirements of ISO 9001 - R1 R2
3. Description of hydrocarbon facility and overall project organisation - R1 R1
Risk assessment and identification of critical aspects
4. (see Table D-1) R1 R2 R2
5. Document register - - -
Design philosophies for the facilities, typically;
— active and passive fire protection
— safety systems (FGS/ESD/PSD/PCS)
— shutdown logic
6. — process design R1 R2 R2
— piping design
— relief and blowdown
— material selection and corrosion management
— etc.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 50 – App.C
Table C-3.3 Safety, Environmental or Other Functional Requirements Level

1. Quantitative Risk Assessment R1 1) R1 1) R2 1)
2. Fire and Explosion Analysis R1 R1 R2
3. Emergency System Survivability Analysis R1 R1 R2
4. Fire Mapping and Detection R1 R1 R2
5. Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis for gas detection R1 R1 R2
6. Environmental Impact Assessment - - R1
1) In cases where DNV has not carried out the Quantitative Risk Assessment itself.
Table C-3.4 Layout Level

Confirm by review of the QRA that the adequacy of the site layout has been
1. demonstrated to show that the level of risk is within the Owner’s acceptable risk - R1 R2
criteria
Confirm by review of the QRA that the risk of exposure outside the facility has been
2. reduced to ALARP - R1 R2
Confirm by review of equipment layout drawings, bases of design and formal safety
3. assessments that equipment separation within the facility is adequate in terms of the R1 R2 R2
acceptable risk criteria
Confirm by document review that the facility layout demonstrates:
— segregation of different hazards within the plant
— minimisation of pipe runs between units
— containment of spills and leaks
— limitation of risk exposure within and outside plant
4. — access/egress for emergency services R1 R2 R2
— provision of secure site entrance points
— access and lay down areas to enable safe construction, operation and
maintenance
— adequate provision of escape and evacuation routes to safe muster areas
— safe location of control building.
Review plot plan, equipment location plan drawings to confirm location of plant
5. buildings (control room, administration, maintenance workshop, warehouse, R1 R2 R2
laboratories, etc), flare and equipment spacing in accordance with codes and
specifications
Table C-3.5 Hydrocarbon Inventory and Leak Source Minimization Level

1. Verify the location and size of hydrocarbon and chemical storage facilities - R1 R2
2. Verify
that potential leak sources have been challenged and justified through the risk
- R1 R2
management process
The adequacy of the inventory management system and philosophy is to be
3. demonstrated in the QRA to show that the level of risk is within the corporate risk - R1 R2
acceptable criteria
Confirm that storage facilities and operating philosophy are in line with maximum
4. - R1 R2
allowable inventories
Pipe stress analysis philosophy, guidelines and work instructions to identify need for
5. additional information not outlined in the specified piping code or project standards R1 R1 R2
Selection of pipe stress analysis reports and pipe stress isometrics to ensure that the
analysis meet the requirement outlined in the specific piping code, project standards
and project pipe stress analysis philosophy
6. Note 1: A typical selection may be based on large pipe size, large temperature R1 R2 R2
differential and piping with high pressure.
Note 2: Piping line list, piping critical line list and project P&IDs normally will be
used as the basis for this selection.
Review of a selected number of piping classes in the piping material specification.
Typical this work will consist of spot check of tabulated wall thickness against
temperature, pressure, corrosion allowance, impact testing and fitness for service.
7. Note 1: Relevant material data sheets will also be considered R1 R2 R2
Note 2: The selection may be based on materials not widely used, such as super
duplex, 6Mo, titanium and composite.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 51
Table C-3.5 Hydrocarbon Inventory and Leak Source Minimization Level

Design calculations to confirm pressure vessel design in accordance with applicable
codes, standards and specifications.
8. R1 R2 R2
Note 1: See Table C-3.6 for more detailed requirements for pressure vessel design
verification
Design calculations to confirm piping system design is in accordance with applicable
codes, standards and specifications, including:
— design and fabrication specifications
— piping specifications
— mechanical flow diagrams
— process and instrumentation diagrams for:
9. — all process piping R1 R2 R2
— all drilling piping
— all utilities piping
— summary of piping flexibility analyses including description of computer
programs, methods of analysis and flexibility analysis of a few selected pipe
runs
— drawings of non-standard components
— welding procedure specifications.
Design calculations to confirm pumps and compressors design is in accordance with
applicable codes, standards and specifications, including:
— design specification
— general arrangement drawings including foundation design
— cross-sectional drawings
— detailed drawings of rotating and pressure retaining parts
10. — auxiliary system drawings R1 R2 R2
— calculations of pressure retaining parts in both operating and pressure test
conditions
— calculations for rotating parts
— lateral and torsional vibration analysis
— bill of materials
— fabrication specification
— welding procedure specifications.
Design calculations to confirm gas turbine and combustion engine design is in
accordance with applicable codes, standards and specifications, including:
— technical specification
— arrangement drawings
— detailed sectional and part drawings
— rotor bearing drawings
11. — system drawings - R1 R2
— safety systems
— turbine hood ventilation philosophy
— lateral and torsional vibration analysis
— material specifications
— fabrication specification
— testing procedures.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 52 – App.C
Table C-3.6 Pressure Vessels Level

Item Description Low Medium
High
Guidance note:
There are many different types of reactors, heat exchangers, boilers and other types of pressure vessels in
hydrocarbon facilities and it is not possible to give detailed verification requirements for each one. However,
verification of their design will follow the same general path in considering:
— design pressures
— design temperatures
— characteristics of contents
— structural stability.
This Table lists verification activities that are common to most types of pressure vessels but these activities may be
modified to suit specific types of vessels.
Materials and Corrosion
1. Material specification R1 R1 R2
2. Corrosion protection R1 R1 R2
Pressure Containment
3. Design stress R1 R2 R2
4. Spherical/cylindrical shell - internal and/or external pressure R1 R2 R1
5. Domed ends - internal and/or external pressure R1 R2 R2
6. Conical ends/truncated cones - internal and/or external pressure R1 R2 R1
7. Cylindrical/spherical/conical shell combined loading R1 R2 R2
8. Local loads on pressure vessel shell R1 R2 R1
9. Flat ends/flat plates R1 R2 R2
10. External pressure stiffening rings R1 R2 R1
11. Flat heat exchanger tube sheet R1 R2 R2
12. Spherically domed/bolted ends R1 R2 R1
13. Openings/branch connection R1 R2 R2
14. Overpressure/vacuum protection R1 R2 R1
15. Manholes R1 R2 R2
16. Jacketed vessel R1 R2 R1
17. Supports (saddles, lugs or foundations) R1 R2 R2
18. Bolted flange connections R1 R1 R1
General Design
19. Construction category - R1 R2
20. Weld design R1 R2 R2
21. Fatigue R1 R2 R2
Construction
22. Heat treatment extent - R1 R2
23. NDT extent I R1 R2
24. Shop/site hydro test pressure I R1 R2
25. Welding Procedure Specification requirements I R1 R2
26. Nameplate data - R1 R1
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 53
Table C-3.7 Offloading and Loading Facilities Level

Confirm by document review that the SPM (or its equivalent) has been designed in
1. accordance with DNV-OS-E403 Offshore Loading Buoys or another code or standard R1 R1 R1
giving an equivalent level of safety
Flexible Riser
Confirm by review of documents, such as independent design reviews and product
2. certification, that the Flexible Riser (if fitted) has been designed in accordance with a R1 R1 R1
suitable code or standard
Crude Oil Pipelines (including Pig launcher/receiver and any PLEMs or manifolds)
Confirm by document review that any pipelines have been designed in accordance
3. with DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems or another code or standard giving R1 R1 R1
an equivalent level of safety
Table C-3.8 Jetties Level

Jetty design has taken account of:
— geotechnical considerations
1. — environmental loads (including dynamic response of the structures to cyclic R1 R2 R2
loads)
— operational loads.
2. Corrosion assessment report and corrosion monitoring system R1 R2 R2
3. Structural design - R1 R2
4. Construction and inspection procedures R1 R2 R1
Table C3.9 Loading and Unloading Arms Level

1. Pressure containment, thermal, structural and fatigue calculations R1 R2 R2
2. ESD system, including quick disconnect facilities R1 R2 R2
3. Specifications and data sheets - R1 R1
Table C-3.10 Process System Level

Materials
1. Systems description manual and material selection diagram I R1 R2
Materials selection report,
2. Corrosion protection report R1 R2 R2
Coating and insulation specification (e.g. coating procedures)
Internal corrosion assessment, calculation and assessment of corrosion rate where
3. applicable (or spot check) R1 R2 R2
Corrosion monitoring system
Materials specification
welding specification
4. NDT-specification R1 R2 R2
for critical components
Process Equipment
Design of all process equipment and facilities shall account for all identified
operating, testing, start-up and upset conditions (pressure, temperature, flow,
5. R1 R2 R2
composition, internal and external corrosion, erosion), throughout the life of the field
without loss of containment
Refinery process equipment and facilities shall be designed, fabricated and
6. maintained to account for all foreseeable internal and external corrosion effects by R1 R2 R2
way of material selection, external coating and corrosion inhibition
Process equipment integrity is to be maintained in the event of fire by combination of
7. design layout, ESD, passive fire protection, pressure relief valves, blowdown and R1 R2 R2
inherent strength
8. Pumps handling main process hydrocarbon fluids shall be designed to minimise the - R1 R2
risk of leakage, e.g. seal-less or dual seals
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 54 – App.C
Table C-3.10 Process System (Continued) Level

P&IDs and associated documentation to confirm:
Appropriate safety devices are specified according to codes and project specifications
Adequate margins between operating and design conditions
9. R1 R2 R2
Trip settings are suitable for the intended level of protection
The status or position of valves does not impair system safety (locked open/closed;
fail open/close/fixed; interlocking; etc.)
P&IDs to confirm that shutdown valves are located such that systems can be clearly
10. segregated and give suitable segment boundaries and conforms to the assumptions R1 R2 R2
and basis of the risk analysis.
11. P&IDs showing block valves, isolating devices, etc. required for maintenance - R1 R2
operations.
Specifications and data sheets for equipment such as pressure vessels, valves, heat
12. - R1 R2
exchangers, pumps, compressors and turbines
Manufacturers design documentation to verify that project specifications and
13. applicable standards are implemented correctly with respect to equipment integrity - R1 R2
Electrical and Instrumentation Equipment
Instrument-based overpressure protection facilities shall meet the requirements
14. specified R1 R2 R2
e.g. SIL rating
Design documents to confirm electrical equipment design in accordance with
applicable codes, standards and specifications, including arrangement drawings
showing location of:
— generators
— transformers
15. — main distribution and emergency switchboards R1 R2 R2
— large motors
— main and emergency cable runs
— all electrical equipment in hazardous areas.
The separation between main and emergency power source and distribution should
be clearly shown
Schedule of type of electrical equipment used in hazardous areas, having regard to
16. the particular area classification, i.e. cable type and make, type and protection of all - R1 R2
equipment
One-line diagrams for the complete installation
17. Information concerning full load, cable type, cross-section and make, type and rating - R1 R2
of fuse and switchgear for all distribution circuits
One-line diagrams for intrinsically safe circuits showing part in safe area, part in
18. hazardous area, type of cable and make and type of intrinsically safe relays, barriers - R1 R2
and apparatus
Complete multi-wire diagrams, preferably as schematic diagrams for all control and
instrumentation circuits of main switchboards, giving information on:
19. — cable types - - R1
— cable and bus bar cross-sections and make
— type and rating of all equipment.
Arrangement drawings showing:
— front of switchboard panels with equipment and sectional drawings and details of
20. bus bar supports - - R1
— personnel protection for high voltage switchboards
— battery rooms and their ventilation systems.
Short circuit calculations showing rms and peak short circuit currents for evaluation
21. R1 R2 R2
of making and breaking capacity for all switchgear
Information concerning emergency power supply including connections to basic
22. R1 R2 R2
board, chargers and all consumers
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 55
Table C-3.11 Relief Valves and Relief System Level

Confirm that the relief philosophy and design for relief valves, system such as flare
1. R1 R2 R2
and vents is in accordance with good industry practice and international standards
2. At least one relief path shall be available to each hydrocarbon vessel at all times R1 R2 R2
3. Evaluation of possible cases of overpressure leading to determination of worst case R1 R2 R2
Process design calculations for the relieving devices (relief valve, rupture disc, etc.),
4. to confirm the sizing case (full flow, gas blow by, fire, thermal relief, etc.) is - R1 R2
appropriate and the specified capacity adequate
Process design calculations focusing on:
— inlet conditions at design relief condition
— specific heats
5. — average molecular weight R1 R1 R2
— pressure and temperature
— required mass flow through valve
— relieving device inlet line pressure drop
— outlet line size and backpressure.
6. Sizing calculations for every pressure safety valve and rupture disc - R1 R2
7. Data sheets to confirm sizing case, set pressure, backpressure and valve type R1 R2 R2
Confirm by review of P&IDs that isolation valves for relieving devices are locked
8. R1 R2 R2
open for active devices and locked closed for stand-by devices
Table C-3.12 Structural Integrity Level

Equipment and Pressure Vessel Supports and Foundations
Equipment support and foundation design has taken account of:
1. — geotechnical considerations R1 R2 R2
— environmental loads, including the effects of dynamic loads, where applicable
— operational loads
2. Corrosion assessment report and corrosion monitoring system R1 R2 R2
3. Structural design - R1 R2
Piping
Bases of design for piping and mechanical and specifications or data sheets specify
5. R1 R2 R2
the appropriate loadings for the design of piping supports and pipe racks
Where concrete pipe racks are being used, check design of concrete mix and
6. - R1 R2
reinforcement
Table C-3.13 Above Ground Storage Tanks Level

Foundations
Tank foundation design has taken account of:
1. — geotechnical considerations, including any soil improvement R1 R2 R2
— environmental loads
— operational loads.
2. Design of foundations R1 R2 R2
3. Construction and inspection procedures for foundations R1 R2 R2
Tanks
4. Tank pressure containment design R1 R2 R2
Materials selection report,
5. Corrosion protection report R1 R2 R2
Coating and insulation specification (e.g. coating procedures)
Internal corrosion assessment, calculation and assessment of corrosion rate
6. R1 R2 R2
Corrosion monitoring system
Materials specification
7. welding specification R1 R2 R2
NDT specification
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 56 – App.C
Table C-3.14 Control Systems Level

Control logic and philosophy is clearly stated and any relationship with the ESD
1. R1 R2 R2
system is clearly defined
All major process hazards have been assessed and protective managed through the
2. control system functionality as appropriate R1 R2 R2
Note: Where necessary, high integrity protective system may be provided.
Design documents to confirm control system design in accordance with applicable
codes, standards and specifications, including:
— process flow diagram
— process and instrumentation diagrams for the total hydrocarbon and utility
facilities
3. — process shutdown logic and philosophy R1 R2 R2
— list of set points of safety switches
— failure modes of relevant components of system
— statement of closing time of the total process shutdown system
— statement of quickest pressure build up expected, assuming blockage in the
process or utilities systems
— functional description of the facilities for testing the process shutdown system.
4. Pressurized equipment and associated pipework are fitted with protective devices R1 R2 R2
Cause and Effect diagrams, or similar, covering the following aspects:
— PSD; shutdown according to codes and project specifications
— PSD; avoid unacceptable cascading effects
5. — PSD; high level shutdown to include lower levels/individual shutdown levels R1 R2 R2
— FGS; initiation of relevant fire extinguishing systems, shutdown actions, ignition
prevention, alarm systems, blowdown (as applicable)
— ESD; shutdown of production plants, ESDVs/SDVs as appropriate and initiation
of blowdown
Table C-3.15 Control of Ignition Level

1. Confirm that the location of ignition sources meets API separation requirements from R1 R2 R2
process plant
Confirm that fired heaters and boilers have suitable purge facilities prior to start-up to
2. prevent internal - R1 R2
explosions
3. Confirm that fired heaters and boilers have been designed in accordance with the - R1 R2
mechanical basis of design
Hazardous area classification drawings and source of release schedule to verify the
4. extent and type of zones, location of ventilation inlets/outlets, overpressure/air locks R1 R2 R2
for local equipment rooms: cross check against P&IDs to confirm classification of
vents, segregation of drainage system etc.
Ensure all vehicles comply with industry standards: where required, vehicles used for
5. maintenance
access or emergency access on the site shall conform to suitable industry
- R1 R2
standards for petrochemical plants: this shall include selection of engines with spark
arrestors and emergency stops
Verify that electrical equipment is suitable rated and certified for the hazardous area
6. classification R1 R2 R2
within which it is located
7. The refinery electrical equipment shall be in accordance with the basis of design - R1 R2
8. Confirm
that any external electrical equipment required to operate in a major accident
R1 R2 R2
event shall be appropriately certified and meets codes and standard
9. Review hazardous area layout drawings and review specifications to ensure R1 R2 R2
compliance
Review basis of design for safety shutdown for suitability, and review cause and
10. effect drawings R1 R2 R2
11. Review specifications for appropriate shutdown requirements. - R1 R2
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 57
Table C-3.15 Control of Ignition (Continued) Level

12. Review specifications and confirm certification requirements. - R1 R2
The refinery lightning protection, static protection and earthing on process and
electrical equipment shall be in accordance with the basis of design: the site shall be
13. R1 R2 R2
provided with an adequate number of lightning rods to attract and deflect lightning in
order to prevent ignition
Confirm by review of calculations and studies that a suitable earthing grid is to be
14. - R1 R2
provided in accordance with the required standard
A system of bonding and earthing is to be provided to maintain a sufficiently low
resistance between equipment enclosures, skids and earth. This system is to be
15. - R1 R2
designed in accordance with the basis of design for earthing, bonding and lightening
protection
Table C-3.16 Dropped Object and Impact Protection Level

1. Confirm that equipment along roads and in-unit access ways is protected from vehicle - R1 R2
impact through the use of curbing, barriers, or by virtue of its distance from the road
Confirm that the design of the plant aims to minimise lifting operations over
2. operational vessels or piping - R1 R2
Confirm that adequate dropped object protection has been provided for equipment
3. and piping in vulnerable areas (heat exchanger bundles, gas turbines, catalyst - R1 R2
containers, jetties, etc.)
Table C-3.17 Fire and Gas Detection Level

General
1. Review layout and types of fire and gas detectors R1 R2 R2
Review connection between fire and gas detection panels and platform shutdown
2. R1 R2 R2
system
Confirm that adequate gas detection is provided on the HVAC inlets with sufficient
3. detection time to ensure that functioning of the dampers will occur before impairment R1 R2 R2
of the protected space
4. Confirm that response times are in accordance with the HVAC study for migration - R1 R2
times and damper closure times
5. Confirm that detector types will provide the required detection times - R1 R2
Confirm by review of the design report that an adequate fire and gas system is to be
6. R1 R2 R2
implemented
Confirm by review of the alarm and detection study that smoke and gas detectors are
7. suitably protected and can adequately detect the hazard R1 R2 R2
Confirm by design review that the fire and gas detector coverage is in accordance
8. R1 R2 R2
with the fire area layouts and gas risk volume layouts
9. Confirm by review of the design report that an adequate fire and gas detection system - R1 R2
is to be implemented
10. Confirm the specification of cables meet required standards R1 R2 R2
11. Confirm from review of layouts and study that cable routing is appropriate - R1 R2
Type (suitability), number and location of detectors taking into account voting
12. philosophy and alarm levels. Review location and number of manual fire alarm R1 R2 R2
stations
Fire and Gas Detection - Machinery Enclosures
Confirm sufficient detection coverage is provided to detect releases of flammable
hydrocarbons, including oil mist/vapour, and excessive temperature rise in machinery R1 R2 R2
13.
enclosures
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 58 – App.C
Table C-3.17 Fire and Gas Detection (Continued) Level

Confirm sufficient detection coverage is provided to detect the presence of gas:
— at the air inlet to continuously operated machinery enclosures, (main gas turbine
enclosures)
14. — at the air exhaust to machinery enclosures containing a source of gas, (main gas R1 R2 R2
turbines only)
— in the vicinity of not normally operated machinery within buildings or enclosures
(emergency generators, fire pump enclosures, etc.).
Confirm that in the event of fire, smoke and/or gas detection, the fire and gas system
initiates alarms and executive actions (i.e. Initiate ESD, plant audible and visual R1 R2 R2
15.
alarms, and firewater pumps) appropriate to the incident
Confirm that suitable audible and visual, local and central annunciation of detection
16. R1 R2 R2
occurs
Confirm that personal toxic gas detectors are suitable to detect the range of toxic
17. gases within the plant (typically H2S, SO2, CO and high/low O2 levels) - R1 R2
Table C-3.18 Emergency Shutdown System Level

1. Confirm by design review that the emergency shutdown logic and philosophy is R1 R2 R2
adequate
General arrangement drawings showing location of:
2. — emergency shutdown valves - R1 R1
— manual emergency shutdown stations and panels
Detailed description of the facilities for testing the emergency shutdown system
3. during normal operations - R1 R2
4. Confirm
that in the event of an emergency situation, the emergency shutdown system
initiates alarms and executive actions appropriate to the incident R1 R2 R2
Confirm by design review that the ESD control system, is protected by location from
5. all credible major accidental events, and from the effects of all credible major - R1 R2
accidental events for 30 minutes thereafter, by review of design documentation
Confirm that maximum allowable valve closure times for ESD valves shall be in
6. accordance with the emergency response philosophy R1 R2 R2
7. Confirm by review of basis of design that explosion scenarios have been considered - R1 R2
during the design of ESD valves, actuators and supports
8. Confirm by review of specification that status of ESD is to be provided at operator R1 R2 R2
stations
Confirm by review of layouts that ESDVs are to be suitably protected from potential
9. vehicular impact - R1 R2
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 59
Table C-3.19 Blowdown Header and Flare System Level

1. Review P&IDs showing pressure safety valves and rupture discs R1 R1 R1
P&IDs to confirm that isolatable sections are provided with remote operated
2. R1 R2 R2
blowdown possibilities as required by the flare and blowdown philosophy
Review pressure drop calculations based on an analysis of number of safety valves,
3. rupture discs and depressurising valves likely to be operating simultaneously or - R1 R2
within a short interval
4. Review calculations showing capabilities of knock-out drum R1 R2 R2
5. Review back pressure calculations for headers and other piping - R1 R2
6. Review calculated gas outlet temperature for every relevant pressure system - R1 R2
Confirm that specifications require the appropriate maximum allowable opening
7. R1 R2 R2
time for the blowdown valves
Flare and blowdown documentation to confirm that:
— time to depressurise is appropriate
— calculated flow rates do not exceed the system capacity
8. — calculated backpressures do not exceed the system limits R1 R2 R2
— flare system is separated into appropriate systems (e.g. high and low pressure,
hot and cold, wet and dry flare systems)
— minimum temperature and material choice is acceptable
P&IDs to confirm that flare, relief and blowdown lines are self draining, and where
9. low points are unavoidable these have an appropriate drain connection with locked R1 R2 R2
open isolation valve
10. Flare knock-out drum sizing calculations and drawings to confirm that there will be R1 R2 R2
no liquid carry over to the flare tip
P&IDs to confirm a suitable purge gas system to prevent air ingress is specified for
11. the flare system (including alarms for low flow, back-up systems, etc.) R1 R1 R2
Flare radiation calculations (for worst case flow and wind conditions) to confirm
12. these are acceptable - R1 R2
Flare noise calculations to confirm compliance with noise requirements of the
13. - I R1
verification basis (as applicable)
14. P&IDs to confirm ‘snuffing’ package is specified for cold vent tip where appropriate R1 R2 R2
Flare ignition system to confirm that acceptable reliability of ignition will be
15. R1 R2 R2
achieved during all possible scenarios
Reliability documentation to confirm that any overpressure protection system is
independent of other systems and have the same or better safety reliability as a
16. system using pressure relief devices: alternatively, confirm compliance with IEC R1 R1 R2
61508 and that specified SIL level is achieved in accordance with overpressure
protection specification
System documentation to confirm that requirements for online testing have been
17. - R1 R2
accounted for
Process design calculations to confirm that the specified response times of protective
18. R1 R2 R2
systems are sufficiently short to prevent unacceptable process conditions
Table C-3.20 Control Room Level

Confirm that design features of the control room shall be available at all times
1. including major accident events where the control functions will be of significant - R1 R2
benefit
2. Confirm that the location and orientation of the control room is such that it is R1 R2 R2
protected from credible worst case fire, blast and toxic events
Confirm that CCTV coverage is such that all necessary angles of the areas in
3. questions can be viewed at a central protected location - R1 R2
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 60 – App.C
Table C-3.21 Active Fire Fighting Systems Level

Fire Water Storage
Confirm by review of fire studies and design calculations that sufficient fire water
1. - R1 R2
storage is provided
Firewater Pumps
Review arrangement of power supply to fire pumps including:
2. — type of supply R1 R2 R2
— support system for driver
— power transfer from driver to pump.
3. Confirm that fire pump start requirements are in accordance with performance R1 R2 R2
standard
Firewater Distribution Ring main
4. Confirm that the firewater distribution ring main is designed to accommodate the R1 R2 R2
maximum shut-in head of the fire pumps plus any elevation allowance
Confirm that isolating valves are provided adjacent to the ring main, on branch lines
5. R1 R2 R2
feeding fire fighting equipment other than single fire hydrants
Firewater and Foam Supply
Confirm that every area of the process system is covered by at least 2 monitors and
2 hydrants in diverse locations and fed by separate sections of the ring main. Confirm
R1 R1 R2
6. that this equipment is accessible in credible fire scenarios such that they can be
operated in an emergency
Confirm that foam injection points are accessible in credible fire scenarios such that
7. R1 R1 R2
they can be operated in an emergency
Layout drawings to confirm adequacy of firewater main routing and adequate
8. number and location of manual fire fighting equipment such as fire extinguishers, R1 R1 R2
hydrants, hoses and monitors
9. Adequacy of selected manual fire fighting equipment R1 R1 R2
10. Sizing basis for firewater demand to cover process areas R1 R1 R2
Firewater P&IDs to confirm requirements for supply to equipment and areas,
11. R1 R1 R2
separation of supplies, bypass and isolation possibilities
12. Firewater hydraulic calculations to confirm adequate capacity and pressure to all - R1 R2
discharge points
Layout drawings to confirm adequate location of deluge valves, choice of areas to be
13. R1 R1 R2
protected and identification of dedicated equipment protection.
14. Nozzle type and density in each area I R1 R1
Foam and other fire extinguishing systems with respect to application, type,
15. concentration and capacity R1 R1 R2
Gaseous fire-fighting systems
Confirm that gaseous fire-fighting systems are deployed on enclosed equipment
which will be damaged beyond repair or will cause escalation if water is applied such - R1 R2
16.
as computer server rooms, gas turbine hoods and battery rooms
Confirm that the extinguishing system is linked to an automatic early detection and
17. initiation system which includes a visible and audible warning to personnel in the R1 R1 R2
area before deployment
Fire-fighting Vehicles
Confirm that sufficient fire-fighting vehicles are available to support all credible fire
scenarios onsite including the consideration of mutual aid and outside agencies - R1 R2
18.
where applicable: down time for maintenance should also be considered
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 61
Table C-3.22 Passive Fire Protection Level

Confirm by review of passive Fire Protection (PFP) specification that adequate PFP
1. R1 R1 R2
is to be provided of suitable rating
PFP on vessels, piping, supports and structure and withhold this with assumptions in
2. Risk Analysis (if relevant), design accidental loads in each specific area, vessel R1 R1 R2
integrity requirements, blowdown time etc.
PFP drawings versus specified criteria for heat loads and exposure time, and
3. withhold this against material approval certificates with respect to thickness and - R1 R2
application requirements
Separation by fire divisions of individual process areas for compliance with project
4. requirements and conforming to the assumptions in risk analysis and active fire R1 R1 R2
fighting philosophy
Requirements for passive fire protection resulting from the project specific design
5. R1 R1 R2
philosophy and risk analysis
Table C-3.23 Bunding and Drainage Level

1. Confirm
by review of calculations that sufficient bunding is provided at all relevant
- R1 R2
areas and sized for credible leaks.
Confirm by review of plans and layouts that the drainage valve shall remain
2. accessible in the event of a bund fire. Adequate separation shall allow for closure - R1 R2
after the liquid has been spilt and ignited
Table C-3.24 Emergency Power and Uninterruptible Power Supply Level

Review information concerning emergency power supply including:
1. — connections to basic switchboard R1 R1 R2
— chargers
— all consumers.
Confirm that uninterruptible power is provided for all critical equipment with an
emergency function which would otherwise cease to function including:
2. — ESD systems R1 R2 R2
— control systems
— emergency lighting
— emergency communication systems.
Confirm by review that the capacity shall be sufficient for the following users:
— integrated control system supply
3. — emergency lighting including R1 R2 R2
— emergency communication system
— other systems required for emergency response.
Confirm that emergency power is provided by diverse sources such as battery
4. R1 R1 R2
systems, generators and redundant outside sources
Table C-3.25 Communications and Alarms Level

Emergency Communications and Alarms
Confirm by review of specifications that an alarm system is to be provided throughout
1. R1 R1 R2
the site
2. Confirm by review of specifications that appropriate equipment protection is R1 R1 R2
provided in the event of flammable gas ingress
Internal and External Communications
Confirm that adequate external and internal telephone and fax lines are available at
3. all times during an emergency giving the emergency control centre the capability to R1 R1 R2
handle two-way communications with all relevant parties
Confirm that the routing of cabling and location of marshalling and power supplies is
4. such that the system is protected from credible fire, explosion and seismic and R1 R1 R2
weather events
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 62 – App.C
Table C-3.26 HVAC Level

Review flow diagrams showing supply and extract and showing separation between
1. R1 R1 R2
any hazardous and non-hazardous systems
D&IDs showing location of:
— inlets and outlets
2. — fire dampers R1 R1 R2
— control dampers
— air treatment units and fans.
D&IDs and associated documentation to confirm:
3. — system is designed according to codes and project specifications - R1 R2
— adequate heat bridges exist where ducting penetrates fire boundaries.
4. Particulars of capacity including air change rates - R1 R2
Confirm that HVAC systems physically isolate (dampers) the air supply on
5. R1 R2 R2
flammable or toxic gas, or smoke detection at the HVAC inlet
Table C-3.27 Egress and Evacuation System Level

Escape Routes
Drawings showing layout of internal escape routes marked with direction of escape;
1. the drawings to include location of major equipment R1 R1 R2
2. Description of marking system - R1 R2
3. Confirm by document review that escape routes have a minimum height and width - R1 R2
Confirm by document review that escape routes will allow easy transit of stretcher
4. teams - R1 R2
Muster Area
5. Confirm by review of studies that sufficient mustering capacity is to be provided - R1 R2
Emergency Lighting
6. Confirm by review of emergency lighting drawings that lighting is to be provided on R1 R1 R2
all escape routes and at critical locations
Table C-3.28 Independent analyses/calculations Level

Blow-down
Prepare a simplified model of the process plant in order to review critical blow-down
i. design features such as the flare headers, flare KO Drum and flare radiation (x) x
Piping flexibility
Prepare a model of critical lines to evaluate pipe stress and support layout in
ii. (x) x
accordance with ASME B31.3 Part 5 Flexibility and Support
Pressure vessels and storage tanks
Prepare a structural model of important pressure vessels and storage tanks to evaluate
iii. the structural capacity of critical areas for normal and/or accidental loads as found (x) x
critical during the design of design review
x = analysis/check shall be included in the scope of work
(x) = analysis/check shall be included in the scope of work if the issue is identified as critical or highly utilised. Then final decision
of inclusion in the scope of work will be a result of the document review of simple analysis.
E. Construction
E 100 General
101 Construction consists of a number of different site activities and their associated documentation.
102 Table E-1 gives summaries of the scope of work tables included in this section for various construction
activities.
E 200 Construction Verification
201 For verification of hydrocarbon facilities, construction activities are considered as:
— initial activities,
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 63
— inspection activities
— final activities.
202 The initial activities include the review of procedures, attendance during qualification of procedures and
personnel and other start-up activities. The inspection activities are the site attendance and the final activities
are the continuous review of production results and records and the completion of documentation and reports.
203 Sections E300, E400 and E500 following, describe the verification activities for each of the three
verification levels.
E 300 Low Level Construction Verification
301 For Low level verification, the procedure review consists of a review of the construction management
procedures and confirmation that the most important aspects of the main specifications have been included in
the procedures. For the qualification of procedures and personnel, DNV will not attend the actual qualification,
but will review the results.
302 During construction, DNV’s verification will be performed during site visits. The verification will focus
on the critical items and aspects identified in the detailed scope of work tables.
303 The subsequent verification of the final activities will be by spot-checks of the production records
including non-conformance logs, mechanical completion reports and results from audits, both contractors’
internal audits or audits performed by other parties.
304 Implementation of the transfer of design information from drawings and reports into fabrication or shop
drawings is not included.
E 400 Medium Level Construction Verification
401 For Medium level verification, the procedure review consists of a detailed review of construction
management procedures. Other important procedures will be spot checked to confirm that the most important
aspects of the specifications have been included.
402 For the qualification of procedures and personnel, DNV will visit the main qualifications and review the results.
403 During construction, DNV’s verification will be performed by full time attendance at the main site. The
verification will focus on the critical items and aspects as identified in the detailed scope of work tables.
404 Verification of the final activities will be by review of the production records including non-conformance
logs, mechanical completion reports and results from audits, both contractors’ internal audits or audits
performed by other parties, from the main sites and spot checks of the same from other important sites relevant
to the main construction site.
drawings is included on a spot check basis
E 500 High Level Construction Verification
501 For High level verification, the procedure review consists of a detailed review of construction
management procedures. Other procedures will be reviewed to confirm that important aspects of the
specifications have been included.
502 For qualification of procedures and personnel, DNV will attend the main qualifications, spot-check other
qualifications and review the results.
503 During construction, DNV’s verification will be performed by full time attendance at the main site and
by visits to the other important sites. Verification will focus on the critical items and aspects as identified in the
detailed scope of work tables.
504 Verification of the final activities will be by detailed review of the production records including the non-
conformance log, mechanical completion reports and results from audits, both contractors’ internal audits or
audits performed by other parties, from the main sites and spot checks of the same from other important sites
relevant to the main construction site.
drawings is included.
E 600 Verification of Work in Progress
601 The monitoring by the Owner during construction relates to the activities of the contractor. The
monitoring of these activities by DNV relates not only to the contractors’ activities but also to the monitoring
of these activities carried out by the Owner.
602 The emphasis placed on the various activities in the verification plan varies depending on:
— any areas of concern revealed during design verification
— any areas of concern revealed during the audit of the Owner’s or contractor’s quality management systems
— the progress of construction
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 64 – App.C
— the findings of the contractor surveillance personnel.

603 Many contractors have adequate quality control systems and quality control departments, with
competent personnel to perform, for example, inspection at pressure vessel manufacturers.
604 In that case, not all certification work need be done by DNV personnel. Where applicable, the various
inspections may be carried out by competent contractor personnel. In that situation, DNV’s certification
activities may comprise:
— reviewing the competence of the contractor’s personnel
— auditing their working methods and their performance of that work
— reviewing the documents produced by them.
605 In addition, materials may be ordered with certificates of independent third-party verification (e.g. 3.2
according to EN 10204). This can this be integrated in the overall verification activities, so not to duplicate work.
606 Furthermore, credit may be given to components that are CE-marked, providing that the appropriate
conformity assessment modules have been used, e.g. for equipment for which verification of design is required
by the Verification Plan, Module H is insufficient and Module H1 is required, irrespective of the requirement
of the particular Directive.
607 DNV personnel will spend more time in areas where problems have occurred, or are considered likely to
occur. Conversely, less time is spent in areas where the likelihood of problems is considered lower.
E 700 DNV Final Report
701 All the Scopes of Work tables for construction activities end with a Hold Point entitled “Issue of DNV
Report”. This item is not related to the production process as a normal hold point would be, ref. B400. This
item is intended as a reminder to the DNV (or other) inspection personnel that a final report of their verification
activities is required to finish the work.
702 This report may in the form of a Visit Report for an activity that is completed irregularly, such as a visit
to a manufacturer’s works or a monthly report of site activities where DNV’s presence is continuous.
E 800 Scope of Work for Construction
801 Detailed scopes of work for the verification of construction are given in Table C-4.2 to C-4.25.
802 Initial and final activities that are common to all construction verification are shown in Table C-4.2 and
are not repeated in the tables for individual safety-critical elements.
Table C-4.1 Summary Table - Construction
C-4.2 Common Construction Activities
C-4.3 Layout
C-4.4 Hydrocarbon Inventory and Leak Source Minimisation
C-4.6 Jetties
C-4.18 Control Room
C-4.24 HVAC
C-4.25 Egress and Evacuation System
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 65
Table C-4.2 Common Construction Activities Level

Initial Activities
1. Review quality management system documents R1 R2 R2
2. Quality system audit at relevant manufacturers and sub-suppliers 1) - A A
3. Review of specifications and procedures R1 R2 R2
Technical Meeting / Kick-off Meeting and review of construction or manufacturing
4. R1 R1 R2
documents
Verify the performance and testing during the Procedure and Personnel Qualification
5. - S1 S3
Testing
Inspection Activities
6. As detailed in Tables C-4.3 to C-4.23 - - -
Final Activities
7. Review of manufacturing and testing records R1 R2 R2
8. Issue of DNV Report H H H
1) May be omitted if requirements in Sec.3 B202 are complied with

Confirm that the facility layout conforms to the Plot Plans, especially:
— equipment spacing
— location of control buildings
1. — access/egress for emergency services S1 S2 S3
— provision of secure site entrance points
— access and laydown areas to enable safe construction, operation and maintenance
— adequate provision of escape and evacuation routes to safe muster areas.
Table C-4.4 Hydrocarbon Inventory and Leak Source Minimisation Level

1. Confirm that all equipment, pipes and associated equipment which contain hazardous S1 S2 S3
materials are fabricated and installed in accordance with design drawings
Confirm the pipe supports are of the type and are in the locations shown on the
2. drawings shown in the pipe stress analysis S1 S2 S3
3. Conform that pipework is constructed in accordance with the piping classes S1 S2 S3
For pressure vessels, review:
4. — report of pressure testing R1 R1 R2
— facsimile of completed vessel name plate
— pressure vessel certificate as required by the specified design code.
For piping systems, review:
5. R1 R1 R2
— report of pressure testing.
For pumps and compressors, review:
6. — records of pressure testing R1 R1 R2
— records of performance testing.
For gas turbines and combustion engines, review:
7. — certification and testing reports of safety devices - R1 R1

Confirm by document review that the SPM (or its equivalent) has been constructed
1. and installed in accordance with DNV-OS-E403 Offshore Loading Buoys or another R1 R1 R1
code or standard giving an equivalent level of safety
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 66 – App.C
Flexible Riser
2. certification, that the Flexible Riser (if fitted) has been constructed and installed in R1 R1 R1
accordance with a suitable code or standard
Confirm by document review that any pipelines have been constructed and installed
3. R1 R1 R1
in accordance with a suitable code or standard

Confirm by inspection that jetty construction has been carried out in accordance with
1. S1 S2 S3
construction and inspection procedures
2. Confirm by witnessing tests that strength of designed concrete mix is being achieved S1 S2 S3
3. Review records of concrete construction, installation and inspection I R1 R2
Table C4.7 Loading and Unloading Arms Level

Confirm by document review that all loading or unloading arms have been constructed
1. and installed in accordance with DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems or R1 R2 R2
another code or standard giving an equivalent level of safety

1. Confirm that the process system has been constructed in accordance with the P&IDs S1 S2 S3
Confirm that materials and fabrication are in accordance with the Piping and Valve
2. Material Specification, and Vendor Specifications S1 S2 S3
Confirm for critical components that the followed documents, approved during
design, have been complied with:
3. — materials specification S1 S2 S3
— welding specification
— NDT-specification.
4. Confirm
by review of equipment on site that equipment is supplied and installed in
S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design parameters
Confirm that the fabrication testing and commissioning of all tanks, pressure vessels
5. and spheres are in accordance with the design drawings and fabrication specification S1 S2 S3
i.e. welding, NDT, dimensional control
Confirm by review of Vendor’s documentation that the procured equipment has been
6. designed, fabricated and tested in accordance with the relevant design documents - R1 R2
Note 1: Attention shall be paid to requirements of National Authorities, where
appropriate, for Technical Passports and Permits for Use or other requirements
Review vendor documentation to confirm that appropriately sealed pumps (seal-less
7. or dual seal) - R1 R2
as required are supplied
Confirm by review that relief valve certification is in order and that the appropriate
8. S1 S2 S3
relief valve have been fitted as per the P&IDs
P&IDs showing block valves, isolating devices, etc. required for maintenance
9. operations
10. Confirm from coating reports that the specified coating has been provided in S1 S2 S3
accordance with the specification
11. Confirm by inspection that appropriate PFP is applied as required by analysis S1 S2 S3
Review for electrical equipment:
— certification for all explosion protected equipment
12. — reports of function testing of alarms and disconnections in pressurised equipment R1 R2 R2
— reports of testing of protective devices in switchboards and generators
— reports of testing of automatic start of emergency generator
— reports of insulation resistance measurements.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 67

1. Confirm that the relief system has been constructed in accordance with the P&IDs S1 S2 S3
Confirm that relief valves conform to the data sheets regarding set pressure,
2. S1 S2 S3
backpressure and valve type
Confirm that isolation valves for relieving devices are locked open for active
3. S1 S2 S3
devices and locked closed for stand-by devices
Confirm by review of inspection and test records that relief valves are tested in
4. R1 R2 R2
accordance with API 520 and 521

Equipment and Pressure Vessel Supports and Foundations
Confirm by inspection that construction of equipment and pressure vessel supports
1. and foundations has been carried out in accordance with construction and inspection S1 S2 S3
procedures
2. Confirm by witnessing tests that strength of designed concrete mix is being achieved S1 S2 S3
3. Review records of concrete construction, installation and inspection - R1 R2
Piping
Confirm by inspection that construction of piping supports and pipe racks has been
4. S1 S2 S3
carried out in accordance with construction and inspection procedures
Where concrete pipe racks are being constructed, confirm by witnessing tests that
5. strength of designed concrete mix is being achieved S1 S2 S3
6. Review records of concrete construction, installation and inspection - R1 R2

Tank Foundations
1. Confirm by inspection that construction of tank foundations has been carried out in S1 S2 S3
accordance with construction and inspection procedures
2. Confirm by inspection that compacting of tank foundations is carried out in S1 S2 S3
accordance with design and construction documents
3. Review records of construction and inspection - R1 R2
Tanks
Confirm by inspection that fabrication and erection of tanks has been carried out in
4. S1 S2 S3
accordance with construction and inspection procedures
Confirm that the followed documents, approved during design, have been complied
with:
5. — materials specification S1 S2 S3
— welding specification
— NDT-specification.

Confirm that control system has been constructed and installed in accordance with
1. S1 S2 S3
design documents
Confirm by review that all protective devices are suitably calibrated for their
2. R1 R1 R2
intended pressure, temperature, etc
Confirm that control system software has been tested and that documentation
3. R2 S1 S1
confirms that it conforms to design requirements
Confirm that integration testing of control system and at least one of each initiating
4. device has been carried out and that documentation confirms that the system R2 S1 S1
conforms to design requirements
Confirm that control system (panels, displays, etc.) has been installed in accordance
5. S1 S2 S3
with design documents and drawings
Confirm by inspection that the status of control systems has been provided at
6. S1 S2 S3
operator stations
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 68 – App.C

Confirm that fired heaters and boilers have been constructed in accordance with the
1. S1 S2 S3
design documents
Confirm that fired heaters and boilers have suitable purge facilities prior to start-up
2. to prevent internal explosions S1 S2 S3
Confirm during installation that all fired heaters, combustion source are suitably
3. S1 S2 S3
located and rated for their zone of operation
Confirm that construction conforms to the equipment shown of the design
4. hazardous area classification drawings and source of release schedule regarding S1 S2 S3
location of ventilation inlets/outlets, overpressure/air locks for local equipment
rooms, location of vents and segregation of drainage system
Confirm that all vehicles comply with the design documents regarding potential for
5. S1 S2 S3
ignition, including spark arrestors and emergency stops, etc
Confirm that electrical equipment is installed in accordance with design documents
6. S1 S2 S3
and drawings
7. Ensure equipment is installed in accordance with the appropriate specification. S1 S2 S3
Confirm that the lightning rods are installed as per the design documents and
8. S1 S2 S3
drawings
Confirm by inspection and review of fabrication details that sufficient earthing and
9. bonding arrangements are in place in accordance with the design documents and S1 S2 S3
drawings

Confirm that equipment along roads and in-unit access ways for protected from
1. vehicle impact through the use of curbing, barriers, or by virtue of its distance from S1 S2 S3
the road in are installed in accordance with the design drawings
2. Confirm by inspection that appropriate barriers are in place. S1 S2 S3
Confirm that dropped object protection has been provided in accordance with
3. design documents and drawings for equipment and piping in vulnerable areas (heat S1 S2 S3
exchanger bundles, gas turbines, catalyst containers, jetties, etc.)

Confirm by inspection of installation that the smoke and gas detection in site
1. buildings is in accordance with the design S1 S2 S3
2. Confirm that detector types are installed as per the design documents and drawings S1 S2 S3
3. Confirm during installation that the cables meet required specifications S1 S2 S3
4. Confirm by inspection that cable routing is in accordance with the design and is S1 S2 S3
protected by location where possible.
Confirm that adequate gas detection is provided on the HVAC inlets with sufficient
5. detection time to ensure that functioning of the dampers will occur before S1 S2 S3
impairment of the protected space
Confirm by inspection of installation that the fire and gas system in external areas is
6. S1 S2 S3
in accordance with the design
9. Confirm
by inspection that cable routing is in accordance with the design and is
S1 S2 S3
protected by location where possible.
Confirm by inspection of installation that the fire and gas system in machinery
10. enclosures is in accordance S1 S2 S3
with the design
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 69
Table C-4.15 Fire and Gas Detection (Continued) Level

Confirm by inspection that cable routing is in accordance with the design and is
13. protected by location where possible. S1 S2 S3
Confirm that fire and gas control system (panels, displays, etc.) has been installed in
14. S1 S2 S3
accordance with design documents and drawings
15. Confirm by inspection that the status of fire and gas system has been provided at S1 S2 S3
operator stations

Confirm by inspection that the emergency shutdown system has been installed in
1. S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design
Confirm by inspection that control system (panels, displays, etc.) has been installed
2. S1 S2 S3
in accordance with design documents and drawings
3. Confirm by inspection that the status of ESD has been provided at operator stations S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection and review of vendor data that adequate protection of ESD
4. S1 S2 S3
valves is provided.
5. Confirm by inspection that ESDVs are suitably protected from potential vehicular S1 S2 S3
impact.
Confirm by review of certification that ESD valves, actuators and supports are
6. designed to withstand explosion overpressure drag loads as defined in the project - R1 R2
specification

1. Confirm by inspection that the blowdown header and flare system has been installed S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that flare, relief and blowdown lines are self draining and
2. where low points are unavoidable these have an appropriate drain connection with S1 S2 S3
locked open isolation valves in accordance with the P&IDs

Confirm by inspection that the control room has been constructed in accordance
1. S1 S2 S3
with the design drawings
Confirm by inspection that CCTV coverage is such that all necessary angles of the
2. S1 S2 S3
areas in questions can be viewed at a central protected location

Fire Water Storage
Confirm by inspection that fire water storage has been provided in accordance to
1. S1 S2 S3
design documents and drawings
Firewater Pumps
2. Confirm by inspection that fire pumps have been installed in accordance with S1 S2 S3
design drawings
Confirm by review of manufacturer’s documentation the fire pump capacity and
3. discharge rates are in accordance with design R1 R2 R2
Confirm by inspection that fire pump start requirements are in accordance with
4. S1 S2 S3
design
Confirm by inspection that the firewater distribution ring main is fabricated in
5. S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design drawings
Confirm that firewater distribution ring main isolation valves have been installed in
6. S1 S2 S3
accordance with the P&IDs
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 70 – App.C

Confirm by inspection that the firewater and foam supply systems have been
7. S1 S2 S3
installed in accordance with the design drawings
Confirm by inspection that the monitors and hydrants have been installed in
8. S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design documents and drawings
Gaseous Fire-fighting systems
Confirm by inspection that the gaseous fire-fighting systems have been installed in
9. accordance with the design drawings S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that status indicators are provided at all enclosures entrances
10. S1 S2 S3
protected by gaseous fire-fighting systems
Fire-fighting Vehicle
Confirm by review of manufacturing documentation that any fire-fighting vehicles
11. R1 R2 R2
conform to the requirements of the design documents

1. Confirm by inspection that passive fire protection (PFP) has been provided in S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design on vessels, piping, supports and structures
Confirm by inspection that application of PFP has been carried out in accordance
with manufacturer’s instructions and guidance, including:
2. — maximum thickness per coat S1 S2 S3
— inter-coat curing time
— depth and type of reinforcement.
3. Confirm
by witnessing of application and by review of application records that PFP
R1 S1 S2
has been applied in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and guidance
4. Confirm by inspection that penetrations in PFP have been installed in accordance S1 S2 S3
with manufacturer’s instructions
Review certification of:
5. — fire rating of construction, including doors R1 R2 R2
— penetration methods for ventilation ducting, piping or cable penetrations.

1. Confirm by inspection that bunding and drainage has been installed is accordance S1 S2 S3

Confirm by inspection that emergency power and uninterruptible power supply
1. S1 S2 S3
(UPS) has been installed in accordance with design documents and drawings
2. Confirm by review of records that the supplied UPS batteries are in accordance with - R1 R2
the design documents
Confirm by inspection that UPS battery load test demonstrate UPS capacity in
3. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that automatic changeover of UPS battery banks operates in
4. accordance with the design S1 S2 S3

Confirm by inspection that all communication and alarm systems have been
1. S1 S2 S3
installed in accordance with design documents and drawings
Confirm by inspection that the routing of cabling and location of marshalling and
2. power supplies is such that the system is protected from credible fire, explosion and S1 S2 S3
seismic and weather events as per the AFC drawings.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 71
Confirm by inspection that appropriate equipment protection is provided in the

3. S1 S2 S3
event of flammable gas ingress
Confirm by inspection that adequate external and internal telephone and fax lines
4. are available at all times during an emergency giving the emergency control centre S1 S2 S3
the capability to handle two-way communications with all relevant parties
Confirm that the routing of cabling and location of marshalling and power supplies
5. is such that the system is protected from credible fire, explosion and seismic and S1 S2 S3
weather events

Confirm by inspection that the HVAC system has been installed in accordance with
1. S1 S2 S3
the D&IDs
Confirm by inspection that adequate heat bridges exist where ducting penetrates fire
2. S1 S2 S3
boundaries
Confirm by review of certification that all HVAC dampers are fire rated according
3. S1 S2 S3
to recognised industry practice and local regulations.
Confirm by review of vendor data and test results that damper closure occurs within
4. - R1 R2
the required limits.

Escape Routes
Confirm by inspection that escape routes have been constructed in accordance with
1. the design documents and drawings S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that escape routes have the minimum height and width
2. S1 S2 S3
specified in the design
Confirm by inspection that escape routes will allow easy transit of stretcher teams
3. S1 S2 S3
as specified in the design
4. Confirm by inspection that escape routes are marked in accordance with design S1 S2 S3
Muster Area
Confirm by inspection that muster areas have been constructed in accordance with
S1 S2 S3
5. the design documents and drawings
6. Confirm by inspection that muster areas are marked in accordance with design S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that muster areas have facilities to take muster and report
7. S1 S2 S3
findings to emergency control centre
Emergency Lighting
Confirm by inspection that escape routes and muster areas are adequately
8. illuminated during periods of operation of emergency lighting to the specified S1 S2 S3
minimum level
F. Commissioning
F 100 General
101 Commissioning consists of a number of different site activities and their associated documentation.
102 Table F-1 gives summaries of the scope of work tables included in this section for various
commissioning activities.
F 200 Commissioning Verification
201 For verification of hydrocarbon facilities, commissioning activities are considered as:
— initial activities
202 The initial activities include the review of procedures, attendance during qualification of procedures and
personnel and other start-up activities. The inspection activities are the site attendance and the final activities
are the continuous review of production results and records and the completion of documentation and reports.
203 Sections F300, F400 and F500 following, describe the verification activities for each of the three
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 72 – App.C
F 300 Low Level Commissioning Verification
301 For Low level verification, the procedure review consists of a review of the commissioning management
procedures and confirmation that the most important aspects of the main specifications have been included in
the procedures. For the qualification of procedures and personnel DNV will not attend the actual qualification,
but will review the results.
302 During the commissioning, DNV’s verification will be performed during site visits. The verification will
focus on the critical items and aspects identified in the detailed scope of work tables.
303 The subsequent verification of the final activities will be by spot-checks of the production records
including non-conformance logs, commissioning completion reports and results from audits, both contractors
internal audits or audits performed by other parties.
F 400 Medium Level Commissioning Verification
401 For Medium level verification, the procedure review consists of a detailed review of commissioning
management procedures. Other important procedures will be spot checked to confirm that the most important
aspects of the specifications have been included.
402 For the qualification of procedures and personnel DNV will visit the main qualifications and review the
results.
403 During commissioning, DNV’s verification will be performed by full time attendance at the site. The
verification will focus on the critical items and aspects as identified in the detailed scope of work tables.
404 Verification of the final activities will be by review of the production records including non-conformance
logs, commissioning completion reports and results from audits, both contractor’s internal audits or audits
performed by other parties.
F 500 High Level Commissioning Verification
501 For High level verification, the procedure review consists of a detailed review of commissioning
management procedures. Other procedures will be reviewed to confirm that important aspects of the
specifications have been included.
502 For qualification of procedures and personnel DNV will attend the main qualifications, spot-check other
qualifications and review the results.
503 During commissioning, DNV’s verification will be performed by full time attendance at the site.
Verification will focus on the critical items/aspects as identified in the detailed scope of work tables.
504 Verification of the final activities will be by detailed review of the production records including the non-
conformance log, commissioning completion reports and results from audits, both contractors internal audits
or audits performed by other parties
F 600 Verification of Work in Progress
601 The monitoring by the Owner during commissioning relates to the activities of the contractors. The
monitoring of these activities by DNV relates not only to the contractor’s activities but also to the monitoring
of these activities carried out by the Owner.
602 The emphasis placed on the various activities in the verification plan varies depending on:
— any areas of concern revealed during design and construction verification
— any areas of concern revealed during the audit of the Owner’s or contractor’s quality management systems
— the progress of commissioning
— the findings of the contractor surveillance personnel.
603 DNV personnel will spend more time in areas where problems have occurred, or are considered likely to
occur. Conversely, less time is spent in areas where the likelihood of problems is considered lower.
F 700 DNV Final Report
701 All the Scopes of Work tables for commissioning end with a Hold Point entitled “Issue of Visit Report”.
This item is not related to the production process as a normal hold point would be, ref. B400. This item is
intended as a reminder to the DNV inspection personnel that a final report of their verification activities is
required to finish the work.
702 This report may in the form of a Visit Report for an activity that is completed irregularly, such as a visit
to a manufacturer’s works or a monthly report of site activities where DNV’s presence is continuous.
F 800 Scope of Work for Commissioning Verification
801 Detailed scopes of work for the verification of commissioning are given in Tables C-5.2 to C-5.15.
802 Initial and final activities that are common to all commissioning verification are shown in Table C-5.2
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 73
and are not repeated in the tables for individual safety-critical elements.
Table C-5.1Summary Table - Commissioning

C-5.2 Common Commissioning Activities
C-5.11 Control Room
C-5.14 Communications
C-5.15 HVAC
Table C-5.2 Common Commissioning Activities Level

Initial Activities
2. Quality system audit at relevant contractors and sub-contractor 1) - A A
3. Review of specifications and procedures R1 R2 R2
4. Technical Meeting / Kick-off Meeting and review of commissioning documents R1 R1 R2
Confirm by review that there are no outstanding safety critical issues
5. from the mechanical completion punch lists R1 R2 R2
Final Activities
7. Review of commissioning records R1 R2 R2
8. Confirm
by review that there are no outstanding safety critical issues from the
R1 R2 R2
commissioning completion punch lists

Confirm by document review that the SPM (or its equivalent) has been
1. commissioned in accordance with DNV-OS-E403 Offshore Loading Buoys or R1 R1 R1
another code or standard giving an equivalent level of safety
Flexible Riser
2. certification, that the Flexible Riser (if fitted) has been has been commissioned in R1 R1 R1
accordance with a suitable code or standard
Confirm by document review that any pipelines have been has been commissioned
3. in accordance with DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems or another code or R1 R1 R1
standard giving an equivalent level of safety
Table C-5.4 Loading and Unloading Arms Level

Confirm by inspection during commissioning that the loading and unloading arms
1. ESD system, including quick disconnect facilities, is commissioned in accordance R1 S1 S2
with the commissioning procedures
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 74 – App.C

Confirm during commissioning that the equipment is commissioned in accordance
1. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection and function test that each field device is integrated with the
2. control system based on commissioning acceptance test procedures. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by review of vendor’s documentation and relevant punch lists that
3. requirements of National Authorities, where appropriate, for Technical Passports I R1 R2
and Permits for Use or other requirements have been complied with

Confirm by inspection during commissioning that the control system is
1. S1 S2 S3
commissioned in accordance with the commissioning procedures
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the control system functions in
2. S1 S2 S3
accordance with design
Confirm by inspection that the status of control systems has been provided at
3. S1 S2 S3
operator stations

Confirm by witnessing a selection of tests that non-certified equipment is isolated
1. S1 S2 S3
in the event of a local loss of containment as per the Cause and Effects matrix
Confirm by witness and review of test results that shutdowns occur in accordance
2. S1 S2 S3
with the design requirements.
Confirm by review of records that the commissioning of the lightning rods has been
3. - R1 R2
carried out as per the project specifications
Confirm by review of records that the commissioning of the earthing grid has been
4. - R1 R2
carried out as per the project specifications
Confirm by review of records that the commissioning of the bonding and earthing
5. - R1 R2
has been carried out as per the project specifications

Mediu
Item Description Low High
m
Confirm by inspection during commissioning that the smoke and gas detection in
1. S1 S2 S3
site buildings is commissioned in accordance with the commissioning procedures
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the smoke and gas detection in site
2. S1 S2 S3
buildings functions in accordance with design
Confirm by inspection during commissioning that the fire and gas system in external
3. S1 S2 S3
areas is commissioned in accordance with the commissioning procedures
4. Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the fire and gas system in external S1 S2 S3
areas functions in accordance with design
Confirm by witnessing tests and a review of test reports that loss of cable integrity
5. - S1 S2
provides alarm condition in the control room.
Confirm by inspection during commissioning that fire and gas system in machinery
6. enclosures is commissioned in accordance with the commissioning procedures S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the fire and gas system in
7. S1 S2 S3
machinery enclosures functions in accordance with design
Confirm by inspection during commissioning that the fire and gas control system is
8. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the fire and gas control system
9. S1 S2 S3
functions in accordance with design
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 75
Confirm by inspection that the status of fire and gas system has been provided by
10. S1 S2 S3
panels, displays or other means at operator stations
Confirm by inspection that personal toxic gas detectors are suitable to detect the
11. range of toxic gases within the plant (typically H2S, SO2, CO and high/low O2 S1 S2 S3
levels)
Confirm by witnessing tests that installed respiratory protective equipment provides
12. protection for the time it takes to don and proceed the maximum potential distance S1 S2 S3
to a safe up-wind area.

Confirm by inspection during commissioning that the emergency shutdown system
1. S1 S2 S3
is commissioned in accordance with the commissioning procedures
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the emergency shutdown system
2. functions in accordance with design S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing tests that ESDVs maximum closure times are in accordance
3. S1 S2 S3
with the design requirements
Confirm by inspection that the status of emergency shutdown system has been
4. S1 S2 S3
provided by panels, displays or other means at operator stations
Confirm by review of test results that interference does not occur between the
5. - R1 R2
various systems.

Confirm by inspection during commissioning that the blowdown header and flare
1. S1 S2 S3
system is commissioned in accordance with the commissioning procedures
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the blowdown header and flare
2. S1 S2 S3
system functions in accordance with design
Confirm by witnessing tests and a review of records that the blowdown system is
3. capable of reducing pressure to the required amount in the required time as specified S1 S2 S3
in the design documents
4. Confirm by review of test results that flare noise and radiation are within the limits R1 R2 R2
specified in the design documents

Confirm by inspection that the control room has been commissioned in accordance
1. S1 S2 S3
Confirm that safety functions associated with the control room are commissioned in
2. S1 S2 S3
accordance with the commissioning procedures (i.e. air locks if fitted)
3. S1 S2 S3
areas in questions can be viewed at a central protected location

Firewater Pumps
1. Confirm by inspection that the fire pumps have been commissioned in accordance S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing tests that the fire pumps capacity and discharge rates are in
2. S1 S2 S3
accordance with design.
Confirm by witnessing tests that fire pump start arrangements are in accordance
3. with design S1 S2 S3
Review:
4. — certification and commissioning reports of pump driver R1 R2 R2
— certification and commissioning reports of safety devices
Confirm by witnessing tests that flow rates in the firewater distribution ring main
5. S1 S2 S3
are in accordance with the firewater hydraulic analysis
6. Confirm by inspection that the firewater distribution ring main isolation valves S1 S2 S3
operate as designed
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 76 – App.C

Confirm by inspection that the firewater and foam supply systems have been
7. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing tests that the firewater and foam supply systems are capable
8. of delivering sufficient extinguishing to all necessary locations to deal with credible S1 S2 S3
worst case fire scenario as required by the design documents
9. Confirm by review of records that foam is supplied with appropriate certification R1 R2 R2
Gaseous Fire-fighting Systems
Confirm by inspection that the gaseous fire-fighting systems have been
10. S1 S2 S3
11. of delivering sufficient extinguishing gas to all necessary locations as required by S1 S2 S3
the design documents
Confirm by witnessing of tests that status indicators provided at all enclosures
12. entrances protected by gaseous fire-fighting systems function as intended to give S1 S2 S3
personnel sufficient warning to evacuate the enclosure
Confirm by witnessing tests that the fire-fighting vehicle is capable of delivering
13. sufficient extinguishing to all necessary locations as required by the design S1 S2 S3
documents

1. Confirm by inspection that the emergency power and UPS systems have been S1 S2 S3
Confirm during testing that the emergency power supply capacity is sufficient for
the following users:
2. — integrated control system supply S1 S2 S3
— communication systems
— emergency communication system
— any other systems required for emergency response.

Confirm by inspection that the Emergency Communications and Alarms have been
1. commissioned in accordance with the commissioning procedures S1 S2 S3
2. Confirm
by witnessing tests that Emergency Communications and Alarms are
S1 S2 S3
audible over the whole facility.
3. Confirm by witnessing tests that in noisy areas personnel are alerted to Emergency S1 S2 S3
Alarms by flashing beacons or other suitable means
1. Confirm by inspection that the Internal and External Communications have been S1 S2 S3
2. are available at all times during an emergency giving the emergency control centre S1 S2 S3
the capability to handle two-way communications with all relevant parties

Confirm by inspection that the HVAC system has been commissioned in accordance
1. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing tests that HVAC systems physically isolate by dampers the
2. air supply on flammable or toxic gas, or smoke detection at the HVAC inlet S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing tests that the control room HVAC is shutdown and dampers
3. S1 S2 S3
are closed on confirmed gas at the HVAC inlet.
Confirm by witnessing tests that commissioning reports that damper closure occurs
4. S1 S2 S3
within the required limits upon gas detection.
Review measurements of:
5. — capacity - R1 R2
— pressure differential.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 77
G. Operations
G 100 General
101 Operations consists of operating the hydrocarbon facility for the purpose for which it was designed and
includes the ancillary activities of maintenance and inspection.
102 Table C-6.1 gives summaries of the scope of work tables included in this section for various operations
activities.
G 200 Operations Verification
201 For verification of hydrocarbon facilities, operations activities are considered as:
— initial activities
202 The initial activities include the review of strategies and procedures. The inspection activities are the site
attendance and the final activities are the review of operations, maintenance and inspection records and the
completion of documentation and reports.
203 Sections G300, G400 and G500 following, describe the verification activities for each of the three
G 300 Low Level Operations Verification
301 For Low level verification, the procedure review consists of a review of the integrity management
strategies and confirmation that the most important aspects of these strategies have been included in the
procedures.
302 During operations, DNV’s verification will be performed during site visits. The verification will focus
303 The subsequent verification of the final activities will be by spot-checks of the operations, maintenance
and inspection records including non-conformance logs, operations reports and results from audits, both
internal audits and audits performed by other parties.
G 400 Medium Level Operations Verification
401 For Medium level verification, the procedure review consists of a detailed review of integrity
management strategies. Other important operations, maintenance and inspection procedures will be spot
checked to confirm that the most important aspects of the strategies have been included.
402 During operations, DNV’s verification will be performed during site visits. The verification will focus
403 Verification of the final activities will be by a review of the operations, maintenance and inspection
records including non-conformance logs, operations reports and results from audits, both internal audits and
audits performed by other parties.
G 500 High Level Operations Verification
501 For High level verification, the procedure review consists of a detailed review of integrity management
strategies and operations, maintenance and inspection procedures.
502 During operations, DNV’s verification will be performed by performed during site visits and by full time
attendance at the site during facility shutdowns or turn-arounds. Verification will focus on the critical items/
aspects as identified in the detailed scope of work tables.
503 Verification of the final activities will be by a detailed review of the operations, maintenance and
inspection records including non-conformance logs, operations reports and results from audits, both internal
audits and audits performed by other parties
G 600 DNV Final Report
601 All the Scopes of Work tables for commissioning end with a Hold Point entitled “Issue of DNV Report”.
This item is not related to the production process as a normal hold point would be, ref. B400. This item is
intended as a reminder to the DNV inspection personnel that a final report of their verification activities is
required to finish the work.
G 700 Scope of Work for Operations Verification
701 Detailed scopes of work for the verification of commissioning are given in Tables C-6.2 to C-6.24.
702 Initial and final activities that are common to all operations verification are shown in Table C-6.2 and
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 78 – App.C
are not repeated in the tables for individual safety-critical elements.
Table C-6.1 Summary Table - Operations

C-6.2 Common Operations Activities
C-6.3 Layout
C-6.5 Jetties
C-6.17 Control Room
C-6.23 HVAC
C-6.24 Egress and Evacuation Systems
Table C-6.2 Common Operations Activities Level

Initial Activities
2. Quality system audit at relevant contractors 1) - A A
3. Review of integrity management strategies R1 R2 R2
4. Review of procedures for operations 2), maintenance and inspection R1 R2 R2
5. Review of preventative maintenance routines - R1 R2
6. Technical Meeting / Kick-off Meeting - S1 S2
Confirm by review that there are no outstanding safety critical issues from the
7. mechanical and commissioning completion punch lists R1 R2 R2
Final Activities
9. Review of operations, maintenance and inspection records R1 R2 R2
2) Only those operations procedures wholly or partly related to integrity management or personnel safety will be reviewed

Mediu
Item Description Low m High
1. Confirm by inspection that the facility layout continues to conform to the Plot Plans S1 S2 S3
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 79

Mediu
m
Confirm by inspection that the SPM (or its equivalent) remains in good condition
1. S1 S2 S3
with no leaks or mechanical damage observed
Confirm by document review that communication systems between the SPM and the
2. R1 R1 R1
refinery control room operate as designed
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that SPM
3. R1 R2 R2
remains in good condition
Flexible Riser
Confirm by review of documents that the Flexible Riser (if fitted) remains in good
4. R1 R1 R1
condition with no leaks or mechanical damage observed
Confirm by inspection of the above-ground portions that any pipelines remain in
5. S1 S2 S3
good condition with no leaks or mechanical damage observed
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that any
6. pipelines remain in good condition with no leaks or mechanical damage observed R1 R1 R1
7. Confirm by document review of potential readings that the pipelines cathodic R1 R1 R1

protection systems are effective

Confirm by inspection that jetties remains in good condition with no mechanical
1. S1 S2 S3
damage observed
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that jetties
2. S1 S2 S3
remain in good condition and continue to operate as designed
Table C-6.6 Loading and Unloading Arms Level

1. Confirm by inspection that all loading or unloading arms remain in good condition S1 S2 S3
with no leaks or mechanical damage observed
Confirm by review of maintenance and inspection records that loading and
2. unloading arms ESD system, including quick disconnect facilities continue to R1 R2 R2
operate as designed

Mediu
m
Confirm by inspection that the process system remains constructed in accordance
1. S1 S2 S3
with the P&IDs
Piping Systems
Inspect for general condition and mechanical damage:
— check for obvious damage
2. — check for incorrectly position, damaged or disturbed supports S1 S2 S3
— check for bending and shearing of support foundation bolts, cracking of welded
foundations or displacement of supports
— check saddle, sliding or roller bearing supports.
3. Inspect surface coating or insulation to confirm that it is sealed at discontinuities S1 S2 S3
Inspect for signs of water ingress, where equipment potentially is liable to corrosion
4. S1 S2 S3
under insulation
Inspect small bore connections to confirm that they are adequately supported and not
5. vibrating S1 S2 S3
6. Inspect the electrical insulation of non-ferrous pipework for deterioration S1 S2 S3
7. Inspect insulating gaskets between dissimilar metals for deterioration S1 S2 S3
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that piping
8. systems remain in good condition with adequate wall thickness for the pressures R1 R2 R2
contained within them
Pressure Vessels
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 80 – App.C
Table C-6.7 Process System (Continued) Level

Mediu
m
9. — check for damage to shell, especially at attachments S1 S2 S3
— check for damage to supports, especially at welds between supports and vessel
and between supports and main beams.
11. S1 S2 S3
under insulation
12. Inspect fitting and support of instruments to the vessel to confirm they are S1 S2 S3
adequately supported and not vibrating
Inspect that the locking open or closed of isolation valves in relief and drain systems
13. S1 S2 S3
is in accordance with the process and instrumentation diagrams
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that pressure
14. vessels remain in good condition with adequate wall thickness for the pressures R1 R2 R2
contained within them
Mechanical Equipment
Inspect general condition and mechanical damage:
— check for obvious damage
— check for damaged or disturbed supports
— check for bending and shearing of base plate and anchor bolts, cover plate bolts, S1 S2 S3
15.
cracking of welded foundations or displacement of supports
— check condition of associated pipework and valves
— check condition of accessories.
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that
mechanical equipment set up remains satisfactory:
16. R1 R2 R2
— check measurements of clearances, alignment and bolt torques
— check results of measurements of vibration.
Confirm by document review of the results of tests of governing, alarm and safety
17. systems that mechanical equipment protection remains satisfactory R1 R2 R2
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that
18. R1 R2 R2
mechanical equipment remains in good condition

Confirm by inspection that the relief system remains constructed in accordance with
1.
the P&IDs
Confirm by inspection that isolation valves for relieving devices are locked open for
2. S1 S2 S3
active devices and locked closed for stand-by devices
Confirm by review of documents that relief valves are tested in accordance with the
3. R1 R2 R2
requirements

Inspect for general condition and mechanical damage of steel structures:
— check straightness and buckling of panels and columns
— check for cracking in welds and parent metal
— check main connections of cantilevered sections
1. — check cut outs or penetrations S1 S2 S3
— check attachments (potential crack initiators)
— check bolted connections (loose or missing bolts, corrosion, deformation to
protective cover or surrounding structure)
— check interface between steel and concrete structural parts
— check coating damage (including passive fire and cryogenic protection).
Inspect for general condition and mechanical damage of concrete structures:
2. — check straightness and buckling of columns and beams S1 S2 S3
— check for rust marks and signs of reinforcement corrosion
— check for spalling of concrete.
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that steel and
3. concrete R1 R2 R2
structures remain in good condition
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 81

Tank Foundations
1. Inspect for general condition and mechanical damage of tank foundations S1 S2 S3
Inspect for signs of tank movement that may indicate unstable foundations or soil
2. conditions S1 S2 S3
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that tank
3. R1 R2 R2
foundations remain in good condition
Tanks
— check for damage to shell, especially at attachments S1 S2 S3
4. — check for damage to supports, especially at welds between supports and tank
and between supports and main beams.
6. S1 S2 S3
under insulation
Inspect fitting and support of instruments to the tank to confirm they are adequate
7. S1 S2 S3
supported and not vibrating
Inspect that the locking open or closed of isolation valves in relief and drain systems
8. S1 S2 S3
is in accordance with the process and instrumentation diagrams
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that tanks
9. R1 R2 R2
remain in good condition with adequate wall thickness

1. Confirm by inspection that the control system remains constructed in accordance S1 S2 S3
with the P&IDs
2. Confirm by document review of records that all protective devices are suitably R1 R1 R2
calibrated for their intended pressure, temperature, etc.
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the control system functions in
3. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by document review of maintenance records of control system testing that
4. the control system continues to function in accordance with design R1 R1 R2
Confirm by inspection that the status of control systems continues to be provided at
5. S1 S2 S3
operator stations

Confirm by inspection that fired heaters and boilers remain constructed in
1. S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design documents
2. Confirm by document review of maintenance records that start-up purge facilities R1 R1 R2
have been tested and remain suitable to prevent internal explosions
Confirm by inspection that all fired heaters, combustion source are suitably located
3. S1 S2 S3
and rated for their zone of operation
Confirm by inspection and review of hazardous area classification drawings and
4. source of release schedule that equipment remains suitably protected for its location S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that all vehicles comply with the design documents regarding
5. S1 S2 S3
potential for ignition, including spark arrestors and emergency stops, etc
Confirm by inspection that the lightning rods remain installed as per the design
6. documents and drawings S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that sufficient earthing and bonding arrangements remain in
7. S1 S2 S3
place in accordance with the design documents and drawings
Confirm by witnessing a selection of tests that non-certified equipment is isolated
8. S1 S2 S3
in the event of a local loss of containment as per the Cause and Effects matrix
Confirm by witness and review of test results that shutdowns occur in accordance
9. S1 S2 S3
with the design requirements.
Electrical Equipment
Confirm by inspection that all electrical equipment remain in good condition with
10. S1 S2 S3
no mechanical or other damage observed
Confirm by document review of the results of function test alarms and
11. R1 R2 R2
disconnections that Pressurised Equipment (Ex p) remains satisfactory
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 82 – App.C
Inspect condition of Flameproof Equipment (Ex d):

— check mechanical strength, corrosion of joint flanges and bolts, missing bolts,
general corrosion, cracks, etc.
12. — dimensions of joint gaps (flame path); if surface of flame path affected by S1 S2 S3
corrosion then equipment to be scrapped
— check that flame path surfaces are covered with a thin layer of non-hardening
grease
— check that no external obstructions exist for flame paths.
Inspect condition of Increased Safety Equipment (Ex e) and Ex n Equipment:
— check internally and check entry for cleanliness, corrosion, signs of damage,
13. etc. S1 S2 S3
— check function of flameproof switch
— check setting of protective relays for Ex e motors.
Inspect condition of Intrinsically Safe Equipment (Ex i):
14. — check connections to earth bars S1 S2 S3
— check separation between intrinsically safe and non-intrinsically safe circuits
— inspect barriers and relays for cleanliness and signs of damage.
Confirm by document review of the results of function test alarms and
15. R1 R2 R2
disconnections that Pressurised Rooms remain satisfactory

Confirm by inspection that appropriate barriers remain in place for impact
1. S1 S2 S3
protection from vehicles.
Confirm by inspection that dropped object protection remains in place for
2. S1 S2 S3
equipment and piping in vulnerable areas

Confirm by inspection that the smoke and gas detection in site buildings remains in
1. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the smoke and gas detection in site
2. - S1 S2
buildings functions in accordance with design
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that smoke and gas detection
3. R1 R1 R2
in site buildings continues to function in accordance with design
Confirm by inspection that the fire and gas system in external areas remains in
4. S1 S2 S3
5. Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the fire and gas detection - external S1 S2 S3
areas functions in accordance with design
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that fire and gas detection -
6. R1 R1 R2
external areas continues to function in accordance with design
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that loss of cable integrity
7. R1 R1 R2
provides alarm condition in the control room.
Confirm by inspection that the fire and gas system in machinery enclosures remains
8. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the fire and gas system in
9. machinery enclosures functions in accordance with design - S1 S2
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that fire and gas system in
10. R1 R1 R2
machinery enclosures continues to function in accordance with design
Confirm by inspection that fire and gas control system (panels, displays, etc.)
11. S1 S2 S3
remains installed in accordance with design documents and drawings
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 83
Confirm by inspection that the status of fire and gas system has been provided at
12. S1 S2 S3
operator stations
Confirm by inspection that personal toxic gas detectors are suitable to detect the
13. range of toxic gases within the plant (typically H2S, SO2, CO and high/low O2 S1 S2 S3
levels)
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that respiratory protective
14. equipment continues to function in accordance with design R1 R1 R2

Confirm by inspection that the emergency shutdown system remains installed in
1. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that control system (panels, displays, etc.) remain installed
2. S1 S2 S3
3. Confirm by inspection that the status of ESD remains provided at operator stations S1 S2 S3
4. Confirm by inspection that adequate protection of ESD valves remains provided S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that ESDVs remain suitably protected from potential
5. S1 S2 S3
vehicular impact
Confirm by witnessing of a selection of tests that the emergency shutdown system
6. S1 S2 S3
functions in accordance with design
Confirm by witnessing tests that ESDVs maximum closure times are in accordance
7. S1 S2 S3
with the design requirements
8. Confirm by document review of maintenance records that emergency shutdown R1 R1 R2
system continues to function in accordance with design

Confirm by inspection that the blowdown header and flare system remain installed
1. S1 S2 S3
in accordance with the P&IDs
Confirm by witnessing tests and a review of records that the blowdown system is
2. capable of reducing pressure to the required amount in the required time as specified S1 S2 S3
in the design documents
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that the
3. R1 R1 R2
blowdown header and flare system continues to function in accordance with design

1. Confirm by inspection that the control room remains constructed in accordance with S1 S2 S3
the design drawings
Confirm by inspection that safety functions associated with the control room remain
2. S1 S2 S3
in accordance with the commissioning procedures (i.e. air locks if fitted)
3. areas in questions can be viewed at a central protected location S1 S2 S3

Fire Water Storage
Confirm by inspection that fire water storage remains provided in accordance to
1. S1 S2 S3
2. Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that the fire - R1 R2
water storage continues to function in accordance with design
Firewater Pumps
Confirm by inspection that fire pumps remain installed in accordance with design
3. S1 S2 S3
drawings
Confirm by witnessing tests that the fire pumps capacity and discharge rates remain
4. - S1 S2
in accordance with design.
Confirm by witnessing tests that fire pump start arrangements remain in accordance
5. S1 S2 S3
with design
6. Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that the fire R1 R1 R2
pumps continue to function in accordance with design
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 84 – App.C
Confirm by inspection that the firewater distribution ring main remains provided in
7. S1 S2 S3
8. Confirm that firewater distribution ring main isolation valves remain installed and S1 S2 S3
operate in accordance with the P&IDs
9. of delivering sufficient extinguishing to all necessary locations to deal with credible - S1 S2
worst case fire scenario as required by the design documents
10. Confirm by review of records that foam is supplied with appropriate certification R1 R2 R2
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that the fire
11. R1 R1 R2
pumps continue to function in accordance with design
Confirm by inspection that the firewater and foam supply systems remain installed
12. S1 S2 S3
in accordance with the design drawings
Confirm by inspection that the monitors and hydrants remain installed in
13. S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design documents and drawings
Confirm by witnessing tests that the firewater and foam supply systems continue to
14. be capable of delivering sufficient extinguishing to all necessary locations to deal S1 S2 S3
with credible worst case fire scenario as required by the design documents
15. firewater and foam supply systems remain in good condition with adequate wall R1 R1 R2
thickness
Gaseous Fire-fighting Systems
Confirm by inspection that the gaseous fire-fighting systems remain installed in
16. S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that status indicators remain provided at all enclosures
17. S1 S2 S3
entrances protected by gaseous fire-fighting systems
Confirm by witnessing tests that the firewater and foam supply systems continue to
18. be capable of delivering sufficient extinguishing gas to all necessary locations as S1 S2 S3
required by the design documents
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that status indicators provided
19. at all enclosures entrances protected by gaseous fire-fighting systems continue to - R1 R2
function as intended to give personnel sufficient warning to evacuate the enclosure
20. gaseous fire-fighting systems remain in good condition and continue to function in R1 R1 R2
Confirm by inspection that any fire-fighting vehicles continue to conform to the
21. requirements of the design documents S1 S2 S3
Confirm by witnessing tests that any fire-fighting vehicles remain capable of
22. delivering sufficient extinguishing to all necessary locations as required by the S1 S2 S3
design documents
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that the any
23. fire-fighting vehicles remain in good condition and continue to function in R1 R1 R2

1. Confirm by inspection that passive fire protection (PFP) remains provided in S1 S2 S3
accordance with the design on vessels, piping, supports and structures
Confirm by inspection that penetrations in PFP remain installed in accordance with
2. S1 S2 S3
manufacturer’s instructions

Confirm by inspection that bunding and drainage remains installed is accordance
1. S1 S2 S3

DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 85
Confirm by inspection that emergency power and uninterruptible power supply

1. S1 S2 S3
(UPS) remains installed in accordance with design documents and drawings
2. Confirm by review of records that the supplied UPS batteries remain in accordance - R1 R2
with the design documents
Confirm by inspection that automatic changeover of UPS battery banks continues to
3. S1 S2 S3
operate in accordance with the design
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that UPS remains in good
4. condition and continue to function in accordance with design R1 R1 R2

Confirm by inspection that all communication and alarm systems remain installed
1. S1 S2 S3
2. Confirm by witnessing tests that emergency communications and alarms are audible S1 S2 S3
over the whole facility.
Confirm by witnessing tests that in noisy areas personnel are alerted to emergency
3. S1 S2 S3
alarms by flashing beacons or other suitable means
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that communication and
4. alarm systems remain in good condition and continue to function in accordance with R1 R1 R2
design
Confirm by inspection that the internal and external communications remain
5. S1 S2 S3
installed in accordance with the commissioning procedures
6. remain available at all times during an emergency giving the emergency control S1 S2 S3
centre the capability to handle two-way communications with all relevant parties
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that internal and external
7. communications remain in good condition and continue to function in accordance R1 R1 R2
with design

Confirm by inspection that the HVAC system remains been installed in accordance
1. S1 S2 S3
with the D&IDs
Confirm by witnessing tests that HVAC systems physically isolate by dampers the
2. - S1 S2
air supply on flammable or toxic gas, or smoke detection at the HVAC inlet
Confirm by witnessing tests that the control room HVAC is shutdown and dampers
3. - S1 S2
are closed on confirmed gas at the HVAC inlet.
Confirm by witnessing tests that commissioning reports that damper closure occurs
4. S1 S2 S3
within the required limits upon gas detection.
Confirm by document review of maintenance records that HVAC systems remain in
5. R1 R2 R2
good condition and continue to function in accordance with design

Escape Routes
Confirm by inspection that escape routes remain constructed in accordance with the
1. S1 S2 S3
2. Confirm by inspection that escape routes remain marked in accordance with design S1 S2 S3
Muster Area
3. Confirm by inspection that muster areas remain marked in accordance with design S1 S2 S3
Confirm by inspection that muster areas have facilities to take muster and report
4. S1 S2 S3
findings to emergency control centre
Emergency Lighting
Confirm by inspection that escape routes and muster areas are adequately
5. illuminated during periods of operation of emergency lighting to the specified S1 S2 S3
minimum level
General
Confirm by document review of maintenance and inspection records that all
6. components of the egress and evacuation system remain in good condition and R1 R2 R2
continue to function in accordance with design
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 86 – App.C
H. Modifications or Upgrades
H 100 General Principles
101 The verification of the design, construction and commissioning of modifications or upgrades to existing
hydrocarbon facilities shall be carried out in accordance with Sections C, D, E and F previously in this
Appendix as if a new facility was being built on a new site.
102 However, unlike a green-field project, modifications or upgrades may have compatibility issues with
existing units in facility.
103 The verification scope of work in this Section deals with these possible compatibility issues both with
other units in process proximity, i.e. upstream or downstream of the new or modified unit, and units in physical
proximity, which may, or may not, be the same units.
H 200 Verification of Design of Modifications
201 Detailed scopes of work for the verification of the design of modifications are given in Table C-6.1.
Table C-6.1 Design of Modifications - Compatibility with Existing Facility Level

Confirm by review of the QRA that the modifications to site layout have been
1. demonstrated to show that the level of risk remains within the corporate risk - R1 R2
acceptance criteria
Confirm by review of equipment layout drawings, bases of design and formal safety
2. assessments that equipment separation within the modified facility remains - R1 R2
adequate in terms of the risk acceptance criteria
Confirm by review of bases of design that the effects on units upstream or
downstream have been considered in terms of, for example:
— incoming or outgoing product composition
— corrosion potential of changes in product composition
3. — changes in product:
R1 R2 R2
— flowrates
— temperatures
— pressures.
Confirm by review of the fire and explosion analysis that existing units or
4. equipment close to the modifications are not affected by fires, explosions or the R1 R2 R2
release of toxic vapour beyond their original design criteria
Confirm by review of drawings that where changes to escape routes and emergency
5. vehicle access result from the modifications, that routes and accesses to an R1 R2 R2
equivalent level of safety are to be provided
Confirm by review of design documents that any modifications do not adversely
affect existing systems, such as:
6. — process control R1 R2 R2
— fire and gas detection
— emergency shutdown.
Confirm by review of design documents that existing and modified process control,
7. fire and gas detection and emergency shutdown systems are capable of effective R1 R2 R2
communication with each other and act as one complete system
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.C – Page 87
H 300 Verification of Construction of Modifications

301 Detailed scopes of work for the verification of the construction of modifications are given in Table C-6.2.
Table C-6.2Construction of Modifications Level

Confirm by inspection that the layout of the modifications is in accordance with the
1. S1 S2 S3
design documents
Confirm by inspection that there are no layout considerations that were not readily
2. S1 S2 S3
apparent during design
Confirm by inspection that process control, fire and gas detection and emergency
3. S1 S2 S3
shutdown systems have been constructed in accordance with design documents
Confirm by inspection that escape routes and emergency vehicle accesses have
4. S1 S2 S3
been constructed in accordance with design documents
Confirm by inspection that there are no escape routes and emergency vehicle access
5. S1 S2 S3
considerations that were not readily apparent during design
6. Confirm by inspection that there are no personnel accesses considerations, such as S1 S2 S3
valve accesses, that were not readily apparent during design
H 400 Verification of Commissioning of Modifications
401 Detailed scopes of work for the verification of the commissioning of modifications are given in Table C-
6.3.
Table C-6.3Commissioning of Modifications Level

Confirm by witnessing of tests that existing and modified process control, fire and
1. gas detection and emergency shutdown systems are capable of effective S1 S2 S3
communication with each other and act as one complete system
Confirm by witnessing of tests that no interference occurs between new and existing
2. S1 S2 S3
systems such that their operation is adversely affected
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 88 – App.D
APPENDIX D
MAJOR ACCIDENT HAZARDS VERSUS SAFETY-CRITICAL ELEMENTS
A 100 Introduction
101 The purpose of this Appendix is to show typical refinery hazards and the interface with safety-critical
elements and risk mitigation measures.
102 A preliminary identification and analysis of possible risk mitigation measures, i.e. Inherent Safety,
Prevention, Detection, Control, Mitigation and Emergency Response, shall be carried out in accordance with
ALARP principle. Practical and cost-effective risk mitigation measures based on the risk assessment results
shall be identified.
103 However, major accident hazards and their related safety-critical elements are specific to a specific
hydrocarbon facility as they related to the particular risks to that facility and its personnel. Other similar
facilities may have similar risks (and similar major accident hazards) but each list of major accident hazards
and their related safety-critical elements must be specific to each installation and its specific risks.
Table D-1 Major Accident hazards versus Safety-critical Elements
Release of dangerous
Toxic Process Liquid
Errant vessel impact

Flammable Process
Flammable Process
Structural Collapse
Pipeline Release
Dropped Object
Vessel Rupture/
Vapour Release
Vapour Release
Vehicle Impact
Liquid Release
Pressure Pulse
Toxic Process
Tank Release
substance
Release
SAFETY CRITICAL
ELEMENT
INHERENT SAFETY a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l)
Layout M M M M M M M P P P
Hydrocarbon Inventory/Leak
Source Minimisation P/M P/M P/M P/M P/M P/M P/M
HAZARD PREVENTION MEASURES
Process Facilities Integrity/
Process System P P P P P P P P
Process Facilities Integrity/ P P P P P P P P
Relief Valves and Relief System
P
Structural Integrity
Control Systems P P P P P P
Control of Ignition/Vehicles P P P P P
Control of Ignition/Fired
Heaters, Hot Surfaces And P P P P
Exhausts
Control of Ignition/Electrical
P P P P
Items
Control of Ignition/Lightning,
Static and Earthing P P P P
Pipeline Integrity/Onshore
P
Pipeline
Pipeline Integrity/Offshore
P
Pipeline/SPM
Pipeline Integrity/Third Party
Interference Protection P P P P P P P P P P P
Dropped Object and Impact
P P P P P P P P P P P P
Protection
HAZARD DETECTION/CONTROL MEASURES
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.D – Page 89
Table D-1 Major Accident hazards versus Safety-critical Elements (Continued)

Flammable Process
Flammable Process
Structural Collapse
Pipeline Release
Vessel Rupture/
Dropped Object
Vapour Release
Vapour Release
Vehicle Impact
Liquid Release
Pressure Pulse
Toxic Process
Tank Release
substance
Release
SAFETY CRITICAL
ELEMENT
Fire and Gas Detection/Smoke

and Gas Detection for Site D D D D D D
Buildings
Fire and Gas Detection/Fire and
Gas-External Areas D D D D D D
Fire and Gas Detection/ Fire and
D D D D D D
Gas-Machinery Enclosures
Fire and Gas Detection/Fire and
Gas Control (forming part of the D D D D D D
Integrated Control System)
Leak Detection/Pipeline leak
D D D D D D D
Detection
Visual Monitoring/CCTV D D D D D D D D D D D
Emergency Shutdown System/ C C C C C M C
ESD Control System
Emergency Shutdown System/
Emergency Shutdown Valves C C C C C M C
(ESDVs)
Blowdown Header and Flare
C C C C C M
System
Control Room C C C C C C C C C C C C
Active Fire Fighting Systems/ M M M M M
Fire Water Storage
Active Fire Fighting Systems/
M M M M M
Fire water pumps
Fire Water Distribution Ring- M M M M M
main
Fire Water and Foam Supply M M M M M
Active Fire Fighting Systems/ M M M M
Gaseous Fire Fighting Systems
M M M M M M
Fire Fighting Vehicle
Passive Fire Protection M M M M M P M
Bunding and Drainage C C C C
HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES
Emergency Services/
M/C M/C M/C M/C M/C M/C M M
Emergency Power
Emergency Services/
Emergency Communications M M M M M M M M M M M M
and Alarms
Internal & External P/C/ P/C/
Communication M M M M M M M M M M M M
Personnel Toxic Gas Protection M M
Uninterruptible Power Supply
(UPS) M/C M/C M/C M/C M/C M/C M M
HVAC M M M M M M M
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 90 – App.D
Table D-1 Major Accident hazards versus Safety-critical Elements (Continued)

Flammable Process
Flammable Process
Structural Collapse
Pipeline Release
Vessel Rupture/
Dropped Object
Vapour Release
Vapour Release
Vehicle Impact
Liquid Release
Pressure Pulse
Toxic Process
Tank Release
substance
Release
SAFETY CRITICAL
ELEMENT
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Egress and Evacuation System/
M M M M M M M M M M M
Escape Routes
Egress and Evacuation System/
Muster Area M M M M M M M M M M M
Emergency Lighting M M M M M M M M M M M
a) Flammable liquid releases result in pool fires, flash fires through evaporation and jet fires if pressurised. Can escalate
to BLEVEs if conditions are right.
b) Flammable vapour/gas release result in jet fires if ignition is immediate and vapour cloud explosions if ignition is
delayed. Escalation in local area is likely from jet fires and is almost inevitable for VCEs.
c) Toxic liquid release can subsequently flash although typically easily contained if recognised. Liquid releases in
aerosol form may be more problematic.
d) Toxic gas releases result can result in large drifting clouds with significant hazard ranges including offsite impact.
Most likely scenario to result in large numbers of casualties.
e) Pipeline releases are generally difficult to detect unless in a frequently visited area or ignited.
f) Vessel rupture can result from internal overpressure such as from an internal explosion or uncontrolled increase in
pressure. The pressure pulse at rupture can have blast overpressure levels equivalent to VCEs.
g) Tank releases are historically due to overfilling or structural collapse of the tank due to a fire. Full face crude tank
fires have a 30-50% chance of escalating to a boil-over with significant impact to a large area around the tank.
h) Structural collapse can result from loss of integrity due to impact, deterioration, subsidence or fire impingement.
May escalate to process releases. Structure includes buildings, pipe and vessel supports, jetty trestle and flare stacks.
i) Dangerous substances include high pressure steam, and stored chemicals and gases. Impact will tend to be localised.
Unlikely to escalate.
j) Dropped objects originate from crane operations in process areas, and mooring operations at jetty and SPM. Can
escalate to structural collapse or process releases.
k) Errant vessel impact at the SPM or jetty may be due to loss of control of near by vessels. Can escalate to structural
collapse or process releases.
l) Vehicle impact within the process area can escalate to structural collapse or process releases.
Type Release Fluids Ignition Consequences

Flammable Events
Hydrocarbon gases, Immediate
ignition
Continuous release
via auto-ignition, P - Fatalities very improbable: minor
Small / of flammable fluid two phase mixtures static build-up in
injury possible
Medium with significant and liquids: fluid
some leak scenarios, A – Minor damage to equipment
Jet fire momentum from a 25 needs to be
or other form at E – Minimal impact.
mm or smaller leak pressurised
source of leak
Hydrocarbon gases, Immediate
ignition P – Serious injury/fatalities probable
Continuous release
via auto-ignition, for those nearby
of flammable fluid two phase mixtures static build-up in
Large Jet with significant and liquids: fluid
A – Localised but substantial damage,
fire momentum from a 50 needs to be
some leak scenarios, including structural failure of
or other form at equipment
mm or larger leak pressurised
source of leak E – Minimal impact
Delayed ignition P – Can cause flash burns to
some distance from individuals: Fatality possible but
Evaporation of C4+ the source of the unlikely.
Continuous release
Flash fire of flammable fluid components from leak. Flame front A – Negligible damage to equipment.
pool spill burns back to source E – Spill may have impact
depending upon the Esc – May escalate to pool fire when
air fuel ratio burn back ignites originating pool
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.D – Page 91
Type Release Fluids Ignition Consequences

P – Fatalities unlikely where
opportunity to escape exists
A – Potentially widespread impact if
Fluids of C4+
Ignition of flashing/ not contained
Release of components: may be
Pool fire flammable fluid static or running
evaporating vapour E – Can have significant local
by external source environmental impact due to large
pools quantities of smoke
Esc – Can escalate to BLEVE in some
under vessel/pipe rack fires
P – Unlikely to result in injury or
fatality as there is plenty of warning
of event
Sudden release of A – Potential widespread impact as
large quantities of
the contents of the tank can expand by
burning fluid from an 400 times due to frothing: may
atmospheric tank, overspill the bund wall
caused by water Crude oil and
Ignition from E - Can have significant local
Boil-over boiling in the base of hydrocarbon product existing tank top fire environmental impact due to large
the tank due to a liquids quantities of smoke
surrounding pool fire
Esc - Rain-out of burning droplets can
or a tank-top fire cause secondary fires up to 5 tank
heating up the diameters away: thermal radiation can
contents of the tank
peak well above the value required to
start secondary fires at distances up to
200m
Catastrophic failure
of pressure vessel Pressurised fluids P – Take time to develop so fatalities
resulting in a sudden with C4+ should be unlikely if signs are
Boiling
release of vapour: components if above recognised
Liquid failure is due to the boiling point: affects Ignition due to heat A – Massive damage over large area
Expanding internal pressure of overhead source applied to due to projectiles, overpressure and
Vapour vessel (pool fire, jet
boiling liquid and accumulators and fire balls
Explosion vapour exceeding the vessels, but not fire etc.) E – Minimal impact
(BLEVE) reduced tensile columns where Esc – May result in other events due
strength of rapidly flanges fail first to damage caused
heated vessel wall
Release of
flammable fluid:
P – Fatalities a probable outcome
very unlikely if Ignition by external A – Pressure wave causes significant
Vapour volumes are less that Typically C3, C4 and source resulting in an
Cloud 10t (for general C5 in storage or any explosion: damage. Extent depends on size of
hydrocarbon fluid in release but considered a major
Explosion hydrocarbon confinement level
(VCE) service): it is more process if above its affect the probability
impact.
likely for Hydrogen boiling point E – Minimal impact
of VCE Esc – Escalation almost inevitable
and Propylene cloud,
e.g. 100 kg
Toxic Events
P – Extent of CO toxicity depends
upon original concentration and
pressure: potential for offsite impacts
Toxic Release of toxic Toxic gases such as
Release fluids H2S, SO2 and CO Not applicable A – No impact
E – May have impact on local fauna
and flora but unlikely
Esc – No escalation
P = Personnel
A = Assets (plant and equipment)
E = Environment
Esc = Escalation
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 92 – App.E
APPENDIX E
GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF VERIFICATION PLANS
A 100 Introduction
101 The purpose of the Verification Plan is to describe the philosophy and methods used to ensure that an
independent and competent scrutiny is carried out on the parts of the hydrocarbon facility that are considered
to be critical to its safety and integrity to confirm their initial suitability.
102 Verification Plans are specific to a specific hydrocarbon facility as the plan is related to the particular
risks to that facility and its personnel. Other similar facilities may have similar risks (and similar Verification
Plans) but each Plan must be specific to each installation and its specific risks.
B. The Verification Plan’s Part

in Facility Risk Management
B 100 Risk Reduction in Principle
101 Risk reduction for hydrocarbon facilities follows three main steps:
Identification of Major Hazards


Evaluation of Risks

Identification of Measures Taken to Reduce Risks
“As Low As Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP)
Figure 1
Management of Safety
102 ALARP is not defined in any legislation but has arisen from Case Law through the English courts. The
concept is that the degree of risk from any particular activity can be balanced against the cost, time and trouble
of the measures to be taken to reduce the risk. Thus, the greater the risk the more reasonable it would be to incur
substantial cost, time and trouble in its mitigation. Conversely, the smaller the risk the less reasonable it would
be to expect great expense or trouble to be taken in reducing it.
Major Accident Hazards


Prevention, Control and Mitigation Measures

Safety-critical Elements

Performance Standards

Owner’s Integrity Management

Verification Scheme
Figure 2
Risk Reduction and Verification
B 200 The Major Accident Hazard Process and Integrity Management

201 Major Accident Hazards are identified in a Formal Safety Assessment by an analysis of the risks to the
hydrocarbon facility’s integrity and the safety of personnel using suitable definitions of such accidents. The
definitions of these accidents may be set by National Authorities.
202 Prevention, Control and Mitigation Measures are the measures that have been identified to reduce these
identified risks by preventing their occurrence, controlling them when they have occurred or mitigating the
effects of their occurrence.
203 Safety-critical Elements are those items of hardware that perform the prevention, control and mitigation
measures to reduce risks. It must be noted that in this instance computer software is considered hardware.
Furthermore, it should be realised that the identification of safety-critical elements is solely consequence-based
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.E – Page 93
with no consideration of the probability of occurrence.

204 Performance Standards are the definition of the methods by which the safety-critical elements perform
their risk reduction functions. Thus, performance standards are the basis to which the safety-critical elements
are designed, constructed, commissioned and operated. Their formulation is not stand-alone but integral part
of design process and must include assumptions in FEED, QRAs, other safety studies and detailed design.
Formulation of performance standards is function-based and conventionally lists essential parameters relevant
to Functionality, Availability, Reliability and Survivability.
205 Verification Scheme is an independent examination of the safety-critical elements to confirm that they
are suitable for the purpose for which they were designed, constructed, commissioned and operated. It is carried
out by personnel independent of the Owner in order to have an external opinion of the effectiveness of Owner’s
and their contractors’ integrity management procedures and practices.
206 Verification activities usually will fall under three categories:
— visual examination
— witnessing of construction, commissioning and inspection activities
— review of documents.
C. Independent Third-Party Verification

C 100 What is Verification?
101 Verification is a system of independent and competent scrutiny of elements identified as critical to the
integrity of the hydrocarbon facility and the safety of personnel working in it. When requested by the Owner
verification may be extended to personnel located outside the facility.
102 Verification is in addition to routine design checks, construction and commissioning checks and
inspections and maintenance and inspection during operation.
103 Verification is expected to:
— be an independent and competent scrutiny of the hydrocarbon facility’s safety-critical elements,
performance standards and risk assessments’ assumptions and conclusions
— identify errors or failures in the selection of safety-critical elements and the specification of their
performance standards
— include examination of the design, procurement, construction, commissioning and operation of the
facility’s safety-critical elements.
104 Verification activities are carried out at any place where a hydrocarbon facility is being designed,
constructed, commissioned or operated. Such places would include design offices, fabrication sites, the facility
itself, the Owner’s premises or any of its contractor’s premises.
C 200 How Verification Is Carried Out
201 DNV’s role is to provide an independent examination of the suitability of the safety-critical elements.
This includes the adequacy of the selection of these safety-critical elements and the adequacy of their
performance standards.
202 DNV also provides findings and required remedial actions after completion of these examinations.
203 Examination of safety-critical elements involves activities, such as inspection, testing, review of
documents and audit, in order to assess whether these safety-critical elements comply, or confirm that they do
not comply, with their performance standards.
C 300 Content of Verification Plan
301 Various aspects of verification must be included in the verification scheme, namely the:
— principles for selecting persons to perform functions under the scheme and to keep the scheme under review
— arrangements for the communication of information necessary to the persons referred to above
— arrangements for review and revision of the scheme
— nature and frequency of examination and testing
— arrangements for the making and preservation of records showing;
— examination and testing carried out
— findings
— remedial action recommended and
— remedial action performed
— arrangements for communicating the records above to an appropriate level in the Owner
— arrangements for taking of appropriate action following such reports
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 94 – App.E
C 400 Formal Guidance on Verification Plans and Practices

401 The philosophy of verification of safety-critical elements and their accompanying performance standards
arises from the United Kingdom’s “The Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005”, Statutory
Instrument 2005 number 3117, ref. Sec.1 E.
402 Guidance on the United Kingdom’s implementation of verification may be found in “A Guide to the
Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005”, ref. Sec.1 E.
D. Verification Plan
D 100 Development of the Verification Plan
101 The Verification Plan shall be formulated to provide a written record during its development and
implementation of the independent and competent scrutiny of the design, construction, commissioning and
operation of the hydrocarbon facility. Although presented as a single flow of activities, it is recognised that
there will be a continuous feedback of modifications and improvements as the project develops. The
development of the Verification Plan therefore will be an ongoing activity, subject to appropriate formal
change control.
102 The requirement for the Verification Plan will be to establish that, for the selected SCEs, the PSs bring
together the safety and integrity-related performance goals and requirements in such a manner that will allow
DNV to demonstrate suitability. Suitability is defined as appropriate for intended use, dependable and effective
when required.
D 200 Development of Examination Scope of Work Documents
201 The Verification Task List will define specific examination activities to be performed by DNV to
confirm the initial suitability of the SCEs. This initial and suitability will be confirmed against the specific
performance criteria given in the PS.
202 Each verification task will contain the following information:
— details of each SCE relevant to the task
— against each SCE details of each PS relevant to the task
— against each PS a list of examination activities to be completed by DNV
— against each examination activity the following details are required:
— activity No. – a unique identification number for the examination activity described
— a description of the examination activity to be performed,
— the timing of the examination activities
— nature of the examination activity
— phase of the hydrocarbon facility life-cycle in which the activities occur
— reference documents – suggested generic documents required to close or facilitate the examination
activity (the specified documents will not necessarily be an exhaustive list).
D 300 Methods of Examination
301 The detailed methods of examination will be identified within the verification tasks. However, the
examination methods will fall into one of these four categories:
Inspection Visual inspection of the SCE in question

Test Witness or carry out functional testing of the SCE
Audit A documentation check with regard to the effectiveness of assurance activities undertaken by the
Owner or its contractors
Review A documentation check with regard to adequacy
D 400 Project Phase
401 The phase of the hydrocarbon project cycle in which the activities occur will be identified within the
verification tasks. However, the project phase will fall into one of these four categories:
DET NORSKE VERITAS

App.E – Page 95
Design Design of the facility or any of its components

Procurement of the materials and items of plant intended for the facility
Guidance note:
Procurement This activity may include design of components if this is a contractual requirement from the Owner
to the Vendor.
The onsite activities of construction and assembly of the facility
Guidance note:
Construction Construction may take place at multiple sites before integration at the main site.
Commissionin
The onsite activities of commissioning the facility
g
Operations Operation of the facility for the purpose for which it was designed
D 500 Control of Verification
501 It is recommended that management and control of verification activities is undertaken electronically,
preferably using a database but other suitable methods may be used.
502 The database (or other means of control) should contain the following input fields:
Table E-1 Verification Control Database – Suggested Input Fields

Input Field Description
Safety-Critical
Safety-Critical Element
Element
Numbered performance criteria detailed in each Performance Standard document. Each of these
Performance will be linked to a SCE within the database. The database architecture shall enable multiple PS to
Standard
be linked to each SCE.
Description of the examination activity to be undertaken. As part of this input field the following
information is also required:
— type of examination (e.g. review, inspect, etc.)
Examination
— lifecycle phase (design, construction, etc.)
Activity — details of documents required to assist with the verification activity.
Each examination activity will be linked to a PS within the database. The database architecture
shall enable multiple activities to be linked to each PS.
Description of the examination undertaken. As part of this input field the following information
is required:
— description of the verification work undertaken
— details of outstanding actions to be completed
Reporting
— date of the examination
— details of the individual verifier completing the examination.
Each report will be linked to a verification activity within the database. The database architecture
shall enable multiple reports to be linked to each examination activity.
Description of findings from the verification work undertaken. As part of this input field the
following information is required:
— verifier’s findings (comment on whether the activity is closed, the PS is met, etc.)
— remedial actions recommended by the verifier
Findings — finding close-out date
— report/finding status code
— report/finding update details.
Each finding will be linked to a report within the database. The database architecture shall enable
multiple findings to be linked to each report.
E. Verification Reporting
E 100 Control of Verification Reports
101 A uniquely numbered Verification Activity Report (VAR) shall be produced for each for each activity
listed in the verification task list by the individual Verifier undertaking the examination. Each VAR will be
produced by entering the appropriate information into the verification database described previously. Each
DET NORSKE VERITAS

Page 96 – App.E
VAR will include the following information:

— safety-critical element
— performance standard
— unique examination activity identifier and description
— description of the examination completed
— details of any outstanding activities
— findings of the examination (e.g. has the performance standard been met?)
— remedial actions recommended to the Owner.
102 All records shall identify clearly the individual(s) undertaking the examination.
E 200 Verification Status Reporting
201 Each VAR will specify the activity status code as described below:
A - Performance Standard satisfied
B - Performance Standard not met or demonstrated
C - Further verification activities to be completed or additional information required which is not available
202 Status A: issued after any comments relating to the activity have been resolved and it is confirmed that
the requirements of the relevant Performance Standard have been met.
203 Status B: issued after it is agreed with the Owner that outstanding comments cannot be resolved and that
DNV cannot confirm that the requirements of the relevant Performance Standard have been met, or can confirm
that the requirements have not been met.
Guidance note:
Where VAR Status B is issued by DNV, it is up to the owner to justify to himself, and where necessary to the National
Authorities, his basis for acceptance of the deviation from his previously stated requirements.
DNV’s final report will simply state that the VAR has been issued at Status B and give the reasons for this.
204 Status C: not normally issued but the status recorded for progress reporting, if required by the Owner.
F. Review and Revision of the Verification Plan

F 100 Continuous Review of the Plan
101 The Verification Plan will remain live for the lifetime of the design, construction and commissioning of
the hydrocarbon facility. It is essential that there is a continuous feedback of modifications and improvements
as the project develops. The development of the Verification Plan therefore will be an ongoing activity, subject
to appropriate formal change control.
102 The Owner should ensure that all persons completing activities relevant to the design, construction and
commissioning of the hydrocarbon facility are given the opportunity to comment on the adequacy and possible
improvement of the Verification Plan.
F 200 Events Initiating Revisions
201 The Verification Plan may require changes that are triggered by events such as:
— major design changes during the design, construction or operations phase
— Verification Plan is incorrect, deficient or requires improving
— change of record of SCEs (e.g. revised methodology for identifying SCEs)
— change of Performance Standards (e.g. current PS inappropriate, or due to technical advances)
— inability to confirm that SCE meets the requirements of its PS
— major revision to supporting safety documentation (QRA, FERA, etc.)
— damage or incidents
— change in record-keeping systems
— change in responsibilities/accountabilities
— change in reporting requirements.
202 When one or more of the above occurs, the Owner shall review, and where deemed necessary update, the
Plan. These reviews will be conducted in consultation with DNV, together with any contractor’s personnel as
appropriate.
DET NORSKE VERITAS

DNV DSS-314 (2010) - Verification of Hydrocarbon Refining and Petrochemical Facilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNV DSS-314 (2010) - Verification of Hydrocarbon Refining and Petrochemical Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SERVICE SPECIFICATION

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Sec. 1 Introduction To Risk-based Verification ......................................................................................... 8

DET NORSKE VERITAS

F 500 Verification During the Commissioning of Modifications................................................................................. 27

DET NORSKE VERITAS

C. Overall Project Management ........................................................................................................................................ 46

DET NORSKE VERITAS

E. Verification Reporting .................................................................................................................................................. 95

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Definition of Verification Involvement

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Formal 2 P rimary Struc ut re

Assessment Major Ac cident 8

B 300 Risk-based Verification Planning

B 400 Certificate of Conformity

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

C. Selection of Level of Verification

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Table 2-1 Levels of Verification - Summary of Involvement (Continued)

103 Selection factors are the:

C 200 Overall Safety Objective

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Table 3-1 Scope of work for verification of FEED

D. Project Design, Construction

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Table 3-2 Scope of work for verification of overall project management

Table 3-3 Scope of work for verification of design

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Table 3-3 Scope of work for verification of design (Continued)

D 400 Verification During Construction

DET NORSKE VERITAS

— final inspection reports of procured items.

D 500 Verification During Commissioning

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Table 3-6 Scope of work for verification of site construction

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Table 3-7 Scope of work for verification of site commissioning

Table 3-8 Scope of work for verification of overall operations management

DET NORSKE VERITAS

— reviewing the operations, maintenance and inspection processes

304 Typical activities to be verified during operations are:

Table 3-9 Scope of work for verification of operations

DET NORSKE VERITAS

harmful effects on parts of the existing facility.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

B. Quantitative Risk Assessment

DET NORSKE VERITAS

B 200 Scope of a QRA

DET NORSKE VERITAS

B 600 Consequence Criteria

1102 This assessment shall be reported by means of a cost-benefit analysis.