Page 440 - Offshore Electrical Engineering Manual

Background 427

for the respective installations. These amendments should be documented by the
duty holder, and accepted by the ICP, and either added as an addendum to the exist-
ing written scheme or as a separate document.
With the agreement and cooperation of all duty holders involved with the com-
bined operations, a single joint interface document may be prepared, defining all
verification arrangements for the combined operations (requirements in addition, to
the written schemes for the respective installations).
At completion of combined operations, the combined scheme addendum or inter-
face document should be reviewed by the duty holder to take account of any modifi-
cations to the installation during the combined operation. The addendum or interface
document should be formally withdrawn but not discarded, as it constitutes part of
the lifecycle documentation of the installation, and may be relevant for future com-
bined operations.
The written scheme should also describe how temporary equipment brought on
to the installation will be verified. It should detail how the safety criticality of tem-
porary equipment is assessed and verification of these items is addressed. Temporary
equipment should be verified prior to transportation offshore.
Reference to a scheme such as the ‘Vendor’s Certificate of Conformity for
Temporary Plant & Equipment for use on Offshore Installations’, implemented by
the SNS operators forum, is an example of how this issue may be addressed.
As part of the verification process credit may be taken for assurance activities
performed by or on behalf on the duty holder (e.g., planned maintenance, scheduled
inspection activities, safety/technical audits, etc.), but these activities are not in them-
selves verification. The details of these assurance activities may be included in the
written scheme, but should be clearly identified as such. All such assurance activities
should be subject to examination by the ICP as a minimum (this activity must be
listed in the written scheme).
Classification of MOUs, FPSOs and FPUs can be used as a basis for or in support of
verification. Where Classification Society rules meet or exceed the requirements of the
performance standard for an SECE, evidence of meeting Class (approval letters, product
certificates, etc.) can be used as a basis for verification. Reporting of verification activi-
ties should still be completed in accordance with the requirements of the written scheme.
Where Classification Society rules do not meet the requirements of performance
standards, classification should still be recognised as a contributor to verification, but
additional tasks will need to be completed by the ICP.
EU Legislation (EC directives) – the CE marking of equipment in itself cannot
be used as a direct substitute for verification. CE marking can however be used to
demonstrate that equipment meets a particular performance standard (e.g., CE mark-
ing for conformance to the ATEX directive can be used as a basis for verifying that
equipment meets a performance standard on ignition prevention). The declaration of
conformity and any notified body certificate should be reviewed to confirm the rel-
evant performance standard is addressed. Where there are any doubts regarding the
applicability of CE marking as a basis for verification a review of the technical file
should be completed. Examination of equipment as required by SCR and/or PFEER
in no way confirms it is compliant with applicable EC directives.