Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 108
APPENDIX H
COMMENTARY ON UNITED KINGDOM AND
NORWEGIAN INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
The committee reviewed the rules and regulations governing United Kingdom (U.K) and
Norwegian inspection of drilling and production operations. These cannot be related directly to the
U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) requirements in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast
because of differences in environmental conditions in the different areas. North Sea operations
typically utilize large, enclosed structures with a high concentration of personnel in an environment
characterized by severe cold weather, high waves, and cold seas. It is not uncommon for a North
Sea installation to have over 200 personnel and to contain wells, drilling equipment, producing
equipment, and quarters. There are long periods of time when safe evacuation of platforms is not
possible and survival of individuals who might be cast into the cold water would be highly uncertain.
U.S. OCS operations typically utilize structures of open construction (being thus well
ventilated) which are much smaller than North Sea structures and contain much smaller quarters
(up to 75 people). The environment is relatively benign. There are only short periods of time
when evacuation is not possible, and abandonment by jumping into the water is feasible with an
expected high survival rate.
Although the safety risks being addressed are much different, it is instructive to review U.K
and Norwegian inspection philosophies. While both countries are faced with similar situations they
have elected different approaches to operational safety inspection due, in part, to their societal
differences as well as to the manner in which the offshore industry developed in the two countries.
UNITED KINGDOM
In the U.K system, independent certifying agencies approved by the Department of Energy
carry out most of the certification and inspection functions. The certifying agencies (1) review the
original design and construction; (2) check calculations, quality control procedures, and
documentation to ensure that design and construction conform to both the standards of safety
required by the Department of Energy and those required by the certifying agency; and (3) issue
certificates of fitness. The certifying agencies perform inspections at least annually to ensure that
the structure and equipment are maintained and operated in accordance with these standards.
This philosophy parallels that applied by the U.K. to its maritime industry. Indeed, five of the
six approved certifying agencies are the historic "classification societies" used to "class" ships (i.e.,
ensure they meet safety standards) for insurance purposes. These are American Bureau of Shipping,
Bureau Veritas, Det norske Veritas, Germanisher Lloyd, and Lloyds Register of Shipping. Halcrow
Eubank and Associates Certification Group is also approved by the Department of Energy.
Based on requirements in force as of September 1987.
108
OCR for page 109
109
It is the responsibility of the operators to contract with one of these organizations to provide
the n~sary initial Certificate of Fitness" and the necessary annual renewals. The regulations
state, The owner has a statutory responsibility for the sound design, proper construction, and
effective maintenance of his installation, including adequate supervision and inspection necessary to
achieve these ends, but a valid certlucate or bltness IS evidence that an independent and responsible
organization believes the owner to have honored his statutory obligations.
The Department of Energy issues Guidance Notes to aid certifying authorities in ensuring
compliance. Some of these (particularly those pertaining to structural integrity) are very specific,
while others are much broader in scope, allowing room for interpretation by the certifying
authoribr. An example of a broad statement is the requirement that the installation equipment be
reviewed to assess that There are included those items which are required to be incorporated, that
all necessary safety features are incorporated and that all equipment is in accordance with
recognized standards. Examples of more specific instructions which still allow considerable leeway
are as follows:
· Each pressure vessel is required to be examined by the certifying authority "externally and
internally and tested as appropriate at intervals of time to be determined by the certifying authority."
.
. , . _
"It is the responsibility of the owner to perform regular tests and inspection of the ESD
system . . . to be agreed between the owner and the Certifying Authority."
An example of highly specific guidance is that which is provided for electrical system
inspection. A brief excerpt is set out below:
2.2.1 Annual surveys
The recommendations contained in the IKE RECOMMENDATIONS and the D.En. CODE
should be carried out.
A general examination should be carried out of the electrical installation (generators,
switchgear, cables, cable glands, machined, lighting, etc.~.
Without prejudice to the generality of the above the following should be carried out during
a subsequent survey:
2.2.1.1 Cable runs should be examined for sheath or armor defects and to ensure that
the means for supporting the cable is in good order.
2.2.1.2 Sample checks should be made of equipotential bonding conductors to verify
the earth continuity path.
Electrical equipment located in hazardous areas should be examined to ensure
that it is suitable for the application and that the integrity of the protection
concept has not been impaired.
Alarms and interlocks associated with pressurized equipment and spaces should
be tested to ensure correct operation.
2.2.1.4 The emergency source of power, its associated circuits and, where fitted, the
transitional emergency source of power should be tested.
OCR for page 110
110
Even more detail is included for inspection and documentation of material and fabrication of
structural members, and drilling and production components. For example:
3.6.4 Material Documentation and Identification
Major load bearing and pressure retaining parts of drill through equipment should be
manufactured with supporting documentation that ensures traceability through the
manufacturing process. Components requiring traceability should be identified by lot
number or individual serial number to maintain traceability throughout remanufacture. The
component parts should be identifiable within the assembly. The owner should ensure
that the manufacturer is responsible for maintaining this documentation on file and upon
request for providing this information to the owner for his retention, for a period of not less
than 5 years after shipment. Traceability documentation may include, but is not
necessarily limited to the following:
A. Material source report
Chemical and mechanical properties for each heat
Heat treatment temperatures and time at temperature
Charpy temperature and impact values
Hardness test readings (verification to NACE
MR-01 -75)
B. Manufacturing processes
- Welding
- Post weld heat treatment
- Hardness test results (verification to MACE
MR-01 -75)
Hydrostatic pressures tests
Dimensional check results
3.6.5 Documentation of Component Assemblies
The manufacturer of assembled components should document the supporting information
as related to the purchaser's requirements and maintain the same for his file.
The owner may request the manufacturer to prepare a manufacturing report consolidating
the documentation into a "data books for retention by the manufacturer. Specific data may
be issued to the owner upon request.
The manufacturing report should include the following documentation as appropriate:
A. Purchase order number/sales order number
B. Basic design criteria
C. Assembly arrangement drawing with material identification and where used
D. Manufacturer's statement of compliance
E. Material documents - see Sub-Section 3.3
F. Welding procedure qualification
Welder and operator qualification
H. NDE operator qualification
1. NDE results - see Sub-Section 3.6.3
Assembly and pressure test report (including certified charts)
K. As built overall dimensions and actual weights
L. Independent design review document
OCR for page 111
111
Although addenda to the Guidance Notes tend to add more detail (perhaps as specific
problems are identified), there still is considerable leeway for the certifying authority to determine
items to be inspected, inspection frequencies, and standards for inspection. The Department of
Energy audits the certifying authorities to ensure that they are performing their responsibility in a
competent and consistent manner. However, operators report that differences exist. It is said to be
common, in inviting bids from certifying authorities to perform the work for a certificate of fitness,
for the operator to receive a cost spread of 3 to 1 in the bids. This could indicate that the scope of
the inspection effort may vary significantly among the approved certifying authorities.
The nature and amount of effort expended by the Department of Energy in auditing
compliance of certifying agencies was not determined by the committee.
NORWAY
The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) uses it own personnel to monitor safety and
requires that operators set up and comply with an approved internal control plan. The Norwegian
regulations are more detailed than U.K regulations in regard to the overall work environment (e.g.,
standards of hygiene, medical equipment, work rules, quarters requirements, etch. The operator is
required to develop and follow detailed safety instructions, contingency plans, and safety drills. A
Safety Delegate Committee and a Work Environment Committee are required, with membership
(which includes employees) and authority defined by the regulations. Detailed qualifications are
prescribed for all drilling personnel, including service company personnel.
The requirements for the internal control plan, on the other hand, are not specified in detail.
For example:
The drilling rig shall be inspected at "short intervals."
BOP equipment shall be pressure tested and operated at "regular intervals."
· There shall be a Fire fighting plan."
· Licensee shall ensure that the platform and equipment are in "proper working condition
at all times." nNecessary" safer system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with "good
oilfield practice."
However, because of the critical nature of the internal control plans in terms of their impact
on operational safety, maintenance, and inspection, they are thoroughly reviewed by the NPD.
Many operators hire "classification societies" (especially Det norske Veritas) to help them
develop detailed internal control plans acceptable to NPD. However, it is the licensee's
responsibility under threat of criminal penalty to ensure that the plan is implemented and followed.
The amount of effort expended by NPD in auditing licensees was not determined by the committee.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
certifying authorities
