Rank: Forum user 
|
I had an argument today regarding what information should be included in a method statement. Scenario is a near miss as follows: A process line is isolated by blinding. The blind has a gasket installed which is different from the gasket used in normal operation. The crew de-blinded and mistakenly used the wrong gasket. I checked the method statement and the reference to the gasket to be installed only gave the size and rating not the type. I advised that the correct type should be mentioned in the method statement but more than 1 person has disagreed because there is a parts section in the work documentation which lists the correct gasket to use. My argument is that if there is a potential to install the wrong gasket it should be mentioned in the method statement. Would anyone agree/disagree with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In this case I would disagree with you, for the reason below:
If the MS gets too specific it may not be updated if the parent machine parts catalogue gets updated or modified. Because there is the availability of alternative parts that appear to fit you could suggest that the MS makes reference to checking the current parts listing and ensuring that current and correct parts are used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why not reference the parts document in the method statement. A one-liner,
"Only approved parts as listed in the parts document should be used in the maintenance, upkeep and repair of this equipment".
You can then play the compromise card and build relationships with those that have disagreed with you while maintaining the effect of what it is you want to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think it is an all or nothing with this. If you are going to include size and rating you should also include type. However, it may make more sense to simply say "fit new gasket - see parts section for specification."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What does the risk assessment say?
If the part is safety critical and ensuring the correct fitting lowers risk, and this can only be controlled by dropping down the control hierarchy to SSoW - then surely the SSoW needs to control this?
Having done HAZOPs in the past - I am imaging a wrongly rated component could be very bad...
I then also agree with SNS - which is why the risk assessment should also identify a change / modification procedure, and appropriate training for all functions involved, included engineers / fitters etc etc...
happy Friday
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pipa Alpha comes to mind here - serious failure of a PTM and method statement, during isolation by blinding.
Sorry I cannot contribute to an answer here , but just stating that things can get serious if there are shortfalls in the instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Method Statement is a document detailing how a particular task or activity will be carried out. It should detail the possible dangers/risks associated with your particular part of the project and the methods of control to be established, to show how the work will be managed safely
I also refer to risk assessment and i would consider to be stipulated in Method Statement
SHV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for the replies.
The risk assessment was not adequate. The possibility of fitting the wrong part should have been picked up as it is a reasonably forseeable scenario due to the fact that 2 different but interchangeable parts are used in the task. We will include the requirement in the method statement from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Whats blinding mean?
Always keen to learn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A 'blind' is a method of blanking off the end of an open pipe - widely used in the process industry.
When correctly fitted it should at least match the pressure rating of the pipework and be correctly secured/bolted to ensure pressure & leak integrity is maintained.
For 'blind' also read 'blank'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ian Bell wrote:A 'blind' is a method of blanking off the end of an open pipe - widely used in the process industry.
When correctly fitted it should at least match the pressure rating of the pipework and be correctly secured/bolted to ensure pressure & leak integrity is maintained.
For 'blind' also read 'blank'.
Thanks Ian.....I know what a blank is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Good explanation Ian, by the way the process line in question was a 30" gas line so the potential outcome could have had extreme consequences if the mistake had gone unnoticed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.