Rank: Forum user 
|
Hello,
I would be interested in your comments on the following:
We are involved in a construction project to build a new plant within an existing manufacturing facility. The construction site will be fenced off and handed over to contractors until completion of the construction phase. The project comes under CDM and is notifiable. The work will involve WAH erecting steelwork, hotwork and lifting process vessels by crane. The Client has a policy which requires PTW for these types of activities during routine refurbishment/maintenance on their premises. However, the PC is arguing that as far as he is concerned, producing detailed, job-specific RAMS, for each activity is adequate and he is confident that good control of risks can be achieved without the need for the formality of PTW. If the project goes ahead as the PC requires, in the event of a mishap, would the Client be covered as the PC is solely responsible for Safety under CDM, or would he be found partly negligent in not insisting that his existing procedures were not applied?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In my experience this is a fairly common approach. There are three interlinked issues.
1. Potentially conflicting activities are one reason for having a PTW system on the operating site. So can events/activities on the operating plant significantly affect the fenced off construction site? If not, then that is one reason not to require the formality of a PTW system within the construction fence. If the only forseeable events are major emergencies, then you need an agreed construction area emergency alarm response (depending on what hazards from the operating site may affect the construction site, i.e. response to flammable and toxic releases have important differences!), but no more than that.
2. Can activities on the construction site affect the operating area? (Hopefully not, or the fence is in the wrong place!).
3. Are there any 'residual hazards' in the construction site as a result of its previous operations? Typical hazards include: over- and underground services; contaminated ground. If there are, then maybe a PTW system is needed for construction tasks in some specific areas, where these residual 'operating hazards' are present?
If the responses to all three questions are negative and the PC can demonstrate to the client's satisfaction that their proposed workplace controls are suitable for managing the full range of construction risks, then I suggest there is no reason to require additional paperwork as if the full range of operating risks were present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks imwaldra, this broadly confirms my thoughts. What we are also proposing is that the Client issues a daily "block" permit to hand over the site to the contractors as a way of confirming that there have no changes in conditions overnight.
By the way, there's an extra "not" in my original post, it should read: ".....would he be found partly negligent in not insisting that his existing procedures were applied?" Apologies!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Do you really need all the paper required for a daily handover?
If conditions really are likely to change overnight, then surely something is wrong with the set up being proposed. If that's just a remote possibility, the normal system is to hand over the area once to the PC, who then becomes responsible for controlling all the activities inside the fence.
If the operating plant can seriously affect these, then there needs to be an emergency communications prrocess to alert the PC (and any other 'neighbours') as it happens - including overnight, as the operating plant won't know what tasks may be in hand there (e.g. radiography as an example, or shift working when the schedule gets tight near then end!). If there's no one there, they could notify a construction 'duty manager' by phone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
CDM says the 'Site' is given over to the PC for the duration of the Construction Phase. This works where the Site is enclosed and there is no other occupancy. No need for a system of blanket permit - the law explicitly establishes that handover. Client's discrete process/procedures for PTW etc. are also irrelevant in the context you describe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.