Rank: Forum user
|
We are working on a newly constructed site - currently as a sub contractor under the control of the principal contractor / designer on a CDM site - we also work alongside the commisioning team. All 3 parties mentioned are part of the same parent company.
In mid October we take over the running of ths newly constructed site and wil be responsible for day-to-day operations and maintenance. However, for an undefined pseriod (4 - 8 months) part of the commissioning team will remain on site. The problem we have is that the commissioning team have their own RAMS that are currently approved by the principal contractor. We (the O&M team) do not consider that these are sufficient (they allow theri own teammembers to work on machines with guards missing / poor houskeeping etc.)
Our management team want to provide the commissioning team with a carte blanche permit, allowing them to continue to work to their own RAMS. Is this feasible? What is required in the "agreement document" between the remaining two parties? Edited by user 26 August 2021 07:10:56(UTC)
| Reason: Typos
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Evans38004 We (the O&M team) do not consider that these are sufficient (they allow theri own teammembers to work on machines with guards missing / poor houskeeping etc.)
Why not talk with the commissioning team? You do not really describe the activities or kind of site this is. From personal experience of commissioning handling equipment there are some validation tests that can involve needing access where for normal operations a fixed guard or similar device would be installed.
Stop/Start to remove & re-fit impacts equipment sequencers which means the logic cannot be fully checked. Well designed automatic systems will have an "engineer" mode - these allow the equipment to be operated with for example an open inter-lock but in doing so limit the line speed as the risk reduction control. Similarly what you are stating to be poor housekeeping may have a valid reason in the practice of commissioning e.g. not securing temporary service/supply lines until the equipment is signed off.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Evans38004 We (the O&M team) do not consider that these are sufficient (they allow theri own teammembers to work on machines with guards missing / poor houskeeping etc.)
Why not talk with the commissioning team? You do not really describe the activities or kind of site this is. From personal experience of commissioning handling equipment there are some validation tests that can involve needing access where for normal operations a fixed guard or similar device would be installed.
Stop/Start to remove & re-fit impacts equipment sequencers which means the logic cannot be fully checked. Well designed automatic systems will have an "engineer" mode - these allow the equipment to be operated with for example an open inter-lock but in doing so limit the line speed as the risk reduction control. Similarly what you are stating to be poor housekeeping may have a valid reason in the practice of commissioning e.g. not securing temporary service/supply lines until the equipment is signed off.
|
|
|
|
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.