legisation for design of control containers

[Feral]

Hey guys, can anyone tell me what the rulings are for control cabs with two exits? Is there legislation in place that dictates that both exits have to be clear?

Thanks

feral 😕

[James McLauchlan]

Put it this way. If one is a main exit and the other is a fire/escape exit then as per any exit they must be kept clear… legislation or not a blocked exit should be viewed as a safety infringement and action should be taken to rectify the problem.

If the main exit is blocked then the emergency exit becomes the only entry/exit and therefore the container no longer has an emergency exit.

Out of interest why have you asked the question?

[Feral]

Currently arguing with the bigwigs regarding this issue. And have stopped the job until this is resolved.

[TEAMJBR]

Nice, can’t beat a safety STOP card no matter who you are!!

[James McLauchlan]

Currently arguing with the bigwigs regarding this issue. And have stopped the job until this is resolved.

You don’t say what the deal is so lets assume you are on a vessel mobbing a job, or you are on a existing job and someone is trying to drop some gear right next to your control shack, thus taking an exit out of use.

What beats me is why the ‘bigwigs’ feel that they actually need to argue on safety versus operational deck layout. Whom ever is doing the argueing needs to have a quick chat with themselves as they are not the ones that may need to make use of the emergency exit if required.

[Feral]

Due to the fact that I cant find anything in writing saying it shall not be done, I have to risk assess the situation and put my findings to the bigwigs. They will then make a decision on what to do. In my 10 years of working offshore it was a given that an exit is still an exit and has always been planned as such. But it would appear that it is now longer the case. So long as 1 exit is clear that is all that is required unless the rated container is in a applicable rated zone.

Would have thought that the number of bigwigs that peruse this site that one of them would have been able to give me the information I was after. Appears they are as not knowledgeable as they make out.

[liddelljohn]

HOC card it!

That usually causes a fuss and some sensible action.

[AssWhole]

❓

[rover22]

Hi Feral,

Sounds like a poor situation to be in. Been there, done that. If the management give lip-service to safety and if the safety management system is ineffective, you should really be asking yourself two questions: "do I really need this?" and "if this is going on, what else is wrong?".

It goes against my principles to walk off a job, but if the management dont care and no-one else (especially those working in the same workplace) dont back you up and say that they wont stand for it, then it really is time to consider walking. No job is worth taking such risks and there are a lot of companies who need people and do take safety seriously. I have walked off a job before when management failed to afdhere to basic lifting safety practices and on investigation, I found many other unsafe practices in place at the work-site. I walked off because the risk of injury or worse was not worth a few days or weeks offshore. I later was told that the site was closed down by HSE a week later after a crane collapsed in service (luckily no-one was hurt) and a rigger called the HSE hotline.

At the end of the day, it stands to reason that while one opening is for normal use, the emergency exit is just that, for emergency use. To block it is unacceptable and will not be allowed with most contractors I have worked with (Mcdermott, Shell etc). Also, the opening AND A PATH FROM THAT OPENING TO A SAFE AREA must be present, if it is not, then such a situation is unacceptable as it potentially compromises the safety of those working there. It also goes against accepted HSE guidelines and regulations on the use of emergency exits in the work place. Check the HSE website for guidance on good practice (www.hse.gov.uk). The HSE does, in several regulations and guidance notes, say that inadequate fire precautions or means of escape is unacceptable in any workplace structure (permanent or temporary).

In case the region you are in is not obliged to adhere to UK heakth and safety practices, then think about your own safety and piece of mind if no-one else does.

The only regs or practices I know of regarding container structeres are the Norwegian NORSOK regs and then the particular class society under who’s regulations the control container was built and certified.

Good luck. Personally I would create an email trail of correspondance as well and CC in as many relevant people as you can. STOP cards can be destroyed or dropped behind a cupboard, but try and see a manager who can access and delete emails from the PC’s of their co-workers and bosses? I dont think so.

ROVER 22

[James McLauchlan]

Good post by rover22

Feral… I (and many other no doubt) are in full support of your concerns. I hope your team onboard are behind you on this.

Regular updates on progress would be good.

best regards
James Mc

[James McLauchlan]

The below example is not safety related but highlights a route worth considering.

Years ago (circa 1986).. a company was messing divers around on pay (outside the divers agreement). They called the Uni0n. The Uni0n called the operator… (‘Total’ if I remember correctly).. Total called the contractors MD…. things were resolved very quickly after that! Nobody ever found out who called the uni0n.

My point is, that if all normal channels are failing use others that you may not ordinarily consider as a first line of defence. Anything that highlights a safety concern has to be worth chasing.

[Feral]

The vessel super relented on the issue during the night. So I awoke to see a gap between the two containers allow safe access and egress from the control shack.

Thanks for the helpful comments guys. Its funny how nobody can put their fingers on the bit of writing that states these doors should not be obstructed. Yes it is good practice to keep them clear but if their is nothing official how are we going to stop it happening again?

Cheers

feral

[ROVRatt]

Glad to see you got it sorted out. The underwriters of the vessel or ROV system will insist on two control van exits. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Lloyds are good examples. Also the company that insures the personell on the job such as AIG are a good bet for the regulations. Ask whoever is disputing the fact to contact the insurers and check if their insurance will still be valid. If they won’t, offer to on their behalf. See how quickly you get action when insurance cover is involved. The insurance certificates should be displayed in the van as well.

[James McLauchlan]

I still see no logic in mobilising a control container which has added safety systems built into it by design, only to have that safety compromised for nothing other than operational reasons.

It really is a clear case of safety first unless it affects production.

Whomever was responsible for entertaining that idea should be well ashamed of themselves.

[Author]

Posts