|
Comments:
EXCOM MEMBERS...THANKS FOR YOUR RESPONSES TO THE ISSUE BELOW!...this is just the kind of give/take which we didn't have time for in the last revision. As you recall, among the chemists, this question received only about 6 minutes of public debate at the summer seminar 2000.
Question: SHOULD THE NEW SECTIONS OF 306-2001 NOTED BELOW BE KEPT IN THE 2003 EDITION, OR SHOULD THEY BE DELETED, OR MODIFIED?
4.6.2 (c) All spaces certified shall be reinspected by the competent person...at least every 24 hours or more often if necessary...unlelss otherwise stated on the Certificate.
4.6.2 (d) The 24 hour period is permitted to be extended up to 72 hours during non-working periods...
4.6.2 (e) Certificates not maintained according to the reaquirements in 4.6.2 (c) through (d) shall be void.
HERE ARE SOME POSITIVE POINTS OF THE NEW 24-hr SCP REQUIREMENT: (Feel obligated to add those we have missed)
The "24 hour" re-inspection requirement.
As I recall, the move for the new 24-hour rule came about when the assumption that marine chemists' certificates went void after 24 hours without re-inspection by either a CMC or SCP turned out to be, upon careful reading of NFPA 306 and 29CFR1915, a myth. And the concern wasn't just because someone wanted to change the standard for changes' sake. Like all parts of NFPA-306, this one was also written in smoke and blood.
In 1995 there was a fatal fire involving spaces covered by a marine chemist's certificate. The problem came to a head when someone in the post-accident-fixing-the-blame maneuver pointed out that the chemist was indeed still responsible for this accident because, in accord with wording in 306, work started on one of the many spaces on the certificate within 24 hours of its issuance. The certificate was therefore, perfectly valid. (It happened to be a space at the other end of the vessel, however, and not the one involved in the fatal fire some two weeks after the certificate was
issued.)
(Here we see something that has always been obvious to me: beginning work on the space within 24 hours of certificate issuance does nothing to ensure that anyone is looking to the space's safety, atmospheric condition or inspecting with a view to keeping it that way. Starting work is not the same as re-inspecting for safe conditions. There is no necessary connection.)
Interestingly, the yard's SCP never checked any of the spaces on the vessel in the two weeks that passed between the issuance of the original certificate and introduction (by shipyard workers) of the solvent that burned in the fire and caused the fatality. That didn't seem to change the perspective of one person tasked with fixing blame, however. What was uncovered regarding the workers and supervisors at this shipyard was that they evidently had given up re-inspecting spaces on a marine chemists certificate once issued - because it was a marine chemist that issued it and that was his job. Of course, the shipyard management, once they had the certificate, saw no need to recall the issuing chemist - until after the fatality, that is... (There was a disconnect in the team theory on CMC and SCP work here - not only here but in other poorly run yards as well.) It became apparent that some workers seemed to think that they could treat a marine chemist's certificate as a talisman that would keep the spaces safe forever no matter what they did (...which they readily realized and acknowledged was BS when asked about it). Some, however, seemed not to give a damn one way or another, because they didn't have a functioning SCP program anyway. Marine chemists certificates were only obtained when the contract called for one. (And I mean one.)
And that is a real problem in our industry, still, after some five decades of the SCP program's existence. The bottom line is that approximately 90% of marine CS fatalities occur in spaces in which no atmospheric check was made prior to the last entry of the victim(s). The 24-hour rule came about as an attempt to remove the temptation for irrational irresponsibility from the shipyards. They are (and have always been) tasked with ensuring that spaces found safe by the chemist stay that way once the chemist leaves. The truth is that this change does matter because there have been and will continue to be problems surrounding the frequency of inspections on certified spaces. This is a call to demand that they be done.
As for the twenty-four hour timeframe, the lack of an expiration time on a marine chemist's certificate was first raised as an issue by USCG several years ago. USCG MSO reps. proposed no more than one shift (8 hours) be set for re-inspection. Twenty-four hours was a liberal counterproposal from the committee. At that time no one thought that "as often as necessary" meant every month or as you saw fit. For some it meant once a shift as opposed to continually.
In order to deal with the fact that tank barges and deck barges are different beasts with differing degrees of risk, however, the timeframe requirement for re-inspection in the new edition of 306 can be spelled out by the chemist on his certificate. This is a good and necessary factor. (For what might be low risk spaces or vessels, I sort of like a statement such as, "Spaces shall be re-inspected by SCP before each entry" ...or next shift worked, or when work is next conducted in the space - whatever...). There is nothing wrong with that, and it meets the need of low risk operations (if there are indeed such things in our industry) or special controlled circumstances. And if any chemist is miffed that they just might have to inquire as to the condition or existence of a functioning SCP program at a yard they work for, or bring the lack of one to the attention of their client, they should ask themselves just what part marine chemists are expected to play in avoiding fatalities in marine construction and repair, and perhaps what they are doing in this profession.
The final position taken by the 306 committee is that there have indeed been serious problems with this issue. Given the pattern of fatalities and accidents in our industry, it is far better to have a known (but otherwise necessarily adjustable) expiration date on a certificate than just to leave it at starting work within 24 hours. "Twenty-four hours" was an arbitrary choice, but a compromise over calls for far more frequent checks. It is not and was never intended to remove or mollify the "as frequently as necessary" requirement in OSHA, which we all supported, since it is a minimum, not a maximum requirement. It is rather intended to remove a glaring deficiency in the standard that has been purposely misused to the detriment of safety in the industry. There will be more overt pressure on ship repair companies to be workmanlike in their monitoring of worksites, which tend in safety terms to deteriorate as a job goes on.
2) No chemist certificates will be left hanging around for weeks without being maintained by a competent person inspection.
3) The competent person is emphasized as a specific way to obtain this monitoring.
4) NFPA 306 is brought into harmony with our military customers.
5) The Chemist still has flexibility to specify the frequency of competent person inspections. If he wishes that the SCP reinspect each 3 hours or 34 days, the Chemist can list the inspection schedule on his certificate.
6) The Chemist will now take a more active interest in the quality of the competent person programs in the various shipyards where he does business, and this will make OSHA's Shipyard Standard more effective.
Some drawbacks are:
1) (Philosophical objection...) Our Certificates used to depend for their continued validity on whether or not the condition of the listed spaces changed. Now a certificate on, say, an open deck cargo barge, will become void even though the barge itself remains perfectly safe. This separation of our certificate from the jobsite reality is the opposite of what we have striven for with issues like "personally determine" and including meter readings. It is a concession to a paper world.
2) "24 hour" rules have their origin in the military. For instance, the USCG has often voided certificates on their vessels if the certificates were not "maintained" over a weekend. The fact that a competent person's inspection Monday morning will be every bit as effective whether or not someone comes in Saturday and Sunday does not impress the military mind because they think in terms of their sacred "24-hours". Why should we adopt the same mindset?
3) The arbitrary period of "24-hours" will de-emphasize the need for ship repairers to be continuously on guard for unsafe conditions that pop up within minutes. Of course, this is why OHSA has kept to "...as often as necessary."
4) Certificates written on distant vessels cost at least $400-500 each. When the competent person finds, after a 4-day weekend, that the living space on a USCG boat is still safe, should 306 dictate that the customer has to get a new certificate, no matter how safe the conditions, because of the passage of an extra day? How do we explain this to the customer who bid the job? Or, consider this: A chemist's certificate lists 27 spaces Atmosphere Safe for Workers, and safe for any hot work without any restriction. As it turns out, only 3 spaces need repairs and so only that work is inspected by the competent person. Although two days later the competent person finds all spaces still safe for replacing a couple of missing zincs, under the new rules the shipyard has to get a new Chemist's certificate. Seems a little extreme.
5) "24-hours" is not the same as a workday. For instance, a Chemist's certificate may be written at 6:45 am. But, the next day the competent person has to supervise a safety meeting, and doesn't finish his inspection until 9 am. 306-2001 says that because the Competent Person is delayed, when the 7am whistle blows a whole crew of workmen must stand around until a Chemist is called and the shipyard gets a new certificate on a tank barge which everyone agrees is still clean. Seems a little extreme.
6) The only 24-hour rule in 306 used to be the need to start the work within 24 hours of the certificate being written, and this has been totally ignored by the industry. Who ever dragged in a repair crew on Saturday morning because the Chemist happened to write the certificate at 3:30 on Friday afternoon? Another 24-hour rule is just another hoop industry will ignore.
7) Proponents of "24-hours" note that a Chemist, by specifying on the certificate, can have the SCP recheck at any interval the chemist wishes. True. But, that was already true under 306-1997, so why do we need the new rule? Also, specifying any time at all is risky because spaces can sometimes become unsafe within a few minutes. Thus, "...as often as necessary." 24-hours is too seldom for a tank barge, and too often for a deck cargo barge no one is working on. Why try to make one number fit all situations?
8) Until now, the whole issue of maintaining the certificate has been the clear responsibility of the employer of the shipyard workers. But now the 306-2001 is forcing the Chemist to evaluate SCP's and their training, their work schedules, and how the SCP program is administered and supported by the shipyard. Should every chemist now be forced to do this evaluation because his certificate depends on the SCP showing up every day? Who is going to pay us for the extra duty?
9) Proponents ask, "Do you want your certificate hanging there for weeks without being maintained?" Answer: "Well, it has not been a problem in the past. However, why worry about an old certificate if conditions haven't changed? It gives the shipyard flexibility, and accounting for changing conditions wasn't the Chemist's problem anyhow, as OSHA delegated that problem to the shipyard. The 24-hour rule in 306 will get us chemists involved, and I don't want that involvement."
10) Many of the changes to 306 have been done "to harmonize with OSHA," as in adding meter readings to the certificate. But, the "24-hour" rule goes against OSHA's longterm practice. What gives?"
|
|
Comments:
Fellow Marine Chemists:
Because of perceived shortcomings in the new (2001) edition of NFPA 306, the time between revisions has been cut back from the usual 5 years to only 2. Since the revision process will be as lengthy as usual, we're already being asked for proposals to revise a document which most of us have yet to get our hands on! If fact, the deadline for submitting such proposals to the NFPA is this December 28th.
The Marine Chemist Association has, for the first time, decided to evaluate some of the proposals for revision and either support of reject them. To do this, the Executive Committee needs the views of the membership on particular items. So, we're going to present issues to you as we receive them, and it'll be up to members to educate ourselves, sort out the pluses and minuses, and let our representatives know how you stand on various ideas. If, for instance, a barge operator were to propose that no Marine Chemist certificate be needed!
for Class E petroleum cargoes, wouldn't you want your Association to weigh in on the issue? Wouldn't that be more effective than having a smattering of comments from individual chemists?
So, your chance to take your stand on a number of issues (adjacent spaces, "contiguous" facilities, certificates requiring competent persons for validity, etcetera) is coming up. Be prepared, and check this space to find out what your fellow Chemists have to say. Thanks! Don Sly, CMC 598
|