Closeout review challangesCylingas

1. Technical issues with respect to project safety arrangements

TECHNICAL CHALLENGES:a. Space constraint and congested working area. Logistics: Transporting of materials from Dubai to

Fujairah. Fabrication of shell plates on site. Fabrication given to Audex, this has improved Safety, quality, Time issue, space constraint, Transportation and security.

b. The bracket scaffolding platform was made up of gratings and used thin wire rope as guard rails. By replacing the gratings with metal boards and increasing the dia of the wire rope and the span of the brackets are re designed to attain suitable rigidity.

c. The proposed crane was mobile crane which did not suit the site congested areas. This crane issue was overcome by engaging crawler crane which was much compact and friendly to move around the congested areas.

d. Extreme weather conditions of the region making the tank erection difficult and challenging. Safety factor was taken into the consideration and high safety factor to withstand maximum high wind speed condition at the rate of 160km/hr. Tank construction done with proactive approach by implementing new practices with additional jacks, external stiffener and guy wires to protect against local monster wind conditions and anemometer unit to monitor the wind conditions.

e. Achieving earthing resistance less than 10 ohms in this mountain region was very challenging. This has been achieved by engaging external drilling contractor to drill 50mm hole with 18mtrs depth and achieved 1 ohm.

f. All the electrical equipment are equipped with 100mA ELCB rating. It was suspected that this will give sufficient shock to injure a person. It was challenging to convenience contractors to adopt the best practices. Number of meeting and reviews were conducted with several experts and did a practical site demonstration and implemented.

g. The tank berm width was small and scaffolding base design was an issue. The scaffolding was modified with the new designs and approval.

h. There was a delay in finalizing design of the storage tanks. Drenching line supports were not done at the initial stage. The firefighting support and fabrication was required to be done at elevated point. The drenching lines clashed with the crossed bracing of the Link Bridge and special wind girder. This has caused further modification fabrication galvanizing and procurement. This has significantly affected the schedule, the logistics and also impacted additional NDT requirements. Drenching line supports was to be done at the initial stage but it was done at the final stage.

2. Programme / schedule issues:

Initial schedule submitted by Cylingas was not aligned with the master schedule, which was communicated to the client.

Cylingas plan was to construct four tanks at a time till the completion of the project but, the master schedule was to build twelve tanks simultaneously. This brought in bigger challenges to Cylingas project team which includes resources including man power equipment materials tools and tackles and other erection equipment such as jacks.

Because of the new schedule of building twelve tanks simultaneously the initial plan to complete the project with 120 people went up to 340 people.

By doing twelve tanks together the scaffolding and painting the tanks was also very bigger challenge and which made for appointing more subcontractors.

3. Planned and un planned EHS issues: The plan was to do four tanks at a time and changed to twelve tanks at a time and this

caused a big challenge in arranging various EHS arrangements which includes, getting additional safety resources o the demand for monitoring the job safety.

The power tools (grinding machines are procured without dead man switch). The procurement team did not review the specs with EHS before procurement of these grinders. These items were sent back to the store and the new grinding machines were procured with the dead man switch which caused impacts on cost and time.

Because of the volume of the work, getting the scaffolding and painting job done by a single contractor was big challenge. The job was divided between more than two subcontractors. The additional challenge faced was to identify and prequalify new subcontractors.

Dome roof lifting tools / hoisting equipment were certified by international company that was not certified as UAE third party agency and therefore these has to be retested before using it.

The construction peak activities were concentrated during the summer and the Ramadan period. This has caused a big challenge in ensuring EHS arrangements and requirements and this also impacted on schedule. Some of the jobs were shifted to night shift especially the jobs like external tank blasting works.

4. Local Authority / statutory related issues

Certification of tank roof erection pneumatic lifting gears was with an international company which was not an UAE authorized or UAE based company. So, the hoists were sent for the re certification by an UAE approved third party.

Sky climber certificate was also by a company in Oman so this was also sent for the re certification by an UAE approved third party inspection and certification.

Lifting hoist (man lift) third party certificates has to be renewed once in a year but........... Hydro testing water was taken from the sea and getting NOC was also done but the

contractor engaged was the same contractor who did the same for the neighbor tanks because, they got the earlier routing permission and we connected that same line to EFDTT site dewatering too.

5. Project Consultant Related Issues.

6. Contractor related EHS issues.

Additional contractors add up due to the change of schedule. (12 tanks simultaneously) Identification and the prequalification were done for the new contractors and also it took a certain period to appoint them and make them to adopt the culture followed at EFDTT site.

Space for additional contractor was also unable to provide in a sufficient way and storage area for them was also insufficient.

Challenge in molding some contractors into ENOC’s safety culture during the initial phase was challenge and training was conducted for them and lot of efforts has been utilized to make them follow.

Some design conflicts were identified because of the tank berm space for scaffolding contractors which was later resolved by extending the base of the scaffolding. The scaffolding design was modified and a cutting was made in the tank berm for the scaffolding erection.

7. Overall Analysis of the Incidents and Near misses.

8. Supplier Related EHS Issues.

Supplier (Pen Berthy) supplied wrong educators, instead of 4” 6” has been supplied by them and then later it was changed this also made some impacts on hand-over the project in time.

Dome roof material supply was delayed, they supplied partially and the delay was approximately one month for each tank which made the work more complicated and this was also a root cause for the delay of construction and which made EHS team to struggle a lot.

Rental equipment supply such as cranes from BIT was not done properly. The crane operators were frequently changed so the new operator while entering into the site took some time for adopting the EFDTT safety culture. Some of the safety critical components were failing quite frequently and the wire rope got frequent damages and found with bird cage and kinks.

ITC

9. Technical issues with respect to project safety arrangements

TECHNICAL CHALLENGES:

i. Small quantities of materials pick and carry using construction equipment was not allowed and requiring correct lifting equipment. This EHS requirement was not planned. By hiring the correct lifting equipment’s for the whole day and how ever it was hired for whole day and planned the

activities accordingly to utilize the equipment without wasting the cost. Getting the lifting equipment such as crane for short duration on hire was difficult and therefore such equipment was hired for the whole day.

j. Space constraint and congested work area, non-availability of sufficient lay down area was a challenge for fulfilling the safety standards. The material for the particular day task only brought to the site and procurement was also made on weekly basis.

a. A separate carpentry yard is not available and therefore carpenter has to carry the equipment with him and do the work where the space is available. This created a problem in monitoring the EHS standards. All the carpentry power tools were provided were of mobile type and was equipped with proper guards. Even though the cost was involved in it but it also helped us to maintain the standards.

b. Horizontal thrust boring was not planned which was later considered because of “Emarat Gas” pipeline and other local and national underground services passing by. A separate competent thrust boring contractor was appointed. Drawing was obtained from the concerned authorities for finalizing the depth and the routing of the pipe lines. After finalizing the pipelines routing it was discussed with the thrust boring contractor and the execution was made in a safer way.

k. The de watering of the trenches was done and the water was required to be discharged about 7 km away from the locations. This has demanded for the large resources which includes of piping and additional two pumps for boosting.

OVER COMES:

10. Program / schedule issues:

a. The project was previously planned to work two shifts (round the clock), initially there was no hindrance and after the entry of the second (mechanical) contractor there was a radiography work performed daily and it delayed the schedule.

b. Due to the tight schedule, more workers were to be employed and as the welfare facilities area was small so, the working hours were extended and the lunch timing was made different among the contractors.

c. The permit to work system was even hold for the quality issues by the clients.

11. Planned and un planned EHS issues:

a. Safety control was very rigid and delayed the activities, because to fulfill the expectations and the HSE standards it took some time and it was also a hindrance to achieve the tight schedule.

b. Civil lifting jobs were not planned properly as the construction vehicles were not allowed to use as lifting equipment.

c. No scaffolder’s were planned at the initial stage for the small civil scaffoldings, but HSE standards did not allowed the unauthorized scaffoldings and scaffolder’s.

d. Training sessions were not planned at the initial stage.e. Excavation shoring and sheet piling was not planned at the initial stage.f. Arrangement of cleaning the concrete trucks was not planned.g. The tank foundation work was planned and met the schedule correctly.

h. The excavation for the tank foundation was done accordingly to the schedule.i. The RTA regulations for heavy vehicle movements through road were planned accordingly and it

was followed as per the planning.

Over Comes:

a. After analyzing the safety standards at EFDTT project the activities were re – planned and the team leaders were informed to act accordingly to that without deviating any of the safety standards.

b. The lifting activities were planned in a single day were ever possible and that lifting activity was done by hiring a crane for the whole day. The rest of the small lifting was done by hiring the contractor’s crane for one or two hours.

c. Scaffolding supervisor and scaffold training was provided to the employees to meet up the standard.

d. Training sessions were carried for both the supervisors and the workers for example: Scaffolding, First – Aid, Rigging and signaling, Risk Assessment and banks man training.

e. For big excavations separate contractor was appointed for the sheet piling and for the small excavations slope and benching was maintained by the same workers.

f. Separate concrete cleaning was arranged and it was shifted often from place to place as there was a space constraint issue. The collected concrete waste was dumped at the Fujairah Municipality approved dumping yard and it was done accordingly to the local regulations.

12. Local Authority / statutory related issues

a. Obtaining environmental and other related permits from Fujairah Municipality at the initial stage. The delay of approving the related permits has affected the schedule very much.

b. Getting approval and NOC for thrust boring from the local authorities demanded additional parameters for testing and approval which in turn delayed the particular job for one month.

c. De watering disposal location was far away around seven kilometers at the initial stage and it made the additional requirements for boost up pumps and pipelines and also NOC needed to be obtained from VHFL, FRCL, GPS Chemoil, Socar Aurora and Fujairah Rocks and Aggregates.

d. According to the properties and the condition of the excavated soil the local authorities designated a disposal yard which was about 25km’s far away from the site.

13. Project Consultant Related Issues.

Neighbor coordination was not effective which delayed the NOC and approval from them, even the excavation for the pipeline to the jetty was stopped by them and they physically entered into the excavation and stood there for whole day. This made a big delay for the civil and mechanical contractors on the planned schedule of EFDTT project.

14. Contractor related EHS issues.

Selection of contractors at the initial stage with all the safety requirements from ENOC was a big challenge. Even ENOC pre – qualified contractors also faced difficulty to meet the

EFDTT site EHS requirements. Bringing them inline with the site safety culture was a big challenge.

15. Overall Analysis of the Incidents and Near misses.

16. Supplier Related EHS Issues.

Number of suppliers who visited for single time was not with EFDTT PPE requirements and to make them follow the system was very challenging.

Concrete mix vehicle cleaning was done wherever the concrete pouring was done and make them to follow the EFDTT rules was a very big challenge faced. Even though the concrete mix was ordered from the same company, as the operators were different it was a very difficult to make them aware about the EFDTT site EHS requirements.

17. Project EHS Performance Issues.

Initial EHS performance of the EFDTT site was very good and during the peak time of the work it was little bit affected. This is mainly due to the space constraint and additional new manpower recruitment to site to achieve the target.

Supervision and monitoring was a challenge in this scenario which resulted in poor housekeeping in some areas.

The main contractor notified the same to the sub – contractor about the issues in time and gets rectified by them immediately and maintained a hazard free and environmentally safe environment.