Identification of equipment for maintenance

An lpb toolbox talk

Identification of equipment for maintenance

There are numerous cases of incidents occurring because equipment given to maintenance has not been properly identified. Yet these could have easily been avoided.

Case 1: Mistaken identity

There were three crystallisers on a plant and a fourth was under construction.
Two of them were labelled B and C, but the label on the third was missing and the label on the fourth had not yet been fitted. A maintenance fitter was asked to remove an instrument from item A.

Case 1: Mistaken identity

The crystallisers were arranged as shown:
Which would you say is A?

? (Old) C (Old)

B (Old) ? (New)

Case 1: Mistaken identity

The fitter went out onto the plant and saw the labels on B and C.
He logically assumed that the other old crystalliser was A and that the new one, which still had scaffolding round it, would be D.

He therefore removed the level controller from the old unlabelled crystalliser.

Case 1: Mistaken identity

In fact the old, original items were labelled B, C and D and the new one was to be labelled A. When the plant was built, space was left for a possible future crystalliser and the letter A was left for it.
Fortunately, the mistake was discovered before anyone was injured or any equipment damaged.

Case 2: Wrong joint broken

A process supervisor phoned a shift fitter and asked him to come over and remake a joint. He expected the fitter to report to him but did not actually tell him to do so.
The fitter went to the control room and reported to a process worker. The process worker assumed the fitter had seen the supervisor and that he had come to break a joint another job that had to be done. He showed the joint to the fitter.

The fitter broke the joint and a jet of liquid came out.

Case 2: Wrong joint broken

No permit to work had been issued and the joint was not tagged.
Issuing a permit-to-work would not have prevented liquid coming out of the joint when it was broken but the supervisor knew that liquid might be trapped under pressure; he would have put this on the permit and would have asked for protective clothing to be worn.

Case 3: Flying saucers have landed!

A welder was given a permit to modify a pipeline; however he started to weld on the wrong line. The line he was actually welding was a common vent line from three storage tanks containing a flammable liquid. The tanks were not blanketed with nitrogen so there was an explosive mixture in the vent pipe. The mixture ignited, the explosion travelled back along the vent pipe to the three tanks and their roofs were blown off.

An old lady living half a mile away telephoned the police to tell them, Martians have landed a few fields away from my cottage.

Things to remember
Equipment which is given to maintenance should be clearly identified. If there is no permanent label it must be identified by fitting a numbered tag to the equipment and putting the tag on the clearance certificate.

If a pipeline is to be modified the numbered tag should be fitted to the pipeline at the point where it is to be cut or welded.
Showing the equipment to the maintenance people or pointing it out is not sufficient. However busy we are, do not take short cuts when preparing equipment for maintenance. Stick to the rules.

Further information
BP Process Safety Series: Control of Work (available from www.icheme.org/shop) ICI Safety Newsletters (downloaded from www.icheme.org/shop )

Disclaimer
Whilst the Institution of Chemical Engineers has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this training presentation, it remains the responsibility of those responsible for the operations to ensure that the regulations and guidance issued by the authorities are consulted, that an appropriate risk assessment is carried out and that appropriate procedures are stipulated and followed.