By Sue-Ann Wayow
THE applicant to do the job on the sealine riser where four divers lost their lives in February was not LMCS, the company that was contracted to do the maintenance of the pipeline.
Chairman of the Commission of Enquiry (CoE) Jerome Lynch, KC said an applicant on a permit-to-work document in which the person is almost totally reliant on information from a contractor, that position is almost null and void.
The contractor should be the applicant instead.
Lynch on Tuesday sought to understand the true role of the applicant in the Paria-LMCS tragedy.
Paria has maintained constantly that it was reliant on LMCS to identify all risks involved in a job that was carried out by LMCS last year, a job that resulted in the death of four of its employees.
Both Paria and LMCS had already stated that Delta-P, a latent hazardous situation that was the root cause of the incident was not identified by either.
On Tuesday, Paria’s General Manager Mushtaq Mohammed agreed with Lynch that the contractor could have been made the applicant instead.
According to the permit-to-work document, “The Applicant must have the necessary competence to execute the job or to supervise the execution of the job. He shall be knowledgeable of the hazards associated with the job and the necessary controls for these hazards. He shall be responsible for the job and for the safety of people who work on the job.”
The applicant in the job to be executed at Paria’s Sealine Riser 36, Berth #6 was a Kenson employee also subcontracted by Paria.
Lynch asked, “Is it your position that he only gains that knowledge from the contractor?”
Mohammed responded, “It is my position that the knowledge of the hazards in a specialist type job is gained through the process of engagement with the contractor who would bring specialised knowledge and specialised understanding of the risks and hazards associated with that job.”
Lynch then said, ” So his knowledge is not independent of the contractor.”
“That is correct,” Mohammed agreed.
Lynch further asked if the contractor was wrong, that means the applicant could be wrong.
Again, Mohammed agreed emphasising for specialists jobs.
Lynch said the applicant did not have the necessary competence to execute the job to which Mohammed said he did not on his own.
Lynch then said, “I am struggling to understand the whole concept of this applicant, if he does not have the necessary competence to execute the job himself, or to supervise the execution of that job, because he does not know how to do the job, what role does he actually do, if he is just dependent on the knowledge from the contractor, then what is he actually doing?”
Mohammed said in the practical world of work, there would be no applicant who would be able to identify every single risk which is why through the Permit to Work process there would be a system of engagement with all involved.
Lynch repeated his question on what was the applicant’s actual role.
He then asked, “Why not make the applicant, the contractors?”
Nodding his head, Mohammed answered, “That’s a good point, a very good point.”
Lynch continued, “I mean it’s his responsibility, if you are relying on him… why are you making this other person do anything?”
Mohammed maintained that Lynch was making a good point.
Lynch also said it was ambiguous to him to which Mohammed also agreed and again said ” I think you are making a very good point.”
Mohammed also maintained as other Paria officials have that LMCS was selected based on their track record, expertise and experience working on similar jobs for Paria.
Referring again to the statements concerning the applicant, Lynch said to the ordinary reader, it meant that the applicant could pick up the slack where the contractor might have missed something important.
Mohammed said, “The perspective is not lost, Mr Chairman.”
