Posted By Wazza
We have 2 sites in the UK with differing permit systems, which we are now trying to determine Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

Alas, the 2 safety officers have differing opinions -:

I myself want all contractors permitted, regardless of work carried out.

Additionally, our own site fitters and electricians wouldn't be permitted unless it makes the job safer, e.g. confined space entry, complex isolations.

In comparison, our other site suggests that the contractor should provide his risk assessment and method statement and his contractor badge is sufficient as a permit to work, once the contract supervisor is happy that all hazards are identified. Secondly, all other works, involving any isolation for employees would require a permit to work.

Which do you think is the best system, with ours being electronic and sensitive to cross isolations etc., the other site is paper based. If you could provide some good guidance it would be appreciated.

Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Wazza

An afterthought! Work on your supply chain management to ensure company reviews are adequate and the precursors are controlled. Getting it right at the start of this process saves hassle later on site.


Ian

Posted By garyh
Having managed PTW systems on high risk (eg higher tier COMAH) sites, I would offer the following advice:-

- As I understand it the PTW details the work to be done, isolations, hazards & precautions. It also hands the job over for "mtce" and returns it when complete. It probably also references supporting docs.
- As such, contractors must have a PTW. They do not know your area like you do.
- Require a PTW for ALL mtce tasks apart from a list of specifically exempted tasks eg Changing a light bulb, Office based low level mtce tasks, and so on.
- Be cautious about only having a PTW for higher risk tasks - after all, a PTW if done properly is a sort of dynamic risk assessment. It shouldn't take too long to do, and forces the parties involved to consider hazards in a formal way. Accidents can occur when doing "simple" tasks!
- note that if a "compo claim" is received, lawyers ask for a list of docs such as Risk Assessments etc. PTW is always high up on this list. No PTW = No defence!!!
- Cover all of this with a thought out PTW procedure; use this as your guide if in doubt.
- Train people in the above.
- Lastly audit the systems for compliance and problems.

Hope this helps.

Posted By John Lewis
For my three pennorth' I've always permitted contractors regardless of task. My view is that unless they have specific limits to their task then they can stray outside the norm' and do themselves or somebody else an injury. As a previous poster said, they do not know your site like your own people.

As far as devaluing the permit goes I can understand where the idea comes from and on a high level COMAH site I can believe that might be true. But, on that site the level of training and skill of all concerned is likely to be much higher, because the culture is there.

Presently I insist on a PTW for everything because my company does not yet have a good enough culture to manage these things adequately any other way. Even things like hot work and work at height were not subject to PTW before I started. Result, spurious fire alarms and loss of production and unbelievably, no come back on the people who caused it. Such an occurence was just accepted as part of everyday life, 40 man hours production downtime was not unusual let alone the office staff hours lost.

John

Posted By Frank Newman
"Authorisation" to work, after RA and production of a SSOW is a requirement (by me at least) of any contractor work and for many jobs carried out by employees.

The special necessity for a "Permit To Work" would be identified during the RA and included as part of the SSOW.

PTW are only required for high risk interventions : Hot work, welding/grinding, confined space entry etc.

Authorisation and Permit documents should be issued and signed by an employee (supervisor or higher) and by the senior person undertaking the work. They should be either posted at the work site or in the possession of that senior person.

Work sites (contractor or employee) should be audited periodically to verify compliance with the SSOW

Last point, a bit pedantic for some I know ; while an "authorisation" may be good for a number of days, a PTW is only valid for the current shift period.

Merv

Posted By ChrisLFAnderson
The underlying philosophy of both the PTW and the isolation systems is crucial to producing a workable system. Have a look at HSE press release E168:03 28th August 2003 which raises eyebrows let alone many questions regarding unsecured single valve isolations on HP gas systems and the necessary steps required to carry out a very simple task. Many tasks can be done safely without a permit, but a PTW with a hole in it will certainly maim or kill someone because the workforce tends to treat the PTW as a lucky charm.
As soon as the job starts, you have maintenance hazards in the production environment and production hazards in the maintenance environment. Apart from the fact that the visiting contractor may not know the hazards in the host environment, he may not know the possible effects caused by the hazards of his own work.
The handback part of the permit also tends to be taken for granted. The task supervisor or performing authority signs to confirm that the worksite is now tidy and safe and, on far too many occasions, the area authority takes his word for it and signs to accept the PTW back without "satisfying himself and confirming that the area is as stated in box 13 above". Thus a simple mistake on the part of the task supervisor can result in disaster and a possible prosecution of the area authority for a false confirmation on a legal document. I know of a serious major injury and two (now possibly three) fatalities caused within the UK over the last twenty-five years from the same simple, easily foreseeable mistake which was not picked up at this stage in the PTW process.

Posted By Troos Jacobs
Good Day Wazza,
At the end of the day when there is a injury you are still the responsible person on the site. Your system sound good on the forum, contractors take changes so keep your system in place and do not allowed one contractor, even if they work with wheelbarrows to enter your site without a permit.

Posted By Adrian Watson
I'm with Merv; One size does not fit all.

You select and use trained and competent contractors at the lowest tier of work;

You authorise them to carry out higher risk works; and

You control high risk works through a PTW on a shift by shift basis.

The appropriate level of control is decided through a "risk assessment." Each step includes the proceeding step so for a PTW, you control the task by a PTW, using authorised trained and competent contractors.

In no case do you abdicate responsibility - both you and the contractor share responsibility!

I agree with the other site suggestion that you check the contractor's risk assessment and method statement and that his contractor badge is generally sufficient as a authorisation, once the contract supervisor is happy that all hazards are identified.

However I think that permit to work be required only for other works, involving any isolation for employees is limited. I would suggest that PTW are required where command, control and communication are required to prevent death, serious injury or major damage.

Regards Adrian