Marc, Not sure I can provide a 100% answer. As regards (public liability i.e. third party) insurance the policy cover will (generally) be subject to a hot work condition. This will require the user of heat to carry out the work according to cetain "rules" or procedures. Typically this will include: - not leaving lighted blowtorches unattended - looking behind walls/partitions - inspecting voids - having fire extinguishers to hand - appointing a "fire watcher" who will not carry out other work whilst cutting/burnign is taking place and will closely observe the use of heat AND - stopping use of heat a certian period before the end of the working day AND inspecting the location 30 or 60 mins after use of heat ceases. The majority of these requirements orginate from past losses. However, my employer's condition - in common I believe with most of the market - makes no mention of a formal, permit based approach. I expect such an approach to be in force within professional situations e.g. principal contractor, major sites etc. But they are not common in all scenarios e.g. minor works. But if we wish to envoke the condition there has to have been a failure to comply with the terms of the Condition. Thus we couldn't argue with weekly permits (instead of daily ones) but might take issue if there was no record of inspections after work has ceased. Not sure if that helps Phil

Hot works involve the introduction of an ignition source in to an environment and the issue of a Hot Work Permit is one administrative method used to control the resultant increased fire risk. I have always advocated a job-specific and time limited PTW for situations where the hot work is non-routine and occasional. Thus a metal fabrication factory where welding is continuous would not use one for daily work but would do so for a tar boiler on the roof. For a construction site where hot works are occurring on a frequent basis I suggest that other methods of fire risk control would be more appropriate. I question the value of any Hot Work Permit where the timeframe goes beyond one shift (can be renewed for a single job lasting in to the next shift manager's time of responsibility) and fail to see any value in a weekly one on a construction site. Phil & Ray both make excellent points.

s4b - IIRC we come from similar backgrounds in insurance. I cover liability surveys for an insurer in the construction sector and would still expect to see hot work permits. They are even specified on the Joint Fire Code which many property owners now enforce on their contractors (at the request of the property insurer). I would agree that angle grinding / welding steel work on an open site at an early project stage will differ from say works within a listed building undergoing refurb. However, there has to be some consistency and permits are the way to achieve this.

A good starting point is HSG 168 Fire Safety in Construction and then you might want to look at legal obligations on Systems of Work and Permits-to-Work that are detailed in DSEAR ACOP L137 and HSE leaflet INDG98 Permit-to-work systems

I think that most are singing from much the same hymn sheet. I suggest that PTW are normally used to reinforce SSOW etc for those occasions where there is an especially high (often transient) risk that requires very specific precautions to manage the risk and/or actions to be taken to return the equipment back to ‘safe’ operation. I would normally consider them to last no longer than one shift or 24 hours depending on the circumstances. I would question the effectiveness or necessity for a PTW, HWP lasting a week.

We worked 364 days a year with two 12 hour shifts daily (06.00 till 18.00) Hot work permits were required to be renewed at the start of every shift. May have been a pain but on a 250 acre site we only had 1 fire in 10 years and that was an electrical failure so I think our system can be said to have worked. Take Care

Work permits should only be issued for one day.

It really makes no difference how frequent as long as sensible precautions are taken. I do agree that daily issue is correct however I recently visited a site that has suffered a fire the week before. There was a hot work permit issued to workers at height grinding, they hung a sheet in front of the shop front to protect the glass from sparks - the sheet caught fire - guess what? It was not a fire retardant sheet.