This depends on your system. Not every task done under a PTW has a specific risk assessment, in my considerable experience. It could be considered that the PTW is a form of dynamic risk assessment. The $64 million question is at what point a formal risk assessment is required as well as the PTW, and is a generic or specific RA needed? This comes down to what the system defines as being the case, and also what the competent person eg PTW issuer, may decide. What does your procedure say?

Terry you don't actually ask a question, although you seem to be asking if you're right to refuse the HWP. From the limited information provided it is difficult to say one way or another. Without knowing all of the circumstances, I am inclined to suggest that a supervisor should have a reasonable idea of the risks associated with the work of a person whom they are supervising (shouldn't they?). ON the other hand, I am not convinced that you should expect that people to have or carry around with them a RA for every job that they are likely to do. I have issued HWP without sight of a RA. WHY? Because I discuss the job, if necessary go and have a look at the site/location and then the permit lists the precautions that I expect the person to take to manage the risk. Isn't that the end result we're looking for rather than pieces of paper (RA's) that often serve little purpose because people treat then as just that; pieces of paper to be completed. Do what you need to do to manage the risk. Now for the 'argument'. Can I suggest you avoid if possible, and don't adopt an entrenched position that won't endear you to the majority. I have found that a significant part of 'our' jobs is to be a 'diplomat, negotiator, peacekeeper, peace maker; call it what you like. You need to win the willing cooperation of people by earning credibility and respect. It is unlikely that you will do this by 'digging in' and arguing with the people that you seek to protect. There are of course times when you need to assert your position or influence (I hesitate to use 'authority' as many of us don't have any). Be balanced, proportionate, practical, pragmatic, and where necessary; humble!! Ours is an enabling job, it isn't merely to say 'no', it is to help make it happen; 'safely'.

Terry, Why does your company issue permits?? Why do you need a permit for hot work?? as pikeman said "what does your company procedure say"?? wizard

Rocky, thank you. I am a little surprised that my post hadn't provoked further comment. If I were honest, I can't recall a time when I have asked someone for a RA when I have been asked to provide a HWP (OK – I haven’t) I do SOMETIMES find the 'preoccupation' with asking for a risk assessment for every job, to be 'tiresome'. I suggest that in the majority of cases the risk of hot working can be adequately controlled using a HWP without seeing or, dare I say, there even being a separate risk assessment. Isn’t that what the HWP is for, and isn’t that our ultimate aim? On the latter bit, I guess we have all been there and learnt from our mistakes; that comes with experience. We need to be seen as helpers and enablers, not creating unnecessary barriers or obstacles. No business wants or needs that. Back to the HSE sensible risk debate?