Not sure if I am losing the will to live at the moment, but I am trying to find the guidance on SSOW. I believe the HSE ref is IND(G) 76L, but all the searches that I have carried out on the HSE website is coming up with different results. Has anyone have a electronic copy or know where I can find one.

INDG76 superseded by INDG261 (Pressure Systems).

If we are talking here about documented working instructions, rather than simply working safely as an employee, I'd suggest that there can be SSoWs that contain non safety elements where the overriding content is safety focussed and Operating Procedures (A 'how to' doc in effect) that contains safety instructions too. It all depends on the context really. We have operating procedures that are all about which button to press, what order to do things in, what happens if it doesn't work etc none of which has the real potential to cause harm. But, there might be one single line in there of relatively minor safety importance. Similarly in a SSoW we might indicate where to find things, who to inform etc all of which don't actually affect the person's safety. So, what's the basic difference in my view? Well generally an operating procedure for us would be a 'tell' - a do this, then do this, then this. It would usually be more of an instruction. Whereas, a SSoW would be something that would be trained out with a supervisor showing the employee, then let them have a go themselves until they were competent. There ma even be some testing of understanding. Crucially a SSoW may also refer to other skills that would be necessary to posses but would not be contained in that document. Such as an isolation procedure for eg. So when taking the person through SSoW B, they may have to have had SSoW A first. In terms of format, an operating system for us is a bullet point list of Do's, never do nots. A SSoW follows the same principle, but is written more in a narrative style explaining points as necessary. I use the example of a recipe. It tells you what to do, in the order necessary with what can happen along the way and how to correct it. It list ingredients and utensils at the start and shows you an example of what good looks like. At no point does it tell you what not do do and sometimes contains other technical input required that you won't get from that recipe like 'fold in the eggs' (See page 12 for folding) However, I would not advocate an SSoW for everything. I would link to the complexity of the task and the level of risk associated with it. If I have a task with a significant hazard in there for which the principal control is the operator then I'd go with a SSoW. If other controls take precedence and all the operator has to do is run the operation, I wouldn't use a SSoW. To add to this, we have operating procedures abut how to do stuff, but we also have safety versions of those. In other words, it's a safety focussed document but not as detailed as a SSoW. So rather than them being Standard Operating Procedures, they are really Safe Operating Procedures. There was an article on this in HSW a few months back Jericho

Agree that some of this can be semantics, but there are three key things here: 1. that YOU are clear as a company what YOU mean by any terms you use 2. that what you write addresses the need 3. that it's understood by those who need it The reality is that there aren't many examples out there of what 'things' should look like and in fact that's largely a good thing. As soon as an example of something appears it is taken by some as what it MUST look like and soon becomes a standard by which be judged. I have had enforcement visits where I have been asked to change the format of our risk assessments based on the fact that the enforcing officer didn't like them. I don't recall that being a requirement of any regulation. It is up to us, I think as a profession to put forward examples and ideas, and adopt that which suits our needs, but importantly to have the understanding to make that choice the confidence to defend that choice once we've made it And it is the subject of understanding that I focus on heavily with our managers so that then have the confidence to explain (defend) why we have what we have. We don't train them in 'health and safety' we educate them on how OUR system works. I have to say that the response has been phenomenal. One said recently, "in all my working life, that is the first time any of this has made sense." So call things what you will, but tell people what they are, why and what they're for. Jericho

And that's fine John. But I'd disagree with all of your definitions - but that's not because they are wrong, but because they aren't my definitions. Truly it doesn't matter as long, as I said, that you are clear. For example a Method Statement is a large and comprehensive document usually used with a construction project or similar that holds the details of the project, the parties, responsibilities, scope of work etc and all the associated docs like SSoW and Risk Assessments. In terms of being a 'how to' document? It's far higher level than that. In my world. For me, a PTW is simply a receipt. An acknowledgement that the Permit Controller has been assured that the necessary controls (from the SSoW) are in place and that the work can be authorised to commence. In itself it doesn't contain any safety procedures. What you call SSoW we'd perhaps call policy. But you have clearly defined all of your documents and we have exactly the same provisions in place but our language is different. To my knowledge no one has ever been prosecuted for calling something by a different name. The charge would be inadequacy or unsuitability. It does cause issues sometimes when you work with outsiders and you want a specific document from them and they send you the 'wrong thing' but given that you'd be asking them for more than that probably, it would all come in a bundle anyway. I don't see it as alarming at all and who's to say who's right? I'll be honest I have been doing this stuff for a very long time across a variety of industries and I have never seen the documents named the way you have. But that just adds to my experiences. As soon as we start setting definitions and exact standards, we then end up trying to comply rather then simply writing what's good and fit for us. Safe system of work is used commonly but if you look at where it's used it does mean different things. In the Act I don't believe that it intimates a written document necessarily. For me it is about running your business in an organised (safe) way. In some regs, it may talk about a written safe system. In other words, some documented evidence. In Civil law the phrase is used too and encompasses just about any evidence that you can scratch up to show you had some sort of rules to follow. It matter not. Having them is the key, not what they are called. Jericho

Permit to work: ensures safety when a certain task is required and should be fail-safe and should contain ALL safety measures in place, the start and end time of the work etc A Method statement should show HOW the work will be carried out and the sequence of operation, and the equipment used, and safety measures in place. Then we can look at risk assessments et al etc . Anyone offering me a 'all encompassing' MS gets it straight back as it shows a high degree of bone idleness. HSG85 is a SSO give it a read and at least you'll get the idea. A safe system of work is not a method statement.

Hmmm, in his original posting Hally said he was losing the will to live. I don't think this thread will help :o/

Dave C That's why you have to love and hate Health & Safety and why people fine it so confusing. Everyone interprets it in there own way and as long as you meet the requirements of the various Regs it doesn't matter what it is called! JohnW states that a SSOW is not a document, yet we have 58 SSOW's all separate documents for various roles and jobs! (very common term in distribution) that are used as evidence of training and signed off by the operatives. When we get a claim solicitors like to see them. So to quote Shakespeare....A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....

I thought I was calm? Sorry if I seemed otherwise. We (not one of mine I may add) just had an 'all bells and whistles' method statement thrown right back at us with our chap not being allowed on site as most or the stuff was, and I quote, 'all puff pastry and no meat' . I sent off one of mine at was accepted with thanks. 'Nuff said (No stones in hand and no body can prove it was me that threw any anyway. Honest )

A Kurdziel, yes I think our understandings of SSOW are the same. One area I work/inspect is street utilities and the HSG47 includes this on p. 4 : A safe system of work has four basic elements: planning the work; plans; cable- and pipe-locating devices; safe digging practices The SSOW contains ALL of it.