Happy new year to you all.
I have recently joined a multi site company and I am the first HS person they have employed. I am looking at our current permit to work system we have and I have had one of my sites tell me they have no one trained/competent in this process so they will not be completing them.

We have supervisors/dept managers at each site so while I agree someone will have to be shown the reasons for having a permit system etc, is anyone aware of any type of training or could they provide me with anything they may have presented themselves in order to prove competency in completing permit to work documentation (specific areas we cover are confined space, hot work, work at height ,electrical).
Thanks in advance.

Here's another option...

"fill it in or get your coat..."

Section 7 HASAW Act?

Your permit to work can be whatever you want it to be. Complicated or simple.
It only has to say who, what, where and when. We have been issued some PTW that are no more than a register of who is working where and their permission to do so.
Like Jane says, if they are competent with RAMS etc. then what is the problem?
Other than just being stubborn?

Does it really need training for competency?

KAJ

The simple answer is YES, anyone issuing or cancelling a PTW needs to be competent.

As an example, my company own and operate a 400Kv high voltage interconnector between Ireland & GB. We have a set of stand alone Safety Rules, under which only certain people, Senior Authorised Persons (SAP) can issue or cancel permits, to do so they have to be declared "competent" by their employer and then trained in the process (by me).

There are many different types of permit - general access, confined space, work at height, electrical, etc.....all of them are a documented safe system of work which can/may be supported by risk assessment and method statement but they are not a substitute of them.

So - be clear on what activities require additional control (over RAMS) and then determine what competency is required and look to the organisation to see who best fits the competency bracket.

In our case the SAP needs to have high voltage switching experience, be familiar with the apparatus, have safety rules training before they can be nominated for the role.

Sorry if this a bit long winded!

Jonty

Generally speaking an 'Authorised' person issues a PTW to a 'Competent' person.

Most 'Authorised' persons know the system inside out, are above 18 years of age and are appointed in writing by the company.

Now, as always there are many many ways to skin a cat but generally in the past in conjunction with the Site Engineering Manager I have sat down with proposed Authorised persons and given them a half hour interview covering off many things (obviously relating to the permits you wish them to write) but also general 'grownupness' for want of a better word.

Authorised persons will absolutely need training and refreshing in your permit system as they will ultimately be the custodians of it on a day to day basis.

They at the very least have to be competent in the discipline they will be issuing for (confined spaces / multiple isolation etc) and know the system inside out.

I like my authorised persons to have basic resuscitation training and extinguisher use and selection to name a couple of extra skills but that's just my preference - if this comes up in the half hour interview I add it to the training needs analysis for the year.

Whenever I have carried out permit training I use a combination of assessments at the end. This normally includes:-
knowledge assessment - quick test of understanding of procedures
scenario competence assessment (one for each specialist permit) - giving those attending a scenario and asking them to identify hazards and then complete a permit for it.

When I worked fulltime in manufacturing we also had a probationary period for all new permit issuers - they would have to write six permits which would then be checked and authorised/issued by a exisiting issuer before they were regarded as competent.

Since permits should be used for the higher risk work on site, this justifies the level of assessment of those who are implementing the system on a day to day basis.

I also agree with Andrew that this needs to be followed up with a permit paperwork auditing system and a permit sampling schedule.

I think you should try to find out from them why they are reluctant to issue permits. This can sometimes be because people see a permit as a legal document and their signature on it as the issuer as making them legally accountable if anything goes wrong. People can be nervous or even resentful about this.

So you are looking at the current system and they say they have no-one competent or trained and will not be completing anything. I would ask what did they do previously with the 'current system' and if unsure why did they not ask for guidance / training? Seems to me managers / supervisors at this particular site need a reminder of their responsibilities. What would be the consequences if something went seriously wrong? No excuses to say no permit was issued because no-one is competent but we went ahead anyway.

Happy New Year everyone.

If you look at a PtW as a Risk Assessment for a high risk activity, as KAJ states, have a look at what the Management Regs require for Risk Assessments and Arrangements.
The risk assessment is carried out by those who know most about the activity, normally the person carrying out the work and their manager/supervisor, with appropriate H&S support.

If anyone is looking for a system PtW system, MOD operates one that is used industry wide. Get on to it by Google - JSP 375 Volume 3.

Good luck in your efforts.

Regards

Jim

Zimmy - it wasn't aimed at you personally...

KAJ did say "some" and "may" in his sentence and he'd be right.

Just as you would be if you said "some H&S consultants may be incompetent", but if you did I wouldn't take it personally and it would also probably be true! ;-)

I think some of you are confusing level of education with intelligence?

I know some people who are very highly educated.... but as thick as mince when it comes to real life.
And some who never ever dun any of that there book learnin' stuff ... but are as sharp as a tack and could run rings round people with diplomas and letters after their name.

And what was the original post about?
Everyone gone off on a tangent again it seems ...

Cheers roshqse & Safetyamateur and thanks to those who have pm'd me.

Yes it is a mess and I suppose the last reply is what I wanted in a nutshell ("I'm really interested in what's considered appropriate for those issuing permits").

OK, losing the will to live, here.

What training?

Do you have issuing authorities who are trained in all key disciples (e.g. elctrical, heights, confined spaces)? Or do you have issuing authorities in each of the disciplines? (in which case, how do you ensure they all know what permits are open?)

Loads more questions, I'm sure, but I guess it'll have to be a long, slow grind to get anything out of this thread.

We have specialist permit issuers for confined spaces and the like but the specialist permit is not valid without a separate permit to work, which covers isolations and is issued by the supervisor in charge of the area where the work is being done. That way, the supervisor (who issues all the permits to work) knows all about the specialist permit (and will discuss the job with the person issuing it) even though he wasn't the one to issue it (and isn't authorised to issue one).

Thank you. This thread finally turned into something very useful.