I can only give you info based on what we do here (nuclear site). We have ten categories of job that require a PTW.

Asbestos, Work at height, Electrical (isolation required), Mechanical (isolation required), Airline suit work, Lifting ops, Confined Space entry, Excavation work, Hot works and additional hazard (usually radiological)

Most of these tasks would be non-routine to have a Permit. Most routine tasks, even hazardous ones would usually have a risk assessment and method statement, or operating instruction.

If a sub-permit is required relating to one of those topics, a PTW is used.

For what it's worth I think I used this definition in a TBT some time ago when I worked for a manufacturing plant and would also include any mechanical LOTO....it's there to be shot down in flames. I think it devalues the permit system if it is used for all works carried out by contractors. PTW should also in my opinion apply to own employees but this is another bugbear I no longer have to deal with. I would imagine on COMAH or similar sites a blanket system might be a consideration?

"The formal issue of a PTW should be considered when authorising any non-routine work which may adversely affect the safety of personnel, plant or the environment. It is essential that PTW’s are not issued for controlling routine, low hazard, tasks as this will tend to devalue the system.

The general rule is that a PTW should be issued when:

• non-routine work can only be carried out if normal safeguards are dropped; or;
• new hazards are introduced by the work.

Specific examples of where a PTW should be issued are:

• hot work, welding and cutting operations, use of open flames;
• entry into a confined space;
• “break-ins” to systems or pipe-work which contain flammable or hazardous substances;
• work with hazardous substances including radioactive materials;
• work which may affect other safety systems i.e. disconnection of the fire alarm system;
• electrical - when working on electrical equipment to ensure isolation and lock off;
• access to roofs;
• excavations to avoid contact with buried services and prevention of excavation collapse;
• ANY OTHER potentially high risk operation."

I think you are right Jim when you say that it detracts or could detract from the PTW importance.
I know of a Company that complete a "standard Contractors" Permit for most tasks and then a specialist PTW for Heights, Electrical, Hot Works etc.
I think the basic one is just to provide a set of rules and control who is on Site - perhaps they could do this by other ways.

Thanks for the comments, I have compiled a list very similar to your's David. When dealing with contractors I forward them a comprehensive check list to follow when compiling their 'RAMS' so I feel confident in reducing the number of occasions we issue Permits. It's nice to see so far we are all thinking along similar lines
Cheers Jim

Hi Patrim
Have you considered beefing up your requirements in respect of Contractors Risk Assessment and Method Statement rather than having a two tier PTW.
The check list I issue to all Contractors requires a high level of detail covering qualifications & competence, Plant tools & equipment as well as thorough description of how the job will be conducted.
This is supported by an audit sheet when they come on site which is retained in the work area with a copy of their 'RAMS'.
Thanks for your input
Cheers Jim

When I worked in the Gas Industry, PTW's were only used in high risk work, but for the less hazardous ones we had a "Job Authorisation".

This was used to check that contractors had considered how they were going to tackle the job in a safe manner, but also be aware of our activities & those of other contractors in the working area.

The latter system was much less detailed & appeared to work, & I fully agree with many of you that there is an overuse of the PTW system which then undervalues it.

I've just finished a review of our isolation permit procedures (for mechanical or electrical work) at one of our sites. We used to issue permits for all isolation, but 99% of the jobs are routine and very well understood.

We're now trialing a procedure where permits will only be required if any of 3 conditions are met:

[ol]
[li]Anyone in the risk area hasn't completed our in-house isolation procedures training.[/li]
[li]Two or more teams will be carrying out work involving any of the same isolated circuits.[/li]
[li]In the judgement of the relevant manager, a Permit is required due to the complexity or unfamiliarity of the job, or for any other reason.[/li]
[/ol]

All isolation must be approved by a designated manager, whether under permit or not. Point 1 initially mentioned non-employees (ie subcontractors) but we have a couple of subbies on site who have been here for some considerable time and have gone through our training. This point was changed to emphasise that people unfamiliar with our procedures being in the risk area would be a reason to use a permit (which would include all other subbies).

I'm interested in whether this need to continue permits for work involving subcontractors is borne out by the results of the trial.

No need to apologise gramsay, I like the contents.
Good point also raised by Inwaldra re handover.
I see Zyggy the system you describe is where I am at.
I think there is always going to be a grey area between where Contractors 'RAMS' and in house 'Procedures' end and the need for a PTW begins. The information you have supplied has certainly moved me forward in consolidating a plan.
Thank you.