Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 12 March 2001 18:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By STEVE HI WHICH COMES FIRST: 1=SIGN ON PERMIT TO WORK 2=GO DO RISK ASSESMENT FOR TASK ----------------- 1= GO DO RISK ASSESMENT FOR TASK 2= THEN GET PERMIT TO WORK IS THERE A LEGAL WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS AS DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL SITES HAVE BOTH OF THESE METHODS. IS IT UP TO THE SITE HOW IT RUNS ITS P/T/W.? Q= WHERE WOULD YOU STAND IN A CLAIM IF WHILST NOT ON A PERMIT TO WORK YOU WHERE INJURED DOING A RISK ASSESMENT,WHERE A PARTICULAR SITE DOES NOT ISSUE P/T/W UNLESS YOU HAVE A RISK ASSESMENT AND METHOD STATEMENT. IS THE SITE WRONG IN DEMANDING THE RISK ASSESMENT BEFORE ISSUEING THE PERMIT? AWAITING YOUR VIEWS AND EXPERIENCE STEVE
Admin  
#2 Posted : 13 March 2001 09:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan Steve, A permit to work is simply that, a permit which states that all the hazards have been considered and all the appropriate precautions put in place and that work may now commence in strict accordance with what is contained on the permit, and this will include R/As and method statements. When a permit is requested it indicates that the work operation falls into the high hazard category for which the normal safeguards are insufficient and that a set sequence of documented steps are required which operative must follow and supervisors stringently check and oversee at every stage. This means that the hazards are fully assessed and all risk removed before the operation commences. Once the issuer is satisfied of this, the permit can be handed-over and the receiver must follow its instructions. On the question of being injured during the carrying out of a risk assessment, how do you envisage this happening? The process of assessing any hazard does not require the assessor to interact with the hazard without protection. If there are aspects of a hazard which are known only through necessary physical contact, then the assessor must take precautions against the potential injurious outcome being realised. And if you do not know what could possibly harm you, you find other means of determining that rather than "going in to have a look". Regards, Philip
Admin  
#3 Posted : 13 March 2001 14:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Steve. 1) Ordinarilly, the sequence is; (a) Risk assessment (b) safety method statement (c) permit to work (a) a risk assessment is required to establish the hazards present, and detail how you intend to either remove that hazard or if you cannot do so, identify what control measures you intend to put in place to reduce the risks arising from the hazard(s) to a minimum 'acceptable' risk (b) the safety method statement is to indicate how the task is to be undertaken and the what is to be done to carry out the work (safely I hope) It should also indicate what is required in respect of the works, e,g, personnel, tools/plant/equipment etc and may also stipulate what must NOT be done !! It should also detail the procedure to be folowed in an emergency and identify, by name, who is responsible for doing what. (c) the permit to work is the final stage in a safe system of work, which provides for checking the above (a) and (b) and seeing all conditions, personnel, tools/plant/equipment etc is checked, in place, understood by all and that the conditions are safe for work to proceed. It may also indicate details of other permits required e.g. hot work, pressure systems etc, identify all persons by name who are authorised to work on the system(s) involved, details of safety equipment and other equipment, start and finnish times, emergecy procedures etc... There are exceptions to the rule. for instance, part of a risk assessment process may require that a 'competent' person enters a place of work for which a pemit to work is required (i.e. a confined space) in order to carry out part of the risk assessment in relation to the works entry or indeed the works to be performed. Obviously in such cases pre entry procedures themselves would require the above steps to be taken to perform this task, which incidentially, should oly ever be done by a competent and highly experienced person(s). Hope this helps.... Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#4 Posted : 13 March 2001 16:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By STEVE PHILIP THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE,BUT IM A BIT CONFUSED. YOU SAY HOW DO I ENVISAGE GETTING INJURED WHILST DOING A RISK ASSESMENT,ARE YOU SAYING THIS CANT HAPPEN? YOU ALSO SAY THAT A PERMIT SHOULD INDICATE THAT ALLTHE HAZARDS HAVE BEEN CONISDERED AND THE R/As AND METHOD STATEMENTS TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION. ONCE THE ISSUER IS SATISFIED, THE PERMIT CAN BE HANDED OVER,THEREFORE I PRESUME YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE RISK ASSESMENT MUST BE DONE FIRST. WE ALL KNOW THAT IN A IDEAL SITUATON ALL WORK AREAS SHOULD BE CLEAN,HAVE GOOD LIGHTING AND MAINTAINED PROPELLY,BUT AS WE ALL KNOW AS WELL THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE ON BIG OLD INDUSTRIAL SITES. SO THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE GO TO DO OUR R/As CONDITIONS ARE NOT WHAT THEY SHOULD BE,BUT AS COMPETENT PERSONS WE ARE HOPEFULLY CONSTANTALLY ON THE LOOK OUT FOR HAZARDS IN THESE SITUATIONS,BUT EVEN WE CANNOT PREVENT UNFORSEEN,UNPLANNED OCCURENCES. SO IS IT NOT POSSIBLE TO SLIP,TRIP OR FALL WHILST DOING A R/As. WHERE WOULD WE STAND THEN IF ONE OF THESE DID HAPPEN AND WE JARRED OUR BACK OR BROKE A LEG,AND HAD TO HAVE X AMOUNT OF WEEKS OF WORK SO WE GO TO COURT FOR COMPENSATION. WHERE WOULD WE STAND IF IT WAS ASKED WHY WE WASNT ON A PERMIT TO WORK AS DOING A R/A IS PART OF OUR WORK PROCEDURE. SO SHOULD WE COVER OURSELVES AND GET ON P/T/W BEFORE DOING RISK ASSESMENT. DONT KNOW IF IM CONFUSING MYSELF BUT WAS JUST WONDERING AS MY MATE IS A SOLICITOR AND HE RECKONS IF THIS DID HAPPEN WE WOULDNT HAVE LEG TO STAND ON{PARDON THE PUN} HOPE YOU CAN CLER THIS UP STEVE.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 14 March 2001 11:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Webster Steve Are you perhaps confusing pre-work site inspection/survey with risk assessment? Risk assessment is done by people such as, say, the fire brigades, who have to enter premises with completely unknown and unpredictable hazards. They work on the basis of what COULD go wrong, and train and equip accordingly. It sounds as if you are working in derelict (or overseas) industrial sites. It should be possible to assess the possible and probable risks take the appropriate precautions, and issue a permit for suitably trained and equipped personnel to enter the site for the purpose of conducting a detailed survey of the proposed worksite - assuming that a permit system is a required outcome of the risk assessment! As Stuart pointed out, the purpose and legal requirement of risk assessment is to reduce risk to as low a level as reasonably practicable - ie not to remove all risk. Hope this helps John
Admin  
#6 Posted : 14 March 2001 12:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan Steve, my case is that any work operation properly managed will be free from undesirable outcomes, and in this case carrying out a "risk assessment" is a work operation. Proper management means that only the planned outcome will result. Where hazards exist, or may exist but are not known, managing the operation will take this into account and control the operation to ensure that it proceeds safely. If this requires a permit, as Stuart suggests, well and good. However, your posting argues that "we cannot prevent unforeseen, unplanned occurrences" and I think this is where many businesses are taking risks. I would counter this by stating that any work operation that has the potential for unforeseen or uncontrolled occurrences is not sufficiently managed; even where the occurrences are deliberate negligence or malicious acts, they are foreseeable and can be controlled. You also hold that certain conditions, e.g. clean, well lit and maintained old industrial sites, are impossible to achieve. Believing that certain things are impossible narrows your perception and limits the scope for action. Believing that every work operation can be carried out safety changes the perception to one where the solution to how it can be achieved is sought. Of course you can slip trip or fall in any work operation, but what you want to do is to manage it so that you don't fall. Bear in mind that "Risk Assessments" and permits do not in themselves guarantee safety. You can have them and still the company may be liable in law for accidents at work. And the obverse, your company can legally use safety procedures as good as or better that R/As procedures as long as the outcomes of your work operations will be non-injurious. regards, Philip
Admin  
#7 Posted : 17 March 2001 14:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By STEVE THANKS TO EVERY ONE , THAT HAS ANSWERED MY ENQUIRY,I HAVE SAT BACK AND READ OVER YOUR ANSWERS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I CAN SEE KNOW WHAT YOU WHERE GETTING AT PHIL, AND TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW. JUST SHOWS THAT THIS IS WHY WE NEED THIS TYPE OF FORUM TO GIVE ADVICE AND EXPERIENCED VIEWS. STRANGE THAT IVE BEEN ON 3H&S COURSES AND THIS VIEW HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD. THANK YOU AGAIN AND JUST SHOWS THAT DIFFERENT VIEWS CAN MAKE YOU HAVE A CHANGE OF THOUGHT IF YOUR PREPARED TO EXCEPT THEM. STEVE
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.