Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ash Solanki
Once a permit to work is issued, is it mandatory(or good practice) for the Permit issuer to be on site while the permit is live, providing the permit is supervised and the receiver is an authorised and competent receiver?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
your system should be such that the absence of the issuer is not important as work can start ain one shift and move over into another
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mark gough2
A permit to Work should only be issued for "high hazard" areas by a designated person in the case of High voltage electrical networks the "senior authorised person"
Other than network operators. It is good practise for the designated person to be the only person who can agree changes to the permit and the only person who can cancel it once work is complete.
work that goes beyond a shift should normally have the permit to work cancelled and a new one issued. Permits are given to named persons and are not transferable to persons on different shifts.
If the designated person must leave site and is not contactable then the procedures in place MUST have a equally competent person to take over the Permit work.
In short the designated person does not need to be on site but if he is not available then the permit cannot be changed and cannot be cancelled.
Provision should be made to have procedure's in place for when the designated person may have to leave site unexpected(family emergencies etc)
Permits should never be suspended or handed to other persons they should be cancelled and re issued.
Permits to work are deliberately very onerous and such should only be used in for high hazard activities for discrete pieces of work.
Other "permits" sanction for test, access permits, suspension of power etc should also be considered for work likely to go on over several shifts days rather than a permit to work
HSG85 "Electricity at Work safe working practices" general advice and for the more specific advice related to hazardous process safety industries HSG253 "the safe isolation of plant and equipment" gives good advice
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
permits can move through differing shifts and a designated person can hand over to another designated person / responsible person via an approved hand over system
each work situation differs so bespoke systems are required
even lower risk situations can benefit from permits
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ash Solanki
Bob / Mark,
Thanks for your informative feedback
Regards
Ash
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mark gough2
I agree that Bespoke permits for low risk activities provide a useful safety function.
These are not permits to work which are quite distinct and covered by HSE guidance. Where guidance is not followed then any systems in place must be as equally effective.
HSG 85 states amongst others:-
"the person the permit is addressed to, i.e the leader of the group or working party who will be present throughout the work" (difficult over several days)
"no variation of any kind should be introduced until the existing permit as been cancelled and a new one issued"
By carrying permits over several shifts you introduce complications that make following the guidance difficult (piper alpha for one)
In my opinion for work over several days or shifts low hazard work etc then "bespoke" permits are best based on a risk assessment and a planned system of work. I may be wrong but calling something "a permit to work" then not following the published guidance would be hard to defend should a incident occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.