Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By William Wright
I am part of a working group within my company, our aim is to try and improove our permit to work systems. One area that we are debating is can we allow individuals to make out Permits to Work for themselves.
I would appreciate some input into this debate from anyone whom already has a system set up that allows for individuals to issue Permits to Work for themselves.
I myself feel that if you set out guidlines for the competency of certain individuals within the company ie training and experience, then anyone whom falls within those guidelines could then be authorised to issue Permits to work for themselves.
I hope someone can help.......BILLY
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Warren Shaw
Tricky one this? It depends on the circumstances that the person requires the permit for and the environment they are working in? But in situations that I have experienced, although the person might be a permit issuer for this area you might like to have in a control/permit room a record of who is where, at what time and what they are doing.
This is particalrly true for electrical work and areas that need to be evacuated regularly when the cogs begin to turn as it were!
You might also want to consider that what they are doing can affect the machine and PEOPLE down/up the line and activities for ALL persons will need to be controlled from one central point, a control room/permit office. This should let everyone know what is happening on-site. Yes the issuer may well be SQEP/competent to issue permits, but it does tell anyone else about their activities. In my view there would be no point having a permit system if a few 'rogue' issuers can do/go where they like, they should lead by example, permit systems are hard enough to get people to buy into in the first place . I am happy to help if you contact me
Good Luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Glyn Atkinson
I would be against this in certain circumstances, as it greatly depends on the attitude and working knowledge of the authoriser to know what conditions and hazards are present in a production type scenario.
With the greatest respect to the welding population, they may not know enough about COSHH requirements, segregation of combustibles from their working area etc.
We work to Hot Work permit requirements, but also have assessed areas where welding can be done under maintenance only rules ie a certified long term work area used only for welding and other hot works.
We produce with wood floors and wall frames, so have combustibles behind every layer of metal sheet frame that may need welds or alterations, a nightmare to assess if the work is needed after first assembly has been completed or rectification out in the despatch yards.
If a welder or fire watcher keeps applying cooling water behind welds, he / she could warp or discolour the wood / mdf very quickly and render a valuable unit into a non saleable item.
Hence the need for production authorisation for permission to work in a Hot Work method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
I don't think you should ever be able to issue a permit to work to yourself. Permits should only be used where the risk is so great and the control measures so involved that it is unreasonable to expect a single individual to get it right every single time and the consequences of even a small error could be large. Therefore you have a double check.
An individual may be authorised to issue a permit to his mate (same skills, qualifications experience etc) to do a job and vis versa but never to himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Duell
In my last workplace, the Engineering Manager and Supervisor were the two people authorised to issue PTWs (or should that be PsTW? A discussion for Friday, I think :-) ). Sometimes - because of staff shortages or because tasks required an "all hands to the pump" approach, they were also working engineers on the job.
We never had any problems with them issuing a PTW to a job they were both working on - the controlling factor isn't who issues the permit to whom, but whether the issuer is competent, and thorough in checking that all appropriate safeguards are in place before the permit is issued. Someone with the right attitude to H&S who's competent to issue a PTW to someone else ought to be competent to issue one to themself.
I'm not saying it'll always be right for people to self issue PTW, but I certainly don't think it's always wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Julian Wilkinson
The thing about Permits-to-Work is that they are issued under controlled conditions. Mainly they are used for high risk activities and areas where specific hazards could be present.
For example: An authorised person gives declaration that it is safe for the worker to proceed with the job within specified limits. Bearing this in mind they are not a subsitute for risk assessment or method statements, these should be in place, reviewed and finally authorised as a permit to work (something the worker should not do himself).
If you have self issue permits then how will you be able to ensure the works are controlled in such a way that there is no danger to other workers that could be affected, or ensure the works are being carried out in a safe way?
I am wondering if you are confusing a permit to work system for a general authority to work rather than use them to control high risk activities which is their intended purpose.
I am sorry if I come across a bit abrupt, I don't mean to, but I just cant see how such a system could work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Hi Billy, I think Sally got it right. Granting formal permission for a dangerous activity to commence, under appropriate control, is the purpose of a PTW and should generally be issued by the manager who "owns" the local workplace.
Two goals are thus achieved: the local manager is fully aware of what is to be done in their area (and so can ensure proper precautions are in place to prevent harm or damage) and the exposed personnel work in safety.
In my opinion any lesser degree of control is either abdicating safety responsibility or a paper exercise to satisfy an auditor or some blanket rule that probably isn't necessary.
In short, I do not think that there should be any need for self-certification of a PTW.
An onsite risk assessment prior to the commencement of the job is however an entirely different matter and is often be the most effective way of predicting harm, possibly requiring a PTW to be issued by the "owner"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Duell
>I am sorry if I come across a bit abrupt
No problem Julian - I'm assuming your comments are at my posting.
Perhaps my view makes more sense if approached from a different direction: We have already established that the Engineering Manager is a suitable and competent person to issue PTWs for work by members of his team: He ensures that appropriate people are briefed on what work is happening and the consequences: He decides (in discussion with others where appropriate) what controls are appropriate and personally checks that they are implemented before work starts.
My point is - if he's OK to do this for a job to be done by one of his staff, why does he become not OK if he's going to do the task himself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.