Rank: Forum user 
|
In house Permits (company engineers / operators) / External Permit ( contractors ) For in house permits I have always worked on the concept that a PTW should only be wheeled out for a none routine task whereby there is no written SOP or Safe system of work in place, and the risk assessment for the none routine task deems that a way of reducing the risk is by utilising the permit to work system. Would the above seem fair comment? (minus the obligatory confined space / Hot-work / Working at height) External Permits - contractors supplying risk and method statements which are reviewed by a competent person who make a decision on whether a PTW is necessary. (minus the obligatory confined space / Hot-work / Working at height) I've always had a problem with the word competent as peoples risk perceptions differ. I've never found a silver bullet to write out a policy / procedure / flow chart to cover all the criteria which would lead to a fool proof system - meaning that a PTW would always be issued under the right circumstances.
Unfortunately I've seen at various companies people writing them out for everytime a contractor walks onto site even if he/she is only sanitising the water coolers in the office which devalues them in my opinion. (The same permit system being used for someone breaking into a steam line.) Has anyone come across a flow chart styled system which directs people towards whether a permit should be issued or not ? I'd be interested to see it. I have heard some companies run different levels of PTW how do they make their decision (risk assess) ? It's probably benificial to record contractors comings and goings even for minor low risk activities but I'm not sure writing out a PTW is the way to go about it. I have also struggled with the concept of writing PTW's out and they last for numerous days or even a week, how can that be controlled? Tasks / enviroments can change all the time. No problem being criticised for any asumptions I may have made Best regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
From the HSE website:
"Where proposed work is identified as having a high risk, strict controls are required. The work must be carried out against previously agreed safety procedures, a ‘permit-to-work' system.
The permit-to-work is a documented procedure that authorises certain people to carry out specific work within a specified time frame. It sets out the precautions required to complete the work safely, based on a risk assessment. It describes what work will be done and how it will be done; the latter can be detailed in a ‘method statement'."
As changing water coolers onsite is neither high risk nor carried out against previously agreed safety procedures ... there is no need for a PTW in that example.
I don't think PTW is there to reduce the risk per se, it's more to control movement onsite and make sure people do not carry out unauthorised work or wander into restricted areas.
|
 1 user thanked inspector Gadget for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
No permit should extend beyond the recipients working day - too many things could change whilst they are absent from site particularly where the site is operating around the clock (isolated drives brought back in service, drained lines recharged and pressurised, trench works started etc.) For external staff where you have RAMS there should be no need for separate PTW unless they are part of your control measures for unusual events e.g. hot works, confined spaces, excavations.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No permit should extend beyond the recipients working day - too many things could change whilst they are absent from site particularly where the site is operating around the clock (isolated drives brought back in service, drained lines recharged and pressurised, trench works started etc.) For external staff where you have RAMS there should be no need for separate PTW unless they are part of your control measures for unusual events e.g. hot works, confined spaces, excavations.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
...I have in the past come across the same issue...some companies see the 'authorisation to be on site' as the PTW..and in some instances they are right...however I agree to use them properly...and where required not just everytime...I did a flow chart describing just that...it was a few years back in the S&N times...I will post it on when/if I ever find it...
|
1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Has anyone come across a permit to work system which does not require a permit authorizer to visit site in person for a check before issuing a permit to work? permit would be issued remotely based on a document review. This could be based on a e permit system
In that case the onus would be on the permit acceptor to make a site check before starting work and sign a sort of decleration saying that all permit to work conditions are complied before commencing work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have never trusted contractors, with good reason. While working for a factory as Fire Prevention Officer I took my job title seriously. whenever there was a request for a PTW, usually Hot Works I visited the site of the work with the operative and "Risk Assessed" the area. I gave instructions on what measures to be taken to prevent fire and issued the permit. There were occasions when contractors caused a fire when they had not requested a PTW. The Bollocking was issued in no uncertainty. The Permit was always to be returned to me or the Security office and the area inspected then PTW signed off. Various ways of finding out about non authorised Hot Work included a smell of burning detected by factory workers and reported to me, and water leaking into a manifacturing department through the roof. This from a Roof Hydrant that was used to extinguish a potentially large fire involving roof covering material that could have spread to the wholefactory roof. I went onto the roof to investigate a water leak and found a fire damaged area of roof and a group of very sheepish people with embarrassed looks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi arslansamee This thread started on the issue of overuse of permits! ....which has a certain relevance to your supplementary question. There may be many scenarios where a permit may or may not be an appropriate control where the permit authoriser should NOT visit the scene. As example, if you are the Client and the permit is for work on a fragile roof are you likely to have been trained in all the necessary procedures for accessing that roof, or do you imagine the scene possibly with the aid of inspection from a distance, drone view, reference to drawings etc etc? Similarly the work could be in an electrical substation and the Client issuing the permit should definitely not be going inside UNLESS they are competent to do so and have all the necessary precautions in place. Issuing a permit is often about identifying what risks are likely to be present and then spelling out what more needs to be done before entry is safe e.g. into a confined space. You SHOULDN'T be going into the confined space before those additional precautions are in place, so how would you only issue a permit once having already visited the locus? Whether or not the permit issuer should then visit the scene during work is another moot point and in many cases would be unwise. The permit issuer is very often reliant on a specialist team precisely as the permit issuer (and those around them) do NOT have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Call me a cynic - buit im always suspicious when we get a post that is a few years old resurrected. Not sure if teh person that posed the question has been back on teh forum for some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.