Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi,
I am attempting to draw up a dynamic field risk assessment for ag & turf mechanical work that can be filled in before commencing work offsite at a customer's address.
Should a full hot work permit be filled in for this type of work, or can a hot work section be added to the dynamic risk assessment?
As it is offsite it can be difficult to know if hot work will even be required, making it difficult to fill in a permit before leaving each time.
Many thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Permits are of no use unless they are authorised on site by someone with an understanding of the work to be done, the environment it is be done in, and the precautions that are needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I am specifically asking about offsite work, often undertaken by one lone individual, with nobody to countersign the permit. My understanding of hot work permits is that a competent person would need to sign off the permit before work can take place.
Can I add a section to a dynamic field risk assessment, completed once at the work site and before work commences, that covers hot work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If there is nobody there to sign off the permit there is no point in having one and the best approach is the one you suggest of including hot work in the job-specific risk assessment by the operator before starting the job, which hopefully empowers them to not start the job if they conclude it is unsafe.
|
 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As Kate says a PTW is issued by the person in control of the premises authorising someone to carry out a non-routine task which requires that services are turned off or accessed is gained to restricted areas. The issuer is in effect telling the someone(who might be an outside contractor) what they can do, where, how and in in what time frame. By it’s very nature you cannot issue a PTW for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Christian No where in UK health and safety law is there mention of Permits. The law requires an employer to do a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks AND, if employing five or more, to record the "significant findings". The law also requires a Safe System of Work. How to document that SSoW, if at all, is up to the organisation. To a large extent, this will depend on the competency of all those associated with the task and if you need a dynamic risk assessment, that will be heavily dependent on having competent people who you can trust to make appropriate decisions as to what needs to be done AT SITE. If your people are working on a tractor in a field, I am not sure why you would want to have a PtW for "hot work" but not apply the same methodology for work at height, moving parts of machinery or other risks that you might not be able to predict with sufficient certainty before people get to the job. ....and the intent should be to make the workplace safe enough to not even need to consider the "P" word.
So, as example, move the tractor away from the drums of chemicals before starting work.
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would also ask if this truly represents a dynamic risk assessment - if it involves signing off permits in advance?
DRAs are surely those carried out during an activity where there is no (or little) opportunity to RA in advance. While there may be a log to record decisions, this would be completed contemporaneously and definitely not in advance
The Fire Service recognised that virtually all tasks on site could not be risk assessed in advance so have been using DRA for a long time.
They used a ‘safe person concept’ which is where you cant control the risk on the ground as most employers can, so you build the competence of those doing the task, and this includes training and instruction in conducting DRAs. No permits, just continual risk assessing during the work activity, making adjustments to control where necessary
I apologise if the DRA process has widened since its concept, but this is how I saw it
|
2 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree that "dynamic" isn't the right term for this, although it often does get used this way - "dynamic" really indicates that the risks and the response to them are expected to evolve and to need on the spot re-assessment as the situation or information about it change, as in an emergency response. This sounds like a pre-work job-specific risk assessment completed by the person who will do the work - perfectly sensible but nothing dynamic about it. Calling it dynamic just makes the process sound more dynamic (in the sense of "excitingly vigorous and slightly glamorous").
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If the activity is pre-planned, then it’s not a dynamic RA unless there is something that was missed in the existing RA eg you are working in a shed with ACM in the walls. Then you have to add that risk to the standard risk assessment. A lot of people do something on the hoof don’t record it but say this is their DRA. It’s not dynamic nor a risk assessment, more like hopeful optimism. The idea of DRA is to feedback into your risk assessment and improve it so it cover all eventualities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.