From your post, it's operations and not maintenance.

Who granted access to the high voltage line / tank filled with toxic gases / vessel under pressure / ...... (just fill in the blanks), stating that it is safe to work?

His name will be on the permit, and it will be used in court.

I think accidents wouldn't occur if these conditions are already known as per your examples. Often accidents occur because of incomplete cleaning, trapped gases or substances, accidentally deLOTO high volatge line etc.

Even if PTW issued, it's still a good practice to doublecheck these conditions before and during work eg wearing the gas detector because safety is at our own hands ie self-regulatory.

If acidents happen, it's the failure of the HSE or PTW system.

Accidents happen because people take short cuts, blaming it on HSE is the easy way out.

Josh, I think that you already know my opinion about marvellous systems that look good on paper when the "auditors" come, but in reality the grunts out there has no protection neither safety.

quote:

In my opinion a written rule does not guarantee that some #@% will obey it. The jails are full of innocent "civilized law obeyers" victims of the system

Then, what difference it makes:
* writting a check mark on a PTW form to indicate that certain rule or precaution will be follow during the job to minimize/ control/ eliminate a risk, vs
* write a checkmark on a Maintenance Order to document that instruction 0010 (which reads the identical rule or precaution) was executed?
Will documenting it twice ensure compliance to the rule?

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
OK then who is the single point responsibility for PTW? Operations, Maintenance or HSE?

HSE (we call them SHE) has the overall responsibility of the PTW system, this means:
* setup the policy,
* train the plant (PTW Issuers, PTW Acceptors, all others employess who need to know what a PTW is)
* monitor/audit the areas for compliance with policy.
Operations and Maintenance: as PTW Issuers and Acceptors have their responsibilities as well.
---
If there is a major accident at the plant we have to report it to the company headquarters, and the Operations Director is the one who take the call back, (regardless that Safety and Maintenance reports to the Engineering Director).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by svanels:
Who granted access to the [b]high voltage line ....QUOTE]
The PTW identify other permits required for certain jobs. For example, our plant require a second permit for works carried out in high voltage areas. To enter those areas the Maintenance Engineer who has almost all electricians reporting to him has to approve that second permit. If he is not available then it is the Maintenance Manager (who is also an Electrical Engineer) who can authorize the entrance, no other designees are allowed.

Josh, Eugene there are so many ways that things can go wrong, aside all precautions we take.
Since this is a complex activity, I have problems with terms like self-regulating etc..
At the end nobody is responsible nor accountable.

Eugene, what are your PM works which can be done without applying after inclusions of certain statements in the WO operations? And what PM works must apply work permits. I like to see the difference.

First example: PM of an Air Handling Unit was edited to add the following instructions:
SAFETY INSTRUCCIONS FOR PM EXECUTION
* Follow all the SHE instructions pre evaluated to execute the PM.
* Jobs to be performed by external contractors must complete a PTW form.
* PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT required: Safety glasses, Safety shoes.
* For tasks in height over 4 ft use type A Ladder.
* Follow LOTO procedure, refer to the equipment manual.
* For tasks at CONFINED SPACES: Follow instructions of the Confined Spaces procedure.
The actual PM instructions include vibration analysis for bearings (fan and motor), check insulation conditions, change prefilters & filters, check pulleys alignment, clean cooling coil, verify VFD, among others.

Eugene, I'm interested to know your good practice ie no need to apply work permits for certain PM works.

Can you outline the criteria used? Also can you list examples of PM works which no need to apply works and which need to apply?

If your practice can be applied elsewhere and worth-duplicating, the it can be considered as a best practice.

quote:

Originally posted by svanels:
Josh, Eugene there are so many ways that things can go wrong, aside all precautions we take.
Since this is a complex activity, I have problems with terms like self-regulating etc..
At the end nobody is responsible nor accountable.

But then, how many safety personnel would you need to watch over a maintenance crew of 60+ employees scattered around a multibuilding facility with a large exterior utilities area. Not counting that Utilities and Operations jobs have their associated risks as well. We can not afford to have a vision of Safety as the policeman watching everybody.
Each one has to be responsible for his/her own safety and the safety of those around you affected by your job/actions. Safety must move to become the trainer, advisor, facilitator to empower all others to do their jobs safely.
Is a proactive view of Safety than reactive.
---
Some high hazardous tasks like confined space entry, fire system impairment, still need need PTW and additional permits requiring a Safety Representative review/signature, but routine jobs must be deal with between the Maintenance Technician and the Operations Supervisor/designee.

And the second example?

The project started after a conversation with Safety were Maintenance asked why PTW are not required for routine operations conducted at Production areas. Safety expalined that:
* HAZOPs studies were conducted for those operations,
* risks and hazards were identified and analyzed,
* measures to control, minimize and/or eliminate the risks were applied, and
* written operational procedures were developed with the SHE precautions and instructions for safe operation.

Operators are trained on the procedures and supervision is there to ensure compliance to them, therefore the intention of the PTW is already met with the procedures.

Then Maintenance said:
* We have repetitive tasks (PM) like the routine operations of Production.
* We have written instructions (PM Orders) for those tasks.
* Our technicians are trained and under supervision.
If the conditions are equivalent, can PM orders be exempted from PTW?
Safety then agreed to evaluate with us the PM tasks lists, in a HAZOP like manner, besides some of the PM tasks were initially inserted due to recommendations of the equipment operation HAZOP study.
* From start, any PM that is limited to visual inspection, gauge readings documentation, no equipment disassembly, was exempt of PTW, provided that an instruction for the PPE required for access the equipment location was included.
* any job to be executed with outside contractors, require PTW.
* If conditions of the jobs are the not the same each time that the task list is executed, then PTW is required. For example, if the same task list is used for 10 fans, but some are wall mounted at 20 ft high, others can be serviced standing on the floor.

Quoted: From start, any PM that is limited to visual inspection, gauge readings documentation, no equipment disassembly, was exempt of PTW, provided that an instruction for the PPE required for access the equipment location was included.

Look like the above could be largely operator's tasks. If maintenance do the same, will they still have to inform the Control Room first that they are going to the plnat area?