Who will issue the fire ticket?

For work involving open flames in the unit, the person who carries out the work is responsible for obtaining the necessary permit, which must be signed and approved by the safety manager at the appropriate level (company level or workshop level)

Our company’s regulations regarding hot work state that the person in charge of a particular area is responsible for submitting the application for hot work, and it is the safety officer of that department who handles the issuance of the hot work permit. For level 1 hot work permits, approval is required from the department’s safety officer, the department head, and the company’s safety supervisor; level 2 hot work permits do not require approval from the company’s safety supervisor. Safety is of utmost importance, especially when performing hot work; it is essential to follow the regulations – don’t be afraid of the hassle!

The person in charge of the area where welding will take place is responsible for issuing the welding permit; for example, it could be the shift leader. Having these permits approved and signed by supervisors at various levels is pointless, as they do not know the specifics of the work to be carried out there nor the associated risks. It is also impossible for them to go to the site to verify the situation

The purpose of leadership review is to ensure that leaders truly assume responsibility for safety management, and at the same time to require them to understand and master safety-related knowledge.

Actually, this is related to the type of enterprise, its management system, and relevant laws; it is recommended that the original poster take a closer look at the company’s policies and the relevant industry regulations.

It would be more appropriate for the unit’s safety officer to issue it, but who wants to take responsibility these days? In our company, it’s always the technicians who have to do it, and having the manager sign off is nothing but a formality. Safety personnel who don’t understand safety still cause trouble everywhere; they know nothing at all and only check whether the forms are completed or not. All responsibilities related to safety fall on the technicians, yet it is the safety personnel who get all the bonuses – it’s completely unfair.

In our company, for level 1 fire work permits, confirmation from the vice president in charge of production is required; level 2 fire work permits are issued by the dedicated safety management department. Moreover, for all fire work activities, personnel from the fire work management team and the safety management department must be present to verify whether the conditions for carrying out such work are met. The concepts of level 1 and level 2 fire work permits are based on the classification of hazardous areas within the company, and this classification is applied in all chemical plants

It must be operated by qualified safety personnel; safety cannot afford to be careless!

The fire permit should be issued by the safety officer; the relevant safety, process, equipment, supervision, and construction personnel must confirm the necessary aspects and sign their names. Afterwards, it is issued by the workshop or plant manager in accordance with the organization’s regulations. The key aspect of the fire permit is indeed the confirmation by the safety, process, equipment, supervision, and construction personnel, while the signature of the manager later on has more symbolic value than any practical significance

The hot work permit is issued by the workshop safety officer, and signed by the supervisor at the appropriate level according to the hot work classification.

Please discuss who would be the most appropriate person to issue the fire permit for working on the equipment. Is it a safety officer, equipment operator, process engineer, or someone else? In our unit, it used to be the safety officer who issued the fire permits, but later it was changed to the person in charge being responsible for it. In fact, all construction work and piping tasks are arranged by the equipment officer in coordination with the construction team. Are all fire tickets supposed to be issued by the equipment operator? Are all equipment operators supervisors? I don’t think it’s very reasonable; there’s already enough work for equipment technicians. To issue another fire ticket adds a lot of work. Our safety officer’s job now is to sign, inspect, and confirm. After that, the director signs, and the safety personnel at the branch plant sign as well. Everyone, share your thoughts. Anyway, I think it’s better if the safety officer drives. The equipment operator is responsible for the Mobile Operations Department; currently that’s fine, but they also need to handle matters related to the Safety Department.

Under proper management, it should be the safety officer who issues the fire order, followed by inspection, confirmation, and supervision of its execution.

If hot work is to be carried out on production equipment, the chief engineer or the deputy production manager must sign off, the safety department staff shall issue a hot work permit, go to the site to implement the necessary measures, verify them, and supervise the work.

First, it is necessary to understand what aspects are involved in hot work and why a hot work permit is required. A fire permit is generally issued for carrying out operations such as welding, gas welding, and cutting in hazardous locations during equipment maintenance, with the aim of preventing accidents such as fires and explosions, rather than to ensure the quality of the equipment repair. So I think it’s not feasible to have the equipment technician issue a fire permit, because the equipment technician is responsible for the proper operation of the equipment, while the safety officer is in charge of safety. The purpose of issuing a fire permit is to eliminate potential hazards, and the equipment technician is not as skilled in this area as the safety officer. It’s just my personal opinion, for reference only.

This is how we do it: For construction activities that involve open flames, such as welding, we train the workers involved. The construction team submits an application to carry out such activities according to the construction plan, and the workshop staff along with safety officers verify whether it is safe to proceed, whether adequate protective measures are in place, and then grant approval. Fire permits must be posted at the construction site before work can begin with fire. All personnel in the workshop have the right to review fire tickets. In this way, everyone does their own part, without causing any trouble

Why isn’t safety responsibility properly implemented? In many cases, it is because people think that safety is the responsibility of safety officers. Over the years, the principle of \"whoever is in charge is responsible\" has not been properly implemented; as a result, in many companies (mainly state-owned enterprises), it was the safety officers who issued the work permits. Now that it’s the equipment officers who are responsible for doing this, it’s likely that many people will find it difficult to accept this change at first. If we look at foreign-owned or joint-venture companies, in most of them it is the person in charge who issues the work orders; in some companies, even the operators issue them while the team leader signs them off (companies on the 6th floor are likely not state-owned enterprises). The safety officer’s main role is to oversee things. Changing the entity responsible for issuing invoices faces numerous obstacles; it requires leaders at all levels to take responsibility in order for such changes to be implemented. This, from another perspective, demonstrates the progressiveness and courage of those leaders, which is something to be celebrated! ! The reason why process engineers and equipment technicians found it difficult to accept this at first was mainly due to a sense of dissatisfaction. Safety officers have always been in a disadvantaged position; now they are suddenly asked to take on supervisory roles, which gives them an air of superiority. Moreover, many safety officers do not possess strong technical skills or management abilities, and some are even elderly, weak, or sick – so why should anyone listen to them? Let’s take a look at foreign or joint-venture companies instead. Safety officers there indeed hold a high position; everyone has to follow their instructions. Of course, their safety officers are relatively more skilled, but they don’t know everything either However, equipment operators and process engineers rarely resist safety officers, because the responsibility for safety lies with them; having an extra person to help oversee its implementation is certainly something worth doing So this involves changes in concepts, documents, and mechanisms; the entity responsible for issuing firing orders has been changed, which is generally a big step forward!

What was said on the 7th floor makes perfect sense: in terms of safety management, what matters is implementation. The principle of \"whoever is in charge is responsible\" is exactly that. It’s impossible for a safety officer to know everything about processes and equipment; of course, then the safety officer has to take the initiative in carrying out safety analyses for tower tanks!

In our company, safety officers play a supervisory role; I am the safety manager of the branch factory, responsible for overseeing all safety-related matters throughout the facility. Basically, nothing happens that is not related to safety. Our company places a high priority on safety, and we have a safety network in place, with each level responsible for its own aspects of safety, ensuring that everyone is accountable for maintaining safety. There are no interviews without safety considerations; don’t put all the responsibility on the safety officer. In our case, we only determine whether it’s possible to proceed with something, while it is the respective task leaders who are responsible for carrying out the work. Our role is merely to ensure that safety measures are in place. To ensure safety and avoid accidents, everyone must take responsibility for it. If safety is solely the responsibility of the safety officer, then no matter how hard that officer works, they won’t be able to do a good job. Because safety officers aren’t omnipotent either