What's the US equivalent of these worksite practices?

[3DDave]

I'm sure there is equivalent coverage, but I'm curious what the specific terminology/job description is for the following:

Safety Supervisor
Permit to Work (worker assignment job control)
Control of Work.

These appear to be UK related. Maybe I've been deprived but the closest I've seen is shop or job site foreman and maybe shop supervisor with routing sheets. I'm sure some places are more sophisticated systems where a worker is given a piece of paper to grab a light bulb from stores and tells them exactly which socket to place it in, including a sign-off for locking out the fixture with several sign-offs, but I am at a loss for the particular vocabulary.

 

[KoachCSR]

Typically, a general contractor will have a safety manager...on larger job sites, each subcontractor will have their own safety managers, as well. I take that as equivalent to your Safety Supervisor.

Superintendents run the job site and assign work crews to the various tasks under the supervision of a foreman. Safe Work Permits (sometimes the title changes slightly from place to place) are usually issued by an existing facility's Operations staff prior to the start of a day's work to ensure conditions are safe and the Operators are aware of work being performed.

On a new construction site, the general contractor will typically have their own permit system in place to ensure safe work practices are understood and utilized.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[3DDave]

I was looking for some direct job assignment scheme, much like pulling items from a job jar, where no worker makes a move without written instructions in hand and then signs off that the particular task is completed along with some QA/QC signoff.

 

[KoachCSR]

What you're describing is basically a Work Order System, which I've seen employed at nuclear plants where work performed is stringently tracked and controlled. I haven't seen much of that since leaving the nuclear industry, however.

 

[3DDave]

Thanks - I'm developing the impression that the UK pushed a particular formalized scheme in response to an oil-platform failure.

 

[wtxhorsman]

I agree with Koach, what you are looking for is going to be industry specific and still vary from company to company as to what the best practices and procedures are for tracking work. A system like this, from what I've seen in my limited experience, pops up as a way to reduce accidents on the job, better track project budgets/increase profit margins, or a new lead/upper management comes in that has experience with a system and sets up what they are familiar with to increase project buy in and work accountability.

 

[IRstuff]

I think you'll find that every industry, and possibly, every company will have its own scheme. Large scale production companies tend to have hard-copy "travelers" which are instructions/checklists for each manufacturing step, coupled with on-line documentation detailed instructions. Any company that claims to be ISO9001 compliant will likely have centralized electronic documentation and work instructions so that configuration management can adequately insure that documentation is up to date.

Construction seems to have "punch lists," that are the marching orders for the day; not sure if these are even on paper.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[gerhardl]

To comment on above posts it seems that European standards and way of doing things are more 'incorporated' than in the US. Typically standards will require for construction sites one (combined) manager for health (risk for humans), environment (risk for environment and surrounding, including humans outside the site) and safety (prevention to minimize risk).

The standards will include some detailed instructions, and for quality certified companies' detailed written instructions, also for construction sites. This is strictly required and controlled by inspection on site by the authorities.

In my opinion this is well covered also in US standards, it is all up to the managements will to oblige and control.

PS. It is not uncommon, especially in southern European countries, to see construction (road-work sites) where placards announce that helmet and hearing protection must be worn all the time, and then just behind the sign seeing workers cutting stone without, and also without protecting goggles. (To be fair: most keep the rules.)

 

[lacajun]

3DDave, you may want to read OSHA 1910 here: OSHA 1910

They cover some of what you seek, which some companies call Management of Change, MOC, and Lock Out/Tag Out. In my experience, most have developed the same procedures to ensure the all energy sources are off and locked out so the work order can be completed safely. Signatures are on the tags verifying energy sources are off and locked out. The reverse of the process happens upon completion of the work order. At least, I think the reverse happens; I've not done it nor managed those who do thus lack first hand knowledge.

I've not seen QA/QC attached to work orders or MOC.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:

http://nspe-co.org/events.php