Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Method statement
#1
Cool 
Should method statement include of risk assessement of the wok?

Thank you.
Reply
#2
I can't quote the most recent Network Rail rules, but clearly almost the entire point of planning work is to ensure that it is done safely; this inevitably entails an assessment of the risks and a means of eliminating / reducing / mitigating them.

There was a time when Method Statements balloned and contained a large number of standard risks and formulaic precautions etc such that there was no value being added (wearing of standard PPE such as hard hat, wearing "all orange", safety booots etc., warning about slip /trips/falls etc - all very true and important but "nothing special". I believed that all this regurgitated stuff has been stripped out of each separate Method Statement and are purely cross referenced as generic risks, thus slimming down to cncentrate on what really is special about this actual work so that corrrect focus is given, rather than being lost amongst all the standard stuff.

So I think the quick answer is "YES, but may not look like it may have done in the past"


(14-02-2014, 05:20 PM)oxfordjack1 Wrote: Should method statement include of risk assessement of the wok?

Thank you.
PJW
Reply
#3
(14-02-2014, 08:22 PM)PJW Wrote: I can't quote the most recent Network Rail rules, but clearly almost the entire point of planning work is to ensure that it is done safely; this inevitably entails an assessment of the risks and a means of eliminating / reducing / mitigating them.

There was a time when Method Statements balloned and contained a large number of standard risks and formulaic precautions etc such that there was no value being added (wearing of standard PPE such as hard hat, wearing "all orange", safety booots etc., warning about slip /trips/falls etc - all very true and important but "nothing special". I believed that all this regurgitated stuff has been stripped out of each separate Method Statement and are purely cross referenced as generic risks, thus slimming down to cncentrate on what really is special about this actual work so that corrrect focus is given, rather than being lost amongst all the standard stuff.

So I think the quick answer is "YES, but may not look like it may have done in the past"


(14-02-2014, 05:20 PM)oxfordjack1 Wrote: Should method statement include of risk assessement of the wok?

Thank you.

My view is that what is briefed to the people doing the work should include all of the relevant thing that enable them to do it safely. This means that they should be told about the precautions or control measures that they must take or carry out but they do not need to know about the things that have been discounted. To this end, I do not think that it should contain the full risk assessment.

I can quote you a real life example of the sort of thing I mean from my induction to site for a well known (notorious) commissioning at Brookwood many years ago. Raring to go we were rounded up ready to get the brief in a very warm room and after much waiting, the brief started and we were told all about the problem of being hit by a train only to be told that there were no trains running. the heading of Giant Hogweed came up and we were told that the whole site had been reviewed and he was glad to say that there was none. That would have been fine, but he then went on to detail all of the precautions and control measures that we would have had to carry out, if they had found some.

The point of having rigorous management processes around the production of the documents is to give the users confidence that the right bits have been considered. The document that is given to them therefore needs to tell them what they need to know not how that has been arrived at.

One clear element of the HSE's guidance on designer's risk assessment for CDM in the UK is that copious lists of generic hazards add no value (and in fact there is the veiled warning that inclusion of such is a demonstration that the producer is not competent!). It should include the elements that are unusual or significant and those that a competent person wold not expect necessarily to be present. The same applies to methods of work. I suggest that someone trained and experienced in the trackside environment would not need to be told to take care not to trip over the rails, but would have the open drainage ditch highlighted to them.

Peter
Reply
#4
The answer is YES

There are two categories of Risks included Work Package Planning process in UK Mainline Rail. (We have not used the term method statement for a number of years).

Site Risks and Activity Risks (Site risks occur by a presence at a specific location whereas Activity risks occur by an activity being undertaken)

Site Risks are captured from sources such as the Hazard Directory, Asbestos Register, Health and Safety File, Local Knowledge etc)

Examples are Asbestos, Slips and Trips, Electrification (3rd rail and OHLE), Train Movements, Needles, Human waste and rubbish etc

Activity Risks are captured by HSQE assessments and experience.

Examples are ,you must wear a mask when welding, tools in electrified areas must be insulated, excavations require permits to dig, etc

It could be argued some risks fit in both, slips trips and falls for example.

The Construction Phase Plan (In the hierachy of Safety Documentation this sits above the Works Package Plan) will contain a comprehensive list of risks based upon the contractors usual works and experience. The idea is to "draw down" the risks from this into the Works Package Plan for the specific works. So a WPP for surveying would only draw down risks associated with surveying, and a Test and Commissioning WPP would have test and commissioning risks.

Below the WPP is the Task Brief (The bit of paper that you have in your back pocket when working on site) should follow the same process but be even more targeted (as Peter said) as to what risks to include to avoid overloading the workers with spurious information.

The best place to start is the Network Rail Standard which provides a template that includes examples of what the content of WPP should be, (obviously refer to the Risk Sections).

Footnote: In my experience the understanding of the entire process within Network Rail is very poor and we are drifting towards "blanket bombing" to get documents approved which was the precise reason why we did away with method statements. People seem to think the more you put in the better, which I totally disagree with, my opinion is to be clear and specific, but you must form your own opinion.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)