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.
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.