Level 3 Guidance: Principles for Implementation of NR/L2/OHS/019 - Safety of people at work on or near the line Route Businesses

Transcription

1 Level 3 Guidance: Principles for Implementation of NR/L2/OHS/019 - Safety of people at work on or near the line Route Businesses Version Date Comments June 2017 First issued document June 2017 Updated deconflication diagram for scenario 3 Updated Contingent labour PiC FAQ response Updated guidance on PiC SWP authorisation New section advising where to find SSOWPS materials Five corrections to the guidance on creating a SWP June 2017 Clarification on the PiC verification & checking process of the SWP Moved the Q&A to the end of each section of the document SWP example presented in a clearer format Page 1 of 57

2 Contents 1 Glossary... 4 Table 1 Definitions... 4 Table 2 Abbreviations Introduction... 8 Purpose... 8 Scope The safe work pack... 8 What is the Safe Work Pack?... 8 Summary guidance on a good, acceptable and unacceptable SWP When is a SWP required? Roles or specific groups do not require a SWP Incident response packs Roles and responsibilities The Responsible Manager The Planner The Person in Charge Person in Charge and incident response Defining and understanding Person in Charge capability Work planning and risk assessment Task risk identification Hierarchy of control for operational risks Crossing the line protection (CTLP) under special arrangements De-conflicting sites of work East Midlands deconfliction process SSOWPS guidance Acceptance of the safe work pack(s) Delivering an effective brief The safe system of work planning process in normal circumstances Planning line blockages Availability of protection for work Green zone guide Possession planning Publication of possessions & line blockages in weekly operating notices Clarification of roles and responsibilities Possession Support Staff Safe systems of work for possession management / support staff Safe systems of work for isolations, earthing and strapping operations Monitoring and assurance Compliance and assurance Page 2 of 57

3 Compliance process Document retention Appendicies Safe Work Pack (Form F01.1) Incident Response Pack form RT9909/IRP Line blockage form NR Subsidiary document Task risk document Page 3 of 57

4 1 GLOSSARY Table 1 Definitions Term Acceptance Authorisation Creation Capability Direct risk to the safe running of the operational railway Lineside National hazard directory Off lineside On or near the line Person in Charge Definition The act of the on-site Person in Charge who will be on site, agreeing with and accepting the SWP once it has been authorised by the Responsible Manager. The act of a Responsible Manager checking with the Person in Charge that everything required for the SWP to be enacted is in place. The act of a Planner starting a plan. It will be initiated by a Responsible Manager identifying work, and requesting the Planner to create a SWP. To possess the right attitude and skills that enables the Person in Charge to assist in planning and manage implementation of the SWP. Direct risks include activities taking place adjacent to the operational railway which could cause unintentional obstruction of the running line or, unintentional contact with the OLE or 3 rd /4 th rail. Direct risk does not include signalling, telecoms or E&P activities carried out on the lineside or off lineside. These activities and risks to the safe running of the operational railway shall be managed using existing standards and procedures. The area from 3m from the running rail to the railway boundary. A database that identifies the hazards on Network Rail s controlled infrastructure. It also contains access point information and information about other structures or buildings on the infrastructure. Outside of the railway boundary. You are deemed to be on or near the line if you are: within 3 metres (10 feet) of a line and there is no permanent fence or structure between you and the line on the line itself You are not on or near the line if you are on a station platform unless you are carrying out engineering or technical work within 1.25 metres (4 feet) of the platform edge. A person involved in the planning and who is on site where the work is being undertaken and has the overall accountability of supervising and overseeing works. This person will normally be the team leader (or equivalent) and hold COSS competence to make sure planned controls are put in place to keep persons safe from trains, activity and site risks. Page 4 of 57

5 Planner Possession management / support staff Protection Runaway risk Responsible Manager Safe system of work Safe work leader Safe work pack Site of work The role which creates the safe work pack. Staff that undertake duties associated with the management of the possession. Previously referred to as Green Zone. This refers to a site of work blocked to traffic, a site of work separated from running lines by fence and/or a site of work separated by demarcation (e.g. site warden), allowing staff to work protected from trains as defined in the rule book. A site is deemed to be at risk from runaways if the worksite is on a gradient in excess of 1 in 100 or has a gradient greater than 1 in 100 above the worksite and within 5 miles of it the worksite is a static one within a possession the work taking place within the worksite is on or near the line It should be noted the requirements above have been developed from analysis of previous incidents over a number of years, no runaways have occurred at gradients less than 1 in 100 and no Runaway has travelled in excess of 5 miles Further information is contained at: The person accountable for the appointment of a competent and capable Person in Charge. The person responsible for the management of staff who will work on or near the line. Examples of Responsible Managers are Section Manager, Section Supervisor, Local Operations Manager, On Call Manager and Designate Line Manager. In most cases Responsible Managers will also perform the role of authorising the safe work pack. A method of working that includes arrangements to so that those who are to walk or work on or near the line are not put in danger by: passing trains or movements; entry to and exit from railway infrastructure; walking on or near the line; walking to or from a site of work; setting up and withdrawing protection or warning arrangements; and carrying out work. The role of an employee of Network Rail, a principal contractor who holds a trackside principal contractor licence or a contractor who has gained a railway contractors certificate, who manages safe delivery of work. As a minimum they hold a valid COSS competence. A pack of information used by a Person in Charge that provides the safety arrangements for all work to be undertaken on site. The location of work detailed within the SWP. Not to be confused with the term Worksite that is in reference to Engineering Supervisor s activities. An ES worksite may contain several sites of work detailed Page 5 of 57

6 Task risk control sheets Verify Verification Warning Weekly Operating Notice (WON) Worksite & Site of Work within several SWP s. Network Rail document based on infrastructure maintenance task(s) that describe the risks associated with the work, the controls for those risks and the person(s) responsible for implementing the controls in accordance with NR/L3/MTC/RCS/ Risk Control Manual. A review of the SWP to confirm the details in it are accurate, appropriate and fit for purpose for the work to be undertaken. The verification of the SWP is done by a Person in Charge after receiving the plan and adding the task(s) risk controls. The SWP is then handed to the Responsible Manager. Previously referred to as Red Zone. This refers to a site of work where staff are not separated from train movements but are alerted in adequate time to the approach of a train to enable them to move to a place of safety. This warning can be delivered via human or automated track warning systems Referred to as the WON. The official notice referred to in rules and regulations for giving details of: Temporary speed restrictions Engineering arrangements Signalling and permanent way alterations Amendments to National Operational Publications (NOPs), Sectional Appendices and other notices Worksite A worksite is the portion of line within a possession under the jurisdiction of an Engineering Supervisor (ES). The ES is also responsible for authorising every IWA or COSS to set up their safe system of work within their worksite. The ES will agree track access arrangements. The requirements are detailed in: GE/RT/8000/HB9 & GE/RT/8000/HB12. Site of work The site of work is the location where the work will take place. The requirements are detailed in: GE/RT/8000/HB9. Page 6 of 57

7 Table 2 Abbreviations Abbreviation ASPRO COSS ES GZAC GZAM IWA PC PCL PDSW PiC PICOP PL PPS PSS RCC RM RSD SCM SSoW SSoWP SWL SWM SWP WON Description Asset Protection Controller Of Site Safety Engineering Supervisor Green Zone Access Co-ordinator Green Zone Access Management Individual Working Alone Protection Controller Principal Contractor Licence Planning and Delivering Safe Work Person in Charge Person In Charge Of Possession Planner Possession Planning System Possession Support Staff Railway Contractors Certificate Responsible Manager Route Services Director Single Controlling Mind Safe System of Work Safe System of Work Pack Safe Work Leader Safe Work Manager Safe Work Pack Weekly Operating Notice Page 7 of 57

8 2 INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on how the requirements of NR/L2/OHS/019 Safety of people at work on or near the line should be delivered within Network Rail Route Businesses. This document is complementary to NR/L2/OHS/019 Safety of people at work on or near the line standard and can be used in conjunction with existing rule books, regulations, legislation, standards, processes and procedures. Scope This document defines the principles and processes for: Applying the role of a Person in Charge Provision of appropriate information to support the control of site risk, which is provided and accepted by the Person in Charge in advance of work. Planning work to be implemented at any Network Rail site of work. Work is defined as construction, testing, inspection, maintenance, replacement, disposal or commissioning of Network Rail infrastructure or assets (including the delivery and use of materials, tools, equipment, plant and vehicles to facilitate such work) Assessing and communicating the operational, location and task(s) risks for the work to be completed, and identifying appropriate controls Allocating the responsibilities and accountabilities of personnel with respect to planning, on-site safety and the management and communication of operational, location and task(s) risk Documenting lessons learned and performing assurance checks to encourage ongoing improvement of the planning and delivering of safe systems of work. 3 THE SAFE WORK PACK What is the Safe Work Pack? The existing Safe System of Work Pack (SSoWP) will be enhanced and will become a Safe Work Pack (SWP). This provides information on how work shall be carried out safely and gives details on how to manage and control task(s) (activity), site and operational risks. The SWP enables the effective management and implementation of controls for the safety of people involved or may be affected by the work activities on or near the line, or which may affect the line. The minimum contents of a SWP will be: A cover sheet confirming adherence to this guidance note, including the name of the Person in Charge. Form F01.1fulfils this criteria A part completed RT9909 (see the Rule Book GE/RT8000) or recognised equivalent A part completed RT3181 form(s) (where blockage(s) of the line are part of the SSOW) Page 8 of 57

9 Information and controls that will allow safe access and egress, including walking to and from site Relevant specific task(s) risk information and controls required (e.g. Task Risk Control Sheets, work package plans or task briefing sheets or relevant extracts) including location risk such as the management of runaway risk Relevant permits, where applicable, such as permit to Dig, Lifting Plans, Electrical, Isolation, Hot Works, Confined Spaces, etc. Details of the possession arrangements, including protection arrangements (where appropriate) Extracts from the Sectional Appendix showing the relevant running lines, track layout and work location for the entire mileage for which the work group will be on or near the line Extracts from the National Hazard Directory that are relevant to the work and location (these may be included on the RT9909 form) Additional signalling or track diagrams (where appropriate) Details of the welfare arrangements Emergency and first aid arrangements The information contained in the SWP should be concise, specific and relevant to the task(s) and location of where the work is being undertaken. The SWP should provide clear information that the Person in Charge can effectively use to control the risks to themselves, those working under their supervision and the operational railway. The production of a SWP will include collaboration between the Responsible Manager, Planner, the Person in Charge and persons with any necessary technical expertise and familiarity with the task(s) and risks involved. The Person in Charge will verify the suitability and fitness for purpose of the SWP a minimum of one shift in advance of when the work is to take place. To verify the SWP, the Person in Charge shall conduct a thorough check of the information that is contained within it, making sure that it contains the necessary information detailed above and also does not contradict the best practice. When checking the SWP, the Person in Charge should consider and confirm that the SWP; Effectively identifies the task(s), site and operational risks associated with the work and how they will be managed; Contains the correct information for operational safety arrangements, e.g. correct protection limits/signal numbers, isolation limits, possession information. Is not unnecessarily long or contains information that is not relevant to the work. Where COSS duties have been delegated, the Person in Charge will provide the COSS with an opportunity to check the operational safety element of the pack during verification and make sure that the COSS completes a review of the pack, confirming the details are correct and can be implemented. If the COSS is satisfied with the operational safety management information they will endorse the F01.1 form in the relevant section. If the COSS is not satisfied with the operational safety element of the SWP, they will return it to the Person in Charge, informing them of the errors and changes required. The Person in Charge will make arrangements for the pack to be amended, after which they again provide the COSS with an opportunity to conduct their check. Page 9 of 57

10 Where the COSS duties are delegated the Person in Charge shall only complete the verification of the SWP once the COSS has endorsed the F01 form. Without the COSS endorsement, the verification process cannot be completed. Where the Person in Charge is not satisfied with any element of the SWP they must return it to the Planner. When returning the pack to the Planner an explanation of required amendments will be provided to enable the Planner to make appropriate changes to the SWP. Where a SWP is reissued with amendments, the verification and authorisation process will be applied again. Once the Person in Charge is happy with the contents of the SWP and has necessary endorsements, they shall complete the verification section of the F01.1 form and return the SWP to the Responsible Manager for authorisation. At least one shift before the work is due to be undertaken the Responsible Manager will undertake a review of the SWP and check that the Person in Charge has completed their verification. As a minimum this should check that the F01 form has been correctly completed. The Responsible Manager can also speak with the Person in Charge directly to confirm their understanding of the SWP contents and how it will be implemented. When the Responsible Manager is satisfied with the SWP and verification they will authorise it for use by completing the relevant section of the F01 form, after which they shall return it to the Person in Charge. Before implementing the SWP on site, the Person in Charge will carry out a final check, comparing the details within the SWP against the site conditions. Question: At what point does a delegated COSS need to validate the SWP? Response: The delegated COSS should work with the person in charge to check the operational safety element of the SWP. This should be undertaken during the planning stage of the work and not at the time the work is being undertaken. The delegated COSS should endorse the SWP during person in charge verification and should do this in collaboration with the person in charge. The delegated COSS should interact primarily with the person in charge as it is the person in charge who needs to verify the SWP to assure themselves that the arrangements are suitable and sufficient. Where a person in charge has decided to delegate COSS responsibilities, this needs to be done during the planning of the SWP to enable COSS endorsement during the verification at least one shift in advance. Question: What information is required for welfare in the new SWP? Response: The welfare standard has not changed. Your welfare arrangements should be compliant with the NR The Provision of Welfare Facilities standard NR/L3/INI/CP0036 In SSOWPS you can now identify what the welfare provision will be for the task. This provision should be based on the CP36 Welfare standard. A link to the welfare standard and a useful matrix is provided within SSOWPS. The person in charge will help the Planner to choose appropriate welfare facilities if required. Each of the routes is working on a plan to improve welfare facilities, so provision for welfare is expected to improve over time. Question: What information is required for first aid in the new SWP? Response: Your first aid and emergency arrangements should be compliant with the NR First Aid at Work standard NR/L2/OHS/00110 and should include the name and location of the nearest hospital, the name of a first aider, and any special arrangements. Page 10 of 57

11 The Person in Charge may support you with details of what s most appropriate for the work. You don t have to identify a fully trained first aider. It s great if a member of the team is, but you can also have a first aid appointed person who will take control in an emergency, they will call the emergency services, and assist the injured person. Question: Do you need to have the same PiC (i.e. the same individual) to verify the SWP and deliver PiC duties on a worksite or can this be two different people (i.e. a PiC)? Response: It is difficult to answer this question purely using the terms The and A as people use the terms interchangeably for the same meaning, sometimes referring to the person who verifies the SWP, and sometimes referring to the person who leads the work on site. During the production phase of the SWP, The/A PiC will be involved by collaboratively working with the Planner and the Responsible Manager. This same PiC will VERIFY the SWP at least once shift in advance. It is good practice that the PiC who verified the SWP is also the same PiC that accepts the SWP at the time of the work, i.e. the person involved in the planning is the same Person in Charge of the workgroup on the shift. However, we recognise that under certain circumstances, such as short term illness. It may be necessary for a different PiC to the original to accept the SWP, once it has been verified. This is acceptable providing this new PiC has had the necessary time to satisfy themselves that the SWP is suitable for the tasks in hand, the site conditions and geography and operational considerations. One of the measures of the revised standard will be to identify on how many occasions the same Person in Charge who verified the pack, also accepted it at the site of work. In summary: The PiC verifying has to have been involved in the production of the SWP and verify at least one shift in advance. The PiC accepting and leading the work on site has to have had time to satisfy themselves that the SWP is suitable before work begins. Summary guidance on a good, acceptable and unacceptable SWP The table below details what is a good, acceptable and unacceptable safe work pack. Full guidance on what should be contained within a Safe Work Pack is contained in the appendix. Page 11 of 57

12 Work Information Description Roles Planning the SSOW Planner and Person in Charge relationship Task(s) Risk Considerations Task(s) Risk Controls Good Acceptable Unacceptable References the relevant plan number and indicates on the F01 whether it is a cyclic, repeat or non-cyclic SWP. Contains specific details about the access point, mileages and worksite details A specific description of the activity, including the discipline/asset involved and the task(s), suggesting the competences needed, e.g. "Plain line Basic Visual Inspection of track". The Planner, Responsible Manager and Person in Charge are all different people. The Person in Charge who is the verifier is the same person as the one on site delivering the work. The Planner and the Responsible can be the same person. Conveys an understanding of the discipline/asset involved and gives an idea of the generic activity, e.g. "Track Patrolling". The Planner and Responsible Manager are being the same person (as long as the Responsible Manager holds core planning skills). The on-site Person in Charge is different from the verifier. The on-site Person in Charge must always be the acceptor Contains errors, or has a duplicate pack number or uses generic information. Uses generic terms that don't specify discipline/asset or specific task(s) involved e.g. "Inspection". One person doing all elements, or the elements being done out of order. Under no circumstances can one person be the verifier and authoriser. Whatever SSOW that is The safe system of work is The SSOW is not adequate for the location adequate for the location appropriate for the work and task(s). This is what and task(s). The SSOW and/or location. For example happens now. The SSOW planning process relies on carrying out work that affects planning process always warning system more than the safety of the line. tries to implement protection systems or the protection arrangement protection system does not with additional protection. use additional protection. The Planner and the Person in Charge sit alongside each other and create the plan together. The interaction of the Planner and Person in Charge is done via a phonecall, an with pdf attachment, or SWP is left in pigeon hole. This must be done with enough time for the SWP to be reviewed and accepted to prior to authorisation. Need to make sure that expectations on feedback is clear to provide improvement to the process A Person in Charge is not appointed or involved in the planning, and the verify section is signed on the shift that the work is planned for. The first consideration should be to eliminate risk. This could be using a machine if feasible. If the risk has been eliminated, controls do not need to be put in place. Remember though, there may be a consequence of eliminating the risk, for example, if using a machine instead of carrying out a task manually, AN exclusion zone may be required. Follow principles of eliminate, reduce, isolate & control Task(s) Risk control sheets and any permits included, e.g. lift plans. Good practice is having controls (such as Task(s) SWPs should not be full of paper just for the sake of it, but if in doubt, it is always better to have the paperwork included in the SWP than left out, but do not include things in the pack that are Inadequate controls with inappropriate delegated owners. It would be very unusual for an adequate SWP to have no specific risk control measures. Page 12 of 57

13 Working alongside others - Engineering Worksites Working on one activity with more than one function (1 job with different functions) Welfare Arrangements Risk Control Sheets) for all not specific and relevant to risks that are specific and the task(s) or site. It is best relevant to the planned to seek advice from work. E.g. HAVS, noise someone experienced in the and ballast dust. discipline and task(s) in this instance. The Person in Charge works with the Planner and reviews all task(s) risk controls submitted by other work owners. Any work groups that have planned activity with risks that have the potential to conflict are contacted, and a solution is determined by all parties (de-confliction) and records are made of the outcomes. This might involve different staging (timing) of the works, or cancellation. Deconfliction is to take place at T-5 weeks. The work owner contacts the different functions to get the task(s) risks for inclusion and delegated risk owners/controller are identified. These are provided by the different functions in writing with all risks and controls detailed on it. work owner for inclusion in the SWP before T-5 weeks for any potential deconfliction considerations. The Planner works with a Responsible Manager to plan the de-confliction. It is possible that a manager would manage all the deconfliction before appointing an ES. Lockdown is at T-10 days. The function could have a templated task(s) risk sheet for each activity, for example, changing a plain line rail for the welding department. Each time it is needed, the SWP reference and date/time of planned work is added, along with This is supplied to the delegated risk owner/controller, then submitted to work owner. Welfare arrangements (such as fixed facilities, portable facilities) are identified, along with the location. Additional facilities, such as messing facilities, first aid arrangements and other emergency arrangements are clearly identified and linked to the task(s) risks. Secondary deployed. Runaway Risk Mitigation to prevent runaway or replanning of work to eliminate risk including use of facing points to mitigate risk. Welfare arrangements are provided, but consist of breaks planned every 2 hours with no more than 20 minutes travel to the facility. Potential conflicts identified and not addressed OR the other work owners do not submit task(s) risk information for inclusion or not reviewed. Nonemergency work is planned inside T-10 days, and has to be managed through late change process, thus disrupting all planned work. No task(s) risk information is submitted to work owner or only generic site risks such as "slips, trips and falls", and does not reference any risks and control measures associated with their work element. Inadequate controls with inappropriate delegated owners. The SWP does not consider welfare or make provision for the workforce. It is not acceptable to state 'Go behind a tree', or rely on the use of the nearest public conveniences. warning Have not considered runaway risk and/or no mitigation applied. If SWP falls in this column, tick "No" and return the SWP Page 13 of 57

14 When is a SWP required? On Network Rail infrastructure or assets within scope of this document (clause 2.2), no work shall be undertaken by any individual or group without a valid SWP when work is being undertaken either: On or near the line, Has the potential to disrupt or import a direct risk to the safe running of the operational railway (e.g. adjacent to the operational railway which could cause unintentional obstruction of the running line or, unintentional contact with the OLE or 3 rd /4 th rail), or Imports a direct risk to the safe running of the operational railway. This can also involve works that are being undertaken on the lineside or off lineside All staff who are at work and walking to a place of work to undertake work which needs a SWP need to consider the safe access and egress arrangements and any relevant controls required. These should be contained within the SWP for the work. In all circumstances if additional controls are required to walk on the infrastructure (e.g. line blockage or other protection or warning methods) then a SWP is required. Roles or specific groups do not require a SWP The following do not need a SWP: A Signaller who can work under their own protection; and Designated Persons (DP) continue to work to existing operational standards. The following emergency services, responding to an emergency do not require a SWP: Fire; Police; Ambulance; Coast guard; and Bomb disposal Question: Is a SWP needed for walking on or near the line? Response: No. You are not required to have a SWP if you are walking on or near the line in order to join a team already at work. It is good practice to have a copy of the SWP for that team and be familiar with the work being performed and therefore the risks associated with your journey to that worksite (including worksites you may be travelling through). The revised 019 standard does not change the rulebook requirements, walking is still permitted. Incident response packs Where the Person in Charge is directed to respond to an incident, they may plan their own SWP in accordance with the procedure specified in NR/L2/OHS/019/mod01. A SWP produced in this way is known as an Incident Response Pack (IRP). Page 14 of 57

15 The incident response pack (IRP) will be completed on site by the Person in Charge and should include the information normally found in a SWP as well as including the incident number provide by Route/fault control. The Person in Charge shall return the IRP at the earliest opportunity, no later than 1 week following the completion of the work, to either the: a) designated Planner; or b) Responsible Manager where there is no designated Planner. Page 15 of 57

16 4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The NR/L2/OHS/019 Safety of people at work on or near the line Network Rail sets out requirements for how work should be safely planned. Everyone who carries out work on NR infrastructure or assets has responsibilities and duties under this standard. It is important that each person is adequately trained and knows exactly what those responsibilities and duties are. The table below provides a summary outlining the role description and the supporting competence required. Role Role Description Supporting Competence Planner Person creating the SWP Safe System of Work Planner Verifier A Person in Charge who verifies the contents of the SWP in advance of authorisation. Authoriser Responsible Manager authorising the SWP and accountable for its content. Acceptor Person accepting the SWP and responsible for working to the agreed arrangements on site. This will be the on site Person in Charge. Returner Person responsible for returning the SWP and highlighting errors in the SWP or lessons learned. This will be the on-site Person in Charge at the end of the shift. COSS (or IWA when working alone) Is job post specific; Examples of Responsible Managers are Section Manager, Section Supervisor, Local Operations Manager, Operations Delivery Manager, On Call Manager and Designate Line Manager COSS (or IWA when working alone) COSS (or IWA when working alone) Page 16 of 57

17 Page 17 of 57

18 The Responsible Manager The Responsible Manager (RM) is accountable for the preparation of the SWP and this will be delegated to the person identified to undertake the Planner role in the process. The RM decides how work is prioritised, planned and delivered. The RM shall provide the Planner with the necessary tools, documents, and guidance to enable them to perform their role. The RM will nominate a Person in Charge to: The RM shall: Support the Planner in creating the SWP with the inclusion of adequate operational, task(s) and location risk assessments; and Verify the safe system of work (SSOW) information and to add the appropriate task(s) risk and control information to the SWP. Nominate a capable Person in Charge to undertake the work; Shall assure themselves that the Person in Charge nominated is familiar with the location, type of work and protection/warning arrangements; Make the necessary resources (including equipment, people and time) available to the Person in Charge to allow them to carry out the work safely and in line with the SWP; Monitor the standard of SWP planning and investigate any issues raised by Planners or persons in charge. A RM may authorise a request by the Person in Charge to implement an SWP at a lower level in the hierarchy of SSOW than planned provided they have sufficient understanding of the relevant rules, standards and the arrangements for the work to make an informed decision. A record of this authorisation will be kept on the returned SWP. For cyclical/repeat task(s)s, the RM shall verify the accuracy and appropriateness of each SWP in consultation with a Person in Charge who is familiar with the area and the task(s). Once satisfied with the SWP the RM may authorise it to be implemented repeatedly without further verification by a Person in Charge or authorisation by the RM for either a; The Planner 6 month period where the SWP may contain an element of working with warning; or 12 month period where the SWP is prepared for working under protection only. The person nominated to act as Planner in this process is responsible for planning the work in accordance with the priorities set by the RM. The Planner shall create a proposed SSOW applying the principles of the Hierarchy of Safe Systems of Work. The Planner shall be: be assessed and certified as competent as a: Safe System of Work Planner; or Planning and Delivering of Safe Work Planner; or where they do not hold the Safe System of Work Planner competence, they shall work under the authority of a Responsible Manager. In this case the Responsible Manager shall hold the Safe System of Work Planner competence. To assist them in creating the SSOW elements of the SWP, Planners shall have access to, and extract information from, documents such as: The Sectional Appendix; The National Hazard Directory; Page 18 of 57

19 Signalling diagrams & track diagrams. The Planner shall check all completed and implemented SWPs returned for recorded lessons learnt: errors and changes. Any lessons learnt shall be noted for correction in all future planning, and all incorrect plans shall be withdrawn. Where the standard requires the Planner to apply for a worksite through the Possession Planning System, this application can be done through the Access Coordinator on the Planner s behalf. The Planner will be supported by the Responsible Manager: in creating the SWP with the inclusion of adequate operational, task(s) and location risk assessments. Person in Charge: in confirming the Hierarchy of SSOW is appropriate for the delivering the task(s) safely in the operational environment; and providing the task(s) risk assessment and identification of appropriate controls for inclusion in the SWP. Access Co-ordinator: in obtaining the required disruptive track access through Route Services on behalf of the Infrastructure Maintenance organisation, liaising with the Planner until the access has been secured. Green Zone Access Co-ordinator: in arranging the required track access using the Green Zone Access Management system (GZAM) for work taking place in less than 8 weeks from the request date or for work which is not required to be published in the Weekly Operating Notice (WON). They shall respond to the Planner (requester) within a reasonable time period with regards to what track access has been secured. Route Planning Specialist: in arranging the required track access using the Possession Planning System (PPS) for work which is required to be published in the WON or takes place in over 8 weeks from the request date. They shall respond to Planner (requester) within a reasonable time period. Question: Are any changes being made to interface between SSOWPS and GZAM? Response: No. There are no changes in the way SSOWPS interfaces with GZAM in V2.5 of the SSOWPS software. The Person in Charge The Person in Charge is accountable for all activities within a site of work as defined within the SWP. The PiC may delegate task(s) risk controls, and in certain circumstances may delegate COSS responsibilities. In both instances, they will retain accountability. Delegation of COSS duties will only occur with prior agreement of the Responsible Manager. A person in Charge: Will be involved in the planning of the work, and will be responsible for verifying the SWP Must hold COSS (or IWA if working alone) as a minimum, and be designated capable to act in the role by the line manager Is accountable for protecting their own safety and the safety of persons in the work group from the risk of being struck by trains (Operational Risk) and the risks associated with undertaking the task(s), including any site risks Shall be experienced in leading a team while working on an open line, in a line blockage, on the lineside or off lineside. To support this requirement the Person in Charge will hold either a valid; COSS certification; or IWA certification where they are required to go on or near the line alone. Page 19 of 57

20 Under no circumstances shall the Person in Charge allow any work to commence, or continue, where they are not competent to undertake the duties or where adequate safety arrangements cannot be established or maintained. The Person in Charge shall also have an understanding of the work activity and knowledge of the site/location where the work is to take place. This is to enable them to effectively support the planning and implementation of the SWP. A Person in Charge shall support the Planner in: confirming the Hierarchy of SSOW is appropriate for the delivering the task(s) safely in the operational environment providing the task(s) risk assessment and identification of appropriate controls for inclusion in the SWP Once the Person in Charge has assured themselves of the sufficiency of its contents, they shall verify the SWP, and record this on the SWP Validation form - NR/L2/OHS/019/F01. The onsite Person in Charge (the person who accepts the SWP and undertakes the work) may delegate the responsibility of COSS duties to a suitably qualified person. However, this delegation is planned in advance and requires prior agreement and authorisation from a Responsible Manager. Where the role of COSS is delegated and planned not to be undertaken by the Person in Charge, the verification of the SWP will still be undertaken by the Person in Charge but that verification will include endorsement by the nominated COSS on the SWP validation form. However, the Person in Charge will retain accountability for safety from operational and task risks at all times. The Person in Charge shall return all completed and implemented SWPs and/or IRPs to the Planner, highlighting the safety arrangements implemented and any lessons learned or changes that were required. The Person in Charge will also return all unused SWPs to the Planner, with a comment detailing the reason it was not used in section 5 of the SWP Validation form - NR/L2/OHS/019/F01. Question: Do Individuals Working Alone (IWA) need a COSS competence to become a Person in Charge? Response: No. The standard is clear that an IWA acts as a PiC when they are an IWA. An IWA cannot be a PiC for a team of people, in such case the PiC must hold COSS/SWL. Question: Why is SWL only being used in IP and not in Route Businesses? Response: The new 019 standard requires all parts of the industry to operate to a consistent framework for the first time and therefore both IP and Route Businesses are required to undertake work using a Person in Charge (PiC). IP have consulted with their suppliers and workforce and as a result of this have decided that they would use the Safe Work Leader (SWL) competence as the requirement for the role being performed by the PiC. Please note: Should Works Delivery operate as principal contractor they will utilise their staff as Persons in Charge underpinned by team leader as COSS. I.e. Works Delivery staff do not require Safe Work Leader competence. Question: Will Network Rail supply chain partners need to use both a PiC with SWL or COSS when undertaking work for IP and Route Businesses on separate jobs? Response: Yes. All work being undertaken on or near the line requires a PiC to be in place. For work being undertaken for across the majority of Network Rail activity, the Person in Charge will hold the COSS competence. The exception to this is for work being undertaken for IP the supply chain who will exercise this through the use of a SWL. Page 20 of 57

21 It is recommended that the supply chain schedule staff in a way that they would be consistent in working for either a Route or Infrastructure Projects. We do not recommend that staff change from working in Route Businesses under a PiC and then in Infrastructure Projects with a SWL. Question: Can a member of the contingent labour workforce undertaking work in Route Businesses (i.e. maintenance work on a route) perform the role of a Person in Charge? Response: Yes. A member of the contingent labour can perform the role of PiC providing the following criteria are met: They have been allocated to be the person in charge by the Primary Sponsor s Responsible Manager for that work (i.e. NR / PC or RCC organisation) They have been involved in the planning of the work They have the appropriate local knowledge They deliver the work on the night i.e. it must be the same PiC who plans and delivers the work Question: What information will the Person in Charge have available to brief task risk? Response: The new version of SSOWPS (v2.5) contains a list of all task risk controls that may be applicable for the work being planned. The PiC should work with the Planner to identify those that are most relevant to the work being planned to control the significant risks on site. The identified task risks will be listed in the SWP and it is the responsibility of the PiC to ensure an relevant task risk briefing is conducted at site. SSOWPS v2.5 provides hyperlinks to the task risk control sheets to enable the PiC to print them out in advance if required. Question: Can changes be made to a SWP on site? Response: Yes. Changes can be made to the SWP at site, but this should be the exception rather than the normal. Adding additional task risk controls or going up the hierarchy can be done by the Person in Charge without approval but must be recorded on the SWP. Any changes that weaken the SWP i.e. going down the hierarchy, removing task controls or delegating COSS responsibilities needs to be approved in advance by the Responsible Manager or on call Manager and will require and authority number. Question: What duties is an individual unable to perform whilst being a Person in Charge? Response: Rulebook requirements relating to duties have not changed and in all circumstances a Person in Charge cannot and must NOT be a lookout / site warden. The critical part is for the Responsible Manager and the Person in Charge to have planned the work to be able to be delivered by the staff undertaking the work. During planning this enables the Person in Charge to make sure the right people with the right competencies are provided to enable the arrangements documented in the SWP to be implemented as planned.. If the Person in Charge feels they cannot effectively implement the SWP then this should discussed during the planning of the work. If an individual is unhappy with the duties assigned they should reject the SWP during the verification process and where a suitable resolution is not forthcoming invoke the Work Safe Procedure. Question: When individuals are signing a SWP briefing, what are they agreeing to? Response: On signing the SWP, individuals are indicating that they have received a briefing on the work being undertaken, the risks and mitigating controls and they are happy to undertake the work being proposed. The new SWP explicitly includes a section on the proposed controls to mitigate the risk of injury from conducting the task i.e. the risk from working at height. Question: Will the Person in Charge be identified by wearing an armband or helmet when on site? Page 21 of 57

22 Response: There is no requirement for the Person in Charge on site to wear a form of identification. Because the Person in Charge will make sure everyone on site has been briefed they will be known to everyone who has signed into the safe system of work as documented in the SWP. The COSS armband will remain in place in IP when using a SWL competence, the SWL armband will be utilised. IP track are currently trialling the use of a black helmet to identify supervisors. This is additional to the use of armbands to identify SWLs. As part of a post implementation review the programme will consider using different colour helmets for the Person in Charge. Person in Charge and incident response When directing staff to an incident, the Route/Fault Control deploy the appropriate resources to attend. The first competent person to arrive will undertake the role of Person in Charge. However, as the incident progresses it may be appropriate to change the Person in Charge if a more appropriate person arrives on site. This decision will be discussed by both the initial Person in Charge and the person nominated to take over the responsibility. Where it is agreed that the Person in Charge is to be changed, Route/Fault Control shall be updated by the initial Person in Charge and shall be informed of; The name of the new Person in Charge; The company that the new Person in Charge is employed by; Their department; and Contact details (phone number minimum) that they can be reached on This information will be confirmed through use of safety critical communications protocols to confirm the change of arrangements on site. Question: How should the return of the IRP paperwork be managed? Response: The Person in Charge is responsible for returning the IRP at the earliest opportunity; this should be no later than 1 week after the incident. Completed paperwork should be returned to the designated Planner or Responsible Manager. The Responsible Manager is accountable for the storage of IRP in accordance with NR/L3/INF/ corporate records retention schedule. Defining and understanding Person in Charge capability Capability when referred to in this document is determined by three factors: Competent: This often refers to certificated competence. In the case of the Planner and person-in-charge, it refers to successful completion and mentoring of the Safe System of Work Planner or COSS/IWA courses and subsequent successful retention of competence through the company s Skills Assessment Scheme. Competence also refers to being aware of any updates to a process, for example, being briefed on issue 9 of NR/L2/OHS/019. Experienced: Once someone is newly competent in a task, they will need to gain experience in the activity. Formal mentorship is a requirement for several competencies, but experience is important for all activities as it allows a person to understand their own limitations. Many elements of work can change within standard tasks on the railway depending what the differing conditions are. So there is a lot to consider when assessing if someone is experienced in a situation or not, i.e., it is not only the task, but also things like resource available, weather conditions and familiarity with team or location that affect someone s experience. The best judge of an individual s experience is often their line manager, and this is why continual communication and the annual capability conversation (ACC) are important. Page 22 of 57

23 Equipped: On face value, this refers to tools, apparatus and clothing that someone has to do their job. Whilst this is obviously true, it also means how prepared someone is to deliver the task. A major influence on this assessment is what other concurrent duties does the individual need to carry out at the same time. If there is a physical or mental distraction from the individual s core job, they are not fully equipped. For example, carrying out Site Warden or Lookout duties requires total dedication to one activity for 100% of the time, so should not be done by a person-in-charge. Similarly, it is not appropriate for a person-incharge to carry out all parallel roles on a complex site. Mental and physical capacity will vary from person to person. Any exception to this guidance should be risk assessed in consultation with the Rule Book by a senior manager, e.g., IMDM. The Responsible Manager should take these capability factors into account when conducting their Annual Capability Conversation with staff who they are likely to nominate as Person in Charge The diagram below summarises the key considerations when determining if a COSS should be a PiC. Question: How should a DU determine which COSS certified individuals should be a Person in Charge? Response: Person in Charge is a capability and not a competence. The Responsible Manager should determine which individuals are appropriate to fulfil this capability through a variety of means including reference to performance during planned general safety inspections and the output from the Annual Capability Conversations. The work should also be considered and whether the nominated Person in Charge has the necessary competence, experience and attitude to be an effective Person in Charge. 5 WORK PLANNING AND RISK ASSESSMENT The Person in Charge who is onsite and who understands the risks associated with the task(s)(s) will normally be part of the planning process, the exceptions being where; Cyclical/repetitive work is planned to be undertaken; Illness has resulted in a change of the Person in Charge; Where the Person in Charge is responding to an incident. The Responsible Manager authorising the SWP shall have an understanding of the associated task(s) risks, site/location risks and the capability and competence of the people who will be undertaking the task(s). Those involved in the planning process will need to consider hazards, risks and controls, e.g.: Page 23 of 57

24 What could go wrong? What is the likelihood of it going wrong? What would be the consequence if it happened? What controls can be put into place to prevent it from going wrong? Will the controls be effective and, if not: What additional control measures can be identified, or can the way that the task(s) is delivered be changed to reduce or control the risk(s)? Can the local environment/swp be changed to reduce or control the risk(s)? During the planning of the work, the nature of the work is determined and relevant task(s) risks and appropriate controls must be determined and details included within the SWP. Additional pertinent/required information (e.g., permit to dig) shall be attached to the SWP. The SWP shall be produced by a Planner who has been assessed and certified as competent in Safe System of Work Planner. Planners are empowered to decide at what level within the Hierarchy of control for operational risks (see NR/L2/OHS/019 Table 2) a particular task(s) is to be carried out, whilst following any instructions provided by the RM, which may limit how far down the Hierarchy the work may be planned. The Planner shall take into account all relevant factors which may include; The nature, location and urgency of the task(s); Any specific requirement for the task(s), bearing in mind some task(s)s may need to be undertaken in daylight (e.g. inspection or examination or infrastructure); The hierarchy of control for operational risks; Any necessary requirements for obtaining blockages of running lines or sidings; Availability of line blockage opportunities; Any working prohibitions that affect working with warning safe systems of work (e.g. limited/inadequate positions of safety), as specified in the Rule Book, this document and the Hazard Directory; The number of people involved; The length of the site of work and duration it is required; Whether any work will be done in darkness or poor visibility; Arrangements for site access/egress; Tools and equipment to be used; The welfare provision required and how it will be provided; Presence of junctions/crossovers, bi-directional line or single line working on any lines(s) at or adjacent to the worksite; Number of trains on any lines(s) at or adjacent to the worksite; Amount of time between trains on any line(s) at or adjacent to the worksite; Length of warning time required for the work (when working with warning arrangements); Whether one or more lines will be open to traffic between the worksite and the position of safety; Page 24 of 57

25 Whether the worksite is static or moving. Where the work is moving particular care shall be taken that the SWP will remain adequate at all times throughout the work. Any limited clearances, changes in sighting distances, noisy areas etc. shall be taken into account; Movement of on-track machines or trains within a possession or on any open lines close to a possession; Number of Lookouts required where working using warning arrangements is planned and the arrangements to protect their movements whilst on or near the line; Whether approved warning equipment (e.g. SATWS, LEWIS, ATWS, LOWS) is available; Whether there will be high noise levels either generated by the work or in the background; The best reasonable means of doing the work; and The needs of the train service, so that delays to trains are avoided and this creates other risks around the network. Key environmental impacts can also be included in the SWP, such as existence of protected or harmful flora/fauna within area of the site of work. The potential for runaway risk, either from OTP/OTM/trolley(s) on the site of work or those in adjacent sites of work. Task risk identification To assist Planners in identifying the task risks that are most pertinent to the work they are planning a table has been created that details which task risk modules would typically apply to which discipline. For example a piece of telecoms work would typically task risk modules in the following areas: A. General activity / hazard B. Small plant C. Mobile plant D. Live working H. Telecoms Page 25 of 57

26 Question: What will a Person in Charge brief their team on regarding Task Risk Control? Response: The task Risk Control sheets are an aid for the Person in Charge to remind themselves and their teams of the controls to be applied on site. Staff should have all been trained to undertake the tasks they will perform and the Task Risk Control Sheets remind all involved, of the risks associated with the work and the controls that need to be applied to manage those risks. Question: What information is required for runaway in the new SWP? Response: Runaway is essentially about mitigating the risk caused by having steel wheels on rail. Planning for runaway in SSOWPS is essentially 2 things: 1. Working with the PiC you will need to determine if the work is on a gradient of greater than 1 in 100. Information to do this is contained in SSOWPS and supplements existing 5 mile line diagrams and the sectional appendix. 2. Identify if adjoining work could be a risk to you. You can use the Possession Planning System (PPS) to identify adjoining possessions that will be in place at the time of your work then speak to the person coordinating the possession to see if they are using anything that could create a runaway risk to you. This information may be covered in the possession planning meeting. Where run away risk has been identified, putting in place mitigating actions, for example, you could change the date when the work takes place, have points set to prevent a runaway reaching you or deploy a secondary warning system such as the Vortok rear guard. Further information is contained at: Hierarchy of control for operational risks The highest achievable SSOW consistent with the nature, location and duration of the work shall be selected in accordance with the criteria set out below. Starting at the top, each SSOW in the hierarchy shall be considered in turn and the highest appropriate system selected. Work that has been planned using these SSOWs shall be considered to meet the planning requirements of both this standard and the Rule Book: Page 26 of 57

27 Safeguarded Site of Work where every line at the site of work has been blocked to normal train movements; Fenced Site of Work where there is a suitable barrier between the site of work and any line open to the normal movement of trains or moving vehicles; Site Warden in a Separated Site of Work where there is a distance of at least two metres (6 feet, 6 inches) between the nearest running rail of an open line and the site of work, and a site warden is appointed. There shall be an identifiable limit to the site of work; Warning Systems; Permanent Automatically Activated Equipment where there is permanently installed equipment which will provide a warning, to give sufficient time to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train arrives at the site of work; Warning Systems; Portable Automatically Activated Equipment where portable equipment can be installed which will provide a warning, to give sufficient time to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train arrives at the site of work; Warning Systems; Human Activated Equipment where portable equipment can be deployed and activated by a lookout in order to provide a warning, to give sufficient time to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train arrives at the site of work; Lookout Warning where one or more lookouts are positioned to provide enough warning to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train or vehicle arrives at the site of work. For work being undertaken on or near electricity, the following safe systems of work are available for use with contact systems and are applicable to overhead line and conductor rail areas: Planned Isolation an isolation for work programmed to take place or which is required at short notice. Pre-planned isolations are published in the Weekly Operating Notice. Details of the line(s) concerned, electrical sections/subsections that are to be blocked to electric trains are shown, along with the planned times of the blockage(s), making reference to the General Remarks column. Temporary Isolation an isolation requested for short-term local activities, as defined in Network Rail standard NR/WI/ELP/3091. Temporary isolations are devised to enable unplanned local activities to be undertaken on or near the conductor rail/overhead electrified lines, in order to contain an incident and/or make the railway safe for operation. Temporary isolations shall only be taken by persons competent to do so. Local Isolation an isolation allowed at specified locations, as specified in the Sectional Appendix. For overhead electrified lines, this type of isolation is performed locally by a person having local control over train movements and hence not requiring a Form Local Instruction on certain lines as specified in the Sectional Appendix, a local isolation instruction exists, whereby the conductor rail/overhead electrified lines may be isolated by the appropriate isolating switch(es) without adopting the procedure defined in Network Rail standard NR/WI/ELP/3091. This isolation will only be undertaken by an authorised person competent to carry out the isolation procedure for the line concerned, although they may instruct a competent person on their behalf to operate the isolating switch(es), test the conductor rail/overhead electrified lines, and apply short circuiting straps. When work other than inspection is to be carried out on high voltage and traction distribution equipment, the appropriate work/manufacturer s instructions shall be followed. If the work/manufacturer s instructions deem it necessary, a Permit to Work for High Voltage (i.e., 21067/P, 21060/C) shall be issued and included in the SWP. Page 27 of 57

28 When work is to be carried out on low voltage equipment, local isolation procedures shall be followed as defined within the work/manufacturer s instructions. Crossing the line protection (CTLP) under special arrangements The CTLP procedure can only be used where; prior authorisation has been granted by Network Operations at predetermined and agreed locations; only nominated staff are authorised to use it and they have been briefed on the procedure; and where the necessary documentation has been produced to support the procedure. Where the CTLP procedure has been identified as part of the safe system of work, this shall be documented in the SWP. De-conflicting sites of work There are three levels of de-confliction that may need to be considered when planning work within an engineering possession. 1. Multiple disciplines within one worksite 2. Multiple sites of work independently led within a worksite 3. Multiple worksites within the engineering possession or protection arrangement such as Protection Controller The 019 standard provides a framework for how to plan work. It is the Responsible Manager s role to organise the plan that is most efficient and effective for the task to be performed, this includes the complexity of the task, experience of the team performing it and number of disciplines involved etc. A PiC should always be able to see and communicate with their work team. For every stand-alone activity (i.e. replacing a set of switches, felling a tree, taking an isolation or location inspection), there should be ONE Person in Charge and ONE Safe Work Pack. On long sites such as CWR re-railing. If the PiC cannot maintain reasonable communication with all activities a separate PiC(s) (with their own SWPs) should be appointed. This may result in the following being adopted: One PiC who leads the planning for multiple discipline with supporting disciplines providing inputs, or Each discipline within the possession provides a PiC + SWP that includes how they interact with the other PiC (if relevant) The following three scenarios explain how deconfliction should work in practice: Scenario 1. Small worksite with several disciplines on site, i.e. Renewing a 1/2 set of switches on a set of points The p/way is the lead organisation as it their work driving the worksite complexity. The p/way will develop the Safe Work Pack with the PiC for the job, the supporting sections, welders and S&T will complete the supporting form to enable the safe work pack to contain all the main risks from all departments. As the p/way PiC may not have extensive knowledge of all the risks, they will delegate risk controls to others to brief the group. Page 28 of 57

29 Scenario 2. A large site of work, re-railing 1 mile of track Typically this would be how IP or Works Delivery are more likely to operate There will be multiple PiCs undertaking elements of that work within the overall worksite This will be led by an experienced team leader who has been involved in the planning of the entire work and involving the other PiCs as required. During planning of the work it may be necessary to review the conflicts that may occur within the worksite Scenario 3. Multiple sites of work within the engineering possession or protection arrangement such as Protection Controller The following work is being undertaken in the same worksite within a possession IP are the lead worksite undertaking a piece of track renewal work Offtrack will be removing some trees Page 29 of 57

30 S&T will be undertaking point maintenance In order to undertake this work the relevant parties will need to undertake a deconflication meeting to ensure the work is compatible. The subsidiary deconflication form contained in the appendix will help each team to understand the risks that they are giving away and those that they are receiving. East Midlands deconfliction process The PDSW programme was originally devised to deliver a change in the safe work standard and to implement a new permitting technology solution. The programme has deployed into LNE East Midlands IP and Route Businesses as a pilot site. During this period the team in LNE East Midlands developed a process for deconflicting IP and Route Businesses worksites. The process followed by LNE East Midlands has been detailed below to enable other Route Businesses to adopt it if deemed appropriate / required. Context: A compliance meeting has been established following discussions with all interested parties on East Midlands who work under SWL (PiC and SWL in the current PDSW programme). The purpose of this meeting is: Final check at T-10 days out to ensure worksites have the required SWPs in place Remove the need for late change and cancelation of worksites Ensure deconflcition has occurred and final chance to resolve any conflicts Final opportunity for SWL s / Planners to collaborate if they have been unable to do so To improve the planning rigour and timescales all parties agreed to. Non-attendance by a relevant party or no information being provided results in an escalation to the IP RDD and Network Operations Director to decide on how to move forward. Meeting details: Frequency: Held every Tuesday at 9am in Trent House Derby Lead party: Infrastructure Projects Page 30 of 57

31 Format of the review meeting: This meeting was requested by parties involved in the SWL process and in particular the SWL s and Planners. It provides them an opportunity for face to face discussions on issues affecting their worksites and on integrating. The meeting provides IP the assurance that worksites have been correctly de-conflicted and all permits / paperwork is in place. The main focus is to work through LN3201 and LN3601 routes only on the East Midlands route for T-10 days using the route planning teams T-10 day document for that relevant week. The meeting lead will for each possession, facilitate a two way exchange of information by way of; Check that worksites do not overlap just in case it s been missed by route planning team. Ensure that permit numbers from each worksite owner have been raised and obtain confirmation the lead worksite has spoken to other worksites that they have signing in with them or if they are the child permit holder that they have spoken with the lead worksite. Ensure worksites have knowledge of potential XX work that could be walking through theirs and obtain confirmation that these have permits raised and conversations held. Facilitate contact names and numbers of key Planner contacts within relevant organisations including Net Ops if required. If for some reason worksites / organisations are not able to attend. The relevant organisations Planner will provide by details of their relevant works, worksite number, key contact details and permit number. If this is not provided this will be escalated up to the IP RDD / Net Ops Director. Meeting notes will be recorded from this meeting and distributed to the meeting invitees on the distribution list for reference. A variance report on (i) Key issues, (ii) No attendance and (iii) no worksite information, will be sent to the SWL Programme Manager (IPEM) and RDD (IPEM) for review and actioned where necessary. Question: How should Planners de-conflict a worksite and what documentation and processes should we use to manage multi-discipline worksites and maintenance going into an IP possession and vice versa? Response: Where more than one work activity is planned within a possession or line blockage, a confliction assessment should be carried out. This may be different work activity within a worksite (worksite de-confliction), or different activity within a possession (possession de-confliction). This requires the planner to contact other work owners to establish if work is complementary, or if it conflicts. If it conflicts, the work should be adjusted / prioritised / re-planned as appropriate, to ensure safety is not compromised. Following discussion between work owners, there is a final check at the T-10 meeting (this may vary by route) to ensure de-confliction has occurred and a final chance for work owners to speak to each other if not been able to. SSOWPS guidance In route businesses the SSOWPS tool is used to plan and authorise work. The revised 019 standard has introduced new processes and data requirements for SSOWPS. A full breakdown of the new changes can be found in two SSOWPS products: SSOWPS briefing slides: Page 31 of 57

32 The briefing slides comprises of five modules to provide you with all the information you need to know to start using the upgraded SSOWPS v2.5 application. 1. Quick start highlights 2. SSOWPS v2.5 features 3. Creating a plan & SWP 4. Transition process 5. Value adding features SSOWPS briefing video: A video stepping through how to create a SWP in SSOWPS v2.5 can be found at the following site: 6 ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAFE WORK PACK(S) Before going to on site, the PiC is required to do the following: 1. Review and verify the completed SWP provided to them by the Planner, before sending it to the Responsible Manager for authorisation. This needs to be done at least a shift before the planned work. 2. Once the responsible manager has authorised it, the person in charge who will be on site needs to Accept the pack, to agree that its contents are appropriate for the planned work. This is done before going to site. At site, the person in charge should check the SWP against the site conditions to determine if it can be implemented as planned. The Person in Charge will check: The detail in the SWP is consistent with the location and the work to be undertaken; All specified controls are suitable and can be applied; The necessary resource (including staff and materials) are available; That site conditions are such that the planned risk and operational controls remain valid. The final on-site check is in line with ensuring the SWP remains appropriate if there are any changing conditions (such as weather that affects sighting distance, or a change in personnel on site). If this check identifies any inconsistency with the SWP, arrangements must be reviewed and the affected work not permitted to start until this review is completed and any necessary amendments made. Where the check identifies that an amendment is required, the following guidance on escalation to the Responsible Manager applies. Escalation by the Person in Charge is required where: The protection from trains arrangements are required to move down the SSOW hierarchy; Worksite limits need extending to cover additional work; Significant change to work content and/or risk controls; Page 32 of 57

33 Changes to planned detail is not supported by information in Safe Work Pack; As additionally specified by the Responsible Manager; or Where any doubt exists of the appropriateness / effectiveness of the Safe Work Pack. Where escalation is required to change a SWP the Responsible Manager will issue an authority number to the Person in Charge. This authority number will be recorded by; The Person in Charge will record the changes made to the SWP, the authority number issued and the issuing Responsible Manager s name; and The Responsible Manager will record the details of who has requested authority to change the SWP, a brief explanation of the changes authorised and the authority number issued. Escalation by the Person in Charge is not required where: Protection from trains is moved up the SSOW hierarchy; Any identified additional task(s) risk control required is within the competence of the team and can be applied; Amendment to access / egress arrangements are covered by the information within the Safe Work Pack; Worksite limits are shortened, so long as work content can still be accommodated safely; Emergency response other than normal escalation of incidents and response. 7 DELIVERING AN EFFECTIVE BRIEF In order to deliver an effective brief the following key activities should be undertaken: Prior to the brief: Re-familiarise yourself with the task being delivered and assess any additional on-site risks that may not be included in the SWP. Has anything changed since you accepted the SWP? If so, you may need to speak to a responsible manager. Check you have the necessary documentation and it is correct, this will include: o Safe Work Pack o Task Risk Control sheets, if required, this should be a set of bullet points containing the significant risk controls, keep it concise. o Details of any on-track Machines or Plant Choose a suitable location to deliver the brief factors to consider are lighting and noise levels, weather conditions or possible distractions Delivering the brief: Introduce yourself and each member of the work group, explain their roles making sure the team know who their Person in charge and COSS is (the COSS will often be the same individual as the Person in Charge) for the duration of the shift Remind the team of the work safe procedure act and that they should advise the PiC, before recording any unsafe acts or conditions via the Close Call system. Ideally removing the hazard and stop the unsafe act. In both instances this should be first raised with the PiC Remind the team that if the conditions change they should stop, reassess and re-brief if required Introduce the work activity by explaining the task and associated risks and controls to be implemented and which person on site will be managing each risk. Provide the team with information on: o Access and Egress arrangements and specific location information Page 33 of 57

34 o Location of nearest hospital and access points for emergency services and where that information will be held on site. o Line speeds and train directions and any limited clearances o Underfoot conditions and any environmental factors to consider o The track safety arrangements in place. o Electrification arrangements, if applicable. o Details of the work activity; who will be doing what and the ways in which to work safely Acknowledge any inexperienced staff and determine their level of experience, and buddy them up with a more experienced worker. Confirm with the team that they have sufficient food and liquids to keep them nourished and hydrated - Having the correct nutrition and liquids will help maintain your energy levels Check that where required the work group has sun-block in hot weather and warm clothing in cold weather etc. Check that the work group are not showing any obvious signs of fatigue as this will increase the risk of accidents and injuries Remind the team of the welfare facilities. Explain the primary form of Emergency Communications Ask workers to switch off personal phones unless it is agreed with the Person in charge Confirm work group understanding of the brief by asking questions about the brief so everyone is clear on the task ahead and explain how safety is everyone s responsibility Remind the work group of the lifesaving rules and the Network Rail vision of Everyone Home Safe Every Day Ensure work group sign the paperwork (i.e. the SWP) to confirm they have received and understood the brief Sign workers on site using their Sentinel Cards and sign the SWP Please remember that it might be necessary to carry out several briefings on staged / larger pieces of work. 8 THE SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK PLANNING PROCESS IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES If planned protection is required the Planner shall apply to Route Planning (Delivery) team for this using PPS or GZAM (depending on the timescales and potential for the work to affect safety of the line) via the Access Coordinator. The Route Planning (Delivery) team shall consider all requests for track access, optimise the requests to provide the required protection and either approve or decline the requests within a reasonable time period. Should the protection be changed or declined by the Route Planning (Delivery) team, the Planner shall reconsider the work and the protection offered or available. Once appropriate protection has been decided and arranged by Route Planning team (where applicable), the Planner shall plan the SSOW and record this on the SWP. Planning line blockages If the planned SSOW requires any line or lines to be blocked or a possession of the line to be taken in accordance with the Rule Book, then the blockage or possession shall be requested in accordance with Network Rail s planning requirements as follows: line blockages and possessions which are required to be published in the WON shall be requested using the Possession Planning System (PPS); Page 34 of 57

35 line blockages which do not need to be published in the WON shall be requested via Network Rail s Green Zone Access Co-ordinator (usually the Route Planning Assistant (Delivery)) or arranged through formalised local agreements; Availability of protection for work Working under protection is the preferred method working safely for all personnel on or near the line. Therefore each Network Rail Route shall look to maximise the opportunities for working under protection to take place by: working with contractors and Network Rail Planners to programme work; taking account of maintenance requirements within timetable planning processes, in particular giving consideration to: o o the impact of any proposed changes to the timing or density of traffic on the availability of line blockage(s); and reducing or rescheduling services where access for maintenance is inadequate Establishment of protection working opportunities by blocking lines between normal train services should be considered by Routes as part of the timetable planning processes. Green zone guide Network Rail and Infrastructure Contractors shall co-operate, as far as is reasonably possible, so that work is planned into sites under protection. Routes should consider the following guidelines: When it is likely to be possible to block one or more lines without disrupting train services; Arrangements for 'booking' blockages of line(s); Circumstances when requests to block lines will not be granted. Possession planning When planning work in possessions the risks from train movements shall be taken into account. Consideration of these risks should include; The potential for train movements on open lines adjacent or close to the possession; and movements of engineer s trains, on track machines (OTM) and on track plant (OTP) within the possession, Where there are open lines adjacent to the possession, the Planner shall document the safe system of work in relation to these lines in the SWP. This should take into account the distance between the blocked and open lines and the potential for this distance could vary through the length of the possession. The requirements of the Rule Book and the Hierarchy of Safe Systems of Work shall be applied in respect of open lines adjacent to the possession. All movements of engineer s trains, OTM and OTP present a risk to staff working within a possession, so wherever possible movements shall either be avoided entirely or kept separate from staff. If it is not possible to restrict movements (e.g. all OTP/OTM movements at extreme caution) on the line under possession to, an open line SSOW shall be planned. When there are no movements within the possession, but an adjacent line is open to traffic and neither fences nor Site Wardens are provided, an open line SSOW shall be planned. Page 35 of 57

36 Only when the criteria for working under protection are met in respect of both the open and blocked lines may a protection system of work be planned. Alternative means of achieving work on the railway infrastructure (e.g. using plant or machinery) should always be considered before requiring people to go on or near the line. Publication of possessions & line blockages in weekly operating notices Details of any possession shall be published in the WON or Engineering Notice unless the possession is taken in an emergency. The Planner shall make sure line blockages need to be published in the WON where this is required. Items that are required to be published in the WON shall be entered into PPS according to the requirements laid out in NR/L2/NDS/202, Principles, Timescales and Functional Responsibilities for Engineering Work, Access and Heavy Resource Planning) and NR/L3/NDS/303 Engineering Possession of the Line for Engineering Work Delivery Requirements. 9 CLARIFICATION OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Possession Support Staff Possession support staff (PSS) will be SWP users within the SWP process. A competent and suitably experienced Person in Charge and RM shall be appointed during the planning process. The Person in Charge shall support the Planner in constructing and verifying the SWP, reflecting the work, risks and controls associated with the possession support work. The RM shall authorise the SWP when they have checked and confirmed the validity of its content. The PSS shall be provided with and briefed on the contents of the SWP by the PICOP. The PICOP shall confirm that the PSS understand the content and are capable of enacting the contents of the SWP. The PSS shall always be in possession of the SWP. The PSS shall enact the contents of the SWP. The PSS shall notify the PICOP of any changes to conditions which require different controls to be established in order to establish or maintain the SWP. The PSS shall as a minimum be either IWA competent or, where more than one individual, be competent as, or accompanied by, a competent COSS. Question: Will possession support staff require a SWP? Response: Yes. Under standard NR/L2/OHS/019, Possession support staff are currently required to have a SSOWP. The revised 019 standard requires possession support staff to work under a SWP with an on-site PiC named in it. However, this could be them working as an Individual Working Alone (IWA). It should be noted that SSOWPs v2.5 has a bespoke section to assist in making streamlined SSOWPs for possession support staff. Safe systems of work for possession management / support staff A line blockage is not required if possession management/support staff are going on or near the line in order to place or remove possession protection equipment within the agreed protecting signals for the possession. Page 36 of 57

37 Possession management/support staff shall not go on or near the line until they have received permission from the PICOP, and if keying a signal the Signaller, but in both cases always after receiving confirmation that the protecting signal(s) are at danger in accordance with the Rule Book. The hierarchy of control of operational risks shall be applied as normal where there is a requirement to go on or near the line: outside of the protecting signals; cross an open line to place or remove protection; or key a signal. Safe systems of work for isolations, earthing and strapping operations A protection arrangement is not required if those providing the isolation: a) are not required to go on or near the line to take the isolation; or b) are working within the protecting signals for a possession as specified by the PICOP. Those providing the isolation shall not go on or near the line until they have received permission in accordance with the Rule Book, GE/RT8000 and have received confirmation that the protecting signal(s) are at danger. Possession protection arrangements must be in place before allowing any person to go on or near the line to carry out earthing or strapping within the protecting signals for a possession, as specified by the PICOP. Apply the hierarchy of control for operational risk (in Table 2 of NR/L2/OHS/019) where there is a requirement to go on or near the line to carry out earthing or strapping outside of the possession. Question: When splitting a 4 person team to perform an isolation, 2 staff will need to leave to carry out the isolation. Must they have an appointed SWP and PiC? Response: Yes. The isolation activity should have its own PiC and SWP. If any work entails going beyond sight or communication of the original site of work then an additional SWP is required. 10 MONITORING AND ASSURANCE Senior Responsible Managers within Network Rail and Infrastructure Contracting Organisations shall have processes in place to monitor the level of work carried out under protection and open line conditions against defined targets. Network Rail s Area/Route General Managers shall also have processes in place to monitor the workload of signallers and their performance in granting and/or refusing line blockages to create protection. Note: Sources of relevant information to monitor compliance and workload may include the SWP, SSOWPS, Ellipse, completed Record of Arrangements and Briefing Forms (RT9909) and Train Register/Occurrence Book entries. 11 COMPLIANCE AND ASSURANCE Compliance process Responsible Managers shall monitor compliance to the SWP planning process by: 1. Review all SWPs that have been returned with highlighted errors/amendments; and Page 37 of 57

38 2. Reviewing at least 10% of the completed and implemented SWPs, up to a maximum of 50 packs per period; checking for planning and implementation errors and unsafe practices. In doing so consideration should be given to whether: the SSOW plan produced by the Planner was accurate and appropriate (mileage, lines at site, SSOW, etc.); the SSOW plan was implemented as planned (including cross checking information with signal box records, where applicable) and any changes made were authorised; the SSOW Pack was verified and that this was done to the required timescales; and all relevant fields were completed accurately (including signatures, method of warning, lookout details etc. and that the correct warning time and sighting distance were calculated). Based on the findings of this review the Responsible Manager shall discuss the errors found with the individuals responsible for those errors and record any actions taken to prevent re-occurrence. The Responsible Manager also needs to assure themselves that all instances of SWPs being verified on the same shift as the work are recorded along with the reason why same day verification has occurred. Document retention SWP and IRP documents should be retained in line with Network Rail corporate document retention standards - NR/L3/INF/02226 Corporate records retention schedule. Currently this is three years for both documents. APPENDICIES Safe Work Pack (Form F01.1) Incident Response Pack (Form RT9909/IRP) Line Blockage Form (Form NR3181) Subsidiary Form Supporting Work Form Safe Work Pack (Form F01.1) Page 38 of 57

39 SWP Validation Form Ref: NR/L2/OHS/019/F01.1 These top boxes describe the overall status and actions of the Plan Issue: 1 Date: 04 March 2017 Compliance date: 03 July 2017 Rejected (for administration/monitoring purposes) Errors / Changes(for administration/monitoring purposes) YES YES NO NO Cyclical YES Repeated Non-Cyclic SWP Ref series Brief Description of Work SWP expiry date Plan with everything and 2 components Date 6 or 12 months after Date & Time of Work 29 May :00 authorisation of cyclic/repeated pack Description of the work content when the plan is created and planner inputs Nature of Work details CREATED by: Planner I confirm this SWP has been checked and is compliant with NR/L2/OHS/019: Planner Name of name: the planner (populated from SSWOPS) Signature: Date: Planner signs the plan they have created Relevant date of creating the plan Colin Lonie VERIFIED by: Person in charge I confirm the following are appropriate for the task and are included in the SWP. Circle Yes or No for each question, and sign the declaration below Protection / Warning arrangements (hierarchy of control) suitable for the work. (The person who will be wearing the COSS COSS Signature and endorsement. Armband... Task / Site Risk and controls Any necessary permit to work arrangements identified If any of the above statements are answered NO, reject the SWP and return it to the planner. The welfare facilities have been identified and are appropriate The Person In Charge (e.g Team Leader who will also act as COSS will sign here unless another person is delegated as COSS. That COSS would sign here instead. This is done Y before the Person in charge can Verify the pack during planning stage.) Confirm that the necessary risk controls have been included in the pack Confirm that the necessary permits require have been identified in the in the pack and included if required. Confirm welfare is appropriate or not. The SWP should not be rejected on the basis of any welfare deficiency Y N Comments if SWP rejected: The Person in charge details why they the plan has not been verified by them Y Y N N N Name of Person in charge: Signature: Date: the PIC signs here Your PIC people (as input in SSOWPS) AUTHORISED by: Responsible Manager Complete as part of review/discussion with person in charge. Circle Yes or No for each question, and sign the declaration below. Work content is understood by the person in charge The Responsible Manager is confirming the PiC understands Y N Necessary competence within team to undertake task The Responsible Manager is confirms the team has the necessary Competence resource Y N Risk controls are suitable and sufficient The Responsible Manager is confirming the risks controls selected are Adequate Y N The appropriate hierarchy of Safe System of Work has been selected The Responsible Manager is confirms the most suitable level of the hierarchy has been selected Y N Any additional specific controls identified The Responsible Manager is confirming if other risks that need addressing have been identified and control included Y N Responsible Manager's authorisation and confirmation this SWP is complete, and includes any specific additional information required to manage risk on site (cannot be the same person as the verifier). If any of the above statements are answered NO, reject the SWP. The welfare facilities have been identified and are appropriate Y N Print Name: Your Manager The Responsible Manager's name as input in SSOWPs appears here Signature and/or Authority Number: The responsible manager signs here Date: Note: Authority number is required when timescales have not been met, or major changes have been required Version: v of 1 Page 39 of 57

40 WORK INFORMATION Plan ref no Function P Way Number of Safe Systems 2 Name of COSS/IWA Sentinel card no. Local Name Nature of work Plan with everything and 2 components Plan with everything and 2 components Worksite Mileages ELR NEC2 Start 8 m 30 ch End 10 m 50 ch Start date and time of work 29/05/ :00 End date and time of work 29/05/ :45 Name of authorised access point Wylam NE41 8HR Mileage 8 m 33 ch Post code NE41 8HR OS Grid Ref GPS Co-ord Narrative Text (Arrangement to walk to site description) Plan with everything and 2 components ACCESS SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK - Working Start 29/05/ :00 Duration 120 mins Safe System 1 ELR NEC2 FROM 8 m 30 ch TO 9 m 20 ch WON Protection (BL = Blocked Lines) Warning (BL = Blocked Lines) Permanent Human Activated Safeguarded Fenced Separated TOWS Warning System (e.g. LOWS) Portable Warning System Lookouts Planned YES + BL Actual Name Direction Status Speed Blocked From Blocked to Electrification SLW Wylam 1 Uni Blocked 55 WM12 WM16 Ac Wylam 2 Uni Open 55 Ac Resource Lookout requirements Site lookout / IWA 0 Touch Lookout 0 Intermediate/Distant 0 Site Warden 2 Equipment/Staff Resources Method of warning Line Speed Required sighting distance Type of fence (fenced only) Position of safety (workgroup) Warning Time Available sighting distance Distance from nearest open line (FENCED or SEPARATED warning) Distance of at least 2m 6 ft 6 inches (COSS + 2 or more + site wardens) Lines for each lookout to observe and lookout position(s) for safety Page 40 of 57

41 SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK - Working Start 29/05/ :00 Duration 105 mins Safe System 2 ELR NEC2 FROM 9 m 20 ch TO 10 m 50 ch WON Protection Warning Permanent Human Activated Safeguarded Fenced Separated TOWS Warning System (e.g. LOWS) Portable Warning System Lookouts Planned YES Actual Name Direction Status Speed Blocked From Blocked to Electrification SLW Wylam 1 Uni Open 75 Ac Wylam 2 Uni Open 75 Ac Method of warning Line Speed Required sighting distance Type of fence (fenced only) Position of safety (workgroup) Warning Time Available sighting distance Distance from nearest open line (FENCED or SEPARATED warning) Name of authorised egress point Prudhoe Signal Box Mileage 10 m 48 ch Post code OS Grid Ref GPS Co-ord Narrative Text (Arrangement to walk from site description) Plan with everything and 2 components EXIT NOMINATED PEOPLE Site Wardens, ATWS Operator or Lookouts (TOWS, LOWS, distant, intermediate, site, machine or touch) Name (print) Role Competence expiry date for role preformed Risks Identified and Controls to be applied by person in charge Specific Risk Requiring Control Control to be applied DP01 - Working on high voltage equipment DP02 - Working on SCADA and Protection Testing Plan with everything and 2 components FREE TEXT TASK RISK SIG01 - Working on Signals (Semaphore & Coloured Light), Includes working on Signal Post, and Gantry SIG05 - Working on Electrical Apparatus (Relay Rooms, REBs & IECCs Location Cases) SITE RISK FREE TEXT Plan with everything and 2 components Refer to Risk CS Refer to Risk CS PIC to Brief Refer to Risk CS Refer to Risk CS PIC to Brief This is to advise the COSS of the risk controls the person in charge needs to put in place for the activity to be safely carried out. The COSS needs to Implement the planned protection or warning arrangement of this RT9909 to keep the group safe from train movements in accordance with the rule book duties. If not acting as person in charge the COSS are informed of the all the risks controls but they won't necessarily be responsible for those unless they have been appointed as person in charge of the works. Page 41 of 57

42 Permits AL6 - Adam Test Permit 6 A DEMO PERMIT USING FREE TEXT These reference all the permits that are applicable for the SWP. Will include permits that a COSS will require Different Permit in Component 02 such as an isolation permit or may be permit relating to their the implementation of their protection Arrangements - e.g. permit to spike for a Netlon fence. Welfare Arrangements CP36 Category Location Other Relevant Information B: Transient - Welfare Facilities Different WELFARE in Component 02 Lists the welfare provision planned for the works B: Transient - Welfare Facilities WELFARE Plan with everything and 2 components Emergency Arrangements Emergency Arrangement First Aider EMERGENCY arrangement Component 02 EMERGENCY Plan with everything and 2 components FIRST AID Plan with everything and 2 components FIRST AID Plan with everything and 2 components References emergency arrangements such as hospital details and first aiders appointed (this may include other document that may form part of the SWP e.g. special evacuation procedures near oil refineries/chemical plants that track workers may need to know) Page 42 of 57

43 SIGHTING DISTANCE CHART in Miles,Yards and Metres LOOKOUTS AND IWA Calculating required Warning Time and Sighting Distance Site Lookout(s) Maximum speed of trains Time needed to stop work and down tools Time needed to reach the position of safety Add 5 secs if site lookout is looking out in both directions OR using LOWS Add 5 secs if you are working alone (without Lookout) Add 10 secs (minimum time to be in a position of safety) Original required warning time Req. sighting distance to achieve Original req. warning time Available sighting distance with only site Lookout(s) If the available sighting distance is less than the required sighting distance, you must appoint a distant lookout(s) ADD DISTANT LOOKOUT(s) Original required warning time (use from above) Add 5 secs for an distant lookout(s) New required warning time Required sighting distance to achieve New required warning time Available sighting distance with distant Lookout(s) If the available sighting distance is less than the required sighting distance, you must appoint an intermediate lookout(s) ADD INTERMEDIATE LOOKOUT(s) New warning time required (use from above) Add 5 secs for an intermediate lookout(s) Final required warning time Req. sighting distance to achieve Final req. warning time Available sighting distance with distant Lookout(s) if the available sighting distance is less than the req. sighting distance, you can't work with Lookout(s) or IWA Page 43 of 57