January 2013
Examiners’ Report NEBOSH International Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety (Unit IA)
Examiners’ Report NEBOSH INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMA IN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Unit IA: International management of health and safety JANUARY 2013
CONTENTS
Introduction
2
General comments
3
Comments on individual questions
4
2013 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW tel: 0116 263 4700
fax: 0116 282 4000
email:
[email protected]
website: www.nebosh.org.uk
The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health is a registered charity, number 1010444 EXTERNAL
Introduction
NEBOSH (The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health) was formed in 1979 as an independent examining board and awarding body with charitable status. We offer a comprehensive range of globally-recognised, vocationally-related qualifications designed to meet the health, safety, environmental and risk management needs of all places of work in both the private and public sectors. Courses leading to NEBOSH qualifications attract around 35,000 candidates annually and are offered by over 500 course providers, with exams taken in over 100 countries around the world. Our qualifications are recognised by the relevant professional membership bodies including the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) and the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM). NEBOSH is an awarding body to be recognised and regulated by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). Where appropriate, NEBOSH follows the latest version of the “GCSE, GCE, Principal Learning and Project Code of Practice” published by the regulatory authorities in relation to examination setting and marking. While not obliged to adhere to this code, NEBOSH regards it as best practice to do so. Candidates’ scripts are marked by a team of Examiners appointed by NEBOSH on the basis of their qualifications and experience. The standard of the qualification is determined by NEBOSH, which is overseen by the NEBOSH Council comprising nominees from, amongst others, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). Representatives of course providers, from both the public and private sectors, are elected to the NEBOSH Council. This report on the examination provides information on the performance of candidates which it is hoped will be useful to candidates and tutors in preparation for future examinations. It is intended to be constructive and informative and to promote better understanding of the syllabus content and the application of assessment criteria. © NEBOSH 2013
Any enquiries about this report publication should be addressed to: NEBOSH Dominus Way Meridian Business Park Leicester LE19 1QW tel: 0116 263 4700 fax: 0116 282 4000 email:
[email protected]
2
EXTERNAL
General Comments Many candidates are well prepared for this unit assessment and provide comprehensive and relevant answers in response to the demands of the question paper. This includes the ability to demonstrate understanding of knowledge by applying it to workplace situations. There are always some candidates, however, who appear to be unprepared for the unit assessment and who show both a lack of knowledge of the syllabus content and a lack of understanding of how key concepts should be applied to workplace situations. In order to meet the pass standard for this assessment, acquisition of knowledge and understanding across the syllabus are prerequisites. However, candidates need to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding in answering the questions set. Referral of candidates in this unit is invariably because they are unable to write a full, well-informed answer to the question asked. Some candidates find it difficult to relate their learning to the questions and as a result offer responses reliant on recalled knowledge and conjecture and fail to demonstrate any degree of understanding. Candidates should prepare themselves for this vocational examination by ensuring their understanding, not rote-learning pre-prepared answers. Candidates should note that Examiners’ Reports are not written to provide ‘sample answers’ but to give examples of what Examiners were expecting and more specifically to highlight areas of under performance. Common pitfalls It is recognised that many candidates are well prepared for their assessments. However, recurrent issues, as outlined below, continue to prevent some candidates reaching their full potential in the assessment. −
Many candidates fail to apply the basic principles of examination technique and for some candidates this means the difference between a pass and a referral.
−
In some instances, candidates do not attempt all the required questions or are failing to provide complete answers. Candidates are advised to always attempt an answer to a compulsory question, even when the mind goes blank. Applying basic health and safety management principles can generate credit worthy points.
−
Some candidates fail to answer the question set and instead provide information that may be relevant to the topic but is irrelevant to the question and cannot therefore be awarded marks.
−
Many candidates fail to apply the command words (also known as action verbs, eg describe, outline, etc). Command words are the instructions that guide the candidate on the depth of answer required. If, for instance, a question asks the candidate to ‘describe’ something, then few marks will be awarded to an answer that is an outline. Similarly the command word ‘identify’ requires more information than a ‘list’.
−
Some candidates fail to separate their answers into the different sub-sections of the questions. These candidates could gain marks for the different sections if they clearly indicated which part of the question they were answering (by using the numbering from the question in their answer, for example). Structuring their answers to address the different parts of the question can also help in logically drawing out the points to be made in response.
−
Candidates need to plan their time effectively. Some candidates fail to make good use of their time and give excessive detail in some answers leaving insufficient time to address all of the questions.
−
Candidates should also be aware that Examiners cannot award marks if handwriting is illegible.
−
The International Diploma in Health and Safety is taught and examined in English. Candidates are therefore expected to have a good command of both written and spoken English including technical and scientific vocabulary. The recommended standard expected of candidates is equivalent to the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) level 7 (very good user). It is evident from a number of scripts that there are candidates attempting the examination without the necessary English language skills. More information on the IELTS standards can be found at www.ielts.org.
3
EXTERNAL
UNIT IA – International management of health and safety
Section A – all questions compulsory
Question 1
For a range of internal AND external information sources, outline how EACH source contributes to hazard identification or risk assessment.
(10)
This question related to Element 3 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 3.2: Explain the need for, and the objectives and limitations of, health and safety monitoring systems. Candidates were expected to provide an outline of how the information could contribute to the risk assessment process in order to be awarded marks. Candidates who identified the source of information without reference to its contribution could not be awarded marks. Similarly, where candidates gave generic responses such as “the internet” without reference to the type of information and its contribution to risk assessment they were not awarded marks. Candidates who made reference to previous risk assessments or accident data that can be used to assist with identification of pre-existing hazards and risk controls and causes of accidents and therefore hazards were awarded marks. Reference to external sources such as ILO standards or other legislative standards that can be used as a minimum bench mark also gained marks.
Question 2
A new maintenance activity is being planned. (a)
(b)
Describe the components of the safe system of work that should be considered for the maintenance activity.
(8)
Outline TWO reasons why a permit-to-work may be required for the maintenance activity.
(2)
This question related to Element 5 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 5.3: Explain the development, main features and operation of safe systems of work and permit-to-work systems. Part (a) required the key components of a safe system for a maintenance task. The syllabus covers these issues under four headings, Materials, Equipment, Environment and People. An answer structured around these four headings would have been awarded good marks. Some candidates provided full answers all about permits-towork rather than the safe system of work that was required, perhaps with an eye on part (b) of the question. Some focused on risk assessment for maintenance work and its main stages, which was not required. Part (b) assessed candidates’ understanding of the need for a permit-to-work in the workplace and this seemed to be reasonably well understood by most candidates, who offered reasons such as the non-routine nature of the work or to manage risks in combined or simultaneous activities.
4
EXTERNAL
Question 3
Explain the limitations of relying on accident numbers only as a measure of health and safety performance.
(10)
This question related to Element 3 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 3.2: Explain the need for, and the objectives and limitations of, health and safety monitoring systems. Candidates were expected to provide an explanation of the reasons why accident numbers do not tell the whole story about health and safety performance in organisations. Reasons such as under reporting were often provided by candidates. However, further reasons were less commonly provided. Candidates could have referred to limitations such as accident numbers not being linked to effective management especially in low risk businesses and the fact that accident reporting can often increase following a campaign in a business in relation to accident awareness and reporting As a consequence, this would not reflect the health and safety performance of a company. Furthermore, there is no link to ill-health or accident severity. Information in relation to other performance measures was not asked for in the question and therefore did not attract marks along with explanations of the reasons for under reporting of accidents.
Question 4
(a)
Give the meaning of the term ‘safety culture’.
(2)
(b)
Outline a range of organisational issues that may act as barriers to the improvement of the safety culture of an organisation.
(8)
This question related to Element 6 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcomes 6.1: Explain the internal and external influences on health and safety in an organisation and 6.7: Outline the factors which can both positively and negatively affect health and safety culture and climate. When answering part (a), most candidates could give a meaning of safety culture which appeared well understood overall, as group attitudes leading to behaviour in the workplace. Overall, answers for part (b) were reasonable as candidates were able to outline organisational barriers to a good culture. Some candidates, however, answered in the positive giving what the company should have to do to improve culture rather than focusing on the barriers, which was asked for in the question. The least popular points raised were inconsistent management decision-making giving mixed signals and change processes generating uncertainty. Few candidates mentioned long term nature of cultural change etc.
Question 5
Outline the benefits and limitations of: (a)
prescriptive legislation;
(5)
(b)
goal-setting legislation.
(5)
This question related to Element 8 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 8.1: Describe comparative governmental and sociolegal, regulatory and corporate models. This question was well answered by many candidates.
5
EXTERNAL
The precise nature of prescriptive legislation has benefits in its clarity and ease of understanding and enforcement whereas it is limited by its rigidity and need for review. Goal setting legislation however, is more flexible in what needs to be done for organisations to comply with it although it does require more expert interpretation and is therefore more difficult to enforce. Some candidates made reference to self-regulation and internal health and safety standards that were not mark-worthy points in this question.
Question 6
(a)
(b)
Explain the difference between accident incidence rate and accident frequency rate.
(2)
A site is divided into a small number of large departments and the number of workers in each department is variable. You have been asked to collate details of first-aid treatment cases for the site. Data is required on a monthly basis in graphical and/or numerical format and in a way that would be helpful to site and departmental management. Describe how you could present this data indicating clearly the types of graphical and/or numerical presentation you would use AND, in EACH case, the data it would contain.
(8)
This question related to Element 2 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 2.2: Explain the quantitative analysis of accident/incident and ill health data, limitations of their application, and their presentation in numerical and graphical form. Part (a) was generally well answered which shows a good understanding of the terms and their formulae. Part (b) was not attempted by a high number of candidates. Where it was answered there were some generic answers mentioning graphs but not the specific type or what type of data they could be used to show. Those who used sketches to assist their answers were able to show the data type and graphical form and as such were awarded the marks. Although sketches were not requested in the question, if they do assist in presenting an answer they can be useful. In order to gain the maximum number of marks, candidates could have mentioned different data types such as site of injury, cause of injury, etc and then demonstrated how these could be represented. Candidates could also have mentioned that use of trends over time can be shown using, eg a line graph.
6
EXTERNAL
Section B – three from five questions to be attempted
Question 7
Outline the benefits of: (a)
(b)
an integrated health and safety, environmental and quality management system;
(10)
separate health and safety, environmental and quality management systems.
(10)
This question related to Element 1 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 1.3: Explain the principles and content of effective health and safety, quality, environmental, and integrated management systems with reference to recognised models and standards. Candidates could have provided an outline in part (a) of benefits such as consistency of approach, avoiding narrow decision making and collaboration preventing problems. Candidates could have outlined benefits including independent systems working well, different standards of application across the different disciplines and the clarity provided by separation for the regulatory authorities. A key element in gaining marks in this and indeed other questions is to ensure that an adequate outline is provided that demonstrates a good understanding of the topic in the context of the question.
Question 8
(a)
(b)
Outline the meaning and relevance of the following terms in the controlling human error in the workplace: (i)
‘ergonomics’;
(2)
(ii)
‘anthropometry’;
(2)
(iii)
‘task analysis’.
(2)
Excluding ergonomic issues, outline ways in which human reliability in the workplace may be improved. In your answer, consider ‘individual’, ‘job’ and ‘organisational’ issues.
(14)
This question related to Element 7 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 7.6: Explain how job factors could contribute to improving human reliability. Only a few candidates attempted this question, which is there to assess candidates knowledge and understanding of specific terminology and areas of work impacting on human reliability. In part (a)(i) candidates struggled to get beyond the man machine interface and frequently failed to outline the relevance to controlling human error. Part (a)(ii) produced limited responses with few candidates able to go beyond human physical dimensions and relate to its application to equipment design. In part (a)(iii) candidates were much more successful, often basing their answer on job safety analysis.
7
EXTERNAL
Part (b) was generally well answered with candidates being able to pick up on the signposts in the question and consider the overlapping areas of individual, job and organisational issues. This gave most answers structure. The most popular points raised under the individual were selection and training. A few candidate raised special needs as an issue but gave few relevant points beyond that. Under job, surprisingly few candidates raised task analysis even though it was required in part (a). The most popular point here was job rotation. The organisation part was much better covered with many candidates mentioning management commitment, adequate supervision and good communication. Fewer candidates mentioned introducing procedures for change or health and safety management systems. Question 9
A fuel storage depot situated close to a residential housing area contains a vessel for the storage of liquefied petroleum gas. It is estimated that a major release of the contents of the vessel could occur once every one hundred years (frequency = 0.01/yr). Such a release, together with the presence of an ignition source (probability, p=0.1), could lead to a flash fire or a vapour cloud explosion on site. Alternatively, if the wind is in a certain direction (p=0.7) and there is stable wind speed of less than 8 ms 1 (p=0.5), a vapour cloud may drift to the residential housing area where it could be ignited (p=0.8). (a)
Using the data provided, construct an event tree to calculate the expected frequency of fire/explosion BOTH on site AND in the nearby residential housing area.
(10)
(b)
Comment on the significance of the results obtained in (a).
(4)
(c)
Outline, with examples, a hierarchy of control options to minimise the risks.
(6)
This question related to Element 4 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 4.4: Explain the principles and techniques of failure tracing methodologies with the use of calculations. This particular question sought to assess candidates by asking them to comment on the findings and then apply other knowledge from Unit IA to offer controls to manage the levels of risk. This further requirement tended to reduce the overall marks awarded as many failed to apply the standards of tolerability and offer reasonable hierarchical controls in parts (b) and (c). In part (a) candidates who constructed a reasonable tree and calculated that the on and off site explosion frequencies were once in one thousand and once in 397 years gained good marks. In part (b), candidates could have referred to numerical values of risk tolerability to help comment on their findings such as 1 in 10,000 for public risks. Candidates who drew the conclusion that there was a higher risk to the public than workers and that the overall level of risk was unacceptable were awarded marks. In part (c), candidates were asked for a hierarchy of controls and should have provided suggestions such as elimination following a review of the need for LPG on site, reducing the risk of release and mitigating the consequences of release. As with many answers in this examination candidates are required to provide an outline in their answers that requires them to give context and meaning to the points made. Reciting a hierarchy without applying it to the scenario will not gain marks.
8
EXTERNAL
Question 10
(a)
Explain the objectives of: (i)
active health and safety monitoring;
(5)
(ii)
reactive health and safety monitoring.
(5)
(b)
Outline FIVE active health and safety monitoring methods.
(5)
(c)
Outline FIVE examples of reactive performance data that can be used to benchmark health and safety performance.
(5)
This question related to Element 3 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcomes 3.2: Explain the need for, and the objectives and limitations of, health and safety monitoring systems and 3.3: Describe the variety of monitoring and measurement techniques. This question was attempted by many candidates. In part (a)(i) candidates performed well with many appreciating the objectives. Better answers included identify hazards before the event, identify risk, recommend improvements and to overview current performance. Of the common points many candidates identified management commitment as being relevant. Fewer candidates referred to compliance with stakeholder requirements. In part (a)(ii), answers were limited. Most candidates appreciated that this is a measure of historic performance although often using slightly different terms such as lagging indicators of performance. The next most popular point raised was that it is used to compare trends. In part (b) most candidates knew the full range of methods and were able to give an outline of sufficient depth. Some simply identified the methods and mostly listed them, attracting very few marks. Candidates could also have taken the opportunity to include benchmarking and environmental monitoring in their answers. In part (c) some candidates misread the question and gave reactive monitoring methods rather that the performance data required by the Examiner. In some cases, they even headed this section “reactive monitoring methods”. In spite of this some candidates did manage to gain a few marks by accident. Some candidates failed to gain the available marks because they failed to appreciate that they should outline data that can be used for benchmarking.
Question 11
A forklift truck is used to move loaded pallets in a large distribution warehouse. On one particular occasion the truck skidded on a patch of oil. As a consequence, the truck collided with an unaccompanied visitor and crushed the visitor’s leg. (a)
Outline reasons why the accident should be investigated.
(b)
The initial responses of reporting and securing the scene of the accident have been carried out. Outline the actions that should be taken in order to collect evidence for an investigation of the accident.
(c)
(4)
(8)
The investigation reveals that there have been previous skidding incidents that had not been reported and the organisation 9
EXTERNAL
therefore decides to introduce a formal system for reporting ‘near miss’ incidents. Outline the factors that should be considered when developing and implementing such a system.
(8)
This question related to Element 2 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcomes 2.2: Explain the quantitative analysis of accident/incident and ill health data, limitations of their application, and their presentation in numerical and graphical form and 2.3: Explain the external and the internal reporting and recording systems for loss events (injuries, ill-health, dangerous occurrences) and near-misses. This was a popular question and mostly well answered. In part (a), the majority of candidates performed well although few candidates included reference to identify the need to review risk assessment. The question clearly states that reporting and securing the scene of the accident have been carried out. However, a number of candidates wasted words and time by stating this in their answer to part (b). It seems that some candidates answered the question on how an accident should be investigated rather than the actions that should be taken in order to collect evidence for an investigation. In spite of this they were able to gain some marks. Candidates provided the expected responses although few of them referred to health / drug / alcohol issues. Part (c) seems to have been understood by the majority of candidates. Although reasonably well answered, candidates would have gained better marks if they had structured their answers by considering development and implementing separately. Few mentioned timeframe for implementation, cost implications or considered monitoring of remedial action. Quite a few candidates included that the system should be endorsed by management and their commitment gained during the development stage.
10
EXTERNAL
The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health Dominus Way Meridian Business Park Leicester LE19 1QW telephone +44 (0)116 2634700 fax +44 (0)116 2824000 email
[email protected] www.nebosh.org.uk
