IOGC Examiners' Reports Aug - Oct 2014

Aug - Oct 2014

Examiners Report NEBOSH International Technical Certificate in Oil and Gas Operational Safety

Examiners’ Report NEBOSH INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL CERTIFICATE IN OIL AND GAS OPERATIONAL SAFETY UNIT IOG1: MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL OIL AND GAS OPERATIONAL SAFETY AUGUST – OCTOBER 2014

CONTENTS Introduction

2

General comments

3

Candidate performance

4

Learning outcomes

4

Examination technique

6

Command words

7

Conclusion

8

 2015 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

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 50,000 candidates annually and are offered by over 600 course providers, with examinations taken in over 110 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 that applies best practice setting, assessment and marking and applies to Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) regulatory requirements. This report provides guidance for 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 2015

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

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 other 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. This report has been prepared to provide feedback on standard date and on-demand IOG1 examinations sat between August and October 2014. Feedback is presented in these key areas; examination technique, command words and learning outcomes and is designed to assist candidates and course providers to prepare for future assessments in this unit. Candidates and course providers will also benefit from use of the ‘Guide to the NEBOSH International Technical Certificate in Oil and Gas Operational Safety’ which is available via the NEBOSH website. In particular, the guide sets out in detail the syllabus content for IOG1 and tutor reference documents for each Element. Additional guidance on command words is provided in ‘Guidance on command words used in learning outcomes and question papers’ which is also available via the NEBOSH website. Candidates and course providers should also make reference to the IOG1 ‘Example question paper and Examiners’ feedback on expected answers’ which provides example questions and details Examiners’ expectations and typical areas of underperformance.

3

Unit IOG1 Management of international oil and gas operational safety Candidate performance This report covers all examinations, both standard and on-demand examination sittings during August to October 2014.

Learning outcomes Candidates performed well in these areas of the syllabus: 1.1

Explain the purpose of and procedures for investigating incidents and how the lessons learnt can be used to improve health and safety in the oil and gas industries

Candidates needed to be able to demonstrate understanding of accident investigation through root cause identification and associated recommendations for improvement. The importance of learning lessons from major incidents was required through understanding of management, cultural and technical failures. Candidates were able to attain high marks for specifying reasons why incidents should be investigated with determination of root causes and prevention of reoccurrence. Areas of weakness included an inability to identify some parties who investigate incidents such as safety or employee representatives. The quality of candidate responses suggested good course provision with this learning outcome. 2.3

Explain the role and purpose of a permit-to-work system

Candidates needed to understand the role and purpose of a permit-to-work system, which includes the key features of a permit-to-work system and types of permit. Candidates were able to attain high marks for specifying the elements typically included in the permit including the task, duration of work and control measures. In addition, nearly all candidates were familiar with types of permit-to-work including hot work and confined space entry. Areas of weakness related to the functions of a permit-to-work where candidates responded with the need for control measures when the correct response was to specify control of a high risk activity. The quality of course provision for the elements required within a permit-to-work and typical examples of permit-to-work appear to be fairly comprehensive. However, the tuition of the permit-to-work functions suggested room for improvement. 4.2

Outline the principles, procedures and resources for effective emergency response

Candidates were expected to understand the content of an emergency plan. Candidates relayed the content of the emergency plan by specifying contact numbers for those authorised for emergency response and sufficient fire-fighting resources. Areas of weakness included the responsibilities for shelter and mitigation offsite in addition to the majority of measures onsite. Candidate responses suggested that course providers had addressed the issue of emergency plans but more detail would enhance deeper understanding.

4

The following learning outcomes have been identified as being the most challenging area of the syllabus for candidates in this period: 1.3

Outline the risk management techniques used in the oil and gas industries

Candidates were expected to understand risk management relating to the oil and gas industry. Areas of weakness included candidates mistakenly responding with a generic concept of five steps to risk assessment instead of risk management techniques such as ISO 17776 utilised in the oil and gas industry. Candidates identified aspects of oil and gas industry risk management that coincidentally aligned with generic risk assessment such as hazard identification and control measures but not the setting of functional requirements such as a description of necessary risk reduction measures. Examiners reported that the responses from candidates suggested a low level of understanding with this learning outcome and the associated expanded content within. Course providers should focus on this particular learning outcome as the majority of Examiners suggested room for improvement. 2.2

Outline the tools, standards, management, competency requirements and controls applicable to Process Safety Management (PSM) in the oil and gas industries

Candidates were expected to understand PSM controls including management of change controls. Candidates were able to identify that changes in products and substances would prompt management of change (MOC) controls. However, many did not identify design changes. While candidates outlined the need for managers of change to be competent, many candidates were unable to outline why competence was important within MOC such as the need for competent technicians, designers and engineers where modifications were made. Examiners reported that candidates without practical experience in the industry displayed limited knowledge in the area of PSM and this could be a focus for course providers. 3.3

Outline the controls available to maintain safety critical equipment

Candidates were expected to understand procedures for bypassing emergency shutdown systems (ESDs) and operational controls for an interceptor/separator. Candidates were able to identify generic issues including time-bound periods for the bypass and a procedure for handling an emergency during the ESD bypass. Candidates could not identify the existence or reliance on alternative levels of protection. Candidates were able to link an oil activation sensor to activate/close an associated automatic isolating valve. However, there was an inability to apply additional operational controls such as an occasional visual check on the outlet stream. Examiners reported that many responses from candidates suggested a lack of understanding of given practical scenarios and the associated risks and controls. Course providers could help candidates with this gap in technical theory and applied technical theory. 3.4

Outline the hazards, risks and controls available for safe containment of hydrocarbons offshore and onshore

Candidates were expected to understand safe containment of hydrocarbons and loss of containment and associated consequences such as boiling liquid expanding vapour explosions (BLEVEs). Candidates were able to randomly identify aspects of BLEVEs including the nature of an external heating source and the lifting of a relief valve. However, they experienced difficulty in understanding the sequence of events that accompany the BLEVE. Candidates did not understand the lowering of the level within a vessel due to the direct heating of the external heat source and relief valve lifting and the resultant exposure of metal to the external heat source without the previous cooling medium. In addition, candidates confused BLEVEs with confined vapour cloud explosions (CVCEs). Examiners reported that specifics of BLEVEs and CVCEs could be addressed through more technically detailed course provision.

5

Examination technique The following examination techniques were identified as the main areas of improvement for candidates: Candidates misread/misinterpreted the question Questions set for the NEBOSH International Technical Certificate in Oil and Gas Operational Safety relate directly to learning outcomes specified within the associated syllabus guide. The syllabus guide requires that candidates are sufficiently prepared to provide the relevant depth of answer (see command words below) across a broad range of topic areas. For example, a candidate could be asked about the general topic area of maintenance but may be requested to elaborate on the specific application of maintenance applied to a practical scenario in the oil and gas industry. Examiners reported that some candidates repeated the same kind of answer in the hope that it would fit some of the questions. Although these repeated answers occasionally gained marks the majority of answers did not relate to the specifics within the question and therefore marks were not gained. This approach may have been due to rote-learning (see below) but could equally be attributed to a failure to read the question correctly, resulting in lengthy answers that did not answer the question. Candidates are advised to allow sufficient time to read the question more than once in order to understand the key requirements. Underlining or highlighting key words in the question can assist in keeping focused and simple mind maps or answer plans are useful. However, candidates must be conscious of the overall examination time too.

Candidates unnecessarily wrote the question down There are about 30 minutes to answer a 20-mark question in Section 1 and 9 minutes available to answer an 8-mark question in Section 2 of a NEBOSH International Technical Certificate in Oil and Gas Operational Safety question paper. This time will be required for reading and understanding the question, developing an answer plan mentally or in brief note form on the answer booklet and finally committing the answer to the answer booklet. The efficient use of time is essential in order to answer the eleven questions within the 2 hours available. The majority of Examiners reported that candidates felt it necessary to write the question out in full, before providing the associated answer, and this marginally limits the time available. Course providers should remind candidates that it is not necessary to include a question with their answer.

Candidates did not respond effectively to the command word Examiners reported that many candidates provided insufficient detail in answers in order to satisfy the required depth of information elicited by the command word in the question. The learning outcomes in the syllabus guide dictate the depth of answer that a candidate would be expected to provide and the questions set contain command words that reflect these learning outcomes. All Examiners reported that candidates frequently responded with insufficient depth to the command word specified. For example, candidates frequently provided listed answers to an ‘outline’ or ‘explain’ command word and were not awarded all marks available for the corresponding question. In contrast, candidates occasionally provided excessive information for the command words such as ‘give’ or ‘identify’ and wasted valuable time although overall marks awarded were unaffected. If a question or part of a question specifies identification of hazards or risks there is no need to identify control measures too. Unnecessary additional information consumes valuable time. Course providers should ensure that learning materials complement the command words in the syllabus guide and sufficient time is given to advising candidates on suitable examination technique during a course of study.

6

Command words The following command words are listed in the order identified as being the most challenging for candidates: Outline Examiners reported that the command word ‘outline’ challenged many candidates. Insufficient detail was provided in response to the principal features or parts of the topic matter requested when ‘outline’ was specified in the question. Exhaustive descriptions were not required for ‘outline’ but limited answers like single words or listed answers did not satisfy the command word requirements. If the use of the command word in everyday language or conversation was considered it may help the candidate understand what was required. If asked to ‘outline the risks to an operator when manually closing a valve’ an answer such as cuts, bruises, burns and strains would be insufficient as this represents a listed answer. However, cuts from contact with sharp edges of the hand wheel, bruises from impact with adjacent plant items, burns from contact with adjacent uninsulated pipe work and strains from using excessive force would be sufficient.

Describe The command word ‘describe’ requires that candidates provide distinctive features of the particular syllabus learning outcome topic matter nominated and not a need to provide extensive information on that topic. Candidates occasionally respond to describe by completing a full page of text without actually responding with the distinctive features associated with question topic. Candidates need to distinguish between ‘outline’ and ‘describe’ and not respond with a series of unconnected points generally related to the topic in the question. If a candidate was asked to ‘describe a safe method of draining a flammable liquid from a storage vessel to a bulk container’ a response of using smooth pipe work, appropriate earthing to be applied and using nitrogen within the bulk container are sufficient outlines but insufficient descriptions as specified in the command word. However if a candidate responded with ‘avoid static build-up by using smooth pipe work with minimal bends, earth/bond pipe work, bulk container and storage vessel and use nitrogen to inert the bulk container and avoid an explosive/flammable atmosphere’ this would satisfy the command word requirement.

Explain When a question specifies ‘explain’ the candidate is required to provide an understanding or make clear an idea or relationship. For example ‘explain how ignition sources should be controlled during welding of pipe work that previously contained hydrocarbons’. If a candidate responded with use of bungs, provide fire blankets, damp down and use firewatchers this would be insufficient to merit full marks as this does not provide a deep enough understanding or relationship from the specified command word or the context in which the question is asked. However, if a candidate responded with use of bungs inserted into the pipe work while carrying out welding to prevent migration of flammable vapours to the welding point, placing fire blankets in the vicinity of welding to collect stray sparks and preventing sparks entering drains or places with flammable material, damping down to immediately cool and neutralise any sparks developed from welding and use of fire watchers to monitor the welding area for ignition conditions after completion of the work would merit the awarding of marks.

Identify When providing a response to ‘identify’ the mental selection and naming of an answer that relates to the question should be sufficient. In most cases one or two words would be sufficient to be awarded corresponding marks. Any further detail would not be required and impacts negatively on the time limit for completing the examination. For example, if the question was ‘identify types of fire extinguisher’ suitable responses would include CO2, foam and water in order to be awarded a mark.

7

Give ‘Give’ is normally used in conjunction with a further requirement, such as ‘give the meaning of’ or ‘give an example in EACH case’. Candidates generally responded appropriately to this command word.

For additional guidance, please see NEBOSH’s ‘Guidance on command words used in learning outcomes and question papers’ document, which is available on our website: www.nebosh.org.uk/students/default.asp?cref=1345&ct=2.

Conclusion The feedback from Examiners highlighted that candidates taking the IOG1 examinations from August to October 2014 needed most improvement in element 3 (areas of hydrocarbon process safety) where safety critical equipment controls and safe containment of hydrocarbons was identified, element 1 (health, safety and environmental management in context) where risk management techniques used in the oil and gas industries was identified and element 2 (tools, standards, management, competency requirements and controls applicable to process safety management). With regard to examination technique, candidates should concentrate on reading, interpreting and understanding what the question is actually asking, focusing more closely on the command word within the question and refraining from repeating the question within their answer booklet. Overall, candidates could gain additional marks for responding with greater understanding of the technical aspects of this qualification and application of this knowledge to practical scenarios frequently encountered in the oil and gas industry.

8

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 www.nebosh.org.uk