January 2009

Examiners’ Report NEBOSH National Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety - Unit A

Examiners’ Report NEBOSH LEVEL 6 DIPLOMA IN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Unit A: Managing health and safety

JANUARY 2009

CONTENTS Introduction 2 General Comments 3 Comments on individual questions 4

© 2009 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW tel: 0116 263 4700 fax: 0116 282 4000 email: info@nebosh.org.uk website: www.nebosh.org.uk The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health is a registered charity, number 1010444 T(s):exrpts/D/D-A0901 DW/GP/DA/REW

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 over 25,000 candidates annually and are offered by over 400 course providers in 65 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 recognised and regulated by the UK regulatory authorities: • The Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator (Ofqual) in England • The Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS) in Wales • The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) in Northern Ireland NEBOSH follows the “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice 2007/8” published by the regulatory authorities in relation to examination setting and marking (available at the Ofqual website www.ofqual.gov.uk). 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 Department for Education and Skills (Df ES), 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 2009 Any enquiries about this report publication should be addressed to: NEBOSH Dominus Way Meridian Business Park Leicester LE10 1QW Tel: 0116 263 4700 Fax: 0116 282 4000 Email: info@nebosh.org.uk

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 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 one or more of the questions 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 a sufficient degree of understanding. Candidates should prepare themselves for this vocational examination by ensuring their understanding, not rote-learning pre-prepared answers. Recurrent Problems 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 are failing because they 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.

− 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.

3

UNIT A – Managing health and safety

Section A – all questions compulsory

Question 1 Outline ways in which a health and safety practitioner could evaluate and develop their own practice. (10) Health and safety practitioners might evaluate their own practice in a number of ways including measuring the effects of changes and developments they have introduced and implemented in their organisations; by setting personal objectives and targets and assessing their performance against them; by reviewing failures or unsuccessful attempts to produce change; by benchmarking their practice against that of other practitioners and against good practice case studies or information; by seeking advice from other competent professionals; by seeking feedback from others such as clients of the organisation and as part of the annual appraisal of their performance by senior management. They may develop their practice by augmenting their core knowledge and competence in obtaining a recognised professional qualification; by keeping up to date by undertaking training in relevant areas; by participating in CPD schemes; by ensuring they have access to suitable information sources; by networking with their peers at safety groups and conferences; by seeking advice from other competent practitioners and consultants and by initiating and following a personal development plan. Some candidates did not appreciate that the question was concerned with personal competency and professional development whilst others did not associate “practice” with performance.

Question 2 Witness interviews are an important part of the information-gathering

process of an accident investigation. Describe the requirements of an interview process that would help to obtain the best quality of information from witnesses. (10) Answers to this question were generally to a good standard. Candidates who did best approached the question in a methodical way starting with the need to interview as soon as possible after the event though it may be necessary to postpone the interview if the witness is injured or in shock; providing a suitable environment for the interview; interviewing one witness at a time; putting the witness at ease, establishing a good rapport, taking care to stress the preventive purpose of the investigation rather than the apportioning of blame; explaining the purpose of the interview and the need to record it; using an appropriate questioning technique to establish key facts and avoiding leading questions or implied conclusions; using appropriate sketches or photographs to help with the interview; listening to the witness without interruptions and allowing them sufficient time to give their answers; and summarising and checking agreement at the end of the interview. Good answers also included the need to adjust language to suit the witness; clarifying what was actually witnessed as opposed to deduced; inviting the witnesses to have someone accompany them if they so wish and showing appreciation at the end of the interview.

4

Question 3 A health and safety management programme encompasses the following

concepts: (a) risk avoidance; (2) (b) risk reduction; (2) (c) risk transfer; (3) (d) risk retention. (3)

Identify the key features of EACH of these concepts AND give an appropriate example in EACH case. Risk avoidance involves taking active steps to avoid or eliminate risk for example by discontinuing the process, avoiding the activity or eliminating a hazardous substance. Risk reduction involves evaluating the risks and developing risk reduction strategies. It requires the organisation to define an acceptable level of risk control to be achieved which could be by the use of safety/risk management systems or the use of a hierarchy of control measures. Risk transfer involves transferring risk to other parties but paying a premium for this for example by the use of insurance; the use of contractors to undertake certain works; the use of third parties for business interruption recovery planning or outsourcing a process or processes. Risk retention involves accepting a level of risk within the organisation along with a decision to fund losses internally. It could involve risk retention with knowledge where the risk has been recognised and evaluated or risk retention without knowledge where the risk has not been identified - obviously an unfavourable position for the organisation to be in. Some candidates found difficulty in differentiating between risk avoidance and risk reduction while others gave examples which did not match the particular concept they were dealing with.

Question 4 Train drivers may spend long periods of time in the cab of a train and

may be susceptible to loss of alertness. This can increase the risk of human error.

Outline a range of measures that could reduce loss of alertness in train drivers. (10) In answering this question it should not have proved too difficult to outline a range of control measures even though candidates may not have possessed knowledge of the rail industry. These would include the introduction of a shift system to minimise the risk of fatigue with controls being introduced on shift length, the provision of regular breaks and sufficient recovery time particularly during and after the potentially high risk period between midnight and 06.00 hrs and the assessment of risks from unplanned call-out.

5

It would also be necessary to introduce a pre-employment medical examination followed by regular in service health screening including measures to manage stress and to put in place an alcohol and substance use policy with arrangements for its enforcement including random testing. Attention would also have to be given both to the design of the cabin and the driver’s activity including the provision of air conditioning, controls for illumination and sun shading, adjustable seating and the introduction of noise control measures. The variation of route allocation may help to maintain alertnessand other measures could have included the fitting of hold to run or other audible warning devices and the need for the driver to engage in frequent communication with the guard or control centre. Answers to this question were generally to a good standard, though occasionally candidates referred to the issues that could reduce loss of alertness in drivers rather than the control measures that should be introduced.

Question 5 Outline how safety tours could contribute to improving health and safety

performance and to improving health and safety culture within a company. Discussion of the specific health and safety requirements, problems or standards that such tours may address, is not required. (10) There are a number of contributions that safety tours could make in improving health and safety performance in a company including helping to identify compliance or non-compliance with performance standards and, by repetition in the same area, indicating an improving or worsening trend and checking the implementation and effectiveness of agreed courses of action. Additionally, when carried out in different areas, they can point up common organisational health and safety problems and may identify opportunities for improved performance through the observations of the tour members or by their conversations with employees during the tour. When tours are carried out on an unscheduled basis, there is the additional benefit of observing normal standards of behaviour rather than those specifically adopted for the event. Tours may also help to improve the health and safety culture of an organisation particularly if they are led on a regular basis by members of management indicating their commitment to the cause. Additionally, prompt remedial action for deficiencies noted enhances the perception of the priority given to health and safety matters whilst the involvement of employees in the tours will again encourage ownership and improve their perception of the importance of the subject, particularly if the findings of the tours are shared with the workforce on a regular basis. Since safety tours are well recognised as an active monitoring technique, it was expected that candidates would not have too much difficulty in answering this question. However, this level of expectation was not realised with candidates often concentrating on the mechanisms of carrying out tours such their timing, their location and the composition of the team to be involved rather than outlining how the tours could contribute to improving the health and safety performance and culture of an organisation.

6

Question 6 The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 presents a number of

opportunities for individuals to be prosecuted for breaches of duties under the Act. Assuming that the individuals are employed within a large company, outline the circumstances under which they may be prosecuted for such breaches. (10) Candidates who structured their answers round sections 7, 8, 36 and 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act produced the better answers. Under section 7, employees might be prosecuted if they did not take reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of other persons who could be affected by their acts or omissions at work. They might also face prosecution for failing to cooperate with their employer to enable compliance with his duties under the Act. Under section 8, proceedings may be taken against any individual for recklessly interfering with or misusing anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of relevant statutory provisions. There was some misunderstanding between the duties contained in Sections 36 and 37. Section 36 is used when the commission of an offence by any person is due to the act or default of some other person. That “other person” may be charged and convicted whether or not proceedings are taken against the first mentioned person. The section enables an individual at fault to be prosecuted for the offence of the employer and is particularly relevant for managers and supervisors who may cause other persons to commit offences through their instructions. Directors and senior managers of a corporate body may be prosecuted as individuals under Section 37 if it is proved that an offence with which the body is charged was committed with their consent or connivance or was attributable to any neglect on their part. The actual effect of section 37 is that it enables an individual to be prosecuted for the offence of the employer thereby attracting the same penalty as that attached to the employer offence. Additional marks were available for referring to the decided case of Armour v Skeen. Finally, an individual may be prosecuted under section 33(1)(n) for falsely pretending to be an inspector. It was disappointing to note that several candidates lacked a basic knowledge of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. A few concentrated on Section 2 while there were also some who discussed corporate manslaughter which neither relates to individuals nor is a duty under the Act.

7

Section B – three from five questions to be attempted

Question 7 An employer wishes to build a new gas compression installation to provide energy for its manufacturing processes. An explosion in the installation could affect the public and a nearby railway line. In view of this the employer has been told that a qualitative risk assessment for the new installation may not be adequate and that some aspects of the risk require a quantitative risk assessment.

(a) Explain the terms ‘qualitative risk assessment’ AND ‘quantitative

risk assessment’. (5) (b) Identify the external sources of information and advice that the

employer could refer to when deciding whether the risk from the new installation is acceptable. (5)

(c) A preliminary part of the risk assessment process is to be a

hazard and operability study. Describe the principles and methodology of a hazard and operability (HAZOP) study. (10)

In answering part (a) of the question, many candidates found difficulty in explaining the terms qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. Qualitative risk assessment involves the use of informed subjective judgements to arrive at a broad measure of risk. Following a comprehensive identification of hazards, broad categories are used to classify the likelihood of the hazards being realised and the severity of their consequences. The categories may be descriptors or numbers. Most everyday risk assessment is qualitative.

Quantitative risk assessment on the other hand is a numerical representation of the actual frequency and/or probability of an event and its consequences. It often involves comparison with specific criteria and is objective.

In identifying external sources of information and advice for part (b), candidates could have referred to the tolerability criteria set down in “Reducing Risks, Protecting People”.Other sources of information may have included HSE or industry guidance which sets risk control standards for the type of installation concerned, competent consultants with relevant experience and other organisations with similar installations. Insurers may also influence the risk tolerability decision by indicating their willingness or otherwise to provide insurance. . Candidates generally struggled to identify relevant sources of information and very few referred to tolerability criteria.

Part (c) sought to test candidates understanding of HAZOP studies.. The purpose of a Hazop is to identify deviations from intended normal operation and is best used at the design stage or when modifications are proposed for an existing installation. They were expected to explain the need for a team approach with specialists from relevant disciplines, a team leader and the need to define the scope of the study, breaking down the process into elements, collecting data and information to support the study and adopting a brainstorming approach. Candidates should also have described that deviations are prompted by the use of guide words which are applied to relevant process parameters such as temperature or flow and marks were available for giving examples such as “no” (negation of the design intent), “more” (quantitative increase), “as well as” (qualitative increase) and “other than” (complete substitution). Better answers added that the study examines the possible causes and consequences of each deviation, identifies possible corrective actions and is documented and recorded. Answers to this part of the question varied in quality. Few mentioned the use of guide words but those who included a part of a typical HAZOP record form in their answergenerally obtained better marks.

8

Question 8 (a) Organisations are said to have both formal and informal

structures and groups. Outline the difference between ‘formal’ AND ‘informal’ in this context. (6)

(b) The HSE publication ‘Successful Health and Safety

Management’ (HSG65) describes a model of safety management in which the ‘organising’ element requires control, co-operation, communication and competence. Outline, using practical examples, what ‘co-operation’ means in this context. (6)

(c) Organisational change can, if not properly managed, promote a

negative health and safety culture. Outline the reasons for this. (8) A formal structure or group is hierarchical, generally shown in an organisational chart and characterised by defined responsibilities and agreed reporting lines, while an informal structure is characterised by social and personal relationships, habitual and related contacts and the presence of strong characters with personality and communication skills that may exert personal influence. In outlining the meaning of “co-operation” for part (b) of the question, candidates should have referred to formal consultation arrangements such as those with safety representatives, direct consultation with employees at team meetings and participation in safety committee meetings and also to informal consultation on safety issues during day to day discussions with employees. “Co-operation” would also include the involvement of employees in safety processes such as carrying out risk assessments and developing systems of work; playing their part in incident investigations, inspections, audits and other monitoring processes; being encouraged to report hazards and “near miss” incidents; and being invited to become members of safety circles for problem solving. Finally the provision of training and development would be an important factor in maximising the involvement of employees in health and safety matters. Answers to this part of the question were disappointing and many were directed towards control and communication rather than to cooperation as required. Examiners were concerned that some candidates at Diploma level showed little grasp of the content of HSG65. Organisational change can, if not properly managed, promote a negative health and safety culture for a number of reasons such as: the profile of safety may not be maintained during the change and new job responsibilities may not have fully covered safety issues; normal consultation mechanisms and routes may be disrupted; training in safety issues for new job-holders or for new responsibilities may not have been completed; the lack of adequate means of communication during the change may compromise trust and poor consultation on change issues may have a negative effect on cooperation and on other issues including safety; there may be concern about job security which could encourage risk taking; redundancy processes or cost reduction measures may produce a perception that the organisation is not concerned with personal well-being; experience or knowledge of risk controls may be lost with changes of personnel; the safety implications of changes in personnel or numbers may not have been properly assessed; extensive movement of personnel makes it harder to establish shared perceptions and values; a greater use of outsourcing without good control may result in lower safety standards by contractors which may affect the perception of priorities; and last but not least the effects of natural resistance to change.

9

Question 9 (a) Describe the statutory duties set down in section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in so far as they affect substances for use at work. Your answer should contain a description of the duty holders and the duties concerned. (10)

(b) (i) Outline the key legal duties that an employer has

towards employees under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in respect of the use of a substance that may cause harm to an unborn child. A discussion of practical control measures is not required. (6)

(ii) State the legal action that an employee may take if they feel that they have been subject to unfair sex discrimination. State the outcomes that may result including the routes of appeal. (4)

Section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. places an obligation on manufacturers, importers and suppliers of substances for use at work to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable, that they are safe and without risk to health when being used, handled, stored or transported; to carry out any necessary testing and examination to ensure the required level of safety and freedom from risk; to provide those supplied with information on risks to health, on the relevant tests that have been carried out and on conditions for the safe use of the substance; and to provide information to those supplied on conditions for the safe disposal of the substance and with revised information should a subsequent serious risk become known. The duty holders also have an obligation to carry out research to discover ways of eliminating or minimising any risks to health or safety arising from the use or disposal of the substance. In answer to part (b), the key legal duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act (HSWA) are contained in section 2(1) relating to the employer’s general duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of his employees; in section 2(2)(b) relating to the duty to ensure the absence of risks to health in connection with the use and handling of substances; and to section 2(2)(c) relating to the provision of information, instruction, training and supervision. Under the Sex Discrimination Act, an employer may not treat an employee less favourably on the grounds of gender. However, discrimination is not unlawful if it is necessary to comply with the requirements of HSWA though it will need to be shown that there is no reasonably practicable alternative method of providing adequate protection. If an employee feels that he/she has been subject to unfair sex discrimination, he/she may bring a complaint to an Employment Tribunal . The outcome could be the award of compensation and/or recommendations and a declaration of rights .. The routes of appeal are to an Employment Appeal Tribunal and thence to the Court of Appeal Civil Division in England and Wales and to the Inner House of the Court of Sessions in Scotland. This was not a popular question and of those who did attempt it, few did well. Candidates appeared to have little knowledge of the Sex Discrimination Act or of the routes of appeal from an Employment Tribunal

Question 10 A small food company imports and blends natural ingredients, many in

powder form. This creates a dusty environment but, since the company

10

believes that the ingredients are inherently safe, the only means of controlling dust levels is by natural ventilation. An employee of the company has recently been diagnosed as severely asthmatic. He claims that he informed the company on starting employment that he suffered from chest problems but no masks were provided or further precautions taken. He also claims that his symptoms have considerably worsened during his three years with the company.

Explain, with the aid of appropriate case law, the legal actions that might be available to the employee in a claim for compensation against his employer, clearly showing what he would need to prove for the actions to succeed. (20) Better answers to this question came from those candidates who were able to explain the criteria for a successful claim both for negligence and breach of statutory duty and who could apply these criteria to the scenario given. It was expected that candidates would indicate what might lead firstly to the conclusion that there had been a breach of the common law duty of care such as that there was a duty of care owed since there was an employer/employee relationship; that there was a breach of that duty in that the employer failed to take reasonable precautions to protect the health of the employee since it was reasonably foreseeable that dust would cause or exacerbate respiratory problems; and that there was a link between the breach of duty and the damage which would have to be substantiated by medical evidence. Marks were also available for reference to relevant decided cases such as Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co v English and Paris v Stepney Borough Council with respect to the special duty to vulnerable persons. An explanation of the tests for breach of statutory duty should have referred to the nature of the duty and the breach and that the employer was the duty holder; that the claimant was within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect; that the harm caused was of the type that the statute was designed to prevent; that the damage was due to the breach and that the statute allowed action since it was not statute barred. In the context of an answer about a civil action for breach of statutory duty candidates should have identified a small number of examples of statutory duties that may have been relevant. Statutory Instruments that contain specific requirements relevant to the scenario, and under which actions would have been allowed were the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) and, more particularly perhaps, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). Candidates were expected to identify examples of specific requirements within this legislation that would be relevant. In MHSWR for instance, it could be alleged that no risk assessment had been carried out (Reg 3): that the arrangements made for health and safety were inadequate (Regs 4 and 5); that no health surveillance had been provided (Reg 6) and that there had been a failure to provide information to employees on the risks to their health and safety (Reg 10). As for the requirements of COSHH, the employee would need to prove initially that the dusts were substances hazardous to health as defined. That done, he could then point to the failure of the employer to carry out an adequate assessment (Reg 6); to provide adequate controls such as ventilation (Reg 7); to carry out monitoring (Reg 10); to provide health surveillance (Reg 11); and to provide adequate information, instruction and training (Reg 12).

Question 11 Explain the benefits of:

11

(a) an integrated health and safety, environmental, and quality

management system; (10) (b) separate health and safety, environmental, and quality

management systems. (10) The arguments for and against the use of an integrated management system for safety, quality and environmental issues will need to be considered by many practitioners at some stage during their careers. The question invited candidates to outline their understanding of the key benefits of both an integrated and separate systems. The benefits of an integrated management system could have included: consistency of format and a lower overall cost through the avoidance of duplication in procedural, record-keeping, compliance auditing and software areas; avoiding narrow decision making that solves a problem in one area but creates a problem in another; encouraging priorities and resource utilisation that reflect the overall needs of the organisation rather than an individual discipline; applying the benefits from good initiatives in one area to other areas; encouraging closer working and equal influence amongst specialists; encouraging the spread of a positive culture across all three disciplines; and providing scope for the integration of other risk areas such as security or product safety. Benefits from retaining separate systems could have included: providing a more flexible approach tailored to business needs in terms of system complexity and operating philosophy (for example, safety standards must meet minimum legal requirements whereas quality standards can be set internally – therefore, the need for a more complex system in one element may not be mirrored by a similar need in the other two elements); ; separate systems might be clearer for external stakeholders or regulators to understand and work with; and finally they may encourage a more detailed and focused approach to auditing and standards. This question has appeared on a previous examination paper. On this occasion it was not well answered. A few candidates seemed unable to understand what the question required while other responses lacked the depth required. Despite the wording of the question, some candidates explained both the benefits and the disadvantages of the systems. The latter was not required.

12

The National ExaminationBoard in OccupationalSafety and Health

Dominus WayMeridian Business ParkLeicester LE19 1QW

telephone +44 (0)116 2634700fax +44 (0)116 2824000email info@nebosh.org.ukwww.nebosh.org.uk