NEBOSH - December 2002 - A1 - ANSWERS

NEBOSH Certificate – December 2002Paper A1 – The management of safety and healthOutline answers and guidance given in the NEBOSH examiner’s ReportSection 1Question 1There are a number of ways of reducing the likelihood of human error in the workplace that should have been outlined in the answer to part (a) of the question. These include: the use of skilled, trained and competent staff (including pre-employment screening issues); motivation of the workforce; task variety to prevent monotony and the provision of frequent breaks to avoid work overload; addressing workplace environmental issues such as noise, light and heat; mechanisation and automation; ensuring that controls on machinery are clearly marked; implementation of a drug and alcohol policy; and providing competent supervision of employees.Most candidates mentioned the need for competency and training but few were able to provide the range of methods necessary to obtain all the marks available. A few candidates, possibly because they misread the question, produced answers based on the causes of human error rather than on ways of reducing its likelihood.There were some good answers to part (b), with many candidates gaining full marks by referring to reasons such as: over-familiarity and complacency; lack of instruction, information and training; lack of experience, particularly where young persons are involved; the fact that some hazards (eg airborne contaminants or radiation) may be invisible and/or intagible; sensory impairment; and involvement in routine, repetitive tasks that can lead to lack of attention.In answering part (c), Examiners were looking for an outline of methods to encourage the motivation of employees to work safely. The overt recognition of good health and safety performance (eg by giving praise and/or offering financial incentives) is important in this respect. Conversely, disciplining employees who choose to ignore safe working procedures has its place but tends to be less effective. Other measures might include: involving employees, for instance, in carrying out risk assessments and drawing up safe systems of work; improving the company's health and safety culture and demonstrating a high level of management commitment; ensuring a good working environment; and providing training and ensuring good communication.Some candidates seemed to perceive little difference in the requirements of parts (a) and (c) and were content to repeat the answer that they had already given to the first part of the question. Part (c) was, in fact, intended to look in more depth at one aspect of the answer to part (a).Section 2Question 2A few candidates showed a wide knowledge of the issues involved and providedexcellent answers to the question. Most of the remainder, however, outlined only oneor two of the. relevant factors.Factors that could have been outlined include: exposure to chemicals such as pesticides, lead and those that cause intracellular changes (mutagens) or affect the embryo (teratogens); biological exposures (eg hepatitis); exposure to physical agents such as ionising radiation and extremes of temperature; manual handling; ergonomic issues relating to prolonged standing or the adoption of awkward body movements; stress; and issues associated with the use of personal protective equipment.Examiners were disappointed to find that, yet again, some candidates did not pay sufficient attention to the action verb and, although they undoubtedly had some knowledge of the subject, could not be awarded all the marks available because they chose to provide no detail of the relevant factors.Question 3For part (a), most candidates were able to point to the health and safety benefits of restricting smoking at work as a reduction in the risk of fire, an improvement in general cleanliness and a reduction in the exposure of non-smoking staff to cigarette smoke, which can have an irritant effect as well as causing possible long term health damage. Other reasons include the promotion of health generally and the avoidance of conflict between smokers andnon-smokers.Part (b) required candidates to provide an outline of how a no-smoking policy might be implemented effectively. The initial point to be made was that the policy should be clear in its intent and communicated to all staff. This might be achieved by the use of notice boards, leaflets and other forms of propaganda, while there would also need to be consultation with employees to encourage ownership. Many candidates recognised management's part in the process and suggested that they should set an example and also provide help to employees in the form of counselling. Finally, the provision of designated smoking areas and the use of disciplinary procedures were correctly suggested as important to the successful implementation of the policy.The arguments in favour of providing smoke-free environments have been well rehearsed and it was evident that the majority of candidates were familiar with these. No-smoking policies are also operated by many organisations and, again, candidates were able to show that they could make a useful contribution.Question 4A number of candidates experienced problems with this question by appearing to mistake the words `the reasons why' for `how' and proceeding to outline the various methods by which health and safety performance can be monitored and reviewed. The need to read the question carefully and understand its purpose is advice that cannot be given too often.Among the reasons offered by better candidates were the following: to identify substandard health and safety practices and conditions (perhaps by means of workplace inspections); to identify trends in relation to different types of incident, or incidents in general (by analysis of relevant incident data); to compare actual performance with previously set targets; to`benchmark' the organisation's performance against that of similar organisations or an industry norm; to identify whether control measures are in use and to assess their effectiveness; to be able to make decisions on appropriate remedial measures for any deficiencies identified; to set priorities and establish realistic timescales; to assess compliance with legal requirements; and to be able to provide a Board of Directors or safety committee with relevant information. An additional reason for monitoring and reviewing health andsafety performance is quite simply because there is a legal requirement to do so under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.Weaker answers to this question never really progressed from 'so that we can see how we are doing', whereas it was the reasons `why we should want to know how we are doing' that were being sought. The question required a little thought but allowed candidates with a good understanding of health and safety management systems to shine.Question 5Most candidates provided reasonable answers to part (i) of the question, identifying the requirement to notify the enforcing authority by the quickest practicable means and then to report the death formally within ten days by an approved means (eg on form F2508). Many failed to comment that the responsible person under the Regulations has the duty to submit the report and fewer still knew that delayed deaths, up to one year after the original accident, have to be reported whether or not they have been previously reported under another category. For part (ii), a number of candidates correctly identified `major injury' as a category but then went on to list types of injury within this category (fracture of bone, amputation, 24-hours hospitalisation, etc) and ignored other categories completely. They could additionally have referred to injuries that result in the injured person being away from work, or unable to do normal work, for more than three consecutive days, and injuries to non-employees who are taken to hospital for treatment.Question 6Most candidates were able to answer this question well by providing a broad range of factors. Good answers referred to the number of trained first-aid personnel and first aid facilities in relation to, for example, the size of the organisation, the distribution and composition of the workforce, the types of hazard and level of risk present, the proximity to emergency medical services, the special needs of travelling, remote or lone workers, and the ability to provide continued cover over different shifts and for sickness, leave and other absence. Some candidates spent too much time concentrating in depth on one or two factors only and as such gained few marks. They should be aware that in answering a question of this type, referenceis needed to a range of factors to obtain all the marks available.Question 7Candidates were expected to outline the essential differences between the two main branches of law - civil and criminal. They could have referred to the different objectives of the two systems (one to provide a remedy and the other to punish), the burden of proof required (a balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt), the parties generally involved (two individuals rather than the state and an individual) and the different court structures involved. A few candidates suggested differences in the sources of law, with criminal law generally written down in statutes or statutory instruments and with civil liabilities largely defined in common law by judicial precedent.There was much confusion generally shown in answers and, in particular, between branchesof law (civil and criminal) and sources of law (statute and common), with many candidates apparently not realising that the concepts are entirely different. There was also a tendency of many candidates to refer to relevant issues pertaining to one type of law before moving on to the other type, thereby leaving it to Examiners to work out for themselves what the differences were. Even worse, there were numerous examples of candidates referring to a characteristic of one type without indicating the corresponding issue relating to the other - andtherefore not showing a difference at all. Again, many candidates displayed a lack of good examination technique, producing lists when the question clearly required an outline. Question 8Part (a) was, generally, well answered with most candidates giving an explanation based on the probability/likelihood of an occurrence and the severity of its consequences. Some candidates neglected to illustrate their explanation with an example and missed the opportunity to gain an extra mark.Producing an outline of the key stages of a general risk assessment for part (b) should not have presented too much difficulty to candidates and this proved to be the case. The initial stage in any assessment is to define the task and identify both the hazards associated with the task and the classes of persons at risk of harm. The next stage would be to evaluate the risks arising from the hazards, to assess the effectiveness of existing precautions and to decide whether additional measures are required to eliminate or control the risks. Finally the findings of the assessment need to be recorded and a timescale set for their review and, if necessary, revision.Question 9This question was designed to examine the issues involved in the training of new staff. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, in particular, require employers to address the important issue of training. Those who did well concentrated on the matters to be included in an induction training programme as was required and did not fall into the trap of discussing wider training issues. Most candidates were able to outline the main topics as the organisation's health and safety policy, emergency procedures, hazards specific to the workplace and the need to comply with health and safety requirements, health and safety responsibilities and lines of communication, accident and first-aid arrangements, and welfare provision. More able candidates referred to health surveillance and consultation procedures.Question 10For part (a), a reasonable explanation of the term is the integration of people, equipment, materials and the environment to produce an acceptable level of safety. This involves astep-by-step procedure taking into account hazards, controls, essential equipment, personal protective equipment and training.Part (b) was generally answered well by most candidates, who outlined sources such as: legislation; approved codes of practice and official guidance; manufacturers' informatio n; British, European, international and industry standards; and direct contact with enforcement agencies and professional bodies. As well as such external sources, better candidates looked at a range of information sources from within an organisation, such as in-house standards, the results of risk assessment and job safety analysis, and accident and health surveillance data. Question 11The last question on the paper was generally well answered with many candidates able to list a good range of factors that included, amongst many others: the contractor's previous experience with the type of work; the reputation of the contractor amongst previous or current clients; the content and quality of the contractor's health and safety policy and risk assessments; the level of training and qualifications of staff (including those with health and safety responsibilities); accident/enforcement history; membership of accreditation orcertification bodies; equipment maintenance and statutory examination records; and the detailed proposals (eg method statements) for the work to be carried out.。