September 2012

Examiners Report NEBOSH National General Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety (NGC2)

Examiners Report
NEBOSH NATIONAL GENERAL CERTIFICATE IN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY UNIT NGC2: CONTROLLING WORKPLACE HAZARDS SEPTEMBER 2012

CONTENTS

Introduction

General comments

Comments on individual questions

2012 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
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 examinations 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 2012

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: info@nebosh.org.uk

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 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. Candidates should therefore 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. Candidates should note that it is not necessary to start a new page in their answer booklet for each section of a question. 3

EXTERNAL

Unit NGC 2 Controlling workplace hazards

Question 1 (a) Give the meaning of the term work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD). Explain why a checkout operator in a supermarket may be at risk of WRULDs. Identify ill-health effects that can be associated with WRULDs. Outline appropriate control measures that could reduce the risk of WRULDs amongst supermarket checkout operators.

(2)

(b)

(8) (5)

(c) (d)

(5)

Work-related upper limb disorders (WRULDs) are a common cause of injury and illhealth in the workplace, with hundreds of thousands of workers being affected each year. In order to reduce the risk of WRULDs, an understanding of the condition would be required in order to appreciate the causes and subsequent control measures. In part (a), candidates were asked to give the meaning of the term work-related upper limb disorder and were expected to cover the area of the body affected, essentially from the finger tips to the neck; the effect on the body, such as circulation, soft tissue etc; and the fact that the condition is caused by work. Very few candidates linked work as a causal factor and some areas of the body suggested by candidates were more associated with general musculo-skeletal disorders (such as back and legs) rather than the specific anatomy concerned with WRULDs. Part (b) of this question required candidates to explain the risks of WRULDs in a given occupation, in this case a checkout operator in a supermarket. This should be a familiar situation and candidates should have been able to recognise that the repetitive nature of the job, together with the arm movement of the operator, could give rise to WRULDs. This work aspect, combined with the design and reliability of the checkout, the working environment and individual susceptibility would have given candidates a breadth of issues on which to base the explanation required. Whilst the majority of candidates demonstrated a knowledge of the subject, the breadth of issues given was limited and explanations were, in many cases, very brief. Some candidates could not apply the causes of WRULDs to a checkout operator and reverted to a display screen equipment user instead. Clearly there is some similarity, but such an approach would limit the marks that could be awarded. In part (c), candidates who could identify that WRULDs can cause physical issues such as pain; sensations including burning and tingling; and impairment such as loss of sensation, could demonstrate an understanding of the breadth of health effects and gained marks accordingly. In many cases, candidates could not give a sufficient range of health effects and available marks were limited. Candidates who gave reasonable answers to part (b) were well positioned to gain good marks in part (d) of this question, which required an outline of control measures to reduce the risk of WRULDs amongst supermarket checkout operators. Candidates who suggested control measures to address workstation design, reduce repetition and improve the working environment with a suitable outline would have gained the available marks. Candidates who gave general WRULD controls or those associated with display screen equipment compromised their opportunity to gain marks.

EXTERNAL

Question 2

Outline measures an employer might consider to minimise the risk of violence against employees.

(8)

Many occupations can put employees at a risk of violence and therefore there is a broad range of measures that employers might consider to minimise such risks. Candidates could have referred to security measures, workplace design, training and systems of work to avoid lone working and conflict etc. As this question was not specific to any particular occupation then the options were wide and varied and candidates who took this approach gained good marks. Some candidates, however, limited their options by focussing on violence in a hospital. Additionally rather than answering a question on violence, some candidates chose to give measures to reduce stress. Whether this was as a result of misreading the question or confusing the subject matter is not clear, but in either event, the opportunity to gain marks was severely limited.

Question 3

A small fire has started in a motor repair workshop and is currently contained to a waste bin holding cardboard packaging materials. (a) (b) Outline sources of ignition that may have started this fire. Identify reasons why a water extinguisher would be the most appropriate to tackle this fire AND give the reason why the fire would be extinguished by using it. If the fire is not extinguished quickly, describe how the transmission of heat may cause this fire to spread to other parts of the workplace. (3)

(2)

(c)

(3)

Candidates are expected to be able to consider the principles of fire in a typical workplace. Part (a) required an outline of ignition sources that would be present in a motor repair workshop, such as hot work and hot surfaces. Some candidates gave examples of general ignition sources such as arson or cooking appliances, which were not particularly relevant to the given scenario. In part (b), most candidates could identify that a water extinguisher would remove the heat from the fire, but few candidates linked this method of extinguishing to the fire triangle. Additionally, few candidates recognised this fire as Class A, hence the need for a water extinguisher, or the fact that the fire did not involve electrical apparatus which also deemed a water extinguisher appropriate for this fire. Most candidates could give the basic methods of heat transfer, but many failed to describe how this would result in the spread of fire. Candidates who could describe how heat is transferred through solid metals, air currents and through space were awarded the marks available.

Question 4

(a)

Outline reasons why an item of machinery should be maintained. (4)

(b)

Outline ways of reducing the risk of injury from moving parts of machinery during maintenance activities.

(4)

Maintenance is a key element of reducing the risks when using items of machinery. Maintaining machinery can itself, however, increase the risk of injury. In part (a) of this question an outline of the reasons why an item of machinery should be maintained was required. Candidates should be aware that the NEBOSH National General Certificate is a health and safety qualification and the answers given should reflect

EXTERNAL

this. Candidates, therefore, who referred to loss of production or reduction of downtime would not be awarded marks. Candidates who could outline routine maintenance such as replenishing oil, planned maintenance including replacement of interlocks and fulfilling legal requirements would have gained the available marks. In part (b), an outline of ways of reducing injury from moving parts of machinery during maintenance activities was required. Some candidates seem to miss the reference to moving parts and gave a whole range of non-relevant answers, such as allowing parts to cool and providing personal protective equipment. Candidates who outlined the need to isolate the machine, minimise the need to remove guards or use temporary guards would have gained good marks. Candidates who saw this as a general machine guarding question missed the maintenance application and therefore limited the marks they could be awarded. Accredited course providers should also note that a significant number of candidates referred to an outdated guarding hierarchy and associated guarding types (FIAT) which have little value in current machinery safety.

Question 5

(a)

Identify FOUR possible health risks associated with exposure to cement. Outline control measures to reduce health risks when working with cement.

(4)

(b)

(4)

Cement can create a wide range of health risks and candidates who in part (a) considered risks from dry cement, such as inhalation of dust, contact with wet caustic cement and the weight of packaged cement could gain the marks available. Some candidates limited their ability to gain marks by only referring to cement in its powdered form. A wide range of health risks identified in part (a) would have helped to point to an outline of the control measures to reduce health risks when working with cement, as required in part (b). Candidates who considered reducing the risks from cement dust such as buying pre-mixed concrete, protecting employees from wet cement such as providing appropriate footwear and the use of handling aids for packaged cement, with reasonable outlines were awarded marks accordingly.

Question 6

A manual handling assessment was carried out on employees carrying sacks of mail from the delivery point to an upstairs sorting area. Following the assessment it was agreed to install a mechanical conveyor system to assist in the movement of the mail. (a) Outline the factors that should have been considered in the manual handling assessment prior to the installation of the conveyor system with respect to: (i) (ii) (b) the task; the load. (2) (2)

Outline the hazards that could be introduced following the installation of the conveyor system.

(4)

A manual handling assessment is intended to identify where a manual handling activity could give rise to a risk of injury and consider ways to reduce the risk. A full manual handling assessment should consider the task, individual, load and working environmental factors associated with the handling activity (often referred to as a TILE assessment). In part (a) of this question, candidates were asked to outline factors associated with the task for 2 marks and factors associated with the load for 2 marks, which caused no problems to many candidates. A significant number of candidates, 6

EXTERNAL

however, either referred to the individual and environmental aspects of TILE, which was not required, or confused the factors associated with the task and the load and therefore could not be awarded the marks available. In reducing manual handling risks by the provision of mechanical conveyor system, new hazards, which have the potential to cause harm, could be introduced. Part (b) of this question required an outline of the hazards of the conveyor system, which could have included mechanical hazards associated with the moving parts of the conveyor and other (non-mechanical) hazards associated with the power supply, noise and potential obstruction. Some candidates could identify a number of hazards but failed to give a sufficient outline, such as where on a conveyor system would a drawing in hazard be present or in what circumstances would a person be exposed to electricity.

Question 7

(a)

Identify the possible effects on health that may be caused by working in a hot environment. Outline control measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of ill-health when working in a hot environment.

(2)

(b)

(6)

A hot environment could include a wide range of work circumstances, including working outside in high temperatures, kitchens, laundries and working with molten metal. In part (a), therefore, a number of health effects could have been identified, including effects on the skin, dehydration and muscle cramps. This caused little problem to the majority of candidates, with both marks being awarded in many cases. In part (b), an outline of control measures to be taken to reduce the risk of ill-health when working in a hot environment was required. Many candidates answered this part with reference to a foundry which was not asked for. However, references to foundry issues such as shielding, refreshments and breaks would have gained marks. Candidates who gave a broader response including issues such as reduction of humidity, acclimatisation and provision of cool clothing would have been awarded the additional marks available.

Question 8

A small quantity of paint is applied by brush to components in a workshop. The material safety data sheet (MSDS) indicates that this paint is both irritant and carcinogenic. Workers have been observed regularly licking the tip of the paint brush during use and wiping excess paint from the components with their fingers. (a) Outline the meaning of the term: (i) (ii) (b) irritant; carcinogenic. (2) (2)

Explain why the observed method of working may increase the risk of ill-health. Identify ways that the health of these workers can be monitored.

(2) (2)

(c)

This question was concerned with poor working practices when using hazardous substances and the associated risks. When considering the risks associated with substances, the hazardous properties of the substance should be identified and understood. Part (a) of this question, therefore, required an understanding of the hazardous classifications of substances, irritant and carcinogenic. The majority of candidates did demonstrate basic understanding of the term irritant in that it can cause inflammation, but few mentioned that such a substance was non-corrosive.

EXTERNAL

Additionally, nearly all candidates knew that a carcinogenic substance can cause cancer but few, if any, referred to the increased chance of cancer following exposure. In part (b), an explanation of the link between the work method and route of entry was required. The majority of candidates could explain that licking the paint brush could lead to ingestion and wiping excess off with fingers would cause a skin contact. Few candidates referred to the chronic exposure and therefore the potential chronic health risks. Health monitoring can range from discussions with employees to full biological sampling. Such a range could have been used in the answer to part (c) and would have gained marks accordingly. However, many candidates could refer only to the general term health surveillance, which limited the marks that could be awarded. Question 9 (a) (b) Identify the possible effects of electricity on the body. Identify the emergency action to take if a person suffers a severe electric shock. (4)

(4)

Contact with electricity can have a number of effects on the body and in part (a) of this question, effects from mild sensation to cardiac arrest and death, would have been awarded marks. Again, non relevant points associated with questions set in previous NEBOSH National General Certificate examinations were given, including secondary effects such as fall from height. This would be as a result of receiving an electric shock, not an effect on the body of electricity. Part (b) was very well answered by the majority of candidates who could identify the main points of action required if a person receives an electric shock. Although the order of action to be taken was not requested or required, it was pleasing to see that most answers identified calling for help first and staying with the casualty last and therefore indicated a satisfactory understanding of this important, yet seldom practiced, emergency action.

Question 10

(a)

Identify factors that may indicate a need to undertake an assessment of exposure to hand-arm vibration. Outline control measures that would reduce the risk of health effects when exposed to hand-arm vibration.

(2)

(b)

(6)

In part (a), many candidates referred to re-active factors, such as employees reporting a problem or problems being identified through health surveillance that would indicate the need to undertake an assessment of exposure to hand-arm vibration. Surprisingly, very few candidates gave the obvious answer that the use of vibrating tools may indicate a need of such an assessment, especially where advised by the tool supplier. In part (b), control measures include tackling the risk at source with regards to tool design and maintenance, managing the work activity, with reference to frequency and duration of exposure and the working environment, specifically avoidance of cold temperatures. Many candidates also gained marks for indicating that the benefit of wearing gloves when using hand held vibrating tools is to keep the hands warm and gloves should not be relied upon to reduce vibration exposure.

EXTERNAL

Question 11

Identify the physical features of traffic routes within a workplace which are required for the safe movement of vehicles and safety of employees.

(8)

When managing workplace transport, the workplace, vehicle, work activity and the driver should be considered. This question was solely concerned with the workplace issues and required candidates to identify the physical features of traffic routes within a workplace. Such physical features would include the road surfaces, junctions, signage and obstructions etc, all of which would have gained marks. A large number of candidates, however, identified factors such as training, high visibility clothing and the use of a banksman which are not features of a traffic route and as such gained no marks. Again, it would appear that reference to vehicles and safety of employees in the question produces a stock answer, irrespective of whether the answer is relevant.

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 info@nebosh.org.uk www.nebosh.org.uk