Past Exam Papers

December 2005 A2               December 2005 A1

December 2006 A1               December 2006 A2

NCC1 2007                           NCC1 Dec 2007                      NGC1 Dec 2007

NCC2: Construction health and safety practical application Part II

NCC2: Construction health and safety practical application Part I
NCC2: Construction health and safety practical application Part III

In Part I, we looked at how we would carry out a safety inspection of a workplace, and identify the types of hazards that maybe present, In part II we look at how the examiner will award marks for the observatios made and how they are presented, In Part III will be an example observation sheet and a sample report.

Allocation of marks

While poor spelling and grammar will not be penalised the report should demonstrate reasonable literacy levels. In addition, if the assessor is unable to understand your notes then invariably fewer marks will be awarded than would otherwise have been the case.

Observation sheets

Range of issues (0 to 5 marks)

You are expected to do more than simply identify hazards such as poor housekeeping and unsafe machines. In most workplaces you should be able to find a range of hazards in chemical, fire, electrical, environmental, welfare and other issues. Remember you can also comment on situations

Number of hazards identified (0 to 20 marks)

You are expected to be able to recognise the more common hazards. Marks will not be awarded for repetitive hazards or deficiencies such as poor housekeeping or unguarded machinery. As a general rule you would be expected in a very good report to identify about 75% of the health and safety issues that would be readily noted by a health and safety practitioner.

At certificate level you are not expected to know all the information about every hazard. The following should be used as a rule:

• You would be expected to recognise that the top guard of a circular saw is incorrectly set several inches above the wood being cut. You would not however be expected to know the maximum permitted clearance.
  


• You would be expected to know that fire extinguishers should be provided, but not whether the ones provided were of the correct type.

Identification of immediate, medium and long term action requirements (0 to 10 marks)

Where appropriate you should comment on the need for medium and long term action as well as immediate action to control any danger. You should be able to distinguish between the symptoms and root causes. For example the immediate action on poor housekeeping could be to sweep up the debris. Tackling the root cause could involve employing a labourer, improving supervision or modifying the work process

Suitability of remedial actions (0 to 20 marks)

The proposed remedial actions must not only remove or control the hazard but must also be realistic and cost-effective. Time-scales should also be realistic.

Report to management

The management report is part of the examination process. It must be written in your own handwriting (unless special arrangements are agreed in advance with NEBOSH) and must not contain any photographs, printed matter or any other extraneous material. The following marking scheme is used.

Selection of topics for urgent management attention (0 to 10 marks)

This requires you to emphasise those items on the observation sheets that you consider require attention by senior management. You should present them along with your comments and recommendations. Remember that this is action required by senior management so do not just reproduce the remarks on the observation sheets. Also, marks will be deducted if you give undue

Consideration of cost implications (0 to 5 marks)

You are not expected either to know or to estimate the actual costs but you should demonstrate that you are aware that there are some cost implications. For example, if you recommend training, some indication should be given as to whether you are suggesting a short in-house course or a two-week external course. It is the assessment of the magnitude of costs that is important more than the precise figures.

Indication of breaches of legislation (0 to 5 marks)

In a real work situation you would consult books and references when preparing a report. For the purpose of this assessment, in which books and reference material are not allowed, you are expected to be able to broadly identify those Acts and Regulations referred to during the course that may have been breached. Neither the date nor the full titles are obligatory even for full marks.

Presentation of information (0 to 10 marks)

Although there is no universally approved format for the purposes of the practical assessment a good report should contain about 500-750 words comprising about three pages of handwritten A4 paper.

The report should cover the following points in a logical sequence:

• Where and when the inspection took place
• A brief summary of what was found
• A short list of issues requiring management attention with convincing arguments as to why such action is needed and calling attention to possible breaches of legislation.
• Reference to the list of observations and recommended actions (observation sheets should be attached to the report) calling attention to any recommendations which could have a high cost in terms of finance, inconvenience or time.

Effectiveness in convincing management to take action (0 to 15 marks)

This is the assessor's overall impression of the report and the degree to which they consider it would have convinced management to take action. Managers are unlikely to have time to plough through lengthy reports and candidates who are not selective and who include large numbers of minor hazards in lengthy reports will earn few marks under this heading.
You should write the report in a style that a manager would be able to take reasonable action based on the facts presented. Reports based on unsupported generalities and those that simply reiterate the contents on the observation sheets will earn low marks

In conclusion

High marks will be awarded to reports that are concise, readable and highly selective in terms of action required by senior management. They should contain balanced arguments on why action is needed and explain the effect it would have on the standards of health and safety at the workplace.

NCC2: Construction health and safety practical application Part I

NCC2: Construction health and safety practical application Part II
NCC2: Construction health and safety practical application Part III

The aim of the post is to assist the reader in gaining the knowledge & ability to complete successfully two activities

• To carry out unaided a safety inspection of a construction workplace identifying the more common hazards, deciding whether they are adequately controlled and where necessary, suggesting appropriate and cost-effective remedial action
• To prepare a report that persuasively urges management to take appropriate action, explaining why such action is needed (including reference to possible breaches of legislation) and identifying, with due consideration of reasonable practicability, the remedial measures that should be implemented.

Guidance on carrying out the inspection and writing the report:

1.    The inspection

This will consist of you carrying out an inspection of one or more locations and listing your findings in a prescribed manner on a form given to you.

No work will be taking place in the location inspected so therefore the inspection will be carried out to identify standards of safety in the workplace and will not involve looking at work practices.

Workers at all levels generally create unsafe conditions. For example:

• Unsafe premises due to poor design or layout or lack of maintenance.
• Unsafe plant resulting from poor selection criteria, lack of maintenance, carelessness or abuse.
• Poor housekeeping standards due to lack of storage space, untidiness, laziness, and lack of management planning or poor supervision.
• Incorrect use of plant, machinery or tools.
• Environmental hazards due to ignorance, carelessness or not carrying out adequate risk assessments.
• Welfare facilities that are inadequate, poorly maintained or being misused.
• Lack of adequate emergency arrangements due to lack of foresight, planning, control, communications or training.

When carrying out the inspection of the workplace you should be able to spot deficiencies in such things as:

• Management systems.
• Diligence or competence of supervisors.
   
• Safety culture within the organisation's workforce.
• Obvious physical deficiencies.

    2.    Plan of action for the inspection

The time allocated to carry out the inspection of the work place is limited to between 30 to 45 minutes and it is therefore important that you have a simple plan of action in order to make the best use of the time available.

Planned inspections must be considered in three main areas:

• Physical
• Environmental
• Managerial

    3.    Memory check-list

As no work will be taking place in the area at the time of the inspection initial concentration must be on physical things. A memory checklist is useful when carrying out inspections. For example look

AT		FOR
Housekeeping Standards		Untidy areas
Waste receptacles		Overflowing or wrongly used
Storage		Tools and other items left lying around
Access and egress		Obstructed
Layout		Does it look planned with efficient use of space
Floors		Look for potential hazards of slipping, tripping or falls
Machinery safety		Are machines fit for purpose
Positioning		Are the space around them reasonable
Machinery		Are there defective parts or missing guards
Controls		Are they easily accessed, identified and in good order
Foundations		Are all machinery and plant foundations secure or adequate
Electrical installations/equipment		Are    installations    and    equipment    in    good condition and periodically tested
Switch gear		All clearly identified in an uncluttered area
Other utilities		Are all gas or hydraulic installations or supplies in good order
Gas bottles		Is the    storage satisfactory in well ventilated areas
Welding and cutting		Suitability of areas, protection from glare and fumes
Local exhaust ventilation		Is LEV adequate and properly installed
Environmental		Is lighting, temperature, humidity reasonable and atmosphere reasonably clean and free from undue noise, fumes or dusts or vibrations
Manual hand-tools		Are hand-tools in suitable and in good condition
Hazardous materials and processes		Are data sheets available for operators
Containers		Are all containers suitable and labelled
Transportation		Are arrangements suitable
Usage		Are substances fit for the purpose that they are used for
Disposal		Are arrangements adequate
Notices		Are all statutory and other notices displayed
Welfare facilities, including first aid		Available and adequate
Internal transport		Routes and vehicle parking satisfactory.
Mechanical handling equipment		Supplied where appropriate and in satisfactory condition
Personal protective equipment		Is it provided as required, in good order and well looked after
Emergency precautions		Are there any in place with notices posted
Alarm arrangements		Are these satisfactory
Emergency lighting		Is this provided, if required
Evacuation routes		Are these free from obstructions, protected from ingress of fire and smoke, well sign-posted with final exits easily opened and good access to a designated assembly point
Smoking		Is smoking restricted and is this being adhered to
Flammable materials/substances		Are these being stored and disposed of properly

Items highlighted are issues whist other items are items to be considered within the issue

NB: This list is indicative rather than a comprehensive list of what should be looked at and for during the inspection. Items highlighted can be considered as issues.

All deficiencies noted on the inspection sheets should be factual. Candidates can also note good points such as good housekeeping standards on the observation sheets or in the report to management.

From the list of factual deficiencies that are identified it will be possible to reach a conclusion about some work activities and consequential recommendations.

For example:

• Lack of LEV would lead to the conclusion that there will be environmental hazards when people are welding or burning.
• Because of the number of hazards you will identify it would be reasonable to assume the knowledge or skills of managers and supervisor will require to be improved through additional training.
• Broken or missing guards would imply a lack of care or maintenance.
• The amount and type of deficiencies noted would indicate a lack of or poor risk assessments and monitoring arrangements leading to a need for discipline and training.

These examples can be incorporated into the body of the report to management provided they are based on the physical conditions and facts gathered during the inspection

Employers Duty Of Care

I came across this article from a very interesting site, I thought I'd like to share with you its from a very interesting site, you should look at if your into all things H&S

There is no author and no copyright so I assume it written by the site owner who is

  Mike Everly   good informative site

Common Law

In an article of this length it would be impossible to deal with the entire field of common law. Therefore, the focus is very narrow and purely related to an employer's common law duty of care towards their employees. Additionally, only the civil law implications of common law are considered.

To be successful in a tort of negligence action the following has to be established:

· That the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care.

· That the duty of care was breached through negligence.

· That loss resulted from the breach of the duty of care.

Negligence merely means failing to act in a way a reasonable person would have acted under the circumstances, or acting in a way a reasonable person would not have acted in under the circumstances.

The burden of proof in civil cases rests with the claimant on the balance of probabilities. However, there are two main ways in which the claimant can gain assistance in discharging this burden of proof. Namely:

· Assistance by statute. Under the Civil Evidence Act 1968, where the defendant has been convicted of criminal proceedings that conviction is admissible in civil proceedings.

· Assistance at common law. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, or the thing speaks for itself, the evidential burden of proof is cast from the claimant upon the defendant. However, three conditions must apply:

· The accident could not have occurred without negligence.

· The defendant was in control of the situation.

· There is an absence of an alternative explanation by the defendant.

The Duty of Care

In Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1938), the four main elements of an employers’ duty towards their employees were identified as being the:

· Provision and maintenance of a safe place of work;

· Provision and maintenance of a safe system of work;

· Provision and maintenance of safe plant and appliances;

· Provision of competent fellow employees.

In addition, it was made clear, that while an employer may delegate some of these functions to nominated employees, the employer cannot delegate legal responsibility.

The duty of care owed by employers to their employees has been extended over the years through case-law. Examples being:

Safe Place of Work

· Galt v British Railways Board (1983). The claimant suffered shock and consequent heart problems when the train he was driving nearly hit two men working by the lines. The defendant was held to be liable for not providing a lookout.

· Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply Company Ltd (1938) found the employer liable after an employee was electrocuted because a kiosk had not been properly insulated.

· Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) found the employer not liable after a heavy storm flooded the factory floor and a mixture of oil and water made the floor slippery. The employer put down sand and sawdust, but did not have enough to treat the whole of the factory in this way. As a result the claimant was injured. It was held that the risk was not grave enough to warrant closing down the factory.

Safe System of Work

· Ross v Tennant Caledonian Breweries Ltd (1983) demonstrated that the fact that a system has been in place for a period of time without accidents occurring, is not enough to demonstrate that it is a safe system.

· Bux v Slough Metal Ltd (1974) held that the employer had failed to provide a reasonably safe system of work by failing to give the employee the necessary instructions to wear the goggles provided and to enforce the wearing of them through supervision. However, in Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes (1959) an employee who did not wear the protective clothing which was available failed to gain compensation as they had chosen not to make use of it at their own risk. In Finch v Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company (1949) the employer was found liable for the eye injury to the claimant, because although they had provided goggles they had not told the employee where to find them.

· In Walker v Northumberland County Council (1994) the duty to provide a safe system of work was extended beyond providing a system that took reasonable measure to protect employees from physical injury to protect employees from psychological injury as well.

Safe Plant and Appliances

· Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967) held that it was foreseeable that a vehicle driver would suffer frostbite in an unheated van while driving a long distance in extremely cold weather. As the van also had cracked windows, it was held that the employer had failed to provide suitable plant.

· Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd (1959) led to the Employers' Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. The claimant lost his claim against his employer following an injury from a tool with a hidden defect. It was held that the employer was not negligent. The Act changed matters by providing that if an employee is injured in the course of his employment as a consequence of a defect in equipment, provided by his employer for use in connection with his business, then that defect will be attributable to the negligence of the employer. However, any damages paid by the employer can then be recovered from the manufacturer or other responsible party. Knowles v Liverpool City Council(1993) found that a defective flagstone used by the "flagger" employed by the highway authority constituted equipment under the Act and the House of Lords refused to draw a distinction between equipment and materials.

· Taylor v Rover Car Company Ltd (1966) held that where an employer is aware of any defect in tools which have been purchased from outside the company, he should withdraw them from circulation.

· Williams v Birmingham Battery and Metal Company (1899) held the employer liable for failing to provide the necessary equipment, Machray v Stewarts and Lloyds Ltd (1964) for providing insufficient equipment and Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation (1944) for providing defective equipment.

· Barkway v South Wales Transport Company (1950) held that an employer must have a proper and adequate system of inspection and testing in order that defects can be identified and reported. Whereas, Monaghan v Rhodes and Son (1920) held that such defects must then be remedied.

· Pearce v Round Oak Steel Works Ltd (1969) ruled that before second-hand machinery is put into use it must be checked to ensure that it is serviceable.

· Close v Steel Company of Wales (1962) found that failure to erect suitable and effective guards around unfenced machinery liable to eject parts or material, may constitute negligence at common law irrespective of any liability for a breach of relevant regulations.

Competent Fellow Employees

· Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Company Ltd (1957) held that where an employer is aware that the conduct of an employee gives rise to danger due to sky-larking, the employer is under an obligation to take effective steps to remedy the situation. However, if the employer is unaware that practical jokes are being played, as in Smith v Crossley Brothers (1971), he will not be found liable as such acts fall outside of the scope of the employer's business.

· Butler v Fife Coal Company (1912) held that where an employer appoints an inexperienced person to carry out highly dangerous activities, then the employer may be liable if, as a result of lack of experience, another employee is injured.

If an employer knows, or if a reasonable employer could have foreseen, that an individual employee is at greater risk than an average employee, then the employer’s duty of care towards that individual employee is correspondingly greater. In Byers v Head Wrightson and Co Ltd (1961) it was held that greater precautions are necessary when dealing with young or inexperienced workers. Whereas, in Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) it was held that the Council had a greater duty of care towards the remaining eye of the one-eyed man.

With regard to whether the duty of care has been breached, a key test is whether the injury suffered was foreseeable? The next test being what would a reasonable person have been expected to have done to prevent this foreseeable injury? What is deemed to be reasonable depending upon the likelihood of the injury, the possible severity and the cost of doing more. Often the test of current good practice can be applied, providing that practice does not involve obvious folly.

The employer’s duty of care extends to cover the employee whilst they are “within the course of their employment” and “acting as a reasonable employee would act”. Tests for course of employment involve:

· The time of the accident.

· The place the accident occurred.

· What was the employee employed to do.

· Did the employer derive benefit from the employee's actions.

· Did an express prohibition apply.

Defences

Defences often consider whether the injury was foreseeable and whether the defendant did all that a reasonable person could have been expected to have done to prevent such a foreseeable injury.

Other defences involve sole fault of the employee, the fact that it was an inevitable accident, that the action was carried out under statutory authority, and the necessity to allow a lesser injury to prevent a greater injury.

Volenti non fit injuria, roughly translated as the injured person having volunteered to place themselves at risk, is a defence which the courts are reluctant to accept. When they do accept it, the following tests apply:

· Lack of coercion.

· A specific risk was involved.

· Full knowledge.

In Smith v Baker and Sons (1891) it was held that mere knowledge of the risk was not enough, it had to be shown that the claimant had consented to the particular thing being done which would involve the risk and had consented to take that risk upon himself.

The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides that where injury is caused by two or more persons, the court must decide how much each person is to blame. One of the persons involved may be held to be the injured employee.

The basic limitations period under the Limitations Act 1980 is three years from either the date on which the cause of action accrued or the date of the claimant's knowledge whichever is the later. However, the courts have wide discretion and can disregard this time limit and permit actions to proceed.

NEBOSH Certificate Essentials: - The Six Pack

The Six Pack

• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
  
• The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
  
• Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
  
• Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
  
• The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
  
• The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992
  

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

• The assessment of risks to health and safety
  
• Access to competent health and safety advice
  
• Co-operation of employers and those who share premises
  
• Preparing for emergencies
  

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

• The assessment of machinery hazards
  
• The process of installation, commissioning and use of work equipment
  
• The hazards created by introducing a piece of work equipment into a workplace
  

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

• Common features of a workplace
  
• Minimum standards of workplace hygiene
  
• Identification of potential workplace hazards
  

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992

• The interaction of a person with their workstation within the work environment
  
• The design of tasks using new technology
  
• The assessment of those at most risk of work related upper limb disorders
  

The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992

• The prevalence of back injury
  
• The assessment of a task, the person performing the task, the load to be moved and the environment in which it is moved
  
• The preference of eliminating or minimising lifting and handling
  
• Emphasis placed on mechanical handling
  

The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992

• Personal protection is the last line of defense
  
• An assessment of the hazards a person is exposed to is required
  
• Specification of the equipment standards aids selection of appropriate PPE
  
• All PPE has to be maintained and has a finite life