Unit A July 05

Front 1

‘Perception’ may be defined as the process by which people interpret information that they take in through their senses.
Outline a range of factors that may affect how people perceive hazards in the workplace.

Back 1

Mental capability - effect of drugs or alcohol, the nature of the hazard (eg. ‘obviousness’, delayed effects). Environmental factors - noise or poor lighting, interference by PPE, the effect of information and training, the presence or absence of previous experience of, or exposure to, the hazard and the effect on knowledge and expectation (ie. under- or over-familiarity), sensory overload and fatigue, and the effect of sensitisation and habituation.

Front 2

A safety critical system depends for its success on a single component. Outline ways of reducing the likelihood of failure of this component and describe additional ways to increase the reliability of the system.

Back 2

Burning in; Regular inspection; Monitoring of conductions, e.g.. temp; Planned replacement ; Information, e.g.. Life span; Component design; Life Span; Collection of failure information; Failure mode analysis; Introduction of parallel systems; Standby systems; Planned preventative maintenance

Front 3

The senior management of an organisation wishes to introduce a number of new, safer working procedures but has met resistance from the workforce. Outline the steps that managers could take to gain the support and commitment of staff when introducing the changes.

Back 3

Training; Leading from the front; Finding out reasons for resistance; Consultation with employees; Get their input; Use of step by step instructions - E.g. pilot schemes; Setting out clearly the reasons and benefits of the proposed change; Produce positive feedback; Get everyone involved; Demonstrate weakness in existing system

Front 4

With reference to relevant decided cases and statutory requirements, explain the extent to which employers may be held liable for the dangerous behaviour of their employees with respect to: (i) civillaw (5) (ii) criminal law.

Back 4

Employers are vicariously liable for the negligent behaviour of their employees providing that such behaviour is carried out in the course of employment. Case - Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] .Employer have common law duty to provide safe and competent fellow employees (see, for example, Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd [1957]). Employers may be held criminally liable under the HSW Act, for instance, if dangerous behaviour occurs due to shortcomings in training or supervision. Management Regs 1999 Regulation 21, employers cannot escape conviction for an offence under the relevant statutory provisions by blaming the act or default of an employee. This regulation was introduced to counter the decision in R v Nelson Group Services (Maintenance) Ltd [1998].

Front 5

Outline ‘domino’ and ‘multi-causality’ theories of accident causation, showing their respective uses and possible limitations in accident investigation and prevention.

Back 5

The domino model can assist in the structuring of accident investigations. Heinrich - Ancestry / social environment; Fault of person; Unsafe act/Unsafe Condition; Accident; Injury. Bird & Loftus developed Heinrich model to include management influence & search for underlying causations – Lack of management control; Indirect causes; Immediate causes; Event; Injury/Damage. Benefits -Structured accident investigation; Bird & Loftus version encourages the search for underlying causes. Limitations - Simplistic straight chain thinking; Heinrich model restricts the findings of underlying causes. Multiple causation - May be more use than one underlying cause; Not only if happens in sequence; Thorough accident investigation requires all cause to be identified; Look at all factors including culture, management; Failings usually interact with each other causing incident, can be major. Benefits - Thorough accident investigation; Identification of all underlying causes including effects of managers and management systems; Encourages the use of a more systematic accident analysis such as fault tree analysis . Limitations - complex process, requires more time & resources to identify the full causation; practical difficulties in reaching a decision on the extent of an investigation

Front 6

An employer is considering the health and safety implications of employing a disabled person. Summarise the key requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that would need to be addressed in these circumstances.

Back 6

Sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the HSW Act were relevant and that employers would need to consider the nature of the disability and the workplace circumstances so that they could decide on reasonably practicable measures to ensure safe plant and systems of work, appropriate information, training and supervision, a safe workplace, adequate welfare provision, etc. There may also need to be changes to the health and safety organisation and arrangements required by section 2(3) of the Act. Disability Discrimination Act places a duty on employers not to discriminate against disabled persons in recruitment or employment practices unless there is a material and substantial reason. In particular, employers must take reasonable steps to modify working arrangements or physical features and some of these – such as workplace layout, means of access, emergency procedures and so forth – may have implications for health and safety. In deciding what are reasonable, employers may consider the effectiveness of the measure, its practicality, the cost and disruption involved and the financial resources available.

Front 7

An industrial site situated close to a housing estate contains a vessel for the storage of liquefied petroleum gas. It is estimated that a major release of the contents of the vessel could occur once every one hundred years (frequency = 0.01/yr). Such a release, together with the presence of an ignition source (probability, p=0.1), could lead to a flash fire or a vapour cloud explosion on site. Alternatively, if the wind is in a certain direction (p=0.6) and there is a stable wind speed of less than 8ms-1 (p=0.5), a vapour cloud may drift to the housing estate where it could be ignited (p=0.9).
(i) Using the data provided, construct an event tree to calculate the expected frequency of fire/explosion BOTH on site AND on the nearby housing estate.

Back 7

alternative scenarios and associated data to be expressed in the form of an event tree and for the annual probabilities of an explosion on- and off-site to be calculated using the conventional event tree method. calculated the off-site probability of explosion (once in about 400 years) to be significantly greater than the on-site probability (once in 1,000 years).

Front 8

(ii) Comment on the significance of the results obtained in (i).

Back 8

recognition that the off-site risk was greater than the on-site risk and then required that a comparison be made with relevant benchmark data, such as those contained in the HSE document “Reducing risks, protecting people” (currently available on the HSE website: www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf). The HSE proposes, for instance, that an individual risk of death from workplace activities of one in a million per annum (taking into account frequency, exposure and vulnerability) should be used as a guideline for the boundary between broadly acceptable and tolerable risk. The document also states that a specific risk greater than 1 in 10,000 to members of the public who have risks imposed upon them in the ‘wider interest of society’ should be considered intolerable. More specifically, it is proposed that for a situation analogous to that described in the scenario, and where an event could lead to the death of more than 50 people, an event frequency greater than 1 in 5,000 per year should be regarded as intolerable.

Front 9

(iii) Outline, with examples, a hierarchy of control options to minimise the risks.

Back 9

elimination, substitution and reduction of LPG, then moving on to measures to reduce the probability of a release through protective systems, maintaining plant integrity and operational practices, and finally looking at minimising the risks of an ignition in the event of a release and relevant emergency procedures.

Front 10

A multi-site business in the UK has a quality management system compliant with ISO 9001:2000. It also has a health and safety management system and an environmental management system that operate independently. The Board of Directors is now considering the possibility of developing an integrated management system encompassing all three elements. In order that a decision can be made objectively, prepare a brief for the Board that outlines the key potential benefits of: (i) an integrated management system. (ii) retaining the existing system of separate management systems.

Back 10

Benefits of an integrated management system can include: consistency of format and a lower overall cost through the avoidance of duplication in procedural, record-keeping, compliance auditing and software areas; encouraging priorities and resource utilisation that reflect the overall needs of the organisation rather than a single discipline; broadening the benefits from good initiatives in one area; 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 might include: providing a more flexible approach tailored to business needs in terms of system complexity and operating philosophy (eg. safety standards must be underpinned by legal minima but not so for quality standards; and the need for a more complex system in one element may not be mirrored by a similar need in the other two elements); existing systems may work well and the process of integration may expend unnecessary resources and affect their overall effectiveness; and separate systems might be clearer for external stakeholders or regulators to work with and may encourage a more detailed approach to auditing and standards.

Front 11

Identify the range of external influences that may affect health and safety standards within an organisation and state, in EACH case, why that external influence may impact upon internal decision-making.

Back 11

parliament and/or legislation, enforcing authorities and the powers available to them, official guidance and similar publications, courts and legal decisions, client or customer expectations, contractor or competitor pressures, trade unions, insurance companies, trade associations, public opinion or societal expectations (perhaps influenced by pressure groups and/or the media), accrediting bodies, technical standards bodies such as ISO, BSI or CEN, and consultants and training providers. Other, more general, external factors, such as the state of the national economy or labour market, may also be influential. For example: legislation may exert its influence via a desire to behave lawfully or for fear of prosecution; trade unions may influence decision-making via the appointment and training of safety representatives or by campaigning on specific issues; and accrediting bodies may influence decision-making through an organisation’s desire to retain a registration or award to support the image of a business in the eyes of the market or of its employees.

Front 12

A small food company imports and blends natural ingredients, many in powder form. This creates a dusty atmosphere but, since the company 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.
Review 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.

Back 12

The tests for negligence were, by and large, better understood than those for breach of statutory duty. It was particularly disappointing to note that a significant number of candidates came to the examination without any apparent understanding of the key requirements for a successful action for breach of statutory duty. Not only were there misunderstandings about the legal criteria to be applied but there was clearly a firm belief held by a number of candidates that such actions could be won in this case simply by establishing a breach of section 2 of the HSW Act 1974. Statutory instruments that contain specific requirements relevant to the scenario, and under which actions would have been allowed (subject to the other criteria for a breach of statutory duty action), were the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and, more particularly perhaps, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Candidates were expected to identify examples of specific requirements within such legislation that would be relevant but mostly such issues were covered in vague terms and with an assumption that the COSHH Regulations would apply (rather than explaining how they would apply in this case – eg. by reference to dust levels and/or sensitising agents). As usual, some credit was available for the correct use of case law and, in this scenario, Paris v Stepney Borough Council was particularly relevant to the negligence claim.

Front 13

As the Health and Safety Adviser to a large organisation, you have decided to introduce an in-house auditing programme to assess the effectiveness of the organisation’s health and safety management arrangements. Outline the issues to be addressed in the development of the audit system.

Back 13

logistics and available resources, and obtaining support from senior managers and other key stakeholders. On a more practical level, the nature, scale and frequency of auditing (relative to risk) and identifying the key elements of an audit process (such as planning, interviews, verification, feedback routes, etc) – together with a recognition of the need to develop audit protocols and to consider issues such as scoring and the use of proprietary software – were all important considerations. The types of auditing (system elements, performance standards, scope, etc) and the personnel implications (eg. the use of audit teams, training for auditors and briefing for those affected) were also issues that gained marks when properly outlined.