Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Lucian Muica  
#1 Posted : 09 December 2021 21:31:51(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Lucian Muica

Hi all

Can anyone provide me some tips regarding how to answer each bullet point?

Unit 2_Element 1.4

Evaluate the statutory and workplace health and safety requirements relating to:

• input of products and/or services

• the conversion processes  - don't have any clue here :)

• output of products and/or services

• inadvertent, unwanted or unnecessary goods, materials and waste of all types

• employees, contractors and others affected by the organisation’s activities

Really apreciated and thanks!

peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 10 December 2021 13:08:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Lucian

Given that they can't present in Plain English I am not suprised.

I think this element is about

1. Control of your supply chain - suppliers, contractors etc

2. Quality control of what comes in, how it it is "converted" i.e. your processes and what goes out

Conversion would include how the hazards and risks change during work.

So, as example you could mix two chemicals together to produce something with different properties (the hazards) and risks (the exposure).

....or you could buy things that are not sharp but create sharp things. Many decades ago I worked on a 400 tonne press making the blades of food mixers. The sheets we used were not particularly hazardous (a minor manual handling risk due to weight and in particular size/shape) but the product was less bulky but VERY sharp!

gordon j  
#3 Posted : 21 December 2021 11:39:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
gordon j

Lucian

Not being funny here but isn't this what your assessor should be doing? Supplying you with advice and guidance? If that is not happening at all I am sure this is an appeals procedure that may prove interesting to you and would probably chivvy your assessor to support you on this

Edited by user 21 December 2021 11:40:09(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

Melliker  
#4 Posted : 04 April 2022 19:11:55(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Melliker

sorry to piggy back this but it wont let me post myself.

Evaluate the methods of identification of health and safety hazards within the organisation Instruments and surveys, which may be used to determine the level of exposure to people who may be affected 

I am guessing this is Dust, Noise, Fume etc surveys, HAVs/lung function/hearing test occupational health surveys, PUWER assessements, calibration reports. 

Also what in the heck is a complex risk assessment? is it a task based one so it looks at all areas of potential risk?

As is spend my entire career making things be simple and easily understood the phrasing on these questions is bloody awful.

peter gotch  
#5 Posted : 05 April 2022 10:14:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Melliker, welcome to the Forums.

For future reference, when you open any of the Forums there is a button just above the list of threads "NEW TOPIC" which you can use to open a new thread.

However, as regards your posting and the element of the NVQ that you refer to:

"Evaluate the methods of identification of health and safety hazards within the organisation Instruments and surveys, which may be used to determine the level of exposure to people who may be affected"

I think you probably have covered many of the issues that an assessor might be looking for in your posting here.

I do think the question is a bit ambiguous as you suggest, but perhaps they are asking to indicate what your organisation does in terms of qualitative, possibly numeric, and possibly genuine Quantified Risk Assessment and to argue the pros and cons of whatever methodology or methodologies are used.

So, as example if your organisation uses one of those popular risk matrices that assign numeric values to "likelihood" (or other term) and "severity" (or other term) to come up with a measure of "raw risk" and then apply one or more mitigations, change one or both of the first numbers, so as to calculate a number for the risk with such mitigations in place, what are the benefits of such approach and are there any disbenefits?

You might be doing lots of things digitally - is so what would you see as the merits and demerits?

As for terminology such as "complex risk assessment" what is "complex" would depend on the perspective of the individual as I am not aware of any authoritive definition of the term!

As example, if you have never picked up a noise meter before, I suppose working out where to take measurements, how many and for how long and then interpreting the results would to some be a "complex risk assessment" - conversely if you do such work every week, it would just be daily bread and butter and the assessor probably has a very good understanding as to what methods of reducing exposure work where and why.

Good luck! P

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Melliker on 05/04/2022(UTC)
Melliker  
#6 Posted : 05 April 2022 10:24:50(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Melliker

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Hi Melliker, welcome to the Forums.

For future reference, when you open any of the Forums there is a button just above the list of threads "NEW TOPIC" which you can use to open a new thread.

However, as regards your posting and the element of the NVQ that you refer to:

"Evaluate the methods of identification of health and safety hazards within the organisation Instruments and surveys, which may be used to determine the level of exposure to people who may be affected"

I think you probably have covered many of the issues that an assessor might be looking for in your posting here.

I do think the question is a bit ambiguous as you suggest, but perhaps they are asking to indicate what your organisation does in terms of qualitative, possibly numeric, and possibly genuine Quantified Risk Assessment and to argue the pros and cons of whatever methodology or methodologies are used.

So, as example if your organisation uses one of those popular risk matrices that assign numeric values to "likelihood" (or other term) and "severity" (or other term) to come up with a measure of "raw risk" and then apply one or more mitigations, change one or both of the first numbers, so as to calculate a number for the risk with such mitigations in place, what are the benefits of such approach and are there any disbenefits?

You might be doing lots of things digitally - is so what would you see as the merits and demerits?

As for terminology such as "complex risk assessment" what is "complex" would depend on the perspective of the individual as I am not aware of any authoritive definition of the term!

As example, if you have never picked up a noise meter before, I suppose working out where to take measurements, how many and for how long and then interpreting the results would to some be a "complex risk assessment" - conversely if you do such work every week, it would just be daily bread and butter and the assessor probably has a very good understanding as to what methods of reducing exposure work where and why.

Good luck! P


Hi Peter,

It wouldnt let me post as it was too similar to another question.

Part of the fun for me is I am a contractor, have been for most of my 12 year career so I have lots of examples and a good idea of how different businesses choose to implement HSE policy but it can be difficult to show it in relation to a company if you see what I mean. Harder for me to work out.

Risk Assessments are always going to be an interesting one, some lovely recent examples before I persuaded one of my clients to standardise was asbestos being on one for ground work, cutting back bushes. I explained that I read that, that told me they hadnt thought about the risks for that task they tried to say they found panels in the bushes lol.

Finally got across to them why this was not a good idea. Still working on the supervision and what constitutes adequate supervision with them. One step at a time.

M

thanks 1 user thanked Melliker for this useful post.
Kate on 05/04/2022(UTC)
Kate  
#7 Posted : 05 April 2022 10:52:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I love the asbestos in the bushes example!

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
Melliker on 05/04/2022(UTC)
Melliker  
#8 Posted : 05 April 2022 11:15:07(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Melliker

Originally Posted by: Kate Go to Quoted Post

I love the asbestos in the bushes example!

It was hilarious, further examples are, one of the other areas of the business use another consultancy for their works. I have been working within CDM and heavy manufacturing (DSEAR/COMAH) since I started. This consultancy had them bundling Tree Work, Fencing and Grounds Maintenance together to make it notifiable. Biiiiig No, I found out as the Tree works were audited by them and werent displaying notices etc. so had to explain why tree work is never CDM unless its part of another F1O, why you dont bundle three seperate programmes of work, in different locations together. And why having themselves down as everything when the only person they had working for them competent to operate as a PC was myself and I wasnt aware of the works and wouldnt have sanctioned it was opening a can of worms.

Obviously I am not popular with the other consultancy........

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 05 April 2022 12:21:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Melliker

Ah, the "too similar to another posting" - you have to be creative in the title of your posting to get round that one.

Slightly off topic but there could be good reasons to bundles together different packages of work. Up to the CDM Client to decide on how to define the "project". Often much easier to treat an entire Framework Contract or at least packages within it as the "project" - if that means applying an approach that makes the management of H&S (including CDM) consistent with how other aspects of the work are managed.

Also, there are the implications of the case law on the Factories Act 1961 defintion of "building operation" to take into account given that the CDM definition of "construction work" drives largely from the FA 1961 defintions of "building operation" and "work of engineering construction" (No case law on what was an WEC). So, if you look at e.g. the judgment in Horsley v Collier and Catley Ltd, if one needs to do tree work in order to do the "construction work" the Courts should be likely to conclude that the tree work is part of the "construction work" as being "necessary but ancillary".

[I do take your point that the tree work might be part of a broader F10 notification!]

Doesn't change the position that whoever is in charge needs to be sufficiently competent for the work, as do those DOING the work. It's not that long ago that a major contractor was the subject of enforcement action as their reliance on CSCS cards was not considered appropriate for those doing arboricultural works on a major infrastructure project.

peter gotch  
#10 Posted : 05 April 2022 12:25:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi again Melliker

A separate message on a separate issue.

Nothing to stop you commenting in an NVQ Portfolio about why you think that some of your clients' systems might not be fit for purpose.

Just probably sensible to try and avoid naming names [even if what goes into your portfolion SHOULDN'T get into the public domain].

Same as setting out things like incident investigation experience in a CV. If you can bundle stuff together so as to not bite the hand that feeds you, you can say much more about the things that have gone wrong.

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.