March 2009

Examiners Report
NEBOSH National
Diploma in
Occupational Health
and Safety - Unit D

Examiners Report
NEBOSH LEVEL 6 DIPLOMA IN
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Unit D Assignment
MARCH 2009

CONTENTS

Introduction

General Comments

Unit D Assignment

2009 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW
tel: 0116 263 4700
www.nebosh.org.uk

fax: 0116 282 4000

email: info@nebosh.org.uk

website:

The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health is a registered charity, number
1010444
T(s):exreps/UnitD/UnitD-0903

JP/DA/REW

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 over 25,000 candidates annually and are offered by
over 400 course providers in 65 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 recognised and regulated by the UK regulatory authorities:

The Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator (Ofqual) in England

The Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS) in Wales
The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) in Northern Ireland

NEBOSH follows the GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice 2007/8 published by the
regulatory authorities in relation to examination setting and marking (available at the Ofqual website
www.ofqual.gov.uk). 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 Department for Education and Skills (Df ES), 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 2009

Any enquiries about this report publication should be addressed to:

NEBOSH
Dominus Way
Meridian Business Park
Leicester
LE10 1QW
Tel:
0116 263 4700
Fax:
0116 282 4000
Email: info@nebosh.org.uk

General comments

The submission date for the NEBOSH National Diploma Unit D workplace based assignment
was 11 March 2009. 473 candidates submitted their assignment and 357 passed giving a
pass rate of 75%.
The focus of the Unit D assignment should be the application of the knowledge and
understanding developed in Units A, B and C to a real workplace situation. It provides
opportunities for the candidate to carry out research appropriate to a level 6 qualification.
Candidates are required to demonstrate their ability to carry out a range of activities that
would be expected of a health and safety practitioner.
The aim of the assignment is to produce an overall review of the health and safety
management system of an organisation and indicate, through the application of risk
assessment, the priorities for the organisation for the future.
Before attempting the Unit D assignment it is necessary for candidates to be fully conversant
with key elements of the syllabus for Units A, B and C. To facilitate this formative learning
process it is essential that candidates hold regular discussions with their tutor(s) throughout
the period of their studies, and complete the Assignment Log provided in the NEBOSH Unit
D Candidate Guidance, which is available from the NEBOSH web-site. Candidates should
visit www.nebosh.org.uk/students/currently_studying and then click on 2006 Specification
before selecting the PDF document entitled Unit D Candidate Guidance. There is strong
evidence to suggest that candidates who perform better in Unit D use the Assignment Log
from the very beginning of their studies, and at appropriate points on their learning journey.
Candidates who complete their Assignment Log retrospectively at the end of their studies will
obtain little or no benefit, and may well struggle to perform well in Unit D. Course providers
are requested to ensure that candidates use their Assignment Logs accordingly.

Assignment

Assignment Brief

The candidate is required to carry out a detailed review of the health and safety performance
of a workplace or organisation and to produce a justified action plan to improve performance.
The assignment will require the candidate to apply the knowledge and understanding gained
from their studies of elements of Units A, B and C in a practical environment and to carry out
critical analysis and evaluation of information gathered during the review. The level of work
should be that expected of a competent occupational health and safety practitioner working
within an organisation.
The report should include:

an introduction that sets the scene by stating clear aims and objectives and a
description of the methodology employed to carry out the assignment;

a description of the chosen workplace/organisation to set a context for the

assignment. The candidate will need to consider the legal framework within which the
workplace / organisation operates;

an overview of the current health and safety management arrangements in which the
candidate should critically review the health and safety management system;

a survey of a wide range of significant hazards within the workplace. The candidate
should prioritise the identified hazards and, depending on the nature and extent of
identified hazards, for each of two of the hazards, one physical and one appropriate
to health and welfare, carry out a risk assessment. This should include an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the organisation in controlling the risk arising from the hazards
identified and proposals to further control the hazard(s) and reduce risks;

conclusions which summarise the main issues identified in the candidates work
together with justified recommendations for improvement;

a costed and prioritised action plan for implementation of the candidates

recommendations in each of the two areas;

an executive summary of the report.

Examiners Comments

Those candidates who performed well in this assignment were evidently following the detailed
guidance (provided in the Guide to the NEBOSH National Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety
and on the NEBOSH website) very closely. It was clear that they were using the requirements of the
said guidance to structure their report, often using the guidance content to produce section headings in
their work. It is essential that course providers direct their candidates toward the available guidance,
and structure training/coaching sessions around this guidance. Course providers should ensure that
candidates dedicate sufficient time to preparing their assignments throughout their Diploma studies
and that the correct amount of planning is applied to what is a challenging piece of work.
Introduction
The introduction provides a foundation for the report and enables the reader to place the information
and judgements to follow in context. Most candidates provided a good or satisfactory introduction,
however, some omitted clearly stated aims and objectives and provided limited information on setting
the scene. To set the scene Examiners were looking for a description of the chosen
workplace/organisation and a brief description of the essential features of the legal environment within
which the workplace/organisation operates. A brief description of the principal civil and criminal legal
implications for the chosen organisation should be included. Some candidates produced a generic list
of various laws and regulations and only the better answers attempted to apply these legislative
requirements to their workplace as required. Candidates are required to demonstrate their knowledge
and understanding of relevant statutes, regulations, ACOPs, standards and guidance and to put these
in the context of the development of an effective health and safety management programme. Only a
small number of exemplar candidates provided a useful summary of the civil law implications, with
those who did not cover this topic area losing marks as a result.
Better submissions showed evidence of candidates putting a lot of thought into developing a clear and
concise aim explaining and justifying the purpose of the report. They also developed a set of
meaningful objectives for the report, which could be used throughout the writing / preparation of the
report to sense check their own progress.
Those candidates who then went onto explain their chosen methods, explaining and justifying basic
principles as they did so, achieved good marks in this area. Clear statements of what research had
been carried out, which models had been chosen and why, were most useful and evident in better
reports.
Executive Summary
The executive summary should provide a concise overview of the important points arising from the
work and summarise the main conclusions and recommendations. It should be possible for the
intended recipients (managers and directors) to read an executive summary in a short period of time,
while still being able to establish the main points covered in the full report. It should contain a clear call
to action supported by a concise and persuasive business case candidates should include reference
to humane, economic and legal reasons for their key recommendations being implemented.
Candidates should use the allowed one side of A4 using single-spaced Arial font (size 11) and 2cm
print margins. Some candidates provided half page executive summaries which failed to provide the
comprehensive content required of findings or a summary of the main conclusions and
recommendations. At least one full page is required to do this section of the report justice.
Executive summaries were generally well done, although the highest marks were given to candidates
who gave a clear and concise overview of the report and its conclusions and recommendations,
justifying such recommendations in business terms. Exemplary reports contained structured executive
summaries which were very persuasive and would have engaged the intended audience for such
summaries.

Review of the Health and Safety Management System

Candidates were required to give a critical overview of the state of current health and safety
management system (HSMS) in their chosen workplace/organisation. Some candidates merely
provided an outline of a recognised health and safety model (such as HSG65) without relating their
chosen organisations HSMS to such a model. Candidates should outline the chosen model before
providing an overview of the existing HSMS. At this point it would be possible for candidates to
compare the current system with the recognised model and provide a clear systematic description of
gaps and areas for improvement.
Reports awarded the highest marks included sections which clearly demonstrated the writers
understanding of chosen models for health and safety management systems. Better reports outlined
the selected model before explaining the relevance of the models elements to existing policy,
arrangements, etc. A good working knowledge of HSG65 (or a similar model) is essential for those
candidates wishing to perform well.
The gap analysis section requires candidates to assess their chosen organisations health and safety
management systems against a recognised model. Better submissions clearly identified shortcomings
(often in a tabular format) in the chosen health and safety management systems against such a
standard, carrying forward these identified gaps into the recommendations and action plans required
later in the report.
Hazards and Risk Assessments
Most candidates managed to outline 15 difference hazards or more, with a few falling short and only
finding 11 12. Several had 15 under each category Physical and Health and Welfare. There is a
need for candidates to ensure that they do not confuse hazards with risks or activities. Care should
be taken when describing the hazards identified.
It is essential that candidates ensure that they select one Physical hazard and one Health hazard for
closer assessment using a recognised risk assessment approach. Some candidates failed to score
marks due to the selection of two Physical or two Health hazards rather than one of each. It is
recommended that candidates check their chosen hazards against the syllabus content for Health and
Welfare (Unit B) and Physical (Unit C).
On the whole Risk Assessments were found to be satisfactory, but some candidates still fail to
describe their chosen risk assessment methodology. Risk assessment techniques and risk
quantification models were often included without adequate explanation of their meaning,
interpretation or relevance.
Higher scoring reports were those where candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the
difference between the terms hazard and risk. Better submissions took a methodical approach to
breaking down and differentiating between work activities, hazards, risks and possible outcomes.
Candidates must be able to demonstrate their understanding of risk assessment principles they
should clearly explain the risk assessment process being used, detailing how any ranking or scoring
systems are used for comparison, prioritisation and consideration of improvements required.
Better submissions included new and original risk assessments for the purposes of the assignment
and did not copy existing risk assessments from their existing bank or manual of risk assessments.
Risk assessments need not be overly long or complex. Some candidates unnecessarily included large
unwieldy risk assessments in the appendicess. Generally use of appendices should be discouraged
unless the content is absolutely necessary to support points clearly made in the main body of the
report.
While for some risks the use of something as simple as the 5 steps approach would have been
sufficient, this approach is clearly not suitable for other risks. Where there was a need for specific
assessments (such as CoSHH, Manual Handling, DSE, Noise, etc) then the 5 steps would be
inadequate. Better submissions included use of other assessment tools relevant to the risks identified.

Following on from this there is often not enough demonstration of understanding of how risk
assessment should be used to inform management decision making. The additional controls identified
as being necessary at this stage should be clearly visible in the conclusion, recommendations and
actions plans and should be mentioned in the executive summary.
Conclusions
Some candidates did not refer back to aims and objectives when writing their conclusions. Many didnt
include their findings and failed to summarise them whilst many others included recommendations and
other suggestion for improvements in their conclusions.
Quality checks on the work done should be made, including some reference back to the aims and
objectives identified in the introduction and a critical appraisal of their performance against those in
their conclusion.
Better submissions ensured that gaps and areas for improvement from the main body of the report
were carried forward into the final part of the report. The conclusions should refer to things identified
in the main body, and recommendations should be similarly rooted in things discussed earlier in the
report. Recommendations should then be carried forward into the respective action plans, where
consideration should also be given to priorities, costs, timescale and how and when progress against
the plans would be reviewed.

Recommendations
Recommendations were generally good, and followed on from main conclusions, but many candidates
still fail to provide a comprehensive justification and cost / benefit to each recommendation.
Action plans 1 and 2 are on the whole good, with most providing tabulated formats with all the relevant
headings considered. Too many still do not include any provisions for review.
Bibliography and references still remain poorly produced and many still dont indicate any evidence of
research done.
Generally the standard of reports was fair, some candidates reports were let down by some simple
omissions. The points outlined above should give some clear pointers to candidates and course
providers regarding the completion of Unit D assignments which complement published guidance from
NEBOSH.

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