Aug - Oct 2014

Examiners Report
NEBOSH
International Technical Certificate in Oil and
Gas Operational Safety

Examiners Report
NEBOSH INTERNATIONAL
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATE IN OIL
AND GAS OPERATIONAL SAFETY
UNIT IOG1:
MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL
OIL AND GAS OPERATIONAL SAFETY
AUGUST OCTOBER 2014

CONTENTS
Introduction

General comments

Candidate performance

Learning outcomes

Examination technique

Command words

Conclusion

2015 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

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 50,000 candidates annually and are offered
by over 600 course providers, with examinations taken in over 110 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 that applies best practice setting, assessment and marking and applies
to Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) regulatory requirements.
This report provides guidance for 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 2015

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

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 other 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.
This report has been prepared to provide feedback on standard date and on-demand IOG1
examinations sat between August and October 2014.
Feedback is presented in these key areas; examination technique, command words and learning
outcomes and is designed to assist candidates and course providers to prepare for future
assessments in this unit.
Candidates and course providers will also benefit from use of the Guide to the NEBOSH International
Technical Certificate in Oil and Gas Operational Safety which is available via the NEBOSH website. In
particular, the guide sets out in detail the syllabus content for IOG1 and tutor reference documents for
each Element.
Additional guidance on command words is provided in Guidance on command words used in learning
outcomes and question papers which is also available via the NEBOSH website.
Candidates and course providers should also make reference to the IOG1 Example question paper
and Examiners feedback on expected answers which provides example questions and details
Examiners expectations and typical areas of underperformance.

Unit IOG1
Management of international oil and gas operational safety
Candidate performance
This report covers all examinations, both standard and on-demand examination sittings during August
to October 2014.

Learning outcomes
Candidates performed well in these areas of the syllabus:
1.1

Explain the purpose of and procedures for investigating incidents and how the lessons
learnt can be used to improve health and safety in the oil and gas industries

Candidates needed to be able to demonstrate understanding of accident investigation through root

cause identification and associated recommendations for improvement. The importance of learning
lessons from major incidents was required through understanding of management, cultural and
technical failures.
Candidates were able to attain high marks for specifying reasons why incidents should be investigated
with determination of root causes and prevention of reoccurrence.
Areas of weakness included an inability to identify some parties who investigate incidents such as
safety or employee representatives.
The quality of candidate responses suggested good course provision with this learning outcome.
2.3

Explain the role and purpose of a permit-to-work system

Candidates needed to understand the role and purpose of a permit-to-work system, which includes the
key features of a permit-to-work system and types of permit.
Candidates were able to attain high marks for specifying the elements typically included in the permit
including the task, duration of work and control measures. In addition, nearly all candidates were
familiar with types of permit-to-work including hot work and confined space entry.
Areas of weakness related to the functions of a permit-to-work where candidates responded with the
need for control measures when the correct response was to specify control of a high risk activity.
The quality of course provision for the elements required within a permit-to-work and typical examples
of permit-to-work appear to be fairly comprehensive. However, the tuition of the permit-to-work
functions suggested room for improvement.
4.2

Outline the principles, procedures and resources for effective emergency response

Candidates were expected to understand the content of an emergency plan.

Candidates relayed the content of the emergency plan by specifying contact numbers for those
authorised for emergency response and sufficient fire-fighting resources.
Areas of weakness included the responsibilities for shelter and mitigation offsite in addition to the
majority of measures onsite.
Candidate responses suggested that course providers had addressed the issue of emergency plans
but more detail would enhance deeper understanding.

The following learning outcomes have been identified as being the most challenging area of the
syllabus for candidates in this period:
1.3

Outline the risk management techniques used in the oil and gas industries

Candidates were expected to understand risk management relating to the oil and gas industry.
Areas of weakness included candidates mistakenly responding with a generic concept of five steps to
risk assessment instead of risk management techniques such as ISO 17776 utilised in the oil and gas
industry. Candidates identified aspects of oil and gas industry risk management that coincidentally
aligned with generic risk assessment such as hazard identification and control measures but not the
setting of functional requirements such as a description of necessary risk reduction measures.
Examiners reported that the responses from candidates suggested a low level of understanding with
this learning outcome and the associated expanded content within. Course providers should focus on
this particular learning outcome as the majority of Examiners suggested room for improvement.
2.2

Outline the tools, standards, management, competency requirements and controls

applicable to Process Safety Management (PSM) in the oil and gas industries

Candidates were expected to understand PSM controls including management of change controls.
Candidates were able to identify that changes in products and substances would prompt management
of change (MOC) controls. However, many did not identify design changes. While candidates
outlined the need for managers of change to be competent, many candidates were unable to outline
why competence was important within MOC such as the need for competent technicians, designers
and engineers where modifications were made.
Examiners reported that candidates without practical experience in the industry displayed limited
knowledge in the area of PSM and this could be a focus for course providers.
3.3

Outline the controls available to maintain safety critical equipment

Candidates were expected to understand procedures for bypassing emergency shutdown systems
(ESDs) and operational controls for an interceptor/separator.
Candidates were able to identify generic issues including time-bound periods for the bypass and a
procedure for handling an emergency during the ESD bypass. Candidates could not identify the
existence or reliance on alternative levels of protection.
Candidates were able to link an oil activation sensor to activate/close an associated automatic
isolating valve. However, there was an inability to apply additional operational controls such as an
occasional visual check on the outlet stream.
Examiners reported that many responses from candidates suggested a lack of understanding of given
practical scenarios and the associated risks and controls. Course providers could help candidates
with this gap in technical theory and applied technical theory.
3.4

Outline the hazards, risks and controls available for safe containment of hydrocarbons
offshore and onshore

Candidates were expected to understand safe containment of hydrocarbons and loss of containment
and associated consequences such as boiling liquid expanding vapour explosions (BLEVEs).
Candidates were able to randomly identify aspects of BLEVEs including the nature of an external
heating source and the lifting of a relief valve. However, they experienced difficulty in understanding
the sequence of events that accompany the BLEVE. Candidates did not understand the lowering of
the level within a vessel due to the direct heating of the external heat source and relief valve lifting and
the resultant exposure of metal to the external heat source without the previous cooling medium. In
addition, candidates confused BLEVEs with confined vapour cloud explosions (CVCEs).
Examiners reported that specifics of BLEVEs and CVCEs could be addressed through more
technically detailed course provision.

Examination technique
The following examination techniques were identified as the main areas of improvement for
candidates:
Candidates misread/misinterpreted the question
Questions set for the NEBOSH International Technical Certificate in Oil and Gas Operational Safety
relate directly to learning outcomes specified within the associated syllabus guide. The syllabus guide
requires that candidates are sufficiently prepared to provide the relevant depth of answer (see
command words below) across a broad range of topic areas. For example, a candidate could be
asked about the general topic area of maintenance but may be requested to elaborate on the specific
application of maintenance applied to a practical scenario in the oil and gas industry.
Examiners reported that some candidates repeated the same kind of answer in the hope that it would
fit some of the questions. Although these repeated answers occasionally gained marks the majority of
answers did not relate to the specifics within the question and therefore marks were not gained. This
approach may have been due to rote-learning (see below) but could equally be attributed to a failure
to read the question correctly, resulting in lengthy answers that did not answer the question.
Candidates are advised to allow sufficient time to read the question more than once in order to
understand the key requirements. Underlining or highlighting key words in the question can assist in
keeping focused and simple mind maps or answer plans are useful. However, candidates must be
conscious of the overall examination time too.

Candidates unnecessarily wrote the question down

There are about 30 minutes to answer a 20-mark question in Section 1 and 9 minutes available to
answer an 8-mark question in Section 2 of a NEBOSH International Technical Certificate in Oil and
Gas Operational Safety question paper. This time will be required for reading and understanding the
question, developing an answer plan mentally or in brief note form on the answer booklet and finally
committing the answer to the answer booklet. The efficient use of time is essential in order to answer
the eleven questions within the 2 hours available. The majority of Examiners reported that candidates
felt it necessary to write the question out in full, before providing the associated answer, and this
marginally limits the time available. Course providers should remind candidates that it is not
necessary to include a question with their answer.

Candidates did not respond effectively to the command word

Examiners reported that many candidates provided insufficient detail in answers in order to satisfy the
required depth of information elicited by the command word in the question.
The learning outcomes in the syllabus guide dictate the depth of answer that a candidate would be
expected to provide and the questions set contain command words that reflect these learning
outcomes. All Examiners reported that candidates frequently responded with insufficient depth to the
command word specified. For example, candidates frequently provided listed answers to an outline
or explain command word and were not awarded all marks available for the corresponding question.
In contrast, candidates occasionally provided excessive information for the command words such as
give or identify and wasted valuable time although overall marks awarded were unaffected. If a
question or part of a question specifies identification of hazards or risks there is no need to identify
control measures too. Unnecessary additional information consumes valuable time.
Course providers should ensure that learning materials complement the command words in the
syllabus guide and sufficient time is given to advising candidates on suitable examination technique
during a course of study.

Command words
The following command words are listed in the order identified as being the most challenging for
candidates:
Outline
Examiners reported that the command word outline challenged many candidates. Insufficient detail
was provided in response to the principal features or parts of the topic matter requested when outline
was specified in the question. Exhaustive descriptions were not required for outline but limited
answers like single words or listed answers did not satisfy the command word requirements.
If the use of the command word in everyday language or conversation was considered it may help the
candidate understand what was required. If asked to outline the risks to an operator when manually
closing a valve an answer such as cuts, bruises, burns and strains would be insufficient as this
represents a listed answer. However, cuts from contact with sharp edges of the hand wheel, bruises
from impact with adjacent plant items, burns from contact with adjacent uninsulated pipe work and
strains from using excessive force would be sufficient.

Describe
The command word describe requires that candidates provide distinctive features of the particular
syllabus learning outcome topic matter nominated and not a need to provide extensive information on
that topic. Candidates occasionally respond to describe by completing a full page of text without
actually responding with the distinctive features associated with question topic. Candidates need to
distinguish between outline and describe and not respond with a series of unconnected points
generally related to the topic in the question. If a candidate was asked to describe a safe method of
draining a flammable liquid from a storage vessel to a bulk container a response of using smooth pipe
work, appropriate earthing to be applied and using nitrogen within the bulk container are sufficient
outlines but insufficient descriptions as specified in the command word. However if a candidate
responded with avoid static build-up by using smooth pipe work with minimal bends, earth/bond pipe
work, bulk container and storage vessel and use nitrogen to inert the bulk container and avoid an
explosive/flammable atmosphere this would satisfy the command word requirement.

Explain
When a question specifies explain the candidate is required to provide an understanding or make
clear an idea or relationship. For example explain how ignition sources should be controlled during
welding of pipe work that previously contained hydrocarbons. If a candidate responded with use of
bungs, provide fire blankets, damp down and use firewatchers this would be insufficient to merit full
marks as this does not provide a deep enough understanding or relationship from the specified
command word or the context in which the question is asked. However, if a candidate responded with
use of bungs inserted into the pipe work while carrying out welding to prevent migration of flammable
vapours to the welding point, placing fire blankets in the vicinity of welding to collect stray sparks and
preventing sparks entering drains or places with flammable material, damping down to immediately
cool and neutralise any sparks developed from welding and use of fire watchers to monitor the welding
area for ignition conditions after completion of the work would merit the awarding of marks.

Identify
When providing a response to identify the mental selection and naming of an answer that relates to
the question should be sufficient. In most cases one or two words would be sufficient to be awarded
corresponding marks. Any further detail would not be required and impacts negatively on the time
limit for completing the examination. For example, if the question was identify types of fire
extinguisher suitable responses would include CO2, foam and water in order to be awarded a mark.

Give
Give is normally used in conjunction with a further requirement, such as give the meaning of or give
an example in EACH case. Candidates generally responded appropriately to this command word.

For additional guidance, please see NEBOSHs Guidance on command words used in learning
outcomes and question papers document, which is available on our website:
www.nebosh.org.uk/students/default.asp?cref=1345&ct=2.

Conclusion
The feedback from Examiners highlighted that candidates taking the IOG1 examinations from August
to October 2014 needed most improvement in element 3 (areas of hydrocarbon process safety) where
safety critical equipment controls and safe containment of hydrocarbons was identified, element 1
(health, safety and environmental management in context) where risk management techniques used
in the oil and gas industries was identified and element 2 (tools, standards, management, competency
requirements and controls applicable to process safety management).
With regard to examination technique, candidates should concentrate on reading, interpreting and
understanding what the question is actually asking, focusing more closely on the command word
within the question and refraining from repeating the question within their answer booklet.
Overall, candidates could gain additional marks for responding with greater understanding of the
technical aspects of this qualification and application of this knowledge to practical scenarios
frequently encountered in the oil and gas industry.

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
www.nebosh.org.uk