Speaker 1: Welcome back to this video. This is a series of videos on the Nibosh NG2 sample project. We are dissecting their official sample project to see if we can figure out what Nibosh have done so that you can not cheat but instead look at what they've done and try and do something that's kind of the same. Because if Nibosh have done it in their sample you should do it in your real project. So they have done a sample which is based on a garage. So we saw that in the background up here is a garage. It's quite a small medium-sized garage vehicle repair shop. And so the first thing is that we have a number of hazards. Let's just count the hazards. You need at least 10 different hazards from five hazard categories. So we've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 13 hazards in total covering a wide range of different categories that weigh more than five categories in there. So that's the first thing. It's also worth noting that none of the hazards are the same. There are no duplicate hazards. You'll notice for example that they've got I think three or four chemical hazards. So they've got this one with paint mist isocyanates and that is very different to the other hazard which was motor oil and fuel. That's a very different type of chemical. There's very different things to you there. And that's also very different to the process dust which is here. Different form, different type of harm, different types of controls. So even the hazards which belong to the same category, you can group them together if they're very very similar. Like if you've got two step ladders, you just group them together into one hazard. But if you've got a step ladder and a cherry picker, those are two very different pieces of equipment. You can split those up into two different work at height hazards. Notice how they have put the hazard category kind of at the top of each section there. Hazardous substances, and that is the correct name by the way. Don't go making up your own categories. Don't go making up things like ergonomics. You know it's like that's not a hazard category. Work related bulimic disorders would be the correct one for that. Work equipment. Don't put machinery. Don't put plant and machinery. Look they've put work equipment because that is the official hazard category. If you don't know what hazard categories are, check your guidance document. Check your course materials. There's a table of all the hazard categories. Now the next thing is, and this is where I'm going to start to disagree with NEBOSH a little bit, because there is what NEBOSH officially say is acceptable, and then there's what examiners say is acceptable. And unfortunately, and I'm not criticizing NEBOSH or examiners per se, because I know how hard it is to be an examiner, but some examiners do seem to have a slightly higher standard. Slightly different standard. That's not fair. It's not right. And NEBOSH do everything they can to make sure the standard is consistent. But I have found occasionally you get an examiner who just seems to have a higher standard. So I want to get you ready. I want to raise our standard so that you pass no matter how high the standard is of that particular examiner. So we're going to examiner proof. Examiner proof ladies and gentlemen. Our report. So one of the things you want to put in your hazards here is something that is wrong. Something that was potentially wrong. Something that is defective. You don't just want to say, let me give you an example, you don't just want to say portable electrical equipment. Now that's acceptable. That is a hazard. Portable electrical equipment can harm you. It says here IT related equipment, general electric installation for the whole site. Yeah, that is a hazard. And for me, that's absolutely fine. And yet I've got a small number of examiners who seem to think that they want to see electrical faults. So you might have to write something like potential faults with the electrical equipment or use of electrical power tools, which could potentially be faulty. And that's just going to make sure that the examiner doesn't fail you on that pedantic point. You'd have to say faulty. You could say defective. You could say damaged. You could say live exposed electrical parts on the power tools. Whatever fault you want to write down, you write that down. But don't just write down use of the power tools or use of the stepladder. Say use of the stepladder in an unsafe way involving some overreaching. Use of a stepladder which might not be appropriate. You know, put something down which could be wrong. It doesn't have to be a real fault. It could be a potential fault. Remember, this is a risk assessment. We're looking at potential issues, not necessarily actual real issues today. So we got that. Now, notice if we take a look at the who might be harmed and how that it's not just a job title and it's not just an injury, but it's very descriptive as to how someone can be harmed. It's like mechanics who are handling these substances on a daily basis. So the mechanics can be harmed because how? Because they handle it on a daily basis. And then it describes the harm. These substances are known to be sensitized as carcinogens. So over time, with prolonged gradual exposure, they could develop occupational dermatitis or cancers. All right. So we need a bit of a description there. Next, when we look at the control measures, what are you already doing and the further actions? Now, the combination of the already and the further should be enough to bring the whole thing under full control. The combination of already actions and further actions should be enough to reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable. So there has to be quite a bit of stuff in there and anything which is an outright legal requirement should be in there. You got manual handling? Yeah. Well, manual handling is a legal requirement. So make sure that's in there. You got fire? Yeah. Okay. Well, fire drills, fire risk assessments. That's a legal requirement. You got a crane? Yeah. Okay. Well, thorough examinations of lifting equipment every six or 12 months, depending on the type. That's a legal requirement. That's got to go in there. You get the point? It's like certain things are legally required, so you got to make sure it's in or you fail. Notice how these controls are quite descriptive. Here, it doesn't just say PPE for noise. Yeah, that would be a bit vague, wouldn't it? What type of PPE? Earmuffs? Hearing protection? Pen in my ear? What type of PPE? Is it gloves? Do I shove a glove in my ear? Say so. Ear protection, earmuffs, earplugs. Try and describe what that is. Here, it doesn't just say, like, respiratory protection. It says air fed masks. It doesn't just say maintenance. It says maintenance program in place for all handheld equipment. All right. So not just maintenance, but the control isn't just, oh, do maintenance. You do maintenance. It's like, no, let's create a program where we decide what needs to be maintained, how often it needs to be maintained, and what that maintenance actually is. Like, do we tighten a screw? Do we change a belt? Do we lubricate it? It's about being specific. Now, you might think that this is all completely over the top for what it is, but remember, you are trying to show the examiner that you understand. You are demonstrating understanding. So you have to say things. You have to write things to say, hey, look at me. Look how clever I am. I get it. And to do that, you have to say things. You can't just be, like, telepathic. Here's another one. Training. You don't just write training. Look, it says training program to be set up for all workers undertaking these activities on. And then it starts to break down the content of the training. Best practices for keeping dust levels to a minimum and safe systems of work. OK. Fantastic. General hygiene education. Just blow it. General hygiene education for those workers undertaking these activities. E.g., it's actually going to tell us what that education should be. Dust injection. Injection. Dust injection. Nasty. Dust ingestion or inhaled from hand to mouth contact. Moving on to the timescales. And, you know, I see people fail for stuff like this all the time. First thing I want you to notice is that every single action has a timescale and an owner. All right. So, look, we've got like action one month, another action one month, another action six months, another action one month. Now, firstly, we don't put anything like annually, frequently, regularly, monthly, quarterly. You definitely don't put immediately ever. None of those frequency type things are going to work. You will fail automatically and rightly so. You put one week, one day, one month. You don't put ASAP. No. One day. If it's an immediate action, one day. That'll do. Or one week maybe. Could be a year. You decide on a timescale as long as it's roughly appropriate. But make sure every action has a timescale like that. One month, one year and so on. And then make sure that every action has a job owner. This responsible person. So, see here, look, finance director for that one. Stores manager. Stores manager. Stores manager. Finance. Finance director. Workshop manager. Yes, I know you're repeating yourself. I know. But this is an action plan. It's an action plan. And an action plan needs to have clear, specific job owners for every single job. Anyway, that's enough for that. There's probably one last thing. I've got one last thing. Don't put non-applicable if there's something which is already under control. Don't put non in this box here. Notice how Nibosh have put well-controlled risk, no further action required at the moment. You don't have to use those words. You could just put risk under control, non-necessary, nothing needed. Write your own words. Just make it absolutely clear that the reason that box is empty is because that risk is under control. If you do that, you are allowed to write N.A. here and N.A. there because there is no timescale and there is no job owner. I will see you in the next tutorial to look at your legal, moral, and financial arguments. Hasta la vista, baby.