2008 Q5 COMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES AND RISKS

[PJW]

b) Considering the range of activities which you have described in part (a), identify the main risks to staff safety and describe any mitigating measures which may be necessary.[10 marks]

Remember it is a module 1 paper, so worth starting off this portion with an introduction that makes it clear that you know what a "risk" is and the criteria that made you rate it as "a main risk". It may sound pedantic but "working at height" is not strictly a risk; the risk is the personal injury that can be sustained if you drop something that injures someone below or you yourself fall from where you are supposed to be working. It is quite reasonable that your answer spends most of the time discussing the various hazards, but you should explain how these relate to potential accidents.
For example [JF] talked about the staff working likely to be from away and therefore unfamiliar; a good point but you do need to explain how this contributes to risk. Is it for example the possible provocation of the local populace if wearing "all orange" when leaving the railway and emerging onto the public road in the wrong part of Ireland?

[JB] and [JP] very obviously had identified 5 / 6 items which seems about right- it wasn't as easy for the examiner to see at a glance in [JF] answer. In fact this really only hinted at the risks as it was just describing in general terms the hazardous environment; I think that [IP] was best at being clear of at least what the hazards are. I think that I may have provided a table with the brief descriptions and had other columns for ranking liklihood and severity into high / medium / low and thus use this to explain why I regarded themm as "main risks"; it would have been a way of showing that the trips, slips and falls are probably more important in aggregate than what are thought of significant incidents.

[JF] didn't give enough for mitigating measures but I think took the right approach by deciding that they could basically be described once as in generic terms the same apply to each. Looking at [JB] answer can see similar wording repeating in each case; better to have had some titles such as "designed out", "planning", "training", "assessment of staff competency", "PPE", "briefing" and against each of these as appropriate give a specific piece of detail applying to one or more of the hazards as illustration.

The level of [IP] answer regarding the mitigations I thought was about right in its range and level of detail with enough examples to make it "real"

I think that [JB] was right to try to include risks to staff not directly undertaking the activity (signallers, mintainers); you wouldn't want to focus on such to the detriment to the main thrust of the question but as an aside to broaden the answer I thought it was good.