NEBOSH International General

Certificate in Occupational
Health and Safety
Unit IG2: Risk Assessment:
Examiner Feedback

Learner Number 00640912 Date of Assessment 01/12/2021

Marking Criteria Met/ Not
Met

Part 1: Description of the organisation and risk assessment methodology used

The description includes:
The name of the organisation Met
The site location Met
How many workers are employed Met
The general description includes:

Products manufactured/services provided; types of activities; shift patterns Met

Description of the area to be included in the risk assessment Met
Methodology used to include:

Sources of information, who was consulted and how you decided on the additional control measures Met
Part 2: Risk assessment:

Minimum of 10 hazards Met

The identified hazards are taken from at least 5 hazard categories Met
Each column of the risk assessment table has been completed for each of the identified hazards Not Met
Part 3: Prioritise 3 actions with justification for the selection:

3 actions have been selected Not Met

Justification includes:

Moral, legal and financial arguments Met

Likelihood and severity considered for each action Met
Description of how effective each action will be in controlling the risk Met
Part 4: Review, communicate and check:

Realistic review date given Met

Reason for review date given Met
Indicate how the risk assessment findings will be communicated Met
Indicate who the risk assessment findings will be communicated to Met
Indicate how you will follow up to check that the identified actions have been carried out Met

Outcome Refer
NEBOSH International General Certificate in
Occupational Health and Safety
Unit IG2: Risk Assessment: Examiner Feedback
Feedback

Part 1:
- The candidate has given a good account of the organisation, details, area of assessment, and relevant information
such as the HSE responsibility of the company.
- There was a good account of sources of information consulted, who was consulted and how hazards and controls
were determined.

Part 2:
- There are minimum 10 hazards listed over 5 categories, and these seem suitable with the scope.
* Issue: All columns not filled properly: 2nd columns mention the consequences and not how the harm may be caused
in some situations: Ex. Obs 1 - Manual Handling; Obs 4 - Electrical hazard; Obs 7 - Fire;

Part 3:
- The candidate has not selected 3 "specific" top priority actions:
* Issue: Recomended Actions 1 and 2 are a set of actions, and not any specific action.
* Improvement: Hazard category could be provided with the Recommended Action .

- Given proper moral and financial arguments,

* Improvement: It is better to include / mention any regulations or standard for compliance in the General legal
argument.

- Given clear Specific legal arguments, suitable Likelihood and Severity have been given and the impact, justification of
timescale, and efficiency of his/her recommended action.
* Improvement: Justification 1 - Likelihood seems generally stated and not specific to the worksite in Justification 1. But
given reasonable consideration as the logic is understandable. But it is highly recommended to be specific for an
argument.

Part 4:
The candidate has given a proper review date and justification, and proper communication and follow-up methods.

NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester, LE19 1QW

t +44 (0)116 263 4700 | f +44 (0)116 282 4000 | e info@nebosh.org.uk | www.nebosh.org.uk