Risk Regulation Assessment Brief 2023
| Module title | Risk Regulation |
| CRN | 53384; 53385 |
| Level | 7 |
| Title | Incident Report to Senior Management Team |
| Weighting within module | This assessment is worth 100% of the overall module mark. |
| Submission deadline date and time | By 16.00 on the 25th April 2023 |
| Module Leader/Assessment set by Chris Ingham | |
| How to submit
You should submit your assessment via Turnitin through the module Blackboard page. |
|
Assessment task details and instructions
You have been asked to provide a full incident report to the Senior Management Team for one of the two following fictional case studies:
Choose any one A or B
A – Budget Supermarkets Ltd.
You are the Safety, Health and Environment Advisor for Budget Supermarkets Ltd. They are a large supermarket who have their own bakery, butchers, fishmonger and delicatessen on site.
On 2nd January 2023 a trainee butcher was trying to clear a jammed meat mincing machine (mincer) when her hand was drawn into the machine. Her hand required a full amputation during her stay in hospital, after being freed from the machine.
A health and safety investigation followed, as this was reported under the Reporting of Injuries and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR). The Environmental Health Officer conducting the investigation found that the machine was old and not maintained; the guard preventing access to the dangerous parts had been removed; the machine was always jamming according to staff; the trainee butcher had not been formally trained to use the machine but was asked to do so by a senior member of staff as the butcher’s shop was busy.
This isn’t the first time Budget Supermarkets have had serious accidents. In June 2022, there was a serious injury in the warehouse caused by a forklift truck, which was driven by a trainee, over-turning. There also been an early fall from height when a member of staff was asked to use ladders inappropriately to fix a leak in the roof.
You are tasked with writing a full incident report to the Senior Management team on this issue.
B – Azco Petrol Station, Wigan.
You are the Safety, Health and Environment Officer for Manchester Water Ltd. You have received a report about a significant pollution incident in the drainage system and water course close to the petrol station.
The Environment Agency (EA) and local Environmental Health team were notified and a response team has been on site assessing the cause, damage and significance of this event – including remediation.
Early findings have shown a leak from the bulk diesel storage, which was not contained by the bunding and so found its way into ground water and this caused pollution stretching over 0.5 km from the site.
The petrol station had had an issue previously which drew attention from the Environment Agency, when there was a significant leak of petrol from a pump above ground which was not treated appropriately and contaminated water courses and drains.
Upon investigation it was found that the petrol station did have regular inspections of the storage tank and failsafe devices installed but had not acted upon the findings. These indicated that there may be a leak and that, if it became worse, the safeguards may not be sufficient to contain it.
You are tasked with writing a full incident report to the Senior Management team on this issue. The Task
You will select one of the case studies above and write a management report, which includes the following
content:
Reasoned explanation of the root cause of this incident including how to identify these. (20%)
Design risk assessment techniques to be prevent a recurrence of this type of incident. (25%)
Discuss possible courses of action that may be taken by the various enforcing agencies / authorities following the accident. (20%)
Assess and present your thoughts on possible culpability of the organisation with respect to the incident including breaches of applicable legislation for the proposed continuation of business activities on site. (25%)
The presentation of this report is important. It is a report to the Senior Management Team
– as such it should look like a formal/corporate report and not an essay. (10%).
Please clearly state which case study you are addressing in your report.
References should and must be part of your answer and be in accordance with the University referencing guidelines using the Harvard APA 7th edition.
Link: www.salford.ac.uk/skills/referencing
Assessed intended learning outcomes
On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:
Knowledge and Understanding
Demonstrate a critical understanding of inter-relationships between individual, organisational and societal factors in the causation and mitigation of adverse health, safety and environmental practices;
Use a risk-based approach to analyse and evaluate company regulatory / management policies and procedures at a strategic and local level and make recommendations for change to develop health, safety and environmental performance;
Critically appraise the dynamic influence of regulation in the management of health, safety and environment including the current English criminal law, the influence of social legislation and other international influences on domestic law.
Practical, Professional or Subject Specific Skills
Interpret and apply appropriate health, safety, and environmental law for a range of different types of organisational activity.
|
Implement the necessary protocols to be followed to investigate adverse health, safety & environmental practice. Write concise and targeted reports based on evidence. Transferable Skills and other Attributes Capability to operate within an ethical framework commensurate with personal development and professional practice. The ability to communicate at an appropriately professional level to specialist and non- specialist audiences including the preparation of technical and non-technical reports. |
| Module Aims
To enable students to critically appraise regulatory factors which influence the development and management of health, safety and environmental performance to promote organisational well-being. To enable students to evaluate the role of individuals, organisations, the state and other stakeholders in managing health, safety and environmental performance and striving for sustainable business operations. |
| Word count/ duration (if applicable)
Your assessment should be 3,500 words (max) excluding references, quotations, figures and tables. You should decide for yourself the appropriate word length for each of the parts of the task, bearing in mind the mark allocation. Content above the limit of 3,500 words will not be marked. |
| Feedback arrangements
You can expect to receive feedback 15 working days after the submission deadline via Bb. Formative assessment will be in the form of the risk assessment exercises undertaken in class and feedback will be given during the class. |
| Support arrangements
You can obtain support for this assessment by Frequently Asked Questions page in Blackboard, tutor office hours or by email. The University offers a range of support services for students through askUS. |
| Good Academic Conduct and Academic Misconduct
Students are expected to learn and demonstrate skills associated with good academic conduct (academic integrity). Good academic conduct includes the use of clear and correct referencing of source materials. Here is a link to where you can find out more about the skills which students require http://www.salford.ac.uk/skills-for-learning. Academic Misconduct is an action which may give you an unfair advantage in your academic work. This includes plagiarism, asking someone else to write your assessment for you or taking notes into an exam. The University takes all forms of academic misconduct seriously. You can find out how to avoid academic misconduct here https://www.salford.ac.uk/skills-for-learning. Assessment Information If you have any questions about assessment rules, you can find out more here. Personal Mitigating Circumstances If personal mitigating circumstances may have affected your ability to complete this assessment, you can find more information about personal mitigating circumstances procedure here. Personal Tutor/Student Progression Administrator If you have any concerns about your studies, contact your Personal Tutor or your Student Progression Administrator. |
| Reassessment
The reassessment period will be provided after the initial marking and moderation has been undertaken. |
| In Year Retrieval Scheme
Your assessment is not eligible for in year retrieval. |
Assessment Criteria
You should look at the assessment criteria to find out what we are specifically looking at during the assessment. You can find this below:
| Descriptor
% Band |
Reasoned explanation
of the root cause of this incident including how to identify these. Knowledge of discipline |
Design risk assessment techniques to be prevent a recurrence of this type of incident Interpretation of theories, concepts, paradigms and principles |
Discuss possible courses of action that may be taken by the various enforcing agencies / authorities following the incident. Application of knowledge to address specific problems |
Assess and present your thoughts on possible culpability of the organisation with respect to the incident including breaches of applicable legislation for the proposed continuation of waste processing on site. Analysis, synthesis and critical thinking |
Presentation, structure and communication |
| Weight | 20% | 25% | 20% | 25% | 10% |
| Outstanding 100-90 | Exceptional subject knowledge displaying comprehensive depth and breadth.
Significant engagement with current approaches/issues. |
Extremely accurate and relevant detail supplied. Authoritative grasp of key concepts. Explicit evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Exceptionally coherent and effective argument supported by robust evidence. |
Exceptionally robust and critical account of subject matter. Opinions logical and coherent. Insightful and imaginative conclusions drawn from the evidence. |
Exceptionally well presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly and lucidly expressed. |
| Excellent 89-80 |
Considerable depth and breadth of subject knowledge demonstrated. Engagement with current approaches/issues. |
Highly accurate and relevant detail supplied. Excellent grasp of key concepts. Evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Highly coherent and effective argument supported by evidence. |
Highly robust and critical account of subject matter. Opinions logical and coherent. Insightful and original conclusions drawn from the evidence |
Excellently presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly and coherently expressed. |
| Very good 79-70 |
Significant relevant subject knowledge demonstrated. Awareness of current approaches/issues displayed. |
Accurate and relevant detail supplied. Very good grasp of key concepts. Some evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Very coherent and effective argument. Draws on a range of suitable materials and examples. |
Sound evidence of critical examination of subject matter. Opinions logical and coherent. Sound and original conclusions drawn from the evidence |
Very well presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly expressed. |
| Good 69-60 | Sound subject knowledge demonstrated. Some awareness of current approaches/issues. |
Reasonably accurate and detailed. Good grasp of key concepts. Some evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Coherent and effective argument. Draws on a sufficiently extensive range of materials and examples. |
Satisfactory evidence of critical examination of subject matter. Opinions logical but lacks some coherence. Sound conclusions drawn from the evidence |
Well, presented. Good structure. Well expressed. |
| Fair 59-50 | Fair and accurate subject knowledge. Some awareness of current approaches/issues but superficial treatment. |
May contain inaccuracies and/or lack depth and breadth of relevant detail. Fair grasp of key concepts. displayed. Limited evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Sound argument supported by some evidence of analytical thinking. |
Some critical thinking displayed. Able to consider ideas with an open mind and draws appropriate but limited conclusions. |
Reasonably well presented. Suitable structure and well expressed. |
| Inadequate 49-40 |
Inadequate subject knowledge displayed but limited in detail and/or accuracy. |
May include some irrelevant information. Adequate grasp of key concepts. Little evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Some attempt at discussion but may be unfocussed and lacking evidence to support claims. |
Limited critical thinking displayed. Responds to familiar questions but fails to grasp complexity of issues. Few conclusions drawn |
Inadequately presented. Satisfactory structure. Clear but basic expression. |
| Unsatisfactory 39-30 | Unsatisfactory subject knowledge displayed. Important inaccuracies and/or omissions. |
May include much irrelevant information. Unsatisfactory grasp of key concepts. Very little evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Unsatisfactory argument, lacking sufficient evidence of synthesis and analysis. |
Very little critical thinking displayed. Limited ability to recognise complexity of issues. Inappropriate or no conclusions drawn. Incomplete response to tasks posed. |
Unsatisfactory presentation. May lack a suitable structure and only basic expression. |
| Poor 29-20 | Little subject knowledge displayed.
Considerable inaccuracies and/or omissions. |
May include a significant proportion of irrelevant information. Poor grasp of key concepts. No evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Poor attempt to present an argument. Little awareness of the nature of sound/unsound argument. |
Very little critical thinking displayed. Simplistic responses to issues. No attempt to draw conclusions. Incomplete response to the task |
Poorly presented. |
| Very poor 19-10 | Very poor subject knowledge. |
Insufficient volume of work. Very poor grasp of key concepts. No evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Very poor argument. . Very little awareness of the
nature of sound/unsound argument. |
Very limited attempt. No evidence of analysis and no conclusions drawn. Does not address the task. |
Very poorly presented. |
| Extremely poor
9-1 |
Extremely poor subject knowledge. |
Insufficient volume of work. Extremely poor grasp of key concepts. No evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. |
Insufficient volume of work. Extremely poor argument. |
Insufficient volume of work. No serious attempt. Does not address the task. |
Extremely poorly presented. |
| No attempt
0 |
No attempt. | No attempt. | No attempt. | No attempt. | No attempt. |