Call / WhatsApp+44 7704039352

Find us:Chadderton, Oldham OL9 9PA, United Kingdom

Solutions

(b) Based on the results in supporting document 5, suggest why the two conclusions drawn by the fabrication manager (FM) are incorrect.


3 (a) Explain how the health of workers could be adversely affected by carrying out welding on the aluminium window frames.


Task 3: Hazardous substances and RPE


(e) Consider the difficulties likely to be encountered when putting in place hearing protection zones and use of hearing protection equipment in this factory.


Explain what HPZ and HPE provisions are required in the (i) assembly department (ii) extrusion department (iii) fabrication department.


(d) The noise consultant makes recommendations about putting in place hearing protection zones (HPZ) and hearing protection equipment (HPE) for workers.


Explain why this difference could be significant to the health of Worker X.


(c) The MD has determined the exposure of Worker X as 89 dB(A) LEP,d but the exposure given above in (b) (i) is between 92 and 93 dB(A) LEP,d.


(ii) Explain why the actual daily personal noise exposure of Worker X may be different from that stated in (b) (i).


(i) Demonstrate how the exposure for Worker X is between 92 and 93 dB(A) LEP,d.


(b) A week later the MD receives the full written report of the survey from the noise consultant. Extracts from this full report are provided in supporting document 4.


Explain why this approach to calculating daily personal noise exposure for Worker X is inappropriate.


They calculated it as follows (94 + 88 + 85) / 3 = 89


2 (a) The MD has taken an average of noise levels from the noise map and determined that, during their shift, Worker X has a daily personal noise exposure of 89 dB(A) LEP,d.


First<<141516171819>>Last