Elements and Performance Criteria

RANGE STATEMENT
The range statement provides information about the context in which the unit of competency is carried out. The variables cater for differences between States and Territories and the Commonwealth, and between organisations and workplaces. They allow for different work requirements, work practices and knowledge. The range statement also provides a focus for assessment. It relates to the unit as a whole. Text in bold italics in the Performance criteria is explained here.
Ahazardis
a source or situation with a potential for harm in terms of human injury or ill health, damage to property or the environment, or a combination of these
Context includes descriptionof
workplace
activities
internal and external factors that impact on OHS risk
stakeholders
level of documentation required
controls currently in place
Riskis
the chance of something happening that will result in injury or damage
measured in terms of consequences (injury or damage) and likelihood of the consequence
Scope of OHS risk studycovers
why it is being done
who will use the output and for what purpose
activities, job role, area, location to be analysed
Method of OHS risk analysis
may be agreed by the parties or may be defined by standards or legislation
Monitoring activitiesmay include but not be limited to
air monitoring
noise monitoring
medical monitoring
Information and data about the OHS riskincludes
the outcomes of OHS risk analysis
mode/s of action of the hazard causing injury or damage
Stakeholdersinclude
managers, including boards of management
employees and their representatives
customers/users of the product or process
the community
Controlsare
actions implementing risk management decisions, programs or policies; may involve monitoring, re-evaluation and compliance with decisions
Effectiveness of controls
may be determined by detailed investigation; alternatively, consideration of the hierarchy of control may be sufficient
Relevant standardsinclude
legislation
codes of practice and guidance material
Australian and industry standards
current practice
current knowledge
common law duty of care
Consequenceis
the injury or damage outcome of an event which may be expressed quantitatively or qualitatively; there may be a range of possible outcomes for a specific event or scenario
Likelihoodrefers to
the likelihood of the occurrence of the consequence; not the likelihood of the hazard or the particular scenario
Comprehensive analysis of information and datamay include
past records
experience with enterprise, own/other industries
published literature
research within exposed groups
engineering modelling
specialist and expert groups
Comprehensive analysis of techniquesmay include
broad consultation
multidisciplinary focus groups
structured interviews
questionnaires
processes and techniques used by specialists, such as modelling, fault tree and Hazard and Operability Studies (HazOps)
Risk rankingis
a process of rating risks according to their severity and likelihood; common systems are based on matrices or nomograms
OHS specialist advisorsmay include
engineers
ergonomists
occupational hygienists
safety professionals
occupational health practitioners
toxicologists
psychologists
people skilled in applying advanced risk analysis processes, such as modelling, fault tree, HazOps and Management Oversight and Risk Tree (MORT)
Risk evaluationis
the comparison of risk with pre-established criteria for tolerance (or as low as reasonably achievable) and the subsequent ranking of risks requiring control
Criteria may be establishedby
reference to established codes and standards
consultation
Documentation of risk analysisshould include
methods used
groups involved/consulted
description of consequences and their likelihood
information and data used in estimates
assumptions
effectiveness of existing controls
uncertainty in analysis
factors affecting level of risk
further information/data and/or investigation required
Documentation of risk evaluationshould include
method used to determine the criteria
groups consulted/involved
criteria determined
list of risks and schedule for action
statement of the legal ramifications of decision making based on risk prioritisation

The Evidence Guide specifies the evidence required to demonstrate achievement in the unit of competency as a whole. It must be read in conjunction with the unit descriptor, performance criteria, The range statement and the Assessment Guidelines for the Public Sector Training Package.
Units to be assessed together
Co-assessed units that may be assessed with this unit to increase the efficiency and realism of the assessment process include:
PSPETHC601B Maintain and enhance confidence in public service
PSPGOV605A Persuade and influence opinion
PSPLEGN601B Manage compliance with legislation in the public sector
PSPSOHS604A Apply ergonomic principles to control OHS risk
PSPSOHS605A Apply occupational hygiene principles to control OHS risk.
Overview of evidence requirements
In addition to integrated demonstration of the elements and their related performance criteria, look for evidence that confirms:
knowledge requirements of this unit
skill requirements of this unit
application of employability skills as they relate to this unit.
Resources required to carry out assessment
Resources essential for assessment include:
legislation, policy, procedures and protocols relating to the analysis and evaluation of OHS risk
workplace documentation, case studies and workplace scenarios to capture the range of situations likely to be encountered when analysing and evaluating OHS risk.
Where and how to assess evidence
Valid assessment of this unit requires:
a workplace environment or one that closely resembles normal work practice and replicates the range of conditions likely to be encountered when analysing and evaluating OHS risk, including coping with difficulties, irregularities and breakdowns in routine
analysis and evaluation of OHS risk in a range of 3 or more contexts or occasions, over time.
Assessment methods should reflect but not exceed workplace demands, such as literacy, and the needs of individuals who might be disadvantaged.
Assessment methods suitable for valid and reliable assessment of this unit must use authenticated evidence from the workplace and/or training courses and may include a combination of two or more of:
workplace projects
simulation or role plays
case studies and scenarios
observation.
portfolios.
The assessment environment should not disadvantage the candidate and where the person has a disability the principle of reasonable adjustment should be applied during assessment.
For consistency of assessment
Evidence must be gathered over time in a range of contexts to ensure the person can achieve the unit outcome and apply the competency in different situations or environments.