Which TWO points does Noor make about the first draft of their risk assessment?
A It contained too much technical language B It missed a key hazard category C It was based on outdated guidance D It focused too much on unlikely events E It included unclear responsibilities
Questions 23 and 24
Choose TWO letters, A–E
Which TWO difficulties did Sam have when scoring the risks?
A He mixed up the likelihood scale B He used the wrong incident data C He could not access the required template D He underestimated the consequences E He misunderstood a term in the policy
Questions 25–30
Choose the correct letter, A, B or C
25 Noor suggests improving the document by A adding more background research B using a clearer structure C removing the control measures
26 The students agree that people often ignore safety notices because A the messages are too long B the signs are placed too high C the wording sounds too informal
27 Sam mentions the handrail example to show A a small design change can affect behaviour B training is more effective than equipment C most accidents are unavoidable
28 Noor is concerned that their control measures are A too expensive for the department B too vague to be checked C too strict for students to follow
29 What do they decide about including fire safety in the report? A They will leave it out B They will summarise it briefly C They will research it in detail
30 What are they going to do next? A rewrite the responsibilities section B create a risk matrix chart C plan the final layout and order
Keys
21 B 22 E 23 A 24 E 25 B 26 A 27 A 28 B 29 B 30 C
Transcripts
Part 3: You will hear two students, Sam and Noor, discussing a draft risk assessment for a laboratory practical and deciding how to improve it before submission.
SAM: OK Noor, shall we go through our risk assessment for the lab practical and tidy it up before we submit it?
NOOR: Yes. I reread the first draft last night. I originally thought we might have to add more background research, but the theory is actually fine. And we certainly shouldn’t remove any of the control measures we’ve listed. The main problem is that it is hard to follow. We jump from hazards to controls and then back again. We need a clearer structure with headings that match the marking guide.
SAM: Right. I also worry we left something out.
NOOR: We did. We covered chemical spills and broken glass, but we completely missed a key category. We did not include manual handling. Carrying boxes of samples is a hazard on its own, and it is mentioned in the checklist.
SAM: True. And the responsibilities section sounds vague. We wrote ‘staff will monitor’ without saying who exactly.
NOOR: Exactly. Responsibilities must be specific, like ‘demonstrator checks goggles’ or ‘technician locks storage’. Otherwise the assessor cannot tell if it is workable.
SAM: About the scoring, I had a couple of issues. First, I got confused with the likelihood scale. I used ‘rare’ to ‘almost certain’, but then I completely mixed up the numbers when I copied them into the table.
NOOR: So a four became a two?
SAM: Yes, in two rows. Also, I misunderstood a term in the policy. It says ‘reasonably practicable’, and I thought that meant easy, but it actually means balancing risk against time, trouble, and cost.
NOOR: Good catch. That explains why some of your suggested controls are unrealistic.
SAM: So what should we fix first?
NOOR: Structure, definitely. If we group hazards by category, then list existing controls, then additional controls, it will read logically.
SAM: Agreed. We should keep the same order in the table so the reader can track each hazard to its score. Also, why do people ignore safety notices anyway? Is it because the signs are placed too high on the walls?
NOOR: Not really, they’re usually at eye level. And it’s not that the wording sounds too informal either. Usually, it’s because the messages are simply too long. If a sign is packed with text, students do not read it. Short instructions work better.
SAM: That reminds me of the handrail example from our lecture. When the rail was placed closer to the stairs, more people used it without thinking. It just shows how a tiny design change can shape behaviour.
NOOR: Yes, and we can apply that. Put glove bins beside the benches, not at the door.
SAM: One more thing. Are our controls specific enough? I mean, are they going to be too expensive for the department to implement?
NOOR: Cost isn’t the issue, and I don’t think they are too strict for students to follow. The real worry is that they are just too vague to be checked. For instance, we wrote ‘provide training’ but did not say when or how we will check it happened. Controls need to be measurable.
SAM: So we should state a briefing at the start, and note who delivers it. What about fire safety? Should we leave it out entirely?
NOOR: No, the assessor will look for it, but we don’t need to research it in detail either. The building already has a separate fire plan, so we should just summarise it briefly, perhaps just mentioning alarms and exits.
SAM: OK. And in responsibilities we should assign who checks PPE at the start.
NOOR: Yes. The demonstrator can check goggles, and the technician can make sure chemicals are locked away after. For the scoring table, I will correct the two swapped likelihood rows, then check the scale runs the same way throughout.
SAM: Right. Instead of buying new equipment, we can improve layout and procedures.
NOOR: And we can add a simple tick sheet for key checks, like gloves on, goggles fitted, and benches cleared. That way the controls are recorded, and we can show the assessor clear evidence.
SAM: So next we will plan the final layout and decide the order, then rewrite the weak sections.
NOOR: Yes. Let us do that now, then proofread for clarity and consistency.
