12.2 Worked Example: Four-Hazard Assessment
Key Takeaways
- Walk a generic warehouse/office hybrid with four hazards from different categories: manual handling, trip (trailing cable), chemical solvent cleaning, and forklift/pedestrian interface.
- For each hazard, score current L×C with existing controls, add ERICPD-aligned further controls, then re-score residual risk so the band improves for a credible reason.
- Specific, auditable controls beat vague phrases such as “more training” or “be careful.”
- Managers justify scores with short scenario logic (task frequency, exposure, energy/severity) rather than inventing zeros or political inflation.
- Use this worked pattern on your real site: describe activity → who/how → existing → current rating → further controls → residual → review.
12.2 Worked Example: Four-Hazard Assessment
Quick Answer: On a small warehouse/office hybrid, assess four hazards from different categories — e.g. manual handling of a pallet load, a trailing cable trip, solvent cleaning, and a forklift/pedestrian interface. For each: state who is at risk, existing controls, current L×C, specific ERICPD-aligned further controls, residual L×C (lower), and a review date. Specific engineering and system controls outscore vague “more training.”
This section is a model answer pattern, not a copy-paste for your own site. Change the details to match your workplace. Markers credit realism. The thinking — categories, scores, residual drop, control quality — is what transfers.
Workplace context (introduction block)
Site: “Northbay Parts” — a small distribution unit with a packing warehouse and a mezzanine office (18 employees + occasional agency pickers and visiting drivers).
Scope of this assessment: goods-in / packing floor and shared vehicle aisle during normal day shifts. Assessor: packing team leader (Managing Safely candidate). Date: course week + 3 days.
Why this site works for practice: it naturally supports physical/handling, physical trip, chemical, and mechanical/transport hazards without inventing drama.
Hazard 1 — Manual handling of palletised cartons (physical / handling)
Description
During peak dispatch, operatives manually break down mixed pallets and lift 15–22 kg cartons from low pallet height to a packing bench for 2–3 hours per shift. Some cartons are bulky and block the view of the feet.
Who might be harmed and how
- Permanent packing staff and agency pickers: musculoskeletal injury (back, shoulder) from lifting/twisting
- New starters: higher likelihood due to unfamiliar technique and pace pressure
- Pathway: lift → awkward twist while turning to the bench → acute strain or cumulative MSD
Existing controls
- Basic induction mentions “lift with care”
- One manual pallet truck available (not always used for short moves)
- No formal TILE assessment for this peak task
- No job rotation rule written down
Current risk (existing controls)
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood | 4 Likely | High frequency; awkward heights; production pressure; weak systematic control |
| Consequence | 3 Moderate | Credible absence-level back/shoulder injury (could be higher for vulnerable individuals) |
| Current rating | 12 | Action band — improve within a set timescale |
Further controls (ERICPD-aligned)
| Control | ERICPD level | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| Introduce a scissor-lift pallet positioner so cartons are handled near waist height | Reduce / Control (engineering) | Lowers force and stooping → cuts likelihood |
| Redesign packing layout so the bench abuts the pallet face (less twisting) | Reduce | Reduces hazardous movement |
| Written short SSoW: max individual carton weight policy; two-person rule above threshold; use of pallet truck mandatory for full stack moves | Control | Standardises safe method |
| TILE-based practical coaching + observed competence check within 10 working days | Control | Competence for residual handling |
| Job rotation every 60 minutes during peak | Control | Limits exposure time |
| Team leader weekly check that the positioner is used (not bypassed) | Discipline | Keeps engineering control alive |
Avoid relying on “send everyone on a video about lifting” as the only further control.
Residual risk
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood | 2 Unlikely | Engineering + layout + rotation make harm much less probable |
| Consequence | 3 Moderate | If a bad lift still occurs, harm can still be significant |
| Residual rating | 6 | Monitor band — maintain controls; review |
Owner / timescale example: Operations supervisor to order positioner and implement SSoW within 4 weeks; interim two-person rule starts immediately.
Hazard 2 — Trailing power cable across walkway (physical / trip)
Description
A temporary packing printer is powered by an extension lead that crosses the marked pedestrian route between packing benches and the rest area. The cable is used daily and sometimes partially covered with gaffer tape.
Who might be harmed and how
- Packers, supervisors, visitors, cleaners: trip and fall → sprain, fracture, head injury depending on fall
- People carrying loads: higher severity if they cannot break the fall
Existing controls
- Yellow/black hazard tape on part of the cable
- Verbal reminders in toolbox talks
- No fixed power point at the printer location
Current risk
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood | 4 Likely | Cable on a busy route every day; tape is a weak control |
| Consequence | 3 Moderate | Foreseeable lost-time injury from a trip on a hard floor |
| Current rating | 12 | Action band |
Further controls
| Control | ERICPD level |
|---|---|
| Eliminate temporary lead by installing a floor box / wall socket at the printer location | Eliminate / Reduce of the trip hazard source |
| Until install: re-route cable overhead on a proper cable hanger or run inside a commercial cable protector ramp rated for the traffic | Isolate / Control |
| Housekeeping standard: no taped cables on pedestrian routes; daily opening check | Control + Discipline |
| Remove unused temporary equipment after the shift | Control |
“More training to watch where you walk” alone is a weak residual strategy when a socket move is reasonably practicable.
Residual risk
| L | C | R | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Very unlikely (after fixed socket) | 3 | 3 | Monitor / maintain |
Interim with a proper cable ramp only: L2 × C3 = 6 still better than 12.
Hazard 3 — Solvent-based cleaning of metal jigs (chemical)
Description
Once per shift, a designated packer degreases small metal jigs at an open bench using a solvent cleaner poured from a 5 L can into an open tray. The area has general warehouse ventilation only. Nitrile gloves are sometimes available.
Who might be harmed and how
- Task packer: skin irritation / dermatitis, dizziness from vapour, eye splash
- Nearby workers: inhalation of vapour
- Cleaners: contact with residues if spill not cleared
- Pathway: pour/splash → skin/eye contact; evaporation → inhalation
Existing controls
- Occasional use of generic disposable gloves
- SDS somewhere in a filing cabinet (not at point of use)
- No local exhaust; no eye protection rule enforced
- Open tray storage overnight sometimes
Current risk
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood | 4 Likely | Daily open-tray use; weak PPE consistency; poor ventilation at source |
| Consequence | 3 Moderate | Dermatitis / significant irritation credible; worse if eye contact |
| Current rating | 12 | Action band |
(If the solvent were highly toxic or used in bulk without any PPE, consequence could be scored higher — stay realistic to the product SDS.)
Further controls
| Control | ERICPD level |
|---|---|
| Substitute with a water-based or lower-hazard cleaner approved for the jigs (check performance first) | Reduce (substitution) |
| If solvent still needed: enclosed parts washer or LEV booth for degreasing | Isolate / Control |
| Decant into labelled small dispensers; bund tray; no open bulk pour | Control |
| Point-of-use SDS summary, glove type specified, safety spectacles mandatory for pouring | Control + PPE |
| Spill kit + trained response; store locked, labelled, away from ignition sources | Control |
| Supervisor weekly check of glove stock and that substitution trial is followed | Discipline |
Residual risk (after substitution + closed process)
| L | C | R |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2–3 | 4–6 |
Likelihood falls sharply if the high-volatility solvent is removed or enclosed; consequence may fall if the substitute is milder.
Hazard 4 — Forklift and pedestrian shared aisle (mechanical / transport)
Description
Counterbalance FLT collects pallets from goods-in. The same aisle is used by pedestrians walking to the canteen and by visiting drivers on foot. Mirrors are missing at the corner. High-visibility vests are “encouraged.”
Who might be harmed and how
- Pedestrians (staff, visitors, drivers): struck by / crushed by FLT — major injury or fatality possible
- FLT operator: collision-related injury
- Pathway: reverse or corner blind spot → contact with person
Existing controls
- Trained FLT operators (certificates on file)
- Site speed limit signed but not measured
- Hi-vis “encouraged,” not enforced in this aisle
- No physical segregation
Current risk
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood | 3 Fairly likely | Shared route daily; blind corner; mixed pedestrians |
| Consequence | 5 Catastrophic | Vehicle/pedestrian contact can kill or permanently disable |
| Current rating | 15 | Urgent action band |
High consequence is honest for workplace transport. Do not deflate C to make the form “look fine.”
Further controls
| Control | ERICPD level |
|---|---|
| Physical segregation: fixed pedestrian walkway with barrier on one side of the aisle; ban walking in the vehicle lane | Isolate |
| One-way traffic plan; convex mirrors and zone lighting at the corner | Control |
| Time separation: no pedestrian transit during scheduled FLT goods-in window where practicable | Control |
| Mandatory hi-vis in yard/aisle; banksman for reversing in tight spots | PPE + Control |
| Enforce speed with supervisor observation; disciplinary process for shortcuts through vehicle lane | Discipline |
| Reassess layout if volume grows — consider separate pedestrian door to canteen | Eliminate pedestrian exposure on that route |
Residual risk
| L | C | R | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 Unlikely | 5 Catastrophic | 10 | Consequence often stays high (energy of FLT); likelihood must fall. Band still “action” — keep improving segregation and compliance. |
This is an important teaching point: residual can remain significant when severity is inherent. Your job is to drive likelihood down with isolation and systems, not to pretend C becomes 1.
Summary scoreboard (manager view)
| # | Hazard | Category | Current R | Residual R | Priority signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manual handling cartons | Physical / handling | 12 | 6 | Act, then monitor |
| 2 | Trailing cable | Physical / trip | 12 | 3 | Fix socket — easy win |
| 3 | Solvent cleaning | Chemical | 12 | 4–6 | Substitute / enclose |
| 4 | FLT vs pedestrians | Mechanical / transport | 15 | 10 | Urgent segregation |
Resource order: treat the 15 transport risk first, then the three 12s by feasibility and speed of improvement (cable often fastest).
Scoring thinking managers use (and markers reward)
- Scenario first, numbers second — describe the hazardous event before picking L and C.
- Existing controls change L — do not score as if nothing is in place if training and guards already exist; do not credit paper controls that are unused.
- Consequence follows energy and harm type — vehicles, falls from height, and live electricity often keep high C.
- Residual must tell a story — each further control should map to a reason L or C moved.
- Specific beats vague — “install barrier along bay 3 by 30 June, owner: Site Lead” beats “improve awareness.”
- Review date — e.g. 12 months for this hybrid site, or 3 months for the FLT aisle until segregation is proven stable; earlier if any incident.
What not to do (exam project traps)
| Trap | Fix |
|---|---|
| Four trip hazards only | Diversify categories when the workplace allows |
| Residual identical to current after a long control list | Either strengthen controls or re-score honestly |
| “More training” as the only control for high energy risks | Climb ERICPD — isolate, engineer, redesign |
| Copying this warehouse example onto an office-only job | Write hazards that match your introduction |
| Leaving owners and dates blank | Fill every administrative field the template shows |
Transfer checklist for your real project
- Write a 5–8 line introduction for your site.
- Pick four hazards from different categories if possible.
- For each, draft who/how in one sentence.
- List only true existing controls.
- Score current L×C with a one-line reason each.
- Add 2–4 specific further controls with ERICPD labels in your notes.
- Re-score residual; prioritise the highest current ratings for action first.
- Set review date; submit inside the provider window.
Master this worked pattern and the project becomes a structured form, not a mystery — and the same habits make you a safer manager after the certificate is on the wall.
In the warehouse worked example, a forklift/pedestrian shared aisle is scored likelihood 3 and consequence 5 before further controls. What is the current risk rating and what does that band imply?
Which further control is strongest for a trailing cable that crosses a busy pedestrian route when a fixed power point can be installed?
Why might residual consequence for a forklift/pedestrian risk remain high (for example 5) even after good further controls?