ProQual Level 7 Diploma: Guided Template Demonstrations for Safety Leadership & Digital Technologies

Purpose

This Step-by-Step Template Demonstration helps learners complete essential safety
documents used by senior health and safety leaders. The aim is to show how to fill a risk
assessment, a plant/area inspection sheet, and an environmental register line-by-line.
The examples are realistic for a UK chemical and engineering workplace and link to
strategic duties about digital systems, biohazards, ecology, ergonomics, biological
outbreaks, chemical failure scenarios and physical accident causation. The guidance
explains common mistakes, legal expectations under UK law, and how each completed
line supports a safe, sustainable organisation. Key UK legal references are cited where
they directly affect the templates.

How to use these templates

Each template is shown in two parts. First, the blank template with field guidance. Second,
a model example completed line-by-line with short justification notes. The learner should
copy the template, adapt it to their workplace, and complete a new example for
assessment. The examples use simple language so supervisors and auditors can quickly
check compliance.

Part A — Risk Assessment Template (Blank)

Fields and guidance (keep answers short and factual):

1. Document title
2. Location / Area / Process
3. Date of assessment
4. Assessor name and role
5. Review date (or trigger events)
6. Activity description (what is being done)
7. Persons at risk (staff, contractors, public)
8. Hazards (list each hazard separately)
9. Existing controls (what is in place now)
10. 10.Likelihood (Low / Medium / High) — justify in one line
11. Severity (Minor / Major / Critical) — justify in one line
12. .Risk rating (Low / Medium / High) — combine likelihood & severity
13. Additional controls required (specific, measurable actions)
14. .Responsible person for each action
15. Target date for action completion
16. Residual risk after controls (Low / Medium / High)
17. Sign-off (Assessor and Line Manager)
18. Document reference number and version

Common mistakes to avoid (short list):

• Vague hazards (e.g., “dangerous chemicals” without naming them).
• Controls written as vague intentions (e.g., “improve training” without who/when).
• No measurable target dates or owners.
• No review trigger (investment, incident, new process).
• Failure to reference legal or guidance documents where relevant.

Model example — Risk Assessment (filled)

1. Document title: “Risk assessment — Chemical blending unit A”
2. Location / Area / Process: “Plant 2 — Batch blending of solvent-based coating”
3. Date of assessment: “12 November 2025”
4. Assessor name and role: “S. Khan, Senior HSE Engineer”
5. Review date (or trigger events): “12 Nov 2026 or after any batch deviation, near miss,
   or COMAH change”
6. Activity description: “Manual charging and automated mixing of solvent A and polymer
   B to produce coating C.”
7. Persons at risk: “Operators, maintenance staff, contractors, visitors.”
8. Hazards (each on separate line):

• Flammable solvent vapour ignition (fire/explosion).
• Chemical spill causing skin contact and inhalation.
• Thermal runaway during exothermic reaction.
• Slip from liquid spill.

9. Existing controls:

• DSEAR assessment completed; area zoned.
• Automated ventilation and gas detection linked to shutdown.
• PPE available: chemical gloves, goggles, flame-retardant coveralls.
• Spill kits and bunding around tanks.
• Staff competence training records on site.

10. Likelihood (one-line justification):

• Flammable vapour ignition — Low (detection and automated shutdown in place).
• Chemical spill — Medium (manual charging still required).

11. Severity (one-line justification):

• Flammable vapour ignition — Critical (potential for major blast and fatalities).
• Chemical spill — Major (potential for serious injury and environmental release).

12. Risk rating (combine):

• Flammable vapour ignition — High (Critical × Low = High because consequences
  severe).
• Chemical spill — Medium (Major × Medium).

13. Additional controls required (specific actions):

• Introduce double-check charging procedure with lock-off (owner: Plant Manager).
• Calibrate gas detectors monthly and log tests (owner: Maintenance Supervisor).
• Install automated interlock to stop charging when detector reads >10% LEL (owner: Install automated interlock to stop charging when detector reads >10% LEL (owner: Engineering).
• Replace worn seals on drum dispensers within 10 working days (owner: Procurement).

14. Responsible person for each action: see actions above.
15. Target date for action completion:

• Double-check procedure — 30 days.
• Monthly calibration — immediate and ongoing.
• Interlock installation — 90 days.
• Seal replacement — 10 working days.

16. Residual risk after controls:

• Flammable vapour ignition — Medium (with interlock and calibration).
• Chemical spill — Low (after seal replacement and double-check).

17. Sign-off (Assessor and Line Manager): “S. Khan / Plant Manager — signed 12/11/2025”
18. Document reference number and version: “RA-P2-CH-001 v1”

Justification notes (brief): Hazard lines name the exact risk; existing controls reference
legal measure DSEAR; additional controls are specific, owned, and time-bounded.
Residual risk shows realistic improvement. This style prevents the common mistakes
listed earlier. For processes covered by COMAH, the assessment notes a review trigger
for COMAH changes.

Part B — Inspection Sheet Template (Blank)

Fields and guidance:

1. Inspection title (e.g., “Weekly plant safety walk”)
2. Site / Area / Plant ID
3. Date and time of inspection
4. Inspector name and role
5. Weather / Shift notes (if relevant)
6. Items to inspect (list rows: Item, Standard expected, Observed condition, Action
   required, Priority, Owner, Due date)
7. Immediate hazards found (describe and isolate if needed)
8. Photos / attachment references (file names)
9. Follow-up verification date
10. 10.Close-out sign-off (inspector and line manager)
11. 11.Document reference and version

Common mistakes:

• Using subjective language like “looks okay”.
• No photographic evidence for severe items.
• No priority or owner for follow-up.
• No verification after actions are closed.

Model example — Inspection Sheet (filled)

1. Inspection title: “Weekly plant 2 safety inspection”
2. Site / Area / Plant ID: “Plant 2 — Blending”
3. Date and time: “14 Nov 2025, 07:30”
4. Inspector name and role: “H. Patel, HSE Advisor”
5. Weather / Shift notes: “Dry, day shift”
6. Items to inspect (rows):

7. Immediate hazards found: “Cutter C unguarded — isolated and locked out. Production
   halted until repair.” Photo ref: IMG_20251114_001.jpg
8. Photos / attachments: “IMG_20251114_001.jpg — unguarded cutter; IMG_002 —
   eyewash blocked”
9. Follow-up verification date: “22 Nov 2025”
10. Close-out sign-off: “H. Patel / Plant Supervisor — to sign after verification”
11. Document ref/version: “INS-P2-WK-014 v3”

Justification notes: Observations link to PUWER duties for guarding and maintenance.
Immediate action for the unguarded cutter prevents foreseeable harm. All actions have
owners and dates to avoid the common failure of “no-one responsible”.

Part C — Environmental Register Template (Blank)

Purpose: track environmental permits, monitoring, waste streams, and controls.

Fields and guidance:

1. Organisation name and site address
2. Register date and owner
3. Permit types held (e.g., environmental permit, waste carrier reg, discharge consent)
   — include permit number and expiry date
4. Emissions and discharges summary (point sources, frequency)
5. Waste streams (type, storage, disposal method, contract)
6. Monitoring requirements (parameter, frequency, last result, next due)
7. Significant ecological receptors (e.g., nearby watercourse, protected habitat) and
   distance
8. Incident / spill log (date, description, response, outcome)
9. Controls in place (bunding, silt traps, washout areas, spill kits)
10. Action plan (required improvements, owner, due date)
11. Review frequency and sign-off

Common mistakes:

• Not recording permit expiry or conditions.
• No evidence of monitoring results.
• No linkage between waste streams and disposal contracts.
• No ecological receptor mapping.
  Model example — Environmental Register (filled)

1. Organisation / site: “Northvale Technologies Ltd — Plant 2, Riverside Industrial Park”
2. Register date and owner: “12 Nov 2025 — E. Robinson, Environmental Manager”
3. Permit types:

• Environmental Permit ref EP/12345/PLT — Discharge to water — expiry 31/12/2027.
• Waste carrier reg: WC/98765 — expires 01/12/2026.

4. Emissions / discharges summary: “Stormwater outfall SW-2 monitored monthly for
   suspended solids; trade effluent discharge monitored quarterly for COD and pH.”
5. Waste streams:

• Hazardous solvent waste — stored in labelled drums in bunded area — removed weekly
  by licensed contractor (WasteCo Ltd, contract ref WCL-2024).
• General site cleanings — segregated to landfill/recycling by same contractor.

6. Monitoring requirements:

• Suspended solids (monthly) — last result 10/10/2025 — 35 mg/L (< permit limit 50 mg/L)
  — next due 15/11/2025.
• COD (quarterly) — last 02/09/2025 — within limits — next due 02/12/2025.

7. Ecological receptors: “Riverside Stream — 120 m downstream; designated informal
   wildlife corridor. Risk of siltation affecting fish.”
8. Incident / spill log: “05/06/2025 — minor concrete washout; response: deployed silt
   bags, notified EA, sampled water; outcome: remediation and staff retraining.”

9. Controls in place: “Concrete washout points, silt fencing, bunded chemical stores, spill
   kits on all tanks, stormwater diversion to holding sump during heavy rain.”
10. Action plan:

• Replace degraded silt fencing — Owner: Site Supervisor — Due 30/11/2025.
• Review washout procedure and relocate wash point to lined area — Owner:
  Environmental Manager — Due 31/12/2025.

11.Review frequency and sign-off: “Quarterly review; next review 12/02/2026 — signed
E. Robinson 12/11/2025.”

Justification notes: The register links permit conditions to monitoring and actions. It
names the ecological receptor and shows incident learnings. This prevents the common
error of lacking evidence of compliance and continuous improvement. Relevant UK
guidance on environmental permitting and monitoring should be followed and
documented.

Line-by-line mapping to UK law and what the assessor will check

Risk assessment:

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
requires suitable and sufficient risk assessments. The assessor will check that hazards
are named, controls are specific, owners and dates exist, and review triggers are present.

Inspection sheet:

The assessor will expect evidence of PUWER compliance where
equipment is inspected, and a trail showing that immediate hazards are isolated and
repaired. Records must show who performed the inspection and evidence of follow-up.

Environmental register:

For sites with permits, evidence must show monitoring meets
permit conditions and incidents are recorded and reported as required by Environmental
Permitting Regulations 2016. The register must make it easy for regulators to find current
permit details and monitoring results.

Biohazards (COSHH):

When biological agents are present, the risk assessment must
classify agents, identify routes of exposure, and put in containment and decontamination
steps. The assessor will check staff competence, PPE availability, and spill response
procedures. Records should align with COSHH guidance.

Biological outbreaks:

The assessor will seek evidence of a documented outbreak plan
(symptom reporting, isolation, cleaning regimes, ventilation checks). Employers must follow public health guidance and provide support for sick reporting to avoid presenteeism
that spreads illness. Relevant duties flow from HSWA and COSHH where exposures are
workplace-related.

Ergonomics:

Risk assessments for manual tasks must reference Manual Handling
Regulations and show mechanical aids or workstation redesign where practical. The
assessor will check that training is recorded and that engineering solutions are preferred
over reliance on PPE.

Chemical failure scenarios (COMAH, DSEAR, COSHH):

For sites handling
dangerous substances, risk assessments must reflect COMAH duties and DSEAR
controls for explosive atmospheres. The assessor will check emergency arrangements,
interlocks, maintenance records for safety-critical instrumentation, and training.
How to present these documents in an assessor pack

1. Cover sheet listing documents and their revision dates.
2. Signed risk assessments with clear version control.
3. Recent inspection sheets with closure evidence (before/after photos).
4. Environmental register with monitoring certificates and contractor waste duty
   paperwork.
5. Training matrix linked to each activity in the risk assessment.
6. Evidence of legal alignment (copies of permit certificates, DSEAR assessment
   summaries, COMAH operator reports where applicable).
7. Root cause analyses for any incidents referenced (Bow-tie or Swiss Cheese
   diagrams). The assessor expects traceability from incident to corrective action to
   verification.
   Short model of a line-by-line note for one field (example)

Field:

“Existing controls” (Risk Assessment) — model note: “Automated ventilation and
gas detection linked to shutdown.” Why this is correct: it names the exact control, shows
linkage to safety function (shutdown), and is auditable (maintenance and test records
should be referenced). Why not: writing “good ventilation” is not measurable or auditable.

Common assessor queries and best replies (short list)

• “Where is the evidence this control works?” — show test/calibration records and dates.
• “Who owns the action?” — show name, role, and signed acceptance.
• “When was this reviewed?” — show review date and reasons for re-review (change,
  near miss, audit finding).
• “Is this compliant with the permit/regulation?” — show permit condition or regulation line
  and how the control meets it.
  Final checklist before submission to assessor
• All controls have owners and dates.
• All high and critical risks have specific mitigating actions and verification plans.
• Inspection closures show evidence (photos, test logs).
• Environmental register aligns with permit obligations and monitoring evidence.
• Biohazard and outbreak plans are attached where relevant.
• Training records and competence matrices are current and mapped to tasks.

Learner Task

1. Using the templates above, the learner must complete the following:
   a. Produce one full risk assessment for a high-risk process in their organisation (approx.
   1,000–1,500 words), using the line-by-line format shown. The assessment must name
   hazards, reference relevant UK law or HSE guidance, list measurable controls, assign
   owners and dates, and record residual risk.
   b. Complete three consecutive weekly inspection sheets for one area, include photos (or
   clear photo descriptions) and show closure evidence for any actions marked High or
   Critical.
   c. Create an environmental register for the site covering permits, monitoring, waste
   streams and at least one recorded incident with corrective action and verification. Include
   ecological receptor mapping.
2. Produce a short supporting pack (max 6 pages) that contains:

• A training matrix showing who is competent for the assessed process.
• Copies of two maintenance or calibration records that support the controls named in the
  risk assessment.
• A short (300–500 word) reflection explaining why the chosen controls were selected and
  how they support sustainable performance and legal compliance.

3. Submission requirements and marking focus:

• Submit all documents as one PDF with a contents page and clear versioning.
• The assessor will mark on: clarity of hazard identification, specificity of controls,
  ownership and target dates, evidence of legal alignment, and quality of verification
  evidence. The learner must show leadership-level reasoning on why controls are
  sustainable and how they improve safety culture.