Chemical Lab Safety and Risk Assessment

Proof required

Submit the procedure specification (the specific named technique, the chemicals or biological materials involved, the equipment used, and the scale of work) and a complete hazard identification table listing each distinct hazard, its category (chemical/biological/physical/fire-electrical), the specific harm it could cause, and the source of information used to identify it (SDS reference, regulation, or laboratory standard).

What gets checked

• Procedure is specific — not 'acid-base titration' but 'potentiometric acid-base titration of an unknown carbonate sample using 0.1M HCl with a glass electrode, 250mL beaker, and magnetic stirrer'
• Every hazard is linked to a source — SDS GHS hazard classification, COSHH regulation, RIDDOR category, or equivalent national standard; no hazard is asserted without a regulatory or data source
• Hazard identification covers all four categories — a risk assessment that only covers chemical hazards and ignores equipment pinch points, electrical equipment, or spillage fire risk is incomplete

Common mistakes

• Listing only the most obvious chemical hazards and ignoring physical hazards (glassware breakage, centrifuge imbalance) or electrical hazards (hot plates, water near power equipment)
• Using generic laboratory hazards rather than procedure-specific ones — a risk assessment for centrifugation that does not address rotor balance failure is generic, not a real assessment of that procedure

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to explain what harm could result from the most serious hazard they identified — confirms genuine engagement with the hazard, not just listing its category.
• Ask whether there are any hazards specific to working alone versus in a supervised group with this procedure — some hazard profiles change with supervision level.
• Ask what they would do if the procedure was scaled up by a factor of 10 — tests understanding of how hazard magnitude changes with scale, which is fundamental to industrial safety.

Proof required

Submit your completed risk assessment document in a standard risk matrix format (hazard, likelihood rating 1–5, severity rating 1–5, risk level = likelihood × severity, control measures in hierarchy of controls order, and post-control residual risk). Include your emergency procedures section (first aid for the specific chemicals, spill response, fire response, and relevant emergency contacts or protocols).

What gets checked

• Hierarchy of controls is applied — not every hazard's control starts at PPE; the assessment must show whether elimination or substitution was considered and why it was or was not applicable
• Control measures are specific enough to implement — not 'wear PPE' but 'wear chemical-resistant nitrile gloves (minimum 0.3mm thickness) and safety goggles (BS EN 166 certified) when handling concentrated HCl'
• Residual risk is stated for each hazard — the risk matrix must show both the pre-control and post-control risk levels

Common mistakes

• PPE as first-line control for every hazard — the hierarchy of controls places PPE last because it is the least reliable; an assessment that jumps to PPE without considering engineering controls shows limited safety understanding
• Unspecific emergency procedures — 'call emergency services' is not an emergency procedure; first aid for specific chemical exposure, spill neutralisation procedure, and evacuation route must be stated

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to walk through the hierarchy of controls for the highest-risk hazard — did they genuinely consider elimination and substitution, or did they go straight to PPE?
• Ask what the specific first aid procedure is for the most serious chemical exposure scenario — confirm it matches current SDS guidance for that chemical.
• Ask what the residual risk level is after controls and whether they believe it is acceptable — the judgement about acceptable residual risk is the core professional decision in risk assessment.

Proof required

Submit the final risk assessment document (incorporating any revisions from the review) and a Q&A record showing specific challenges to the hazard identification, risk matrix ratings, or control measure choices, and your responses. Include one change made as a result of the review. The reviewer must be named and their occupational health, laboratory safety, or registered safety professional background stated.

What gets checked

• Review resulted in at least one substantive change — a risk assessment that required no revisions after expert review suggests the review was not genuinely critical
• Q&A record shows at least two challenges to the risk ratings or control measures and substantive responses
• Final document is in a format that a real laboratory would use — not an essay about risk assessment but the actual assessment document

Common mistakes

• A reviewer who only confirms the document is complete rather than critically evaluating whether the risk ratings and controls are appropriate — challenge to specific risk judgements requires OHS expertise
• Treating the assessment as an academic exercise rather than a working document — every element must be realistic, specific, and implementable by someone other than the author

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Challenge one specific risk rating — ask whether a severity level of 3 for a specific hazard is appropriate given the worst realistic outcome; this is the core professional judgement the review should probe.
• Ask whether the assessment is complete enough that a new person could use it safely on their first day — this is the practical test of whether a risk assessment is fit for purpose.
• Ask what would trigger a review or update of this risk assessment — awareness of when risk assessments need revision is a core element of safety management competence.