I think section a) was pretty well answered; clearly set out, relevant and of sensible length for the marks- in fact if anything some of the entries could have been slightly briefer to save a few moments.
Any answer can be criticised, but I think you'd be scoring close to the maximum marks for this bit.
Section b) explicitly required addressing 3 sub bullets and this element was also answered quite well, spoilt by having two entries for Quantified Risk Assessment due to a typo! Don't quite think you got the essential thing about CBA; it shouldn't be used for deciding what to do about safety risks- not at least in its "pure" form (explained more by inserted comment).
However I didn't feel that you did so well on the major part of "Describing how safety can be assured through the stages".
1. I do think that your idea of producing a table with the separate stages of the project on separate rows was good, but less convinced by the actual column headings and content chosen.
2. I don't think I'd have listed always a hazard for each stage (but I do accept that one could argue that if hazard log comprehensive then that mitigation of all hazards would ensure safety).
3. I did have difficulty in understanding some of the hazards.
I certainly could not rationalise the two QRA columns particularly as they always had identical entries. If they were supposed to be qualitative and quantitative, then better to have indicated which would have been used during which stage.
Similarly the "level of ALARP" didn't quite make sense.
I had no idea what the "Remarks" column was for (since entry was always NO regardless of the level of risk or cost).
4. More importantly, I believe that the table failed to DESCRIBE. Perhaps it needed some introduction just before it to explain how it was to be interpreted; perhaps it would have been better to have fewer columns but some text arranged with bullet points within it to do the description.
I went back to this table several times trying to comprehend how it addressed the question (as I think an examiner would do) but in the end I decided that it really didn't.
5. Most importantly what the answer failed to address in my mind is that Safety ASSURANCE is about a range of processes to give the required level of confidence, rather than just addressing a particular hazard per stage. There is a difference between closing out previously identified hazards and being confident that have achieved objective; certainly part of the answer but not the totality.
6. On the plus side you certainly attempted to work into your answer the sub-bullets re risk/ QRA / CBA; I don't feel that you actually achieved this very well, but at least you tried. However you seemed to veer off into tabulation of a risk assessment, which although part of the answer, isn't the totality and was not all strictly relevant to what was needed for this question.
7. I'd have tackled this more by explaining what processes need to take place at what time during the life-cycle first to identify hazards, then assess their risks, then consider options to mitigate and determine which solution to adopt etc. This could have either followed on from your initial part of the answer or indeed those definitions and explanations could have been incorporated within the description. Also could have mentioned things such as HAZOPs, HAZIDs, Fault Trees, Event Trees, FMECA etc as well as Safety Case, audits, processes etc.
Section c)
There was some good content in this section, but I believe a better answer would have focused upon
Any answer can be criticised, but I think you'd be scoring close to the maximum marks for this bit.
Section b) explicitly required addressing 3 sub bullets and this element was also answered quite well, spoilt by having two entries for Quantified Risk Assessment due to a typo! Don't quite think you got the essential thing about CBA; it shouldn't be used for deciding what to do about safety risks- not at least in its "pure" form (explained more by inserted comment).
However I didn't feel that you did so well on the major part of "Describing how safety can be assured through the stages".
1. I do think that your idea of producing a table with the separate stages of the project on separate rows was good, but less convinced by the actual column headings and content chosen.
2. I don't think I'd have listed always a hazard for each stage (but I do accept that one could argue that if hazard log comprehensive then that mitigation of all hazards would ensure safety).
3. I did have difficulty in understanding some of the hazards.
I certainly could not rationalise the two QRA columns particularly as they always had identical entries. If they were supposed to be qualitative and quantitative, then better to have indicated which would have been used during which stage.
Similarly the "level of ALARP" didn't quite make sense.
I had no idea what the "Remarks" column was for (since entry was always NO regardless of the level of risk or cost).
4. More importantly, I believe that the table failed to DESCRIBE. Perhaps it needed some introduction just before it to explain how it was to be interpreted; perhaps it would have been better to have fewer columns but some text arranged with bullet points within it to do the description.
I went back to this table several times trying to comprehend how it addressed the question (as I think an examiner would do) but in the end I decided that it really didn't.
5. Most importantly what the answer failed to address in my mind is that Safety ASSURANCE is about a range of processes to give the required level of confidence, rather than just addressing a particular hazard per stage. There is a difference between closing out previously identified hazards and being confident that have achieved objective; certainly part of the answer but not the totality.
6. On the plus side you certainly attempted to work into your answer the sub-bullets re risk/ QRA / CBA; I don't feel that you actually achieved this very well, but at least you tried. However you seemed to veer off into tabulation of a risk assessment, which although part of the answer, isn't the totality and was not all strictly relevant to what was needed for this question.
7. I'd have tackled this more by explaining what processes need to take place at what time during the life-cycle first to identify hazards, then assess their risks, then consider options to mitigate and determine which solution to adopt etc. This could have either followed on from your initial part of the answer or indeed those definitions and explanations could have been incorporated within the description. Also could have mentioned things such as HAZOPs, HAZIDs, Fault Trees, Event Trees, FMECA etc as well as Safety Case, audits, processes etc.
Section c)
There was some good content in this section, but I believe a better answer would have focused upon
PJW