Dear HSE Professionals,
Please help me to solve this problem.
In our industry (Steel Pipe Manufacturing) to fulfill the requirement of OHSAS-18001 standard we are maintaining Risk Assessment register.
Our risk assessment methodology is ,.
The overall OH&S hazards shall be calculated by the formula:
Scale A: Probability of Occurrences
Scale B: Severity of the Consequences
Risk = Probability of Occurrences (A) + Severity of the Consequences (B)
Maximum Possible Value shall be = 10
Minimum Possible Value shall be = 02
5 + 5 risk matrix shall be taken in consideration and Final Risk Value.
Recently one of the external auditor raised NC against this risk assessment method. He is telling this method is not acceptable its wrong.
Now I want to prove this method is not wrong... I want some supporting data.
Please suggest.
With Regards,
Rohan Puthran.
From India, Karamsad
8Please help me to solve this problem.
In our industry (Steel Pipe Manufacturing) to fulfill the requirement of OHSAS-18001 standard we are maintaining Risk Assessment register.
Our risk assessment methodology is ,.
The overall OH&S hazards shall be calculated by the formula:
Scale A: Probability of Occurrences
Scale B: Severity of the Consequences
Risk = Probability of Occurrences (A) + Severity of the Consequences (B)
Maximum Possible Value shall be = 10
Minimum Possible Value shall be = 02
5 + 5 risk matrix shall be taken in consideration and Final Risk Value.
Recently one of the external auditor raised NC against this risk assessment method. He is telling this method is not acceptable its wrong.
Now I want to prove this method is not wrong... I want some supporting data.
Please suggest.
With Regards,
Rohan Puthran.
From India, Karamsad
Dear Rohan,
Please take a look on the below link may you can get an idea.
http://www.isos.co.jp/data/170/HToyoda.pdf
I know what you expect exactly from our forum members but unfortunately i don't have any support document with me at the moment. May some of our experts help you on this case.
Hope information helps.
From United States, Fpo
Please take a look on the below link may you can get an idea.
http://www.isos.co.jp/data/170/HToyoda.pdf
I know what you expect exactly from our forum members but unfortunately i don't have any support document with me at the moment. May some of our experts help you on this case.
Hope information helps.
From United States, Fpo
Dear,
There is no word like tolerable & untolerable in OHSAS 18001 : 2007.
Use word Acceptable & Unaccepatble.
Cost/money is not to be considered while evaluating Health & Safety Issue.
Your risk of Consequence should be like :
Slightly Harmful :Momentary discomfort.
Harmful : Minor injuries (non reportable) requires first-aid.
Very Harmful : Major injuries, absence from the work is less than or equal to 48 hrs or temporary disability
Extremely Harmful : Injuries which leads absence from the work more than 48 hours, Fetal/ Permanent disability, major incidents involving large number of people.
Also Consideration should be given to Legal Concern, Domino Concern and Chronic Effect irrespective of score.
And risk rating should be likelyhood of occurance multiplied by risk of Consequence.
I think this would be OK for the understanding.
With Lots of regards.
Hasmukh P. Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
There is no word like tolerable & untolerable in OHSAS 18001 : 2007.
Use word Acceptable & Unaccepatble.
Cost/money is not to be considered while evaluating Health & Safety Issue.
Your risk of Consequence should be like :
Slightly Harmful :Momentary discomfort.
Harmful : Minor injuries (non reportable) requires first-aid.
Very Harmful : Major injuries, absence from the work is less than or equal to 48 hrs or temporary disability
Extremely Harmful : Injuries which leads absence from the work more than 48 hours, Fetal/ Permanent disability, major incidents involving large number of people.
Also Consideration should be given to Legal Concern, Domino Concern and Chronic Effect irrespective of score.
And risk rating should be likelyhood of occurance multiplied by risk of Consequence.
I think this would be OK for the understanding.
With Lots of regards.
Hasmukh P. Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
Dear Sir,
The standard does not give any prescribed method to evaluate hazard identification. But the requirements under 4.3.1 is to be complied with like routine, non routine, direct or in direct, legal requirements, behavioral acts etc.The procedure might not been explained well to the auditor, hence this might have arisen. You give correct explanation in the corrective action report .Your Level two procedure must be clear on this aspect.
regards.
T.S.SRINIVASAN
From India, Pondicherry
The standard does not give any prescribed method to evaluate hazard identification. But the requirements under 4.3.1 is to be complied with like routine, non routine, direct or in direct, legal requirements, behavioral acts etc.The procedure might not been explained well to the auditor, hence this might have arisen. You give correct explanation in the corrective action report .Your Level two procedure must be clear on this aspect.
regards.
T.S.SRINIVASAN
From India, Pondicherry
Dear sir,
Can you please explain me why Risk = Probability of Occurrences + Severity of the Consequences is wrong (not acceptable).
Auditor opinion is it should be like this Risk = Probability of Occurrences X Severity of the Consequences.... Why...???
With Regards,
Rohan .P
From India, Karamsad
Can you please explain me why Risk = Probability of Occurrences + Severity of the Consequences is wrong (not acceptable).
Auditor opinion is it should be like this Risk = Probability of Occurrences X Severity of the Consequences.... Why...???
With Regards,
Rohan .P
From India, Karamsad
hi, here is a metrix i m providing u to rate the risk, this will help u better as human behavior is aslo considered in risk assessment. anurag
From India, Jalgaon
From India, Jalgaon
Dear Rohanputhran
There are quite a few open ends.
Let me try to get those points so that you can get a solution to you problem.
Whenever any Non Conformance (NC) is raised the Auditor clearly would write
as to why it is a Non Conformance. That is he would specify the nature of non compliance.
The details of NC have not been provided by you, but still we can try to get a solution.
Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA analysis) and RPN concepts have to be revisited.
RPN stands for Risk Priority Number.
It takes into account The SEVERITY, CHANCES OF OCCURENCE and CHANCES OF DETECTION.
The RPN is a multiplier of all the above three, by definition.
My guess for the multiplication is to project the compounding effect of all the three.
I am open for other views on this.
In your case you have not made any reference to DETECTION at all.
Did the auditor point out this?
You mentioned that the auditor has asked you to multiply the other two.
According to me all three have to be first identified and then multiplied.
As you may be aware all the three are mutually independent.
Further in Risk assessment studies on the score of SEVERITY rating alone certain tasks (?) can be categorized.
Plenty of study material is available in the internet giving more details and explanations.
Perhaps in Cite HR also I have not tried it.
If you can give a process description and how the risk analysis has been done
more contributions might flow.
However the best solution is to go into the theoretical aspects and then
apply it in your Steel Pipe manufacturing process.
V.Raghunathan Navi Mumbai
From India
There are quite a few open ends.
Let me try to get those points so that you can get a solution to you problem.
Whenever any Non Conformance (NC) is raised the Auditor clearly would write
as to why it is a Non Conformance. That is he would specify the nature of non compliance.
The details of NC have not been provided by you, but still we can try to get a solution.
Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA analysis) and RPN concepts have to be revisited.
RPN stands for Risk Priority Number.
It takes into account The SEVERITY, CHANCES OF OCCURENCE and CHANCES OF DETECTION.
The RPN is a multiplier of all the above three, by definition.
My guess for the multiplication is to project the compounding effect of all the three.
I am open for other views on this.
In your case you have not made any reference to DETECTION at all.
Did the auditor point out this?
You mentioned that the auditor has asked you to multiply the other two.
According to me all three have to be first identified and then multiplied.
As you may be aware all the three are mutually independent.
Further in Risk assessment studies on the score of SEVERITY rating alone certain tasks (?) can be categorized.
Plenty of study material is available in the internet giving more details and explanations.
Perhaps in Cite HR also I have not tried it.
If you can give a process description and how the risk analysis has been done
more contributions might flow.
However the best solution is to go into the theoretical aspects and then
apply it in your Steel Pipe manufacturing process.
V.Raghunathan Navi Mumbai
From India
Dears,
Mr. Raghunathan is very much right.
No body can give NC, if you have used method of multiplication.
Any organisation can define its own procedure and have to follow it. Multiplication is just a number game to show more concern.
It will be better to read standard for its requirement and not fulfill auditor's requirement. Mostly auditor will demand what he understood from the standard.
I will be able to guide you, if you are in chemical manufacturing process.
With regards,
Hasmukh P Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
Mr. Raghunathan is very much right.
No body can give NC, if you have used method of multiplication.
Any organisation can define its own procedure and have to follow it. Multiplication is just a number game to show more concern.
It will be better to read standard for its requirement and not fulfill auditor's requirement. Mostly auditor will demand what he understood from the standard.
I will be able to guide you, if you are in chemical manufacturing process.
With regards,
Hasmukh P Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
Dear Mr.Rohan,
You defend with your auditor about your risk calculation. You are using addition (+) its a very good initiative, its an improvement from your side. As Mr.Srinivasan said The standard does not give any prescribed method to evaluate hazard identification. But risk should be classified as Acceptable and unacceptable (its as per Factories Act) .
For Severity use the Terminology - Trivial, Moderate and Critical and for Probability Use the Terminology - Remote, Likely and Certain
and its better u should mention the cut of score and also mention the legal requirements in your HIRA register.
Auditor can raise a NC when u cant cover all your organizations activities and your risk identification is improper not about the Matrix. If he given any suggestions and improvements then you can consider.
Regards,
Narayan
Lead Auditor for QMS & HSE
From India, Hyderabad
You defend with your auditor about your risk calculation. You are using addition (+) its a very good initiative, its an improvement from your side. As Mr.Srinivasan said The standard does not give any prescribed method to evaluate hazard identification. But risk should be classified as Acceptable and unacceptable (its as per Factories Act) .
For Severity use the Terminology - Trivial, Moderate and Critical and for Probability Use the Terminology - Remote, Likely and Certain
and its better u should mention the cut of score and also mention the legal requirements in your HIRA register.
Auditor can raise a NC when u cant cover all your organizations activities and your risk identification is improper not about the Matrix. If he given any suggestions and improvements then you can consider.
Regards,
Narayan
Lead Auditor for QMS & HSE
From India, Hyderabad
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
SALARY SHEET CALCULATION.xls