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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
9Please 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Rohan,
Please take a look at the link below; perhaps you can gain some insight: [http://www.isos.co.jp/data/170/HToyoda.pdf](http://www.isos.co.jp/data/170/HToyoda.pdf).
I understand your expectations from our forum members precisely, but unfortunately, I do not have any supporting documents with me at the moment. Hopefully, some of our experts can assist you with this issue.
I hope this information is helpful.
From United States, Fpo
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please take a look at the link below; perhaps you can gain some insight: [http://www.isos.co.jp/data/170/HToyoda.pdf](http://www.isos.co.jp/data/170/HToyoda.pdf).
I understand your expectations from our forum members precisely, but unfortunately, I do not have any supporting documents with me at the moment. Hopefully, some of our experts can assist you with this issue.
I hope this information is helpful.
From United States, Fpo
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
There is no word like "tolerable" and "untolerable" in OHSAS 18001:2007. Please use the words "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable". Cost or money should not be considered when evaluating health and safety issues.
Your risk of consequence should be as follows:
Slightly Harmful: Momentary discomfort.
Harmful: Minor injuries (non-reportable) requiring first aid.
Very Harmful: Major injuries, absence from work is less than or equal to 48 hours or temporary disability.
Extremely Harmful: Injuries resulting in absence from work for more than 48 hours, fetal/permanent disability, major incidents involving a large number of people.
Also, consideration should be given to legal concerns, domino concerns, and chronic effects regardless of the score. The risk rating should be the likelihood of occurrence multiplied by the risk of consequence.
I believe this would provide a clear understanding.
With lots of regards,
Hasmukh P. Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There is no word like "tolerable" and "untolerable" in OHSAS 18001:2007. Please use the words "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable". Cost or money should not be considered when evaluating health and safety issues.
Your risk of consequence should be as follows:
Slightly Harmful: Momentary discomfort.
Harmful: Minor injuries (non-reportable) requiring first aid.
Very Harmful: Major injuries, absence from work is less than or equal to 48 hours or temporary disability.
Extremely Harmful: Injuries resulting in absence from work for more than 48 hours, fetal/permanent disability, major incidents involving a large number of people.
Also, consideration should be given to legal concerns, domino concerns, and chronic effects regardless of the score. The risk rating should be the likelihood of occurrence multiplied by the risk of consequence.
I believe this would provide a clear understanding.
With lots of regards,
Hasmukh P. Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
The standard does not give any prescribed method to evaluate hazard identification. However, the requirements under 4.3.1 must be complied with, such as routine, non-routine, direct or indirect, legal requirements, behavioral acts, etc. The procedure might not have been explained well to the auditor; hence, this issue might have arisen. Please provide a correct explanation in the corrective action report. Your Level two procedure must be clear on this aspect.
Regards,
T.S. SRINIVASAN
From India, Pondicherry
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The standard does not give any prescribed method to evaluate hazard identification. However, the requirements under 4.3.1 must be complied with, such as routine, non-routine, direct or indirect, legal requirements, behavioral acts, etc. The procedure might not have been explained well to the auditor; hence, this issue might have arisen. Please provide a correct explanation in the corrective action report. Your Level two procedure must be clear on this aspect.
Regards,
T.S. SRINIVASAN
From India, Pondicherry
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
Can you please explain to me why Risk = Probability of Occurrences + Severity of the Consequences is considered wrong (not acceptable)? The auditor's opinion is that it should be expressed as Risk = Probability of Occurrences x Severity of the Consequences. Why is that the case?
With Regards,
Rohan P
From India, Karamsad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Can you please explain to me why Risk = Probability of Occurrences + Severity of the Consequences is considered wrong (not acceptable)? The auditor's opinion is that it should be expressed as Risk = Probability of Occurrences x Severity of the Consequences. Why is that the case?
With Regards,
Rohan P
From India, Karamsad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Jalgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
Mr. Raghunathan is absolutely correct. Nobody can issue a Non-Conformance (NC) if the method of multiplication has been utilized. Each organization is entitled to establish its own procedure and must adhere to it. Multiplication is merely a numerical manipulation to exhibit greater concern.
It is advisable to refer to the standard for its specific requirements rather than solely meeting the auditor's expectations. Typically, auditors will request compliance based on their interpretation of the standard.
I am available to offer guidance if you are involved in the chemical manufacturing process.
Best regards,
Hasmukh P Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Raghunathan is absolutely correct. Nobody can issue a Non-Conformance (NC) if the method of multiplication has been utilized. Each organization is entitled to establish its own procedure and must adhere to it. Multiplication is merely a numerical manipulation to exhibit greater concern.
It is advisable to refer to the standard for its specific requirements rather than solely meeting the auditor's expectations. Typically, auditors will request compliance based on their interpretation of the standard.
I am available to offer guidance if you are involved in the chemical manufacturing process.
Best regards,
Hasmukh P Valand
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Rohan,
You defended with your auditor about your risk calculation. You are using addition (+), it's a very good initiative, 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 (as per the Factories Act).
For severity, use the terminology - Trivial, Moderate, and Critical. For probability, use the terminology - Remote, Likely, and Certain. It's better if you mention the cutoff score and also include the legal requirements in your HIRA register.
An auditor can raise a non-conformance when you can't cover all your organization's activities and your risk identification is improper, not about the matrix. If he gives any suggestions and improvements, then you can consider.
Regards,
Narayan
Lead Auditor for QMS & HSE
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You defended with your auditor about your risk calculation. You are using addition (+), it's a very good initiative, 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 (as per the Factories Act).
For severity, use the terminology - Trivial, Moderate, and Critical. For probability, use the terminology - Remote, Likely, and Certain. It's better if you mention the cutoff score and also include the legal requirements in your HIRA register.
An auditor can raise a non-conformance when you can't cover all your organization's activities and your risk identification is improper, not about the matrix. If he gives any suggestions and improvements, then you can consider.
Regards,
Narayan
Lead Auditor for QMS & HSE
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
SALARY SHEET CALCULATION.xls