16 replies to this topic

[Biss]

hi simon,

we are in the process of implementing OHSAS 18001. Same kind of risk assessment is required as per the standard and I am in the process of finalising method and format for the risk assessment for Health & safety



ADDED UPDATED DOCUMENT AS DISCUSSED DURING THREAD:
 RISK_ASSESSMENT_format_rev.doc   34KB   168 downloads

[Simon]

hi simon,

we are in the process of implementing OHSAS 18001. Same kind of risk assessment is required as per the standard and I am in the process of finalising method and format for the risk assessment for Health & safety

If you need or want to I'd love to discuss anything related to H & S with you as you navigate through your project on OHSAS 18001 - it would help me with my learning anyhow. Anyway I'm here if you need me.

Regards,
Simon

[Biss]

Dear Simon,

I have prepared a risk assessment methodology. I would like to have your comments. I have still problem with attaching files. So how to proceed. Can you PM your email ?

[Simon]

Dear Simon,

I have prepared a risk assessment methodology. I would like to have your comments. I have still problem with attaching files. So how to proceed. Can you PM your email ?

Dear Biss,

Please send it to:

team-at-ifsqn.com

and I will attach it for you.
Regards,

Simon

[Simon]

Attached is the risk assessment methodolgy document you sent me Biss. I will take a look over the next few days and let you have my comments.

 Health_and_Safety_Risk_Assessment_Methodology.doc   32.5KB   174 downloads

Regards,
Simon

[AS NUR]

thansk simon.. thats can help us to more understand on OHSAS

[Charles.C]

Dear Biss,

Can I make a few comments? Never seen the OHSAS thingy standard so my apologies in advance if any irrelevant statements below.

Ingenious idea and I think partly original in design. Thks for chance to have a look.

Hv seen the principle of combining consequence / likelihood / scale (exposure) before in histogram type designs (normally in non-linear fashion) but not the idea of adding a “duration” effect . This parameter could possibly be intuitively included within “consequence” ? Any existing (accessible) validations ?

7 comments –

(1) Duration (frequency of exposure) should perhaps hv “frequency” replaced by “length”

(2) the “probable / possible entries in “likelihood” row should be reversed ?, eg possible should be 3 points

(3) In “Consequence” row, “lost time” looks a bit vague. Also “involves a lot of people” is more appropriate to “scale” row perhaps.

(4) I appreciate the subjective difficulties but the “scale” row looks rather un- numerical, particularly as compared to detailed row values for “duration”

(5) Explanation for terms and scoring system for N/A/E, D/I not given ??

(6) Don’t quite see the logic for the NAE / DI functions (can see they are currrently necessary somehow so as to generate a total score over 30). (perhaps this is to comply with some particular H&S requirement.?) Seems sort of already included functionally in first table ??

(7) Any particular reason for choice of 30 ? Not criticising, just asking.

Thks again for contribution.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Biss]

Dear Charles,

Thanks a lot for your comments

For the OHSAS 18001 standard try this link http://www.scribd.co...HSAS-18001-2007

I think in the occupation health duration of exposure is important, long exposure to noise, radioactivity, chemical fumes etc. can cause occupational health issues. thats why I have included duration also a separate point

Point (1) – I agree with you

Point (2) – Not sure, what others think ?

Point (3) – Lost time means loss of man days of employee for medical treatment

Point (4) – no comments, any other ideas ?

Point (5) –

N – Normal, A – Abnormal, E – emergency situation, - It explains whether the hazard is arise from the Normal / Abnormal / Emergency situation. All emergency situations should be included in the emergency preparedness plan

D – Direct control of activity / hazard is possible, I – Indirect Control (eg. subcontractor premises)

Point (6) – NAE functions intended to ensure that all situations of an activity is analyzed. DI indicates whether we can control the hazard directly / indirectly. While designing the new control measures, it has an important role.

it’s a requirement of the standard

Pont (7) – No reason to select 30, I am planning to review it after completing the first stage of risk analysis.


Once again thanks for the valuable feedback.

regards

Edited by Biss, 24 April 2009 - 03:34 AM.

[Charles.C]

Dear Biss,

Thks for reply.

I can see why you are trying to develop a simplified approach !

Rgds / Charles.C

Added – after some further thought , 3 more comments –

(a) I probably misinterpreted the intended calculation of overall risk as per yr previous attached table. I guess you intend to use a formula, risk = C x L x S x D ? (had been adding them )

(b) seems to me that yr procedure for risk assessment may not comply with paras 3.21, 3.22 of standard ? Or perhaps there is another "flexibility" clause somewhere which I missed.

© as a general comment, one objection to yr procedure may be that it is un-necessarily over – complicated, similar to the non–popularity of FMEA / 3-parameter type approaches for HACCP. Easier to consider this if some examples tried out and the results compared with more traditional formats, eg 3x3 etc, which I presume are also an option. Unless there is some specific reason for the 5 parameters due the standard but I didn’t see any ?

[Biss]

Dear Charles,

your approach is really good and wonderful !

(a) - Risk is C x L x S x D

(b) - 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 are the definitions, as per the standard we have to define the methodology of risk assessment - I dont think its a non complaince.

You are correct we can do the risk assessment based on consequence and likelihood as a minimum requirement

[Simon]

Great document Biss, thanks for sharing. My comments based on Charles original feedback:

(1) Duration (frequency of exposure) should perhaps hv “frequency” replaced by “length”

Agree.

(2) the “probable / possible entries in “likelihood” row should be reversed ?, eg possible should be 3 points

Agree

(3) In “Consequence” row, “lost time” looks a bit vague. Also “involves a lot of people” is more appropriate to “scale” row perhaps.

Agree

(4) I appreciate the subjective difficulties but the “scale” row looks rather un- numerical, particularly as compared to detailed row values for “duration”

Agree should be percentage and also somehow cover and/or outside environment. A release of chemical for example could affect public outside but not employees inside.

(5) Explanation for terms and scoring system for N/A/E, D/I not given ??

Agree

(6) Don’t quite see the logic for the NAE / DI functions (can see they are currrently necessary somehow so as to generate a total score over 30). (perhaps this is to comply with some particular H&S requirement.?) Seems sort of already included functionally in first table ??

Agree don’t understand. I do now there has been follow up.

To make the document perfect try to simplify as Charles mentioned and explain the risk assesment methodology (scoring) and explanation of terms used on the document.

If you make any amendments please send to me and I will repost version 2.

Just my two penny worth.

Regards,
Simon

[Biss]

thanks simon

I will review the documents based on your comments and send you the ver 2

for the environmental risk assessment i have prepared a format. if you are interested in review and discuss then i will send to you

Our management has decided to implement ISO 14001 / OHSAS 18001 / SA 8000 standards. we have already ISO 9001 & 22000 certified.

thanks & regards

[Biss]

Dear Simon,

OHS revised format is mailed to you

regards

[Simon]

Thanks Biss, I am attaching for you here:

Attachment Removed see - here

Regards,
Simon

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,

I get garbage when I try to open this document in word 2003 ? Anybody successful, or not ??

Rgds / Charles.C

Re - Biss attachment problem - I hv similar problem but just found one solution (temporary or not unknown). I failed with FFox 3 and IE6 but succeeded with Opera. My exact problem (unknown) may be different origin to Biss of course. all options are ok for dwls.

added - only problem with Opera - after an edit, page previews correct but does not auto-display new text after submit the edit, hv to do manual reload. Win some, lose some.

[Simon]

Dear Simon,

I get garbage when I try to open this document in word 2003 ? Anybody successful, or not ??

Rgds / Charles.C

Re - Biss attachment problem - I hv similar problem but just found one solution (temporary or not unknown). I failed with FFox 3 and IE6 but succeeded with Opera. My exact problem (unknown) may be different origin to Biss of course. all options are ok for dwls.

added - only problem with Opera - after an edit, page previews correct but does not auto-display new text after submit the edit, hv to do manual reload. Win some, lose some.

Yes it's my fault, I opened it with the latest version of word that uses the extension .docx, when I tried to upload it the extension type is not allowed by the forum software so I changed the document extension to .doc and just uploaded it without first checking it. I have removed the document for now and will re-attach it next week when I get access to the other computer.

Regards,
Simon

[Simon]

I added the updated risk assessment template to the top of the thread - I could download it OK.