Risk Assessment (BRC 4.10.1.1)
Hello all,
I have just completed a first version of a risk assessment (powder blending operation), specifically for BRC 4.10.1.1- an assessment of methods used to reduce foreign body hazard (attached). I still need some hand holding here- I was hoping that someone with more experience could have a quick look and critique the document for me!
Questions:
For the score itself, should I be scoring this as if no control method existed (as I have done), or should that be scored with the applicable control method in place?
Am I being too conservative with the scores? I have probably erred on the side of caution here
What extra 'stuff' do I need for my two high risk categories, or are the control methods as stated sufficient? Should I say something about other machines such as X-ray?
Do you think this risk assessment format will be appropriate for the myriad other assessments required by BRC?
All advice gratefully received!
Ben
Attached Files
Hello all,
I have just completed a first version of a risk assessment (powder blending operation), specifically for BRC 4.10.1.1- an assessment of methods used to reduce foreign body hazard (attached). I still need some hand holding here- I was hoping that someone with more experience could have a quick look and critique the document for me!
Questions:
(1) For the score itself, should I be scoring this as if no control method existed (as I have done), or should that be scored with the applicable control method in place?
Am I being too conservative with the scores? I have probably erred on the side of caution here
What extra 'stuff' do I need for my two high risk categories, or are the control methods as stated sufficient? Should I say something about other machines such as X-ray?
Do you think this risk assessment format will be appropriate for the myriad other assessments required by BRC?
All advice gratefully received!
Ben
Hi ben,
This clause is IMO another example of BRC playing stupid with the English language so as to (successfully) confuse people. I suggest you read through this related thread to see what I mean -
http://www.ifsqn.com...oval-equipment/
BRC (intrinsically) follows Codex, not FSMA. So afaik (1) above is not mandatory. I have personally never been able to understand what it means anyway, as variously discussed on this Forum/elsewhere. For example a flow chart for cooked food (almost) universally has the cooking step as a CCP/control measure. But how the heck can you make a cooked food without including a cooking step ?
There is no ideal risk matrix. i doubt BRC care regarding details as long as it/its results are "logical"
Personally I consider yr matrix over-biased towards severity rather than likelihood but others will disagree. Cells D/E seem unrelated to safety (to me). However It's likely a good matrix to generate lots of (safety) CCPs.
To understand a little more about matrices can see this recent thread -
http://www.ifsqn.com...-and-brc-haccp/
(especially post 6 et seq)
addendum
Here are a few typical 5x5 risk matrix(s) (various others are possible) -
Typical 5x5 risk matrix(s).pdf 67.11KB 351 downloads
addendum 2
I forgot to add that one common (but not without some exceptions) requirement for a FS hazard to be potentially categorised as significant is that it be, at least, assessed as "reasonably likely to occur". In this sense the minimum likelihood of occurrence often takes precedence over the maximum severity. This approach would tend to downgrade the red cell A-V and possibly also the A-IV.
In other non-FS situations, different logics are, i think, more common, ie where severity takes precedence over likelihood of occurrence. It's a subjective area.