Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Struggling with a risk assessment matrix

risk assessment risk assessment matrix

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 CristinaLV

CristinaLV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 19 March 2020 - 07:08 AM

Hi everyone there!

 

I'm reviewing a customer's HACCP to give them support. They are ISO 22000 certified and they make gases for packaging, beverages and so on.

When conducting the risk assessment, they have rated probability into 4 categories: not probable (0 score), low probability (1 score): it happens every two years or never, médium prob (3 score): it happens between 2 years or 1 year, high prob (5 score) : it happens once per year. Severity is classified into 3 categories (low=1, médium=3, =5). THey say the risk is significant if the score is higher tan 9. NO explanation regarding method

THey do not have any PPRO or CCP which it can be fine, but as I do not have a justification on why the score they give to the risk it this, I have a weird feeling and I fill that for example, steps like the air intake to compress it previous to sepparating the different gases should be a PPRO.

Or for example, in some steps they are performing a continous control and they stop production if they detect more hidrocarburs than the limit, this control is more like PPRO than a PPR.

 

So I have a lack of proper justification to tell them that the risk matrix is  not appropiate, or am I wrong?

 

Can  you help me?

 

Thanks in advance!!

 

Cristina.



#2 sgodoy

sgodoy

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 20 March 2020 - 07:48 PM

in a risk assessment matrix you have the highest scores from frequency 5 (almost certain) and 4 (Likely) mixed with the severity 5 (Catastrophic) and 4 (Major) so for them it should be the summary of the 2 highest scores to get an Extreme or High attention plan, with the numbers that you said that should be 8 



#3 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,901 posts
  • 4724 thanks
880
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 21 March 2020 - 06:17 PM

 

Hi everyone there!

 

I'm reviewing a customer's HACCP to give them support. They are ISO 22000 certified and they make gases for packaging, beverages and so on.

When conducting the risk assessment, they have rated probability into 4 categories: not probable (0 score), low probability (1 score): it happens every two years or never, médium prob (3 score): it happens between 2 years or 1 year, high prob (5 score) : it happens once per year. Severity is classified into 3 categories (low=1, médium=3, =5). THey say the risk is significant if the score is higher tan 9. NO explanation regarding method

THey do not have any PPRO or CCP which it can be fine, but as I do not have a justification on why the score they give to the risk it this, I have a weird feeling and I fill that for example, steps like the air intake to compress it previous to sepparating the different gases should be a PPRO.

Or for example, in some steps they are performing a continous control and they stop production if they detect more hidrocarburs than the limit, this control is more like PPRO than a PPR.

 

So I have a lack of proper justification to tell them that the risk matrix is  not appropiate, or am I wrong?

 

Can  you help me?

 

Thanks in advance!!

 

Cristina.

 

Hi Christina,

 

Gas production not my area but the existence of  a CCP or OPRP typically depends on the hazard analysis / risks associated with the process stages. ( = ?? )

 

As I understand -

 

Likelihood of Occurrence is -

 

not probable = 0 (!!???????)

low probability = 1 (happens every 2 years or never)

medium probability = 3 (happens >1 year and < two years)

high probability = 5 (happens once per year)

 

Severity

low = 1

medium = 3

high = 5

 

>9 = Significant.

------------------------------

It's a rather strange matrix. The zero case looks improbable and sort of redundant.

 

It might help if you could post the hazard analysis if that is possible.

 

2 queries -

 

(1) how is the individual matrix cell risk calculated ? multiplication ? If so and ([ignoring the zero case] this would make MH, HM, HH significant which is plausible for a 3x3 matrix)

 

(2) how is the decision regarding CCP or OPRP  stated to be decided ?


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#4 CristinaLV

CristinaLV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 23 March 2020 - 05:40 AM

Thanks for your answers!

Unfortunatelly, I can't share any more information.

Nevertheless, if I ignore the 0 row, yes we have a conventional risk matrix.

After reviewing it more deeply I think what was confusing and I did not mention before, is that instead of classifying the severity in terms of the consequencies for the health of the consumer and effect to the business (high= death/severe injuries/business loss, and so on), they are classifiyng it depending to the Hazard. For example: high severity means: for chemical hazards Grease, cleaning product, oils. Without any more information, they do not mention cleaning products in médium or low severity.

So, it's more the concept of the Hazard analyses which is wrong rather tan the risk matrix.

Sorry for the lack of information.

And once again thanks for your time!

Best regards,

Cristina.



#5 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,901 posts
  • 4724 thanks
880
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 23 March 2020 - 02:44 PM

Thanks for your answers!

Unfortunatelly, I can't share any more information.

Nevertheless, if I ignore the 0 row, yes we have a conventional risk matrix.

After reviewing it more deeply I think what was confusing and I did not mention before, is that instead of classifying the severity in terms of the consequencies for the health of the consumer and effect to the business (high= death/severe injuries/business loss, and so on), they are classifiyng it depending to the Hazard. For example: high severity means: for chemical hazards Grease, cleaning product, oils. Without any more information, they do not mention cleaning products in médium or low severity.

So, it's more the concept of the Hazard analyses which is wrong rather tan the risk matrix.

Sorry for the lack of information.

And once again thanks for your time!

Best regards,

Cristina.

 

Hi Cristina,

 

I agree that the approach you describe sounds debatable.

Some haccp plan designers have used a severity approach such as you mention for micro.hazards but IMEX chemical hazards are usually, generically, categorised as "high" severity.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#6 CristinaLV

CristinaLV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 24 March 2020 - 03:56 PM

Thanks Charles,

I will take this into consideration when they assign the score to the chemical hazards.

Nevertheless I still don't understand why they relate the categories of severity to the different hazards. To me, first you classify the categories of severity depending on the health affection, and after that you assess the different hazards giving the score you think it is correct (based on experience, literature, etc).

What do you think?

Regards,

Cristina.



#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,901 posts
  • 4724 thanks
880
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 25 March 2020 - 12:13 PM

Thanks Charles,

I will take this into consideration when they assign the score to the chemical hazards.

Nevertheless I still don't understand why they relate the categories of severity to the different hazards. To me, first you classify the categories of severity depending on the health affection, and after that you assess the different hazards giving the score you think it is correct (based on experience, literature, etc).

What do you think?

Regards,

Cristina.

 

Hi Cristina,

 

There are a multitude of approaches for doing hazard analyses as far as the risk assessment is concerned. A typical criterion for (qualitative) acceptability is that the methodology should be "logical", eg  based on science, free from bias and documented.

 

Actually I would have thought that the (Production environment?) cleaning chemicals you mention in post 4 would hopefully not be a hazard since they should be "food safe". This is  PRP/Supplier Approval related.

 

IMEX the usual approach is to list relevant hazard-events then assign likelihood/severity scores, the latter based on the (health-safety) seriousness of the hazard-related event's  Impact on the consumer  if occurring. The result can be subjective.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#8 CristinaLV

CristinaLV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 25 March 2020 - 02:26 PM

I'm glad we are aligned!!

Thanks once more for your support!







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate