Rank: Forum user 
|
A bit of a conundrum here. While recently conducting a HAZID we came across differing opinions and views relating to a risk rating..............the question is.......Can consequences be reduced with control measures when conducting a quantative risk assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Bill
There was a recent discussion on this subject, albeit your standard RA, and the answer from me was -yes. However there is a caveat. For example, a control such as hard hat will prevent serious injury or worse from a light object dropped from height. Notwithstanding this, a very heavy object dropped from height i.e 1 ton block, the hard hat will be essentially negated. On the contrary, a hi-vis vest worn on site to ensure vehicle and plant operators are able to see the person will not protect them if they are run over by the said vehicles. Similarly, a person falling a significant height may not be protected by the hard hat, it may even fall off unless the operative is wearing a chin strap.
So, in some cases the control will reduce the severity of the injury, but as a rule if the control fails for whatever reason, the outcome will be the same as if there was no control. From a quantitative perspective, the severity will differ for some risks.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I also would say yes.
Does it matter the type of assessment. If your risk is expressed as a rating decided upon as likelihood x consequence and consequence includes a measure of how severe an injury (or whatever) may be. Then any control that may not stop the injury, but lessen it (reducing the severity) will also lessen the consequence.
So working at lower height may not stop a fall and injury, but could be a sprain instead of a broken bone.
A lesser quantity of a chemical may harm someone's health but possibly not as much as much as exposure to a larger quantity.
If you were able to state the actual risk (or generic risk type) someone may be able to offer a better example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You have to apply your own judgement to the particular situation you face - blanket rules (like "severity of a hazard can never be reduced, only the likelihood" - which I've also heard before) are no replacement for your own call on the issue.
Think about a paint spraying process which you modify by completely removing the painters from contact with the paint (whether by automation, seperation via a barrier or whatever), removing their exposure to the paint.
On a more basic level, think back to your hierarchy of controls. Eliminating the risk is a pretty cast-iron way to reduce its consequence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unless it is a new activity you are assessing without any "Current" control measures, existing activities will normally have control measures. In our assessmnts, we inlude a column for existing control measures and then apply the consequence & probability judgements to get the risk rating--as simple as that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think the answer is yes, isn't it?
Work on a fragile roof, risk of injury from fall from height.
Potential fall is 8m.
Platform is erected below the roof (a common precuation) Fall is now <1m.
Risk of electric shock from use of electric power tools.
Use of 240v power tools.
Use of 110v power tools.
Use of battery power tools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The process is subjective, differing opinion is almost inevitable.
It sometimes helps to focus on the most likely consequence from the begining, however the only important output is whether the employer considers that the risk is under control, or whether he needs to do more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks guys, appreciate all your responses and in the majority you all think the same way as I do. However the client I am dealing with utilises a risk assessment tool (riskman2) which is a high level generic risk assessment tool for looking at various scenarios ranging from aviation safety through to financial risk and is set up in such a way that consequence cannot be changed regardless of what additional control measures are implemented.............there lies my problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Billstrak
You state:
'consequence cannot be changed regardless of what additional control measures are implemented.............there lies my problem.
The Leeds Attribution Coding System (LACS) was researched developed, published in 1989 applied, researched further and redeveloped and republished in 1998 to address precisely this situation. It can clearly reveal in some detail, using the verbatim language of those responsible, the implications of their decisions.
When people choose not to accept responsibility for their own decisions, that is their problem While you may choose to label it as 'my problem', unless you choose a suitable method to solve it, you apparently are choosing to enlist in support of the 'non-rational' option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
KieranD wrote:Billstrak
You state:
'consequence cannot be changed regardless of what additional control measures are implemented.............there lies my problem.
The Leeds Attribution Coding System (LACS) was researched developed, published in 1989 applied, researched further and redeveloped and republished in 1998 to address precisely this situation. It can clearly reveal in some detail, using the verbatim language of those responsible, the implications of their decisions.
When people choose not to accept responsibility for their own decisions, that is their problem While you may choose to label it as 'my problem', unless you choose a suitable method to solve it, you apparently are choosing to enlist in support of the 'non-rational' option.
Could someone translate? I don't understand a word of this
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
billstrak wrote:......... the client I am dealing with utilises a risk assessment tool (riskman2) which .......... is set up in such a way that consequence cannot be changed regardless of what additional control measures are implemented.............there lies my problem. I can see where the client is coming from. [and I tend to agree with him] The risk assessment tool used would seem to work on the premise that when controls are put in place the Likelihood of the previously identified 'Risk Consquence' occuring is reduced, but the Consequence remains if the controls fail. To use a previously quoted example;- Work on a fragile roof, risk of injury from fall from height. Potential fall is 8m. Platform is erected below the roof (a common precuation) Fall is now <1m. The likelihood of an 8m fall still exists [platform fails, man bounces off platform etc etc (all low probability)] - but is heavily reduced, so the dominant consequnce might well be the injury of a 1m fall, but there is still an outside chance of an 8m fall I always assume the consequence stays the same but the likelihood is greatly reduced, possibly to a level where anothe consquence becomes more important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
sounds like tail wagging a dog to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Alan Haynes wrote:
The likelihood of an 8m fall still exists [platform fails, man bounces off platform etc etc (all low probability)] - but is heavily reduced, so the dominant consequnce might well be the injury of a 1m fall, but there is still an outside chance of an 8m fall
But what if your risk was, say, poisoning downstream users of a river due to spill of a nasty solvent-based something while working on a bridge. Your control is to substitute an eco-friendly biodegradable water-based something. The likelihood of a spill is unaltered, but the consequence of a spill is massively reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:Alan Haynes wrote:
The likelihood of an 8m fall still exists [platform fails, man bounces off platform etc etc (all low probability)] - but is heavily reduced, so the dominant consequnce might well be the injury of a 1m fall, but there is still an outside chance of an 8m fall
But what if your risk was, say, poisoning downstream users of a river due to spill of a nasty solvent-based something while working on a bridge. Your control is to substitute an eco-friendly biodegradable water-based something. The likelihood of a spill is unaltered, but the consequence of a spill is massively reduced. If you substitute a new product then surly your original risk assessment is no longer relevant at the process/chemicals involved have changed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Brian Hagyard wrote:achrn wrote:Alan Haynes wrote:
The likelihood of an 8m fall still exists [platform fails, man bounces off platform etc etc (all low probability)] - but is heavily reduced, so the dominant consequnce might well be the injury of a 1m fall, but there is still an outside chance of an 8m fall
But what if your risk was, say, poisoning downstream users of a river due to spill of a nasty solvent-based something while working on a bridge. Your control is to substitute an eco-friendly biodegradable water-based something. The likelihood of a spill is unaltered, but the consequence of a spill is massively reduced. If you substitute a new product then surly your original risk assessment is no longer relevant at the process/chemicals involved have changed? The basic thing [as I see it] is that adding controls can drastically reduce the Likelihood of a Consequence occuring, hopefully to a level of insignficance, BUT, the Consequence still exists , and so if controls fail [say human factors] it could still happen . HOWEVER, other Consequences [of a lower level of 'harm] may well become more likely than the original one, and thus become more important to address [as long as the controls on the original Consequence remain in place] [Anyway - in this case - its what the Client wants, so no argument really]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all the responses guys.......well most of them!!
Just got back from vacation and had a good read and laugh in some cases.
I wonder how I will get on re-calibrating my major O&G client and telling them they need to be more responsible ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all the responses guys.......well most of them!!
Just got back from vacation and had a good read and laugh in some cases.
I wonder how I will get on re-calibrating my major O&G client and telling them they need to act in a more responsible manner ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.