Is safety in chemical industry an important requirement to be ISO certified?

N

noelle

#1
Hello,

First of all, I wish a happy new year for all. I am working on a quality system implementation in our factory specialized in detergent manufacturing, however we have a lack in our safety system ( bad ventilation, chemicals are not stored in good conditions...), so is safety an important requirement to be certified? and how could we know that we are compliant or no, I mean is there a reference that ISO auditors have?

waiting for your response. regards
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
#2
Technically speaking, ISO 9001 does not address Health & Safety requirements. See section 0.4 Compatibility with other management systems
'This International Standard does not include requirements specific to other management systems, such as those particular to environmental management, occupational health and safety management, ......'

However, there are a few clauses which impact directly on activities such as storage to ensure that the integrity of the product is maintained e.g. 6.3 Infrastructure and 6.4 Work environment and 7.5.5 Preservation of product.
 

al40

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
Noelle,

I would refer to ISO 9001 section 6.4 "work environment".

The work environment of an organization can be considered to be a combination of human and physical factors. Examples of human factors in the work enviroment that may affect conformity of product include the following:
* Work methods
* Safety rules and guidelines, including use of proper protective equipment and safe work areas
* Ergonmics

Physcial factors can also affect the ability to achieve conforming product, it is important to control those factors as well. Some examples of physical factors are:
* Heat
* Humidity
* Cleanliness
* Pollution
* Air flow

So based on your comments I would issue a corrective action based on section 6.4.

Hope this helps,


al40
 
#4
However, there are a few clauses which impact directly on activities such as storage to ensure that the integrity of the product is maintained e.g. 6.3 Infrastructure and 6.4 Work environment and 7.5.5 Preservation of product.
I would refer to ISO 9001 section 6.4 "work environment".
In addition to the clauses mentioned above we also need to consider:
ISO9001:2000 said:
Top management shall provide evidence of its commitment to the development and implementation of the quality management system and continually improving its effectiveness by

a) communicating to the organization the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements,
We simply have to follow the law...

/Claes
 

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
Claes

When the standard says this, is it not referring to statutory and regulatory requirements related to the product or service being supplied rather than all of them? Otherwise we would have the auditor checking the MD's tyres in the car park for tread depth!! :lmao:
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#6
We simply have to follow the law.../Claes
Claes

When the standard says this, is it not referring to statutory and regulatory requirements related to the product or service being supplied rather than all of them? Otherwise we would have the auditor checking the MD's tyres in the car park for tread depth!! :lmao:
:agree1: This issue has been discussed soooooooooo many times here. Obviously, the organization has to follow the law. But the regulatory requirements that the ISO 9001 Standard is referring to are, primarily, product related, such as, for example, an European Directive such as the Medical Device Directive.

ISO 9001 does NOT encompass occupational health & safety and environmental systems issues (for the most part).
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Staff member
Admin
#7
I agree that ISO 9001 doesn't directly require safety or environmental compliance.

However, I agree that 6.3, 6.4, and 7.5.5 may apply.

What matters is what is important to your product, and your strategic goals. This means looking at the causes of things that interfere with your achieving the goals. Do, or would safety problems result in accidents that disrupt production or lead to errors when key personnel are unavailable? If so, 6.4 applies because the standard asks us to make adequate preparations for producing good product/services. 7.5.5 may apply here unless the concern is contamination.

If you decide to lower your absenteeism and injury costs by improving safety, the plans and actions taken for this purpose could conform to 6.4 as well as 8.1(c), 8.4(c), 8.5.1/8.5.2, and 8.5.3.

If personnel are not important to your system or your product's goodness, then none of that applies.
 
B

Benjamin28

#8
These are all excellent responses, however, I would like to state that safety should certainly be a concern, regardless of whether or not it's mandated by your accreditation body.

I think you should consider referring to OSHA requirements...typically for larger companies HS&E will be a seperate entity from Quality, however this doesn't mean that as a quality professional you can simply disregard safety concerns. Poor safety programs in the work place can vastly effect the quality of your product/service, resulting in delayed delivery times, higher costs to your customers, broken equipment, and lets be reasonable, if your work environment is not a safe one you're going to have difficulty keeping quality employees under your roof, higher turnover will likely result in more mistakes made...

The point being, I don't believe you're asking the right question here, if you see that the safety program is lacking, correcting this should not be a question of whether it's required by ISO 9001, it should be a question of whether that is acceptable to you and your employers. In my experience poor safety will significantly effect the quality of your company.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#9
The point being, I don't believe you're asking the right question here, if you see that the safety program is lacking, correcting this should not be a question of whether it's required by ISO 9001, it should be a question of whether that is acceptable to you and your employers. In my experience poor safety will significantly effect the quality of your company.
No sane mind will ever dispute the importance of a safe work environment. However "safety" is relative. Some of the hazards and risks banned from many developed countries are still very much present in other regions of the world.

The OP might be trying to leverage a drive for ISO 9001 certification to improve their OHS system. If the bosses think that they need to improve the safety conditions in order to attain ISO 9001 certification, the OP might be able to use this to his advantage.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Staff member
Admin
#10
I'll always advocate the close relationship between safety and quality. Consider Union Carbide's Bhopal, India plant: from Wikipedia
Background and Causes of the Disaster

The Union Carbide plant was established in 1969 and had expanded to produce carbaryl in 1979; MIC is an intermediate in carbaryl manufacture.

The chemical accident was caused by the introduction of water into MIC holding tank E610, due to slip-blind water isolation plates being excluded from an adjacent tank's maintenance procedure. The resulting reaction generated a major increase in the temperature of liquid inside the tank (to over 200°C). The MIC then gave off a large volume of toxic gas, forcing the emergency release of pressure.

A number of background causes contributed to the explosion and the disaster’s intensity.

Cost-Cutting Measures

As a long-term cause of the catastrophe, authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the plant away from densely populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on the expense such a move would incur[7].

Union Carbide previously produced their pesticide, Sevin (the commercial name of Carbaryl), without MIC but, after 1979, began using MIC because it was cheaper. Other manufacturers, such as Bayer, made Sevin without MIC, although this caused greater expenses[7].

In the early 1980s, the demand for pesticides had fallen: the factory was making a loss and overproducing MIC that was not being sold, leading to a series of cost-cutting measures from around 1982 onwards. These measures affected the two interrelated areas of workers and their conditions, and the equipment and safety regulations installed at the plant[7].

Workers and Their Conditions

Attempts to reduce expenses affected the factory’s employees and their conditions:

* Kurzman argues that “cuts… meant less stringent quality control and thus looser safety rules. A pipe leaked? Don’t replace it, employees said they were told… MIC workers needed more training? They could do with less. Promotions were halted, seriously affecting employee morale and driving some of the most skilled… elsewhere”[8].
* Workers were forced to use English manuals, despite the fact that only a few had a grasp of the language[9].
* By 1984, only six of the original twelve operators were still working with MIC and the number of supervisory personnel was also cut in half. No maintenance supervisor was placed on the night shift and instrument readings were taken every two hours, rather than the previous and required one-hour readings[8].
* Workers made complaints about the cuts through their union but were ignored. One employee was sacked after going on a 15-day hunger strike. 70% of the plant’s employees were fined before the disaster for refusing to deviate from the proper safety regulations under pressure from management[8].
* In the words of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, “poorly trained personnel, rapid turnover, leaking valves, shoddy gauges and inadequate water spray protection were all identified as representing “a higher potential for a serious incident or more serious consequences if an incident should occur”"[10].
* In addition, some observers, such as those writing in the Trade Environmental Database (TED) Case Studies as part of the Mandala Project from American University, have pointed to “serious communication problems and management gaps between Union Carbide and its Indian operation”, characterised by “the parent companies [sic] hands-off approach to its overseas operation” and “cross-cultural barriers” [11].

Equipment and Safety Regulations

Cost-cutting initiatives affected the quality of equipment and the effectiveness of safety regulations:

* It emerged in 1999, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the USA, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal[7].
* The MIC tank’s alarms had not worked for 4 years[12].
* There was only one manual back-up system, not the four-stage system used in the USA[12].
* The flare tower and the vent gas scrubber had been out of service for 5 months before the disaster. The gas scrubber therefore did not attempt to clean escaping gases with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), which may have brought the concentration down to a safe level[12]. Even if the scrubber had been working, according to Weir, investigations in the aftermath of the disaster discovered that the maximum pressure it could handle was only one-quarter of that which was present in the accident. Furthermore, the flare tower itself was improperly designed and could only hold one-quarter of the volume of gas that was leaked in 1984[4].
* To reduce energy costs, the refrigeration system, designed to inhibit the volatilization of MIC, had been left idle – the MIC was kept at 20 degrees Celsius, not the 4.5 degrees advised by the manual, and some of the coolant was being used elsewhere[12].
* The steam boiler, intended to clean the pipes, was out of action for unknown reasons[12].
* Slip-blind plates that would have prevented water from pipes being cleaned from leaking into the MIC tanks via faulty valves were not installed. Their installation had been omitted from the cleaning checklist.
* Water sprays designed to “knock down” gas leaks was poorly designed – set to 13 metres and below, they could not spray high enough to reduce the concentration of escaping gas[12].
* The MIC tank had been malfunctioning for roughly a week. Other tanks had been used for that week, rather than repairing the broken one, which was left to “stew”. The build-up in temperature and pressure is believed to have affected the explosion and its intensity[12].
* Carbon-steel valves were used at the factory, despite the fact that they corrode when exposed to acid[7]. On the night of the disaster, a leaking carbon-steel valve was found, allowing water to enter the MIC tanks. The pipe was not repaired because it was believed it would take too much time and be too expensive[12].
* According to Lepowski, “virtually every relevant safety instrument” was “either in short supply, malfunctioning or designed improperly”, and “internal documents show that the company knew this prior to the disaster, but did nothing about it”[12].
Now this is certainly an extreme example, and not fit to use for scare tactics. However, since it's true it offers us some lessons. There are unfortunately lots of other examples out there. :(
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M EU – Chemical Safety Report – CSR – REACH Authorisation decisions – Triton X-100 – Ortho-clinical-Use1 REACH and RoHS Conversations 0
V Worker Chemical Safety Assessment - CEFIC/REACH Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 0
M Looking for a Chemical Program for Food Safety - New Chemical Approvals Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 5
A Canadian Safety Labels for medical electrical equipment Canada Medical Device Regulations 0
A Applicability of Photobiological Safety Evaluation for LED used in medical devices Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 1
A Should I take an online course for a career in Occupational Health and Safety? Career and Occupation Discussions 2
E 60601-1 - Tilt testing - Tensile safety factor IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
Marc ISO 26262- Road vehicles – Functional safety ISO 26262 - Road vehicles – Functional safety 0
A Defining a lower ESD test level in IEC 60601 safety test IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
D Safety data sheets software REACH and RoHS Conversations 2
M ECG lead leakage currents - How to specify ECG leads during electrical safety testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
R Quality System Functional Safety Checklist / Guidance IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
N German National Requirements - Safety Officer/Authorised Rep Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
C Where to draw the line for "sufficient evidence" to verify safety/performance of a device? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
A IEC 62304 safety classification, External Controls and off-label use related risks IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
A Baby food manufacture - food safety requirements Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 0
dgrainger Informational EU medical device website change from 'Growth' to 'Health and Food Safety' (6/2020) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
D Safety Assurance Case Report Format ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
B Product Safety Responsibility - Job shop such as a machine shop AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
K Things to learn during lockdown.... Safety-related books/articles/threads Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 2
JAMESH Job Safety - Lockout/Tagout and Respiratory Protocols Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
J Raw material certificates - CC - Safety products - Sheet metal stamping IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
M Differences in post market safety reporting for Combination Product Applicants Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
S Should safety checks be included in the Control Plan? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
adir88 Information of safety can reduce risk now? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 12
D Is there a specific location for PPE such as safety glass holders and glove dispensers should be mounted Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 10
M Do you need an Applicable general safety and performance requirements Checklist? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
S VW Supplier Product Safety Representative (PSB) upgrade to PSCR VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 4
J FDA wants electrical safety testing on battery powered medical device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 11
T Confirming The Local Safety Regulations for Equipment - I'm in Malaysia General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
MrTetris Unacceptable risk and information for safety ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 16
A Contraindication Safety Statement in website - Radiotherapy equipment Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 1
L External power supplies: How close does the safety report have to match the end-use application? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
C Safety lettering on a product CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
M Informational EU – Minutes of the 24 July 2019 SCHEER Working Group on safety of breast implants in relation to anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) meeting Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M EMC Directive and product safety standards CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
S Safety Class A with no test? IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
M Informational MDCG 2019-9 Summary of safety and clinical performance A guide for manufacturers and notified bodies – August 2019 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
D Requirement of Pharmacovigilance (Drug Safety) Risk Based Strategic and Tactical Audit Plan General Auditing Discussions 0
M Informational Several US FDA draft guidances, including some specific device guidances for the Safety and Performance Based Pathway Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational USFDA final guidance – Safety and Performance Based Pathway Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational Medical Device Safety Action Plan: Protecting Patients, Promoting Public Health Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S System safety assesment Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 0
M Informational TGA Consultation: Proposed changes to medical device essential principles for safety and performance Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
rezayatmand IEC 60601-2-18 Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-18: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of endoscopic equipmen IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
B Evaluation of Basic Safety during EMC Immunity or Climate Testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
P Is there a counterpart to the General Safety and Performance Regulations for the USA? Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
M Informational The US FDA is Recommending Transition to Duodenoscopes with Innovative Designs to Enhance Safety: FDA Safety Communication Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
D Summary of safety and clinical performance in GSPR MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 2
A ISO/TS 22163 Item 5.2.4 Safety policy - Example wanted Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom