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

[noelle]

I am contient about the importance of safety, but my boss wouldn't like to spend money for something else than raw materials, machines..., we still trying to convince him, but since he didn't faced any safety problems for 15 years, he prefer saving money in his pocket!!! I know it's afflicting

 

[Paul Simpson]

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).

Agreed. All ISO requires is that the product supplied is safe (in accordance with local market regulations) and that the workplace conditions do not affect the product (never mind the workers!). To raise a finding against ISO 9001 requirements is too big a stretch.

However most CBs have their own "rules of engagement" that mean they go through a (largely undocumented) process with their customers in the event the auditor identifies a safety issue on an assessment.

The reason this process is undocumented is that it has nothing to do with their quality certification but it is the CB satisfying its own Duty of Care for its employees / contractors. At the end of this process the CB will decide if it wants to carry on doing business with this customer. One of the problems with formalizing this is that each auditor has their own perception of risk - and knowledge of OSHA requirements!

 

[Colin]

One of the problems with formalizing this is that each auditor has their own perception of risk - and knowledge of OSHA requirements!

I agree with Paul on this point, as a QMS auditor we do not need to have detailed OHS knowledge/competence and if the client is under the impression that we have included OHS elements in the audit - what happens if we don't spot (through lack of specific knowledge) and raise something which later becomes a problem? Is the auditor/CB liable?

It would be nice in theory to have all the skills and include everything in 1 audit but where would we stop?

 

[Jen Kirley]

I am contient about the importance of safety, but my boss wouldn't like to spend money for something else than raw materials, machines..., we still trying to convince him, but since he didn't faced any safety problems for 15 years, he prefer saving money in his pocket!!! I know it's afflicting

This is an eternal struggle, isn't it? I have adapted my quality cost calculator for safety programs. See attached.

 

[Bill Pflanz]

As someone from the oil and chemical industry, I chose to resolve the issue of finding health and safety issues by recording the finding using the regular audit process but giving them to the safety and environmental engineers. Since I was not an expert in either I kept those findings separate from the regular quality audit. My rationale for this approach was that I had a good conscience that I reported a potential problem but allowed those with the appropriate expertise and knowledge to investigate and do corrective action if necessary. Generally that was sufficient since those responsible for those systems supported our QMS and even relied on document control and other procedural systems to help them manage their areas of responsibility.

Whether you are in quality or not, you have an ethical issue about raising health and safety issues. Your second issue may be whether you want to continue to work for a company who is not interested in health and safety for the workers including yourself.

Bill Pflanz

 

[Sidney Vianna]

As someone from the oil and chemical industry, I chose to resolve the issue of finding health and safety issues by recording the finding using the regular audit process but giving them to the safety and environmental engineers. Since I was not an expert in either I kept those findings separate from the regular quality audit. My rationale for this approach was that I had a good conscience that I reported a potential problem but allowed those with the appropriate expertise and knowledge to investigate and do corrective action if necessary. Generally that was sufficient since those responsible for those systems supported our QMS and even relied on document control and other procedural systems to help them manage their areas of responsibility.

Whether you are in quality or not, you have an ethical issue about raising health and safety issues. Your second issue may be whether you want to continue to work for a company who is not interested in health and safety for the workers including yourself.

Bill Pflanz

Nothing wrong there, Bill. But keep in mind one thing: If your organization ever goes through some type of accident investigation, the records of your findings (even though you admit you are not an expert in Health & Safety) most likely will be subpoenaed and they could be a tremendous liability for your employer, depending on the actions taken (or not) in follow up to your findings.

 

[Bill Pflanz]

Nothing wrong there, Bill. But keep in mind one thing: If your organization ever goes through some type of accident investigation, the records of your findings (even though you admit you are not an expert in Health & Safety) most likely will be subpoenaed and they could be a tremendous liability for your employer, depending on the actions taken (or not) in follow up to your findings.

I concur, Sidney. It is not a current issue because I no longer work for the company but any time a company is knowingly doing something wrong they face liability. Remember that I said that the responsibility for the review and corrective action resided with the health and safety people. They were responsible for following the company rules for record retention (and destruction). They were free to destroy the record immediately since they had control or they could document that my finding was in error and document no action was needed or they could determine I was right and document the corrective action. As noted previously, there are ethical issues that must be considered besides legal. If your health and safety people are not ethical in addressing real questions, then you need to look for employment elsewhere.

Bill Pflanz

 

[Paul Simpson]

Nothing wrong there, Bill. But keep in mind one thing: If your organization ever goes through some type of accident investigation, the records of your findings (even though you admit you are not an expert in Health & Safety) most likely will be subpoenaed and they could be a tremendous liability for your employer, depending on the actions taken (or not) in follow up to your findings.

I appreciate the legal framework here is very different but, like Bill I would raise the findings internally - to demonstrate I had satisfied my personal "Duty of Care."

We would all hope our responsible employers would take action. Otherwise we end up with a "do nothing" culture .... a guarantee for ending up in court!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I appreciate the legal framework here is very different but, like Bill I would raise the findings internally - to demonstrate I had satisfied my personal "Duty of Care."

We would all hope our responsible employers would take action. Otherwise we end up with a "do nothing" culture .... a guarantee for ending up in court!

The problem is that many issues are not black and white. Remember this thread? Imagine that you documented the fact that the employee wearing the mask was not fit tested? And now that employee suffered an accident. What would be the ramifications?

While I agree that there are many irresponsible organizations that don't take enough measures to adequately manage their employees safety, there are also scam artists out there, trying to scam employers and insurers. A "safety violation" written up by someone that is not fully knowledgeable on the subject can be manipulated very easily in the legal system.

 

[Bill Pflanz]

It sounds like Sidney is concerned about the fact that it was a written finding. That could be resolved by just telling the responsible manager about the incident and then letting them take care of it. In my specific case, the supervisor was given that option but they preferred to have it documented so that the corrective action would get done. The only other concern that I have is that anyone in the company should be encouraged to report safety and health problems and not just leave it up to the "experts".

I am sure there are other options besides the one I used and how you resolve the issue is dependent on what type of management and management systems that you have in place. Our system worked correctly because there was agreement on how the plant should be run. Anytime there was a legal question, I could and did talk to the company lawyers. Could we have been sued? Sure. My feeling is that your lawyers could better defend your actions if you had a system in place that openly found and corrected problems as demonstrated by your history. That said, lawyers generally feel no paper trail is best even if it is done for valid business reasons.

Bill Pflanz