ISO 45001:2018 - Occupational Health and Safety Management Standard

Henria

OSH Officer
Hello !

Randy, I said "(they) will abandon this (british) standard to use the international standard ISO 45001 now". If a company uses ISO blah blah blah now, then it no longer uses BS blah blah blah it uses before...

Bye.
 
Last edited:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
It should be noted that the IAF has stipulated a 3-year migration period for accredited certificates, from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001. But, apparently, in some parts of the world, compliance to OHSAS 18001 is/was a regulatory requirement. In those cases, the migration period might extend beyond this 3-year period.

The following paragraph is in the IAF Mandatory Document 21:

NOTE: Where local legislation/regulation requires accredited OHSMS certification and the legislation/regulation has not been amended to reference ISO 45001, the validity of accredited certification to BS OHSAS 18001 (or national equivalent standard) may be extended.
 
Last edited:

Randy

Super Moderator
It should be noted that the IAF has stipulated a 3-year migration period for accredited certificates, from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001. But, apparently, in some parts of the world, compliance to OHSAS 18001 is/was a regulatory requirement. In those cases, the migration period might extend beyond this 3-year period.

The following paragraph is in the IAF Mandatory Document 21:

Don't confuse our friend..it was only a British standard:lol:
 

Randy

Super Moderator
I have a question on ISO 45001 Clause 6.1.2.2 (a), which requires assessment of OH&S risks from identified hazards, while taking into account the effectiveness of existing controls.

If our Company does not use a risk score matrix, then how are we able to demonstrate that the controls are effective? To me, this is trying to point us back towards the traditional 'hazard-severity-risk' scoring method, which we no longer use.

Cheers

Block

How can you demonstrate your control are working?...

Is anything bad happening? If no, then they apparently are effective, and if they aren't then figure out why and fix it.
 

Henria

OSH Officer
Hello !

Blockbuster, to assess OH&S risks from identified hazards, "while taking into account the effectiveness of existing controls" means to assess the "current" risks, as assessed by today's reality of work situations "with" or "after" the prevention dispenses already in place and practiced... In other words, it is a question of assessing the real risks and not the "initial", "raw" or "theoretical" risks "without" or "before" the effectiveness of existing controls.

I try a trivial ilustration: I drive my car according to the regulation, it is consistent and in good condition, I drive on a highway in great weather, there is little traffic, I did not drink alcohol, etc. ... I will not start my assessment of risk of accident considering that my car has no brake and that its wheels are smooth, that I roll on a dirt track at too high speed, the weather conditions are bad and I am drunk, etc... to then "apply" fictional the goods points of the reality !

Another simpler but equally trivial example: I'm standing on a balcony on the tenth floor of a building to enjoy the view. I will directly consider (evaluate) that the risk of falling from the balcony is zero because there is a railing! That is to say, I will not evaluate this situation at first by considering the risk of crashing to the ground as if there were no railings (stupid gross risk!) ... to "apply" in a second time the already existing "guardrail" prevention measure and finally consider that I don't risk to fall into the void (current non-risk directly evaluable, otherwise I think I would not put myself in such situation on this balcony).

Other: if I want to measure which quantity of dangerous vapors I breathe (risk assessment) when I am on a workstation equipped with a vapor collection system. I will not stopping this aspiration (= not taking into account the effectiveness of existing controls) before ! I will do my measurement "while taking into account the effectiveness of existing controls" as said in ISO 45001 = I keep the vapor collection system running !

Ok ?
 
Last edited:

Henria

OSH Officer
Post-scriptum for you Blockbuster : requirement 6.1.2.2 don't require "to demonstrate that the controls are effective" !

(excuse my poor english language in my messages)
 
Last edited:

Henria

OSH Officer
Hello

It should be noted that the IAF has stipulated a 3-year migration period for accredited certificates, from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001. But, apparently, in some parts of the world, compliance to OHSAS 18001 is/was a regulatory requirement. In those cases, the migration period might extend beyond this 3-year period.

I don't know such national regulatory requirement in any state* (have you some examples ?) but in this case the position of IAF would not matter, only the decision of the state would be applicable ! (1, 2, 3, 4 years or more ? end of present certification of each company?) Because IAF is not an authority regarding regulation of our states and governments.

* With a national regulation requiring an OS&SMS (and its certification) according to the past BS OHSAS 18001 at companies working within its borders...

Cordialy
 
Last edited:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I don't know such national regulatory requirement in any state* (have you some examples ?)
No, I have no idea which countries might have invoked OHSAS 18001 as a regulatory requirement, however, for the issue to be in the IAF document, it means that is a reality somewhere around the World. Obviously, the IAF would not ascribe that exception if it was not relevant somewhere around the World.
but in this case the position of IAF would not matter, only the decision of the state would be applicable ! (1, 2, 3, 4 years or more ? end of present certification of each company?) Because IAF is not an authority regarding regulation of our states and governments.
Apparently you did not understand the text. The IAF is not making any statement concerning OHSAS 18001 as a regulation anywhere. What the IAF is saying is: in countries where accredited certification to OHSAS 18001 is a regulatory requirement, the validity of such certifications might extend beyond the 3 years to allow for a new regulatory requirement to be in place.

The IAF can only assert it's authority over what it controls; in this case, accredited certificates.
 

Henria

OSH Officer
Ok Sidney, i read again IAF text and your message...:

IAF says "It should be noted that some Legislators/Regulators have made reference to OHSAS 18001 in their local legal frameworks and this needs to be taken into consideration in the migration process". But you wrote (and understood ?) "apparently, in some parts of the world, compliance to OHSAS 18001 is/was a regulatory requirement. In those cases, the migration period might extend beyond this 3-year period".

Il some local legislation "make reference to a standard" (IAF) is not to "a regulatory requirement of compliance to this standard" (you)... Personally (in an international company implanted on every continent) I never heard of a national regulation requiring compliance with an OS&HMS standard. That's why I asked the question on this point. This type of standard is voluntary and non-regulatory.

To "take into consideration in the migration process" is not "the migration period might extend beyond this 3-year period".

Best regards.
 
Last edited:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Just like in this post, you insist in denying the obvious. The IAF document that I hyperlinked is freely available for people to read and reach their own conclusions.

Au revoir...:bigwave:
 
Top Bottom