Had this been the case from the onset of the application of standards there would have been no need to develop or implement separate standards. It’s too late to avoid this situation now but we can still improve our performance if we take a more holistic approach to managing all of the aspects of our undertakings.

could you send to me any method to identify the procedures, wi, form…………….
documentation code ( numbering )

Thanks in advance

Luis, the best traslation, we find, is not a word, but an expression : “Prestação de contas”

The intent is for an organization to use approaches that are appropriate to it. To quote the OHSAS 18002 guidance – “Each organization should choose approaches that are appropriate to its scope, nature and size, and meet its needs it terms of detail, complexity, time, cost, and availability of reliable data.” The choice of methodology to be used for the hazard identification and risk assessment is up to the organization (taking into account any applicable legal requirements that may limit the approaches that can be used).

What is enough? That the approaches chosen, taken together, are comprehensive, i.e. they cover the OH&S hazards within the defined scope of the OH&S management system.

This is an important distinction. Individuals may work on an organization’s behalf, and therefore need to be competent for purposes of ISO 14001, but that work may not under the control of the organization. In that case, the organization does not need to ensure their competency for purposes of OHSAS 18001. The issue is not the nature of the work being done but the control the organization has over the work activity being performed.

An organization can “ensure” that individuals are competent in a variety of ways. This can include requiring that contractors are able to demonstrate that their employees have the necessary competency to work safely.

Like ISO 14001, this competency requirement also does not apply to every job, position or task. In determining what activities “could impact on OH&S” the organization should consider the results of the organization’s risk assessment, whether the tasks being performed are intended to reduce OH&S risks and/or whether the tasks are specific to the implementation of the OHSMS.

Knowing that in the latest versions of the standards (9001:2000, 14001:2004 and OHSAS 18001), an effort has been made to ensure that MS were efficient and oriented on the performance of the organization, my question is:

AS PER THE 2007, VERSION of OHSAS 18K1, IS IT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A DETAILED AND COMPLETE INVENTORY OF ALL HAZARDS, SYSTEMATICALLY EVALUATE ALL RISKS WITH A CALCULATION METHOD OF SOME SORT AND PRIORITIZE THEM ALL ???

I’m wondering how efficient would it be for an industrial site (a plant) to establish such an inventory ?
Realistically, by the time this is done (several months, years(?)), wouldn’t that end up being a long list, most likely to constantly be outdated and incredibly unefficient; a heavy burden to manage, with no (or very few) added-value in itself.

Could a combination of various evaluations and activities (and taking inititatives to address main issues) be enough, such as :
- analysis of leading (near misses) & lagging indicators (incidents & accidents);
- prejob risk assessment;
-(establish site but also departments objectives);
-…
To first identify minor vs major risks (ASSESS) with some well known risk factors (electricity, heights, confined spaces, mobile equipment, moving parts…) and only follow-up (EVALUATE) on major ones? Or am I not properly understanding the definition of ‘Assess’ ?

The idea of course being to decentralize and make people at all levels accountable and ensure that maintaining the OHSMSystem will not only be the business of one or two, but definintely everybody’s role.

WHAT WOULD BE ENOUGH Risk assessment wise?

I’d like to get opinions on that matter.
Thanks.