Two defective harnesses and a six-week inspection gap
During a stage 2 audit of a construction contractor with 240 workers across six active sites, the lead auditor is at a site where 14 workers work at height daily. The audit criteria include ISO 45001 and the client's PPE procedure. In the site store, the auditor samples 30 of approximately 300 safety harnesses and finds two with frayed webbing and no inspection tag. There is no quarantine bin or 'do not use' tag in the store. The storeperson says the two defective harnesses were 'left by the last project' and would not be issued. The harness inspection register has no entries for the last six weeks. The site supervisor says inspections are done 'when we remember' and that no harness has ever failed. The auditor has 40 minutes before the closing meeting and has not yet inspected the harnesses worn by the workers on the scaffold.
1. Assess whether the evidence supports a nonconformity and whether it should be classified major or minor. State what conditional evidence would change your decision.
Read the worked answer
The evidence supports a nonconformity in PPE control: defective harnesses in the issue store, no quarantine, and no inspection entries for six weeks. But major versus minor depends on whether the failure is systemic and whether defective equipment could be issued or is in use. I would first verify whether the two harnesses were segregated, whether issue records show they were ever issued, and whether harnesses worn by the 14 workers at height are inspected and tagged. If workers are wearing uninspected or defective harnesses, or the inspection regime has broken down across the store, I would classify major because the control for a fatal risk is not effective. If the two items were immediately quarantined, all in-use harnesses were inspected, and the records gap is limited to the store copy, a minor nonconformity may be appropriate. The decision must be based on risk and systemic extent, not the number of defective items alone.
2. Draft the finding in a form suitable for the audit report: requirement, evidence, consequence.
Read the worked answer
Requirement: ISO 45001 8.1.2 and 9.1.1, and the client's PPE procedure require defective PPE to be removed from use and PPE to be inspected at defined intervals. Evidence: 2 of 30 sampled harnesses had frayed webbing and no inspection tag; the store had no quarantine or do-not-use tag; the harness inspection register had no entries for six weeks. Consequence: workers at height could be issued defective fall-arrest equipment, with potential for serious injury or death. I would avoid overstating 'all harnesses are defective'. The finding should state what was sampled and what was observed. If further evidence shows in-use harnesses are affected, I would update the finding to describe the broader failure before the closing meeting.
3. What further sampling or verification would you complete before the closing meeting, and how would you handle the time constraint?
Read the worked answer
With 40 minutes left, I would prioritise the highest-risk verification: inspect the harnesses worn by the workers on the scaffold, check issue records for the two defective items, and ask the storeperson to show the quarantine process. I would sample a small number of in-use harnesses across different workers and ask open questions about pre-use checks. I would not attempt to inspect all 300. If I cannot complete the verification, I would document the limitation in the report and avoid concluding that in-use equipment is safe. I would also notify the site supervisor immediately if I find defective equipment in use so it can be removed, and record that communication.