The Laser Cell Nobody Reviewed
Northfield Fabrication commissioned a 6 kW fibre laser cutting cell over a single weekend in March. The production manager signed a commissioning checklist covering electrical isolation and cut-quality trials; the OH&S manager first heard about the installation at the following Monday's operations meeting. The hazard identification for the cell was produced by copying the record for an older plasma cutter, so it lists a face shield and goggles but says nothing about commissioning the fume extraction unit supplied with the machine. The cell's control panel sits inside the interlock-guarded enclosure. Two operators were trained on day 3 of production and a third on day 11. No management-of-change record exists, although the site procedure register lists 'Management of Change', revision 4, which the production manager says he has never seen.
1. Which ISO 45001 requirements does this situation breach, and how would you word the finding? Explain how you decided where to place it.
Read the worked answer
Reasoning chain. Start from the requirement that the change should have triggered. Clause 8.1.3 requires the organization to establish processes for the management of planned changes that can impact OH&S performance, including new equipment and changes to work organization, and to review the consequences of unintended changes.
- The process exists (procedure revision 4). The failure is that it was not applied. A documented procedure that is not used is still a nonconformity against 8.1.3, because the requirement is to establish, implement and maintain the process, not to hold a document.
- Clause 6.1.2.2 expects hazard identification to be ongoing and proactive and to take account of changes. Copying a plasma cutter record is not hazard identification for the laser cell; the LEV was never assessed.
- Clause 8.1.2 expects engineering controls to be implemented as part of the hierarchy of controls. Supplying the extraction unit but not commissioning or verifying it is a control implemented on paper only.
- Clause 7.2 is implicated by operators running production before training, and 7.3/7.5.3 by the manager's ignorance of the procedure.
Placement. Do not raise one finding against five clauses; that is unauditable and impossible to correct. Lead with 8.1.3, because the root cause is the bypass of the change process. Word it as: 'The management of change process documented in procedure QP-08 rev 4 was not applied to the commissioning of the fibre laser cell in March. No change record exists, the hazard identification was reproduced from a different machine and does not address the new extraction system, and two operators were working on the cell before training was completed. The organization has not established and implemented a process for managing planned changes in accordance with 8.1.3.'
If you also have evidence that competence checks are routinely bypassed, raise 7.2 separately. One requirement, one finding.
2. The production manager says he has never seen the management of change procedure. Does that mitigate the finding, and how does it affect what you do next?
Read the worked answer
No, it does not mitigate. ISO 45001 obligations sit with the organization, not with an individual manager; there is no 'the manager did not know' defence in a conformity assessment, and nonconformity grading is about the extent and consequence of the system failure, not about intention or awareness.
But it does change the corrective action discussion and the grade. Two readings are possible and your evidence must separate them:
- Isolated failure. Procedure rev 4 was issued, communicated and is used on other changes; this project manager simply skipped it. Expect a minor, with correction (commission the LEV, verify, complete an MOC record) and corrective action (why did this change route avoid the process - is there a gate in the capital project process?).
- Systemic failure. Sample the other production and project managers, capital project files and the last two equipment installations. If none of them know the procedure or have produced a change record, then 7.5.3 (documented information available where and when needed) and 7.3/7.4 (awareness, internal communication) are failing across the site, and the 8.1.3 finding becomes major.
Next steps: ask to see the issue and communication records of QP-08, sample two other equipment or process changes from the last 12 months, and ask the plant manager how the procedure is brought to the attention of engineering and production staff. Record the sampling you did - the credibility of the grade depends on it.
3. Before concluding, what objective evidence would you gather and what would you look for in the extraction commissioning?
Read the worked answer
Triangulate three sources rather than accepting the checklist:
- Records: the capital project file, MOC records (none expected), the LEV commissioning report - look for measured capture velocity or face velocity against a stated standard, a commissioning date, and the identity of the competent person. A supplier delivery note is not commissioning evidence. Check the planned maintenance schedule: LEV that is installed but not in the maintenance regime is not a functioning control.
- Physical observation: walk the cell. Is the extraction running, is there a flow indicator or gauge, are the interlocked guards defeating access to the control panel, is the panel reachable without crossing the interlock boundary, and what do the operators actually wear versus what the hazard identification says?
- Interview: ask an operator what the extraction does, what happens if it fails, and what they were told about the new machine; ask maintenance who signs off the LEV.
Also test whether the exposure risk can be quantified - if respirable fume is plausible, note that the risk assessment (6.1.2.3) has no exposure data and that reliance on PPE alone contradicts 8.1.2. If the LEV cannot be shown to work, consider whether workers are exposed now; that escalation is a decision for the auditee's top management, not something you leave in the report alone.