In view of all the procrastination and subsequent stampede we saw during the upgrade to ISO 9001:2000, I'm a bit curious: What is your situation regarding ISO 14001:2004? Done yet? After all, it is a much less extensive upgrade.

15 nov 2004: ISO14001:2004 published.
15 may 2006: ISO14001:1996 no longer valid.

/Claes

Without being specific because of confidentiality issues I'll say that the organizations that I have assessed so far that were previously under 14K'96 have had to do either nothing at all or very minor polishing of their system conformance issues to achieve 14K'04 conformance.

It's really not that big of a deal for most folks.

Without being specific because of confidentiality issues I'll say that the organizations that I have assessed so far that were previously under 14K'96 have had to do either nothing at all or very minor polishing of their system conformance issues to achieve 14K'04 conformance.

It's really not that big of a deal for most folks.

All of my clients who have upgraded from 14001:1996 to 14001:2004 have done so with no nonconformities, and a few OFIs. The primary differences is the new standard clarifies better the intent of some of the original clauses. There is one "new" clause, 4.5.2, but it is actually carved out from the previous clause 4.5.1. But please, do review the new standard and take advantage of the new clarification.

All of my clients who have upgraded from 14001:1996 to 14001:2004 have done so with no nonconformities, and a few OFIs. The primary differences is the new standard clarifies better the intent of some of the original clauses. There is one "new" clause, 4.5.2, but it is actually carved out from the previous clause 4.5.1. But please, do review the new standard and take advantage of the new clarification.

Are you telling me to do this? I'll get right to that review.



Actually 4.5.2 isn't a "new" clause, there was a 4.5.2 in the '96 version. The "new" clause is actually 4.5.5. Clause 4.5.2 was changed to the evaluation of regulatory and other requirements (4.5.2.1 & 4.5.2.2) and the original requirements following 4.5.2 were renumbered thereby giving us 4.5.3 (for c/a, p/a & n/c), 4.5.4 (records) and 4.5.5 (internal audit)

BTW, I intentionally didn't put all of the clause proper name lingo dribble down because I just didn't feel like it...

Oh, yeah...we lost a clause, 4.3.4. EMP's were combined with O&T's in 4.3.3

The again I may be guessing :rolleyes:

In view of all the procrastination and subsequent stampede we saw during the upgrade to ISO 9001:2000, I'm a bit curious: What is your situation regarding ISO 14001:2004? Done yet? After all, it is a much less extensive upgrade.

15 nov 2004: ISO14001:2000 published.
15 may 2006: ISO14001:1996 no longer valid.

/Claes

May I suggest editing of ISO14001:2000 to ISO14001:2004. The title of the poll also should be changed to ISO 14001:2004. Thanks. Ramakrishnan

May I suggest editing of ISO14001:2000 to ISO14001:2004. The title of the poll also should be changed to ISO 14001:2004. Thanks. RamakrishnanYou may indeed.... LMAO :lol: That's what I call a brain spasm... Thank's Doc.

/Claes

Without being specific because of confidentiality issues I'll say that the organizations that I have assessed so far that were previously under 14K'96 have had to do either nothing at all or very minor polishing of their system conformance issues to achieve 14K'04 conformance.

It's really not that big of a deal for most folks.
My experience is that the changes - although subtle have some significant effects on registered companies. It may not be the case with organisations you and hjilling are dealing with but the wording changes in policy, aspects, legislation, objectives and targets involve some organisations in quite a bit of investigation to be able to demonstrate that the EMS scope and impacts run right through the business system.

One example - protecting confidentiality as ever - is an organisation I dealt with was doing a lot to manage printer paper, plastic cups etc. but they were not doing anything to align objectives and targets with their most significant impacts - material usage and transportation.

Unfortunately I won't know how they are doing as I have stopped working for this particular registrar - no names, no pack drill.

I had been banging on for a couple of years with observations but they were "choosing to target" these other areas. I believe the new wording leads to their approach being non compliant.

One example - protecting confidentiality as ever - is an organisation I dealt with was doing a lot to manage printer paper, plastic cups etc. but they were not doing anything to align objectives and targets with their most significant impacts - material usage and transportation.



What's the problem? Where is alignment "required". SA's only have to be considered..."We looked at it but,...."

It's their business what they choose to target, not the auditor's.

So Randy are you saying that you might know a thing or two about the new 2004 standard?

The "alignment" issue is one major thing I took from your class and to beat into our consultant's head that it was not necessary, although it appears to be a huge misnomer with most folks.

I think there a lot of myths out there regarding ISO14K in general. I had one exec here ask me this, "If we decide to register to ISO14K, does that mean that we have to start separating the trash in the lunch room. Who is going to get that thankless job?"

Just some thoughts.....

I confess that I know a little bit, but not as much as many others think they do;)

Here's what 14K04 states...
When establishing and reviewing its objectives and targets, an organization shall take into account the legal requirements and other requirements to which the organization subscribes, and its significant environmental aspects. It shall also consider its technological options, its financial, operational and business requirements, and the views of interested parties.

Now if someone can show me a requirement for stuff being aligned I'll kiss their nekkid arse in the middle of DFW Terminal "A". I'm there at least twice every week so it won't be too hard to pay out.

What's the problem? Where is alignment "required". SA's only have to be considered..."We looked at it but,...."

It's their business what they choose to target, not the auditor's.Sometimes I don't understand your position. For the longest time, you complained (and I agreed) that many Registrars were hiring QMS auditors and "training" them to be EMS auditors, leading to (what you inferred) ineffective EMS audits. Your statement above means that an organization implementing ISO 14001 can IGNORE significant aspects and focus on less critical ones. That is DEAD WRONG. You are right when you say it is the responsibility of the organization to develop a criteria to determine significance, but if the criteria and subsequent actions are not sound/meaningful, the external auditor MUST deny certification to an innefective EMS. Failure to do so is to rubber stamp ineffective EMS's.

We're talking O&T's here not SA's. SA's only have to be considered when setting O&T's. The identified SA's may be something that is already being managed, or too expensive to do anything about, or not feasable because of technology. In that case an O&T could be to restore a neighboring brownfield, clean a neighborhood streambed or stormwater ditch, or organize a local industrial park recycling center/program, participate in a highway cleanup program. As long as the organization establishes environmental objectives, in line with its policy and in particular with the prevention of pollution they only need to "look" at their SA's. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for my earlier feelings....no change Sid. I still feel the same and you know that it's true. Lots of weak systems are out there because many "EMS" auditors cannot properly spell environment. They wouldn't know an SPCC plan and its requirements from a cake recipe or Title V, subpart JJ from a dog license.

What's the problem? Where is alignment "required". SA's only have to be considered..."We looked at it but,...."

It's their business what they choose to target, not the auditor's.

Firstly, let me say I am not going to get drawn into yet another "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type argument. I said in my last post the changes are subtle. Let me try to explain.

4.1 The org shall ... define and document EMS scope.

4.2 Ensure policy is (within scope) - appropriate to the nature scale and environmental impacts

4.3.1 a) Identify Environmental aspects (within scope) that it can control or influence
b) determine aspects that can have a significant impact on the environment.
Take the significant aspects into account when setting up its EMS

4.3.3 They must take into account the policy (consistent with impacts, remember) when setting objectives and targets and they must take into account the significant environmental aspects.

Taking all of the above I have "aligned" this into a requirement that the organisation concentrates its efforts on the important stuff and not the trivial.

Perhaps it is me and I am reading too much into it. My opinion is that if an organisation has an EMS certificate on the wall it means they are looking after their environmental impacts. They don't have to stop their business to deal with everything in one go but at least concentrate on the biggies.

they only need to "look" at their SA's. Nothing more, nothing less.Shall take into account means a little more than "look." There are reasonable get outs about their resources / technology etc. but in my example they don't apply. The company I am thinking of chooses to go after the trivial because that "interferes" with their business least.

Now if someone can show me a requirement for stuff being aligned I'll kiss their nekkid arse in the middle of DFW Terminal "A". I'm there at least twice every week so it won't be too hard to pay out.
8 Hours Ago 10:07 PM Sorry if alignment causes such a problem with you. As for butt kissing- that is up to you, whatever turns you on!:D

I say poe-tay-toe and you say poe-ta-toe.

Taking into "account" corresponds to "consider". Both are non-prescriptive.

Let me try to understand what both Randy and Sidney are saying;

If I am an organization that makes circuit boards for an assembler somewhere, one of my O & T should be to reduce the amount of solder paste I dispose of ethically and legally in a year by 18%, but I don't have to necessarily create a process for recycling the Wall Street Journal that comes to the CEO's office every morning. Nor do I need to create an action plan for recycling that paper, or having special meetings.

When the auditor arrives and asks about the fire-trap size of paper stacked under the CEO's desk and why we are not recycling it, my answer is, "We evaluated it and decided it was not in line with our overall business objectives to allocate $43,000 annually to recycle that paper."

And when the auditor asks how we are reducing the amount of solder paste we are recycling and / or disposing of, my answer could be; "We have determined that last year we disposed of 107 tons of solder paste through Jim Bob's Solder Recycling and this year we have this plan and that plan and team member training to reduce it to 87.75 tons. Here are my records of disposal and as you can see Mr. Auditor we have already reduced it by 3 tons in 4 months."

Am I on the right track here?

When the auditor arrives and asks about the fire-trap size of paper stacked under the CEO's desk and why we are not recycling it, my answer is, "We evaluated it and decided it was not in line with our overall business objectives to allocate $43,000 annually to recycle that paper."


My first question would be "What the h*ll was the auditor doing under the CEO's desk?" :lmao:

Yep, pretty much. Can you explain the environmental benefits of reducing solder paste?

I say poe-tay-toe and you say poe-ta-toe.

Taking into "account" corresponds to "consider". Both are non-prescriptive.
So what you are telling me is that if, as an auditor the client presents a big stinking pile of waste they produce (that they are not going to do anything about) but there is a plan to make sure paperclips are all reused once you would be happy about that?

P.S. Who says poe-ta-toe anyway?

How I feel about anything does not come into play. If "my" feelings enter into the equation I am no longer objective. I'll look, ask, and try to understand their reasoning, but in the end they are the deciders as to how improvement is to be made, my job is to determine effectiveness based upon objective evidence. There may always be an "opportunity" to be more effective though.

Yep, pretty much. Can you explain the environmental benefits of reducing solder paste?

Yes, I could. I would come up with one heck of an answer. As long as it made sense to the auditor then I would be golden?!?!?!

I say poe - ta - toe by the way :rolleyes: After a few cocktails anyways...

My first question would be "What the h*ll was the auditor doing under the CEO's desk?" :lmao:

I try to not ask those types of questions, but if that is what it takes to pass the "test" and the CEO is willing, who am I to judge?

I am in CA, so pretty much anything goes out here in the land of fruits and nuts

:mg: :confused: :bonk: :whip: :o :eek: ;) ;) ;)

Afternoon all
I'm lovingly crafting and developing 14001 documentation here in South Wales UK. I using a cheat sheet from the interwebnet to help me, and it refers to 4.3.4 Environmental Management Programs.
Did this clause evaporate between 1996 and 2004 (I don't have the 1996 version). Does anyone know what it refers to?
Paul

Afternoon all
I'm lovingly crafting and developing 14001 documentation here in South Wales UK. I using a cheat sheet from the interwebnet to help me, and it refers to 4.3.4 Environmental Management Programs.
Did this clause evaporate between 1996 and 2004 (I don't have the 1996 version). Does anyone know what it refers to?
Paul

I'll take this one:

14k'96 - clause 4.3.3 - Objectives and targets
14k'96 - clause 4.3.4 - Environmental management programme(s)

14k'04 - clause 4.3.3 - Objectives targets & programme(s)

they've effectively combined the two clauses into one. Both original clauses still relevant, just 'streamlined'.

If you're starting from scratch with 14k, it's best not to refer to v.'96. It's a relative dinosaur in systems terms. As is '04, but you cant have everything...

Interpret the standard and implement as suits your current system(s) (if relevant / applicable).

By the way, new here, lovin' the forum already.

SaintStan
Welcome to the Cove.
Thank you for your answer. All clear now.
Still drafting documents, up to clause 4.4.5.
Paul

Afternoon all
I'm lovingly crafting and developing 14001 documentation here in South Wales UK. I using a cheat sheet from the interwebnet to help me, and it refers to 4.3.4 Environmental Management Programs.
Did this clause evaporate between 1996 and 2004 (I don't have the 1996 version). Does anyone know what it refers to?
Paul


Clause 4.3.4 evaporated, but the text was simply added into 4.3.3. Go figure.

5.2 is new, and 4.1 has a little new text. The rest of the changes are snippets here and there.

Apologies for my late entry to the debate - skiing in Austria, I know what I would rather be doing now!

Clause 4.3.4 evaporated, but the text was simply added into 4.3.3. Go figure.ISO took the opportunity of the new version to take out what was always an anomaly. If you have objectives and targets and need a programme to complete then it follows naturally. To have two separate sub clauses that deal with what is really one issue was always stupid. They have "un stupided" the standard.

5.2 is new, There was already a requirement for companies to demonstrate legal compliance but hidden in 4.5.1. They have just taken the requirement out and given it a new clause (4.5.2) so that peoiple can see it easier.

and 4.1 has a little new text. The rest of the changes are snippets here and there.As has been discussed in other threads a lot of the changes are subtle but - IMHO - they add up to a strengthening of requirements through the EMS with greater focus on what the organization does (scope) and the real effect it has on the environment (significant aspects).

http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU75.pdf


Issue: 75
Date: 2006/06/30
To: ANAB Accredited CBs and Accreditation Auditors
From: Randy Dougherty, Director of Accreditation
Re: Transition to ISO 14001:2004 – Withdrawal of Any Accredited Certificates to ISO 14001:1996
This is to remind each CB that any client with an accredited certificate to ISO 14001:1996 that has an expiration date later than 15 May 2006 is expected to withdraw the accredited certificate.
The CB may issue a non-accredited certificate to ISO 14001:1996 for any client that will be completing their transition in the near future.
ANAB has become aware that some CBs have not withdrawn accredited certificates to ISO 14001:1996 even though some of their clients did not complete the transition by the deadline of 15 May 2006. ANAB will consider this a nonconformance to IAF GD4.
A quick search online finds a good number of ISO 14001:1996 certificates with expiration dates beyond May 15, 2006.