Hi Marc

I forgot my password. The last time I visited your forum was a few years ago at that time I was involved in the ISO 9001 and FDA forum. I remember Don Winton, but I dont see his name any more. My user name was Monica Lewis (but I am still the same person I have only added my middle name). Today I working as an internal auditor. The company wants me to conduct internal audits according to ISO 9001 and 14001. I have been working a lot with ISO 9001. I have run into a problem regarding the definition of corrective and preventive action. I know that ISO 9001 has a standard regarding this definition and somebody told me that ISO 14001 also has a standard regarding the terminology. Is the definition (corrective and preventive action) the same in both standards or is it different?

ISO 8402 is the document for definitions of terminology in ISO 9001 which includes the definitions for CA and PA. I'm not familiar enough with EMS to know if they are the same. Based on an ISO 14000 Resource Directory I have, Corrective Action is "Any action taken to eliminate a nonconformance or deficiency in a system, especially addressing the root cause of that nonconformance". It certainly sounds similar. However, no info on preventive action in this book, only on prevention of pollution. Does anyone know if there is a definitions document like ISO 8402 for EMS? I am also curious.


[This message has been edited by outoftown (edited 07 April 2001).]

Somebody told me that EMS has a terminology standard called 14050. Does it define corrective and preventive action? I would be happy if anyone in that case cite the definition.
Monica

I've never heard of 14050. Has anyone else?

A web search produced this from what reads to be a pre-1998 webpage identification.. I've not seen one - nor do I know if it ever actually was published..

http://www.ansi.org - It was in /public/iso14000/docs/14050.html

ISO 14050 This document, when completed, will collect and compile into one glossary-type document all terms and definitions provided in the individual standards of the ISO 14000 series.

TITLE
Environmental management - Vocabulary

Dormant for nearly 4 years, eh? I wonder if it's still on the agenda for completion. Maybe it's dead meat. My current understanding is the roadmap for 9001 and 14001 is that they will be merged next round. Several years down the road, but none the less.

Originally posted by Marc
My current understanding is the roadmap for 9001 and 14001 is that they will be merged next round. Several years down the road, but none the less.

Marc,

Can you elaborate on that statement? Would it be to suggest that if you are registered to ISO9001:2000, you will have to register to 14001?:ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Pilot

Hi Marc

I forgot my password. The last time I visited your forum was a few years ago at that time I was involved in the ISO 9001 and FDA forum. I remember Don Winton, but I dont see his name any more. My user name was Monica Lewis (but I am still the same person I have only added my middle name). Today I working as an internal auditor.If you're still around, you can have your password e-mailed to you. Your record was imported from the old forums softwear and you're listed as 'registered'.

Don Winton - a favourite of mine. Don's still here but goes by dWizard. Went through some life changes and lurks but told me he doesn't have the free time to participate any more. Don's contributions are an integral part of the early forums - I miss his participation a lot.

Yup - I remember you well. You joined waaaaay back in October 1998 and your last post was on 3 December 1999.

Stop by any time. Yup - we're still here!

Originally posted by energy

Can you elaborate on that statement? Would it be to suggest that if you are registered to ISO9001:2000, you will have to register to 14001?No. That is not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that the roadmap for the standards is that when ISO 9001 is revised again 14001 will be integrated into ISO 9001 and they will become one and the same - probably retaining the ISO 9001 'name'. I could be wrong, but this is my understanding. :thedeal:

ISO 14050:1998 was published (First edition 05-01-1998) and is part of the ISO 14000 family of standards. Copies of each are available from ISO or ANSI.

It is comprised of only 16 pages of side-by-side English and French language definitions of vocabulary terms.

"Preventive action" is not one of the terms defined in ISO 14050:1998. However, in ISO14001:1996, corrective action always follows nonconformance as in the following aspect quoted from the standard:A.5.2: Nonconformance and corrective and preventive action

In establishing and maintaining procedures for investigating and correcting nonconformance, the organization should include these basic elements:

a) identifying the cause of the nonconformance;
b) identifying and implementing the necessary corrective action;
c) implementing or modifying controls necessary to avoid repetition of the nonconformance;
d) recording any changes in written procedures resulting from the corrective action.

Depending on the situation, this may be accomplished rapidly and with a minimum of formal planning or it may be a more complex and long-term activity. The associated documentation should be appropriate to the level of corrective action.I believe this implies all environmental system nonconformances require a follow-up corrective action to ensure prevention of recurrence of the nonconformance. This is as contrasted with nonconformance in ISO 9001:2000 where the product may be reworked, reinspected and certified for use, without requirement for correfctive action, per se.

Originally posted by Marc
No. That is not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that the roadmap for the standards is that when ISO 9001 is revised again 14001 will be integrated into ISO 9001 and they will become one and the same - probably retaining the ISO 9001 'name'.

Uh Maybe I'm real slow!:frust: If they become one and the same, can I register to ISO9001:200X without going through the environmental crap?:ko: :smokin:

It is our understanding, from our registrar, that the next iteration of ISO 14001 will be voted on and issued sometime in the fall of 2002. It will remain, at that time, a separate document requiring its own unique certification. This will continue allowance of registration to one standard, independent of the other.

(BTW: We hold dual, simultaneous certification. Our three year cycle has come to a close, so we are attempting ISO 9001:2000 on our re-certification, coming soon! The topic of the new ISO 14001 standard came up in meetings with our registrar, who questioned if we wanted to "re-up" with ISO 9002:1994 and ISO 14001:1996 certification in the short-term and only "modify" our documentation once, when the new ISO 14001 standard was released. We opted to recert to the new QMS standard and modify again, as necessary...)

The ISO 9001:2000 standard took into account the structure of ISO 14001:1996 in numbering aspects, etc., to ease integration of the standards. The new ISO 14001 will continue on this path. However, it is our understanding while the systems may be more closely integrated in the documentation, they remain separate and distinct.

We further understand a potential "hang up" slowing the process is the more "leftist" direction the European community wants to take the standard, with respect to interactions with third parties. The USA apparently desires a more "closed" standard...

Hi, Bruce-

Re:
"We further understand a potential "hang up" slowing the process is the more "leftist" direction the European community wants to take the standard, with respect to interactions with third parties. The USA apparently desires a more "closed" standard..."

Can you clarify this a little for me? I've been convinced for some time that, somewhere around 2005, ISO 14001 will be part of the price of doing business in Europe (and later on, some of the other geo-political regions). But I'm not following your 'third party interaction' and 'closed standard' references.

I appreciate your input. It sounds like you've got excellent sources of information.

Thanks.

Alf

Alf,

The comment, regarding the reaction of the European community to modification of ISO 14001, came from our registrar during our last surveillance audit. The registrar noted we we still quite fuzzy in our procedure for communication of environmental aspects and impacts to interested third parties.

The difference in opinion between the European and USAian members of the technical advisory group modifying the standard revolves around how available "proprietary" information is made to third parties. THe example our registrar used was: if Greenpeace showed up in our lobby and demanded evnironmental impact data, it is perfectly permissable to deny access, provided we documented this in a procedure denying non-regulatory third parties access, under ISO 14001:1996. The European contingent views this as inappropriate while the USAian contingent views this as important to continue including as it allows control of information regarding proprietary manufacturing processes.

In the USA, the issue is essentially moot as any interested third party, given enough resources, can get the information from regulatory bodies. In essense, the USA position is, "why make it easier for third parties to get information they already have limited access to?". Apparently, this access is not as available in Europe...

Thank you. That helps a lot.

Guess I'd better print out some of the discussion from the 14001 thread and start reading up on this.

Alf

That is why (IMHO) in the US ISO 14001 has not 'taken off'. We have regulatory 'departments' at the local, state and federal levels. For the most part, ISO 14001 - understanding the intent to be to reduce pollution, etc. - doesn't add to what they're already doing.

I'm working with a transportation company which has been ISO 9001:1994 for about 3 years. In April 2002 we have planned an ISO 'upgrade to the 2000 version as well as 14001 (Ford is requiring it). As I started going through the requirements - from identification on - they were already identifying and reacting. The process is going quickly and well.

It's all an issue of interpretation and language differences with both the old and revised standards.

The Europeans are more concerned with hugging trees and protecting little furry things and we are more concerned with turning a buck ($) while at the same time trying to address environmental issues.

The existing standard allows a lot of leeway in how 3rd parties are addressed and we (USA) don't want to change that. Some of the same stuff came up when the EPA came our with Part 112.(r) Risk Management Plan requirements a few years back. It was decided that public disclosure of nasty chemical quantities was not a real smart thing to do.

Europeans aren't more interested in "hugging trees". All you have to do is look at their geographics to understand why they want and *need* a more open policy. Whereas we have one contiguous political structure, with pollutants thrown into the river upstream governed essentially the same as the pollutants thrown into it downstream - the Europeans have multiple polical environments.

We get a little bit of acid rain that we want to blame on Canada and go crazy. Imagine if we had many other countries doing their own thing and polluting the air we have to breathe and the water we have to use for both personal and manufacturing use. :rolleyes:

It's all about trying to agree on principles that we can all live with. It's about agreeing to do as little harm to our neighbors as possible. The US is a terrible global neighbor in sucking up the earth's resources. Let's not compound our arrogance by casting distain on countries who don't have the luxury of being able to say "s@rew you" with regard to environmental performance.:mad:

I have to agree with Randy that Europeans are interested in hugging trees and in protecting the fury critters. I also agree that the US and Asia are more interested in money than in preserving our air and our streams. I also agree with Lucinda that our (US) arrogance clouds our understanding and judgment of things, well beyond any ISO standard.

Lucinda is also right about the way Americans play the ‘blame game’. We blame other nations when it’s ‘convenient’ and attack ourselves when they aren’t. Instead of focusing on a System, we work twice as hard to lay blame here and there with our noses upturned.

I doubt a standard will ever be created that will guide mankind to do the right thing every time, everywhere. Consider the success of the Bible, the Koran, or any other similar guide and the unresolved differences between them. Will we ever iron out all the wrinkles?

Organizational greed has led us to the point that we will buy goods from countries where they exploit their people and their natural resources. Until we do what is right and refuse to buy from these countries, this wickedness will continue. Nevertheless, it wont end there. If we can’t buy product at rock bottom prices, then our Lobbyists will work hard to reverse legislation that was put in place to correct the wrongs of yesteryear. Evidence: our clean water act. We need to find Appreciation for a System.

Lucinda’s point on agreeing to principles is the right idea and although we will likely never agree on everything, every time, everywhere: it shouldn’t stop us from trying. System’s Thinking is the key ingredient as presented by CI Lewis and promoted more recently by Deming, Senge, Scholtes and a host of others. Without it, we won’t survive.

Regards,

Kevin

I do not believe the distinctions of "tree hugger" or "terrible global neighbor" are to the point. The main issue is the number of regulatory bodies and amount of reporting that are present in the USA without requirement of an international standard.

I work for a commercial printer. We are regulated and issue reports to the EPA and NJDEP and local regulatory bodies including county, city and a local development council regarding environmental aspects and impacts. In order to reduce overall release of VOCs into the environment, the Company replaced an effective afterburner unit with a newer, even more efficient model. To do such required significant permitting and inspection by the State and EPA. My understanding is that in Europe, such regulatory oversight is not presently in place to control pollution, especially in regard to interests across international borders. Hense, the increasing popularity of ISO 14001 in Europe and the general response in the USA of, "Oh, great... More paperwork to fill out..." At our Company, we hold ISO 14001 cetification as our owners - and the employees - view such certification as the right thing to do to communicate our continuing concern for the environment. We do many things beyond the basics required by the regulatory bodies and report these effeorts through the ISO 14001 program.

As for environmental impact and concerns of our sovereign country, I believe if you go back about twenty five years or so, the overriding concern amoung environmentalists and the media was not "global warming" but the inevitable coming ice age as predicted by scientists...

I believe the USA has, in general, been incredibly responsive in changing environmental policy and improving responsiveness. It has not and will not completely turn around in a day. However, give us some credit. Things are much better now than they were twenty years ago. And, I hope, things will be even better twenty years from now.

As a European I find the description of tree hugger somewhat offensive, and shows an attitude towards the environment similar to that of departmental managers when we quality guys rant on about quality issues.

Personally I dont want to hug trees (sheep maybe), but I would like to see the environment protected for the future of the planet. However it looks like asia is about to nuke itself off the planet, and probably take the rest of us with it, so why worry about pouring noxious gases from our factories into the atmosphere.

Methinks perhaps some of us use the term "tree hugger" not as a derogative, but more as a short way to say, persons who are perhaps more conscious of the environment and our own impact on same. That being said -

I think that there is some truth that the Europeans may be ahead of us when it comes to environmental concerns. But, by the same token, why wouldn't they be? We all need to remember that the USA is relatively young compared to other areas of the world that have been fairly highly populated for a long long time. We can see the same kinds of regional discrepancies within the USA to some degree. Also, most of us came to the states (I am making the assumption that only a small percentage of the USA members are Native Americans) for a semblance of independence, and so giving up information willingly comes hard.

And so, I have not really contributed much to the overall thread, but I hope that perhaps we can avert a full fledged (take off the velcro gloves and start swinging) uprising of the "Tree Huggers vs. the Environmentally Wicked" :biglaugh:

Peace and Love man!:vfunny:

SteelMaiden,

You opined:

<snip>
I think that there is some truth that the Europeans may be ahead of us when it comes to environmental concerns.
<snip>

I am not sure that is the case. In the USA we have considerable discussion regarding the environment, from many sources including both those interested and disinterested in preservation. The result is that we have been able to put many regulations in place, and regulatory bodies/fines to ensure compliance. Including penalties for prior actions which harmed the environment, even if the act occurred before we were aware of the potential for damage.

Many of these controls are or have been missing in Europe. Therefore, the interest in an international standard, i.e. ISO 14000, to provide some external pressure to industries in Europe.

The USA "grew up" during the industrial revolution, and had the opportunity to be responsive. I am not arguing the USA was incredibly responsive, but the market and voters have forced us to be more responsive than international borders and "old" industrial infrastructure encourage in Europe. As evidence, see the Hudson River cleanup project currently being started in our area, and see the penalties meted out to local industry who polluted the river which will eventually cover the cost of the cleanup. Are you aware of any such projects in Europe? There are probably European examples, that I am not aware of, however examples abound in the USA: water utilities sued in Hinckley CA, various nuclear power plants shut down, reduction of mercury content in Lake Michigan, cleanup of Lake Erie, etc. And these instances become very visible and public in the USA. Rightfully so...

Questions:

Better environmental control: USA or (particularly eastern) Europe?

Better nuclear regulation: USA or Europe? (TMI vs Chernobyl...)

That said, I firmly believe greater adoption of the international standard is a tremendous idea and will benefit all. I would endorse all industruies to adopt ISO 14000 as an integral part of their management philosophy (if anyone were concerned with my NTBHO). My only question concerns reporting procedures and availability of information to non-regulatory third parties, given the current requirements for reporting compliance to environmental regulations...

Originally posted by Bruce Wade
SteelMaiden,
I am not sure that is the case. In the USA we have considerable discussion regarding the environment, from many sources including both those interested and disinterested in preservation. The result is that we have been able to put many regulations in place, and regulatory bodies/fines to ensure compliance. Including penalties for prior actions which harmed the environment, even if the act occurred before we were aware of the potential for damage.


Those familiar with pollution in Connecticut know the History of the Naugatuck River. During the sixties, this river was yellow, blue, red. The colors changed daily. They once ignited a ladle of the water. Companies were fined, improvements made and, while there is more room for improvement, now contains Atlantic Salmon breeders and a myriad of water fowl. I swore that when it started, I would never see the day in my lifetime when this river would be suitable for recreation use. Personally, I fish in it. I mean literally in it. I own a "belly" boat where you are immersed up to the waist. It has to be a model for cleaning up the environment. Bottom line is that environmental regulations are required as we push the envelope as a species as to what we can extract from mother earth without severe penalties. Consider the deforestation of the Everglades and the Amazon region. All countries are to blame as we try to make room for an expanding population, and more likely, individual and corporate profit. And finally, Blah Blah Blah! :ko: :smokin:

I should have been a little more specific....I meant about freely sharing information, not necessarily about being environmentally aware....oh well, mea culpa, another day, another dollar.

But, I guess the fact that we have all those clean up projects going on (most of which would not happen if somebody wasn't faced with loss of freedom or large amounts of cash, or if the govt. did not pick up the tab) show we are not all that enlightened either.:bonk: :frust: :ko:

I'm the last person to judge if we are better or worse than anywhere else in the world when it comes to environmental issues, I just think that if we would have had the population base here for thousands of years we'd be in a lot worse shape than we are. We've sure caused a lot of ugly messes in the past 300 years.

After spending a little more than 7 years in Europe during the 80's and early 90's...I have to say from my experience that most people I encountered were much more concientious about the environment than most people in the US I've encountered (in the other 16 yrs I've spent here as an adult) .

Quite a bit goes to how you are raised, what you get used to, and what you see as important. When we all have our primary response (gut reaction) to go for the environmentally safe option rather than the most convinient/quickest/cheapest/fastest we might actually have a chance at having a planet to pass on to our decendants.

I'll get down off the soapbox now...but thanks for letting me strech my legs a little :)

I'm a treehugger!

And you are right - it goes to how you were reared. In my family, we reused everything we could - we even rinsed out and reused bread bags and ziplock bags, and there was always a wad of newspaper rubber bands and bread bag twist ties. My dad saved every scrap of stuff in his garage workshop and it was amazing at what he could put together or fix. We started recycling aluminum cans back in 1969 and when I moved out on my own, there was never a question of whether or not to recycle glass or newspaper or aluminum or milk jugs or soup cans. I had bins for everything and I still do. My kids have never known anything differently either. It kills us to go to someone's house and when we ask where they keep their recycling, they say to just throw it in the trash! Often times we'll just set it aside and carry it home with us. (and if they think I'm a loony, that's fine. And if they feel shame about their lack of recycling, fine too. Maybe they'll start to think about it) My husband is the designated paper recycler at his office, and I was also at my last job. We maintain the paper recycle boxes and everyone is good about using them. But if we didn't do it, it would be just thrown away.

I live in TX, but I don't drive a truck. Gas efficiency is important to me. I set my AC at 80 or 82 - at least it's cooler than outside! The credo at home is not to turn on a light if lighting a candle wouldn't be enough - in other words, if you were to light a candle and it wouldn't make a significant impact on your ability to see, then flipping a light switch won't either. There are no more dinosaurs dying for us.

My children don't know wastefulness and I hope they never will. We've taken them on hikes since they were babes in arms and have tried to pass on our respect for nature. I hope they feel it. We tell our children that we do these things because we not only love our planet, but that we love them and we want for them and our grandchildren and for their grandchildren and for all of our family to come to enjoy the land just as we are able to now. And we want them to be able to enjoy the same standard of living also. If my generation continues plowing through natural resources so that my great-grandchildren are not able to live as well as we have been able to, I will be very mad.

Sorry, I know that this is a serious diversion off topic. :bonk:

Lucinda,

One of the reasons "tree huggers" do not surround you is because you live in Texas. Not to appear parochial, ok so I am, but I was reared in Illinois, lived in SoCal for three plus years and am now in New Joisey. (They do talk funny here!) Things are different in these other states.

All three states have had serious recycling programs for years. "Plastic or paper?" is a serious question is all grocery stores. We separate recyclable paper products, glass, batteries, plastic, aluminum and other metals for recycling which is "picked up" by licensed haulers, separate from "garbage". At my house, the recycling containers outnumber the garbage containers.

(BTW: Many paper mills are required to mix recycled fiber content with "virgin" paper fiber to produce "recycled" paper for print. The recycling effort in the USA and Canada has resulted in a significant oversupply of recycled paper for this purpose. In many paper mills, there are warehouses full of un-recycled paper, waiting re-pulping. Also, we have yet to make a dent in piles of plastics gathered for recycling, having limited recycling uses for this plastic. One reason I prefer glass or aluminum!)

You might want to check with and push the local governmental agencies there in Tejas. A few years ago there was a movement by many commercial printers to locate plants in your state, and in Arizona and Nevada, as state and local environmental regulations were more lax there than in the more heavily industrialized Yankee states. Might have also been a trend in other regulated industries.

As for me, this is the second printer I have worked for which is certified to the ISO 14001:1996 standard. In printing, we are already highly regulated, handling solvents, petroleum-based inks, UV polymer coatings, silver-halides, etc. On top of the governmental regulation, we seek to achieve the higher ISO 14001 standards which compel us to exceed the regulatory requirements. Additionally, we separate all waste paper, plastics, glass, etc. and send for these recycling.

My mother was also environmentally focused, eschewing disposable diapers for my little sibs, washing and recycling the plastic bags in which I carried my lunch to school, bundling and tying newspapers and cardboard for recycling, etc., way back in the 1960s. And yes, she is definitely one of my heroes, but we will have that conversation over a couple of iced teas sometime...

In my previous posts, I have trumped USA initiatives. I have not suggested we were perfect, only striving to be less imperfect. I also do not intend to impugn European environmental efforts...

Many times even in the states that have very progressive programs there is a problem with participation. I have yet to see a 'majority' of actions within a community that does recycling. On military posts there was more of a push, but still no overall participation. Everyone seems to be looking for a persoanl 'incentive' - Isn't a healthy planet enough?

BTW - I've lived (as an adult) in the following places the past 20 years (in order):
New York; Germany; Hawaii; Alabama; Germany; Texas; Pennsylvania; Georgia; and currently in Alabama but still work in Georgia.