I am presently in discussion with my registrar on the number of days required to perform a registration audit to ISO14k at one of our manufacturing sites.

I have been told that they will need 5 days, excluding the time needed before the audit for the documenation review, to do this.

This is one less day than required for a facility of 100 employees when attaining QS9000 registration. And I just don't understand WHY?!!?!!???

I have been told this number has been decided by the senior management at our registrar; but I cannot figure out what will be audited for 5 whole days.

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Or, better yet, give me a benchmark for approximate lengths that other registration audits have been so that I can take that information to our registrar!

We are manufacturers of acoustical products for the automotive industry. Our materials are virtually non-hazardous to people. Our product waste is somewhat unfriendly but its volume is what is of environmental concern. The location of the facility brings into it a lot of wildlife, flora, etc., that is an aspect. But FIVE DAYS of auditing, I just can't see how!

Thanks for the input.
Mary-K.

Last place I worked:

1 Day for desk (document) audit.
4 days 1 Auditor

250 employees

The European Accreditation of Certification (EAC) provides a guidline (EN 45012) for determining the number of audit days needed to conduct a QMS audit. Right now I don't know of a 14K specific document. Also look at the attached chart to help you out.:bigwave:

We are 1 day Level 1 and 5 days for the audit. (700 employees) While we haven't gone through the reg audit as yet, we have an agreement with our registrar since we feel 2-3 days is plenty, that if they finish early we will only be billed for the actual time.

And they agreed to this?:confused:

They said they didn't want the additional thousands of dollars for audit days because they're great guys and are concerned about your bank account.:eek:

Who are these guys? I don't wanna work for them.:eek:

:bigwave:

I'm in the middle of a couple 14K registrations with clients. Both are using the same auditor. The registrar REQUIRES a pre-assessment of one day, which includes on on-site document review. The number of audit days was pre-set after the application, but the auditor can adjust the days as necessary. They want to confirm on site that the list of impacts on the application is correct. One client is a paint manufacturer with all kinds of potentially nasty impacts - 1000+ gallons MEK, etc. They also have tons of DEQ paperwork that need to be audited. The other assembles robots and their worst impact is a five gallon bucket of oil. The final registration will be 3-4 days for the paint company, 1-1.5 for the robots. Both companies are about the same number of employees.

Tom

That sounds about right. My present client (1000+ employees) makes satellites (the kind that go into space not the car). The pre-assessment was 4 days (1 auditor) and the registration will be 2 days (2 auditors) for a total of 8 audit days.:)

When I worked for a registrar, there was a lot of discussion about this.

Right now, there is NO REQUIREMENT for the stage 2 portion of the audit. (the previous post for a minimum of 1 day for stage 1 is correct).

Most registrars have some formula they go by, and there are several reccomendations out there, but there is no hard and fast rule.

If you already have a QMS in place, your audit will take less time then if you only have a 14000 system (because your people are used to the audit process, some of the system componants are the same, etc...) This is doubly so if you were lucky enough to have your QMS and EMS auditor be one and the same person (a rareity due to EMS requirements...)

We (when I worked for the registrar) always quoted High. But, we only charged for the amount of time we were actually on site (eg: we would quote 4 days, but if we were only on site 3 days, that's all you would pay...) You may want to see if your registrar has a similar policy.

Otherwise, if you truely feel like they've scheduled too much time, ask them to provide you with reasoning behind their decision (aside from the man behind the curtain came up with that number.) Tell them you are aware that there is no formal requirement. If you go in armed with the number of days from similar companies to yours, and inform them that you feel you're being gouged, they may reduce their number of days.

Good Luck :D

As long as the number of days for extremely similar companies was quoted by the same registrar! Not all registrars have a pristine reputation for their certifications, and with valid reasons.

Look, there is so much more than just the number of employees. That's why there isn't the hard and fast rules like for QMS. When we sat down to evaluate an application for certification, the number of employees was only one of the considerations. Location, size of facility, number of permits req'd, ect. was much more important. As far as number of employees, you will find much more labor intensive operations south of the border and in S. America and other parts of the world than in the U.S. Labor there is cheap and do the work that the US might use automated equipment for. The production rate may be the same, but far more employees than in the States. Vice versa. Production rate is more important than employees.

And environmental management isn't about people so much as the work environment. We're talking about locations of drainage areas,etc. We're talking about assessing a 150,000 square foot facility vs. a 2 million square foot facility. Bordering federal wetlands vs. an industrial park. Glass plant vs. furniture assembly. What chemicals are stored, used, discharged.

You may think that all the assessor has to do is look at your aspect identification and what you're doing about them, but that's not true. The assessor should be looking far deeper than that. He/she should make sure your aspect identification process is appropriate, your targets and objectives are suitable and measureable.

Environmental assessment is much riskier than QMS. QMS is just about running a smooth business that makes money and keeps clients satisfied. EMS is the real thing. A registrar who only skims the surface is doing a disservice to everyone. A company who employs a registrar who does a shoddy job is putting themselves at risk, and there is no value in the certification.

Sorry for the semi-lecture!:) :( :biglaugh: EMS was my baby for 4 years and I feel very passionate about it.

Why is EMS more riskier than QMS?:confused: Apparently most Registrars don't think so (I've checked them out). If they did they would insist that EMS Auditors be environmental professionals 1st and foremost. I personally know that UL wants engineers and not credentialed environmental professionals as EMS Auditors.

As I stated above the European guide is used as a reference due to the lack of anything better. It finds a kind of commom ground with workforce size.

Any method you want can be used to determine the # of audit days required as long as the organization is audited effectively.

Randy,

More potential for human and environmental injury. Big fines by EPA, huge lawsuits by effected parties, corporate shame. As the certified company, you want someone to help make sure you are correctly and adequately managing this risk. As a registrar, you don't want to tie your name to a "dirty client". EMS assessment is going to be stringent, and goes beyond "the books". That is, if it is done right.

When I left my company, we were the world's leader in 14001 certifications. We used environmental professionals in performing our audits. We did not cross-train QMS auditors to simply learn a new standard. As far as "engineers", if they had a master's in chemical engineering or environmental engineering or some other type of engineering, that was a plus of course. But it was environmental experience that was at the forefront. And the training and evaluation we used in measuring their competence for each area of technical expertise and audit skills was comprehensive. We had twice yearly technical seminars with the assessors and discussed legal and audit issues. Plus just alot of communication between the assessors.

We weren't going to use inexperienced or crappy assessors to issue certification with our name on it and have something happen like the Glatdfelter (sp?) incident!!

It is because of the registrars who only pay lip service to EMS that there was a movement within some circles of EPA to establish an "approved registrar" list. Companies who wanted to benefit from less EPA oversight could do so by obtaining certification from these registrars, only.

Apparently you can't catch or identify a fecetious or smarta-- remark when one is tossed at you or jabbed at Registrars.;)

I very well know the legal implications and potential regulatory issues involved, more so than a lot of the other EMS-LA's I've had the priviledge (?) to talk to and meet. I've been an EHS professional in California for 12 years (a state not know for wearing kid gloves with violators). I've been in the hot seat.

My comment was to indicate, that I, through 1st hand knowledge, can attest to the fact that most Registrars don't give a hoot-in-hell or a crap about environmental professionalism in their EMS auditors. How do I know? I've talked, conferred, and spoken to every stinkin' one of them certified by the RAB. The 1st question they ask, beyond that of RAB status (I'm a EMS-LA) does not concern environmental experience. They want to know my quality credentials (I have none - too busy doing environmental management keeping the regulators away). Once I say that I'm not a credentialed quality person they basically shut down and hang up. So much for where their concerns lie.

Maybe your experience is different than mine.

Toodles:bigwave:

You say that you've spoken to all of them, then you would have spoken to my former employer - and quite possible to myself, since I was usually the first stop for resumes and phone inquiries! And while an inquiry into whether or not you were also RAB certified as a quality auditor might have been asked,it would have been one of the last, if not THE last question I asked.

I would be sick to know things have changed so much there since I left. The EMS Technical Manager is one bad-@ss assessor! If standards are changing there, then he would be equally as sick to be forced to do so. But Randy, I just don't believe it to be true.

Give them a call. It should be easy for you to figure out the registrar I'm talking about...;) :biglaugh: They could use someone in CA.

I second Lucinda's comments. I am the District Manager for DNV Certification in the West Coast of the US. Just like her, I am normally, the first line of enquiry for people looking for a possibility of working for us, in the District that I am responsible for.

We do not require our EMS auditors and candidates to have Q qualifications. While they could be nice for integrated audits, we don't make them mandatory. Actually DNV requires our EMS people to have Environmental Management experience.

Further, I am looking for a certified EMS Auditor or lead Auditor who is bilingual (English/Spanish) and is interested in subcontracting for us, Any interested parties should send me their resume. You can connect to me through my e-mail, available in my profile.