CB auditor questioning procedure for Identification of Aspects and Impacts?

[armani]

Is it right that a CB auditor questions organization's procedure for determining env aspects / impacts? And if yes, how far could he go in not agreeing with it?
Actually, what can be questioned:
- the criteria used for establishing significance and / or;
- the aspects / impacts found by the organization?

 

[Randy]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

Is it right that a CB auditor questions organization's procedure for determining env aspects / impacts?

He can ask about how you went about it yes, that's part of the job, but in the end it's your process not his and all you have to do is do it.

And if yes, how far could he go in not agreeing with it?

He doesn't have to agree with it, all he has to do is verify that you did it and that it is effective. His "opinion" is meaningless.

Actually, what can be questioned:
- the criteria used for establishing significance and / or;
- the aspects / impacts found by the organization?

He can ask about the criteria about significance, but cannot say that it is either right or wrong...that's not his purpose nor is it within the scope of his duties....besides there is no right way or wrong way. As for the aspects and impacts, if he sees that obvious aspects have been overlooked or ignored he can indicate the process is not effective and provide examples as part of his evidence.

 

[armani]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

"He doesn't have to agree with it, all he has to do is verify that you did it and that it is effective. His "opinion" is meaningless."

How do u determine effectiveness? He may say it is not effective , because...let's say.... criteria to establish significant aspects doesn't include legal requirements (is this mandatory?)!

 

[Randy]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

How do u determine effectiveness?

One of the great questions of all time and all I can say is, "You'll know it when you see it"

He may say it is not effective , because...let's say.... criteria to establish significant aspects doesn't include legal requirements (is this mandatory?)!

Nope it's not mandatory. He may not like it, but it doesn't matter what he like's, thinks, wants, or cares about. All that matters is that you establish a method to determine significance and use it consistantly. The questions are "What is required?" and "Did they do it?" Your criteria for significance determination are yours and nobody elses. If your auditor doesn't like it have him get hold of me and I'll retrain his young fanny

 

[armani]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

What means for this procedure "to be sound"???

 

[armani]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

and "to be adhered to"???

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

Nope it's not mandatory. He may not like it, but it doesn't matter what he like's, thinks, wants, or cares about. All that matters is that you establish a method to determine significance and use it consistantly. The questions are "What is required?" and "Did they do it?" You're criteria for significance determination are yours and nobody elses. If you auditor doesn't like it have him get hold of me and I'll retarin his young fanny

We will never going to be able to agree on this one. As I mentioned in this post and this other post, it is the CB auditor's responsibility to ensure that the significance determination criteria is sound. It is a requirement of the accreditation process, laid down by the IAF Guidance document to ISO/IEC Guide 66. EMS auditors MUST be willing and competent to challenge the criteria established by the registrant.

What means for this procedure "to be sound"???

and "to be adhered to"???

These are so basic questions. It concerns me you claim to be an EMS auditor and you don't know what sound and adhere mean.

 

[armani]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

We will never going to be able to agree on this one. As I mentioned in this post and this other post, it is the CB auditor's responsibility to ensure that the significance determination criteria is sound. It is a requirement of the accreditation process, laid down by the IAF Guidance document to ISO/IEC Guide 66.


EMS auditors MUST be willing and competent to challenge the criteria established by the registrant. These are so basic questions. It concerns me you claim to be an EMS auditor and you don't know what sound and adhere mean.

This guide was replaced by ISO/IEC 17021!! So...hmmmmmmmmm...

As for "sound" and "adhered to", I just wanted to know the interpretation...because I'm not a native english speaker.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

Is it right that a CB auditor questions organization's procedure for determining env aspects / impacts? And if yes, how far could he go in not agreeing with it?
Actually, what can be questioned:
- the criteria used for establishing significance and / or;
- the aspects / impacts found by the organization?

I agree with the principles Sidney explained. I always evaluate the methodology that an auditee applies to determining significant Aspects/Impacts, to determine there is a level of effectiveness.

But the key is how you apply that statement. An auditor is not allowed to simply impose his "opinions." But, do they have a effective system? Does it make sense? Do the items identified as significant make sense? For example, if bathroom water is called "significant," and heavy metal wash is not, I might raise some questions as to how that conclusion is arrived at.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: CB auditor questionning procedure for identification of aspects / impacts?

This guide was replaced by ISO/IEC 17021!! So...hmmmmmmmmm...

The ISO/IEC Guide 66 has been replaced by ISO/IEC 17021, but two points:

• ISO/IEC Guide 66 won't be obsolete until September 15, 2008.
• The IAF GD 6:2006 Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 66:1999 document is still valid and there is no set date for it's replacement. Check the IAF GD 8:2007 Informative Guidance on the Transition to ISO/IEC 17021 Accreditation from ISO/IEC Guide 62 and ISO/IEC Guide 66 document.

The IAF is working on Guidance to ISO/IEC 17021.