Hello covers

Is it necessary to consider the influence of environmental aspects on the health of operator (Employee, who is directly engaged in technological processes or service) or the environmental aspects should be considered as influencing only on the personnel being out of the system?

Hello covers

Is it necessary to consider the influence of environmental aspects on the health of operator (Employee, who is directly engaged in technological processes or service) or the environmental aspects should be considered as influencing only on the personnel being out of the system?

It is necessary to understand the definition of ENVIRONMENT which is beautifully explained by the standard itself. Here it is :
3.5
environment
surroundings in which an organization (3.16) operates, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans, and their interrelation

NOTE Surroundings in this context extend from within an organization (3.16) to the global system.

Hope this helps.

I read this definition and I think that the employee is a part of environment within an organization, and the personell that are not employees of our company are the part of global system. It seems to me that according to this definition we should evaluate the impact of environmental aspects on our workers.
But from another side, impact of production factors such as emissions in working area, noise, vibrations are considered in another QMS - OHSАS.
What is correct among this?

Samsung, :thanks:

But from another side, impact of production factors such as emissions in working area, noise, vibrations are considered in another QMS - OHSАS.
What is correct among this?

Samsung, :thanks:

It is just a matter of how you view at the terms. If you consider something as an 'Aspect', it's 'impacts' have to be considered in line with ISO 14001 while if you consider it as a 'hazard', the associated risks will have to be dealt under OHSAS if you have one. OHSAS also says that it is not intended to address the Environmental Impacts but it does specify that 'the hazards created in the vicinity of the workplace should be considered as 'Environmental aspects' instead'.

Impacts (better say Hazard/Risk as long as these are confined to the 'working area') of production like vibration, noise, dust etc. are more aligned to health & safety (of humans) than to Environment and hence have to be dealt with accordingly. You consider them under OHSAS because you have to do so since the terms 'Hazard' refers to 'potential for harm in terms of human injury or ill health' only. Not beyond this point.

While 'Environmental Aspects' comprise of the elements that can interact with the environment encompassing variety of elements including Humans (internal or external). But here it is important to note that the 'changes' in the environment (incl. internal humans) as a result of interaction are not necessarily adverse, they can be beneficial either. While the risk associated with hazards is always harmful and is restricted to human beings alone.

What I mean to say is that both the standards deal with different facets of the same coin with different perspective.

Just think of the situation if the organization hadn't subscribed to OHSAS but to 14001 which does require considering the environmental impacts on all sorts of biodiversity including internal workers.

My understanding is that the standard's focus is on the environment, and that employees may or may not directly benefit from control against releases into the environment. This is because releases can be from stacks (including heat, if that's stated as an environmental impact), drains and excess wastes: these wouldn't necessarily impact employees, so it's important to not limit one's focus on the direct human impact, for example from the release of fumes at a welding operation.

My understanding is that the standard's focus is on the environment, and that employees may or may not directly benefit from control against releases into the environment. This is because releases can be from stacks (including heat, if that's stated as an environmental impact), drains and excess wastes: these wouldn't necessarily impact employees, so it's important to not limit one's focus on the direct human impact, for example from the release of fumes at a welding operation.

It depends on the nature of operations and thus varies from one industry to another whether or not the environmental aspects will impact the employees. e.g. the emissions from the major stacks (with adequate height & linked to major equipments), in all probability, will not effect the employees and the discharges are likely to drop in the outer environment. But, in a large manufacturing plant, for instance, there may be (are) several other smaller stacks connected to small bag filters meant to control the fugitive emissions mostly at the 'transfer points' on the material (powdery) conveying systems. These bag filters (de-dusting equipment) do have stacks but not too high to cause the discharges drop out of the premises. The employees are likely to be impacted by such emissions.

There may be certain abnormal conditions beyond operator's control, e.g failure of a control mechanism causing excessive emissions to air mostly within the working area. Such outbreaks do adversely impact the health of affected employees.

Similarly, again depending on the nature of operations and citing of the industry, it may not be allowable to discharge out the effluent into sewers or elsewhere and as such, it has to be appropriately treated beforehand and used 'in house' may be for secondary purposes or plantation etc.. Such effluents, before, after or during the treatment, can have the potential to harm the employees.

I certainly agree that the employees may or may not be directly benefited from the controls against the env. impacts.

Good thoughts for discussion, expecting more involvement of experts

Hello covers

Is it necessary to consider the influence of environmental aspects on the health of operator (Employee, who is directly engaged in technological processes or service) or the environmental aspects should be considered as influencing only on the personnel being out of the system?In a narrow and strict "conformity" approach to ISO 14001, no, you would not need to consider an operator's health and well being, because it is outside of the "scope" of ISO 14001.

Having said that, show me an organization that is pursuing ISO 14001 and disregarding the health and well being of their workforce and I will show you an organization that is only interested in shameless self promotion.

In a narrow and strict "conformity" approach to ISO 14001, no, you would not need to consider an operator's health and well being, because it is outside of the "scope" of ISO 14001.

Having said that, show me an organization that is pursuing ISO 14001 and disregarding the health and well being of their workforce and I will show you an organization that is only interested in shameless self promotion.

It doesn't appear to be outside of the "scope" of ISO 14001. My justification is as under:

1. Annex-A (A 3.1) ".......the approach selected could for example consider (among others)
f) energy emitted, e.g. heat, radiation, vibration,

The impacts related to emission of energy in the form of noise, heat, radiation, vibration etc., have little or nothing to do with the environment but to the human beings close to the source - often employees.The organization has to address their impacts , on priority, if being significant on its own scale.

2. An organization has to determine how it's Legal & other requirements apply to its environment aspects. Here I would like to quote a real example. In our case, we had to pass through a public consultation process before obtaining Air & Water permits and Environment Clearance as per Union laws (and I suppose the same process is also prevalent in most, if not all countries). During the public meeting, one of the conditions of the communities living nearby our plants & quarries was to ensure health & well being of the employees (most employees belong to local populace). The concerned regulatory authorities put it as a 'requirement' in the permit and called for a detailed action plan of how the organization would accomplish this requirement.

Since the above instance is related to EMS, it has to be accounted for as 'Environmental Aspects' and accordingly their impacts need to be addressed accordingly. Ofcourse, one is allowed to consider them under the OHSAS but what If one doesn't have subscribed to it, just curious to know, where would one account for those?

I haven't scrolled right to the bottom of all the posts but just wanted to say 4801, which is often run alongside 14001, covers health of workers particulary so in my local juridiction where OH&S laws require it.

But then its interesting that "noise" considered under the worker health requirements on site, should it escape off site, is often referred to as "environmental noise"?

Is that noise escaping off site considered "nuisance" or "health" risk?

I haven't scrolled right to the bottom of all the posts but just wanted to say 4801, which is often run alongside 14001, covers health of workers particulary so in my local juridiction where OH&S laws require it.

But then its interesting that "noise" considered under the worker health requirements on site, should it escape off site, is often referred to as "environmental noise"?

Is that noise escaping off site considered "nuisance" or "health" risk?

Marty,

For the benefit of our (international) Members, are you referring to AS/NZS 4801:2001 (http://www.saiglobal.com/PDFTemp/Previews/OSH/as/as4000/4800/4801.pdf) and ISO 14001:2004 (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31807)?

Stijloor.

My apologies Stijloor.

That's a yes.