I am having trouble with my aspect and impact asessment (Still!!!).

For any given process unit, I have analysed the direct impacts from that unit, waste streams, air emissions, etc.

-------------------This is where i'm getting confused --------------------

lets take a unit that uses a vast amount of energy, there are no direct air emission, from this unit. However due to the energy usage, the unit gives rise to indirect air emissions (transport, energy generation at the power station, etc.)

-------------------------- Now for the questions ---------------------------

So do I specify the indirect air emissions for this aspect, OR do I set up another aspect such as Energy Production, or Transport of the Raw material to the process Unit, and deal with the air emssions there (where they are emitted directly)????

:confused: :frust:

In the example given I'd label it as "Use of energy". (No pun intended, energy);) But that's just me... Other opinions?

/Claes

errr, nice one

With respect to indirect aspects to what detail is it expected under ISO 14001 to assess???? Would we be expected to analyse all indirect impacts to the level the direct impacts were anlysed (see below)????

------------------------- Direct Impacts ---------------------------------

For any given process unit the following DIRECT Impacts have been assessed:

Air Emissions,
Liquid Effluent,
Waste Disposal,
Land Contamination,
Noise or Vibration,
Visual Impact,
Use of Energy,
Resource Use (oils),
Resource Use (water),
Resource Use (chemicals, other raw materials),
Dust and Odour,
Abnormal and Emergency,
Start up and Shutdown

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so what do you guys think???

:frust:

IMO and how we dealt with it was to identify it as an "Indirect" so our plan would be to minimize usage so as to not cause the power station to have a greater "direct" impact - we left it at that. In other words no, they don't have to be analyzed as deeply. If you did what good would it do for your company?
:bigwave:

Thanks for your help randy,

So are you saying that once you consider an impact indirect (i.e air emissions from the power station, power station water usage), it can be left as that?? Does it need to be scored for significance??? or is that anlysing things to deeply???

Many thanks for your help, this wall i keep banging up against is getting much thinner...


:)

All we did was to ID it as indirect, there is no benefit taking it further, unless you get a kickback from the power station!!!!:vfunny:
We took our direct impacts and ranked them using a system similar to FMEA RPN's. Keep in mind, before you beat your head on the wall anymore, that all this has to fit in "YOUR" system. If you can't control it or work on controling it, it probably is outside your system. :smokin:

We took our direct impacts and ranked them using a system similar to FMEA RPN's. Keep in mind, before you beat your head on the wall anymore, that all this has to fit in "YOUR" system. If you can't control it or work on controling it, it probably is outside your system. Exactly what we did too. I should have been more specific in my reply, but Randy came to the rescue as usual...:) Good one Randy...

/Claes

Too many Randy's here:mad:

The other Randy is in the ballpark Luke. You are only required to address those that you can or can be expected to control.

Energy consuption is an aspect that has multiple indirect aspects attached to it. If you want to address it though you can get real creative.

Go to the FORD Environmental page and look at what they have done in some of the facilities. Also the folks in Claes's part of the world are very efficient at reducing energy usage.

Remember significance is determined by the organization. How you do it is your business, and what you do with it is your business too.

nice one,

Things are definately clearing up now. But I have one last niggling question, once an impact is identified as indirect, is there any specific ISO 14001 requirement to control it, if possiable???

Or would you say, since an impact is indirect, and essentially although not completly out our the companys control, not strictly required to be controlled???

I apologise if I sound like I am repeating my-self, but with your help, I am definately getting closer to understanding things.

:)

The organization shall establish and maintain (a) procedure(s) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products or services that it can control and over which it can be expected to have an influenceWhat does the excerpt of 4.3.1 say above?

That is all you are required to do.

You're doing fine.;)

You should focus on items you have control over only. You can rank and control "Energy Consumption" and this would have an effect on all of the related indirect aspects and impacts, but I would not focus on the indirects. I would rank "Energy Consumption" & Possibly break it down further into Electricity, Gas.. and rank. If any are Significant then control accordingly and consider for Objectives and Targets.

Randy is right on with the previous post.

Good luck and keep plugging away.

Brandon

Many thanks for the posts,

I finally understand. Indirect effects should still be scored for significance, and significant INDIRECT impacts controlled where possiable. nice one,

:thedeal:

Luke you're on your way. If it wasn't for questions like yours Marc wouldn't have to spend his time on something like this web site. He could spend more time coming up with different trailing eggs to bug people with!!!!:biglaugh:

I look at the same way with our system ..... Why re-invent the wheel. I have received a great deal of help from these people and enjoy helping others get their questions answered. I'm not always right, but there are plenty here that will jump in and correct it. Plus it's always good to have a different set of eyes to look at our ideas and to hear different opinions.

And Randy . . . . well what can I say, I didn't know there was another one here.:confused: I learned a long time ago that it's not a good idea to **** off a Marine!!!!!

Hoo Rah and Semper Fi!!!:bigwave:

Go to the FORD Environmental page and look at what they have done in some of the facilities. Also the folks in Claes's part of the world are very efficient at reducing energy usage. That is absolutley true... We work a lot with that.

There is a lot of fine tuning processes going on, we are on the lookout for new techniques, and above all we try to minimize rejects and scrap: As it happens that is the major reason for excessive use of resources... If we scrap something we have used resources to no avail, and have to use more in order to replace it. So, an effective QMS plays a major part here...

/Claes