ISO 14001 Aspect and Impact Assessment - Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts

[Luke Hannant]

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)????

[Claes Gefvenberg]

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

/Claes

[Luke Hannant]

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???

[Randy Stewart]

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?

[Luke Hannant]

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...

[Randy Stewart]

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!!!!
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.

[Claes Gefvenberg]

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

[Randy]

Too many Randy's here

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.