|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
 The Old Elsmar Cove Forums
 ISO 14001 And Other Environmental Specs
 ISO 14001
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: ISO 14001 |
|
Woraphot Forum Contributor Posts: 16 |
posted 01 November 1999 04:12 AM
   
I am working ISO-14001 EMS, I am looking for some example format of environmental aspect analysis and rating system to identify any activities that can have a significant environment impact. Your suggestion would be appreciate. Thanks, IP: Logged |
|
Jon Shaver Forum Contributor Posts: 38 |
posted 01 November 1999 08:27 AM
You should use your own criteria. Provided they are credible, you will better understand them & they will be "yours". As a suggestion, consider the "risk" of an event/aspect as a function of its "likelihood" of occuring & the "severity" of its consequences (impact). You could rate each & then use a simple function (multiply the two ratings, for example) to get a priority ranking. For instance, aspect = large hazardous chemical release severity = 8 (scale of 1 to 10) likelihood = 5 (scale 1 to 10) risk = 40 aspect = excessive amount of "X" in stormwater runoff severity = 4 likelihood = 6 risk = 24 aspect = total loss of contents of a storge tank severity = 10 likelihood = 1 risk = 10 #1 above has the greatest risk. Its often quite arbitrary, but if its based on credible evidence the method works well. Jon IP: Logged |
|
Randy Forum Wizard Posts: 228 |
posted 01 November 1999 10:54 AM
Jon is pretty much right on from everything I have seen. There is no standard way of weighing aspects that I know of unless the Europeans or Japanese have one. You may try looking at those groups. They have their act together more than us sophisticated Americans in the 14000 world. IP: Logged |
|
Jon Shaver Forum Contributor Posts: 38 |
posted 01 November 1999 01:32 PM
There are some rather sophisticated ways to identify & measure risks being used by us slobs in USA, but they are mostly exercises in academia. In the real world simple works best & devising your own (credible) rating criteria is the practical way to go. IP: Logged |
|
Randy Forum Wizard Posts: 228 |
posted 01 November 1999 03:05 PM
No argument from me. 4.3.1 The organization shall establish and maintain.......... The way I look at it is the way it's stated in the standard. The "organization" can use a method like the one you described, a Ouija board, or chicken bones dropped from a bag onto the ground. How it is done is optional. Establishing and maintaining the system is all that's mandatory. IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 01 November 1999 08:51 PM
For our registered system, we simply counted up the number of each type of waste e.g. solid refuse, air pollutant, water pollutant, etc. and established a pie chart that broke aspects down into a percent of our overall waste. We then attacked the biggest item the first year, the second biggest the second year {while keeping the 1st program going}. Forcing continual improvement, it works great, simple yes, easy to understand yes, easy for people on the floor to understand yes, easy to put into place yes, All these yes answers made the choice easy for us. Dean Hill [This message has been edited by pdboilermaker (edited 01 November 1999).] IP: Logged |
|
Randy Forum Wizard Posts: 228 |
posted 01 November 1999 10:49 PM
Makes sense to me. You guys came up with your own system, it works and you can quantify it. I smell conformity in the air. IP: Logged |
|
Woraphot Forum Contributor Posts: 16 |
posted 02 November 1999 02:36 AM
Thanks Jon, Randy and pdboilermaker for your suggestion to give some idea of analysis. I hope that I could start the EMS with nice shot. Thanks, IP: Logged |
|
Jon Shaver Forum Contributor Posts: 38 |
posted 02 November 1999 08:16 AM
Personally I like Randy's chicken bones idea. So long as your method(s) for evaluating env'l aspects is appropriate for your operations and has a valid scientific basis you should be OK. Auditors / Registrars are getting anal about the science involved, though, so you may want to get a qualified expert opinion to support your basis. PD - remember that waste is not the only env'l aspect in most organizations. Jon [This message has been edited by Jon Shaver (edited 02 November 1999).] IP: Logged |
|
Randy Forum Wizard Posts: 228 |
posted 02 November 1999 09:22 AM
That's right Jon about waste not being the only aspect. Most people though are not thinking 3 dimensionally when trying to identify aspects. It even happened at one of my employers other locations. About the anal thing. I'm pretty sure your right, and I am very vocal about this. Even at this time from what I gather, a majority of the 14000 auditors out there working for registrars, are not environmental professionals. Some may have a smathering of training but thats it. I consider myself a professional. I hold 2 credentials (1 granted by the Cal. EPA, and not counting my EMS-PA) in the environmental field. I've been working in the environmental field in California for 10 years. I've worked on developing a Risk Management Plan (CAA 112(r)) and all kinds of other neat stuff. I'm not an expert, but I know my way around 40CFR and Cal. Title 22. Nobody in the ISO 14000 world cares because I'm not an EMS-LA. I have nothing worthwhile to contribute. I think I have referenced this line of thought before. Sooner or later somebody with a certificate is going to step in it. And in my opinion whoever stated that the EMS was conforming to the 14000 standard, without a good professional involved in the process, was in error. Be that is it may, how are things? IP: Logged |
|
Jon Shaver Forum Contributor Posts: 38 |
posted 02 November 1999 09:30 PM
Randy - seems we share a lot of interests and opinions. I agree with your thoughts about auditors working with Registrars and have come to the conclusion that most companies out there do too. Using a QMS auditor to deal with scientific matters just isn't practical. This, IMHO, is the main reason why ISO14001 has not taken hold here. Like you, I've done a fair amount of RMP work - there's still a few places that need help - & have developed a useful approach to process safety management & emergency planning. Starting to get some interest in ISO14001. I'm a PAuditor for EMS & QMS & accredited EMS trainer, but don't really count those qualifications for much. Too bad we live on opposite coasts, but if there's ever an opportunity here or there lets talk. Jon IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
UBB 5.45c
Main Site Search 
