Auto Parts Warehousing Facility ISO 14001 Significant Aspects

M

MARGEHURSH

We currently are a auto parts warehousing facility and continue to find it difficult to identify significant aspects. Most all of our aspects are very controlled. When scoring our aspect sheet we find it difficult to identify those signficant ones.
 
V

Vikings1

What is your question then? How do you identify significant aspects? How do you score them? What is considered a significant aspect?
 
M

MARGEHURSH

We have been ISO 14001 certified for over a year now we have had two significant aspects and have great operational control now. It is time once again to review our aspects and determine what our significants are. It is getting very hard to grade our aspects, we have good control of everything. Like I had mentioned we are a warehouse. We are excellant at recycling, its just difficult to find additional significant aspects.
 

AndyN

Moved On
We have been ISO 14001 certified for over a year now we have had two significant aspects and have great operational control now. It is time once again to review our aspects and determine what our significants are. It is getting very hard to grade our aspects, we have good control of everything. Like I had mentioned we are a warehouse. We are excellant at recycling, its just difficult to find additional significant aspects.

I'm not sure, Marge, that you have to find "significant" aspects, you have to look at your aspects and then, determine which are significant! Then, you take a look at the impacts and put your plan together. If this (aspects) hasn't changed much, then don't feel you have to go looking for something which isn't there - it can be simply a confirmation.

Sometimes, these things happen (changes in particular) over a long period - maybe a packaging material is outlawed - or a customer requires you to use returnable packaging or something. It's simply a case of not "falling asleep at the wheel", why this is in the standard...
 
V

Vikings1

Agreed. If you have not added any new or changed any established processes (ISO 14001, 4.3.1 a)) that would create/change a significant aspect, I would not worry about looking for something that is not there.
 

insect warfare

QA=Question Authority
Trusted Information Resource
We currently are a auto parts warehousing facility and continue to find it difficult to identify significant aspects. Most all of our aspects are very controlled. When scoring our aspect sheet we find it difficult to identify those signficant ones.

What you must be aware of is that, in the context of ISO 14001, significance is relative - meaning that what was once "not significant" in the past may be "significant" now. For example, people who use a FMEA approach utilize an RPN (risk priority number) threshold, which is a means by which to assign significance, and by lowering that threshold from time to time as they tackle the more serious issues, they often manage to turn once "non-significant" aspects/impacts into "more significant" ones that are always visible to management. It also demonstrates continual improvement of the EMS, and is only one of many ways to approach this process from a relativity standpoint.

This document from ANAB sums up why some aspects/impacts must always be given more significance than others, in order to be ISO 14001 compliant.

Brian :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

insect warfare

QA=Question Authority
Trusted Information Resource
Keep in mind that some environmental aspects can also have a significant positive impact, making them "significant" aspects in their own right. As such, you must identify these (where they exist) and take them into consideration at various points throughout your EMS.

Brian :rolleyes:
 

insect warfare

QA=Question Authority
Trusted Information Resource
agree with Andy...

don't push something that you don't have and not required....

It is required - every organization has significant aspects and impacts - even if the belief is contrary to the fact. An organization (if it wishes to claim conformity to ISO 14001) must determine what those aspects are (see paragraph 4.3.1b of the standard) and keep up-to-date documentation of it. As I said before, it is all about relativity. What is significant to me may not be significant to you - that is precisely why there is no definition of "significant" in the standard.

Brian :rolleyes:
 
T

TRD00001

It is required - every organization has significant aspects and impacts - even if the belief is contrary to the fact. An organization (if it wishes to claim conformity to ISO 14001) must determine what those aspects are (see paragraph 4.3.1b of the standard) and keep up-to-date documentation of it. As I said before, it is all about relativity. What is significant to me may not be significant to you - that is precisely why there is no definition of "significant" in the standard.

Brian :rolleyes:

I beg to disagree BRIAN....

ISO 14001 element 4.3.1 b states that "to determine aspects that have or can have significant impact (s) on the environment"

It does not say that you should have a "significant" aspect...

What I'm pointing out is that based on the assessment of the organization... It is not required to always have significant aspects.... It is always required to have your aspects and impacts updated based on the activites and other changes in the organization.... Also from the point of view of the thread starter... He noted that thay already have a well controlled environment based on the nature of their activity....
 
Top Bottom