Auto Parts Warehousing Facility ISO 14001 Significant Aspects

[insect warfare]

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

The phrase is intended to represent aspects that already have, or have the potential to have, significant impact(s) on the environment (a.k.a. the surroundings in which the organization operates, which may extend beyond the organization). It should not be misconstrued as ?we don?t have to have significant aspects because we control everything good?. That would make 4.3.1 an escape clause to all organizations, and render it useless. The paragraph is in there for a reason ? to require that the organization determines those aspects/impacts which are ?significant? to them. Even the most environmentally-responsible companies have established viable methods of determining what is significant to them.

Read up on the guidance section A.3.1 in ISO 14001 and (if you have it) section 4.3.1 of ISO 14004, and you?ll know what I?m talking about.

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

To be more precise, significance criteria can be applied to either environmental aspects or their associated impacts, but in most cases it is applied to impacts. If an aspect has (or is going to have) a significant impact, then that aspect becomes ?significant? by proxy. It is a cause-effect relationship. If the impact is the ?effect?, then the aspect is the reason for that effect. If that aspect is deemed significant enough to me, I will most certainly take it into consideration. I may not have to take action on it, but at least I?ll know how significant it is because I established criteria to classify or rank it.

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....

That?s a rather myopic view if one is attempting to maintain a ?well-controlled? EMS. What about products and services, not to mention normal and abnormal operating conditions, start-up and shut-down conditions, and reasonably foreseeable emergency situations? What about legal and other requirements, or new/changed objectives? That considerably widens the field for aspect/impact hunting purposes.

And yes, the organization must know which of their identified aspects/impacts are more significant in relation to others. That is what enables them to prioritize their efforts - plain and simple.

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....

But if they don?t have a process to continually search for and identify aspects/impacts, then ? like Andy said ? they?ll be ?falling asleep at the wheel?. Time itself happens to be a very crucial factor that can change many elements of an organization, and ? like a volcanic eruption ? can quickly change the landscape if they are not mindful of the consequences. Ergo, that organization must determine appropriate levels of significance of the elements it identifies as being important to the EMS ? there?s no two ways about it. The ANAB document that I linked in post #6 is straight from the horse's mouth.

Brian

 

[insect warfare]

Also see this thread for a more lively discussion on the subject....

Brian

 

[kgott]

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.

I suggest that you consider issues such as:

hydrocarbon emmission from leaks in trucks and cars on the hard stand and parking areas leaching into the stormwater run off drains
hydrocarbon releases from fractured broken containers in the storage facility finding their way into the stormwater drains
wasted paper
contaminated waste container disposal
wastage of electricity
scrap materials
etc

 

[TRD00001]

But then again Brian... quoting again the ANAB ACCREDITATION RULE 13...

"An organization must identify the environmental aspects and impacts that have a higher value, significance or importance and use there resultant aspects and impacts to appropriately address the requirements of the standard for objectives and targets..."


As I was explaining... It does not require you to have a significant aspect... But rather you should properly identify the environmental aspects and impacts of your operation and activities.... If there will be no significant aspect based on your established rating... you should have a way to prioritize or formulate environmental objectives and targets... and this could be based on the 80/20 rule in ratings the company was able to get in the aspects and impacts....

You can not find any rule or interpretion in any accrediting body or certifying body that will require an organization to have a significant aspect...

But rather you should have a basis for establishing your environmental objectives and targets...

The phrase is intended to represent aspects that already have, or have the potential to have, significant impact(s) on the environment (a.k.a. the surroundings in which the organization operates, which may extend beyond the organization). It should not be misconstrued as ?we don?t have to have significant aspects because we control everything good?. That would make 4.3.1 an escape clause to all organizations, and render it useless. The paragraph is in there for a reason ? to require that the organization determines those aspects/impacts which are ?significant? to them. Even the most environmentally-responsible companies have established viable methods of determining what is significant to them.

Read up on the guidance section A.3.1 in ISO 14001 and (if you have it) section 4.3.1 of ISO 14004, and you?ll know what I?m talking about.



To be more precise, significance criteria can be applied to either environmental aspects or their associated impacts, but in most cases it is applied to impacts. If an aspect has (or is going to have) a significant impact, then that aspect becomes ?significant? by proxy. It is a cause-effect relationship. If the impact is the ?effect?, then the aspect is the reason for that effect. If that aspect is deemed significant enough to me, I will most certainly take it into consideration. I may not have to take action on it, but at least I?ll know how significant it is because I established criteria to classify or rank it.



That?s a rather myopic view if one is attempting to maintain a ?well-controlled? EMS. What about products and services, not to mention normal and abnormal operating conditions, start-up and shut-down conditions, and reasonably foreseeable emergency situations? What about legal and other requirements, or new/changed objectives? That considerably widens the field for aspect/impact hunting purposes.

And yes, the organization must know which of their identified aspects/impacts are more significant in relation to others. That is what enables them to prioritize their efforts - plain and simple.



But if they don?t have a process to continually search for and identify aspects/impacts, then ? like Andy said ? they?ll be ?falling asleep at the wheel?. Time itself happens to be a very crucial factor that can change many elements of an organization, and ? like a volcanic eruption ? can quickly change the landscape if they are not mindful of the consequences. Ergo, that organization must determine appropriate levels of significance of the elements it identifies as being important to the EMS ? there?s no two ways about it. The ANAB document that I linked in post #6 is straight from the horse's mouth.

Brian

 

[Sidney Vianna]

From the U.S. Technical Advisory Group to ISO/Technical Committee 207 Clarification of Intent of ISO 14001:2004:

Question
Is it permissible for a small organization to declare that they have no Significant Aspects and still be conformant to the ISO 14001 standard?

Answer
Although there is no explicit requirement in ISO 14001 that an organization will identify one or more significant environmental aspects, there is an underlying assumption that the organization will do so. The intent of the requirement to determine those aspects that an organization considers significant is to enable the organization to focus attention and resources on its most important environmental aspects, recognizing that not all aspects require or deserve the same degree of management. ISO 14001 does not define “significance” nor does it identify any external or absolute standard for what will be considered significant. Significance is intended to be a relative term. What is significant for one organization may not be for another, and what an organization considers a significant aspect may change over time. The use of ‘significance’ in ISO 14001 was intended to be an aid in managing a range of environmental aspects.

There is no special category of requirements in ISO 14001 for “small” organizations. The requirements for an ISO 14001 EMS, including those regarding significant aspects, are intended to apply to “…all types and sizes of organizations…”

 

[gstewart]

Following on from the identification of a significant aspect, it must be considered when formulating targets and objectives, but is that to say a target or objective must be found for that aspect.
At my workplace one of the highest rating aspects at my workplace, is the presence of a cooling tower, which presents the risk of Legionella virus. Since this can cause death the rpn is high.
However the company is satisfied that the tower is being managed appropriately according to legislation and best practise, so it is very difficult to find any ongoing improvements.
The only thing I have is to completely replace the equipment with different technology, ( would be great but someone has to pay for it ).

Is it OK to note that "this aspect has been considered but no suitable objectives have been identified "?

Most objectives we are able to implement relate to non-significant aspects. For example we have a project to reduce workplace noise , even though it is not a significant aspect from an environmental point of view.

 

[Randy]

Significance has nothing to do with level of control, legal, pollution or any of the other stuff being passed around.....

Significance means looking at everything you have, use, make, emit, cause ....or could have, use, make, emit, cause, and then taking a look at them using whatever criteria you choose including how people feel about something....In your opinion what's important to you?

Something has to be more important than something else. Nobody can say that you're wrong and there doesn't have to be any science involved in the process.... If nothing more, toss Yahtzee dice and whatever comes up with the highest number becomes significant

Get past it, pick something and move on. It can be significant for the next 20 years

 

[insect warfare]

But then again Brian... quoting again the ANAB ACCREDITATION RULE 13...

"An organization must identify the environmental aspects and impacts that have a higher value, significance or importance and use there resultant aspects and impacts to appropriately address the requirements of the standard for objectives and targets..."


As I was explaining... It does not require you to have a significant aspect... But rather you should properly identify the environmental aspects and impacts of your operation and activities.... If there will be no significant aspect based on your established rating... you should have a way to prioritize or formulate environmental objectives and targets... and this could be based on the 80/20 rule in ratings the company was able to get in the aspects and impacts....

You can not find any rule or interpretion in any accrediting body or certifying body that will require an organization to have a significant aspect...

But rather you should have a basis for establishing your environmental objectives and targets...

Have you read the bold red statement you quoted above? How much clearer does it get than that? You must identify "significant"....If my company's worst aspect is that our small supply of cardboard boxes are trashed rather than recycled, then that becomes "significant" to us, regardless of whether or not we can control or influence it. Maybe we can't do anything about it because doing so would not be cost-effective - but at least I've identified it. So what if doesn't hurt Bambi - it is still "significant" and I've evaluated it and moved on.

The point I keep trying to driving home here is that significance is relative. In fact, it really doesn't matter what one calls "significant" as long as it is clearly understood, can be justified through explanation, and that it is existent and people are aware of its status.

Maybe your hang-up here is the terminology I keep referring to as "significant" or "aspects". Significant aspects (or impacts) can be called a variety of things, such as:

1) More important
2) Of higher value
3) Noteworthy
4) Considerable
5) Critical
6) Serious
(and so on and so forth)

And these things should obviously take precedence over the following, respectively:

1) Not so important
2) Of lesser value
3) Not worth mentioning
4) Trivial
5) Stable
6) Minor
(and so on and so forth)

While I tend to agree with you on everything else from your posts, an organization must still determine what "significance" (or whatever you want to call it) means to them and identify what falls into that category or they simply cannot claim conformity to ISO 14001. If a CB circumvents this by allowing otherwise, they are not in conformity with ANAB's rules (provided there is enough objective evidence to make such a claim).

Something has to be more important than something else.

E=MC2 if you ask me....The whole concept of significance is built on this simple premise - define it and show that you can prove it.

Brian

 

[gstewart]

One problem is that continual improvement gets to a point of diminishing returns.
Yes if you have a mine site, you can probably keep at it for 100 years and still do good work, but If you have an office, you will go crazy continually trying to find more efficient light globes over and over and generally spend more time on it than you should be. ( Can be similar for some aspects of quality assurance ).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If nothing more, toss Yahtzee dice and whatever comes up with the highest number becomes significant

I am sorry to say, but that is the kind of advice that gives auditors and consultants a bad rep. For 4 times now, we have had exchanges about the importance of the environmental impact significance assessment process being sound. For example, in the CB auditor questioning procedure for Identification of Aspects and Impacts? thread and, you insist that the organization can use whatever mickeymouse criteria they want. That is the kind of advice that leads to underperforming EMS's and people end up questioning the value of standards and certificates.

That is the kind of advice that belittles the work of many professional consultants and auditors. If an organization can not devise a MEANINGFUL significance evaluation criteria, they don't understand the basic premise of an EMS. Expected outcomes from an accredited ISO 14001 certificate.

Throwing dice is NOT an acceptable criteria.