How to control aspects related to natural resource depletion?

[samsung]

Certain significant aspects such as Global warming, consumption of (natural) raw material etc. are 'unavoidable' yet difficult to be put under some 'reasonable' control since 'depletion' cannot be avoided as long as it serves the business needs.

In effect, I don't find a way to substantially bring down the severity level (by reducing or atleast not allowing to increase resource usage) of such aspects and that is the reason I have put this problem here. However, I believe that 'wastage' can always be (& must be) avoided.

Look at the following aspect which is critical to our or any such business operations:

Activity : Cement Production
Env. Aspect : Consumption of natural resources like coal, limestone, gypsum etc.

Impact : Global warming (generation of CO2 from coal & limestone) & depletion of natural resources, degradation of natural landscaping etc.

Existing controls (on energy usage): 1. Use of best available manufacturing equipment & technology
2. Energy performance Benchmarking against the industry giants & achieving reduction in energy consumption year by year
3. Partial use of carbon neutral alternative fuels (replacing coal).
3. Competent & energy savvy staff etc. etc.

(In so far, consumption of raw materials is concerned, their can be no control since certain quantities of them are always required. e.g. in general, 1.40 MT of limestone will always be required to produce one ton of cement wherever it is produced. Even if it is somehow replaced by some other additive, the aspect will replicate itself somewhere else.)

Severity : Still Very high & thus highly significant

My question is - How can such & similar other aspects be controlled in order that the intent & stated requirements of ISO 14001 are truly satisfied ? or the intent of standard is somewhat different than what I have interpreted it to be?

Your valuable inputs will certainly help me to learn more & more.

Regards,

 

[Randy]

I'm curious about where and how you determined you had to control an "aspect" because 14001 doesn't require it. Controls (4.4.6) are required for significant aspects...Is that what you mean?

 

[samsung]

I'm curious about where and how you determined you had to control an "aspect" because 14001 doesn't require it. Controls (4.4.6) are required for significant aspects...Is that what you mean?

Yes, surely. I am interested to know about the controls needed for Significant aspects only (like above) as required by 14001.

Regards,

 

[meo786]

Dear,

yes, that is also a problem where the manufacturing processes are involved.

Best approach is that:

First to control from source
Second to change the alternative method (if possible)
Third & last it to show your commitment to word improvment by planning on best possible ways.

Certain significant aspects such as Global warming, consumption of (natural) raw material etc. are 'unavoidable' yet difficult to be put under some 'reasonable' control since 'depletion' cannot be avoided as long as it serves the business needs.

In effect, I don't find a way to substantially bring down the severity level (by reducing or atleast not allowing to increase resource usage) of such aspects and that is the reason I have put this problem here. However, I believe that 'wastage' can always be (& must be) avoided.

Look at the following aspect which is critical to our or any such business operations:

Activity : Cement Production
Env. Aspect : Consumption of natural resources like coal, limestone, gypsum etc.

Impact : Global warming (generation of CO2 from coal & limestone) & depletion of natural resources, degradation of natural landscaping etc.

Existing controls (on energy usage): 1. Use of best available manufacturing equipment & technology
2. Energy performance Benchmarking against the industry giants & achieving reduction in energy consumption year by year
3. Partial use of carbon neutral alternative fuels (replacing coal).
3. Competent & energy savvy staff etc. etc.

(In so far, consumption of raw materials is concerned, their can be no control since certain quantities of them are always required. e.g. in general, 1.40 MT of limestone will always be required to produce one ton of cement wherever it is produced. Even if it is somehow replaced by some other additive, the aspect will replicate itself somewhere else.)

Severity : Still Very high & thus highly significant

My question is - How can such & similar other aspects be controlled in order that the intent & stated requirements of ISO 14001 are truly satisfied ? or the intent of standard is somewhat different than what I have interpreted it to be?

Your valuable inputs will certainly help me to learn more & more.

Regards,

 

[samsung]

Dear,

yes, that is also a problem where the manufacturing processes are involved.

Best approach is that:

First to control from source
Second to change the alternative method (if possible)
Third & last it to show your commitment to word improvment by planning on best possible ways.

Thanks for the response. As suggested by you, these measures could be directly applied to risks associated with OHS hazards but in case of environment, it could have only been possible if the aspects were related to pollution. Real problem is with the raw materials (natural resources) which are directly sourced from the mines where controls can only be exercised on prevention of wastage such that no usable minerals are landfilled or dumped in waste yards thus ensuring maximum recovery of the useful minerals.

Second option - yes, one should always opt for the best available technology & human resource as long as resource utilization is under question.

Third is planning in the best possible way or planning for the best outcome - again yes, it adds to reduce rejects, rework, conservation of resources & increased productivity.

But even after adopting the best of the best, one can only marginally reduce the 'depletion' after scientifically consuming majority of the resources.

How can one compensate for the damage one has caused to the physical environment by way of making use of natural resources (of course for a legitimate business) ?

I am sorry if my question appears too philosophical.

Regards,

 

[Randy]

Well unless you are doing the mining or are generating the energy yourself all you can be reasonably expected to do is develop ways to control your indirect environmental impact.

You're getting too deep and are over complicating the whole process. You gotta take 1 of 3 steps. If you can't do #1 then try #2. If #2 isn't going to happen that only leaves #3....And that's all you're required to do.

1. control

2. influence

3 forget it

 

[samsung]

Well unless you are doing the mining or are generating the energy yourself all you can be reasonably expected to do is develop ways to control your indirect environmental impact.

You're getting too deep and are over complicating the whole process. You gotta take 1 of 3 steps. If you can't do #1 then try #2. If #2 isn't going to happen that only leaves #3....And that's all you're required to do.

1. control

2. influence

3 forget it

Thank you sir. I wholeheartedly expected a response from you. This is a good piece of advice. In our case, we are involved in mining as well as power generation from the captive sources and that's why are left with fewer options.

I too feel that it is too deep to think beyond simplicity. One more question :

Can we define the aspect as "Over consumption of natural resources.....instead of 'Consumption of natural.............' so that we can reasonably demonstrate controls by exercising these and other possible measures.

Or is it permissible to live with 'HIGH severity' aspects like above with all possible controls as suggested ? We have also mentioned in our procedure that 'if the severity can't be reduced after implementing all possible and available measures, the task will be performed (7/24) under expert supervision.' By expert supervision, we mean competent persons such as qualified / certified engineers & geologists.

Does it satisfy the requirements ?

Regards,

 

[Randy]

You have the freedom to use whatever terminology is useful or beneficial to you, all you need to make sure of is that you can define your own terminology so others can understand it. Contrary to what many here may say about it, you do not have to base significance upon any legal criteria, from some science based process or with a Ouiga Board for that matter, you can identify an aspect as significant because your neighbors next door think it is important.

Remember, significance is based upon the core values of your organization with regards to an aspects potential or real impact as you've defined it.

Even though it is only a "Guidance" document ISO 14004:2004 contains very good and relevant information about how to apply clause 4.3.1 and if you don't have a copy it may benefit you to obtain one. I don't know the cost but you can get one from the ISO itself, from my employer BSI, from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and probably DNV, NQA and other CB's. While I can't give you everything I can give a small piece about "significance" from 14004...

4.3.1.5 Determining significant environmental aspects
Significance is a relative concept; it cannot be defined in absolute terms. What is significant for one organization may not be significant for another. Evaluating significance involves applying both technical analysis and judgement by the organization. The use of criteria should help an organization to establish which environmental aspects and associated impacts it considers significant. Establishing and applying such criteria should provide consistency and reproducibility in the assessment of significance.
When establishing criteria for significance, an organization should consider
the following:
a) environmental criteria (such as scale, severity and duration of the impact, or type, size and frequency of an environmental aspect;
b) applicable legal requirements (such as emission and discharge limits in permits or regulations, etc.);
c) the concerns of internal and external interested parties (such as those related to organizational values, public image, noise, odour or visual degradation).

 

[harry]

If you are in a business that depletes natural resources, that's it - the things you can do is to reduce or mitigate further damages that such industries normally caused. Usually in the form of:
1. Erosion and Sedimentation
2. Chemical Releases if any
3. Dust Emissions
4. Habitat Modification or disturbance to eco-system
5. Surface and Groundwater

In my place, most of these are covered by legal and other requirements.

 

[samsung]

Thanks once again for a very good piece of advice & guidance. What relieves me most is

Randy;307711] You have the freedom to use whatever terminology is useful or beneficial to you, all you need to make sure of is that you can define your own terminology so others can understand it. Contrary to what many here may say about it, you do not have to base significance upon any legal criteria, from some science based process or with a Ouiga Board for that matter, you can identify an aspect as significant because your neighbors next door think it is important.

These guiding lines give me sufficient freedom to determine not only the level of significance but also the point from where we should consider it significant. Till now I used to wonder - resource depletion is a significant aspect, the severity of which cannot be reduced whatever you may do on it. Now I feel to have got relieved of the restrictions which I had imposed on myself. So now, we will continue to do whatever best we can do to control 'Over consumption' (compared to our set benchmark) of natural resources & as such we will not consider such aspects to carry High Severity.

4.3.1.5 Determining significant environmental aspects
Significance is a relative concept; it cannot be defined in absolute terms. What is significant for one organization may not be significant for another. Evaluating significance involves applying both technical analysis and judgement by the organization. The use of criteria should help an organization to establish which environmental aspects and associated impacts it considers significant. Establishing and applying such criteria should provide consistency and reproducibility in the assessment of significance.
When establishing criteria for significance, an organization should consider
the following:
a) environmental criteria (such as scale, severity and duration of the impact, or type, size and frequency of an environmental aspect;
b) applicable legal requirements (such as emission and discharge limits in permits or regulations, etc.);
c) the concerns of internal and external interested parties (such as those related to organizational values, public image, noise, odour or visual degradation).

This is very good guidance document & as guided, I am tempted to go for it. Infact I have ordered it today itself. I will go through it once I receive my copy and based on the renewed understanding I shall review the Aspect register afresh.

Best regards Sir,