ISO 14001 Rookie - Paramedic as Acting EHS Coordinator needing help.

[JMireles]

Maybe it will help if I list the audit finding and tell you what I am trying to do to fix it. Then you can tell me if I am going off in the wrong direction or not.

Finding : ISO 14001, section 4.3.1 requires the organization to identify the environment aspects of it's activities, products, and existing services and taking into account planned or new developments or new modified activities, products and services that may potentially impact the environment. Not in all cases has this requirement been met, for example: potential and/or existing environmental aspects/impacts have not even been considered for the Die maintenance CNC machine and the Laser line now in production.

What I did: I went through the whole plant and wrote down everything we use and put it on an environmental Aspects Spreadsheet. I then had the managers of every department fill in anything I left out. Then I went to Quality and got their input/output on each line, part, ect and added anything environmental to the aspect sheet as well. We have a project sheet here that is used plant wide. It is for improvement projects, new projects, everything. It covers every department. I updated that sheet to include enviromental impact considerations and to list any potential positive or negative impacts from the new project. So now you can't even buy new kinds of cleaning supplies without having to fill in the environmental aspects portion of the project sheet.

Is there anything else I am missing to cover this one?

 

[Randy]

Yep....determine whether or not any of those aspects are significant based on your methodology. You're doing fine.

Now on to earlier stuff.....DANGER!

The QMS guys want seperate systems? OK so you're saying that they are wanting 2 different ways to control your company.....

documentation;

document control;

records;

competence development;

internal communication;

communication with suppliers;

audits;

corrective actions;

preventive actions;

management review,

while hopefully knowing that the requirements are nearly exactly the same? OK, so we can take cost avoidance and simplicity off the table, correct? (This isn't meant to be aimed at you)

I'll go back to my previous post when I referenced personnel issues and organization attitude.

Just keep poking and prodding.

 

[JMireles]

This is going to sound bad but there seems to be a little animosity between departments here. It is an Us VS Them thing everywhere I turn. It sucks, but it was here long before I got here so I just have to work around it. I am using the 9001 quality manual and trying to integrate as much of the 14001 to look like it and use the same data collected from the different departments for Quality that has aspects in it too.

Like the input/output is meticulously documented for quality for every part, every line, every department. I have just been referencing that data into the EMS stuff. I don't see any point in making people do the same work twice. So I am not going to have to control those documents since I referenced them. They are already controlled by the QMS. I can just pull them for an auditor if he wants to see documentation.

Or is that allowed since the management wants 2 different systems? I don't see a problem with referencing documentation that we already have collected. Do I really need a seperate set just for EMS?

 

[Randy]

Ya know, what "they" want it doesn't make sense, but in the end who signs your check?

If they want different, give them different.

 

[JMireles]

So will the same documentation work on an EMS audit, even if it is Quality procedures and documentation?

Since ideally the systems would be integrated, that should be ok, right?

I think the QMS is looking at it like it will add more work on them to integrate EMS into it because there are extra audits, procedures, training reqs, etc.

 

[JMireles]

Also, while on the subject of aspects...

Does the human factor come into play or is that left to OSHA stuff.

I mean, if I was dumping a chemical that was killing off the bunnies it would be environmental. But if I am using a chemical in the plant that will burn your skin off if you touch it, does that fall into the same category?

 

[Randy]

Also, while on the subject of aspects...

Does the human factor come into play or is that left to OSHA stuff.

I mean, if I was dumping a chemical that was killing off the bunnies it would be environmental. But if I am using a chemical in the plant that will burn your skin off if you touch it, does that fall into the same category?

OK, now you're getting into an area where you're going to get more opinion's than you'd ever hope for so I'll just fall back and say "READ ISO 14001" ALL OF IT, NOT JUST 4.1-4.6!

Specifically and without the drama look at Section 3...the information contained in that section is just as valid as the stuff from 4.1-4.6 and in direct response to your question I'll give you the definition for "ENVIRONMENT" and "ASPECT" and let you decide what your answer is.

ISO 14001:2004

3.5
environment
surroundings in which an organization (3.16) operates, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans, and their interrelation

NOTE Surroundings in this context extend from within an organization (3.16) to the global system.

3.6
environmental aspect
element of an organization's (3.16) activities or products or services that can interact with the environment (3.5)

Also read " Annex A in ISO 14001:2004" because it contains a wealth of information. "Annex A" works like this....

A.1 = 4.1

A.2 = 4.2

A.3.1 = 4.3.1 , and so forth...The information is relevant!

Use the standard!

 

[dhammonds]

JMireles, it sounds like you are in a very rocky situation and I have to commend you for sticking through it. I'm willing to bet a $$ I know who your customer is and what their requirements are (used to work in the auto industry also). I would take a little bit of time to contact their EHS guys and ask for a little advice (if the customer is who I think, I have their info).

Unfortunately, your company also sounds a lot like my old one. My company's president knew nothing about the environment, didn't care, and would have rather done anything other than listen to our management review. He went so far as to ask how electricity reduction would help the environment!

The good though, you have come to a great place to get information. Randy pretty much knows everything about 14001, not that I said so. You sound like you are heading in the right direction. I would try to have a really good sit down with your QMS guys and offer up some trades. You said they are concerned about adding workload to them in terms of audits, help them audit their system. ISO doesn't tell you how often to audit, or how long they should take, or how to do it. See if you can piggy back some of your audit systems on the QMS. Even though your management group said they want to keep the programs separate, it doesn't sound like they care a whole lot to check.

 

[SteelMaiden]

I'm a little behind the curve here, but wanted to add about integration of the systems....You can keep the two systems separate, but still use the same procedures that have overlap. i.e. document control, management review, and all the rest.

IMHO, Shame on your QMS people for not helping you out more. I have always taken the stance that I am better off to help someone in an area outside of mine where my expertise can make them look better, because it makes me look better. Kind of like those managers that hire incompetents thinking that it will make them look smarter, when in truth, the manager who hire folks smarter in their individual areas ends up looking like the hero becuase his dept gets things done.

BTW, our QMS and EMS are two separate programs, run by two separate MRs, but we share many policies/procedures (actually linking into each others websites for many documents). It doesn't cause me any more work.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I talked with Quality and my managers about integrating the 2 systems. That was actually one of the suggestions from the auditor. They don't want to do that. They want to keep things seperate.

Is there anything else I am missing to cover this one?

You are to be commended for your efforts, but how can you implement or make any significant changes to a MANAGEMENT system if the managers responsible for the system don't cooperate? Even ideals have limitations and many succumb to structural chronic organizational dysfunction. I am not telling you to give up, but open your eyes to where you need to focus the effort, IF you are to succeed. Best of luck to you.