Not another thread about what Environmental Aspects are...

[somashekar]

The point of having this here is to make sure that organisations know not only what legislation applies but how it is relevant to the environmental aspect. It doesn't create significance by itself.

In all agreement with the post # 10.
An aspect can be significant from one or more points, however it is for the organization and to its benefit from an EMS to pick an aspect as significant if and when legislation applies to it (touches it). Even without an EMS thought, still legal requirements are an applicable area and the organization must be managing this. EMS brings management attention and considering all such legal requirements that touches as significant brings the required focus to the management.

 

[F2Andy]

If a process is broken down into activities, it becomes easier to identify the environmental aspects related to all the activities separately so that nothing gets skipped. You should identify each of the aspects (however big or small) related to each of the activities you carry out within the scope of your EMS and then determine their significance based on your own criteria.

Jumping baxk to this early comment, would you then have (say) an electricity usage for each activity, a water usage activity usage for each activity, or would you have electricity usage aspect that covers the whole site, a water usage that covers the whole site?

I have now seen an external audit report and we got pulled up for sub-dividing too much.

 

[NumberCruncher]

Jumping baxk to this early comment, would you then have (say) an electricity usage for each activity, a water usage activity usage for each activity, or would you have electricity usage aspect that covers the whole site, a water usage that covers the whole site?

I have now seen an external audit report and we got pulled up for sub-dividing too much.

Hi F2Andy

From the point of view of costs, it's useful to break down each activity as much as possible. You may find that you can save money by carrying out an energy intensive process at a time when electricity charges are low (you don't say where you are from, but here in the UK there is 'off peak' electricity which is charged at a lower rate than 'peak' time electricity).

From the environmental point of view, electricity is electricity. Air conditioning or heat treatment, it's all just power.

The water is a bit different. Here, both the content of the water and the volumes should be considered.

You will have a drain system for toilets, sinks, showers. If you you are a manufacturing plant, you will have a separate drain system for industrial waste water. The two must be treated separately.

Perhaps it's useful to ask, 'what crosses the site boundary?'

It doesn't matter if you use gas for cooking, or melting metal, it will produce CO2 which leaves the site. The same is true for electricity. 10MW for cooking or melting metal, it comes from the same wires and produces the same amount of CO2, nuclear waste, dead birds caught in wind turbines...

Solid and liquid wastes can more easily be broken down into processes and once again there can be cost benefits from the environmental analysis. Can you get a special waste collection for just paper and cardboard waste which is then sent for recycling? You can save (hopefully) save money by recycling, and you get Brownie points, sorry, I mean show that you are trying to make a positive environmental choice.

I'm afraid there is only so much general guidance that can be given. Ultimately, you will have to make a value judgement on what level of sub-division is reasonable based on your process.

NC

 

[samsung]

Jumping baxk to this early comment, would you then have (say) an electricity usage for each activity, a water usage activity usage for each activity, or would you have electricity usage aspect that covers the whole site, a water usage that covers the whole site?

I have now seen an external audit report and we got pulled up for sub-dividing too much.

No, it's of no use to identify an aspect, e.g. electricity usage, considering the entire site. The purpose of aspect identification is to determine the significance level which you will have to consider while setting env, objectives. The electricity usage (example) for each activity is not the same, while some activities/ processes consume negligible amount of electricity (e.g. office working) yet there may be activities/ processes consuming relatively huge amount of electricity (e.g. grinding or melting). Which one is significant (in relation to others) and which one you would like to focus at? In our plant, the electricity usage for misc. operations (air conditioning/ office working/ water supplies/ plant lighting etc.) isn't considered as a 'significant' aspect since it hardly equals <1% of the electricity consumed in the manufacturing process. So, for us the later one is highly significant and as such calls for greater attention but on the other hand, for a service industry, these misc. usage might constitute a significant proportion of their total energy bill. Significance is just a relative term and what can be significant for one process owner, may be trivial/ insignificant for another one within the same organization.

Hope this helps.

 

[Paul Simpson]

In answer to F2Andy's question I'm using samsung's reply to put a counter argument.

No, it's of no use to identify an aspect, e.g. electricity usage, considering the entire site.

Here I disagree. If the purpose of identifying an aspect is to identify what impact your organisation has on the environment then you should start at the highest level - the aggregated amount.

The purpose of aspect identification is to determine the significance level which you will have to consider while setting env, objectives. The electricity usage (example) for each activity is not the same, while some activities/ processes consume negligible amount of electricity (e.g. office working) yet there may be activities/ processes consuming relatively huge amount of electricity (e.g. grinding or melting).

Again I disagree. The purpose of aspect identification is to do an initail review of what it is your organisation does and how it can impact on the environment - a total environmental footprint, if you will. The purpose of significance evaluation is to narrow down (at the aggregated level) all of the aspects to a smaller group of significant aspects that you plan to do something about.

It is only when you have identified an aspect as significant that you need to drill down and decide which elements of consumption, waste you plan to do something about.

Which one is significant (in relation to others) and which one you would like to focus at? In our plant, the electricity usage for misc. operations (air conditioning/ office working/ water supplies/ plant lighting etc.) isn't considered as a 'significant' aspect since it hardly equals <1% of the electricity consumed in the manufacturing process. So, for us the later one is highly significant and as such calls for greater attention but on the other hand, for a service industry, these misc. usage might constitute a significant proportion of their total energy bill. Significance is just a relative term and what can be significant for one process owner, may be trivial/ insignificant for another one within the same organization.

Hope this helps.

You are right that significance is a relative term and all the factors of deciding significance come into play in the rating system. But at the end significant is also absolute. There is a binary decision 'do something' or 'do nothing.' If you decide to do something on, for example, energy usage you invest time and effort in understanding where energy is used and prioritizing areas for improvement.

If an aspect is rated as insignificant then you do not have to do anything further (until the next review when you decide if it has bubbled to the top because of changes in the landscape).

Hope this helps.

 

[Randy]

Y'all are missing the boat...electricity is not an aspect. Why? Because electricity by itself has no environmental impact, positive or negative.

What does a bucket of electricity look like?

What does a bucket electricty do when emitted into the air, poured into a river or dumped on the ground? NOTHING!

Or better yet, what does a bucket of kilowatts look like?

Guys it isn't the electricty, it's the generation of electricity and the stuff used to generate electricty (coal, oil gas, etc) that creates environmental impact. So when organizations claim electricty they need to point to their indirect contribution to environmental impact (unless they are the generator of course)

It's no interpretation and I know it's hard to swallow but all one has to do is look at the definition of environmental aspect in clause 3.6 where it very clearly says..."element of an organization's (3.16) activities or products or services that can interact with the environment (3.5)" And electricity doesn't interact

 

[samsung]

Here I disagree. If the purpose of identifying an aspect is to identify what impact your organisation has on the environment then you should start at the highest level - the aggregated amount.

Again I disagree. The purpose of aspect identification is to do an initail review of what it is your organisation does and how it can impact on the environment - a total environmental footprint, if you will. The purpose of significance evaluation is to narrow down (at the aggregated level) all of the aspects to a smaller group of significant aspects that you plan to do something about.

It is only when you have identified an aspect as significant that you need to drill down and decide which elements of consumption, waste you plan to do something about.

Yes, in the initial phase of system implementation what you mentioned is correct; i.e. aspect identification at the aggregated level but while responding to F2Andy's question, I simultaneously focused on achieving higher level objectives as well that might necessitate going down to activity (individual) levels for ease of implementation.

Thanks.

 

[samsung]

Y'all are missing the boat...electricity is not an aspect. Why? Because electricity by itself has no environmental impact, positive or negative.

What does a bucket of electricity look like?

What does a bucket electricty do when emitted into the air, poured into a river or dumped on the ground? NOTHING!

Or better yet, what does a bucket of kilowatts look like?

Guys it isn't the electricty, it's the generation of electricity and the stuff used to generate electricty (coal, oil gas, etc) that creates environmental impact. So when organizations claim electricty they need to point to their indirect contribution to environmental impact (unless they are the generator of course)

It's no interpretation and I know it's hard to swallow but all one has to do is look at the definition of environmental aspect in clause 3.6 where it very clearly says..."element of an organization's (3.16) activities or products or services that can interact with the environment (3.5)" And electricity doesn't interact

Agree.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Y'all are missing the boat...electricity is not an aspect. Why? Because electricity by itself has no environmental impact, positive or negative.<snip>

With the greatest of respect to our 'ego bubble burster in chief' no boat missed here. The aspect is usage of electricity. Per the 14004 definition of environmental aspect (3.7):

'element of an organization’s (3.20) activities or products or services that can interact with the environment (3.6)'.

So at a site level we use electricity and this does interact with the environment (via some whacking great cables that eventually end up at a power station. The biggest impact of this energy usage is the CO2 emissions from the power station.

This thread has followed the OP's example and that is all I / we are trying to do. Much as it is fun to shout out 'The Emporer has no clothes' in this case it is off base ... IMHO.

P.S. Where do you get your definitions. The references are all off compared to mine! Mind you mine is the German (DIN) edition.

 

[Paul Simpson]

So let me get this straight. In answer to F2Andy's question:

<snip>1. How big should environmental aspect be? Let me give an example: Could lab operations being an aspect, or should it be broken down into the activities in the lab (eg final product analysis), or should it be broken down by impact (eg electrical useage in the lab)? I guess one way to look at this is should this be impact-driven (look at where we affect the environment and find aspects to match) or aspect-driven (look at what we do)?]</snip>

You replied:

<snip>If a process is broken down into activities, it becomes easier to identify the environmental aspects related to all the activities separately so that nothing gets skipped. You should identify each of the aspects (however big or small) related to each of the activities you carry out within the scope of your EMS and then determine their significance based on your own criteria.</snip>

I find it difficult to reconcile that with your latest post in reply to mine when I recommended you start high and drill down if the overall impact is significant:

Yes, in the initial phase of system implementation what you mentioned is correct; i.e. aspect identification at the aggregated level but while responding to F2Andy's question, I simultaneously focused on achieving higher level objectives as well that might necessitate going down to activity (individual) levels for ease of implementation.

Thanks.

But perhaps it is me.