iso14000-digest Thursday, February 5 1998 Volume 02 : Number 025
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:50:52 +0100
From: "Goodman, Sally"
Subject: TV & EMS
John Templeton questioned the worth of TV companies getting
certification (registration) to ISO 14001 and has provoked some very
interesting discussion.
I particularly liked and agreed with the responses from Tony Lambert,
Kay Meadows, Pall Rikhardsson and Richard Dooley, who all demonstrated
the broad mindedness of approach which is so important when considering
the possible significant aspects of an organisation.
ISO 14001 can be implemented (and subsequently certified) in any type of
organisation. A few implement the Standard for altruistic reasons, some
to realise cost savings and most, I suspect, to give them an improved
image and continued access to the global marketplace. Business benefits
of varous types are almost always obtained, so there are not many
companies I think which could say that ISO 14001 would never apply to
them. And, because of the requirement for continual improvement, the
environment will always benefit in some way.
Regards,
Sally L Goodman
Product Manager AESC, DTP 325 (DNV)
( Direct Line +47 67 57 8213
( Switchboard +47 57 67 99 00
Fax +47 57 67 97 05
* sally.goodman@dnv.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:42:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [elin.eriksson@cit.chalmers.se (Elin Eriksson)] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 06:44:04 -0500 (EST)
To: iso14000@quality.org
From: elin.eriksson@cit.chalmers.se (Elin Eriksson)
Subject: ISO 14001 and broadcasting corporations
An answer to the question of John Templeton:
At a first thought one may think that environmental aspects of offices and
of service organisations are not at all significant, compared to producing
industry. However, at a second thought you are reminded of what our largest
environmental impacts come from today:
transport electricity and heat production (used for industry, households
and other parts of the society) emissions to water from municipal waste
water treatment agriculture our consumption of all kinds of products and
services, which demand use of material resources and energy at production
and at use
A TV station does have offices, where they use computers, office paper and
other things in a more or less efficient way. By introducing an EMS system,
they become aware of the environmental aspects of their activities at the
station and which aspects that are important and which are not.
Elin Eriksson
Elin Eriksson Tel. +46-31-772 4326
CIT Ekologik Mobile: +46-(0)70-595 6590
Chalmers Indutriteknik Fax: +46-31-82 74 21
Chalmers Teknikpark eler@cit.chalmers.se
412 88 Göteborg www.ekologik.cit.chalmers.se
SWEDEN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:52:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Potter at Island Resources Foundation ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:38:44 -0500 (EST)
To: "Robert Clifford, Jr." ,
ISO14000-L
From: Potter at Island Resources Foundation
Subject: Re: cost of implementation
> By the way, they also reported an average payback
>period of 3.28 years.
Verry interesting...
During the five years I worked for the planning department of the
Exploration and Producing Division of Mobil Oil, I NEVER knew of an
approved project which had more than an 18-month payback...
bruce potter
- ---------
>Diana Baldi wrote:
>>Does anyone have any guidance on this very sensitve issue [cost
>>of ISO 14001 implementation] --especially for those just starting out?
>
>Two benchmarks that I'm aware of:
>(1) Companies reported, on average, about $187,000 is costs for ISO 9001/2
>implementation -- Dun & Bradstreet survey information published in 1996 by
>Quality Systems Update. Unfortunately, I'm unfamiliar with the survey and
>have assumed these were internal, external, and registrar costs accrued by
>some large facilities. By the way, they also reported an average payback
>period of 3.28 years.
>
>(2) Deloitte & Touche / Quality Systems Update survey of SME's, conducted
>in 1993, found on average $17,900 in consulting and training costs and
>$8,200 on registration for ISO 9001/2 -- again, I'm afraid this is
>second-hand information so I don't have any other details, other than the
>gross recepts for the survey companies was $11-million.
>
>The problem is that data is scarce -- ISO 14001 is still relatively new so
>we're extrapolating ISO 9001/2 information; the market is also new
>(consultants/registrars/trainers offering services at discount to capture
>market share or develop a project history); and most companies don't break
>out implementation costs from salary overhead, so they don't know what
>they've spent.
>
>A second problem is that costs are variable, depending on -- the
>sophistication of the existing EMS; the degree to which the work is done
>"in-house" or by consultants; the scope of the EMS; and, all the other
>factors that make projects unique.
>
>I'll add one thing, which speaks to Ms. Baldi's question and the earlier
>debate between in-house vs. consultants. There is no such thing as a
>consultant-prepared EMS, practically or altruistically speaking. An EMS is
>only a tool -- even if signed, sealed and delivered by a consultant in a
>big honking binder, it is up to the client company to then use it to
>improve environmental performance and gain competitive advantage. If the
>client company fails to take a hand in its development, a generic EMS
>probably won't enable it to accomplish these goals.
>
>By the way, my informal benchmark for in-house vs. consultant effort is 3:1
>-- if a consultant expends $20,000 (see #2, above) in effort, the client
>company should expect to incur $60,000 in internal effort (that's close to
>one-half a year for three members of the implementation team) ! My ratio
>is derived from my experience and the traditional division of
>student:professor effort, which I apply to the college course I teach. I
>lecture for 3 hours and expect students to study/do homework an additional
>9 hours. Now, if that "sticker shock" shys companies away from pursuing an
>EMS, it's probably for the best.
>
>Robert Clifford, Jr., Vice President
>ISO Environmental Consultancy, Inc.
>1103 Glenwood Blvd.
>Schenectady NY 12308-2503
>518-393-3392
>clifford@quality.org
>--< 25 Years of Environmental Service to Small Tropical Islands >--<
Island Resources Foundation |+|Island Resources Foundation
6296 Estate Nazareth, No. 11 |+|1718 "P" Street NW, Suite T-4
St. Thomas, VI 00802-1104 |+|Washington, DC 20036
phone 340/775-6225,fax 779-2022 |+|phone 202/265-9712,fax 232-0748
Internet: |+|
>---< Check the Island Resources Web Site at http://www.irf.org/ >---<
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:54:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Michael Snider ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:46:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Snider
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Re: cost of implementation
On 01/29 6:33 PM, Diana Baldi wrote:
Several companies have requested information on costs of implementation.
There are many ways to "count". Please share your experiences on how
you've estimated costs and ways management has responded to those projected
or actual costs... Does anyone have any guidance on this very sensitve issue--especially for those just starting out?
Rather than sharing our costs in implementing ISO 14001 (I'm sure others
have figures just as good and will share them), I'd like to make an
additional observation. During our implementation the "cost-benefit" of
implementing the standard was much discussed, and costs were often used as
a reason not to implement, but the discussion overlooked an important
fact:
You can't do a useful cost-benefit analysis of implementation if you don't
know the true costs of the alternative (do nothing)!
Since many companies do not do a good job of environmental cost
accounting, and do not know what it really costs them to maintain
compliance, you can't quantify the savings produced. Others on this list
have pointed out that those costs include the salaries of the
environmental staff, costs from inefficient waste/effluent/emmissions
management, and time wasted by management on handling hot environmental
issues. The latter can be staggering if a situation involving public
attention arises.
I agree that its important to know the up front costs, both explicit and
implicit, but we need to recognize that the hidden costs of not
implementing an EMS can be substantial.
Michael Snider
e-mail: sniderm@wv.doe.gov
Tel: 716-942-2024
Fax: 716-942-2000
West Valley Nuclear Services
MS-AOC-16
10282 Rock Springs Road
West Valley, NY 14171-0191
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:54:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Taylor_Abel@cargill.com] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:07:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Taylor_Abel@cargill.com
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Environmental Aspects
I work in an industrial plant, and I am wondering if anyone has some
resources or can provide some guidance how to develop and identify
environmental aspects and associated environmental impacts.
What sources exist (besides the short list in the 14001 standard) that
show examples of env aspects and env impacts?
I am currently developing my list by defining the aspects & impacts
associated with each major piece of equipment, i.e. storage tank,
dryer, burner, reactor, etc...
Is this a good method? Should I choose larger or smaller systems?
Thanks for your help.
Taylor Abel
Environmental Engineer
Cargill Fert.
ph#: 941-534-9615
email: taylor_abel@cargill.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:07:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Fergus Charlton ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:14:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Fergus Charlton
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Re: ISO 14001 and broadcasting corporations
>John Templeton wrote:
>
> Hello all. Am I the only one that was knocked back into his chair by this
> simple question? No offense intended toward Mr. Rikhardsson, but to quote
> Susan Pouter "stop the madness".
>
> Why would a T.V. station even consider registration to this standard?
As the environmental manager for a chemical company I agree with John.
However as a budding entrapreneur looking to be a self employed
environmental consultant in the near future then why not let every-one
join the party.
Every business has the scope to improve its environmental performance and
conduct itself in a more sustainable way: energy management and waste
management being factors for all.
- --
Fergus Charlton Environmental Management Officer
Pointing Limited, Prudhoe, Northumberland, England, NE42 6NJ
tel: 44 1661 832621 Fax: 44 1661 835650
e-mail: Fergus@pointing.bdx.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:08:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Avteq ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:13:32 -0800
From: Avteq
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Re: ISO 14001 and broadcasting corporations
Dear Mr Rikhardsson
I think you should also consider the energy used by the TV station and the
EMF emissions to the environment caused by its transmissions.
In addition you did not mention the external impact likely to be caused by
the stations programming policy. For example does the station have a
policy of supporting the green movement and only transmitting bad things
about the environment or the industrial sector and only transmitting good
things. Does it vet its transmissions to ensure they do not encourage the
excessive use of natural resources or encourage its viewers to create
environmental impacts in their day to day life. How do you propose to deal
with its suppliers such as programme makers who wish to make programmes
that support the consumption of energy in order to increase the revenue
their clients receive? I am most interested to hear how you will tackle
these areas to ensure that this certification process does just become a
certificate gathering exercise.
Stan Rodgers
AVTEQ Consulting Services
mail@avteq.com.au
Pall_M._Rikhardsson@europe.notes.pw.com wrote:
> Mr Templeton asks: Why would a T.V. station even consider registration to this
> (ISO 14001) standard?
>
> Well, a simple answer would be: Why not? A TV station with several thousand
> employees uses chemicals for e.g. film development, there is the use of fossil
> fuels for transport, there is the consumption of water, solid waste generation,
> not an insignificant consumption of energy leading to CO2 etc. emissions and so
> on. So why would a company of this type NOT be interested in managing its
> environmental aspects in an effort to minimise its environmental effects? As
> the ISO 14001 provides a framework for an environmental management system for
> all companies, why should it be limited to certain industries? And given the
> subject matter of environmental management, why should the general adoption of
> the principles of ISO 14001 be considered madness?
>
> Pall M. Rikhardsson
> Price Waterhouse
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:49:17 -0400
From: Reinaldo Ramirez
Subject: Opinion about root causes and corrective action
Most business and activities are quality-environ related, so in my
opinion the quality concepts can be used in EMS.
Accordingly, any kind of audit, no matters if quality or environ
related, has the primary scope of reduce the variation in the system
(say: processes). A way of reduce the variability in the processes is
finding the root causes of variation. A simple method to do this is
the use (team oriented tools) of fishbone (Dr. ISHIKAWA) diagram (one
of the seven basic tools in quality improvement process) or the
Affinity Diagram (Dr. JIRO KAWAKITA) (one of the 7 MP quality
improvement tools).
Once you have the root causes of variation (No Conformances, in the
ISO standards context) you can aply one of the technical tools, like
the FMEA/CONTROL PLANS criteria of the QS-9000 standard, in order to
apply the best of the best corrective action required to "eliminate"
the causes of actual or potential nonconformities (variation)
encountered.
Any way, the ISO 14001 is oriented to the Dr. DEMING´s P-D-C-A cycle
so, you can use it for a better use of the above mentioned tools.
The best book to implement this kind of tools is : THE MEMORY JOGGER
PLUS by Michael Brassard.GOALl/QPC, 1989. 13 Branch Street. Methuen,
MA 0184; U.S.A.
Reinaldo Ramirez
Caracas, Venezuela.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:14:21 -0500
From: "Neil G. Vander Linden"
Subject: Aspects Identification
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
- --=_86D367B2.EC8DE419
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
I am responding to the following messagefromTalorAble concerning
identification of aspects.
Here at our North Charleston operation we worked with representative
of the various departments and provided themabackground on aspects
andthen requested that they provide a list of aspects. I believe the people
who work in a given area are the best qualified to identify aspects for
their area. They know the things which got them in trouble in the past
and are well aware of the streams flowing in and out of their areas. In
fact a flow diagram is the best place to start. See attached file for
details.
Neil Vander Linden
ngvande@westvaco.com
From: Taylor_Abel@cargill.com
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Environmental Aspects
I work in an industrial plant, and I am wondering if anyone has some
resources or can provide some guidance how to develop and identify
environmental aspects and associated environmental impacts.
What sources exist (besides the short list in the 14001 standard) that
show examples of env aspects and env impacts?
I am currently developing my list by defining the aspects & impacts
associated with each major piece of equipment, i.e. storage tank,
dryer, burner, reactor, etc...
Is this a good method? Should I choose larger or smaller systems?
Thanks for your help.
Taylor Abel
Environmental Engineer
Cargill Fert.
ph#: 941-534-9615
email: taylor_abel@cargill.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:19:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Fergus Charlton ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:27:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Fergus Charlton
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Subjectivity of the aspects register
Currently engaged in compiling a register of environmental aspects I have
been struck by the subjectivity of the aspects register. Giving every
aspect a likelihood and severity score to obtain an index of risk and
using this index in a matrix to determine what aspects are significant
enough to make the register is an accepted way of estabilshing such a
register.
The subjectivity comes in at two places:
1. What severity score to give each aspect.
2. What cut-off point to exclude aspects from the register.
Is there some internationally accepted guidance on severity of emissions?
If not how can I ensure that my aspects register acheives the same degree
of thoroughness as other peoples register?
Similarly where is the appropriate cut-off point to exclude apects from
the register?
- --
Fergus Charlton Environmental Management Officer
Pointing Limited, Prudhoe, Northumberland, England, NE42 6NJ
tel: 44 1661 832621 Fax: 44 1661 835650
e-mail: Fergus@pointing.bdx.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:58:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from ["Zoran Stanic" ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:22:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Zoran Stanic"
To:
Subject: Re: iso14000-digest V2 #24
Hello everybody,
I am quite fresh user of the list and I found it as extremely interesting
and good source of information. To start with a question and I beleive it
will not be difficult for someone more experienced to point me into the
right direction. I am preparing an article about the relevance of EMS
(according to international standards ISO14000 and EMAS) for nuclear power
industry, for the following international conference in Dubrovnik
(Croatia) in June this year. So, I would appreciate it very much if
someone could indicate some good sources of information about the topics
(some recent surveys about the certified nuclear facilities or so...).
Thanks a lot.
Zoran Stanic
Hrvatska Elektroprivreda d.d.
Development Department
Ul. grada Vukovara 37
Phone:+385 1 6125857/6170456
Fax:+385 1 6125923/6170478
E-mail:zoran.stanic@hep.tel.hr
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #25
*****************************