iso14000-digest Sunday, January 16 2000 Volume 02 : Number 063
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:39:56 EST
From: ASchoffm@aol.com
Subject: Connecticut Initiative
Robert Clifford wrote:
<>
Public Act 99-226 can be found at the URL below.
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/ps99/act/pa/1999pa%2D00226%2Dr00hb%2D06830%2Dpa.htm
Alan Schoffman
TEAM 14000, Inc.
aschoffm@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:07:24 +0100
From: "Prof. Walter Leal Filho"
Subject: UDMS 2000: 'Urban and Rural Data Management
Dear Colleagues,
The Congress Centre of Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) will
host the ^ÄUDMS 2000: 22nd Urban and Regional Data Management Symposium:
Urban and Rural Data Management Common Problems - Common Solutions?',
which also includes the Seminar ^ÄLand Markets and Land Consolidation in
Central Europe^Ó. Both will be held on September 11-15, 2000. For the
First Announcement & Call for Papers, please have a look at the events´
web-site: http://www.udms.net/ or
http://www.geo.tudelft.nl/GISt/UDMS2000/UDMS2000.htm.
For other details, please get in touch with Elfriede M. Fendel, at
Delft University of Technology´s Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Geosciences: e.m.fendel@geo.tudelft.nl.
Walter Leal Filho
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 06:34:26 -0700
From: "Greene, Ben"
Subject: are you there?
After seeing several administrivia postings today, I wonder if my message
last week went to the list. If there is no response, no problem.
I'm rather new to this so this question might be too basic, but here
goes. An ISO 14001 implementation team at a hazardous materials test
facility has performed an aspect/impact identification and significance
rating process of the facility and its activities. The facility stores and
tests a variety of highly hazardous fluids. The facility is fully compliant
with the OSHA Process Safety Standard and all EPA regulations governing
these fluids and their use, storage, and disposal. Nothing is being leaked,
and nothing is being polluted. The implementation team identified no
significant impacts associated with these fluids due to the extensive
operational controls, experienced personnel, and safety, environmental, and
transportation compliance which result in there being no adverse impact to
the environment under normal conditions. Others at the facility, however,
wish to believe that these fluids and their handling/storage etc. are a
significant aspect under normal conditions, but the team, having identified
no significant impact, maintains that if there is no significant impact
there does not exist a significant aspect. Can someone offer an
interpretation or a clarification of the standard as to how this situation
may be handled (how highly hazardous materials which have no impact on the
environment would fit in under an aspect/impact ID significance
identification process)?
Thanks,
Ben Greene
Honeywell
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:22:28 -0500
From: "Malkin Weber, Melissa"
Subject: Re: "should this be listed as an aspect?"
Ben,
The reasons that I'd put those hazardous fluids on my significant aspects
list are:
1) There's the risk of accidental leak or spill (despite your extensive
precautions).
2) Stakeholder concerns -- often neighbors are concerned about the presence
of hazardous materials on-site
3) Those hazardous fluids have environmental impacts when they are
manufactured (before you buy them), and when they are disposed. ISO 14001
doesn't require you to take a bigger-picture view of environmental impacts,
but since the environment doesn't stop at your factory gates, it makes sense
to take a broader view of your environmental aspects
4) There's potential for accidents (and liability) when the waste from these
fluids is shipped to disposal
5) There potential for pollution from the disposal facility that you send
the waste to (and there's almost a certainty of air emissions of these
things are incinerated)
If you identify the use of these hazardous fluids as a significant aspect,
then it stays on the radar screen for continuous environmental improvement
under the EMS. You might want to consider some toxics use reduction
assessments for these fluids (can their use be reduced? are there less toxic
substitutes without other negative impacts?).
You might want to look at EMS-Plus, a tool we developed with the EPA to help
people assess whether their EMS is likely to lead to improved environmental
performance: http://ems.rti.org/
Regards,
Melissa Malkin Weber
Research Triangle Institute, Pollution Prevention Program
POB 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
voice: (919) 541-6154 fax (919) 541 7155
http://www.rti.org/units/ese/p2/ppb.html
- -----Original Message-----
From: Greene, Ben [mailto:bgreene@smtp3.wstf.nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 8:34 AM
To: ISO/listserv
Subject: are you there?
After seeing several administrivia postings today, I wonder if my message
last week went to the list. If there is no response, no problem.
I'm rather new to this so this question might be too basic, but here
goes. An ISO 14001 implementation team at a hazardous materials test
facility has performed an aspect/impact identification and significance
rating process of the facility and its activities. The facility stores and
tests a variety of highly hazardous fluids. The facility is fully compliant
with the OSHA Process Safety Standard and all EPA regulations governing
these fluids and their use, storage, and disposal. Nothing is being leaked,
and nothing is being polluted. The implementation team identified no
significant impacts associated with these fluids due to the extensive
operational controls, experienced personnel, and safety, environmental, and
transportation compliance which result in there being no adverse impact to
the environment under normal conditions. Others at the facility, however,
wish to believe that these fluids and their handling/storage etc. are a
significant aspect under normal conditions, but the team, having identified
no significant impact, maintains that if there is no significant impact
there does not exist a significant aspect. Can someone offer an
interpretation or a clarification of the standard as to how this situation
may be handled (how highly hazardous materials which have no impact on the
environment would fit in under an aspect/impact ID significance
identification process)?
Thanks,
Ben Greene
Honeywell
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:38:40 +0200
From: "Crystal Clear"
Subject: Re: are you there?
Hello Ben Greene,
An aspect is significant if it COULD cause a significant impact.
You then have to do a RANKING of all your Significant Aspects & see if the
propbability of this Aspect becoming an IMPACT is HIGH or LOW.
If a significant aspect has a very low probability of polluting then it is
under control & reverts to a NON-significant aspect.
Does this help
Cheers
Milton Buchalter
CRYSTAL CLEAR
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Greene, Ben
To: ISO/listserv
Sent: 10 January, 2000 3:34 PM
Subject: are you there?
> After seeing several administrivia postings today, I wonder if my message
> last week went to the list. If there is no response, no problem.
>
> I'm rather new to this so this question might be too basic, but here
> goes. An ISO 14001 implementation team at a hazardous materials test
> facility has performed an aspect/impact identification and significance
> rating process of the facility and its activities. The facility stores
and
> tests a variety of highly hazardous fluids. The facility is fully
compliant
> with the OSHA Process Safety Standard and all EPA regulations governing
> these fluids and their use, storage, and disposal. Nothing is being
leaked,
> and nothing is being polluted. The implementation team identified no
> significant impacts associated with these fluids due to the extensive
> operational controls, experienced personnel, and safety, environmental,
and
> transportation compliance which result in there being no adverse impact to
> the environment under normal conditions. Others at the facility, however,
> wish to believe that these fluids and their handling/storage etc. are a
> significant aspect under normal conditions, but the team, having
identified
> no significant impact, maintains that if there is no significant impact
> there does not exist a significant aspect. Can someone offer an
> interpretation or a clarification of the standard as to how this situation
> may be handled (how highly hazardous materials which have no impact on the
> environment would fit in under an aspect/impact ID significance
> identification process)?
>
> Thanks,
> Ben Greene
> Honeywell
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:43:29 -0500
From: "David L. Turner"
Subject: Re: are you there?
Ben,
We ran into the same issue during our 14001 certification
effort. We initially did not consider our isopropanol use
and disposal process a significant aspect because we
controlled it. The definition of "significant" was the
key.
We felt it meant only aspects that had a significant impact
like stack discharges or wastewater dumped into the river.
But auditors said we need to consider aspects of our
operation that could have a significant aspect if not
controlled. (Well, they were auditors after all, so they
didn't really make a decision or take a stand, but they did
ask thew question in a meaningful way over and over again
till we got the hint ; ) ) Even if we had in place good
operational controls and followed them, what would the
impact be if something went wrong?
The only real change to the certification process was to
add this to our list of significant aspects. We still had
operational controls, contractor communications, etc. to
do, so nothing was added to do there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sitting quietly, doing nothing.
The grass grows by itself.
Regards,
David Turner
YSI Safety & Environmental Coordinator
1725 Brannum Lane
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
Email: DTurner@YSI.com
Phone 1-937-767-1685 ext. 270
Facmetaphor: 1-937-767-9353
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:20:41 -0500
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Th=E9riault=2C_S=E9bastien=22?=
Subject: RE: are you there?
Dear Mr. Greene,
Environmental aspect: An activity that has or may have an impact on the
environment.
Environmental impact: An activity that modify the environment (in a negative
or positive manner).
Therefore, in my opinion, you're in front of an environmental aspect that
has no environmental impact (until an accident or a leak happens). This
activity should be listed in the environmental aspects of your ISO 14001
EMS.
Best regards.
Sebastien Theriault
MENV
- -----Message d'origine-----
De: Greene, Ben [mailto:bgreene@smtp3.wstf.nasa.gov]
Date: 10 janvier, 2000 08:34
À: ISO/listserv
Objet: are you there?
After seeing several administrivia postings today, I wonder if my message
last week went to the list. If there is no response, no problem.
I'm rather new to this so this question might be too basic, but here
goes. An ISO 14001 implementation team at a hazardous materials test
facility has performed an aspect/impact identification and significance
rating process of the facility and its activities. The facility stores and
tests a variety of highly hazardous fluids. The facility is fully compliant
with the OSHA Process Safety Standard and all EPA regulations governing
these fluids and their use, storage, and disposal. Nothing is being leaked,
and nothing is being polluted. The implementation team identified no
significant impacts associated with these fluids due to the extensive
operational controls, experienced personnel, and safety, environmental, and
transportation compliance which result in there being no adverse impact to
the environment under normal conditions. Others at the facility, however,
wish to believe that these fluids and their handling/storage etc. are a
significant aspect under normal conditions, but the team, having identified
no significant impact, maintains that if there is no significant impact
there does not exist a significant aspect. Can someone offer an
interpretation or a clarification of the standard as to how this situation
may be handled (how highly hazardous materials which have no impact on the
environment would fit in under an aspect/impact ID significance
identification process)?
Thanks,
Ben Greene
Honeywell
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:00:15 -0500
From: "Connie G. Ritzert"
Subject: RE: are you there?
Ben: The key to the question you pose is in understanding that ISO 14001
deals with managing not only environmental aspects that currently impact
the environment, but also those with the potential to create impacts . ISO
14001 defines environmental aspect as "element of an organization's
activities, products or services that can interact with the environment" .
Note that the word "can" is used. It does not say that aspects are
elements that do interact, only that they can. Further, the note in the
definition defines significant environmental aspects : "A significant
environmental aspect is an environmental aspect that has or can have a
significant environmental impact". ( emphasis added). In evaluating
environmental aspects, you need to consider potential impacts as well as
actual impacts. The point of identifying aspects and their potential
impacts is to determine what needs to be managed. Assigning significance
allows you to set priorities and apply greater attention ( e.g.,
monitoring, control, improvement objectives, etc.) to those aspects with
the potential for greater impacts. In the US, with our extensive
regulatory requirements, the likelihood is you are already managing most of
your significant aspects, so the fact that some part of your operations is
already managed does not mean that the potential impacts from that part are
not significant. Your system should be built around what could reasonably
happen. If you leave out those things which are currently "managed" , you
may miss opportunities for improvement or for more effective control, and
you will not reap as many benefits from the EMS.
If an aspect ( such as storage of a hazardous chemical) has the potential
for serious impacts ( e.g., through spills, leaks, emissions), those
impacts should probably be classified as significant potential impacts, and
the associated aspect would be classified as significant, even though that
aspect is currently well managed, with ample provisions for control. Other
factors you might consider in evaluating significance of potential impacts
include perceived risks and other stakeholder concerns. Since stakeholders
include regulators, the nature of regulatory requirements for this
activity could be a factor in significance. If you classify that activity
as a significant aspect, you may find that you need to make no changes in
how you manage it- or at least few changes - since you were already
managing it effectively, but it will be a part of your management system,
and will benefit from the on-going checks and balances and continual
improvement process.
Frankly, if you leave out of your significant aspects all of the things
that you are currently managing to avoid impacts, your EMS will not be of
much value.
Hope this helps
Connie Glover Ritzert critzert@fyi.net
Meredith-EMC environmental management consulting
- -----Original Message-----
From: Greene, Ben [SMTP:bgreene@smtp3.wstf.nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 8:34 AM
To: ISO/listserv
Subject: are you there?
After seeing several administrivia postings today, I wonder if my message
last week went to the list. If there is no response, no problem.
I'm rather new to this so this question might be too basic, but here
goes. An ISO 14001 implementation team at a hazardous materials test
facility has performed an aspect/impact identification and significance
rating process of the facility and its activities. The facility stores and
tests a variety of highly hazardous fluids. The facility is fully compliant
with the OSHA Process Safety Standard and all EPA regulations governing
these fluids and their use, storage, and disposal. Nothing is being
leaked,
and nothing is being polluted. The implementation team identified no
significant impacts associated with these fluids due to the extensive
operational controls, experienced personnel, and safety, environmental, and
transportation compliance which result in there being no adverse impact to
the environment under normal conditions. Others at the facility, however,
wish to believe that these fluids and their handling/storage etc. are a
significant aspect under normal conditions, but the team, having identified
no significant impact, maintains that if there is no significant impact
there does not exist a significant aspect. Can someone offer an
interpretation or a clarification of the standard as to how this situation
may be handled (how highly hazardous materials which have no impact on the
environment would fit in under an aspect/impact ID significance
identification process)?
Thanks,
Ben Greene
Honeywell
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:58:17 -0700
From: "Greene, Ben"
Subject: RE: are you there (summary)
I would like to express my appreciation for the responses to my question
concerning hazardous fluids in the aspect/impact identification process. It
is clear to me that the responders have voices of experience. I have
summarized those reponses below; perhaps this summary will be useful to
someone else:
Thanks again,
Ben Greene
Honeywell
> The question: An ISO 14001 implementation team at a hazardous
> materials test
> facility has performed an aspect/impact identification and
> significance
> rating process of the facility and its activities. The facility
> stores and
> tests a variety of highly hazardous fluids. The facility is fully
> compliant
> with the OSHA Process Safety Standard and all EPA regulations
> governing
> these fluids and their use, storage, and disposal. Nothing is being
> leaked,
> and nothing is being polluted. The implementation team identified
> no
> significant impacts associated with these fluids due to the
> extensive
> operational controls, experienced personnel, and safety,
> environmental, and
> transportation compliance which result in there being no adverse
> impact to
> the environment under normal conditions. Others at the facility,
> however,
> wish to believe that these fluids and their handling/storage etc.
> are a
> significant aspect under normal conditions, but the team, having
> identified
> no significant impact, maintains that if there is no significant
> impact
> there does not exist a significant aspect. Can someone offer an
> interpretation or a clarification of the standard as to how this
> situation
> may be handled (how highly hazardous materials which have no impact
> on the
> environment would fit in under an aspect/impact ID significance
> identification process)?
>
> The reasons that I'd put those hazardous fluids on my significant
> aspects
> list are:
> 1) There's the risk of accidental leak or spill (despite your
> extensive
> precautions).
> 2) Stakeholder concerns -- often neighbors are concerned about the
> presence
> of hazardous materials on-site
> 3) Those hazardous fluids have environmental impacts when they are
> manufactured (before you buy them), and when they are disposed. ISO
> 14001
> doesn't require you to take a bigger-picture view of environmental
> impacts,
> but since the environment doesn't stop at your factory gates, it
> makes sense
> to take a broader view of your environmental aspects
> 4) There's potential for accidents (and liability) when the waste
> from these
> fluids is shipped to disposal
> 5) There potential for pollution from the disposal facility that you
> send
> the waste to (and there's almost a certainty of air emissions of
> these
> things are incinerated)
>
> If you identify the use of these hazardous fluids as a significant
> aspect,
> then it stays on the radar screen for continuous environmental
> improvement
> under the EMS. You might want to consider some toxics use reduction
> assessments for these fluids (can their use be reduced? are there
> less toxic
> substitutes without other negative impacts?).
>
> You might want to look at EMS-Plus, a tool we developed with the EPA
> to help
> people assess whether their EMS is likely to lead to improved
> environmental
> performance: http://ems.rti.org/
>
> Regards,
> Melissa Malkin Weber
> Research Triangle Institute, Pollution Prevention Program
> POB 12194
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
> voice: (919) 541-6154 fax (919) 541 7155
> http://www.rti.org/units/ese/p2/ppb.html
>
>
> Hello Ben Greene,
>
> An aspect is significant if it COULD cause a significant impact.
> You then have to do a RANKING of all your Significant Aspects & see
> if the
> propbability of this Aspect becoming an IMPACT is HIGH or LOW.
>
> If a significant aspect has a very low probability of polluting then
> it is
> under control & reverts to a NON-significant aspect.
>
> Does this help
>
> Cheers
>
> Milton Buchalter
> CRYSTAL CLEAR
>
>
> Ben,
>
> We ran into the same issue during our 14001 certification
> effort. We initially did not consider our isopropanol use
> and disposal process a significant aspect because we
> controlled it. The definition of "significant" was the
> key.
>
> We felt it meant only aspects that had a significant impact
> like stack discharges or wastewater dumped into the river.
> But auditors said we need to consider aspects of our
> operation that could have a significant aspect if not
> controlled. (Well, they were auditors after all, so they
> didn't really make a decision or take a stand, but they did
> ask the question in a meaningful way over and over again
> till we got the hint ; ) ) Even if we had in place good
> operational controls and followed them, what would the
> impact be if something went wrong?
>
> The only real change to the certification process was to
> add this to our list of significant aspects. We still had
> operational controls, contractor communications, etc. to
> do, so nothing was added to do there.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Sitting quietly, doing nothing.
> The grass grows by itself.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Turner
> YSI Safety & Environmental Coordinator
> 1725 Brannum Lane
> Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
> Email: DTurner@YSI.com
> Phone 1-937-767-1685 ext. 270
> Facmetaphor: 1-937-767-9353
>
>
> Dear Mr. Greene,
>
> Environmental aspect: An activity that has or may have an impact on
> the
> environment.
>
> Environmental impact: An activity that modify the environment (in a
> negative
> or positive manner).
>
> Therefore, in my opinion, you're in front of an environmental aspect
> that
> has no environmental impact. This activity should be listed in the
> environmental aspect of the ISO 14001 EMS.
>
>
> Sebastien Theriault
> MENV
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De: Greene, Ben [mailto:bgreene@smtp3.wstf.nasa.gov]
> Date: 10 janvier, 2000 08:34
> À: ISO/listserv
> Objet: are you there?
>
>
>
> Ben: The key to the question you pose is in understanding that ISO
> 14001
> deals with managing not only environmental aspects that currently
> impact
> the environment, but also those with the potential to create impacts
> . ISO
> 14001 defines environmental aspect as "element of an organization's
>
> activities, products or services that can interact with the
> environment" .
> Note that the word "can" is used. It does not say that aspects
> are
> elements that do interact, only that they can. Further, the note in
> the
> definition defines significant environmental aspects : "A
> significant
> environmental aspect is an environmental aspect that has or can have
> a
> significant environmental impact". ( emphasis added). In evaluating
>
> environmental aspects, you need to consider potential impacts as
> well as
> actual impacts. The point of identifying aspects and their potential
>
> impacts is to determine what needs to be managed. Assigning
> significance
> allows you to set priorities and apply greater attention ( e.g.,
> monitoring, control, improvement objectives, etc.) to those aspects
> with
> the potential for greater impacts. In the US, with our extensive
> regulatory requirements, the likelihood is you are already managing
> most of
> your significant aspects, so the fact that some part of your
> operations is
> already managed does not mean that the potential impacts from that
> part are
> not significant. Your system should be built around what could
> reasonably
> happen. If you leave out those things which are currently "managed"
> , you
> may miss opportunities for improvement or for more effective
> control, and
> you will not reap as many benefits from the EMS.
>
> If an aspect ( such as storage of a hazardous chemical) has the
> potential
> for serious impacts ( e.g., through spills, leaks, emissions),
> those
> impacts should probably be classified as significant potential
> impacts, and
> the associated aspect would be classified as significant, even
> though that
> aspect is currently well managed, with ample provisions for control.
> Other
> factors you might consider in evaluating significance of potential
> impacts
> include perceived risks and other stakeholder concerns. Since
> stakeholders
> include regulators, the nature of regulatory requirements for this
> activity could be a factor in significance. If you classify that
> activity
> as a significant aspect, you may find that you need to make no
> changes in
> how you manage it- or at least few changes - since you were already
> managing it effectively, but it will be a part of your management
> system,
> and will benefit from the on-going checks and balances and continual
>
> improvement process.
>
> Frankly, if you leave out of your significant aspects all of the
> things
> that you are currently managing to avoid impacts, your EMS will not
> be of
> much value.
>
> Hope this helps
>
>
> Connie Glover Ritzert critzert@fyi.net
>
> Meredith-EMC environmental management consulting
>
>
>
> Hi,
> potentialy leaking of this fluid is significant aspect.
> regards
>
> robert.verbanac@polimeri .hr
> tel:+385 1 2407 008
> fax:+385 1 2404-124
> Dioki,d.d.
> Zitnjak bb
> 10000 Zagreb
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:05:15 PST
From: "Paulo Dantas"
Subject: RE: are you there (summary)
Hi, I hope my opinion is not coming too late, but I would like to add the
importance of risk assessment principles to any methodological approach to
aspects and impacts evaluation within a SGA. An impact should be considered
in terms of its present occurrence, and in that case you take into
consideration, while undertaking the evaluation , the FREQUENCY OF
OCCURRENCE and the CONSEQUENCES of it; and also it (the impact) should be
considered in terms of its potential in occurring, and in that case you take
the PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE and the CONSEQUENCES of it.
It is up to the company how to classify frequencies, probabilities and
consequences, but usually is used the "low, medium, high" score. Two
matrices can be drawn, the first considering Frequency x Consequences, and
the second Probability x Consequences. It is also up to the company to
identify from which combination (low x low, low x medium, low x high, etc)an
impact is considered as significant (and consequently the related aspect)
Thus, hazardous fluids (in he presente case) are best analized if we
consider both the present impacts and potential impacts.
Regards,
Paulo Dantas
Viçosa, Brazil
>From: "Greene, Ben"
>To: ISO/listserv
>Subject: RE: are you there (summary)
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:58:17 -0700
>
>I would like to express my appreciation for the responses to my question
>concerning hazardous fluids in the aspect/impact identification process.
>It
>is clear to me that the responders have voices of experience. I have
>summarized those reponses below; perhaps this summary will be useful to
>someone else:
>
>Thanks again,
>Ben Greene
>Honeywell
>
> > The question: An ISO 14001 implementation team at a hazardous
> > materials test
> > facility has performed an aspect/impact identification and
> > significance
> > rating process of the facility and its activities. The facility
> > stores and
> > tests a variety of highly hazardous fluids. The facility is fully
> > compliant
> > with the OSHA Process Safety Standard and all EPA regulations
> > governing
> > these fluids and their use, storage, and disposal. Nothing is being
> > leaked,
> > and nothing is being polluted. The implementation team identified
> > no
> > significant impacts associated with these fluids due to the
> > extensive
> > operational controls, experienced personnel, and safety,
> > environmental, and
> > transportation compliance which result in there being no adverse
> > impact to
> > the environment under normal conditions. Others at the facility,
> > however,
> > wish to believe that these fluids and their handling/storage etc.
> > are a
> > significant aspect under normal conditions, but the team, having
> > identified
> > no significant impact, maintains that if there is no significant
> > impact
> > there does not exist a significant aspect. Can someone offer an
> > interpretation or a clarification of the standard as to how this
> > situation
> > may be handled (how highly hazardous materials which have no impact
> > on the
> > environment would fit in under an aspect/impact ID significance
> > identification process)?
> >
> > The reasons that I'd put those hazardous fluids on my significant
> > aspects
> > list are:
> > 1) There's the risk of accidental leak or spill (despite your
> > extensive
> > precautions).
> > 2) Stakeholder concerns -- often neighbors are concerned about the
> > presence
> > of hazardous materials on-site
> > 3) Those hazardous fluids have environmental impacts when they are
> > manufactured (before you buy them), and when they are disposed. ISO
> > 14001
> > doesn't require you to take a bigger-picture view of environmental
> > impacts,
> > but since the environment doesn't stop at your factory gates, it
> > makes sense
> > to take a broader view of your environmental aspects
> > 4) There's potential for accidents (and liability) when the waste
> > from these
> > fluids is shipped to disposal
> > 5) There potential for pollution from the disposal facility that you
> > send
> > the waste to (and there's almost a certainty of air emissions of
> > these
> > things are incinerated)
> >
> > If you identify the use of these hazardous fluids as a significant
> > aspect,
> > then it stays on the radar screen for continuous environmental
> > improvement
> > under the EMS. You might want to consider some toxics use reduction
> > assessments for these fluids (can their use be reduced? are there
> > less toxic
> > substitutes without other negative impacts?).
> >
> > You might want to look at EMS-Plus, a tool we developed with the EPA
> > to help
> > people assess whether their EMS is likely to lead to improved
> > environmental
> > performance: http://ems.rti.org/
> >
> > Regards,
> > Melissa Malkin Weber
> > Research Triangle Institute, Pollution Prevention Program
> > POB 12194
> > Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
> > voice: (919) 541-6154 fax (919) 541 7155
> > http://www.rti.org/units/ese/p2/ppb.html
> >
> >
> > Hello Ben Greene,
> >
> > An aspect is significant if it COULD cause a significant impact.
> > You then have to do a RANKING of all your Significant Aspects & see
> > if the
> > propbability of this Aspect becoming an IMPACT is HIGH or LOW.
> >
> > If a significant aspect has a very low probability of polluting then
> > it is
> > under control & reverts to a NON-significant aspect.
> >
> > Does this help
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Milton Buchalter
> > CRYSTAL CLEAR
> >
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > We ran into the same issue during our 14001 certification
> > effort. We initially did not consider our isopropanol use
> > and disposal process a significant aspect because we
> > controlled it. The definition of "significant" was the
> > key.
> >
> > We felt it meant only aspects that had a significant impact
> > like stack discharges or wastewater dumped into the river.
> > But auditors said we need to consider aspects of our
> > operation that could have a significant aspect if not
> > controlled. (Well, they were auditors after all, so they
> > didn't really make a decision or take a stand, but they did
> > ask the question in a meaningful way over and over again
> > till we got the hint ; ) ) Even if we had in place good
> > operational controls and followed them, what would the
> > impact be if something went wrong?
> >
> > The only real change to the certification process was to
> > add this to our list of significant aspects. We still had
> > operational controls, contractor communications, etc. to
> > do, so nothing was added to do there.
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Sitting quietly, doing nothing.
> > The grass grows by itself.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David Turner
> > YSI Safety & Environmental Coordinator
> > 1725 Brannum Lane
> > Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
> > Email: DTurner@YSI.com
> > Phone 1-937-767-1685 ext. 270
> > Facmetaphor: 1-937-767-9353
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Greene,
> >
> > Environmental aspect: An activity that has or may have an impact on
> > the
> > environment.
> >
> > Environmental impact: An activity that modify the environment (in a
> > negative
> > or positive manner).
> >
> > Therefore, in my opinion, you're in front of an environmental aspect
> > that
> > has no environmental impact. This activity should be listed in the
> > environmental aspect of the ISO 14001 EMS.
> >
> >
> > Sebastien Theriault
> > MENV
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De: Greene, Ben [mailto:bgreene@smtp3.wstf.nasa.gov]
> > Date: 10 janvier, 2000 08:34
> > À: ISO/listserv
> > Objet: are you there?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ben: The key to the question you pose is in understanding that ISO
> > 14001
> > deals with managing not only environmental aspects that currently
> > impact
> > the environment, but also those with the potential to create impacts
> > . ISO
> > 14001 defines environmental aspect as "element of an organization's
> >
> > activities, products or services that can interact with the
> > environment" .
> > Note that the word "can" is used. It does not say that aspects
> > are
> > elements that do interact, only that they can. Further, the note in
> > the
> > definition defines significant environmental aspects : "A
> > significant
> > environmental aspect is an environmental aspect that has or can have
> > a
> > significant environmental impact". ( emphasis added). In evaluating
> >
> > environmental aspects, you need to consider potential impacts as
> > well as
> > actual impacts. The point of identifying aspects and their potential
> >
> > impacts is to determine what needs to be managed. Assigning
> > significance
> > allows you to set priorities and apply greater attention ( e.g.,
> > monitoring, control, improvement objectives, etc.) to those aspects
> > with
> > the potential for greater impacts. In the US, with our extensive
> > regulatory requirements, the likelihood is you are already managing
> > most of
> > your significant aspects, so the fact that some part of your
> > operations is
> > already managed does not mean that the potential impacts from that
> > part are
> > not significant. Your system should be built around what could
> > reasonably
> > happen. If you leave out those things which are currently "managed"
> > , you
> > may miss opportunities for improvement or for more effective
> > control, and
> > you will not reap as many benefits from the EMS.
> >
> > If an aspect ( such as storage of a hazardous chemical) has the
> > potential
> > for serious impacts ( e.g., through spills, leaks, emissions),
> > those
> > impacts should probably be classified as significant potential
> > impacts, and
> > the associated aspect would be classified as significant, even
> > though that
> > aspect is currently well managed, with ample provisions for control.
> > Other
> > factors you might consider in evaluating significance of potential
> > impacts
> > include perceived risks and other stakeholder concerns. Since
> > stakeholders
> > include regulators, the nature of regulatory requirements for this
> > activity could be a factor in significance. If you classify that
> > activity
> > as a significant aspect, you may find that you need to make no
> > changes in
> > how you manage it- or at least few changes - since you were already
> > managing it effectively, but it will be a part of your management
> > system,
> > and will benefit from the on-going checks and balances and continual
> >
> > improvement process.
> >
> > Frankly, if you leave out of your significant aspects all of the
> > things
> > that you are currently managing to avoid impacts, your EMS will not
> > be of
> > much value.
> >
> > Hope this helps
> >
> >
> > Connie Glover Ritzert critzert@fyi.net
> >
> > Meredith-EMC environmental management consulting
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > potentialy leaking of this fluid is significant aspect.
> > regards
> >
> > robert.verbanac@polimeri .hr
> > tel:+385 1 2407 008
> > fax:+385 1 2404-124
> > Dioki,d.d.
> > Zitnjak bb
> > 10000 Zagreb
> >
> >
> >
> >
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #63
*****************************