ECSI Blog

Recently we traveled to a client located a bit north of New Orleans to assist in the initial phase of a project to implement an integrated environmental health and safety management system (EHSMS).  The clients’ goal was to becoming registered to ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 Management System standards by the early next year.  The company manufactures large transformers for the electricity power and distribution industry and had been recently sold to another organization which was encouraging our client to implement these systems and become registered by a third party.

 

The first phase of the project was to travel to the facility for a 2 day on-site visit to perform a gap assessment and to assist in identification of environmental aspects. Wendy Ward who is one of our new associates was along on the trip to assist with the rigorous schedule needed to complete all of the tasks in that short period of time.  The visit started with a brief facility tour (about 1 hour) to get familiar with the processes being operated and the facility layout.  One of the fun parts of our work is learning about new manufacturing processes. On this  trip we got to see the manufacturing processes for the sub components of a large transformer and observed assembly and testing of these transforms.

 

The gap assessment began immediately after the tour and was straight forward as the organization was already registered to ISO 9001:2008.  They were familiar with the vocabulary of ISO type management systems and able to show us the elements of the system we were looking for.  Wendy’s experience as a TS 16949 auditor allowed her to cover some of the elements common to all systems such as document control, awareness and competence, internal audits, non-conformance corrective and preventive action and so on while I was able to focus on assessing other elements such as environmental aspect identification, hazard identification and risk assessment, legal and other requirements, objective and targets and management review.

 

We completed the gap assessment by mid-afternoon and then began the environmental aspect identification part of the project.  We had previously discussed options for identifying environmental aspects that have been popular in the past.  We discussed the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and the client selected the approach we recommended.  Over the years we have developed a process for performing this work that is much different than the traditional Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) type approach used by most other organizations.  Our process is simple to implement, engages the facility department personnel in the process so they get to decide what is significant and people actually think its fun to do. 

 

The traditional FMEA type process differs in that it requires numeric evaluations of several attributes of each aspect which is often tedious and in our opinion diminishes the value to the outcome of the process. The FMEA approach usually results in a confusing list of environmental aspects that uses an arbitrary numeric value for determining which aspects are significant (those that the organizations cares about and intends to do something about.).  There are ways to tinker with the FMEA approach to make it more useful but in the end we believe its draw backs out weigh any perceived benefits from generating what appears to be a prioritized list of aspects.

 

Although initially extremely popular the old FMEA approach to aspect investigation is an unfortunate artifact of early efforts by quality management system professional to get their arms around ISO 14001.  Unfortunately they selected a tool (FMEA) that, although helpful when assessing risk of failure in a manufacturing process, is ill suited for determining which environmental aspects of a manufacturing process are significant. 

 

There are strong opinions at ECSI about the negative effect the FMEA approach has had on  business perception of ISO 14001 and the effectiveness of many EMS’s.  Rather then go into my FEMA aspect rant here I will save it for a future newsletter when we talk about approaches to re-engineering ineffective EHSMS’s.

 

The approach we use to aspect identification creates a matrix that shows which aspects are present in which departments.  Anyone can easily see which environmental aspects are present, where they are and why the aspects are significant.  The matrix includes links to applicable legal requirements, operation controls and/or environmental management programs. Anyone including internal and third party auditors can easily understand how the organization is managing an aspect in a particular department.  This makes internal auditing much easier and facilitates the implementation process.  The aspect list can also be used as a training matrix because it shows which employees need to know what in each department.

 

Our role in the process is to help facilitate and guide the organization and act as an independent outside source of opinions and technical guidance.  The process is accomplished by assembling key staff from a department at the facility and the sketching a process map with help from the department representatives.  As the map is sketched we identify what materials are entering the process, how they are manipulated and what impacts result such as air emission, wastewater, solid waste.  As the process maps are being sketched one of the ECSI team, in this case Wendy, recorded the environmental aspects that we discovered during the process.  Some processes however don’t lend themselves well to a process mapping approach such as the Maintenance Department.  In these cases we simply brainstorm and record the aspects based on discussion of what tasks are being performed in the department

 

After we have completed the process map and identified the aspects in the department we go back to the top of the list and decide which of the aspect is significant and why.  We identify any existing or necessary future operational controls (standard operating procedures) for some of the significant aspects and we identify objectives and targets to improve environmental performance of others.  Some significant aspects will have both an operational control and an objective and targets.  Some will only have one or the other.

 

The last step in the aspect identification process is to link the significant aspect to the specific regulatory (or other) requirements that apply to the aspect.  It is important to have at least one competent experienced environmental professional in the room during this phase of the aspect identification process who knows the state and federal requirements and can assist in identifying these. 

 

We finished the aspect identification process in the late afternoon on the second day of the visit and then conducted the visit and gap assessment closing meeting.  The outcome of the project was achieved onetime and to the clients satisfaction.  The next phase of the project is to perform the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and fill the other gaps identified in the gap assessment. 

 

As always, I am interested in your opinions of this article so I encourage you to leave a comment or questions here on the ECSI blog.

ISO 14001 is widely recognized but many environmental professionals may be less familiar with the other ISO 14000 series.  This article discusses the ISO 14000 standards that cover Green House Gas emissions (ISO 14064-1, 14064-2, 14064-3 and 14065) and provides some insight into how these standards are influencing USEPA GHG rule making.

 

A basic understanding of the principals of these documents and their interaction is a great place to start for those wanting to learn more about the technical and aspects of GHG inventories and reductions projects.  They have also been used by USEPA as they begin to grapple with the task of creating a framework to ultimately regulate GHG emissions in the US. 

 

Recently USEPA has published proposed rules for regulating GHG emissions.  You can download the proposed rules from our website at http://www.envcompsys.com/ghg/EPA_ghg_041009.pdf .  The proposed rules will require facilities emitting 25000 tons per year of GHG’s to report these emissions to USEPA.  These are some of the first GHG rules proposed by USEPA and comments by interested parties are due by June 9, 2009  ECSI intends to submit comments specifically on how EPA intends to verify that the inventories submitted by reporters are accurate.  A summary of our comments is at the end of this article.

 

ISO 14064 Series

 

The following is a brief summary of each of the ISO GHG standards and guidance.

 

ISO 14064-1 — Greenhouse gases —Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals

 

This part of ISO 14064 describes principles and requirements for designing, developing, managing and reporting organization- or company-level GHG inventories. It includes requirements for determining GHG emission boundaries, quantifying an organization’s GHG emissions and removals, and identifying specific company actions or activities aimed at improving GHG management. It also includes requirements and guidance on inventory quality management, reporting, internal auditing and the organization’s responsibilities for verification activities.

 

These inventories are similar to the annual air emission inventories that many states already require but are more detailed in their required approach and include different emissions (GHG chemicals) and calculation methods.

 

ISO 14064-2 — Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements

 

ISO 14064-2 focuses on GHG projects or project-based activities specifically designed to reduce GHG emissions or increase GHG removals. It describes how an organization should proceed when it is trying to do a project that will actually reduce the amount of carbon equivalents that have already entered the atmosphere or are likely to enter the atmosphere.  Projects are important because the can create carbon credits that can be potentially sold to others on carbon exchanges like the Chicago Climate Exchange.

 

Examples of GHG projects would be planting trees (or preventing harvest) for long term carbon sequestration.  Burning landfill methane rather than emitting it directly to the atmosphere is another example of a potential GHG project.  A consistent (standard) approach to calculating emission reductions from projects is important for the confidence of those buying the credits as being “real” reductions.  Carbon credits have value and the potential exists for those claiming emission reductions to inflate the amount of the reductions.  Standardization in calculation methods will help to limit the potential for inflated emission reduction estimates

 

ISO 14064-3 — Greenhouse gases — Part 3: Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions

 

ISO 14064-3 details principles and requirements for verifying GHG inventories and validating or verifying GHG projects. It describes the process for GHG-related validation or verification and specifies components such as validation or verification planning, assessment procedures and the evaluation of organization or project GHG assertions. ISO 14064-3 can be used by organizations or independent parties to validate or verify GHG assertions.

 

Validation and verification bodies (VV’s) provide an independent opinion of the accuracy of the GHG inventories and GHG reduction projects which improves confidence to others like customers or regulatory agencies who rely on these statements and assertions. This is accomplished by the VV’s performing an audit according to this part of the ISO 14064 series and issuing a statements as to the accuracy of the organizations assertions about their GHG performance.

 

 

ISO 14065 — Greenhouse gases — Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation or other forms of recognition

 

This standard describes how organizations (such as ANSI) accrediting validations and verification bodies (VVs) must perform the accredition process including accreditation audits.  The American National Standards Institute is currently the only organizations in the US authorized by the International Accreditation Forum to provide these accreditations to VVs.  A list of the VVs accredited by ANSI is posted on their website at https://www.ansica.org/wwwversion2/ALLdirectoryListing.asp?menuID=200&prgID=200&status=4

 

ECSI is currently under contract to ANSI to perform audit services on ANSI’s behalf of the VVs they are in the process of accrediting.  This is the area that we will focus our comments on in our comments to the USEPA proposed GHG rules.  The following is a brief summary of or comments

 

ECSI Comments on USEPA Proposed Mandatory GHG Inventory Reporting Rules

 

J. Rationale for Verification Requirements

 

With regard to verification of inventory reports we believe USEPA has overlooked an important potential option and should review this option before selecting their final method for performing inventory reporting and verification activities.  We believe USEPA should consider allowing reporters the option to either report directly to USEPA or to provide inventory reports through existing voluntary reporting organizations such as The Climate Registry.  We believe that a thorough evaluation of this additional option for reporting and verification of inventory reports would show that most of the negative consequences of each of the three potential reporting options considered by USEPA could be avoided if this alternate approach were adopted by USEPA.

 

With little additional effort, most voluntary GHG registries can adapt their reporting protocol to accommodate USEPA reporting requirements and emission calculation methods and transmit the data to USEPA on behalf of the reporter in a format acceptable to USEPA.  USEPA would simply need to verify that the registries reporting protocol was consistent with USEPA’s and that the data reporting methods were in a format that could be easily accepted into USEPA’s recordkeeping and data analysis systems.

 

Benefits of this alternate approach include; elimination of duplication of reporting by organizations already providing their inventories to the voluntary registries, overall reductions in effort and cost to USEPA for verification activities, higher stakeholder confidence in the accuracy of the inventory reports and, the flexibility for reporters to choose how they will transact required reports with USEPA.

Here is a chance to put yourself in the auditor’s shoes and identify potential nonconformances.  The objective of this exercise is to review the situation presented and determine if a nonconformance to the ISO 14001 standard exists.  For those of you who have not committed the standard to memory, you may want to pull out your copy to use as a reference.  If you need a copy of the standard one can be purchased from ANSI. Here is also a web address:   

 

http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStandards.aspx?SearchString=ISO+14001&SearchOption=0&PageNum=0&SearchTermsArray=null%7cISO+14001%7cnull

 

You can post your answers anonymously to the blog where we can discuss various answers with others participating.  I will post what I believe are the best answers to this questions in a week or two and notify those who have posted to the blog when I do so.  Have fun with this.  My students in the ISO 14001 EMS-LA course find this to be one of the most fun and valuable parts of the course.

 

Instructions:

 

1.  Read the situation carefully

2.  Decide which ISO 14001 clause or clauses may apply.

3.  If you think more than one clause applies choose the one that you think fits best.

4.  Identify what is wrong with the situation

5.  Identify the requirements within the applicable clause of the standard.

 

Here is an example:

 

The documented emergency response procedure indicates that a test of the organizations ability to respond to emergencies will be tested at least annually.  When interviewing the Environmental Management System Representative (EMR) you ask for evidence that the emergency response procedure had been tested for effectiveness.  The EMR states that the last test was performed three years ago.  The EMR also states that they had planned to do another test several months ago but have been unable to perform it due to layoffs at the plant and curtailed work schedules.  

 

Which ISO 14001 clause best applies?

 

4.4.7 —Emergency Preparedness and Response

 

What is the Problem (evidence)? 

 

The organization was not able to show if had performed a periodic test of the emergency response procedure as required by its own procedure.

 

What is the requirement? 

 

The organization shall establish, implement and maintain a procedure(s) to identify potential emergency situations and potential accidents that can have an impact(s) on the environment and how it will respond to them.

 

The organization shall also periodically test such procedures where practicable.

 

 

You’re the Auditor — The Situation/Evidence

 

During an ISO 14001 at a plastic injection molding company you discover that the company has begun manufacturing their own injection molding tools (molds) to use in their injection molding machines.  In the past, these were always being manufactured by an outside source.  Review of the organizations list of environmental aspects reveals the new environmental aspects have been introduced by the new process.  These are waste coolant and solvent cleaning waste. You find that these new aspects have not been added to the list of environmental aspect for the department.  When you interview the tool room team leader they indicate that this oversight had been found in a previous internal audit performed six months ago and that they were in the process of correcting this nonconformance.  You are not able to find any other evidence that this nonconformance from the previous audit had been addressed.

 

Which ISO 14001 clause best applies?

 

What is the Problem (evidence)?

 

What is the requirement?

 

Post your answer here or check back in a week or so to review what others came up with and to see the correct answer(s).

The news is full of talk about global warming and climate change.  State and regional regulatory initiatives are underway and a new administration has expressed a commitment to control and reduce emissions that contributes to climate change.  

Over the last year ECSI has been working with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as lead auditors in their emerging GHG Validation and Verification body accreditation program.  The relationship has placed us in a unique position to observe the development of this and other GHG programs first hand.   This article is a high level overview of the efforts underway in North America to standardize GHG emission inventory and offset projects.

With in the last two years The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has issued 4 standards addressing GHG emissions. Three of these (ISO 14064-1, ISO 14064-2 and ISO 14064-3 address how organizations should approach the development of GHG inventories and emission reduction projects and how organizations verifying and validating the accuracy of these inventories and reductions should proceed with these verification activities.  The 4th standard published by ISO is 14065 which describes how organizations like ANSI should go about the work of accrediting the VV bodies who are doing the work outlined in ISO 14064-3.  The relationship between ANSI and the VV’s is similar to that between ISO 14001 registrars and the ANAB (see the related article in this issue ISO 14001 Registration – How it Works). 

The purpose of the ANSI accreditation program is to provide a high level of confidence for interested parties that the claims being made by organizations about their GHG emission are accurate.  This is particularly important for organizations contemplating the purchase of GHG offsets from carbon credit brokers like the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) or the Voluntary Carbon Standard.  Potential purchasers want to know that the offsets they are purchasing are legitimate.  The VV bodies have the responsibility to ensure that the credits are legitimate and ANSI has the responsibility for ensuring the VV bodies are performing their work competently and in the absence of a potential conflict of interest.

ANSI began their accreditation program in 2008 through execution of a pilot project which to date has accredited 8 VV bodies ANSI is in the process of accrediting another 29 bodies that have submitted applications for accreditation.   Each VV body is accredited to ISO 14065 and to any of 4 GHG programs.  The 4 programs are The Climate Registry (TCR), Climate Action Reserve (CAR), Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS).  Each VV can also be accredited for several project protocols under each of the programs.  Project protocol include things link Landfill Gas Combustion, Forest Sector, Livestock (methane), and Coal Mine Methane to name just a few.  At this writing ANSI recognized 34 of these protocol for potential verification.

At a recent 3 day auditor training secession in Orlando presented by ANSI representatives from each of the 4 GHG programs (TCR, CAR,CCX and VCS) provided an in depth review of their programs.  Part of the discussion centered on the future of GHG inventories, projects and programs.  The general consensus of the various programs was that although consolidation of the VV bodies and the GHG Programs is expected in the future the market for VV services is expected to continue to grow as more organizations seek to validate or verify there GHG emission claims.  The reason for seeking VV services is for both marketing purposes and in preparation for potential regulation of these emissions.  Future articles in this series will discuss things organizations who want to examine their GHG emissions should know to help them optimize their GHG inventory and project efforts.

The scientists and staff at Argonne National Laboratories (ANL) in Lamont, Illinois, fondly refer to their primary product, the Advanced Proton Source as “The Beam”.  Argonne National Laboratory is one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s largest research centers. It is also the nation’s first national laboratory, chartered in 1946.  The laboratory has about 2,800 employees, including about 1,000 scientists and engineers, of whom about 750 hold doctor degrees. Argonne’s annual operating budget of about $530 million supports upwards of 200 research projects, ranging from studies of the atomic nucleus to global climate change research. Since 1990, Argonne has worked with more than 600 companies and numerous federal agencies and other organizations.

 About ANL and the Audit Project

 ECSI was asked to assist ANL in its efforts to implement and certify an ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.   In January 2009 we performed a week long complete management system internal audit at ANL, their first, as they prepared for the registration process scheduled to begin in the early spring of 2009.  The objective of the audit was three-fold:

 Complete an internal audit meeting the requirements of section 4.5.5 of ISO 14001;

Introduce the ANL staff to the audit process and help prepare them for the registration audits;

Provide additional training and answer any questions any of the divisions audited had.

The immense scale of ANL presented special technical and logistic challenges to the audit team. The facility includes hundreds of buildings and covers over 1500 wooded acres.  This complexity required use of a focused vertical approach to the audit process which drilled deeply into very specific areas of the EMS.  

 Vertical EMS Auditing

 ISO 14001 audits can be performed using two basic auditing techniques, vertical auditing and horizontal audit.  Horizontal audits cover the EMS broadly and are often done on a clause-by-clause basis.  Gap analysis and Stage 1 registration audits are examples of horizontal audits.  One way to characterize horizontal audits is they are a mile wide but only an inch deep.  In contrast, vertical audits are much focused and follow an audit trail through the EMS to the verification of a detailed requirement. These audits are an inch wide but a mile deep.  Stage 2 registration audits are examples of vertical audits.  

 Audits can use both vertical and horizontal audit techniques to meet the objectives of the audit.  The concentrated time line for the ANL internal audit project required efficient use of the vertical audit approach to accomplish the audit objectives.

 ANL Biosciences Division

 The Biosciences Division is a large laboratory conducting research in many biological areas.  The time allocated to conduct the audit here was 3 hours.  Part of the challenge of auditing complex facilities is to quickly understand the processes being operated at the audit location.  Once the process is clearly understood the auditor can identify potential audit trails to follow.  

 The approach used to audit this division was to first determine what research projects were being conducted at the time of the audit.  Many projects are conducted simultaneously so the challenge is to quickly identify one that has potential to produce evidence of conformance to the EMS.

 The research project selected involved the production of specific proteins from genetically engineered bacteria.  Genetic material is inserted in the bacteria which are then cultured to produce sufficient quantities of the special protein.  The protein is then isolated and crystallized for further analysis at the ANL Advance Proton Source “The Beam”.  

 Bio-hazard wastes like Petri dishes and culture media are produced during the process and need to be sterilized prior to removal from the lab for disposal.  The audit trail followed this specific process gathering evidence of effective operational controls for the autoclaves used to sterilize this waste.  Evidence of training and competence of the autoclave operators’ and evidence of calibration of the instrumentation used to monitor the autoclave performance were also investigated.

 Center for Nanoscale Materials

 The Center for Nanoscale Materials (CNM) is another laboratory where research is performed on very small samples, at the molecular level.  Of the many research projects performed at the lab, one immediately stood out as a potential audit trail.  It involved research of an electroplating process on micro wires and was being conducted by a researcher in the chemistry department from the university I attend and received my BS (UW Stevens Point).

 Before an experiment can be approved to be conducted at the CMN, the researcher must submit an application that identifies the potential environmental impacts and health and safety risks associated with the work that will be performed at the lab.  The application is then reviewed by the CNM management and operational controls are identified which must be followed by the research team during the project.

One of the materials to be used during the research was acetone.  The audit trail chosen was to collect evidence that the lab had identified the operational controls needed to manage waste acetone properly.  This included investigating the details of the documented acetone waste management procedure and the evidence of training of the researchers in this procedure.

 Optimally, the audit would have concluded with observation that the acetone waste management was actually being followed as prescribed in the documented procedure.  Unfortunately, the research for this project was being performed in a highly controlled clean environment and the audit schedule did not allow sufficient time for the auditors to get suited up and enter the lab to observe that acetone waste was being managed according to the documented procedure.  But that’s okay because the amount of evidence that can be obtained during an audit is a function of time allowed to perform the audit.  The audit planning process strives to predict the amount of time needed to complete the audit but sometimes the effort required is unintentionally underestimated.

 The Beam

The Advance Proton Source (aka “The Beam”) provides this nation’s (in fact, this hemisphere’s) most brilliant x-ray beams for research in almost all scientific disciplines.  The beam itself is generated in a circular particle accelerator with a circumference of approximately 1 mile.  Positively charged electrons (photons) are accelerated to almost the speed of light using a series of strong electromagnets.  Researchers (up to 200 teams at any give time) positioned around the outside of the beam, tap into this x-ray source to perform measurements on their particular research projects.

 The support processes to operate and maintain the beam are enormous.  As an example, the beam requires large amount of electrical energy and the magnets using this energy generate significant amounts of heat.  This heat is removed by recirculation of cooling water that is conditioned by chillers using many thousands of pounds of refrigerants.  The operation and maintenance of these chillers was chosen as an audit trail but was only one of many audit trails that could have been followed at The Beam.  

 One of the highlights of the project was on this audit trail which allowed the audit team to actually enter the internal workings of the accelerator during a maintenance period.  Maintenance requiring The Beam to be down is infrequent and this opportunity allowed auditing of processes that would normally be prohibited during operation due to the the strong radiation generated in these areas.

 Limitations of Highly Vertical Auditing

 Vertical auditing is a great way to probe deeply into an EMS.  However, it relies on a sampling approach that is very focused.  To get the depth required in this type of audit, the audit team usually has time to investigate only a few very specific areas.  This approach can diminish the reliability which can be placed on the audit findings and the subsequent audit team conclusions.  It is possible that the specific areas selected were not representative of the overall conditions.  Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, good auditors have an uncanny ability to select that one audit trail that results in discovery of a potential nonconformance in the midst of complete conformance in all other areas.  

 If the duration of an audit is sufficient, a combination of vertical and horizontal audit techniques allows the audit team to cover a broader spectrum of activities and areas and can result in a high level of confidence in the audit conclusions.  

 Optimizing the costs and benefits of audits depends on the skillful use of both vertical and horizontal auditing techniques and when applied properly, will result as was seen in the ANL EMS audit project, in achieving the audit objective in a cost-effective manner.

 

The process of becoming registered to ISO 14001 can be confusing. Common questions we are asked include the following:

 - Who is qualified to issue ISO 14001 Registration Certificates?

 - Who is qualified to perform the registration audits?

 - How long is a certificate good and what is the registration process?

These are a few common questions asked by organizations considering implementing an EMS which will be explained here.

What Organizations are Qualified to Issue ISO 14001 Certifications?

Authority to issue internationally recognized ISO 14001 certificates are linked to the International Accreditation Forum. The International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF) is the world association of Conformity Assessment Accreditation Bodies and other bodies interested in conformity assessment in the fields of management systems, products, services, personnel and other similar programs of conformity assessment. Its primary function is to develop a single worldwide program of conformity assessment which reduces risk for a business and its customers by assuring them that accredited certificates may be relied upon. IAF members accredit certification or registration bodies that issue certificates attesting that an organization’s management, products or personnel comply with a specified standard (called conformity assessment).

In the United States ANAB is the main accrediting body for the registrars who actually issue the ISO 14001 Certificates. ANAB is a member of the International Accreditation Forum and a signatory of the IAF multilateral cooperative arrangements (MLAs) for QMS and EMS. Through the IAF MLAs and the Multilateral Cooperative Accreditation Arrangement, ANAB cooperates with other accreditation bodies around the world to provide value to its accredited CBs and their clients, ensuring that accredited certificates are recognized nationally and internationally. The global conformity assessment system ensures confidence and reduces risk for customers engaging in trade worldwide.
At last count ANAB had accredited 45 organizations (28 located in the USA) to issue ISO 14001 registration Certificates.

Registrars have been accredited to issue ISO 14001 certificates by ANAB. ANAB evaluates each registrar against the requirements ISO/IEC 17021 Conformity Assessment – Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification of Management Systems when determining if the registar should be authorized to issue ISO 14001 Certificates. Accredited registrars hire competent auditors to perform the registration audits and provide a record of the evidence reviewed as part of the auditor’s recommendation for or against registration of the organizations being audited.

Which Individuals are Qualified to Perform ISO 14001 Registration Audits for Registrars?

One of the requirements of ISO 17021 which must be met by all registrars is that the auditors performing audits on behalf of the registrar are competent to do so.

7.2.5 The certification body shall have a process to achieve and demonstrate effective auditing skills, including the use of auditors and audit team leaders possessing generic auditing skills and knowledge, as well as skills and knowledge appropriate for auditing in specific technical areas. This process shall be defined in documented requirements drawn up in accordance with the relevant guidance provided in ISO 19011.

ISO 19011 is specific guidance for registrars on how to establish audit programs and determine auditor competence.

Auditors can demonstrate they have achieved a level competence through personal certification by RABQSA International which is itself accredited by JAZ-ANZ. However, this certification alone is not sufficient evidence to ANAB that auditors working for registrars are competent to perform audits. In addition the registrar must, at a minimum observe the auditor’s performance during an actual audit before they are deemed competent by the registrar.

Figure 1 shows the links between the various organizations making up the registration process.

 

How is the ISO 14001 Registration Process Performed?

ISO 14001 Certificates are good for a period of three years assuming the organization successfully completes a series of surveillance audits during that three year period. The registration process begins with a documentation review performed by the auditor to determine if the organization has addressed all the elements of the ISO 14001 Standard. The outcome of the document review can be a recommendation by the auditor to proceed to the registration audit process or a recommendation to delay the registration process until the organization has addressed deficiencies identified by the auditor during the Document Review.

The registration audit begins with what is often referred to as a Stage 1 assessment. The lead auditor visits the site for a day or so to review the organization’s environmental aspects and verify conformance with some of the basic ISO 14001 requirements that could not be verified during the Document Review. The purpose of the Stage 1 audit is also to provide the auditor with additional information about the facility to enable them to prepare a plan for the Stage 2 assessment. The Stage 1 audit is also is a final check on the readiness of the organizations to undergo the Stage 2 Assessment.

The Stage 2 assessment is of longer duration (several auditors on site for several days) than the Stage 1 assessment this is a deeper drilling into the organization’s EMS that is performed in either the Document Review or the Stage 1 Assessment. The Stage 2  Assessment is where the audit team collects and records the evidence of the organization’s conformance to the requirements of ISO 14001 and the organization’s own EMS. This is the evidence that the audit team will submit to the registrar supporting their recommendation for registration.

Successful completion of the registration audit begins three year period that the ISO 14001 certificate is valid. During that three year period the registrar will perform periodic surveillance audits (at least once per year) to confirm that the EMS has sustained effectiveness in the ability of  the organization to continually improve its environmental performance. At the end of the three year period the re-registration assessment is performed which is of similar duration and scope to the original registration audit.

One of the keys to composting is aeration. The bacteria need oxygen to carry out the aerobic respiration that creates rich compost. One way to aerate your compost is with a pitchfork or a compost turning tool. If you keep your compost in a tumbler, however, all you have to do is turn the container. Since most compost barrels can be expensive, you may be interested in building your own for much less money and an hour of your time.

Steps

1. Buy a plastic drum, between 20 and 55 gallons (75-200 liters), and a 48 inch (1.25 meter) length of 2 inch (5 cm) schedule 80 PVC pipe, or a length of 1 1/2 to 2 inch (3.8-5 cm) galvanized steel pipe.
2. Drill holes in the center of the top and bottom of your drum, large enough for the pipe you are going to use for an axle.
3. Pass the pipe or post through the center holes.
4. Build a wooden saw buck to support the compost barrel. Nail 2 sets of 2x4s (pieces of wood that are 1.5? × 3.5? or 38×89 mm in terms of height and width, respectively) in an x-frame, and nail two 2x4s across the feet at the bottom for support.
5. Set the barrel with the pipe in the wooden 2×4 saw buck.
6. Drill holes in the body of the barrel with a 1-inch (2.5 cm) drill for aeration.
7. Rotate the barrel in the sawhorse frame using the pipe or post as an axle.
8. Cut a hole in the side and add simple hinges and a hasp to create a door with the piece you cut from the side of your drum.
9. Fill your drum composter with leavesor other compostable material, and allow your new “garden helper” to do its job. You will want to rotate the drum a few times every day or so, depending on the outdoor temperature. (See Tips below for ideas on how to add a handle.)
10. Check the contents occasionally, and when they are broken down by the bacteria in the drum, remove them to use for soil amending, mulch, and other purposes around your lawn and garden.

Tips

• If your barrel is a light color you might consider painting it a dark green, brown, or black. There are paints like Krylon that work particularly well on plastic. The dark color will absorb light and raise the temperature of your compost.
• If the contents of the drum are very dry, moistening them will accelerate the composting process, but do not saturate them with water.
• Composting (decomposing) occurs more quickly in warm weather.
• If you would like to add a handle to help you turn the barrel, drill a 1″ (2.5 cm) hole all the way through one end of the pipe. Slide a piece of rebar or other round steel tubing that is 1″ (2.5 cm) in diameter through the holes. The rebar should be about 2′ (60cm) long. Center it so that you now have two handles on the end of the pipe and can grasp them to turn the barrel. You can cover them with pipe insulation for an easier grip.
• You could also build the tumbler on a diagonal axis (enough to create a slope) and put a plug in the bottom of the drum, which would allow you to add water that will help the decomposition and create a liquid fertilizer when drained from the drum.

Warnings

• Filling your composter with green (fresh cut) lawn trimmings or other material may cause it to generate too much heat, in which case it may begin to smolder, if the container is not rotated occasionally.

Things You’ll Need

• One 20-55 gallon (72-200 liter) plastic drum.
• One 48 inch (1.25 meter)length of pipe with a 2 inch diameter (5 centimeter).
• 2X4 treated lumber.
• Nails
• Circular saw.
• Drill motor, hole saw, and drill bits.
• Basic hand tools. (hammer, measuring tape, square)
• Hinges

Related wikiHows

• How to Use Your Home Built Tumble Composter to Create Rich Compost
• How to Compost
• How to Build a Compost Bin
• How to Find Free Compost Ingredients
• How to Make Your Own Worm Compost System

Article provided by wikiHow, a collaborative writing project to build the world’s largest, highest quality how-to manual. Please edit this article and find author credits at the original wikiHow article on How to Build a Tumbling Composter. All content on wikiHow can be shared under a Creative Commons license.