Author Archives: Kevin Lehner

About Kevin Lehner

Kevin has been president of ECSI for over 25 years. His practice focuses on environmental and health and safety management systems training, consulting and auditing. He is an active member of the US Technical Advisory Committees to ISO 14001 and ISO 45001. He represents that USA at international meetings of these committees. He is also the lead developer of the CorrectTrack corrective action tracking app.

OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001 – ISO Health and Safety Management Systems

Posted on by

In late October 2013 ISO (International Organization for Standardization) decided to move forward with the development of an ISO standard that will replace OHSAS 18001 Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements (British Standard Institute) within the next three years.  The ISO Occupational Health and Safety Management System Standard (OHSMS) is expected to be issued under the number ISO 45001.   The exact title is still up in the air but will be similar to something like Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements with guidance for use.   The first Working Draft of the new OHSMS standard is expected to be circulated to the US Technical Advisory Group (U.S. TAG) members within the next few weeks. 

Important issues that will be discussed early in the standard development process are:

Defining the term “persons under the control of the organization”. 

There will be discussion about how much flexibility organizations will have when defining the scope of its OHSMS under the ISO 45001 requirements.  This issue will have a significant impact on organizations who have chosen to shift OH&S risks to onsite contractors’ through contracts that require the contractors to assume some or all responsibly for their employees health and safety and for compliance with all regulatory requirements.   The questions will likely boil down to will the standard allow a complicated scope statement that excludes substantial portions of the facility’s physical location thereby excluding many contractors from the scope of the OHSMS,  or will the standard discourage this type of scoping in favor of a more inclusive approach to the scope of the OHSMS. 

Questions about acceptable levels of risk shifting or sharing will need to be discussed  and answered.

Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control

This will be an important topic of discussion and deliberation with the U.S. TAG to reach consensus on what the standard will require of organizations to develop, implement and maintain a process for performing hazard identification and risk assessment.   There are many approaches to risk assessment and it will be interesting to see how detailed the requirements will be regarding this important area of an OHSMS.  Appendix F of ANSI Z10 will be a starting point for the U.S. TAG for developing the guidance on this important OHSMS topic.

The new structure required by ISO (Annex SL) places emphasis on the concept of risk management.   OHSAS 18001 emphasized this aspect of an OHSMS but you can expect more in the way of guidance in ISO 45001 describing appropriate methods for assessing OH&S risks.   The guidance will be in the annex of the ISO 45001 standard with examples of how to perform an OH&S risk assessment and there will likely be a figure that looks something like the figure below where risk is estimated based on multiplying the likelihood value by the consequence value to arrive at the risk score.

 risk score 112113

 

 

 

 

Time Frame for ISO 45001 Development

Here is the current schedule for required 3 year development of the standard that was provide to TAG members on November 15, 2013.

  • Dec 2013 –Working Draft 1 (WD1) circulated Working Group 1 (WG1)
  • Jan 2014 – Submit Comments on WD1
  • Jan 2014 – US TAG Face to Face Meeting (to develop US positions/concerns on WD1) – ECSI will attend this meeting.
  • March 2014 – PC Meeting – Development of Committee Draft 1 (CD1)
  • November 2014 – PC Meeting – Development of Draft International Standard (DIS)
  • November 2015 –PC Meeting – Development of Final Draft International Standard (FDIS)
  • October 2016 – Publish ISO 45001

ECSI is a voting member of the U.S. Technical Advisory Group to ISO 45001 and will be directly involved in developing the US position on the content of this important standard.  We will be publishing updates on the progress of ISO 45001 and are happy to discuss any ideas, issues or concerns you have with the development of this new standard or any other OH&S issues you would like to discuss.  Don’t be shy.  You can either post a comment / question here or contact us directly at 920-648-4134 or email us kalehner@envcompsys.com.

 

ISO 14001Revision and ISO Annex SL – Elegant Simplicity or Redundant Complexity?

Posted on by

Being part of the ISO14001 revision process is fascinating. The technical advisory group (TAG) here in the USA of which I am an active member met in New Orleans late last month and I participated in the ISO 1400:201x revision process. There are likely to be significant changes to the ISO 14001 as it is aligned with something called the High Level Structure (HLS). ISO has decided that all new and revised standards will be organized in accordance with the HLS and ISO 14001 is the first major standard to go through the revision process under the HLS mandate. The revision to the standard is expected to be issued in final form in early 2015.

Under the HLS, ISO 14001 will go from 4 sections to 10. Even with six additional sections there is simplicity to the HLS that I find appealing. The HLS elegantly walks an organization through the steps needed to implement and operate any type of management system whether it’s environmental, health and safety, quality or even food safety.

Some participants in the revision process believe that a major obstacle  is that the International Organizations for Standardization (IOS) has imposed strict limitations prohibiting deletion of any of the HLS text. Text can only add where needed to make the HLS work for environmental management. There are two schools of thought on how to make the HLS work for an EMS. So far the group has used an approach where the old ISO 14001:2004 is dismantled and each section is inserted into a section of the HLS where it seems to be appropriate. The core HSL is only about 9 pages long. The approach currently being used by the TAG, to add text to the HLS from ISO 14001, has resulted in a document that is over double the length (19 pages not including the Annex).

Another emerging “less is more” approach to the ISO 14001 revision leaves the HLS mostly as it is with only subtle changes. EMS specific issues are addressed largely in Annex A. The only requirement imposed by the IOS regarding the content of the Annex is as that:

“The additional text given in this Annex is strictly informative and is intended to prevent misinterpretation of the requirements contained in this International Standard. While this information addresses and is consistent with the requirements, it is not intended to add to, subtract from, or in any way modify these requirements”.

Using this “less is more” approach solves some of the current problems with proposed revisions to the standard. It will reduce the potential problem of increased complexity and redundancy. The US TAG will continue to meet over the next few weeks to determine what the TAG experts will present as recommendations at the next international meeting of the ISO 14001 Technical Committee June 24-28, 2013 in Gaborone, Botswana. If you are interested in learning more Annex SL is where you can find the core HLS text. Look in Appendix A of Annex SL.

 

ISO 50001 Quiz Question from Linkedin Groups

Posted on by

Here is a senario and question that was posted to a Linkedin group that I thought was interesting.  Below are my thoughts.

Senario – An auditor was performing a site visit to the management offices during an ISO50001 audit in a factory. The time was noon and the weather was hot outside. and he noticed that a large area of the offices from the east side was subject to a direct sunlight. The curtains are already there but they look in a bad status and when he asked staff there it seems never been used to cover windows. He checked then the EnMs records and found that the SEUs are only the cooling and the motors. He checked the operational procedure , nothing is mentioned about use of curtains. The list of ECMs does not mention anything about the use of curtains. Can he consider this as a non-conformity? and according to which clause of ISO50001?

My Reply –

There is no way in heck that a competent auditor should write a NC to ISO 50001 based on the facts provided here.  Much more information is needed to make that call.  I would want to know at least the following:

1.  Has the organization established objectives and targets associated with the cooling SEU?  If not this is a clear NC to 4.4.6.  If they have established objective and targets for this SEU then I want to know…

2.  Have they established action plans for achieving these objectives and targets?  If not, it is also a clear NC to 4.4.6.  If they have established action plans for achieving the objectives and targets then I want to know…..

3.  Have the action plans been sufficiently developed that the curtains should have been considered as an effective operational control?  If the conclusion to this question in “No” the action plans have not been sufficiently developed,  I need to decide if I believe a creditable effort has been put forth by the organization given the timeframe the actions plans have been in place.  If the action plans have been in place for a few years and little progress has been made to identify and implement controls than a NC to 4.4.6 is justifiable.

If on the other hand the organization has recently implemented the EnMS and the objectives and targets have only been in place for a few short months, I cannot expect them to have made great progress on identifying appropriate controls yet.

4. At some point on this audit trail I also want to ask myself the question…Is this a “material issue”.  In other words “does it matter” in the grand scheme of the organizations EnMS if these curtains are in use or not.  This is auditor judgment and why auditors should become certified or otherwise competent to do this important work.  Depending on the circumstances this might be the first questions I would want to ask.

Future Challenges for ISO 14001: ISO Continual Improvement Survey (2013)

Posted on by

As you may already know, the ISO 14001 environmental management systems (EMS) standard is currently being revised, considering future challenges for EMS and continual improvement.  The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recently launched an ISO 14001 continual improvement survey to develop an understanding of the needs of current, past and potential users and other knowledgeable interested parties in relation to EMS standards.  The survey takes into account key topics from the ongoing discussions in the working group that is revising ISO 14001, and the results will be used to inform the ongoing revision.

Your views on these key topics and opportunities for improvement are extremely important, in order that the results truly represent the thinking of the users of the standard and other knowledgeable interested parties, including those in the US.  Please follow the link below to participate in the survey.

ISO 14001 continual improvement survey 2013

The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete.   All responses will be confidential, and individual respondents will not be identified.  Overall results will be made available to interested parties upon request, as indicated on the final page of the survey.

If you have questions concerning the distribution of the survey or participation in the standards revision process, please contact the American Society for Quality Standards Group at standards@asq.org.  General questions regarding survey participation or distribution of results may be directed to the ISO Central Secretariat at central@iso.org.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Lisa Greenwood and Kevin Lehner

US Technical Advisory Group to ISO TC 207 – Environmental Management

ISO 14001:201X Revisions Underway

Posted on by

The ISO 14001 revision process is in full swing. It has been underway now for almost a year and the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is currently working on the third committee draft of this popular international standard. In August 2012 we traveled to Washington DC to attend the semiannual meeting of the US TAG where the US team discussed the new compressive reorganization of the ISO 14001 revision required by something called the High Level Structure or Annex SL.

Both ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 will follow the new outline during their revision process. For ISO 14001 wonks out there who really want to get into the weeds on the reorganization of ISO 14001 here is a link to the Annex SL. The text of the HLS is at the end of the document.

Since the August DC meeting a core group of the TAG members has been meeting weekly to prepare comments on the current revision working draft (N_073_ISO_14001_ (E) WD3). The massive reorganization of the standard is the most significant difference people will notice right away when the revised standard in finally issued within the next 12-18 months. Here is a peak at the new high level structure that will be the framework of the ISO 14001:201X revision

Clause 1 – Scope

Clause 2 – Normative references

Clause 3 – Terms and definitions

Clause 4 – Context of the organization

Clause 5 – Leadership

Clause 6 – Planning

Clause 7 – Support

Clause 8 – Operation

Clause 9 – Performance evaluation

Clause 10 – Improvement

Our initial focus was on trying to fit the existing content of ISO 14001:2004 into the new structure. There are areas that fit well and others that don’t. More recently much effort has been invested by the core group discussing revisions to important definitions like “requirement”, “conformity” and “non-conformity”.

One of the additions to the standard we recommended was to include a new definition of the term “Significant Environmental Aspects” (see related post).

Participation on the TAG is rewarding but not without expense. Trips to DC, New Orleans, Sweden, and Botswana to promote the US position are investments in helping make the standard better for everyone. If you or your organizations would like to help support this important work we would welcome your assistance in anyway. You can email us at: ecsi14001tag@envcompsys.com or call me (Kevin Lehner) directly at 920-648-4134.

 

Revision to ISO 14001:2004 – Defining Significant Environmental Aspects/Impacts – Sense and Semantics

Posted on by

Over the last two decades practicing as an ISO 14001 auditor, consultant, and teacher, I have found that many individuals and organizations misunderstand the intent and meaning of the terms “significant environmental aspect” and “significant environmental impact.”  With the revision to ISO 14001:2004 well under way, perhaps now is a good time to attempt introducing language or definitions into ISO 14001:201x that will help individuals and organizations better understand the term “significant”, and the distinction between the terms “aspect,” and “impact.”   Such clarity would enable individuals and organizations to better interpret  what exactly must be done according to the standard. This confusion in meaning is understandable because, at least in the English language, there are several definitions or “senses” or “subsenses (meanings in specific contexts) of the term “significant.”  The senses or subsenses that are applicable within the context of ISO 14001 can be found in the MerriamWebster Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Addition) as follows:

2   a: having or likely to have influence or effect:  IMPORTANT  <a significant piece of legislation>;    also: of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits>

In order to fully comprehend this definition, you need to refer to the Explanatory Chart and Explanatory Notes at the beginning of the dictionary, which describe the meaning of the numbers (2), something called a “sense number”; the small letters (a), which are “sense letters”; the colon (:), which is used to separate two or more definitions of a single sense; and the italicized word “also,” which is called a “sense divider” and is used to introduce a meaning that is closely related to but may be considered less important than the preceding sense.  If a capitalized word is used to define a sense of the word, that capitalized word, in this case IMPORTANT, is defined as a synonym of the term being defined.

The sense number 2 definition of the term “significant” has several subsenses with different meanings.  One of these subsenses means “important.”  The other means “a noticeably or measurably large amount.”   What has happened over the years with the interpretation of ISO 14001 is that many individuals and organizations have applied only the second subsense of the term – “a noticeably or measurably large amount,” – when they are determining which environmental aspects they consider significant.  They ignore the other, and arguably more important, subsense of the term –  “IMPORTANT.”

The effect on an organization’s Environmental Management System of only considering the part of the definition of “significant” that means “a noticeably or measurably large amount“ has been that an organization typically excludes from its list of significant environmental aspects those that are “important” to them for  reasons other than their being “a noticeably or measurably large amount”. This typically includes environmental aspects for which the organization has established operational controls (work instructions) to ensure that the environmental impact of the significant environmental aspect is controlled to the level desired by the organization.  

An example might be waste light bulbs, batteries, and other electronic waste.  Although most organizations have procedures for ensuring that these wastes are properly recycled (work instructions or procedures), many do not identify these wastes as significant environmental aspects because they believe the presence of the operational control has reduced the potential impact from these wastes to a point where they do not constitute a  “noticeably large amount.”   They do not apply the other subsense of the word “significant” with the meaning “important.”  Proper management of waste light bulbs is obviously important to the organizations because they have established a procedure (operational control) for ensuring that they are managed in a certain way. 

The unfortunate consequence of not including waste light bulbs as a significant environmental aspect is that this important environmental aspect  then becomes transparent to the management system.  The organization’s performance toward ensuring that waste light bulbs are managed correctly is not routinely measured or audited during internal or other system audits. 

To correct this problem the US TAG should consider adding the following definitions to ISO 14001:201x:

3.xx significant environmental aspect The cause of a significant environmental impact

3.xx significant environmental impact The potential or actual environmental effect or risk caused by a significant environmental aspect that an organization intends to manage or is managing through operational controls and/or environmental objectives, targets, and programs

The definition of significant environmental impact above includes reference to “risk,” which is meant to address the risk to the organization, including potential regulatory noncompliance.  The result of including the word “risk” in the definition is that organizations controlling  an environmental aspect to manage a potential risk of noncompliance will need to identify that environmental aspect as “significant.” Close attention should also be paid to the way in which the terms “significant environmental aspect” and “significant environmental impact” are used in the standard to avoid confusion between these terms.  The use of the term significant environmental impact” should be limited compared to the use of the term significant environmental aspect.  The term significant environmental impact should be used only in the section of ISO 14001:201x addressing identification of environmental aspects.

Kevin A. Lehner, EMS-LA, CHMM – January 11, 2013

A True Story – Why ISO 14001 Works

Posted on by

Background

It has been over seven years since we first began helping a medium sized automotive equipment manufacturer in the midwest implement a company wide ISO 14001 EMS. They were getting pressure from their customers to prove they were good environmental performers and an ISO 14001 certificate was the best solution. We helped them with environmental aspects, setting up the EMS and identifying regulatory compliance requirements. As we were completing the project we performed a round of internal audits to check that each facility was complying with the applicable  legal requirements.

The Audit Finding

One of the findings of our compliance audit was that at one location, the company was operating unpermitted production painting equipment. The audit team could find no records of correspondence with the State permitting authority about this new equipment. It had been commissioned sometime after an initial Title V permit application had been prepared for the facility. The paint operation was an important part of the manufacturing process and it was not possible to simply shut the process down. Doing so would have resulted in delayed shipment of product and dissatisfied customers.

The Response

Although the discovery of this potential noncompliance was uncomfortable news for the organization, at least they now had a better picture of the potential risks they were facing. They examined the process closely and decided that it was time to upgrade. They worked it out with the state permitting authority to replace the old system with a new more efficient paint system.

Fast Forward

Over the last several years we have continued to perform periodic EH&S compliance, ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001 internal audits to support their continued certification to these standards.. During a recent compliance audit at one of the facilities we were delighted to see a new process being installed. It means the company continues to grow but, from an auditors perspective, the stack ducting through the roof becomes a great opportunity to check the EMS effectiveness to control noncompliance risk. As we walked by the new process I could see the auditee cracking a half smile as I asked a few questions about the new equipment and construction underway. He knew where this audit was going.

The audit was actually a combined one-day environmental and OSHA compliance audit so we had a lot of ground to cover in 8 hours. When the audit schedule called for review of compliance with state air emission permits, I asked what they knew about the potential emission from the new process. The audtee said “the process had the potential to emit a hazardous air pollutant at levels requiring permitting before installation of the equipment”.  The auditee then produced the construction permit they had been issued by the state?  The EMS had worked to help the organization identify the need to obtain a permit, well in advance of beginning construction on the new process.

Results Matter

Discovery of unpermitted emission sources during internal and compliance audits is not uncommon for us even today. Helping organizations identify and manage risks of noncompliance in the short term provides some satisfaction in our work. But having the opportunity to see the results of an effective EMS that we helped implement and, how that EMS has helped manage risks long term, is particularly gratifying.

Skepticism of the benefits of ISO 14001 will continue to linger especially with the uniformed. However, organizations interested in managing environmental risk and becoming more sustainable need to understand how the audit processes, embedded in ISO 14001, can be used to support an organizations sustainability efforts, promote successful outcomes and provide confidence by other stakeholder that environmentally, things are as they should be.

Revision to ISO 14001:201x Moving Forward

Posted on by

As a member of the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO 14001 I traveled to Washington DC recently to attend meetings of the US TAG (TC 207).  Although TAG members are sworn to secrecy to help protect the US negotiating position on key issues I can say that the next version of the standard is likely to be unrecognizable in its form.  This is due to a big change at ISO headquarters compelling all standards revisions to conform to a new format called the “High Level Structure” or HLS.  What this means is that the ISO 14001 standard will be dramatically rearranged to fit neatly into a format that ISO believes will facilitate better understanding of the intent of each standards requirements.

ISO believes that all standards should have a uniform format so the current work of TC 207 is to disassemble the existing ISO 14001:2004 standard and reassemble it within this new structure.  If you are interested you can see what the HLS looks like here.

The other changes to the standard are not expected to include new requirements.  There are however areas where the US TAG is working to clarify the intent of the standard.  These areas include revised language on how organizations decide what their EMS will manage (significant environmental aspects) and the need to continue to include preventive action as a separate activity in the EMS.

The international ISO 14001 group is meeting in Rochester NY later this month when the US TAG will present its ISO 14001 revision proposal.  It will be interesting to see what comes out of Rochester and what the rest of the international community is thinking about how to align the current version of ISO 14001 with the MLS.

What to Do About Climate Change – Our Ideas at ECSI

Posted on by

Our approach to climate change is based on assessment of potential business risks to our clients from inaction.  We believe there are actions that our clients can take to improve their competitive position and reduce their carbon footprint.  These actions are good business practices and make sense regardless of which side of the climate change political debate you are on.

A significant portion of a business’s cost is associated with energy use.  Coincidentally, energy use (carbon emissions from combustion of fossil fuels) is one of the most often sited potential causes of climate change.  Our approach is to focus on the dynamic aspects of our clients’ energy use to help them improve performance.  Improving energy performance provides the following benefits:

  • Long term return on investment 
  • Strategic hedge against future energy cost increases 
  • Credibility as a “Greener” Organization 
  •  Strategic positioning for future potential regulatory changes

We see minimal downside risk to business endeavoring to proactively manage their energy use by:

  • Establishing an effective energy management system (EnMS) 
  • Performing energy reviews 
  • Establishing energy baselines 
  •  Identifying key energy performance indications 
  • Developing energy management action plans

ISO 50001 is an International Standard describing the minimal requirements for a continual improvement based EnMS.  As a voting member on the ISO 50001 technical advisory group TC 242 we monitor developments and participate in international consensus building on these important issues and encourage you to learn more about how an EnMS can be good for your business.

Disappointing News from ANAB

Posted on by

In late spring we meet with ANAB at their headquarters in Milwaukee to kick off the process of becoming an ANAB accredited registrar. Our hope was to issue ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 50001 accredited certificates to business in the upper Midwest.  To our surprise during that meeting ANAB made it clear that consultancies are prohibited from accreditation as certification bodies.  In ANABs eyes consultancies and anyone involved in governance of a consultancy is incapable of impartiality when performing ISO certification assessments.

We continue to believe that consultants make good auditors and vice versa.  The financial audit sector (accounts) has operated successfully for many decades using the model to ensure competency of both auditors and consultants.  We believe that ANAB, IAF and ISO’s conclusion that the threats to impartiality by consultancies are irreconcilable is not based in fact.  We also believe that the threats of financial self-interest by ANAB accredited certification bodies are at least as potent as any threat to impartiality from a consultancy performing certification activities.  This is because accredited CBs can (or should) only be allowed to generate revenue from one source, their certification activities.

We remain committed to trying to work with ANAB to find a way to offer ISO certification services in the upper Midwest but for the time being have placed this lower on our priority list of objectives.