Category Archives: ISO 14001

ISO 14001 Topics

Big 3 Standards Now Under Revision – What You Need to Know

Posted on by

The 3 big ISO standards are now under revision. ISO 14001, 45001 and 9001 are being reviewed and revised simultaneously.  Recently, ECSI attended meetings of the US Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) for both ISO 14001, and 9001 in Washington DC where the upcoming revisions were discussed. We have also been participating in the US TAG to ISO 45001 and in meetings discussing revisions to that standard.

The revised standards will be released in a few years when organizations will be need to conform with the revisions. The following is a brief discussion of what to expect for revisions to each standard.

ISO 14001

ISO 14001 was first published in 1996.  Since then, it has been revised twice. Once in 2004 and again in 2015.  The 2015 revision incorporated a major change. This change involved converting the entire standard to the ISO High Level Structure (HLS).  Although the revision will not introduce new requirements, it may make changes to clarify some of the key requirements such as the relationship between risk and opportunity and significant environmental aspects.

The revision will integrate changes to the HLS and address concerns raised by users of the standard over the past 9 years.   Initially the ISO 14001 revision committee considered issuing an amendment with the few HLS changes.  The committee thought that this would be easier and take less time than a full revision.  The committee was also concerned about opening the standard up to a broader revision that could result in additional requirements.

Recently however, the committee discovered that the amendment option has significant drawbacks making it an unlikely choice.  The amendment route would have resulted in issuance of a separate 28 plus page document to be used with the current 2015 version of the standard.  Users would have to reference 2 different documents when using the new amended standard.  The committee is looking at other amendment options, but it appears the only way to avoid the 2 document problem is to do a full revision and then issue a single revision document.

If a full revision does occur, it provides more opportunity to address sections of the standard that have caused confusion for users.  Additionally, it creates an opportunity to take advantage of changes in the HLS that offer flexibility when using the term “risk and opportunity” in the planning section of the standard.

ISO 45001

The committee revising ISO 45001 has decided to do a full revision instead of just a limited amendment.  This option avoids the 2 document problem created by the amendment route and gives the committee greater flexibility in what can be changed. This includes clarifying and streamlining parts of the standard that users have found confusing and redundant.

Clause 6 (Planning) is one of the parts that has potential for improvement to make it more user friendly for small and medium sized organizations.  Clause 6 of the standard in the current version was over 1100 words and three pages in length.  One proposal being circulated for the revision by the committee would dramatically reduce the text by two thirds to only 318 words and 1 page.

There is also a proposal to refer to “OHS Hazard Risk” when describing what the OHSMS is supposed to be managing. It is thought that this may help reduce misuse of the terms “Risk” and “Hazard” interchangeably.

ISO 9001

The ISO 9001 committee has also chosen the full revision route.  However, the committee is taking a more aggressive posture when deviating from the HLS.  For over a decade ISO headquarters has insisted that it will not allow deviations from the HLS text for any of the standards.  The ISO 9001 revision committee wants to exclude certain new requirements introduced by the updated HLS.

The committee believes the new HLS requirement about climate change is not applicable to a quality management system. Although the committee believes that climate change consideration is important, they believe including it as a requirement in 9001 is inappropriate.

Conclusion

The revision of the three big ISO standards is not expected to result in new significant or reorganization of the standards.  The revisions are more likely to improve the standards by reducing unnecessary text and eliminating redundant requirements.  Organizations who meet the requirements of the current ISO standards should not need to make big changes to their Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and Quality management systems.  The revisions will also make these standards more accessible to small and medium sized businesses around the globe.

URGENT ALERT – ISO Climate Change Amendments!

Posted on by

ISO recently amended all ISO management system standards (MSS) to include requirements for organizations to consider the effects of climate change. If your organization holds a current certification to ISO 9001, 14001 or 45001 you can expect to be asked “has your organization determined whether climate change is a relevant issue?” during your next certification audit.

This new requirement is the result of a change to the ISO Harmonized Structure (Appendix 2 of the Annex SL in the ISO/IEC Directives Part 1 Consolidated ISO Supplement). Here is more background on the Harmonized Structure also referred to as the High Level Structure and Annex SL.

ISO announced the new requirement in an IAF/ISO Joint Communique indicating the climate change text highlighted below is effective immediately for all MSS.

ISO HLS revised requirements for context determination

Most organizations certified to ISO 14001 should be able to answer auditors questions about climate change relevance. Other organizations with current certification to ISO 9001 and/or 45001 might find it more difficult to avoid a nonconformity to these new requirements if they don’t act soon. Each organizations context is different and will influence how they address climate change in their MSS

Contact us if you have questions about how these new requirements might effect your organization ISO certification status.

ISO 14001 Continual Improvement Survey 2013 Results

Posted on by

ISO recently published the results of a survey questionnaire circulated last year to the international community .  The purpose of the survey was to help guide the ISO technical committee (TC 207) revision of ISO 14001 scheduled to be released next year.  The survey reached over 5000 organizations or individuals in 110 countries worldwide.  57% of the respondents were in Europe with only 17% responding from North America.  54% of those responding were actual users of the standard such as industries and 45% were either consultants, certification bodies performing audits or other types of organizations.

The survey asked questions about the perceived value of ISO 14001 to Environmental Management and Business Management.  The areas where ISO 14001 was thought to be most valuable were:

  • Ability to meet legal requirements
  • Environmental performance improvement

The areas where ISO 14001 was thought to be of least value were:

  • Providing financial benefit
  • Improvement in supplier environmental performance

The overall average percent of very high to high value responses was 54% with only an average of 15% recording a perceived low or no value for all areas.  This suggests that participants have a generally positive opinion of the value of ISO 14001.

Value of ISO 14001

One  of the puzzling results of the survey was over 75% of respondents rated  ISO 14001 very high or high in its value  for environmental performance improvement but only about 25% believe that the standard provides a significant financial benefit.  Apparently survey respondents do not believe that investing in ISO 14001 as a way to reduce waste and resource use will provide an acceptable  return on investment.

Another surprising result is that almost 70% of respondents rated meeting stakeholder requirements as very high or high but only 27% believe that ISO 14001 has very high or high value when it comes to improving supplier environmental performance.  It’s difficult to tell from the data what survey respondents were thinking when they read “stakeholders”, but in my opinion there is a good chance they were thinking about their customers that require them to have an ISO 14001 EMS.  If 70% believe ISO 14001 improves performance and 60% implemented ISO 14001 to satisfy a customer requirement why are they not making the connection that the purpose of them being required to have an ISO 14001 is a result of their customers’ efforts to influence the environmental performance of their suppliers?

Thanks to Dr. Lisa Greenwood, Lecturer in Environmental Sustainability, Health and Safety at Rochester Institute of Technology for leading the evaluation of the survey. Here are links to documents evaluating the survey responses:

ISO 14001 Survey 2013 – Final Report and Analysis

ISO 14001 Survey 2013  – Summary Report

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.

 

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.

ISO 14001 and Shared Operational Permits.

Posted on by

Sometimes organizations share environmental permits with other organizations.  

This is a common situation with many large industrial operations where several plants are contiguous, use a common wastewater treatment facility or obtain energy from other parts of the organization where it is generated. The key is to carefully define the Scope of the EMS to only include those activities that are under the direct control of the organization implementing the EMS.

One of our clients in the paper industry has a similar situation. They are leasing a portion of a large paper making complex to make something called paperboard. Portions of the leased property are covered under the landlords Tier 1 NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit and addressed in the SWPPP. The landlord has stipulated in the lease agreement that our client needs to comply with the terms of the SWPPP and we incorporated the conditions of the SWPPP that apply into the EMS as an “other requirement”.

The organizations is certified by an ANAB accredited Certification Body which has accepted our interpretation of the SWPPP as an “other legal requirement”. Again the real key here is to carefully define the Scope of the EMS (4.1) to limit it to the physical areas and process that the organization can control.

Also see – 4.3.1 a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products and services within the defined scope of the environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence …..

Wisconsin Green Tier – Benefits and Risks to Wisconsin Business

Posted on by

The following is a brief discussion of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Green Tier program and some of the benefits it can have for business in Wisconsin and those doing business with WDNR Green Tier companies. The article also discusses some of the potential risks to these same business and WDNR that may result from stakeholders loosing confidence it what the Green Tier logo is supposed to mean.

Benefits to Business

A few months age I met with Pat Stevens who had just begun his new position as the Administrator of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Air and Waste. I was particularly interested in the potential changes to the Green Tier Program with a new administration and WDNR Secretary. During our discussions, Pat said he believed the new secretary and the new administration would continue to support and try to expand the Green Tier Program. One of the areas we explored was how Wisconsin businesses, in general, perceive the program and how the WDNR can gain broader acceptance with businesses by making some improvements.

I told Pat my experience had been that many potential Green Tier participants believe the benefits of the program do not justify the investment of effort needed to apply to the WDNR and become accepted into the program. I told him that we have also heard from some businesses that they perceive Green Tier participation as potentially increasing the risk of regulatory agency oversight and fines rather than reducing burdensome regulatory oversight.

Pat and I discussed a few ideas about how the WDNR can generate interest in the program through incentives, such as streamlined air emission construction permits for new or modified major sources and reduced reporting burdens. Within the last several weeks I have been pleased to see that a Tier 2 contract with Serigraph and correspondence with 3M in Prairie Du Chien ,WI included provisions for streamlined air permitting as Pat and I had discussed. I believe this is a move in the right direction and should help improve businesses perception of the potential benefits of Green Tier program.

Risks to Business and WDNR (Green Wash)

Pat and I also discuss what I perceive as significant potential risk to business participating in the Green Tier program and WDNR itself. The risk is that the process used by WDNR to confirm the existence of an ISO 14001 EMS may not be sufficiently robust to prevent some organizations acceptance into the program that are not really committed to the effective operations of the EMS. These participants want to be able to fly the Green Tier flag as evidence they are superior environmental performers but they are not actually committed to continual environmental performance improvement through an EMS.

This issue is particularly important for Tier 2 participants who may be receiving significant benefits under the green tier contracts. An example of this potential risk can be seen in WDNR acceptance of Serigraphs claim to be ISO 14001 “certified” as the basis for acceptance in to the Green Tier Program.

Although Serigraph has claimed to be certified to ISO14001 a examination of credentials of the Certification Body (Verysis, LLC) that issued the ISO 14001:2004 Certificate to Serigraph indicates that this organizations is not accredited by ANAB (the internationally recognized accreditation body in the USA) or any other International Accreditation Forum member. The accreditation of Verysis issued by an organization with a similar name “International Accreditation Board”  but does not reference any internationally recognized critera used to evaluate Verisys Registrars.

Here in the USA ANAB accredited ISO 14001 registrars undergo and extensive evaluation of their certification and audit process to ensure that they conform to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17021 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems. There is no evidence that Verysis has undergone such an assessment.

The Wisconsin Statute for the Green Tier program describes what WDNR needs to consider when determining the acceptability of Green Tier audit in § 299.83 (7a) as follows:

7m)?Environmental auditors. The department may not approve an outside environmental auditor for the purposes of sub. (3) (d) 4. or (5) (c) 2. unless the outside environmental auditor is accredited by an accreditation body that complies with standards of the International Organization for Standardization for accreditation bodies or meets criteria concerning education, training, experience, and performance that the department determines are equivalent to the criteria in the standards and guidance of the International Organization for Standardization for entities providing audit and certification of environmental management systems.

The basic problem is that unless WDNR does at good job of reviewing the qualifications and objectivity of the auditors performing Green Tier audits there is a significant risk that at some point unqualified auditors will be performing Green Tier audits and issuing certificates of conformance to organizations that do not deserve them. If these Green Tier participants are later found to not be the superior performers that WDNR claimed them to be there is significant potential for stakeholders to loose confidence in the meaning of the Green Tier logo. This would result in embarrassing times for both the WDNR and all the other Green Tier participants.

I am interested in your feedback on this issue. Do you think additonal incentives are need to increase Green Tier participation and is WDNR doing a good job of screening who should be admited to the Green Tier program. Please post a comment if you are so inclined.

Kevin Lehner, EMS-LA

President ECSI