ISO 14001 standard

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
boubka
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 950
Registration: 10/08/07, 17:22
x 2




by boubka » 30/05/10, 23:32

my poor man, you must have worked in a rotten "factory"

It's true ... I worked in a large French group distributing and treating drinking water and I am now working in a multinational company.
and what are you doing recordings ..... who are the first consulted

at "us" the drire never ask for a recording (not even know if they know that we have one?) and anyway as it is more often down than in fct, we will have provided them "a voucher" ...
and yet, believe me, we often reject outsize without being worried.
additionally some element can not be measured other than in the lab.
and since these are peaks that are only visible after analysis, the finished sample in the sink to pick up another which will be more favorable. These are the results that will be transmitted.

and when the line is there and puts down its sampler, we are particularly vigilant about "accidental" spills.
24 h after it started again as before.


it is sure that if worked in a box that rejects violent poisons (you talk about chrome 6, cyanide ..) it must be a little more verif ...

whatever: when we almost manage to conceal a radioactive leak in a power plant, we can ask ourselves questions about the monitoring of "independent" organizations
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 30/05/10, 23:57

boubka wrote:whatever: when we almost manage to conceal a radioactive leak in a power plant, we can ask ourselves questions about the monitoring of "independent" organizations


I saw an ISO 9100 audit result with the 985 / 1000 rating ..... Those who work there laughed well. It must be admitted that the hucksters who represent the company and accompany the listener are talented, it must be recognized. The listener may have the low view? Or he is paid to leave the glasses at home ??? : Mrgreen:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
rescwood
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 85
Registration: 05/09/05, 14:30
Location: Luxie (Southern Belgium)




by rescwood » 31/05/10, 09:45

to limit a rejection to 5mg / liter is an absurdity: to get rid in a legal way of one g of cyanide it would be enough to dilute it with 20m3 of water ... and if there are 10 times it would be enough to waste 10 more water?


A rejection limit is always expressed in concentration et
in volume ou in mass load (for example in kg / day)

I hope the norm from where is drawn this figure is a little less stupid


In European directives, which must be transcribed in the legislation of each member state, the discharge standards are defined according to the impact of emissions on health and the environment. They are based on analysis results assigned a safety factor.

14001 iso does not require compliance with all existing anti-polution standards, but only those that are relevant to the activity or activities performed.

all the art is to choose the right standards


An enterprise does not choose the operating conditions to which it is subject, they are defined in the legislation and any derogation must be justified.

Before criticizing and drawing hasty conclusions, it may be necessary to first know what one is doing ...
0 x
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12




by zorglub » 31/05/10, 10:48

5mg / l for cyanides


it's not a mass load that ?????
whether in kg / m3 or mg / l it's the same and it's not concentration?
should see think before writing
in kg / day does not mean anything
0 x
every morning you look naked in a large ice after 3 minutes you will see that your home and your worst picture ......
User avatar
rescwood
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 85
Registration: 05/09/05, 14:30
Location: Luxie (Southern Belgium)




by rescwood » 31/05/10, 11:44

Quote:
5mg / l for cyanides


it's not a mass load that ?????
whether in kg / m3 or mg / l it's the same and it's not concentration?
should see think before writing
in kg / day does not mean anything


5mg / l = 5 gr / m³
at 10 m³ / day it gives a mass load of 50 gr / day
at 100 m³ / day it gives a mass load of 500 gr / day

A simple concentration is not enough to define a rejection limit it must be integrated over a period and / or a volume.
0 x
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12




by zorglub » 31/05/10, 13:55

a simple concentration is not sufficient to define a rejection limit it must be integrated over a period and / or a volume
.
the moment you speak about concentration, it is necessary to reduce to a volume, or to a weight (mg per liters or mg per kilo

per day of how much time of activity? 4, 6, 8, 24 ????
Belgian and French standards may be different .....
long live Europe
0 x
every morning you look naked in a large ice after 3 minutes you will see that your home and your worst picture ......
User avatar
rescwood
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 85
Registration: 05/09/05, 14:30
Location: Luxie (Southern Belgium)




by rescwood » 31/05/10, 16:30

If you drink whiskey (40% ethanol) or beer (5% ethanol), I can not predict that you will be farted only if I know the volume that you swallowed and the time you put in to swallow it.

1 liter of whiskey per day is a mass load of 400g / day
1 liter of beer a day is a mass load of 50g / day

Your condition will depend on your load, and your load I can not know only on the basis of the ethanol concentration of your favorite drink ... A polluting load, it is exactly the same reasoning. : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12




by zorglub » 31/05/10, 20:42

I only drink water, and one more drink at a time!
0 x
every morning you look naked in a large ice after 3 minutes you will see that your home and your worst picture ......
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 31/05/10, 21:44

the question is not the ...

we waste time discussing a fragment of norms of unidentified origin

the purpose of my remarks is precisely to say that if everything is not clearly known for everyone it is the m ....

no one is supposed to ignore the law: the norms are almost law and they are hidden ...

standards that must be paid to have the right to know them is an absurdity

and the worst thing is that when you get one you can see that it's just a hype that refers to other norms to get the data you're looking for ...

whoever pays will be ruined before finding what he should know

on the occasion of a business creation I ordered at once all the standards that I found useful ... reading there was never what I was looking for it should have ordered 10 times more ... I left them the slate ...

when I read on the letterhead of afnor "public utility association" I wonder where the public utility is to sell so expensive the information which should be distributed free of charge for the public interest
0 x
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12




by zorglub » 31/05/10, 21:56

there, I agree with you, but we must feed these people well (or rather fatten them)
regarding surface treatments, I had more than a hundred, and to find a reference, it took 2 days .........
0 x
every morning you look naked in a large ice after 3 minutes you will see that your home and your worst picture ......

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 129 guests