What should a registrar do if a company has a significant violation of hazardous waste regulations (RCRA) in multiple cases? I am not sure if this site is registered but the parent company, Canadian General-Tower is ISO 14001. Not sure if this is a multi-site registration and covers the Toledo facility. Also does any one know if this particular location in Toledo is registered to ISO 14001? Just curious.

Certainly an organization can remain registered while out of compliance, but the multiple violations and fines would be pushing the limits on maintaining registration, not to mention a possible public relations nightmare for the registrar.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/NEWS16/60321009&SearchID=73239232669047
Textileather will pay $18,000 Ohio EPA fine

Back in 2000 they were fined for RCRA violations as well. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/nr/2000/october/textilea.html

Complaince info on facility. Has not been updated with recent information in the Blade above.
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=110000384094

Holy Toledo! :bigwave:

I have heard of companies losing their registration for being out of compliance with regulations. The reasons can stated along the lines of lack of commitment to their own policy (especially if they have been out of compliance for a long period of time), management committment, environmental aspects (items that are under its control obviously are not and efforts are not being taken to regain control), evaluation of compliance, nonconformance/corrective action...and all the ties in between. Basically, if out of compliance and no actions exist to regain compliance, you're looking at a breakdown of the system. I'd say this is a major, at a minimum...but, as I said at the beginning, I've heard of companies losing their registration over stuff like this.

Basically, if out of compliance and no actions exist to regain compliance, you're looking at a breakdown of the system. I'd say this is a major, at a minimum...but, as I said at the beginning, I've heard of companies losing their registration over stuff like this.

Says a bunch about the effectiveness of their corrective action system and level of management commitment, if nothing else.

Says a bunch about the effectiveness of their corrective action system and level of management commitment, if nothing else.
I would say that based on the public record, the organization has a relatively weak corrective and preventative action system.

Hey, I was involved in the final inventory for Textile Leather when General Tire(aka GenCorp) sold it to the employees in '89. It was considered a reclamation problem long before that.

Good question............Remember, Registrars and ISO 14001 registration do not guarantee compliance. Every registrar has requirements and the accreditation bodies for registrars have requirements concerning "compliance".

Essentially, if the organization has identified a non-compliant situation, developed and initiated the CA/PA process and taken all the necessary steps the cert shouldn't be at risk under normal conditions. An NOV with associated fines can be a product of the organization actually fulfilling its compliance requirements from a "self reporting" activity from deviating from a permitted condition. They can get fined for complying with the law. Those of us that have actually tread the compliance pathway managing permitted operations understand that.

Now if an organization has not recognized a non-compliance, or has not initiated corrective action, or has failed because of lack of committment or for a variety of other reasons, then there may be potential for a certificate to be withdrawn.

Everything is case by case even in the event of multiple occurances.

Hey, I was involved in the final inventory for Textile Leather when General Tire(aka GenCorp) sold it to the employees in '89. It was considered a reclamation problem long before that.
Yea, Gencorp. Wasn't that a Superfund site with lots of PCBs?

Everything is case by case even in the event of multiple occurances.
I would think that this would be a no brainer for the registrar, if only to protect its' good name and business. I wonder what its' name is?

A violation does not necessarily mean the organization has caused harm to the environment. An NOV can be issued for an administrative oversight or error; failure to place a date on a hazardous waste label, missing an opacity check, having a loose bung on a drum, missing a report date by one day and a million other things.

I got about a dozen CalEPA/RCRA NOV's in one day from an over eager dipstick "intern" who hammered me because waste labels were not visible from where she was standing. A very critical and serious legal violation!!

A violation does not necessarily mean the organization has caused harm to the environment. An NOV can be issued for an administrative oversight or error; failure to place a date on a hazardous waste label, missing an opacity check, having a loose bung on a drum, missing a report date by one day and a million other things.

I got about a dozen CalEPA/RCRA NOV's in one day from an over eager dipstick "intern" who hammered me because waste labels were not visible from where she was standing. A very critical and serious legal violation!!
Normally fines like these are only for repeat or gross violations, IMO. Repeat violations in the same area reveal a lack of commitment to compliance. A company can't maintain a registration without a commitment to compliance.

I guess maybe I am asking for a poll. I think this is a good example of whether ISO 14001 can be a viable tool, as intended, toward compliance with legal requirements (you know, like EPA) and process improvement. So here is the question.

Assuming the organization mentioned above, and in light of the public compliance record, is registered to ISO 14001, should the registrar take action to withdraw the certificate?

We are not talking about Perry Johnson here.

Just curious.:bigwave:

Assuming the organization mentioned above, and in light of the public compliance record, is registered to ISO 14001, should the registrar take action to withdraw the certificate? Only if the registrar believes that the organization is giving lip service to the commitment to comply with regulations. It is not an easy call, but like Randy mentioned it has to be a case by case analysis.

Environmental fines can be issued for a number of reasons. Vindictive auditors being one of them. Have you ever heard of prosecutorial discretion? A prosecutor selectively going after certain individuals due to political pressure, for example. I agree with you that the Registrar must definitely investigate the issue, but to jump to a conclusion that the certificate must be revoked simply due to repeat violations is wrong, imo.

Normally fines like these are only for repeat or gross violations, IMO. Repeat violations in the same area reveal a lack of commitment to compliance. A company can't maintain a registration without a commitment to compliance.

Normally fines like those are chump change and lunch money. When you have a potential assessed penalty of nearly $2.5 million after having placed $300K in a cash bond that can be immediately siezed without notice $10,000 is almost laughable:lol:

Additionally, repeat violations do not immediately signal lack of committment. Minor excursions of air emissions during shut-down and start-up operations can cause problems. Emergency shut downs can trigger problems. Visual opacity limits may be exceeded due to humidity and temperature change. There are dozens of things that can occur that can be cited over and over again not because someone doesn't care, but because SH-T HAPPENS!

Please try managing a couple of air permits under MACT/NESHAP rules, process waste water discharge permits, RCRA permits, storm water programs solid waste programs, and the like for multiple facilities at the same time in different states before you start dropping your hammer on people committment. I'll always give people and organizations the benefit of the doubt because I've personnaly been the designated inmate and walked in their shoes. I need to see the BEEF.

I agree with you that the Registrar must definitely investigate the issue,...
...or maybe not based on the tone of some posts, since auditors usually represent the philosophy of the registrars they work for.

I agree with you that the Registrar must definitely investigate the issue, but to jump to a conclusion that the certificate must be revoked simply due to repeat violations is wrong, imo.

I don't think I said that the certificate should be revoked "simply due to repeat violations". I did imply that they apparently have a crappy CAR/PAR system.

I was just asking for feed back from some of the experts. And I got it. Thanks.:applause: