Most aspect numeric rating methods that I have seen involve factors such as probability, severity, detectability, consequence, etc. So this means that potential spills/unplanned releases often score highly (are often designated as significant because of what could happen) and consumptive aspects (such as use of electricity, water, gas, etc.) will score much lower. Routine/normal (everyday) wastes tend to score somewhere in the middle. So the upset/unplanned aspects often represent a large share of the organizations significant aspects (SAs), even if they are rare.
I tell my clients that the concept of SAs is only an exercise in determining which are most important out of all the aspects identified by the organization. The standard indicates that SAs should be considered when developing objectives and targets. So, if SAs are the most important aspects to the organization, then it is reasonalble to assume that at least some SAs will be subject to continual improvement initiatives over time.
I would not issue a NC for a new system in which none of the objectives/targets involved SAs (the organization must show that SAs were considered, of course). Over time if no SAs were subject to continual improvement then it is likely that your method for identifying significant aspects should be re-considered. In other words, if you have consistently identified other aspects to improve upon, then aren't those chosen for CI equally or perhaps more important to the organization than the SAs?
