Commitment to Comply - ISO 14001 Clause 4.2 - Environmental Policy

B

brentbackus

Situation: A company is in its 4th year of an ISO 14001 certificate. During a tour it was observed that the facility was having unauthorized release of a liquid to the storm drain which empties on the site property. It was noted that another storm drain appeared to have another type of a liquid coming out of it and it also drained on-site. The sites storm drain system is old. The site does have a storm water pollution plan as part of their NPDES permit. Site staff knows that there are and have been unauthorized releases in the past. The site does have a management program that has not really addressed this issue successfully.The 2011 compliance audit did pick up that storm water was an issue but the 2009 compliance audit did not.

It was decided to issue a major nonconformance to the ISO 14001, 4.2 Environmental Policy, Commitment to Comply because the plant has operated with unauthorized releases over the 4 year history of their ISO 14001 program. Other elements feeding into the not committing to comply include, legal and other, management programs compliance auditing, communication, resources and roles and operational control. Thus, the major was based on the most restrictive clause, 4.2 Environmental Policy, Commitment to Comply.
Thoughts? Correct call? Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Randy

Super Moderator
Re: Commitment to Comply, 4.2 Env. Policy

Possibly a good call

They promised to comply and apparently they are not utilizing system processes to help them do so.

Having a leak is one thing, but not acting upon that knowledge is something else entirely....From a regulators standpoint "Knowingly wilfull and neglegent" comes to mind (onsite or offsite may not matter)

EXCEPT......Have they discussed this at the Management Review and initiated anything positive?

Is there any evidence of the CA/PA process being implemented?

Is the discharge prevented from going offiste by being taken care of internally with an approved or permitted water treatment operation?

This kind of thing could go either way
 
B

brentbackus

Re: Commitment to Comply, 4.2 Env. Policy

I would agree on willful neglect and they would not. No CA/PA issued. Storm water is not treated. They have initated a storm water management program but to no avail in reducing unauthorized discharges.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
I agree the findings you have described are very troubling. And Randy is right to ask if system-based activities have taken place. In my years of observation Randy will steer you right. :agree1:

As an auditor I would be interested to review the present "storm water pollution plan as part of their NPDES permit", plus designed processes to abate the defined aspects, then data captured during evaluation and response to those defined controls and failure to adhere to the controls - when, how and what happened then.

To determine commitment I would need to understand which level the commitment was missing, and the specifics. Was it in resources at management level? Was it in a gap between responsibility and authority? Was it the organization's failure to support addressing nonconformances? We have to keep in mind that as auditors we need to use objective evidence to declare any of these are the true issue. That's what makes commitment so easy for auditors to determine and so difficult to objectively write up.
 

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
I will start by saying that I am still pretty new at environmental auditing (been involved in quality for over 20 years) so this kind of question helps me.

Just out of interest, what is the CB/Registrar's definition of a major and minor N/C?

I ask because to many, a major is defined as the absence, or total breakdown of a required system. I wonder, if this is the only evidence that they have failed to comply with their environmental policy, if there is sufficient evidence to grade it as major?

I am not questioning the validity of the N/C (it sounds like 1 to me) but I also wonder if the policy is the best clause to use. Have they conducted adequate monitoring and measuring? Did they have sufficient operational controls in place? You mention that they have a management programme so presumably they also have objectives and targets?
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Just out of interest, what is the CB/Registrar's definition of a major and minor N/C?

I ask because to many, a major is defined as the absence, or total breakdown of a required system. I wonder, if this is the only evidence that they have failed to comply with their environmental policy, if there is sufficient evidence to grade it as major?

I am not questioning the validity of the N/C (it sounds like 1 to me) but I also wonder if the policy is the best clause to use. Have they conducted adequate monitoring and measuring? Did they have sufficient operational controls in place? You mention that they have a management programme so presumably they also have objectives and targets?
I can't directly vouch for definitions from CB auditors, but I can point to Green profits: the manager's handbook for ISO 14001 and pollution prevention.
 

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
Thanks Jennifer, it looks like a good document. As we know, different organisations take a different view on the grading process. My concern is that if someone chooses to grade a finding as a major, they fail and I don't like the thought of a company failing an audit based on someone's perception rather than hard evidence.
 
Top Bottom