VOC Exceedances, a Repeated Corrective Action and Two Missing Inspection Sheets
Meridian Plastics extrudes PVC profiles at a single site. Its air permit sets a VOC limit of 50 mg/m³ from the extrusion stack, monitored by a certified continuous emissions monitoring system. During a surveillance audit the team records three findings. Finding A: CEMS data show 62–71 mg/m³ on four days in March. The site procedure ENV-07 requires an investigation within five working days and a corrective action plan within 30 days; no investigation record exists, and the deviation log shows the alarms were 'acknowledged and reset'. Finding B: an identical exceedance pattern was raised as a nonconformity at the previous surveillance audit 18 months ago; the corrective action (retraining operators) was verified as closed by the certification body from a training attendance sheet alone. Finding C: two of fifteen weekly stack inspection sheets could not be produced; the shift supervisor says they were 'probably binned with the scrap tickets'. The three-day audit ends tomorrow and the certification decision is due in six weeks. The client's technical manager argues that Finding A should be minor because emissions were 'only 40 % over for a few hours'.
1. Classify Findings A, B and C and justify each classification, including how B affects your view of A.
Read the worked answer
Classify on effect, not on tone.
Finding A - major. The test is whether there is significant doubt that the process is under control. Here the excursion was detected by the CEMS and then actively closed down: alarms acknowledged and reset, no investigation under ENV-07, no corrective action within 30 days. The exceedance is a failure of operational control (8.1) and of monitoring and evaluation (9.1.1); the absent investigation is a failure of 10.2.1. The magnitude argument is irrelevant - the limit is the limit, and the failure lies in the response, which is total rather than partial.
Finding B - not a separate nonconformity so much as aggravating evidence. The same failure occurred 18 months ago and the corrective action did not prevent recurrence. That converts A from an isolated lapse into a demonstrated systemic failure and removes any argument for a minor classification. It also raises a question about the certification body's earlier closure decision, handled separately.
Finding C - minor on its own. Two of fifteen sheets missing, with no evidence that the inspection did not happen or that a control was lost. But if the missing sheets cluster around the March excursions, C becomes evidence for A rather than a standalone minor.
State the classification and the reasoning in the report. The client's assertion does not redefine the criterion. Where the team disagrees, the lead auditor decides and records the rationale.
2. Draft the nonconformity statement for Finding A and explain the distinction between correction and corrective action in this case.
Read the worked answer
Structure it as criteria – evidence – statement, and keep the corrective action out of it.
Criteria: ISO 14001:2015 clauses 8.1 and 9.1.1, and the organisation's own procedure ENV-07 (investigation within five working days; corrective action plan within 30 days).
Evidence: CEMS records for 4, 9, 12 and 17 March showing stack VOC of 62, 68, 71 and 64 mg/m³ against a permit limit of 50 mg/m³; deviation log entries marked 'acknowledged and reset'; no investigation or corrective action record produced for any of the four dates; interview with the technical manager confirming no investigation was commissioned.
Statement: 'The organisation did not investigate or correct exceedances of the stack VOC limit on four days in March, contrary to its procedure ENV-07 and to its arrangements for operational control and the evaluation of performance.'
Then distinguish the two responses:
- Correction stops the problem now: notifying the regulator where required, adjusting abatement, verifying the CEMS.
- Corrective action removes the cause: alarm response and escalation rules, competence of shift staff, review of abatement capacity, evaluation of effectiveness.
The auditor does not design these. The report may state the requirement to address root cause and to evaluate the effectiveness of the action taken (10.2.1 f), but prescribing a solution takes the team into consultancy and breaches the independence principle.
3. What must be done about the corrective action closed 18 months ago, and what does the recurrence mean for the audit conclusion and the certification decision?
Read the worked answer
Two questions: was the earlier closure decision sound, and what does recurrence mean for this audit?
First, verify the earlier action, not just its paperwork. The evidence of closure was a training attendance sheet. A sheet proves attendance, not competence or effect. Verification of effectiveness requires evidence that the process changed and stayed changed - updated alarm settings, the deviation trend after the training, samples of operator behaviour. The lead auditor should record objectively what the earlier verification consisted of and report it to the certification body's technical reviewer or the person responsible for the certification decision, because this is a weakness in the certification body's own process, not a client finding. It must not be resolved quietly inside the audit team.
Second, on this audit: the client's corrective action failed. That is itself a nonconformity against 10.2 - action not proportionate to the effect, effectiveness not evaluated - and it strengthens Finding A.
Third, the conclusion. The team cannot recommend continuation of certification as though the system were effective. The lead auditor recommends; the certification decision-maker decides. The file goes forward with the major nonconformity open, and closure will require objective verification, normally on site, before the decision - not another document review. Mention the six-week deadline as a fact that must not influence the technical judgement, and record that the team was placed under that time pressure.