The Plating Shop That Re-scored Its Own Acid
Nordhaven Metal Finishing runs a job-shop plating line with 140 staff over two shifts. Its aspect register scores each aspect as likelihood multiplied by severity, with a total of 12 or more defined as significant. At the last review the environmental coordinator cut the severity score for 'spent pickling acid sent for regeneration' from 4 to 2 because the contractor holds a waste carrier permit; the score fell from 16 to 8 and the aspect dropped off the significant list. No justification was recorded. The register also omits the solvent used by a degreasing unit commissioned eight months ago. A nitric acid spill two years ago reached the surface-water drain; that aspect is listed but scored 9. Shift supervisors say they have never seen the significant aspects list.
1. Evaluate the adequacy of the organisation's process for determining significant environmental aspects. What is the most likely audit conclusion and against which requirement would you raise it?
Read the worked answer
What the standard requires (6.1.2): a defined, documented and consistently applied set of criteria; consideration of changes, planned or new developments, and new or modified activities, products and services; abnormal conditions including reasonably foreseeable emergencies; a life-cycle perspective; and maintenance of documented information of the aspects and impacts, the criteria, and the significant aspects.
Assessing the evidence:
- Lowering severity because the waste contractor is permitted conflates a control (and therefore likelihood) with consequence. If the load is spilled or misrouted, the severity of the impact on the receiving environment is unchanged. Even if the organisation argues its criterion is legitimate, applying it without recorded rationale shows a criterion is not being applied consistently.
- The omission of the new degreasing solvent is a direct breach of the requirement to consider new or modified activities. A process that does not trigger on management-of-change events is not effective.
- The nitric acid spill scored 9. If an impact severe enough to reach a surface-water drain scores below the threshold, either the scoring scale is not discriminating or emergency conditions are being assessed as normal operating conditions.
Conclusion: these are not isolated slips, they are failures of the aspect-determination process itself, and everything downstream (operational control, monitoring, objectives, emergency planning) is built on its output. Raise a nonconformity against 6.1.2 and treat it as systemic rather than a minor clerical error. Do not raise three separate findings for the three symptoms: one finding, three pieces of evidence.
2. Which documented information would you require and what would you sample to test whether the aspect process is operating, not just documented?
Read the worked answer
Required by 6.1.2: the organisation must maintain documented information of (a) its environmental aspects and associated impacts, (b) the criteria used to determine significance, and (c) its significant environmental aspects. Note that the standard does not prescribe the format of an aspect register, so the absence of a matrix is not in itself a finding; the absence of the three content elements is.
Sampling plan (trace forward and backward):
- Backward from two or three significant aspects to the objectives (6.2) and operational controls (8.1) that should exist because of them. If an aspect is significant and nothing changes downstream, the significance determination is decorative.
- Forward from the management-of-change and commissioning records to the register, to confirm new or modified activities are captured.
- Cross-check the register against actual site conditions on walk-round: bulk chemical storage, drains and interceptors, waste compounds, refrigerant and fire-suppression systems.
- Review contractor permits and licences held on file, since these were used as the justification for the re-scoring.
- Interview one supervisor and one operator and ask what the significant aspects are in their area, then compare to the register (this also feeds 7.3).
Record the sample basis in your working papers so the extent of the system failure you report is defensible.
3. Shift supervisors state they have never seen the significant aspects list. Which requirement do you cite, and how do you avoid double-counting with awareness?
Read the worked answer
Two requirements touch this: 6.1.2 requires the organisation to communicate its significant environmental aspects among the various levels and functions of the organisation, as appropriate, and 7.3 requires awareness of the significant environmental aspects and related actual or potential impacts, and the implications of not conforming.
Judgement:
- The evidence is one fact with two possible citations. Raise one nonconformity, citing the requirement that best matches the failure you can prove. Here the direct failure is that a distribution mechanism required by 6.1.2 does not exist or is not working, so cite 6.1.2 and reference 7.3 in the description rather than writing a second finding.
- Harden the evidence before writing it: ask the supervisors what they would do if a spill reached the yard drain. If they can describe correct response but not the list, the failure is the documented distribution, not awareness, and a major finding would be disproportionate.
- Conversely, if a supervisor says a spill should be hosed to the yard drain because 'that is the normal drain', the impact is real and immediate, and you have evidence of an ineffective EMS output, not a paperwork gap.
- Wording matters: describe the condition, the requirement, and the evidence (how many of the people you interviewed, on which shift, on which date). Avoid writing 'the list was not communicated' without saying what you did to test it.