The consent changed and nobody noticed
Cardwell Metal Finishing runs a zinc plating line, an anodising line commissioned 10 months ago, and a wastewater treatment plant. It discharges to the municipal sewer under a trade effluent consent. Ninety-five employees.
Eight months ago the regulator reissued the consent: zinc reduced from 2.0 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L, and monthly self-monitoring with quarterly reporting added. The environmental manager filed the new consent in a permits folder; the compliance obligations register and the monitoring schedule still show the old limit and quarterly sampling.
Laboratory sheets for the last six months show zinc at 1.4–1.6 mg/L on three occasions; COD is within limit. No report has gone to the regulator. The environmental manager's note in the file reads: plant is running normally, no action needed.
The environmental aspects register has not been updated since the anodising line was commissioned and lists no acid mist or nickel. The spill kit at the treatment plant contains absorbent that hardened 18 months ago; the emergency plan was last exercised in 2021.
1. Map the consent and monitoring findings to clauses and decide whether any is a major nonconformity. Show your reasoning about consequence and system failure.
Read the worked answer
Mapping. Three linked failures: 6.1.3 (compliance obligations must be maintained and current - the register still shows 2.0 mg/L and quarterly sampling); 9.1.2 (no evaluation of compliance, no knowledge of compliance status, no evidence of the quarterly report); 8.1 (operational controls still designed around the old limit, so the treatment plant is run against a standard that no longer applies).
Consequence test. The limit is 1.0 mg/L; lab sheets show 1.4–1.6 mg/L in three of six months. That is a probable breach of a legal limit with a real pathway - zinc to sewer, into sludge and ultimately receiving water.
System test. The failure is not one missed form. A new consent arrived, was filed, and never entered the process that drives monitoring, reporting and operational control. The same failure will recur at the next permit change.
Conclusion. Major nonconformity against 6.1.3 and 9.1.2, with urgent correction: stop and assess the discharge, notify the regulator as the consent requires, establish when the exceedances occurred and whether sludge or receiving water was affected, and review whether the treatment plant can meet 1.0 mg/L at all.
What would change my mind. If the register had been updated, monitoring performed and the exceedance detected and reported, with a plant upgrade already planned under 6.2, the finding would concern the adequacy of the treatment plant rather than the management system, and would likely be minor. Read the raw lab reports and the consent itself before writing it up.
2. The aspects register omits the newly commissioned anodising line. What clause applies, and what would you sample to show whether the omission affects the system rather than only a document?
Read the worked answer
Requirement. 6.1.2 requires environmental aspects and impacts to be determined within the EMS scope, considering changes and a life cycle perspective. The register feeds almost everything downstream: 6.1.3 obligations, 6.2 objectives, 8.1 operational control, 8.2 emergency preparedness, 9.1.1 monitoring and 7.2 competence.
Why the omission matters. An anodising line brings acid mist (air emissions, scrubber performance), nickel and other metals in effluent and waste, higher water and energy use, and new chemical handling risks. If none appears in the register, none is likely to appear in the consent review, the monitoring plan, the emergency scenarios or the training matrix. The document gap is the symptom; the audit must test the consequence.
Sampling plan. Air emission permits and scrubber maintenance records; bunding and chemical storage; spent bath disposal and waste consignment notes; whether the trade effluent consent covers the new effluent stream; operator training on acid handling; the emergency plan for a tank leak; monitoring data for pH and metals since commissioning. Ask who signed off commissioning and whether 6.1.2 was considered at that point.
Judgement. Major nonconformity against 6.1.2 if sampling shows the aspects are uncontrolled; minor if controls exist and only the register is stale. The report must state which, with the specific evidence, because the corrective action differs completely between the two cases. Do not close the finding on production of an updated spreadsheet.
3. The spill kit absorbent has hardened and the emergency plan has not been tested since 2021. How do you judge this under clause 8.2, and should it be merged with the compliance obligations finding?
Read the worked answer
Requirement. 8.2 requires planned response actions for potential emergency situations, response to actual incidents, and periodic testing and review of the plan where practicable. It does not prescribe an annual test; it prescribes a response capability that works.
Analysis. The treatment plant's spill kit contains absorbent that hardened 18 months ago. In a zinc or acid spill at that point, the first-response material would be unusable and the spill could reach the yard drain. Because the plan has not been exercised since 2021, nobody has discovered this. The failure is in the response capability, not in the calendar.
Judgement. Nonconformity against 8.2, probably minor if this is one kit and the main store holds serviceable stock with trained staff who know where it is; major if the treatment plant is the only kit location, staff cannot describe the response, or there is no drain shut-off. Check the drain route and bunding before deciding.
Merge or separate? Keep it separate. Different root cause, different correction, different owner. It is legitimate to note in the report that several controls at the treatment plant have decayed at once, which supports the case for a major finding on 8.1, but each nonconformity needs its own evidence and corrective action. Also ask when the plan was last reviewed against the new anodising chemicals - if never, that strengthens the 6.1.2 finding considerably.