The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a new initiative called the Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) in the June 21, 1994 Federal Register. ELP is designed to recognize and provide incentives to facilities willing to develop and demonstrate innovative approaches to establishing accountability for compliance with existing laws. This program is one of several new environmental initiatives announced as part of the Clinton Administration's reinvention of regulation to achieve environmental results at the least cost.
Among the 12 projects selected for the ELP pilots was the Gillette proposal. The goal of the Gillette pilot project is to conduct a third-party verification of an environmental management system including a compliance audit. In addition, an Environmental Management System (EMS) audit protocol will be developed and implemented as part of the project. Data gathered from the audit activities performed at the three facilities will contribute to a full-scale ELP.
Three Gillette facilities are participating in the pilot phase: South Boston Manufacturing Center; North Chicago Manufacturing Center; and Santa Monica Manufacturing Center. In June 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement for the pilot project was agreed upon and signed by representatives of Gillette, EPA , Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality, Illinois EPA, California EPA, and the City of Santa Monica. Project plan activities were underway by July 1995.
In general, the Gillette pilot phase will include the following activities:
This report on the Gillette ELP pilot is being prepared at the half-way point into the project. The report:
In the summer of 1995 representatives of the Gillette Team conducted site visits at the three participating facilities to become familiar with the facility operations. In addition, conference calls were held on a regular basis to discuss issues related to auditing and third party verification. Documents drafted by the Gillette Team are discussed below.
The Gillette Team developed a guidance for conducting compliance audits at the three participating Gillette facilities. Participating facilities are expected to demonstrate environmental leadership qualities. Therefore, in addition to assessing compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental regulations, the guidance also addresses compliance with "beyond compliance" activities (e.g., pollution prevention, implementation of company environmental policies). The Gillette Team expects audits conducted in accordance with the guidance to provide a two-fold benefit. First, the facility will have a comprehensive facility assessment that will objectively assess the facility's compliance with Federal, State and local environmental requirements and beyond compliance commitments. Second, the EPA, State and local agency will recognize the compliance audit, in conjunction with an evaluation of the facility's environmental management system, as a valid measure of the facility's compliance and environmental performance.
The guidance is intended to help facilities conduct facility wide audits to assess compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. In addition, the guidance includes activities to assess compliance with company environmental policies and commitments to "beyond compliance activities" (e.g., pollution prevention, waste minimization). Through the guidance review process, the Gillette Team received numerous comments regarding the inclusion of the "beyond compliance activities" in a compliance audit guidance. Several commenters felt strongly that compliance audits should only assess compliance with applicable regulations. Because this guidance will be used by facilities participating in an environmental leadership program, the Gillette Team believes it is important to assess compliance with "beyond compliance activities".
The Gillette Team discussed the issue of auditor qualifications at length. After reviewing qualifications proposed by various professional organizations, the Gillette Team decided to develop qualitative qualifications focussing on auditors "objectivity and independence" and "skills and knowledge". In addition, the Gillette Team discussed the use of audit teams vs. a single auditor. When an audit team is used, the Gillette Team agreed that the skills/knowledge of the team as a whole can be used to meet the standards presented in the guidance.
The development of auditor qualifications is a critical element of the ELP program because it effects the public's acceptance and overall credibility of the auditing component of the ELP. To address this issue, the Agency is considering options to assess auditor skills for participation in a leadership program.
The guidance addresses compliance audit activities in three phases: previsit activities, on-site activities, and post-visit activities. During the previsit activities, the Gillette Team felt that auditors should understand the basic industrial process(es) and operations, and be able to identify all substances or materials which are used by the facility and which could be released directly or indirectly into the environment. The guidance suggests that auditors review appropriate facility documents, conduct interviews with facility staff, and conduct pre-visit meetings to accomplish this goal. Information gathered through this process should feed into the development of the facility audit protocol. Members of the Gillette Team felt strongly that the most effective auditor(s) would be well informed with regard to facility operations and practices prior to the site visit.
The guidance includes a detailed discussion with regard to the Gillette Team's expectations for onsite compliance audit activities. During the onsite phase, the auditor(s) should have sufficient knowledge to evaluate facility operations, maintenance, and handling procedures to assess all environmental compliance areas. The Gillette Team notes that audit findings should be discussed with appropriate facility personnel upon detection and addressed as soon as possible.
The Gillette Team recognized the impracticality of reviewing all records, permit conditions, etc., pertaining to environmental compliance. Therefore, the guidance directs the auditor(s) to review a representative sample of the documents in question in order to make a compliance determination. Specific guidance on how to establish a "representative sample" was deliberately not provided in the guidance. The Gillette Team felt that some discretion should be left to the auditor(s) to determine their needs with regard to compliance determinations.
The Gillette Team discussed, sampling, testing, and monitoring at the facility. Several Gillette Team members felt that verification sampling was a critical component of the onsite activities to validate the audit results. While other Gillette Team members felt that audits should not necessarily include sampling activities since such activities are not usually included during Federal or State inspections. After much discussion, the Gillette Team agreed on guidance language that directs the auditor(s) to identify sampling or testing needs where compliance with applicable regulations can not be assessed by reviewing documentation or observing actual practices. In addition, the guidance requests that where verification sampling/testing is conducted, the rational for the verification scheme be explained in the audit report. In cases where the auditor(s) does not conduct verification testing/sampling, the guidance directs the auditor(s) to include a rationale for this decision in the audit report.
Post-visit activities discussed in the guidance include: drafting a comprehensive compliance audit report and summary compliance audit report; and developing a corrective action plan in response to audit findings. To address the potential confidentiality of material included in the final comprehensive audit report the Gillette Team decided that summary audit reports be developed for external distribution. The summary report is a condensed version of the compliance audit report. It contains all findings regarding compliance and potential noncompliance found in the compliance audit report. However, information of proprietary nature, such as confidential business information, or of a personal nature, such as the names of employees who may be responsible for a potential noncompliance situation, will not included in the summary report. The comprehensive final audit reports will be maintained by Gillette and made available to the regulatory agencies for review.
To develop this guidance, the Gillette Team consulted with and/or sought comment from: EPA Headquarters offices including the Office of Federal Facilities and Enforcement and the National Enforcement and Investigation Center; private institutions such as the Institute of Environmental Auditing; environmental groups; and industry representatives and associations. The Gillette Team also reviewed existing and evolving auditing standards developed by organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization, Global Environmental Management Initiative, American Society for Testing and Materials, American National Standards Institute, and National Sanitation Foundation. The draft guidance was made available for review and comment through EPA's computer bulletin board system accessible through the Internet. In addition, the draft guidance was sent to a cross-section of industry and environmental group representatives for comment (A list of organizations from which comment was requested is attached).
The compliance audit guidance will be used to prepare for and conduct the compliance audits at the three Gillette facilities. At the conclusion of the compliance audits, the Gillette Team will evaluate the guidance and make any necessary changes.
The Gillette Team developed state specific environmental compliance protocols for use during the compliance audits. The protocols include an auditor instruction sheet for each media which require the auditor to verify that certain activities are performed during the audit. The instructions are followed by a general overview of the regulatory requirements for each media (e.g., air, water, waste) and a listing of more specific requirements. The protocols include a general list of regulatory requirements but are not intended to serve as an all inclusive checklist of applicable requirements. The Gillette Team is in the process of incorporating comments into the documents.
The Gillette Team developed a draft EMS audit guidance. The Gillette Team decided to develop a guidance consistent with the EMS principles in the draft ISO-14000 standards. The draft guidance was developed using the EMS chapter of EPA's "Federal Facilities Auditing Guidance" in conjunction with the draft ISO 14000 EMS guidelines. As currently drafted, the guidance provides auditor activities that best evaluate implementation of the five ISO EMS principles (i.e., Commitment and Policy, Planning, Implementation, Measurement and Evaluation, and Review and Improvement).
The Gillette Team is in the process of reviewing the draft EMS audit guidance. The Gillette Team intends to use the guidance to prepare for and conduct the EMS audits at the three participating facilities.
Team members have found it refreshing to work with regulated facilities and regulatory agencies in an environment of cooperation. In a short time frame, the team developed several working documents. This was accomplished despite the varying perspectives and experience of the diverse Team members. By working closely with regulated facilities the regulatory agencies have gained an appreciation for the resources necessary to maintain compliance. Likewise, the industry representatives have gained a greater awareness of the regulators responsibilities and the various stakeholders who need to be satisfied. The Team is looking forward to implementing the auditing tools developed during the first six months of the pilot project. Several members of the Team did note that the project is more resource intensive than was originally expected.
Request additional information by e-mail
