In mid 1999 the EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers Association released the results of a three year Root Cause Analysis Pilot Project. The project goal was to determine why companies break environmental laws, either unwittingly or knowingly.

The survey focused on obtaining answers to the following critical questions:

  1. What are the root causes for non-compliance?

  2. How do facilities respond to non-compliance events and what are the lessons learned?

  3. How have Responsible Care and other management systems affected the overall environmental performance of facilities?

  4. What changes on the part of the facility or the Agency (the EPA) will improve compliance and the efficiency of the compliance process?

The four types of non-compliance identified most frequently by the survey respondents, in order, are:

  • Report submissions and reporting: Failure to submit required reports or the submittal of incomplete or inaccurate reports to the regulatory agency.

  • Exceedance: Failure to meet discharge limit(s) as defined in the facilities permit or by regulation.

  • Operations and maintenance: Noncompliance of an operations and maintenance nature.

  • Record Keeping: Failure to maintain operating records or files in accordance with regulations.

ROOT CAUSES:

Multiple causes were identified for ninety four percent (94%) of the non-compliance events. There were six categories of root causes and the specific causes within each category identified most frequently in order, were as follows:

  1. Regulations and permits - facility unaware of applicability of a regulation

  2. Human error - individual responsibility or professional judgment

  3. Procedures - operating procedures not followed

  4. Equipment problems - design or installation

  5. External circumstances - contracted services, such as haulers or handlers

  6. Communications difficulties - between facility and regulatory agencies.

CONTRIBUTING CAUSES:

The four categories of contributing causes and the specific causes within each category identified most frequently, in order, are:

  1. Management - environmental aspects of facility process and operations not identified

  2. Procedures - reporting or notification procedures unclear

  3. Regulations and permits - contradictory interpretation of state or federal regulations

  4. compliance monitoring - audit program insufficient and routine site and equipment checks not conducted.

RESPONSIBLE CARE AND OTHR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS:

The survey responses indicated that there is a strong relationship between the implementation of Responsible Care or other EMS and compliance. However, even a complete, well documented EMS does not, by itself, ensure 100 percent compliance with environmental requirements.

Survey responses also indicate that facilities are modifying or clarifying their EMS to minimize the incidence of non-compliance events.

  • The majority of responses identified environmental audit programs; corporate policies; goals; targets; and guidelines; and Responsible Care as management methods that have a strong influence on environmental performance

  • Among the respondents, 78% had modified their EMSs in response to a non-compliance event

  • Among the respondents, 41 % stated that Respo0nsible Care or another EMS would have contributed to the prevention of the non-compliance event

  • The project team considers 71 % of the actions taken in response to a non-compliance event relevant to a

Keywords:
environmental law, responsible care, Implementation, HSSE standard, EPA, human error, HSSE audit and certification, audit program, procedure, management system
Subjects:
HSSE & Social Responsibility Management, HSSE audit and certification, HSSE standards, regulations and codes
This content is only available via PDF.
2000. American Society of Safety Engineers
You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.