HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 31539 k { 8ECR=TARV
;Ori T F:r CT NO ,
03-22-05PO4 : 03 RCVD
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF TARRANT §
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
This Agreement is made by the City of Fort Worth, a municipal corporation situated
in Tarrant, Denton, and Wise Counties, Texas, hereinafter called "City", acting herein by
and through Marc Ott, its duly authorized assistant City Manager, and the Water
Environment Federation (National Biosolids Partnership), hereafter called "Consultant",
acting herein by and through William Bertera, its duly authorized Executive Director.
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant entered into a letter of understanding whereby
the City's Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant agreed to become a Biosolids
Environmental Management System (EMS) demonstration facility and implement an EMS;
WHEREAS,the EMS is a management framework geared to reduce environmental
impacts and improve organizational performance over time by adopting standard procedures
and steps that managers can use to improve effectiveness and meet regulatory requirements;
WHEREAS, an audit must be performed to determine whether the City is in
conformance with the requirements of the EMS, such audit hereinafter referred to as the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant wish to set out the terms and conditions under
which said audit will be implemented and performed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Consultant for and in consideration of the
covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Consultant will direct the performance of a Biosolids EMS audit in conformance
with the requirements of the National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) and its Auditor
Guidance Document updated as of January 2005, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit"A".
1.2 City acknowledges that Consultant has contracted with Det Norske Veritas
Certification, Inc. (DNV) to perform the first yeara UP attached hereto as
t #fk �2rkI
C,ITYRS�����Al�' RIGINAI
Exhibit"B".
1.3 The scope of services to be performed are set forth in Exhibit "B" to this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 2
COMPENSATION
The Consultant's compensation for complete performance of this Agreement shall
not exceed TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO
CENTS ($24,900.00). The terms of payment are set forth in the agreement between
Consultant and the City's Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, attached hereto as
Exhibit"C".
ARTICLE 3
TERM AND TERIAV41 II:TATION
3.1 The term of this agreement shall begin on the date that this agreement is executed by
both parties and shall terminate upon the completion of the audit by the Consultant and
acceptance by the City.
3.2 The City may terminate this Agreement for convenience by giving Consultant
30 days written notice. Either the City or Consultant may terminate this Agreement for
cause if either party fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does
not commence correction of such nonperformance with 5 days of written notice and
diligently complete the correction thereafter.
3.3 If this Agreement is terminated for the convenience of the City, Consultant will be
paid for termination expenses as follows:
a. Cost of reproduction of partial or complete studies, plans, specifications or
other forms of Consultant's work product;
b. Out-of-pocket expenses for purchasing storage containers, microfilm,
electronic data files, and other data storage supplies or services;
C. The time requirements for the Consultant's personnel to document the work
underway at the time the City's termination for convenience so that the work effort
is suitable for long time storage.
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
AUDIT FOR EMS DESIGNATION
Page 2 of 7
CIE
PiJNl/ �YG' Y �41
3.4 Prior to proceeding with termination services, Consultant will submit to the City an
itemized statement of all termination expenses. The City's approval will be obtained in
writing prior to proceeding with termination services.
ARTICLE 5
INSURANCE
5.1 In the event Consultant or its subconsultants perform any portion of this agreement
on property owned by the City, then prior to such performance, Consultant shall provide to
the City certificate(s) of insurance documenting policies of the following coverage at
minimum limits that are to be in effect prior to commencement of work on the Project:
Professional and General Liability
See the approved coverages in Exhibits "D—E".
Automobile Liability
$1,000,000 each accident on a combined single limit.
or
$250,000 property damage and $500,000 bodily injury per occurrence
• The policy shall cover "any auto" used in the course of the Project.
"Any auto" is defined as autos owned, hired and non-owned.
Worker's Compensation
• Statutory limits Employer's liability
• $100,000 disease—per each employee
• $500,000 disease -policy limit
• $100,000 disease - each occurrence
5.2 Certificates of insurance evidencing that Consultant has obtained all required
insurance are to be delivered to the City prior to Consultant proceeding with the Project.
5.3 Additional Insurance Requirements
a) Applicable policies shall name provide the City of Fort Worth as an Additional
Insured thereon, as its interests may appear. The term City shall include its
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
AUDIT FOR EMS DESIGNATION
Page 3 of 7
employees, officers, officials, agents, and volunteers as respects the contracted
services.
b) Certificate(s) of insurance shall document that insurance coverage required herein
are provided under applicable policies documented thereon.
c) Any failure on part of the City to request required insurance documentation shall not
constitute a waiver of the insurance requirements.
d) A minimum of thirty (30) days notice of cancellation or material change in coverage
shall be provided to the City. A ten(10) days notice shall be acceptable in the event
of non-payment of premium. Notice shall be sent to Frank S. Crumb, P. E., Acting
Director Fort Worth Water Department, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton,
Fort Worth, Texas 76102.
e) Insurers for all required policies must be either licensed or authorized to do business
in the state of Texas and have a current A.M. Best rating of A: VII or equivalent
measure of financial strength and solvency
f) The City must approve in writing any alternative coverage.
g) Insurance policies shall provide that such insurance is primary protection and any
self-funded or commercial coverage maintained by the City shall not be called upon
to contribute to loss recovery.
h) Applicable policies shall provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City as
respects the Project.
i) Consultant or its subconsultant's liability shall not be limited to the specified
amounts of insurance required herein.
j) The City shall be entitled, upon its request and without incurring expense, to review
the Consultant's insurance policies including endorsements thereto and, at the City's
discretion, Consultant may be required to provide proof of insurance premium
payments.
k) The City shall not be responsible for the direct payment of any insurance premiums
required by this agreement. It is understood that insurance cost is an allowable
component of Consultant's overhead.
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
AUDIT FOR EMS DESIGNATION
Page 4 of 7
1) Subconsultants to the Consultant shall be required by Consultant to maintain the
same or reasonably equivalent insurance coverage as required for Consultant. When
subconsultants maintain insurance coverage, Consultant shall provide City with
documentation thereof on a certificate of insurance. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, in the event a subconsultant's insurance coverage is
canceled or terminated, such cancellation or termination shall not constitute a breach
by Consultant of the Agreement.
ARTICLE 6
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Consultant shall perform all work and services hereunder as an independent
contractor and not as an officer, agent or employee of the City. Consultant shall have
exclusive control of, and the exclusive right to control, the details of the work performed
hereunder and all persons performing same and shall be solely responsible for the acts and
omissions of his agents, employees and subcontractors. Nothing herein shall be construed
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
AUDIT FOR EMS DESIGNATION
Page 5 of 7 ^
as creating a partnership or joint venture between the City and the Consultant, its agents,
employees and subcontractors; and the doctrine of respondeat superior shall have no
application as between the City and the Consultant.
ARTICLE 7
ASSIGNMENT
Neither party hereto shall assign, sublet or transfer their interest herein without the
prior written consent of the other party, and any attempted assignment, sublease or transfer
of all or any part hereof without such prior written consent shall be void.
ARTICLE 8
CHOICE OF LAW; VENUE
If any action, whether real or asserted, at law or in equity, arises on the basis of
any provision of this Agreement, venue for such action shall lie in state courts located in
Tarrant County, Texas or the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas — Fort Worth Division. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Texas.
ARTICLE 9
MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 This Agreement gives no rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and
Consultant and there are no third-party beneficiaries.
9.2 Captions and headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and
shall not be deemed a part of this Agreement.
(REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
AUDIT FOR EMS DESIGNATION 1 Gy d f
EXECUTED on this day ofymk ' 2005.
ATTEST: CITY OF FORT WORTH:
Bnl
Marty Hendrix Marc A. Ott
City Secretary Assistant City Manager
APP VAL RECOMMENDED:
NO M&C REQUIRED VA
rank Crumb, P. E.
Acting Water Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM WATER ENVIRONMENT
AND LEGALITY: FEDERATION (WEF)
I
Amy J am ey William Bertera
Assist _t City Attorney Executive Director
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
AUDIT FOR EMS DESIGNATION
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION AUDITOR
GUIDANCE
(For a copy of the complete 81 -page
Guidance document, please see
http://biosolids.org/docs/nbp%20atjditor%20
-guidance jan%202005rev.pdf)
EXHIBIT B
NBP Biosolids EMS Audit Purchase Order to
Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc.
for the
Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ft. Worth Water
Department, Ft. Worth, Texas
Description of Work
Under this Description of Work, Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc.
located at 16340 Park Ten Place, Suite 100, Houston, TX 77084, will work with the
Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (Ft. Worth) to perform a Biosolids EMS
Audit that meets the requirements of the NBP.
Project Approach
Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. will have the responsibility to arrange for and
complete an audit using the protocol described in the Audit Guidance Document,
as amended April 19, 2004, and located at www.biosolids.org. After acceptance of
the audit proposal by the NBP and receipt of the completed Ft. Worth EMS
application, the following steps will be taken:
• Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. contacts Ft. Worth, discusses
Description of Work, Deliverables, and Audit Schedule consistent with the
submitted application and information required in the application to the NBP
for the audit. Contract period to start following acceptance by Ft. Worth and
notification of acceptance to the NBP.
• Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. assigns a NBP Certified Biosolids and
Lead EMS auditor.
• EMS Phase 1 On-Site Desk Audit initiated (to be completed within 30 to 60
days).
• Results of Phase 1 On-Site Desk Audit submitted to Ft. Worth and NBP.
• If Phase 1 On-Site Desk Audit reveals minor or no non-conformances, Lead
Auditor schedules on-site visit.
• If desk audit reveals major non-conformances that need to be corrected
before the Phase 2 on site audit, Lead Auditor shall return the paperwork to
the organization with a written recommendation and notify the NBP that the
on site audit is on hold.
• The Lead Auditor provides an audit plan, agenda and schedule to Ft. Worth
and NBP.
;;... ... .,._. PM 1
CITV SECURE
FY, WINK 0.
t
• Lead Auditor provides Ft. Worth with the names and titles of the audit team
certified by the NBP along with a letter to confirm dates of the audit and list
of additional materials that should be available on site at the time of the visit.
• Within two weeks following the Phase 2 site visit, the Lead Auditor shall
make a verification determination and prepare a working draft audit summary
and detailed findings report.
• After Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc has reviewed the draft reports,
they shall prepare a final audit summary and detailed audit report for final
approval by Ft. Worth on a schedule mutually agreed upon with Ft. Worth. If
Ft. Worth disagrees with the findings of the audit, Ft. Worth may initiate a
review of any major non-conformance by the NBP EMS Appeals Board.
• For any minor non-conformances identified during the audit, Det Norske
Veritas Certification, Inc. will review and approve Ft. Worth's action plan for
corrective action and will review the effectiveness of the corrective actions
pursuant to the Auditor Guidance, as amended on April 19, 2004. If a major
non-conformance is identified, Det Norske Veritas Certifications, Inc. will
verify that the non-conformance has been corrected within a mutually
agreed-upon time period before a verification determination. Det Norske
Veritas Certifications, Inc. will determine if a second site visit will be required
to verify the corrective action. If a second visit is necessary, it will occur
only after acceptance by Ft. Worth of a separate scope of work and cost
estimate.
• Discussion with interested parties, including local regulators and other
parties agreed upon by the Agency.
• The above audits will include transaction tests to assess the Agency's EMS
and verify that it is dynamic and functioning as intended in interviews with
interested parties and as agreed to by the Agency.
Project Management and Administration
NBP will designate specific individuals or positions to be responsible for project
administration, day-to-day administration of the technical work to be performed,
and project management. In general, the steps to be taken by the NBP are as
follows:
• Maintain Candidate Participant contact list, NBP web page with candidate
information, and Candidate Participant audit schedule.
• Select Audit Firm for Biosolids EMS candidate.
• Confirm auditor certification.
• Arrange initial meeting between Audit Firm and Candidate Participant.
• Maintain Documentation Review results.
• Maintain copy of Audit Firm plan, agenda and schedule.
Vr�3V14'�..
• Maintain copies of working and final audit reports and verification decisions.
• Serve as liaison between Candidate Participant, Audit Firm and Appeals
Board as necessary.
• Pay the audit firm as per contract arrangements.
Period of Performance
The period of performance shall commence on acceptance of the Description of
Work, Schedule and Cost by Ft. Worth.
Project Costs
Audit costs shall not exceed the costs listed below for each of the audit tasks
without approval of the NBP. DNV will bill WEF on the completion of tasks or at the
completion of the audit process. If the actual time spent for the on-site audit is less
than the estimate (below), DNV will adjust the cost of the on-site audit. DNV will
look for opportunities to reduce cost during the audit. Phase I and Phase 2 audit
cost will be billed for actual costs incurred.
Audit costs for the Year 0 are as follows:
Phase 1 On-Site Desk Audit $5,875.00
Phase 1 On-Site Travel (estimate only) $2,300.00
Phase 2 On-Site Audita $11,750.00
Phase 2 On-Site Audit travel (estimate only) $2,560.00
Corrective Action audit (only if needed; estimate only): $1,875.00
Corrective Action audit travel (estimate only): 540.00
The NBP biosolids EMS audit is part of a five-year program. This contract and
Description of Work is for Year 0. Audit arrangements and an audit plan for
elements to be audited for Years 1 through 4 should be discussed following the
Year 0 audit and will be initiated by the NBP.
Year Invoice Detail
0 Documentation Review; Verification; NBP Administrative Cost($250)
1 Interim Audit; NBP Administrative Cost $250)
2 Internal Audit; NBP Administrative Cost $250)
3 Interim Audit; NBP Administrative Cost ($250)
4 Internal Audit; NBP Administrative Cost ($250)
Licenses, etc.
Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. shall obtain all licenses, registrations,
permits and insurance as may be required for the operation of any vehicles
acquired by or furnished to Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. by WEF for use
during the performance of this agreement, except as otherwise authorized by WEF.
Invoicing and Payment
Each invoice submitted by Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. shall include an
itemized statement of work performed, the period of work covered (including the
beginning and ending dates), and the tasks that have been completed. If
Corrective Action Audits are required, there first must be agreement between Det
Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. and Ft. Worth before the work can begin.
Payment will be based on invoices from Det Norske Veritas Certifications, Inc. to
WEF as follows:
• Phase 1 Desk Audit
• 50% of Agreed Phase 2 Audit Fee following scheduling of Audit
Balance of Agreed Phase 2 Audit Fee plus expenses, following completion of
Final Audit Report.
WEF will pay Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. on receipt and approval of
invoices net 30 days.
Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. shall be notified of an audit postponement or
cancellation at least 30 days prior to the date of a scheduled audit. In the event of a
cancellation or postponement, Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. will be paid any
documented non-refundable travel expenses.
i
i
Project Reports
Det Norske Veritas Certification, Inc. is expected to produce a written Audit report
for Ft. Worth as described in the Audit Guidance Document as amended on April
19, 2004. The project includes the audit of the 17 EMS Elements following the
requirements of the Auditor Guidance. The four outcomes that lead to overall
public acceptance (regulatory compliance, environmental performance, quality
management practices and relations with interested parties) must be taken into
consideration as part of the audit and also reported on, and at least three
transaction tests as described in the Auditor Guidance Document will be
conducted and reported. A working draft summary and detailed findings report is
to be submitted to Ft. Worth within two weeks of audit completion. This review
allows the organization to ensure the technical accuracy of audit findings and
develop observations for inclusion in the final summary and Audit. After the
organization has reviewed the draft reports and prepared any observations, the
auditor shall prepare the final Audit summary and report, attach the organization's
observations, and submit all of the documents simultaneously to the organization
and the NBP. Report guidelines, format and content are provided in detail at
http://biosoIids.poIicy.nettrelatives/23602.pdf. DNV should provide a structural
outline of their proposed audit report for review by the NBP before preparing the
audit report. At the request of Ft. Worth, a Summary of the Final Report will be
made publicly available.
January 13, 2005
William Bertera
Executive Director,
Water Environment Federation
Approved by,
Russell V. Thornton
Direct EHS Certification
February 1, 2005
EXHIBIT C
Contract between the
Water Environment Federation (National Biosolids
Partnership) and
Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ft. Worth Water
Department, Ft. Worth, Texas
for a Biosolids EMS Audit
The National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) will assign its contractor, Det Norske
Veritas Certification, Inc. (DNV) located at 16340 Park Ten Place, Suite 100,
Houston, TX 77084, to work with the Ft. Worth Water Department, Ft. Worth, Texas
(Ft. Worth) to perform a Biosolids EMS Audit in conformance with the requirements
of the NBP and its Auditor Guidance Document and as described on the attached
contract between the NBP (Water Environment Federation) and Det Norske Veritas
Certification, Inc.
Project Costs
The NBP through the Water Environment Federation will provide Ft. Worth with an
invoice for the planned Audit. Audit costs shall not exceed $24,900 without
approval of the NBP and Ft. Worth. (Please note that the contractor, DNV, will bill
WEF on the completion of tasks or at the completion of the audit process. If the
actual time spent for the on-site audit is less than the estimates (below), DNV will
adjust the cost of the on-site audit. DNV will look for opportunities to reduce cost
during the audit. On site audit cost will be billed for actual costs incurred.)
Audit costs for the Year 0 are as follows:
Phase 1 On-Site Desk Audit $5,875.00
Phase 1 On-Site Travel (estimate only) $2,300.00
Phase 2 On-Site Audit: $10,118.00
Phase 2 On-Site Audit travel (estimate only) $2,560.00
Corrective Action audit (only if needed; estimate only): $3,257.00
Corrective Action audit travel (estimate only): 540.00
NBP Administrative Cost 250.00
3i..iG I PM
r
Audit Duration
The NBP biosolids EMS audit is part of a five-year program. This contract and
Description of Work is for Year 0. Audit arrangements and an audit plan for
elements to be audited for Years 1 through 4 should be discussed following the
Year 0 audit and will be initiated by the NBP.
Year Invoice Detail
0 Documentation Review; verification; NBP Administrative Cost
1 Interim Audit; NBP Administrative Cost ($250)
2 Internal Audit; NBP Administrative Cost $250
3 Interim Audit; NBP Administrative Cost $250
4 Internal Audit; NBP Administrative Cost ($250
William Bertera (Date)
Executive Director
Water Environment Federation
(Date)
Ft. Worth Water Department
Ft. Worth, TX
F IClnI �� Ci 10)11 o'
IR
1 ZCITkt'!'
FT, ONTH, TEs,
t 03/08/05 TUE 11:25 FAX 8175485755 CITY OF FT WORTH X002
EXHIBIT D
ACORD„ CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OP 113DATEI M ONYM
DETNO- 03/01/05
PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF 1NFORMATIO
Insurance Alliance HOLDER ANDCONFERS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,EXTEND OR
1776 Yorktown, #200 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW
Houston TX 77056
Phone:713-966-1776 Fax:713-966-1700 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC#
INSURED INSURER A: Travalare Yndama3ty any 25682
INSURER B; Travelers of Connecticut
DET Norske Veritas Lt al INSURER C: CMM XCO 6 Industry Ins. Co.
16340 Park Ten Place Suite 100 INSURER D:
Houston TX 77084 - _
COVERAGES INSURER E:
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANOING
ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDMON OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY 8E ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS 00 SUCH
POLICIES.AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED 0Y PAID CLAIMS.
LTR INSRI TYPE OF INSURANCE POUCY NUMBER DATE MF0D pAT6 MIDD/YY LIMITS ~
GENERAL UABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY E;10 REIM Ow
t PREMISES Eo ccwmncmj S
CLAIMS MADE El OCCUR MED EXP(Arty we person) S__
PERSONAL a ADV INJURY 6
t. GENERALAGGREOATT S
GENILAGGRFGATE UWT APPLIES PER: < ,{ PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG S
�} r :
POLICY JECT LOC
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LNIT
A X ANYAUYO B10314D7998(OUT OF Sr�) 02/28/05 02/26/06 (94'I 01n 31,000,000.
$ ALL OWNED AUTOS CAP314D7986 (TEXAS) 02/28/05 02/28/06 BODILY INJURY
SC 4EDULED AUTOS (Perperean) S
X HIREDAUTOS
BODILY INJURY S
X NOMOWNEDAUTOS J i' (Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE S
(Per accICenO
GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT S
ANY AUTO �r l/ItL {vCtl$AIidSGii OTHER THAN EA ACC S —......v
AUTO ONLY; AGG S
EXCESSMIABRELIA LIADIUTY EACH OCCURRENCE S
OCCUR U CLAIMS MADEAGGREGATE S
DEDUCTIBLE ... S
RETENTION S STATU-"URF V. T
WORXERS COMPENSATION AND X'TORY LIMITS IER _
C ;MPLOYER9'UABILRY 5546163, SSSS164r 5B6S165 02/28/05 0'1/2$/06 E.LEACHACCIDENT :1,000 000,
ANY PROPRIETDRIPARTNER/EXECLmVE
OFFICERANEMBER EXCLUDED? EL DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE S 1,000,000.
II yy�� o"Obe 4ntler
SPECIAL PROVISIONSeobs E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $1 0001000.
OTHER t. ..
8 PHYSICAL DAMAGE CAP314D7986 (TEXAS) 02/28/05 02/28/06 COMP/DED $500,
COLL/DED $1 000.
DESCRIPT'IOM OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONG I VEHICLGS I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY L7NDORSE+ME7NT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Additional Insured in favor of Certificate Holder with respects to tkia Auto
Liability policy, with a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of same
and applies to the Worker's Compensation policy as required
by written contract, but limited to the Operations Of the named insured
CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
CITOFOR SHOULD ANY OP THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES W CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING INSURER WILL,ENDEAVOR 1D MAIL 10 DAY$WRITTEN
City of Fort Worth NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERNAMED TO THELEF
Risk Management Division
Attn: Dexter Dews IMPOtife NO OBLIGATION OR LIABMY OF ANY KIND UPON ",��Q L n1 n.
1000 Throckmorton IiEPR ENTATIVEE>. V ���,.:�L VAI N.IJP
Fort Worth TX 76102
ACORD 25(2001/08) COM nW 1
vaivo/uo Tub 11:25 FAX 8175485755 CITY OF FT WORTH x003
EXHIBIT D
IMPORTANT
If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed.A statement
on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s).
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may
require an endorsement.A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate
holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
DISCLAIMER
The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between
the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it
affirmatively or negatively amend,_extend or sitar the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon.
ACORD 26(2001108)
uoiuoiva ruh 11:25 FAX 8175485755 CITY OF FT WORTH 2004
I
BzT E
BENFIELD
�
CPVIL LIABILITY INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Date: 3181 March 2004
Certificate no.: A3Y536900
Inception date: 3191 March 2004(00.00 hrs)
Expiry date: 31"March 2005(00.00 hrs)
Insured: The Foundation Det Norske Veritas including all subsidiaries and any branch,
division,sector,region,product group or other internal structure.
Insurance conditions: DW Liability Policy 2004
General conditions 31/03/2004
Additional Benefits included within the Policy:
(i), Additional Defence:Costs Assistance
(ii) Inadvertent non-disclosure
(Ilq Joint Ventures Clause
(Iv) Acquisitions Clause
(v) Cross Liabilities Clause
(vi) Clients Clause
(vii) Software Clause .
Geographical scope: World-wide
Sum Insured: NOK 500,000,000 in all,including costs and expenses
Notice of Claim. The insured party must notify claims in accordance with General Provisions
6.4,6.5 and 6:8 of the Policy and in,any event without,undue delay,as
specified in the Norwegian Insurance Contracts Act No.69 of 16th June 1989.
................. . . ... ..................................
F r n Behalf of
el imited
71 55 Bishopsgate,London EON 3BD 71 i.aa(0)20 7578 7000 71 F rdo(0)20 7579 7002 71 www.benfi'IdgroUp.cOm
EXHIBIT A
THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION AUDITOR
GUIDANCE
03-22-05PO4 : 03 RCVD
Developed November 2001
Last Updated January 2005
View the Document Control Log for a Summary of Revisions
Prepared by
The National Biosolids Partnership
Auditor Guidance Development Group and
EMS Program Advisory Group
With assistance from
Lori Ahouse and Rob Greenwood
Ross&Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd.
H. °0 PIN, TEX.
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
National Biosolids Partnership Auditor Guidance Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: Introduction to NBP EMS Third Party Verification........................ ................1
1.1 Purpose of this Guidance............................................................................................. 1
..............
1.2 The National Biosolids Partnership...................................................................................................1
1.3 The NBP EMS Program....................................................................................................................2
1.4 NBP EMS Verification and Program Certification...........................................................................3
1.5 Structure of the Auditor Guidance.....................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: Third Party EMS Auditors-Qualifications & Requirements......................................7
2.1 Auditor Qualifications.......................................................................................................................7
2.2 Auditor Certification..........................................................................................................................8
2.3 Auditor Training................................................................................................................................8
2.4 Auditor Oversight and Evaluation....................................................................................................8
CHAPTER3: Pre-Audit Activities...........................................................................................................9
3.1 Notification of Interested Parties.......................................................................................................9
3.2 NBP Verification Audit Application Process....................................................................................9
3.3 EMS Documentation Review..........................................................................................................10
3.4 Planning for the On-Site Audit........................................................................................................12
3.5 Pre-Audit Status...............................................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 4: On-Site Verification Audit.............................................................................................15
4.1 On-Site Audit Scope and Approach................................................................................................15
4.2 On-Site Audit Format......................................................................................................................16
4.3 Evaluation Criteria: System Nonconformances..............................................................................20
4.4 Methods of Collecting Objective Evidence.....................................................................................21
4.5 Audit Testing...................................................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 5: Reporting,Appeals,Internal Audits,Interim Audits,and Re-Verification Audits..35
5.1 Post-Audit Activities and Reporting................................................................................................35
5.2 Interim Audits..................................................................................................................................37
5.3 EMS Re-Verification Audits...........................................................................................................38
5.4 NBP EMS Program Designation.....................................................................................................38
5.5 Appeals Process and Board.............................................................................................................39
CHAPTER 6: EMS Verification Audit Guidance-Policy...................................................................43
Element 1. Documentation of EMS for Biosolids.................................................................................43
Element 2. Biosolids Management Policy.............................................................................................44
CHAPTER 7: EMS Verification Audit Guidance-Planning..............................................................46
Element 3. Critical Control Points.........................................................................................................46
Element 4. Legal and Other Requirements............................................................................................48
Element 5. Goals and Objectives for Continual Improvement..............................................................50
Element 6. Public Participation in Planning..........................................................................................51
CHAPTER 8: EMS Verification Audit Guidance-Implementation..................................................56
Element 7. Roles and Responsibilities...................................................................................................56
Element8. Training...............................................................................................................................57
Element 9. Communications..................................................................................................................57
Element 10. Operational Control of Critical Control Points .................................................................59
Element 11. Emergency Preparedness and Response............................................................................60
Element 12. EMS Documentation and Document Control....................................................................61
CHAPTER 9: EMS Verification Audit Guidance- Measurement and Corrective Action................62
Element 13. Monitoring and Measurement...........................................................................................62
Element 14. Nonconformances: Preventive and Corrective Action......................................................62
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
Element 15. Periodic Biosolids Program and EMS Performance Report..............................................63
Element 16. Internal EMS Audit...........................................................................................................64
CHAPTER 10: EMS Verification Audit Guidance- Management Review........................................66
Element 17. Periodic Management Review of Performance.................................................................66
CHAPTER 11: Examples of Nonconformance......................................................................................67
Glossary.....................................................................................................................................................73
DocumentControl Log............................................................................................................................77
7
CIT `�u°
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
CHAPTER 1 : Introduction to NBP EMS Third Party
Verification
1.1 Purpose of this Guidance
The National Biosolids Partnership(NBP)has developed a voluntary Environmental Management System
(EMS) Program for the biosolids industry to improve the implementation and public acceptance of
environmentally sound biosolids management practices. A key component of this program is the creation
of an independent, third party EMS verification process to verify that the EMS of participating biosolids
organizations satisfy the expectations and requirements established by the NBP EMS Program. The goal
of this Guidance - the NBP EMS Auditor Guidance- is to ensure that the requirements and processes of
NBP EMS third party verification are clearly established and communicated, and to ensure that the EMS
of participating organizations are evaluated in a fair and consistent manner that corresponds with the
expectations of the NBP. To this end, this Guidance summarizes the NBP EMS third party verification
approach and addresses the following objectives.
• Introduces EMS auditors to the National Biosolids Partnership, the NBP EMS Program, and the
NBP third party verification approach.
• Communicates the requirements for achieving NBP EMS verification, including the specific
requirements associated with the 17 elements of the NBP Elements of an Environmental
Management System for Biosolids (EMS Elements).
• Outlines processes and procedures associated with NBP EMS third party verification.
• Presents the qualifications and requirements that NBP EMS auditors must meet.
While the primary audience for this Guidance is NBP EMS auditors, this Guidance should also be useful
for other audiences interested in the NBP EMS Program, including organizations seeking verification of
their environmental management systems. However, organizations seeking NBP verification of the EMS
do not need to read the Auditor Guidance to understand the requirements and expectations for receiving
EMS verification. These expectations are clearly provided in the other NBP Blueprint documents
prepared for biosolids organizations(see section 1.3).
1.2 The National Biosolids Partnership
The 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Part 503 regulations established federal biosolids
management standards with respect to public health and the environment. This regulation has facilitated
the expansion of biosolids recycling practices throughout the U.S. Biosolids contain nutrients that can be
beneficially used in a wide range of agricultural, forestry, and horticultural applications. Public and
regulatory community concerns over effective management of biosolids programs, however, pose
formidable challenges to comprehensive beneficial utilization of biosolids.
In 1997, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) agreed to form the National
Chapter 1 Vl?� t 'f��!1 1 ��
IV 6�1 ��E hi
R W?0-,1T'H`, TEXT
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
Biosolids Partnership (NBP). The NBP is a not-for-profit alliance whose purpose is to promote safe,
environmentally sound, and publicly acceptable biosolids management. The NBP EMS Program is
designed to be practice-neutral, and includes land filling and incineration practices, as well as beneficial
reuse. Biosolids producers, service contractors, and users - together with stakeholders from regulatory
agencies, universities, the farming community, and environmental organizations - all have input into
shaping the NBP priorities.
1,3 The NBP EMS Program
The NBP has sponsored several initiatives designed to promote responsible biosolids management within
the industry with the goal of enhancing the environmental performance and public perception of biosolids
programs. The cornerstone of these initiatives has been the development and implementation of the NBP
Environmental Management System (EMS) Program. The NBP strongly believes that biosolids
management organizations will benefit from adopting an EMS as part of their overall management
programs. The potential benefits of adopting an EMS are numerous, including improved regulatory
compliance, enhanced environmental performance, increased efficiency, reduced cost, pollution
prevention, improved consistency and quality of biosolids materials, and improved relations with local
communities. The NBP hopes that its EMS approach will be adopted throughout the biosolids industry,
by wastewater treatment utilities, their contractors, and other stakeholders involved in biosolids
production and final use and disposal.
The NBP goals for developing an EMS program are the following.
• To promote environmentally sound and publicly accepted biosolids management practices.
• To help program participants demonstrate to their communities that they are committed to go
beyond meeting regulatory requirements and to explain how they are working to improve their
environmental performance.
• To help program participants involve their communities in defining improved performance or
areas that still require attention.
The NBP provides a blueprint that each biosolids organization can use to implement its own EMS. At the
heart of the NBP EMS Program is the Code of Good Practice that sets forth the important principles and
goals which govern the operation of environmentally sustainable biosolids management programs. These
principles and goals have been translated down to the operational level through the development of the
EMS Elements. The EMS Elements define the specific expectations and requirements, grouped into 17
elements, which the NBP believes to be important for ensuring that biosolids management activities are
performed in an environmentally sound and publicly accepted manner. The EMS Elements define the
specific expectations and requirements that an auditor will use to verify that an organization's
environmental management system meets the NBP EMS Program requirements.
Individual biosolids organizations adopting the NBP EMS have the flexibility to determine how they will
satisfy the biosolids EMS requirements that are applicable to their operations. The NBP acknowledges
the need for substantial local tailoring of EMS planning and implementation activities, including the
establishment of goals and objectives designed to support environmental improvement and the
commitment to seek continual improvement. In no instance does the NBP intend to suggest that an
organization should share decision making authority outside its traditional chain of command as a basis
for program participation. Also, it is not the intent of the NBP that the development or implementation of
an EMS be a substitute for regulatory oversight or that the EMS requirements be included as a regulatory
Chapter 1 Page 2
vrfJZ•Ji:
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
requirement in NPDES permits. The EMS, however, can and should be used by organizations as a means
to meet their commitment to compliance with all applicable biosolids-related regulatory requirements.
Table 1.0: NBP EMS Blueprint Resources
Code of Good Practice Sets forth a number of broad principles that govern the operation of sustainable
biosolids management programs.
National Manual of Good Describes the full range of practices available to any facility wishing to implement
Practice an EMS for biosolids. The menu approach of the Manual encourages voluntary
participation by allowing biosolids organizations to assemble the mixture of
practices and procedures that are most appropriate for their individual
organization at key locations that need to be managed to be successful. The
Manual is available from the NBP and is intended to be used as a reference and
guide on developing and implementing an EMS.
Elements of an EMS for For use by facilities in implementing an EMS. These Elements lay out the
Biosolids(EMS requirements by which an auditor will evaluate an EMS.
Elements)
Biosolids EMS Guidance Guides development and implementation of an EMS conforming to requirements
Manual of the NBP program. It provides information on the NBP program, EMS benefits,
and a suggested approach,along with specific instructions about what an
organization will need to do to achieve success.
1.4 NBP EMS Verification and Program Certification
The NBP has developed an independent, third party EMS verification component of its EMS Program to
support the goal of environmentally sound and publicly accepted biosolids management practices.
Organizations interested in receiving formal recognition of their EMS and of their participation in the
NBP biosolids EMS program must achieve verification of their EMS through the NBP third party
verification process. The objectives of third party EMS verification are the following.
• Verify that the environmental management systems of participating biosolids organizations meet
the expectations and requirements established by the NBP.
• Verify that EMS activities at participating organizations are being implemented in practice, as
well as on paper.
• Assure environmentally sound performance of biosolids management practices.
• Increase public trust and confidence in biosolids management practices.
For the third party EMS verification process,the NBP has established the following relationships between
the NBP,auditing organizations,the NBP Appeals Board,and participating biosolids organizations.
• Biosolids organizations requesting a third party EMS audit pay a program fee to the NBP,which
will cover third party verification and interim audits. The NBP approves the third party
verification auditors and audit companies who conduct the EMS verification audits for local
agencies. Third party audit companies negotiate a contract and scope of work directly with the
NBP and receive payment from the NBP, not from the biosolids organization being audited. The
NBP has a separate contract with the local biosolids organization.
Chapter 1 Page 3
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
• The NBP approves the third party verification auditors and audit organizations who conduct the
EMS verification audits. Third party audit companies negotiate a contract and scope of work
directly with the NBP and receive payment from the NBP, not from the biosolids organizations
being audited.
• Third party audit organizations issue a statement of EMS verification to biosolids organizations
that successfully complete a third party EMS verification audit.
• Auditors are required to meet specific training and certification requirements (see Chapter 2).
Auditors(or their organizations) will pay for their own training and certifications.
• Organizations who wish to appeal their third party verification audit results can present an appeal
to the NBP Appeals Board.
• The NBP Appeals Board makes decisions on appeals. (See Chapter S for more information on the
verification appeals process and on the makeup and role of the Board.)
1.4.1 NBP Program and EMS Verification Eligibility
Any public or privately operated wastewater treatment facility in the United States with a biosolids
program and responsibility, either directly or indirectly, for the full biosolids value chain is invited to
participate in the voluntary NBP EMS Program and seek verification through the third party verification
process.
To be eligible for an NBP EMS verification audit,an organization must meet the following criteria:
• Be responsible, directly or indirectly, for the full biosolids value chain—wastewater pre-treatment
& collection; wastewater treatment & solids generation; solids stabilization, conditioning &
handling; solids storage & transportation; and biosolids final use or disposal (technically defined
as a"preparer"pursuant to federal regulation definitions);
• Have committed in writing to follow the NBP Code of Good Practice through a letter of
understanding with the NBP, signed by the organization;
• Have an NBP EMS in place and operating for at least six months;and
• Have conducted at least one internal EMS audit.
The NBP encourages biosolids organizations to submit an application for the third party verification audit
after operating the EMS for three to four months, subject to completing the internal audit. This is
designed to allow audit companies two or three months of lead time to schedule the third party
verification audit. Thus, the applicant can complete the requirement of having the EMS operate for six
months prior to receiving the third party audit while the audit scheduling process is going.
1.4.2 NBP Program Certification
To receive NBP EMS Program certification, biosolids organizations must complete the following:
• Document responsibility for the biosolids value chain;
• Commit to the 10 principles in the NBP's Code of Good Practice;
Chapter 1 Page 4
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
• Operate an EMS for biosolids that meets all the NBP's requirements;
• Successfully complete a fully independent audit of its EMS and receive EMS verification from an
NBP accredited audit company; and
• Commit to make continual improvements in their EMS and outcomes for environmental
performance,regulatory compliance,relations with interested parties, and quality biosolids
management practices.
Once an organization successfully completes EMS verification and becomes a certified NBP EMS
Program participant, it must complete annual, interim audits successfully to demonstrate the continued
health and performance of the EMS and to maintain certified NBP EMS Program participant status. EMS
verification is good for five years from the date of the audit organization's issuance of a verification
decision,at which point a biosolids organization can be re-verified provided that it continues to satisfy the
above-mentioned requirements. This date of verification decision is an organization's anniversary date for
purposes of NBP program participation. (See Chapter 5 of this Guidance for additional information on
the interim and re-verification audits, as well as maintenance ofprogram certification.)
The NBP EMS program provides recognition in the form of a "seal of approval" for organizations that
receive program certification. NBP EMS Program recognition does not serve as a seal of product quality
assurance, as direct product quality testing is not part of the EMS verification audit. Those organizations
who receive program certification are granted permission to use the NBP EMS seal on buildings,
equipment, signs, or other items as deemed appropriate(except for biosolids materials). (See Chapter 5 of
this Auditor Guidance for details about the NBP "visual indicator" and accompanying designation
statements.)
1.4.3 Verification Audit Scope & Approach
Consistent with the NBP EMS Elements, the EMS audit scope encompasses the entire biosolids value
chain (wastewater pretreatment and collection through biosolids final use or disposal). The auditor
should remember, however, that as an EMS for biosolids, attention should be focused on those practices
and management activities that directly support biosolids-related operations, processes, and activities, as
opposed to all wastewater treatment utility activities.
The NBP third party verification audit process is comprised of two major components. First, the
designated auditor conducts a desk audit of the participating organization's application and supporting
EMS documentation. During this review,the NBP anticipates that the auditor will be able to determine if
the biosolids organization has satisfied the basic EMS program documentation requirements.
Second, the auditor will conduct an on-site EMS verification audit. The on-site portion of the audit
should emphasize examination of the effectiveness of the organization's biosolids management systems,
as implemented, at delivering the organization's intended outcomes -which should be documented in the
EMS Manual,environmental policy,and/or goals and objectives-on a consistent basis.
To make the verification determination, auditors will evaluate the adequacy of an organization's EMS
with respect to the NBP EMS Program expectations and requirements established through the EMS
Elements. At the same time, however,the NBP directs auditors to defer substantially to the expertise and
knowledge of local conditions that program participants have and the decisions they then make regarding
practice selection, environmental performance improvements, and public participation methods. The NBP
EMS Program has been specifically designed to provide substantial latitude for individual biosolids
organizations to determine how to address the NBP expectations and requirements.
Chapter 1 Page 5
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
1.5 Structure of the Auditor Guidance
This section introduces the reader to the contents of the remainder of this Auditor Guidance.
Chapter 2 presents the qualifications and requirements for individuals who wish to participate as auditors
in the NBP third party EMS verification process. This chapter presents the minimum auditor
qualifications, the process for becoming an accredited NBP EMS auditor, and basic scope of the NBP
auditor training program.
Chapter 3 describes pre-audit activities — what happens before the auditor's on-site visit - including the
EMS paperwork review(or desk audit"), and other pre-audit activities.
Chapter 4 describes the on-site verification audit,providing a guide to the format and scope of the on-site
portion of the third party verification audit. This chapter addresses important logistical information,
including special considerations related to the on-site audit process, such as public participation,
contractor involvement,and final use and disposal operations.
Chapter 5 describes post-audit activities such as audit reporting, corrective actions, maintenance of
program certification,NBP Appeals Board and process, interim audits,and re-verification audits.
Chapter 6 covers the Policy Elements (Element 1 - Documentation of EMS for Biosolids; Element 2 -
Biosolids Management Policy)and provides interpretation of key areas.
Chapter 7 covers the Planning Elements (Element 3 - Critical Control Points; Element 4 - Legal and
Other Requirements; Element 5 - Goals and Objectives for Continual Improvement; Element 6 - Public
Participation Planning)and provides interpretation of key areas.
Chapter 8 covers the Implementation Elements (Element 7 - Roles and Responsibility; Element 8 -
Training; Element 9 - Communications; Element 10 - Operational Control of Critical Control Points;
Element 11 - Emergency Preparedness and Response; Element 12 - Documentation, Document Control
and Recordkeeping) and provides interpretation of key areas.
Chapter 9 covers the Measurement and Corrective Action Elements (Element 13 - Monitoring and
Measurement;Element 14 -Nonconformances: Preventive and Corrective Action; Element 15 - Biosolids
Management Program Performance Report; Element 16-Internal EMS Audit)and provides interpretation
of key areas.
Chapter 10 covers the Management Review Element (Element 17 - Periodic Management Review of
Performance)and provides interpretation of key areas.
Chapter 11 provides examples of potential EMS nonconformances under each of the 17 EMS elements.
The Glossary provides definitions of key terms for the NBP EMS Program.
Chapter 1
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
CHAPTER 2: Third Party EMS Auditors - Qualifications &
Requirements
Clear guidelines are necessary regarding auditor qualifications and requirements to ensure that the third
party verification process of the NBP EMS Program sustains public confidence and acceptance, and
provides program participants assurance that their EMS will be consistently and fairly evaluated. The
establishment of minimum qualifications and requirements serves to:
• prevent potential conflicts of interest that may color auditor findings and recommendations or
interested party perceptions of audit result legitimacy;
• ensure that auditors have sufficient familiarity and experience with wastewater treatment and
biosolids management operations, practices, and regulations to evaluate organizations' EMS
effectively;
• ensure that auditors have sufficient expertise related to management systems auditing;and
• ensure that auditors have sufficient training on and understanding of the specific goals, elements,
and requirements associated with the NBP EMS Program and Blueprint documents.
This chapter reviews the minimum requirements that NBP-certified auditors must meet and summarizes
the auditor certification,training, oversight, and evaluation processes.
2.1 Auditor Qualifications
All independent, third party auditors who provide EMS verification audits for the NBP EMS Program
must be certified by the NBP. To receive certification, all auditors (individuals) must have the following
minimum qualifications.
• Have not provided consulting services to any organization they audit in the two years prior to an
audit and for two years after, to prevent a conflict of interest. Auditors also cannot become a
consultant/contractor to the NBP nor provide consulting services with NBP funding to biosolids
organizations developing an NBP EMS.
• Have a minimum of 5 years experience in wastewater treatment and biosolids program
management (if the audit is conducted by a team, at least one auditor must have a minimum of 5
years experience in wastewater treatment and biosolids program management).
• Be an ANSI-RAB certified ISO 14001 Lead EMS Auditor(if the audit is conducted by a team, at
least one auditor must be a certified Lead EMS Auditor) or an NBP approved equivalent
certification for lead EMS auditor.
• Be knowledgeable of applicable federal biosolids regulations, as well as the NBP National
Manual of Good Practice, Code of Good Practice, EMS Elements, EMS Guidance Manual, and
Auditor Guidance.
• At the time of the audit, be familiar with applicable state/local requirements and practices.
Chapter 2 Page 7
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
The NBP believes that the above combination of skills and experience will provide auditors who are
competent in systems auditing, as well as familiar with wastewater and biosolids program management.
These skills, and the requirements regarding conflicts of interest, will also provide for auditors that are
seen as credible by biosolids management program interested parties.
The NBP recognizes that it is not feasible for all auditors to be knowledgeable of biosolids regulations in
all 50 states and numerous localities. To ensure that auditors are familiar with state and local
requirements,the NBP intent, where feasible, is that participating wastewater treatment organizations will
have audits conducted by auditors located within their region.
2.2 Auditor Certification
To be certified by the NBP to perform third party EMS audits, all auditors must meet the minimum
qualifications described above, must attend the NBP auditor training described in section 2.3, and must
pass a written exam given as part of the training.
2.3 Auditor Training
The NBP has developed an auditor training course that focuses on the NBP EMS Blueprint documents
and unique aspects of the NBP EMS Program. The training includes classroom and on-site exercises and
concludes with a written exam. To successfully complete the auditor training and become certified by the
NBP, all auditors must pass the written exam and clearly demonstrate an understanding of the NBP EMS
Program.
2.4 Auditor Oversight and Evaluation
NBP staff review the third party audit reports and/or conduct audit debriefs with the third party auditors
and local biosolids agencies after each third party EMS audit. The purpose of these activities is to ensure
that the third party audits are being conducted consistent with the NBP EMS Program requirements and
expectations.
Chapter 2 Page 6
NBP Auditor Guidance—January 2005
CHAPTER 3: Pre-Audit Activities
This chapter addresses the various activities of the NBP third party EMS verification process that occur
prior to the on-site verification audit, including notification of interested parties, the verification
application process, and EMS paperwork review or desk audit, These activities are designed to ensure
that an organization's EMS is ready for third party verification in the form of an on-site audit.
3.1 Notification of Interested Parties
Prior to applying for a third party verification audit, the biosolids organization must notify its interested
parties of their intent to receive an independent third party audit and have built into their EMS planning a
discussion with interested parties about approaches for observing the third party audit. The NBP believes
this provides the organization the best opportunity to manage expectations about audit results, articulate
any constraints needed on audit observation, and understand how best to conduct the audit to gain
maximum public acceptance of biosolids management activities.
During the EMS audit, auditors shall verify that such notification has been made. Auditors should note,
however, that the NBP does not require a biosolids organization to have interested parties observe or
otherwise participate directly in the independent, third party audit. This same notification to interested
parties is required for interim audits, as well as full verification audits.
3.2 NBP Verification Audit Application Process
The NBP encourages biosolids organizations to submit an application for the third party verification audit
after operating the EMS for three to four months and completing the internal audit. This is designed to
allow audit companies two or three months of lead time to schedule the third party verification audit.
Thus, the applicant can complete the requirement of having the EMS operate for six months prior to
receiving the third party audit while the audit scheduling process is going. To apply for a verification
audit, a biosolids organization must submit the following materials to the NBP.
• A completed EMS Verification Application form, which includes a description of the
organization's intended use or disposal of biosolids material, the desired biosolids material
characteristics, the wastewater facility operations associated with biosolids production, a
characterization of contractor use and final use and disposal operations, and documentation of
notification of interested parties about the intent to receive an audit and a discussion with
interested parties about approaches to observe the audit.
• A signed letter of understanding between the participating biosolids organization and the NBP
that includes a clear statement of the date at which the organization achieved full implementation
of its EMS (defined as the date when management officially approved the EMS Manual). This
date starts the clock for the six months of EMS operating experience necessary to apply for the
audit.
Chapter 3 Page 9
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
• A copy of the organization's Biosolids Management Policy that includes a commitment to
following the principles of conduct set forth in the Code of Good Practice.
• A copy of the organization's most recent internal EMS audit report.
• Supporting documentation in the form of an EMS Manual or collection of relevant documents
that demonstrates that the organization's EMS addresses all of the 17 EMS Elements.
The information in the application shall include a list or description of actual operational controls,
standard operating procedures, and operating records, sufficient to allow the auditor to gain an
understanding of the facility and its operations prior to coming on-site. The supporting documentation
should demonstrate that the organization has established policies, programs, procedures, and/or systems
for each of 17 NBP EMS Elements and their associated requirements. The NBP anticipates that most
organizations will submit an EMS Manual that describes the organization's EMS and that references
additional specific documents (e.g., Emergency Response Plan, operating procedures) but does not
include them. Documentation of the organization's critical control points in an EMS Manual will help the
auditor understand the type of utility operations, including final use or disposal, and determine whether
the identified critical control points are consistent with the NBP reference manuals, and what the scope of
the audit should be.
The NBP shall review the EMS Verification Application to confirm that the organization meets the
program eligibility requirements identified in Chapter 1 of the Auditor Guidance. As well, the NBP shall
review the application to ensure that it has been filled out completely, and that all required documents
have been submitted. If the application indicates that the organization does not meet the program
eligibility criteria, the NBP will contact the organization with that information. Organizations are eligible
to reapply for NBP EMS verification in the future. If all of the required documentation is not included in
the application package, the NBP will contact the organization to request the missing information. This
would include confirming that supporting documentation is included in the application, but would not
include a review of the supporting documentation to confirm it addresses the EMS Elements requirements.
That review is done by the third party auditors. Once the NBP has confirmed that the organization meets
the program eligibility criteria and that the required documentation is included,the NBP shall forward the
application and supporting materials to the selected audit firm.
The NBP staff shall work with the selected audit firm and the biosolids organization to develop a
mutually agreed upon audit plan (with scope, schedule and budget). When all three parties — the NBP,
audit firm, and biosolids organization- have reach agreement on the audit plan, the NBP shall establish a
contract for audit services with the selected audit firm and issue a notice to proceed with the audit.At this
point, the audit firm and biosolids organization may begin direct contact and proceed with audit activities.
Any further changes to the audit scope, schedule, or budget that arise from this point forward must go
through the NBP for contract amendment.
3.3 EMS Documentation Review
Once the audit firm has received a notice to proceed from the NBP and a copy of the EMS Verification
Application and documentation, a Lead Auditor shall be assigned to conduct the "desk audit". The desk
audit includes a review of EMS documentation (required), and may also include a short, on-site visit by
the auditor(optional)to confirm that the EMS is ready for an on-site verification audit.
Chapter 3 Page 10
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
3.3.1 Purpose of the EMS Desk Audit
The Desk Audit serves the following purposes.
• Determines if the biosolids organization's EMS addresses the basic requirements of the NBP
EMS Program, as defined in the EMS Elements, sufficiently to warrant a full, on-site verification
audit.
• Confirms that the organization's biosolids management system and stated goals and objectives
are aligned with the Code of Good Practice and NBP EMS Program objectives.
• Confirms whether or not the critical control points, operational controls, and management
practices identified in the EMS materials are consistent with those in the National Manual of
Good Practice.
• Allows the Lead Auditor to assess the amount of time that is likely to be needed for the on-site
audit, based on the size and complexity of the facility (or facilities) and number of final use and
disposal operations.
• Enables the Lead Auditor to determine where and when the technical biosolids auditor expertise
may be necessary to evaluate effectively the biosolids organization, based on the types of
processes and practices utilized by the biosolids organization.
3.3.2 Desk Audit Process
The Lead Auditor shall complete the desk audit preferably within 30 days and at a maximum within 60
days of receiving the EMS Verification Application Form and supporting documentation from the NBP.
If after examining the documentation the Lead Auditor finds that there is insufficient EMS documentation
to make a determination about whether the EMS addresses the requirements of the EMS Elements (i.e., if
required documents are missing or documents do not address all the specified topics), the Lead Auditor
shall contact the representative of the organization to ascertain whether other paperwork exists that has
not been supplied. If so,the local biosolids organization may supply additional documentation to the Lead
Auditor for review.
Biosolids organizations have the option to ask for a short,on-site visit as part of the desk audit. The on-
site visit would include an examination by the Lead Auditor of 4-6 key EMS Elements to further aid in
determining EMS readiness for a full verification audit(which would cover the remaining EMS elements
and all operations).The on-site visit as part of the desk audit can also help the Lead Auditor to better plan
for the remaining on-site audit in terms of determining which operations and sites to observe directly and
which portions of the audit require the biosolids technical auditor. This additional planning, as well as
EMS readiness, can help control overall audit costs.
3.3.3 Desk Audit Findings
After conducting the EMS desk audit, the Lead Auditor shall contact the applicant organization's EMS
representative (identified clearly on the EMS Verification Application form) and discuss the auditor's
observations, including any indications that the organization's EMS does not address, or does not fully
address, any of the requirements of the EMS Elements. This contact provides the applicant with an
opportunity to understand the nature and significance of the auditor's observations. In some cases, the
applicant may be able to provide additional documentation to the auditor that demonstrates that the
requirement(s)has been addressed.
Chapter 3 Page 11
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Based on the auditor's observations from the desk audit, additional contact with the applicant, and an on-
site visit (if conducted) the Lead Auditor shall make a determination as to whether the full, on-site audit
should proceed. This determination is based on the Lead Auditor's assessment of EMS readiness with
respect to the requirements of the NBP's EMS Elements. The Lead Auditor will provide written notice of
this determination to the biosolids organization and the NBP. If the Lead Auditor has determined that
additional work is required before the on-site portion of the verification audit is warranted, then the
paperwork shall be returned to the organization with the written notification. If the EMS paperwork is
complete and indicates that the EMS generally addresses the requirements of the EMS Elements and the
Lead Auditor has determined that the on-site audit should proceed, the audit firm and biosolids
organization shall move forward with the on-site audit.
3.4 Planning for the On-Site Audit
The Lead Auditor shall determine, based on the size and complexity of the facility and location of sites,
when and where to involve additional auditors to complete the site visit. The Lead Auditor shall
determine how many additional auditors are necessary and contact appropriately qualified people to
ascertain their availability. The amount of time needed to conduct the on-site audit can vary depending on
the type and complexity of biosolids operations, the geographic location of the organization's facilities,
and the number of auditors on the EMS verification audit team.
The Lead Auditor shall contact the representative of the organization to set the dates of the site visit and
discuss the scope, agenda, and any audit requirements. These requirements include: availability of a
private room and/or working area; use of a telephone; provision of lunch on site; any issues related to
"rights of entry"; use of local auditors; availability of relevant personnel, including top management, for
interviews; any health and safety requirements or precautions that may be relevant to the team during the
audit; and any other logistical or administrative activities that need to be coordinated or planned prior to
the on-site visit.
Following this contact, the Lead Auditor shall provide an audit plan and agenda to the representative of
the organization. The audit plan shall identify the biosolids value chain critical control points for possible
observation during the audit. In addition to the tentative audit agenda and plan, the Lead Auditor shall
also provide the organization with the following information.
• Composition of the audit team.
• List of individuals(by generic position titles)whom the auditor would like to interview,to ensure
that they have time available during the on-site visit.
• Letter from the Lead Auditor to the applicant to confirm dates and establish the process,protocol,
and auditor expectations for the organization (e.g., availability of personnel and documents
during the audit,provision of a private room and/or working area, use of a telephone,provision of
lunch).
• List of additional materials that should be available for on-site review during the audit.
Chapter 3 P 12
7�6
� �
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
3.5 Pre-Audit Status
A "pre-audit status" is what organizations can say about their relationship to the NBP EMS Program prior
to successfully completing the initial,verification audit.
The NBP recognizes that a formal pre-audit status could make the NBP EMS Program more attractive to
potential participants in that they could potentially benefit from affiliation with the NBP EMS program
before having completed a lengthy (often involving a year or more) and resource-intensive process of
planning, implementing, and having verified a biosolids EMS. However, the NBP also believes that a
formal pre-audit status could potentially blur the value of NBP EMS Program certification, earned upon
successful completion of the third party verification audit. As such, the NBP does not provide a formal
pre-audit status for potential program participants.
Instead, the NBP allows the option for a representative of potential program participants to sign a"letter
of commitment," indicating their commitment to: implement an EMS for biosolids in conformance with
the EMS Elements; complete a third party verification audit; uphold the 10 principles in the Code of Good
Practice; and meet all program eligibility criteria.
To retain the value of successfully completing the EMS audit, the NBP strictly prohibits the use of the
designation statement and visual indicator of program participation by organizations who have committed
to the Code of Good Practice but have not yet completed the initial, third party verification audit
successfully,and therefore, are not certified participants of the NBP EMS Program. (See section 5.2 for
more information on the NBP program designation statement and visual indicator.)
The NBP recognizes that organizations will need and want to inform interested parties, including their
own governing bodies, neighbors, and rate payers, that they are engaged in the process of developing an
EMS. In fact, the EMS Elements require that organizations involve the public in EMS planning.
However, the NBP strictly prohibits such organizations from promoting themselves as "certified
participants" of the NBP EMS Program or as having an EMS that has been "verified" by the NBP. The
NBP believes it is important to provide clarity about any potential program participants who have made a
commitment as different from the program participant status of organizations that have successfully
completed a third party audit.
The NBP website will list the organizations that have signed a letter of commitment with the following
statement:
"These organizations have pledged to implement an environmental management system (EMS)for
biosolids in conformance with the National Biosolids Partnership's EMS Program requirements and
to complete, in the future, an independent third party EMS verification audit. "
Organizations who have made a declaration of commitment, and whose commitment status is advertised
on the NBP website, are required to apply for a third party verification audit within 24 months of signing
the letter of commitment. Failure to apply for a verification audit within that time period, or to request an
extension from the NBP Steering Committee, would result in being de-listed from the NBP website. The
time limit is important to ensure that organizations are not using the NBP Program name without making
a genuine effort to implement an EMS for biosolids.
The NBP does not provide a formal, pre-audit signal or formal review step prior to the third party
verification audit. If the NBP were to provide a formal approval of an organization's EMS before it is
complete, the third party auditors might not be able to give a truly independent evaluation of the EMS
Chapter 3 Page 13
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
during the audit. As well, a formal pre-approval by the NBP could reduce program credibility with
interested parties who might question the independence of the third party verification process.
Instead, the NBP may provide an optional peer mentor program that supports informal, technical
assistance for potential program participants. As well, the NBP provides the organizations with EMS
Program blueprint documents (e.g., Code of Good Practice, Manual of Good Practice, EMS Elements,
Biosolids EMS Guidance Manual and Auditor Guidance)to ensure that program requirements are clearly
available to all potential program participants. Finally,the NBP acknowledges that,as is common in other
voluntary environmental improvement programs, organizations may undertake, at their own expense, a
readiness assessment prior to engaging in a verification audit.
NBP Demonstration Agencies
The NBP seeks to involve up to 100 demonstration agencies to demonstrate the EMS program. The NBP
is providing those demonstration agencies with technical assistance in developing their EMS and
recognition in the form of luncheons, workshops, other NBP-sponsored activities, and a plaque for
display at their offices. The NBP supports this recognition and technical assistance as important to
establish and maintain program momentum during the initial program launch phase, as concrete program
benefits from independent EMS verification may take one or two years to be evident. However,the NBP
will restrict recognition efforts to the program demonstration agencies. This ensures that, in the future,
the NBP can draw a more clear line between biosolids organizations in the process of developing their
EMS and those achieving EMS Program certification through the successful completion of an
independent third party verification audit.
The demonstration agencies are serving as prototypes for the NBP EMS Program. As such, the NBP
understands that the NBP technical assistance activities - including Implementation Plan assessments and
analysis and EMS Status Review assessments-provided for the demonstration agencies will continue and
these activities are not inconsistent with the recommendation to avoid providing a formal statement from
the NBP about the state of an organization's EMS.
Chapter 3 Page 14
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
CHAPTER 4: On-Site Verification Audit
This chapter addresses the various activities of the NBP third party EMS verification that occur during the
on-site verification audit, including the audit scope and approach, format, types of testing, and general
evaluation criteria.
4.1 On-site Audit Scope and Approach
The on-site portion of the audit should emphasize examination of the effectiveness of the organization's
biosolids management systems, as implemented, at delivering the organization's intended outcomes -
which should be documented in the EMS Manual, environmental policy, and/or goals and objectives - on
a consistent basis. The NBP directs auditors to include as an audit activity, emphasis on those areas of an
organization's management system that are necessary, as defined by the participating organization, to
achieve the NBP's goal of promoting environmentally-sound and publicly accepted biosolids
management.
4.1.1 On-site Audit Scope
During the on-site portion of the audit, auditors shall examine the organization's operations (including
wastewater treatment facilities, pretreatment and collection programs, storage facilities, transportation
equipment, and final use and/or disposal sites) related to the biosolids value chain, and review EMS
records and documents that are not included in the EMS Manual and application materials.
Consistent with the NBP EMS Elements,the on-site EMS audit scope shall encompass the entire biosolids
value chain. The auditor should keep in mind that as an EMS for biosolids, audit emphasis should be on
those activities that relate to the biosolids value chain, as opposed to all wastewater utility activities. The
scope of the organization's EMS is determined by the organization's selected critical control points
throughout the biosolids value chain. Therefore, the auditor need only examine activities throughout the
biosolids value chain insofar as there are critical control points that the organization relies upon to ensure
that the characteristics of their biosolids material (e.g., solids content, metals, pathogens, odor, plastics,
vector attraction) satisfy the regulatory, quality, and public acceptance requirements associated with the
organization's handling,management, and final use or disposal of the biosolids material.
The NBP intends for all audits - third party verification, third party interim, and internal audits - to
include a sampling of activities for direct observation during the on-site portion of the audit. The auditor
shall select a sampling of activities for direct observation, based on the organization's identified critical
control points, with the following exceptions.
• To maintain EMS Program credibility, and to achieve the NBP's goal of increased public
acceptance of biosolids management activities, the NBP requires that, during verification audits,
the auditor directly observe all facilities that produce biosolids and are covered by the
organization's EMS. Facilities that "produce biosolids" are considered those that include
processes in the value chain from solids stabilization forward.
Chapter 4 Page 15
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
• The NBP does not require direct observation of all final use and disposal sites during the
verification audit. However, some specific criteria for auditors to use in selecting final use and
disposal sites for direct observation are provided in sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5.
Auditors should note that the audit does not entail an analysis of biosolids material characteristics by the
auditor, only that the organization has effective systems for ensuring that biosolids material characteristics
meet all requirements associated with its intended final use and/or disposal method.
4.1.2 On-Site Audit Approach
During the desk audit, the auditor should have been able to understand the organization's management
processes and the steps in the biosolids value chain that are relevant to achieving the intended final use(s)
or disposal. For example, if the only final use or disposal method for the biosolids material is land
application,then landfill and incineration would not be relevant value chain steps for the organization.
During the on-site audit, the auditor shall look for objective evidence at each step in the value chain that is
relevant to the organization that the organization's actual practice conforms to that documented in its
EMS. If the auditor has any indication that actual practices diverge from practices documented as part of
the EMS, the auditor shall assess the degree to which the finding suggests a weakness in the
organization's EMS for biosolids. In particular, a divergence in actual practice can have important
implications for the completeness and appropriateness of the critical control points, legal and other
requirements,and operational controls that are included in the organization's EMS.
During the on-site audit, the auditor shall also look for objective evidence that the organization's EMS is
functioning as intended. This is largely done through the use of transaction testing, described in greater
detail in section 4.5.2,and examining outcomes produced by the EMS, further described in section 4.5.3.
4.2 On-site Audit Format
This section summarizes the typical format of an on-site EMS verification audit. The specific structure
and agenda for the site audit will depend on multiple factors, including the nature of the organization's
operations, the final use or disposal of biosolids material, the number of wastewater treatment facilities,
the location of final use and disposal facilities, relevant processes and steps in the biosolids value chain,
and the presence of contractor operations. Based on the desk review of the organization's application and
EMS Manual, the lead auditor should have sufficient information to work with the facility to prepare a
preliminary plan and agenda for the site visit. While the lead auditor has discretion in arranging the
schedule and plan for the on-site audit,the NBP recommends that the general agenda and structure of the
audit follow the format discussed below.
4.2.1 Collection of Objective Evidence
The primary focus of the on-site audit is to Objective Evidence—policies, ordinances, procedures,
collect objective evidence that verifies that manuals, inspection checklists, operating logs, annual
the organization's biosolids EMS is reports, and other documents and records; observations
functioning as intended, that practices and of practices, equipment, and facilities; and interviews
procedures are conducted as documented, with key personnel, management, or contractors that
and that the EMS, as implemented, is objectively demonstrate conformance with the EMS
aligned with the Code of Good Practice and Elements requirements.
NBP EMS Program objectives.
Chapter 4 Pag
ME
FYI
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
To collect objective evidence, the audit team shall conduct interviews, review on-site documentation, and
directly observe selected activities and locations that are relevant to critical control points and associated
operational controls identified by the organization as being important to managing it biosolids-related
operations and material. These various "modes of audit inquiry" (interviews, document review, and
direct observation) enable the audit team to collect "objective evidence" that verifies whether or not the
organization's EMS adequately addresses the NBP expectations and requirements as stated in the EMS
Elements. Interviews shall assist the auditors in determining whether employees are familiar with the
environmental policy and its requirements, and their specific EMS-related responsibilities. Review of on-
site documentation and records allows the auditors to determine whether required documents exist,
procedures are being implemented as written, and that appropriate records are being kept. When specific
questions arise that the biosolids organization representative cannot answer, or that require a review of
specific areas, an auditor may need to observe activities or locations directly, accompanied by an
organization representative. Such evidence might include monitoring logs, training records, posted
notices, or meeting minutes. If written evidence is not available, the auditor may need to question a
sample of relevant employees to determine that their answers are both consistent and support the EMS.
Auditors shall use these three methods of collecting objective evidence during each phase of the on-site
audit discussed below.
4.2.2 Entrance Meeting and Document Review
The site visit will start with an entrance meeting, which will be led by the Lead Auditor. It is
recommended that the initial meeting and document review be conducted at the organization's primary
location or facility, where important EMS documents discussed below are accessible. This location is
likely to vary depending on the size and structure of the organization. For example, large organizations
may have a central office that is separate from its treatment facilities and other facilities, whereas smaller
utilities may have their administrative offices and EMS records located at their primary wastewater
treatment facility.
The purpose of the entrance meeting is to:
• introduce members of the audit team to the organization's representatives;
• brief the organization's EMS representative, facility manager, and key staff on the scope of the
audit,audit team activities, and requirements; and
• confirm the plan and agenda for the audit.
Following the entrance meeting, the audit team will likely need to review documents and continue
discussions with key representatives of the organization to confirm the specific critical control points,
facilities, and locations that should be observed and/or visited during the subsequent on-site audit phases
discussed below. The audit team might also review copies of previous internal or third party audit reports
at this time to identify potential areas for exploration or follow-up. Based on this initial document review,
the audit team should work with key representatives of the organization to finalize the site audit plan and
agenda. Auditors should expect that the entrance meeting and document/records review will typically
require a half-day of on-site time.
4.2.3 Direct Observation of Facilities and Equipment
During the on-site portion of the verification audit, the auditor(or at least one member of the audit team)
shall directly observe all treatment works that produce biosolids and are covered by the organization's
EMS. As described above, facilities that produce biosolids are considered those that include processes in
Chapter 4 Page 17
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
the biosolids value chain from solids stabilization forward. For interim audits, the Lead Auditor shall
determine if direct observation of all treatment works that produce biosolids is necessary.
The auditor shall directly observe a sampling of all other facilities and equipment covered by the
organization's EMS through selection of critical control points. The length of the on-site portion of the
audit shall vary according to the scale and complexity of the biosolids management operations and the
location and distance between sites.
4.2.4 Final Use and Disposal Operations
The NBP believes that direct observation of final use and disposal operations, whether operated by
contractor or not, are necessary for program credibility. Because many final use or disposal operations are
not located on or adjacent to the treatment facilities, auditors are not required to observe directly all final
use or disposal operations, as the costs of such a requirement could be prohibitive. The NBP seeks to
balance program credibility with audit costs by not requiring that all final use or disposal operations
receive direct observation. Instead,the NBP has established the following requirements.
• The auditor shall choose a sampling of final use and disposal operations to observe directly.
• If final use and disposal operations are performed by a contractor or contractors, then the auditor
shall observe directly, at a minimum,one site for each contractor.
• If the organization utilizes multiple types of final use and disposal operations, then the auditor
shall observe directly,at a minimum,one site for each type of final use and disposal method.
Some final use and disposal operations may take place on private property not owned by the organization
or its contractor (e.g., land application on a private farm). In this case, the organization or its contractor
may need to include a contract clause to provide right of entry. Additionally, the NBP believes that
flexibility in the audit plan is necessary to address the intermittent and changing nature of some final use
and disposal operations (e.g., land application at certain sites might be halted during winter months).
For cases where a biosolids management organization has multiple final use and/or disposal operations,
the auditor shall consider, in addition to the minimum criteria identified above, which operations:
• are scheduled for activity during the time of the audit;
• might require intensive management activity; and
• have a history of or are at higher risk of having public issues or concerns (e.g., sites in close
proximity to residential/commercial areas).
However, the NBP does not require that final use and disposal sites included for direct observation have
current activity at the time of the audit, as there can be some benefit to examining inactive sites, such as
sites where biosolids had been previously applied or stored. Additionally, the NBP cautions auditors not
to focus solely on those land application sites that have received the most public attention or are the
largest, but also consider some of the smaller and more out of the way sites as the NBP believes it
important that publicly accepted and environmentally sound biosolids management practices are utilized
consistently at all sites, including those that otherwise might receive less intensive management.
As a result of the seasonal nature of some biosolids management activities, auditors should expect that
biosolids organizations may request that the on-site portion of the audit be conducted during a specific
time of year. As well, auditors may determine that they need to revisit, for direct observation, sites that
Chapter 4 Page 18
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
had been inactive during the time of the audit to complete the audit and make an EMS verification
determination.
If a final use or disposal operation is a considerable distance from the organization's wastewater treatment
facility(s) or focus of operations, local or regionally-based auditors may conduct the site visits to keep
audit costs lower (the lead auditor shall audit all operations close to the organization's wastewater
treatment facilities). Local auditors shall send audit findings on final use and disposal operations to the
lead auditor. If the third party auditor finds that documentation and interviews are inadequate to satisfy
the auditor that there is a healthy system throughout all final use and disposal operations, then the auditor
may find it necessary to visit additional sites or take further actions to determine the health of those parts
of the biosolids EMS.
4.2.5 Contractors
During the desk and on-site audits, auditors are expected to examine contract documents and conduct
interviews with contractors to determine if contractor roles and responsibilities are defined, as consistent
with the EMS Elements. In cases where contractors are used by the organization to manage key critical
control points and associated operational controls, the audit team shall audit these operations in a manner
identical to operations at the biosolids organization (see also sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4). During the audit,
full EMS documentation shall be made available from contractors and a contractor representative is
expected to attend portions of the on-site audit, where appropriate.
4.2.6 Follow-Up
In some cases, the audit team may need to spend additional time prior to the close of the site audit to
return to the organization's facilities and/or administrative offices to follow-up on unresolved areas of
audit inquiry or questions that arose during the course of audit activities. For example, auditors may find
it appropriate to examine the organization's communications processes (Element 9) or other EMS system
processes (see Elements 14 through 17) following the review of the treatment works, final use, and
disposal operations, since the auditors may be aware of potential EMS system weaknesses that need to be
more thoroughly explored and tested.
4.2.7 Exit Meeting
An exit meeting shall be held with representatives of the organization to present the findings of the audit.
This meeting can provide the opportunity for the organization to present additional information that may
not have been available during previous audit activities. The tentative outcome of the audit shall be
discussed at the exit meeting.
4.2.8 Recording Nonconformances
During the audit, the audit team shall work closely with the representative of the biosolids and shall keep
this representative informed of any findings and potential findings as they are discovered. This allows the
organization to provide additional information as available to assist the auditors in assessing the EMS
appropriately.
Audit team members shall meet independently of representatives of the organization to discuss any
questions and findings resulting from the interviews and document review and determine exactly where
nonconformances exist.
Chapter 4 Page 19
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Prior to the exit meeting, EMS strengths, weaknesses,and all nonconformances identified during the audit
shall be recorded on an audit findings sheet. The auditor will then present and discuss these findings
with the representative of the audited biosolids organization at the exit meeting.
4.2.9 Peer Involvement
The NBP believes that the participation of peer organizations can have a variety of benefits, such as
technical assistance, feedback, and advice to be gained. As a result, organizations may choose to have
peers participate in the development and implementation of their EMS. Peers may also observe the
independent third party audit and serve as a resource for the organization (e.g., by providing technical
assistance, conducting audit readiness assessments, providing advice on corrective actions, etc.).
However, peers may not be part of the audit team (e.g., they do not have a role in collecting objective
evidence or making the verification recommendation). As well, it is critical that peers do not interfere
with the third party audit. Any technical assistance or advice provided by peers shall come either after the
third party audit, or before the third party audit as part of implementation or assessing readiness.
4.3 Evaluation Criteria: System Nonconformances
For each of the EMS testing approaches described above and all of the NBP EMS requirements, the
auditor must understand the applicable criteria for evaluating whether or not the organization's EMS
satisfactorily addresses the requirement. In other words, the auditor must understand what the "hurdle",
or "bar", is for each requirement and test. Performance above this threshold indicates that the
organization's EMS sufficiently addresses the particular EMS requirement. Performance below the bar
indicates that the organization's EMS does not sufficiently address the particular EMS requirement. This
latter case results in a "nonconformance". In this case, the auditor must then distinguish whether the
nonconformance constitutes a minor nonconformance or a major nonconformance. Definitions of major
and minor nonconformances are the following.
• A minor nonconformance is one that,when taken by itself, does not indicate a systemic problem
with the EMS. It is typically a random or isolated incident. Minor nonconformances involve
discrepancies within an element of the EMS Elements or the organization's environmental
management system that do not significantly affect the implementation of the environmental
management system and commitment to conform with the Code of Good Practice — a systemic
problem is not indicated.
• A major nonconformance occurs when one of the elements in the EMS Elements has not been
addressed or has not been addressed adequately. Major nonconformances can occur when an
organization has documented a process or procedure, but has not implemented it or cannot
demonstrate effective implementation. A major nonconformance can also occur if an umber of
minor nonconformances in a given activity or against a given element point to a systemic failure.
Major nonconformances also exist if an element is being disregarded sufficiently during
organization operations that it is having a noticeable effect on the organization's environmental
compliance, environmental impacts, or the quality of the material being produced—there is a gap
or problem that could lead to a systemic failure.
The NBP recognizes that not all environmental management systems will be perfect, if any. The NBP
also understands that an EMS does not need to be perfect to be effective. Minor nonconformances are
expected as program participants adapt to address diverse changes and challenges. It is essential,
Chapter 4 Page 20
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
however, that an organization's EMS actively engages a process of continual improvement to identify,
learn from, and respond to nonconformances so that they are addressed in ways that prevent recurrence.
When the auditor has identified a minor nonconformance during the on-site audit, the organization shall
resolve the nonconformance and provide documentation to the auditor within 30 days of the audit, unless
the auditor and biosolids organization have made mutually agreeable alternative arrangements in the
context of an action plan. The NBP acknowledges that biosolids organizations may not be able to fully
correct some minor nonconformances within 30 days. The NBP requires that the audited organization
develop an action plan, with time frames approved by the Lead Auditor, for correcting minor
nonconformances. The action plan shall be developed and shared with the Lead Auditor within 30 days of
the audit completion. The Lead Auditor must review and approve the action plan, including proposed
timeframes, for correcting minor nonconformances. The Lead Auditor will review the effectiveness of
action taken to correct minor nonconformances, and will expect that nonconformances have been
corrected, no later than at the next interim audit. Individual findings of minor nonconformances shall not
prevent an organization from successfully completing a verification or interim audit.
When the third party auditor has identified a major nonconformance during the on-site audit, the
organization must resolve the nonconformance and have the auditor verify that the nonconformance has
been corrected. Failure to correct a major nonconformance identified during an on-site audit shall prevent
an organization from successfully completing a verification or interim audit. The NBP recommends that
organizations correct any major nonconformances within 90 days, but the required time frame is subject
to agreement with the Lead Auditor. If a major nonconformance is corrected within the 90-day time
period or other mutually agreed-upon time frame, the auditor is only required to verify that the specific
nonconformance has been addressed. Failure to correct a major nonconformance during within the 90-
day period or other mutually agreed-upon time frame shall result in the organization having their program
participation status revoked, or not achieving participant status, until another full verification audit has
been completed successfully. The Lead Auditor shall determine if an on site visit is required to verify that
the major nonconformance has been corrected, or if the verification can be made off site via document
review.
4.4 Methods of Collecting Objective Evidence
There are three primary methods of collecting objective evidence available to auditors during the on-site
verification audit to determine an organization's conformance with regard to the EMS Elements and
requirements. These methods include document review, interviews, and direct observation of operations.
Whenever possible, the audit team should utilize more than one of these methods to ensure that findings
are consistent and cross-checked. Each of these methods of collecting objective evidence is discussed in
greater detail below.
4.4.1 Document and Records Review
Document and records review provides one method of collecting objective evidence for auditors. In some
cases, the EMS Elements identify specific requirements regarding documents or records that an
organization must have (e.g., Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan). In this case, document and
records review enables the auditor to determine both that the document or record exists and that it
addresses any required topics or information. In other cases, document and records review may provide
evidence that an organization has a particular system in place or is following a required procedure. For
example, tracking logs may indicate that regular monitoring procedures are being followed. Typical
Chapter 4 Page 21
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
documents or records reviewed during an EMS verification audit include written policies, procedures,
manuals,reports, brochures, action plans, forms,operating records, and logs.
4.4.2 Interviews
Interviewing is another useful tool for collecting objective evidence during an audit. By asking questions
of employees and contractors who work with a biosolids organization, auditors can gain a better
understanding of how management systems and practices actually work. Interviews also provide
information about the degree to which aspects of the EMS are understood and implemented.
4.4.3 Direct Observation
Direct observation is the third method of collecting objective evidence available to auditors. During the
on-site audit, an auditor might observe if an employee is following a procedure or operating a piece of
equipment in light of expectations from the EMS or the National Manual of Good Practice. Direct
observation provides a useful means for verifying that an organization is actually implementing
procedures and controls prescribed in the EMS and other relevant documentation.
4.5 Audit Testing
There are three complementary approaches to testing that auditors shall employ to evaluate whether an
organization's EMS meets the expectations and requirements identified by the NBP. These testing
approaches are "requirement verification" "transaction testing" g "
and "examining outcomes".
Requirement verification ensures that the organization's EMS meets the basic requirements of the EMS
Elements. Transaction testing and outcomes examination ensure that the organization's EMS is
functioning as intended and producing desired outcomes.
4.5.1 Requirement Verification
Requirement verification looks at specific NBP EMS
elements to determine if the organization's EMS satisfies the Requirement Verification looks at
associated requirements, as defined in the EMS Elements. specific NBP EMS elements
There are specific requirements associated with each NBP determine if the organization's EMS
satisfies the associated requirements,
EMS element that can be individually evaluated or tested. as defined in the NBP EMS Elements.
Failure of an organization to completely or adequately
address the minimum requirements associated with each EMS Element shall likely constitute a finding of
major nonconformance by the auditor. Many of the requirements of the EMS Elements can be tested by
determining if there is a particular process or system in place,or if a document or procedure exists. Many
of the required, documented procedures and plans can be examined during the desk audit review.
Additional collection of objective evidence during the on-site audit can demonstrate or document that the
required process, procedure or document does exist and/or that it operates consistently with NBP EMS
expectations. Objective evidence typically includes some form of physical evidence, such as written
policies, procedures, manuals, reports, brochures, action plans, forms, records, information systems, or
equipment. Objective evidence can also include interview results (e.g., employee awareness of a
procedure), planning meetings, meetings with interested parties, and other evidence that provides
indications that a requirement is being met or not met. An example of the Requirement Verification
approach is presented below.
Chapter 4re
--
vf�lv��ll
4 q QRS g
4� t"�ml151J�
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Element 1: Documentation of EMS for Biosolids
To assess if an organization's EMS for biosolids meets the requirements of Element 1, the auditor
would look to answer affirmatively the following questions through the collection of objective evidence.
• Does the organization have an EMS Manual?
• Was the EMS Manual approved by a level of the organization's management with the authority
to commit people and resources to biosolids management activities?
• Does the EMS Manual contain the organization's Biosolids Management Policy and EMS
Procedures required by the EMS Elements?
• Does the EMS Manual contain or cross-reference Public Participation, Communications and
Emergency Preparedness and/or Response Programs and Plans required by the EMS
Elements?
• Does the EMS Manual cover all critical control points for its biosolids management activities
throughout the biosolids value chain?
• Does the EMS Manual include or cross-reference all operational controls, procedures,
processes and other management methods used to achieve and maintain compliance with
legal and other requirements?
• Does the EMS Manual describe those biosolids management activities assigned to and
performed by contractors?
4.5.2 Transaction Testing
The NBP believes that it is also important to verify that
required processes and procedures actually work as Transaction Testing enables auditors to
documented and intended. Transaction testing provides a assess how well various components of
useful approach for investigating overall system health. pr organization's EMS function i
Transaction testing enables auditors to assess how well practice and how well they work together
from a broader systems perspective.
various components of an organization's EMS function in
practice and how well they work together.
Far too often, organizations' efforts to develop environmental management systems become paper
pushing exercises that result in a set of binders on the shelf, rather than in changes in the ways a facility
operates. Documentation of policies, procedures, and EMS activities is important for supporting EMS
implementation, creating institutional memory, and demonstrating the existence of environmental
management systems. However, documentation does not ensure that the policies and procedures are
followed or that the EMS works as intended. Transaction testing provides a means for ensuring that an
organization is working actively to implement and continually improve its EMS. The concept behind
transaction testing is that, just as an organization's activities are linked throughout the entire biosolids
value chain, the elements of the EMS are linked. Transaction testing ensures that various elements of the
EMS are functioning in coordination. For example, if internal audits are being conducted (as required in
Element 16), have the associated identified corrective actions been implemented (as required in Element
14)? The EMS Elements include a number of linkages such as this.
Another way of looking at transaction testing of the linkages between EMS elements is to examine certain
changes or events that should trigger a response from the EMS. By tracing how an organization's EMS
responds to a transaction or triggering event, the auditor can better identify and assess gaps or
Chapter 4 Page 23
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
weaknesses. Examples of transactions and triggering events include the enactment of a new regulation or
requirement, the installation of new equipment, a change in personnel, a spill of biosolids material, or an
odor complaint by a local resident.
Auditors have substantial latitude in selecting when and how they use transaction testing. In most cases,
the auditor would use a transaction test to confirm that the organization's documented system or
procedure is operating as intended and documented in the EMS. The auditor might select a particular
transaction or triggering event (e.g., a change in biosolids land application personnel, a complaint
documented in the organization's complaint log, or a past compliance violation), and track it through the
organization to see how the various components of the EMS responded. In particular, the auditor should
be interested to discern answers to the following questions.
• Did the transaction or triggering event cause all relevant management system activities to occur
as intended in the organization's EMS?
• If the triggering event was associated with an undesirable outcome (e.g., public complaint,
compliance violation, adverse environmental impact), was the incident responded to as intended
by the EMS, and, did the EMS prompt appropriate actions to prevent recurrence of the
undesirable outcome?
Further examples transaction tests are provided in the table below.
Transaction Test Potential EMS Interactions
Existing regulatory requirement • Has the applicability of the requirement been
- Identify an applicable identified and documented? (Element 4)
regulatory requirement and . Have roles and responsibilities for addressing the
determine if it has been requirement been assigned and communicated?
incorporated into various (Element 7)
elements of the EMS. Auditors • Have procedures and practices for addressing the
may wish to give particular
emphasis to requirements that requirement been developed and implemented?
result in frequent violations. If (Elements 10 and 13)
the facility had a past • Are records related to the requirement complete and
compliance violation, it may be organized? (Element 12)
appropriate to target that
requirement.
[The auditor should also try to
understand what factors caused
any past violations, so they can
transaction test areas where the
EMS failed in the past.]
New or modified regulation- • Has the organization identified a new or changed
Identify a recent or modified requirement? (Element 4)
regulation or requirement . Has the organization evaluated and documented the
applicable to the facility. Track applicability or non-applicability of the regulation or
that new or changed requirement? (Element 4)
requirement through the system
to determine if the EMS 9Have operational controls been developed,
elements have been adjusted documented, and implemented to address the newly
Chapter 4 Page 24
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Transaction Test Potential EMS Interactions
accordingly. applicable requirement? (Element 10)
• Have the EMS Manual and related documents been
updated to address the new requirement? (Element
1)
• Have roles and responsibilities for implementing the
procedure/addressing the requirement been
assigned and communicated? (Element 7)
• Have appropriate monitoring and measurement
activities been instituted to address the requirement,
if appropriate? (Element 13)
• Have record keeping requirements been followed?
(Element 12)
• Has the facility satisfied its compliance obligations
related to the requirement?
• Has the organization made information on the
applicability of this requirement available to the
public? Element 9
Equipment or process change- . Has the EMS Manual, including documentation of
Investigate how a new piece of critical control points and operational controls, been
equipment or process line was updated to address the equipment or process
integrated into facility operations change? (Elements 1, 3, and 10)
and the EMS. . Has the organization identified potential and actual
environmental impacts associated with the
equipment or process change? (Element 3)
• Have SOPs been prepared or revised to address the
equipment or process change? (Element 10)
• Have appropriate personnel been trained on the
equipment or process and associated environmental
management responsibilities?(Element 8)
• Have emergency response plans and procedures
been modified (if necessary)to address the
equipment or process change? Element 11
Contractor Operations- Identify . Are environmental roles and responsibilities
existing contractor operations assigned and communicated to contractors?
and track them through the (Element 7)
system. (Note: a similar . Are contractors appropriately trained to perform their
transaction test could be environmental responsibilities? (Element 8)
conducted for new or changed
contractor operations.) 0Is this training documented and tracked? (Element 8)
• Does the contractor sufficiently understand their
responsibilities to perform their tasks in a manner
consistent with the EMS and Code of Good Practice?
Element 8
Chapter 4 Page 25
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Transaction Test Potential EMS Interactions
Accidental spill or release— Did the organization respond to the spill or release
Track an accident spill or according to their procedures? Were emergency
release to see how the system response plans followed?Were response actions
responded. appropriate to the type and scale of incident?
(Element 11)
• Were personnel appropriately trained for response?
(Element 8)
• Was the appropriate response equipment available?
(Element 11)
• Were regulatory notification, reporting and record
keeping requirements followed? (Element 12)
• Did the organization engage a root cause analysis
and/or continuous improvement process to learn
from the incident and prevent future occurrences?
• Have any associated process upset or equipment
failure conditions been documented in appropriate
logs and addressed through corrective actions to
prevent recurrence? Element 14
Public inquiry or complaint- • Did the organization process the inquiry or complaint
Track a public complaint or in accordance with its documented procedure?
inquiry through the system. (Element 9)
• Did the organization acknowledge receipt of the
inquiry or complaint and/or respond in a timely
manner? (Element 9)
• Were appropriate personnel sufficiently trained to
respond to the inquiry or complaint? (Element 8)
• Was the inquiry or complaint documented or
recorded appropriately?
• Is management sufficiently aware of potential public
concerns raised by the inquiry or complaint?
• Has the inquiry or complaint been considered (along
with others) in the organization's periodic review of
EMS goals and objectives?
4.5.3 Examining Outcomes
The third method of testing available to auditors is examining outcomes,which allows an auditor to verify
that an organization's EMS is functioning as intended and producing desired outcomes.
The NBP Code of Good Practice is a broad framework of goals and commitments to guide biosolids
management activities. Those who embrace the Code and participate in the NBP EMS Program commit to
"do the right thing." Code subscribers and EMS participants pledge to uphold the 10 principles in the
Code, which are focused on a commitment to quality practices and operations, as well as quality
outcomes.
Although this is a systems-based program, the NBP believes that public acceptance will ultimately
depend on the ability of the NBP and individual program participants to demonstrate that the EMS
Chapter 4 Page 26
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
produces better compliance, better environmental performance, good management practices, and
improved relations with interested parties. Therefore, the NBP has identified four areas where it has
defined specific, auditable expectations for examining outcomes as important indicators of EMS health
(e.g., "outcomes matter"). These four areas include: environmental performance; regulatory compliance;
relations with interested parties; and quality biosolids management practices. Performance outcomes
relate to the commitment to continual improvement in all aspects of biosolids management. The EMS
Elements require that environmental performance goals and objectives must be established and evaluated
to identify potential areas for improvement. Regulatory compliance outcomes are important to assure that
utilities are attentive to and successful in their efforts to meet compliance obligations. To achieve the
outcome of improved relations with interested parties, and ultimately public acceptance of biosolids
management practices, utilities must be seeking and creating meaningful opportunities for public
participation in the planning, implementation, and auditing of the EMS. And finally, a facility must
demonstrate a strong commitment to the utilization of quality biosolids management practices as dictated
by the Code of Good Practice and captured in the National Manual of Good Practice.
The EMS Elements (Element 5) require that goals and objectives for environmental performance reflect
identified priorities for improving environmental performance of biosolids management activities based
on critical control points, identified or potential environmental impacts, legal and other requirement, and
applicable best management practices as defined in the National Manual of Good Practice and various
authoritative sources on biosolids management.
To demonstrate continual improvement in each of the four outcome areas and meet the requirements for
Element 5, utilities participating in the NBP EMS program should establish measurable goals and
objectives that document the improvement in each of the four outcome areas. An organization's progress
in meeting these goals and objectives should then be evaluated by auditors as part of the follow-up or
interim audits that take place to ensure that the organization's EMS continues to meet all the elements of
the NBP program.
For example, in the area of relations with interested parties, an organization might agree to expand the
range of interested parties that it involves in its EMS, over and above those parties that were involved as
the EMS was initially developed. In the area of regulatory compliance, an organization that had
regulatory violations in the past would commit to reduce and ultimately eliminate these violations.
Another way to demonstrate a commitment to regulatory compliance could involve reducing the amount
of regulated pollutants in its biosolids, over and above those amounts currently used to demonstrate
compliance with applicable Federal or State regulatory requirements. In the area of best practices for
biosolids management, an organization might set a goal to adopt a new practice for detecting and
reducing odors. An example of an environmental performance goal could be to reduce energy
consumption.
The NBP believes that these four outcomes are critical indicators of the that degree an organization's
EMS is functioning as intended and conforms to the NBP EMS program's expectations and goals defined
by the Code of Good Practice. Auditors must note, however, that failure to achieve desired outcomes
does not necessitate nor in and of itself constitute a finding of system nonconformance. Rather, the NBP
has determined that past and current outcomes related to environmental performance, regulatory
compliance, relations with interested parties, and quality biosolids management practices shall be used by
auditors to identify potential areas of weakness in an organization's EMS. For example, the presence of
past compliance violations or public complaints shall prompt the audit team to explore how the
organization and its EMS responded to the performance outcome. The NBP does not expect that an
organization would never have performance problems. However, the NBP expects (and auditors shall
base verification determinations on the evidence) that organizations respond actively to such performance
Chapter 4 Paye 27
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
problems and seek to prevent the performance problem from recurring. The NBP expects that audit
reports will explicitly identify the outcomes examined and the relationship they have to system health or
deficiencies.
4.5.4 Environmental Performance
Consistent with the principle that"outcomes matter,"NBP EMS auditors shall examine the organization's
progress towards identified priorities for improving environmental performance, as reflected in the
biosolids organization's established goals and objectives, as one potential indicator of EMS health.
Through the EMS Elements, an organization is required to identify biosolids program goals and
objectives. The NBP defines biosolids program goals as"environmental performance improvement goals
that are consistent with the organization's biosolids management policy to assure biosolids management
activities comply with applicable laws and regulations, meet quality and public acceptance requirements,
and prevent other unregulated adverse environmental and public health impacts by effectively managing
all critical control points." The NBP defines biosolids program objectives as "detailed environmental
performance improvement requirements, based on a biosolids program goal."
The NBP believes that an auditable commitment to performance is critical to fostering credibility with
interested parties and to achieving the ultimate goal of publicly accepted biosolids management practices.
While the NBP considered the possibility of establishing specific, auditable environmental performance
minimums as a basis for NBP EMS program participation, this prescriptive approach was rejected as too
inflexible and infeasible. The NBP believes strongly, however, that the ability of the NBP and individual
program participants to demonstrate that the EMS produces meaningful environmental performance
improvements is critically linked to the program's public acceptance objectives. The NBP's approach
builds on the Code of Good Practice commitment to continual improvement - "To seek continual
improvement in all aspects of biosolids management" - and looks to ensure that NBP participants focus
not just on EMS processes and procedures, but on environmental outcomes as well.
Examining Environmental Performance Outcomes
Auditors shall examine the organization's progress towards identified priorities for improving
environmental performance, as reflected in established goals and objectives, as one potential indicator of
EMS health. If an auditor detects a pattern of lack of improvement with respect to those environmental
performance-related goals and objectives, the auditor shall interpret this as an indicator that the
organization's EMS is potentially failing to meet the NBP EMS Program expectations to promote
environmentally sound biosolids management practices and the organization's commitment to continual
improvement. The auditor shall examine the organization's EMS to determine if the cause for lack of
continual improvement constitutes a system nonconformance. For example,the cause may be that certain
operational controls tied to those environmental improvements have not been implemented or that
management reviews are not taking place as necessary to address the possible need for changes to the
policy,the goals and objectives,the biosolids management program,or other EMS elements.
Auditors shall recognize that some environmental performance goals and objectives may require long-
term planning and investment of resources. Auditors shall also recognize that organizations may focus
goals and objectives only on certain environmental impacts at one time, while environmental performance
objectives for others may be to maintain current performance levels (assuming that regulatory and public
acceptance requirements for biosolids are being met).
Chapter 4 Page 28
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
In examining environmental performance outcomes,an auditor shall expect that an organization has:
• Identified potential environmental impacts associated with the organization's identified critical
control points,with respect to the entire biosolids value chain(requirement 3.2);
• Established environmental performance goals and objectives that reflect the organization's
identified environmental impacts and related critical control points(requirement 5.2);
• Provided interested parties with meaningful opportunities to express views and perspectives
relative to biosolids management activities, including concerns about environmental impacts,
biosolids program performance, and potential areas for improvement(requirement 6.4)
• Considered input from interested parties in initially developing program goals and objectives
during EMS implementation and in updating them as part of periodic review of biosolids
management program performance(requirement 6.5);
• Developed and implemented standard operating procedures, work management practices or other
appropriate methods at all critical control points throughout the biosolids value chain to
effectively manage potential environmental impacts(requirement 10.1);
• Established and maintained regular monitoring and measurement procedures and practices for all
biosolids management activities to measure biosolids program performance at critical control
points and track progress toward achieving program goals and objectives(requirement 13.1);
• Completed a periodic written Biosolids Management Program Performance Report (at least
annually), summarizing the organization's progress toward achieving its biosolids program goals
and objectives(requirement 15.1);
• Established and maintained an internal audit program to periodically analyze the EMS for
biosolids and determine whether it is effectively meeting its biosolids management policy,
program requirements and biosolids program goals and objective(requirement 16.1); and
• Reviewed the EMS and its performance relative to policy commitments, goals, objectives and
established performance measures to ensure its continuing stability, adequacy and effectiveness
and addressed the possible need for changes to policy, the goals and objectives, the biosolids
management program and other EMS elements based on internal EMS audit results, external
verification EMS audits by third parties, changing circumstances, and the commitment to
continual improvement(requirement 17.1).
4.5.5 Regulatory Compliance
Consistent with the principle that"outcomes matter",NBP EMS auditors shall examine the organization's
performance in meeting legal requirements (regulatory compliance) as one potential indicator of EMS
health.
The third party EMS verification audits are not intended to be regulatory compliance audits that verify
whether or not an organization is complying with all applicable regulatory and legal requirements. The
NBP believes that a systems audit, which verifies the existence of a robust EMS, provides an equal, and
potentially better, indication of an organization's commitment to meeting and going beyond regulatory
compliance obligations on an ongoing basis than a regulatory compliance audit, which looks only at a
Chapter 4 Page 29
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
given point in time. However,the NBP believes that the compliance status of an organization can provide
an indication of how well the organization's EMS enables it to manage operations within established
parameters.
The NBP recognizes the importance of improving public confidence in regulatory compliance
assuredness. Through the Code of Good Practice, organizations are required to pledge "To commit to
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements." Consistent with a systems audit
approach, auditors should determine that a robust compliance management system is in place that
effectively identifies and tracks regulatory compliance obligations, proactively identifies potential
regulatory compliance issues, assures effective implementation of applicable compliance activities,
quickly detects regulatory compliance problems, and addresses regulatory compliance problems in a
timely fashion. The NBP expects participants to establish a procedure for identifying and tracking legal
(federal, state, and local) and other requirements applicable to the organization's biosolids management
activities to provide the basis for the NBP, auditors, and individual program participants to assure
interested parties that the EMS is effectively complying with regulatory requirements. The procedure
shall include a management process to incorporate changes and new requirements into the organization's
EMS.
Examining Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
NBP EMS auditors shall examine the organization's performance in meeting legal requirements
(regulatory compliance) and regulatory compliance-based goals and objectives as potential indicators of
EMS health.
Auditors shall review documentation containing regulatory compliance information, such as recent
regulatory inspection reports and annual biosolids reports, and gather other objective evidence about
selected regulatory compliance endpoints. Auditors shall review EMS documentation to verify that the
organization has established a procedure for identifying and tracking legal (federal, state, and local) and
other requirements applicable to the organization's biosolids management activities. The procedure shall
include a management process for incorporating changes and new requirements into the organization's
EMS. Auditors shall record in the audit report, that the organization has established and maintained
records of applicable legal and other requirements (assuming that this has in fact been done). As well,
auditors shall provide in their audit report a statement, based on the review of documentation and direct
observation of selected regulatory compliance endpoints,as to the adequacy of the management system in
meeting the participant's commitment to regulatory compliance. If an auditor detects a pattern of the
organization failing to meet compliance obligations, or failing to make continual improvement toward
compliance-based goals and objectives, the auditor shall examine the organization's EMS to determine if
the cause is a system nonconformance. For example, the cause may be that certain measuring and
monitoring activities have not been implemented or that roles and responsibilities for key activities related
to meeting compliance have not been clearly assigned.
Areas of past noncompliance can point to places that an auditor should examine during an EMS
verification audit. Through transaction testing, auditors can explore how well the organization's EMS,
through its corrective and preventive action plan, has responded to the noncompliance situations. In the
presence of a well-functioning EMS, the auditor should detect the implementation of controls and
practices to prevent recurrence of noncompliance situations.
Auditors shall recognize that even the most well run organization may occasionally experience conditions
that result in a non-compliant situation and that what the NBP believes is important is if the organization
responds in a timely and appropriate manner to instances of potential regulatory noncompliance.
Chapter 4 Page 30
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
In examining regulatory compliance outcomes,the auditor shall expect that the organization has:
• Established a procedure for identifying and tracking legal (federal, state, and local) and other
requirements applicable to its biosolids management activities(requirement 4.1);
• Reflected, in program goals and objectives, legal and other requirements (requirement 5.2);
• Incorporated all legal and other adopted requirements in the operational controls of critical
control points(requirement 10.2);
• Established and maintained regular monitoring and measurement procedures and practices for all
biosolids management activities to assure compliance with applicable legal and other
requirements (requirement 13.1);
• Developed and implemented a procedure to investigate any noncompliance with applicable
regulatory requirements identified during routine monitoring and measurement or periodic
internal EMS audits(requirement 14.1);
• Developed and implemented a procedure to document the necessary corrective actions taken to
prevent a recurrence (requirement 14.3);
• Established formal corrective action plans to address findings of internal EMS audits and audits
conducted by third parties, and documented corrective action plans describing what actions will
be taken to address the audit findings,the individuals responsible, the estimated completion date,
and required resources to develop and implement corrective and preventive action (requirement
14.5);and
• Established and maintained an internal audit program to periodically analyze the EMS for
biosolids and determine whether it is effectively meeting its biosolids management policy,
program requirements with and biosolids program goals and objectives (requirement 16.1).
4.5.6 Relations with Interested Parties
Consistent with the principle that "outcomes matter", auditors shall examine the state of the
organization's relationships with interested parties as one potential indicator of EMS health.
The NBP does not expect that an organization's relationships with interested parties will be positive all of
the time. Organizations are not required, as a basis for program participation, to resolve the concerns of
all interested parties. The NBP acknowledges that there can always be parties who are not satisfied that
their concerns have been addressed or parties who are fundamentally opposed to certain biosolids
management practices, regardless of the organization's environmental performance or how active and
meaningful the public participation effort has been.
Rather,the NBP believes that setting up quality,two-way flows of information between interested parties
and participating organizations is critical to the program's goal of publicly accepted biosolids
management practices. "Two-way flows of information" means that information flows from interested
parties in to the participating organization such that the organization has the capacity to understand the
concerns and perspectives of interested parties. Requirements for how participating organizations must
establish information flows into the organization from interested parties are primarily covered under
Chapter 4 Page 31
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Element 6, Public Participation in EMS Planning, and Element 9, Communications. As well, two-way
flows of information means that information on the organization's EMS and biosolids management
program flows to interested parties. Requirements for how participating organizations must establish
information flows out from the organization to interested parties are primarily covered under Element 9
Communications. Also, the Code of Good Practice commits organizations to "provide methods of
effective communications with gatekeepers, stakeholders, and interested citizens regarding the key
elements of each environmental management system, including information relative to system
performance."
The NBP expects that there will be substantial local tailoring of public participation plans and that
organizations will remain fully in control of the decisions they make once interested party perspectives
are understood. Organizations have the flexibility to choose a set of public participation and
communication activities that best meet their local needs. Most biosolids management organizations
employ a variety of successful public participation and communication mechanisms, and the NBP
believes that many of those mechanisms are sufficient to meet program requirements.
Examining Relations with Interested Parties
Auditors shall examine the state of the organization's relationships with interested parties as one indicator
of EMS health. For example, if, during EMS document review, an auditor encounters a pattern of
repeated written public complaints, the auditor shall interpret this pattern as an indicator that the
organization's EMS is failing to support the NBP EMS Program goal of promoting publicly accepted
biosolids management practices. The auditor should examine the organization's EMS to determine if the
cause of the pattern of consistent complaints derives from a system nonconformance. It could be that the
failure to resolve complaints resulted from the organization's corrective action system functioning
inadequately. In this context, however, auditors shall not judge the validity of interested party
perspectives,nor shall they expect an organization to have accommodated all perspectives.
Auditors shall recognize that some organizations are implementing public participation programs for the
first time, as part of participation in the NBP EMS Program. Where this is the case, it is possible that the
state of relationships with interested parties may actually appear to worsen as the public participation
program is implemented. For example, this can be reflected by the number of negative comments
actually rising, as opportunities for comments may not have been provided in the past. It is also possible
that the lack of past negative comments was the result of interested parties not knowing about the
organization's biosolids management practices(e.g., lack of negative comment does not necessarily equal
public acceptance), and thus negative comments appear to rise as the program is implemented.
Auditors shall also take into consideration the maturity of the organization's biosolids management
program. For example, a well established and accepted program may, at its outset, have conducted
substantial public education and involvement efforts, but now is maintaining ongoing, targeted
relationships with individual community members or groups.
In examining the state of relationships with interested parties, the auditor shall expect that the
organization has:
• Selected an implemented a proactive public participation approach to involve interested parties in
its Biosolids Management Program and EMS planning process(requirement 6.1);
Chapter 4 Page 32
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
• Reflected, in the selected approach, the organization's commitments to the ten principles of the
Code of Good Practice, including a plan for independent third-party verification of conformance
with the EMS Elements (requirement 6.2);
• Selected an approached that is consistent with the degree of current public interest, history of
public involvement, method of biosolids management, and related local circumstances
(requirement 6.3);
• Provided interested parties with meaningful opportunities to express views and perspectives
relative to biosolids management activities, including concerns about environmental impacts,
biosolids program performance, and potential areas for improvement(requirement 6.4);
• Considered input from interested parties in initially developing program goals and objectives
during EMS implementation and in updating them as part of periodic review of biosolids
management program performance (requirement 6.5);
• Established and maintained a proactive communications program that provides ongoing
information about the Biosolids Management Program and EMS to interested parties and the
public(requirement 9.1);
• Developed and followed a procedure for receiving and responding to inquiries and requests for
information from interested parties (requirement 9.2);and
• Made information about the biosolids management program activities and EMS available to
interested parties(requirement 9.3).
In conducting the audit, the auditor shall primarily rely on EMS documentation and interviews with
employees to verify public participation and communications actions. However, the auditor, after
consultation with the organization, can interview interested parties as necessary to verify the adequacy of
an organization's actions.
4.5.7 Quality Biosolids Management Practices
The NBP believes that an auditable commitment to best practices is a key link to credibility with
interested parties and achieving the NBP's goal of publicly accepted and environmentally sound biosolids
management practices. The Code of Good Practice commits organizations to implement "good
housekeeping practices for biosolids production, processing, transport, and storage, and during final use
or disposal operations" and to "sustainable, environmentally acceptable biosolids management practices
and operations." As such, the NBP requires that, in selecting biosolids management practices, an
organization has considered and, to the extent applicable and practicable, utilized the best practices
identified in the National Manual of Good Practice and other recognized sources as identified by the
organization(requirement 10.3).
Examining Quality Biosolids Management Practices
Auditors shall examine biosolids management practice selection in the following manner.
• The auditor shall examine identified critical control points and associated operation controls in
light of the National Manual of Good Practice, operating under the presumption that the
Chapter 4 Pae 33
�. "MO, U,
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
organization knows best which practices to select for its operation. (required by Elements 3 and
10)
• The National Manual of Good Practice intends to be "practice neutral": it provides management
practices for all wastewater solids and biosolids management alternatives. Thus, auditors shall
look only at those critical control points and associated operational controls that are relevant to
the given organization and its biosolids final use or disposal.
• The auditor shall presume that choices on practice selection are not made "in a vacuum" and can
be influenced by local political and economic situations. Thus, local tailoring of practice selection
is necessary and appropriate.
• If an organization adopts practices that appear inconsistent with the National Manual of Good
Practice, the auditor shall ask the organization to explain if the practices are inconsistent and
why. Inconsistencies with the National Manual of Good Practice would not necessarily prevent
verification if a suitable explanation is provided. However, an auditor could, if they believed the
organization's choices did not adequately reflect the NBP's expectations for promoting
environmentally acceptable biosolids management practices and that the organization's
explanation for inconsistencies with the National Manual of Good Practice were not suitable,
identify this as a system nonconformance.
Chapter 4 Page 34
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
CHAPTER 5: Reporting, Appeals, Internal Audits, Interim
Audits, and Re-Verification Audits
This chapter describes those activities that occur after the initial verification audit has been completed.
5.1 Post-Audit Activities and Reporting
Within two weeks of completing the audit, the lead auditor shall make an EMS verification
recommendation and prepare working draft audit summary and detailed findings reports. The audit
summary report shall reflect the results of the audit, including areas of strength and weakness, any
nonconformances identified, and the auditor's draft verification recommendation. The auditor shall not
make any compliance determinations. The format and contents of the detailed audit findings report are
below. The auditor shall provide the document labeled consistent with local public disclosure protections
(e.g., deliberative or working draft) to ensure that the organization can hold it as confidential as desired.
This review allows the organization to ensure the technical accuracy of audit findings and develop
observations for inclusion in the final summary and detailed audit reports. After the organization has
reviewed the draft reports and prepared any observations, the auditor shall prepare final audit summary
and detailed audit reports, attach the organization's observations, and submit all of the documents
simultaneously to the organization and the NBP.
5.1.1 Correcting Minor Nonconformances
The NBP expects that the audited organization will make a commitment to correcting minor
nonconformances in a timely fashion. The NBP defines timely as 30 days. However, the NBP
acknowledges that biosolids organizations may not be able to fully correct some minor nonconformances
within 30 days. For example, if a minor nonconformance was cited for failure to include the EMS policy
in the training program, the organization could make changes to the training program materials right
away. However,actually conducting all of the required trainings in the program with the new information
could take several months. As such,the NBP requires that the organization to develop an action plan and
agreed-upon time frame with the Lead Auditor for correcting minor nonconformances. The action plan
must be developed within 30 days of the audit in which the minor nonconformances were identified. The
Lead Auditor must review and approve the action plan, including proposed timeframes, for correcting
minor nonconformances. The Lead Auditor will review the effectiveness of action taken to correct minor
nonconformances, and will expect that nonconformances have been corrected, no later than at the next
interim audit.
5.1.2 Audit Report
The audit report shall contain the following information.
Title Page Heading: National Biosolids Partnership EMS Audit Report
• Organization's name and address
• Audit team members'names and roles
• References:
o NBP EMS Elements
Chapter 5 Page 35
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
o Organization's environmental policy and environmental
management system
• Date issued
• Date revised
• Signatures of organization representative and lead auditor with date
Body of Document • Attendance sheets for entrance and exit meetings
• List of any final use and disposal operations included in the audit
• Pre-audit document review summary
o List of documents reviewed citing any strengths and weaknesses
o List of requirements for documentation taken from EMS Elements
along with references to relevant organization documents that meet
each of the requirements
• Finding sheets indicating areas of strengths and weaknesses, outcomes
examined, and any nonconformances with the requirements as identified in
the EMS Elements, including a description of the nonconformance and if
major or minor
• Auditors' determination regarding EMS verification
5.1.3 Notification of Change
h
When an organization makes a significant change to its EMS or biosolids management activities after
having received EMS verification, the auditor shall expect to receive written notification from the
organization about the change(s), as required by Element 3. The auditor shall then need to make a
determination if the nature of the change(s) warrants additional audit activity prior to the next scheduled
interim or verification audit. Auditors shall also note that organizations who have received NBP EMS
verification may voluntarily request additional audit activity in response to such situations as a change in
EMS and/or biosolids management activities or public concerns about the validity of its EMS verification.
5.1.4 Maintaining Program Status
To retain NBP EMS program certification status, an organization must meet the following criteria.
(Please see section 1.4.2 for the steps involved in NBP Program Certification. EMS verification is the last
required step.)
• Reporting-Consistent with EMS elements 9 and 15, program participants must make available to
the public their annual Biosolids Management Program Performance Report and a detailed report
of the independent, third party EMS audit results. The Biosolids Management Program
Performance Reports must contain the following: summaries of monitoring, measurements, and
other results that demonstrate the performance of the biosolids program relative to its goals,
objectives, and legal requirements; summaries of performance relative to other voluntary adopted
requirements; the organization's progress toward achieving its biosolids program goals and
objectives; and a summary of the most recent independent third party EMS verification or interim
audit results. In essence, not only will failure to meet these reporting requirements constitute a
major nonconformance of the EMS, it will constitute a basis for termination of program
participation.
• EMS Conformance - Program participants must maintain conformance of their EMS with the
EMS Elements, as demonstrated through the audit process of verification, interim, and internal
Chapter 5 Page 36
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
audits.
Rather than identify an exhaustive list of criteria or situations that could lead to the exit of program
participants,the NBP Steering Committee has the discretion to remove program participants to address
unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances. Some environmental verification initiatives have established
criteria requiring that organizations found guilty of committing an environmental crime be immediately
removed from the program. However, rather than attempting to define specific criteria such as these or
others,the NBP Steering Committee will make determinations on an as needed basis about whether
conditions at or action undertaken by a biosolids organization risk undermining the credibility of the NBP
EMS Program and therefore justify the participant's removal.
5.2 Interim Audits
Most EMS verification processes have a pattern of regular verification, interim, and re-verification audits.
Verification processes include regular, on-site visits in the form of"partial audits" (usually referred to as
maintenance or interim audits) between full verification audits to ensure EMS stability. Because of the
ability for staff, policies, and procedures at organizations to change rapidly, interim audits are common
practice for verification processes, unless a short re-verification cycle is in place (e.g., full verification
audits happen every year or every other year). Because interim audits only look at a part of the EMS;
they are typically less resource intensive than full verification audits.
To provide program credibility, annual, interim audits conducted on-site by the independent, third party
auditor must occur between re-verification. Interim audits focus on ensuring "system health" (i.e., that
the system is doing what it is supposed to) in between verification audits.
Biosolids organizations arrange for an interim audit by completing an interim audit request form and
submitting it to the NBP. The interim audit request form shall include: the organization's NBP EMS
verification anniversary date; documentation describing major changes made to the EMS since the last
third party audit; preventive and corrective action requests and responses since the last third party audit;
documentation describing how nonconformances have been corrected since the last third party audit; and
documentation of notification to interested parties about the intent to receive an audit and discussion
about approaches to observe the audit. Annual interim audits should be completed before the
organization's anniversary date,to avoid any lapse in program participation.
5.2.1 Interim Audit Scope
Individual interim audits cover only a portion of the EMS. However, over the course of the four interim
audits conducted between verification audits,the entire EMS must be covered by the third party auditors.
Each interim audit must include a review of. the organization's progress toward goals and objectives;
EMS outcomes (environmental performance, regulatory compliance, interested party relations, quality
practices); actions taken to correct minor nonconformances; the management review process; corrective
action requests and responses; and preventive action requests.
5.2.2 Substituting Third Party Interim Audits with Internal Audits
Organizations may choose to substitute internal, interim audits for third party, interim audits in years two
and four of the 5-year audit cycle, provided the results of the internal audits are fully publicly disclosed
and the independent, third party audit is not needed to ensure proper system functioning and health.
During years in which an organization chooses to substitute internal, interim audits for third party audits
Chapter 5 Page 37
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
If a NBP EMS Program participant identifies and requests a new place to apply the program designation
that is not on the identified list,the NBP Steering Committee will address these on a case-by-case basis
with recommendations from the EMS Appeals Board.
The program designation must not be used as a biosolids product label. The NBP believes that allowing a
program designation label or sign directly in or on biosolids material could be misleading to the public
who might believe that the label is an indicator of independently tested and certified product quality rather
than of a material that emerges from a verified management system. The program designation may not be
used on a bagged biosolids product or on signs in contact with piles of or land applied biosolids material.
Signs that are nearby, but not actually touching the biosolids material in storage piles or on land
application sites (e.g., at the perimeter or land application sites) that are under the management of the
organization's EMS would be permissible.
The NBP does allow all certified program participants to use the program designation at all management
points and associated infrastructure along the entire biosolids value chain and their span of control
covered by the EMS. Trucks hauling biosolids material covered under the participant's EMS are a
management point under the EMS (i.e., transportation is identified as a critical control point in the
National Manual of Good Practice) and are acceptable places for the NBP program designation.
Consistent with this approach, the program designation cannot be used at management points or on
infrastructure/vehicles that are not under the purview of the participant's biosolids EMS (e.g.,the truck of
an exceptional quality compost product retailer not covered by a participant's EMS.)
The program designation will clearly state that it is an indicator of EMS verification and NBP EMS
Program certification and completely avoid any implication that it is an indicator of product quality
testing. The NBP allows program participants to use two types of program designation statements, a short
statement and a long statement. The short statement can be displayed by certified program participants, in
the approve places listed above, by itself or accompanying the visual indication of certification. The long
statement describes what is behind the visual indicator or seal.
Short Statement:
"This organization (or insert name) operates an independently verified National Biosolids Partnership
environmental management system."
Long Statement:
"This organization (or insert name) has been independently verified as having an effective biosolids
environmental management system that supports continually improving environmental performance,
meeting regulatory compliance obligations, utilizing good management practices, and creating
meaningful opportunities for public participation and is in conformance with the requirements of the
National Biosolids Partnership."
5.5 Appeals Process and Board
The NBP EMS Program provides an independent appeals process for those organizations that would like
to question auditor findings. Organizations that appeal the findings of an interim or re-verification audit
and have previously obtained EMS verification shall retain their NBP EMS Program certification status
until the appeal has been resolved. The appeals process involves an EMS Appeals Board representing a
balance of biosolids management interested parties and wastewater industry professionals. This appeals
Chapter 5 Page 39
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
process is designed to make organizations who wish to participate in the program more comfortable with
the auditor's role in interpreting the auditable requirements that allow for tailoring to local circumstances.
Biosolids organizations must notify interested parties that a process exists to appeal third party EMS
verification and interim audit results. With the notification, organizations must include information on
how to use the process, such as by when appeals must be submitted, based on what grounds, and to who
appeals are submitted. Biosolids organizations may choose to inform interested parties via a number of
methods and times including: during regular public participation activities, as part of the (pre-audit)
notification to interested parties about the third party EMS audit; as part of the publicly available (post-
audit)audit report;and as part of the annual EMS performance report.
The Appeals Board evaluates and makes final determinations on appeals actions. This function supports
the ability of audited biosolids organizations and other interested parties to question and derive a Board
determination on the decisions made by the independent third party audit organization. Final appeals
determinations must be made by a majority of the Board.
To warrant an appeals action before the Board, the party bringing an appeal must set forth the specific
EMS element(s) that they contend have not been evaluated and/or implemented consistent with NBP
expectations and requirements as reflected in the EMS Elements, along with the objective evidence to
support that claim.
When presented with a request for an appeals action,the Board may:
• request further information from the biosolids organization, interested parties, and/or the
auditor(s);
• request appearances by the relevant parties, in person or by phone;
• conduct further investigations;and/or
• deny the appeal without any of the above actions if the application for appeal (a) concerns claims
other than the third party audit findings about a participant's biosolids organization's EMS or (b)
on its face, lacks sufficient objective evidence to support the claim.
A Board "determination" will take the form of a conclusive statement that the identified EMS deficiency
does or does not represent a major nonconformance as defined in the Auditor Guidance and in the context
of the NBP expectations and requirements as contained in the EMS Elements. The Board will direct its
determination to the audit company for follow-up action.
In the case of an appeal of a finding of major nonconformance that led to verification denial, a Board
determination that the EMS deficiency does not represent a major nonconformance will result in the
biosolids organization receiving EMS verification. As would have been the case in the absence of such
an appeal, a finding that the EMS deficiency does represent a major nonconformance will require the
biosolids organization to address the deficiency prior to receiving EMS verification. In the case of an
appeal questioning the lack of a finding of major nonconformance that resulted in the issuance and/or
maintenance of EMS verification, a Board determination that a major nonconformance does exist will
require the audit company and the biosolids organization to address the EMS deficiency in conformance
with the procedures and time frames contained in the Auditor Guidance. As would have been the case in
the absence of an appeal, a Board determination that the EMS deficiency does not represent a major
nonconformance will result in the biosolids organization's maintenance of its EMS verification.
With the exception of appeals actions, the independent, third party audit organization will make final
verification determinations. The Board does not verify EMS or certify a biosolids organization to the
Chapter 5 Page 40
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
program, but rather concludes whether or not an EMS deficiency under consideration constitutes a major
nonconformance thereby either postponing EMS verification until addressed or requiring improvement
consistent with Auditor Guidance procedures and time frames to maintain an existing EMS verification.
Composition of the Board
The Appeals Board provides access to the perspectives of, and enhances the credibility for the NBP
Program with, a diverse range of interested parties. The Board represents a balance of biosolids
management interested parties and wastewater industry professionals. The Board is composed of the
following representatives.
• Four(4)representatives from within the biosolids industry
o At least one of the industry representatives on the Board should have experience with
implementing and/or operating an EMS
• Five(5) individuals from interested parties,such as the following(not necessarily one from each
hype)
o Environmental and Community Organizations
o Public Health Organizations
o State and Federal Regulatory Agencies
o Academia
o Food,Agriculture, and Timber Industries
o Others
Appointment of the Board
• Initial Nominations and Appointments-Based on nominations solicited from a variety of sources,
the NBP Management Committee (now Steering Committee) has made the appointments to
establish the initial Board.
• Terms- Representatives serve for three (3)years. To prevent complete Board turnover, the initial
nominations consist of two-and three-year terms(50%each).
• Nominations - The EMS Appeals Board presents nominations for new Board members to the
NBP Steering Committee.
• Appointments - After careful review of the recommendations from the existing EMS Appeals
Board, the NBP Steering Committee appoints all new members of the Board. The Steering
Committee retains control over Board membership and could, if it believed necessary, ask for
Board member resignations.
Board Meetings
The Board meets on an as-needed basis to handle appeals actions. To ensure Board cohesion, at least one
(1) Board meeting per year will be a face-to-face meeting. The other meetings are likely to be conference
calls. However, the Board determines, on a case-by-case basis, if any of the other meetings necessitate
face-to-face interaction.
Chapter 5 Page 41
4Jis„VU�
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Board Staffing
The Board utilizes NBP staff to provide the required level of administrative and technical support,
including the following functions.
• Travel and logistics coordination for Board meetings
• Administrative and communications for Board operations
• Background review for appeals actions
Chapter 5 Page 42
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
CHAPTER 6: EMS Verification Audit Guidance - Policy
Chapter 6 describes the requirements for elements related to EMS documentation and the biosolids
management policy.
Element 1. Documentation of EMS for Biosolids
Element 1 describes the NBP requirements for preparing and maintaining an EMS Manual. The EMS
Manual is a framework for documenting and organizing the pieces of an EMS for Biosolids. The
biosolids EMS Manual need not be a compilation of all the EMS documents. The EMS Manual is a"road
map" linking the biosolids policy with EMS procedures, plans, and other key documents defining the
EMS. The EMS Manual defines how all 17 Elements of the EMS link together. If it is easier to maintain
the EMS Manual as a stand-alone set of policies and procedures, this is also an acceptable approach. The
EMS Manual can be kept simple by cross-referencing more dynamic EMS documents, such as those
describing monitoring requirements and operating procedures. While it won't change as often as other
documents, such as SOPS or records, the EMS Manual should be flexible enough to accommodate
changes to the EMS program, and should be easy to update as needed.
Minimum Conformance Requirements
1.1 Document the EMS for Biosolids in an EMS Manual or equivalent set of program
documents that describe, at least at a general level, the applicable policies, programs,
plans,procedures,and management practices in the EMS.
1.2 Approve the EMS Manual by a level of the organization's management with the authority
to commit people and resources to biosolids management activities.
1.3 Contain, in the EMS Manual, the organization's Biosolids Management Policy and EMS
Procedures required by the EMS Elements.
1.4 Contain or cross-reference, in the EMS Manual, public participation, communications,
and emergency preparedness and response programs and plans required by the EMS
Elements.
1.5 Cover, in the EMS Manual, all applicable, relevant, and selected critical control points
for biosolids management activities throughout the biosolids value chain.
1.6 In the EMS Manual, include or cross-reference all operational controls, procedures,
processes,and other management methods used to achieve and maintain compliance with
legal and other requirements.
1.7 In the EMS Manual, describe those biosolids management activities assigned to and
performed by contractors.
Chapter 6 Page 43
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Element 2. Biosolids Management Policy
Element 2 addresses the importance for an organization to articulate and communicate clearly its vision
for how the organization will conduct its biosolids management activities. An organization's biosolids
management policy establishes the guiding principles for the organization's environmental management
system and operations. The organization's EMS goals and objectives, biosolids management program,
procedures and work practices, monitoring and measurement, internal auditing, and performance
reporting should all align to support the organization's efforts to meet the commitments and apply the
principles established in its biosolids management policy.
Organizations seeking NBP EMS verification must commit to following the 10 principles of conduct set
forth in the Code of Good Practice. In the Biosolids Management Policy, an organization must include an
explicit statement of commitment to the 10 principles of the Code of Good Practice and may include
other biosolids commitments that the organization voluntarily chooses to adopt.
Minimum Conformance Requirements
2.1 Establish a Biosolids Management Policy that commits the organization to following the
principles of conduct set forth in the Code of Good Practice and may include other
biosolids commitments the organization voluntarily chooses to adopt.
2.2 Communicate the policy to employees,contractors,and all interested parties.
2.3 Incorporate the policy into the organization's biosolids programs, procedures, and
practices.
Key Areas of Interpretation
The definition of a Biosolids Management Policy is a"statement by an organization committing it to the
principles set forth in the NBP Code of Good Practice with respect to biosolids management and any
other overall environmental goals voluntarily adopted by the organization." Auditors should interpret the
requirement of Element 2 to "commit" to the Code of Good Practice to mean that the biosolids
management policy statement must explicitly or by reference incorporate the 10 principles of the Code of
Good Practice.
In verifying that the policy has been communicated to employees, contractors, and all interested parties,
auditors should note that the policy need not be memorized by employees and contractors word-for-word;
it is important that the main message gets across.
Public organizations have specific processes for approving policies, which can affect their ability (and
timing) for making changes to policy statements. Some biosolids organizations seeking verification may
be committed to policies that are broader than the biosolids management policy statements required by
the NBP. In the case where the biosolids management policy is embedded in a broader set of
organizational policies, the organization must clearly define which statements constitute the biosolids
management policy commitments. These statements are subject to audit for consistency with what is
actually happening.
Because the biosolids management policy statement establishes a commitment by the organization to the
principles of conduct set forth in the Code of Good Practice—the core commitments for participating in
the NBP EMS Program - auditors must be able to clearly identify objective evidence that the policy
Chapter 6 Page 44
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
statement belongs to the organization being audited and has been adopted by a level of the organization
able to make such a commitment. Organizations can demonstrate objective evidence that the policy
statement commits the organization to the policy through a variety of methods including: a signature on
the policy of the appropriate level, such as the chairman of the board, commission or council with the
Board, Commission or Council's name; printing the policy on organizational letterhead; and/or a
reference to the name of the organization in the text of the policy.
Chapter 6 Page 45
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
CHAPTER 7: EMS Verification Audit Guidance - Planning
Chapter 7 includes the auditor guidance associated with the EMS planning elements. Element 3 addresses
requirements related to the identification of critical control points in the biosolids value chain. Element 4
focuses on the legal and other requirements that govern various activities along the biosolids value chain.
Element 5 outlines requirements for establishing goals and objectives to ensure that an organization's
biosolids management activities continually improve. Element 6 discusses requirements associated with
public participation in an organization's Biosolids Management Program and EMS planning process.
Requirements under each of these elements help to ensure that an organization is proactive and thorough
in its biosolids management activities. Proper planning enables an organization to anticipate and manage
potential and actual environmental, health, and safety impacts that may be associated with biosolids
management activities.
Element 3. Critical Control Points
The identification of critical control points along an organization's biosolids value chain is fundamental to
the effective operations of an EMS for Biosolids. By identifying critical control points, and associated
environmental impacts, an organization can plan and implement proactive steps-operational controls -to
assure that desired biosolids material characteristics are consistent with intended/actual final use and/or
disposal and to manage or mitigate the environmental impacts associated with these locations or
activities. Requirements under Element 3 ensure that an organization has processes in place to identify
and document information related to its critical control points for biosolids management.
Minimum Conformance Requirements
3.1 Identify and document the critical control points of the organization's biosolids
management activities throughout the biosolids value chain, consistent with those
identified in the National Manual of Good Practice and other authoritative sources.
3.2 Identify potential or actual environmental impacts at each critical control point.
3.3 Keep up to date information on the organization's critical control points.
3.4 Maintain records that link each critical control point and its potential environmental
impacts with the corresponding operational controls.
3.5 For organizations that have successfully completed a third party verification audit,
provide notification to the NBP (and assigned third-party verification auditor) following
any operational change that requires a change to the identified critical control points or
environmental impacts associated with the critical control points.
Key Areas of Interpretation
Requirement 3.1 states that critical control points identified by biosolids organizations shall be
"consistent with those identified in the National Manual of Good Practice and other authoritative
sources". Auditors should interpret "consistent" to mean two things. First, this means that the critical
control points identified by the organization should be similar in scope and scale to those identified in
Chapter 7 Page 46
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
Appendix F of the National Manual of Good Practice. For example, if an organization were to identify
Wastewater Treatment as a critical control point, this classification would be too broad in scale and scope
to allow for effective mapping and management of environmental impacts and operational controls.
Wastewater Treatment refers to an entire link in the biosolids value chain or a broad category of critical
control points. To be consistent with the National Manual of Good Practice, the organization would
instead need to dig deeper within Wastewater Treatment to identify specific locations or activities - such
as anaerobic digestion, air drying systems, or solids dewatering.
Second, this requires that the biosolids organization identify and document all applicable critical control
points in the organization's biosolids management activities and value chain. Failure to identify a
complete range of critical control points may result in a failure to institute appropriate operational
controls that are important for meeting legal, quality, and public acceptance requirements of the
organization's biosolids.
Auditors need to understand, however, that biosolids management activities and wastewater treatment
operations vary from one facility to another and NBP program participants will need to tailor the list of
critical control points throughout the biosolids value chain (pretreatment and collection through final use
or disposal) to include those that are relevant to their specific operations. Thus, auditors should expect
that the identified critical control points will vary from one facility to another and that not all critical
control points identified in Appendix F of the National Manual of Good Practice will be applicable to
each organization. For example, utilities throughout the country employ a variety of methods for
stabilizing biosolids, such as aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion, or chemical stabilization. Likely,
only one of these critical control points applies to a single facility (although participating organizations
may have more than one facility and possibly of different types). Similarly, the NBP has identified a
number of Critical Control Points for land application. It is expected that a typical land application
program would be managing these critical control points. However, some of the land application critical
control points will likely not be applicable to all biosolids organizations. The local biosolids organizations
are expected to provide reasons to the auditor as to why certain critical control points have not been
included(e.g.,they are not applicable to local operations).
To assess critical control point completeness,auditors should consider:
• the intended/actual final use or disposal of biosolids and associated legal requirements;
• the organization's desired biosolids material characteristics;
• the organization's span of control; and
• the nature of the processes utilized to produce biosolids material.
While the NBP expects that participating organizations will identify critical control points that are
consistent with those defined in the National Manual of Good Practice, an organization may have good
reason due to local circumstances for identifying critical control points that are either not addressed in the
National Manual of Good Practice or not wholly consistent with the Manual's specification of critical
control points. The NBP expects the organization to provide the auditor with the rationale for diverging
from the critical control points identified in the Manual. For example, a biosolids organization then sends
its biosolids to a contracted land fill for final disposal could explain that the land fill operations are not
under the organization's direct control or influence. However, the organization could also choose to
identify the land fill operation as a critical control point and define the operational controls as the local
utility agreements with the landfill operator, (bi-)annual calls to the regulators to check land fill
operations are in compliance, and direct observation of landfill operations. Based on the rationale and
Chapter 7 Page 47
, :�W MMI
NBP Auditor Guidance-January 2005
using the auditor's best judgment, the auditor will then need to determine whether the critical control
points identified by the organization are adequate to ensure that the biosolids management activities meet
legal, quality, and public acceptance requirements and do not have undesirable environmental impacts.
Auditors should ask if the manual was consulted during the identification of critical control points and
operational controls. However, auditors should recognize that each facility and biosolids management
program is unique. Consequently operating procedures will be unique as will the selection of critical
control points and operational controls. Auditors should recognize and allow for the possibility that a
critical control point for one organization may be listed as an operational control (or
monitoring/measurement)by another organization.
The NBP believes that in selecting critical control points to ensure that the biosolids management
activities meet public acceptance requirements, organizations should be attentive to interested party input.
This attentiveness to interested party input may, at times, drive an organization to select critical control
points beyond those that they associate strictly with the biosolids value chain. For example, an
organization that generates untreated solids at one site and trucks them to another facility for processing
into biosolids may select, based on regulatory and quality requirements, critical control points associated
with trucking and solids testing. However, based on public acceptance requirements and input from
interested parties,they organization may also select critical control points associated with odor control.
The NBP expects that biosolids organizations may identify critical control points (and associated
operational controls) that are not specifically addressed in the National Manual of Good Practice, but are
instead drawn from"other authoritative sources". For example, an organization may choose to experiment
with new technology or equipment, not covered in the National Manual of Good Practice. Examples of
other authoritative sources include publications and guidance manuals from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Water Environment Federation.
Requirement 3.5 states that organizations that have successfully completed a third party verification audit
must provide notification to the NBP (and assigned third-party verification auditor) following any
operational change that requires a change to the identified critical control points or environmental impacts
associated with the critical control points. An indication that such a notification is likely warranted
include would include changes to an NPDES permit or changes to operations that require notification of a
regulatory agency.
Element 4. Legal and Other Requirements
To ensure that it is operating in compliance with all applicable legal and other requirements, the NBP
believes that an organization must have an effective process for identifying, tracking, and updating
applicable regulatory and other requirements. Applicable requirements help define the boundaries that
govern an organization's activities, while the organization's Biosolids EMS provides a systematic
mechanism for ensuring that the behaviors and activities operate within these boundaries.
While Element 4 ensures that an organization has appropriate processes to understand its applicable
requirements, other elements require the organization to implement controls to maintain and measure
compliance with these requirements. Compliance with applicable legal and other requirements is a
central component of the Code of Good Practice ("To commit to compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local requirements regarding production at the wastewater treatment facility, and management,
transportation, storage, and use or disposal of biosolids away from the facility."), which all organizations
Chapter 7 Page 48