Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Briefing to the Virginia Environmental Management System Association Our Mission: Our Mission: Provide installations that enable Soldier and Family readiness, and provide a quality of life that matches the quality of service they provide to the Nation. Leading Change for Installation Excellence 2008 Environmental Management System (EMS) Audits

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Purpose Background 2008 Environmental Management System (EMS) Audit Participation Audit Methodology Limitations Finding Categories Pre-audit installation perceptions Results ISO elements with most findings Future installation actions Observations Unanswered questions Agenda

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED To inform conference participants of the results of U.S. Army EMS audits of Army installations and to discuss trends and implications for the future. Purpose

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Army installations began EMS efforts in 2003/2004 EO requires “conformance” to the ISO standard by Dec 2009 verified by an outside audit Army initiated an EMS Audit program of all facilities 2008 first year of widespread audits EMS audits done in conjunction with Army compliance assessments Background

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Audits were conducted by the Army Environmental Command Audits conducted in the Installation Management Command Northeast (5) and Southeast (1) regions Auditors – ISO Lead Auditor Course graduates; not necessarily Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB) certified 2008 EMS Audit Participation

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Audited the 18 elements of the ISO standard Used a standard checklist Also incorporated DA metrics into the audits 2 trained auditors and 1 or more “trainees” 4-day onsite audit − Review of documents prior as available − Detailed reviews and interviews onsite Audit Methodology

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Initial year of audits Audit procedures and definitions emerging Finding categories and definitions evolving and changed during the year Audit personnel qualifications varied Installation did not declare themselves ready for an audit Limitations

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Categories were used to rate each element (e.g Control of Records) Conformance – element establish, implemented, and effective Major Nonconformance − element is missing − specific ISO requirements not met − numerous minor nonconformances Minor Nonconformance − element generally implemented but missing a specific requirement − a single nonconformance among sampled data (e.g. check of training of personnel) Observation – used to address issues that left may result in a nonconformance Opportunities for improvement – used to provide recommendations to the installation EMS team Finding Categories

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Rating on a 1-10 scale 2 installations (A,B)- 9 1 installation (C)- 7 1 installation (D)- 4 1 installation (E)- 3 1 installation (F)- unknown Pre-audit Installation Perceptions

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Results Major MinorNonconformance Installation A (9)110 Installation B (9)67 Installation C (7)25 Installation D (4)15 Installation E (3)Overall non-conformant Installation F (Unk)17

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Elements with Most Findings Major Total NonconformanceFindings Roles, Resources (4.4.1) 37 Documentation (4.4.4) 35 Document Control (4.4.5) 37 Internal Audits (4.5.5) 36 Management (4.6) 26 Reviews

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Correct/establish procedures and EMS paperwork Declare conformance IAW ISO and EO BUT ……..?? Future Installation Actions

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Installations are not using an ISO based system to manage the environmental program Installations initially implemented an “EMS” (their concept), but declared victory and stopped BRAC05, “Grow the Army”, Privatization, Commercial Activity conversions (A-76), etc disrupted “EMS” implementation Reliance on contract staff/assistance caused interruptions (i.e. funding for contract support ended in FY06) Lack of a documentation system (EMS software) contributed to failures Observations

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Army message/guidance – “Go do EMS” gave wrong message to installations Environmental leadership and staff were not involved particularly the compliance staff Leadership and staff turbulence Little or no benefit perceived; minimal return on investment Poor advertising/reporting of value added EMS coordinator/Management representative turbulence Observations

Arba Williamson/IMNE-PWD-E/(757) (DSN 680) 6, OF 15 UNCLASSIFIED Do these installations really have an ISO14001-based system to manage the environmental program? − Plan-do-check-act cycle What are the root causes and lessons learned from the first year of audits? What actions are required to fully implement ISO based EMS at an installation? − Department of the Army level − Major command level − Installation level Unanswered Questions