Consider the following statements about audits in relation to emergency plans:

Question

Consider the following statements about audits in relation to emergency plans:

I. Environmental Audit can include review of emergency plans as part of EMS.

II. Safety Audit may assess emergency-response training and equipment readiness.

III. Conducting an audit eliminates all risk of accidents, making plans unnecessary.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. A. I and II only (Correct answer)
2. B. I and III only
3. C. II and III only
4. D. I, II and III

Correct Answer

Option A — I and II only

Detailed Solution & Explanation

The correct answer is I and II only.

Key Points

• Statement I is correct. An Environmental Audit can review emergency plans as part of the EMS, since emergency preparedness is an explicit element of ISO 14001.
• Statement II is correct. A Safety Audit assesses emergency-response training and equipment readiness — precisely the readiness that drills are designed to test.
• Statement III is incorrect, and it is plainly so. No audit eliminates all risk. Auditing identifies and reduces risk; it never removes the need for emergency plans, because residual risk always remains.

Additional Information

• The false statement embodies a genuine and dangerous fallacy sometimes seen in practice — that a clean audit report means the plant is safe. An audit is a snapshot against criteria, not a guarantee of outcomes.
• Safety management works on the assumption of residual risk: hazards are controlled as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), and emergency planning exists precisely for what remains.
• The layered defence is conventionally described as prevention → control → mitigation → emergency response, and each layer assumes the one before it may fail.
• Environmental and safety audits overlap substantially in this area, which is why many organisations run a combined HSE audit covering both.