For the ISO14001:1996 clause 4.2.3, I am not sure whether or not our organization has met these requirements. We have the procedures to identify that :

a) quarterly we go to environmental protection bureau to collect / update the environmental regulations and ongoing changes.

b) all EMS regulations are reviewed and combined to a list with revise date which is communicated to all employees thought computer on-line system.

c) the most important regulations are also summarized and classified by departments in the list so that the relevant department could find the requirements easily.

d) those obsolete regulations are removed from the system.

Are these good enough ? Because of resource constraint, I notice that we cannot verify all the EMS regulations (more than 100 and each has so many requirements) that are applied to our organization activities. Can anyone of you advise some feasible method to verify this key point ?

You seem to be doing what is needed to conform to the part of 4.3.3 that requires procedures to identify relevant legal reqts. What about "other requirements" (like industry codes)? No mention of these or how you track them.
While you don't mention it, regulatory reqts are also an improtant part of 4.2 (policy), 4.3.3 (obj & targets) & 4.5.1 (monitoring & measurement). Nonconformance in these areas is often more serious.

To verify applicability of legal reqts - there are lots of companies who will do that for you, often on a retainer that is much less costly than doing it yourself.

[This message has been edited by Jon Shaver (edited 04 September 2000).]

For some reason or other, we seem to be having a dilemma with regards to handling “Other Requirements.” Does anyone have any suggestions? Should we generate a list (as a controlled document) that spells out all “other” requirements that we follow as a company that are not adhered to because of regulatory necessity?
Would it suffice to include in such a list issues such as: contract conditions, land use restrictions (I think most of these are legally required), and customer requirements…
Does having a white paper recycling bin in every office and our practice of recycling toner cartridges constitute “other requirements”?
Does anyone maintain a list like this that they update and review regularly? Does anyone use any of his or her quality program requirements to satisfy this issue?

Didn’t mean to fling out a bunch of questions…but any response would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

A couple of other requiremnts come to mind:

1.Corporate environmental requirements (not necessarily regulated by law)

2.Due to proximity of plant to residental areas, certain concessions may be made to neighbors reference environment.

You may want to check with your state, or other regional government. In Michigan, the state DEQ publishes a complete handbook which covers all environmental requirements for both the state and federal governments.

Tom

Thanks to Tom and goose for your help!

mcj

I've managed to run into a bit of a standstill regarding this requirement.
"Ensure that legal and other requirements are considered in setting environmental objectives and targets"
I interpret this in two ways. First, in every case where our organization does not comply with legal and regulatory requirements there should be a related objective and target. Second, where regulations are not followed with a corresponding objective, that we must be able to verify that there are programs, in existence, designed to maintain compliance.

The questions raised to me focus around the following situations: When (for example) on the occasion that an operator fails to initial a checklist, which would put us out of compliance, that we should at that point establish a “New” objective and target to address this. If, during an environmental audit, we discover that we are in violation of a particular regulation, should we generate an objective and target to address the violation?

When does the Objective and Target process give way to the Corrective and Preventive action process?

Many Thanks!!

mcj

See 4.5.1 Last Paragraph, may be help a bit.

The establishment of Objectives and Targets have to do with managing your Significant Aspects and not with failing to use a checklist correctly.

The O&T relationship to regulations directly relate to their not being in conflict with the law. O&T, when established have to fall within mandated limits (you may be more stringent in your Targets than the law allows but not less), i.e., if you are required by law to reduce your VOC emissions by 200lbs a year, you may set a Target for a 300lb reduction, but not 150lbs.

I hope this helps.

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 09 August 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10 August 2001).]

I agree with what you’ve said, Randy…but still fuzzy about the following…

Let me put this in the following scenario…
We test our back-up generator weekly. This test must be conducted on days, classified by the DEP as, “low-ozone” days. Failure to test on “low-ozone” days can, potentially, be grounds to place our site into a different classification with the DEP and change our air-regulation status.
If the EE in charge of conducting that test fails to contact the DEP to determine that the test day was OK and tests the generator on a “high-ozone” day…does this issue need an objective and target assigned to it or is this an area handled by corrective/preventive actions.
In other words, if we are in compliance with our regulation…have verifiable programs in place to maintain compliance (but this particular regulatory requirement does not have an associated O&T with it) and, because of EE negligence, fall out of legal compliance…what do we do? Do we, at that time, establish an objective and target to address the issue…or should this become a corrective/preventive action.

Another angle to consider would be (for example) violations found during an outside air audit. Let’s say we failed to include an emissions source. Once we receive a written report from the auditor, historically we fix the violation accordingly. If this failure to report said emissions source places us in violation of our legal requirement…should this be a new O&T instead of a corrective action?

many thanks,

Marc

It sounds to me like the failure to perform the test in the appropriate manner is a procedural issue. Failure to follow procedures is a C/P Action item. What type of O&T would you set? "Our objective is to perform "X" on 2 out of 3 days correctly in accordance to DEP requirements".

I agree that you can have any type of O&T you want, but your Target should be something you can see and not just get a warm fuzzy over. Remember, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it"

If you want to establish an O&T for every regulatory requirement you have, knock yourself out. The standard only requires that regulatory and other requirements be taken into consideration, not that they be acted upon when determining SA's.

As an auditor, I cannot tell you that you identified your SA's using an incorrect procedure, and consequently established inappropriate O&T's. I cannot tell you that your targets are not adequate and your Objectives are flawed. All I can do as an auditor is to ask some questions:
Is there a procedure to identify SA's? Yes No
Have SA's been identified? Yes No
Have O&T's been established for those SA's? Yes No
Have procedures been implemented to control O&T's? Yes No
Are O&T's consistant with the environmental policy? Yes No

Both cases you give are better suited to be addressed for C/P Action and not as O&T issues. IMMHO

Randy

Thanks Randy,

I agree entirely with what you’ve said. The members in our Implementation team were split on this with some believing that every violation, of the nature previously explained, warranted establishing an O&T to address it…others felt that it was a C/P Action process issue.

Thanks again for your insight and clarification.

Marc