4.5.2.1. Reads that the organisation shall keep records of periodic evaluation of legal compliance (to international, national and local laws or bylaws).

Now, our concern is that our company and a few around us have had findings raised based on the fact that these evaluations have not been done suitably or by suitably qualified people - environmental lawyers for example.

Has anyone else had this experience? It appears that there a money makin opportunity for the lawyer, because Joe average does not always have access to or awareness of changes and inuendos of the applicable laws.

In Canada and the U.S. most regulatory compliance reviews are completed by environmental consultants. Consulting staff usually have an environmental engineering or science background. Lawyers may be involved if there are confidentiality concerns and/or the company has known/suspected compliance issues. A lawyer may serve two purposes - expert opinion on a complex piece of legislation and/or a method to restrict access to the report (ie. lawyer/client priviledge)

The person/group who conducts the compliance review should have a good knowledge of the legislation applicable to the operation and should provide a suitable report. The standard does not say specifically who must conduct the review or what qualifications are required. Most of the automotive manufacturing companies that I audit hire an engineering consuting firm to conduct compliance reviews because they do not have the in-house expertise. Most companies hire a consultant once every three years to conduct a full review.

As an EMS auditor, I briefly review the compliance review report and if it was prepared by a known ennironmental consulting firm and they appear to have covered all possible media/issues/requirements then I assume the review was comprehensive. I turn to the findings section, review the findings and then determine what action the client has taken to resolve any identified issues. If the company is working toward resolving the identified issues and making progress, then I would say they have met the intent of the standard and their regulatory compliance commitments.

On the other hand, if the report was not completed by a qualified consultant then it requires more work on the part of the auditor to determine if the report is adequate/sufficient/meets the requirements of the standard. More reading is necessary and this may also lead to a more thorough examination of the person's credentials and the methods used to complete the compliance review.

In some large firms there may be a corporate person who is responsible for conducting compliance reviews at the various sites owned by the company. I have seen several instances where the corporate environmental department has prepared a checklist or review protocol for each jurisdiction where they have production facilities. In these situations compliance reviews are completed by a corporate specialist using the targeted checklist/protocol. I have also found this to be acceptable, providing the checklist/protocol is sufficiently detailed for the local jurisdicition and the review appears to be adequately comprehensive.

My preference is to have a qualified outside environmental consultant conduct the compliance review. A third party brings a fresh perspective to the review and their staff usually have very broad experience with environmental requirements. And it generally means less work on my part if a qualified consultant completed the review.

As an auditor, however, I cannot dictate who completes compliance reviews - as long as there is a record (report), the report is sufficiently detailed, the review was comprehensive and effective actions are being taken to address any findings, then that is all an auditor can ask/expect.

Hope this helps.

In Canada and the U.S. most regulatory compliance reviews are completed by environmental consultants. Consulting staff usually have an environmental engineering or science background. Lawyers may be involved if there are confidentiality concerns and/or the company has known/suspected compliance issues. A lawyer may serve two purposes - expert opinion on a complex piece of legislation and/or a method to restrict access to the report (ie. lawyer/client priviledge)

The person/group who conducts the compliance review should have a good knowledge of the legislation applicable to the operation and should provide a suitable report. The standard does not say specifically who must conduct the review or what qualifications are required. Most of the automotive manufacturing companies that I audit hire an engineering consuting firm to conduct compliance reviews because they do not have the in-house expertise. Most companies hire a consultant once every three years to conduct a full review.

As an EMS auditor, I briefly review the compliance review report and if it was prepared by a known ennironmental consulting firm and they appear to have covered all possible media/issues/requirements then I assume the review was comprehensive. I turn to the findings section, review the findings and then determine what action the client has taken to resolve any identified issues. If the company is working toward resolving the identified issues and making progress, then I would say they have met the intent of the standard and their regulatory compliance commitments.

On the other hand, if the report was not completed by a qualified consultant then it requires more work on the part of the auditor to determine if the report is adequate/sufficient/meets the requirements of the standard. More reading is necessary and this may also lead to a more thorough examination of the person's credentials and the methods used to complete the compliance review.

In some large firms there may be a corporate person who is responsible for conducting compliance reviews at the various sites owned by the company. I have seen several instances where the corporate environmental department has prepared a checklist or review protocol for each jurisdiction where they have production facilities. In these situations compliance reviews are completed by a corporate specialist using the targeted checklist/protocol. I have also found this to be acceptable, providing the checklist/protocol is sufficiently detailed for the local jurisdicition and the review appears to be adequately comprehensive.

My preference is to have a qualified outside environmental consultant conduct the compliance review. A third party brings a fresh perspective to the review and their staff usually have very broad experience with environmental requirements. And it generally means less work on my part if a qualified consultant completed the review.

As an auditor, however, I cannot dictate who completes compliance reviews - as long as there is a record (report), the report is sufficiently detailed, the review was comprehensive and effective actions are being taken to address any findings, then that is all an auditor can ask/expect.

Hope this helps.

Focus on the competency of whoever performs the evaluation and that includes competence in all areas where "compliance" must occur. Just because one is an environmental lawyer doesn't make them "competent" is all aspect of environmental compliance management. Remember, lawyers "practice" the law. The compliance evaluation is actually best performed by "professionals" with requisite competentcies.

The appropriate process for evaluating compliance is going to vary for different organizations. Whilst the use of specialist lawyers and consultants may be appropriate for organizations with complex legal issues, it may not be right for others.

My company is a relatively small (130 people) metal bashing firm. Our activities are clean and not subject to specific legal permits. We emit nothing nasty out of the chimney and pour nothing unpleasant down the drain. Our only significant legal issue for environmental compliance is disposal of our waste. There is nothing difficult about keeping up to date with legislation and the evaluation of legal compliance is simply built into our audit programme and carried out by the Health, Safety, Environment Manager.

There's nothing magic about environmental legislation. We have to demonstrate compliance with all kinds of legislation to run the business. We don't get specialists in for day to day matters in other areas and see no need to do so for this one.

I accept that "dirtier" more complex organizations will need a different approach but, without knowing more about Tony's situation, I find it impossible to advise what the right solution there would be.

I will share our compliance to this requirement mentioned in ISO 14K standard. In India we have one publication ELUS (Environment Legislation Updatation Standard) which give complete information about any new update. Besides this we have subscribed our national site for keep us posting any new update. This is all about National Issues and for Local Environment Issues (Which at times are quite different from National Issues, for example Fugitive Emissions norms differ from one area to another) we used to visit Local Environment Office once in a Two Month time to keep us fresh on local issue.
That is all we have mentioned in our Environment Manual and used to do as per manual.

We too are a small organisation. We cover our compliance and review by using a consultant once a year who specialises in environmental law and how to show compliance. In addition we work close with our local Environmental Agency and local council who keep us informed of any changes that may be taking place.

In Canada and the U.S. most regulatory compliance reviews are completed by environmental consultants. Consulting staff usually have an environmental engineering or science background. Lawyers may be involved if there are confidentiality concerns and/or the company has known/suspected compliance issues. A lawyer may serve two purposes - expert opinion on a complex piece of legislation and/or a method to restrict access to the report (ie. lawyer/client priviledge)

The person/group who conducts the compliance review should have a good knowledge of the legislation applicable to the operation and should provide a suitable report. The standard does not say specifically who must conduct the review or what qualifications are required. Most of the automotive manufacturing companies that I audit hire an engineering consuting firm to conduct compliance reviews because they do not have the in-house expertise. Most companies hire a consultant once every three years to conduct a full review.

As an EMS auditor, I briefly review the compliance review report and if it was prepared by a known ennironmental consulting firm and they appear to have covered all possible media/issues/requirements then I assume the review was comprehensive. I turn to the findings section, review the findings and then determine what action the client has taken to resolve any identified issues. If the company is working toward resolving the identified issues and making progress, then I would say they have met the intent of the standard and their regulatory compliance commitments.

On the other hand, if the report was not completed by a qualified consultant then it requires more work on the part of the auditor to determine if the report is adequate/sufficient/meets the requirements of the standard. More reading is necessary and this may also lead to a more thorough examination of the person's credentials and the methods used to complete the compliance review.

In some large firms there may be a corporate person who is responsible for conducting compliance reviews at the various sites owned by the company. I have seen several instances where the corporate environmental department has prepared a checklist or review protocol for each jurisdiction where they have production facilities. In these situations compliance reviews are completed by a corporate specialist using the targeted checklist/protocol. I have also found this to be acceptable, providing the checklist/protocol is sufficiently detailed for the local jurisdicition and the review appears to be adequately comprehensive.

My preference is to have a qualified outside environmental consultant conduct the compliance review. A third party brings a fresh perspective to the review and their staff usually have very broad experience with environmental requirements. And it generally means less work on my part if a qualified consultant completed the review.

As an auditor, however, I cannot dictate who completes compliance reviews - as long as there is a record (report), the report is sufficiently detailed, the review was comprehensive and effective actions are being taken to address any findings, then that is all an auditor can ask/expect.

Hope this helps.

Based on my experience as an auditor for two registrars (mostly of small organizations) and as an Environmental Manager or Scientist for 4 U.S. Government offices, routine evaluation of legal and regulatory compliance usually does not involve consultants and/or lawyers. Consultants and/or lawyers may get involved if there is a particular issue requiring their expertise, but that does not happen routinely. Typically an ES&H or environmental professional has the job of keeping current with changing environmental legal, regulatory, and other requirements. At least for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), it involved keeping current with changes to DOE Headquarters requirements and reviewing publications (books, newsletters, journals), legal/regulatory CDs, and EPA and state regulatory agency websites. It also involved attending professional meetings to stay current with legal and regulatory issues, environmental technology, and best practices. In recent years, subscriptions to some expensive publications and CDs have been discontinued and websites have become the primary tool.

Two issues are being discussed here:
1 - Identification and having access (as well as keeping current) on legal requirements - Section 4.3.2, and
2 - Periodic review of compliance - Section 4.5.2.1

1 - Usually does not require outside assistance and can be satisfied by reviewing web sites, subscription services and contacting regulatory agencies - as stated by BSmith

2 - 95% of the companies that I audit hire an outside consultant to conduct compliance reviews because they do not have the in-house expertise and/or time. A compliance review evaluates the level of compliance achieved by the organization in areas such as operating permits/approvals to confirm that conditions are satisfied and operating limits are being followed, waste disposal practices/manifests to confirm appropriate procedures are being followed, preventive maintenance on environmental equipment, water discharges, air emissions, noise, local bylaws/ordnances (like backflow prevention, noises, truck idling, unsightly premises, etc.), IAQ/industrial hygiene issues, asbestos management, PCB management, UST management, etc., etc. I believe many automotive manufacturers hire this out because of the number of applicable issues.

Most of the sites I audit have >100 and <1500 staff and the majority are automotive manufacturers/suppliers.

Thanks for the responses - pretty much paints a complete picture. In our situation, we use copious amounts of water and chemicals and energy which probably compounds the issue. I can now also appreciate the auditors comments as being valid based on the responses from you guys.

Dear manoj

i m working in ISO 14001 implementation projects. I have issues in evaluating the legal requirements of different scope of works. kindly help in this.

thank you
priya

Dear manoj

i m working in ISO 14001 implementation projects. I have issues in evaluating the legal requirements of different scope of works. kindly help in this.

thank you
priya

What are you talking about? Requirements are requirements regardless of any scope.

Do you have a method to determine whether or not you are meeting your environmental regulatory or other obligations or not? If you do make sure the people doing them have the necessary competencies and make a record to show that it has in fact been accomplished. If you don't, then get it done.

What are you talking about? Requirements are requirements regardless of any scope. Not really. If you are a shipping company based in Taiwan, your regulatory requirements will be different than those applicable to a petrochemical installation in Azerbaijan.

Who really gives a "C" what the requirments are? A requirement is a requirement, they may differ but they are still nothing more "REQUIREMENTS" that must be met.

You gotta do what you gotta do and I have to do what I have to do, regardless of what we have to do we still need to meet our requirements.

It doesn't matter what it is, just do it and evaluate the effort in meeting it and record the evaluation.

Now this poor soul is probably gonna be going in circles worrying about shipping stuff to Taiwan or drilling for oil in Azerbaijan.

Who really gives a "C" what the requirments are?Whomever is implementing an ISO 14001-compliant EMS does care about what the requirements are.

A requirement is a requirement, they may differ but they are still nothing more "REQUIREMENTS" that must be met.As I was trying to point out, depending on your "scope", you will be subjected to a myriad of environmental regulatory requirements at all levels: international, national, state, county, municipal, etc...Whatever method an organization puts in place for evaluation of environmental regulatory compliance needs to take that into account.

The question is obviously important to the poster and should not be dismissed as irrelevant.

I'm outa this one...........

This is probably way too late as you already may have found your answer. But in doing some research to what constitutes legal compliance, I came across your post.

This is what I found on the IRCA site:

ISO 14001:2004 - briefing note and transition requirements for IRCA EMS auditors
Page 2 of 6
IRCA/231/05/2, January 2005

Many EMS auditors will be familiar with ISO 9001:2000, however many are not and clauses which have been aligned to ISO 9001:2000 are completely new.
Evaluation of (legal) compliance – safeguarding ISO 14001’s reputation
Evaluation of legal compliance is another key difference. What was the last paragraph of Monitoring and Measurement is now a new clause with a new requirement to extend the evaluation of compliance to ‘other requirements’.
Clearly it is the organization’s responsibility to evaluate compliance and EMS auditors are not environmental legal inspectors. However, auditors must pay attention to how legal and other requirements are linked to environmental aspects, and how the organization implements its
commitment to comply with legal and other requirements.

:yes:

A recently released publication by the European cooperation for Accreditation Agency, EA-7/04 – Legal Compliance as a part of accredited ISO 14001: 2004 certification tries to explain the connection between ISO 14001 and environmental regulatory compliance. The document is attached.

Thanks for the information.

:thanx:

I will share our compliance to this requirement mentioned in ISO 14K standard. In India we have one publication ELUS (Environment Legislation Updatation Standard) which give complete information about any new update. Besides this we have subscribed our national site for keep us posting any new update. This is all about National Issues and for Local Environment Issues (Which at times are quite different from National Issues, for example Fugitive Emissions norms differ from one area to another) we used to visit Local Environment Office once in a Two Month time to keep us fresh on local issue.
That is all we have mentioned in our Environment Manual and used to do as per manual.



Dear sir, Thank U very much
Will you send format for legal evaluation?

Thanking You
Abhay