iso14000-digest Sunday, May 25 1997 Volume 02 : Number 004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:20:34 GMT
From: robbys@mhsys.com
Subject: Comments on regulatory compliance
Hello all.
| Recently Nick wrote:
|
| Yes, I know that there are those who believe that environmental management
| system audits under ISO 14001 do not include environmental compliance.
| However, this appears to be a case of whistling past the grave yard. We
are
| not aware of any ISO 14001 registration audit that has not touched on the
| issue of regulatory compliance.
I cannot agree with this statement more. In fact quoting from ANSI-RAB EMS
NAP Document 3.0 Section 4.1.3.1 Middle of paragraph one "Data on
compliance with relevant legislation and regulations gathered during the
registration review and surveillances are relevant and necessary to
determine whether the organization conforms with the standard." Paragraph
two goes on to say "A registration audit is an audit of a management system
to determine conformance to the standard and while compliance is a part of
the management system, the registration audit is not an audit of the full
compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements."
I believe the standard the Registrar community is held to is quite clear on
this point. Registrars DO NOT evaluate compliance. Registrars evaluate if
the organization is adequately evaluating compliance with relevant
environmental legislation and regulations. E 3.0 states clearly that an
organization can be registered even if observed noncompliances exist
provided the organization addresses them and when taken in aggregate such
noncompliances are not determined to indicate a major nonconformity.
Additionally, registrars are not allowed to "whistle past the graveyard."
Again from E 3.0, section 4.1.3.2 requires registrars to have a method of
handling noncompliances that are discovered during a registration audit and
the method must comply with relevant law. The registrars that I am aware of
typically "handle" this by notifying the Management Representative (in
writing).
To continue this thread a little further, allow me to toss out the question;
Does (or should) a regulatory noncompliance represent an EMS nonconformance
from the standpoint of internal to the organization? For example, an
employee of an organization during the course of his normal duties observes
a regulatory noncompliance. Should the EMS consider this to be a
nonconformance? What would be the pros or cons of doing this? Would this
create a noncompliance "paper trail" that could be discovered by regulatory
agencies? Or can it be "cloaked" under attorney privilege?
I look forward to your comments.
Robby G. Smith
robbys@mhent.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 14:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: REWJ5@aol.com
Subject: subscription
please cancel my subscription
thank you
REWJ5@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Bert P. Krages"
Subject: Re: Comments on regulatory compliance
At 09:20 AM 5/22/97 GMT, Robby G. Smith wrote:
>
>Additionally, registrars are not allowed to "whistle past the graveyard."
> Again from E 3.0, section 4.1.3.2 requires registrars to have a method of
>handling noncompliances that are discovered during a registration audit and
>the method must comply with relevant law. The registrars that I am aware of
>typically "handle" this by notifying the Management Representative (in
>writing).
>
>To continue this thread a little further, allow me to toss out the question;
> Does (or should) a regulatory noncompliance represent an EMS nonconformance
>from the standpoint of internal to the organization? For example, an
>employee of an organization during the course of his normal duties observes
>a regulatory noncompliance. Should the EMS consider this to be a
>nonconformance? What would be the pros or cons of doing this? Would this
>create a noncompliance "paper trail" that could be discovered by regulatory
>agencies? Or can it be "cloaked" under attorney privilege?
>
In general, whether regulatory noncompliance would be considered
noncomformance per se would probably depend on how the organization drafted
its environmental policy but a failure to address the noncompliance would
almost certainly constitute nonconformance with ISO 14001. Whether this
would create a paper trail would depend on the procedures and documentation
practices adopted for corrective action. There is no explicit ISO 14001
requirement that the corrective action be documented other than changes in
documented procedures must be recorded. However, there may be some pressure
on the organization to document these practices to make the system easier to
audit.
Frankly, it is unlikely that any communications from the registrar could be
kept confidential under the attorney-client privilege since the privilege
applies only to communications between attorney and client for the purpose
of obtaining legal services that are intended to be confidential. Since the
registrar is not a client of the organization's attorney, the privilege will
generally not apply.
Also, should the organization become involved in litigation, it is highly
likely that the correspondence between the registrar and the organization
would be discovered and reviewed by the adverse parties. A discussion of
regulatory noncompliance would at best add to the costs of defending the
lawsuit since the opposing attorneys would probably depose everyone
connected with communcations about noncompliance including the registrars.
At worst, someone at the organization could go to prison.
I do not intend to imply that registration or certification under ISO 14000
is imprudent because of legal risks but these risks should not be ignored.
Companies with serious noncompliance issues would probably be better off
getting their acts together before proceeding with certification.
Also, I recently wrote an article discussing the issues that attorneys
should consider when advising clients on implementing environmental
management systems based on ISO 14000 and am in the process of writing
another article intended for a more general audience. If anyone is
interested in getting a copy, please let me know. Abstracts of articles on
general compliance and permitting topics can be viewed at my website.
Bert P. Krages
Attorney at Law
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 226-3662
(503) 226-6304 (facsimile)
krages@ teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~krages/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:24:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jlsprof@aol.com
Subject: Noncompliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations
Regarding the thread on how important compliance to environmental laws and
regulations is with respect to registration: I recently went through the
qualification process to qualify for conducting ISO 14000 EMS audits for a
major European Registrar. The position of that Registrar (which I am not
naming only because I have not received their permission to post this) is
that if a noncompliance to an environmental law or regulation is found, then
that is grounds for automatic failure of the registration audit. This is
because compliance with laws and regulations is part of the policy statement,
and is therefore a basic component of the EMS. If a company isn't complying
with the laws and regulations, then how can one say that its EMS is
effective? And if it isn't effective, then why should it be registered?
James L. Smith
jlsprof@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:39:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from ["Dan Pearl" ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:26:53 -0400 (EDT)
To:
From: "Dan Pearl"
Subject: On-Line training courses
Does anybody have experience with the ProSolve Consulting on-line ISO
14000 training course. I am interested in feedback on how worthwhile this
course is. Also, I am interested in learning about other ISO 14000 related
on-line course offerings that anyone is aware of. My research has so far
uncovered only the ProSolve Consulting training course.
Thankyou,
Dan Pearl
dpearl.wash@veda.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 21:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: cunningr@erols.com
Subject: Re: Comments on regulatory compliance
Bert,
I would be interested in receiving the (below) recent article you mentioned.
Many thanks!
R.D. Cunningham
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 12:36 22-05-97 -0700, Bert P. Krages wrote:
>
>Also, I recently wrote an article discussing the issues that attorneys
>should consider when advising clients on implementing environmental
>management systems based on ISO 14000 and am in the process of writing
>another article intended for a more general audience. If anyone is
>interested in getting a copy, please let me know. Abstracts of articles on
>general compliance and permitting topics can be viewed at my website.
>Bert P. Krages
>Attorney at Law
>900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
>Portland, Oregon 97204
>(503) 226-3662
>(503) 226-6304 (facsimile)
>krages@ teleport.com
>http://www.teleport.com/~krages/
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:13:38 +0800
From: James Grigsby
Subject: Re: Noncompliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations
Re: Importance of compliance with environmental laws for ISO 14001
certification/registration
I have been involved in a couple EMS implementation projects in Taiwan at
sites that have gone on to receive ISO 14001 certification. I am surprised
to hear that a European ISO 14001 certification body will not certify a site
that has "a non-compliance" with relevant laws. If that is the case, then
the European certification bodies operating in Taiwan (i.e. DNV, SGS,
Lloyds, TUV) have all certified companies in violation of the registration
body's "position" mentioned in a previous posting (included below for
reference). Among other reasons, it is simply impossible to comply with
certain environmental regulations in Taiwan (specifically, regulations for
disposal of hazardous industrial solid waste -- the laws exist, but legal
disposal facilities do not).
It is my understanding that a certification body in Taiwan will reject (more
likely delay) certification if an organization *consistently* operates
outside of compliance. If an organization's records demonstrate occasional
instances of non-compliance, then that organziation must have programs in
place to bring it into compliance.
As for the problem concerning haz. solid waste disposal, organizations that
generate such waste must demonstrate to the certification body that they are
addressing the issue. One company I know of does this by showing that it
actively participates with other manufacturers and the government to find
solutions to the lack of disposal facilities. Apparently, this is good
enough for the certification body; the company has just passed its first
follow-up assessment.
I hope to see further discussion/clarification on how certification
companies handle the legal compliance issue, especially when regulatory
contradictions or other complications make it extremely difficult for
organizations to comply with the law. Perhaps different certification
standards and guidelines are used out here in East Asia. Perhaps
certifiers' governing boards are just too far away.
ISO 14001 implementation seems to be growing fastest in the countries where
environmental regulatory systems are still young (newly developed, export
dependent countries). Organizations seeking certification and the
certification bodies themselves don't want to wait for the bugs to be worked
out of the legal system.
At 06:24 ¤U¤È 1997/5/22 -0400, you wrote:
>Regarding the thread on how important compliance to environmental laws and
>regulations is with respect to registration: I recently went through the
>qualification process to qualify for conducting ISO 14000 EMS audits for a
>major European Registrar. The position of that Registrar (which I am not
>naming only because I have not received their permission to post this) is
>that if a noncompliance to an environmental law or regulation is found, then
>that is grounds for automatic failure of the registration audit. This is
>because compliance with laws and regulations is part of the policy statement,
>and is therefore a basic component of the EMS. If a company isn't complying
>with the laws and regulations, then how can one say that its EMS is
>effective? And if it isn't effective, then why should it be registered?
>James L. Smith
>jlsprof@aol.com
>
-- James
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:02:01 EST
From: "David L. Turner"
Subject: self declaration
We are planning our 14001 effort. I am trying to get a
clear idea of the requirements for self-declaration. It is
my undersatanding that for self-declaration, we create our
EMS policy, processes necessary to follow it, and
continuosly improve. If someone asks us, we declare that
we meet 14001 requirements. If we are doing things right,
we will have documentation that proves we are doing the
job. Do we need a certification body or authority to
declare our self-declaration satisfactory or is it up to us
to prove to anyone who asks that we meet the requirements?
thanks in advance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"This book has nothing but words in it!"
Will, my four year old, after looking at a dictionary
David Turner
YSI Safety Coordinator
1725 Brannum Lane
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
Email: DTurner@YSI.com
Phone 1-513-767-1685 ext. 270
Facmetaphor: 1-513-767-9353
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:31:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: ASchoffm@aol.com
Subject: Re: Noncompliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations
In a message dated 97-05-22 18:48:58 EDT, James L. Smith wrote:
<< The position of that Registrar (which I am not
naming only because I have not received their permission to post this) is
that if a noncompliance to an environmental law or regulation is found, then
that is grounds for automatic failure of the registration audit. This is
because compliance with laws and regulations is part of the policy
statement,
and is therefore a basic component of the EMS. >>
RESPONSE
1. The position of the registrar is clearly incorrect. The policy must
include a COMMITMENT to comply. Should a non-compliance occur, the system
should provide for corrective and preventive action. If the auditor reviews a
summary report of the company that lists non-compliances for a specified time
period, there should also be included within that summary what steps have
been taken to prevent such re-occurrences. To state that once there have been
non-compliances, the system is not valid is incorrect.
2. If you mean that the auditor DISCOVERS a legal non-compliance, then it
depends on the situation. If the company knew about it and did nothing,
that's a problem. If the company did not know about it prior to the auditor's
discovery, then some investigation into the company's system of internal
auditing is warranted.
3. In all of the above cases, nothing should be an AUTOMATIC
disqualification. There needs to be communication and discussion. The system
is being audited, the commitment to comply is being audited. There will be
many who say that the auditor will hardly ever, if ever, discover a
non-compliance because he/she should not be doing a compliance audit.
4. Finally, you did not disclose the name of the registrar but I think that
is important and the registrar representative should clearly explain their
policy.
Alan Schoffman
TEAM 14000, Inc.
aschoffm@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:50:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Russ DeVilbiss ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 08:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ DeVilbiss
To: "'ISO 14000 Discussion List'"
Subject: RE: Noncompliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations
To keep the debate going. . .
Since third party auditors are supposed to be using ISO 14001:1996 as the
audit scope, what does the standard say regarding compliance issues?
4.2 (c) says that the policy "...Includes a _commitment_ to comply with
relevant environmental legislation and regulations, and with other
requirements to which the organization subscribes;" [my emphasis]
4.3.2 "The organization shall establish and maintain a procedure to
identify and have access to legal and other requirements..."
4.3.3 "When establishing and reviewing its objectives, an organization
shall consider the legal and other requirements,..."
4.5.1 "The organization shall establish and maintain a documented
procedure for periodicall evaluating compliance with relevant
environmental legislation and regulations."
I do not read in the standard that "being in compliance" is a requirement.
Can an organization perform these above requirements and still be out of
compliance? I would guess yes. I believe non-conformance depends upon
how the organization's system responds to discovering the compliance
issue. Having worked in industry and consulting, my experience would be
willing to lay some money on the table to say that if being out of
compliance with a single regulatory mandate is grounds for failing an EMS
audit, I could count on one hand all organizations who would have a 14001
certificate to hang in their lobby.
For what it's worth,
Russ DeVilbiss
ISO 14000/EMS Product Manager
ERAtech Environmental, Inc.
rdevilbiss@eratech.com
800.848.4990 x126
937.859.8998 x126
(f) 937.859.9132
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jlsprof@aol.com [SMTP:Jlsprof@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 1997 6:25 PM
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Noncompliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations
Regarding the thread on how important compliance to environmental laws and
regulations is with respect to registration: I recently went through the
qualification process to qualify for conducting ISO 14000 EMS audits for a
major European Registrar. The position of that Registrar (which I am not
naming only because I have not received their permission to post this) is
that if a noncompliance to an environmental law or regulation is found, then
that is grounds for automatic failure of the registration audit. This is
because compliance with laws and regulations is part of the policy statement,
and is therefore a basic component of the EMS. If a company isn't complying
with the laws and regulations, then how can one say that its EMS is
effective? And if it isn't effective, then why should it be registered?
James L. Smith
jlsprof@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 11:24:46 -0500
From: Phil Rooney
Subject: Re: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Russ DeVilbiss ] (fwd)
Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator) wrote:
>
> NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
> and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
> definitely NOT to me.
>
> Thanks.
> Bill
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 08:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Russ DeVilbiss
> To: "'ISO 14000 Discussion List'"
> Subject: RE: Noncompliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations
>
> To keep the debate going. . .
>
> Since third party auditors are supposed to be using ISO 14001:1996 as the
> audit scope, what does the standard say regarding compliance issues?
>
> 4.2 (c) says that the policy "...Includes a _commitment_ to comply with
> relevant environmental legislation and regulations, and with other
> requirements to which the organization subscribes;" [my emphasis]
>
> 4.3.2 "The organization shall establish and maintain a procedure to
> identify and have access to legal and other requirements..."
>
> 4.3.3 "When establishing and reviewing its objectives, an organization
> shall consider the legal and other requirements,..."
>
> 4.5.1 "The organization shall establish and maintain a documented
> procedure for periodicall evaluating compliance with relevant
> environmental legislation and regulations."
>
> I do not read in the standard that "being in compliance" is a requirement.
> Can an organization perform these above requirements and still be out of
> compliance? I would guess yes. I believe non-conformance depends upon
> how the organization's system responds to discovering the compliance
> issue. Having worked in industry and consulting, my experience would be
> willing to lay some money on the table to say that if being out of
> compliance with a single regulatory mandate is grounds for failing an EMS
> audit, I could count on one hand all organizations who would have a 14001
> certificate to hang in their lobby.
>
> For what it's worth,
>
> Russ DeVilbiss
> ISO 14000/EMS Product Manager
> ERAtech Environmental, Inc.
>
> rdevilbiss@eratech.com
>
> 800.848.4990 x126
> 937.859.8998 x126
> (f) 937.859.9132
Okay. Let's see if I get this right.
A business makes a COMMITMENT to comply with environmental regs and
creates an EMS to provide a documentation that it wants to comply but
NEVER ACTUALLY HAS TO COMPLY? Isn't this sort of like telling the
traffic cop, "I meant to stop at the stop sign." Will the cop then say,
"Oh. In that case, it's okay." Is it a commitment if there is no action?
Is it a commitment to comply if there is no intention or effort to
comply?
Is the goal of ISO 14001 to improve and protect the environment by
taking action? Is the goal to only look like action will be taken? Is
the goal to get a pretty certificate to hang on the wall? This thread
sounds a lot like fat cats looking for loopholes in the tax code.
Phil Rooney
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department
Lincoln, NE
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:25:36 +0500
From: David Hiergesell
Subject: Re: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Russ DeVilbiss ] (fwd)
Phil Rooney wrote:
> Is the goal of ISO 14001 to improve and protect the environment by
> taking action? Is the goal to only look like action will be taken? Is
> the goal to get a pretty certificate to hang on the wall? This thread
> sounds a lot like fat cats looking for loopholes in the tax code.
>
> Phil Rooney
> Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department
> Lincoln, NE
Phil,
To jump in on this thread, your tax code analogy is a moot point since
these facilities still have to be in compliance with all environmental
laws regardless of ISO 14000.
Where it might have a hook sometime in the future is if a state such as
Pennsylvania were to grant regulatory flexibility to companies who
conform to ISO 14001. Pennsylvania has discussed allowing ISO 14001
registered companies to obtain one permit and no monitoring provided
that the state can come up with reasonable minimum requirements of
conformance. (The idea is to make Pennsylvania the manufacturing state
of choice.)
Many companies are holding back from implementing ISO 14001 *precicely*
because they don't want nosy EMS auditor looking over their shoulders
for noncompliance's. Questions arise as to whether or not these
auditors can be subpoenaed to testify against the company in court at
some future point. Not a great situation to contemplate if you are a
plant manager (or an ISO consultant who is out of work because everyone
is too paranoid to hire you.)
So... The clearest way for environmentalists to completely ruin ISO ISO
14000 will be to try and use it as a "trojan horse" in their battle to
go after companies (by urging EMS auditors to go looking around for
noncompliance's.) In my opinion, it defeats the purpose of voluntary
EMS systems and will certainly keep quasi paranoid plant managers (that
describes about three quarters of them) from implementing an EMS system
at all.
Perhaps mandatory EMS systems are the answer. I can tell you that any
measure to force EMS systems on industry through government mandate will
likely be soundly defeated by groups such as the National Association of
Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business.
I agree with you that the *pretty certificate* issue is real and that
auditors need to be viewed with the same scrutiny that ISO 9000 are to
make sure that companies are doing little and getting credit for their
registration. However, the minute that word gets out that one of these
people blew the whistle on a company for a non-compliance situation, it
will have a profound chilling effect on industry's acceptance of ISO
14000.
Warmest Regards, (from a maniacal Husker fan and grad of UNL)
David Hiergesell
Washington DC.
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 97 14:54:27 EDT
From: "Robert Clifford, Jr." <102163.345@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Non-Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations
Non-compliance is not, and should not be used as, the sole basis of determining
non-conformance to ISO 14001; however, an observed non-compliance is a "smoking
gun" that could indicate an EMS failure and, as such, should be assessed. In my
EMS audit experience - 30 on-site days at 7 facilities auditing against GEMI's
Self Assessment Protocol (pre-ISO 14000) - I often observed instances of
regulatory non-compliance but did not focus on it. Instead, I "swam upstream"
and (always, surprisingly) found a management system failure - i.e. internal
auditing, communication, training, etc. - that had led to the non-compliance.
Based on the situation, this management failure could either be a serious
non-conformance or an opportunity for improvement - often reflecting the
seriousness of the non-compliance.
Those of us coming from the environmental side of things - I also have
performed regulatory compliance audits at printers, metalworkers, and mining
operations - know that 100% compliance is impossible, if compliance is strictly
interpreted. For example, submitting your monthly NPDES Discharge Monitoring
Report a day or two late is a non-compliance, but for practical, realistic
purposes we portray it as "minor" in our audit findings, whereas failing to
obtain an NPDES permit for a process wastewater discharge is a "major" finding
of non-compliance. I'd bet that the latter has a management system failure
attached that would throw any hope of ISO 14001 registration out the window !
But I'd hate to categorically find an organization's EMS non-conforming just on
the basis of the former.
The connection between non-compliance and non-conformance is the "art" in EMS
auditing, in my view, and the reason environmental-types will be/are in such
demand in this emerging field - particularly those engineers and scientists who
can develop an understanding of management issues.
Robert Clifford, REP
Schenectady NY
clifford@quality.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Bert P. Krages"
Subject: Compliance and ISO 14000
At 11:24 AM 5/23/97 -0500, Phil Rooney wrote:
>
>
>Okay. Let's see if I get this right.
>
>A business makes a COMMITMENT to comply with environmental regs and
>creates an EMS to provide a documentation that it wants to comply but
>NEVER ACTUALLY HAS TO COMPLY? Isn't this sort of like telling the
>traffic cop, "I meant to stop at the stop sign." Will the cop then say,
>"Oh. In that case, it's okay." Is it a commitment if there is no action?
>Is it a commitment to comply if there is no intention or effort to
>comply?
>
>Is the goal of ISO 14001 to improve and protect the environment by
>taking action? Is the goal to only look like action will be taken? Is
>the goal to get a pretty certificate to hang on the wall? This thread
>sounds a lot like fat cats looking for loopholes in the tax code.
>
The purpose of ISO 14000 is to provide a structure for environmental
management systems. As such, an organization that commits to complying with
environmental requirements does not fail to conform with the standard merely
because it does not maintain a perfect environmental compliance record.
What the standard does require is for the organization to monitor compliance
and to address any noncompliance that is discovered. To use your analogy,
under ISO 14000 the organization would express its committment to stopping
at stop signs. However, if for some reason an employee failed to do so the
organzation would determine why the employee failed to stop and would modify
its procedures to reduce the chance that employees would fail to stop at
such signs in the future. The organization would undertake this effort
regardless of whether the cop caught the employee. Furthermore, the cop
would issue the ticket regardless of whether the organization had
implemented ISO 14000 although the judge might consider the organizations
efforts to enhance compliance and issue a lesser fine.
Bert P. Krages
Attorney at Law
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 226-3662
(503) 226-6304 (facsimile)
krages@ teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~krages/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 19:08:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Peje2@aol.com] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 17:34:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Peje2@aol.com
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: ISO 14001
Hi!
I am conducting a research on ISO 14001 in relation to pollution prevention,
and need help!
Whether the language of the ISO 14001 allows for a company that does more for
the environment to be penalized with more paperwork, compared to a company
that does less, which is mainly looking for certification.
Also, if the ISO 14001, by defining pollution as "avoiding, reducing, OR
controlling" pollution, could become a hindrance for pollution prevention in
the United Sates.
Please also contact me if your company is ISO 14001.
Alfredo del Regato
Safety and Environmental Manager
IVAX Corp.
Miami, FL.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 15:15:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from ["S. Wayne Rosenbaum" ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 14:18:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "S. Wayne Rosenbaum"
To:
Subject: ISO 14000 News and Views Volume 2 # 10
ISO 14000 NEWS AND VIEWS VOLUME 2 ISSUE 10 will be available at:
http://www.lawinfo.com/law/ca/environmentallaw/
After 9:00 AM PST, Monday May 26 1997. Top Stories Include.
[PUBLISHERS NOTE IN THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS WE HAVE HAD SOME DIFICULTIES
WITH OUR DISRITBUTION SOFTWARE. THIS MAY HAVE RESULTED IN ADDING NAMES TO
THE DISTRIBUTION LIST THAT DO NOT BELONG THERE. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO
RECEIVE NEWS AND VIEW PLEASE CONTACT US AT ENLAW@LAWINFO.COM.]
HEADLINE: PUBLISHER OF ISO 14000 NEWS AND VIEWS JOINS THE LAW FIRM OF
HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK
S. Wayne Rosenbaum, Publisher of ISO 14000 News and Views has joined the
firm of Higgs, Fletcher & Mack as Special Counsel. Higgs, Fletcher & Mack
is one of the oldest law firms in San Diego County. Formed in 1939, the
firm has grown from two attorneys to more than forty attorneys.
HEADLINE: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS SPONSORS
MAJOR ISO 14001 TRAINING WORKSHOP IN SAN DIEGO.
The National Association of Environmental Professionals, in cooperation
with Business Development Associates, is sponsoring what may be the
premier ISO 14001 training program of the year. The workshop will be held
August 4 thorough 6 at Le Meridian San Diego, California.
HEADLINE: ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYERS ARE FINDING THE PRACTICE GLUTTED AT WORST,
AND SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED AT BEST.
Environmental law has been a red-hot practice area during the late '80s
and early '90s. With guidance from U.S. News & World Report, students
flooded those law schools with strong rankings for environmental law
programs.
Has the flood saturated the market? Is environmental practice still the
specialty niche it was developing into? Once, only those attorneys who
represented environmentalists were considered environmental attorneys; can
the moniker be used now by anyone who arranges for an environmental impact
report?
Counsel Connect members joined in early January to discuss where the
practice of environmental law stands today.
HEADLINE: BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION EXPANDS NORTH AMERICA MARKET
British Standards Institution today announced its kickoff expansion into
North American markets for ISO Certification.
With the appointment of George M. Cornecelli, the new U.S. Vice
President/General Manager and new Corporate Headquarters just opened in
Herndon, Virginia, BSI is positioning itself to become the Registrar of
Choice in the USA. Within the last year and a half, BSI opened Area
Manager's offices in Houston, Los Angeles, Detroit and Morristown, N.J. in
preparation.
HEADLINE: GLOBAL PRODUCTS STANDARDS -ACCREDITATION BECOMES INTERNATIONAL
ISSUE, WITH THE BLESSING OF MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS
An international accreditation system to monitor the registration process
of those who issue certification for the International Organization for
Standardization's guidelines is emerging under the auspices of the
International Accreditation Forum.
Establishing a credible, accountable worldwide accreditation system that
will watchdog the third-party registration process in a manner responsible
to the needs of industry is a main goal of this organization in formation.
EDITORIAL: ABOLISHING CALIFORNIAS EPA
While we all understand that government is not always a model of
consistency, Earth Day 1997 presented a particularly striking example in
the environmental field. As 40,000 children and adults paid homage to our
environment outside the Capitol, an Assembly Budget subcommittee chaired
by Assemblyman Fred Keeley voted to abolish the California Environmental
Protection Agency. A Senate subcommittee followed suit the next day.
HEADLINE: APEC PROGRAMMES SHOULD FOCUS ON ENTREPRENEUR & ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum programmes to develop
small-and-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should include thedevelopment of
both entrepreneurs and enterprises, said the minister of international
tradeand industry, Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz.
HEADLINE: SETTING THE STANDARD; EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
STANDARDIZATION'S ISO 14001 ON POLLUTION INSURERS; INCLUDES RELATED
ARTICLE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
ISO 14001: The newest environmental standard is cold comfort for pollution
insurers in a hot market.
What if pollution underwriters could make coverage contingent on adherence
to a strict code of environmental standards? Insurers might feel a lot
more secure about underwriting such risks--the sometime bane of the
commercial property/casualty insurance industry--perhaps at even more
competitive rates.
HEADLINE: PT SURVEYOR INDONESIA TO AWARD ISO 14000 CERTIFICATES
PT Surveyor Indonesia (SI) in Batam island has started to conduct an
initial diagnosis for awarding ISO 14000 certificates to 10 companies in
Batam, under its short-term programme ending in December 1997.
HEADLINE: JAPANESE FIRM GETS ISO 14000 CERTIFICATION FOR GREEN OUTLOOK
APART from having manufacturing procedures that ensure clockwork factory
operation 24 hours a day, Matsushita Refrigeration Industries also has
systems to recycle or reduce waste generated.
Because of its efforts, the company was awarded the ISO 14000
certification, the green equivalent of the ISO 9000 series for quality
management.
HEADLINE: GLOBAL PRODUCTS STANDARDS PROGRESS ON A GLOBAL QUALITY STANDARD
FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY UNCERTAIN
Industries such as electronics, steel and chemicals that have opposed
creation of additional international management system standards can take
heart.
There will be no international occupational health and safety standard for
the time being.On Jan. 27-28, the Technical Management Board of the
International Organization for Standardization agreed not to initiate
activity at this time in the field of occupational health and safety
management system standards. The board also recommended against forming a
Strategic Advisory Group on Management Systems at this time.
HEADLINE: RONALD BLACK JOINS MCLAREN/HART
McLaren/Hart, Inc. announced that Ronald Black has joined its Warren, New
Jersey office as a Managing Principal for Environmental Management
Services (EMS). Mr. Black holds a B.S. degree in Analytical Chemistry
from La Salle University and an M.S. in Science Education from Temple
University. He has over 25 years of experience in corporate and facility
management of environmental safety and health programs, and development
and implementation of environmental audit programs. Throughout his
career, Mr. Black has worked in industry to strategically integrate
environmental management into business and operations management systems.
Highlights of his experience include:
HEADLINE: HIGH-LEVEL CHINESE COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENT
STANDARDS SET UP
China is expected to expand the use of the standards of the International
Standards Organization (ISO) in environmental management, in a bid to get
enterprises to put resources to rational use and protect the environment.
The State Council, China's highest governing body, has approved the
establishment of a committee to promote this work. The committee, whose
members are leading officials from some 30 central government departments,
will be headed by the director of the State Bureau of Environmental
Protection [SBEP].
HEADLINE: NEW STANDARD SENDS A MESSAGE: ISO 14000 SERIES CREATES FORMAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Rockwell Automation's electronics manufacturing facility in Twinsburg is
on the vanguard of a new, voluntary environmental standard. The local
operation of Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation last October became one
of the nation's first registrants of the ISO 14001 ''environmental
managementsystems'' standard. Similar to its cousin, the ISO 9000 family
designating quality standards met by manufacturing operations, the new ISO
14000 series - ISO 14001 is the firststandard - provides companies with a
framework for controlling the impact they have on the environment by
creating a formal environmental management system.
HEADLINE: INDUSTRIES URGED TO ADOPT ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLY PRODUCTION
PROGRAMS
Medan, May 1 (ANTARA) - Industrial companies in Indonesia should be able
to implement environment- friendly production programs in line with the
requirements stipulated in ISO14000, a senior official said.
"It is now high time to implement a 'clean' production program in
Indonesia as such a program can cut production cost, enhance product
quality and productivity and minimise the generation of polluting wastes,"
Director General for Forest and Agricultural Production Sujata said here
Tuesday.
HEADLINE: AGENCY PREPARES COMPANIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE
The worldwide quality assurance movement is picking up steam and it looks
as though the environment will be the next major push.
"It's already happening," said John Lo, the chairman of the Hong Kong
Quality Assurance Agency.
"ISO 14000 was established at the beginning of 1997. We are now doing a
lot of promotional work to make companies aware of the environmental
trend, which is already gaining momentum in Europe."
HEADLINE: FOOD INDUSTRY MEETING THE ISO 14001 STANDARD
ISO 14000 promises to be an important up and coming environmental standard
for the food packaging industry. As with ISO 9000, food companies are
looking to this standard as an important requirement when choosing
suppliers. "In a few more years I see [ISO 14000] as being a requirement
from the commercial standpoint. The Coca-Colas and Heinekensof the world
can not be filling products in dirty bottles. They will start requiring
that their suppliers comply with ISO 14000 standards," said Bennie Hansen,
director of environmental management, PLM Group.
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #4
****************************