Pages

7/05/2014

How to Set Up a International Environmental (Health and Safety) Program - Part 1

Businesses look to Environmental (HS) professionals to set up the company's International (and this applies to Domestic as well) Environmental (HS) programs that are compliant with the multitude of regulations.  

A question arises in my mind as to why look to a non-lawyer to establish a program designed to defend a company against legal complaints or violations?  The answer is simple as the E (HS) person works on the practical side of working with these regulations.  Typically the regulation is civil in nature, but there is a criminal side as well.   The difference is essentially based upon intent.  

Example:  A company has a hazardous waste drum of methyl ethyl death that it is transporting to a hazardous waste disposal facility.  As it is being moved within the warehouse of the company it falls over and spills.  This was probably an avoidable error, but there was no intent.  So it is civil.  Versus the same company taking the drum to the creek in the back of the company property and dumping the contents.

There are many E (HS) professionals who understand the regulations, and how to implement an E (HS) program to defend against fines, and penalties.  In fact the way most companies still design, or want to have designed, their E (HS) programs is around regulations, based upon the strategy of 'Defense'.  And so this is how the common E (HS) professional is trained in establishing and implementing a program, from the defensive mode.  The predominate goal and question is "what needs to be done to meet the requirements of the regulations"?  

The problem with this strategy is that the company is always chasing a ghost, and blaming the ghost for being difficult to be caught.  What does this mean?  Minimum requirements are more difficult to attain because these tend to be moving targets.  Regulations, laws, and the like are in a constant ebb and flow of change.  The regulator has their own view of what the regulations say it is all quite variable.


So what to do?

We need to go back to the basic of regulations (aka laws, rules, etc) to understand how to design a Environmental (HS) Management.  

Regulations are the guidelines, or parameters, of how society operates.  Without boundaries there would be anarchy, or people going wild.  There are two primary thoughts on the implementation of EHS regulations:
1)  Strict - The interpretation of the regulation is based on exact wording, with no ability to modify based upon the circumstance.
2)  Intent - The interpretation of the regulation is based on what the drafters intended to address, this gives the ability to adjust based on the particular circumstances.

Pros and Cons on each thought, but there is always a middle ground.

In the USA, in the Environmental world the regulators are moving towards risk based, which is along the lines of 'intent' as described under implementation.  The Health & Safety world exists mainly in mood of strict, so that each element is prescribed in the regulation.

This is why the typical approach of most companies to 'chase ghosts' simply does not work, and frustrates all involved.  So how to determine how to build your EHS program knowing that there are wide variance in variables?

Before any EHS program can begin there needs to be a meeting of the minds.  Senior decision makers must decide what are the no BS EHS priorities of the company.   This can be defined in the mission statement.  But also needs to be defined in policy.  If senior decision makers are not 100% behind this endeavor, then it is destined to fail before it ever begins.  

If the company’s Senior decision makers are not supportive of EHS, a professional EHS person has a choice to make; either continue on with the good fight hoping that management changes its mind (aka Change Maker Extraordinary), or leave for a company that is proactive and in tuned with having a world class EHS program.  The Change Maker Extraordinary has to be ready for the frustration of being blamed when penalties, violations, and perhaps even injury or deaths occur, even though they tried to make a corrective change.  This means having to keep a file of memos documenting each corrective action denied in the event they have to defend themselves in court.  

As long as the Senior decision makers are supportive, being a normal Change Maker is easy.  A normal Change Maker is one that works to change the employee mind set regarding EHS.  Still not a easy task, but doable.  This involves following the steps outlined here.

So now let us assume the Senior decision makers have blessed the establishment of your world class EHS program.  Now what?

When I learned to fire a hand-gun as a police officer the instructor taught me not to focus on the sights, but to look through the sights with both eyes open to the target.  Bring the target into focus and align the out of focus sights with it.  This is the same strategy.

In order to determine that you need to know how far is the target, what is the windage, etc. Now this leads to the first item on your to do list.  Define your target or goal.  It can't be to be compliant with regulations, or zero-accidents, these are measurements of how well you are doing.  The goal has to be built around the business and its particular operation.  It encompasses operation's goal.  This seems easy, so try it.  Oh by the way, it is impossible to do without input from operations, and senior management.  

THINK SMART

  • Specific, Clear and Understandable
  • Measurable, Verifiable, and Results Oriented
  • Attainable
  • Relevant to the Operation
  • Time-Bound with a Schedule and Milestones

Let's move on to the next step.

This is the Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA).  The BRA gives you your target parameters.  It also gives you the risk priorities.  From this a firing solution, also known as solutions to the risks, can be designed based on company priorities.

The BRA is a no-harm no-foul assessment of a facility.  The results are never to be used to penalize anyone no matter what the issues maybe, except if there are serious life threatening items.  The BRA provides the user with a clear understanding of the current state of affairs for a facility.  It cannot be overstated the results of a BRA can never be used against the facility management.  Otherwise the likely hood of getting a real picture of the facility is slim to none. 

On the Internet there are many examples of what a risk assessment should look like.  Which one to use?  Not anyone of these examples will match your facility.  So now what?

The EHS manager must take time to learn about the facility, the staff, and the operations, usually a week depending on size; Preliminary Phase.  From this information they will then devise a BRA that is broken down into the various media to be evaluated; commonly called multi-media.  Depending on the operation and size the evaluation maybe first divided according to location.  If the facility has a warehouse, a manufacturing area, a maintenance shop, and administration office.  Each area would then have the media associated with it assigned such as warehouse may have haz/non-haz waste storage, forklift, noise, lighting, etc.  The manufacturing area may have electrical, mechanical, LOTO, noise, haz/non-haz waste handling, ergonomics, etc.  And on and on.  Each area will have its media defined in advance of the BRA which should be as all encompassing as possible.

The BRA is then conducted unannounced by the EHS manager.  There should be no time for preparation.  The objective is to get a real picture of the facility.  I remember many inspections being conducted to look at how operations really look, but these inspections would be scheduled. The managers would all run around cleaning up, making sure everyone’s desk were clear, and we were dressed appropriately.  Once the inspection was over, everything when back to normal.  Nothing is accomplished, except wasting everyone’s time.

The attitude of the EHS assessor should be cordial, open, and overall cooperative.  Dress should be no better than the shop level manager.  The goal is to be relatable.  Speak slowly, and never use EHS jargon or acronyms; think Clear, Concise, Communication.  In fact the less you talk the better.  The assessor's primary tools are eyes and ears. 

Assessors should conduct the assessments alone.  This way they are not navigated, and there is less distractions.  All questions will be written down and brought up after the walk through.


END OF PART 1





1 comment: