Employee Engagement in Risk Management. One Family. One Team.

Transcription

1 Employee Engagement in Risk Management One Family. One Team. 1

2 Agenda About Charter Manufacturing Company Culture Communication Training EHS Teams Other Tools 5S/Lean Manufacturing Audits/Inspections Root Cause/Incident Management Supervisor Scorecards 2

3 Charter Manufacturing Company Corporate Structure Established in 1936 Charter Manufacturing Company, Incorporated 4 th Generation Family Owned Headquarters in Mequon, Wisconsin Charter Wire 1936 Charter Automotive 1948 Charter Steel 1978 Dura Bar 2012 Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee, WI Saukville, WI Woodstock, IL 1900 employees Litchfield, U.K. Cleveland, OH York, PA Wuhu, China Fostoria, OH Salisbury, NC

4 Charter Steel Founded Fully Integrated Wire Rod Steelmaking Facilities Saukville,Wisconsin Cleveland, Ohio Saukville, Wisconsin 2 Full-Service Coil Processing and Distribution Centers Saukville, Wisconsin Fostoria, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio Fostoria, Ohio

5 Charter Manufacturing Company Common Threads Across the Divisions Engaged Workforce Driven by a culture of respect, trust, transparency open communication, and family orientation Continuous Improvement Mindset Gainsharing programs, self directed work teams, bottoms up problems solving, and a formal continuous improvement department are examples of the company s commitment to improvement Stable ownership that is willing to reinvest A Will to Grow

6 Steel Production & Environmental 6

7 Management Systems Focus OHSAS18001 ISO14001 ISO9001/TS16949 Setting Objectives that engage employees Employee participation in Risk Assessments & Aspects & Impacts identification Risk Evaluation Number MR 101 Date 3/2 3/0 9 Plant Melting Area Refact. Task with brief description Bricking a ladle Down Day YES NO Evaluated with Craig, Joe, Enrique SWP for Task? YES NO (SWP # ) Frequency of Task Equipment involved with Task: 5 per mo. Duration of Task Jib crane, forklift, hydraulic hammer ~ 3 hours for 3-4 days (max) Is this a routine* task? YES NO Safe Work Considerations During Task: PIT ( ) Lockout/Tagout YES NO Energized Work Permit YES NO Confined Space Permit YES NO Respiratory Protection YES NO Crane Notification Permit YES NO Other Legal requirements YES NO 7

8 Communication Creating a culture of ownership taking the long view Starts with EHS Policy & top down commitment Start every meeting with a safety topic Fatality Prevention Initiative If you see something, say something STOP Audits 8

9 Training Starts from Day 1 Building competency & confidence Monthly training topics developed by EHS Teams & delivered by Supervisors 9

10 EHS Teams Zone Audit Development & Execution Responsibility for specific compliance tasks Developing communication & training within the operation Model behavior Be the face of EHS with their peers 10

11 Other Tools 5S/Lean Manufacturing Focus on area ownership Belief that housekeeping is a key to EHS performance EHS Teams lead or participate in audits and inspections with EHS staff EHS Blitz Root Cause Analysis/Incident Management Supervisor Scorecard Process Emergency Preparedness & Response 11

12 Before/After 5S Supervisor s Balcony 12

13 Before/After 5S Die Shop 13

14 Break Room TRUST TEAMWORK SAFETY CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT 14

15 Universal Waste Storage 5S TRUST TEAMWORK SAFETY CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

16 Additional Environmental Performance Enhancements Energy efficiency Raw materials efficiency Inventory management Waste reduction Continuous Improvement Culture

17 The Steel Making Process Questions?

18 Risk and EHS Auditing at GE NAEM, Spring 2016 Imagination at work

19 Integrating RISK into GE s EHS Audit Programs Audit Frequency We use a risk model to assess aggregated operational risk, and focus audit resources on those operations with higher risk. We also look at inconsistencies management system scores & EHS activity level, and focus some audits in those operations.. Audit Approach At business-critical sites and in higher-risk operations like PSM & Seveso sites, we use a scenariobased audit approach that examines how prepared an operation is for a high-consequence, low-probability event and audit both preventive measures and mitigation/recovery mechanisms. 1

20 Why incorporate a scenario-based audit approach? Visible conditions & records do not always reflect low probability & high consequence events Event GE Severe Events PSM regulations Alstom s Potentially Severe Event (PSE) process Fire history Incorporation of risk management approaches in EHS beyond compliance We needed an audit approach that not only looks at what IS, but also at what COULD OCCUR 2

21 A different approach for audits Classic EHS Audit Scope selected by auditors Compliance focus More broad than deep We find; you fix Findings are without hazard context Scenario-Based Audits Scope selected by or with the site Hazard focus More deep than broad We find it and help you fix it Findings discussed in the context of scenario scope Focused Defense Validation Tests 3

22 Why use Bow Tie Analysis? Method Proces s Output Visual / diagrammatic Evaluation of Threats (fault tree) Evaluation of Consequence (event tree) Clear communication Structured thinking Input across functions Identification of hidden dependencies Evaluation of impaired / weak defenses Foundation for business planning Simple and easy to understand 4

23 Why is it called a Bow Tie? Pre-Event Post-Event Threat Consequenc e Threat Prevention Defenses Hazard & Event Recovery Defenses Consequenc e Threat Consequenc e 5

24 How it fits into the GE EHS risk management system Hazard Heat Maps Map obligations to compliance & management systems Strength of Defense Matrices Implement risk reduction measures Develop a Scenario Audit defenses and prevention defenses 6

25 Early results Pros Gets operational leaders to focus on high risk items Business continuity focus enhances EHS reputation Engages employees changes the audit conversation Cons On one end of a compliance continuum draws focus away from lower impact (but still enforceable) compliance obligations Successful only where the culture can support it Disagreement on how to manage findings 7

26