2024 EHS Site Visit Assessment

Frequency

• Not a priority (Score = 1)

• Weekly Meetings (Score = 2)

• Meeting occurs most day of the week (Score = 3)

• Daily Meetings (Score = 4)

• Daily Scheduled Time and Place (Score = 5)

Resource/Information Availability

• Conducted without information (Score = 1)

• Some information is present but is not organized or easy to follow (Score = 2)

• Most information is present and is fairly easy to follow (Score = 3)

• All information is present but is difficult to follow, no explanation or examples (Score = 4)

• All required information is presented in a clear, concise manner. Example documents made available (Score = 5)

Attendance

• One person (Score = 1)

• Most employees, but little group discussion (Score = 2)

• All employees, but no group discussion (Score = 3)

• Most employees, but good group discussion (Score = 4)

• All employees, and really good group discussion (Score = 5)

Task Planned/Scheduled

• No pre planning, address issues as they come up (fire fight) (Score = 1)

• Planning focused on the short term, immediate day to day (Score = 3)

• Scheduled, work load balanced, immediate and long term focused (next few weeks) (Score = 5)

Task Assignment

• Vague / difficult to understand task or location (Score = 1)

• Assigned / no discussion (Score = 2)

• Clear but not reviewed with everyone (Score = 3)

• Clear and reviewed with everyone (Score = 4

• Clear, reviewed with everyone, and tested for understanding (Score = 5)

Non- Routine Task Identified

• Recognized as non-routine task, no prior JHA , no process for follow up (Score = 1)

• Recognized as non-routine task, talk through high level JHA, no good JHA documentation, no process for follow up (Score = 3)

• Recognized as non-routine task, good JHA documentation, strong follow up process in place at site (Score = 5)

Hazard Identification/Discussion

• Generic topics discussed (work safe, wear PPE, etc.) (Score = 1)

• Generalized discussion related to work activities, weather, or permit requirements (Score = 2)

• Interactive discussion to ID physical/potential hazards with discussion of what could go wrong with a few tasks (Score = 3)

• Interactive discussion of what could go wrong in all steps, hazards that have come up with similar jobs, review conditions/factors in the task, discuss worst case scenario (Score = 5)

Risk Determination/Discussion

• Crew doesn’t talk about risk, only hazards and some controls were discussed (Score = 1)

• Crew only discusses either the "likely hood" or "severity" of an incident occurring related to the hazards (Score = 2)

• Crew discusses both the "severity" and "likely hood" of an incident occurring as related to the identified hazards (Score = 4)

• Interactive discussion covering the what if's, likelihood, and early warning signs to look for related to the identified hazards (Score = 5)

Hazard Controls Identified

• Generic topics discussed (wear PPE, drink water, take your time) (Score = 1)

• Generic topics discussed, but some "specific" hazards discussed (Score = 2)

• Clear controls documented, but no instruction (Score = 3)

• Clear controls documented, with some instruction (Score = 4)

• Clear instructional controls to mitigate the risks identified (stop work, barricades, hydration) (Score = 5)

Auditor Comments (Please put in notes for improvements/critique)