A Consultant’s Perspective

The use of anhydrous ammonia as a non-ozone-depleting refrigerant is a good example of attaining operational efficiencies through beneficial means. However, because anhydrous ammonia is toxic, when stored in quantities above 10,000 pounds, it is subject to U.S. regulations per OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standard and EPA’s Risk Management Program Rule.

Designed to keep employees and the environment safe and prevent chemical accidents, such regulations include requirements for process and equipment documentation, procedures, detailed hazard analyses, training, maintenance, change management, auditing, incident investigations, and contractor management. Still other environmental, health, and safety (EHS) regulations apply to refrigerated warehouses and food processing facilities, from lockout/tagout to waste handling to fuel spill prevention.

Because the complexities of the regulatory compliance process can be quite a challenge, many companies rely on external consultants for assistance. While this can have significant paybacks, there are also common pitfalls that companies need to avoid.
 

Pitfalls. Some of the most common pitfalls of working with an EHS consultant include:

• Programs are developed without enough plant interaction. If programs are developed independently of a facility’s operations personnel, there is a good chance that the programs will not be workable, accepted, or used by employees. Experience shows that some companies take a “check the box” approach, expecting the consultant to perform a task independently, with little involvement from the plant. While a consultant can work in this way, the resulting programs will not be as effective. For example, the consultant may make recommendations that will not work given the company’s culture, work processes, equipment, and other factors. Company culture may entail that a safety procedure be described on a single sheet of paper, or documents may need to be multi-lingual. Without internal perspective, the steps taken by the consultant may not address the company’s needs, so the resulting document ends up neglected on some shelf. To be effective, a program must be developed in cooperation with the company’s leaders and end users so that it is relevant, it can be followed in day-to-day operations, and it becomes a living document.
   
• Using a consultant for tasks outside the consultant’s area of expertise. When the process safety management regulation was issued, many refrigeration contractors began providing compliance services; some did it well and some were outside their area of expertise. By the same token, a consulting firm specializing in EHS compliance may not be the right firm to prepare piping and instrumentation diagrams or carry out mechanical integrity inspections. It is the client’s responsibility to understand the scope of work that falls within—and outside—a specific consulting firm’s role. In addition, the experience of the specific person being proposed to work on the client’s project is important, both in terms of budget and the work product.
   
• The consultant is relied on so heavily that the company’s staff members do not have full knowledge of the programs. Regulators expect a company’s management team and those responsible for compliance to be fully versed in the ways the company’s operations comply with regulations, and that they be able to answer questions about how equipment is maintained, how problems are resolved, where documentation is located, and other matters.

Paybacks. When pitfalls are avoided, working with third-party consultants can have benefits, such as:

• Getting an outside perspective: How do others address these issues? One of the benefits of working with an external consultant is the consultant’s experience gained at other operations. Faced with an EHS compliance issue, the consultant may be able to say, “I see you are not doing X. Here’s how I’ve seen it done at other companies.”Take, for example, the best ways to document refresher training. While a company’s training may be compliant with regulations, if it is not documented effectively, the company will still be out of compliance.
  
  
• Objectivity in audits. Outside audits are helpful because they provide a different, objective perspective. It can be hard for a company’s employees to be critical of their own work. On the other hand, an outside auditor can give credence to the recommendations of company personnel. If internal recommendations call for capital expenditures, their need can be confirmed or denied by an outside, unbiased source. Consultants can also provide an outside perspective to help recognize areas where the mindset of “We’ve always done it that way” is preventing improvement of a practice that is no longer appropriate or not compliant with regulations.
   
• Getting access to a subject matter expert. Because EHS regulations can be complex, it is difficult for one person at a company to be an expert on all the issues. Consultants specialize in particular areas, allowing them to be well-versed in the intricacies of their practice area.
   
• Long-term relationships: I’ve got your back. When engaged over the long term, a consultant will get to know the company and its needs and can keep it informed on upcoming regulatory changes that may impact it practices and make recommendations consistent with how the company works. These relationships can also place the client in a priority position.

Using an external consultant is a balancing act. Some tasks may be best done by a consultant, and others by the company—and the point of balance is different in each situation. If using consultants, it is best to use their expertise wisely—and this includes working cooperatively with consultants so that the resulting recommendations are practical and workable within the company’s reality.

Sandy Padrick is a Senior Scientist in the Environmental, Health and Safety Compliance Group of Golder Associates.