Focusing On Lagging And Leading Ehs Events

Explanation
The given statement is true. Lagging EHS Events refer to unplanned or unwanted incidents that have already occurred in the past and have caused or had the potential to cause harm or damage. These events are used as indicators to assess the effectiveness of safety measures and identify areas for improvement in order to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.

Explanation
The given statement suggests that leading EHS events are activities that are designed to prevent lagging EHS events. In other words, leading events are proactive measures taken to avoid or mitigate potential safety or environmental incidents. This implies that by implementing effective leading EHS activities, organizations can minimize the occurrence of lagging events, which are reactive measures taken after an incident has already occurred. Therefore, the statement is true.

Explanation
Layer of Protection (LOP) refers to a series of protective barriers implemented to prevent or mitigate potential hazards or risks. These barriers can include physical safeguards, procedural controls, safety systems, or any other measures that aim to reduce the likelihood or impact of unwanted harm. Therefore, the statement that Layer of Protection (LOP) are protective barriers used to prevent unwanted harm is true.

Explanation
The weaknesses which can allow a lagging EHS event to pass through a LOP and lead to a more serious consequence are called "Holes". These holes represent vulnerabilities or gaps in the system or process that allow for the event to go unnoticed or unaddressed, leading to potentially severe consequences.

Explanation
If one layer of protection fails but another functions correctly, it means that there is still a functioning safeguard in place to prevent the unwanted event from occurring. This implies that the presence of multiple layers of protection increases the overall reliability and effectiveness of the system or process, ensuring that the unwanted event is successfully avoided.

Explanation
This statement suggests that in order to determine the root cause of a lagging event, it is necessary to investigate all the events that have occurred. By thoroughly examining all the lagging events, one can identify the underlying cause or causes that led to the lag. This approach ensures a comprehensive analysis and increases the chances of finding an effective solution to address the lagging issue.

Explanation
When using the "5 Why" method, the idea is to keep asking "why" to uncover the underlying cause of a problem. By the time you reach the 4th or 5th "why," you are likely to have delved deep enough into the issue to identify the root cause. This means that the 4th or 5th "why" will lead you directly to the core problem that needs to be addressed.

Explanation
The OSHA Injury/Illness (300) Form is not considered a leading EHS tool because it is a reporting form used to record workplace injuries and illnesses, rather than a tool used to prevent or mitigate hazards. The other options listed (Process Flow Diagrams, Risk Matrix, Job Safety Analysis, and Process Hazard Analysis) are all commonly used tools in the field of Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS) to identify, assess, and control workplace hazards.

Explanation
In 2009, each employee at Virent must complete 5 EHS items.

Explanation
The best protection occurs when everyone shares responsibility for the elimination of workplace hazards and employee safety. This means that each individual in the workplace should take ownership of ensuring a safe and healthy environment. When everyone is involved and committed to this goal, it leads to better hazard identification, mitigation, and overall safety practices. It also promotes a culture of safety where everyone looks out for each other and takes proactive measures to prevent accidents and injuries.