Military
Matters
February 2012
Volume 2, Number 2
In This Issue:
Leadership for Tomorrow’s Military
Workforce
2
AGC Trains for Future Successes
4
ESOH Processes Across the Marine
Corps Acquisition Lifecycle
7
Wandering Through Life Protecting,
People, Property & the Environment 15
Need a Quick Boost?
19
Contact Us:
Chair
Chris Gates
[email protected]
Vice Chair
Robert Barnette
[email protected]
Publication Coordinator
Shawn Lewis
[email protected]
Conferences & Seminars
Pam Wilkinson
[email protected]
Secretary: Tom Loughman
Membership: John J. Davis
BOK: David Barragan
Web: Robert Barnette
www.asse.org/military
www.asse.org/ps
www.asse.org/connect
I hope you are still keeping those resolutions made before or shortly after the
new year. Professionally, I hope you are pursuing personal development and
enrichment and have found and implemented new avenues to improve the
occupational safety and health programs and their results where you work.
During 2011, the Military Branch grew significantly. Part of this growth was
attributed to outreach by ASSE staff to International Practice Specialty
members. We welcome all members who joined the Branch during 2011. We
also solicit their involvement. We have open positions on the Advisory
Committee. Advisory Committee members typically spend less than five hours
per month on Branch activities. If you would rather write an occasional article,
Shawn Lewis, our Publication Coordinator, welcomes your contributions.
Shawn is always looking for articles for our three publication issues each year.
Please contact him if you have overcome a challenge or have written a paper
for school or work that might be of interest to others. Please keep in mind that
ASSE has editorial staff who can help in the writing process; we simply need
your technical expertise and experiences.
During March 2012, the Military Branch will staff ASSE’s booth at the Navysponsored Professional Development Conference (PDC) in Hampton Roads,
VA. After the exhibits close at this PDC, Jack Fearing, International Practice
Specialty Administrator, and I plan to make a presentation to appropriate
members of the U.S. Coast Guard staff.
In April, I will attempt to recruit new members during the Global Safety and
Health Conference in Honolulu, HI (formerly known as the PacRim
Conference). In June, we will assemble in Denver, CO, for ASSE’s Safety
2012. A Branch networking event will be held during the conference. More
information about that meeting will be available closer to June.
If you will be attending the Navy PDC or the conference in Honolulu, please find
me and say hello. If you attend any meeting where there are safety
professionals (uniformed and/or civil service) from the uniformed services,
please say a good word about the Military Branch. To help, if you need booth or
Military Branch materials, you can contact Krista Sonneson at ASSE.
On a personal note, I retired from the County of San Bernardino at the end of
2011. My new e-mail address is [email protected].
OSHA should release the revised Hazard Communication Standard (with the
global harmonization of labels and signs plus the standardized safety data
sheet) in March or April. If you do not understand the impact of those changes
on your SH&E programs, now is the time to obtain that understanding.
Despite what we read in the media, it is likely that OSHA will also release the
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) during 2012. If your employer
already has a safety and health management plan that is equivalent in scope
and depth to the ANSI Z10 standard, you will probably only need to make a few
adjustments. If you do not have a plan that covers that amount of territory, now
is the time to think seriously about developing one. Remember that federal
OSHA standards are only minimums.
Best regards,
Christopher M. Gates, ARM
Military Branch Chair
Leadership for Tomorrow’s Military Workforce
By Shawn M. Galloway
Final accountability for organizational culture lies with senior leadership: past,
present and future. When recognizing unsatisfactory performance, the problem
rarely lies with those being led. If leaders do not drive for new results, can we
really expect followers to follow?
Check Your Six & Remember What You See
Past generations may argue they had it worse than the leaders of today. It was
indeed harder to work safely without the rules and regulations present most
everywhere today. What was accomplished over the past several decades has
created a safer world and work environment. However, what we did to
accomplish this result will not continue to provide further improvement.
We must never forget that rules, policies and procedures are there for a reason.
A common Navy adage reminds us, “Safety rules are written in blood.” Yet, as
we move forward to identify new ways reduce exposure to risk, we must
remember that obeying the rules will not cover all exposure to injury
opportunities.
It is critical that we never forget from where we have journeyed. Even more
vital, we must realize that the innovations that allowed us to advance will not
allow us to gain additional grounds. We need to think differently to produce
different results.
Command & Control to Situational Collaboration
After proudly serving in the U.S. Armed Forces and working with some of our
nation’s top leaders in both private and public sectors, it is apparent that there
are both exemplary leaders as well as some appalling ones. Regretfully,
hierarchical, paternal command and control is the most common leadership
style found among organizations exhibiting average safety performance.
Anyone can attempt to command behavior. Great leaders choose to inspire
others to act, a fundamental cultural indicator of performance excellence.
Top-down chain of command worked to bring our society out of the state of
uniform risk-chaos we found ourselves in decades ago. Moreover, this style of
leadership works well when there is uniform deviation from accepted safety
2
practices. Command and control is quite effective in moving bodies, but it rarely
moves hearts and minds.
Great leaders do not just prompt behavior; they inspire the intrinsic desire of
others. In every organization there comes a time where the only path to
transform results is to involve those typically left out. Collaboration becomes a
necessary leadership style for further results. Becoming an accomplished
leader cannot be learned solely through books; it comes from the experience of
successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully leading others. Moreover, teams
achieve greatness when they are made up of leaders, not followers.
Those who have achieved world-class safety performance have performed an
about face from Henry Ford’s famous quote, “Why is it every time I ask for a
pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?”
Dress Right Dress but Ready Front
Organizations of all types are on a perpetual search to see what others beside
them are doing in safety. We compare, we benchmark and we search for other
best practices created by other groups. While it is always important to ensure
alignment, a decision needs to be made: do we want to follow or lead the way?
Every group will be different from others, even those in close proximity. Trying
to compare yourself with another group can result in a demotivated team.
If you desire transformational results, you will not find it among the average. It
will be found through a hyper-focused and aligned search for a newer, better,
more effective and efficient way. Certainly, Dress Right Dress. Compare to
ensure that you are not missing anything. Seek other perspectives, approaches
and lessons, but Ready Front. Keep your attention focused forward.
Commander’s Intent: A Repeatable Goal
If someone cannot repeat your strategy, then you have not effectively
communicated your goal. When a commander’s intent (CI) is shared, the
subordinate receives a clear vision and purpose with expected behaviors and
results. What is your CI in safety? Is it defined by what will be accomplished or
what will not be accomplished?
Imagine if the following CI is shared: The troops will move in an undefined
direction for a year’s time, resulting in zero casualties. Is this not as ambiguous
as a stated vision of zero accidents? The CI cannot be stated in what not to do
(get injured); it must be stated by what will be accomplished, and how, with
some room for autonomy as the order is cascaded.
Communicate SITREP for Measureable Progress
Great leaders ask: Are our amazing results the consequence of what we are
doing, or are they occurring in spite of what we are doing? Leaders who are
surprised by results are ignoring important indicators. A situation report
(SITREP) is a communication tactic that conveys many important things,
including an overview of a unit’s current activity. This report allows for
communication of vital information both up and down the reporting structure.
Consider how powerful leveraging a SITREP could be if we applied the same
strategies to safety communication. Organizations with world-class safety
performance do not only measure and communicate the results, but focus on
the performance required to achieve it as well. Just as many metrics should
3
focus on the desirable as the undesirable if we want a group working to
celebrate achievements (100% safe, 100% of the time) rather than fewer
failures (zero injuries).
Lead By Not Leading
A leader is nothing without followers. Without them, a leader’s organizational
value decreases substantially. One of the elements of a great leader is the
ability to check your pride at the door and to let others shine. There is no
greater reward in leadership than seeing those you once led receive praise for
their demonstrated leadership. Organizations, regardless of industry or military
branch, will achieve greatness when inspired by great leaders, not when
pushed or manipulated by them.
A great leader can stand in front of their followers and convince them to move
their feet. Tomorrow’s leader will need to move their hearts and minds. When
this occurs, feet move at a much more effective pace. As Thomas Paine, the
American writer who influenced the Revolutionary War, once wrote, “Lead,
follow or get out of the way.” The difference has been, and will continue to be,
leadership, for this is where final accountability lies in recognizing
transformational results.
Shawn M. Galloway is president and COO of ProAct Safety®, an
international safety excellence firm. As a U.S. Army veteran, executive
coach, professional speaker, advisor and strategist, he has helped
hundreds of international organizations achieve and sustain excellence
in safety, culture and operational performance. He is also the host of the
weekly podcast series, Safety Culture Excellence®. He can be reached
at (800) 395-1347 or [email protected].
AGC Trains for Future Successes
By John J. Davis
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is a membership
organization dedicated to furthering the ever changing agenda of commercial
construction contractors, improving jobsite safety, expanding the use of cuttingedge technologies and techniques and strengthening the dialogue between
contractors and owners (AGC, 2010-12 Strategic Plan).
AGC’s Alabama chapter has taken the lead in expanding AGC mission of
promoting the skill, integrity and responsibility of those who build America by
offering various safety programs that exceed many organizations. AGC
provides broad influence and a full range of services satisfying the needs and
concerns of its members, partners and the industry, thereby improving the
quality of construction and protecting the public interest.
On December 16, 2011, the Northwest Florida Section of Alabama AGC
graduated its first class participants in EM 385-1-1 Training.
James V. Rives (director, professional development and education) of Alabama
AGC visited Washington, DC to propose this new training opportunity to AGC’s
national office. Rives and Matt Boles, Northwest Florida AGC manager, are
bringing a 40-hour hazard awareness course based on the U.S. Army Corps of
4
Engineers’ (USACE) EM 385-1-1 Safety and Health Requirements Manual.
This initiative is designed to effectively prepare contractors seeking
opportunities to bid on government construction contracts.
With a start in Pensacola, AGC already has three EM 385-1-1 classes
scheduled in other Southeastern locations for 2012. The course parallels many
features of OSHA’s 30-hour construction safety course and 510 construction
safety standards course, but it is designed to include additional requirements
under EM 385-1-1.
Anyone who has worked under the EM 385-1-1 manual understands that many
similarities exist between 29 CFR 1926 and EM 385-1-1, but there are some
significant differences. One great difference is the administrative burden that a
contractor must accept. Unlike 29 CFR 1926, EM 385-1-1 requires a contractor
to develop and submit to the government for review and acceptance a sitespecific accident prevention plan (APP). An APP is a safety and health policy
and program document that describes in detail the company’s intentions for
performing the job safely. Within EM 385-1-1, Appendix A provides a detailed
listing of items required to be addressed. This is strictly a generalized list, and
the contractor must assess each jobsite and include any unusual or unique
aspects of the project.
Another significant administrative requirement is the development of activity
hazard analyses (AHA) that provided for each type of work performed on the
project. An AHA is comparable to a job hazard analysis or job safety analysis,
but the assignment of risk assessment codes is based on a provided matrix.
AHAs must define the activities performed and must identify the work
sequences, the specific anticipated hazards, site conditions, equipment,
materials and control measures to be implemented to eliminate or reduce each
hazard to an acceptable level of risk.
The training AGC provides covers these items in depth, providing the student
with the ability to develop both the APP and requisite AHAs, thus enabling
contractors to be prepared for contract requirements for U.S. Army Corps or
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC).
The AGC contractor course consists of 18 modules that can be tailored to meet
the target audience’s needs. Some of the modules can be anticipated in each
class: cranes, fall protection and electrical. Some class time is devoted to
participants working in teams to develop AHAs based on specific construction
task samples.
NAVFAC provides a similar 40-hour course to engineering technicians,
performance assessment representatives, construction managers and site
safety personnel. The NAVFAC course is targeted toward preparing employees
to perform the role as contract oversight management.
According to James T. Goss, CHST, of SenecaTerra LLC Construction
Specialists, this course targets project managers, superintendents and site
safety health officers, as well as owners and employees of small businesses
that are interested in participating in the various opportunities available to these
smaller organizations. Rives commented that while it is important and
productive to create courses tailored to “each side of the construction
equation,” it is also helpful to have NAVFAC and USACE personnel together
5
with contractors’ forces when possible in order to develop a strong, consistent
safety culture among all members of the construction team.
In addition to sitting through a weeklong period of training, each participant will
be required to complete the USACE EM 385-1-1 Level 2 exam. The Alabama
AGC will continue to work with the national office, NAVFAC and USACE
headquarters to expand this opportunity nationwide. This program’s ultimate
goal is to assist contractors by developing fully qualified employees who can
meet or exceed the requirements to serve as site safety and health officers
(SSHOs) on government contracts. Thus, this new cadre of SSHOs will ensure
that jobsites will continue to progress toward a culture of higher safety
awareness.
John J. Davis is the site safety manager for NAVFAC SE PWD Pensacola.
Davis also volunteers on the ASSE Military Branch Advisory Committee and is
vice president of ASSE’s Pensacola Chapter.
Safety 2012
ASSE’s Safety 2012 conference will be held in Denver, CO, from June 3-6,
2012, and ASSE’s Colorado Chapter is excited to help members start planning.
Click here for an interactive map of hotels near the convention center. You can
also visit Google Maps, enter “Denver, CO” in the search bar and “search
nearby” for local attractions and restaurants. Click here for full conference
details and to register. Regular members can register for the full conference for
as little as $655!
Military Branch-Sponsored Activities
Roundtable: Dealing With Conflicting Contract SH&E Requirements
Tuesday, June 5, 10:30-11:45 am
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Answers Your EM 385-1-1 Questions
Tuesday, June 5, 4:30-5:30 pm (Session 685)
Military Branch Meeting & Networking Event
Tuesday, June 5, 7:00 pm
To see a complete listing of military- and public sector-related sessions, click
here and sort by track.
Interested in Presenting at Safety 2013?
If you are interested in presenting at Safety 2013, please keep in mind that
proposals are due by July 2012. For more information, click here. You can
either submit online or by e-mailing [email protected]. If you would like to
6
be sponsored by the Military Branch, please send your proposal to
[email protected] indicating your interest.
Environment, Safety & Occupational Health Processes
Across the Marine Corps Acquisition Lifecycle
Summary of Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 ESOH Processes
By Pamela Millin, M.Ed., & Amanda Sale, MURP
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02, Operation of the Defense
Acquisition System, establishes a standard through which environment, safety
and occupational health (ESOH) activities are performed and managed by U.S.
Marine Corps (USMC) acquisition programs. Compiled by the Undersecretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD AT&L), this
instruction details the overall lifecycle ESOH management framework for
acquisition programs to ensure a solid and comprehensive ESOH program
through the efforts of cognizant program managers (PMs) and principals for
ESOH (PESOH).
To ensure a successful acquisition program, DoDI 5000.02 instructs that ESOH
be given appropriate attention and that ESOH processes, specifically the
human systems integration (HSI) and systems engineering (SE) phases, are
integrated as applicable into each of a program’s acquisition stages.
The PESOH, supporting the PM, addresses system design and provides ESOH
support as a subset of the SE domain. Specific ESOH processes include
identifying, analyzing and recommending mitigations for ESOH hazards
according to Military Standard (MIL-STD) 882; preparing a programmatic ESOH
evaluation (PESHE); addressing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)/Executive Order 12114; providing mishap investigation support; and
collaborating with specialists to determine the environmental/safety impact on
the overall program.
Introduction
In USMC acquisition programs for ground-based systems, the practice of
system safety is only a small portion of any system’s safety program throughout
its lifecycle. These USMC acquisition programs are expected to incorporate
ESOH processes in order to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a system’s
impact on personnel and the environment. DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the
Defense Acquisition System, states that a “PM shall integrate ESOH risk
management into the overall SE process for all developmental and sustaining
engineering activities” (USD AT&L, 2008). In addition, the PM is responsible for
designating a PESOH to lead and maintain the ESOH technical efforts for a
particular program and to ensure that ESOH processes are properly and
completely addressed during each phase of a program’s lifecycle.
Outlining program lifecycle management, DoDI 5000.02 is a general guide for
PMs and other program management personnel. USMC acquisition program
lifecycle management is also detailed in the Integrated Defense Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics Lifecycle Management Framework, a resource from
the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) (DAU, 2005). An abbreviated version
of this framework is found in Figure 1. This acquisition lifecycle can be broken
down into three major program milestones and each program milestone marks
significant changes in a program’s lifecycle.
7
Figure 1. USMC Program Acquisition Lifecycle.
ESOH falls under the SE domain of each program. SE and ESOH processes,
as well as test and evaluation (T&E), logistics, budget/finance,
manpower/training and other program aspects are addressed within the
program lifecycle. Oftentimes in USMC, despite being an important component
of risk mitigation, ESOH management appears to take a back seat to these
seemingly larger and more urgent efforts. However, because risk is a natural
part of all phases of a program’s lifecycle, ESOH processes are an integral part
of a well-managed Marine Corps program.
ESOH Program Responsibility
Subject matter experts (SME), delegated by the PM, have the knowledge and
skills applicable to various program areas (comprising a program’s Program
Management Team [PMT]), and the PESOH is no less important to the PM in
terms of subject expertise. The PESOH serves as the safety and environmental
SME.
DoDI 5000.02 instructs that PMs use the system safety methodology from MILSTD-882, Standard Practice for System Safety (DoD, 2000). Throughout an
acquisition program’s lifecycle, the PM or his/her designee must also provide
status reports of ESOH risks at program technical reviews. The status of all
high and serious risks (as defined by MIL-STD-882) are to be addressed, as
well as applicable ESOH technology requirements during acquisition program
reviews and fielding decisions.
Finally, “prior to exposing people, equipment or the environment to known
system-related ESOH hazards, the PM shall document that the associated risks
have been accepted” by the proper risk acceptance authority. These authorities
are designated through DoDI 5000.02 and include:



PM for medium and low ESOH hazards
Program executive officer/systems command (SYSCOM) commander for
serious ESOH hazards
Component acquisition executive for high ESOH hazards
The serious risk acceptance authority may vary, depending on the organization
of a particular USMC acquisition program. USMC acquisition programs
requesting the acceptance of any high ESOH hazard must do so through the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition).
ESOH Planning & Engineering
In the early stages of a program’s lifecycle, the PM, with the support of the
PMT, composes a plan for HSI and SE to address ESOH issues. Proper HSI
planning helps to “optimize total system performance, minimize total ownership
costs and ensure that the system is built to accommodate the characteristics of
the user population that will operate, maintain and support the system.”
8
Furthermore, a good SE process serves as the “backbone” for a strong ESOH
program. According to the DoD Document System Safety—ESOH
Management Evaluation Criteria for DoD Acquisition, SE is the overarching
process that a PMT applies in order to transition from a stated capability to an
operationally effective and suitable system (DoD, 2007). SE is the integrating
mechanism to address capability needs and should be applied to an acquisition
program both early in concept definition as well as continuously throughout the
total lifecycle.
HSI Planning
According to System Safety in the HSI Model, HSI planning for an acquisition
program should address seven primary domains (Davies, et al., 2008):
1. Human Factors Engineering—This ensures that the system design has
addressed human factors and ergonomics in order to meet HSI requirements.
PMs should aim to minimize or eliminate system characteristics requiring
excessive physical or sensory skills or those that could produce safety or health
hazards. The PESOH and overarching PMT may use MIL-STD-1472, DoD
Design Criteria Standard: Human Engineering as a reference for adequate
system design.
2. Personnel—Prior to system design, the PMT should consider the personnel
applicable to the system, define the characteristics of the user population and
ensure that population meets the knowledge, skills and abilities required for that
particular program.
3. Habitability—This domain ensures that physical environment requirements,
such as workspace and ambient temperature, are established and met for
conditions that directly impact system performance.
4. Manpower—The PMT should determine the most efficient combination of
personnel from a variety of sources who will be necessary to operate, maintain
and support the system. Various analyses may be used to calculate workforce
decisions within the constraints of time, cost and operational effectiveness.
5. Training—PMs should investigate training options and capabilities for all
users of the proposed system, including operators, maintainers and support
personnel, and should consider the role of training effectiveness when making
a determination. Defining training goals and considering user feedback are
important parts of the training domain.
6. Safety and Occupational Health—The PM should ensure that the appropriate
HSI, safety and health efforts are integrated across program lifecycle
disciplines. Considering safety and occupational health in SE during a
program’s design phase can minimize the likelihood of injury, death or
occupational illness to operators, maintainers and other personnel who support
the system.
7. Survivability—Within a program’s lifecycle, the PM should address personnel
survivability issues, including nuclear, biological and chemical effects, system
integrity following damage and the suitability of equipment intended to
contribute to personnel survivability.
9
Systems Engineering Planning/Role of ESOH
Established early in the concept refinement phase, the systems engineering
plan (SEP) is a pre-milestone A document that establishes a program’s current
and evolving systems engineering strategy in relation to the overall program
management effort by detailing the timing, conduct and success criteria for
technical reviews. Established as a guide to all technical aspects of a given
program, the SEP is a “living” document and therefore shall be continually
updated throughout a program’s lifecycle to reflect technical progress and
changes in the technical approaches as a result of technical reviews, program
reviews, acquisition milestones or other decision points.
At a minimum, the SEP shall be approved by the Milestone Decision Authority
in conjunction with each milestone review and integrated with the program’s
acquisition strategy. The ESOH component of an acquisition program is part of
the SE domain, and the PM should ensure that ESOH considerations, including
identified ESOH risk, as well as risks and proposed mitigation plans for
potential environmental impacts (such as hazardous material disposal), are
also included in a program’s SEP. While there is no specific format for the SEP,
it is recommended that the document focus on five critical focus areas: program
requirements, technical staffing and organization planning, technical baseline
management, technical review planning and integration with overall
management of the program. In addition to the SEP, the Marine Corps Systems
Command ESOH Handbook, as well as DoDI 5000.02, details additional
documentation required of a comprehensive ESOH program (Marine Corps
Systems Command Safety Office, 2006).
ESOH Documentation
The appropriate ESOH documentation to be completed for each acquisition
program varies according to the particular program. The following discussion
addresses documentation and processes generally completed for most USMC
acquisition programs.
System Safety Program Plan (SSPP): The SSPP is the system safety
framework for any acquisition program. It is designed to determine the safety
needs of a program and to detail how these needs will be satisfied. Personnel
from the PMT and ESOH working group (WG) are listed in the SSPP to
describe their roles and responsibilities in supporting the safety aspects of the
acquisition program. Additionally, an outline of all safety documents to be
prepared is also included in the SSPP. This describes the “who,” “what,”
“where,” “when,” “why” and “how” safety processes are to be accomplished for
the particular program. All system components, including laser, software,
explosives and other aspects, as required, are included in the SSPP and have
their own sections to detail the safety plan and documentation necessary. Joint
ventures with other military branches (e.g., USMC-Army and USMC-Navy
programs) typically compile a modified SSPP, titled the system safety
management plan.
Hazard Analysis: As the backbone of the safety and environmental evaluation
of any acquisition plan, the hazard analysis lists all hazards, mitigations (or
notes if a particular hazard is immitigable) and risk assessment codes (RACs)
for the initial (pre-mitigation stages) evaluation of the system. Following all
applicable mitigations, the RAC is reevaluated and subsequently accepted by
the appropriate authorities as detailed in DoDI 5000.02. The hazard analysis
begins as a preliminary hazard list (PHL), derived from already-known hazards
10
associated with similar systems or technologies. The PHL provides potential
top-level safety and environmental hazards associated with a system. It is
designed to identify hazards that may require in-depth evaluation or special
safety design emphasis. As the system proceeds through the acquisition
process and the safety engineer is able to review these original hazards in
increasing depth, the PHL is renamed the preliminary hazard analysis (PHA).
The PHA, as well as any subsequent iteration of the hazard analysis, is
included as part of a system’s safety assessment report, a component of the
safety program.
Safety Assessment Report (SAR): The SAR allows for the PMT of ESOH to
remain informed of ESOH mishaps associated with a system. To maintain an
accurate, up-to-date system safety program, the SAR is updated whenever a
new hazard analysis is completed or an existing one is revised, an acquisition
milestone is approaching or other information is obtained that affects the
system’s safety. The SAR is a comprehensive evaluation of the safety risks
being assumed prior to test or operation of the system that provides the PMT
verification that the system, equipment, software or processes meet specified
ESOH requirements. It identifies all safety features of the system design as well
as procedural hazards that may be present in the system acquired and specific
procedural controls and precautions that should be followed. A critical element
to obtaining a safety release or safety summary, the SAR contains the
integration of recommendations from applicable safety boards. In addition, the
document incorporates all ESOH data obtained from hazard analyses,
demonstration/test results and mishap/incident reports as well as system
information, hazards, risks and mitigations. The SAR should incorporate ESOH
efforts as documented in the demilitarization and disposal plan, the health
hazard assessment report and the hazardous materials management plan.
Mishap Investigation: A mishap occurs when an unplanned event results in a
fatality, injury or occupational illness to personnel and/or equipment. In most
Marine Corps programs, if an unplanned event results in a fatality or permanent
total disability or equipment damage that meets or exceeds $1 million in total
cost, the mishap is classified as Class A. Mishaps that cause permanent partial
disability, require the hospitalization of three or more personnel for inpatient
care (beyond observation) or result in equipment damage with a total cost of
$200,000 or more but less than $1 million are classified as Class B mishaps. In
the event of a Class A or Class B mishap, the program PESOH and ESOH WG
are directed by DoDI 5000.02 to examine for and identify any potential safety
hazards that could have potentially contributed to the mishap and to make
recommendations to the PMT for materiel risk mitigation measures. The hazard
log, as well as additional ESOH documentation, will be updated to include any
new findings following a mishap investigation, hence the importance of the
PESOH being a participating member of a program’s mishap investigation
team.
Programmatic ESOH Evaluation (PESHE): A living document, the PESHE
serves as a management tool used by PMs to identify and manage ESOH
hazards and risks and to determine how to best meet ESOH regulatory
requirements and DoD standards. Continually updated and maintained
throughout a program’s lifecycle, a PESHE is required for all acquisition
programs, regardless of the acquisition category. Although the PM shall
document the program’s strategy/plans for implementing the PESHE progress
from acquisition through post-production, the PM is not always required to
11
develop a separate PESHE document. The PM may either elect to expand the
information in paragraph 3.3 of the program’s Marine Corps Single Acquisition
Management Plan (MC-SAMP) to satisfy the PESHE requirements, or the PM
may prepare a separate PESHE and attach it to the MC-SAMP as an appendix.
Regardless of the documentation method, the PESHE shall include the
following:







Strategy for integrating ESOH considerations into the System Engineering
Plan (SEP)
Identification of ESOH responsibilities
Approach to identify, prevent and implement controls for managing ESOH
risks
Identification and status of ESOH risks, including approval authority for
residual ESOH risks based on MIL-STD-882D
Method for tracking progress in the management and mitigation of ESOH
risks and for measuring the effectiveness of ESOH risk controls
Compliance schedule for completing the NEPA/E.O. 12114 documentation
requirements
Identification of hazardous materials (HAZMAT), including energetics, used
in the system and the approach for, and progress in, integrating HAZMAT,
energetics and other ESOH considerations (e.g., environmental impacts,
personnel safety, regulatory compliance) into system demilitarization and
disposition planning
A summary of the information provided in the PESHE shall be incorporated into
the acquisition strategy.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Established in 1969, NEPA
requires all federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of their
actions by requiring them to make detailed information concerning significant
environmental impacts available to agency leaders and to the public. The PM is
responsible for determining which level of NEPA analysis to use according to
the potential for environmental impact. This is determined by defining the
proposed action, stating why the action is necessary, reasons for pursuing the
action and the goals of the proposed action. The main tool used in identifying
environmental impact is the Request for Environmental Impact Review.
Request for Environmental Impact Review (REIR): Developed and released
to receiving installations, a REIR is a document that provides a system
description, fielding plan and other programmatic technical information about a
specific system or family of systems. Once received, the installation’s
environmental personnel will comment on any potential environmental impact
that the fielding of a particular system would have on the installation. If a
fielding action is determined to not have a significant impact on the
environment, the installation will recommend a categorical exclusion (CATEX).
Once the CATEX is complete, USMC will issue a decision memorandum to the
receiving installations notifying them of the completion of this NEPA
documentation. However, if it is determined that the fielding action will have a
significant environmental impact on the receiving installation, an environmental
assessment (EA) will need to be completed. The EA can result in one of two
actions: an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI).
12
Environmental Assessment (EA): A public document, the EA analyzes the
potential environmental impact of a proposed action that does not meet the
requirements of a CATEX. The EA should discuss the purpose and need for the
action, describe the proposed action, discuss alternatives considered, describe
existing environmental conditions within the expected region of influence,
describe the potential or anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed
action and reasonable alternatives, describe any applicable environmental
monitoring, protective measures, mitigation measures, list references or other
sources of information used to support the analysis, list the agencies and
persons consulted and list the EA preparers. By identifying alternatives to the
proposed action, an EA allows the PM to compare approaches and to
determine the best-suited action to minimize environmental impact. In addition,
NEPA requires the PM to assess the “no action alternative” even if that
alternative will not meet the action’s need or purpose. The no action alternative
allows for the establishment of a baseline to which the environmental impacts
can be compared.
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): In any event, the EA must result in
an approval of a FONSI, a decision to prepare an EIS or a no action proposal.
Publically circulated, typically in the local newspaper, a FONSI summarizes the
rationale for concluding the proposed action will not significantly impact the
environment. Following the FONSI’s public release, the action may be
implemented within 30 days. In the event that the proposed action would
normally require an EIS or is unprecedented, then the FONSI must be
published in the Federal Register and the action may not occur prior to 30 days
past publication.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Actions that significantly affect the
quality of the human environment as documented in the EA require the
development of an EIS. The EIS describes the positive and negative impacts of
a proposed action as well as alternatives to the action. Serving as an
enforcement mechanism, an EIS ensures the federal government adheres to
NEPA. The EIS typically has four sections, which include the introduction with a
statement of purpose and need of the proposed action, a description of the
affected environment, a range of alternatives to the proposed action and an EA
of each of the possible alternatives. As with the EA, a no action alternative must
also be analyzed to establish a baseline for comparison with the proposed
action alternatives.
Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP): Documenting the overall structure
of the test and evaluation (T&E) program, the TEMP provides the framework for
developing detailed T&E plans by providing an overall test management plan
within the acquisition strategy bounds, identifying overall T&E activities by the
government and subcontractor, guiding the development of specific test events
and the integration of detailed test plans and documenting T&E schedule and
resource requirements.
Proper ESOH documentation is required prior to the start of test events;
therefore, the TEMP must include inputs from the SSPP and PESHE for ESOH
consideration. Proper ESOH documentation is also required as a follow-up to
testing. This is achieved by reviewing the test incident reports (TIRs), which are
generated as a result of testing. Any hazards identified in the review of the TIRs
shall be incorporated into the system’s hazard analysis. The PESOH and/or
ESOH WG are advised to meet with programmatic T&E personnel both prior to
13
and following a test event to review potential safety or environmental hazards to
be addressed.
Conclusion
Although no less important, ESOH processes in USMC acquisition programs
are sometimes overshadowed by seemingly larger program support efforts,
such as T&E, risk management or logistics processes. To ensure a solid ESOH
program and a successful acquisition program, all processes, including ESOH,
must be given appropriate attention throughout the lifecycle. DoDI 5000.02
provides the framework for not only the overall USMC acquisition cycle, but
also sets the standard for programmatic ESOH support across USMC
acquisition programs. The incorporation of ESOH processes, according to this
standard, provides a comprehensive evaluation of a system’s impact on
personnel and the environment. This assessment includes identifying,
analyzing and recommending mitigations for ESOH hazards according to MILSTD-882, preparing a PESHE, addressing NEPA, providing mishap
investigation support and collaborating with applicable specialists to determine
safety and environmental impacts on the overall program. By applying and
following the guidance documented in DoDI 5000.02, PMs and their respective
PESOH can assure the incorporation and consideration of all relevant safety
and environmental impacts and concerns identified as a result of the thorough
analysis and assessment of a USMC program’s acquisition lifecycle.
References
Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L).
(2008, Dec.). Department of Defense instruction 5000.02: Operation of the
defense acquisition system.
Defense Acquisition University. (2005, Aug.). Integrated defense AT&L lifecycle
chart. Version 5.2.
Department of Defense. (2000, Feb.). Military standard 882: Standard practice
for system safety.
Department of Defense. (2007, Jan.). System safety: ESOH management
evaluation criteria for DoD acquisition. Version 1.1.
Davies, R., Frederickson, S. & Wilkinson, III, R. (2008, Aug. 25-29). System
safety in the human system integration model. Paper presented at the 26th
International System Safety Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Marine Corps Systems Command Safety Office. (2006, Jan. 5). Marine Corps
systems command environment, safety and occupational health handbook.
P.J. Millin, M.Ed., is a system safety engineer who supports the Ground
Transportation and Engineer Systems (GTES) Product Group Directorate for
Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico. Within GTES, she supports three
different program managers for several Marine Corps transportation,
engineering systems and power systems acquisition programs. Millin has
conducted numerous ESOH and human factors engineering assessments and
has authored various ESOH plans, hazard reports, environmental impact
requests, technical data packages and other supporting documentation for the
Marine Corps. She holds a B.S. in Biology and an M.E. with an endorsement in
14
Biology from the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, VA. She can
be contacted at [email protected].
Amanda Sale, MURP, is an ESOH engineer who supports the Ground-Based
Operational Surveillance System program for Marine Corps Systems Command
(MCSC), Quantico. She has a significant environmental background with
experience in system safety supporting the Medium Tactical Vehicle
Replacement Program for the Program Executive Officer, Land Systems and
the Ground Transportation and Engineer Systems Product Group Directorate
for MCSC, Quantico. She earned holds a B.S. in Agroecology from Ferrum
College in Ferrum, VA and a master’s in Urban and Regional Planning with an
Environmental Planning focus from Virginia Commonwealth University in
Richmond, VA. She can be contacted at [email protected].
Awards & Honors Nominations
Military Branch members are highly encouraged to nominate
peers for an award to recognize their exceptional work and
service. Winners will be acknowledged at the annual
conference, on the ASSE website, in press releases and
publications. Military Branch members are eligible for the
following awards:
Council on Practices & Standards Safety Professional of the Year
International Practice Specialty Safety Professional of the Year
Military Branch Significant Contributor
To learn more about the Council on Practices & Standards’ awards program,
click here.
Wandering Through Life Protecting
People, Property & the Environment
By Christopher M. Gates, CMSgt, USAF (Retired)
I was born in Little Rock, AR, and grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles, CA.
After high school graduation, I attended college but lacked direction and earned
an academic suspension rather than a degree. Since this was during the
Vietnam conflict and the military draft was still a fact of life, my draft board soon
sent me “greetings.” Since I had completed two years of college Air Force
ROTC, I went to see the Air Force recruiter. I entered the Air Force in
September 1964 before my draft board sent me orders to report for duty.
After, basic training and technical schools, I was sent to Germany where I
served on a launch crew for a very early cruise missile. When I came back to
the U.S., I was assigned to Malmstrom AFB, MT (outside Great Falls) where I
served as a Combat Targeting Technician for Minuteman missiles. In 1970, I
was reassigned from Malmstrom AFB, MT, to Vandenberg AFB, CA, in my
missile electronics AFSC (31670H). Shortly after I arrived at Vandenberg AFB
and went to work at the 394th Strategic Missile Squadron, my branch chief
offered me the opportunity to be the squadron additional duty safety NCO. As
with many additional duty assignments, the training was on an “as needed”
basis.
A few months later, the safety staff at the First Strategic Aerospace Division
15
(1STRAD) offered me an opportunity to attend the three-level safety school at
Lowry AFB, CO. I spent nine weeks at Lowry AFB learning the scope and
technical basics of USAF safety programs and activities. When I returned to
Vandenberg AFB, I went back to my additional duty assignment.
The following year, I was alerted to expect an assignment to Grand Forks AFB,
ND, as a combat targeting technician. Since the hostilities in Southeast Asia
were still at a high level, the 1STRAD safety office was losing their safety
technicians to fill the needs for safety staff at the multiple operating locations in
that area. There were no replacements in the pipeline. The 1STRAD director of
safety worked with Strategic Air Command (SAC) headquarters to get me
reassigned to the 1STRAD staff. As soon as this change was seen at the Air
Force Military Personnel Center at Randolph AFB, TX, I was given an
assignment to Guam.
My family and I spent two years on Guam in the Military Airlift Command (MAC)
at Andersen AFB. I was assigned to the squadron that operated the military
passenger terminal, handled all the air freight, performed maintenance on
transient MAC and contract aircraft and performed maintenance on the C-130
aircraft that flew into typhoons to measure their strength and to help weather
forecasters determine where they might go. While my relatively short time at
Vandenberg, AFB had provided lessons in mishap investigation and a limited
number of other skills, my knowledge of what the Air Force called “ground
safety” was far from complete. This assignment prompted much learning
because I knew virtually nothing about airfield operations, passenger terminals,
airfreight handling or aircraft maintenance. During those two years, I added
many skills and much knowledge to my figurative resume.
When my assignment on Guam was complete, we moved to Bergstrom AFB in
Austin, TX. There, I was assigned to a Tactical Air Control Group. The group
was the headquarters for 21 active-duty units that were scattered over the
western states and served as an advisor for 35 Air National Guard units at 21
locations from Knoxville, TN, to Northern Washington state. These units
operated mobile radars, mobile communications equipment, mobile command
and control facilities and other equipment designed to support battle field
communications and control. We had active-duty airborne forward air
controllers (FACs) with OV-10 aircraft and several units of ground FACs that
were attached to Army units. Again, I was working in a new environment and
had lots to learn along with ten to 14 days a month of travel time.
After less than two years, the Air Force sent me (and my family) to Rhein-Main
AB, Germany (at the Frankfurt am Main airport) to be the safety staff for a
wideband communications group. This organization operated and maintained
base telephone switching centers and line-of-site microwave equipment that
provided long-haul military communications from the Belgian coast to the
extreme southern border of Germany. Later, we added responsibility for Air
Force technicians who maintained the specialized facsimile machines that were
used to transmit weather maps to Army air fields. Still later, we accepted
responsibility for a communications detachment in Tehran, Iran. That resulted
in two trips to Tehran before the revolution. While I now had skills in safety
management, mishap investigation and reporting, and inspections, I had a new
area of study to identify the hazards associated with telephone operations
(imagine a room full of noisy relays) and microwave communications. Winter
driving was also a new topic for those who drove government vehicles and their
16
personal vehicles on icy and snow-covered roads.
After three and a half years, we moved to George AFB, CA. I was assigned to
the staff of a four squadron flying group in Tactical Air Command (TAC). Once
more, I was back in the airfield environment, but, somehow, the pace was
higher because the aircraft were fighters. The situation was made more
interesting by the fact that two squadrons were teaching German Air Force
pilots to fly aircraft that their government was purchasing. The other squadrons
were operating F-105 aircraft that had been modified during the Vietnam era for
the Wild Weasel roll. For the first time since leaving Vandenberg AFB, I was not
the only person in the office. There was a civil servant ground safety officer,
and there were two junior enlisted safety staff members who needed to be
trained in every task. There were also pilots who served as flying safety officers
who were concerned with the safety of the aircrews and aircraft and munitions
maintenance staff who addressed the safety of bombs, bullets and missiles
carried on the aircraft. The days passed quickly while I relearned some skills
and learned new ones.
After about two years, I spent a year at Incirlik AB, Turkey, on the safety staff. I
was still in the airfield operations arena, but there were fewer aircraft and there
was a slower pace. Since we had problems keeping the ground safety part of
the office staffed, I had to refresh my skills in operating and maintaining the
multimedia equipment that the Air Force used to present five different traffic
safety courses. I continued to have uses for my skills in program management,
mishap investigation and inspections. The 53 weeks passed quickly, and I soon
returned to the U.S.
When my tour in Turkey was over, we moved to Vandenberg AFB, CA (where I
started in the safety business). This time, I was on was on the safety staff of the
Air Force Systems Command unit that provided support for the satellite launch
activities and the contractor activities associated with the development of the
Minuteman III missile. A separate part of our office supported activities that
were intended to provide a West Coast launch facility for the shuttle program.
For the first time, I had to learn how to work with contractors who did most of
the lifting. Since I was also the senior enlisted safety person in the office, I was
given responsibility for human resources (personnel) matters.
After less than two years, we moved to Hickam AFB, HI. Initially, I was on the
inspector general (IG) staff for Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) headquarters; after a
year, I moved to the staff as the command ground safety manager. While I was
on the IG team, we traveled extensively throughout the Western Pacific, visited
Air Force bases in at least three countries and accumulated much frequent flyer
mileage. We performed both program audits and practical tests of whether the
units were “ready to go to war.” When I moved to the staff position, my staff of
four and I worked closely with the flying safety and weapons safety staffs. I did
a little less traveling but learned more about coordination with other staff offices
than I would have ever imagined. We still traveled more than enough. I once
spent 28 days on the Korean Peninsula with my assistant. We traveled or
performed audits 27 of the 28 days.
After three years in Hawaii, we moved to Norton AFB, CA, where I was
assigned to the ground safety division of the Air Force Inspection and Safety
Center (AFISC). This position involved extensive coordination, detailed reviews
of major mishap reports and serving on an Air Force committee that managed
the flight line equipment that supported aircraft operations. I retired in April
17
1990 after 25.5 years of active duty. I had spent 18.5 years in the safety career
field.
During the time that I was in the Ground Safety Air Force Specialty Code
(AFSC), the three-level class was virtually mandatory, but the seven-level class
was mostly optional. The on-the-job training provided to new graduates of the
three-level course depended upon the skills of the individuals assigned as their
trainers. Uniformed (and DAFC) safety professionals who spent an extended
time at a single location did not have the opportunity to expand their knowledge
of Air Force operations and the associated hazards. If they were assigned to a
location without opportunities to participate in local chapters of professional
organizations or opportunities to expand their knowledge, the absence of this
supplemental training was visible when they were ultimately assigned to a
location where they had to manage the program and the operations were not
similar to those at the location they had left.
The Air Force taught professionalism during what they called Professional
Military Education (PME). Today, this education starts early for all enlisted
members and continues through their careers. This education has at least three
components. Different courses are available by correspondence and in
residence. Eligibility comes with promotions.
Professional certifications were, mostly, nonexistent until the 1970s. I missed
the opportunity to be a Certified Safety Professional (CSP) (based solely on
experience) by about 18 months. I became an OHST (based on experience)
when it was available. As a result of later situations, I did not maintain my
OHST certification. After I retired from the Air Force, I took the courses to
become an Associate in Risk Management (ARM). I did not join ASSE until late
in my Air Force career.
In the 21st century, many occupational safety and health certifications are
available. The CSP remains one of the primary certifications. The Board of
Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP) has developed other certifications that
require less knowledge and engineering. The OHST and CHST are available to
collateral duty safety coordinators. The Safety Trained Supervisor is available
to lead persons and supervisors who need knowledge of occupational safety
and health. Other certifications that focus on occupational safety and health
management are available.
In today’s Air Force, very few uniformed (or DAFC) safety professionals have
the opportunity to learn by experience in the “school of hard knocks.” With
career field leveling, force reductions and other changes that result in career
field changes, Air Force safety professionals need to seek certifications that
can help them fill the knowledge gaps associated with their lack of career field
experience. When these professionals leave the service, these certifications
show perspective employers that they have the knowledge and skills to perform
in the civilian environment.
Safety professionals who are ASSE members obtain guidance on acceptable
professional behavior from ASSE’s Code of Professional Conduct. Those who
are CSPs also follow the Code of Ethics from BCSP. Whether you are a CSP or
not, these codes of ethics can help you be professional in your daily activities.
I spent the first ten years after 1990 working in aerospace (twice) and as a loss
18
control consultant for a workers’ compensation insurance carrier. I joined the
County of San Bernardino risk management staff in 2000. I hope information
regarding my career path gives you some useful insight.
Christopher M. Gates, CMSgt, USAF (Retired) is Military Branch Chair. He may
be contacted at [email protected].
Resource Snapshot
Military Info: www.asse.org/military
Body of Knowledge: www.safetybok.org
Technical Resources: www.asse.org/ps/resources
Journal of SH&E Research: www.asse.org/AcademicsJournal
International Resource Guide: www.asse.org/IRG
Networking Opportunities: www.asse.org/connect
Publication Opportunities: www.asse.org/ps/write
Volunteer Opportunities: www.asse.org/ps/volunteers
Need a Quick Boost?
Think Twice Before Grabbing That Energy Drink
Ever notice that the longest part of the day seems to be after the lunch hour,
where the minutes pass glacially slow, or you are fighting to keep at least one
eye open while staring at your computer monitor or you have awakened after
your head has hit the desk from nodding off? Has it ever appeared that time
stands still while on duty at 0300 or on night crew? Ever drive late at night with
your head out the window or slap yourself in the face a few times to stay
awake? For many, the solution to this feeling is a no-brainer: just grab an
energy drink. However, is that really the best solution?
An “energy drink” is a beverage containing some form of legal stimulant, usually
caffeine in combination with other ingredients, such as taurine, guarana and B
vitamins, which claims to give the consumer a short-term boost of energy. The
term “energy drink” was created by the beverage industry and is not recognized
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Energy drinks were developed in response to public
demand for a dietary consumable or supplement that would provide a boost in
energy level plus additional vitamins and other “faddish” ingredients in a one19
stop shopping product. The pace of the 21st century has seen increasing time
demands on daily schedules resulting in a more fatigued individual with less
time for eating and sleeping. As such, energy drinks have quickly exploded in a
receptive market since they claim to offer an energy boost, vitamins and often a
nutritional value.
Who is the Target Market of Energy Drinks?
The commercial market for energy drinks is similar to the same individuals who
join the military: young, “type-A” individuals who could be considered thrill
seekers or “extreme” in nature. A quick review of advertisements on TV, on the
Internet or in magazines reveals the beverage industry is in a full court press to
market their energy drinks specifically to extreme sports enthusiasts and those
who naturally operate on the extreme side of life. For this cadre of individuals,
there is no such thing as moderation, and it is not uncommon for them to
consume multiple energy drinks on a daily basis. The typical mentality held by
this group, and Americans in general, is that if less is good then more must be
even better—a highly prized cash cow for manufacturers!
The “Magical” Ingredients?
One thing most energy drinks have in common is a large amount of “active
ingredients” plus caffeine and/or sugar. More often than not, the boost you
receive from your favorite energy drink may be simply attributed to an extreme
sugar rush. Additionally, these beverages may contain a hodgepodge of dietary
supplements, such as vitamins and herbal extracts. Common ingredients are:





Guarana Seed—an effective stimulant found in a climbing plant native to
the Amazon basin and Brazil, its fruit (about the size of a coffee bean)
contains approximately twice as much caffeine as a coffee bean.
Ginseng—a fleshy root grown in eastern Asia, it is believed to help reduce
stress and increase energy levels.
Gingko Biloba—one of the oldest living tree species, the extract of gingko
leaves is believed to enhance memory.
Taurine—an organic amino acid and a major constituent of bile naturally
produced by the human body in the lower intestine, it is believed to help
regulate heart rhythm and muscle contractions.
Inositol—a member of the vitamin B complex (although not a vitamin itself),
which functions as the basis in signaling and relaying messages between
cells as well as many other biological processes.
Energy drinks are a deceptive combination of sugary soft drinks and pseudonutritional dietary supplement formulated specifically for a pleasing taste to
young people’s palates.
Body Composition
The first thing we as consumers need to understand is that anything we ingest
into our bodies causes a chemical reaction. One mistake most people make is
the assumption that what works with my friend will work for me: that energy
drinks will have the same effect every time, to every person, no matter which
drink is bought off the shelf. Our personal genetic code makes each of us
unique individuals with accompanying advantages and disadvantages. The
physiological nuances of one’s body composition in combination with fitness
level, hydration status, underlying medical conditions whether known or
unknown, medication use (prescribed or self) and supplement use, etc. can
inject numerous variables into this equation that need to be considered when
20
consuming energy drinks. Another way to look at it is that we all know alcohol
affects everyone differently so there is no reason to assume otherwise with
energy drinks.
Ingredient Dangers
The main stimulatory ingredient in energy drinks is caffeine. A standard 12ounce soda contains approximately 18 to 48 mg of caffeine. Most energy drinks
contain at least as much caffeine as a standard 8-ounce cup of coffee
(approximately 80 mg). To put things in perspective, many energy drinks have
3 to 5 times the amount of caffeine as regular sodas. While FDA limits caffeine
content to 65 mg per serving of a food or beverage or a 0.02% caffeine limit for
soft drinks and cola-type beverages (a max of 71 mg per 12-ounce serving),
energy drinks are currently not regulated by FDA, and consequently these
beverages can contain as much as 300 mg of caffeine per serving.
Compound that with the fact many energy drinks contain more than one
serving, and no one drinks only half the can. According to MayoClinic.com, up
to 300 mg of caffeine per day is not usually harmful for most people. An
increase in side effects may be observed if one consumes from 500 to 600 mg
per day, and FDA warns 600 mg is too much. The adverse effects associated
with the consumption of high amounts of caffeine (400 mg or more) are well
documented and include nervousness, irritability, inability to sleep, anxiety,
increased urination, diarrhea, abnormal heart rhythms (fast or pounding heart),
dizziness, decreased bone levels and stomach upset.
The remaining ingredients found in energy drinks just complicate things. Most
energy drinks contain high levels of refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup.
These two ingredients can lead to weight gain and type-2 diabetes as well as to
a large crash effect after the sugar high. Energy drinks also include a variety of
unregulated herbal stimlants and naturally organic blends, such as guarana,
taurine, ginseng and B vitamins.
21
Stimulants, such as guarana and ginseng, are often added to enhance the
effects of the caffeine, and the long-term effects of high levels of these
unregulated products are not well understood. Because of this, many
manufacturers do not list these ingredients on their product labels.
Mixing Energy Drinks with Alcohol
It is a common misperception that energy drinks will counter the effects of
alcohol. Nothing is further from the truth. Combining energy drinks and alcohol
can trick the brain into making people think they are sober, or even sober
enough to function normally, when in actuality, they are not. The stimulants in
energy drinks actually aggravate intoxication. People may not perceive that
they are intoxicated as readily when also imbibing a stimulant (i.e., people think
they are sober when indeed they are not). Alcohol and energy drink users may
drink more alcohol and may misjudge their capabilities because the stimulatory
effects of the energy drink reduce drowsiness felt by increasingly intoxicated
people. This condition is known as “wide awake and drunk” as seen with the
Cleveland Browns wide-receiver Donte Stallworth who in 2009, after drinking
numerous shots of liquor and Red Bull, killed a pedestrian with his car and
claimed he did not feel intoxicated at the time of the accident.
22
Energy Drink Alternatives
Today’s youth are often attracted to anything fast-paced, action-packed and/or
cosmetically appealing. Most energy drinks are purposely marketed with bold
graphics and sexy commercials to capture this young audience. The
alternative, on the other hand, is rather dull in comparison. The best way to
maintain alertness and energy is to get plenty of sleep and proper nutrition.
Most Americans only get approximately 6.5 hours of sleep per night, which is
well short of the recommended eight hours.
Sleep loss is cumulative in nature and small amounts over time can add up to
an insurmountable sleep debt affecting daytime alertness and performance.
Eating right, per the USDA’s food pyramid (now the food plate), as well as
staying properly hydrated, can also have a profound effect on one’s well-being.
Bottom Line
The age-old adage applies, “everything in moderation.” If you feel the need for
an energy drink, ask yourself why and do a quick evaluation of your current
lifestyle. While counter intuitive, it is easier to adjust your diet, sleep habits and
exercise routine to get the extra energy you need throughout the day than to
decide which energy drink is best. If you should choose to partake, then read
the product labels to know what is in the drink and what the serving size is.
Check for any type of warning or caution on the product. Also, keep track of
your caffeine consumption to minimize the potential for adverse effects. Finally,
consider that many energy drink products are mainly marketing devices to
generate money for beverage companies and that a cup of coffee used
strategically during the day can be just as beneficial and easier on the wallet.
Reprinted with permission from the office of Headquarters Marine Corps Safety
Division.
New Health & Wellness Branch
ASSE’s Healthcare Practice Specialty (HPS) now sponsors a new Health &
Wellness Branch. The branch will establish a knowledge base, tools and
resources to help SH&E professionals influence employees to make
appropriate lifestyle choices; employers to provide appropriate tools, programs
and infrastructure that will facilitate appropriate employee lifestyle choices; and
employers to recognize SH&E professionals’ contributions as value-added to
their organizations.
Health & Wellness Branch membership is FREE to all HPS members. Members
who do not belong to HPS can join for $20 and then join the Health & Wellness
Branch for free so you get two for the price of one! To join this new branch,
contact customer service at (847) 699-2929.
To view a complimentary copy of the Health & Wellness Branch’s inaugural
issue of Wellness Report, its triannual publication, click here.
23
Publication Archives
We are happy to announce that Practice
Specialty, Branch and Common Interest
Group publications are now archived in the
Members Only section under Resources.
Find past publications for all of the groups
you belong to in one place!
Upcoming Webinars
Viewable for 30 Days, Earn .2 CEUs
Dice, Crayons and Taboo: Bringing the Life Back to Safety
February 29, 2012, 11:00 am-12:30 pm (Central)
Performance Measurements: How to Measure and Monitor Your Businesses
Financial Health
March 7, 2012, 11:00 am-12:30 pm (Central)
Preventing Hand Injuries AND Strains/Sprains By Placing Workers in Control of
Their Own Safety
March 14, 2012, 11:00 am-12:30 pm (Central)
Effective Training Techniques: OSHA's View and Advice
March 28, 2012, 11:00 am-12:30 pm (Central)
Persuasive Communications
April 4, 2012, 11:00 am-12:30 pm (Central)
24
BCSP to Sponsor First Annual Award of
Excellence Ceremony at ASSE’s Safety 2012
Awards to Recognize the Outstanding Achievements of CSP, OHST, CLCS &
CHST Certificants
For the first time in its history, BCSP will sponsor an awards luncheon to honor
certified individuals’ contributions to the safety profession.
The June 6, 2012 ceremony will take place at ASSE’s Safety 2012 in Denver,
CO. Top certificants representing the CSP, OHST, CLCS or CHST certifications
will receive an Award of Excellence in recognition of outstanding leadership,
knowledgeable expertise in their work and voluntary commitment to advancing
the SH&E practice in the field.
The deadline for applications is March 31, 2012.
For further details, visit www.bcsp.org/awardofexcellence.
Welcome New Members!
We want to thank everyone who has remained a loyal
member of the Military Branch and welcome the following
members who recently joined. We are currently at 106
members and growing. If you have any colleagues who
might be interested in joining the Branch, please contact
Krista Sonneson to request an information packet. If you
know anyone who might be interested in joining ASSE,
please contact customer service for more information.
Morched Alila, National Drilling Co.
Lee Anderson, Lockheed Martin Systems
Albert Angela, Valero Aruba Refinery
Rolando Asuncion, Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
Warren Brown
James Cahoon
Bradley Camp
Matthew Costen, SSS Trucking
James Culpepper
Michael de Bettencourt, URS Corp.
Michael Demcko
Derek DeShields
Mohamed Elmohsen
Dimitrios Feggaros
Carole Fried, Innovative Technical Solutions, Inc.
Shawn Galloway, ProAct Safety
25
Stephen Hallows, BP America
Jeffrey Jaeschke
Brendan Kavanagh, Firestation
George Kohn, Honeywell Turbo Technologies
Ethan Kolt, Active Ventilation Products Inc.
Ching-Chu Liu, Corning
Robert Lynch, CB&I
Stanley McAlister, Schneider Electric
Buck McKibben, PEMTeam LLC
Patrick Moore
David Mynatt
William Naehle, Capitol Building Supply
Bonnie Nold
Ossai Opene, Chevron Corp.
Kenneth Partee
Jerry Philmon, C-O-G Safety LLC
A. Javier, Quintero Saavedra
Michael Riggenbach
Margarito Rosales
Carl Sall, Environment Agency Abu Dhabi
Edupuganti Sivannarayana, KOC
Michael Slevin
Elston Stephenson
Amy Stewart, MV Transportation
James Swartz, IHG Corp.
James Thatcher, EnCana Oil & Gas
Steve Thompson, Philips & Jordan Inc.
Jeff Treffinger, URS
James Urqhart
Robert Wynn
Military Matters is a publication of ASSE’s Military Branch, 1800 East Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL 60018, and is distributed free of
charge to members of the Military Branch. The opinions expressed in articles herein are those of the author(s) and are not
necessarily those of ASSE. Technical accuracy is the responsibility of the author(s).
26