Environmental Risks

From a Formal Approach to Real Management

The topic of environmental risks is discussed at many production sites today, but in practice, the process often stops at the formal filling out of registers. The transition from an emotional perception of threats to their objective, material assessment becomes a natural stage in the development of the HSE culture. During the webinar, Anton Turtanov, Head of Environmental Protection and Ecology at EuroChem, explains how to audit your own environmental risk management system and what tools help make this process transparent and effective.

Specifics of Environmental Risk: Probability and Damage

A key mistake when working with risks is mixing potential threats with current problems. The need for scheduled equipment maintenance is a task, not a risk. Environmental risk is always characterized by uncertainty (probability of occurrence) and financial damage. The speaker identifies three main groups of consequences for a commercial company: legal liability (including fines and damage compensation), multiplying coefficients for negative impact fees, and reputational losses. At the same time, it is recommended to start building the system specifically with the assessment of legal and direct financial consequences, leaving reputational risks for later stages due to the complexity of their objective assessment.

Interestingly, the choice of the assessment matrix (3x3, 6x6, etc.) has practically no effect on the final result. The enormous amount of time companies spend arguing about the colors and dimensions of the matrix is better spent on the qualitative identification of the threats themselves.

Maturity Markers: How to Assess Your Risk Register

The presentation details four practical markers that allow assessing the adequacy of the current risk management system:

• Number of risks. Although there is no universal standard, having fewer than eight items in the register of a large enterprise is a cut-off factor signaling problems in the identification process.
• Dynamics of changes. A static graph where the number of risks does not change for years indicates a formal approach. An even more alarming signal is a sharp decline after a period of growth. This often means that specialists are tired of developing corrective measures and have begun to artificially underestimate the number of identified threats.
• Distribution by significance. In a healthy system, the distribution of risks should resemble Heinrich's pyramid: many minor threats and a few critical ones. If the register is overloaded with "red" (top) risks, this indicates a methodological error in the assessment.
• Quality of wording. A risk must consist of three elements: factor, event, and consequence. Vague wording like "exceeding MPC" does not allow for the development of adequate response measures.

Correction Tools: From ENVIT to the "Risk Constructor"

Specific steps are proposed to correct the identified imbalances. First, training risk session moderators in the HAZID/ENVIT methodology — a structured brainstorming session using guidewords. Second, abandoning the online format in favor of face-to-face meetings of cross-functional teams. Environmental risk assessment should not be the sole task of an ecologist — the knowledge of technologists, mechanics, and HSE specialists is required.

To solve the problem of an "overloaded" register with critical risks, the decomposition method is used. If a single event (e.g., an oil spill) has several consequences of varying severity, they must be assessed separately. Adding the maximum probability of a minor incident to the maximum damage from a catastrophic scenario inevitably creates fictitious super-risks.

Finally, using a "risk constructor" helps at the identification stage to strictly link the factor, event, and specific consequence (for example, an administrative fine for a one-time excess at a specific source), which makes threat management substantive and measurable.

What you will learn from this webinar:

• How to distinguish a real environmental risk from a current production problem?
• Why a register with many critical risks signals an error in the assessment methodology?
• How to properly decompose a complex risk into a factor, event, and specific consequence?
• Who should be included in a cross-functional team for objective threat identification?
• How to use elements of the ENVIT methodology to find non-obvious environmental risks?