Worker-Level Inspections

Inspection can be classified according to who is responsible for the activity there are usually many levels to this chain. Typically, there may be the inspectors of the project management and engineering team, the quality department of the procured item suppliers and contractors (and, separately, their factory production workers, using inspection as a production control tool), and a chain of sub-component and raw material suppliers and their quality departments. 

At many active workplaces, daily site inspections are performed by the supervisor in order to detect hazardous conditions, equipment, materials, or unsafe work practices. At other times, periodic site inspections are conducted by the site safety and health officer. The frequency of inspections is established in the workplace safety and health program. The supervisor, in conjunction with the safety and health officer, determines the required frequency of these inspections, based on the level and complexity of the anticipated activities and on the hazards associated with these activities. In a review of worksite conditions/activities, site hazards, and protecting site workers, the inspections should include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the company s safety and health program. The safety and health officer should revise the company s safety and health program as necessary to ensure the program s continued effectiveness. 

Maintenance may be handled either by employees hired especially for that job or by an outside contractor. The latter is most economical when workers in most trades are needed only occasionally. The company does not need to hire these workers full time, but still has their talents available when they are needed. Even in a large plant where a number of employees skilled in each maintenance trade are needed full time, contract maintenance may be used as a supplement at times of turnarounds (a planned time when large continuous plants are shut down to do preventive maintenance, repairs, and inspections) or especially heavy demands. For instance, during the turnaround of a 140,000 bbl/day (22,000 m3/day) Tidewater Oil Company refinery, the number of maintenance personnel rose from a preshutdown level of 181 to 924 men.48 Fewer men could have been used, but the downtime of the refinery would have been increased. In this instance the plant contracted for all of its maintenance. 

Inhalation, dermal, and some oral exposure to tetryl has occurred in workers involved in production and use of tetryl compounds. In the past, workers in munitions plants were exposed to tetryl dust released into workroom air (Cripps 1917 Hardy and Maloof 1950 Hilton and Swanston 1941 Probst et al. 1944 Troup 1946 Witkowski et al. 1942). In one study, air samples taken in 1942 from a small powder house where exploder bags were loaded with weighted tetryl, stemmed, tied, and inspected had tetryl levels ranging from 1 to 18 mg/m (Hardy and Maloof 1950). Workers in these plants were exposed via inhalation of the tetryl dust and by dermal contact with the tetryl powder and pellets. Today, workers engaged in demilitarization operations involving detonation, open- burning, or incineration of tetryl explosives are likely to be exposed to tetryl. The extent of exposure in these workers has not been adequately determined. 

Electrolytic cells have historically been mounted off the ground at full basement height. Some of the arguments for elevating the cells include the need to electrically isolate cells from spills in the basement, to protect workers from stray current, to adjust the level of the cells, to inspect for leaks and perform repairs, and to limit pumping costs by employing gravity flow. With the advent of polymer concrete cells and of synthetic cell liners, the frequency of leaks and the need for electrical isolation have been drastically reduced. 

Chapter 24 focuses on internal and external reviews of the process safety program implementation to ensure that the level of risk to the workers and the public and environment does not increase. The reviews also verify and validate that accepted safety risk is continually minimized and that government requirements are met or exceeded. The chapter references a key inspection handbook that contains valuable information for both operations and safety personnel. 

OSHA s infrequent inspections and low fines make noncompliance with OSH A standards widespread. Econometric evidence we reviewed shows that OSHA had no effect on safety levels in the United States during the 1970s and reduced lost workday injuries by two to seven percent during the 1980s. A two to seven percent injury reduction is much less than the 50 percent injury reduction the framers of OSHA had intended. OSHA is not cost effective in raising workplace safety levels in the United States, and even unionized workers are now becoming skeptical of the value of OSHA s regulatory approach to safety (Nomani 1994). 

Levels of Procedures It is wise to organize some procedures into different levels. Difficulty or complexity of tasks, frequency of tasks, or level of authority involved may define approval levels. For example, daily startup of equipment may need a pre-energizing inspection and preliminary tests before the activity moves into full operation. Employers can train workers to perform such normal safety checks. 

Normally, the job steps for a JSA/JHA are listed in logical sequence. Some workers, however, may wish to change the sequence for one reason or another. For example, one operator may choose to check fluid levels before he or she does a general walk-around. This type of flexibility is good for worker morale and productivity. However, on the other hand, there are times when the sequence of the job steps or deviations from the job steps are critical to safe performance of the job. An example of this is that the walk-around inspection must be made and safety deficiencies corrected before the machine is put into service for the day. It would not be safe or proper to do the walk-around inspection after the machine has been put into service. 

As was discussed in the preceding sections, in many operating nuclear power plants the buildup of contamination results in radiation levels at the systems and components which lead to considerable radiation exposure of workers, in particular during the course of inspection and repair work. In order to meet this situation, permanent or temporary shieldings are frequently installed and, as far as necessary, remote-controlled and automatically operating equipment is employed to reduce, as far as possible, the stay time of people in the radiation field. Nevertheless, there are often operations to be carried out whose preparation and execution make the removal or at least a radical reduction in the radiation sources, i. e. a decontamination of the respective regions, necessary. 

---