Document 7QZLYzJ7Dxk35GGdjeM4wovV

QUARTERLY SAFETY/HOUSEKEEPING INSPECTION AND COMPETITION PROGRAM PRESENT QUARTERLY INSPECTION PROGRAM A total of 12 zones to be inspected, each by teams of PMSB representatives, SIIAC representative, HSC member or designee, and supervisor (not working in inspection zone). Each inspection takes an afternoon (two to four hours). Inspection comments issued with responses expected. In addition, an afternoon (two-hour) plant drive-through inspection is held by G. L. Tromblee and SHAC chairman. ^ PROPOSED QUARTERLY SAFETY/HOUSEKEEPING INSPECTION AND COMPETITION PROGRAM Objectives 1. To promote competition among similar groups for the purpose of improving overall plant safety and housekeeping. 2. To recognize the best and worst areas in safety/housekeeping performance. 3. To improve quality of quarterly inspections, providing management groups with timely and more consistent measurement of safety and housekeeping status. Inspection Ratings o Each unit, craft area, lab building, office building, and service building will receive an inspection rating. o Rating will be based on the quarterly safety and housekeeping inspection tour observations. o Rating consistency will be encouraged by developing inspection check lists for each inspection area--unit, craft shop, lab, office, and service build ing. Checklists to be developed by SHAC and/or unit/craft teams and safety committees. o Ratings; Percent rating plus a category. Excellent (80% to 100%), Satisfactory (60% to 80%), or Unsatisfactory (less them 60%). Competition Guidelines o Units compete with units, and craft shops with craft shops for a quarterly team award. Best award to unit or craft shop with greatest total points ((200 maximum) (fewest injuries (0 to 100 points) and best inspection rating rating (0 to 100 points)). Worst (skunk) award to unit or craft shop with most recordable injuries and worst inspection rating (lowest point total). Worst award to be added as perk in 1983. 002078 LAM003283 Quarterly Safety/Housekeeping Inspection and Competition Program -2- o Qualifications for Quarterly Best Award are a) no recordable injuries in present quarter, and b) the units must have one of the five best injury frequencies in addition to no recordable injuries. o Quarterly award is passed on to the new winner (or new loser) each quarter. o Annually the unit and craft shop with the best overall safety record/ inspection rating is given a permanent plaque. o Publicity: Plant News, the plant manager gives award each quarter. Teams o Four members Units/Craft Shops: PMSB, SHAC, Contact Supervisor, HSC, Safety Inspector Labs: PTSC, Lab SC, Superintendent/Supervisor (lab or PT), Safety Inspector Service Buildings: PMSB, SHAC, Contact Supervisor, HSC Offices: Office Superintendent, OSC, PTSC o Three unit inspection teams will tour 13 units (two afternoons each). One team inspects the five units qualified for best award (no recordables this quarter and best TIF for quarter). One team inspects the four units not in top group or last group. One team inspects the four units with either recordable injuries (this quarter) or .worst TIF for the quarter. From this group the "worst" is chosen. o One craft shop inspection team (one afternoon). o One lab inspection team (one afternoon). o Two service inspection teams (one afternoon each). Inspections o Unannounced (scheduled last two weeks of quarter) . o Checklists used to "grade" unit housekeeping and safety procedure compliance. o Team meets following inspection to assemble percentage rating for each group. o Team will issue inspection report with rating. Must respond with written report to SHAC. o SHAC tabulates results to determine "best" and "worst" awards. SC 002079 LAM003284 Quarterly Safety/Housekeeping Inspection and Competition Program -3- Timing o First competition to coincide with early September quarterly inspection, o August publicity in Plant News, entrance sign, HSC presentation, etc. o To be a long-term program with worst award to be added in 1983. 7-16-82 SC 002080 LAM003285 -- In s p e c tio n r a t in g (PM o r PMSB o p in io n ) . Oc' GO' 4J tC7> 4J 4HJ -HC iPd <d iU0 3 * O' c H <0 \as cn 4J CO G 0 U CO H 0) 0) C 3 04 CO CO (U Hc C 0 4J o a0) CO G c X \ Oel CO 4J 4J O 0) <U V4 c0n4 O3 c *h cn X \ CO TP3 id 5 < V c CO Q d> H > 0P) u d) oU 0o) 0 p a> > 0) O 0}H a) cCU > -H H CU V< O CU 01 JJ V4 01 *0 0) u< CO cn -a 4J (J <1 X cn C 3 c X G X c2 D CO 4J cn CO 1u TJ 0 <d a) P2 0 CO Eh O 0) a> H 0) 'U XI X c p 0) x: 0 u o 0) a G tJ 0 c 4J 0 CO cn wc c CO id CO CO 0u) CO cH PHh G H 3 Du c n H id a) 3 Eh JH d> 3 cn 3 G Eh m rH rH < id U a) Id U 0) 0 a) d> rH id 4J Eh 0 3 O4 Eh H Eh <0 0 +j 0c . AU O' -CH H 1 5 cuO -IJ H-t c cU0 -rOH o 4J 0 O CU U 04 _ cn T3 C Vl -H c0 2X <0 \ CO r>-4l HJ Vi cn a) a) Vol ja (0 * DH OC O' c <u0 G 0H O O 0CO4 G H % O O a cu <d Vc rH cO H P U % 4J CO &&u -U rH MG cH c3n 'O s <d C G a 04 H id CO 04 O cn O' c A3 P G O 0 d> C0O MG O PA <d cO a) r-C CO a) os < Ha id \ > rH c w rH 0u cn G CN O O rH O' c OHG ' iud iPd G 0H oC *rl 0 0) C0O4 G 0 0) a CGO H H 1I 0 0 d> w >1 0 * aa A CO id 0) 10 H % u J Q * 40h) u QQ < HG id X m id cn cn O' 0u) CO Esh cd CO T3 r| V d) CO 0) rH ffl Cu <U cn 3 cn 0 0) M 0) id 0 u 0) 3 >1 O rH X O4 CU O cn M id 2 CO 0) X 0 q &3 Vi 10 cn 3 . rH <d H * O4 C X W <d O 0 04 0 H GQ G X id < in O * * O \ CN H rH -HG id w 0 dJ G <OO4h X rH NO d) cn cn c 0) G rH 0 0 *H Ocn QJ (U m 4H }H d> G O 0u O O4 N 04 P e rip h e ra l p la n t (N68, e tc .). 'O dJ 0u) *H *H 3 6h O0)' X cun cun ucn VO VO ccn M iH0 O O 4 d) 0 z cOn c M cn C 3 in cHn G 3 c3cHn OcH' P 3 U id 3 c<d X 1 Eiddh) w 04 X 0 X 0 SC * CN cn id d> idd> Eh 002081 cn cn 0) a .C0 cn a cn a c0n 0 0c 1c0 0) G H 'S1 id X e>0 1 H H 04 X 0 X 0 ucn cun cn <n cn id id dM> rH id in rr rH c<Dn H U 0 01 id 01 u0 Q id in > u vO 01 1 M idd) Eh cn 1 idd) Eh H> MH Xa Xx 0Q XX CJ 0 0) O' c 'O rH H LAM003286 Team 0 T o ta l P lant 2 h rs . TABLE 1 SAFETY PERFORMANCE RATING GUIDE Maximum Points: 100 100 -- No recordables, no injuries 90 - No recordables TIF < 10.0 80 - No recordables TIF < 20.0 70 - No recordables TIF < 30.0 60 - No recordables TIF < 40.0 50 - No recordables TIF > 40.0 40 - One recordable TIF < 20.0 30 - One recordable TIF < 30.0 20 - One recordable TIF < 40.0 10 - One recordable TIF > 40.0 0 _ More than one recordable SC 002082 LAM003287 HOUSEKEEPING SCORE SHEET SAFETY Unit/Shop Date Inspectors PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF Assenbly Points Nearest Shower/Eye Bath/ Extinguisher Main Disconnects/Shutoffs Safety Procedures Safety Log Book Emergency S/D Action Required PERSONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT Safety Glasses/Goggles Hard Hats Acid Hoods/Face Shields Scott Air Packs Vapor Proof Suits Breathing Air Respirators/Hoses Chemical/Dust Respirators Safety Shoes CONDITION OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT Safety Showers/Eye Baths Breathing Air Manifolds Fire Extinguishers Ladders Hoses--Uti1ity/Chemical Deluge Systems Safety Signs Car Seals on RV Valves SAFETY HAZARDS Missing Handrails/Toeboards Wet/Slippery Floors Unchained Gas Cylinders Blocked Safety Equipment Unguarded Rotating Equipment Spliced Electrical Cord(s) Uneven Surfaces GOOD POOR COMMENTS Based on safety evaluation unit/craft will receive a rating from 0-20 with 20 being the highest rating. SC 002083 LAM003288 STATUS OF SHACACTIVITIES PMSB REPORT - July 21, 1982 Hourly Safety Committee --Attendance was seven of nine members. --HSC commented on and made suggestions on ways to promote safety/housekeeping competition between areas in the plant. --Plantwide concerns: See minutes. Second Quarter Safety/Housekeeping Inspections --No improvement seen in plant appearance. --Plantwide concerns: o Hose inspections continue to be out of date, especially steam hoses. Following new hose bulletin issue SHAC will issue inspection reminder each six months. o Ladders of non-standard design (designed for narrow tank entry) were found throughout the plant. New procedure will recognize them but require inspection tag. o Safety signs (especially eyebath/safety shower) are faded and not legible. Will investigate purchase of more durable signs and request PMSB to initiate sign replacement. ~ Safety Shower/Eyebath Standards --See attached memo. 1982 Texas City Plant Safety/Housekeeping Inspection Ground Rules: --Inhouse audit --Visible results --Thorough inspection 002084 SC LAM003289 Status of SHAC Activities Page -2- Recommendations: --Pattern inspection after previous annual inspections. --Inspectors must be highly qualified and credible, respected. --Prefer inspectors with varied backgrounds and Texas City experience. --Team membership: General Supt - Manufacturing Superintendent - PT Superintendent - Mfg. or Maint. Supervisor - Manufacturing Safety Representative --Three day inspection (M-T-W). --Presentation to PM staff Friday. --Results publicized to expanded staff, plectron announcement, and newspaper article. --Early October inspection. Proposed "Safety/Housekeeping Inspection and Competition" --See PMSB mailout. Portable Building Survey _ --See attached table of portable building survey results. SC 002085 LAM003290 Monsanto D. D. Kos - 0-11 (' IVIIINCI June 30, 1982 Texas City Plant Safety Shower/Eyebath Standards TO SAC cc. G. L. Tromblee SHAC The Texas City plant is in need of up-to-date safety shower and eyebath instal lation standards. The present standard is hopelessly outdated, is not presently used in new installation design, and does not address the ANSI standard Z358.1-198. The 1981 SHAC committee addressed this problem in late 1981 when new ANSI standards were i.ssued. Their findings and recommendations are covered in the attached memo to the 1982 SHAC committee. 1982 SHAC has reviewed the ANSI standards, LP&S concerns, the 1981 SHAC findings, and the state of the existing plant installations. With this in mind the fol lowing is recommended: 1. Texas City plant standards be established for new installations of eyebaths/safety showers. This should include a plant engineering sketch with appropriate piping and fittings specified. ( 2. The above new installation specifications should include: a. Dual Eyebaths This is an ANSI standard and is likely to become an OSHA require ment in the near future. A significant improvement in eye protection is bought with this addition. b. Freeze Protection Tubing This is strictly a safety concern requiring showers to be outfitted with tubing which routes water away from the shower area in order to prevent ice hazard. Many units and areas now have this feature. c. Green Lights and Signs This is a continuation of the present practice of using green lights and signs to designate the location of eyebaths/safety showers. 1982 SHAC could not justify any change in this practice. d. Alarms This should be decided in the LP&S review of each new project and should be based solely upon the justification on a case-by-case basis. e. Combined Eyebath/Safety Showers Both eyebath and safety showers are recommended for all future installations. SC 002086 LAM003291 SAC -2- June 30, 1982 3. The existing plant installations should be retrofitted to meet the new standards in the following areas: a. Dual Eyebaths Retrofitting to be complete by the end of 1983. Estimated plant cost is $80k (400 eyebaths at 200/bath). b. Freeze Protection Tubing As a minimum installation a manually activated drain system should be provided by the end of 1984. Estimated plant cost is $75k (300 showers and/or eyebaths at $250/shower). These recommendations are offered in spite of present economic restraints because these improvements are believed to result in a justifiable reduction in risk and extent of injury. D. D. Kos for SHAC SC 002087 LAM003292