Assessing the key components of

Worksite Analysis

 

    1. Are there documents that provide comprehensive analysis of all potential safety and health hazards at the worksite?
    2. Are there documents that provide both the analysis of potential safety and health hazards for each new facility, equipment, material, or process and the means for eliminating or controlling such hazards?
    3. Does documentation exist of the step-by-step analysis of the hazards in each part of each job, so that you can clearly discern the evolution of decisions on safe work procedures?
    4. If complicated processes exist, with a potential for catastrophic impact from an accident but low probability of such accident (as in a nuclear power or chemical production), are there documents analyzing the potential hazards in each part of the processes and the means to prevent or control them?
    5. If there are processes with a potential for catastrophic impact from an accident but low probability of an accident, have analyses such as "fault tree" or "what if?" been documented to ensure enough back-up systems for worker protection in the event of multiple control failure?
    6. Do employees complain that new facilities, equipment, materials, or processes are hazardous?
    7. Do any employees say they have been involved in job safety analysis or process review and are satisfied with the results?
    8. Does the safety and health taff indicate ignorance of existing or potential hazards at the worksite?
    9. Does the occupational nurse/doctor or other health care provider understand the potential occupational diseases and health effects in this worksite?
    10. Have hazards appeared where no one in management realized there was potential for their development?
    11. Where workers have faithfully followed job procedures, have accidents or near-misses occurred because of hidden hazards?
    12. Have hazards been discovered in the design of new facilities, equipment, materials, and processes after use has begun?
    13. Have accidents or near-misses occurred when two or more failures in the hazard control system occurred at the same time, surprising everyone?
    1. If inspections reports are written, do they show that inspections are done on a regular basis?
    2. Do the hazards found indicate good ability to recognize those hazards typical of this industry?
    3. Are hazards found during inspections tracked to complete correction?
    4. What is the relationship between hazards uncovered during inspections and those implicated in injuries or illness?
    5. Do employees indicate that they see inspection being conducted, and that these inspections appear thorough?
    6. Are the hazards discovered during accident investigation ones that should have been recognized and corrected by the regular inspection process?
    1. Is the system for written reports being used frequently?
    2. Are valid hazards that have been reported by employees tracked to complete correction?
    3. Are the responses timely and adequate?
    4. Do employee know whom to contact and what to do if they see something they believe to be hazardous to themselves or coworkers?
    5. Do employees think that responses to their reports of hazards are timely and adequate?
    6. Do employees say that they or other workers are being harassed, officially or otherwise, for reporting hazards?
    7. Are hazards ever found where employees could reasonably be expected to have previously recognized and reported them?
    8. When hazards are found, is there evidence that employees had complained repeatedly but to no avail?
    1. Do accident investigation reports show a thorough analysis of causes, rather than a tendency automatically to blame the injured employee?
    2. Are near-miss (property damage or close calls) investigated using the same techniques as accident investigations?
    3. Are hazards that are identified as contributing to accidents or near-misses tracked to correction?
    4. Do employees understand and accept the results of accident and near-miss investigations?
    5. Do employees mention a tendency on management's part to blame the injured employee?
    6. Do employees believe that all hazards contributing to accidents are corrected or controlled?
    7. Are accidents sometimes caused at least partly by factors that might also have contributed to previous near-misses that were not investigated or accidents that were too superficially investigated?
    1. In addition to the required OSHA log, are careful records kept of first aid injuries and/or illnesses that might not immediately appear to be work-related?
    2. Is there any periodic, written analysis of the patterns of near-misses, injuries, and/or illnesses over time, seeking previously unrecognized connections between them that indicate unrecognized hazards needing correction or control?
    3. Looking at the OSHA 200/300 log and, where applicable, first aid logs, are there patterns of illness or injury that should have been analyzed for previously undetected hazards?
    4. If there is an occupational nurse/doctor on the worksite, or if employees suffering from ordinary illness are encouraged to see a nearby health care provider, are the lists of those visits analyzed for clusters of illness that might be work-related?
    5. Do employees mention illnesses or injuries that seem work-related to them but that have not been analyzed for previously undetected hazards?

 

 This information is provided to you as

An EHS Network of Central Kansas "Safety Training Article"

 

EHS Network HOME

 

EHS Host Companies

2005 Calendar

EHS Training Library

Contact Us

 

EHS Contacts

Archive Calendars

Links to safety sites

Monthly Reminder

RSVP for EHS Topic

EHS History

 

 

Future Topics

RSVP for EHS Workshop

 

Site created by Deborah, © EHS Network

Updated September 11, 2005

Sign Guestbook or View Guestbook