This is a very interesting AND disappointing decision by the commission.  They accepted a PPE Hazard Assessment done at a distribution center in AR for a facility in TX.  The business argued that the 100+ distribution centers around the country are identical with identical job functions.  The commission, although they state otherwise, appears to be saying that since there was an "absence" of injuries in any substantial numbers there was not enough data to make the employer aware of the presence of hazards!!!!  At least that is how I read this.  This sets us back a bit, as we routinely identify hazards at facilities that require PPE and the facility will try and argue that no one has suffered an injury from said hazard "yet".  I always thought the purpose of PPE "HAZARD" assessment was to identify "hazards" and not injuries.  Granted using injury data can point us in the right direction, but IN NO WAY should a "hazard(s) assessment" be limited to an injury log analysis.  Anyway, here is the OSHRC decision...

You have no rights to post comments

 
View 's profile on LinkedIn

 

 LinkedIn Group Button

facebookIcon

 

Partner Organizations

 Chlroine Institute Logo 100 years

I am proud to announce that

The Chlorine Institute and SAFTENG

have extended our"Partners in Safety" agreement

for another year (2024)

CI Members, send me an e-mail

to request your FREE SAFTENG membership

 

RCECHILL BW

  

kemkey logo

OHS Solutions logoCEMANE power association logo

 EIT LOGO

 

Member Associations

ASME logo

 

Screen Shot 2018 05 28 at 10.25.35 PM

aiche logo cmyk highres

Chlorine institute

 nfpa logo.5942a119dcb25

 

TOCAS

 

BLR Logo 2018

 

 

 

 

safteng man copy

 

 organdonor