NOTICE:  The five (5) most recent articles are posted for FREE for the first 30 days, after such time they may become accessible only to SAFTENG.net Members.  The five (5) articles you are seeing listed below are still FREE.  If you are not seeing your chosen article(s) listed below, you may need to log in to the members area to access ALL these articles.

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...

In the PSM/RMP world, the battle rages on with regards to “verification of knowledge” for those receiving training related to their work in, on and adjacent to a PSM/RMP covered process.  Yet for those safety professionals not working at a PSM/RMP facility, you too have a standard, that will just about cover ALL workplaces, that REQUIRES the employer to ensure workers understood the training.  That standard is 1910.132(f)(2)...

Coverage: National

Period: 30 days, 3/19/15 to 4/18/15

New Inspections: Opened in the last 30 days = 570

Closed Inspections: Closed in the last 30 days = 1,235

Ongoing Inspections: Opened prior to 30 day reporting period and still not closed = 110,342

Inspections with Violations = 129

Inspections with no Violations =  441 (Based on number of New Inspections only)

Assessed Penalties= $0.3M  (Assessed Penalties for violations issued under New Inspections only)

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the Utility Line Clearance Coalition (ULCC), and the Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA) have negotiated a settlement with OSHA on the compliance dates for this new standard.  CLICK HERE for the official agreement.

Recently OSHA.gov has been experiencing some serious issues and although it appears to have gotten almost back to normal, sometimes access to standards is lost.  And if you're like me and do a lot of work in locations where there is no internet connection and you need the standards for a project, here is a FREE and simple way to have ALL of 1910, 1926, Part 68, etc. at your disposal 100% of the time.  Heck the shortcuts and links even work and it is "searchable" using your browsers search function.  Your computer will not even know your not on line.  Here's what you do...

 
View 's profile on LinkedIn

  LinkedIn Group Button

facebookIcon

 

I am Speaking

Stop by session 721 on

Wednesday 6/10 @ 7:45 a.m.

Process Safety Management

Enforcement Trends and Best Practices

I am also teaching a

1-Day PSM Course

"Implementing a World-Class PSM Program"

Course # 910

as a POST CONF Seminar

on Friday 6/12/15

 

MEA-SFTENG

 

 organdonor

 

 

 

911_4