Analysis Hazard Exposed to Employee at Workplace.

www.safetygoodwe.com

Chapter:- Hazard Management

Safety Article

Analysis Hazard Exposed to Employee at Workplace.

Proximity to the Hazard. The analyst should fully document exposure for every apparent incident/accident and the proximity of workers to the point of danger of the operation.

Observed Exposure. Employee exposure is established if anyone witnesses, observes, or monitors exposure of an employee to the hazardous or suspected hazardous condition. Where a standard requires engineering or management controls (including work practice or scheduling controls), employee exposure exists regardless of the use of personal protective equipment.

Unobserved Exposure. Where employee exposure was not observed, witnessed, or monitored by another employee or manager, employee exposure is established if it is determined through witness statements or other evidence that exposure to a hazardous condition occurred, continues to occur, or could recur.

In fatality/catastrophe (or other "accident") investigations, employee exposure is established if the investigator determines, through written statements or other evidence, that exposure to a hazardous condition occurred at the time of the accident.

In other circumstances where the investigator determines that exposure to hazardous conditions has occurred in the past, such exposure may serve as the basis for a violation when employee exposure has occurred in the previous six months.

Potential Exposure. The possibility that an employee could be exposed to a hazardous condition exists when the employee can be shown to have access to the hazard. Potential employee exposure could include one or more of the following:

• When a hazard has existed and could recur because of work patterns, circumstances, or anticipated work requirements and it is reasonably predictable that employee exposure could occur.
• When a safety or health hazard would pose a danger to employees simply by employee presence in the area and it is reasonably predictable that an employee could come into the area during the course of the work, to rest or to eat at the jobsite, or to enter or to exit from the assigned workplace.
• When a safety or health hazard is associated with the use of unsafe machinery or equipment or arises from the presence of hazardous materials and it is reasonably predictable that an employee could use the equipment or be exposed to the hazardous materials in the course of work.

Hazard reduction measure, an employer to render the workplace free of certain hazards by any feasible and effective means which the employer wishes to utilize. For example:

• Employees doing sanding operations may be exposed to the hazard of fire caused by sparking in the presence of magnesium dust. One of the abatement methods may be training and supervision. The "hazard" is the exposure to the potential of a fire; it is not the lack of training and supervision.
• In a hazardous situation involving high pressure gas where the employer has failed to train employees properly, has not installed the proper high pressure equipment, and has improperly installed the equipment that is in place, there are three abatement measures which the employer failed to take; there is only one hazard (viz., exposure to the hazard of explosion due to the presence of high pressure gas) and hence only one general duty clause citation.

Foreseeable Hazards. The hazard for which, issues a citation must be reasonably foreseeable. All the factors which could cause a hazard need not be present in the same place at the same time in order to prove foreseeability of the hazard; e.g., an explosion need not be imminent. For example:

• If combustible gas and oxygen are present in sufficient quantities in a confined area to cause an explosion if ignited but no ignition source is present or could be present, no violation would exist. If an ignition source is available at the workplace and the employer has not taken sufficient safety precautions to preclude its use in the confined area, then a foreseeable hazard may exist.

It is necessary to establish the reasonable foreseeability of the general workplace hazard, rather than the particular hazard which led to the accident. For example:

• A titanium dust fire may have spread from one room to another only because an open can of gasoline was in the second room. An employee who usually worked in both rooms was burned in the second room from the gasoline. The presence of gasoline in the second room may be a rare occurrence. It is not necessary to prove that a fire in both rooms was reasonably foreseeable. It is necessary only to prove that the fire hazard, in this case due to the presence of titanium dust, was reasonably foreseeable.

Recognized Hazards. Recognition of a hazard can be established on the basis of industry recognition, employer recognition, or "common sense" recognition. The use of common sense as the basis for establishing recognition shall be limited to special circumstances.

• Industry Recognition. A hazard is recognized if the employer's industry recognizes it. Recognition by an industry, other than the industry to which the employer belongs, is generally insufficient to prove industry recognition. Although evidence of recognition by the employer's specific branch within an industry is preferred, evidence that the employer's industry recognizes the hazard may be sufficient.
• Employer Recognition. A recognized hazard can be established by evidence of actual employer knowledge. Evidence of such recognition may consist of written or oral statements made by the employer or other management or supervisory personnel during or before the OSH inspection, or instances where employees have clearly called the hazard to the employer’s attention.
• Common Sense Recognition. If industry or employer recognition of the hazard cannot be established, recognition can still be established if it is concluded that any reasonable person would have recognized the hazard. This argument is used by OSH only in flagrant cases.