Are "reflective vests" a piece of PPE covered by 1910.132?
To be clear, I can't entirely agree with Alaska OSHRC's decision to dismiss the OSHA citation. But I am also tired of the blanketing workplaces with hi-vis gear that is NO LONGER "highly visible" or "reflective." These vests and other HI-VIS gear are used WAY beyond their intended life cycle, making safety a highly visible mockery. If we feel this PPE is necessary, it MUST be appropriately managed to maintain its effectiveness. See my article from earlier this year: When are High-Vis garments no longer considered High-Vis?
The AK OSHRC Decision This matter arises from an industrial accident that occurred on October 29, 2009, when an employee was severely injured when struck by a tanker truck driven by another worker. The injured employee had been assisting the driver in hitching a trailer up to the tanker and was pinned between the rear wheels of the tanker and the trailer. AK-OSHA issued a single, one-part citation alleging a violation of the occupational safety and health standard set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1)(i). That standard requires employers to perform a workplace hazard assessment to determine whether hazards exist that necessitate the use of personal protective equipment [PPE] and, if so, to select and have employees use the appropriate PPE. The complaint asserts that the employer's workplace hazard assessment failed to identify a need for employees to wear reflective clothing or a safety vest while working in darkness or where vehicles are operating in close proximity. The employer filed a notice of contest and an answer to the complaint, followed by a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication. The employer's motion asserts that dismissal is proper because reflective clothing and vests do not constitute PPE within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d). It asserts that summary adjudication is appropriate because undisputed evidence establishes that the employer conducted a hazard assessment and required use of reflective clothing. Lastly, the employer contends that the violation, if there was one, should be characterized as de minimus. AK OSHA contends that dismissal of the citation is not warranted because a safety vest and reflective clothing are types of PPE, and that summary adjudication should be denied because the appropriate personnel did not perform a hazard assessment. AK OSHA adds that the violation is serious. After considering the evidence and the parties' arguments, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board grants the employer's motion. Facts |
Partner Organizations 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
Member Associations
|
