Employees risk responsibilities

Discrepancy between the new employee s responses and the job incumbents responses, particularly positive scores in the last column of Table 3.5, should be considered as possible evidence of unrealistic safety expectations. Where such evidence is found, the new employee needs to be made aware that their perceptions are out of line with current employees. They should also be made aware that their distorted perceptions, and their unrealistic safety expectations, could place them and/or their co-workers at risk of an accident. 

New plant, equipment, processes, etc. employ safe-place controls to eliminate or minimize risk. Responsible employees provide regular reports demonstrating favourable safety performance. 

Employers having at least one employee with one or more at-risk responsibilities must develop a bloodborne pathogens exposure control program. The program must evaluate tasks and procedures in the workplace that may involve exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials identify workers performing these tasks and implement a variety of methods to reduce the risks involved with exposure. 

The physician s opinion as to whether the employee has any detected medical conditions which would place the employee at increased risk of material impairment of the employee s health from work in hazardous waste operations or a emergency response, or from respirator use [OSHA Reference, 120(f)(7)(i)(A)]... 

Some indication of risk of employee exposure to airborne chemicals can be gauged from an analysis of the level of exposure for comparison with known human dose/ response data such as those for carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide listed in... 

During the inspection, the inspector should proceed with particular emphasis on the critical points. This system guarantees that the internal quality assurance is oriented to the risks associated with the particular type of production. It is a preventive approach. The employees who identify with the organic objective , who are involved in the process and assume responsibility for it, are more careful, because they understand the sense of quality assurance and do not feel that it is an additional burden, impractical, bothersome, a mere formality and bureaucratic. 

An illustration of this has been the response of industry to the 8(e) notice requirements of the law. Most companies have established an internal communications system to collect potential 8(e) information, selected personnel to evaluate the information gathered, and have developed an expertise in handling this type of hazard reporting. Typically, the 8(e) notifier takes appropriate action or response on his own initiative to control or alleviate the risks involved. It has been commonplace for the notifier to advise his customers as well as his employees for the chemical involved of the information contained in the notice. 

Rhodia, Inc. has provided for the compilation of the information in this document as a part of an effort by its employees to collect and share their experience and expertise in safety, loss prevention and security. The contributors to this document believe the information provided is accurate, and they have provided this information in good faith. However, no warranty, express or implied, is given by Rhodia, Inc. Other than Rhodia, Inc. employees, those who use this document should use their independent judgment in evaluating information contained herein, and assume the risk for using the information provided in this document. The user is solely responsible for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

The defenders of such a policy, of course, promote the argument that the market has to improve its (eco) toxicological competence. Wishful thinking Even KEMI has only a handful of trained experts to perform adequate risk assessments. Delegating responsibility for implementing a poorly defined PP down to individual consumers represents a cowardly and unacceptable behavior of the Swedish state, especially in a situation when KEMI employees themselves lack clear guidelines on how to interpret and implement the PP. 

The disaster manager needs to also perform a risk assessment in the area of staffing. Depending on the nature and extent of the disaster and the demographics of the workforce, there may be variation in the employee s ability and/or willingness to report to work. The staffing issue has been examined by several researchers. Shapira et al. (1991) found that child care responsibilities and... 

The safety evaluation completed by the toxicology group and/or industrial hygienist should be reviewed with the participants because they, as managers, will most likely assume the responsibility to protect the safety of employees who will work on this project. The employees right to know must be protected further by keeping them informed of the potential risks to which they may be exposed. 

In 1150 pregnancies, 561 in female employees of semiconductor manufacturers and 589 in the wives of male employees the former had increased risks of spontaneous abortion (RR = 2.8 95%CI = 1.4, 5.6) and subfertility (OR = 4.6 95%CI = 1.6, 13) both of these risks had a dose-response relation with potential exposure to ethylene glycol (26). 

Rising societal expectations for corporate responsibility have created a new class of socially-responsible investors, customers, and employees and, more generally, a broader public awareness of human health and ecological risks. 

Corporate responsibility auditing can also identify how capital has been allocated across departments and business units of the company and the level and types of risks to which the capital is exposed. An experienced audit team will advise on whether risks in one part of the company may exacerbate or ameliorate those in another and, in consultation with employees and managers, recommend process improvements, which the audit will undoubtedly yield, where risks are too high. This information can provide management with a clearer understanding of acceptable tolerance levels for key value drivers, and reliable data with which to respond proactively to shifts in the work environment, key markets, and in society. 

Suppliers and potential suppliers are classified with respect to expected or known compliance with environmental and safety standards. In a first approach, this classification is performed according to their location in OECD countries or non-OECD countries, since the risk of noncompliance with environmental and safety standards is expected to be higher in non-OECD countries (Kranz and Sargasser, 2003). Products/producers assigned a C3 rating represent a potentially high risk and are therefore subjected to a particularly careful check. This means that BASF employees visit the supplier and carry out an EHS assessment to determine whether the supplier s plant operates according to Responsible Care standards. A company can only be included in our list of suppliers if its facilities meet our requirements. 

---