This week's question is a follow up to last week. If there was an exception (or consideration of risk) that permitted you to reduce the level of PPE if the recommended PPE was considered to create a greater hazard, would you ever reduce the level of PPE?

I really was back-and-forth between "no" and "not sure".

I don't think it wise to reduce the required PPE just for convenience's sake, but I think there might be a situation where reducing PPE could be considered.

I would have to be convinced it was prudent to reduce level of PPE though, and it would really depend on what activity was going to be taking place with this reduced level of PPE.

I am not so sure the level of experience of the personnel would make that much difference though.

That all being said, I am going with "not sure"

I answered NO because it is far too easy to "justify" not following safe work practices for any number of excuses. However, I believe that it is a very useful exercise to take a step back and review all the risks associated with any task and then take the necessary steps to reduce every risk where possible.

Yes, that was one of my major concerns as well, as well as who would be doing the assessment that reduced PPE was justified.

I voted yes, although I don't much care for the word "might" in the question. The PPE wearer "might" have a fatal allergic reaction to the PPE, but this seems like a pretty remote possibility. Perhaps next week a similar poll could be done substituting the word "would."

Humm... I just notice I straddled the fence on that one. In the narrative / text posting I used "would" and the actual question to vote on I used "might". I have a draft of the proposed 2015 NFPA 70E and it is leaning heavy towards "risk" which is the reason for this week's line of questioning. Great conversation so far. I think similar to last week, it comes down to proper judgment which can be a concern.