A field exposure occurred because visibly worn out parts were not ordered or replaced. No, if the visibly worn out part was missed by accident. 2A. Safety Officer III was not given proper training, and is assigned to inspect and maintain SCBAs as described in example 2 above. A field exposure subsequently occurred because the SCBA failed because the equipment was not properly maintained. Yes if they knew that training was required and did not act to provide the training.
Some employers prohibit the use of luminol.
The super-glue treatment leaves a permanent film on the property, and the luminol treatment will leave some residual chemical behind. Some staff are concerned about luminol and will not use it. Because of these personal concerns and known hazards, these chemical treatments are not performed randomly and are only attempted when and where there is reason to believe that evidence may be developed. None if the work performed is within the scope of employment. Mr. Kazanjian felt a response here related more to environmental law than safety.