Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy
It is quite obvious that there is a certain amount of frustration regarding rules on PPE. I wont clainm to be an expert on the subject but have worked in various industries including petro chemical and the one thing that stands out like a sore thumb is that the subject of Health & Safety and the management process are two entirely different subjects. The whole world knows that gloves should be worn only after a risk assessment has identified that this is needed. However, when on site with three thousand operatives it doies become much easier to implement a blanket rule and many of the bigger sites have such rules together with discipinary procedures. Yes it is nonsense but it can be overcome by ensuring the gloves, glasses, ear plugs etc are:
1 Fit for purpose
2 Not cheap & nasty
3 are provided for all
4 are used as an aid and not a hindrance.
I was always against the use of gloves until somebody bought me a decent pair which I got used to quite quickly and which I would not now be without. The original problem stemmed from my wearing wicketkeepers gloves while trying to use a hammer. Likewise I acquired a fantastic pair of safety specs last year (9.99 per pair) and I would not go to site without them. Dont fight it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Fine, Tony, but how do you ensure, given the many different hazards on site, that the gloves are suitable?
This may be simpler when considering only relatively minor physical hazards, but certainly not straightforward once you introduce chemicals. I do not know of any chemical protective glove that I would be happy to see as a "general" glove across anything but the simplest, smallest construction site and certainly not in, say, an engineering workplace.
Since the wrong glove can actually increase the potential for damage to health from chemical exposure, providing one "standard" glove could actually be increasing the risk and certainly put the employer in contravention of COSHH, PPE regs, etc.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Tony
With respect to Chris, he is illustrating a more extreme example. The reality is that many organisations and industry sectors impose a blanket rule for the use of PPE. I personally do not have a problem with this, although once again, taken to extreme it does cause some unecessary wearing of PPE and for the sake of it.
In theory conducting a risk assessment to identify PPE needs is a good idea, but in practice it not always necessary or appropriate. If anyone can convince otherwise I would be glad to read their comments.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Tony, you have your first point as "fit for purpose". As long as that is true for all the diverse applications that might apply on site, then OK.
My doubts are that is actually highly unlikely where a blanket rule is applied without adequate research. The research needs to rely upon both technical knowledge and have reference to all and any existing risk assessments SSOW that have been prepared by third parties on the site.
I can see that faced with a multitude of small contractors, self employed and faced with site controller duties etc that it gives what looks to be a better managed situation. Sort of we did the obvious and it did save some injuries.
However, the danger of the approach is it becomes a comfortable way to manage the risks, misses the right risks and the gains anyway will not be sustainable without continuous and increasing supervision. I have personal experience from other sectors that it doesn't work in the long run.
It will be interesting to see what happens when there is a serious accident and amongst the causes is found the fact that a site controller has insisted, through a blanket rule, on the wearing of some ppe that went against the SSOW of the IP employer.
I should perhaps make it clear that I fully support the need for improvement around the use of simple ppe in generic situations and I fully support your views on co-operation with such initiatives. It is just how we get there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Raymond
You state that this what I have described is an "extreme" example. How then is it that in the majority of the cases where I conduct a risk assessment for skin exposure and gloves are being worn for chemical hazards I find that the gloves are not providing the protection that the employer imagines he was getting? These are not all high-tech, high-hazard environments, but often engineering workshops with metalworking fluids, degreasers, food handling, cleaning companies, etc.
Many people assume that you can use the manufacturers' published performance data as indicative of the performance you will achieve under actual conditions of use. How many are aware that this is not the case? How many are aware that the standard for glove testing is flawed and does not provide you with the data you need? In fact EN374 actually states that the test data is not suitable for evaluating the performance of gloves under actual working conditions.
Don't take my word for it. Just read the relevant chapters in "Protective Gloves for Occupational Use" (CRC Press, ISBN 0-8493-1558-1) for a definitive view on this.
I estimate that around 80% of all gloves I see being used for chemical protection are not being used correctly. My tests on gloves under actual working conditions frequently confirm this.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.