Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
ADALE  
#1 Posted : 14 June 2017 17:15:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ADALE

Hi,

the eagle eyed of you may have caught my post earlier in the week about PPE assessments. I'm hoping to find anecdotal lessons to be learned from incorrect selection that moves away from th dry NEBOSH type stuff. 

Real life examples where consequences, serious or mild, were experienced where lessons were learned as part of the selection or implementing process where a closer look at the individual, risk and limitations of use or compatibility may have been beneficial.

I'm not hoping for anyone to get themself sacked or out of contract, light humour at best but valuable sharing if there are any brave souls out there.

Thanks in advance.

RayRapp  
#2 Posted : 15 June 2017 18:08:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Hi Adale

I think you have too much time on your hands, nevertheless, I can think of a case somewhile back where an employee suffered serious injuries due to wearing mandatory gloves whilst using rotating machinery. The gloves got caught in the rotating parts - gloves and machinery are not a good combination as rule. 

thanks 2 users thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
ADALE on 06/07/2017(UTC), Ciaran Delaney on 07/07/2017(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 15 June 2017 20:26:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Blanket Eye protection policy - everyone in light eye shields. Chemical spillage struck an employee ran down their face and after treatment significant vision loss warranting prescription glasses. The employee was wearing the mandated PPE unfortunately as they had eye "protection" failed to realise light impact resistance was no good for chemical issues. Corporate continued to insist that for insurance purposes every one wears - no incident history to validate policy, and hilariously when prompted most reported incidents were dust in the eye coming to / leaving work. Corporate never paid to resolve the rough standing car park at the top of the hill which was the causal factor behind recorded incidents
thanks 1 user thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
ADALE on 06/07/2017(UTC)
ADALE  
#4 Posted : 06 July 2017 13:52:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ADALE

Originally Posted by: RayRapp Go to Quoted Post

Hi Adale

I think you have too much time on your hands, nevertheless, I can think of a case somewhile back where an employee suffered serious injuries due to wearing mandatory gloves whilst using rotating machinery. The gloves got caught in the rotating parts - gloves and machinery are not a good combination as rule. 

 Hi Ray,

yes I dropped on a project 4 years ago having just missed the same incident involving a MAG drill. The tearability of the glove wasn't an original consideration. The HSE were just finding their feet with FFI and my jaw hit the flaw with the eventual fine as it was miniscule, bring back those days.

ADALE  
#5 Posted : 06 July 2017 13:56:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ADALE

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Blanket Eye protection policy - everyone in light eye shields. Chemical spillage struck an employee ran down their face and after treatment significant vision loss warranting prescription glasses. The employee was wearing the mandated PPE unfortunately as they had eye "protection" failed to realise light impact resistance was no good for chemical issues. Corporate continued to insist that for insurance purposes every one wears - no incident history to validate policy, and hilariously when prompted most reported incidents were dust in the eye coming to / leaving work. Corporate never paid to resolve the rough standing car park at the top of the hill which was the causal factor behind recorded incidents

Wow, now that's a lesson for some poor worker

Great example and thank you

chris.packham  
#6 Posted : 06 July 2017 14:41:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

You have a PM

Chris

Hsquared14  
#7 Posted : 07 July 2017 11:49:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Hsquared14

No incident because fortunately I was only trying out products for use in a new build facility but it does prove a point.  I was trialling safety helmets to which could be added a variety of accessories.  I wanted a face shield plus ear protection and I found one that said yes you can have both, the only problem was that when you dropped the face shield into position the ear protection fell off!!

Back to the drawing board DOH!!

descarte8  
#8 Posted : 07 July 2017 15:09:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
descarte8

Goggles and half-mask respirator, basically making both in-effective - (mask didnt fit and goggles steam up from exhalation breath out of top of poorly fitted mask).  Solution identified = full face mask (ideally battery powered)

Ear muffs and safety glasses - impacts seal of muff - reduced performance of hearing protection = solution wear plugs with thick-framed (well most types actually) safety glasses.

Selection of A2P3 filter for painting solvent based paint in confined space, evapouration of solvent exceeded concentration which the mask was suitable for and may have even displaced oxygen - solution identified airline fed mask

Frequent incidents of objects in eyes when working over head - safety glasses did not provide good all round seal especially when head was angled towards ceiling - solution = goggles for dust generating work above head height

Fireproof welding overalls with press-studs/metal zips - which got hot and burnt people - new design overall without such heat transmitting materials

Just a handful off the top of my head from previous years experience (editted minor spelling mistake)

Edited by user 07 July 2017 15:09:39(UTC)  | Reason: minor spelling mistake

Jane Blunt  
#9 Posted : 07 July 2017 15:22:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

Gloves have limitations, and there may not be any data on which to base a correct choice.

Tragic consequences here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn

thanks 1 user thanked Jane Blunt for this useful post.
Seamusosullivan on 08/07/2017(UTC)
chris.packham  
#10 Posted : 07 July 2017 22:06:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Jane

I agree with you that gloves have limitations. The problem is that the information is generally there but those concerned are not aware of it. In the Wetterhahn case the potential for glove failure for the chemical in question was in the public domain, but, as I still frequently find when reviewing glove use in laboratories, those concerned with the selection and use of gloves were simply not aware of this. This aspect of health and safety (what I term occupational skin management) is one that is full of ignorance, myths, and misinformation, quite a lot of which is regrettably promoted by some of those selling products, and even some services.

Chris 

Users browsing this topic
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.