Rank: Forum user 
|
Thought of highlighting a topic that seems to be missed completely on a majority of our construction sites in the UK. Competence levels with regards Personnel Protective Equipment in the selection and use seems to be a topic that is really missed. So many companies in the construction sector have been putting in place blanket policies for Eye & Hand Protection over the years. However, seem to have the same question that was asked back in 2006, when eye protection was brought in by a leading contractor about the competence of users / supervisors in selection and use. It was evident the risk of complacence was another area of concern that would become evident as the policies took hold. It seems these companies have never considered the consequences of the introduction of these blanket policies and a majority of the companies still fail in this area. On a daily basis visiting sites and seeing operatives using wrong hand protection and eye protection for task being undertaken with management actually walking by not actually aware of the risk as they think the user is wearing gloves and glasses per the company policy, which is ok. Individual had a minor accident – cut injury using a knife on site. Although the knife was an underlying factor as the blade was not retractable, it become evident the other factors were Hand Protection in adequate as Performance Level too low, education process was inadequate as no person had known about the performance factor of the hand protection. Then again would have the injured person changed the hand protection if he did know he had another glove to wear to undertake the task or would have he just become complacent and used the day to day PPE as required by the mandatory requirement enforced by the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
There are so many problems with blanket PPE.
A chemical company I worked for had a lot of hand injuries and decided to deal with this through a blanket policy of cut-resistant gloves, to be worn even when just visiting the process areas and not handling anything, and even when wearing chemical resistant gloves (double gloving).
They were surprised by the incidence of dermatitis that followed and had to relax the blanket policy.
I have also seen the wrong gloves being used for tasks, this is especially the case when working with chemicals. In one case the glove just fell apart because it was the wrong one for the chemical. But all too often people just think "glove" and don't think about which kind of glove. I send risk assessments back when they just say "gloves". And also when they say "cut-proof" meaning "cut-resistant".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I concur with Kate's comments, indeed one of the many problems with blanket PPE is light eye protection where operatives often do not wear impact resistant goggles when using abrasive wheels. There are of course many other problems and ideally operatives should be issued with the correct PPE for the specific task, which would cost more money. Whether they would actually bother changing the PPE is another issue altogether.
The whole concept of PPE has got out of hand. The powers that be don't really care as long as they have issued blanket PPE rules it's job done as far as they are concerned. In many cases blanket PPE has arisen from (corporate) clients insisting on the PPE to be worn on site and contractors lamely abiding. The correct PPE should be identified in the task specific RAs instead of the tail wagging the dog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is down to an unwillingness or inability to do proper
risk assessments. Rather than worrying about filling in the damn matrix and
getting the lowest score possible they should be looking at the suitability of the
controls that they are adopting and a) remember that PPE in all of its forms is
near the bottom of the hierarchy of controls (just above telling people to “Be
careful”) and b) only applying controls where they are needed rather than a
blanket approach.
The people who really need some training are the managers
who like to see something obvious that reassures them that “we are doing
something about Health and Safety” by making everybody wear unsuitable, unnecessary,
ineffective, pointless PPE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heh. I include the question "where does being careful fit in the hierarchy of controls?" when testing people's understanding of the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Blanket policies are fine providing that the right hand and eye protection is provided after a task specific risk assessment has taken place. If it is just for visiting then suitable light eye protection and a standard visitor glove is sufficient. For anything more then RA the task and identify what should be used and ensure that it is available for use. Management and HSQE then need to ensure that it is being worn and in good condition. Training / TBTs to be probvided to the guys on site to advise that there are different types etc. They should also be made aware that if they don't feel happy with what is provided to raise it and not to continue work until the correct protection has been provided. Yes it is at the bottom of the heirarchy but still needs to be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Agree with the need to carry out a suitable risk assessment. But what about the hierarchy of control?
Collective protection over individual protection - PPE is your last line of protection. I know in certain processes PPE and RPE are esential controls, but in general how often is the blanket use of PPE the only control?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.