Posted By Kev S Hi, Could anyone out there please help me? On conducting a Risk Assessment I discovered that when operating a concrete cutting floor saw the face is exposed to ejected debris from time to time such as fragments of concrete, grit and hot steel which can not always be contained by the guard. They usually just sting on impact but have been known to penitrate the skin. I planned to protect the operators with full facial protection which fits on to their helmets and also has a chin guard thus eliminating the need for eye protection. I am concerned that most manufacturers of floor saws recommend that eye protection should be used; however when talking to operators thoughout the industry and with my own experiences as an operator in the past,the whole face is at risk, after all the eyes are the target in the face centre of the face. If I instruct operators to use full facial protection, they will no longer require eye protection as such, as full facial protects the eyes as well. Should there be an accident that results in an eye injury am I in trouble for basically going against/beyond manufacturers recommendations, and at the same time may be placing operators in danger through removing specific eye protection that manufacturers recommend? or am I offering greater protection? hope someone can help? Thanks Kevin

Posted By J Knight Kevin, Take a look at the photo titled 'well, at least his nose won't fall off' on http://www.safetycenter....oto/archive/default.htm. I think it supports your case rather well, John

Posted By Ken Dickson Kevin, I think you should recommend the use of both full face protection and goggles. I have experience of making this argument and it is vindicated as soon as operators realise that some debris will still enter behind the face mask. If the eyes are exposed to this debris they are vulnerable, although serious injury is unlikely.

Posted By garyh I was trained by a now largely defunct chemical company (can't meantion the name but it sounds just like ICI!) that visors are not eye protection, and that this type of hazard requires goggles and visor or possibly Safety Spectacles and visor.

Posted By Jerry Lucey Goodmorning Kevin, You can only risk assess and put in measures to protect against the greatest risk identified, so by going above and beyond what is required, in my opinion you are not exposing your employer. It is also worth remembering the respiratory risks associated with exposure to silica.

Posted By Kev S Sorry for not giving enough info, but there is no dust as the cutting process involves the use of water to remove the dust hazard. When telling the director that I recommend we use safety specs and a face visor half an hour ago, he throw his pen down onto his desk frowned at me and replied, "Health & Safety never ends does it! I feel like retiring! we just can't afford to keep splashing out! we can't charge for it on the price of a jobs! we will shut down because of Health & Safety!" I replaid, "may be we will if someone losses an eye!" There is now an ICY atmosphere in the camp. Can't wait for the next edition of SHP to view the rear pages! I mean come on, an employer must protect his employees as far as is reasonably practicable. Half a dozen £7.00 visors should'nt brake the bank, and should give piece of mind that no one will end up with a 2" scare on their cheek or worse. Thanks to you all again for the excellent advice.

Posted By Kev S Thanks for the advice TBC, I have always operated that policy (a copy for the filing cabinet a copy for me) when my advice is ignored. Like you say it may just protect our rears one day!