Global Career Schools provides our updated 24 hour OSHA Hazwoper online training class for Hazwoper credit. School course allows students to earn their 24 hour, 40 or 8 hr credits.
Our virtual online section has an approved online Hazwoper 40 hour training class for OSHA students needing to fulfill their certification requirements in Hazwoper training. Each topic comes with section exams and a final OSHA exam at the end of the training.
40 hr
For students needing to complete a 24 hour training session for Hazwoper credit - our online class will do it quickly for you.
All OSHA topics are fully approved. Students receive support during and after the 24 hr course is completed.
The topics covered include
Regulations
Toxicology
Hazards
Site Control
Decontamination
Air Monitoring - including Radiological Hazards
Chemical Awareness and Prudence
Dozens more...
BEGIN NOW OR VIEW FREE DEMO
Monday, August 24, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Business Safety Cost
How to toe the line and help foot the bill for safety costs
“Toe the line or foot the bill” is OSHA’s motto and few would disagree with it. Economising on safety costs is something few would argue with either. So, here's a safety shoe alternative you should know about. Rubber overshoe safety toe caps - ' shoes with toes' - are getting more attention, for more reasons than simply cost-effectiveness. And not just because of the ever increasing numbers of temporary workers employed in this country. It's the ever increasing cost of providing fully-loaded temporary safety shoes that's bringing the whole matter of toe protection to the attention of senior management. The recent challenge by the United States Postal Service and OSHA's ruling attests to that. Anywhere a safety shoe alternative exists, that sits all right with OSHA in the USA or CCOHS in Canada, it's a win-win situation.
There’s not a thing wrong with generally accepted safety toe cap footwear, but all too often it seems the expensive choice is selected out of fear or a lack of understanding. Although it's true to say safety shoe policies in manufacturing have embraced rubber pull on safety toe cap products for visitors they have been 'missing in action' elsewhere. I know of one particular food processing plant that refuses to use a '”better than those yellow clacker things” solution, but tolerates gunk that might be introduced to the production floor on the soles of visitors' shoes. Their thinking is they had better address the greasy floors than more effectively provide toe protection. Some might argue the greasy floor is a hazard that should not be tolerated.
All employers are subject to statutory requirements and minimum standards that reflect our desire to protect workers. It is up to the employer to implement safety rules and regulations but bodies such as OSHA allows significant latitude in doing so, provided choices are reasonable and done responsibly. Careful attention is required as errors in judgement, as with willful neglect, will be punished under the law. Unfortunately, the tendency in a fear and compliance atmosphere is to avoid failure rather than attempt success. Compliance is commendable but can instill fear. That can stifle creativity which can result in unnecessarily high costs.
Take the whole matter of safety footwear. Company safety policies that lack creativity can result in over-spending far in excess of the typical fine for a safety transgression. It's a bit like this; we know there's always the possibility of rain but do we need to wear a raincoat every day? Or, would a small umbrella, costing a lot less than a raincoat, do the job just as well? Throw in the ability to offer others shelter if the need arises and you get the idea.
An employer is required to provide personal protective equipment where the risk assessment indicates as much. Risk assessment is the cornerstone of industrial safety and statutory bodies require employers to undertake one to determine what hazards can reasonably be expected in any particular working environment. There is always the chance of accident but risk assessments are not expected to be clairvoyant. They are expected to review routine operations and recommend the proper Personal Protective Equipment. (The employer is also expected to pay for it.) Risk assessments are expected to be 'reasonable' and the onus is on OSHA to prove otherwise.
There are two important things to remember. Firstly, it is the employer who decides how best to comply with the law. Secondly, organizations like OSHA do not mandate any particular piece of equipment to be used.
In the case of foot safety, OSHA’s occupational foot protection standard is 29 CFR 1910.136. This requires the use of protective footwear when employees are working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects. Once that hazard has been determined, OSHA does not recommend, or approve of, any particular safety footwear. According to OSHA in a recent letter to the United States Postal Service, an employer may comply with the criteria set forth in ANSI Z41-1991, replaced by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2412-05 and ASTM F2413-05, or the employer may opt to demonstrate that other criteria are equally effective. If the employer pursues the second option, then compliance with the consensus standards is not mandatory. This means, the burden lies on the employer to demonstrate that the footwear provided is equally as protective as the footwear that meet the ASTM F2412-05 and the ASTM F2413-05 standards.
In another fairly recent ruling, OSHA declined to comment on the suitability of the now ubiquitous ‘Croc’ clogs. It said, in situations where no hazard exists, the matter of appropriate footwear at work is between the employer and employee. This principle was reiterated when OSHA was asked to comment on rubber over-shoes. OSHA was firm in stating that it does not find rubber overshoes acceptable where they provide no toe protection. However, provided they can demonstrate that they meet minimum standards they are acceptable.
What then would be “acceptable foot protection” where there is a chance of toe injury? The first choice of many employers is ASTM or CSA tagged safety shoes or boots - the so called "approved" footwear we hear so much about in advertising. For sure, a fully loaded safety shoe or boot will provide more than enough legal defence in the event of a challenge from OSHA. What is also true is that such a policy comes at a very high cost. Not every employee requires safety toecap, steel-soled, electricity dissipative footwear. For many work situations only toe protection from falling or rolling heavy objects is required. Is it wise then to incur the full cost of a safety shoe or boot?
For example, an office worker visiting a loading dock to pick up documents will not perform any manufacturing duties while en route. This might imply that the PPE provided to the workers may not be necessary for the office worker. However, since the office worker might be exposed to falling objects, or in close proximity to heavy moving equipment, it would be reasonable to foresee only the need for toe protection against impact and compression.
In another situation a risk assessment for the production area might indicate the need for slip resistant footwear and toe protection. However, it is also reasonable to expect that a visiting office worker might not encounter slippery conditions. Furthermore, such conditions are not supposed to persist and it might be reasonable to expect the office worker to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the risk should it occur.
The danger from sharp objects underfoot requires steel sole protective footwear but where no such risk is anticipated toe protection may be all that is required. A good example would be the paper-making and the newspaper print production industry, where there is little chance of sharp objects but always a chance of rolling stock or heavy moving equipment that can injure toes. Having steel sole shoes or boots that can dissipate electrical shock is just over-kill and costly.
Rubber safetytoe overshoes provide the same protection from impact and compression as safety shoes and boots. The steel toecap meets the same ASTM standards and can easily be verified by test results from the major testing bodies. This is what makes OSHA happy. Rubber has been used for a long time in the safety footwear industry and its slip resistance qualities are well known. The rubber material is flexible but sturdy, in some cases as thick as 6mm resulting in a firm fit and some long wearing characteristics. Rubber safetytoe overshoes are a lot less expensive than safety shoes or boots and they eliminate the hazard of passing along unsanitary footwear. They are especially useful where only occasional toe protection is required, such as with visitors to production facilities, temporary workers and for medical reasons.
Safety personnel looking for budget savings, as in today’s economy, would be well advised to consider them for these reasons and more.
Patrick Smyth aka Mister Safetytoes
“Toe the line or foot the bill” is OSHA’s motto and few would disagree with it. Economising on safety costs is something few would argue with either. So, here's a safety shoe alternative you should know about. Rubber overshoe safety toe caps - ' shoes with toes' - are getting more attention, for more reasons than simply cost-effectiveness. And not just because of the ever increasing numbers of temporary workers employed in this country. It's the ever increasing cost of providing fully-loaded temporary safety shoes that's bringing the whole matter of toe protection to the attention of senior management. The recent challenge by the United States Postal Service and OSHA's ruling attests to that. Anywhere a safety shoe alternative exists, that sits all right with OSHA in the USA or CCOHS in Canada, it's a win-win situation.
There’s not a thing wrong with generally accepted safety toe cap footwear, but all too often it seems the expensive choice is selected out of fear or a lack of understanding. Although it's true to say safety shoe policies in manufacturing have embraced rubber pull on safety toe cap products for visitors they have been 'missing in action' elsewhere. I know of one particular food processing plant that refuses to use a '”better than those yellow clacker things” solution, but tolerates gunk that might be introduced to the production floor on the soles of visitors' shoes. Their thinking is they had better address the greasy floors than more effectively provide toe protection. Some might argue the greasy floor is a hazard that should not be tolerated.
All employers are subject to statutory requirements and minimum standards that reflect our desire to protect workers. It is up to the employer to implement safety rules and regulations but bodies such as OSHA allows significant latitude in doing so, provided choices are reasonable and done responsibly. Careful attention is required as errors in judgement, as with willful neglect, will be punished under the law. Unfortunately, the tendency in a fear and compliance atmosphere is to avoid failure rather than attempt success. Compliance is commendable but can instill fear. That can stifle creativity which can result in unnecessarily high costs.
Take the whole matter of safety footwear. Company safety policies that lack creativity can result in over-spending far in excess of the typical fine for a safety transgression. It's a bit like this; we know there's always the possibility of rain but do we need to wear a raincoat every day? Or, would a small umbrella, costing a lot less than a raincoat, do the job just as well? Throw in the ability to offer others shelter if the need arises and you get the idea.
An employer is required to provide personal protective equipment where the risk assessment indicates as much. Risk assessment is the cornerstone of industrial safety and statutory bodies require employers to undertake one to determine what hazards can reasonably be expected in any particular working environment. There is always the chance of accident but risk assessments are not expected to be clairvoyant. They are expected to review routine operations and recommend the proper Personal Protective Equipment. (The employer is also expected to pay for it.) Risk assessments are expected to be 'reasonable' and the onus is on OSHA to prove otherwise.
There are two important things to remember. Firstly, it is the employer who decides how best to comply with the law. Secondly, organizations like OSHA do not mandate any particular piece of equipment to be used.
In the case of foot safety, OSHA’s occupational foot protection standard is 29 CFR 1910.136. This requires the use of protective footwear when employees are working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects. Once that hazard has been determined, OSHA does not recommend, or approve of, any particular safety footwear. According to OSHA in a recent letter to the United States Postal Service, an employer may comply with the criteria set forth in ANSI Z41-1991, replaced by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2412-05 and ASTM F2413-05, or the employer may opt to demonstrate that other criteria are equally effective. If the employer pursues the second option, then compliance with the consensus standards is not mandatory. This means, the burden lies on the employer to demonstrate that the footwear provided is equally as protective as the footwear that meet the ASTM F2412-05 and the ASTM F2413-05 standards.
In another fairly recent ruling, OSHA declined to comment on the suitability of the now ubiquitous ‘Croc’ clogs. It said, in situations where no hazard exists, the matter of appropriate footwear at work is between the employer and employee. This principle was reiterated when OSHA was asked to comment on rubber over-shoes. OSHA was firm in stating that it does not find rubber overshoes acceptable where they provide no toe protection. However, provided they can demonstrate that they meet minimum standards they are acceptable.
What then would be “acceptable foot protection” where there is a chance of toe injury? The first choice of many employers is ASTM or CSA tagged safety shoes or boots - the so called "approved" footwear we hear so much about in advertising. For sure, a fully loaded safety shoe or boot will provide more than enough legal defence in the event of a challenge from OSHA. What is also true is that such a policy comes at a very high cost. Not every employee requires safety toecap, steel-soled, electricity dissipative footwear. For many work situations only toe protection from falling or rolling heavy objects is required. Is it wise then to incur the full cost of a safety shoe or boot?
For example, an office worker visiting a loading dock to pick up documents will not perform any manufacturing duties while en route. This might imply that the PPE provided to the workers may not be necessary for the office worker. However, since the office worker might be exposed to falling objects, or in close proximity to heavy moving equipment, it would be reasonable to foresee only the need for toe protection against impact and compression.
In another situation a risk assessment for the production area might indicate the need for slip resistant footwear and toe protection. However, it is also reasonable to expect that a visiting office worker might not encounter slippery conditions. Furthermore, such conditions are not supposed to persist and it might be reasonable to expect the office worker to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the risk should it occur.
The danger from sharp objects underfoot requires steel sole protective footwear but where no such risk is anticipated toe protection may be all that is required. A good example would be the paper-making and the newspaper print production industry, where there is little chance of sharp objects but always a chance of rolling stock or heavy moving equipment that can injure toes. Having steel sole shoes or boots that can dissipate electrical shock is just over-kill and costly.
Rubber safetytoe overshoes provide the same protection from impact and compression as safety shoes and boots. The steel toecap meets the same ASTM standards and can easily be verified by test results from the major testing bodies. This is what makes OSHA happy. Rubber has been used for a long time in the safety footwear industry and its slip resistance qualities are well known. The rubber material is flexible but sturdy, in some cases as thick as 6mm resulting in a firm fit and some long wearing characteristics. Rubber safetytoe overshoes are a lot less expensive than safety shoes or boots and they eliminate the hazard of passing along unsanitary footwear. They are especially useful where only occasional toe protection is required, such as with visitors to production facilities, temporary workers and for medical reasons.
Safety personnel looking for budget savings, as in today’s economy, would be well advised to consider them for these reasons and more.
Patrick Smyth aka Mister Safetytoes
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Protection from Hazardous Laboratory Gases
High-pressure gas cylinders are a necessity for many industrial and laboratory processes. But due to their physical characteristics, they represent a significant hazard in the workplace.
Accidents can be easily contained or avoided when companies properly implement safety equipment. The two most common oversights that violate OSHA regulations are the improper storage of pressurized gas canisters and the failure to install and properly use valve caps. Storage concerns creep up often because environmental changes and simple lapses of judgment can lead to major problems. The damage caused by storage mistakes can range from the deterioration of a canister's sensitive contents to the explosive effect of propelling a pressurized gas canister though the air with enough force to crush concrete.
Gas leaks due to improper handling, equipment failure or corrosion can be a common occurrence in a laboratory or laboratory setting. When poisonous, corrosive or flammable gases are in use, the following specialized gas cylinder handling equipment should be used to protect against personal injury:
Gas Cylinder Racks & Separators
Being tall and narrow, a full-sized cylinder has a very small footprint, making it unstable when standing on its own and thus, easy to be accidentally knocked over. A heavy steel or aluminum cylinder crashing to the floor can easily result in personal injury. Beyond this, however, a cylinder's valve can be sheared off causing sudden and rapid decompression of the gas inside the cylinder. Obviously this scenario greatly increases the likelihood of personal injury and even death.
Federal and local OSHA, building and fire codes therefore require that all high-pressure cylinders be restrained using chains or other types of fasteners such as bunch, floor and wall clamps. This applies to cylinders in storage as well. Cylinder racks and separators provide a safe and convenient way to organize gas cylinders in storage.
Gas Cabinets
When choosing a gas cabinet, be sure to select one that meets Uniform Fire and Building Codes, OSHA, NFPA and Semi Standards. Select a model that meets these requirements and is designed to connect to a local gas control system to maximize safety.
Other helpful safety features to look for include a one-hour fire rated wire-reinforced window, louvered door panel for positive air flow, rugged diamond deck floors, adjustable cylinder brackets and a sprinkler head for added protection in the event of a fire.
Exhaust Systems
If poisonous gases are to be kept in a cabinet, an access window should be provided so the cylinder valve(s) can be closed and leaks detected without opening the cabinet door and fully compromising the exhaust/containment system. Generally, cabinet exhaust systems should be designed with the capability to allow 150 to 200 linear feet (45.7 to 61 linear meters) per minute of air to pass through the cabinet with access window open. This equates to 13 air exchanges per minute. It is important to select a specialty gas exhaust system that meets or exceeds all applicable safety codes.
Cylinder Valve Outlets & Connections
The Compressed Gas Association specifies numbered cylinder valve outlet connections (CGAs) for specific gas services based on safety considerations. If the middle digit of a CGA is a zero or even number, it has right-handed threads and must be turned clockwise to tighten the fitting. If the middle digit is an odd number, then the threads are left-handed and must be turned counterclockwise to tighten the fitting. Turning a fitting in the wrong direction can damage the threads and result in a leaky connection.
The implementation of proper safety measures and equipment can minimize work delays, equipment damage, noncompliance costs, and human injuries. It's a wise business move for a company to invest in preventative measures during the use of gas handling equipment. Gambling with workplace safety is a risk that never pays.
About Air Liquide America Specialty Gases
Air Liquide America Specialty Gases (formerly, Scott Specialty Gases) is known as the leading international producer and supplier of pure and mixed specialty gases for all types of applications as well as the world’s largest producer of EPA protocol gases. Air Liquide America Specialty Gases is respected and trusted not only for its pures and mixtures, but for its high-performance gas handling equipment and specialty gas delivery and monitoring systems. More information on the company and its products can be found at http://www.scottgas.com.
About the Author
R.L. Fielding has been a freelance writer for 10 years, offering her expertise and skills to a variety of major organizations in the education, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, financial services, and manufacturing industries.
Accidents can be easily contained or avoided when companies properly implement safety equipment. The two most common oversights that violate OSHA regulations are the improper storage of pressurized gas canisters and the failure to install and properly use valve caps. Storage concerns creep up often because environmental changes and simple lapses of judgment can lead to major problems. The damage caused by storage mistakes can range from the deterioration of a canister's sensitive contents to the explosive effect of propelling a pressurized gas canister though the air with enough force to crush concrete.
Gas leaks due to improper handling, equipment failure or corrosion can be a common occurrence in a laboratory or laboratory setting. When poisonous, corrosive or flammable gases are in use, the following specialized gas cylinder handling equipment should be used to protect against personal injury:
Gas Cylinder Racks & Separators
Being tall and narrow, a full-sized cylinder has a very small footprint, making it unstable when standing on its own and thus, easy to be accidentally knocked over. A heavy steel or aluminum cylinder crashing to the floor can easily result in personal injury. Beyond this, however, a cylinder's valve can be sheared off causing sudden and rapid decompression of the gas inside the cylinder. Obviously this scenario greatly increases the likelihood of personal injury and even death.
Federal and local OSHA, building and fire codes therefore require that all high-pressure cylinders be restrained using chains or other types of fasteners such as bunch, floor and wall clamps. This applies to cylinders in storage as well. Cylinder racks and separators provide a safe and convenient way to organize gas cylinders in storage.
Gas Cabinets
When choosing a gas cabinet, be sure to select one that meets Uniform Fire and Building Codes, OSHA, NFPA and Semi Standards. Select a model that meets these requirements and is designed to connect to a local gas control system to maximize safety.
Other helpful safety features to look for include a one-hour fire rated wire-reinforced window, louvered door panel for positive air flow, rugged diamond deck floors, adjustable cylinder brackets and a sprinkler head for added protection in the event of a fire.
Exhaust Systems
If poisonous gases are to be kept in a cabinet, an access window should be provided so the cylinder valve(s) can be closed and leaks detected without opening the cabinet door and fully compromising the exhaust/containment system. Generally, cabinet exhaust systems should be designed with the capability to allow 150 to 200 linear feet (45.7 to 61 linear meters) per minute of air to pass through the cabinet with access window open. This equates to 13 air exchanges per minute. It is important to select a specialty gas exhaust system that meets or exceeds all applicable safety codes.
Cylinder Valve Outlets & Connections
The Compressed Gas Association specifies numbered cylinder valve outlet connections (CGAs) for specific gas services based on safety considerations. If the middle digit of a CGA is a zero or even number, it has right-handed threads and must be turned clockwise to tighten the fitting. If the middle digit is an odd number, then the threads are left-handed and must be turned counterclockwise to tighten the fitting. Turning a fitting in the wrong direction can damage the threads and result in a leaky connection.
The implementation of proper safety measures and equipment can minimize work delays, equipment damage, noncompliance costs, and human injuries. It's a wise business move for a company to invest in preventative measures during the use of gas handling equipment. Gambling with workplace safety is a risk that never pays.
About Air Liquide America Specialty Gases
Air Liquide America Specialty Gases (formerly, Scott Specialty Gases) is known as the leading international producer and supplier of pure and mixed specialty gases for all types of applications as well as the world’s largest producer of EPA protocol gases. Air Liquide America Specialty Gases is respected and trusted not only for its pures and mixtures, but for its high-performance gas handling equipment and specialty gas delivery and monitoring systems. More information on the company and its products can be found at http://www.scottgas.com.
About the Author
R.L. Fielding has been a freelance writer for 10 years, offering her expertise and skills to a variety of major organizations in the education, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, financial services, and manufacturing industries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)