IMPORTANT NOTICE

It is a new year, so we have a little house keeping to take care of. Please read the notice below carefully. It applies to all past and all future posts.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMERS AND WARNINGS

This blog is a Knowledge Transfer Forums (KTF) product authored by Bob Ennamorato. It is intended as a source of information and discussion only. KTF disclaims liability for any injury of any nature whatsoever, whether indirect, consequential or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the use of or reliance on information in these blog posts. KTF also makes no guaranty or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The selection of any PPE for specific hazards is the sole responsibility of user safety specialists following a thorough hazard analysis and in compliance with OSHA’s recommendations. Communication of all PPE instructions, precautions and limitations to the wearer is also the responsibility of user safety officials who are responsible for seeing they are strictly observed. Failure to do so could result in serious injury or death.

Mention of a specific brand, product or product type is not an endorsement of that product for any specific purpose. Products can change rapidly with little or no notice so any product being considered for use should be evaluated only in terms of information from its manufacturer at the time of consideration. Links to other sources are provided for information only. KTF makes no guaranty or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information from a linked source. Readers are cautioned to make their own determination and to contact the source for verification if there is any question or doubt. Failure to heed these disclaimers and warnings could result in serious injury or death.

PPE AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk Management, the corner stone of any safety program, is a systematic approach to minimizing an organization's exposure to risk, lessening the negative effect of risk, and avoiding risk altogether if possible. Providing PPE is often considered a risk management strategy, but there are hidden layers of risk inherent in a PPE program that are frequently overlooked.

Failure to work through a rigorous PPE Buying Decision Process, using the OSHA recommended process as the foundation, runs the risk of providing inadequate or inappropriate PPE. Remember, 60% of those injured on the job were wearing the PPE they were supplied. The risk of that happening can be greatly reduced with an improved PPE Buying Decision Process. (See prior posts for details). Because there is a structured PPE Buying Decision Process readily available, failure to use it is taking a risk.

Buying cheap PPE that has to be assembled by the user, especially head protection, introduces the risk that the PPE will not be assembled correctly and its protective properties will be compromised. Quality PPE comes from the factory fully assembled by trained factory experts. Every component of a protective cap must be assembled correctly in order for the complex impact energy control process to function properly. If the suspension is installed incorrectly by a user, and it can be something as simple as not seating a suspension leg fully in its pocket, nobody knows it and the wearer is at a high risk of injury if an accident happens. Because there is top quality, high performance protective caps available, failure to use them is taking a risk.

Failure to consider the “human” side of PPE, the need for comfort, adjustability, and style, is very risky because it is the primary reason PPE is not worn. 40% of injured workers were not wearing the PPE they were supplied. The leading reasons were that it was “too hot, too heavy, didn’t fit, kept them from doing their jobs and looked weird”. This usually occurs when PPE is bought on purchase price alone. The leading brands of PPE contain adjustability features for a perfect fit and feel. They are ergonomically designed for proper balance and stability. They have clean, sleek designs that provide a professional look. Because top quality PPE is available in every category, failure to use it is taking a risk.

Quality Head Protection

Not taking the time to develop a store of knowledge about the different PPE designs, materials, and levels of performance is risky. You should know that injection molded, preformed faceshield windows eliminate the risks of distortion, potential weak spots, and poor faceshield/window seal that are present in flat windows stamped from sheet stock. You should know the risks associated with hard hat accessory mounting slots. You should know the risks of inferior auto darkening filter lenses that don’t always work how they should when they should. There are many more examples. The information is available from suppliers, OSHA, NIOSH and other sources. Failure to do your homework puts you at great risk of using PPE that is inadequate for your hazards.

Providing PPE to employees is a basic risk management strategy. But providing the wrong PPE for the wrong reasons could be exposing workers to unnecessary risks. If there is a better alternative to what you are doing or what you are using, and you fail to utilize it for any reason, you are taking a risk.

INVENTION OF THE WELDING HELMET

(Correction: In our haste to respond to a comment we inadvertently listed Charles E. Bowers, Sr. as the inventor of the welding helmet and the founder of The Fibre-Metal Products Company. We should have listed his father Frederick M. Bowers as the inventor and founder. Charles E. Bowers, Sr. was the President of Fibre-Metal for many years and held more than 45 patents. But his father invented the welding helmet and founded the company.)

Today we received a comment about our "WELDING HELMET" post. The commentor challenged our statement that the "Fibre-Metal Products Company invented the welding helmet". He said that statement is "false" and claimed that William Dinkuhn invented the helmet.

The primary goal of this Forum is to foster a discussion. We welcome comments and respect readers right to challenge anything we say. But this comment was from "Anonymous" with no identification of who he was and no documentation or substantiation of his claim that our information was false. So there is nothing to discuss.

For our regular readers, there is overwhelming documentation and substantiation of the fact that Frederick M. Bowers, the founder of The Fibre-Metal Products Company, invented and produced the first welding helmet in 1905. There are ample records,  dated photographs, extemporaneous comments from others at the time, etc to prove it. Mr. Bowers had his helmet invention patented in 1914 with the patent being approved in 1915. The patent is below.



I have been in the welding helmet business for almost 50 years and with all due respect to Mr. William Dinkuhn, I have never seen nor heard of a "Dinkuhn" helmet. A quick search of the Internet shows just one entry and that was a one line answer to a question on Answers.com, again by "Anonymous" saying that William Dinkuhn invented the welding helmet in 1916. That is a full 11 years after Frederick M. Bowers had invented and was producing welding helmets, and 2 years after Mr. Bowers had received a patent on his invention.

UPGRADING PPE CAN REDUCE INJURY COSTS

Injury frequency, severity and cost data for 2009 (the most recent data) is now available from the three major sources that compile it. The National Safety Council, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Liberty Mutual Safety Index each report similar, but not exactly the same results. There are no absolutes, much of the information is based on estimates, but a few things are clear:

 1. Following the trend of recent years, the overall (all industries) lost time injuries are down by a fraction to about 2 per 100 full time employees. But at least a portion of that is because there are fewer workers working fewer hours.


2. The industry segments with historically high LTI’s (construction, manufacturing, agriculture, health care) remain at about 4 per 100 workers.

While injury frequency and severity went down or stayed about the same the cost of those injuries increased. The following model, updated with the latest estimated data, shows the various outcomes of an accident. A safety expert once said “when an accident occurs, the only difference between a fatality and a near miss is the outcome”:

Based on this data, companies on average are incurring between $106,000 and $212,000 in injury costs for each 100 employees they have. That cost comes right off of the bottom line. If for no other reason, this information should be enough to overcome the inertia we discussed in our prior posts on The PPE Buying Decision. If an employer is spending money on PPE, but is still experiencing high injury costs, obviously, what they are using is not working. Investing the time to determine the most appropriate PPE for the hazards, and investing the money to upgrade to the highest quality PPE available provides an ROI in terms of reducing injury costs.

Properly selected, high performance, comfortable PPE that is worn everyday instead of being left in a locker, reduces injury costs by pushing them down the Cost Pyramid. For example, if an accident occurs, resulting in a worker being struck on the head by a falling object, the result may be a $53,000 LTI if the worker was wearing a low price 4-point suspension protective cap. But if that worker was wearing a high quality protective cap, with a high performance Impact Energy Control system, like the Fibre-Metal SUPEREIGHT brand by Honeywell, or any other top quality cap, the result may be reduced to a $1,200 trip to the nurse. So by investing an additional $10.00 or so in the better quality PPE, the company saved $51,800 on just that one accident.

Safety officials and all others involved in the PPE Buying Decision should capture those savings and use the information to justify their investment in a top quality PPE Program. It can be done on a per accident basis, or overall results can be compared with the aggregate statistics for their specific industry. The LTI for Construction Laborers is 4 per 100 employees. If a company upgrades its PPE and their LTI rate drops to 2 per 100 employees, the Safety Department should calculate and take credit for the savings.

PPE suppliers should play an active role in this process by being able to explain the differences of their products and “Dollarizing” the benefits of upgrading to their products. In the old days, presenting the features of a product was enough to make a sale. Then we had to develop a benefit for each feature. Adding value followed and today, the impact on a customer’s bottom line must be clearly stated. If you can’t explain how your product will reduce costs or increase profit, you can’t compete with suppliers that do.

And that applies to inside sales people and customer service associates as well as the field sales force. They must be able to talk a customer through the “Value Chain” to the bottom line impact just like a sales person in order to help customers justify buying their products or to help customers gather enough information to buy their products.

The CEO of a Top 50 Construction Company said PPE was “one of the 10 most important buys his company makes because of the potential risks and the opportunity for cost savings”. He went on to say that “injury costs and workers comp costs are the last major cost saving potentials available”. Whether it is a PPE supplier trying to sell a PPE program upgrade to a customer, or a company Safety Official trying to sell a PPE program upgrade to top management, the need to reduce injury costs should be the starting point.

PPE BUYING DECISION PROCESS

This is the second part of our “PPE Buying Decision” discussion. In the first part, in our prior post, we talked about the PPE Buying Decision being a contributor to injuries and injury costs because if not done properly and carefully, it can result in inadequate and inappropriate PPE being issued to the work force. We also talked about the OSHA PPE buying decision guidelines that are not well known and not usually followed.


Today’s post continues that discussion with a look at the complexity of a PPE buying decision, the consequences of failure to give it the time and attention it needs, and the benefits for both users and sellers of PPE in altering and improving the decision making process.

A recent study shows that there are basically 3 types of buying decisions made for MRO products which PPE falls under:

A straight rebuy is when a purchase order is issued for the exact same thing that was ordered before. A modified rebuy is when there is at least a perfunctory look at what else is available but then the same product is purchased for the same reasons it was originally. A clean slate is when an exhaustive search of everything that is available is undertaken, new choice criteria are developed, and the best product for the application is selected and purchased.

The OSHA Guidelines require a “Clean Slate” process for every PPE buying decision, but as the pie chart shows, that occurs just 22% of the time. The other 78% of the time, PPE buying decisions makers could be putting their work forces at risk and could be costing their employers money in terms of higher injury costs by buying inadequate or inappropriate PPE.

Why do they use a straight or modified rebuy? It is easy, it is quick, they do not have enough information to justify changing, and they think they limit their personal risk by using what they always used. They are also very busy people, with numerous priorities and they do not see the connection between the PPE they buy, injury costs and the company’s bottom line.

Many PPE buying decision makers engage in a practice we call the “High Cost of Being Average”. That involves looking at their injury frequency and severity rates and if they are in line with the national aggregate rates published by several organizations, and they have not gone up since the last time PPE was purchased, they use that as justification for a rebuy of what they are using. That can be a very costly decision.

Statistics show that Lost Time Injuries occur at the rate of about 4(rounded) per 100 full time employees. The full cost (direct and indirect) of a lost time injury is approaching $50,000. So the “average” company experiences $200,000 of injury expense for each 100 employees they have. That cost comes right off of the bottom line. But as long as the companies injury experience is no worse than the “average”, buying decision makers think they are doing OK and should keep on doing what they have been doing.

This is where sellers of PPE can and should make a difference. It is their responsibility to inform and educate prospects and customers that all PPE is not alike; there are significant differences in design, quality and performance among brands; and the choice criteria for selecting a brand should involve much more than just the purchase price. The biggest problem a PPE sales person has is not their competition; it is customer inertia, customer satisfaction with the status quo. The 78% of customers who opt for a “rebuy” is proof of that.

To overcome the inertia, a sales person must show that they offer something different, and the differences are of value in terms of IMPROVING injury frequency, severity, and cost, rather than just settling for being average. It is the sales person who must introduce the “clean slate” process and walk a customer through it.

In a rebuy situation, purchasing often acts as a gatekeeper to keep sales people from the buying decision maker and influencers throughout the organization. But starting with a clean slate, it is important for the sales person to get to, educate and inform everyone within the organization who is affected by a PPE buying decision. It begins with the responsible safety official who they must show that their product performs better than what is being used and is more appropriate for the hazards of the job. It moves to production officials who must be made aware that the products being evaluated will not hinder production or be so uncomfortable they lead to time away from the job. It includes Human Resources who must be convinced that the training required by OSHA is available. And it concludes with the wearer who must be made to feel comfortable, protected and productive while wearing the equipment.

Moving through that process will develop new and better choice criteria which will result in a much better PPE buying decision that complies with the OSHA Guidelines. In addition, it eliminates the buying decision as a “human error or system failure” that might have contributed to the cost of an injury.

IMPROVING THE PPE BUYING DECISION PROCESS CAN HELP REDUCE INJURIES AND INJURY COSTS

Each year industry spends almost $4 billion dollars on personal protective equipment yet it still experiences injuries at a cost of about $127 billion dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics more than 60% of those injured were wearing PPE which shows that simply wearing some type of PPE on the job is no guarantee a worker won't be injured.

What is wrong with this picture? Why are employers spending 4 billion dollars a year on PPE that turns out to be ineffective against the hazards of the work place or so uncomfortable workers refuse to wear it?  A noted safety consultant believes that accidents and injuries are caused by two things:

1. Human error.

2. Management system defect.

When an injury occurs, the behavior of the injured worker is investigated to see if an error was made. Frequently, safety management systems are examined for defects but the focus is usually on a defect in safety enforcement. Seldom, if ever, is the PPE buying decision examined to determine why ineffective or inappropriate PPE was purchased and supplied to the workforce.

When we talk about the buying decision we are not talking about a decision to place a purchase order. We are referring to the decision to provide specific products to protect against the hazards of a particular job. At the root of the PPE buying decision problem is the widely held belief that PPE is a commodity and a regulatory expense that should be minimized. With that mind set there is little incentive to spend any time, effort or money to try to make a better buying decision.

But the truth of the matter is there are significant performance differences based on PPE design, material, and workmanship. For any particular job environment and hazards there is a specific style, brand and model of protective device that is more effective and more appropriate than any other. Safety officials and PPE buying decision makers have a responsibility to determine what that is.

Unfortunately, when faced with the problems of a downsized staff, budget restrictions and a whole host of seemingly more pressing problems, safety officials often opt for a straight rebuy of whatever PPE is being used with little or no thought about seeing if there is something better available. Or, they look for something similar at a lower price in a misguided attempt to comply with cost reduction initiatives by trying to lower the purchase price of PPE instead of the costs of injuries, downtime, insurance premiums and OSHA violations. Both of these options increase the risk of injury to their workforce.

OSHA acknowledged that there was a buying decision problem when they revised the PPE regulation in 1994. The revised rule still requires an employer to provide PPE whenever necessary to mitigate the risk of an injury on the job. But for the first time, based on the BLS findings, it called for a structured buying decision process in the general requirements section of 2 9 CFR 1910.132  in a sub paragraph called "hazard assessment and selection". Appendix B of the revised regulation provides guidelines for the buying decision process. OSHA estimates that 90% of injuries can be eliminated if the PPE guidelines are followed. A link to the OSHA buying decision guidelines is below:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-NtMFfeWweVZDgyZmQ1MGUtOWMzOS00NDkzLWFkNzAtNzA4Mjg4ZTZlZTYz&hl=en&authkey=CLfT8qEB


Appendix B clearly demonstrates that OSHA does not consider PPE a commodity that should be purchased on price. In fact it says "select the protective equipment which ensures a level of protection greater than the minimum required to protect employees from the hazards" A small percentage of employer's use the PPE selection guidelines to upgrade their programs and the results are striking.  But the vast majority of employers are either not aware of the assessment and selection provisions of the standard or choose to ignore them. We suggest that is a "mangement system error" that is as responsible for injuries as anything an employee does and should be investigated with the same vigor.

Appendix B, of the OSHA PPE rule also asks safety officials to use "common sense and expertise" when selecting PPE. While most safety officials have plenty of common sense, there is an alarming lack of PPE expertise even at larger companies with well-staffed safety departments. Lacking the in depth knowledge to make a proper determination of exactly what PPE should be used and why, safety officials continue to buy and supply the wrong PPE for the wrong reasons. That is where distributor and PPE manufacturer Sales Professionals can help by raising their level of knowledge to the point where they can make the quality of buying decision OSHA envisions and their employees deserve. Instead of "pushing sales", help customers make a better buying decision and sales will follow.


An improved PPE buying decision can reduce injury frequency by increasing the likelihood that the most effective and appropriate PPE is selected for the job. It can also help reduce cost by mitigating injury severity. Top quality PPE, carefully selected and properly used can contribute to cost reduction on a scale with any other cost reduction program.

COLD WEATHER REQUIRES SPECIALIZED PPE

Although it is still warm in many parts of the country, now is the time to start thinking about and planning for the hazards of cold weather and the PPE needed to protect from them.


Outdoor workers are exposed to the hazards of cold weather. Prolonged exposure can result in serious health problems such as frostbite and hypothermia. The cold is also a leading cause of downtime and lost productivity



There is no exact temperature where the environment becomes hazardous. It does not have to be below freezing for frostbite or hypothermia to occur. A variety of factors, including wind, dampness and cold water, contribute to unbearable cold conditions.


Hypothermia occurs when the body looses heat faster than it is produced and body temperature drops below 95 degrees Fahrenheit. The first sign is pronounced shivering, followed by feeling tired and drowsy. Irritability and confusion can set-in along with a loss of coordination. If untreated, hypothermia may progress to slurred speech, irrational behavior, unconsciousness and ultimately heart failure. If any of these symptoms are observed, seek professional medical attention immediately. In the meantime, move the person to a warm dry area; remove any wet clothing; wrap in blankets; provide a warm, sweet-tasting beverage (no alcohol or caffeine); and gently move arms and legs to restimulate circulation.


A primary cause of hypothermia is wind chill. The combination of low temperature and wind velocity carries heat away from the body more quickly. For example, when the air temperature is 40 (F) degrees and the wind velocity is 35 mph, it is equivalent to a still air temperature of 11 (F). Wind chill is usually expressed in the form of an index. (For a wind chill index chart, visit the National weather service at www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/index.shtml.


Frostbite is the freezing of deep skin tissue layers that leads to whitening, hardening and numbing of exposed skin. It usually affects the fingers, hands, toes, feet, ears and nose. If symptoms of frostbite are present, seek professional medical attention. Move the person to a warm dry area. Loosen or remove tight clothing that might restrict blood flow. Place the person in lukewarm (not warm or hot) water for 25 to 40 minutes to gradually warm affected tissue. Cover the area with dry, sterile gauze or bandages. Do not massage the area because it may cause greater injury.


There are also hidden cold symptoms such as disorientation, carelessness, slowed reaction time, reduced energy and difficulty concentrating that increase the risk of an accident. People who take certain types of medication and those with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease face increased risk from the cold.


There is no specific standard for protection from cold working environments. OSHA recommends engineering controls and safe working practices and requires the provision of appropriate PPE whenever employees are exposed to hazardous cold working conditions.


Engineering controls begin with trying to shield the work area from windy conditions. The site should contain a source of heat such as air jets or radiant heaters and there should be a heated shelter where employees can take breaks to warm-up. Equipment handles should be covered with thermal insulating materials.


Safe work practices include allowing a period of adjustment by scheduling small interval exposure until workers become acclimated. Try to schedule work for the warmest time of the day if possible. Allow employees to set their own work pace to avoid fatigue or exhaustion. Never allow a worker to work alone so that someone can call for help if needed.


Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for cold environments begins with layered clothing. The concept of layering came from skiing and mountain climbing clothing technology. But the Safety and Medical officials working on the Alaska pipeline more than two decades ago developed the practical application of the concept.


Cold weather layering is based on the use of three layers. The first (inner) layer should be cotton or synthetic weave to wick perspiration away from the body. The second (middle) layer should be wool or synthetic fabric to absorb sweat and retain as much body heat as possible. The third (outer) layer should be something like Gore-Tex or nylon to shield the wind and allow some ventilation. Workers do not have to wear all of the layers all of the time but they should have them handy in case the temperature fluctuates. The goal is to keep warm enough to be safe but cool enough so you do not perspire excessively.

 



Extended Winter Liner Sherpa lined

To protect from frostbite, as much exposed skin as possible must be covered. Good insulated gloves and boots, ear covers and facemasks are the PPE of choice for that purpose. Because about 40% of the bodies heat can be lost through the head, insulated hats are vital. When hard hats must be worn, quality winter liners should be worn under them. The liners should extend enough to cover the neck and the sides of the face.




Neck Warmer with heating channel

PPE technological advances in cold weather gear resulted in a new level of protection that combines protective clothing with a heat source for exposed workers. Heated winter liners, vests, head/ear bands, and neck warmers are now available from leading providers of PPE. The protective clothing contains heating "channels” or “pockets” that accommodate heat packs that produce warming of 130(F) degrees to 140(F) degrees for up to 8 hours and beyond.




Hot Hands Brand Heating Packet

The warming is produced by soft, lightweight packets that contain a mixture of non-chemical ingredients that, when exposed to the air, oxidizes to generate heat. The packets come in various sizes and can be used in standard clothing, gloves and boots in addition to the PPE specifically designed to use them. Having a personal source of heat allows workers to stay on the job longer and produce more. Heat packets can easily be stored in a toolbox, or glove compartment of a truck or car.


Workers must be trained to recognize hazardous cold conditions. They must be made aware and continually reminded of cold weather safe working conditions and the PPE needed to protect them. With the right training, good engineering controls, specific safe work practices and top quality, state-of-the-art PPE, out door, cold weather work sites can be safe and productive. For more in-depth information of the hazards of cold temperature extremes and the PPE to protect from it click on the link below.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-NtMFfeWweVMzcwMDkzYmMtMTI1Yy00NGU0LWIzZWYtNDIzZjVjNTQ3MTBh&authkey=CJjAyZIB&hl=en