COMFORT IS AN IMPORTANT PPE CONSIDERATION

The most important consideration in selecting PPE for your operation is its ability to provide protection from the hazards of the job. A very close second, and often overlooked, is the comfort factor. I have heard it said that "none of that stuff (PPE) is comfortable, so just put it on and you'll get used to it". Nothing could be further from the truth. No worker should ever have to wear uncomfortable or ill-fitting PPE on the job.

As mentioned in prior posts, in a BLS study, 40% of those injured were not wearing the PPE that had been issued to them. The reasons given were "it is too hot, too heavy, doesn't fit well, and is so uncomfortable, I can't do my job". Upon inspection, a number of those complaints actually resulted from not utilizing the comfort features built into the PPE or from using cheap PPE that did not contain comfort features.

Our own research showed that when PPE was ergonomically designed, fitted properly, and adjusted for working conditions, most of the complaints were resolved and PPE was worn instead of sitting in a locker. So whenever PPE is being considered, the evaluation process should include comfort features. In fact, a "comfort profile" of features required in every brand being considered should be part of the buying decision choice criteria.

Consider a welding helmet for example:

Electric arc welding produces sparks and spatter along with smoke and fumes. A welding helmet shell should be designed to extend far enough to protect the throat area from sparks and spatter and should be slightly curved at the bottom to block a lot of the smoke and fumes from filling the inside of the helmet. You cannot block all of the smoke and fumes so the helmet shell should be wide enough to let air circulate to push any accumulated smoke and fumes out of the curved top. Extremely narrow shell designs with tight under chin curves trap smoke and fumes within the helmet making it very uncomfortable for the welder.

The only part of a welding helmet that comes in contact with the wearer is the headgear. A top quality, well designed welding helmet headgear should have multiple built-in design features and adjustments to allow the wearer to achieve a perfect individual fit and feel. The headgear design shown is the Fibre-Metal by Honeywell "Free Floating" design. Long acknowledged to be the top quality headgear in the industry, it is a good idea to pattern your "comfort profile" after it.

The "free floating" feature ergonomically balances and stabilizes the weight of the helmet so it does not directly bear on the wearers head. The normal bumps against the head that can occur in welding are absorbed by the free floating arms rather than being transmitted to the wearers head.

The headband is offset to comfortably grasp the nape of the head for even more balance and stability. The unique material is custom blended to be pliable enough to be warmed by the wearer’s body heat to conform to the exact contours of the wearers head for a perfect fit. Yet it is strong enough to be the only headgear on the market that has not had cracking and breaking problems.

The headgear has a large strip-proof ratchet sizing knob that can be adjusted with a gloved hand without having to stop welding and remove the helmet.

There is an overhead band with a sizing "track" that positions the headgear comfortably and securely on the wearers head. Note that the track is on the outside of the headband so the welder’s hair or welders cap does not get caught in it. Many lower quality headgears have the track on the underside which causes problems.

The headgear connects to the helmet with "friction joints". Applying or relieving tension on these joint knobs determines the ease with which the helmet can be pushed up to a "rest" position and returned to the working position with a simple nod of the head. Each welder likes to apply just the right setting for how he works this. Working in conjunction with the friction joints is a "position stop" that controls where the helmet is positioned after it is nodded down. The Fibre-Metal brand position stop provides multiple options that a welder can select for just the right fit and feel.

The position stop and the overhead band can also be adjusted to determine where the filter lens holder is positioned. Many times a welder has to bend into an unnatural work position to be able to see out of the filter lens holder. That puts strain on his neck, shoulders and back. Being able to adjust where the filter holder lines up relative to his line of vision, even if it is just a small adjustment, is a big comfort plus.

The key to friction joint/position stop mechanics is simplicity. In a harsh welding environment, you want as few moving parts as possible. It only takes a tiny drop of spatter to jam up any overly complicated moving parts on a welding helmet. Some lesser brands of helmets and headgears offer "locking" headgears as a sales gimmick. Instead of having a smooth, up and down mechanism, they have a ratchet device that locks the headgear in the up or rest position. That requires a welder to "nod" that much harder which can put strain on his neck and shoulders. Plus, a welder usually strikes his arc just as he nods his helmet down. If it does not come down, he can suffer serious flash burns. Simple smooth, and easy is how most welders prefer it.

Those are the comfort features you should insist on no matter what brand welding helmet you are considering. Make them part of your "choice criteria" or "specs". If a brand does not have what you want, ask why not, what do they have to offer that is better.

A protective cap should also have multiple, built in comfort features and adjustments.

From an ergonomics standpoint, the cap shell should be designed to have a low center of gravity so that the wearers head fits deeply and securely within the shell. Most cheap protective caps have shallow shells which makes the cap sit high on the head and results in what wearers call “wobble”.

It should have as many suspension contact points with the shell as possible. That is a vital factor in impact attenuation but during day-to-day wear, it spreads the weight of the cap over the broadest head area for balance and stability.

The headband should be able to be raised, lowered, angled, and moved front to back for the best possible individual fit and feel. The sizing adjustment should have numerous, small increment adjustments. Non-ratchet models should have full, 360 degree padded headbands for extra comfort all shift long. Headbands should be easily removable for cleaning or replacement.

When a ratchet headband is necessary, look for the same attributes as the headband of the welding helmet headgear described above. And for the ultimate in wearer comfort, consider the Fibre-Metal by Honeywell brand patented “SWINGSTRAP”. That will give you the extra comfort of a full 360 degree padded headband and the extra security of a ratchet headband. As the ratchet is tightened, it pulls in the padded headband on the sensitive temple areas rather than the more rigid ratchet headband. No other brand can offer that.

Just as with the welding helmet, include these comfort features in your head protection choice criteria or “specs”. Insist that any brand that wants your business provides them. If they don’t have them, ask them why not and what do they have that is better.

When you drill down into the comfort features that are available, and you upgrade your PPE to include them, you have taken a giant step in reducing wearer resistance and improving morale. Simply by having more of your workers wear their PPE, you will reduce injury costs and increase profitability.

PPE FOR OXYFUEL AND PLASMA WELDING AND CUTTING

The PPE of choice for most Oxyfuel and plasma welding and cutting operations is goggles or IR/UV protective faceshields. Roughly 2 to 3 times more welding goggles and faceshields are used per year than welding helmets for electric arc welding but little is said or written about them because they pale in comparison to the interest in high-tech ADF equipped electric arc helmets.


In addition to shops that do gas or plasma welding and cutting as their primary function, nearly every company in every industrial market segment performs those functions in their maintenance departments. Like most other PPE, on the surface welding and cutting goggles and faceshields appear to be a commodity with little or no difference among the brands. But as usual, there are significant differences in design, material and workmanship resulting in clear differences in quality.


There are two types of gas welding goggles – rigid frame and flexible frame. The Fibre-Metal Products Company, now a Honeywell Safety brand, introduced the rigid frame more than 60 years ago with its SOLOGGLE brand. It was, and still is, so popular with gas welders and cutters that it became almost a generic name for welding goggles.


Rigid frame goggles have a number of advantages. They are durable enough to withstand a harsh work environment, they fit well, provide good protection against foreign objects, and they can be easily lifted up into a rest position with a gloved hand. Flexible frame goggles are lighter weight, contain air vents for ventilation and they come in both 2X4 ¼ plate or 50MM lens styles. There are no real technical reasons to choose one over the other. Selection is usually made based of personal preference and the specific hazards and working conditions of the job.


There are still a lot of goggles used, but over the past decade or so, faceshields are preferred by an increasing number of oxyfuel welders, cutters and plasma arc cutters. Early IR/UV faceshield windows were dyed or coated to achieve their filtering properties. But those processes produced windows that did not have consistent shading throughout the window, they faded over time and the dye or coating scratched off rendering the window useless for its purpose. Because they were the only manufacturer injection molding windows at the time, again, it was the Fibre-Metal Products Company that developed and perfected the process of adding an IR/UV absorber to the windows raw material to mold the shading in which produced a high performance IR/UV protection window without the flaws of dyed or coated windows. Today, the Fibre-Metal brand offers shade 3, 5 and 8 IR/UV protective faceshield windows. No other supplier offers as broad of a range that we are aware of.


For a quality rigid frame goggle, look for a sturdy frame, capable of providing a long service life in a harsh working environment, smooth rolled or rounded edges for any part of the goggle that touches the face, a top quality headgear (many brand headgears have cracking and breaking problems, check your potential sources track record), and smooth operating “telescoping arms” for ease of lifting the goggle into a rest position when necessary. There are still goggles available with elastic headbands, but most gas welders and cutters prefer a “headrest” model. Most oxy-fuel goggles come with a shade 4 or 5 filter plate and other shades are available on special order or the user can buy a higher shade filter and install it.


The OSHA recommended filter shades for oxyfuel welding and cutting are:


• Oxyfuel welding


o Light - shades 4-5


o Medium - shades 5-6


o Heavy - shades 6-8


• Oxyfuel cutting


o Light - shades 3-4


o Medium- shades 4-5


o Heavy - shades 5-6


(See http://www.aws.org/technical/facts/Z49.1-2005-all.pdf) for additional information)


If head protection is needed in your oxyfuel operation, look for a method of attaching goggles to the head protection that does not require hazardous mounting slots. The “Speedy” loop mounting mechanism provides a secure, easy on, easy off method of mounting goggles that does not compromise the ANSI rating of the protective cap.


IIn flexible frame oxyfuel goggles, look for soft, comfortable frames that hug facial contours for comfort, ventilation for cooling, and a selection of plate and lens, stationary and lift-front models.


Faceshields offer a choice of how to provide protection. OSHA and ANSI Standards require primary eye protection, spectacles or goggles, under faceshields. They also strongly recommended that a clear faceshield be worn over welding and cover goggles or spectacles with filter lenses. So a wearer can use shaded spectacles or goggles under a clear faceshield, or they can wear clear primary eye protection under a shaded faceshield. There are pros and cons to both methods.


With a shaded primary eye protection/clear faceshield combination, when the torch is extinguished and the faceshield lifted, visibility is extremely compromised and tripping or falling is a risk. If the shaded primary eye protection is removed, the wearer is at risk from others working in the area. On the other hand, with a clear primary protection/ shaded faceshield combination, when the faceshield is lifted the wearer is at risk from the visible light from other torches in the area. To provide some degree of protection from that, some oxyfuel welders and cutters wear a light shade 1.7 or 2.0 spectacle under their shade 5 faceshields. The decision of what to use should only be made by trained, experienced welding and safety officials after a thorough evaluation of the working conditions and hazards present.

When considering a faceshield, look first at the faceshield headgear. The crown protector should be made from the same material as a welding helmet for a long service life. It should be designed to cover as much of the head as possible. Most quality suppliers offer a choice of sizes. The faceshield should include a quality headgear. The shaded window should be injection molded from propionate, the best all around material for a welding environment, and should include a top quality, molded in absorber for consistent shading and protection. The window should be preformed to the shape of the headgear for a good seal and to eliminate potential weak spots from having to bend a flat window to mount it. Above all, look for optical quality. An oxyfuel welder must be able to see to be productive. Poor quality windows often provide a distorted view of the job. Look for a selection of window sizes and shapes to cover the most exposed face and neck areas.

The Fibre-Metal brand also provides a unique shade 8 faceshield window for protection from plasma arc cutting up to 100 amps (See http://www.aws.org/technical/facts/Z49.1-2005-all.pdf for information on required protection from higher amperages). The window is made from the same material as their shade 5 windows and fits most Fibre-Metal brand faceshield headgears.


WARNINGS: Because there are apparently similar products on the market that do not provide the same degree of protection and the risk of misuse of these products, several special warnings must be made. ALWAYS wear primary eye protection (spectacles or goggles) under faceshields. NEVER use any of the products mentioned in this post for electric arc welding of any kind. Serious injury could result. Be aware that there are green tinted windows, for glare protection only, that do not provide any filtration. Make sure any PPE you consider for oxyfuel welding, cutting or plasma cutting is clearly marked for IR/UV protection and includes a shade designation. If there is any question or doubt check with welding and safety officials and the manufacturer before using. Failure to do so could result in serious injury.


The protective spectacles mentioned in this post should be used solely for the applications described above and should NOT be used as general purpose sunglasses, or for driving as they have reduced levels of light transmittance and will distort traffic signal colors. Failure to heed this warning could result in serious injury or death.


Make sure you are familiar with ANSI Z87.1 and AWS Z40.9 Standards before making a face and eye PPE buying decision. OSHA’s Non-mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection is available at: (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10120)

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.