Eyewash Facilities: Mistakes to Avoid, Part 2
By Glenn S. Demby, Esq
Bad things happen at workplaces that don't have good eyewash facilities. If you're one of the lucky ones, an OSHA inspector will discover the problem and order you to correct it before somebody gets hurt. If your luck is bad, one of your employees will discover the problem - when he tries to use the eyewash station after suffering an accident.
Considering the perils, it's sad to report that there are apparently a lot of employers playing fast and loose with eyewash facilities. Lack of adequate eyewash facilities remains a perennial presence atop the list of most frequent OSHA citations.
SafetyXChange looked at a random sample of about three dozen cases in which OSHA issued such a citation and discovered four common mistakes. Last week, we discussed two of them; now let's look at the others.
Mistake #3: The Eyewash Facilities Didn't Flush Adequately
The Problem: The OSHA Medical Services and First Aid Standard requires employers to provide suitable facilities for "quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body" within the work area for "immediate emergency use." Quick drenching means that there must be an adequate flow of solution - 15 minutes at a minimum. This is one of the first things an OSHA inspector will check.
Example: OSHA cited an Arkansas medical center because it didn't have enough solution to provide for 15 minutes of eye flushing. OSHA fined the medical center $1,875 (although the fine was later reduced as part of a settlement agreement).
What to Do: Don't buy eyewash equipment without thoroughly testing its flushing capabilities. Once the facilities are installed, test them periodically. Make sure that there's enough solution and sufficient pressure to ensure at least 15 minutes of flushing.
Mistake #4: There Were Obstructions Blocking Access to the Eyewash Facilities
The Problem: A fully functioning and properly located eyewash facility won't do any good if employees can't get to it during an emergency.
Example: A Massachusetts chemical plant was cited because there were large cartons blocking employee access to the eyewashing facilities. Although the boxes weren't heavy or difficult to move, OSHA said employers shouldn't count on employees who have chemicals in their eyes to negotiate obstructions.
What to Do: At the start of each shift or workday, somebody should check to make sure that there are no obstructions blocking an employee's access to the eyewash facilities.
THE FOUR COMMON EYEWASH MISTAKES
|
![]()
IS THERE A SAFETY HAZARD IN YOUR COFFEE ROOM?
![]() |
| Carafe recalled. |
If you're using this coffeemaker carafe, you may not have a handle on your coffee.
The 10-cup capacity glass pot has been voluntarily recalled due to safety hazards. According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, the carafe handle can unexpectedly loosen or break, risking burn injuries from hot coffee or lacerations from broken glass. The product's importer has received 194 reports of the handles breaking and three reports of coffee-drinkers receiving burns to their hands and arms.
Products involved: 10-cup coffeemaker carafes and replacement carafes used with West Bend Housewares 10-cup automatic coffeemaker. Look for a four-digit date code printed on the bottom of the coffeemaker. Date codes beginning with 04 are included in this recall.
For more information, contact West Bend Housewares at 800.874.4084.
Source: US Consumer Product Safety Commission
![]()
BY THE NUMBERS: HEAD INJURIES
Every 15 Seconds: How often a head injury occurs
Every 5 Minutes: How often a fatal or permanently disabling head injury occurs
More than 2 Million: How many head injuries occur in the U.S. each year
Approximately 2,000: The yearly number of head injuries in which a victim is left in a vegetative state
And Think About This:
Picture two workers. A bolt is flying at each of their heads at the same speed. Worker B is wearing a helmet with suspension. Worker A is bareheaded.
Worker A's skull is penetrated by the bolt destroying gray matter. He needs 5 to 10 years of intensive care. Cost: Over $4 million
Worker B is uninjured. But his helmet is slightly scratched.
Thanks to our friend Richard Hawk for these statistics.
Email This Post
Print This Post
TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.






