Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Personal Protective Equipment for a Woodworking Shop
A modern woodworking shop is replete with a wide range of hazards that must be taken into account in their design and operation, including the need for appropriate personal protective equipment for individual employees (Tizard, 2009). Using Subpart I, Appendix B of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Personal Protective Equipment Standard as a guide, this paper provides an assessment of a woodworking shop to determine what hazards are present that necessitate the use of personal protective equipment. Based on this assessment, appropriate personal protective equipment are identified and recommended for use by affected employees. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning workplace hazard assessments are presented in the conclusion.
Workplace Assessment. Although every woodworking shop is unique in some fashion, it is possible to conduct a hazard assessment that can identify potential hazards that are specific to the workplace environment, which should include the following items:
Impact
Penetration
Compression (roll-over)
Chemicals
Heat
Harmful dust
Light (optical) radiation (Personal protective equipment standards, 2014).
Following the completion of the hazard assessment, appropriate personal protective equipment should be selected based on the general and specific requirements for a woodworking...
Any industrial working environment can be a dangerous place, but this is especially the case with modern woodworking shops. For example, according to OSHA, "Woodworking operations can be hazardous, particularly when machines are used improperly or without proper safeguards" (OSHA woodworking, 2014, para. 2). In response to this need, Appendix B of OSHA's PPE standard requires protective equipment (including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers) in all workplaces. In addition, the standard requires that all protective equipment shall be maintained in appropriate condition in those cases where it is required for hazardous types of work, including toxic chemical and mechanical irritants that can harm humans through physical contact, through inhalation or via absorption through the skin. Furthermore, employers are required to provide employees with the training that is necessary to use protective equipment properly and to keep such training up-to-date when protective equipment changes are made.
Specific Requirements for a Woodworking Shop.
Eye and face protections such as face shields or spectacles with side protectors (see Figure 1 below), as appropriate, are mandated by Appendix B,…
References
Occupational and community noise. (2001, July). Journal of Environmental Health, 64(1), 48.
OSHA woodworking. (2014). Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/woodproducts/tech_woodworking.html.
Personal protective equipment standards. (2014). Grainger. Retrieved from http://www.
grainger.com/content/qt-revised-personal-protective-equipment-standards-240.
Woodworking and personal protective equipment. (2014). Harleysville. Retrieved from http://webapps.harleysvillegroup.com/losc/Client_Resources/Z-1638.pdf.
Adoption of this practice will ensure that accidental energization of power lines from back feed electrical energy from generator. Hence this will help in safeguarding utility line workers from possible electrocution. The generators need to be turn off and allow them to cool prior to refuelling. (Occupation Safety and Health Administration, n. d.) (ii) Power lines: Safety measure are required to be adopted from overhead and underground power lines as
OSHA VPP Star Program This instruction defines and applies a revised OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health (OSPP) and defines Agency measures for executing this type of program. Also, this strategy will be used to benefit the company. This directive explains and utilizes a revised OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health (OSPP) with the company and sets forth events to instrument this program. This strategy
Once the amendment procedure has been implemented, the standard is published. At this stage legal challenges can again be mounted which can further delay the enactment of the proposed standard. As evidenced by the explanation of the process that OSHA must use in order to place a standard in place it is easy to understand the problem that OSHA has in affecting any expedient change in the workplace. The extended
Worker right-to-know laws protect workers by legally obliging employers to divulge information about workplace hazards. Hazard communication standards require employers to "comprehensively" teach employees about hazardous materials in the workplace via such methods as "container labeling and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets and employee training," ("Hazard Communication"). Workers' Compensation is, like OSHA, covered by the United States Department of Labor. However, the Department of Labor's Office of Worker's
OSHA Complainant vs. E.C. Concrete Inc. Case Facts ECC is a commercial constructions contractor within the Florida region. The company has been conducting business in the Florida regions since 1992. The company employs a small group of approximately 40 employees. Its primary competitive advantage is its expertise within the multi-story commercial concrete work. ECC is the only company in the northeast Florida region that provides concrete work on multi-story buildings. On January 15, 2012
OSHA According to the General Guidelines regarding Employee Heath and Safety, every employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." (OSHA, 2005) In this particular case the employer General Dynamics did technically follow these guidelines as set forth by OSHA, even though the