Total’s Golden Rules

Golden rule No. 4: Protective Equipment

Protective Equipment Protective equipment is divided into two main categories:

Collective protective equipment (CPE) Personal protective equipment (PPE)

Protection is provided when the risks have been analyzed and it proves impossible to eliminate the risk at its source.

Protective equipment is put in place to protect personnel from risks that might endanger their health or physical integrity.

Risk assessment Risk elimination

Collective protection Personal protection

Collective protective equipment

CPE is always implemented in precedence over PPE.

CPE must move personnel away from the source of danger, physically or in time.

Its purpose is to limit or contain danger.

It must not “hinder” work on the equipment, i.e. it must be compatible with normal use of the equipment.

CPE may limit - mechanical risk: e.g. protective grilles / housing - ergonomic risk: e.g. noisy equipment casing, etc. - chemical risk: e.g. automatic product supply, etc. - thermal risk: e.g. thermal lagging, heat guard - risk from moving around: e.g. barriers, etc. - radiation risk: e.g. protective screen, area marking, etc. - risk arising from dust: e.g. extraction / filtration, etc. - risk of falls: e.g. safety net, etc. - etc.

Collective protective equipment

The list of risks on the previous pages is not exhaustive and each unit or activity carries its own risks. Complete it with the risks specific to your workplace, stating opposite each one the collective protective equipment you believe is the most suitable.

Taking the opposite approach, what risks are limited by the following collective protective equipment? Complete the list. Extraction of fumes or vapors (laboratory, workshops, manufacturing units, etc.) Guardrail, staircase handrail Ladder safety hoops Pressurization systems for the work areas Earth connections Electrical continuity Immaterial (or infra-red) barrier Casing for conveyor belt Casing around moving parts Dual controls for presses or guillotines Airlock to equalize the pressure on entry to a building Screen for welding work Screen for cutting / grinding work Fire detector Gratings

Collective protective equipment

Have you ever been present at this type of check?

How often should it be done?

How can we be sure the checks have effectively been done?

Looking again at the list on the previous page, say which type of check you think is required.

Do you feel you would be able to report a weakness or defect in an item of collective protective equipment, or do you think this is a specialist’s job?

In order to be effective, collective protective equipment must be checked regularly by specialist services (maintenance, technical inspection, external specialists, etc.).

Personal protective equipment

Personal protective equipment is intended for use only when all other measures for eliminating or reducing risks prove insufficient or impossible to implement.

To make PPE easier to wear and accept, the characteristics of the user and his/her workplace must be factored in.

The personal protective equipment used must protect the whole body (including the head and limbs).

PPE must be worn without fail in the context of professional activity, and only in that context

The choice of PPE is always the result of the best possible compromise between the highest attainable level of safety and the need to work in conditions of maximum comfort without being hampered.

In an industrial context, danger is often omnipresent due to co-activities,

the presence of hazardous products (owing to their composition, pressure or temperature) and the equipment used.

This is why PPE is usually mandatory and required to be worn from the moment of entry into the units.

Personal protective equipment

General PPE: worn systematically on the installations, in accordance with the established rules

Specific PPE: defined after the job risk analysis and worn only to perform specific tasks or in indicated areas

Proflow system

Do you know these specific PPE items?

Eye protection must be worn

Safety overalls must be worn

Safety boots must be worn

Safety gloves must be worn

Safety helmet must be worn

Ear protection must be worn

The key stages in introducing personal protective equipment

Risk assessment PPE must be selected, deployed and used according to the general prevention principles, starting with a risk assessment.

Selection of PPE: choosing the appropriate PPE necessary for the assessed risks and for the specific conditions and characteristics of the work, based on the following criteria: Effectiveness of the protection Comfort and harmlessness Hygiene and maintenance

Preparation of clear instructions stating, in appropriate, comprehensible terms, the information relating to the conditions of use and designated purpose of PPE.

Training of the operators in how to wear PPE so they will use it as required in the instructions.

Keeping the specific personal protective equipment in good condition: inspection and maintenance.

Acceptance by the user Cost CE branding

Personal protection

Which of the following PPE must be checked periodically and which have a limited working life? (add to the list if necessary)

PPE Check Y/N Regularity of check

Working life If Yes: how long?

Hard hat

Goggles

Safety shoes

Gloves for handling

Cut-resistant gloves

Acid-resistant apron

Breathing apparatus

Cartridge respirator

Respirator cartridge

Gas analyzer

Fall arrestor

Dust mask

Ear plugs

Etc.

Personal protection

Explain why.

What can they, and what do they not, protect against?

What conditions must be met for work clothes to protect against… thermal radiation burns from flames burns from contact with hot substances the risk of electrostatic discharge?

Do you know of any cases in which work clothes provided effective protection against thermal injuries?

Conversely, have you any examples of work clothes failing to offer protection against thermal injuries? Why was this the case?

In your opinion, are work clothes an item of personal protection?

High-potential accidents or near-miss incidents

failure to respect the rules with regard to the wearing of PPE

absence or temporary override of collective protective equipment

failures of collective protective equipment (inspection / checking inadequate or not done)

PPE worn but not used (safety harness not attached)

Many high-potential severity accidents at work are caused by…

For some of these accidents, it is surprisingly lucky they did not result in death (e.g. a fall of 11 m causing only minor injuries). The examples in the following two slides are but a short extract from the accidents and near-miss incidents that occurred in 2010 (1). They were selected because they show the different aspects of personal and collective protective equipment. (1) Lack of space prevents us from giving examples of serious injuries that were fortunately avoided thanks to PPE being worn

High-potential accidents or near-miss incidents

2010 – ANGOLA: Gate opening onto a potential fall of 50 feet (15 m). The member of staff was crossing a bridge above the BOP crane gantry, and took hold of an unlocked barrier that opened with nothing below. He grabbed the handrail. The barrier lock was not fully secured (secondary safety system defective).

2010 – LUXEMBOURG: While moving a 5-t fork-lift to the lubricants warehouses, the driver unfortunately ran over the foot of a nearby colleague. The latter was wearing his safety shoes at the time, which saved his foot from being crushed completely. The main force of the pressure was deflected by the toe cap of the shoe, which protected the front of the foot. Beyond the toe cap, the shoes did not offer enough protection to prevent injury (bruises but no fracture).

2010 – NIGERIA: Chemical splashed into eyes during a transfer. As a reservoir was being filled with chemicals on the 17-m deck, some splashed into the eyes of an operator passing under the filling area on the 10-m deck; the 17 m bridge was not leak-proof where the refill funnel was placed. The injured man was evacuated to Port-Harcourt. He was wearing neither hard hat nor safety goggles.

High-potential accidents or near-miss incidents

2010 – FRANCE: 3 contractor workers were replacing 2 valves on a 62% solution nitric acid stream,. When they had finished, one of them complained of a burn to his right foot. The in-house emergency services identified burns to the upper foot and toes and evacuated the man to hospital for further treatment. The workers were wearing acid-resistant coveralls and gloves but not boots.

2010 – UK: Burst hose on the pressure gauge of a back-up oxygen cylinder. During a saturation dive, the diver noticed that his backup equipment was empty, depressurized; he returned to the diving bell to change it. The hose on the pressure gauge had burst.

2010 – KOREA: A truck driver who climbed onto the top part of the truck lost his balance and fell from a height of 2 m. He was wearing his safety equipment but his safety line was not attached. Fractures to his arm and femur. He was off work for 56 days.