Emergency Eye Wash

Well I know that you're supposed to be able to reach the eye wash in 10 seconds....which somehow translates to 55 feet....but the OSHA inspector has the last word I think...

Welcome to the forum.

I have dealt with foreign objects and chemicals in my eyes my entire career. While the eye wash stations may meet the requirement of the law, I would question how well a worker would be able to climb down to the level of the station with painful eyes. My experience ha been that people with eye injuries want to close their eyes. That is not good for climbing down stairs.

If I had to have the stations at a different level, I would hope that there could be a guide system to assist finding the stairs, guiding the person down the stairs and finding and operating the station. A hand rail with a rubber grip, or other tactile surface to identify the rail. Warning device for the start of stairs (a bump on the rail, or a gate that opens inward) With the rail continuing right to the wash station. Perhaps a chat with the OSHA rep would yield a workable solution. OSHA is the authority having jurisdiction. They should approve the concept before the final plan. Good luck.

Dike ≈ dyke.

--Ed. C.

Multiple eye wash/safety showers should be installed. At least one set should be installed at the top of the tank where personnel work. If more than one person works there at any time a second set/unit should be installed so that each person or multiple persons who have been exposed can use them at the same time. This reduces exposure from one person waiting for the other to finish rinsing/washing. All units should be equipped with alarms and lights to notify other personnel and first aid personnel that the units are in use and that personnel need assistance at that location. A cage type ladder with a safety lanyard and brake would then permit them and other personnel to quickly come down the ladder.

Repeat this same arrangement at the bottom of the ladder area. There should be a handrail or other means for exposed personnel to reach the units from the ladder without needing their eyes to see.

Another set should be located outside the dike for use in case the dike begins to collect material from a leak or vent at the top or other location.

All eye washes and showers must be equipped with the alarms, both audible and visual, so that others can be notified of the use of the units and go to the correct location to administer help and treatment. Make sure all eye washes and showers meet OSHA and ANSI standards for adequate flow, 15 gpm for the showers, and correct pattern. If the runoff water could freeze or otherwise cause a risk to personnel, place all these on grated surfaces and provide adequate "pitched" drains to quickly remove the waste water.

Heated and freeze proof units are available for locations where freezing of the supply water would be a problem. Procedures should be in place and practiced to have personnel use the units for an adequate length of time. Most people will get out after less than a minute while the proper use of them requires at least ten minutes. The most frequent use of these units in your situation would be for chemical and thermal burns to all body parts. Make sure personnel rinse all the chemicals off or use the water to cool the heated skin area for a long time to reduce the temperature of exposed body parts, the best way to reduce thermal burn effects.

Remember, the initial cost may seem high but it is miniscule to the costs incurred if someone needed an elaborate safety shower/eye wash!

Good Luck, Old Salt

"Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe?... ..."

--Sir Laurence Olivier's character in Marathon Man.

"Money is no object, so long as it is someone else's money."

--Ogden Nash, maybe?

Mr. Nash was obviously a politician.

Guys,

Thanks a lot for the valuable answers. The question still remains is this good practice to have an eye wash in a dike when in some companies the dike is considered a confined space? Also from your experiences, do we really have frequent operation on Hydrocarbon tanks? I can see the need for maintenance visits and some operational runs once in a while. I like the idea of installing an eye wash at the top of the tank to be on the same level with the exposed employee since that is what ansi z358.1 requires but the other issue arises from the eye wash water being heated by the hot HC tank since it will run up the tank. The location of the tanks is within the tropics where temperatures do get up to 50 degrees in the summer. How can I keep the eye wash water tepid as required by the standard in this instance?

OSHA & ANSI look at time and distance to the eye wash station. If the worker exposure to hazardous chemicals is in a enclosed environment. To place the eye wash station outside the enclosed environment. Access to it must meet ANSI standards. If it can't then yes it needs to be in the enclosed environment.

ANSI Z358.1 requires it eye wash station to be with in 10 seconds or 55 ft. Even with no contamination it would take more time to climb a ladder then walk the same distance. Your talking 14 meters(45 feet). Even if you could cross the distance in the same time. If where they workers would be exposed to the chemicals is more then 10 feet from the ladder. Then your in violation. That's if the eye wash station is right at the bottom of the ladder.

You say you want to arm yourself before meeting the designer. You have brought up the ANSI Z358.1 standard. Why? You have over looked OHSA and their first rule. If you as an employer see a safety problem you must address it. Since you question the designers placement of the eye wash station you must then see some issue of a safety hazard for your employees. Tell him where you want them.

Also note that they make an eye wash station that has a bleed off valve to release water in excess of 100°F. And since we are talking safety make sure they plump the release water to and area that it doesn't become a slip hazard.

Unfortunately, OHSA is not the authority having jurisdiction in this instance. For lack of an AHJ and local codes, I have to rely on Intrenational standards hence my quoting them. Remember the designer is not stupid. He has reasons for locating the eye washes at where indicated. I am trying to convince him otherwise with the standard requirements.

I think you should keep the eye wash stations where they are INSIDE the dike, (your designer was right to keep them close) and add more where OSHA or other international standards suggest. Remember, the cost to repair or replace an employee is Many times the price of an eyewash/shower installation. Extra eye wash stations are cheap at twice the price. Even in the tropics!

Sojourner-

ANSI standards, at least in the USA, are not laws but only standards that they have written up as "suggestions" to what they feel is the best methods to do something. This is identical to the NFPA standards. Standards become law, the thing you have to comply with, when they are adopted by the regulatory agency or governing body. A clear example of it is OSHA. Many of their regulations are standards, developed by others that they have processed through the law making procedures to have them become law by "adoption". Thus, it isn't the standard you have to comply with; it is the law that you have to comply with. I feel I don't know enough about the laws in other countries to discuss them here.

Safety can sometimes be expensive to provide equipment/methods to comply with laws. Even more expensive sometimes is to provide adequate safety equipment to reduce frequency and severity of harm to personnel. I have always used the guideline of "what would I want if I was the injured/exposed employee?" I would certainly want the eye wash/safety shower at the point of exposure since I could reduce the severity by getting immediate initial treatment. Also how could I descend a ladder if my eyes can't see because I haven't rinsed them yet?

The units at the base of the tank are to give a more extensive treatment after descending the ladder. Getting from the top to the base will certainly aggravate the injury and more flushing will be needed, especially at a tropical location. Although some organizations may consider the diked area a confined space there is no reason why a unit cannot be located there. It is even better if it is located there, the point of exposure/injury. Many installations have units in confined spaces in order to provide the units close to the injured employee. This is also why portable eye washes were developed. Take them where they may be necessary.

The units located outside the dike are for continued treatment after moving out of the dike. They also provide treatment if an accident occur within the diked area such as a piping or devise leak connected to the tank. They serve a dual purpose. They are also located in the safest area in the area of the tank. The purpose of these units is to get the initial treatment to the person as quick as possible. Time and concentrations are the enemies. These units are the solution and proper placement makes them able to do this in a timely manner.

The frequency of operations on or in the vicinity of the hydrocarbon tanks should not be a decision point. The severity of risk is based on the extent of the injury not the frequency of the risk. Safety equipment reduces or eliminates the severity of the injury; procedures and training reduce the frequency of the risk.

Thermal transfer from the hydrocarbon tank can be eliminated by using sufficient thermal insulation on the water feed piping, the adjacent area of the hydrocarbon tank or preferably both. Cooling of this piping can be accomplished by tracing it with tubing that is fed by water at the desired discharge temperature of the eye wash/safety shower. This is installed under the insulation. If the ambient water temperature is too high, connect the feed to a small cooling unit. This is almost identical to how piping is steam traced to keep it warm/hot. Put a thermal sensor and a flow sensor on it either at the unit location or the discharge end of the tracing. Putting it at the end of the tracing indicates if there is any leak in the system. The temperature sensor would be best located at the point of use. Both of these should be connected to the alarm system.

As stated earlier, use yourself as the effected employee. What are your own health, welfare and life actually worth? Unfortunately this is a question that can only be answered after the damage is done. It is better to find out after needed that you may have overspent vs. finding out some more money should have been spent to protect someone whose injuries could have been avoided or reduced? One injury of moderate severity will probably justify spending more money for a really good system when overall costs are compared. Accidents are not cheap.

Good Luck, Old Salt

How about having employees carry eye wash bottles on their persons when working at the tank top?

Tornado-

The "carry" type eye wash bottles don't carry enough water to do even a small amount of what is needed. With an eye contamination/injury nothing is better than "flush with copious amounts of water". The ANSI standard, the one adopted by OSHA, states 4gpm for 15 minutes. The hand held bottles are only to aid the water eyewash, not replace it. The hand held ones are sometimes just a weak Boric Acid solution, weak Sodium Bi-Carbonate, weak salt water or water with a small quantity of preservative.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Thank you old salt.

Carry bottles may be inadequate, but they will buy some tine and relief until the injured party gets to a 'continuous flush'.

Bluebell-

Carry bottles are usually only one quart or one liter. It also usually contains a very weak solution of Boric Acid. An OSHA approved eye provides 4 gallons in the first minute and 56 gallons during the next 14 minutes of the required 4 gal per minute for 15 minutes. At this rate a one quart bottle of weak Boric Acid solution with a weak preservative gives approx. four (4) seconds of the need water for the eyes or face flushing after chemical or thermal or both chemical and thermal exposure. Much, much less than would even needed for a minor or miniscule exposure. They also create a false sense of confidence, something that is proven wrong after the exposure and inadequate initial first-aid from the quart bottle.

A carry bottle is only adequate for the person who doesn't need it and is not aware enough to have the correct and sufficient apparatus ready and available. Safety and safety apparatus should always be approached as if you personally were the person who was going to have to use it. What is your health, welfare or life worth? If a person is going to use an eye wash why not put it where OSHA and practical sense says it must be placed within 10 seconds or 55 ft. of the place of contamination. Yes, eye washes are expensive but cost less (even considering labor) than a trip to the Emergency Room for just an examination and no treatment.

War story- I worked in a chemical plant 30 years ago. An employee got splashed with heated/boiling water. Instead of going to the safety shower that was about five feet away he fought off the coworkers who were trying to put him under this shower. He had panicked and went to the showers in the locker room. He was treated in the best burn center within a radius of 500 miles. Result- 3deg burns over 50% of his body, physical therapy for over a year, addicted to drugs from those he was given in the hospital, 3 months in the burn ward with daily flushing's and debriding, couldn't work after that for life and wife eventually divorced him because of the change in mental attitude. The investigation showed that he would have suffered sunburn like 1st deg burn if he had used the closest shower! All because he didn't use the nearest safety shower! The cost to the company--> over $1,500,000 for the treatment and $1,000,000 when he went to court and sued them. Those were prices from 30 years ago. What would it be today?

Don't compromise with safety! It is only expensive to the one who doesn't need to use it ever! Would you want to be the one whose safety was compromised by someone depending upon a 1 qt bottle instead of the 4 gal/min for 15min.? Not Me! Not my coworkers, not anyone!

Good Luck, Old Salt

Old Salt has it precisely. Just want to add that there is new, 2014 in the USA, ready-to-use bottled eyewash on the market with Phosphate(2) high buffer capacity to correct the pH of the eyes, PHMB for second degree burns, wound anti-microbial and to reduce wound pain plus EDTA chelating effect (binding) to remove minerals, metals (acids & alkali). Nothing substitutes a continuous and uninterrupted flush for 15 min. per Z 358.1. But; when that 15 mins is up, the tank is empty and victim moved to a treatment center, a few 16 oz or 32oz bottles of the above enhance the recovery by keeping the wound site moist at the very least. Also, information on the caustic contaminant, like a MSDS is valuable to the treating physician. Disclamer: my firm is the Importer of Record for the above item from Canada see All eyewash that meets 21CFR349.20 is very, very good. The FDA Monograph for eyewash is the best in the world. Not all brands are compliant so Buyer Beware! Include 21CFR349.20 in your purchase description to insure that "if it were your eyes..." nothing sub-standard, please.

this has been a topic before, maybe last year. A search will reveal all.

The eye baths are not fitted to protect workers in normal operating conditions. They should be wearing the correct PPE and operate in such a way that there is no danger to their eyes. The eye baths are needed for the abnormal. When the tank overflows, when a pipe seal fails, when the heating thermostat breaks and the liquid boils and splashes over. If the eye bath saves the sight of one worker in the next ten years is is a success. If when the plant becomes obsolete in twenty years, you can say that the eye bath was never once used, that is also a success, but it was still necessary.

Perhaps consider PPE that would completely protect personnel in this situation. Do not eliminate the EEW/ES but this may influence the decision on where to locate them.