[Terabithia]

I am trying to resolve some safety concerns I have regarding the use of eye protection in a machine shop. The shop has 8 Haas VF2 SS VMC machines, a Haas TM-2 (not enclosed), and two Mori-Seiki NH6000 HMC's with a cell system.

Company management has no eye protection policy in place, and insists none is necessary as the machines are enclosed and there is no risk of eye injury. They do say they require eye protection while setting up the machines, but only at that time. Some of the parts I have programmed use a 2” 4-flute face mill at 12,000 RPM & 400 IPM, depth of cut .125” in Aluminum. With this tool running, the inside of the machine sounds like a machine gun is at work. Chips manage to find openings in the machine enclosure and pelt the operators.

Can anyone offer any opinions as to the validity fo the management position that no eye protection is needed?

Thanks!

[Geof]

Completely invalid in my humble opinion as a company owner and manager. The TL2 is not enclosed so eye protection is essential here. You present another example why eye protection is needed all the time and that is even with enclosed machines some chips still escape. Are air guns used for blowing off chips when reloading machines, this makes eye protection essential. Even for people not operating machines eye protection is a good idea because they can walk past a machine that is open or an operator blowing off something. Just coolant spray can be dangerous because it is very irritating and distracting if it splashes in a person's eyes.

I cannot understand a management attitude that says eye protection is not necessary. Normally in my experience it is the other way around with the workers not wanting to wear eye protection.

[Terabithia]

Geof,

Thanks for the response.

Yes, air guns are used to blow off the parts, as well as the fixturing in the machines.

I find it hard to believe that an operator would alawys remember to put on eye protection only at the times that management has decided it is required, and not forget it.

You make a very valid point about walking by a machine and risking an eye injury.

All of the machine operators in the shop have been hired off of the street, none of them had any shop experience prior to this job. There is no safety training, they are hired and put right on a machine. In my opinion, it is unlikely that these operators have any idea of the dangers.

[Geof]

....All of the machine operators in the shop have been hired off of the street, none of them had any shop experience prior to this job. There is no safety training, they are hired and put right on a machine. In my opinion, it is unlikely that these operators have any idea of the dangers.

This is irresponsible, frustrating and annoying. Companies cut corners and do this then when the a serious injury happens and there is an enquiry the big headlines go up about employers putting their workers at risk and even more onerous safety legislation is imposed on the responsible employers. Meanwhile the irresponsible ones quietly close up shop and open somewhere else under a different name.

Maybe I exaggerate, but not much.

[DareBee]

As Canadian business owners, this would land Geof or myself in jail really fast. Not to mention fines that can accumulate into millions of dollars.
I find it hard to believe that your government is that much different.

On the other hand I can not watch shows such as "Dirty Jobs", OCC, or similar shows and not see MANY, MANY "Canadian type" safety infractions. Some of them VERY serious by our standards.

[Terabithia]

You present another example why eye protection is needed all the time and that is even with enclosed machines some chips still escape.

With management believing that a fully enclosed machine presents no eye hazards, any suggestions on how to argue that point?

[Geof]

I am stumped, there must be something in OSHA regs although I hate to get inspectors involved because they can create other problems.

[JDenyer232]

With management believing that a fully enclosed machine presents no eye hazards, any suggestions on how to argue that point?

Use their logic against them. It's really simple, cost of safety glasses $10.00, cost for eye injury and or lawsuit and lost productivity $1000's. Eye injuries can happen with enclosures, I have seen parts launched at high velocity and penetrate the plastic on machine doors. Air guns can blow a chip right thru an eye. Safety practices cost almost nothing to implement, I our shop you comply with the established safety practices or you get written up, get written up 3 times and you are terminated. Makes for a good incentive.

[wwendorf]

I don't have a commercial shop, just a home shop. But, anyone who comes to visit is given a pair of safety glasses if they don't have their own. If they don't want to wear them, they are welcome wear a face shield or to exit my shop.

I also do a lot of work at my friends shop. He has a Haas mill and lathe, as well as a lot of other machines. He rule is that if you enter the shop, you are wearing safety glasses or you are welcome to wait in the office area.

Just makes sense to me. Glasses are replacable for cheap, eye's aren't.

Wade

[scadvice]

I believe OSHA may have other thoughts on that subject. I would remind or suggest they contact OSHA and find out what the current fines are for non-compliance. I believe they may even shut them down for not supplying safety glasses and if an injury occures...well that could also shut them down, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and possibly put some or all of management/owners in jail.(nuts)
They also might want to check out www.osha.gov (chair) Just a thought...
The normal other operations in the shop beyond enclosed and door safety switches on the CNC's will still demand the need for safety classes. The only time glasses should not be a requirement is when nothing is running.
Steve

[ragman]

I can't believe you need to force some people to wear eye protection these days. I mean, for god's sake, you only get 2 chances with your eyes. The only one who is going to benefit is yourself! It scares the hell out of me, personally, the thought of having no sight. Think of how your life would change!

[warrenb]

Cost of safety glasses at the local welding shop...$4.50

Cost of my good vision...Priceless

[fizzissist]

The simple answer is.....
If there were to be an eye injury that required a trip to the hospital, would the insurance company pay happily or would your rates go up?

Can't tell you how many times I've gone into a big factory and you put on glasses at the door. Period. An accident as stupid as the spring in a ball point pen hitting someone in the eye results in a half a ream of paper being printed.

Practical or not, common sense or not....plenty machine guards or not....the ultimate sad statement of our times:

WWIS. (What Would Insurance Say)

.....and then there's lawsuits and liability.

[diycnc]

you can as a employee wear them anyways.. the company might have a silly policy but it doenst mean you have to risk your eyes..

[APP]

I hate safety glasses. I will not wear them unless I am running a manual machine, or a grinder.

I dont wear them when I mow the lawn or have sex. I also dont wear a helmet in the car, nor does my car have a roll cage. I am a risk taker.

[Terabithia]

Thanks for your interest & responses.

OSHA did an inspection of the shop several months ago. They checked in at the front desk, and it was 20 minutes, according to the investigator, before he actually got to the shop. Everyone had safety glasses on.

The OSHA investigator said it is up to the company to determine if a machine poses any injury risk, and implement a corresponding safety program.

I agree that as an individual the employees can choose to wear glasses, however so far as I know none of the operators in this shop have previous shop background. In short, they have no clue of the risk they are taking.

[HuFlungDung]

I suppose that the machines are safe to be around when the doors are closed, but what if someone blowing off their parts sends a chip sailing across the room into some else's eye? Even picking chips out of a hole can send a small piece flying, because chips are like little springs. What if an airline blows apart and raises a helluva ruckus blowing chips off the top of machine enclosures, or from wherever? What if the end of your deburring tool shatters and sends a fragment into an eye? What if someone blows filing dust into their own face and eyes?

You might be okay in a room full of machines all by yourself, but when you've got a bunch of other operators doing god knows what, you need eye protection.

[Mike Horne]

The OSHA reg that covers this is the "general duty" principle, stated in the general industry CFR if I remember correctly.

Essentially if there is a hazard known, but not covered in the CFR, then the company is responsible for mitigating it. So even if there were not specific provisions for eye protection (PPE) the responsibility is on the company.

So, most companies assume a work area to need eye protection, and enforce glass wearing at all times by all personel. Like others have said, when there is an injury, then the company will be in hot water, because they are not following what other companies deem reasonable.

The "We don't need it because..." is exactly what got Value Jet in trouble.

If the company wants no glasses with machines closed, they'd best get that approved by OSHA in their area... and in writing on site. Good luck with that.

[doug6949]

Employers who point to a supposed lack of specifics in the OSHA regs are deliberately avoiding the issue. I'm guessing the real reason for the lack of a safety glasses policy is that you have one or more persons at the top who don't like wearing safety glasses.

[Bubba]

I think you hit the nail on the head, but that still doesn't "forbid" any sensible person from protecting him/her self! Any of us that have been in a shop knows how Murphy will direct all kinds of flying objects!