Safety Shower Correction
In the September 2003 edition of Products Finishing, there was a question in the Pollution Control Clinic that asked about eyewash stations and their requirements (www.pfonline.com/articles/clinics/0903cl_env2.html). Question: I am curious about the last paragraph that stated “eyewash equipment is recommended to meet the following: a) placed within 10 seconds travel time of a hazard, within 10 ft of strong acids or caustics.” I have found enough material on the 10-second guideline, but I am curious about the 10-ft recommendation.
In the September 2003 edition of Products Finishing, there was a question in the Pollution Control Clinic that asked about eyewash stations and their requirements (www.pfonline.com/articles/clinics/0903cl_env2.html).
Question:
I am curious about the last paragraph that stated “eyewash equipment is recommended to meet the following: a) placed within 10 seconds travel time of a hazard, within 10 ft of strong acids or caustics.” I have found enough material on the 10-second guideline, but I am curious about the 10-ft recommendation. Could you give me some further information on this part? I am unsure if it is meant straight distance or walking distance. Also, what is meant by strong acid or caustic? Below pH of 4 and above pH of 12 ? Any suggestions or information will be appreciated. J.K.
Answer:
My staff did some further investigation and found that the “within 10 ft of strong acids or caustics” statement was in the 1990 ANSI version. The 1998 ANSI version (Z358.1) removed this statement but left in the 10 seconds travel time. Since the distance statement is no longer in the ANSI standard, the definition of strong acids and caustics is mute, but they would have to be well below a pH of 4 or well above a pH of 12. Even soda pop has a pH between 2 and 3. We would consider an acid or caustic material that causes a skin burn, at a
Related Content
-
California Public Hearing to Decide Fate of Hex Chrome Plating and Anodizing
Metal Finishing Association of California urges all members of the metal finishing community to submit comments prior to the hearing.
-
Hexavalent to trivalent chromium — the environmental benefits
Regulatory pressures to switch from hexavalent chromium to trivalent alternatives are a growing concern for many finishing operations. In this Products Finishing Ask the Expert clinic, Brittany McKinney of Pavco discusses the environmental considerations driving these regulations.
-
Anode Answers for Hard Chrome Plating
While problems continue to rise with using lead anodes for hard chrome plating, some manufacturers are discovering platinized titanium anodes as a much-improved alternative with a long list of advantages.
