All posts by admin

Industrial Hygiene, Industrial Safety Service Centers, Industrial Safety Services & Equipment

Total Safety Acquires Industrial Hygiene Consulting Firm, Pacific Environmental

Leave a comment

Total Safety Acquires Pacific Environmental Consulting“We are honored to have Pacific’s talented team join the Total Safety family,” said David E. Fanta, Chief Executive Officer of Total Safety. “Canada remains a very strategic market for Total Safety and we have many clients asking us to expand our service offering to include industrial hygiene and occupational safety. Working with Peter and the other professionals at Pacific, we will now be able to provide an even more comprehensive suite of safety solutions in this key market.”

Pacific Environmental, headquartered in Vancouver and founded in 1990, provides engineering and consulting services focused on worker health and safety. Those services incorporate Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (“CCOHS”)/Provincial Workers Compensation Board (“WCP”) regulatory requirements in the delivery of workplace environmental and industrial hygiene consulting services to a wide range of customers in Western Canada.

Its core industrial hygiene competencies include worker exposure monitoring, air quality assessments, laboratory analysis and chemical safety audits. Pacific also handles environmental consulting and assessments, hazardous material audits, worker training programs, health and safety audits, confined space audits, fall protection programs and workplace regulation reviews in consultation with regulatory authorities.

Peter Hansen, Pacific’s President and Co-Founder, stated, “This is a very exciting time for our employees and clients. The synergy between our two companies will accelerate market growth and career opportunities, a true winning combination. The Pacific team looks forward to partnering with such a dynamic team, offering our customers additional services, and complementing Total Safety’s current Canadian portfolio while continuing to add value for our clients.”

For more information on Total Safety and how we can equip your company with the best in industrial hygiene services and equipment, give us a call at 888.44.TOTAL.

Total Safety – The Best Minds in the Business!

 

Industrial Hygiene, Industrial Safety Services & Equipment, Occupational Health and Safety

Industrial Hygiene Planning for Successful Turnarounds

Leave a comment

By Mandy Sunderland, Senior Industrial Hygienist , Total Safety

 Turnarounds can be expensive in terms of lost production while the process unit is offline, and in direct costs for labor, tools, heavy equipment and materials used to execute the project.

A well planned and executed turnaround helps ensure the project is conducted safely and efficiently, so the unit can be returned to operation as quickly as possible.  Tremendous effort typically goes into planning and coordinating the various aspects to ensure all necessary repairs and maintenance are conducted during the turnaround, so the unit doesn’t have to be shut down again until the next planned turnaround.  However, far too often industrial hygiene issues are not adequately addressed in the early phases of turnaround planning.  Playing catch-up in this area can have a negative impact on worker safety, project budget and schedule.

To help ensure turnaround success, the following industrial hygiene items should be considered during planning:

  • DETERMINE potential exposures to chemical agents well in advance and identify requirements for trained personnel and equipment.  Based on potential exposures, the project may require IH devices such as real time direct reading instruments to measure agents such as total hydrocarbons or H2S. Personal and area air samples for laboratory analysis may also be required to measure specific agents in welding fumes or catalyst. 
  • DEVELOP clear guidelines for PPE (personal protective equipment) use throughout the project, including respiratory protection, hearing protection, gloves, coveralls and safety shoes. Access control plans should be developed to ensure workers aren’t exposed to hazards unnecessarily. Special attention should be given to any jobs involving confined space entry. Defining and communicating PPE requirements in advance helps ensure that contractors will provide proper equipment and trained personnel.
  • DEFINE the types and numbers of worker and activities to be monitored. An IH sampling strategy should be developed which sets requirements for full shift TWA (time weighted average) sampling or activity specific STEL (short term exposure limit) sampling. Some operators monitor their own company employees, but require contractors to monitor their own workers. Coordinating these plans will help prioritize resources to better protect workers.
  • UNDERSTAND the full scope and length of the turnaround. Determine if IH monitoring will be required during the preparation phase, actual shutdown, line breaks, vessel entries or start up and commissioning. Ensure adequate and appropriate IH materials, supply and support are available throughout the project.
  • DECIDE which analytical laboratories will be used for IH samples.  Agree on the types of reports needed (e.g. full report with specific recommendations or rough data only). Consider who will need to see results in order to keep the project running smoothly and maximize worker protection. 
  • ANTICIPATE the unexpected. Don’t get caught off guard by unexpected exposures to NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material), asbestos or PCBs. If you don’t have a clear picture of potential exposures, bring in an IH expert to conduct a survey of the project area and a review of the turnover plan.

In summary, a comprehensive industrial hygiene strategy will help ensure your next turnaround project is completed safely, within budget and on schedule. Therefore during your next turnaround planning cycle be sure to thoroughly examine industrial hygiene issues in your decision making process.  It can save you bucks!

To learn more about Total Safety or our complete line of industrial hygiene services, contact us at 888.44.TOTAL (888.448.6825).

Total Safety – The Best Minds in the Business!

Industrial Safety Service Centers, Industrial Safety Services & Equipment

Total Safety Acquires Scotsafe

Leave a comment

Total Safety Acqires Scotsafe, Scotland based industrial safety equipment & services supplier.HOUSTON–“We are very pleased to announce this most recent acquisition and to welcome the Scotsafe team to Total Safety,” said David E. Fanta, Chief Executive Officer of Total Safety. “By adding this experienced team and strategic offering to our suite of services, we can provide a more comprehensive offering to the strategic North Sea and surrounding markets and respond to our clients more expediently.”

Scotsafe provides a variety of safety equipment and services including gas detection systems and equipment, breathing air, fit testing, and other critical safety systems and personnel; all a strong complement to Total Safety’s current UK services. Founded in 1991, Scotsafe provides service for both the land-based and offshore energy industry in the North Sea market out of its office in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Adrian Scott, Scotsafe’s founder, stated, “This is a very exciting time for our employees and clients. The synergy between our two companies will allow for market growth and employment opportunities, I’d like to thank all the customers, suppliers and staff who have contributed to our success so far and look forward to delivering the enhanced capabilities the new dynamic partnership will provide.”

Specific financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.

For more information on Total Safety and how we can equip your company with industrial safety services and equipment, give us a call at 888.44.TOTAL.

Total Safety – The Best Minds in the Business!

Gas Detection Service Solutions, Industrial Safety Services & Equipment

Interpreting Direct Reading Instrumentation

Leave a comment

By Hans Umhoefer, Sr. Industrial Hygiene Specialist, Total Safety

How many times has your GPS given questionable directions? Do you continue to follow it when the “road” has deteriorated into boulders and fallen trees? Like a GPS, a direct reading instrument provides information that must be interpreted.

Direct reading instrumentation has earned itself a place in any safety professional’s bag of tricks. They are robust, fairly precise, and they give a result quickly. The real time, single number display makes them extremely useful, but it can be misleading. We can’t simply accept the numbers on the display. We must ask, “What do those numbers really mean?”

When a CO sensor is calibrated, you can be reasonably assured that, in the presence of 50 ppm of CO, the instrument will read approximately 50 ppm. But what if CO doesn’t make any sense? All of these sensors have cross-sensitivities. Acetylene and hydrogen will produce a response on a CO sensor at relatively low concentrations (RAE Systems TN-121). A leaking acetylene cylinder or battery charging operations could be producing CO reading.

Combustible gas (LEL) sensors and photo-ionization detectors (PID) are designed to respond to a wide range of compounds. However, the sensors do not respond the same to each of these compounds. When these instruments are calibrated with a certain gas, they read in units of that gas. The best way to correct for this is to calibrate with the chemical you will be measuring. However, maintaining this stock of calibration gases would be a nightmare. Fortunately, manufacturers publish correction factors for their instrumentation that allow us to calibrate with standard gasses and then calculate the concentration of the analyte.

When an LEL sensor, calibrated with methane, is used to measure the concentration of o-xylene, the reading must be multiplied by a correction factor of 3.0 (RAE Systems TN-156). In this situation, a reading of 40% LEL methane corresponds to a concentration of 120% LEL o-xylene!

Correction factors greater than one mean the instrument will underestimate the actual concentration, while those less than one result in an overestimation. Most correction factors for a combustible gas sensor are greater than one. Thus, it is possible to exceed the LEL while the instrument reads less than 100%. This is part of the reason for setting the low alarm at 10% LEL. The process for a PID is similar.

Additionally, direct reading does not mean instantaneous reading. Sensor response time can vary from 10 seconds for a PID to 200 seconds for a HCN sensor. These times are magnified if the instrument must pull the sample through a length of tubing. It is important to wait until the reading stabilizes before moving to a new position and collecting another sample. Alarm settings must be low enough to provide sufficient warning of an increasing gas concentration.

It is important to understand how the instrument reports data. Check the datalogging interval and measurement type in the datalog setup to be sure they are appropriate for your purposes. Direct reading instruments typically record average or peak concentrations for each datalogging interval. An average measurement is necessary when calculating STEL or TWA concentrations but may not show high peaks if the concentration fluctuates rapidly. A shorter datalogging period will increase the resolution but also take up more memory.

I’ve referenced RAE equipment for this discussion, but it is applicable to other manufacturers’ equipment as well. Consult the documentation for your instrument so you can interpret what it is telling you.

For additional gas monitoring and detection tips, call us at 888.44.TOTAL.

Total Safety – The Best Minds in the Business!

Industrial Hygiene, Occupational Health and Safety

Spill Response: Can Industry Supply the Goods?

Leave a comment

By Mandy Sunderland, Industrial Hygiene Specialist, Total Safety

For the quickest response, go Total Safety.The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez spill, now the second largest oil spill in U.S. waters. The intent of the law is to improve the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills. OPA 90 regulations cover many areas and include requirements for industry handling oily materials to establish contracts for spill response services ahead of time, and to conduct table top and large scale drills to test the capabilities of these services.

History shows that the speed and effectiveness of a spill response depends on the availability of equipment, resources and trained personnel. And it pays to be well prepared because response costs can be very high. Since the early days of the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill, response personnel have been working round the clock to support containment and clean up operations.  Crews worked to protect hundreds of miles of beaches, wetlands and estuaries along the northern Gulf coast using skimmer ships, floating containment booms, anchored barriers and sand-filled barricades along shorelines. It has been reported that as of August 9, 2010, skimming operations had recovered over 826,000 barrels of oily liquid and 411 controlled burns had been carried out. Approximately 30,800 personnel were deployed, more than 5,050 vessels were at work, and dozens of aircraft were engaged in the response effort. Estimated direct response costs had already reached $6.1 billion, including the cost of containment, clean-up, relief well drilling, static kill and cementing, grants to the Gulf States, claims paid and federal costs. On June 16 2010, an agreed package of measures was announced, including the creation of a $20 billion escrow account to satisfy certain obligations arising from the oil and gas spill.1

Businesses on contract to oil companies affected by the spill scrambled to locate equipment and trained personnel, balancing the immediate needs of these customers with the needs of other customers to maintain adequate levels of response capability. Existing staff worked lots of overtime, while new employees were recruited, trained and deployed to the Gulf as quickly as possible.

In response to the spill four major oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell) launched a non- profit joint venture called the Marine Well Containment Company. It can be mobilized within 24 hours of an incident, used in deepwater depths at up to 10,000 feet, and has a capacity to contain up to 100,000 barrels of oil per day.     

The recent spill was an advanced course in spill management that industry can use as a guide to assist all of us in our quest for continuous improvement.  As we have learned, spill response is expensive and resources can be tenuous and elusive. There are many lessons to be learned from this event including, but not limited to, exercising our response plans to their greatest extent possible and more accurately assessing our ability to provide services as depicted in contracts. Ultimately though, we must be diligent in the way we conduct our daily business, as noted in a statement released by Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, “the extensive experience of industry shows that when the focus remains on safe operations and risk management, tragic incidents like the one we are witnessing in the Gulf of Mexico today should not occur.”   In summary, with significant effort to improve safety, prevention and response, the oil  industry’s motto of ‘Action before Reaction’ is the way to go.

  1. BP Press Release, 09 August 2010
Occupational Health and Safety

The HazCom World is Changing

Leave a comment

By John Baker, CIH, Industrial Hygiene Support Services Manager, Total Safety

Back in 1983, the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29CFR1910.1200, was born. This important worker right-to-know standard was well founded on a three legged stool: (1) labels on containers, (2) accurate and complete Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and (3) training of employees.

In that year, most personal computers still used the MS-DOS operating system and didn’t have a mouse; the last episode of M*A*S*H was aired, and President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire,” while we were still in the throes of the Cold War. We were on the threshold of major changes in our international relationships as a suicide bomber destroyed the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon killing 63 people.

Since then, the world has continued to change as a result of “globalization.” We are exporting products to and importing products from countries, which may use hazard classifications that differ from ours. These differing classifications could impede trade and the accurate communication of safe practices to employees, customers and the general public. For example, a liquid with a flash point of 120º F would have been considered “Flammable” in Germany, but OSHA would consider it “Combustible.”

Under the leadership of the U.S. Department of State, OSHA, along with EPA, CPSC, FDA and DOT, are considering whether our approach to informing and protecting workers and the public should conform to the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (the GHS) established by the United Nations in 2003 with the current 3rd edition released in 2009. Regarding employee safety and health, OSHA published a proposed rule in 2009 to implement the GHS, with public hearings to be held this year. For transportation purposes, DOT has already revised the Hazardous Material Regulations to harmonize classification of toxic materials and flammable liquids with UN Model Regulations. Regardless of whether the rest of the U.S. government formally adopts the GHS, we, in industry, must become knowledgeable about the system because most of our important trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, the UK and the other members of the European Union, China, Japan, Korea and Australia, have committed to aligning their hazard communication requirements with the GHS.

So what will change under GHS?

For one thing, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will be known as “Safety Data Sheets (SDS),” and they must adhere to a 16 section format similar to ANSI Z400.1 developed through the leadership of the American Chemistry Council. But under GHS, Section 2 will be “Hazard identification” and Section 3 will give “Composition/information on ingredients” instead of the other way around.

Also Section 2 must list the GHS hazard class and category, such as Flammable Liquid, category 1, and specific label elements including “signal words,” e.g., “Danger” or “Warning;” standardized hazard statements and code, such as “H224, Extremely Flammable Liquid and Vapor,” standardized precautionary statements and codes, such as “P210, Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces – No smoking” and new graphic symbols called “pictograms.” For example, the three pictograms below indicate that the material may pose various types of toxicity. The proper pictogram to use will depend on the GHS hazard class and category.

For the latest in occupational health and safety, go Total Safety.

At this time, it is expected that after the public hearings this year, and a post-hearing comment period, OSHA will draft and adopt a final rule in 2011, with a transition period for adoption through 2014. There is a wealth of information at the OSHA web site, which should be checked regularly to keep posted on changes.

Industrial Safety Services & Equipment, Safety Training & Consulting Services, Uncategorized

The Danger of Oil Sites

Leave a comment

In April 2010 at approximately 9:00 p.m., in the remote community of Weeletka, Oklahoma, six young people aged 18 to 32 were socializing at a rural, unmanned oil and gas property when a cigarette or lighter likely ignited a blast that claimed the life of a 21 year old man. Based on witness interviews the explosion occurred when the victim opened the hatch on one of the four petroleum storage tanks present on site that contained approximately 160 barrels of light crude oil. The explosion occurred about 10 minutes after they arrived on site. The group was drawn to the site when they saw the open gate to the normally unmanned property.   It was common for young people in this town to hang out in remote oil field properties, and they were largely unfamiliar with hazards associated with oil and gas.

The Chemical Safety Board (CSB), the federal agency charged with investigating serious chemical accidents  led the investigation. The CSB learned the site entrance was protected only by an unmarked gate which was routinely left open and unlocked. Aside from the gate, the property was not fenced, and no other protective measures were present warning the public of dangers associated with entering the site. The report also mentioned that the catwalk leading to the top of the tank was unsecured and readily accessible, and tank hatches had no mechanisms allowing them to be secured. Finally, it was possible that signage was destroyed in the fire, but eyewitness reported they saw no warning signs posted on or near the facility on the night of the incident.

And this is not the first time a tragedy like this has happened. A review of CSB records released in mid April indicate that 24 similar explosions and fires occurred at oil and gas production sites between 1983 and 2009 and of those accidents there were 42 fatalities and other related serious injuries. According to CSB records, all these fatalities occurred among teenagers and young adults under the age of 25, and in most cases, explosions were ignited by a cigarette, lighter or match.   

“No Place to Hang Out: The Danger of Oil Sites”

Interestingly enough, the tragic incident in Oklahoma occurred only one day after the release of a new CSB safety video called “No Place to Hang Out: The Danger of Oil Sites” (see below for video).  The segment was created to educate young people about the hazards of hanging out on oil and gas properties.  The 11 minute video, which can also be downloaded from the CSB website, is narrated by a young woman who describes the tragic deaths of two teenage boys killed in October 2009 when an oil tank located in a clearing in the woods near the home of one of the boys in rural Mississippi exploded, while the two boys were hanging out on site.  The powerful video is a timely tool that can be used to raise awareness of young people about the dangers associated with socializing on oil and gas properties and a reminder to just stay away from these sites.  It could also be used as an engaging safety moment or agenda topic at an employee safety meeting.

Be Diligent in Ensuring that Your Facilities Are Safe

Incidents, such as these, serve as a wake up call to the oil and gas industry. We need to be diligent in ensuring our facilities are secured against unauthorized entry and warning signs are adequately posted. When possible barriers and other security measures should also be employed. An active safety audit and inspection program is critical in keeping management abreast on the safety and security status of our facilities.

As an industry, we should be concerned about these on going incidents across the country and do what we can to prevent them from happening. Tragedies, like these, give us incentive to re-examine our facilities both urban and remote, with fresh eyes to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the public from dangers associated with these sites. We need to educate young people of the dangers of unauthorized entry. As there are no specific federal standards or industry guidance for security at oil and gas sites, it is our obligation and commitment to do what it takes to get the job done right by taking control: secure, fence and warn!

Industrial Hygiene

Building an Industrial Hygiene Program from the Ground Up

Leave a comment

By Chuck Dingman, CIH, CSP Industrial Hygiene Services Manager, Total Safety

For the best in industrial hygiene, go Total Safety.So your manager has instructed you to develop a new Industrial Hygiene Program or correct deficiencies in the current program for your organization.  Just what does that mean, and where do you begin?

Simply stated, the field of industrial hygiene encompasses agents and conditions that can impact employee health and well-being in the work environment.  The list of potential factors or stressors that can impact health and well-being include exposure to chemicals, high noise levels, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, biological organisms, temperature extremes and ergonomic hazards. All these hazards must be assessed and controls implemented where unacceptable exposure conditions exist.  Potential controls include hearing conservation, respiratory protection, radiation safety, heat stress, medical surveillance programs, and work practice and engineering controls.  These programs and controls must be managed effectively to protect employee health and well-being.  But which programs and controls do you really need?     

The Workplace Exposure Assessment Process

There are two options available to you for identifying needed programs and controls. The first is to spend your time, money and effort putting out fires, i.e. reacting to workplace complaints, concerns and demands. The other option is to conduct a comprehensive, systematic assessment of needs and implement a proactive program to address and manage those needs. In either case, the assignment can be daunting, but can be made manageable with the right approach. The Workplace Exposure Assessment (WEA) process provides one such approach.

Traditionally, the WEA process was developed to evaluate potential chemical exposures. With modifications, the same WEA process can, however, be applied to evaluate nearly all potential industrial hygiene health risks. 

The process of performing a WEA involves a series of distinct steps. The first step in a chemical WEA is to identify job classifications with potential exposure to specific chemicals. Secondly, a list of tasks that involve potential exposure to those chemicals is made. Step three is to evaluate the toxicity of the chemicals using health codes developed for the Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS), carcinogenicity ratings, and regulatory or recommended exposure limits.

Finally, a review is made of the respiratory exposure conditions based on the potential for the chemical to become airborne, ventilation or other control systems, and the frequency and duration to which workers may be exposed to the chemical. Workers in job classifications with similar exposure potential to specific chemicals are referred to as Similar or Homogenous Exposure Groups in the WEA process. Decision making logic within the WEA process is applied to produce a listing of SEGs prioritized from highest (A) to lowest (C) exposure potential. In the case of potential chemical exposures, industrial hygiene monitoring is performed initially for “A” priority SEGs and secondarily for “B” Priorities.  “C” priorities are those determined through the WEA process to be in control. 

Ultimately, the WEA process is used to drive the need for respiratory protection, hearing conservation, ventilation, medical surveillance, personal protective equipment, radiation protection or other industrial hygiene programs. Where programs are needed, a written program is developed that establishes procedurally the process by which the program will be implemented and managed. The end result of the process may be the determination that a program is not needed or can be eliminated. In this case, the organization has data and documentation justifying the lack of a particular program or termination of an ongoing program.           

The WEA process does not guarantee success.  Ultimate success will require ongoing management support and a focus on staying the course. In the real world, issues will arise that will require a shift in priorities from time to time. The goal is to ensure that these shifts are only temporary and that focus is returned to the systematic path you have charted once the issue is resolved.

For more infomation on how to develop an industrial hygiene program for your company, call us at 888.44.TOTAL.

Total Safety – The Best Minds in the Business!

Industrial Hygiene, Industrial Safety Services & Equipment, Safety Training & Consulting Services

The OSHA Challenge Program, First Steps to the VPP Star

Leave a comment

By Chuck Gibson, VPP Manager, Total Safety

For increased occupational health and safety, go Total Safety.Preparing for and attaining certification in the OSHA Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) can sometimes seem to be a confusing and overwhelming task, particularly for companies that do not have mature safety and health management systems already in place. To help, OSHA has developed a program for companies that are interested in improving their safety and health management systems and potentially participating in VPP, but may need assistance in understanding and meeting VPP requirements. The Challenge Program provides a comprehensive self-paced, three-stage roadmap that leads to improved safety and health management systems and preparation for VPP application.

Challenge is open to General Industry and Construction employers (determined by SIC/NAICS code) in both public and private sectors under OSHA federal jurisdiction. The Program is facilitated by OSHA-designated Administrators who may be corporations, nonprofit organizations or federal agencies. The Administrators act as the primary contact between OSHA and the Challenge Participant, and guide the Participant through the program stages. At the completion of each stage, the Administrator will review the participant’s progress and authorize advancement to the next stage.  OSHA will formally recognize progression from stage to stage and issue a certificate of graduation upon completion of Stage III. Provided it meets basic criteria, such as mishap rates and citation history, an organization should be ready to submit a VPP application following graduation, and may be considered for expedited review for certification.

To become a Challenge Participate, a candidate organization must first affiliate with an Administrator. A list of Administrators is available on the OSHA website or by calling your local OSHA office. The candidate organization completes an application and statement of commitment that is reviewed by OSHA, and upon acceptance, is designated an OSHA Challenge Participant. The Participant then proceeds through three progressive stages of safety and health program improvement with specific action and outcome requirements related to the VPP elements; management leadership and employee involvement, worksite analysis, hazard prevention and control, and safety and health training. As the Participant organization works through the stages, it will change from being reactive to proactive in identifying and controlling hazards. Additionally, it will progress in knowledge of and compliance with OSHA standards, develop an improved workplace safety culture, have improved documentation, increase safety and health activities, and show improvements in injury and illness rates. Documentation of achievements is required and progress is tracked on an electronic spreadsheet that provides color-coded status on each action and outcome item and a percentage completion level for the current stage.

The beauty of Challenge is the step by step guidance and direction it provides for improving a safety and health management system. The required actions and outcomes for each sub-element in each stage eliminate the guesswork of “what do I do next” for Participants. The status tracking sheet provides a visual and easy to understand tool to chart program progress. Even for organizations that consider their safety and health management systems more mature, Challenge tools and guidelines provide utility in confirming that necessary program elements are in place and functioning effectively. Go online and look at the list of Challenge Participants. It should come as no surprise that the list includes OSHA regional and area offices that are striving to become VPP certified themselves. So follow the lead of the experts. If you think your organization is not quite ready for VPP don’t be troubled – take the OSHA Challenge and travel the road to improved safety and health.

For more ideas on ways to increase occupational health and safety in your workplace, call us at 888.44.TOTAL.

Total Safety – The Best Minds in the Business!