Let me start by saying that I feel like I would hate your coworker.
But you're not going to change her fundamental personality, so you just have to decide how you'll respond.
If she is 90 percent correct in her presentations and the 10 percent that she's incorrect about involves using the wrong terms or acronyms, then who cares? Stop correcting her. It's rude to correct someone during an oral presentation and no one is going to spray acid into their eyes just because someone used the wrong acronym.
In fact, why don't you recommend sending her for additional safety training to brush up on her skills? Some of her information is dated and these safety presentations seem like something that plays to her strength. So empower her to do them properly - not by interrupting her or embarrassing her, but by improving her skills.
The other stuff is "pick your battles" stuff. Again, using the wrong term to describe a bag (but a term that still gets the meaning across), and recommending too much stuff gets put into the bag (rather than too little - which would be dangerous) is not a problem. Additional training in this area will likely eliminate these types of issues. But the training can't come from you - send her to a training that gets her a fancy certificate. Make sure she renews her training regularly.
You're focusing on her weakness: She has a super annoying personality trait - she does not have mastery over a subject area but is able to project credibility. This particularly annoys you because you have mastery over the subject area, but not the same confidence to project credibility.
If you focus on her strengths: She is confident and appears credible, which makes her a great trainer and presenter. Empower her with mastery over the subject area, and she could fit this safety role very well.
I've reassessed and I think she is less than 90% correct. It doesn't matter because her safety training has been shut down. I don't want to send her for additional training because I don't want her involved in anything I do, and I think it would be dangerous to have her in charge of anything safety related. Sure some of may be harmless, until it's not. I also don't think additional training will help because she is just an idiot. Even with subjects that she does have the proper training in she is conflating different ideas and systems, is unable to perform necessary calculations, and can't even understand the underlying principles (such as not understanding how our engineering controls are working effectively).
Using the wrong term on a bag is a big deal. It's not a matter of employees getting the gist of it, it's a matter of federal regulations. Things are supposed to be labeled and disposed of properly. We've already been dinged by the state authorities with regards to numerous hazardous waste violations (before I started), and they will be coming back at some point to check on us. I don't know that her using bio waste bags will get us fined, but it's certainly going to make the regulator think we don't know what we are doing and invite more scrutiny. It may also cause a problem with our garbage disposal services, which is an easily avoidable headache by just not allowing her to have a hand in anything.
I lack her level of confidence because I by no means have complete mastery over all subjects. I have a wide range of job responsibilities, and some of them I have a lot of experience/confidence with, and others I have very little experience with. I have some experience with safety, but not enough that I would say I am qualified to be the sole safety person of a plant, especially this one since they don't have much of a program in place. I would say I still need the help of a safety consultant and industrial hygienist to get everything fully on track, and then I can probably handle it from there. I would consider myself light years ahead of safety sandy though.
We are still in the process of constructing another area of the plant. The topic of installing safety showers and eyewashes came up. She was talking to another employee yesterday, but I overheard her conversation. She was telling the employee that if we install a plumbed eyewash station that we are going to need to get a DI water unit to supply it with because you can't use city water in your eyes because it reacts with the chemicals. It's fucking potable water from the same source that my house water comes from. I bathe in it, and I drink it every day. It's just potable water! For some chemistry applications you use DI water instead of tap water because you don't want some minor impurities affecting the chemistry, but we aren't talking about plating bath chemistry or atomic absorption spectrometry, we are talking about rinsing a chemical out of your eye. Does she seriously think all plumbed showers and eyewashes are hooked up to DI units and not just regular tap water?
I don't remember if I mentioned this before, but she said the exact same thing about a minor spill we had a few months back. She went ape shit and was absolutely adamant that only DI water be used to clean the spill up (we used hose water anyway) because you have no idea what the reaction will be if you use regular tap water. I think maybe she read on an SDS or in one of the methods or something that you should use DI water (for technical reasons) and has just drawn the broad conclusion that the chemical is incompatible or reactive with tap water, then from there just made the assumption that all chemicals are incompatible with tap water. That's my best guess at least