THE COHEN GROUP
  Environmental Health & Safety Consulting Services

The Cohen Group Newsletter - Volume 5  Issue 3, Article 1.  September 2003

  Proposed Changes to the Respirator Standard
Tim Bormann, CIH and Joy E. Fleming, MPH

Both Federal OSHA and Cal-OSHA have recently issued changes that affect the Respiratory Protection Standard and respirator usage.  Federal OSHA has published two proposals in the Federal Register and Cal/OSHA has adopted amendments that revise existing substance-specific standards.

The first Federal OSHA proposal would incorporate assigned protection factors (APFs) for selecting respirators.  In 1998, OSHA published a major revision of the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR §1910.134) but reserved sections relating to APFs and maximum use concentrations (MUCs) in anticipation of this action.  The standard promulgated in 1998 contains worksite specific requirements for program administration, procedures for respirator selection, employee training, medical evaluation, respirator use and other provisions.

An assigned protection factor (APF) refers to the workplace level of respiratory protection that a respirator or class of respirators is expected to provide to properly-fitted employees. The proposed revisions would require employers to use the APFs listed in the standard to select a respirator that meets or exceeds the required level of protection.  For example, under the proposed standard, when the concentration of an airborne contaminant is between 1 and 10 times the permissible exposure limit, the employer would be required to select a respirator with an assigned protection factor of at least 10, such as an air-purifying respirator. 

This standard puts into practice the methods that most industrial hygienists currently use when determining appropriate respiratory protection. Several years ago, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published anticipated protection factors for various types of respirators, based on scientific research.  Federal OSHA indicated in its summary for the proposed revisions that APFs were developed "after thoroughly reviewing the available literature, including chamber simulation studies and workplace protection factors studies".

Under the proposed revisions, employers would also need to determine maximum use concentrations (MUCs) from the APFs for different classes of respirators.  An MUC is the maximum use concentration of an airborne contaminant, i.e., the maximum concentration to which an employee can be exposed and from which the employee will be adequately protected when wearing a particular respirator type.  The MUC is determined by the APF and the permissible exposure limit established for the hazardous substance.

The second Federal OSHA proposal would include an additional controlled negative pressure (CNP) fit-testing protocol the Respiratory Protection Standards for general industry, construction and shipyards.  The proposed new fit-testing protocol is referred to as CNP REDON. The new protocol would require three different test exercises and two “redonnings” of the respirator.  The three tests are normal breathing, bending over and head shaking and would be conducted following the initial donning and each of two redonnings. Respirator leakage would be measured during each exercise.  The proposed CNP REDON protocol uses the same fit test requirements and test instrumentation specified for the current CNP fit testing protocol.   The current CNP specifies eight test exercises and one redonning of the respirator. The new protocol would not replace the current protocol but would provide employers with an alternative means of complying with the fit testing requirement.

Effective August 30, 2003, Cal/OSHA adopted amendments that revise Title 8 CCR § 1532, 1532.1, 1535, 5198, 5200, 5201, 5207, 5211, 5214, 5218, and 5220. That is, the revisions cover the following specific substances: cadmium, lead, methylenedianiline, 1,3-butadiene, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, benzene and ethylene oxide. The revisions amend the general requirements of the substance-specific standards to make the requirements for the use of respiratory equipment consistent with the corresponding requirements of Title 8 CCR §5144(e) regarding medical evaluations for employees using respirators.  This subsection requires an employer to provide a medical assessment for an employee before requiring the employee to use a respirator in the workplace.

The regulatory change was requested by Cal/OSHA because the substance-specific regulations did not specifically require a medical evaluation prior to using a respirator.  Even though a medical evaluation was required in the Cal/OSHA standard for respiratory protection (8 CCR §5144 (e)), DOSH stated “These (substance-specific) standards need to be amended to provide the affected employees respiratory protection equal to the general industry respiratory protection standard.” 

Another Important Consideration on Fit Testing

 An interesting nuance to the fit testing requirements of the Cal/OSHA standard on respiratory protection has come to our attention.  The issue pertains to two words in the standard: “same” and “different” and how some enforcement personnel interpret these words.

Subsection 5144(f) of the standard requires that, “before an employee may be required to use any respirator with a negative or positive pressure tight-fitting facepiece, the employee must be fit tested with the same make, model, style, and size of respirator that will be used.”  Most employers and virtually every respirator manufacturer have interpreted this phrase to mean than an employee can be fit tested with a test model respirator (facepiece) and then be issued another respirator (e.g., a new one from the stock at hand) as long as the issued respirator is exactly the same make, model, style and size as the one used for the fit test. 

However, we have learned that some Cal/OSHA personnel have interpreted the phase to mean that the employee is to be issued, fit tested and use that same individual respirator in the workplace.   The reasoning behind that interpretation is that there may be variations in the manufacturing process of facepieces such that testing any two respirators of the same make, model, style, and size could actually result in different fit test results.  Respirator manufacturers have state that current manufacturing practices should eliminate variations in the facepiece.

Another question regarding fit testing arises when an employee uses a “different” respirator in the workplace.  Subsection 5144(f)(2) states that “the employer shall ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator is fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter.”

Obviously, if an employee changes to a respirator of a different make or model or size, he or she would need to be fit tested with that new respirator before using it in the workplace.  However, there seems to be differing interpretations among Cal/OSHA enforcement personnel when the make, model, size and type of respirator remains the same, but the employee is issued a “new” (i.e., different) respirator (such as when a facepiece becomes damaged or otherwise is no longer acceptable for use).  Some Cal/OSHA personnel queried have stated that issuing a new facepiece of the same make, model, size and type without first fit testing with that facepiece is acceptable, while others contend that any change from use of the respirator that was initially used for fit testing will require a new formal fit test.