Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:50:45 -0600
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: jbcallen**At_Symbol_Here**MMM.COM
Subject: Respiratory Protection for Production Crews, etc.
In-Reply-To: <4f5bb.551358ca.3a745eed**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com>
Monona:
Thanks for defining and clarifying your work with theater and cinema
production crews. There is not an easy formula or rubric you can apply to
selecting respiratory protection when you have the variable and extreme
working conditions you describe below. In some respects, they resemble
the working conditions of heavy industrial construction and demolition
contractors and the nomadic-type work experience they follow.
Regardless of what natural or synthetic material you select to replace
minerals or chemicals to simulate events or environmental conditions for
special effects, you are still dealing with high levels of dust exposures.
Consequently, half- or full facepiece respirators with the appropriate
filters (N/R/P-95/99/100) would probably load rather quickly as would
PAPR's even with protective shower covers and would not be a viable
option.
The most practical solution based upon monitoring the actual (if possible)
or simulated work environment to determine a baseline exposure, might be
to place the production crews in supplied air respirators (SARs). As you
know the workers would be tethered by a compressed air hose and would be
limited to a range up to 300' based upon the compressor or portable pump
and the producers might balk at the initial cost. At 3M we have developed
a Powered & Supplied Air Productivity Tool which could help justify the
cost which would certainly be much less than that associated with the pain
and suffering of lung disease, let alone the legal and medical expenses.
Respiratory protection for actors/cast members as you say is a totally
different issue and would require some creative thinking on how to protect
them while performing..
As a footnote, I have followed your courageous work over the years and the
up-hill battle you have fought on behalf of all concerned in "backward
third-world-type country work conditions." I know this to be true when I
worked together with you in the Greater New York City area during the
1980's and 1990's with the various art schools, scenic art groups and
unions, theaters, TV stations and production studios. Remember the issues
we had with theatrical smoke? I personally do when I provided various
respirators as props and was "an extra" on the set for the production of
the movie, "The Class of Nuke 'Em High."
As always, if you have any questions about the above information or need
special assistance, please let me know.
Best Personal Regards,
John
John B. Callen, PhD. | US/INTL Sales Development & Training Manager
3M Occupational Health & Environmental Safety
3M Center, 0235-02-W-70 | St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
Mobile: 612 845 1736 | Fax: 651 737 7881
jbcallen**At_Symbol_Here**mmm.com | www.3M.com | www.3M.com/OccSafety
From:
To:
Date:
01/28/2011 12:06 PM
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L] Do surgical masks = 'respirators'?
Sent by:
DCHAS-L Discussion List
GREAT ANSWER, John. I've printed it out. But I'm confused because
clearly, I shouldn't put my workers in N95s if, say, the dust is way over
5X the TLV unless they are just running through the workplace and out the
other side! The mask wouldn't last long at high concentrations.
We have situations where they throw powdered mineral dusts into floor fans
all day while shooting a scene that is supposed to be taking place after
an explosion or in a sand or dust storm. (Think: Planet of the Apes as an
example.) We've had workers permanently disabled with lung fibrosis in
two days shooting like that.
And add to these facts that even scenes that look like they were shot
outdoors, may well have been shot indoors in a studio. That dust can be
in extremely high concentrations in order to get the shot to look right.
The old 5X the TLV rule was very useful because I could do a guessimate of
concentration from the weight of the material they hurl at the fan/hour
and then nix the N95s.
I need some nice simple statement that even Producers could understand
like the old 1995 rules to do two things:
1. eliminate any dusts with really low TLVs for this purpose
2. get the Producer to upgrade to cartridge or full face in heavy
dusts--at least for the crew (actors are expendable, I guess).
I've told them they need to do air monitoring during these shoots, but a)
that's not going to happen, and b) it wouldn't be useful even if they did
it. The reasons are that the concentrations of dust vary greatly all over
the space and the pumps cannot be on during shooting due to the purr they
add to the sound track. And you can't put personal monitors on the actors
at all, yet they are the ones the dust is aimed at.
I need similar strategies for isocyanates in two-component urethane resins
and paint spraying without a booth, lead fume when they blow up a car with
lead azide (makes a nice black smoke), and the like. Just think of ideas
you might have for some backward third world country, because that's about
where we are.
Monona
In a message dated 1/27/2011 8:36:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jbcallen**At_Symbol_Here**MMM.COM writes:
In the discussion on the subject topic, Peter Zavon's and Michael J.
Wright's information and/or comments about surgical masks versus NIOSH 42
CFR 84 certified respirators and/or health care respirators/surgical masks
for voluntary and/or routine use are correct; however, concerning the
selection and use of NIOSH certified Filtering Facepiece Respirators
(FFRs), several of you are providing information that is either hearsay,
technically incorrect and/or outdated.
Monona's statement below regarding the use of a HEPA Filter for substances
having an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL), e.g., PEL or TLV, <0.05 mg/m3
(i.e., toxicity equal or greater than lead) and which formed the basis of
NIOSH 30 CFR 11 and selection and use of respirators per OSHA became null
and void with the advent of NIOSH 42 CFR 84 in 1995 and the revisions to
the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134 in 1998. Today,
employers do not select filters based upon the OEL.
Except for certain OSHA Substance Specific Health Standards (general
industry and construction) which call out the use of HEPA Filters (N100,
R100 or P100) for respiratory protection (As, asbestos, Cd, cotton dust
where CONC >10 X PEL, Pb and 4,4,-methylenedianiline), the selection of
filters is dependent upon whether when non-oil and/or oil-based
particulate matter (aerosols) are present and filter efficiency is not
specified, e.g., Cr(VI).
Although N95 FFRs are the most widely used, FFRs are not just those with a
Classification as N95. They can be N99 or N100, R95, R99 and R100 as well
as P95, P99 and P100.
The use of N95 FFRs <5 x OEL (PEL) applies only to the Cotton Dust
Standard. Per the Assigned Protection Factor (APF) Table 1 in the OSHA
Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A), FFRs are
half facepieces and have an APF = 10 as do elastomeric (rubber-type) half
facepieces.
Monona:
Thanks for defining and clarifying your
work with theater and cinema production crews. There is not an easy
formula or rubric you can apply to selecting respiratory protection when
you have the variable and extreme working conditions you describe below.
In some respects, they resemble the working conditions of heavy industrial
construction and demolition contractors and the nomadic-type work experience
they follow.
Regardless of what natural or synthetic
material you select to replace minerals or chemicals to simulate events
or environmental conditions for special effects, you are still dealing
with high levels of dust exposures. Consequently, half- or full facepiece
respirators with the appropriate filters (N/R/P-95/99/100) would probably
load rather quickly as would PAPR's even with protective shower covers
and would not be a viable option.
The most practical solution based upon
monitoring the actual (if possible) or simulated work environment to determine
a baseline exposure, might be to place the production crews in supplied
air respirators (SARs). As you know the workers would be tethered
by a compressed air hose and would be limited to a range up to 300' based
upon the compressor or portable pump and the producers might balk at the
initial cost. At 3M we have developed a Powered & Supplied Air
Productivity Tool which could help justify the cost which would certainly
be much less than that associated with the pain and suffering of lung disease,
let alone the legal and medical expenses.
Respiratory protection for actors/cast
members as you say is a totally different issue and would require some
creative thinking on how to protect them while performing..
As a footnote, I have followed your
courageous work over the years and the up-hill battle you have fought on
behalf of all concerned in "backward third-world-type country work
conditions." I know this to be true when I worked together with
you in the Greater New York City area during the 1980's and 1990's with
the various art schools, scenic art groups and unions, theaters, TV stations
and production studios. Remember the issues we had with theatrical
smoke? I personally do when I provided various respirators as props
and was "an extra" on the set for the production of the movie,
"The Class of Nuke 'Em High."
As always, if you have any questions
about the above information or need special assistance, please let me know.
Best Personal Regards,
John
John B. Callen, PhD.
| US/INTL Sales Development & Training Manager
3M Occupational Health & Environmental Safety
3M Center, 0235-02-W-70 | St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
Mobile: 612 845 1736 | Fax: 651 737 7881
jbcallen**At_Symbol_Here**mmm.com
| www.3M.com
| www.3M.com/OccSafety
| From:
| <ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM>
|
| To:
| <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
|
| Date:
| 01/28/2011 12:06 PM
|
| Subject:
| Re: [DCHAS-L] Do surgical masks = 'respirators'?
|
| Sent by:
| DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu> |
GREAT ANSWER, John. I've printed it
out. But I'm confused because clearly, I shouldn't put my workers
in N95s if, say, the dust is way over 5X the TLV unless they are just running
through the workplace and out the other side! The mask wouldn't
last long at high concentrations.
We have situations where they throw powdered mineral dusts into floor fans
all day while shooting a scene that is supposed to be taking place after
an explosion or in a sand or dust storm. (Think: Planet of the
Apes as an example.) We've had workers permanently disabled with
lung fibrosis in two days shooting like that.
And add to these facts that even scenes that look like they were shot outdoors,
may well have been shot indoors in a studio. That dust can be in
extremely high concentrations in order to get the shot to look right.
The old 5X the TLV rule was very useful because I could do a guessimate
of concentration from the weight of the material they hurl at the fan/hour
and then nix the N95s.
I need some nice simple statement that even Producers could understand
like the old 1995 rules to do two things:
1. eliminate any dusts with really low TLVs for this purpose
2. get the Producer to upgrade to cartridge or full face in heavy
dusts--at least for the crew (actors are expendable, I guess).
I've told them they need to do air monitoring during these shoots, but
a) that's not going to happen, and b) it wouldn't be useful even if they
did it. The reasons are that the concentrations of dust vary greatly
all over the space and the pumps cannot be on during shooting due to the
purr they add to the sound track. And you can't put personal monitors
on the actors at all, yet they are the ones the dust is aimed at.
I need similar strategies for isocyanates in two-component urethane resins
and paint spraying without a booth, lead fume when they blow up a car with
lead azide (makes a nice black smoke), and the like. Just think of
ideas you might have for some backward third world country, because that's
about where we are.
Monona
In a message dated 1/27/2011 8:36:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbcallen**At_Symbol_Here**MMM.COM
writes:
In the discussion on the subject topic, Peter Zavon's and Michael J. Wright's
information and/or comments about surgical masks versus NIOSH 42 CFR 84
certified respirators and/or health care respirators/surgical masks for
voluntary and/or routine use are correct; however, concerning the selection
and use of NIOSH certified Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs), several
of you are providing information that is either hearsay, technically incorrect
and/or outdated.
Monona's statement below regarding the use of a HEPA Filter for substances
having an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL), e.g., PEL or TLV, <0.05
mg/m
3
(i.e., toxicity equal or greater than lead) and which formed the basis
of NIOSH 30 CFR 11 and selection and use of respirators per OSHA became
null and void with the advent of NIOSH 42 CFR 84 in 1995 and the revisions
to the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134 in 1998. Today,
employers do not select filters based upon the OEL.
Except for certain OSHA Substance Specific Health Standards (general industry
and construction) which call out the use of HEPA Filters (N100, R100 or
P100) for respiratory protection (As, asbestos, Cd, cotton dust where CONC
>10 X PEL, Pb and 4,4,-methylenedianiline), the selection of
filters is dependent upon whether when non-oil and/or oil-based particulate
matter (aerosols) are present and filter efficiency is not specified, e.g.,
Cr(VI).
Although N95 FFRs are the most widely used, FFRs are not just those with
a Classification as N95. They can be N99 or N100, R95, R99 and R100 as
well as P95, P99 and P100.
The use of N95 FFRs <5 x OEL (PEL) applies only to the Cotton
Dust Standard. Per the Assigned Protection Factor (APF) Table 1 in
the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A),
FFRs are half facepieces and have an APF = 10 as do elastomeric (rubber-type)
half facepieces.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post