Chris, First, have all measures been taken to prevent exposure other than by the use of respiratory protection? If not, if you were to then sack the person you would lose before an employment tribunal. However, if you have done everything you may use respiratory protection. Second, whilst the employee has a duty to cooperate with you, you cannot require hime to be clean shaven. However, if it is a contractual obligation, refusal would be a breach of contract! However, if the person was offered an alternative such as a airstream helmet or hood and refused to wear it you could then dismiss the person after carrying out a full investigation to find out why it not being worn; addressing any legitimate concerns; and explaining the effects of not wearing rspiratory protection. Regards

There is another route - the HSE may be intrested in an employee who refuses to follow the employer's instruction. You could seek advice from HSE?

AK and David have made some reasonable suggestions, and I am sure that you will get more as well. Ultimately dismissal is a possible option that you may have to use, although hopefully not, with a little thought and 'negotiation'. I would not advocate involving the HSE as some kind of enforcement option though. Have you looked at the PPE ACoP/guidance or the guidance on RPE to see if this sort of scenario is mentioned?

Chris, I agree with AKWatson, all pertinent points, it is worth establishing whether it is a contractual obligation. I do have a few points which may be of use to you. I have conducted many face fit tests in the U.K. using 3M bitrex test kit for disposable and reusable half masks on persons who were both clean shaven and some (including myself) who had full beard. Almost all passed this qualitative test without a problem. Those who failed were always heavy smokers (difficulty in passing the sensitivity test). I found that a beard which would flatten on the face was satisfactory. Those with stubble had to go and shave. For persons who would wear full-face self contained b.a.(for emergency response), we would use a Portacount, a quantitative test unit, and again I had no problem passing the test. Experience does help, I have long been able to correctly don R.P.E., and I would suggest that this is the most important part of the whole issue. Comprehensive instruction solves most of the problems. Whether it be a positive pressure b.a. set, or a disposable mask, the differences in test results can be quite marked. A little training after an attempt at a test goes a long way, the test demonstrates to many wearers how to correctly fit the R.P.E. We would be using R.P.E. for protection from NORM, mercury or hydrocarbon gas, H2S or emergency response in a fire. I passed all with a full face beard. I have now introduced face fit testing to my new place of employment- China. The test unit for disposables is again the qualitatitive 3M bitrex kit. For S.C.B.A. I purchased an American unit called Quantifit. This is a quantitative tester. I failed. I have found it to be extremely thorough and unforgiving of any slight leak paths in the seal to the face. I trimmed my beard so that there is a mask to skin seal, and passed with ease. I know, long-winded, but the issue I have found is that it is dependent upon the test equipment you use and the competence of the wearer, in addition to facial hair. Even with a beard the leak rate might be acceptable within the limits of the standard you are working to. In the few cases where our people failed? air fed helmets or SCBA were used. But always the RPE was a last resort. Ian

Thanks to you all for your responses, your comments are both interesting and helpfull Just to clarify, we currently have a $250,000 project ongoing to further reduce exposure to as low a level as possible to our employees through upgrading of LEV, Plant and refabrication of internal parts of the building [inclusive of accoustic & ventilated control booth, and industrial cameras to remove the employee completely]. I have had a reputable provider of PPE on site to look at what we use, where we use it and exposures, to determine that the RPE provided is adequate, this was followed up by a second company with HSE accreditation to conduct 'fit test' training [semi quantative] to myself and our safety reps. We would have to have exhausted every option before considering the dismisal of an employee so please do not misunderstand my original post, I simply begged the question of something I had heard, which prompted me to see what others experience was and whether this was correct. Jon B, hijack away my friend its what this forum is for, to help us better understand or seek the opinion of our fellow professionals Chris

Jon B, Flour dust at 24 mg a cube? That's explosive that is. And the face fit may be impracticable because of the beards but that does NOT mean you don't have to do it. Have you read the CoSHH regulations lately? With Sensitisers you HAVE to reduce the exposure ALARP and any event MUST be below the WEL. You are sitting on a time bomb mate.

Paul, I think you are in the wrong order of magnitude for your lower explosive limit of flour dusts. I have figures of order 20 - 60 grams per cubic metre, not 20 mg per cubic metre. This would suggest that there is no risk of explosion here. See 'Cause & Prevention of Dust Explosions......' O F Theimer in Power Technology vol 8 pp137-147. I once calculated that I would have to render more than 1.5kg flour airborne in my kitchen to generate an explosive atmosphere. So, potentially hazardous to health - definitely; explosive - not.

Regarding the explosibility issues we have already had independant DSEAR assessments done. We were advised the only main area where concentration could exceed 55g/m3 is within the dust extraction equipment and this has the necessary prevention and mitigation measures installed Bonding, antistatic bags, explosion relief panels etc. there is one small area I want to look at but I'm fairly confident we have this covered. My own opinion is that using RPE as a control is not (in this case) an adequate means of control, or we cannot demostrate it is. I'm the employed safety adviser (6 years experience with nebosh NGC and NVQ4(awaiting verification). The problem I have is that we had a change in consultant and there are some significantly divergent views. I understand that what is reasonably practicable can vary depend on the scale of operation but I feel the arguement is being stretched too far. I also realise that as proffesionals there may always be a difference in opinion its just I have a strong gut feeling that the currrent judgement is wrong. Regards Jon

We actually had the discussion about beards with HSE a couple of years ago. their advice was you cannot compel anyone to shave (though there may be different rules if it was part of their original employment contract, but then is there discrimination, for example those weraing beards for religious reasons?) To compensate they suggested using powererd airflow hoods, until a more robust (ie LEV) systems of controls was implemented. Again this has now been rejected as not necessary. One more reason for my concern.