Posted By Bill Fisher Laura Why are the Respirators worn? Under what legislation? Regards Bill

Posted By Jeff Manion The recommendations for face fit testing or RPE can be found in several areas: - HSG53 selection use and maintenance of RPE HSE 282/28 Fit testing of RPE facepieces BS 4275 guide to implementing an effective RPE programme. If persons presented for fitting with facial hair they should be failed / rejected. There can be an inward leak if facial hair present. These can affect the use of RPE - this includes hair trapped under face seal / beard growth and stubble / forward hairline / sideburns There is available "plastic hoods" that can be used. The advice is face hair is no good it does effect the seal. Face fit testing is required for compliance with COSHH lead and asbestos. Not sure on policy but if persons present are to be tested they should NOT have face hair, likewise for any use they should be clean shaven JM

Posted By lauraw I like the idea of using petroleum jelly, sounds a lot better than making someone have a shave! thanks for the advice

Posted By Merv Newman Jeff and others are correct. If a good fit cannot be garaunteed - without the use of petroleum jelly or whatever which may or not be applied correctly each day, then that person cannot be passed as suitable to wear a respirator. Respirator wearers must be clean shaven in the area of the seal. Goatee type beards or moustaches can be acceptable so long as they do not enter into the seal area. But again, this depends on the expected atmospheric concentrations and the protection factor of your respirators. A qualitatitive or quantitative fit test is normally required. With such and such scars or facial deformations or facial hair, could the TLV, within the repirator, be exceeded ? If the answer is yes then that person cannot wear a respirator and thus cannot work in that area. This said, it is our responsibility to find ways of facilitating such persons to do their job. (jargon, sorry !)This could be by researching more efficient/effective protections or by implementing administrative controls ( you can only work 2 hours per shift in that area so as not to excede your 8 hr average (we can demonstrate that you will not in any case exceed the (god, i've forgotten, whats it called, the 15 minute maximum limite ?)) Look, sorry about this everyone, I'm in the north of France, after a 10 hour behavioural training session, a good dinner - apero, wine, digestive, so if I'm not totally with it. Tough. But I'm sure you know wht I mean. Innit ? Merv

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Laura The majority of the respondanetshave already given you chapter & verse which you should not ignore. The observation about Petroleum jelly should be discounted - it's not defensible nor a recognised means of achieving a suitable level of protection. Merv - you meant the STEL - short term exposure limit. Not normally a valid reference for the wearing of RPE as you can't measure it under practical use conditions. Laura; what is the RPE provided for - routine reduction of exposure to below the WEL[s] or for some form of Emergency Response? If it's routine, you should explore the suggestion of hoods and possibly some of the range of powered respirators. If for emergencies - it's face masks and NO facial hair that interferes with the seal of the facemask on the face. There are situations where religious convictions must take 2nd place to other considerations and h&s is one of them. If you need more info, drop me an email. Frank Hallett

Posted By Richie lauraw, This is an employee/contract law issue. You obviously are aware of the requirement for a face fit. My advice is to get the unions on your side (In my experience they are usually pro-safety) and place the requirement to achieve a face fit in the 'terms of reference' portion of the employees contracts. This falls under the 'reasonable requirements' portion of contracts normally, however where there are particularly bolshy workers a specific inclusion is best. Medical / religeous reasons aside. It's only a shave. It is not like you are requiring them to eat their own feet off!! Richie

Posted By Linda Crossland-Clarke Hi I have mailed you direct the HSE circular - if it helps? Regards Linda

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear All, Whilst, I agree with all that has been said about facial hair I would add that qualitative fit testing of RPE is not the bee’s knees! This is principally because face fit testing is in reality type testing; how many people are tested wearing their personal RPE? Secondly, qualitative fit testing needs to be supplemented by daily qualitative fit testing for toxic substances, with acute affects. Furthermore, my experience is that the main reasons for RPE affording poor protection in practice is not the growth of facial hair but the use of RPE with loose or tight head straps which distort facial seals. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By ANDY1967 Hi Laura, I know all about your problem first hand. I work in the oil industry and have to enforce a clean shaven policy when dealing with potential releases of toxic gas. Employees tend to put up a fight to keep their facial hair. Most of the companies I work with have a clean shaven procedure written into their SMS. If conditions exceed set parameters, usually an OEL, the procedure kicks in. When employees sign an employment contract they are obliged to adhere to that particular companys SMS under HASAWA 1974. It has been known for disciplinary proceedings to be intiated because employees failed to follow laid down safety procedures, which have after all been developed after a thorough risk assessment process. As previously mentioned, employees required to wear RPE should be fit tested, preferably using a quantitative method (Portacount system etc), as a qualitative method relies on the wearers judgement. I've used the Potacount system to fit test, and facial hair nearly always fails the wearer in the tests. An idea would be to supply PRE wearers with supplied air "positive pressure" breathing apparatus i.e. the pressure inside the mask is greater than that outside. If a leak occurs it's only fresh air that escapes and contaminated atmosphere cannot get in. Don't even think about using jellies or lubricants to seal a mask, it'll bring you trouble! But remember one point, PPE is the last resort for any problem. Maybe you could try substituting your hazardous substances with something more user friendly, or introduce engineering solutions such a ventilation systems to reduce the hazard and risk to employees. Andy