Hi All,

I was just wondering if someone could give me some advice, I am working for a company in the UK that fits LEV systems. As part of there job they have to frequently drill into stone, concrete etc. As a control measure to reduce the exposure of silica dust, the company uses Hilti TE DRS-6-A extraction systems on the fitters drills, according to Hilti these attachments remove 97% of the dust from drilling. My question is at the moment we are providing factor APF 20 and APF 40 respirators, is this going a bit over the top with the drill mounted extractors.

Any Help Would be Appreciated

Brendan

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

Without looking up the guidance in detail i think you need to reduce Silica exposure So Far as is Reasonably Practicable as its seen as a carcinogen (wheres spell check when you need it)

At the moment you still have 3% exposure to the dust. You dont say how often the exposure is sowithout a more detailed annalysis of exposure i would still be providing PPE

Hi, thanks for your reply, I full agree we still need to supply PPE/RPE because there still is a risk of exposure, however they only drill around 10 holes a day, would it be reasonably practicable, to say provide a FFP3 filter mask as opposed to a APF 20 respirator with the engineering controls we have in place.

Hi Brendan

I am going to suggest that the actual protection afforded by an FFP3 is likely to be better for most users.

Less uncomfortable, so more likely to use as per instructions. But, as said it is down to making sure that the users are confident in doing their face fit checks.

Many years ago RPE came with Nominal Protection Factors - turned out that the reality was that people were getting nothing like the supposed Nominal Protection - often a small fraction, EXCEPT when using disposable RPE.

So, they moved to APFs which are supposed to be a better reflection of what can be expected in the real world.

P