NOTE
The NIOSH Assigned
Protection Factors (APFs) used in this Respirator Selection
Logic are based on the 1987 NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic.
These APFs are generally consistent with current APFs being
enforced by OSHA for respirator use.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the American National Standards
Institute have proposed APFs of 1000 for certain types of
hoods and helmets with powered air purification or supplied
air where the manufacturer can demonstrate adequate air flows
to maintain positive pressure inside the hood or helmet in
normal working conditions. OSHA has the authority to permit
exceptions to the general APF policy for certain workplace
conditions and equipment. OSHA has currently approved APFs of
1000 for specific hoods and helmets devices for use in
pharmaceutical and lead abrasive blasting applications.
Examples of OSHA approvals for higher APFs can be found
at:
Protection
factors for respirators used in pharmaceutical industry:
policy change 05/30/2002 External Link:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24248
Interim
interpertation concerning Type-CE respirators used in abrasive
blasting that are manufactured by the E.D. Bullard Company,
Models 77 and 88. 08/30/1995 External Link:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21907 |
Contents
Foreword The purpose of this
Respirator Selection Logic (RSL) is to provide guidance to
respirator program administrators on respirator selection that
incorporates the changes necessitated by the revisions to the
respirator use and certification regulations and changes in the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
policy. This RSL is not intended to be used for selection of
respirators for protection against infectious agents or for
chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agents of
terrorism. While respirators can provide appropriate protection
against these agents, the information necessary to use the selection
logic is generally not available for infectious disease or
bioterrorism agents (e.g., exposure limits, airborne concentration).
Similarly, CBRN terrorism events may involve chemicals that can
quickly degrade respirator materials or have extremely low toxic
levels that are difficult to measure.
In 1987, NIOSH published the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic
(RDL). Since then the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) has promulgated a revision to their respirator use regulation
(29CFR1910.134 published on January 8, 1998), and NIOSH has
promulgated the revised respirator certification standard (42CFR84
on June 8, 1995). In addition, NIOSH has revised its carcinogen
policy to recommend the complete range of respirators as determined
by this respirator selection logic for those carcinogens with
quantitative recommended exposure limits (RELs). Thus, respirators
can be consistently recommended regardless of whether a substance is
a carcinogen or not.
OSHA recently proposed a rule to establish assigned protection
factors (APFs) for various classes of respirators (68FR34036
published on June 6, 2003). When the OSHA standard on APFs is
finalized NIOSH intends to consider revisions to this RSL. NIOSH
will also modify the certification program to assure that NIOSH
certified respirators will be capable of providing the level of
protection determined in the OSHA APF rulemaking. NIOSH also intends
to periodically update the RSL so that it reflects current OSHA
requirements and NIOSH policy. Sincerely yours,
Acknowledgements The NIOSH
Respirator Policy Group served as the internal reviewers for this
document. Donald Campbell and Christopher Coffey made major
contributions to this document through their extensive review and
suggestions for revisions. NIOSH thanks Heinz Ahlers, Roland
BerryAnn, Frank Hearl, Richard Metzler, Teresa Seitz, Douglas Trout
and Ralph Zumwalde for their considerations and comments and Katie
Musgrave for preparation of the document. NIOSH would also like to
thank the external reviewers for their comments.
|