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/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.


Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post



The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.