OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns

As someone who has spent decades navigating the complexities of asbestos regulations, we recognize that clarity, practicality, and worker protection must be at the core of any regulatory update.  Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA's) recent proposal to revise certain respirator-related provisions within the asbestos construction standard (29 CFR 1926.1101) attempts that but it’s important for all of us in the industry to carefully evaluate how these changes impact worker protection, especially concerning respirator requirements.

Confusion about the 9/11 type of respirator/filter to wear

Three proposed changes stand out to us as potentially problematic:

1. Removing the HEPA Filter Requirement

For decades, HEPA filters have been the gold standard for respirators, protecting workers from asbestos fibers. The current OSHA standard mandates HEPA filters (P100 filters) on all powered and non-powered air-purifying respirators to ensure maximum filtration efficiency.

OSHA’s proposal to eliminate this specific HEPA filter requirement, citing updated National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certification standards (42 CFR part 84), raises questions.  While newer filter types may meet certification requirements, HEPA filters’ proven reliability and high filtration efficiency have been foundational in asbestos protection.

The risk here is that removing the HEPA filter mandate could lead to the use of less effective filters (N95s) or confusion over filter equivalency, ultimately compromising worker safety.  The asbestos hazard is too severe to accept any uncertainty about filter performance.

2. Replacing Supplied-Air Respirators with PAPRs

Current OSHA standards require supplied-air respirators (SARs) operated in pressure-demand mode with an auxiliary positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) backup for exposures exceeding 1 (one) fiber per cubic centimeter (f/cc).  The proposed change to this section would replace the specific respirator requirement (SAR/SCBA, with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of 1,000) with a requirement to provide a respirator with a minimum APF of 1,000.  That would include a full-face Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) and helmet/hood PAPR (having manufacturer test evidence to support an APF of 1,000).

For high-level asbestos exposures, this shift is concerning. Supplied-air respirators provide a higher level of protection against variable airborne fiber concentrations, and the SCBA backup is critical for emergency scenarios.  Moving to PAPRs risks lowering the safety margin in situations where asbestos concentrations spike unexpectedly.

Workers wearing PAPRs 

3. Replacing PAPRs with Full Facepiece APRs

Another change to the current standard includes providing a tight-fitting powered air-purifying respirator (APF 1,000) or a full facepiece, supplied-air respirator operated in the pressure-demand mode, and equipped with either HEPA egress cartridges or an auxiliary positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) (APF 1,000) for exposure levels at or below 1 f/cc.  The proposed change would require employers to provide a respirator that has a minimum of an APF 50.  This would allow the use of a full-facepiece air purifying respirator (APR).  This is definitely not an increase in protection; it is a significant reduction of protection.

---

Why These Concerns Matter

Asbestos remains one of the most hazardous occupational exposures, with no safe level of exposure (according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).  Respiratory protection is the last line of defense when engineering and work practice controls cannot fully eliminate airborne fibers.

Standards must err on the side of maximum protection, not convenience or cost savings.  Removing the HEPA filter requirement, substituting SARs with PAPRs, and PAPRs for full facepiece APRs for high-exposure Class I asbestos work would reduce protection levels at a time when new asbestos exposures still occur daily, and there are questions about whether the current permissible exposure limit is low enough.

Respirator Protection Types

---

What Are the Key Changes?

Replacing Specific Respirator Types with APF-Based Selection: Instead of mandating exact respirator models, employers will select respirators that meet or exceed required APFs (e.g., minimum APF of 50 or 1,000, depending on exposure scenarios).

Removing Redundant Provisions: OSHA is proposing to eliminate duplicative language in asbestos standards that overlaps with general respiratory protection requirements, simplifying the rules without adding burdens.

Updating Filter Requirements: The current HEPA filter mandate for air-purifying respirators is being reconsidered because NIOSH’s certification has evolved, allowing other certified particulate filters that offer equivalent protection.  The fact is that asbestos is not like any other particulate.  Because of the aerodynamics of the fiber and the size of the fibers, which can cause disease.  N95s do not provide equivalent protection to a HEPA filter.

Training Requirements Streamlined: OSHA intends to reduce duplicative respirator training provisions, relying more on the general respiratory protection standard’s comprehensive training requirements.

Asbestos Training Class

What Is OSHA Seeking From the Public?

OSHA is actively requesting comments on several points, including: 

• Concerns about potential decreases in worker safety from these proposed changes. 
• Alternative approaches to respirator provisions.
• The practicality and frequency of employees requesting PAPRs.
• Whether removing certain asbestos-specific provisions might lessen protections.
• The appropriateness of lifting the prohibition on filtering facepiece respirators.
• Employers' experiences with duplicative training requirements.

Final Thoughts

We support OSHA’s goal to update asbestos standards to reflect advances in technology and reduce unnecessary compliance burdens. However, changes to respirator requirements must be grounded in solid evidence and prioritize worker health above all.

OSHA’s proposal is a critical opportunity for industry stakeholders to weigh in. We must ensure that any revisions do not erode decades of hard-earned protection for workers facing asbestos hazards.

---

If you work with asbestos or manage respiratory protection programs, we urge you to review OSHA’s proposal carefully and submit comments highlighting these concerns before the comment period closes on September 2, 2025.

Should We Be Wearing Better Masks? The Best Face Covering Is The One That Is Worn Properly & Used!

We recently read two articles in The Atlantic called "Why Are Americans Still - Still! - Wearing Cloth Masks?" and "Why Aren't We Wearing Better Masks?" and another in Scientific American called "Why We Need to Upgrade Our Face Masks - and Where to Get Them".  All three articles discuss why Americans are still wearing cloth face-coverings now that N95 respirators (or the KN95 respirators, these respirators are made in China and are not approved by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)) are more readily available (The NIOSH Science Blog discusses the roles NIOSH, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) play regarding respiratory protection).  The articles mention a new study not peer-reviewed yet from Bangladesh which claims that wearing surgical masks decrease COVID-19 symptoms and antibodies by 11.2 percent, while cloth masks only led to a 5 percent decrease.  It proceeds to give several reasons why we continue to use face-coverings from public-health agencies not prioritizing surgical masks and N95 respirators to price to supporting one's sports team.  Two of the articles describe how face-coverings are far better than nothing and also saying how cloth masks are more eco-friendly (The Covid Crisis Is Now a Garbage Crisis, Too) giving face-coverings a backhanded credit for helping when nothing else was available.  The articles, in my opinion, even support the notion that we should be buying KN95 respirators even though they are not approved by NIOSH.  If anything shouldn't we be buying American-made N95 respirators so we can increase the demand and hence increase the supply of masks that are made here?  This was the subject of a New York Times article "Can't Find an N95 Mask? This Company Has 30 Million That It Can't Sell" and the Washington Post article "In the early days of the pandemic, the U.S. government turned down an offer to manufacture millions of N95 masks in America."

Two suppliers of N95 respirators

Let us first say as a person, who believes in the use of respirators and their importance in protecting individuals from exposure to hazardous substances (see all our posts regarding 9/11), we agree that N95 respirators or surgical masks would protect people better from SARS-CoV-2 than cloth face-coverings if worn correctly.  However, we would need to be able to provide each person N95 respirators (in their size either small, medium, or large) or surgical masks, make sure they had a sufficient supply to meet their needs, make sure the N95 respirator fits each person, make sure they understand how to wear the N95 respirator or surgical masks correctly, and finally, they are provided a means of disposal for the respirators or the surgical masks.  As you can imagine that would be a significant cost to the government (or tax-payers) and would require a significant undertaking to make sure every American would be protected by using N95 respirators or surgical masks.  Meanwhile, the biggest issue is whether we are talking N95 respirators, surgical masks, or face coverings they must be worn correctly to protect you, and remember facial hair reduces the effectiveness of all these face coverings.  See the chart below for various ways of improperly using face coverings.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website "Types of Masks and Respirators" was updated as of September 23, 2021, and provides information on types of masks and when to wear them and now includes a section on considerations for children.

Both these articles treat surgical masks and N95 respirators as simple items to wear and that anyone can wear them.  However, this is not a fact as we mentioned above N95 respirators require medical clearance, fit testing, and training all mandated by OSHA for individuals that are required to wear them.  As for surgical masks, we have to remember the ones that are typically sold to the public aren't actually surgical masks.  Surgical masks are cleared by the FDA, see the chart below for the difference between the N95 respirators and surgical masks.  Note that surgical masks do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles.  This is for FDA-cleared surgical masks, which means the ones the public purchases probably aren't reliable either considering they are not cleared by FDA.

Surgical Masks vs N95 respirators

However, the use of cloth face-coverings has been shown to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (source control) and help reduce inhalation of these droplets.  The CDC website "Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2" which was last updated on May 7, 2021, provides some significant research on how the use of cloth face-coverings block the transmission of respiratory droplets with some face-coverings performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control.  In the section "Human Studies of Masking and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission" data regarding the "real-world" effectiveness of community masking is limited to observational and epidemiological studies with many of these showing significant levels of protection from wearing face coverings.  An example of one of these was "A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk of transmission.

Note the circled area of the package (which means they are not surgical masks). 

It is our opinion, one of the main reasons face-coverings are better is because they are easier to use, easier to breathe through, light-weight, and because of these things more likely to be used and used correctly.  Wearing the face-covering correctly and using the face covering is what is helping reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.  So follow the CDC guidelines on when to use face-coverings and let's stop the spread!

Related Articles:

Filtering Facepiece Respirator or a Dust Mask or N95 Respirator versus a Surgical Mask

Governor Cuomo Announces Schools Can Open. Can They or Should They?

September 5 is N95 Day - Whaaaaat??

Filtering Facepiece Respirator or a Dust Mask or N95 Respirator versus a Surgical Mask

Back in 2011 we posted this video from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Respirator Safety Video discussing the difference between respirators and surgical masks is a very good video to better understand the difference between these two pieces of equipment that can protect you from particular hazards.

There is a lot of confusion currently (during the coronavirus pandemic) about the difference between these two items.  The video above gives you a basic understanding.  To expand on that information realize the surgical mask does not protect the user from what's in the air its not designed to be a filter.  It's designed to protect the public from what the individual wearing it has.  Hence its popularity in Asian countries where it is considered a courtesy to wear it when you're sick.  See the chart below for more differences.

The filtering facepiece respirator was designed for the purpose of being lightweight, easy to use, and protect workers from particulates in the air but they are single-use (they should not be used for more than 8 hours and you throw them away).  If you're interested in learning about this mask's history read this article written in Fast Company "The untold origin story of the N95 mask".  Unfortunately, like most respirators, these need to be fit tested to ensure they fit correctly and also need to be fit checked to ensure it is placed on the face correctly.  An interesting point is that air will take the path of least resistance, and that is why respirators need to be fit tested to make sure all the air goes through the filter(s).  It is also why workers with facial hair cannot wear tight-fitting respirators.  The facial hair creates a path of least resistance into the respirator.  Digg posted an interesting video that shows a person coughing and the difference between a surgical mask (designed to protect the public) and an N95 respirator (designed to protect the user).  Properly putting on and taking off the N95 respirator is also important to make sure all the air goes through the filter.  See the video below to ensure you are doing this correctly.  Remember you should follow the manufacturer's procedures when putting on or taking off the respirator.

One more point, don't touch the filter it could be contaminated.  If you do immediately wash your hands or if unavailable use alcohol-based hand sanitizer.  If you're sick you wear the surgical mask and keep your distance (3 feet or arms-length or the preferrable 6 feet) or better yet stay home!  If you are trying not to get sick you wear the N95 respirator.  However, if you have not been fit tested with the respirator, have not performed the fit check, have facial hair, or not wearing it properly then the respirator would be better off in a Doctor, Nurse, or Emergency Responders hands to help them with the shortages they are experiencing.  Just keep your distance or better yet stay at home!!! 

Related articles

• Importance of Respiratory Protection at Demolition or Disaster Sites (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Importance of Personal Protective Equipment (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Reportlinker Adds Global Personal Protective Equipment Industry (prnewswire.com)
• N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks (cdc.gov)
• September 5 is N95 Day - Whaaaaaat?? (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask.  Which is it? (futureenv.blogspot.com)

OSHA's Silica Standard - What's All The Fuss About? Part One

Happy New Year!  May your New Year be healthy, profitable, & peaceful!  This blog post we will talk about the silica regulation and what the fuss is all about.  We've heard from some of our clients that they are concerned that the regulation is like the asbestos regulation.  Well in reality the regulation is more like the lead regulation than the asbestos regulation.  The big drop in the permissible exposure limit makes it similar to the asbestos regulation in that visible dust exposures may result in violations, but that's where it ends for similarity.  Table 1 of the silica standard is similar to the 1926.62 (d) (2) of the lead standard which is Protection of Employees During Assessment of Exposure.  Where based on a certain task (i.e., scrapping lead paint) the employer must comply with all parts of the standard, including the use of respirators.  Table 1 in a sense has a similar requirements.

Spraying Water to Keep Dust Levels Down Will Become Common Place

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released the final rule for respirable crystalline silica 1926.1153 on March 25, 2016 with compliance dates more than one year past the publication date.  Giving the various industries regulated by the standard plenty of time to comply.  In fact, the construction industry was the first industry required to comply by June 23, 2017, however, the current administration delayed the standard until September 23, 2017 giving the construction industry additional time to comply.  In addition, OSHA's silica website is quite robust with guidance documents in helping the industry comply.  With all this time to comply, including challenges to the standard that the courts eliminated, and equipment manufacturers having time to review Table 1 of the standard, complying with the standard is pretty straightforward if you are performing any of 18 tasks in Table 1.

Table 1 tasks involve exposures to respirable crystalline silica when the following tools are used on concrete, brick, block, stone, mortar, and other materials that contain crystalline silica:

• Stationary masonry saws;
• Handheld power saws;
• Handheld power saws for cutting fiber-cement board;
• Walk-behind saws;
• Drivable saws;
• Rig-mounted core saws or drills;
• Handheld and stand-mounted drills (including impact and rotary hammer drills);
• Dowel drilling rigs;
• Vehicle-mounted drilling rigs;
• Jackhammers and handheld powered chipping tools;
• Handheld grinders for mortar removal (i.e., tuckpointing);
• Handheld grinders for uses other than mortar removal;
• Walk-behind milling machines and floor grinders;
• Small drivable milling machines;
• Large drivable milling machines;
• Crushing machines; and
• Heavy equipment and utility vehicles when used to abrade or fracture silica containing materials (i.e., hoe-ramming or rock ripping) or used during demolition activities; and 
• Heavy equipment and utility vehicles when used for tasks such as grading and excavating.

Doing tasks in this manner, we hope will be a thing of the past!

If your work involves Table 1 tasks then determine how long your workers do those tasks and follow the requirements.  If the requirements require a respirator then you may want to reduce the time period a worker does a task so a respirator is not required.  This would be considered an administrative control under hierarchy of controls and perfectly acceptable.  Once you have determined the tasks, the controls, and time periods, the next step is to write your exposure control plan.  The exposure control plan details the tasks, controls, and time periods/respirator requirements and designating a competent person to ensure the exposure control plan is enforced.  The final step is to train the workers and the competent person on the exposure control plan so everyone understands and knows what is required under the plan.

Wearing A Respirator, Adds Significant Costs for Silica Projects

If your exposure control plan requires respirator, then you must meet the requirements of the respirator standard 1910.134, see our blog post regarding the directive which tells you how this standard would be enforced.  This standard would require a medical evaluation of workers to ensure they can wear a respirator, annual respirator fit testing, and annual training on the use of the respirator.  Respirator standard would also require a written program and the designation of a competent person to administer the written program.  In addition, the silica standard would require you provide a medical exam, specifically for silica, if workers use respirators for 30 days or more in a calendar year.  This medical would be required every 3 years.  The medical must include:

•  medical & work history; 
• chest x-ray;
• pulmonary function test; 
• physical exam focused on the respiratory system; and
• testing for latent tuberculosis infection.  

After all of the above, the final steps in compliance is maintaining the records, in accordance with 1910.1020, and updating the plans on an annual basis.  1910.1020 standard requires that exposure records be maintained for 30 years from the date of creation and medical records be maintained for duration of employment plus 30 years. 

More Projects Will Look Something Like This

Based on the above information, we think it is pretty obvious that you want to eliminate tasks that involve the use of respirators or reduce the amount time a worker does a task that might require a respirator.  Doing so eliminates the need for the silica medical exam and all the requirements under the respirator standard.  The long term costs involved with meeting the requirements for using a respirator (silica medical exam & respirator standard requirements), we think would outweigh the cost of improving equipment used by workers to meet the requirements of Table 1 for each of the tasks.  We have added some silica courses to our schedule to help you comply with the new standard.  Visit our website for more information.  Happy New Year and Be Safe!  

Related articles

• Silicosis Update(blogs.cdc.gov)

  ---

• PACNY's Environmental Conference - The NYSDOL Round Table - Day Three and So It Ends!(futureenv.blogspot.com)

  ---

• New NIOSH Study Supports the OSHA Annual Fit Testing Requirements for Filtering Facepiece Respirators(blogs.cdc.gov)

  ---

• Its Been 15 Years Since 9/11. What Have We Learned?(futureenv.blogspot.si)

  ---

Its Been 15 Years Since 9/11. 4 Things We Have Learned!

On September 11, 2001, two planes were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.  Those two planes caused the collapse of the buildings and the killing of 2,996 people and injuring over 6,000 others.  When they collapsed, a massive plume of dust was released into the air.  In addition, fires burned at Ground Zero for more than 90 days continuing to spew contaminants into the air.  Then-EPA chief Christine Whitman encouraged workers and residents to head back to Lower Manhattan saying the air was "safe to breathe.."  Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani repeated her claim by saying "to go back to normal" and the air around Ground Zero was "safe as far as we can tell, with respect to chemical and biological agents."  Though some experts, like Mount Sinai's Dr. Philip Landrigan, warned that it was not.

New York City pre-9/11

Will 15 years later we now know that Whitman did not have sufficient information to make that claim and recently has admitted she was wrong.  Studies of the dust have shown significant quantities of carcinogens, irritants, and poisons.  Contaminants like polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fiberglass, lead, asbestos, volatile organic compounds, etc.  The pH of the dust was basic.  Records have shown the City knew of the hazards of the dust and air.  Expediency of the cleanup and the recovery was more important at Ground Zero, than protecting workers from the toxic dust at the site.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was only onsite acting in an advisory role and obviously had little impact on the health consequences of the workers.  As has been printed in numerous articles and pictures many did not wear the respirators they were provided or were provided the incorrect respirator.

Various Respirators Worn During Recovery & Cleanup

The result from this lack of concern regarding the dust?  Will 15 years later we know, that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates roughly 400,000 people - including rescue and recovery workers, residents, students and school staff, building occupants and passersby - were exposed.   As of July 2016, nearly 75,000 were enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Program (this program was established by the James L. Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2011).  56,580 of the people enrolled are from the Fire Department of New York and other responders.  8,881 are civilians that were exposed to the toxic dust.  Based on the CDC estimate that means hundreds of thousands of people remain unaccounted for and maybe untreated.  The World Trade Center Health Program is monitoring over 30,000 people and is treating 23,000 people.  On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed a law that reauthorized the Zadroga Act that extended funding for the World Trade Center Health Program through 2090.

Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-28-2001 in New York

The statistics from the program can be found on the CDC website for the program.  These responder statistics show 18,639 members suffer from rhinosinusitis; 16,418 members suffer from gastroesophageal reflux symptoms (GERD); 10,274 members suffer from asthma; 6,532 members suffer from respiratory disorders; 5,639 suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 1,033 members suffer from prostate cancer.  The New York City Health Department's research found that for all cancer types more cancer cases were found among rescue/recovery workers and civilian survivors compared with the New York State general population between 2007-2011 (11% and 8% respectively).  A 2011 study found that 8 years after 9/11, the prevalence of several respiratory conditions among 10,999 World Trade Center exposed male firefighters remained high in comparison to men in the general population.

    

One World Trade Center

What have we learned?  First, we should heed the warnings of experts, not politicians.  Second, respirators are an essential and mandatory part of any emergency recovery/cleanup.  Third, safety is important but not if we sacrifice health.  Finally, dust generated by disasters, calamities, and emergencies cannot be underestimated in its potential health risk.  Yesterday, was a day to remember and mourn those who died at 9/11.  It was also a day to remember the mistakes made by those who disregarded the dust from the World Trade Center and make sure those mistakes don't happen again!

Related articles

• What We Know About How 9/11 Has Affected New Yorkers' Health, 15 Years Later(nymag.com)

  ---

• 15 Years Later: September 11 Is Not Just A Memory(forbes.com)

  ---

• Cuomo signs bill extending benefits for Ground Zero workers(newsday.com)

  ---

• Zadroga Act helped many 9/11 first responders; for others, it was too late(amny.com)

  ---

• Record Rates Of Cancer Seen In Survivors 15 Years After 9/11(nworeport.me)

  ---

• 9/11: 15 years later(cbsnews.com)

  ---

• Former EPA chief Whitman at center of 9/11 air safety controversy says 'I'm sorry'(yahoo.com)

  ---

• 9/11 rescue workers were not informed of the danger of the operation(irishcentral.com)

  ---

• Zadroga Act Needs An Extension(futureenv.blogspot.com)

  ---

• Protecting Yourself During Restoration or Renovation Projects(futureenv.blogspot.com)

  ---

NIH Still Active in Gulf Region Five Years After Oil Spill

NIH Still Active in Gulf Region Five Years After Oil Spill - as we've written in the past, the increase use of respirators during disasters is a necessary step to prevent worker exposure to contaminants that make them sick immediately or in the future.  Respirator use during disasters continues to be optional when it should be mandatory.  Disasters typically involve exposures to asbestos, silica, lead, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), etc.  The only way to protect yourself from many of these contaminants is through the use of properly fitted air-purifying respirators.

English: Respirator (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A properly fitted air purifying respirator will protect workers for most disaster and demolition exposure issues.  Providing workers with this type of respirator requires that you meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) 1910.134 respirator standard.  The standard is not that difficult to comply with.  It does require a plan for respirator use (selecting the type of respirator that will protect workers), medical evaluation for employees using respirators (to ensure they can wear the respirator), fit testing (to ensure the employee wears the correct size and it fits), and training the worker (so they know how to wear a respirator and its limitations).  There are other requirements but these are minimal compared to the four main requirements listed above.

John Stenhouse's respirator (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As respirator use increases, we suspect improvements will be made to make them more comfortable, easier to use, and easier to get a proper fit.  We hope the lessons of Hurricane Katrina, the 9/11 World Trade Center, and Gulf-oil spill disasters lead us to ensure respirators are used in the next disaster as we saw many wearing during the Hurricane Sandy Disaster.

Related articles

• Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask. Which is it?
• A Perfect Romance: A Valentine's Day Guide to the Necessary Considerations of CBRN APR Use
• OSHA Releases New Respiratory Protection Directive
• September 5 is N95 Day - Whaaaaaat??
• Silica/Asphalt Milling Machine Partnership officials release 2 new silica exposure control guides
• This Menswear Brand Is Trying To Make Respirators Cool

Worker Exposure to Silica Significant During Hydraulic Fracturing

Silicosis (Photo credit: Mr. Ducke)

Just read the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH's) blog regarding "Worker Exposure to Crystalline Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing".  Obviously, environmental concerns regarding this type of work are being fought in New York on what seems likely a daily or weekly basis.  Usually the arguement for hydraulic fracturing is, job creation and of course energy independence.  However, it is interesting how worker safety is rarely discussed when we talk about hydraulic fracturing.  This study done by NIOSH and discussed on their blog obviously discusses the need to ensure that workers are protected from being overexposed to respirable crystalline silica dust.  Overexposure to respirable crystalline silica dust can lead to the development of the uncurable respiratory disease silicosis, in addition to other diseases.    The typical view that filtering facepiece and half-mask respirators could protect the workers, according to the blog is not sufficient to protect the workers.  Meaning engineering, work practice controls, and administrative controls need to be implemented, making the process more complicated.
Since New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) is working on drafting regulations for hydraulic fracturing, we hope they also take into account what is needed to protect worker safety on these sites as well as what is needed to protect the environment.

Related articles

• Silica dust poses newly revealed health risks from fracking (switchboard.nrdc.org)
• Hydraulic Fracturing (environmentalhealthtoday.wordpress.com)
• Cool Job: Workers pleased to be part of area's hydraulic fracturing boom (newsok.com)
• Vermont bans hydraulic fracturing (newdayunderwriting.wordpress.com)
• What is Hydraulic Fracturing? (ecology.com)
• Bureau of Land Management proposing rule to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public land (bespacific.com)
• Long-term exposure to silica dust increases risk of death in industrial workers (eurekalert.org)
• More effort needed to prevent exposure to silica hazards as silicosis remains a major cause of illness, death worldwide (medicalxpress.com)

Toxic Dusts - Demolition Implications

We have posted our Winter-Spring 2012 Newsletter on our website.  The main article discusses the implications of toxic dusts on demolition, disaster relief, and emergency response workers.  This is an issue I feel really strongly about and if my recommendations are taken seriously, maybe there will be no need for any Zadroga Bills to deal with 9/11 type illnesses in the future.

Demolition, Emergency Response, and Disaster Relief Workers should wear respirators when they respond.

Related articles

• WCO - the role of Customs in natural disaster relief (mpoverello.com)
• Disaster Relief Dirigible -Via Yanko Design (overview-effect.com)
• Kings Park Psychiatric Center Demolition Up For Bid (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• CDC Website Discusses Earthquakes (futureenv.blogspot.com)

Rudy Giuliani and Air Quality After 9/11: Part 1 & Part 2

Image via WikipediaAfter listening and reading this newscast I found it interesting how everyone is pointing at the federal government experts (Giuliani, Cohen, etc.), as the reason why the first responders were allowed to expose themselves to the asbestos and other hazardous materials on the site.  A very interesting two part, newscast by WNYC titled Rudy Giuliani and Air Quality After 9/11: Part 1 & Part 2.  The 9/11 cleanup was a huge failure on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  Especially, OSHA who should've been on the site making sure workers were wearing respirators and wearing them properly.  OSHA crowed about 0 injuries at the site after the cleanups were done.  Where are they now, that we know that some 20,000 workers at the site are ill from their exposure to the contaminants at 9/11?

Related articles

• CMM Realty Alleged to Have Violated OSH Act and Clean Air Act (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA at 40 (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA Announces Three-month Enforcement Phase-in for Residential Construction Fall Protection (futureenv.blogspot.com)