Incident Report

Subject:                   Facial Hair policy

Date of first enquiry:                 07 April 2003

Initial enquiry / comment.

Numerous Refineries and industries throughout the world have a no facial hair policy as part of their respiratory policy for all employees that have to wear some form of Respiratory equipment within their site. The following codes are applicable.

N.F.P.A. 1500-1987
Fire Department Occupational and Health Program. Chapter 5 , Section 5-3.1O*. Beards or facial hair thatinterfere with the face piece seal shall be prohibited for members required to use S.C.B.A.

SABS 0220-1988 The selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z88.6-1984, Respirator Use -Physical Qualifications for Personnel, Section 6.3 (1), "Facial deformities or presence of excessive hair or other conditions that interfere with theproper sealing of the respirator shall disqualify the applicant".

As a fire fighter at heart we all know that an effective face to face piece seal is extremely important when using S.C.B.A. even with positive pressure S.C.B.A. any outward leakage will increase the rate of air consumption reducing the time available for use andsafe exit or usage period.Some arguments can me made that a positive pressure SCBA will vent air outward and therefore a minor leak will not allow contaminants inside the face piece. However, one of 'Fick's Laws' states that in these circumstances up to 2% of the outward leakage can compose of contaminants leaking INTO the face piece. Based on this information a clean shave is required even for a SCBA face piece adding to this fact any outward leakage will increase the rate of air consumption reducing the time available for use and safe exit or usage period.

Facial hair has been known to lodge under the exhaust diaphragm letting in contaminates when breathing in.

My question to you all is the following: What is the standard do you apply for your fire fire fighters Volunteer and professional and for those who who within an industry what standards do you apply?

Responses:

Date

Detail

Documents
 08 April 2003

Here in the UK new legislation has led to the requirement to conduct Quantitative 'Fit Testing' as well as the previously required qualitative testing. The arguments below are on the whole supported by myself, however, the reality is that facial hair or not (some unshaven faces do have difficulty obtaining a pass) - if you can prove via a quantitive fit test that a seal is made and can be sustained then that is all that you should be concerned with. After all the safety of the wearer and those who may be called upon for rescue purposes is all important. The website below gives some information on the company TSI who supply the equipment.

http://www.tsi.com/fittest/homepage/fittesthome.htm

Hope this helps in your discussions:

 app_photo[1].jpeg
08/04/2003 I have another problem that had raised its head. Ear rings. Having just run a BA course, two of the participants had their ear rings caught in the face mask. Out of twenty new operators, two thirds have ear rings, most of them multiple. male and female. I have warned them about transfering heat to their ears during hot drills but it doesnt seem to bother them
  
08/04/2003 We teach people not to wear facial hair. We quote SABS but we do not have an official company policy.
  
07/04/2003 At Synfuels facial hiar (excluding moustages)  is not allowed for fire fighters.

The problem however does not stop here. Other persons working with breathing protection for whatever reason,  are subject to the same risk of inhaling "bad air" if they are allowed to have beards. In certain cases this is a religious/cultural/personal image issue which makes this an even more difficult subject.

Where the air supply is not continuous (plant air for air line equipment), the issue becomes more risky as the duration of closed circuit units are adversely affected.

The only way I can see to address this is to ensure that proper job / person specifications are developed and should a person fail to fit the job specification that person must either be re-deployed (which seldom can be done in practice), or restrictions placed on the type of work that person may perform. 

Again, if this was not stipulated in the conditions of service when the person was appointed, you will have great difficulties in applying a revised policy, unless the affected persons agree to it. It should however be compulsary for the employer to explain the risk and restrictions to these people and have proper records of such communication to the affected parties. Should an incident happen and such a person gets injured (or killed) the employer will still have great difficulties in proving innocence.

In summary, ensure future appointments are done according to job/person specifications (if they exist) and for the "as-is" start missionary work.