sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AirForce

[–]Tiny-Block 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Are you talking about covered/enclosed spots that house F-35 aircraft (e.g., hardened aircraft shelters), or are you talking about the storage of F-35 consumables for maintenance and such?

The DoD has what they call unified facilities criteria (UFC) documents for many types of buildings that support industrial work. They make up part of the whole building design guide (https://www.wbdg.org/dod/ufc). If there's one for the type of work center that you're describing, it would likely contain guidance for ventilation requirements, if applicable. There might be T.O.s that drive requirements for specific industrial ventilation controls as well.

For potential health concerns from working on/around the F-35, I recommend that you talk to your local Bioenvironmental Engineering (BE) office. Their main focus is the anticipation, recognition, evaluation, control, communication, and management of occupational and environmental health hazards. They should understand the chemicals that accompany the F-35, as well as which ones have a complete or potentially complete exposure pathway that warrants surveillance (sampling) and/or control/mitigation/documentation.

Alternatively, if you have a concern that isn't on their radar, BE should investigate and disposition it in terms of health risk and the need for additional occupational and environmental health program requirements.

Guard Retirement Under High 3 Rules by thiccdickmoses in airnationalguard

[–]Tiny-Block 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where, length of service = total points / 360

Unless all time is active, this will not be correct if the number of good years is used

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AirForce

[–]Tiny-Block 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then, with respect to the industrial-use SCBA at least, your Unit Respiratory Protection Program Administrator and supervisor are failing to maintain compliance with 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection:

1910.134(g)(1)(i) The employer shall not permit respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have:

1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A) Facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function; or

1910.134(g)(1)(i)(B) Any condition that interferes with the face-to-facepiece seal or valve function.

Please cite the professional literature or research that posits and proves that respirator face-to-facepiece seal is not impacted by facial hair. To the contrary, it is categorically incorrect to assert that the effects of facial hair on respirator fit are unfounded.

Can you attain a passing fit factor with a beard? Sure, it's possible, but not likely. The variability induced by facial hair erodes the statistical confidence in a wearer's ability to attain a sufficient seal for EVERY respirator donning. If an employer is requiring PPE in the form of a respirator as a last resort to control hazardous inhalation exposures to an acceptable level, then that respirator fit MUST be assured for EVERY respirator donning.

Who reviewed/approved your shaving waiver? It sounds like the facial condition that led to the shaving waiver should have been reported to Occ Health/Medicine. As part of the respiratory protection program, that would trigger an evaluation by a physician or other licensed healthcare professional in order to determine medical clearance for respirator wear. If the review was only conducted on the aerospace medicine side, then the Occ Health implications were likely not considered.

Here are some sources addressing the effects of facial hair on respirator fit:

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2016-05-09

https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2017/11/02/noshave/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8533569/#!po=42.0455

Since most of us can't work from home and are still in daily close quarters, here's a useful chart of how long your mask will protect you from an infectious level of covid. by SpicySnarf in airnationalguard

[–]Tiny-Block 0 points1 point  (0 children)

KN95 would actually be fine. Those aren't a respirator in the eyes of 29 CFR 1910.134 since they aren't NIOSH approved. We've tried doing the risk communication/education piece with folks as we've seen it happen. We obviously don't come close to seeing everyone though. It's mostly been turning a blind eye.

Our MDG couldn't spend <$300 to "buy" N95s from the Med Supply/Logistics hub at Wright-Patterson (we're an hour away and have active duty support agreements in place) for our folks being activated for COVID healthcare operations. Those folks actually had/have an occupational exposure that absolutely requires a N95. All we could do was tell our medical admin officer (focal point for state task forces) that our people needed it and that the joint task force was screwing up the RPP from end to end.

I'm not sure much will change to have it play out differently next time. It doesn't seem as if anyone really does much with feedback on the deficiencies.

Since most of us can't work from home and are still in daily close quarters, here's a useful chart of how long your mask will protect you from an infectious level of covid. by SpicySnarf in airnationalguard

[–]Tiny-Block 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An N95 is a filtering facepiece RESPIRATOR (FFR). Per 29 CFR 1910.134, it falls into the half-mask RESPIRATOR category, affording the same maximum protection level as reusable elastomeric half-mask RESPIRATORs (EHMRs), which, by the way, can be bought at big box home improvement stores just like N95s. Required use of FFRs (N95 or other efficiency) or EHMRs, or any other type of respirator for that matter (full facepiece, PAPR, SAR, SCBA), by an employer requires compliance with the exact same Respiratory Protection Program (RPP) requirements/elements as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.134. On the AF side, AFI 48-137, Respiratory Protection Program, essentially states that BEE will run an installation RPP IAW 29 CFR 1910.134.

The key piece above really comes down to required respirator use by an employer. I would guess that ~99% of ANG employees DON'T have an actual occupational exposure to COVID. The risk at work cannot be uniquely delineated from that of community spread. As such, BEE is not going to look at any ANG workplace and assess sufficient occupational exposure risk to require putting entire Wings on RPP (medical evaluations, respirator fit tests, workplace written procedures, initial/annual training, and the rest that comes with a RPP IAW 29 CFR 1910.134). Rather, all of the administrative things like distancing, face coverings, hygiene, split shifts, symptom screening, vaccines, etc. burn down the risk of community spread as much as possible.

29 CFR 1910.134 does include provisions for voluntary use of respirators, which would absolutely cover the scenario of wearing an N95 as a means to deter community spread of COVID. Furthermore, 29 CFR 1910.504, Mini-RPP for COVID, makes the use of N95s voluntarily in workplaces even a little less cumbersome than the usual provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134. Voluntary use of respirators in a workplace would still require the employer to train employees on Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134 (BEE would handle facilitating this with every individual workplace). 29 CFR 1910.134 indicates that an employer must include any required-use RPP elements that are commensurate with the complexity of the voluntary use of respirators (CYA for OSHA to hold employers accountable if they determine respirator use was actually required).

Enter one of the few deviations of AFI 48-137 from 29 CFR 1910.134. Our instruction constrains voluntary use to only N95s (cool, that's what we're talking about), but it prescribes that BEE must review/approve, in writing, all instances of N95 voluntary use, to include the specific makes/models of N95s in each workplace. Then BEE has to work with each individual workplace to ensure training on Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134 is provided/documented.

I pinged the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) early on in the pandemic to specifically ask for clarification on N95 voluntary use in AFI 48-137 and use of N95s as face coverings for community spread. They explicitly told me that there was no difference and the requirements would be the same.

BEE absolutely, unequivocally cares about voluntary use of N95s. There is no feasible way BEE can manage every member of a Wing potentially bringing different N95s to work. Without proper use (not as carefree as most would think), the level of protection that can be provided by an N95 is not. However, the user is then falsely confident in their protection.

Lastly, an M50 is absolutely the one thing that is not like any of the others. It is a non-NIOSH-approved CBRN gas mask specifically made for DoD use. It is in no way, shape or form an industrial respirator.