WorkSafeBC

Quick Links

Customer Centres

Home › Publications › OHS Regulation › Guidelines Part 8

Guidelines Part 8

Guidelines Part 8 Contents

Guidelines Part 8 - General Requirements

G8.2(3) Responsibility to provide

Issued August 1999; Editorial Revision February 1, 2008

Regulatory excerpt
Section 8.2(3) of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") states:

If the personal protective equipment provided by the employer causes allergenic or other adverse health effects, the employer must provide appropriate alternative equipment or safe measures.

Purpose of guideline
The purpose of this guideline is to provide an example of selecting alternative equipment if the personal protective equipment provided by the employer causes allergic or other adverse health effects.

Appropriate alternative equipment
An example of selecting appropriate alternative equipment would be a worker allergic to natural rubber latex gloves, but who has work duties resulting in exposure to blood or other body fluids (a potential exposure to biological agents designated as a hazardous substance in section 5.1.1). In such a circumstance, the worker could use gloves made of vinyl, nitrile, neoprene, copolymer, or polyethylene, which would be appropriate alternatives to latex gloves for this particular exposure. See also OHS Guideline G6.34-2 for more information.

If a worker has an allergenic or other adverse health effect due to the protective equipment supplied and the remedy chosen is the use of "other safe measures," such measures have to provide at least equivalent protection to the worker that the personal protective equipment normally used would provide.

G8.5 Program

Issued August 1, 1999; Revised November 17, 2003

Section 8.5 of the OHS Regulation states:

If personal protective equipment is required to protect against a chemical exposure or an oxygen-deficient atmosphere the employer must implement an effective protective equipment program at the workplace which includes

(a) a statement of purpose and responsibilities,

(b) written procedures for selection, use, inspection, cleaning, maintenance and storage of protective equipment, when required,

(c) instruction and training in the correct use and maintenance of the equipment,

(d) for respiratory equipment, medical assessment of respirator wearers, when required,

(e) documentation when required, and

(f) program review.

To determine if personal protective equipment is required in a workplace to protect against a chemical exposure or an oxygen-deficient atmosphere, the employer has to consider the requirements of section 5.55 of the OHS Regulation. Section 5.55(1) states "If there is a risk to a worker from exposure to a harmful substance by any route of exposure, the employer must eliminate the exposure, or otherwise control it below harmful levels and below the applicable exposure limit established under section 5.48...." Options available to the employer include substitution, engineering control, administrative control, or personal protective equipment. However, section 5.55(3) states: "The use of personal protective equipment as the primary means to control exposure is permitted only when

(a) substitution, or engineering or administrative controls are not practicable, or

(b) additional protection is required because engineering or administrative controls are insufficient to reduce exposure below the applicable exposure limits, or

For guidance in determining whether personal protective equipment is required, see OHS Guideline G5.55.

For guidance on determining if a medical assessment of a respirator wearer is required under paragraph 8.5(d), see OHS Guideline G8.42.

G8.5(b) Special program option for pulp and paper industry

Issued August 1, 1999

Paragraph 8.5(b) of the OHS Regulation states:

If personal equipment is required to protect against a chemical exposure or an oxygen deficient atmosphere the employer must implement an effective protective equipment program at the workplace which includes...(b) written procedures for selection, use, inspection, cleaning, maintenance and storage of protective equipment, when required.

This guideline addresses a maintenance requirement for escape respirators used in the pulp and paper industry, specifically the replacement schedule for chemical cartridges used for protection against reduced sulfur gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide. Escape respirators, except for workers required to ride in the pulp mill elevators, may be half facepiece respirators and mouthpiece, or biteblock respirators, and are used by mill personnel to escape to a safe area when the mill experiences a gas leak.

The performance of escape cartridges in the pulp and paper environment was assessed in a study conducted by BC Research Incorporated, and the findings were published in June 1994, in a report entitled "Life Expectancy of Cartridges for Escape Respirators: Final Report"", BCRI Project No. 4-02-394. Based on the findings of this study, the following guidelines are recognized as acceptable practice by the Board. (This guide was initially published by the Prevention Division in a letter issued October 6, 1994, to the pulp and paper industry.)

The replacement schedule for chemical cartridges for use in escape respirators, in the pulp and paper industry only, may be extended to 12 months for unused, unexposed and undamaged cartridges with the following provisos:

A cartridge in an escape respirator is to be changed after use in an emergency involving exposure to mill gases,
Each cartridge is to be marked to show clearly its expiry date,
A metal type cartridge is to be inspected prior to installation for dents in the base or threads, and
Any damaged unit is to be replaced.

Each pulp and paper mill is expected to have a comprehensive respiratory protection program, functioning as required by section 8.5. This is achieved when all workers who are, or may be, required to use a respirator are trained to an acceptable level of competency and all the elements of the program are in place covering correct use, limitations, maintenance and storage requirements for the devices selected.

For respirator use in industries other than pulp and paper mills, the employer must follow the respirator manufacturer's recommendations for cartridge replacement schedules.

G8.10 Personal clothing and accessories

Issued August 1, 1999

Section 8.10(1) of the OHS Regulation states:

The personal clothing of a worker must be of a type and in a condition which will not expose the worker to any unnecessary or avoidable hazards.

Under this section, the "lack of clothing" is a concern if a worker is exposed to injury from the material being handled, contact with an abrasive surface or object, or contact with a surface at a temperature that could cause a burn injury. For example, a worker handling hot tar or other material that could cause a burn through contact, such as from a splash has to wear suitable clothing covering the body and arms. A worker exposed to the abrasive action of material, such as the carrying of lumber on the shoulder or against the body, should wear appropriate clothing.

A worker may have to change or add clothing as the worker's job duties or work conditions change.

An employer may have a dress code or policy for clothing requirements during warm weather. Board officers will not enforce an employer's policy of this type. Officers will only become involved in enforcement if the lack of appropriate clothing is exposing a worker to the possibility of injury.

Removal of clothing during outdoor work in warm weather exposes workers to UV from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun is a "natural element", and under paragraph 8.2(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, a worker is responsible for providing any necessary clothing to protect against it. Workers and employers need to be aware of the hazard from solar radiation, and need to take measures to limit exposure, such as by use of appropriate attire and the use of sun block creams.

Guidelines Part 8 - Safety Headgear

G8.11(2) Activity specific safety headgear

Issued August 1, 1999; Editorial Revision April 2005

Section 8.11(1) of the OHS Regulation states:

Safety headgear must be worn by a worker in any work area where there is a danger of head injury from falling, flying or thrown objects, or other harmful contacts.

Section 8.11(2) lists the alternative standards that the safety headgear must meet. In addition, section 4.4(2)(a) permits the reliance on other standards which are acceptable to the Board.

The Board accepts these standards for safety headgear designed for specific types of activity, namely:

rock climber's helmets meeting the requirements of the Union of International Alpine Association Standard (for rescue activities, not for rock scaling),
CAN/CSA Z262.1-M90 "Ice Hockey Helmets" (for on-ice activities),
CAN/CSA Z611-M86 "Police Riot Helmets and Face Shield Protection" (for crowd control/riot squad duties),
motorcycle-type helmets meeting the requirements of section 8.12, and
bicycle helmets meeting the requirements of section 8.13.

These helmets are not acceptable for occupational use outside the specific activities for which they are intended, for example, not for use as safety headgear on construction or other similar industrial sites. In addition, as they are not made or tested for dielectric properties, they are not suitable for environments where exposed energized electrical wires or equipment may be present.

G8.11(3) Protection from electrical hazards

Issued August 1, 1999

Section 8.11(3) of the OHS Regulation states:

If a worker may be exposed to an electrical hazard the safety headgear must have an appropriate non-conductive rating.

Only electricians, powerline technicians (formerly known as linemen) and certified utility arborists will normally be exposed to electrical hazards, which result when exposed and energized electric wires or electrical equipment is present in the workplace. Firefighters may be exposed to electrical hazards during fire or other emergency incidents, and their headwear requirements during such activity are specified in Part 31 of the OHS Regulation.

The current CSA and ANSI Standards for safety headgear designate headgear as Class G (General) for a dielectric test rating, when new, of 2,200 volts. The previous edition of the CSA and ANSI Standards designated these as Class A.

The current CSA and ANSI Standards for safety headgear designate headgear as Class E (Electrical) for a dielectric test rating, when new, of 20,000 volts. The previous edition of the CSA and ANSI Standards designated these as Class B.

Both the CSA and ANSI standards warn that dielectric rated headgear is intended to reduce risks arising from accidental contact with energized electrical equipment, not to provide a primary means of insulating a worker from intentional contact with such equipment.

An electrician working only on "residential type" circuits, of 240 volts or less, may wear Class A, B, G or E rated CSA or ANSI safety headgear. This upper voltage limit for work around residential type circuits may seem conservative, but the 2,200 volt dielectric rating for these classes of headgear is achieved when testing a new sample, and the protection degrades with use and is also dependant on the cleanliness of the headgear.

Powerline technicians, electricians and any other workers who work on circuits that have the potential for voltages above 240 volts need to wear Class B or E rated CSA or ANSI headgear, or equivalent.

There is a third dielectric rating class for CSA and ANSI headgear, designated as Class C (Conductive). Any safety headgear that has had holes drilled in the shell to install accessories is considered to have lost its dielectric rating. Workers other than electricians, certified utility arborists or powerline technicians should not be exposed to energized electric wires or equipment in the normal course of their work, may wear headgear with whatever class of dielectric protection they desire. If workers receive special training and are given work assignments requiring work near exposed energized electrical sources, they must have and wear headgear with the appropriate dielectric rating. For example, workers assigned to clean and paint utility poles may be exposed to electrical hazards, and should wear electrically protective headgear.

Japan Industrial Standard - Class ABE meets the dielectric rating requirements of the OHS Regulation. Electricians and powerline technicians must wear Class ABE safety headgear if it is certified to JIS. All other workers may wear Class AB or ABE rated JIS certified safety headgear.

G8.11(4) Chin straps

Issued August 1, 1999

Section 8.11(4) of the OHS Regulation states:

Chin straps or other effective means of retention must be used on safety headgear when workers are climbing or working from a height exceeding 3 m (10 ft), or are exposed to high winds or other conditions that may cause loss of the headgear.

Industrial safety headgear has traditionally been designed and tested to provide protection from an impact directed more or less downward onto the top of the head. The CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.1-92 introduced a new requirement for protection of the head from an impact landing on the side of the head. This was in response to injury studies that indicated a significant incidence of injury due to people being struck on the side of the head by objects, even when wearing a safety headgear. During the development of the OHS Regulation, expert advice provided to the Personal Protective Equipment Subcommittee drew attention to the severity and high cost of head injuries, particularly the many injuries which result from an impact to the side of the head. This type of head injury will typically occur when someone falls and strikes the floor, ground or some other object. Head protection must remain in place on the head to provide any protection when the head strikes something during or at the end of a fall. This is the reason why bicycle helmets and headgear for many other sports have a chin strap. The expert advice to the regulation development process was industrial safety headgear should have a mandatory headgear retention criteria, to assist with keeping safety headgear in place during work, including the headgear remaining effectively in place during a fall. Hence, section 8.11(4) was established. This section has three main objectives:

To keep safety headgear in place on the wearer's head during a fall,
To keep safety headgear from becoming a falling object and a danger to workers working below, and
To ensure the worker remains protected by safety headgear while doing work tasks. (For example, a rock scaler losing his or her headgear part way down a rappel of a rock face would have to descend the rest of the way down the rock face without head protection to recover the hat or get a replacement.)

Headgear may be accidentally knocked off a worker's head in any situation. Generally speaking, a means of retention should be used when the circumstances of the work create a likelihood of the loss of the headgear. Some examples are work on a ladder or scaffold over 10 feet high, or during work in an area with high wind (either natural wind or wind created by equipment such as a helicopter). Generally it is not expected a chin strap would need to be worn by a worker on a floor or deck enclosed by guardrails.

CSA Standard Z94.1-92 specifies a retention test for hard hats that is intended to evaluate the stability of the headgear during normal use. The standard states that the "test does not assess the ability of the headgear to remain in place during extreme conditions (e.g., windy conditions, during an impact or fall)." Therefore, headgear meeting this aspect of the CSA standard does not automatically comply with section 8.11(4). At this time, for the purposes of section 8.11(4), a chin strap system is the only effective means known to the Board for the retention of safety headgear.

G8.12/8.13 Use of safety headgear for workers on ATVs and similar equipment in agricultural operations

Issued May 25, 2005

Purpose of this guideline
This guideline provides information on the requirements for safety headgear, under sections 8.12 and 8.13 of the OHS Regulation, when workers use various types of small mobile equipment and other conveyances in agricultural operations. (Note that the responsibilities for providing safety headgear and other personal protective equipment are covered in section 8.2 of the OHS Regulation).

Regulatory excerpts
Section 8.12 addresses requirements for safety headgear for workers on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles and motorcycles. It states:

(1) Operators and passengers on all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and motorcycles must wear headgear meeting the requirements of

(a) CSA Standard CAN3-D230-M85, Protective Headgear in Motor Vehicle Applications,

(b) British Safety Institution Standard BS5361.1976, Specification: Protective Helmets for Vehicle Users, (as amended to 1981),

(c) Snell Memorial Foundation 1995 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use with Motorcycles and Other Motorized Vehicles, or

(d) US Federal Standard for Motorcycle Helmets (Title 49 - Transportation - Part 571.218).

(2) Headgear in good condition meeting earlier editions of a standard listed in subsection (1) may remain in service if purchased before April 15, 1998.

(3) When an all-terrain vehicle is operated within a specific location, with no significant hazard of rollover or loss of control and at a speed not exceeding 20 km/h (13 mph), safety headgear meeting the requirements of section 8.13 may be used in place of headgear specified in subsection 8.12(1).

In turn, section 8.13 addresses safety headgear requirements when riding bicycles, or using in-line skates or similar equipment. It states:

(1) A worker riding a bicycle or using in-line skates or similar means of transport must wear headgear meeting the requirements of

(a) CSA Standard CAN/CSA-D113.2-M89, Cycling Helmets,

(b) Snell Memorial Foundation 1994 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Non-Motorized Sports, or

(c) Snell Memorial Foundation 1995 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling.

(2) If a bicycle or similar conveyance is operated at speeds not exceeding 20 km/h (13 mph) within a specific location, safety headgear meeting the requirements of section 8.11 is acceptable when worn with a chin strap.

ATVs, snowmobiles and motorcycles
These types of equipment are often used for work purposes in farming or ranching operations. Section 8.12(1) requires workers on such mobile equipment to wear head protection which meets at least one of the listed Canadian, American or British standards. These standards are common, and suppliers will typically have headgear that is compliant.

Section 8.12(2) recognizes that older helmets may in some cases meet an earlier edition of the protective standard listed in the Regulation. In addition, it should be noted that under section 4.4 of the Regulation, the Board can consider other standards as well. A farmer or rancher who would like to have an alternative standard considered should contact the WCB for a review of it.

For workers on ATVs, section 8.12(3) also permits the use of helmets meeting the bicycle and other non-motorized sports helmet standards listed in section 8.13(1), if the ATV is operated at speeds not exceeding 20 km per hour (13 mph) within a specific location where there is no significant hazard of rollover.

A "specific location" is defined in the Regulation as "a yard, plant, or other clearly defined and limited area in which mobile equipment is operated, but does not include an entire municipality, district, transient forestry operation or construction site". This definition indicates a specific location would be a particular defined area of a ranch or farm in which mobile equipment is used, rather than the whole property, unless the property was relatively restricted in size. Typically, such areas might be those in the vicinity of the dwellings, outbuildings and nearby areas frequently used by mobile equipment.

A key factor is that the area must have "no significant hazard of rollover", which is defined in the Regulation as "an area in which there are no grades exceeding 10%, no operating areas with open edges, no open ramps, loading docks, ditches or other similar hazards which might cause a rollover." In the case of ranches, the slope criterion will often be a limiting factor. On farms, areas adjacent to drainage or irrigation ditches would be considered to have a significant hazard of rollover.

Bicycles and similar conveyances
Bicycles are used in some agricultural operations such as greenhouses. When using bicycles, or similar conveyances such as in-line skates, section 8.13(1) requires that the worker wear safety headgear meeting one of the standards listed. The standards are common, and suppliers will usually have headgear that is compliant.

In lower hazard circumstances, section 8.13(2) permits the use of "hard hats" with chin straps. To permit this use of a lower standard of protection, the bicycle is to be operated at speeds of not more than 20 km per hour (13 mph), within a specific location. Greenhouses are considered to be a specific location.

Utility vehicles
Sections 8.12 and 8.13 do not require the use of safety headgear while riding in utility vehicles or other such equipment not identified in the requirements. A utility vehicle typically has a steering wheel and seating that permits two persons to sit side by side, in contrast to an ATV which is equipped with a handle bar and a straddle seating arrangement. Examples of utility vehicles include "Gators" and "Argos".

In addition to the requirements of sections 8.12 and 8.13, section 4.3(1) of the OHS Regulation requires that equipment be operated in conformity with manufacturers' instructions. If such instructions for utility vehicles require the use of safety headgear, then it is appropriate to select headgear meeting a standard listed in section 8.12. In all cases, to help ensure safety the operator should ensure the utility vehicle is operated in accordance with manufacturers' instructions, at prudent speeds, avoiding holes, debris and steep slopes.

Recreational use
Sections 8.12 and 8.13 apply only to the use of conveyances for work purposes. They do not apply to the personal use of such equipment for recreational purposes. When engaged in recreational use, people must comply with protective helmet requirements of the public authority with jurisdiction. Even if safety headgear is not required, it is recommended, for the purposes of safety, that it be worn.

Guidelines Part 8 - Safety Eye and Face Protection

G8.15(1) Prescription safety eyewear - Alternate standards

Issued June 18, 2008

Regulatory excerpt
Section 8.15(1) of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") states:

Prescription safety eyewear must meet the requirements of CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.3-92, Industrial Eye and Face Protectors.

Section 8.16 of the Regulation states:

Safety eyewear must be fitted with sideshields when necessary for the safety of a worker.

Section 8.3 of the Regulation states, in part:

(1) Personal protective equipment must

(b) not in itself create a hazard to the wearer,

(2) If the use of personal protective equipment creates hazards equal to or greater than those its use is intended to prevent, alternative personal protective equipment must be used or other appropriate measures must be taken.

Section 4.4(2)(a) of the Regulation states:

(2) When this Regulation requires a person to comply with

(a) a publication, code or standard of the Board or another agency, the person may, as an alternative, comply with another publication, code or standard acceptable to the Board...

Purpose of guideline
The purpose of this guideline is to specify, in the case of section 8.15(1) of the Regulation, alternate standards acceptable to WorkSafeBC for prescription safety eyewear.

Background information
Section 8.15(1) of the Regulation requires that prescription safety eyewear meet CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.3-92, Industrial Eye and Face Protectors ("1992 Standard"). The 1992 Standard prescribes the required technical specifications for eye and face protection, including prescription safety eyewear.

Section 4.4(2)(a) permits WorkSafeBC to accept another standard as an alternative standard.

Acceptable standards
WorkSafeBC has determined that CSA Z94.3-07, Eye and Face Protectors ("2007 Standard") is an acceptable alternative to the 1992 Standard referenced in section 8.15(1) of the Regulation.

The 2007 Standard is the seventh edition of CSA Z94.3, Eye and Face Protectors. The main changes since the fourth edition in 1992 include: improved levels of impact protection; clarification for testing and marking requirements for prescription safety eyewear; criteria for sun protection eyewear; a requirement for performance criteria and test procedures to be applied separately to prescription lenses and frames; and an allowance for ophthalmic professionals to modify prescription eyewear to fit the wearer.

For clarity purposes, CSA Z94.3-99, Industrial Eye and Face Protectors and Z94.3-02, Eye and Face Protectors are also acceptable alternatives to the 1992 Standard referenced in section 8.15(1) of the Regulation.

Sideshields
Section 8.16 of the Regulation requires safety eyewear to be fitted with sideshields when necessary for the safety of a worker. The 1992 Standard permits sideshields to be either permanently attached or removable. In contrast, the 2007 Standard requires side protection, such as sideshields, to be integrated or permanently affixed to the eyewear frame. Pursuant to sections 8.3(1)(b) and 8.3(2) of the Regulation, and consistent with section 8.16, where sideshields are necessary for the safety of a worker, prescription safety eyewear may be fitted with removable sideshields.

Guidelines Part 8 - Limb and Body Protection

G8.21 Leg protection

Issued August 1, 1999; Editorial Revision October 2004

An officer of the Board finding unmarked or substandard leg protective devices being used will not order them out of service. The employer is to be ordered to obtain replacement devices that meet the requirements of section 8.21 of the OHS Regulation, without undue delay. The officer will also get the name and address of the distributor and/or manufacturer of unmarked or substandard devices and forward it to the Engineering Section.

G8.21(2) Leg protection - Alternate standards

Issued February 12, 2008

Regulatory excerpt
Section 8.21(2) of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") states:

Leg protective devices must meet the requirements of WCB Standard, PPE 1-1997 Leg Protective Devices.

Section 4.4(2)(a) of the Regulation states, in part:

(a) a publication, code or standard of the Board or another agency, the person may, as an alternative, comply with another publication, code or standard acceptable to the Board...

Purpose of guideline
Section 8.21(2) of the Regulation requires that leg protective devices meet WCB Standard, PPE 1-1997 Leg Protective Devices ("Standard"). Section 4.4(2)(a) permits WorkSafeBC to accept another standard as an alternative standard.

The purpose of this guideline is to specify, in the case of section 8.21(2) of the Regulation, alternate standards acceptable to WorkSafeBC for performance of leg protection devices used for protection against chain saw cut injuries.

Background information
The Standard prescribes leg coverage requirements, test methods, and performance criteria for chain saw protective leg coverings. Performance criteria refers to the threshold chain speed above which rapid cut-through of the protective material occurs. The Standard requires that leg protection must have a threshold chain speed of no less than 3600 feet per minute (18.3 meters per second) when tested according to the Standard test method.

Since it may not be practicable for all suppliers to test their product to the Standard because of the unique test apparatus configuration required, and since the suppliers may already have their products tested to another standard, WorkSafeBC considered the acceptability of alternate standards used for performance and testing of leg coverings in other jurisdictions.

Standard requirements in other jurisdictions are separated into several documents, covering different aspects of leg protective coverings: design of the leg protection, characteristics of the test rig for performance testing, and performance criteria. In the case of standards published by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), there are two relevant documents.

ASTM F 1414-04 Standard Method for Measurement of Cut Resistance to Chain Saw in Lower Body (Legs) Protective Clothing prescribes the characteristics of the test rig, the methods for performance testing, and the performance criteria. Performance evaluation includes determination of the chain speed 50 (CS50, the average chain speed at which cut-through of the protective padding occurs).
ASTM F 1897-04 Standard Specification for Leg Protection for Chain Saw Users specifies the materials and manufacture, the required areas of protection, care and maintenance of the garments, and labeling requirements.

In the case of standards published by the International Standards Organization (ISO), there are two relevant documents.

ISO 11393-1 (1998) Protective Clothing for users of hand-held chain-saws - Part 1: Test rig driven by a flywheel for testing resistance to cutting by a chain saw prescribes specifications for the test rig used to test performance for leg protective devices.
ISO 11393-2 (1999) Protective Clothing for users of handheld chain-saws - Part 2: Test methods and performance requirements for leg protectors prescribes design criteria, test methods, and performance specifications for leg protective devices.

WorkSafeBC has compared the test methods and performance criteria in the Standard against ASTM and ISO standards, by comparing the methodologies and by comparison of empirical test results, and has determined the following acceptable standards.

Acceptance of ASTM F 1414-04 as an alternate standard
A person that is required to comply with the leg protection test method specifications of the Standard may comply with the test method specifications of ASTM F 1414-04 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Cut Resistance to Chain Saw in Lower Body (Legs) Protective Clothing as an alternate standard. It has been determined that the CS50 that provides equivalent or better protection to the Standard is 16.8 m/s (3300 feet per minute) or greater.

The requirements for the amount and design of protective padding in the leg coverings continue to be as required in the Standard.

Acceptance of ISO 11393-2 as an alternate standard
A person that is required to comply with test method specifications of the Standard may comply with the test method specifications of ISO 11393-2 Protective Clothing for users of handheld chain-saws - Part 2: Test methods and performance requirements for leg protectors as an alternate standard, provided that the leg protective device meets the ISO standard's Class 2 performance requirements. Class 2 performance means that no cut-through occurs in any test specimen at a 24 m/s (4724 feet per minute) chain speed used for testing performance of the leg protective device.

The requirements for the amount and design of protective padding in the leg coverings continue to be as required in the Standard.

Acceptance of EN 381-5 as an alternate standard
ISO 11393-2-2 has the same performance and label specifications as the European Standard EN 381-5 (1995) Protective clothing for users of handheld chain saws - Part 5: Requirements for leg protectors.

The EN 381-5 standard has been accepted as a national standard in a number of countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. EN 381-5 (1995) Protective clothing for users of handheld chain saws - Part 5: Requirements for leg protectors is an acceptable alternate performance standard where the leg protective device meets Class 2 performance requirements.

Guidelines Part 8 - Footwear

G8.22 Footwear

Issued August 1, 1999

Section 8.22(1) of the OHS Regulation states "A worker's footwear must be of a design, construction, and material appropriate to the protection required".

The employer must determine the appropriate protection required for the feet and ankles based on the work assigned to each worker, and ensure each worker wears appropriate footwear.

Section 8.22(2) states "To determine appropriate protection under section (1) the following factors must be considered: slipping, uneven terrain, abrasion, ankle protection and foot support, crushing potential, temperature extremes, corrosive substances, puncture hazards, electrical shock and any other recognizable hazard."

The assessment is based on whatever work procedures and arrangements exist in the workplace at any time. An employer may change the work procedures and arrangements to reduce or remove the risk. For example, an employer may limit the number of workers doing tasks that cause a risk of foot injury. Or the employer may change the way the tasks are done. Protective footwear need only be worn while a worker is exposed to the risk that requires it.

When determining the requirements for appropriate protective footwear, an employer should not consider training and supervision as a substitute for protective footwear.

The risk assessment to determine appropriate footwear will result in persons or activities being placed into 1 of 3 categories:

1. The hazards present require "safety footwear". Because safety footwear is only certified with respect to certain features to protect from specific types of hazard, regard must be had to whether there should be additional requirements to cover all hazards of a worker's job.

2. There are some hazards present that require footwear to provide protection, but not necessarily protection to the level of "certified safety footwear". For example, a lifeguard at a beach likely will not need to wear footwear with safety toe protection, but needs to wear footwear that will protect against cuts from objects on a beach where there is a risk from such objects.

3. There are no hazards of foot injury for which specific requirements are necessary. For example, this will be the case for most office workers.

G8.22(3) Specific safety protective features

Issued August 1, 1999; Editorial Revision April 2005

Section 8.22(3) of the OHS Regulation states

If a determination has been made that safety protective footwear is required to have toe protection, metatarsal protection, puncture resistant soles, dielectric protection or any combination of these, the footwear must meet the requirements of:

(a) CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z195-M92, Protective Footwear,

(b) ANSI Standard Z41-1991, American National Standard for Personal Protection - Protective Footwear,

(c) British Safety Institution Standard BS EN 345:1993 Specification for Safety Footwear for Professional Use, or

(d) British Safety Institution Standard BS EN 346:1993 Specification for Protective Footwear for Professional Use.

Examples of hazards that require the provision of these types of protection are tools, materials or equipment potentially dropping or rolling onto the toes or top of the foot, or a worker stepping on sharp objects which can cut or puncture the sole of the foot.

The levels of footwear certified by CSA as meeting CAN/CSA Z195-M92 are set out in the following table.

Grade	1	2	3
Internal CSA label colour denoting only grade of toe protection.	Green	Yellow	Red
External triangular CSA patch colour denoting sole plate puncture protection with toe protection.	Green	Yellow	Red
External rectangular patch colour with Greek letter omega (W) in orange denoting only electrical shock resistant soles	White	White	White
External rectangular patch colour with green "SD" notation and an electrical grounding symbol, denoting static dissipate footwear	Fluorescent Yellow	Fluorescent Yellow	Fluorescent Yellow
Protective Toecap Impact Resistance, joules (ft*lb)	125 (93)	90 (65)	60 (45)

The degree of protection to the toe based on the table above is approximately as follows:

Grade 1 - Dropping a 30 pound weight from 3 feet onto toe

Grade 2 - Dropping a 20 pound weight from 3 feet onto toe

Grade 3 - Dropping a 15 pound weight from 3 feet onto toe.

Sole plate puncture protection is only available in CSA certified footwear in combination with toe protection. All sole plates are designed to withstand the same puncture force using a pointed tester, and the colour of the external triangular patch varies only with the grade of toe protection. The external triangular patch may be positioned in any conspicuous location on the right footwear upper. The top of the tongue is an acceptable patch location, if the patch is visible when the footwear is laced up.

Section 4.4(2)(a) permits the reliance on other standards which are acceptable to the Board.

The following ANSI and BSI Standard Impact and Compression classification combinations are acceptable substitutes for the named CSA Grades:

CSA Grade	Equivalent ANSI Classifications	Equivalent BSI Designations
1	I/75 combined with C/75	Safety General, Heavy Duty or Clog, Safety Footwear with toe impact energy protection levels of either 120 joules, 160 joules or 200 joules (88, 118 or 148 ft. lb) ¹
2	I/50 or higher, combined with C/50 or higher	Protective Footwear with toe impact energy protection levels of 80 joules (59 ft. lb.) ²
3	I/30 or higher, combined with C/30 or higher	Protective Footwear with toe impact energy protection levels of 40 joules (30 ft. lb) ³

NOTES:
¹ This is any of the safety footwear meeting British Standard BS 1870: Part 1:1988, Safety Footwear, Part 1. Specification for safety footwear other than all-rubber and all-plastics moulded types, as amended.
² This is protective footwear meeting British Standard BS 4972 Specification for Women's Protective Footwear, as amended.
³ This is protective footwear meeting British Standard BS 4972 Specification for Women's Protective Footwear, as amended.

If a worker's footwear does not have the required protective features, an alternative is using footguards or other effective devices. External strap-on or glue-on "safety toecaps" do not meet any recognized safety standard and should not be used an alternative to recognized safety footwear. Strap-on toecaps may be used to provide additional protection over the top of Grade 1 safety footwear. Strap-on toecaps are not suitable replacements for integral metatarsal protectors.

Slip-on rubber type footwear with integral safety toecaps, that slip on over existing footwear, and have evidence of independent testing proving that they meet the impact criteria of CSA Standard Z195, may be used.

If a hazard requires metatarsal protectors, the metatarsal protectors should be an integral part of the footwear. (This form of protection is typically required in foundries and heavy manufacturing where steel plate, beams or rails are handled, but it is not normally required in construction.) Metatarsal protectors that only attach to the laces or are only strapped in place do not meet the CSA Z195 Standard and should not be used because there is no assurance the metatarsal protector is properly supported by the toecap.

There are activities and work environments where, although the dangers of injury to the worker do not require the specific protective footwear meeting the requirements of one of the standards referred to in section 8.22(3), appropriate footwear must be worn to prevent injury to the worker. Section 8.22(2) specifies some of the hazards for which protection may be required, such as slipping, uneven terrain, abrasion, ankle protection and foot support, temperature extremes and corrosive substances. The footwear standards, such as the CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z195-M92, do not provide performance requirements to guide the selection or assessment of footwear for protection from these hazards. The employer must assess each worker's exposure to these dangers and ensure the worker's footwear is of a type and construction that minimizes, as far as is practicable, the risk of injury to the worker.

In addition to the appropriate approved safety devices for metatarsal, sole penetration and toe protection, the following criteria need to be considered in the selection of "appropriate" footwear:

If the possibility of ankle cuts or abrasion exists, the footwear should be at least 13 cm (about 5 inches) high and provide adequate protection from cuts and abrasion. (The height of footwear is the measurement from the top of the sole at the arch to the top of the upper.)
For walking on uneven surfaces, footwear should provide adequate ankle support and be worn tight fitting around the ankle to provide sufficient ankle support. Appropriate footwear would generally be lace-up boots. Cowboy style and rubber boots would not provide sufficient ankle support on uneven surfaces. Lace-up style 20 cm (8 inch) leather-upper winter boots generally provide sufficient ankle support on uneven surfaces.
Athletic shoes are acceptable for occupational use provided the style and construction provides protection from the hazards to which the worker will be exposed. For example, mesh-type covering over the toe area would not be appropriate in a laboratory where there is danger of chemicals dropping onto the foot. Low cut uppers will not be appropriate if there is danger of abrasion to the ankle.

Guidelines for certain types of workers are as follows:

A worker in the construction industry, or any other similar working environment where there is risk of toe injury, should wear safety footwear with Grade 1 toe protection.
A worker in the construction industry, or any other industry with a possibility of sole punctures, should wear footwear with protective sole plates.
A worker in any industry with a potential for electric shock, for example an electrician or powerline technician, should wear footwear with dielectric protective soles, in addition to any other protective features required by the circumstances of the work.
A worker using high pressure washing or cutting equipment should wear footwear or footwear cover devices which protect the whole top area of the foot from accidental contact with the washing or cutting stream. Conventional safety toe and metatarsal protectors do not cover a sufficient portion of the worker's foot to protect the foot during this type of work.
A worker in a warehouse should wear safety footwear with Grade 1 toe protection.
A worker in a retail store environment using pallet jacks, forklifts or other rolling equipment should wear footwear with Grade 1 toe protection.

The circumstances at a particular workplace may justify a variation from the above recommendations. For example, an employer may arrange the work in a manner that eliminates all hazards of foot injury.

There are activities and work environments where a heavy work shoe or boot, or a specific protective feature, might normally be required but wearing such footwear could endanger the worker or damage the work environment. The following practices are generally recognized as being acceptable to the Board:

A roofer applying asphalt shingles or similar materials that can be damaged by heavy work boots will generally wear light, soft-soled footwear.
A carpet layer or similar finishing trade requiring a worker to constantly kneel down will generally not wear safety-toed footwear.
A worker (steel erector) climbing or walking steel will generally not wear safety-toed footwear. However, the worker should wear substantial footwear having leather uppers reaching past the ankle.
A worker in the logging industry walking on logs or on steep sidehills or uneven ground will generally not wear safety-toed footwear. Note section 8.23(2) of the OHS Regulation requires "Caulked, or other equally effective footwear must be worn by workers who are required to walk on logs, poles, pilings or other round timbers.")

In addition to the above, a worker exposed to an environment requiring rubber boots extending above the ankle for protection from chemicals, water or other liquids, is not expected to have tight fitting leather uppers if walking on uneven surfaces.

These exceptions apply while the worker is performing the particular job function. When the worker is performing other job functions or walking through surrounding hazards, the worker must wear footwear appropriate to the hazard.

G8.22(3)-1 Footwear - Alternate standards

Issued September 28, 2007

Regulatory excerpt
Section 8.22 of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") states:

(1) A worker's footwear must be of a design, construction, and material appropriate to the protection required.

(2) To determine appropriate protection under subsection (1) the following factors must be considered: slipping, uneven terrain, abrasion, ankle protection and foot support, crushing potential, temperature extremes, corrosive substances, puncture hazards, electrical shock and any other recognizable hazard.

(3) If a determination has been made that safety protective footwear is required to have toe protection, metatarsal protection, puncture resistant soles, dielectric protection or any combination of these, the footwear must meet the requirements of:

(a) CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z195-M92, Protective Footwear,
(b) ANSI Standard Z41-1991, American National Standard for Personal Protection - Protective Footwear,
(c) British Safety Institution Standard BS EN 345:1993 Specification for Safety Footwear for Professional Use, or
(d) British Safety Institution Standard BS EN 346:1993 Specification for Protective Footwear for Professional Use.

Section 4.4(2)(a) of the Regulation states:

(2) When this Regulation requires a person to comply with
(a) a publication, code or standard of the Board or another agency, the person may, as an alternative, comply with another publication, code or standard acceptable to the Board...

Purpose of guideline
The purpose of this guideline is to specify, in the case of section 8.22(3) of the Regulation, alternate standards acceptable to WorkSafeBC.

Background
Regulation section 8.22(1) specifies that a worker's footwear must be of a design, construction, and material appropriate to the protection required. Regulation section 8.22(2) specifies the factors that must be considered to determine footwear protection appropriate to the protection required.

Acceptable standards
When a determination has been made that safety protective footwear is required to have toe protection, metatarsal protection, puncture resistant soles, dielectric protection, or any combination of these, the footwear must meet the requirements of a standard listed in section 8.22(3) of the Regulation.

As safety footwear is manufactured and certified to the edition of the standard in place at the time of manufacture, WorkSafeBC has reviewed the current versions of these standards, as well as new footwear standards. It has determined that in addition to those listed in section 8.22(3), WorkSafeBC will accept under that provision the following standards for footwear:

CSA Standard Z195-02, Protective Footwear
ANSI Standard Z41-1999, American National Standard for Personal Protection - Protective Footwear
ASTM Standard F 2413-05, Specification for Performance Requirements for Foot Protection
ASTM Standard F 1818-04, Specification for Foot Protection for Chain Saw Users
ISO Standard 20345:2004(E), Personal Protective Equipment - Safety Footwear
ISO Standard 20346:2004(E), Personal Protective Equipment - Protective Footwear

Guidelines Part 8 - High Visibility and Distinguishing Apparel

G8.24 High Visibility Apparel

Issued August 1, 1999; Editorial Revision April 2005

Section 8.24 of the OHS Regulation requires a worker exposed to the hazard of moving vehicles to wear high visibility apparel appropriate to the hazard. To determine the nature of the hazard, it is necessary to consider the speed of the moving vehicles, as well as the duties and the work location of the worker relative to the vehicles or mobile equipment.

Section 8.24(2) requires a worker exposed to the hazard of vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of 30 km/h (20 mph) to wear high visibility apparel meeting the Type 1 or Type 2 criteria of WCB Standard 2-1997, High Visibility Garment. For example, this section applies to a worker on a highway construction project with "public" traffic or workplace vehicles passing by at a speed greater than 30 kph, and to ambulance attendants treating an injured person at an unsecured vehicle accident scene. (An unsecured accident scene is one where the workers are not protected from moving traffic by barricades or other effective traffic control.)

Section 8.24(3) requires a worker exposed to the hazard of mobile equipment to wear high visibility apparel meeting the Type 3 criteria of WCB Standard 2-1997, High Visibility Garment. This section applies to workers potentially exposed to mobile equipment travelling at speeds less than 30 km/h. For example, this section would apply to

a worker on a construction site assisting with the positioning, loading or unloading of dump trucks,
a worker grading lumber on a sawmill yard where forklifts or front end loaders are used to move logs or lumber,
a worker collecting shopping carts in a parking lot, and
a worker on a road construction project where work takes place inside of an area protected from "public" traffic by barricades.

A basic description of Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 high visibility apparel is provided below. A fluorescent material is one that absorbs ultraviolet light in daylight and emits it in the visible light region. This property allows the material to radiate more visible light than is incident on it, thus it appears and is brighter than a non-fluorescent material which at best can reflect all the visible light that falls on it. Visibility enhancing trim has both fluorescent and retroreflective properties. A retroreflective material is one that reflects light back to the same direction as the source of the light.

Type 1 - Vest, shirt or other similar garment, worn on the torso, with a fluorescent background and attached visibility-enhancing trim.

Type 2 - Jacket, coat, coverall or other garment with a bright coloured background and attached visibility enhancing trim.

Type 3 - A harness or suspender-type of garment worn on the torso, fabricated from parallel strips of contrasting colours. The harness has fluorescent and retroreflective properties.

For more detail, refer to WCB Standard 2-1997.

Also, section 4.4(2)(a) permits the reliance on other standards which are acceptable to the Board.

G8.24-1 Alternative standard for high visibility apparel

Issued June 6, 2006

Regulatory excerpt
Section 8.24 (High visibility apparel) of the OHS Regulation states:

(1) A worker directing traffic must wear
(a) high visibility apparel meeting the Type 1 or Type 2 criteria of WCB Standard Personal Protective Equipment Standard 2-1997, High Visibility Garment, and
(b) wrist bands fitted with a minimum 5 cm (2 in) wide fluorescent retroreflective strip about their entire circumference, except that wrist bands are not required for workers who direct traffic on an emergency or a temporary basis and not as part of their normal duties.
(2) A worker exposed to the hazards of vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of 30 km/h (20 mph) must wear high visibility apparel meeting the Type 1 or Type 2 criteria of the standard referenced in subsection (1).
(3) A worker whose duties on the work site result in exposure to the hazards of mobile equipment must wear high visibility apparel meeting at least the Type 3 criteria of the standard referenced in subsection (1).

Purpose of guideline
This guideline provides information on an alternative standard for high visibility apparel to the standard referenced in section 8.24 of the OHS Regulation. The alternative standard is based on CSA Standard Z96-02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel, subject to modifications primarily related to the colour of background fluorescent material.

Authority to accept alternative standards
Section 4.4(2)(a) of the OHS Regulation addresses the capability of WorkSafeBC to accept alternative standards. This provision states:

When this Regulation requires a person to comply with
(a) a publication, code or standard of the Board or another agency, the person may, as an alternative, comply with another publication, code or standard acceptable to the Board...

WorkSafeBC has determined that the following standard is an acceptable alternative to the standard referenced in section 8.24 of the OHS Regulation.

Acceptable alternative standard to WCB Standard Personal Protective Equipment Standard 2-1997, High Visibility Garment (WCB PPE 2-1997)

The Board accepts as an alternative standard to WCB PPE 2-1997 (as referenced in s. 8.24(1) of the OHS Regulation), the CSA Standard Z96-02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel, subject to the following qualifications:

For CSA Class 1 high-visibility safety apparel, only the apparel that has a fluorescent coloured background material with retro-reflective trim in a contrasting fluorescent colour^* is considered to be an acceptable alternative to a Type 3 garment referenced in WCB PPE 2-1997.

For CSA Class 2 high-visibility safety apparel, only the apparel that has a background material in a fluorescent orange or fluorescent yellow-green colour is considered to be an acceptable alternative to Type 1 garments referenced in WCB PPE 2-1997.

For CSA Class 3 high-visibility safety apparel, only the apparel that has either the background material or the retro-reflective tape in a fluorescent colour^* is considered to be an acceptable alternative to Type 2 garments referenced in the WCB PPE 2-1997.

*Note that neither white nor grey is available as a fluorescent colour.

Guidelines Part 8 - Buoyancy Equipment

G8.26(3) Buoyancy equipment and fall protection

Issued August 1, 1999

Section 8.26(3) of the OHS Regulation states "A personal flotation device need not be worn when a personal fall protection system, guardrail or safety net is being used in accordance with the relevant requirements in Part 11 (Fall Protection) to prevent a fall into the water."

There may be circumstances where a worker generally protected from falling into the water by a fall protection system has to be temporarily unprotected. For example, a worker may have to briefly disconnect a personal fall protection system to move to a different position. This needs to be limited as much as possible by choosing a means of fall protection that minimizes the need to disconnect, for instance, using horizontal lifelines or retractable lifelines, or by using a safe work procedure covering the interval when the worker is not connected. See also OHS Guideline G11.2.

G8.27 Compliance with standards

Issued August 1, 1999; Editorial Revision April 2005

Section 8.27 of the OHS Regulation requires buoyancy equipment be labeled and otherwise comply with the following standards:

(a) CGSB Standard CAN/CGSB-65.7-M88, Lifejackets, Inherently Buoyant Type with a minimum buoyancy of 93 N (21 lbs.),

(b) CGSB Standard CAN/CGSB-65.11-M88, Personal Flotation Devices with a minimum buoyancy of 69 N (15.5 lbs.),

(c) CGSB Standard 65-GP-14M, Lifejackets, Inherently Buoyant, Standard Type with a minimum buoyancy of 125 N (28 lbs.), or

(d) British Safety Standard BS EN 396-1994, Lifejackets and Personal Buoyancy Aids - Lifejacket 150 N, automatically inflatable units with a minimum buoyancy of 150 N (34 lbs.).

A summary of information from each of these standards describing how the life jackets perform and how they are to be identified follows below.

CGSB Standard CAN/CGSB-65.7-M88, Lifejackets, Inherently Buoyant Type

A life jacket meeting this standard provides a minimum buoyant force of 93 N (21 lb.), and are often of the "keyhole" style. The colour may be bright yellow, orange or red. The life jacket is designed to provide support for the head so the face of an unconscious person is held above the water with the body inclined backwards from the vertical position. The jacket must have a permanent label identifying the

standard it meets,
size of the jacket,
mass (weight) of person the jacket is designed for,
name of the manufacturer,
lot number,
date of manufacture, and
the Transport Canada approval number.

CGSB Standard CAN/CGSB-65.11-M88, Personal Flotation Devices

This is the most common and generally the most comfortable personal flotation device, offering up to 69 N (15.5 lb.) buoyancy (Type I). A device meeting this Standard is not required to turn an unconscious person from a facedown position in the water to a position where the wearer's face is out of the water. The shell colour is bright yellow, orange or red. These units can be either the vest or "key hole" style. The device must have a permanent label or marking identifying the

standard it meets,
date of manufacture,
acceptable chest size,
name of manufacturer, and
Transport Canada approval number.

These flotation devices are acceptable for use only by a worker in situations where rescue help is readily available. Readily available in this context means the worker wearing this flotation device is within eyesight or earshot of another worker who is in a position to immediately come to the worker's aid, should he or she enter the water.

CGSB Standard 65-GP-14M, Lifejackets, Inherently Buoyant, Standard Type

A lifejacket meeting this standard provides up to 125 N (28 lb.) buoyant force.

The device requires a permanent label or marking identifying the standard met.

British Safety Standard BS EN 396-1994, Lifejackets and Personal Buoyancy Aids

A life jacket or personal buoyancy aid meeting this standard is designed to be inflatable by blowing into the bladder, pulling a cord to puncture a gas cylinder which inflates the unit, or by automatic activation of the gas inflation system when the device is immersed in water. Acceptable units inflate and turn the wearer face up within 10 seconds of going into the water. A wearer of this type of unit is provided with at least 150 N (34 lb.) buoyancy and should float face up with the mouth considerably above the water surface.

The jacket must have a permanent label or marking confirming the unit meets the above standard. These jackets are normally worn uninflated and may be in protective covers. The jacket fits around the back of the neck and ends drape down the left and right of the front of the body. These units require strict regular maintenance to remain effective, and caution must be taken to prevent damaging the bladder.

Also, section 4.4(2)(a) permits the reliance on other standards which are acceptable to the Board.

G8.28 Working alone or in isolation with a hazard of drowning

Issued August 1, 1999; Editorial Revision April 2005

Section 8.28 of the OHS Regulation requires that where a worker working alone is exposed to the risk of drowning, the worker must wear a lifejacket meeting the requirements of section 8.27(a), (c), or (d). This section applies to a worker who is not within eyesight of or within earshot of another worker in a position to immediately come to their aid, should they enter the water.

A personal flotation device of the type described under section 8.27(b) is not to be worn by a worker working alone or in isolation. This type of device, which provides minimum buoyancy of 15.5 lb., is not designed to turn an unconscious person face up in the water. Therefore, if a person working alone falls in the water and is rendered unconscious, the individual might float face down and drown. Further, if the water is rough, the individual's mouth might not be raised sufficiently above the water to provide adequate protection against drowning if the individual is unconscious.

Guidelines Part 8 - Respiratory Protection

G8.33-1 Respiratory protection - Selection

Issued August 1, 1999; Revised February 11, 2004; Editorial Revision April 2005

Section 8.33(1) of the OHS Regulation requires that appropriate respiratory protective equipment must be selected in accordance with CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-93, Selection, Use and Care of Respirators. Section 4.4(2)(a) of the OHS Regulation permits the reliance on other standards which are acceptable to the Board. The equipment is also to be selected by the employer in consultation with the worker and the occupational health and safety committee (if any) or the worker health and safety representative (if any).

CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-93, states "knowledge of respiratory hazards and respiratory protection is essential to ensure appropriate selection of respirators. The respirator selection then becomes a step-by-step elimination of inappropriate respirators until only those which are appropriate remain." Section 6 of the CSA Standard prescribes the procedure for selecting an appropriate respirator.

To select an appropriate respirator, the employer should to ensure the selection process

identifies and determines the airborne concentrations of the contaminant(s) of interest,
determines the physical,¹ chemical,² and toxicological properties of the contaminant(s),
determines the general use conditions for the respirator,³
assesses the potential for exposure via the skin and mucous membranes of the eye,
considers odour threshold information, as well as any warning properties⁴ of the contaminant(s),
determines the exposure limit(s) for the contaminant(s) of interest,⁵
identifies the IDLH concentration, as well as the lower explosive limit,⁶
evaluates the potential for oxygen deficiency,
considers any service life information available for the chemical cartridge or canister
determines the hazard ratio (HR),⁷ and
determines the protection factor (PF) for the class of respirator from Table 8-1 of the OHS Regulation. For a respirator to be appropriate, the PF must be greater than the HR. Refer to OHS Guideline G8.34 for additional information regarding protection factors.

¹ The employer must consider the state in which the substance is likely to be encountered. That is, whether it is a gas or a vapour, a particulate, or a combination thereof.

² For example, chemical reactivity and vapour pressure.

³ That is, the employer must evaluate the following: job task, duration, frequency, and physical demands of the task, the health status of the worker, as well as comfort of the respirator.

⁴ This is particularly relevant for gases and vapours. A substance is considered to have adequate warning properties when an individual can detect the substance by persistent odour, taste, and/or irritation effects, such as irritation of the eyes or respiratory tract, in concentrations at or below the exposure limit. Warning properties can provide some indication to a worker wearing a respirator that it is not working effectively, such as a breakthrough has occurred, or the facepiece doesn't fit properly.

⁵ Exposure limits are specified in the Table of Exposure Limits for Chemical and Biological Substances (see OHS Guideline G5.48-1). All relevant exposure limits must be considered, such as the 8-hour TWA limit, short-term exposure limit, and/or ceiling limit.

⁶ Concentrations in excess of the lower explosive limit are considered to be IDLH concentrations.

⁷ The hazard ratio is the airborne concentration of a substance divided by its exposure limit.

Refer to the following chart "Selecting the Right Respirator" for guidance in selecting the appropriate device. This chart is based on CSA Standard Z94.4-93, clause 6, and NIOSH Publication DHHS/NIOSH 87-108 "Respirator Decision Logic".

Selecting the Right Respirator
Flowchart: Selecting the Right Respirator - Part 1

8.33-2 Scott II and IIA SCBA regulator donning switch hazard

Issued June 14, 2002

Section 8.3(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation states in part:

Personal protective equipment must
...
(b) not in itself create a hazard to the wearer

Section 8.33(2) states:

Only respiratory protective equipment which meets the requirements of a standard acceptable to the board may be used for protection against airborne contaminants in the workplace.

Questions have arisen regarding the safety of those models of the Scott II and IIA self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) regulators that are provided with a paddle-shaped "on/off" (donning) switch. This switch allows the user to switch the SCBA assembly from a positive pressure (pressure demand) mode to a negative pressure (demand) mode. If the regulator is not switched back to positive pressure mode, the user can be at risk when entering immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) conditions. A protection factor of 50 is assigned to a SCBA that is operating in a negative pressure (demand mode) versus that of a positive pressure (pressure demand) system that is assigned a protection factor of 10,000. A demand (negative pressure) SCBA cannot be used for entry or work in IDLH or oxygen-deficient atmospheres. Refer to section 8.35 of the OHS Regulation.

The donning switch is situated on the front side of the Scott II and IIA regulators. Due to its size, shape, and location, the unit may be switched inadvertently to the negative pressure or donning mode ("on" position). Furthermore, after donning the SCBA with the switch in the "on" position, the user may fail to change the unit to positive pressure mode when the facepiece is in place.

Scott stopped producing these units in 1996. Replacement parts may not be available after 2006.

Note: Scott SCBA equipment certified to National Fire Prevention Association standards, including NFPA-approved Scott II and IIA SCBA units, do not have donning switches.

Since it is possible for these units to be improperly used in the negative pressure mode, this hazard needs to be addressed. Maintenance for SCBA regulators requires a flow test every 2 years to maintain NIOSH approval. During this mandatory periodic maintenance, the donning switch can be removed at very little or no additional cost, without compromising NIOSH approval. The more costly and extensive upgrade to bring these units into compliance with NFPA standards is not necessary for general usage. Furthermore, parts and service will likely not be available beyond 2006. As a consequence, the Board is expecting those employers affected to take the necessary steps to remove these switches during the next scheduled maintenance (mandatory flow test). If this schedule is followed, donning switches can be eliminated from all units in service by the end of 2002.

Removal of these parts will cause the SCBA to flow air whenever the air supply is turned on. The users will have to modify their procedures for putting on the SCBA to minimize the loss of air until the facepiece is in place. Modified units will appear almost the same as the original factory unit. The only apparent visual difference will be that the donning switch will be missing.

Officers encountering Scott II or IIA SCBA with donning switches will require the employer identify all such units in use and provide for removal of the donning switch at the next scheduled maintenance. Officers should remind the employer these units may need to be replaced by 2006 when the lack of availability of parts and service will likely mean that these units no longer have NIOSH approval.

Acklands Grainger and Fleck Brothers are the authorized maintenance providers for Scott in British Columbia. Several providers in Alberta may also service units on behalf of employers who do work in BC, particularly in the northeastern section of the province.

G8.33(1) Selection of respiratory protection - Alternate standard

Issued February 8, 2007

Regulatory excerpt
Section 8.33(1) of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") states:

(1) The employer, in consultation with the worker and the occupational health and safety committee, if any, or the worker health and safety representative, if any, must select appropriate respiratory protective equipment in accordance with CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-93, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators.

Section 4.4(2)(a) of the Regulation states:

(2) When this Regulation requires a person to comply with
(a) a publication, code or standard of the Board or another agency, the person may, as an alternative, comply with another publication, code or standard acceptable to the Board...

Purpose of guideline
Section 8.33(1) of the Regulation requires that respiratory protection be selected in accordance with CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-93, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators. Section 4.4(2)(a) permits WorkSafeBC to accept another standard to be used for the selection of respiratory protection.

The purpose of this guideline is to specify, in the case of section 8.33(1) of the Regulation, an alternate standard acceptable to WorkSafeBC.

Acceptance of CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-02, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators
A person that is required to comply with the CSA Standard specified in s.8.33(1), may comply with CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-02, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators as an alternative standard. (Note: For a copy of CSA Standards, contact CSA at 604-244-6652 or www.shopCSA.ca, or your local library.)

Summary of differences
CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-93, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators provides a step-by-step decision logic process to identify the correct respiratory protection options for a given hazardous exposure situation. The selection decision logic is in section 6.3.2 of the standard. See also OHS Guideline G8.33-1 Respiratory protection - Selection.

CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.4-02, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators provides two methods of determining the correct respiratory protection options for a given hazardous exposure situation. One method, in section 6.3.4, is a step-by-step decision logic process, similar to the selection process in the previous (1993) version of the standard. The other method, in section 6.3.3, uses a respirator selection flowchart to select the correct respiratory protection. The two selection methods are analogous, and will yield the same result. The 2002 edition of the CSA standard will be most useful to persons with significant occupational hygiene expertise in the area of respiratory protection.

The 2002 revision to the standard includes consideration of the presence of airborne oil as part of the selection process for particulate filters. The potential for any oil to become airborne must be determined, and an N, R, or P particulate filter selected accordingly. See also OHS Guideline G8.33(2)-1 Approved respirators.

The 2002 revision also requires calculation of a hazard ratio for each gas, vapour, and/or particulate component that poses a respiratory hazard. This is the estimated/measured airborne concentration of a substance divided by the occupational exposure limit. The highest hazard ratio from all the hazard ratios is selected, and this highest hazard ratio is used for the remainder of the selection process.

G8.33(2)-1 Approved respirators

Issued August 1999; Revised May 9, 2006; Editorial Revision February 1, 2008

Regulatory excerpt

Section 8.33(2) of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") and the associated Note state:

Only respiratory protective equipment which meets the requirements of a standard acceptable to the Board may be used for protection against airborne contaminants in the workplace.

Note: NIOSH approved respirators are acceptable to the Board.

Purpose of guideline
The purpose of this guideline is to provide information on the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certification of respirators, particularly for respirators used to protect against airborne particulates. It also includes a list of approval in other jurisdictions for certain particulate respirators that are also considered acceptable to WorkSafeBC under section 8.33(2) of the Regulation.

"Particulates" are airborne contaminants other than gases or vapours, and include dusts, mists, fibres, pollen, spores, and aerosols contaminated with bacteria or viruses.

Particulate respirators with NIOSH approvals
The requirements for NIOSH certified respirators are found in Part 84 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations on respiratory protective devices ("Part 84"). Certifications in Part 84 cover various types of respirators including non-powered air-filtering particulate respirators, chemical cartridge respirators, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), airline respirators, and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) equipped with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. All respirators approved under Part 84 carry a certification label bearing the emblems of NIOSH and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

For non-powered, air-purifying particulate respirators the sequence of NIOSH approval numbers is "TC-84A-xxx." These respirators include particulate filtering facepiece respirators, as well as respirators with elastomeric facepieces.

Filtering facepiece respirators, in which the entire facepiece acts as the filter, cover only half the face, and are sometimes termed "disposable" respirators. Respirators with elastomeric facepieces made of silicone, thermoplastic, or rubber material are available in half or full facepiece models. In these designs one or more filters or cartridges are attached to the facepiece.

Under Part 84, particulate respirators are classified on the basis of their resistance to oil. Oil degrades and reduces the filtering efficiency of the filter material. NIOSH certifies the following three classes of filters: N-series (for Not resistant to oil), R-series (for Resistant to oil), and P-series (for oil Proof).

Each of these three classes of filters is also certified according to its level of filter efficiency (rated as 95%, 99%, or 99.97% efficient at removing particles 0.3 micrometres in diameter). For example, a filter marked N95 means that the filter is not resistant to oil and is at least 95% efficient at removing particles 0.3 micrometres in diameter. In total, nine classes of filters are certified, as shown in the Table below.

Classes of filters certified by NIOSH under Part 84

Filter series	Filter type	Minimum efficiency	Comments
"N" Series	N100 N99 N95	99.97% 99% 95%	May be used for any solid or non-oil containing particulate.
"R" Series	R100 R99 R95	99.97% 99% 95%	May be used for any particulate contaminant. May only be used for 1 shift if used for an oil-containing particulate.
"P" Series	P100 P99 P95	99.97% 99% 95%	May be used for any particulate contaminant.

Note: Oil aerosols include lubricants, cutting fluids, and glycerine.

All nine classes of filters, as discussed in the above Table, are considered appropriate for protection against tuberculosis and other airborne biological agents. (See OHS Guidelines G6.33 to G6.41 for further information on protection against biological agents designated as a hazardous substance in section 5.1.1.)

Particulate respirators with approvals in jurisdictions other than NIOSH
To be acceptable to WorkSafeBC under section 8.33(2) of the Regulation, respirators approved in a jurisdiction other than NIOSH in the US are expected to be equivalent to products bearing NIOSH approvals.

Particulate filtering facepiece respirators are often used in work settings where exposures to particulates do not require a respirator with a higher protection factor. Such respirators having the following approvals in other jurisdictions are considered by the World Health Organization as equivalent to respirators with NIOSH N95 filtration capability.

European Union: FFP2, FFP3
Australia/New Zealand: P2 (94%), P3 (99.95%)
China: II (95%), I (99%)
Japan: 2nd class (95%), 3rd class (99.9%)
Korea: 1st class (94%), Special (99.95%)

Particulate filtering facepiece respirators with any of these approvals are considered acceptable to WorkSafeBC for protection against airborne particulates in circumstances where a respirator with a higher protection factor is not needed and the particulates are not contaminated with oil. (See Table 8-1 in the Regulation and OHS Guideline G8.34-1 for information on protection factors.)

G8.33(2)-2 Interchange of equipment components

Issued August 1, 1999

A NIOSH approved self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) may be used with NIOSH approved air cylinders from other NIOSH approved SCBA provided the cylinders have the same capacity and pressure rating. The cylinders must meet CTC/DOT and NIOSH criteria.

The airlines on respirators can generally be interchanged provided they

are NIOSH approved,
are of the same inside diameter and length as recommended by the manufacturer, and
have compatible end fittings.

G8.34-1 Protection factors

Issued as G8.34 August 1999; revised March 22, 2004, and further revised April 20, 2004.

Section 8.34 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation states:

A respirator must not be used for protection against concentrations of an air contaminant greater than the maximum use concentration, which is the concentration determined by multiplying the exposure limit for the air contaminant by the appropriate respirator protection factor selected from Table 8-1, or as otherwise determined by the board.

This guideline explains how the maximum use concentration is calculated and what the assigned protection factor of a respirator means.

The maximum use concentration (MUC) is determined by multiplying the exposure limit for the air contaminant by the appropriate respirator protection factor or assigned protection factor (APF). Exposure limits are found in the Table of Exposure Limits for Chemical and Biological Substances (see OHS Guideline G5.48-1). Respirator protection factors, also known as assigned protection factors (APFs), are found in Table 8-1 of the OHS Regulation or may be determined by the Board.

Always use the 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) limit for an air contaminant, where there is one, as the exposure limit in the calculation, even if the substance has a short-term exposure limit or a ceiling limit as well. If a substance has only a ceiling limit, then the ceiling limit is used in that case.

The APF of a respirator reflects the level of protection that a properly functioning respirator would be expected to provide to a population of properly fitted and trained users. For example, an APF of 10 (half facepiece air-purifying respirator) means that a user could expect to inhale no more than one-tenth of the airborne contaminant present; an APF of 50 (full facepiece air-purifying respirator) means that a user could expect to inhale no more than one-fiftieth of the airborne contaminant.

The MUC is the maximum airborne concentration to which a particular respirator can be used by a worker. For example, if a worker wearing a respirator with an APF of 10 is exposed to an atmosphere containing a substance with an 8-hour TWA limit of, for example, 100 parts per million (ppm), the maximum airborne concentration the worker can be exposed to is 1000 ppm(10 X 100 ppm = 1000 ppm). If the worker is exposed to levels exceeding 1000 ppm, a respirator with a higher APF is required.

It is important to note that other factors, such as the immediate danger to life or health (IDLH) concentration, will need to be considered also since the IDLH concentration may place limitations on the maximum use concentration. Refer to OHS Guideline G8.34-3 for additional information on IDLH.

Note: For extended workshifts where there is exposure to a substance with an 8-hour TWA, do not use modified TWA limits as determined under section 5.50 for extended work shifts. To accommodate for 10-hour, 12-hour, or other work shifts, one should consider modifying the change-out schedule for the respirator cartridge being used. Contact the respirator manufacturers for direction on recommended change-out schedules. Refer also to clause 6.3.2 of CSA Standard Z94.4-02, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators for additional advice on change-out procedures, schedules, and service times.

If there are exposures to more than one chemical at one time (such as to a complex solvent mixture), the possibility of additive or synergistic effects should be assessed. Normally, additive and synergistic effects should be considered when profiling a worker's exposure to airborne contaminants -- a requirement of OHS Regulation section 5.51 (see OHS Guideline G5.51). It is prudent to consider additive/synergistic effects for the respirator selection process as well. However, at this time, NIOSH, OSHA, WCB of BC, other agencies, as well as respirator manufacturers, have not finalized the method for incorporating additive and synergistic effects into the selection process. Until such time the methodology has been finalized, officers and persons responsible for a company's respirator program are advised to use the instructions in OHS Guideline G8.33 or CSA Standard Z94.4-02, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators for selecting the appropriate device when confronted with multi-contaminant exposures. A detailed chart is available in Z94.4-02 to facilitate the selection process. Rather than using the maximum use concentration, however, CSA uses the highest hazard ratio (HHR), which is the ratio of airborne concentration to the exposure limit, for selecting the appropriate respirator.

Technical background information
The concept of the assigned protection factor is based on work originally conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and first published in 1965 as decontamination factors. A decontamination factor was defined at the time as "the ratio of the concentration of dust, mist, fume or mist within the facepiece [relative to outside the respirator] while the respirator is being worn." The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) along with the American Industrial Hygiene Association's Respirator Committee further developed the concept, resulting in the present-day assigned protection factor (APF). The APF of a respirator reflects the level of protection that a properly functioning respirator would be expected to provide to a population of properly fitted and trained users. For example, an APF of 10 for a respirator means that a user could expect to inhale no more than one-tenth of the airborne contaminant present.

Fundamentally, the protection factor of a respirator is an expression of performance based on the ratio of two measured variables, C_I and C_Oas described in NIOSH's 1987 document NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic (DHHS Publication No. 87-108). C_Iis the measured concentration of a contaminant inside the respirator facepiece cavity, and C_Ois the measured concentration of a contaminant outside the respirator facepiece. The relationship between these two variables can be expressed not only as the protection factor (C_O/ C_I) but also penetration (C_I/ C_O) or efficiency [(C_O/C_I)/ C_O]. Furthermore, the protection factor (PF) can be related to the penetration (p) and efficiency (E) as follows:

PF = C_O/ C_I= 1/p = 1/(1- E)

Since C_I < C_O, the PF will always be greater than unity.

Protection factor assessments are made exclusively on person/respirator systems while penetration and efficiency assessments are made only on component parts of the respirator system. It is important to recognize that on a person/respirator system, the measured variable C_I becomes a complicated function of many individual sources of penetration (for example, penetration of any of the following components -- air-purifying element, exhalation valve, and face seal). Also those environmental conditions that would affect penetration need to be considered (for example, high humidity, sweat, activity level of the user, and comfort level provided by the device).

G8.34-2 Assigned protection factors for non-powered filtering facepiece style air-purifying respirators

Issued March 22, 2004; Editorial Revision February 8, 2007

Regulatory excerpt
Table 8-1 of the OHS Regulation states, in part:

Respirator type Protection factor

Half-facepiece, non-powered
10

Respirator type	Protection factor
Half-facepiece, non-powered	10

Purpose of guideline
This guideline provides an explanation of the assigned protection factor (PF) for non-powered filtering facepiece respirators, and provides direction for using this style of respiratory protection for protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

What is the protection factor for filtering facepiece style respirators?
The 30 Code of Federal Regulations Part 42 CFR 84 was introduced in 1996. Under this requirement, dust/mist/fume non-powered, air-purifying, particulate-filter respirators were categorized on the basis of filtration efficiency and on their resistance to oil.

42 CFR 84-certified non-powered, air-purifying, particulate-filtering facepiece style respirators carrying NIOSH certification TC-84A-xxx have been assigned a PF of 10, consistent with CSA Standard Z94.4-02, other standards, and other jurisdictions.

Respiratory devices certified under a previous Code of Federal Regulations 30 CFR 11 should no longer be available commercially. Manufacturing ceased on July 10, 1998. However, old stock may still exist and be used by workers. If used, these devices carry a APF of 5.

Are filtering facepiece style respirators approved for protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis?
Respiratory protection equipment manufactured to an earlier standard (30 CFR 11), other than HEPA-rated filters, is not approved for protection against the organism responsible for tuberculosis. Therefore, only NIOSH TC-84A-xxx certified devices (all filter classes, including N100/99/95, R100/99/95, and P100/99/95) and NIOSH TC-11-xxx HEPA-rated filters are approved for protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

For additional information on approved respirators see OHS Guideline G8.33(2)-1.

G8.34-3 Maximum use concentration and IDLH

Issued originally as part of G8.34 August 1999; revised March 22, 2004; Editorial Revision April 4, 2007

Regulatory excerpt
The last row of Table 8-1 in Part 8 of the OHS Regulation ("Regulation") states:

Other factors such as warning properties, IDLH levels and cartridge/canister limitations must also be taken into account when determining the maximum use concentration. Refer to the manufacturer's instructions and standards acceptable to the board for further information.

Purpose of guideline
The purpose of this guideline is to explain how the immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) concentration must be taken into account when using the maximum use concentration to select a respirator.

Effect of IDLH on respirator selection
Most of the selection criteria in the applicable CSA Standard are summarized in OHS Guideline G8.33. As a result of Regulation section 8.35, one of the most critical factors to be considered when selecting a respirator is whether the concentration is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH). For some substances, the IDLH concentration is very low, such as the following:

Chemical Name	IDLH concentration (ppm)
Toluene	500
Xylene	900
Chlorine	10

Depending on the type of respirator selected, the IDLH concentration may be lower than the maximum use concentration calculated using the exposure limit and the assigned protection factor. If the IDLH concentration is lower than the maximum use concentration, the selected respirator is unsuitable and another, more protective, respirator must be selected. The following example is provided using chlorine as the air contaminant:

A full facepiece air-purifying respirator, with an acid gas chemical cartridge, is being considered to protect against exposure to chlorine.
In the Table of Exposure Limits for Chemical and Biological Substances (see OHS Guideline G5.48-1), the 8-hour TWA limit for chlorine is 0.5 ppm. In Table 8-1, the assigned protection factor for a full facepiece non-powered air-purifying respirator is 50.
The maximum use concentration in which it appears this respirator can be used to protect against exposure to chlorine calculates out to 50 X 0.5 ppm = 25 ppm.
Although it appears from the calculation in item 3 above that the respirator could be used to protect against chlorine exposure to a concentration of 25 ppm, section 8.35 must also be met. The IDLH concentration for chlorine is 10 ppm. Section 8.35 does not permit an air-purifying respirator to be used in an IDLH atmosphere. Only an air-supplying

WorkSafeBC

Quick Links

Customer Centres

Guidelines Part 8

Guidelines Part 8 Contents

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SAFETY HEADGEAR

SAFETY EYE AND FACE PROTECTION

LIMB AND BODY PROTECTION

FOOTWEAR

HIGH VISIBILITY AND DISTINGUISHING APPAREL

BUOYANCY EQUIPMENT

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION

Guidelines Part 8 - General Requirements

G8.2(3) Responsibility to provide

G8.5 Program

G8.5(b) Special program option for pulp and paper industry

G8.10 Personal clothing and accessories

Guidelines Part 8 - Safety Headgear

G8.11(2) Activity specific safety headgear

G8.11(3) Protection from electrical hazards

G8.11(4) Chin straps

G8.12/8.13 Use of safety headgear for workers on ATVs and similar equipment in agricultural operations

Guidelines Part 8 - Safety Eye and Face Protection

G8.15(1) Prescription safety eyewear - Alternate standards

Guidelines Part 8 - Limb and Body Protection

G8.21 Leg protection

G8.21(2) Leg protection - Alternate standards

Guidelines Part 8 - Footwear

G8.22 Footwear

G8.22(3) Specific safety protective features

G8.22(3)-1 Footwear - Alternate standards

Guidelines Part 8 - High Visibility and Distinguishing Apparel

G8.24 High Visibility Apparel

G8.24-1 Alternative standard for high visibility apparel

Guidelines Part 8 - Buoyancy Equipment

G8.26(3) Buoyancy equipment and fall protection

G8.27 Compliance with standards

G8.28 Working alone or in isolation with a hazard of drowning

Guidelines Part 8 - Respiratory Protection

G8.33-1 Respiratory protection - Selection

8.33-2 Scott II and IIA SCBA regulator donning switch hazard

G8.33(1) Selection of respiratory protection - Alternate standard

G8.33(2)-1 Approved respirators

G8.33(2)-2 Interchange of equipment components

G8.34-1 Protection factors

G8.34-2 Assigned protection factors for non-powered filtering facepiece style air-purifying respirators

G8.34-3 Maximum use concentration and IDLH