Navigating Hazardous Waste Reporting: A Guide by Convergence Consulting

The management of hazardous waste stands as a pivotal aspect of environmental health and safety (EHS) operations. It encompasses a wide array of practices aimed at the effective handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous substances to mitigate their impact on both human health and the environment. Central to this endeavor is the adherence to stringent reporting deadlines set forth by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). These deadlines are not arbitrary; they are carefully designed to ensure that hazardous waste is managed in a manner that upholds public safety and environmental integrity.

For EHS professionals, staying abreast of these deadlines is crucial. The reporting process provides a framework for accountability, enabling regulatory agencies to monitor and enforce compliance with environmental standards. Moreover, it serves as a mechanism for companies to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable practices and regulatory adherence. As we delve deeper into the importance of these reporting deadlines, it becomes clear that they are more than just dates on a calendar. They are a vital component of a broader strategy aimed at fostering a safer and more sustainable future.

Key Reporting Deadlines for 2024

Navigating the landscape of hazardous waste management requires a keen understanding of the reporting deadlines that punctuate the calendar year. These deadlines are not only central to maintaining compliance but also instrumental in shaping an organization's environmental strategy. For the year 2024, several key dates stand out, demanding attention from EHS professionals and organizations alike.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have set forth deadlines that cover a broad spectrum of reporting requirements. A notable deadline is March 1st, which marks the submission date for the Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports for Large Quantity Generators. This report, a cornerstone of hazardous waste regulatory compliance, requires detailed accounting of the generation, management, and disposal of hazardous waste over the biennial period.

Similarly, other critical EPA reporting deadlines include the EPCRA SARA Tier II reports, also due on March 1st, which involve the submission of information on hazardous chemicals stored on-site. The importance of these reports cannot be overstated, as they play a vital role in community right-to-know initiatives and emergency planning efforts.

State-specific deadlines also play a crucial role in the compliance landscape. For instance, in North Carolina, facilities operating as Large Quantity Generators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities must submit their Biennial Report by March 1st of every even-numbered year, covering data from the previous odd-numbered year. This state-specific mandate underscores the necessity for organizations to not only adhere to federal deadlines but also remain vigilant of requirements unique to their operating jurisdictions.

Moreover, the calendar year is dotted with other significant reporting milestones, such as the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report due by March 31st and the Toxic Release Inventory (Form R) due by July 1st. These reports are integral to environmental transparency and regulatory compliance, offering insights into an organization's environmental footprint and adherence to pollution control standards.

As we navigate through 2024, the array of deadlines highlights the dynamic nature of environmental compliance. It is imperative for organizations to mark these dates on their calendars, ensuring that the requisite data collection, analysis, and reporting processes are initiated well in advance. The meticulous observance of these deadlines not only affirms an organization's commitment to environmental stewardship but also safeguards against the repercussions of non-compliance.

Impact of Missing Deadlines

The timely submission of hazardous waste reports is more than a regulatory obligation; it is a critical component of an organization's environmental compliance and stewardship. Failing to meet the established deadlines can lead to a cascade of negative consequences, both legally and environmentally. Understanding these impacts is essential for any organization committed to maintaining a compliant and responsible operational stance.

Legal and Financial Repercussions

At the forefront of the consequences are the legal and financial penalties. Regulatory bodies such as the EPA and OSHA have the authority to impose significant fines on organizations that fail to meet reporting deadlines. These fines are not merely punitive; they are designed to emphasize the importance of compliance and deter laxity in environmental reporting. For instance, missing the March 1st deadline for the Biennial Hazardous Waste Report can result in fines that can escalate daily, accumulating to substantial amounts over time. Such financial burdens can strain an organization's resources and detract from its operational goals.

Reputational Damage

Beyond the immediate legal and financial penalties, there exists the intangible yet profound impact on an organization's reputation. In an era where environmental responsibility is increasingly valued, non-compliance can tarnish an organization's public image. Stakeholders, including customers, investors, and the community at large, may perceive the organization as negligent or indifferent towards environmental protection. This perception can lead to diminished trust, loss of business, and challenges in securing future projects or partnerships.

Operational Disruptions

Non-compliance can also result in operational disruptions. Regulatory agencies may mandate corrective actions or impose restrictions on an organization's operations until compliance is restored. Such measures can lead to delays, increased costs, and lost productivity. For facilities that rely on timely permit renewals or approvals, non-compliance with reporting requirements can halt or severely impede their operations.

Environmental Impact

Perhaps the most critical consequence of missed reporting deadlines is the potential harm to the environment. The reporting process is a key tool in the monitoring and management of hazardous waste, enabling regulatory bodies to assess and mitigate risks to the environment and public health. Non-compliance can obscure the true extent of hazardous waste generation and management, undermining efforts to protect ecosystems and communities from pollution and hazardous exposures.

The implications of missing hazardous waste reporting deadlines extend far beyond mere administrative oversights. They underscore the necessity for diligent compliance practices, emphasizing the integral role of timely reporting in safeguarding the environment, upholding legal obligations, and maintaining organizational integrity.

Preparing for Reporting

Successfully navigating the complexities of hazardous waste reporting requires meticulous preparation and a proactive approach. Organizations can significantly reduce the risk of missing crucial deadlines by adopting strategic practices that streamline the reporting process. Here are key strategies for effective preparation:

Comprehensive Record-Keeping

The foundation of accurate reporting lies in diligent record-keeping throughout the year. Organizations should maintain detailed records of all hazardous waste generated, stored, treated, and disposed of. This includes quantities, types of waste, disposal methods, and any transportation activities. By keeping these records organized and readily accessible, companies can simplify the process of compiling their reports, ensuring that all necessary information is at their fingertips when needed.

Understanding Reporting Requirements

Each reporting requirement comes with its own set of criteria and deadlines. It is imperative for organizations to thoroughly understand these requirements well in advance. This understanding should encompass not only federal regulations but also any state-specific mandates that apply to their operations. For instance, the Hazardous Waste Biennial Report and the EPCRA SARA Tier II reports have distinct data and formatting requirements that must be adhered to. Familiarizing oneself with these nuances can prevent oversights and ensure comprehensive compliance.

Utilizing Technology

Leveraging technology can greatly facilitate the reporting process. Many regulatory agencies now offer electronic reporting systems, such as the EPA's RCRAInfo for the Biennial Report, which streamline submissions and reduce the likelihood of errors. Additionally, environmental management software can assist in tracking hazardous waste data, generating reports, and even reminding organizations of upcoming deadlines. Investing in such technologies not only aids in compliance but also enhances overall efficiency.

Training and Awareness

Ensuring that staff are well-informed and trained on the significance of hazardous waste reporting and the specific procedures for your organization is crucial. Regular training sessions can keep everyone up-to-date on the latest regulatory changes and reporting techniques. Moreover, fostering a culture of compliance and environmental responsibility can motivate staff to prioritize accuracy and timeliness in their reporting duties.

Conclusion

The intricate web of hazardous waste reporting deadlines underscores the critical role of environmental compliance in today's business landscape. As we have explored, these deadlines are not mere formalities but fundamental components of a robust environmental management system. They serve to ensure that hazardous waste is managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment, while also upholding the integrity and reputation of organizations.

For companies navigating the complexities of hazardous waste management, the key to success lies in preparation, diligence, and a commitment to environmental stewardship. By understanding the specific requirements of each reporting obligation, maintaining comprehensive records, leveraging technology, and fostering a culture of compliance, organizations can not only meet their regulatory responsibilities but also contribute to a sustainable future.

The journey towards environmental compliance is ongoing and requires continuous attention and adaptation. However, through proactive planning and strategic action, organizations can turn the challenge of reporting deadlines into an opportunity for demonstrating their dedication to environmental protection and sustainable business practices. In doing so, they not only safeguard their operations against the risks of non-compliance but also affirm their role as responsible stewards of our planet's resources.

Rethinking Aviation Safety: Lessons from the Boeing 737 Max 9 Door Incident

The aviation world encountered a significant challenge on January 5, 2024, with an alarming incident involving an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9. Shortly after takeoff, a cabin door panel on the aircraft unexpectedly detached mid-flight, resulting in a gaping hole in the fuselage and necessitating an emergency landing at Portland International Airport. This occurrence not only sparked immediate safety concerns but also raised serious questions about the broader aspects of Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) in the aviation sector. Dissecting the incident in detail to understand its implications on EHS and examining Boeing's response are crucial for mitigating such events in the future.

Details of the Incident

On a seemingly routine flight, Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, operating a Boeing 737 Max 9, faced an unprecedented crisis that stunned the aviation industry and passengers alike. Approximately 10 minutes after departing from Portland International Airport, passengers and crew were thrown into a state of panic as a cabin door panel abruptly separated from the aircraft at an altitude of 16,000 feet. This detachment caused a significant hole in the fuselage, leading to the cabin's rapid depressurization.

The pilots, faced with this critical situation, demonstrated commendable skill and presence of mind by initiating an emergency landing back at Portland International Airport. The incident, fortunately, did not result in any severe injuries, although it left passengers profoundly shaken. Images circulating on social media revealed emergency oxygen masks deployed and passengers huddled in their seats, encapsulating the distressing moments aboard the flight.

While initial investigations have not conclusively determined the cause, the severity of the incident was immediately evident. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) swiftly launched an inquiry to unravel the mystery behind the panel's detachment. Additionally, Alaska Airlines and United Airlines, the primary operators of the Boeing 737 Max 9 in the United States, began inspections of their fleets in response to this incident.

Investigations and Immediate Responses

The alarming incident with the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 swiftly drew the attention of aviation authorities, leading to immediate and thorough investigations. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spearheaded these inquiries, delving into the possible causes of the cabin door panel detachment. Given the Boeing 737 Max's troubled past, these investigations were not just routine but also carried a significant weight of public expectation and scrutiny.

Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, was quick to respond to the crisis. Understanding the severity of the situation and its potential impact on the brand's reputation and customer trust, Boeing pledged to undertake a comprehensive examination of its quality control processes. Stan Deal, CEO of Boeing’s commercial airplanes division, expressed the company's commitment to safety in an email to employees and announced additional inspections for the 737 Max planes, emphasizing the need for an external review of Boeing's quality management system.

The immediate aftermath of the incident also saw decisive action from airlines. The FAA issued a directive for the grounding of all Boeing 737 Max 9 jetliners equipped with the specific door plugs in question. This directive affected 171 aircraft globally, causing significant operational disruptions for airlines like Alaska and United, which were forced to cancel numerous flights. United Airlines, in particular, reported finding instances of loose parts on the door plugs of other Boeing 737 Max 9 jets, further underscoring the urgency of the situation.

These developments showcased the collaborative effort between aviation authorities, the manufacturer, and airlines to prioritize passenger safety. The quick response and proactive steps were crucial in mitigating immediate risks and restoring public confidence in air travel. However, the incident also highlighted the ongoing challenges facing Boeing, particularly in regaining trust after the previous safety issues with the 737 Max series.

EHS Implications

The Boeing 737 Max 9 door incident is a stark reminder of the intricate connection between Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) practices and aviation safety. EHS, a discipline focused on maintaining and improving the safety, health, and welfare of people engaged in work or employment, plays a crucial role in the aviation industry. This incident brings to the forefront several EHS concerns that are critical for the airline industry.

Firstly, the health and safety aspect of EHS is directly impacted in such incidents. Passenger and crew safety is paramount, and any compromise due to equipment failure or procedural lapses can have dire consequences. The mental and physical wellbeing of those aboard the flight, who endured a traumatic experience, underscores the importance of rigorous safety standards and procedures. This incident potentially points to a need for more robust safety inspections and maintenance routines, to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Secondly, the environmental aspect of EHS is also noteworthy. Aircraft design and maintenance not only have implications for passenger safety but also for the environment. Inefficient or unsafe aircraft can lead to increased emissions or, in worst-case scenarios, environmental disasters in the event of a crash. Therefore, ensuring that aircraft are safe and well-maintained is also a step towards environmental stewardship.

This incident also highlights the importance of EHS in organizational culture and decision-making. A company’s culture around safety and its commitment to EHS principles can significantly influence its operational practices and, consequently, its overall safety record. Boeing’s response to this incident, including the review of its quality control processes, is a positive step towards reinforcing a safety-centric culture. However, the recurrence of safety issues with the 737 Max series raises questions about the effectiveness of these measures and the need for a more holistic approach to EHS.

Boeing's Safety Record and Industry Impact

The recent door incident involving the Boeing 737 Max 9 has once again brought Boeing's safety record into the spotlight, raising concerns over its impact on the aviation industry. Boeing, a leading aircraft manufacturer, has faced several challenges regarding the safety of its 737 Max series, which have had significant repercussions.

Historically, the 737 Max series, particularly the Max 8 model, has been at the center of scrutiny following two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019. These tragedies led to the worldwide grounding of the 737 Max fleet and exposed issues related to Boeing's design and safety assessment processes. Investigations into these crashes highlighted a concerning trend in Boeing's approach to safety, revealing pressures to expedite production and certification processes, which may have compromised safety standards.

The 737 Max 9 door incident is another blow to Boeing's reputation, coming at a time when the company was starting to regain its footing in the industry. The grounding of the Max 9 planes, although

a precautionary measure, has caused disruptions for airlines and shaken the confidence of passengers. It also poses a significant financial impact on Boeing, as it navigates through the costs associated with investigations, potential design revisions, and the reputational damage.

For the aviation industry, incidents like these have broader implications. They lead to heightened regulatory scrutiny, changes in safety protocols, and potential shifts in airline purchasing decisions. The confidence of passengers in air travel, particularly in aircraft models with a history of safety issues, can be significantly affected. This scenario necessitates a renewed focus on safety and reliability, not just from Boeing but across the entire aviation sector.

Looking Forward

The incident involving the Boeing 737 Max 9 door highlights pivotal challenges within the aviation industry, particularly in safety and reliability. It underscores the critical importance of unwavering adherence to Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) standards and illuminates the path for continuous improvement in aviation safety measures.

As the industry moves forward, it is vital to absorb the lessons from such incidents. Achieving the highest safety levels in air travel demands a multi-faceted approach that includes meticulous design and manufacturing processes, thorough maintenance and inspection routines, and a culture that consistently prioritizes safety.

Boeing's initiative to review and enhance its quality control systems is a positive step, highlighting the need for ongoing vigilance in the industry. For regulators and aviation authorities, events like these reinforce the necessity of robust oversight and stringent regulatory frameworks to ensure adherence to the highest safety standards and to prevent similar incidents.

This event, therefore, represents an opportunity for the aviation industry to recommit to safety. It is a moment to reassess and bolster EHS practices, refine safety protocols, and cultivate a culture where safe air travel is a fundamental value. Embracing these challenges and striving for continuous improvement will fortify the aviation industry's position as one of the safest modes of transportation globally.

What is New With OSHA in 2023?

Each year occupational safety administrators seek to make changes that effectively keep employees safe while working. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is a government agency working to ensure safety by setting and enforcing standards applicable to the United States Department of Labor.

Last year there were more than 2.5 million workplace injuries reported to administrators across the United States. These injuries more-or-less fit into categories involving overexertion, falls, object impacts, and bodily reactions to awkward postures. OSHA constantly makes reforms to their rules as needed in various industries. Their mission includes evolving with current events and addressing potential areas where any safety risks could occur. The changes with the new rules OSHA is proposing for 2023 will seek to better prevent these injuries and many others in the workforce. 

Who is OSHA?

OSHA began regulating workplace safety after the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970. The origins of the administration arose after massive public outcries against rising injuries and death rates at work. Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ensure safe and healthful workplace conditions existed for workers in all industries. The administration works to create and enforce specific safety standards by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. 

Each year the administration receives a budget to effectively provide the resources needed to regulate workplace safety around the country. Originally this budget was utilized to develop the enforcement strategies best fit for businesses, but has gradually evolved into targeting more of those high-hazard industries that have continued ongoing workplace injuries. The current enforcement strategy aids in identifying the specific sites where high injury rates occur, and offers critical resources directly to the highest problem areas within labor departments. One of the most important proponents of OSHA’s enforcement plans is their education and outreach protocols that play vital roles dealing with health and safety. 

OSHA has invested heavily into its websites, educational materials, and resource distribution across the United States. More than 23 million users are present on the OSHA website each year, with more than 300,000 annual downloads of its advisor software systems. The administration has continued to branch out creating various web pages for individual employees, businesses, industry partners, and foraging counterparts in Europe and beyond. 

New Rules for 2023

This year OSHA has made some big changes in reforming many previously existing regulations to better fit the evolving industries in the United States. Here are 5 important changes that you should know about including record keeping, Lockout-Tagout changes, silica exposure, updated HazCom classifications, and shipping requirements. 

1. Recordkeeping Proposed Rule

OSHA published a new rule which would revise electronic injury and illness reporting requirements in US workplaces. Key impacts will include:

• Expanding reporting requirements to ensure companies with more than 100 employees are able to electronically submit all of their OSHA information, whereas previously they were only required to submit a single form’s data. 

• OSHA plans to publish the data collected from the electronic submissions on a public database after removing individual identifiers. Immediately this portion of the proposed ruling has garnered concerns about the likelihood and effectiveness of completely removing personal information from the data prior to being released to the public. 

• The new ruling will also provide exclusions for establishments with 250 or more employees from having to electronically submit their Form 300A information annually to OSHA. 

2. Lockout-Tagout (LOCO) Updates

LOCO is OSHA’s control of hazardous energy standards, initially established in 1989. This regulation has largely remained unchanged since its establishment although OSHA is finally modernizing it to match industry standards utilizing computer based safety softwares. 

• Most hazard controls in national industries recognize and incorporate many different computer based safety softwares. 

• A request for information (RFI) assessed the strengths and limitations of such software when controlling hazardous energy. 

• The RFI determined the current regulations in LOTO, which specifies control current devices are unsuitable for energy isolating devices, must be changed in response to recent technological advancements. Modern technologies may have improved the safety and control of such circuit type devices, and OSHA has responded by preparing to update the LOTO standard and compliance implications for employers. 

3. Silica Exposure Considerations

Silica dust particles are incredibly small and can become trapped in the lung tissue of a person who is exposed, leading to inflammation and scarring that can affect their respiratory tracts. The minute particles can reduce the lung’s capacity to take in oxygen causing a condition classified as silicosis. Silicosis can result in permanent lung damage as it is a progressive, debilitating, and sometimes fatal disease. 

OSHA developed two standards for respiratory silica, one for general industries like construction and one for maritime. Those 2016 standards established exposure action levels reducing the acceptable amount of total daily exposure, installing exposure control measures, and implementing medical surveillance programs to monitor employee health. The established regulations also required businesses and recordkeepers to maintain written documentation of the ongoing exposure control plans and maintain the OSHA standards. 

Other chemical exposure regulations like those that deal with lead, cadmium, and formaldehyde also yield an additional medical removal provision that the former silica regulations lacked. The medical provision required employers to monitor certain airborne exposure indicators or those found in blood concentrations, removing the employee from the contact area once exposure levels are reached. The United States Court of Appeals concluded that OSHA failed to explain its decision to remove the medical provisions from the 2016 silica regulations and remanded the rule for additional consideration of the implications. 

• OSHA is planning to revisit the silica rules and to implement a medical provision installing surveillance programs and removal procedures. 

• Employers that are subjected to the silica rules must ensure they have effective workplace inspection and hygiene standards, efficient incident management strategies, and the ability to promptly record medical removal cases. 

4. Regulatory Activities in Regards to Heat Exposure

The United States Department of Labor reported that hazardous heat exposure resulted in an average of 35 fatalities and 2,700 annual cases in industries across the nation. These injuries also resulted in multiple days away from work during the length of injury. 

• Heat exposure injuries may be incorrectly diagnosed or underreported due to failures when documenting at what point the heat exposure caused or contributed to the official cause of death and injury. This is especially true when the victim ultimately succumbs to some other life threatening condition such as a heart attack or stroke, which may have direct correlations with the onset of heat exposure injuries. 

• OSHA will initiate work on a heat exposure index standard. 

• New emphasis on indoor and outdoor heat related hazards.

5. HazCom Proposed Rule

Proposed updates to existing HazCom standards to align with the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Chemical Labeling. 

• Classifications for flammable gasses, aerosols, and desensitized explosives.

• Additional requirements for various sized shipping containers. 

• Specific requirements for bulk shipments. 

• Required classifications of hazards under normal use including those that result in chemical reactions and other physical changes. 

More Plans For OSHA

As OSHA continues to evolve to better fit modern industries there are likely to be many more reforms down the road. The administration will continue to focus on reducing injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in all traditional industries while also looking ahead toward future challenges. Future safety violations may surround new chemicals or other workplace hazards in the growing service sector industries. OSHA regulations must also adapt to many more hybrid workplaces utilizing virtual assistance and AI technologies to either replace or assist the bulk of their employees. 

Young Mother’s Struggle Continues Amidst Dwindling Baby Formula

Major recalls from a top baby formula producer in the United States are causing a national crisis among young mothers trying to provide for their infants. The cause of this significant shortage of baby formula across the nation began in February as Abbott Nutrition started a voluntary recall in response to the death of two infants who contracted a bacterial infection after consuming their formula products. 

The bacterial infection is also responsible for hospitalizing at least two other infants and was traced back to the factory in Sturgis, Michigan. The Michigan factory was immediately shut down, and all production was halted as the company began a full-scale investigation into the cause of the contamination. The crisis began to spiral nationwide because baby formula production is only controlled by four main contributors: Abbott Nutrition, Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle USA, and Perrigo. Abbott is the largest producer, responsible for approximately half of the United State’s total formula production. 

As the situation continues and production has been unable to recontinue, many consumers and stores are seeing formula products absent from their shelves. By the first week of May, stores had already observed a 43 percent decrease in formula stock, and the declines continued. Mothers across the nation have responded to the shortage by stocking up on as much formula as possible. The struggle has forced families to drive long distances in search of the critical nutrients, causing further strife due to the inflated gas prices reaching more than $6 per gallon in states like California. 

The unfortunate overlapping of price inflation for gas has left many struggling families without many options. The crisis has disparagingly affected low-income families as Abbott is the predominant contractor for families receiving government assistance like Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. The crisis also poses the most significant impact to at risk infants and vulnerable children that require specialized nutritional support. 

While there has yet to be any resurgence of supply to the market, families are trying their best to cope by diluting formulas, extending rations, and resulting in breastfeeding as much as possible. However, these resources are not available to every person as breastfeeding may not be a viable option for mothers with health conditions, adoptive parents, or infants with allergies. 

President Biden has planned to invoke the Defense Production Act, which would provide formula producers priority to vital ingredients and accelerate international shipping from suppliers. As far as Abbott’s production resolution, they have finally made agreements with the Food and Drug Administration to restart its factory operations at its large Michigan location. However, it may take up to two weeks before the production begins. Abbott has clarified that although its production is slated to start by the end of the month, it may take as long as two months before formula products reappear at stores across the country. 
While times still look bleak for young parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement among many guidelines and warnings that parents without any options can feed their babies until production begins again. So while the crisis is ongoing, there seems to be hope on the horizon and a plan to provide necessary resources as soon as possible.

Identifying Counterfeit and Fake N95 Masks

Approximately 10 million fake 3M N95 masks have been distributed in at least five states, and federal, and state authorities are managing to seize and cease the counterfeit ring. The masks are designed to mimic 3M N95 masks, with details including raised marking and printed logos. As a response, 3M has issued a warning describing the model and lot numbers to look out for when purchasing masks. 

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has also released a guide on how to spot masks that are falsely claimed to be approved by the NIOSH. NIOSH-approved masks will have an official approval label on or within the packaging, and the filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) of the N95 masks should also have an abbreviated approval. 

The NIOSH Certified Equipment List (CEL) or the NIOSH Trusted-Source page can be used as a resource to verify and determine whether NIOSH has approved the respirator. The approved FFRs include N95, N99, N100, R95, R99, R100, P95, P99, and P100.  

Signs that a respirator may be counterfeit:

• No markings at all on the filtering facepiece respirator (FFR).

• No approval (TC) number on FFR or headband.

• No NIOSH markings.

• NIOSH spelled incorrectly.

• Presence of decorative fabric or other decorative add-ons (e.g., sequins).

• Claims of approval for children (NIOSH does not approve any type of respiratory protection for children).

• FFR has ear loops instead of headbands.

NIOSH also offers additional tips on how to identify counterfeit masks, including third-party marketplaces. Some things to consider include: 

• If a listing claims to be “legitimate” and “genuine,” it likely is not.

• Examine transactions history and feedback if possible

• Look for fluctuations of items traded over time (high or low transaction periods)

• Look for price deviations and fluctuations (Is it too good to be true?)

• Look at the quantity a buyer has in stock.

• During a time of shortage, advertising “unlimited stock” could indicate that the respirator is not approved.

• Does the seller break marketplace policy and hide their contact information within images to circumvent filters.