FR Clothing: Leaving Hazards in the Dust

Finally, Margolin stresses that not all FR is the same.

“Just because something has an arc rating doesn't mean it's a long-term, viable product, so we urge people to look for market-proven products,” he says. “There is no excuse in our business today to wear a garment where you have to count the launderings. There are plenty of fabrics out there that are flame resistant for the life of the garment. I would urge people to look for market-proven products.”

Bowen adds that when it comes to FR clothing and protection from flash fire, some safety professionals are content with doing only the bare minimum to remain compliant.

“With flash fire, everyone looks at the lowest possible denominator, but every place else they're willing to step up and look at the hazard,” Bowen says. “Nobody skimps on respirators. Employers will purchase and mandate that their employees use the correct level of respiratory protection, but they don't do the same thing with flash fire.”

COMFORT

Another commonly misunderstand aspect of FR clothing is how comfortable it can be.

“There's a misconception that flame-resistant clothing is heavier, stiffer, scratchier or uglier than street clothing. That's one of the reasons people don't get it,” Margolin says. “We have been engineering for years trying to get lighter and lighter and softer and softer and more and more street looking. And with at least a few brands, we have gotten there.”

Lanny Floyd, principal consultant for electrical safety and technology at Dupont, agrees that FR garments today are being developed for higher performance and lower weight. “Over the last 10 years, there have been significant advances in the comfort and usability” of FR fabrics, he explains. Additionally, the face shields and hoods used in arc flash protection also have been improved.

To find the FR fabric and clothing that will be most comfortable for workers, Bowen suggests that safety professionals conduct a wear trial. Identify several different fabric types and fabric manufacturers and obtain sample garments. Let workers wear these garments in real-life work situations so they can determine what feels best.

“Look at the job that needs to be performed, look at the features you want on the garment, identify a few options, put it on people and let them wear it for a couple of months,” Bowen says.

LAST LINE OF DEFENSE

Floyd also stresses that workers must know how to properly wear and use FR clothing. That means securing all fasteners, ensuring all body parts are protected, never rolling up sleeves and repairing any damage immediately and with the appropriate materials, such as FR thread.

Users also must follow the garment manufacturer's instruction on care and cleaning. Don't allow contaminated materials, solvent or grease that could ignite and degrade the performance of the protective clothing come into contact with the garments.

Finally, Floyd explains that one of the big areas of opportunities in the FR world is education on when and how to use these garments properly.

“That's one of the big gaps I think we have today,” Floyd considers. “We have great products and great standards to improve safety for workers, but making sure people understand how to use it properly is always a challenge. Ongoing education is very important.”

Being properly educated often means staying up-to-date on timely topics, such as combustible dust.

“Combustible dust is hot-button issue with OSHA and FR,” says Margolin, who attended the December 2009 OSHA stakeholder meetings on the development of a combustible dust standard (see sidebar on page 22). “The first line of defense of any of these things is to engineer the hazard out or down,” he explains.

“Flame-resistant clothing, while it is admittedly the last line of defense after behavioral and engineering safety have been addressed, cannot and must not be overlooked. Just because a car has crumple zones and impact-absorbing bumpers and air bags does not mean you can forget to put on your seat belt,” Margolin says. “Same kind of logic.”

A COMBUSTIBLE DUST STANDARD

On Oct. 21, 2009, OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as an initial step in developing a standard to address the hazards of combustible dust. Ron Allen represented Imperial Sugar at OSHA's Dec. 14, 2009, stakeholder meetings on this issue.

“We are strong advocates for an OSHA standard,” he says. “I came away [from the stakeholder meeting] with an appreciation that there are many different opinions that will influence the final standard.”

According to Allen, OSHA representatives “seemed to sincerely have an open mind and are listening to the various stakeholders as they attempt to put together this new standard.” He adds that he'd like to see a combustible dust standard with specification language as opposed to performance language.

“Performance standards are very attractive on the surface, but could be much more difficult to administer than a specification standard,” he points out. “We think that specification language actually serves as an education. It helps employers, particularly small employers, who may not have a great deal of technical resource to understand what they must do to protect their employees from combustible dust fires and explosions.”

A Cost-Effective Solution

“OSHA has clearly embarked on a path that's going to result in a rule on combustible dust,” says Margolin, who also attended the combustible dust stakeholder meetings. “The big questions to me seem to be about scope, and what language [of existing NFPA standards], if any, will make it in.”

According to Margolin, the meetings focused on existing NFPA consensus standards, the potential scope of a standard, economic impact and hazard mitigation. FR clothing also entered the discussion, particularly in terms of economic impact. Margolin is quick to point out just how cost-efficient FR clothing can be.

“Body burn is the second most expensive hospitalization in the U.S.,” he says. “Putting everybody who remotely needs FR clothing in it for the rest of their careers costs vastly less than the first year of medical [expenses] alone for the burn injuries that are already happening, much less the ongoing medical costs, insurance, workers compensation, counseling, fines and lawsuits.”

Overall, Margolin was encouraged by what he calls an obvious intent to develop and implement a standard for combustible dust.

“It's not a matter of if but when they will put out a rule on combustible dust,” he says.