|
It is often
asked if the embroidery,
patches, logos, name tags etc.
on an FR garment are required to
be FR. The standard for electric
arc protection does not
specifically answer this
question, but the statements it
makes can lead to an answer. The
standard for flash fire
protection is much more
specific.
What do the
FR Standards Say?
The two key
standards for FR clothing are
ASTM F1506 “Flame Resistant
Textile Materials for Wearing
Apparel for use by Electrical
Workers Exposed to Momentary
Electric Arc and Related Thermal
Hazards”, and NFPA 2112 “Flame
Resistant Garments for
Protection of Industrial
Personnel Against Flash Fire”.
ASTM F1506: In section 6.1.1 the standard
states “Sewing thread utilized
in the construction of the
garment shall be made of an
inherently flame resistant fiber
and shall not melt”. This
section specifically refers to
construction thread not
embroidery. The inference is,
because embroidery thread is not
construction thread, it does not
have to be FR.
In addition,
in Appendix X1.2.5 it states
“Logos,
name tags, and other
heraldry, such as flag patches
and company award insignias, are
used to identify the
organization and individual. If
these items are constructed of
non-flame resistant materials
(such as polyester or rayon),
their overall area should be
minimized on the garment”. This
appendix statement although not
mandatory does allow for non-FR
name tags as long as it is does
not cover a large area.
NFPA 2112: In section 7.1.4.1 the standard
states “Labels and emblems shall
not be required to be tested for
heat resistance”. The lack of
need to test labels and emblems
would indicate they are not
required to be FR. The standards
definition of an emblem is
“Shields, heraldry, or printing
that designates a governmental
entity or a specific
organization; rank, title,
position, or other professional
status that is painted,
screened,
embroidered, sewn,
glued, bonded, or otherwise
attached in a permanent manner”.
In addition
in section 7.2 Thread
Requirements, it states
“Specimens of all sewing thread
utilized in the construction of
flame resistant garments,
excluding embroidery, shall be made of an inherently flame
resistant fiber”. This statement
specifically excludes the need
for embroidery to be FR.
Summary
In both standards, either directly or indirectly the use of FR thread for
embroidery and/or name tags is
not a requirement and has been
the norm of the industry.
Workrite’s
Position
Based on the above interpretation of the standards, Workrite has always
taken the position that the use
of FR thread for embroidery and
name tags is not required and
would have little or no effect
on the protection of the wearer.
In addition it is felt that
using non-FR thread to sew on a
non-FR name tag is preferable,
because if exposed to a flame,
the thread will burn off quickly
allowing the name tag to fall
off, rather than stay on while
burning. Additionally we will
not use and do not recommend the
use of filament thread as it has
the potential to be irritating
to the skin and can melt and
drip. However, as part of the
Workrite “make-to-order”
heritage we can and will provide
FR name tags if requested.
Mark Saner – Technical Manager
Workrite Uniform Company
© Workrite Uniform Company, Inc.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
Insect Repellant and FR Clothing
There has
been frequent discussion about
the use of insect repellants,
particularly ones with DEET, and
their affect on FR garments.
Many FR wearers can be exposed
to biting insects like
mosquitoes and ticks and
therefore have a need to protect
themselves with an effective
repellant, but one that does not
compromise the effectiveness of
the FR. The US Forest Service
performed flammability testing
on FR fabrics with both DEET
based products and Permethrin
based products applied to FR
fabric.
What is DEET?
DEET is the
chemical abbreviation for
N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide, a
common active ingredient used in
many popular insect repellants
like
Off. DEET was developed by
the US Army back in World War
II. It is highly flammable which
is obviously not good for FR
clothing. DEET is typically
applied to either the skin or to
clothing.
What is Permethrin?
Permethrin is
the synthetic version of
pyrethrum which is derived from
crushed and dried flowers of the
daisy. Unlike DEET, Permethrin
is designed to be applied to
fabric not the skin.
US Forest
Service Testing
The testing performed by the US Forest Service comprised of taking several
weights of Nomex IIIA fabric and
applying 100% & 40%
concentration of DEET, and .5%
concentration of Permethrin to
the fabric samples. The samples
were also allowed to dry in
varying drying times and varying
numbers of application. After
the samples were prepared they
were submitted to a vertical
flame test (Federal Test Method
191, Method 5903.1). The
measurement of the
flame-resistance using this
method is to measure the inches
of char length and the seconds
of after flame which was done.
Test Results
The testing resulted in several interesting findings. The first was all
but one of the samples using
DEET experienced a phenomenon
they dubbed flash flame. This
phenomenon is one where the
entire length of the sample
showed signs of burning during
the test which is considered a
failure. The second finding was
most of the samples failed
because the after flame was too
long. The third finding was the
one DEET sample that passed was
the heavier weight (7 oz) fabric
with a 1 hour wait time between
the DEET application and
testing. Lastly, none of the
Permethrin samples failed the
test and showed no signs of the
flash flame phenomenon.
There was also a field trial in performed in Alaska where a combination of
DEET applied to the skin and
Permethrin applied to the
clothing was shown to create an
excellent barrier to mosquitoes.
In this trial they found this
combination had a 99.9%
protection rate. The DEET used
was a 35% concentration and the
Permethrin was applied
(outdoors) to both sides of the
fabric enough to moisten and
allowed to dry for 2 to 4 hours
before wearing.
Conclusions
This testing would indicate that the use of DEET on FR fabrics/garments
would pose a potential hazard to
the wearer. If used, DEET should
be applied to the skin as
directed. On the other hand
Permethrin products can be
applied to the FR fabric/garment
without diminishing the
protective performance of the
clothing. Permethrin must also
be applied following the
manufacturer’s instructions. It
should also be noted that
although Permethrin has low
toxicity to mammals and birds,
it is know to be toxic to both
fish and bees. If you have a
need, either of these products
can be effective if used
properly.
Mark Saner – Technical Manager
Workrite Uniform Company
© Workrite Uniform Company, Inc.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
Exposed Metal Component - Ok or
Not?
Question: Does the use of metal components
in FR garments for electrical
workers, such as metal snaps and
zippers on shirts and coveralls,
present a hazard and are they
prohibited by NFPA 70E or ASTM
F1506?
NFPA 70E
The only NFPA
70E reference to metal
components is in section 130.6
(D) Conductive Articles Being
Worn. In there it states, “
Conductive articles of jewelry
and clothing (such as
watchbands, bracelets, rings,
key chains, necklaces, metalized
aprons, cloth with conductive
thread, metal headgear, or metal
frame glasses) shall not be worn
where they present an electrical
contact hazard with exposed
energized electrical conductors
or circuit parts.” The main
concern here is one of shock
although articles like jewelry
falling off could cause an arc
hazard. Snaps or zipper are not
really in the same category but
it could be a matter of
interpretation.
ASTM F1506
The reference
in ASTM F1506 is in the section
6.1.1 note. It states, “If
fasteners or closures, for
example zippers, snaps, or
buttons, or a combination
thereof, are used in a manner in
which they are in contact with
the skin, they can increase heat
transfer and burn injury due to
heat conduction or melting on
the skin. Fasteners or closures
that are used in this manner
should be covered with a layer
of fabric between the fastener
or closure and the skin.” The
concern here is if exposed to an
arc flash the metal component
would transfer more heat and
cause more burn injury.
Comments
Based on the
standards references shown above
it does not appear either
standard prohibits the use of
metal snaps or zippers. There is
also a written statement by OSHA
in reply to a question about
metal zippers in linemen’s
clothing relative to OSHA
1910.269. The statement was,
“The metal in a metal zipper is
not expected to contribute to
the severity of injury sustained
by an employee in the event an
electric arc occurs. Therefore,
provided the surrounding
materials meets the Apparel
Standard, the metal zipper will
be acceptable under paragraph
1910.269(l)(6)(iii).”
In addition,
our research with industry
experts found no known incidents
where a metal snap or zipper
caused either an electric arc or
shock. Plus, sleeve snaps are
generally not very large and if
the user is working energized
their protective gloves
typically cover the end of the
sleeve where the snaps are
found. According to YKK, a major
zipper manufacturer, metal
zippers, although made of
conductive materials, have
difficulty creating an arc as
they are not continuous metal.
Also most zippers have some
fabric coverage over the front
of the zipper helping to
insulate it from contact. By
standard, when a garment uses
metal snaps and/or zippers they
should be covered on the inside
so no metal comes in contact
with the skin. The bottom line
is no standard prohibits the use
of metal snaps or zipper and
practically speaking they have
not been shown to cause
problems. However it is up to
the individual organization to
perform an assessment of their
hazard and determine what
position they want to take for
their garments.
Mark Saner – Technical Manager
Workrite Uniform Company
© Workrite Uniform Company, Inc.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
Occasionally questions are raised about whether the antistatic fibers in
some fabrics eliminate static
electricity, or about what can
be done about static
electricity.
So what is
static electricity?
Static electricity refers to the
build up of an electric charge
on the surface of objects. The
static charge remains on an
object until it either bleeds
off to ground or is quickly
neutralized by a discharge. The
effects of static electricity
are familiar to most people
because we can feel, hear, and
even see the spark as the excess
charge is neutralized when
brought close to a large path to
ground. The familiar phenomenon
of a static 'shock' is caused by
the neutralization of the
charge. Static electricity can
be considered either a nuisance
in the form of the garment
clinging to your body or an
actual hazard from sparking in a
flammable atmosphere. The main
source of spark potential comes
from static charges stored in
the body of an ungrounded worker
rather than from garments.
What causes static electricity on
garments?
The
generation of static electricity
on clothing depends on a number
of factors: the type of fabric,
the relative humidity, the
fabrics ability to absorb
moisture, the task being
performed, and the use or lack
of use of grounding devices. The
biggest factor is the moisture
content of the fabric, as
moisture allows the static
charge to dissipate easier so it
doesn’t build up. Under standard
environmental conditions,
synthetic fiber fabrics such as
polyester, nylon or Nomex absorb
less moisture and retain more
static than natural fiber
fabrics like cotton. The
friction from fabric rubbing is
the primary cause of static
buildup. The action of donning
or removing garments will
generally increase the charge on
the human body and provide a
source for a static discharge.
Fabrics like
Nomex IIIA and Protera
incorporate a static dissipative
fiber. This helps dissipate
static charges in the fabric
which reduces the risks and
discomfort associated with
static electricity. It also
reduces the contribution of
clothing to the static buildup
on the human body. This fiber
does not totally eliminate
static, so
it is always recommended that
a user in a high risk
environment use grounding
devices like static dissipative
wristlets or anklets that are
available for this hazard.
Fabrics like
Indura, Indura Ultra Soft and
Tecasafe Plus all contain fibers
which readily absorb moisture
(cotton or Lyocell). This
ability to absorb moisture
allows the static to dissipate
more easily. However in low
humidity environments, the
amount of available moisture may
not be enough to affect the
static electricity found in the
garments. So wearers of these
fabrics should also use
grounding devices in high risk
environments.
What about fabric softeners & anti
static products?
Generally speaking, fabric manufacturers do not recommend using fabric
softeners, dryer sheets or
anti-static products that have
not been tested for
flammability. These products can
leave a residue that may be
flammable and would need to be
tested. The last thing you want
to do is put something flammable
on a FR garment.
Summary
All fabrics have the ability to generate static electricity and FR
garments are no more likely to
generate static than other
garments under the same
conditions. The primary hazard
is stored energy on the body of
an ungrounded person not the
fabric itself. If a wearer is in
an environment where a static
discharge could be hazardous,
use engineering grounding
controls like static dissipative
wristlets or anklets or other
grounding methods that are
available for this hazard. And lastly, do not put on or remove garments in a hazardous atmosphere as this
increases the amount of static
charge on the body.
Mark Saner – Technical Manager
Workrite Uniform Company
© Workrite Uniform Company, Inc.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
Layering
When it comes to
electric arc flash protection,
“layering” can be a
cost-effective, practical way to
clothe your workers as they move
between tasks with different
hazard ratings. The right
combination of garments
increases protection against
heightened risks. In addition,
air, a free and ever-present
isolator, figures into the
safety equation.
An Example of Layering
In a perfect world,
workers would wear maximum
protection FR clothing
throughout their shifts, and
executives would never fuss
about costs of such protection.
In the real world, however,
protection must be balanced with
worker efficiency and economics.
Layering becomes one possible
solution for arc flash
protection.
During the work day an
electrician or maintenance
workers may move between various
jobs with arc exposures of HRC
1, HRC 2 or HRC 3/4. Having easy
access to and the time to don
the HRC 3 flash suit is not
always the case. The tendency
might be to skip the change and
simply do the work with the HRC
2 daily wear. Not having the
correct level of protection when
an accident occurs can be costly
to both the employee and the
employer. Burn injury to the
employee because of improper PPE
can be painful, expensive and
even fatal. The employer may
have medical, legal, or OSHA
citation costs to bear not to
mention the loss of worker
production and other workers
morale. One way to get to the
higher level of protection
needed can be by layering.
By having access to an
HRC
2 rated coverall to pull on over
an HRC 2 uniform, you can often
times provide a layered HRC 3
level of protection. This
layering of protective clothing
(along with the other
appropriate PPE) satisfies the
NFPA 70E standard for electrical
safety requirements for arc
protection to engage in the live
electrical repairs in the area.
Many of the FR fabric
manufacturers have test data
showing the arc rating of a
layered system.
For example: The combination of
a daily wear 7 oz shirt with an
arc rating of
8.7 cal/cm² (HRC 2) and a
7 oz 8.7 cal/cm² arc rated
coverall over it achieved a 27.2
cal/cm² (HRC 3) level, when
tested. This layered combination
achieves the HRC 3 level and is
much easier to carry around and
slip into than having an HRC
flash suit readily available.
The use of additional layering
with the coveralls serves two
functions: it keeps the worker
in compliance with the required
safety regulations; and it
provides the comfort and
flexibility needed to complete
the task. Because performing
various jobs with varying arc
exposures is not uncommon, this
method of providing protection
will likely cause minimal
downtime and much less impact on
the operation
Protection With Comfort
The key to the above
example is analysis that shows
67 percent of all tasks at a
typical industrial company rank
at or below HRC 2, with many
tasks at HRC 1 or 0. The example
shows how the worker is
adequately protected with a
primary layer during duties that
occupy two-thirds of his time.
When moving to the higher arc
exposure task, the additional
coverall boosts the protective
clothing to HRC 3, providing
heightened protection with
acceptable comfort and mobility.
It is then easy to shed the
coverall when returning to more
common duties.
Having to wear heavy
gear for extended periods could
affect worker comfort as well as
the motivation to stay
compliant. This example is not
to negate the importance of
heavy gear for intended uses. It
simply shows that there are
other paths to protection,
particularly for workers who do
not need HRC 3/4 for many of
their typical duties.
Air Factors In
Layering’s results are
not simply a matter of adding
manufacturer arc ratings for
flame resistance. Air, in
ever-present layers amid
multiple garments and as the
ultimate buffer between garments
and skin, adds positively to the
safety equation. Loose fit, not
snug fit, creates a vital air
“envelope” for additional
insulation.
Air can provide
protection above and beyond the
layered garments. Test results
show the inter-garment air layer
contributes to an aggregate
flame resistance surpassing the
combined protection ratings of
the two FR garments. As shown in
the example above,
the actual layered rating, of 27.2 cal/cm², is higher than the 17.4
cal/cm² sum of the two ratings.
However, note that there
is no measurable standard for
the extra protection afforded by
air trapped between garments due
to the many variables involved
with individual situations such
as amount of air trapped,
tightness of garments, size of
wearer, etc. Although adding the
actual combined rating of the
garments worn is a commonly used
maximum rating number, the
actual rating of the combination
is not really known unless the
specific combination of fabrics
has been arc tested.
It’s likely workers may
require multiple garments to
maintain safety while performing
multiple tasks within a day’s
work. There may be many pieces
of clothing, but only one
philosophy: proper protection at
all times for changing risk.
Layering is a sensible answer
that combines comfort,
convenience and safety.
Mark Saner – Technical Manager
Workrite Uniform Company
© Workrite Uniform Company, Inc.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
What OSHA Expects: The
Electrical Safety Questions OSHA
Will Ask During and
Investigation
WoMostuldn't it be nice to know exactly what
OSHA is training its inspectors
to look for during an inspection
that includes electrical safety,
including surprising new areas
of emphasis based on national
OSHA directives?
This article covers some of the
typical electrical safety
questions that OSHA inspectors
will ask during a field
investigation, what they mean
and how to be prepared and be in
compliance.
A good starting point is to
understand OSHA's approach to
electrical safety. OSHA's goal
is for employers to identify all
electrical hazards, both
potential and actual. In the
past, OSHA focused on process
changes, encouraging companies
to de-energize circuits before
working on them, perform
lockout/tagout procedures and
develop ongoing safety programs
that include worker training and
retraining. A more recent area
of emphasis is arc flash safety,
which means electrical safety
professionals must analyze the
workplace for shock and arc
flash hazards, establish safe
protection boundaries and define
what personal protective
equipment (PPE) must be used
within these boundaries.
For electrical safety in the
workplace, OSHA relies on expert
consensus bodies such as the
National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) and its
standards published in NFPA 70E.
To ensure that employers are
following NFPA and OSHA
guidelines, OSHA trains its
inspectors and compliance
officers to ask specific
questions in the event of an
electrical safety incident. Some
typical questions follow.
Is there a description of the circuit
or equipment at the job
location?
OSHA expects employers to know their
workplaces. If an employer
cannot provide a written
description or drawing of the
circuit or equipment, then the
compliance officer may assume
that the employer has not
assessed the facility for
electrical hazards.
Is there a detailed job description
of planned work?
In order to know which safety
procedures to use, the worker
must be provided with a
description of the job task.
OSHA publication 29 CFR 1910
lays out employer
responsibilities for protecting
their workers from electrical
safety hazards. It states that
the employer shall train workers
to use safe work practices that
are designed to avoid injury.
Can you justify why equipment cannot
be de-energized or the job
deferred until the next
scheduled outage?
Per OSHA 1910.333(a)(1), live parts
to which an employee may be
exposed must be de-energized
before the employee works on or
near them, unless the employer
can demonstrate that
de-energizing introduces
additional or increased hazards
or is not feasible due to
equipment design or operational
limitations. (Live parts that
operate at less than 50 volts to
ground need not be de-energized
if there will be no increased
exposure to electrical burns or
to explosion due to electric
arcs.)
The message is clear: never work on
live circuits unless it is
absolutely necessary. OSHA
allows work on live circuits in
some cases, but the reason
cannot be simply that turning
off the power is inconvenient or
will interrupt production. Nor
can workers use the excuse that
they didn't have the authority
to shut off power.
When it is necessary to perform work
on energized equipment, OSHA
1910.333(a)(2) requires
safety-related work practices to
be used and NFPA 70E Article
110.8(B)(1) requires an
Electrical Hazard Analysis
before work is performed on live
equipment operating at 50 volts
and higher.
Other questions you can expect from
an OSHA inspector include:
·
What about safe work procedures?
·
Has a detailed work procedure been established?
·
Are there detailed descriptions of work practices to be
employed?
·
Was a job briefing checklist performed, and was the job
briefing completed for those
performing the work?
·
Was proper management approval secured?
OSHA wants employers to make
electrical safety procedures and
practices part of regular work
processes. Several annexes to
NFPA 70E offer guidelines for
lockout/tagout procedures,
checklists and approvals. For
example, Annex E covers
Electrical Safety Programs,
Annex F covers Hazard Risk
Evaluation Procedures, Annex I
covers Job Briefing Checklists
and Annex J covers Energized
Work Permits.
NFPA 70E annexes are not strictly
“enforced” by OSHA, as they are
appendices to the NFPA standard.
However, OSHA inspectors and
investigators will ask if the
content and information
contained in these annexes was
followed and adhered to.
As an EHS professional, would you
know the answers to these
questions if an OSHA inspector
came knocking on your door?
·
Were required electrical safety analyses performed?
·
Was an arc flash hazard analysis performed?
·
Were flash protection boundaries established?
·
Were all other potential electrical hazards identified?
OSHA regulations state that every
employer shall furnish a place
of employment free from
recognized hazards that are
causing or likely to cause death
or serious physical harm, and
that the employer must assess
the workplace to determine if
hazards are present and select
PPE to protect employees. When
it comes to electrical safety,
OSHA refers to NFPA 70E, which
requires employers to conduct an
electrical hazard assessment
consisting of a shock hazard
analysis and an arc flash hazard
analysis before work is
performed on live equipment
operating at 50 volts and
higher.
These requirements may be fairly
complex, as they involve
calculating the potential fault
current at each piece of
equipment, understanding the
characteristics of the
overcurrent protective devices
and how they are coordinated for
each circuit and creating or
updating one-line electrical
drawings. Complex or not, OSHA
inspectors are trained to ask if
these analyses were performed,
because they are essential to
reducing the number of arc
flash-related deaths and
injuries that occur each year,
as well as ensuring a safe
installation.
When the safety of any job task
involves electricity or
electrical equipment, ask
yourself these questions:
·
Were proper tools and equipment used?
·
Was the necessary PPE determined?
·
Were the proper insulated tools used?
·
Were insulated blankets and/ or sheeting used to properly
cover all of the live parts?
OSHA 1910.132 requires employers to
assess hazards, select PPE and
make sure that employees are
trained how to use it.
Electrical PPE, safe work
practices such as lockout/tagout
and safety training are covered
by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.301-.399,
also known as Electrical Subpart
S.
For example, OSHA 1910.333 (a)(1)(i)
states: “Employees working in
areas where there are potential
electrical hazards shall be
provided with and shall use,
electrical protective equipment
that is appropriate for the
specific parts of the body to be
protected and for the work to be
performed.”
For electrical workers, this
standard's effect is multi-fold.
First, employers must facilitate
workers' understanding of the
PPE required for each task on
each piece of equipment. This
may be communicated via a work
order, a descriptive label on
the equipment or a one-line
drawing. Second, employers must
select the PPE, which includes
insulated tools and protective
clothing. Third, the employer is
required to train workers in
safe work practices — and in
particular, how to match the PPE
to the level of the electrical
hazard. And finally, OSHA
1910.269(a)(2)(iii) requires
employers to “determine, through
regular supervision and through
inspections conducted on at
least an annual basis, that each
employee is complying with the
safety-related work practices …”
Were the workers performing the tasks
qualified to do so?
OSHA defines qualified workers as
those specially trained to work
on live electrical equipment.
Qualified workers must protect
themselves against all
electrical hazards including
shock, arc flash, burns and
explosions. Training is key.
Even an experienced electrician
is not “qualified” in OSHA's
eyes unless the employer can
show proof of the appropriate
training and certifications.
OSHA 1910.332(b)(2) also requires
unqualified workers to be
trained in the electrical safe
work practices that are
necessary for their safety.
Unqualified workers, such as
painters or cleaners,
occasionally come into contact
with energized equipment, and
therefore they must be trained
to recognize and avoid
electrical hazards.
EHS Today Article by:
Kenneth
Cybart, Senior Technical Sales
Engineer at Littelfuse, trains
managers how to keep electrical
workers safe and meet OSHA and
NFPA standards. He has 20 years
of experience in circuit
protection applications, has
authored several electrical
safety articles and has been a
speaker at industry events. He
can be reached at
kcybart@littelfuse.com.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
Home Laundering Care and Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Clothing
When FR garments are laundered
properly, using the proper
detergent, home laundering is an
effective cleaning process. It
is up to the user to determine
if this is appropriate for their
situation.
It is very important that
potentially flammable
contaminants are removed from
garments during the wash
process.
If flammable contaminants
are not removed, the flame
resistance of the garment may be
compromised. To reduce the
potential of employees wearing
garments contaminated with
flammable substances, you should
analyze the soil conditions to
which wearers may be exposed,
along with the effectiveness of
the wash procedure. In the event
home laundering is deemed
ineffective, alternative
solutions like dry cleaning or
industrial laundering should be
pursued.
Here are some basic guidelines
to effectively care for and
maintain FR clothing.
1. Always follow the care label.
2. Use common household laundry
detergents like All, Cheer,
Gain, Tide, Wisk to name a few.
Do not use fatty-based or bar
soaps. Liquid detergents are
recommended by most fabric
manufacturers.
3. Do not use chlorine bleach,
hydrogen peroxide, starch,
fabric softeners, or detergents
or pretreatment products with
chlorine bleach, hydrogen
peroxide or derivatives of
chlorine bleach or hydrogen
peroxide. These products may
adversely affect the garment.
4. Loosely add clothing to the
washing machine.
Do not overload the
machine.
Follow the washing
machine manufacturer’s
instructions for acceptable wash
load sizes.
5. Select a machine cycle that
is appropriate for the soil
level and type of clothing being
handled and use the hottest
water allowed by the clothing
care label. Using the permanent
press cycle typically provides
the best appearance over the
life of the garment.
6. Fabric manufacturers
typically recommend the use of
soft water or detergent
specifically designed for hard
water.
Hard water (greater than
7 grains per gallon of hardness)
can leave residue on fabrics
that may mask flame resistance.
7. Clothing soiled with
combustible or flammable
chemicals should be handled
carefully and in accordance with
pre-established procedures.
Failure to fully remove
these chemicals could compromise
the flame resistant
effectiveness of the garment.
NOTE: Garments soiled with
hazardous chemicals should only
be handled by qualified
individuals with techniques
approved for such materials. If
there are ever any questions
about care and maintenance of FR
clothing, contact the garment
manufacturer or garment supplier
for specific care instructions
for the fabrics or garments.
8. Dry using the permanent press
setting.
The following recommendations
may increase the wear life,
appearance and comfort of the
clothing.
1. Separate light and dark
colored garments to avoid
possible color transfer.
2. Launder FR and non-FR
garments separately. Laundering
FR and non-FR garments together
may result in appearance
degradation and/or lint
transfer. It is unlikely this
will result in reduced flame
resistance.
3. Pre-treat stains and heavy
soil lines on collars and cuffs.
Rub with full-strength,
heavy-duty liquid detergent or
off-the-shelf pretreatment
products like Shout and Spray &
Wash, following the product’s
recommendations for use.
4. Turn garments inside out when
laundering. This should help
maintain the appearance.
5. Tumble dry on hottest setting
allowed by the clothing care
label. Do not over dry.
Remove from dryer
immediately when dry.
Some garment labels
indicate better drying
performance when using the
permanent-press or easy-care
sensor-dry settings, instead of
a time-to-dry setting because
sensor-dry settings will avoid
over-drying.
Line drying is also
acceptable but some garments
specifically state they should
not be line dried.
6. If desired, steam or dry iron
with heat settings according to
the care label instructions.
7. Use regular detergent with
top-loading washers and high
efficiency detergents with
front-loading washers.
At some point in the life of an
FR garment there should be
consideration to removing it
from service due to basic wear
and tear. For
most practical purposes,
garments may be removed from
service based on subjective
evaluation after regular
inspections. Ultimately the
determination of when FR
clothing is removed from service
is the responsibility of the end
user.
The following
items,
identifiable by visual
examination, may diminish the
effectiveness of FR clothing and
should be cause for removing
them from service.
1. Worn - Thin spots, holes,
excessive wear or abrasion – for
example on elbow or knee area.
2. Mechanical
Damage - Evidence of
cuts, rips, tears, open seams,
and nonfunctional closures.
3. Modifications
- Alteration(s) to a garment that
differs significantly from the
original design.
4. Fit
- The FR clothing no
longer fits the wearer.
5. Flammable
substances - Garments
soiled by substances that
represent a flammability risk,
such as solvents, solids, oils
and other petroleum products
that cannot be properly removed
by cleaning.
NOTE: the presence
of a petroleum or chemical odor
can be evidence of a flammable
substance.
It is important to keep
FR garments clean and free from
flammable contaminants.These
general instructions provide the
basics to care for FR clothing.
The garments laundry
instructions and/or
manufacturers instructions is
the primary source for laundry
instructions and should always
be followed.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
Protocol for Picking Proper
PPE
When it comes to decisions
related to PPE, there are three
distinct but interrelated
issues:
·
Protocol decisions: an
organization-wide workplace
safety blueprint driven by
corporate mission/vision and
supported from top to bottom.
·
Purchasing decisions: the place
where the safety function and
procurement function intersect
to determine the PPE options
that will be available to
workers.
·
Compliance decisions: made by
individuals on a daily basis to
determine how and if PPE will be
used properly.
Protocol decisions: hazard
analysis and risk assessment
Creating a
workplace that is free of
illness and injury begins with
one crucial decision: making
safety a core value. Better yet,
it should be an organization’s
chief value.
One tool many
companies count on to manage
safety at a macro level is an
EHS (Environment, Health &
Safety) management system. Such
a system outlines an
organization’s safety policies,
including how safety is
structured and areas of
responsibility.
Before making any
decisions regarding the
selection or use of personal
protective equipment (PPE) in
the workplace, safety
professionals should conduct an
analysis of the hazard in the
work environment, coupled with
an assessment of the realistic
level of risk each hazard poses.
In fact, OSHA
requires that employers conduct
a hazard assessment of the
workplace as a first step in
selecting – and then providing –
PPE for their employees. OSHA
also mandates that employers
provide written certification
that the hazard assessment has
taken place.
For example, a
hazard analysis may identify the
chemical acetone. But there is a
great deal of difference in the
PPE required for a worker
exposed to a quart of acetone in
a well-ventilated room compared
with the one who is exposed to a
large vat of acetone in an
enclosed space.
It’s important
for the hazard analysis and risk
assessment procedure to be
adjusted to the practical
demands of the work task. If
not, one runs the risk of either
over-protection or
under-protection – both of which
have serious consequences.
Over-protection
may lead to immediate problems.
For example, heat stress is a
common problem in many
industrial settings. The result
may be users who do not properly
comply with wearing protocols by
modifying or incorrectly using
the garment to avoid
overheating. Under-protection
may lead to chronic health
problems down the road – after
years of low-level exposure to
certain hazardous substances.
The hazard
analysis and risk assessment
processes will yield information
that can be used as key data
points when matching PPE to
specific needs of each work
environment.
Purchasing decisions: Whose job
is it anyway?
While
cost-cutting may seem like an
appropriate response to current
economic conditions, the
pitfalls of this approach are
numerous. In a tough economy it
may be tempting to reduce
spending by purchasing
lower-cost safety equipment or
protective apparel, but at what
price? If the equipment or
apparel doesn’t stand up to the
job or isn’t right for the
application, it will increase
the risk to workers as well as
offset any planned savings.
Compliance decisions
In a 2010 survey
of safety professionals
attending the American Society
of Safety Engineers annual
conference, 98 percent of the
respondents said they had
observed workers not wearing
safety equipment when they
should have been. Thirty percent
said this had happened on
numerous occasions.
Whether this is a
result of economic conditions, a
flawed approach to safety
programs, younger workers who
are more inclined to take
greater risks, or some other
reason, it’s essential that
workers wear PPE when it is
required. While the reasons for
PPE noncompliances were varied,
the biggest complaint was that
it was “uncomfortable,” selected
by 40 percent of the
respondents, followed by:
·
Too hot
·
Not available near the work task
·
Poor fit
·
Unattractive looking
These survey
findings reflect the fact that
safety decisions relating to PPE
use are not just made at the
management level. They are made
by individual workers who make
decisions on a daily basis
vis-à-vis whether or not to
follow PPE wearing protocols.
Compliance issues
can be addresses by choosing
high-quality PPE that performs
properly, fits well and is also
comfortable and stylish. In a
tough economy it might be
tempting to cut costs by
purchasing less expensive
protective apparel, but if the
PPE rips or breaks, the
resulting waste will negate any
savings.
Yet the issue of
comfort or “wearability” is
often not adequately addressed
when deciding on what PPE to
purchase, resulting in
compliance issues with safe
operating procedures. For
example, if coveralls don’t
provide adequate breathability,
if safety glasses fog up during
use, if protective gloves don’t
allow for hand dexterity, or if
respirator straps are tight and
painful to wear, there is a
chance users will make the
decision to avoid wearing the
PPE, or that they will decide to
modify the PPE in some way, thus
compromising it’s protective
feature. Wearability also
extends to apparel sizing and
body geometry.
Summary
Performing a
proper hazard analysis and risk
assessment and then choosing
high-quality PPE that performs
properly, fits well and is
comfortable to wear can go a
long way towards keeping
employees protected and
compliant with the companies
safety requirements.
Gina Tsiropoulos, Manufacturing Segment Marketing
Manager for Kimberly-Clark
Professional, based in Roswell,
GA.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
Repair or Replace Flame Resistant Clothing
FR garments can be expensive to
replace, so being able to
properly repair a damaged
garment can be a cost effective
way to reduced expenses.
However, there are a few basic
guidelines that should be
followed when engaging in FR
garment repair.
Here are some basic guidelines
for effectively repairing FR
clothing:
1.
Always repair using
fabric consistent with the
original fabric used in the
garment. Other fabric types may
react differently to both
thermal exposure and laundering.
2.
Use inherently FR thread
for any repair. The use of
non-FR thread can compromise the
performance of the garment.
3.
Other components like
zippers, buttons, knit cuffs,
draw strings, reflective tape,
etc should also be rated as
being FR. These components may
seem minor but non-FR versions
can also compromise the
effectiveness of the garment
during an exposure.
At some point in the life of an
FR garment there should be
consideration to removing it
from service due to basic wear
and tear. For
most practical purposes,
garments may be removed from
service based on subjective
evaluation if after regular
inspection the garment is found
to be no longer capable to
effectively protect the wearer.
Ultimately the determination of
when FR clothing is removed from
service is the responsibility of
the end user.
The following
items,
identifiable by visual
examination, may diminish the
effectiveness of FR clothing and
should be cause for removing
them from service:
1.
Worn - Thin spots, holes,
excessive wear or abrasion – for
example, elbow or knee areas
that can no longer be repaired.
2.
Mechanical Damage -
Evidence of cuts, rips, tears,
open seams, and nonfunctional
closures that can no longer be
repaired.
3.
Garments that are found
to have been modified or
altered in a manner that differs
significantly from the original
design.
4.
If the garment no longer
fits the wearer properly -
either too big or too small - it
should be replaced. If the
garment is too big, it can be a
physical hazard and if the
garment is too small, it looses
some of its thermal protection.
FR garments should have a looser
fit to allow the air gap between
the wearer and the garment to
help with insulation.
5.
If the garment has flammable substances that cannot be removed by cleaning -
substances such as solvents,
solids, oils and other petroleum
products – as they represent a
flammability risk. The presence
of a petroleum or chemical odor
can be evidence of a flammable
substance.
Clothing soiled with combustible or flammable chemicals should be
handled carefully and in
accordance with pre-established
procedures.
Failure to fully remove
these chemicals could compromise
the flame resistant
effectiveness of the garment.
Garments soiled with hazardous
chemicals should only be handled
by qualified individuals with
techniques approved for such
materials.
Done properly, repairing FR garments can extend there useful life. If
there are ever any questions
about care and maintenance of FR
clothing, contact the garment
manufacturer or garment supplier
for specific care and
maintenance instructions for the
fabrics or garments.
↑ RETURN TO TOP ↑
NFPA 70E - New 2012 Edition, What Changed?
The 2012 Edition of NFPA 70E has
been published and there are a
large number of changes. There
are a few key changes related to
arc flash protective apparel.
The three most notable are:
-
First the terms Arc Rated &
AR have replaced
Flame-Resistant & FR. This
is an attempt to prevent the
use of garments using
fabrics that use the term FR
but have not actually been
tested to establish an arc
rating. This was done
because there are
flame-resistance tests used
for products like draperies
that are not suitable of arc
protection but have been
sold as “FR.” Users
therefore assumed they
provide protection against
electric arc flashes. The
change does not require a
garment be labeled as AR
versus FR but does require
the garment to have been arc
tested and adhere to ASTM
F1506 which requires it to
be labeled with the arc
rating (cal/cm² or EBT.)
-
Second is the consolidation
of Hazard Risk Categories 2
and 2*. By doing this, HRC 2
now requires the use of
either an arc rated
wrap-around face shield and
arc rated balaclava, or an
arc rated flash suit hood.
Previously only an arc rated
face shield was required.
This was done to provide
full head protection. With
the face shield alone the
sides and back of the head
were not protected.
-
The standard now states that
flammable synthetic fabrics,
zipper tape and findings
shall not be used.
Previously it only referred
to synthetic fabrics, not
findings. This was done to
specifically address the use
of none FR zipper tape and
other findings that could
fail in an arc flash event.
Below are the
various changes related to
protective apparel by section:
|
Section
|
Change
|
Purpose
|
|
100 (I) Definitions -Arc
Rating
|
The definition was
expanded. In particular,
a note was added to
state that
flame-resistant clothing
without an arc rating
has not been tested for
arc exposure. Also the
term arc rated or AR has
replaced all the
previous references to
flame-resistant and FR.
|
The committee wanted to
differentiate between
fabrics that had been FR
tested to a standard not
related to arc flash
protective clothing
(e.g. drapery or
upholstery). Fabrics
meeting these standards
are also called
flame-resistant but are
not suitable for arc
flash protection.
|
|
110.2(D)(3) Retraining
|
Employee retraining is
now required to be
performed at intervals
not to exceed 3 years.
|
Adding a time period was
done to make sure
employees have been
trained to a current
edition of 70E since the
standard does change.
|
|
110.3(F) Hazard
Identification and Risk
Assessment Procedure
|
“Identification and
Assessment” were added
to the title. The text
now requires a hazard
identification and risk
assessment as part of
the procedure before
work is started within
the limited approach
boundary or arc flash
boundary.
|
The committee felt there
is more than simply
identifying the
potential incident
energy numbers.
|
|
110.3(H)(1) Electrical
Safety Program
|
Safety program audits
are now required to be
performed at intervals
not to exceed 3 years.
|
Adding a time period was
done to make sure safety
programs keep up with
changes to the standard.
|
|
130.5(A) Arc Flash
Boundary
|
The arc flash boundary
at 50 volts and greater
is the distance at which
the incident energy
equals1.2 cal/cm².
Previously 50 volts to
600 volts was 4 feet and
over 600 volts was the
1.2 cal/cm² distance.
|
The committee recognized
that there can be
situations when an arc
flash boundary of 4 feet
may not be suitable even
between 50 & 600 volts.
|
|
130.5(C) Equipment
Labeling
|
The equipment labeling
requirement was expanded
to include the option of
labeling with the
minimum arc rating of
clothing or highest HRC
category. Plus, the
requirement includes
listing the nominal
system voltage and the
arc flash boundary.
|
Having the clothing
requirement on the label
makes it easier for
employees to know if
they have on the proper
level of arc protective
clothing without knowing
the tables or hazard
analysis data.
|
|
130.7(C)(5) Hearing
Protection
|
The requirement to wear
hearing protection
within the arc flash
boundary was added.
|
It was felt hearing
protection was also
needed.
|
|
130.7(C)(9) Factors for
Selection of Protective
Clothing
|
The section allows for
wearing of flammable
clothing but the
sentence “Garments that
are not arc rated shall
not be permitted to be
used to increase the arc
rating of a garment or
of a clothing system”
was added.
|
This is not actually new
but it is now
specifically stated in
the text. The committee
wanted to be clear that
only arc rated clothing
can be counted. One
example of why is, if
the outer layer of a 2
piece system rated at 25
calories breaks open at
20 calories the inner
layer could ignite if it
is not arc rated.
|
|
130.7(C)(9)(a) Layering
|
The layering paragraph
also added the wording
above about flammable
clothing that is not arc
rated.
|
Same as above.
|
|
130.7(C)10 Arc Flash
Protection Equipment
|
Section (b) Head
Protection was added. It
includes sections: 1. An
arc rated balaclava
shall be used with an
arc rated faceshield
when the back of the
head is within the arc
flash boundary. An arc
rated hood shall be
permitted to be used
instead of an arc rated
faceshield and
balaclava.
2. An arc rated hood
shall be used when the
anticipated incident
energy exposure exceeds
12 cal/cm².
|
Full head protection was
determined to be needed
since the back of the
head can be inside the
flash protection
boundary and can be
subject to exposure to
the arc flash. The
balaclava & faceshield
option was added as a
more comfortable
alternative to the hood.
|
|
130.7(C)11 Clothing
Material Characteristics
|
The paragraph stating
that clothing made from
synthetic materials that
melt at 600°F was
expanded to specifically
spell out fabrics,
zipper tapes, and
findings. Previously it
was just fabrics.
|
They got more specific
in the wording to keep
manufacturers from
shortcutting for cost
reasons and failure of
these components can be
hazardous.
|
|
130.7(C)(15)(a) Task
Table
|
Previously the task
tables included both an
HRC 2 and an HRC 2*
category. HRC 2 required
a faceshield and HRC 2*
required a flash suit
hood. HRC 2* has been
removed and now HRC 2
requires the use of an
arc rated balaclava &
faceshield combination
or a flash suit hood.
|
This is to go along with
the head protection
section above.
|
|
Annex H Guidance on
Selection of Protective
Clothing and Other
Personal Protective
Equipment
|
Annex H was expanded to
not only reference the
simplified two-category
system of 8 and 40
cal/cm², but it now
provides a table for
when a hazard analysis
is performed rather than
using the Task Tables.
This table lists all the
clothing and PPE needed
for three categories of
exposure (≤ 1.2 cal/cm²,
>1.2 to 12 cal/cm², and
>12 cal/cm². All of the
clothing and PPE must
meet or exceed the
incident energy exposure
determined from the
analysis.
|
This was expanded to be
more detailed and to
also address those that
do the analysis rather
than use the tables.
|
Summary:
There may be
questions or confusion about
whether or not an FR garment is
suitable since NFPA 70E now uses
the term AR. The bottom line is
a garment labeled FR, made from
a fabric that has been arc
tested and is labeled with an
arc rating (ATPV or EBT), is
considered an arc rated/AR
garment. Plus the fabric must be
FR using the vertical flame
test, ASTM D6413, in order to
meet ASTM F1506, which is
required by 70E, not any other
flammability test. Bottom line:
garments that have not been arc
tested will not have an arc
rating and are therefore not AR.
It is likely
there will be increased use of
arc rated FR balaclavas & face
shields or hoods, as it is now a
requirement to have full head
protection for all HRC 2 tasks.
Lastly, there
should be a reduction in the use
of non-FR components like zipper
tape, although there is no
enforcement arm of NFPA and no
third party certification
requirement.
Make sure the
garments have an arc rating and
are constructed with all FR
components. And make sure you
wear your arc rated face shield
and balaclava.
NFPA 2112 - New 2012 Edition, What Changed?
The 2012 Edition of the NFPA 2112
standard was recently published
and featured a number of
changed. The changes made to
NFPA 2112 were primarily done to
clarify certain areas, add
information in areas not
previously covered and to keep
some of the terminology in line
with NFPA 2113 changes.
What is NFPA 2112?
NFPA 2112 is the
Standard on Flame-Resistant
Garments for Protection of
Industrial Personnel Against
Flash Fire. This standard
outlines the various performance
requirements and testing methods
for both the FR fabric and FR
garments that are needed to be
considered in compliance with
the standard. It also includes
proper labeling and quality
control requirements for the FR
manufacturers. This is the
standard most recognized in the
flash fire industry and
compliance with it is typically
asked for by end users. Although
meeting the performance
requirements of NFPA 2112 is
important, NFPA 2113 is needed
to determine what kind of FR you
should consider.
What is NFPA 2113?
NFPA 2113 is the
Standard on Selection, Care,
Use, and Maintenance of
Flame-Resistant Garments for
Protection of Industrial
Personnel Against Flash Fire.
This standard goes into all the
aspects listed in the title but
most importantly it goes into
detail about how to Select an FR
garment that is appropriate for
the user’s application. Although
2113 comes numerically after
2112 it is in fact the first
standard that should be reviewed
prior to making an FR clothing
decision.
The chapter on selection reviews the
first and probably the most
important step which is
conducting a hazard assessment.
The hazard assessment determines
both the existence of a hazard
requiring FR clothing as well as
the level of protection needed.
NFPA 2113 does require that FR
garments meet NFPA 2112 as the
minimum requirement, but the
hazard assessment is truly what
is needed to determine what type
of FR fabric and garments are
truly needed.
So what changed in NFPA 2112?
The changes seem to fall into five categories:
1. The addition of the phrase “short-duration thermal
exposure”
2. New sections on cold weather insulation materials
3. Clarification of zipper materials
4. More specificity on what is included in the manikin test
5. A change from TPP to HTP
Category 1 – Adding “short-duration thermal exposure
|
Section
|
2007 Edition
|
2012 Edition
|
|
1.2.1 Purpose
|
This standard shall provide minimum requirements for the
design … reducing the
severity of burn
injuries resulting from
accidental exposure to
hydrocarbon flash fires.
|
This standard shall provide minimum requirements for the
design … reducing the
severity of burn
injuries resulting from
short-duration thermal
exposures or accidental
exposure to flash fires.
|
|
A.1.2.1 Purpose
|
Users are cautioned that flammable clothing can contribute
to the severity of burn
injuries through their
ignition and continued
burning after exposure
to flash fire.
|
Additional wording – “Short-duration thermal exposures can
arise from other fire
types in industrial
environments. These
include, but are not
limited to, jet flames,
liquid fires (pool fires
or running liquid
fires), solids fires
(fires of solid
materials or dust
fires), warehouse fires,
and fires associated
with oxygen.”
|
This phrase was added because some feel NFPA 2112 should be
for fabrics and garments to
protect against various thermal
exposures and not just a 3
second flash fire. Plus there
are thermal exposures other than
just the initial flash fire that
wearers could encounter during
and after the initial event.
Category 2 –
Cold weather insulation
materials
|
Section
|
2007 Edition
|
2012 Edition
|
|
Definition 3.3.6 Cold Weather Insulation Materials
|
NA
|
A fabric that consists of one or more non-separable layers
that is used for
protection in a
low-temperature
environment.
|
|
Fabric Requirements 7.1.3.1 Thermal Shrinkage
|
NA
|
Cold weather insulation materials utilized in the
construction of
flame-resistant garments
shall be tested in
accordance with Section
8.4 and shall not shrink
more than 20 percent in
any direction.
|
|
Fabric Requirements 7.1.5.1 Manikin Test
|
NA
|
Garments consisting of separable layers, such as a removable
cold weather insulation
material layer, that are
intended to be worn
together or separately
shall be tested in all
wearable configurations
identified by the
manufacturer.
|
|
Test Methods 8.4.8.2 Heat and Thermal Shrinkage Resistance
Test (cold weather
insulation materials)
|
NA
|
Measurements of cold weather insulation material thermal
shrinkage shall be made
on the side of the
fabric facing the wearer
as used in the
construction of the
garment.
|
|
A.3.3.6 Cold Weather Insulation Materials
|
NA
|
Examples of insulation materials are textile batting(s)
alone or batting(s) that
are attached to a face
cloth. For example, an
insulation material
consisting of two layers
are considered
non-separable by the
attachment that combines
the two layers. Cold
weather insulation
material as defined in
this standard does not
preclude the use of
intermediate layers for
additional protection
against thermal hazards.
|
Added to address questions about what is considered cold
weather insulation, how they
should perform relative to
thermal shrinkage and how to
test the insulation materials
used in cold weather garments.
Category 3 – Clarification of
zipper material requirements
|
Section
|
2007 Edition
|
2012 Edition
|
|
Design Requirements 6.3 Slide Fastener Tape Requirements
|
NA
|
All slide fastener tape utilized in the construction of the
flame-resistant garments
shall be made of an
inherently
flame-resistant fiber.
|
This section was added to make sure non-FR zipper tape was not
used as it could pose a risk to
the wearer if ignited.
Category 4 – Manikin Test Body Burn
Details
|
Section
|
2007 Edition
|
2012 Edition
|
|
Fabric Requirements 7.1.5 Body Burn
|
Specimen garments shall be tested for overall flash fire
exposure as specified…
and shall have an
average predicted body
burn rating of not more
than 50.
|
Specimen garments shall be tested for overall flash fire
exposure as specified…
and shall have an
average predicted body
burn rating of not more
than 50 percent based on
the total surface area
covered by sensors,
excluding hands and
feet.
|
|
Test Methods 8.5.5.1 Manikin Test Procedure
|
The percent total body burn for each specimen shall be
reported as the body
burn rating
|
The predicted percent body burn based on the total surface
area covered by the
sensors, excluding hands
and feet, for each
specimen shall be
reported
|
These changes clarify that only the area covered by the
garment, which excludes the
hands and feet, are the areas
used to determine the body burn
percentage. Plus the word
predicted was added to the
procedure statement; and the
word rating was removed as it is
not a rating but simply a
reported result of the test.
Category 4 – HTP (heat transfer
performance) replaced TPP
(thermal protective performance)
|
Section
|
2007 Edition
|
2012 Edition
|
|
Fabric Requirements 7.1.1 HTP
|
Fabric utilized in the construction of flame-resistant
garments shall be tested
for thermal protective
performance (TPP) ...
|
Fabric utilized in the construction of flame-resistant
garments shall be tested
for heat transfer
performance (HTP) ...
|
|
Test Methods 8.2
|
Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) Test
|
Heat Transfer Performance (HTP) Test
|
The testing method was changed from the NFPA 2112 TTP test
method to the ASTM F2700 HTP
test method. The HTP test method
is considered a more uniform and
consistent method. The
requirements remain at 6 cal/cm²
spaced and 3 cal/cm² in contact.
What is significant about these changes to NFPA 2112?
1.
The insertion of “short duration thermal exposure” is the
start of addressing the
controversy over the position
that a 3 second or less flash
fire is the primary hazard
because that is the duration of
the manikin test. Some feel NFPA
2112 should be for fabrics and
garments to protect against
various thermal exposures and
not just a 3 second flash fire.
NFPA 2113 now includes the
phrase “range of thermal
exposures” and removed the
phrase “flash fire” and
“typically 3 seconds or less” to
push users to perform a hazard
assessment and not assume their
only exposure was a 3 second or
less flash fire just because the
manikin test results are
measured after 3 seconds.
2.
The other important change was the requirement for zipper
tapes to be made of FR material.
Prior to this change zipper tape
was not specifically called out
and therefore manufacturers
could slide by using less costly
non-FR tape.
3.
The body burn details spelling out the exclusion of hands and
feet, was not a change but
simply an addition to let
readers know those areas may
have exposure but are not
counted in the results. The feet
are not particularly an issue as
workers typically have on
leather work boots which provide
protection. The hands could be
an issue as workers may not have
any hand protection or their
gloves could be ignitable.
4.
The addition of cold weather materials was added to clarify
how they are tested.
Lastly the change from TPP to HTP has no particular
impact on Workrite garments.
|
This
illustration shows the
temperature and humidity levels
where heat stress is possible to
occur and where it becomes
dangerous. At temperatures
between 85°F and 95°F with
humidity levels from 30% to 60%
heat stress is possible. Above
95°F and humidity above 60%
workers are in danger.
