Re: Protective Clothing flammability

[Jeff Eichorst <u112237@lanl.gov>]

I just want to clear up a misconception about cloth garments.  It is not
correct to say that cloth (as Doug used the word) would smolder.  The reason
legislation has been passed to require children's sleepwear to be made from
synthetics is because they do not propagate a flame whereas cotton will.
(Granted, the synthetics will melt which may be just as bad or worse.)  Of
course, the vigilance with which cotton will burn will depend on factors
such as fabric density, air saturation, coatings (such as fire retardant
treatments) and any kind of additional fuel that may be present (flammable
liquids for example).  

The problem with radiological protection and flame retardant PPE is not an
easy one to address because of the many different factors involved.
Kimberly-Clark has some flame retardant garments available (that meet NFPA
701 and CPSC 1610.4), but they do not recommend them for radiological uses
(of course you could consider an option of additional layers of PPE to meet
other needs).  FRHAM will make special PPE to order (also meeting NFPA 701)
that can be used in grinding or welding applications, and as someone said
earlier, the fire retardant attributes of this clothing has a limited life
with respect to most PPE used for radiological purposes.




At 05:27 PM 2/20/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Joyce, In the 1980's both Oyster Creek and TMI used a protective clothing
>spec that included flammability for cloth coveralls.  The 70% cotton 30%
>poly met the standard as I recall, and 100% cotton was even better.  Welders
>also had to wear leathers, because cloth coveralls would smoulder even
>though they would not sustain combustion.  You may remember several TV news
>stories of childrens pajamas and living room furniture upholstery that
>offgased and caused deaths when a match or cigarette was brought too close.
>There was some legislation about clothing flammability and the industry
>cleaned up its act somewhat, so everyone may have thought the problem was
>solved. GPU should have the specifications and test results on file.
>
>Doug Turner <turners@earthlink.net>
>
> At 03:51 PM 2/20/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>I am posting this for a colleague. 
>> Last week an employee at Oak Ridge was fatally burned while using a
>>cutting torch to remove equipment.  Information is sought on the
>>flammability of cotton and other anti-c clothing normally used in industrial
>>facilities.  What is the standard dress for welders working in a potentially
>>contaminated environment ?  Where can further information on this
>>subject be found ?  It seems this issue will arise more and more as
>>nuclear and radiological facilities are demolished.  Are there standards
>>committees wortking on such issues ?
>>
>>Please respond to Lester Clemons (lesterc@dnfsb.gov) or me
>>(joyced@dnfsb.gov), or if appropriate on Radsafe.
>>
>>Thanks to all
>>
>>Joyce Davis
>>
>>
>
>
>
Jeff Eichorst
Occurrence Investigator
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESH-7, MS K999, Los Alamos, NM 87545
505.665-6980		505.665-6977 fax
505.996-1117 digital pager,	jeichorst@lanl.gov

Be the master of your will and the slave of your conscience. 
       -Hasidic saying