Posted By Frank Macleod Hi Again Folks, Same idea as my last posting. Is there any legislative requirement for an individual to wear long trousers under his coveralls, when working in a Hydrocarbon Environment such as an oil refinery or in my case, oil rig. I have become aware of an individual who wears running shorts under his coveralls. I would like to find out if there is any need, other than good common sense, for him to wear better protection for his legs prior to me discussing the safety aspects of the situation with him. In discussion with other members of the management team it has been pointed out that other personnel wear short sleeved shirts which makes my concerns redundant unless addressed at the same time. We are all issued with fire retardant coveralls but after half a dozen washes, in our industrial sized laundry machines, I am sure all such retardant is gone from the coveralls. Any pointers on this matter will be greatly appreciated. I have had one reply to this query and further comments would be greatly appreciated. Regards Frank Macleod

Posted By Craige We currently issue Fire retardant coveralls to our maintenance staff. They are cotton coveralls with a Proban (probably a TM)covering. The Proban does wash out after a dozen or so washes but the cotton still offers protection from fire. Much more in fact than other coverall materials. As for legislative requirements regarding under garments I'm unsure. Craig

Posted By Craige Regarding legislation, doesn't it state in the HSW Act that "employees must co-operate with employers" in relation to ALL aspects of health and safety? Can your ideas not be written into your PPE policy and enforced because they must surely be seen as "best practice"?

Posted By Keith Archer. Hi Frank, Are these coveralls really issued as PPE? If not then what is the problem of the employee wearing shorts under them. However if they are issued as PPE then this, PPE requirement would have been highlighted in your risk assessment. (Legal requirement Regulation 3 MHSWR 1999). Then you would need to do a PPE assessment (Regulation 6 PPE at work regulations 1992). These regulations also say that all PPE must be suitable for its purpose i.e.: Protect the wearer from harm. Could it not be argued that if there is a requirement to wear long leg clothing underneath the coveralls then these coverall are not suitable as the user is having to additionally protect themselves from the PPE itself.

Posted By John Allen I think the problem comes form use of the word fireproof. Coveralls made from Nomex, Proban etc are classified as flame retardant. This means that when removed from flame they do not continue to burn of their own accord. The issue is one of risk assessment. Fortunately flash fires are very rare however where large quantities of hydrocarbons are being handled at high pressures the risk exists. It is dealt with in the first place by having properly designed and maintained plant to contain the hydrocarbons, by minimising leaks and removing potential ignition sources. Flame retardant coveralls like other forms of PPE are provided as a secondary means of defence in case the other precautions do not work and like most forms of PPE they have their limitations. Any falling or flying object can have sufficient kinetic energy to exceed the degree of protection provided by a safety helmet or eye protection. This does not mean that we do not issue them, rather that we do everything that is reasonably practicable to stop objects falling or flying in the first place then issue the PPE as back up. The role of flame retardant coveralls is to give the worker sufficient protection to escape from the immediate danger to a place of safety. If the situation requires personnel to re-enter the area to fight the fire they will be equipped with PPE like that worn by fire fighters which is to a much higher standard. Unfortunately it is not possible to do ordinary work in such clothing. To go back to the original posting Frank says that on his installation only fire and helideck crews wear Nomex; everyone else has ordinary coveralls. If so did the original risk assessment rule out the risk of flash fires in production areas?

Posted By John Murgatroyd The overalls are not "fire resistant" but "flame retarding" When subjected to a constant flame they do not burn but will char, glow happily bright red and then disappear leaving a hole where the heat was applied. I know, I wear them and burn THROUGH them. This discussion should also consider another thing, when insisting that the worker wears clothes UNDER the coveralls, you should bear in mind that wearing PLASTIC based garments under the coverall renders the flame retardent properties redundant...they will conduct sufficient heat for the plastic-based cloth to melt onto the skin. Been there, done that, got the scars. Like everything else, what you THINK matters little when you fail to consider that the worker knows from experience what is going to happen. Oh and: http://www.hse.gov.uk/fod/infodocs/668_25.pdf look at part 65, this is advice on PPE for welders. I have a large scar where the flame retardant (proban) overall burnt through on contact with a flame (but didn't catch fire) and melted my clothes onto my skin. The wound under the melted plastic didn't heal, became infected and the plastic had to be removed surgically. No clothes under the coveralls is better than plastic clothes, NOT forgetting the SOCKS. And, while we're on the PPE for fire/flame/heat may I also bring to your attention that the commonest burn for welders (excepting hands) is to the FEET. Because the employer refuses to pay for proper footwear and insists that the welder/s wear ordinary boots...where the sparks drop through the lace area..

Posted By Stephen Woods If your on fire wearing long trousers underneath your coveralls is unlikely to make much difference to the damage done, surely they would only absorb more of the substance that the coveralls were protecting you from. You would have no say in the type material the clothing under the coverall was made from as they are not PPE. Any burns could be a lot worse if the person was wearing nylon or certain other man made fibre under their coveralls. leave them in their shorts.