Rank: Forum user 
|
Would appreciate any help with the following......
Working adjacent to a live switchyard, the Client has deemed it necessary for all construction operatives to wear fire retardant overalls, and more specifically, from their supplier (one piece set which are chemically treated) and with their logo. Our organisation has provided two piece overalls fabricated from a natural fibre (Kermel) for our standard use, which we are now being told will not be compliant with their site requirements (not UK so no CDM duties - FR overalls is a non-negotiable issue).
Immediate issues raised:
1. heat stress due to lack of ventilation two piece offers and ability to remove jacket readily at break times;
2. natural fibre offers less risk of skin allergies;
3. natural fibre will offer reduced loss of performance in comparison to chemically treated overalls;
4. less risk of removal of all fire retardant properties in the event of incorrect cleaning methods;
5. chemically treated overalls smell when wet;
6. lack of logo of Employer may lead to lack of identification of operative in event of non-compliance;
7. inappropriately displaying Clients logo's on future sites
As this is brewing up to possibly be a major issue, any points I have missed would be very gratefully received, especially evidence of a negative slant on chemically treated overalls/coveralls.
Thank in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Rocks and Hard places come to mind! I guess you have only 2 options open to you; comply, (it is the client's site so he makes the rules after all) or don't comply and lose the contract.
The issues 1 to 5 are presumably issues with other contractors and workers on the site (if there are any) so although possibly quite valid are probably lost causes unless you get the client to change his policy. Issue 6 is valid but not insurmountable eg. wearing a "contractor" badge or pass.
Issue 7 is not one I'd raise with the client since once this job is done, what your workers wear on other sites is not his problem.
You could perhaps ask your client to supply the required workwear for the duration of the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What is a "live switchyard"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The issues listed would not change my mind if I were the client.
All you can do is ask why the client why he requires this, my guess is that he will give be able to justify it.
It used to be mandatory for one piece boilersuits for craftsmen many years ago.
It may have been mentioned in the old Factories Act
mmm What is a live switchyard
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I'd guess by "switchyard" he means the larger type of substation you generally get adjacent to powerstations.
The only other definition I am aware of is the American term for a train marshalling/shunting yard which doesn't seem appropriate given the "live" context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks Guys for the responses.
I guess the route I need to plug at is looking for publications/research papers to bolster my proposed risk assessment. The Client requires to avoid a "them and us situation during large scale construction works".
If anyone does (by a remote chance) come across such, I would be grateful for a nod.
Sorry, to expand, I was referring to a live switchyard as the area adjacent to transformers/generators with open switchgear and busbars, controlling electrical flows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I do not think that you will find information to support your argument.
There is no difference wrt to heat stress when wearing FR vs Conventional clothing.
The client requirement for one piece is to ensure protection against thermal radiation by preventing either the FR jacket or trousers item being removed.
The only reasonable approach would be to discuss the findings of the risk assessment with the client, what distance has been specified as the arc flash protection boundary, are contractors working within the defined arc flash area?
If not provided as PPE wrt arc flash, has this PPE been specified as protection against thermal radiation in nthe event of transformer pool fire or even erroneously from a flash fire. Again, are the distances from the live switchgear/transformers outside of calculated/anticipated thermal radiation expected in the event of traffo oil fire?
In reality, the FR clothing is only of benefit in relation to arc flash and in the event of flash fire where an individual may be standing within an area of LFL to 50% of LFL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
leethorne wrote:
4. less risk of removal of all fire retardant properties in the event of incorrect cleaning methods;
5. chemically treated overalls smell when wet;
To get around these two issues why can't you use inherently fire retardant materials (IFR) for the coveralls? i.e. coveralls containing Nomex fibres or similar. These are not chemically treated they are fire retardant due to their composition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.