For companies that deal with dangerous chemicals, the use of chemical protective clothing is a must. Not only does it make business sense, it's also mandated by law. According to the Occupational Safety and Hazard Association (OSHA), an employer is responsible to determine when personal protection equipment (PPE) is necessary and also what kind of personal protection equipment the job situation calls for. Towards this end, however, employers are left on their own to find out the factors that matter in these choices. OSHA, having stated its mandate, does not offer any further data upon which to base the purchasing of chemical protective clothing and equipment. The International Organization for Standards (ISO) currently has a draft in the works towards this end but this is not likely to be ratified until next year. Even so, many experts are predicting that the ISO provision will fail to cover all the possible situations and that employers will still need to exercise their judgement regarding the use of chemical protective clothing.

As of right now, the resources employers have in choosing chemical protective clothing are the American Society for Testing and Materials, OSHA's PPE standard, trade associations for the employer's respective industry and, finally, the actual manufacturers of the protective clothing. Any one of these is a good place for employers to start in educating themselves. In a non-mandatory appendix to its PPE standard, OSHA points out that protective clothing is a final line of defense against potentially harmful chemicals and should be pursued as an auxiliary safety tactic, rather than a primary one. The primary suggestion OSHA recommends is that companies should attempt to replace the use of dangerous chemicals with less-harmful substances whenever possible.

Zack Mansdorf, Ph.D., CIH, CSP, past president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, points to the potential toxic effects of exposure, entry routes and the hazards associated with the assignment itself as three basic points employers must consider in purchasing protective gear. Mansdorf also believes there are "inherent conflicts between worker comfort, efficiency and protection." These conflicts arise from the fact that thicker materials used in the clothing, which generally offer a greater degree of protection, also are more likely to hinder the movements of the worker as well as cause them discomfort. The workers' ability to perform their jobs is handicapped and, in a worse case scenario, they may even forego wearing the protective articles, defeating the purpose of the personal protection equipment entirely. Using the clothing manufacturers' guidelines is often misleading, experts like Mansdoft contend, since, in our lawsuit happy society, protective clothing companies often council users to overcompensate and use thicker materials when they are not strictly necessary. In the words of Robert West, an emergency response preparedness manager at Texas Instruments, "The manufacturers I work with are very ethical, but in this litigious society, they've got to protect themselves."

West maintains that the responsibility to choose the right level of protection lies with the user. The complexity of each possible scenario eludes any one source of information, be it the appendix to OSHA's regulations or the clothing manufacturers' guidelines. He suggests that companies whose employees are required to wear chemical protective clothing "have internal processes in place that verify their selection." Factors specific to each job environment such as temperature, ventilation and lighting have to be carefully balanced in the decision. Ultimately, West believes companies are left with two options. Either to educate themselves as much as possible, using the gamut of materials available to make the decision regarding personal protection equipment, or to "rely on the limited information the manufacturers give us, and if it's an overkill, it's an overkill." He also says that for companies without the time and money to extensively research their options, the better-safe-than-sorry approach may be best.

The flip side to this argument is that employees who are given protective clothing made of materials that are too thick and constraining may resist wearing it, and thus put themselves at greater risk than if they had less protective clothing to wear. This should not deter the employer in making their choice, but it is something to keep in mind when determining the clothing's protective level.

Once the protective clothing is selected, proper maintenance needs to be observed. Oftentimes older suits can deteriorate and lose their protective qualities. Also, protective suits and respirators must be cleaned up properly after they are worn. Finally, experts suggest the scheduling of refresher courses in PPE training for employees once a year. This helps ensure that the protective clothing provided by the employer is properly used and cared for.

Source: Using Chemical Protective Clothing: A Matter of Judgement
James L. Nash
Occupational Hazards, Feb. 5, 2001
http://www.occupationalhazards.com/news/news_loader.asp?articleID=34170