Overcoming Misconceptions Key to Selling FR Garments in Industrial Market

Serious burn injuries happen in the workplace more frequently than you think. Between five and ten times a day, an arc flash explosion occurs in electric equipment somewhere in the United States , sending the victim to a hospital or burn center for painful and costly treatment. Everyday work clothes made from regular cotton or poly/cotton fabrics, regardless of weight, offer little protection. In fact, they can be readily ignited at some exposure level and will continue to burn, adding to the extent of injury sustained from the arc alone.

Utilities and petrochemical companies have generally done a good job of protecting their workers from on-the-job hazards through the adoption of various FR programs. But compliance in other markets, particularly the industrial segment, is less impressive. It is estimated that less than 10 percent of the potential 1.8 million wearers in the industrial segment are currently enrolled in an FR program.

The reasons for this range from misconceptions over cost and comfort to an overall resistance on the part of wearers to FR clothing . Moreover, there is general confusion over what the federal and industry standards say, and who is affected by these guidelines. We’ll explore some of these myths below, and discuss the strategies manufacturers are using to educate the end user and overcome these hurdles.

The heightened awareness of an arc flash hazard has prompted a change to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70E standard, The change has helped, in part, to broaden the market for FR clothing and other related materials, increasing the opportunities for the suppliers to the industry. The revised NFPA 70E Standard for Electoral Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces, which became effective in February 200, requires employees to wear “clothing resistant to flash flame whenever there is possible exposure to an electric arc flash.”

Employees who install, maintain, or repair electrical systems, or put simply, employees who work as electricians or in maintenance, are covered by this standard and should be viewed as potential users.

Because of this, suppliers are finding new customers in places not traditionally associated with FR clothing. “Property management firms, resorts, even package delivery companies have employees covered by the standard who could benefit from an FR program, “ says Tracy Linton, national sales manager for protective apparel, Aramark. “The standard has helped us identify many non-traditional wearers, and we’re working to educate these groups and better service this market,” While a voluntary standard, covered employers can increase worker safety and avoid potential liability by complying. Moreover, OSHA often uses NFPA standards in the creation of new federal regulations.

Selling to these customers isn’t always easy, “There are many misconceptions surrounding these garments,” says Linton. “Safety isn’t the issue. The large and established companies are committed to providing a safe environment for their workers. But employers don’t know which workers to protect or are concerned that they may be viewed as providing a benefit to a small percentage of their workforce at the expense of the rest.”

The first step to overcoming this hurdle is for a company to assess the risk of injury. Typically, a FR garment is chosen based on the employer’s hazard analysis. Five hazard risk categories are specified in the standard based on specific job tasks ranging from category 0 that allows 100% cotton, up to category 4 that requires an FR shirt and pants, plus a double layer switching coat and pants. “Once they assess the risk, we can help them select the garments that are right for them,” adds Linton.

Cost, too, can add to a company’s initial resistance. While the garments are priced higher than standard work clothing, some have a longer wear life, decreasing replacements costs over time. And there are other intangible benefits. “Supplying these garments is not only the responsible thing to do, but it’s also the only business decision to make,” says Michael Lowish, senior manager for safety and health, Georgia Pacific. “Are they more expense? Yes, a little, but there’s the potential for a greater cost if you’re not providing uniforms at all.

Workers themselves can be reluctant to don such outfits. “If they’ve been on the job for awhile, wearing jeans and t-shirts, and suddenly they’re told to wear something different, they wonder why and balk at first,” says Lowish. “For many, going into a uniform program has a negative connotation. They view it as a loss of individuality and comfort. And if they’ve never had an accident or been around anyone who has, they really don’t see the need.”

While it can be true that FR programs are met with reluctance, doubts often disappear once the customer realizes that today’s FR garments are more stylish and comfortable than their predecessors. “Once you educate the customer, once the program is wear-tested, people generally love the concept,” adds Linton.

Multitudes of FR fabrics are available on the market today that provide good FR protection, as well as the aesthetics desired by the end user. Aramark, for example, sells Indura Ultra Soft, a cotton-like product that meets the requirements of NFPA 70E hazard risk categories 0, 1 and 2 as a single layer. “You have to appease the wearer with the right product,” notes Linton. “Once he or she realizes that the desired look can be achieved through a uniform program and that he or she doesn’t have to worry about what to wear to work, they’re positive about it,”

Still, there are some pitfalls that are unavoidable. Under 70E, shirts must be long-sleeved to be considered compliant. This can be a drawback in warmer climates, as can the need for layering, which can reduce comfort. “Of course, there are a series of compromises, but safety is the number one concern,” says Lowish. “There are many climates where long pants and long sleeved shirts are hot, no matter what the fabric is made of. If you’re concerned with the safety of your workers, it’s worth the trade-off.”

Safety aside, there are other practical reasons for providing workers with FR clothing. OSHA has a history of citing employers for not providing appropriate personal protective equipment. Not complying with regulations can leave a company open to fines and litigation from others. “The end result of an arc flash incident could be more than $15 million in direct and indirect costs to a company,” notes Linton. “These products are the last line of defense against such an accident, and for most wearers and their employers, this is also the best defense.”