United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
                Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-90/021 July 1990
EPA       Project  Summary
                Preliminary Assessment  of
                Life-Cycle  Costs  of
                Protective  Clothing
                Arthur D. Schwope
                   Many different types of chemical
                protective clothing (CPC) are used to
                isolate workers at hazardous waste sites
                from contact with the potential hazards
                posed by chemical wastes. The goal in
                selecting the appropriate clothing for a
                particular occupational situation is to
                optimize worker protection and perfor-
                mance while minimizing cost. Thisstudy
                was performed to provide a more quan-
                titative basis for making these chemical
                protective clothing decisions. The study
                examined the cost and quality factors
                that influence the choice of CPC and
                gathered data on different brands of CPC.
                The research consisted of three analyses
                conducted independently:  a life-cycle
                cost analysis; an analysis of the quality
                of construction and sizing of Tyvekฎ*
                coveralls; and a survey of U.S. Environ-
                mental Protection Agency (EPA) and EPA
                contract personnel to pinpoint research
                and development needs for protective
                clothing other than  ensembles and
                gloves.  The study provides preliminary
                information on the impact of various
                factors on: clothing costs; the design,
                quality, and sizing of a limited sample of
                Tyvek coveralls; and the size, availabil-
                ity, and use problems associated with
                various types of CPC. Several actions'
                that could be taken to provide users with
                information useful for selecting appro-
                *  Tyvek is a registered trademark of The
                DuPont Company. Mention of trade names
                or commercial products does not constitute
                endorsement or recommendations for use.
 priate CPC are recommended. This is a
 preliminary study to address the factors
 that govern the choice of CPC. Many
 assumptions were made and many of
 the results are qualitative and based on
 a limited sample size. More research is
 needed to develop quantitative infor-
 mation and to refine the analyses in the
 study. Suggestions for future research
 are provided.
    This Project Summary was devel-
 oped by EPA's Risk Reduction Engi-
 neering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to
 announce key findings of the research
 project that is fully documented in  a
 separate report of the same title (see
 Project Report ordering information at
 back).

 Introduction
    EPA emergency and hazardous waste
 activities require the use of chemical protec-
 tive clothing to ensure worker safety. The
 term chemical protective clothing covers a
 wide range of clothing, from ensemblesthat
 encapsulate a worker's entire body, to splash
 suits, to common work clothes with gloves
 and boots.   The purchase price of this
 clothing varies widely from one type of
 clothing to another and from one manufac-
 turer to another. EPA and EPA contractor
 personnel purchase CPC in large quantities
 from different sources in many different
 styles and sizes. Because of the number of
 manufacturers as well as the range of CPC
 prices, the choice of what type and brand of
 CPC to buy is not simple.  Too often the
 purchase of CPC is made on the basis of an
 insufficient understanding of the factors in-

-------
volved or wtth insufficient data at hand.
    The principal pu rpose of this study was
to develop insights and preliminary data
about cost and quality factors that should
influence the choice of CPC. This research
consisted of three analyses, conducted in-
dependently:  an analysis  of the  costs of
protective clothing over their  life cycle; an
analysis of the construction and sizing of
limited-use clothing (specifically  Tyvekฎ
coveralls); and a survey of  EPA personnel
to identify research and development needs
in protective clothing areas other than en-
sembles and gloves (i.e., boots, overgloves,
face shields, and hoods).  The methodol-
ogy, results, and conclusions of each of
these three studies are summarized herein,
beginning with the life-cycle cost analysis.

Life-Cycle  Cost Analysis
    Chemical protective clothing pu rchases
are based on several criteria, including pro-
tection, availability,  and cost.  This analysis
addressed only cost. All otherf actors being
equal, the clothing  with the lowest cost is
preferred.
    Some CPC is designed to be used
once and discarded. Other CPC may be
decontaminated and reused multiple times.
Therefore, cost per use, rather than pur-
chase price, should be used to compare
different clothing items.
    Several factors influence the cost per
use, including purchase price  and the costs
of decontamination, inspection,  mainte-
nance, storage, and disposal.  The life-
cycle cost study was performed to analyze
these factors and develop preliminary esti-
mates of the cost per use of clothing.

Methodology
    Because little or no information, other
than purchase price, was available on which
to calculate the life-cycle cost of CPC, the
cost elements of decontamination, inspec-
tion, maintenance, storage,  and  disposal
were  estimated on the basis of  several
assumptions.  These elements were then
combined and coded in BASIC to analyze
the effects of these various factors on cost
per use.

Results
    The cost analysis showed that eight
factors contribute  to  the  overall cost of
using protective clothing:
    Cost to purchase
    Number of times the clothing is used
    Number  of suits decontaminated per
    day
    Costs of decontamination
    Cost of inspection
    Cost of maintenance
  • Cost of storage
  • Cost of disposal

    Additional factors would include perti-
nent logistical considerations  and efforts
taken to  ensure the effectiveness of the
decontamination process, but  these were
not addressed in the study. In general, a
garment should  be considered disposable
if its purchase cost is less than its average
cost per use for the anticipated number of
times it will be reused.
    Specific  trends   apparent  from the
study include:
  • The  cost per use decreases  as the
    number of uses increases, except for
    items with a very low purchase cost.
  • The  cost per use decreases  as the
    number of items decontaminated per
 	day  increases. —The percentage de-
    crease is less for items with a higher
    purchase cost.
  • The cost per use increases as the cost
    of labor increases.
  • As the labor cost increases,  the num-
    ber of items decontaminated per day
    becomes less important.
  • As the purchase price increases, the
    labor costs and number of  items de-
    contaminated per day become less im-
    portant.
  • Under  certain conditions, decon-
    tamination and reuse of clothing should
    not be considered.  For example, item
    s having a purchase cost of $10 or less
    should always be  discarded  after a
    single use.


Recommendations
    Because of lack of cost data  (except
purchase cost), this preliminary analysis is
intended to serve as a stimulus for further
investigations in the area, with  the ultimate
goal being to provide adequate  worker
protection at minimum cost. Future research
using parametric computer models is rec-
ommended to assess the sensitivity of the
life-cycle costs to changes in the assumed
decontamination costs.  The validity of the
assumptions should be evaluated through
an external review.  Then, the study con-
clusions  should be implemented on a trial
basis at  several waste sites to determine
the validity and deficiencies of the analysis.
The results  would serve as the basis for
refining the  model before  its  more wide-
spread implementation.

Quality and  Sizing of Tyvek
Coveralls
    In the past, price has often  been the
sole criterion for selecting  one  brand of
protective clothing over another.  The gar-
ments chosen, however, have often proved
inadequate because CPC quality does not
necessarily correlate with cost.  For ex-
ample, the size and durability of garments
often vary greatly depending on the manu-
facturer.  Some garments accommodate
winter  clothing and  hard hats, whereas
other garments of nominally the same size
from a different manufacturer do not.  Dis-
posable garments that fit properly in some
areas (e.g., leg and body length) overwinter
clothing often prove  too  small in others
(e.g., chest and hips). Poorfit can stress the
garment and cause tears. A too long pant
leg could cause falls and too full sleeves can
snag on protrusions.
    In this study, 12 Tyvek garments were
obtained from several sources and exam-
ined to highlight variations in their quality,
sizing, and cost. ~ln addition,'information
was gathered on (1) whether manufacturers
of disposable garments could manufacture
coveralls to alternative sizing specifications
and (2) the quantity and cost requirements
associated with such  manufacturers.  The
study was observational in character and
very limited in sample size.  No  physical
properties were measured and no statisti-
cal conclusions can be deduced or inferred.

Methodology
    Two large-size Tyvek coveralls  (one
Tyvek and one Saranex-laminated Tyvek)
were obtained from each of six manufac-
turers (including three relatively large-vol-
ume and three  relatively small-volume
producers).  These coveralls were exam-
ined for quality and size. The quality exami-
nations were based on visual examination
of uniformity, construction, quality, ease of
use, and potential for failure. No physical
properties  were measured.   The areas
studied were: seams, closures, zipperteeth
and slider, storm flaps, elastic cuffs, sleeves,
hoods, draw strings, and neck flaps.  Spe-
cial attention was given to high-stress areas
such as the shoulder and crotch seams.
The size of each garment was assessed by
measuring  it and comparing  it with ANSI/
ISEA Specification  101-1985.  In addition,
three  major manufacturers of disposable
garments  were contacted and asked
whether coveralls could be manufactured to
EPA-specified dimensions.

Results
    The following design differences in the
clothing were noted:
   • The  garments varied principally in
    sleeve and seam type.
   • Some of the garments contained metal
    zippers, others plastic.
   • The tightness of closure of the sleeves

-------
    and pant cuffs varied among the gar-
    ments.

    The investigators reported the follow-
ing results and conclusions based on their
qualitative observations:

Quality and Cost
 ' • The cost per garment does not corre-
    late with apparent quality.
  • Some of the readily observed and
    measured differences among the dif-
    ferent coveralls relate to quality varia-
    tions.
  • Saranex-laminated Tyvek  garments
    seem  to  be  of higher  quality  than
    Tyvek garments.
  • The manufacturers of higher-quality
   ., Tyvek garments dp not necessarily also
    produce higher-quality Saranex-lami-
    nated  Tyvek  garments.

    There was no relationship between
garment cost and the size of its producer.

Sizing

  • NoneoftheTyvekgarmentsmet allthe
    ANSI/ISEA standard minimums.
  • Saranex-laminated Tyvek  garments
    met the minimum specifications better
    than did  Tyvek garments.  Two of
    Saranex-laminated  Tyvek garments
    met all seven minimum dimensions for
    size "large" garments as set by ANSI/
    ISEA.
  • Two observations  were made about
    the ANSI/ISEA specification:  (1) The
    specification  does not address  three
    dimensions of importance to garment
    fit and  ease of donning and doffing:
    zipper  length, hood width,  and hood
    length, and (2) Relatively high  stan-
    dard deviations were obtained for the
    measurements of the Tyvek body length
    and front opening length dimensions.
    This result might be because the in-
    structions in the specification fortaking
    measuremments are inadequate.


Recommendations
    The  study of quality should  be ex-
panded by examining a wider variety  of
products from more manufacturers.  The
garments should  be evaluated quantita-
tively to provide a basis for purchase deci-
sions and to inform clothing producers about
EPA's  needs.  Field performance of the
garments should also be considered.
    The study of sizing  should also be
expanded by examining a wider variety of
products from more manufacturers. A labo-
ratory study and field trial should be con-
ducted, to define .the size, specifications
most appropriate for EPA field work. These
specifications should be reported to cloth-
ing producers so  that they can improve
clothing design and fit.

User Survey

Methodology
    In   the third part of this study, CPC
users were surveyed to identify research
and development  needs for CPC, exclud-
ing gloves and ensembles. A questionnaire
was sent to 235 EPA and EPA contractor
personnel involved in personnel protection
under Superf und. The questionnaire asked!
for information about problems encountered!
while using  boots, overboots, gloves,
overgloves,   aprons,  faceshields,  and
hoods.  Users were asked to evaluate fit,
comfort, durability, effectiveness, and hin-
drances to mobility, as well as the availabil-
ity of size ranges and materials and the
number of sources for these items.  Some
follow-up telephone  calls were made to
obtain additional information.
 Results
    Results drawn from the telephone sur-
 vey include:
  • There are insufficient ranges of sizes
    for items such as boots, splash suits,
    and coveralls.
  • For some clothing items, there are too
    few sources and too limited availabil-
    ity.
  • Some CPC items such as gloves  fit
    poorly.
  • Some CPC items have limited  dura-
    bility and functionality.  Examples in-
    clude the poortraction and durability of
    overboots and the  vision  impairment
    caused by faceshields and goggles.

 Recommendations
    The following recommendations were
 made based on the preliminary survey:
  • Information in the brochures and avail-
    able in a comprehensive format to field
    personnel.
  • Manufacturers'   literature should be
    reviewed, and information on available
    size from each vendor should be cir-
    culated within EPA in the form of a
    memorandum.
  • Publications  such  as Best's Safety
    Directory and the Guidelines for the
    Selection  of Chemical  Protective
    Clothing should be circulated to users
    so they will be aware of alternative
    clothing sources.
  • Specific concerns about the durability
    and functionality of certain CPC items
    should be addressed in a laboratory
    study.

    The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment  of  Contract No.  68-03-3293  by
Arthur D. Little, Inc., underthe sponsorship
of the U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency.

-------
Arthur D. Schwope is with Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA 02140-2390.
Esperanza P. Renard is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Preliminary Assessment of Life-Cycle Costs of Protec-
   tive Clothing," (Order No. PB90-219 171/AS; Cost: $15.00; subject to change) will
   be available only from:
         National Technical Information Service
         5285 Port Royal Road
         Springfield, VA 22161
         Telephone: 703-487-4650
 The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
         Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
         Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Edison, NJ 08837-3679
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA PERMIT NO. G-35
  Official Business
  Penalty for Private Use $300
  EPA/600/S2-90/021

-------