DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:33:12 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Don Abramowitz <dabramow**At_Symbol_Here**BRYNMAWR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hoods failing annual calibration
In-Reply-To: <6AD6E0EF87C9E14E97A1A3DB9181A3B33ECFA41E**At_Symbol_Here**usvfmbx02>
<
div style='font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'
>Pat,
You raise an interesting question, and thus far, replies have
focused on restoring the hood to its performance criteria. Seems you
are asking more about whether and how one would evaluate the potential exp
osures to hood users who may have been inadvertently exposed to chemicals a
s a result of having been operating a hood outside of its intended pe
rformance specs.
Seems there's an ethical component here about discl
osure to users, and a technical question of assessing the potential exposur
es that may have occurred. Both are difficult questions, and they req
uire a lot of specific information about the particular circumstances invol
ved.
It would be difficult to correlate face velocity w
ith exposure. A 40% drop in face velocity does not mean 40% more expo
sure. You'd probably need to do some sort of simulation to attempt to
model the exposures.
It's also important to consider what ma
terials were handled in the hood. If you were working with relatively
low-toxicity-but-irritating or odorous materials (something like acetic ac
id comes to mind), and no one noticed any effects or odors, you might concl
ude there was little or no impact. At the other end of the spec
trum, biological monitoring and/or medical evaluation/surveillance could be
indicated for highly toxic substances that tend to bio-accumulate. C
hances are your particular circumstances fall somewhere in between, and all
you can do is try make thoughtful decisions based on the information and i
ndividuals involved.
&
nbsp; Don
Donald Abramowitz
Environmental Health &
; Safety Officer
Bryn Mawr College
Bryn Mawr, PA
I work in a GMP laboratory in the medical device ind
ustry. A member of our metrology team questioned me today as to what
we would do in event one of our chemical fume hoods did not meet one or mor
e of its annual qualification events, for
example if the hood did not meet its face velocity requirement during the
annual test. We do have monitors on our hoods, but occasionally they
have been found to be faulty.
According to our work instructions, any "ins
trument=" which does not meet any of its qualification events must h
ave an impact assessment done. Usually this relates to the impact the
failure may have had on the results of tests that were
done using the instrument. But in this case we would be talking abou
t a safety impact assessment rather than focusing on the results of tests.&
nbsp; The metrology member also mentioned to me that we should, according t
o our work instruction, have a usage log for
each hood so that a proper impact assessment could be done.
My thoughts are this:
I would not call a chemical fume hood an "in
strument=" and therefore would not consider it subject to the previo
usly mentioned work instruction
I have never heard of any facility having a usage lo
gbook for chemical fume hoods
BUT=E2=80=A6 the question I really want to ask the g
roup is this: in the event a hood fails any of its annual calibration
events, what do you do? Do you speak to people who have been u
sing the hood, prepare an impact assessment, etc.?
Thanks,
Pat Peifer
Health, Safety and Training Team Leader
The contents of this message are confidential and may be privileged. If you
have received this message in error, please permanently delete it, along w
ith any files that may be attached to this message, without reading, printi
ng, copying, forwarding or otherwise
distributing it. Please notify the sender of the error immediately so that
we can prevent it from happening again.
