| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2011 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: OEL Database query Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:42:08 -0400 Author: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: OEL Database query Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:53:39 -0400 Author: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM |
In a prior life I worked for a chlor-alkali company and the alarms were set before the 4% H level was reached because of the potential explosive mixture at 4%. For clarification you might try the Chlorine Institute literature or give them a call Mike Buczynski Program Manager- Global Product Stewardship & Sustainability Office of Sustainable Development Church & Dwight Co. Inc. 469 North Harrison Street Princeton, New Jersey 08543 P: 609.279.7705 fone ? : 609.683.5092 fax 6: michael.buczynski@churchdwight.com Be GREEN- Keep it on the Screen. -----Original Message----- From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Jeskie, Kimberly B. Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:15 AM To: DCHAS-L@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] 4% hydrogen mixture Long story short, the reason I ask this question is that we have a long standing debate with our research community who feel strongly that they have chosen the 4% mixture because it gives them the reducing environment they need while limiting the hazard, that's why they use it. The DOT classification is based on P-32 and the building codes (which is where the debate starts) generally site DOT as the go to place for deciding how to class materials for the quantities allowed inside buildings. That's where we keep coming up against a logistics nightmare. No one can agree on how to account for this mixture and most everyone agrees that using the full volume of a 4 % mixture just doesn't make common sense. One of our Fire Protection Engineers has suggested that the sources of information we use to make these decisions may be dated and an analysis may be the ticket to put this issue to bed. The P-23 pamphlet references Bureau of Mines Bulletin 503-1952 and much of the 503 date is based on simple, ad hoc tests on an apparatus dating back to the 1920s. Some of the data is based on earlier work dating back to the 1870s and 1880s. DOT references and accepts ASTM E-681 to classify flammability of gases. So...we're debating on whether or not to test the mixture under this newer standard, and it sure would be great if it has already been done. Kim Kimberly Begley Jeskie, MPH-OSHM Operations Manager Physical Sciences Directorate Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 574-4945 -----Original Message----- From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Todd Perkins Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:05 PM To: DCHAS-L@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] 4% hydrogen mixture Do you mean test the mixture for flammability per CGA publication P-23? My understanding is that the data is based on experimental observation as well as calculation. I've never had reason to question the data. Have you observed something different? Todd Perkins Regional Safet Director Airgas Mid America Thanks, Todd - Sent from my mobile phone On Sep 22, 2011 11:41 AM, Jeskie, Kimberly B. <jeskiekb@ORNL.GOV> wrote: Has anyone actually tested a 4% hydrogen/ 96% argon mixture using ASTM E-681, as opposed to just taking the P-23 data or the Bureau of Mines Bulletin 503-1952 at face value? Kim Kimberly Begley Jeskie, MPH-OSHMOperations ManagerPhysical Sciences DirectorateOak Ridge National Laboratory(865) 574-4945 *The information contained in this message may be confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is for the use of the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of the information in this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.*
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post