From: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NFPA and OSHA, Harmony?
Date: June 6, 2013 1:04:33 PM EDT
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: <B38E440E-3C4C-4467-9A03-E0D7D3E92FB9**At_Symbol_Here**>

I'm hoping the NFPA diamond would be either dropped or seriously revised.  The very idea that "toxicity" can be represented by a single number from 0 to 4 is misleading.  First, there is no "zero" toxicity as NFPA seems to indicate.  So the GHS idea of going from high numbers for low toxicity to 1 for highly toxic is better from the get-go. 
And the GHS understands that extreme acute toxicity, lower levels of acute toxicity, and chronic toxicity need to be handled separately--especially because many carcinogens and reproductively hazardous substances are acutely non-toxic as demonstrated by LD50s and LD50s, skin/eye damage, respiratory and other acute expressions of toxicity. 
We have a real chance here to finally teach people something real and useful in hazcom.  Let's not confuse the issue with the NFPA diamond.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062

-----Original Message-----
From: Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <secretary**At_Symbol_Here**DCHAS.ORG>
Sent: Wed, Jun 5, 2013 10:15 am
Subject: [DCHAS-L] NFPA and OSHA, Harmony?

Mark Ellison <mellison**At_Symbol_Here**>
Subkect: NFPA and OSHA, Harmony?
Thought I would share this with the group.  Interesting-
Mark Ellison
Assistant Vice President-Safety Director
Sachs Electric Company
St. Louis, Missouri

The key quotes from the article inlcude:
One result of this collaboration is that OSHA does not see any reason for NFPA 
704 to be revised in order to correspond with the GHS category numbering...
For now, NFPA and OSHA are working to ensure that the two systems can 
effectively work together without significant change. Going forward, experience 
from full implementation of the GHS system may demonstrate a need for slight 
changes to NFPA's system, but without the expectation that it would ever be 

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.