DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive
About This Archive | DCHAS-L 2023 Index | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | DCHAS-L Home Page
About This Archive
DCHAS-L 2023 Index
DCHAS-L Yearly Index
DCHAS-L Home Page
Next by Date
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L] New Article
Date:
Jul 29, 2023 14:42 UTC
Author:
Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
From:
Richard Palluzi <000006c59248530b-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L] New Article
Date:
Jul 29, 2023 11:14 UTC
Reply-To:
ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>
Message-ID:
<005601d9c20d$dac50a50$904f1ef0$@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To:
<1675355672.3691149.1690578040559**At_Symbol_Here**mail.yahoo.com>
NFPA and the ICC have both taken the stance that the current classifications are not going to be revised in the near future. So any individual committee cannot take a different approach.
Part of the problem is that the GHS classification and the NFPA classification do not align very well individually (although good overall). The other is that GHS was developed primarily for transportation while the others were for life safety and building safety. So I think that folks are going to need to read the SDS (not a bad idea in itself) and figure out the material classifications. Many (although far from all) SDS’s still show this classification as well.
While it may not be ideal as in trivial it is certainly not hard to do.
Richard Palluzi
BE(ChE), ME(ChE), PE, CSP,FAIChE
Pilot plant and laboratory consulting, safety, design, reviews, and training
www.linkedin.com/in/richardppalluzillc/
www.pilotplants.us
Richard P Palluzi LLC
72 Summit Drive
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
rpalluzi**At_Symbol_Here**verizon.net
908-285-3782
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 5:01 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] New Article
Nice, thanks Richard. But the SDSs all use the GHS flammability categories rather than the NFPA classes of flammability. So it is going to be difficult for people to figure this out. When they get in a new flammable solvent or product, they are going to have to look at Section 9 for the BP and FP and figure out the NFPA category themselves. And it makes it especially difficult for solvent and product mixtures used in workplaces like mine where we don't always have all the physical data for the mixture.
The good thing is that in both the NFPA and the GHS categories, the lower the number, the more flammable and hazardous. If only NFPA could have held that same thought for their diamond flammability ratings which mysteriously go in the opposite direction. 0 won't even burn, 1 is a FP above 200 o F etc. Dumb. Same for the toxicity.
Students were always confused, so I was so happy with the GHS ratings where the lower the number the worse the hazard for all categories.
I think it's time for NFPA to take a whack at a 45-standard using the GHS flammability categories.
Some of the membership may be interested in my latest article.
Do I Need To Space My Chemicals Out In A Laboratory To Be In Compliance With NFPA 45?,
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-i-need-space-my-chemicals-out-laboratory-nfpa-45-richard-palluzi
Thank you.
Richard Palluzi
BE(ChE), ME(ChE), PE, CSP,FAIChE
Pilot plant and laboratory consulting, safety, design, reviews, and training
www.linkedin.com/in/richardppalluzillc/
www.pilotplants.us
Richard P Palluzi LLC
72 Summit Drive
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
rpalluzi**At_Symbol_Here**verizon.net
908-285-3782
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
