Safety Emporium eyewashes
Safety Emporium eyewashes

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

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


Previous by Date

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] New Article

Date: Jul 29, 2023 11:14 UTC

Author: Richard Palluzi <000006c59248530b-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>

Next by Date

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Regular Activation of EyeWash Stations

Date: Jul 29, 2023 15:59 UTC

Author: K Roy <safesci**At_Symbol_Here**SBCGLOBAL.NET>

From: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] New Article

Date: Jul 29, 2023 14:42 UTC

Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>

Message-ID: <488496200.3799218.1690641741290**At_Symbol_Here**mail.yahoo.com>

In-Reply-To: <005601d9c20d$dac50a50$904f1ef0$@verizon.net>

Demystify: 
Easy for lab chemicals, not easy for products that are mixtures like paint, paint thinners and strippers, special effects chemicals, A/B component resin and foam products, dyes and pigments in suspension, etc., that often have gaps in Section 9 such as the FP and BP needed to classify the products under NFPA for transport.  So if we have a shop or production that is going to move to another location, we are not going to have an easy time of it.  And we've had people just squirrelling stuff away in their trucks and hoping nothing goes wrong because there really isn't another timely option.  

And some of our manufacturers for special products for film, TV, and Theater are essentially two guys in a garage, so don't tell me to call the manufacturer for the answer.

You live in the rarified atmosphere of labs and chemists.  There is a bigger world out there with gzillions of products for which it is not possible to assign an NFPA rating from the SDS.

Monona

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 08:59:45 AM EDT, Richard Palluzi <000006c59248530b-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**lists.princeton.edu> wrote:


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.

 

 Monona

 

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 03:44:59 PM EDT, Richard Palluzi <000006c59248530b-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**lists.princeton.edu> wrote:

 

 

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

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org

Previous post  |  Top of Page  |  Next post