| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2013 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NFPA and OSHA, Harmony? Date: June 6, 2013 2:40:15 PM EDT Author: "Alnajjar, Mikhail S" |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NFPA and OSHA, Harmony? Date: June 6, 2013 3:18:55 PM EDT Author: Monona Rossol |
Jay
Skarda
Director of Safety & Security
National Jewish
Health
Keep
in mind that the NFPA diamond is designed for FIREFIGHTERS,
NOT chemists and laboratory personnel. In most cases, a firefighter does
not care about the exact value of the LD50. Water is toxic in a
sufficiently high dose, but in a fire situation a firefighter is going to
consider it a “0” – no health hazard – regardless o=66 the amount that is
present.
As
a chemist who spent 12 years on a professional industrial firefighter crew, I
can tell you that most firefighters care about the following: Is it highly
=66lammable or not=3F Is it water-reactive or not=3F Is it a serious health
hazard or not=3F Is it reactive or not=3F If the answer is “not”, then a
ZERO makes perfect sense.
Monona
is correct: “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.”
My
translation: “We need to teach people about the hazards, but we need to make
sure people know the difference between GHS and NFPA so they don’t confuse
them.”
We
should allow GHS to teach us about Hazcom, but we should also allow the
(unaltered) NFPA diamond to provide the BASIC information that is needed by
=66irefighters. If you cannot tell the difference between a NFPA diamond
and a GHS pictogram with its associated class and category,
regardless of their different scaling system, then you should not be
working with hazardous materials.
*******************
Steven J.
McLean,
CHMM
Laboratory
Safety Manager
Risk
Management - 241 FB
Office:
(801) 422-6879
stevemclean**At_Symbol_Here**byu.edu
From: DCHAS-L Discussion
List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Monona
Rossol
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:05 AM
To:
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NFPA and OSHA,
Harmony=3F
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
=66or 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>
To:
DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent:
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 10:15 am
Subject: [DCHAS-L] NFPA and OSHA,
Harmony=3F
Mark Ellison <mellison**At_Symbol_Here**sachsco.com>Subkect: NFPA and OSHA, Harmony=3F Thought I would share this with the group. Interesting… http://www.nfpa.org/publicJournalDetail.asp=3FcategoryID=2915&itemID=62587&order_src=C246&cookie%5Ftest=1 Mark EllisonAssistant Vice President-Safety DirectorSachs Electric CompanySt. 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 eliminated.NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post