Use your browser's Find command to search for a word or phrase.
Please contact swihart@purdue.edu if you know of a way to sort the archives.
Gibberish passages are attachments, they do not archive well!
HTML tags in list messages also do not always archive well.
A double line as immediately below indicates the beginning of a new message.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:16:10 -0500
From: "Stoll, Ilse (Ilse)"
Subject: Re: Allentown
Comments: To: Bob Burns
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At this point the papers are just indicating that there will be a long
investigation. The manufacturer indicated that distillation was done at the
time of the explosion and that they were producing 50HA (50% hydroxylamine
in water) from the sulfate.
Ilse Stoll
TRB198BG
Environmental Laboratory
Lucent Technologies
555 Union Blvd.
Allentown, PA 18103
610.712.5505 voice
610.712.4400 fax
> ----------
> From: Bob Burns[SMTP:rburns@bigfoot.com]
> Reply To: Bob Burns
> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 1999 7:08 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Allentown
>
> Hi Group,
>
> I've been watching the AP newswire for a follow-up to the Allentown
> explosion story. Never did see one. Did anyone see any more information
> other than the original story? I'd be particularly interested in why
> hydroxylamine exploded, and the conditions under which it happened in view
> of the hazard statements in Sax and the Merck Index and other places.
>
> I suppose there will be a story in C&EN about it.
>
> Bob
>
> "HAPPINESS IS A WARM PUPPY!"
>
> Bob & Evelyn Burns
> Mill Hall, PA
>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:23:45 -0500
From: "Stoll, Ilse (Ilse)"
Subject: Re: flash points
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Thank you. Do you have a table for i-propanol or where can I find one?
Ilse Stoll
TRB198BG
Environmental Laboratory
Lucent Technologies
555 Union Blvd.
Allentown, PA 18103
610.712.5505 voice
610.712.4400 fax
> ----------
> From: Tony Haggerty[SMTP:techton@IHUG.CO.NZ]
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 8:51 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: flash points
>
> <>
> A copy in Word 6 for those without Internet access
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:34:13 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Seminars in Florida
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi Kathy,
Did you make one of the recent seminars we offered in florida? The State
Department of Ed wants us to do 12 more next fall. Keep an eye on our
schedule at the web site ... www.labsafety.org regards, ... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:42:03 PST
Reply-To: bbower@ora.fda.gov
From: Betsy Bower
Subject: Re: p-cresol
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
p-cresol is also used in the U-shaped minimum/maximum thermometers used in
microbiology labs and other areas where temperature ranges are important.
We've had three of them break over the last 9 years. Every breakage created
quite a stir because of the odor. The total amount of cresol in the
thermometers is small, maybe a mL at the most, but it packs a wallop of a
punch. One of the thermometers broke in a refrigerator/incubator. We
scrubbed it down several times using a variety of soaps/solvents, let it air
out on the loading dock for a week and it still has a distinctive odor...
Lab coats, pants and shoes that have come into contact with the small spills
have all been tossed out - the odor is that permeating. And it also numbs
the nose quite efecctively. One of the breakages occured in a small
laboratory off the main laboratory. The Microbiologist knew something was
wrong, but didn't think it was that bad. Meanwhile people are scurrying
around the lab trying to find the source of the odor. I opened the door to
his lab and was blown away by the smell. The microbiologist had left to go
out to lunch. I taped off the door, left a note specifically addressing the
microbiologist, not to enter and went to suit up so I could locate and clean
up the spill. I returned to find him poking around trying to find the broken
thermometer himself, no protective gear, no respiratory protection...
Luckily it was a friday afternoon and the lab had all weekend to clear out
after the thermometer was found (it had broken after being placed in a
drawer) and the spill cleaned up. I told the microbiologist to go home. I
found him talking to his supervisor later, I told his supervisor to tell him
to go home... he finally left. I tired to convince him shower at the lab and
wear coveralls home, to no avail. I'm sure he didn't actually have any of
the cresol on his clothes, the odor just "clings", but still... These
incidents were a big motivating factor for purchasing recording thermometers
for our lab...
Betsy Bower
bbower@ora.fda.gov
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:43:09 -0500
From: "L. James Stock III" <34EMQ6K@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Formaldehyde and contacts
We also recently had a situation with a phenolic compound, p-cresol....
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:17:12 -0600
From: Jeff Rubin
Subject: Website
In-Reply-To: <4624C75E76CBD111B43500805F6FA8C101823788@pai820exch001u.micro.lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Howdy,
It's been a long time in the making: if you're bored, check out the safety
website for our College of Natural Sciences:
http://www.utexas.edu/cons/safety
It's still under construction, but a there's fair bit of info posted
(including, of course, links to LSW and NACHO!). Feedback, of course, is
always welcome. Just don't ask me any technical questions about the site
construction. NACHO listserv veterans will recognize a few ideas that
people were tossing about, including the health & safety pledge on the
homepage (written by yours truly based largely on what appeared on our list
last April, signed by our Dean).
Onward,
JNR
Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS
College of Natural Sciences G2500
W.C. Hogg Building
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1199
(512) 471-6176 (O)
(512) 471-4998 (F)
jrubin@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.utexas.edu/cons/safety/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:03:46 PST
Reply-To: bbower@ora.fda.gov
From: Betsy Bower
Subject: Re: p-cresol
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
p-cresol is also used in the U-shaped minimum/maximum thermometers used in
microbiology labs and other areas where temperature ranges are important.
We've had three of them break over the last 9 years. Every breakage created
quite a stir because of the odor. The total amount of cresol in the
thermometers is small, maybe a mL at the most, but it packs a wallop of a
punch. One of the thermometers broke in a refrigerator/incubator. We
scrubbed it down several times using a variety of soaps/solvents, let it air
out on the loading dock for a week and it still has a distinctive odor... Lab
coats, pants and shoes that have come into contact with the small spills have
all been tossed out - the odor is that permeating. And it also numbs the
nose quite efecctively. One of the breakages occured in a small laboratory
off the main laboratory. The Microbiologist knew something was wrong, but
didn't think it was that bad. Meanwhile people are scurrying around the lab
trying to find the source of the odor. I opened the door to his lab and was
blown away by the smell. The microbiologist had left to go out to lunch. I
taped off the door, left a note specifically addressed to the microbiologist,
"Do not enter" and went to suit up so I could locate and clean up the spill.
I returned to find him poking around trying to find the broken thermometer
himself, no protective gear, no respiratory protection... Luckily it was a
friday afternoon and the lab had all weekend to clear out after the
thermometer was found (it had broken after being placed in a drawer, papers
had to be tossed, but the drawer was epoxy paint covered, so cleaned up well)
and the spill cleaned up. I told the microbiologist to go home. I found him
talking to his supervisor later, I told his supervisor to tell him to go home
- he was literally stinking up the place... he finally left. I tired to
convince him shower at the lab and wear coveralls home, to no avail. I'm
sure he didn't actually have any of the cresol on his clothes, the odor just
"clings", but still... These incidents were a big motivating factor for
purchasing recording thermometers for our lab...
Betsy Bower
bbower@ora.fda.gov
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:43:09 -0500
From: "L. James Stock III" <34EMQ6K@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Formaldehyde and contacts
We also recently had a situation with a phenolic compound, p-cresol....
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:55:47 -0600
From: EH&S Compliance
Subject: Re: M E K Question
I agree.
I checked a MSDS on the material and there is no mention of peroxides
formed. It is flammable (flash point open cup 30F (-1.1C) and flash point
closed cup 20F (-6.7C)). The vapors are heavier than air and can travel
back a considerable distance to a source of ignition and flash back.
PEL 200ppm
TLV 300ppm
IDLH 3000ppm
NFPA 1 3 0
HMIS 2 3 0 x
Rebecca Levins
EH&S Compliance Specialist
RSR Corporation
Dallas, Texas
RSRrdl@onramp.net
(214) 583-0245
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Haggerty [SMTP:techton@IHUG.CO.NZ]
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 8:10 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: M E K Question
Mark
No one seems to have ventured an answer to your query so I'll put my 2
cents
in and say that I do not believe that MEK spontaneously forms Peroxides.
There is of course a Peroxide, MEKP, commonly used as a resin catalyst but
this is manufactured.
Tony H
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:59:21 -0700
From: "Sonja G. Ringen"
Subject: Re: Columbia U. citation--what were the lab activities involved?
MIME-version: 1.0
Jim's response on confusion over HazCom and the Lab Standard raises another
point that I am having trouble with, too. And I would like to hear other
people's experience on this issue.
<>
I hope the OSHA people in NY are doing a better job than some NY PESH
enforcement officers. I has a very discouraging discussion with one about
HazCom
vs Lab Std. They were totally confused and simply did not understand the
law.
In particular, they failed to understand how the Lab Standard replaced the
HazCom Std and the rest of Subpat Z in almost all respects. In fact, they
thought that Subpart Z consisted of only 29CFR1910.1000!!!
<>
The University of Wyoming had an inspection by the Wyoming Worker's Safety
(state equivalent of OSHA) in January based on a laboratory incident. A
custodian cleaned a lab that had been closed and felt she had an exposure to
radioactivity without proper training.
We contested the citation, so they came up with another one and asked us if
we could agree to that citation. We provided the documentation that showed
they were wrong on that one, too. So, they've proposed another citation and
have asked us if we agree. Of course, not. We had done nothing wrong.
It gets old having to train state regulators on their own regulations. Has
anybody else had incompetent regulators come through? And at what point
does this kind of scenario end? Are they going to cite us just because they
have to justify their trip to Laramie? Do most of you have qualified
inspectors?
Sonja Ringen, Manager
Environmental Health and Safety
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071-3413
ringen@uwyo.edu
------_=_NextPart_001_01BE640D.3C2C56A6
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
5.5.2232.0">
RE: Columbia U. citation--what were the lab activities =<br>
involved?
Jim's response on confusion over HazCom and the Lab =
Standard raises another point that I am having trouble with, too. =
And I would like to hear other people's experience on this =
issue.
<<SNIP>>
I hope the OSHA people in NY are doing a better job =
than some NY PESH
enforcement officers. I has a very =
discouraging discussion with one about
HazCom
vs Lab Std. They were totally confused and =
simply did not understand the law.
In particular, they failed to understand how the Lab =
Standard replaced the
HazCom Std and the rest of Subpat Z in almost all =
respects. In fact, they
thought that Subpart Z consisted of only =
29CFR1910.1000!!!
<<SNIP>>
The University of Wyoming had an inspection by the =
Wyoming Worker's Safety (state equivalent of OSHA) in January based on =
a laboratory incident. A custodian cleaned a lab that had been =
closed and felt she had an exposure to radioactivity without proper =
training.
We contested the citation, so they came up with =
another one and asked us if we could agree to that citation. We =
provided the documentation that showed they were wrong on that one, =
too. So, they've proposed another citation and have asked us if =
we agree. Of course, not. We had done nothing =
wrong.
It gets old having to train state regulators on their =
own regulations. Has anybody else had incompetent regulators come =
through? And at what point does this kind of scenario end? =
Are they going to cite us just because they have to justify their trip =
to Laramie? Do most of you have qualified inspectors?
Sonja Ringen, Manager
Environmental Health and Safety
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071-3413
ringen@uwyo.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:29:04 -0600
From: James Hermann
Subject: Re: Columbia Univ. fined $77,500 by OSHA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
How many universities "... willfully violated the laboratory standard by
failing to carry out the provisions of a written chemical hygiene plan."
After all, we get to write our own CHP.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Madelyn Miller [SMTP:mmiller@ANDREW.CMU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 4:32 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Columbia Univ. fined $77,500 by OSHA
Greetings,
Check out this web site:
http://www.osha.gov/media/oshnews/jan99/reg2ny111.html
Columbia Univ. cited by OSHA for alleged willful and other safety
and health violations: $77,500 in penalties proposed.
Love this quote: "It is a serious matter when an institution such as a
university fails to comply with OSHA standards by exposing its
employees to a dangerous chemical such as formaldehyde without
providing proper protection."
Ouch! I dare say many univ. could have passed OSHA's muster on this
problem.
----------------------
Madelyn Miller
Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO
Environmental Health & Safety
Carnegie Mellon University
mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:34:46 -0500
From: Kathy Matty
Subject: Re: Seminars in Florida
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_AAFD4BF3.52335F6C"
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
Jim,
No, I was not able to make any of the Florida Seminars recently. It's been
hectic here with the construction and moving of our chemistry labs to our new
science lab building. We are now in the process of renovating our old science
building. (We have to move out of the building for 8 months.)
I will watch the schedule for any seminars in my area. I have already attended
2 of your workshops.
If you are looking for a location to conduct a seminar next Spring, please
consider Seminole Community College in Sanford, FL (north of Orlando). When our
renovation is complete (January 2000) we would be happy to utilize our new
classroom and lab facilities.
Kathy
Kathleen Matty
Physical Science Lab Manager
Seminole Community College
100 Weldon Boulevard
Sanford, Fl 32771
Phone: (407) 328-2257
Fax: (407) 328-2238
>>> 03/01/99 07:34AM >>>
Hi Kathy,
Did you make one of the recent seminars we offered in florida? The State
Department of Ed wants us to do 12 more next fall. Keep an eye on our
schedule at the web site ... www.labsafety.org regards, ... jim
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Kathy Matty
ORG:;Science
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:MattyK@mail.seminole.cc.fl.us
N:Matty;Kathy
X-GWUSERID:MattyK
END:VCARD
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:10:08 -0600
From: Jeff Rubin
Subject: Regulator consistency/competency
In-Reply-To: <6360B2C0C2B6D111827000AA00DD928EE283CA@mailhorse.uwyo.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
OSHA by no means has a monopoply on this. Any time you're relying on an
inspector to make an interpretation of a standard, the inspector makes the
law (a common analogy is a cop deciding at what speed he'll actually pull
someone over). We were trying to work with the FAA on some helicopter
standards for our system: the local inspector told us that he didn't really
care what FAA HQ said - he was the local inspector and his signature would
be on the report.
The dunce of an inspector at Wyoming may have been incompetent, but it
seems that consistency is an even bigger hurdle.
JNR
Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS
College of Natural Sciences G2500
W.C. Hogg Building
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1199
(512) 471-6176 (O)
(512) 471-4998 (F)
jrubin@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.utexas.edu/cons/safety/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:58:50 +1300
From: John Downey
Subject: Re: flash points
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Ilse
I suspect that NOBODY has done one. As I suggested in my original posting,
this would be a good little project for a reasonably competent student with
a Pensky-Marten unit, as most flashpoints are reported as closed-cup.
Better still, get them to calculate the equation of the curves for each
common alcohol and see if there is a pattern emerging. If they did it, they
could publish the results, and you and I and a few others would be eternally
grateful, wouldn't we.
Regards
John Downey
Hazardous Substances Officer
Waitakere City Council
Waitakere City
New Zealand
Phone +64 9 8368036
Fax +64 9 8368001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stoll, Ilse (Ilse) [SMTP:ilsestoll@LUCENT.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 2:24 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: flash points
>
> Thank you. Do you have a table for i-propanol or where can I find one?
>
> Ilse Stoll
> TRB198BG
> Environmental Laboratory
> Lucent Technologies
> 555 Union Blvd.
> Allentown, PA 18103
> 610.712.5505 voice
> 610.712.4400 fax
> > ----------
> > From: Tony Haggerty[SMTP:techton@IHUG.CO.NZ]
> > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 8:51 PM
> > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> > Subject: Re: flash points
> >
> > <>
> > A copy in Word 6 for those without Internet access
> >
> >
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:17:10 -0500
From: Mike Pirrello
Subject: Re: flash points
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Shoot. If someone buys me one, I'll do it at home in my garage just because
I'm sick of the data not being available. After simple water/polar solvent
mixtures, I'd like to see some of the common laboratory solvent mixtures
done, like phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol, stuff like that.
Alternatively, the list function as an on-line parallel processor if
everybody would be willing to pay for one solvent curve to be tested
commercially. Is there really nobody out there with a student who'd jump at
the chance to use this as a undergraduate research project?
Michael G. Pirrello, CHMM
Safety & Environmental Mgr.
Trimeris, Inc.
4727 University Drive, Ste. 100
Durham, NC 27707-3485
Ph: (919) 419-6050
Fx: (919) 419-1816
Mpirrello@trimeris.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John Downey [SMTP:John.Downey@WAITAKERE.GOVT.NZ]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 1:59 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: flash points
Ilse
I suspect that NOBODY has done one. As I suggested in my original
posting,
this would be a good little project for a reasonably competent
student with
a Pensky-Marten unit, as most flashpoints are reported as
closed-cup.
Better still, get them to calculate the equation of the curves for
each
common alcohol and see if there is a pattern emerging. If they did
it, they
could publish the results, and you and I and a few others would be
eternally
grateful, wouldn't we.
Regards
John Downey
Hazardous Substances Officer
Waitakere City Council
Waitakere City
New Zealand
Phone +64 9 8368036
Fax +64 9 8368001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stoll, Ilse (Ilse) [SMTP:ilsestoll@LUCENT.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 2:24 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: flash points
>
> Thank you. Do you have a table for i-propanol or where can I find
one?
>
> Ilse Stoll
> TRB198BG
> Environmental Laboratory
> Lucent Technologies
> 555 Union Blvd.
> Allentown, PA 18103
> 610.712.5505 voice
> 610.712.4400 fax
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Tony Haggerty[SMTP:techton@IHUG.CO.NZ]
> > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 8:51 PM
> > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> > Subject: Re: flash points
> >
> > <>
> > A copy in Word 6 for those without Internet access
> >
> >
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:15:21 -0600
From: EH&S Compliance
Subject: Re: Seminars in Florida
Jim & Kathy,
I think you are inadvertently posting to the Lab Safety list.
Rebecca Levins
EH&S Compliance Specialist
RSR Corporation
Dallas, Texas
RSRrdl@onramp.net
(214) 583-0245
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Matty [SMTP:MattyK@MAIL.SEMINOLE.CC.FL.US]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 12:35 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Seminars in Florida
<< File: Kathy Matty.vcf >> Jim,
No, I was not able to make any of the Florida Seminars recently. It's been
hectic here with the construction and moving of our chemistry labs to our new
science lab building. We are now in the process of renovating our old science
building. (We have to move out of the building for 8 months.)
I will watch the schedule for any seminars in my area. I have already attended
2 of your workshops.
If you are looking for a location to conduct a seminar next Spring, please
consider Seminole Community College in Sanford, FL (north of Orlando). When our
renovation is complete (January 2000) we would be happy to utilize our new
classroom and lab facilities.
Kathy
Kathleen Matty
Physical Science Lab Manager
Seminole Community College
100 Weldon Boulevard
Sanford, Fl 32771
Phone: (407) 328-2257
Fax: (407) 328-2238
>>> 03/01/99 07:34AM >>>
Hi Kathy,
Did you make one of the recent seminars we offered in florida? The State
Department of Ed wants us to do 12 more next fall. Keep an eye on our
schedule at the web site ... www.labsafety.org regards, ... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:07:36 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: NACHO Membership Stats
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi NACHO Members,
Now you can follow the growth of our Association in the NACHO section of the
LSW web site. Go to http://www.labsafety.org/archives/stats.htm to see the
membership grow. Tell a friend about NACHO and see it grow faster! ... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:53:30 -0600
Reply-To: "swiki@bihs.net"
From: Swiki Anderson
Subject: Re: Columbia Univ. fined $77,500 by OSHA - PREVENTION BY COST
EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING THE BASIS PROBLEM?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Food for thought: The OSHA standards are written on a concentration basis,
directed at certain chemicals. They dictate maximum PELs, TLVs, etc. If
the concentrations in the workplace are excessive this would imply that the
ventilation system is dilution rather than containment based would it not?
Many lab users and lab safety people don't know the difference between
these two concepts (see
http://www.saai-svc.com/engineer/html/tech-notex.htm and click on Dilution
vs. containment Ventilation! Which is the Safest Method?) If a lab has a
dilution ventilation system then it is not working correctly or the release
rate of the toxic material is to high.
Can laboratory air flow systems be converted to containment systems at a
reasonable cost? Could this possibly be done and produce a savings and with
significant safety improvement? What does it take ? (see
http://www.saai-svc.com/engineer/html/tech-notex.htm and click on Fume
Hoods and Laboratory Air Flow Systems: Lessons, Features, and Improvements,
from the Old Saints of the Atomic Energy Era through Today, CSHEMA Paper
Food For thought.
Swiki Anderson, Ph.D., P.E.,
From: James Hermann [SMTP:jhermann@VALSPAR.COM]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 12:29 PM
How many universities "... willfully violated the laboratory standard by
failing to carry out the provisions of a written chemical hygiene plan."
After all, we get to write our own CHP.
Jim
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:58:23 -0500
From: "L. James Stock III" <34EMQ6K@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: chloro tri- base
Mime-Version: 1.0
First, my thanks to: Michael G. Hottott, Department of Chemistry,
University of Puget Sound for the 1-800 telephone number to BASF. It
seems my Chloro tri base was last munufactured in Germany back in 1991
and all they had was a cas#. I inserted my trusty Aldrich MSDS CD-ROM and
boom: Chloro tri base is: 5-Chloro-2-methylene-1,3,3-trimethylindoline!
Cool!!!!!!
Thanks to all in this group for your interest and help.
Jamie Stock
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:21:35 -0600
Reply-To: "swiki@bihs.net"
From: Swiki Anderson
Subject: Re: Columbia U. citation--what were the lab activities involved?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rather than trying to help Columbia shirt the issue, why not own up to the
fact that a containment ventilation problems exist and address and fix the
problem? If the OSHA regs dictate a maximum concentration of a material in
the laboratory work place (not within the hoods) then the laboratory air
flow control system is not doing its job or someone is liberating way to
much material in the work place.
Either one has no ventilation system or a dilution rather than a
containment ventilation laboratory air flow control system. If it is a
dilution system, then more air flow is needed to adhere to the "solution to
pollution is dilution" as a basis of design and operation. If it is a
containment ventilation system, then it must not be working correctly.
Engineered solutions that can convert dilutions laboratory air flow
control system to containment ventilation systems are available can most
often produce a savings for the owner who to find objectively address the
problems.
If you want to know more, call me at 409.779.6068, x11 or go to our webpage
at http://www.saai-svc.com/html/tech-notes.htm. I will gladly share with
you what we have learned from testing, design, and trouble shooting
regarding laboratory air flow control systems.
Swiki Anderson, Ph.D. P.E.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sonja G. Ringen [SMTP:Ringen@UWYO.EDU]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 11:59 AM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Columbia U. citation--what were the lab activities involved?
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:08:19 +1100
From: Barry Searle
Subject: Re: M E K Question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Could you please advise me of the source/manufacturer of MEKP?
Does anyone have any User safety instructions when using this orgainc
liquid?
Thankyou
Barry
EM UNIT
UNSW
-----Original Message-----
From: EH&S Compliance
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Date: Tuesday, 2 March 1999 4:39
Subject: Re: M E K Question
>I agree.
>I checked a MSDS on the material and there is no mention of peroxides
>formed. It is flammable (flash point open cup 30F (-1.1C) and flash point
>closed cup 20F (-6.7C)). The vapors are heavier than air and can travel
>back a considerable distance to a source of ignition and flash back.
>
>PEL 200ppm
>TLV 300ppm
>IDLH 3000ppm
>
>NFPA 1 3 0
>HMIS 2 3 0 x
>
>Rebecca Levins
>EH&S Compliance Specialist
>RSR Corporation
>Dallas, Texas
>
>RSRrdl@onramp.net
>(214) 583-0245
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Haggerty [SMTP:techton@IHUG.CO.NZ]
>Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 8:10 PM
>To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
>Subject:Re: M E K Question
>
>Mark
>No one seems to have ventured an answer to your query so I'll put my 2
>cents
>in and say that I do not believe that MEK spontaneously forms Peroxides.
>There is of course a Peroxide, MEKP, commonly used as a resin catalyst but
>this is manufactured.
>Tony H
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:55:19 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Re: C Un.....-Re: PREVENTION BY COST EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING TH
E BASIS PROBLEM?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
* Many lab users and lab safety people don't know the difference
* between these two concepts (see http://www.saai-svc.com/engineer
* /html/tech-notex.htm and click on Dilution vs. containment
Ventilation!
Where are all of these incompetent lab safety people?? Why "trash" them so
HERE? Haven't met a one of them yet that didn't know the difference between
dilution and local exhaust ventilation. If they know there's a lab std. they
must know of the need for local exhaust devices and know or quickly learn
when they should be used. I would posit that if they've been proactive
enough to subscribe to this listserver, they have probably also learned at
least the basics.
* If a lab has a dilution ventilation system then it is not working
* correctly or the release rate of the toxic material is to high.
???? - I am guessing what is meant is that one should not count on dilution
ventilation as your only means of protection from those materials which
should be used in a hood. However, adequate dilution ventilation is very
important for a lab! We require 10 Air Changes/Hr minimum (yes I know ACH is
a rather outmoded measure, but it's easy to verify).
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:45:38 -0700
From: Katrina Doolittle
Subject: Respiratory Protection during Bulk Waste Processing in Outdoor
Facility
Mime-Version: 1.0
We are a university which qualifies as a large quantity generator for
hazardous waste. Our office manages all hazardous waste generated. We are
in the process of upgrading our current respiratory protection from SCBA to
supplied air respirators for waste processing activities. We would like
your input regarding respiratory protection for the scenarios depicted below.
The hazardous waste processing facility is located outdoors at the end of
the storage building. The area is open to the outside on three sides. The
ceiling is approximately 12 feet high and the width is about 20 feet. The
processing area is about 20 x 20 feet square with chain link fence
surrounding the area. A series of gates control access and are open during
processing procedures.
The processing consists primarily of bulking compatible chemicals for
shipment to a hazardous waste disposal facility. There is a potential for
an explosion or reaction due to improperly labeled waste containers by third
party researchers.
Our current process utilizes SCBAs for respiratory protection during
processing. Due to the air tank capacity limitations (about 20 minutes) a
supplied air system is being considered to enable more efficient processing.
Typically there are three personnel involved, two are processing while the
third usually is rinsing empty containers. The third party is usually not
in the processing area..
WORST CASE SCENARIOS:
There is limited possibility of an IDLH atmosphere during the
bulking process. For example, two common laboratory chemical wastes
(benzene and acetonitrile) have IDLH of 500 ppm. During the pouring of such
chemicals, it is possible that 500 ppm will be present in the atmosphere for
a limited time while pouring.
During an unexpected violent reaction (which could occur due to a
improperly labeled waste container), the airline could be ruptured or cut,
an employee could be knocked down, rendered unconscious or disabled (broken
appendage).
The question: Is the 5 minute air pack a requirement to our personnel who
will be processing waste utilizing supplied air resirators in the outdoor
processing facility?
Or will the outdoor atmosphere provide adequate ventilation to avoid the
need to wear the 5 minute escape pack?
We entertain any and all input on this issue and we thank you in advance.
Graham Munsell, Industrial Hygienist
Katrina Doolittle, Director for Safety
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:12:14 -0500
From: Madelyn Miller
Subject: M E K Question
In-Reply-To: <00c501be6427$a26b5d80$1c965e81@barry-searle>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Greetings,
MEK peroxide is a completely separate chemical used in the
polymeriazaton of fiberglass. It is reactive.
Madelyn
> Could you please advise me of the source/manufacturer of MEKP?
>
> Does anyone have any User safety instructions when using this orgainc
> liquid?
>
----------------------
Madelyn Miller
Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO
Environmental Health & Safety
Carnegie Mellon University
mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:31:55 +1300
From: Tony Haggerty
Subject: Re: M E K Question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The attached was taken from a UK database that I use. Interox are in New
Zealand and I suspect in the US.
Regards
Tony
PEROXID-CHEMIE LTD (FORMERLY: LAPORTE/INTEROX) SEAL SANDS 01642 546666
GENERAL ENQUIRIES 01642 546224
****** End of Document ******
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:36:33 +1300
From: Tony Haggerty
Subject: Re: flash points - iso Propanol
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The original request asked the same question but no one came up with
anything :-(
Tony
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:07:52 +1100
Reply-To: ternai@techinfo.com.au
From: "Prof. B. Ternai"
Subject: Re: flash points
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There is a book by the Enjay Chemical Company, "Isopropyl Alcohol",
which lists and provides a graph, of mixtures of isopropanol with water.
It is also an excellent source of information about this compound. If you
need info in detail, please e-mail me off the list. B. Ternai
"Stoll, Ilse (Ilse)" wrote:
> Thank you. Do you have a table for i-propanol or where can I find one?
>
> Ilse Stoll
> TRB198BG
> Environmental Laboratory
> Lucent Technologies
> 555 Union Blvd.
> Allentown, PA 18103
> 610.712.5505 voice
> 610.712.4400 fax
>
> > ----------
> > From: Tony Haggerty[SMTP:techton@IHUG.CO.NZ]
> > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 8:51 PM
> > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> > Subject: Re: flash points
> >
> > <>
> > A copy in Word 6 for those without Internet access
> >
> >
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:04:36 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: The Problems of Regulatory Agencies
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-01 13:00:58 EST, you write:
<< It gets old having to train state regulators on their own regulations. Has
anybody else had incompetent regulators come through? And at what point
does this kind of scenario end? Are they going to cite us just because they
have to justify their trip to Laramie? Do most of you have qualified
inspectors? >>
Hi NACHOs,
The sad reality is that the lab standard came along and the regulatory folks
had little or no idea what to do about it. One OSHA region asked me to train
their 120 folks by giving five one-day training seminars. They had no money
to train them and no money for them to all travel to one location so it could
be done all on one day.
With hindsight I regret not just simply doing it.
Five or six years later, I volunteered to do the training for free. I was
told that it would be inappropriate for them to accept this offer!
We live in a very strange world. .... jim
PS. LSW did provide a free one-day lab safety seminar last year for all the
interested state and federal agencies in Massachusetts. It was hosted by the
MA Department of Labor and Workplace Safety. These are great folks working
very hard to help create safer workplaces with very limited resources.
Sadly, a similar offer for that area of NY which I mentioned previously seems
to have fallen on deaf ears. It's been a month with no response.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:12:12 +0300
From: ERL_WS1
Subject: delete my address from list
Please delete my address from your mailing list until further request.
Thanks.
Ahmed H. Fayoumi
fayoumi@kfupm.edu.sa
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:07:36 -0500
From: "Barbara J. Weaver"
Subject: Re: NACHO Membership Stats
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
What is a concealed member?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Labsafe@AOL.COM [SMTP:Labsafe@AOL.COM]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:08 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: NACHO Membership Stats
>
> Hi NACHO Members,
>
> Now you can follow the growth of our Association in the NACHO section of
> the LSW web site. Go to http://www.labsafety.org/archives/stats.htm to see
> the membership grow. Tell a friend about NACHO and see it grow faster! ...
> jim
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:53:39 -0800
Reply-To: Marc Neuffer
From: Marc Neuffer
Subject: More info
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Good Morning! http://www.safetyinfo.com/news/news.htm
Have really enjoyed (lurking) listening to all the exchange of info. This
is just to let you know we have posted more free safety info on our site for
you. Weekly Safety Poster, Weekly Safety Brief, On-line Confined Space
Training Module, 3 New Audit Guides, 2 New Safety Forms, etc. Click on the
above link to see all that we have added this week.
Regards & Best Wishes
Marc Neuffer
Safety Info.Com
safety1@localaccess.net
(256)840-9530
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:54:35 -0500
From: Bob Burns
Subject: Re: NACHO Membership Stats
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We could tell you, but we'd have to kill you.
;<))
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara J. Weaver
To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 9:19
Subject: Re: NACHO Membership Stats
>What is a concealed member?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Labsafe@AOL.COM [SMTP:Labsafe@AOL.COM]
>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:08 AM
>> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
>> Subject: NACHO Membership Stats
>>
>> Hi NACHO Members,
>>
>> Now you can follow the growth of our Association in the NACHO section of
>> the
>> LSW web site. Go to http://www.labsafety.org/archives/stats.htm to see
>> the
>> membership grow. Tell a friend about NACHO and see it grow faster! ...
>> jim
>>
>>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:57:18 -0400
From: Don Abramowitz
Subject: Re: Respiratory Protection during Bulk Waste Processing in
Outdoor Facility
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
We are
>in the process of upgrading our current respiratory protection from SCBA to
>supplied air respirators for waste processing activities.
>The question: Is the 5 minute air pack a requirement to our personnel who
>will be processing waste utilizing supplied air resirators in the outdoor
>processing facility?
I'm making a similar decision at present. Having worn 5 minute escape
packs on airline respirators in my Superfund days, the matter is not
trivial, and I would not default to the highest level of protection just to
be on the safe side. The inclusion of the escape bottle is a significant
ergonomic compromise in the switch from SCBAs to airlines in this fairly
labor intensive activity.
In the scenario you describe, my opinion is that the 5 minute escape pack
is not necessary, providing the layout of fencing and gates does not
interfere unduly with beating a hasty retreat. (I generally see the 5
minute bottle as essential in confined space entries and in large
processing buildings where escape is a significant issue.)
In the time it takes to activate the 5 minute bottle, one could walk the
few yards it would take to escape the >500 ppm levels predicted in the
pouring area in an outdoor setting.
In the worst case scenario involving unconsciousness, the 5 minute bottle
does not activate automatically - the valve must be opened by hand.
Airline hoses are rather substantial, and if you were to have a reaction
sufficient to severe the hose, respiratory protection may be the least of
your problems.
A couple of points I would include in the changeover from SCBA's:
- Emphasize the need to leave the area immediately when there is any doubt
about the performance of the respirator.
- If you will be using bottled air, be sure to include a pressure-activated
"5 minutes left" alarm with your regulator (frequently a clanging bell or
whistle), and locate the alarm close enough to the work area that it can be
heard by all.
- Use disposable hose covers to protect the airlines in use. These plastic
sleeves fit loosely over the hoses and help prevent deterioration from
chemical exposure and abrasion.
I'd be curious to hear opinions on the body protection needed in this
scenario. I typically use a plastic-coated, sealed seam disposable
coverall for splash protection, but sometimes think a flame resistant lab
coat or coverall such as nomex(r), and cloth head/neck cover of the sort
firefighters wear would be a better choice when handling flammables,
especially when you have reason to worry about reactivity among containers.
Day to day, the splash issue seems to be the more pressing concern, but
the fire worry is the big ticket item. Whaddya think?
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donald Abramowitz, CIH
Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer
Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College
101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:09:54 -0800
Reply-To: Marc Neuffer
From: Marc Neuffer
Subject: More Info
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From Marc Neuffer
Good Morning! http://www.safetyinfo.com/news/news.htm
Have really enjoyed (lurking) listening to all the exchange of info. This
is just to let you know we have posted more free safety info on our site for
you. Weekly Safety Poster, Weekly Safety Brief, On-line Confined Space
Training Module, 3 New Audit Guides, 2 New Safety Forms, etc. Click on the
above link to see all that we have added this week.
Regards & Best Wishes
Marc Neuffer
Safety Info.Com
safety1@localaccess.net
(256)840-9530
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:12:01 -0500
From: "Dr. Linda A. Swihart"
Subject: Concealed member
In-Reply-To: <0D907816B00AD211A93300A0C9B3BBE6274168@xdelta.lancasterlab s.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
At 09:07 AM 3/2/99 -0500, Barbara J. Weaver wrote:
>What is a concealed member?
>
You may conceal your name and email address so that any list member
requesting a "review" from the list server cannot learn your name or
address.
Any list member can send a REVIEW command to the server and receive a list
of all the non-concealed names and email addresses. This is true for any
listserv, I believe.
It is not pleasant to think that anyone would join our list in order to
"harvest" our email addresses and sell them to spammers or use them for
spam themselves, but it probably does happen with lists from time to time.
I have received unsolicited email from someone that I think might have got
my address from this list. When I asked them where they got my address
they said, "oh I'm not really sure, probably from a conference or
somewhere..." It was profession-related spam, and I may very well have
been interested in it, but I wasn't and they were polite and dropped me
from their list when I asked.
There are details at the LSW web site, under the NACHO section, which tell
a lot more about listserv commands. The important thing to remember is DO
NOT SEND listserv commands to this address (labsafety-L@siu.edu), which we
use to send messages to each other. Listserv commands have to go to a
different address, which is LISTSERV@siu.edu, and the computer we call the
listserver acts on them in an automated fashion....
Regards,
Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:25:16 -0500
From: "Dr. Linda A. Swihart"
Subject: formoterol fumarate
In-Reply-To: <435ACBA4E161D1118AC7006008A057A02B3B31@ehs-nts1.ehs.ufl.ed u>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I find this quite fascinating, and I have questions:
Got email today from a Dr. Z at what appears to be a pharmaceutical company
in Switzerland. He wishes to have an MSDS for formoterol fumarate
dihydrate and supposes we have one at Purdue since our web site refers to
the substance. (It's on a webpage list of materials labeled at teratogens
by Sax 7th ed.) 'If you could fax it to me today that would be ideal,' or
some such (not perfect quote).
I went a-searching, because it was more interesting than my regularly
scheduled drudgery, and found rather little at first. It's in Chemfinder,
CAS # 43229-80-7 and very little else. It is sold by Korean and Indian
herbalists and pharmacies as antitussive, bronchiodilator, probably many
more...
http://www.ahn-gook.com/index-10.html
http://www.cipla.com/prod1.html
There was some roadkill that suggested that it had been approved in Canada.
(By roadkill, I mean the Alta Vista search engine has the URL indexed but
the link is dead. The teaser said "New Drug News. The following table
outlines drugs that have received Notice of Compliance in Canada since
January 1996. These drugs have received approval. URL:
uni3sys.unipharm.com/InPHARMation/vol2-no5/newdrugs.html Last modified
10-Jul-97"
Then I found a very interesting Nov 1998 SkyePharma press release (Britain)
about a 6 million pound investment and collaboration:
SkyePharma PLC (LSE:"SKP"/Nasdaq:"SKYEY") andNovartis Pharma (Z黵ich:
"NOV") announced today that they have signed a collaborative agreement to
jointly develop a new formulation of Foradil(r), the long acting beta-agonist
for the treatment of asthma. The new product will utilise SkyePharma's
patented multi-dose dry powder inhaler device (MDPI)..... Under the terms
of the collaboration, Novartis will also make an equity investment in
SkyePharma of ? million ($10.1 million) at 70p per SkyePharma share being
the average middle market price....
"SkyePharma has granted Novartis an exclusive world-wide license to market
Foradil(r) in its novel delivery form. Foradil(r) (formoterol fumarate) is a
long-acting bronchodilator used in the treatment of chronic asthma. It is
currently marketed in 50 countries. Sales of Foradil(r) for the first 9
months of 1998 grew by 29%...."
That's where I quit and wrote Dr Z saying I had no MSDS, sorry, but would
be interested in getting a copy from him if he obtains one.
Does anyone in NACHO land know anything about formoterol fumarate? Anybody
have an MSDS? Is it still listed as a teratogen in the new Sax? Has it
been approved in Canada? (And do you think I should buy SKYEY and or NOV?
:-)
Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:41:14 -0500
From: Nick Pinizzotto
Subject: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Okay folks,
Just wanted to let you know about the phone call I just received from a
physician here.
She stated that she is seeing a patient who is pregnant and having difficulty
in keeping food down. They are going to put her on a nasal/gastric tube with a
pump and feedbags. She wanted to know if it was okay for her to wear it and
eat in the lab.
Can anyone come up with an excuse why she shouldn't be eating in the lab?
The bags are prepared in the pharmacy so there is no opening and loading in
the lab. Better yet would our friends at OSHA consider this "willful disregard
of the chemical hygiene plan?"
I think it gives new meaning to the term "strapping the feed bag on."
Nick Pinizzotto
Environmental Health Officer
Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
Thomas Jefferson University
nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:40:25 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
What is the possibility of materials crossing the bag/air interface?
Thanks!
Helen
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:53:46 -0500
From: Bob Burns
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't want to reopen an old thread, but in our shop we find non-laboratory
work for expectant mothers.
I think, if you allow other pregnant females, you have to let her, if, as
you say, the feeding mechanism is sealed away from lab chemicals. Why not?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Pinizzotto
To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:44
Subject: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
>Okay folks,
>
>Just wanted to let you know about the phone call I just received from a
>physician here.
>
>She stated that she is seeing a patient who is pregnant and having
difficulty
>in keeping food down. They are going to put her on a nasal/gastric tube
with a
>pump and feedbags. She wanted to know if it was okay for her to wear it and
>eat in the lab.
>
>Can anyone come up with an excuse why she shouldn't be eating in the lab?
>The bags are prepared in the pharmacy so there is no opening and loading in
>the lab. Better yet would our friends at OSHA consider this "willful
disregard
>of the chemical hygiene plan?"
>
>I think it gives new meaning to the term "strapping the feed bag on."
>
>Nick Pinizzotto
>Environmental Health Officer
>Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
>Thomas Jefferson University
>nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
>215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:10:53 -0600
From: Beth Brubaker
Subject: Re: flash points
Mime-Version: 1.0
I plan to propose flash point testing of mixtures as an undergraduate
research project. We'll start with simple alcohol/water mixtures and move
up to other solvent mixtures. Our main hurdle will be purchasing the test
equipment. If this goes through, I'll post data as it's compiled.
Beth Brubaker
Lab/Safety/Waste Coordinator
Murray State University Department of Chemistry
(502) 762-6390
beth.brubaker@murraystate.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:49:47 -0600
From: Jeff Rubin
Subject: Re: Respiratory Protection during Bulk Waste Processing in
Outdoor Facility
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
There aren't many satisfactory options out there that combine chemical
protection with flame/heat protection. Shielded or coated chemical
protective clothing MAY over brief flash protection, but if it's more than
that, most "bunny suits" become shrink-wrap. Even if you wear Nomex or PBI
material over the suit, you're still looking at material that can melt to
your skin if you're caught in a hot-spot. Most fire depts. haven't
comfortably resolved this issue, either.
As Don pointed out - assess relative hazard severity. Anyone out there
have different experience or know of some newer products that actually work?
JNR
>I'd be curious to hear opinions on the body protection needed in this
>scenario. I typically use a plastic-coated, sealed seam disposable
>coverall for splash protection, but sometimes think a flame resistant lab
>coat or coverall such as nomex(r), and cloth head/neck cover of the sort
>firefighters wear would be a better choice when handling flammables,
>especially when you have reason to worry about reactivity among containers.
>Day to day, the splash issue seems to be the more pressing concern, but
>the fire worry is the big ticket item. Whaddya think?
Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS
College of Natural Sciences G2500
W.C. Hogg Building
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1199
(512) 471-6176 (O)
(512) 471-4998 (F)
jrubin@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.utexas.edu/cons/safety/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:55:16 -0700
From: Sharyn Bake
Subject: Re: Respiratory Protection during Bulk Waste Processing in Outdoo
r Facility
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
There are, as Dr. Rubin has pointed out, excellent flame retardant and even
flame resistant fabrics. I know from experience as a firefighter/hazMat
trainer.
The real issue here however, is that one should be preventing the
development of an atmosphere and circumstances where a flash fire occurs.
This can be accomplished through proper work practices, good ventilation,
using appropriate pouring techniques and equipment , bonding etc.
I personally would recommend nomex suits for persons who are routinely doing
such work and pour large amounts of flammable solvents as a precaution. The
suits can cost as little as $100 each. While this is not cheap, it is cheap
if it helps prevent severe burns from a flash fire event. The other part of
the equation is proper training and constant vigilance to prevent an
accident.
Just my two cents worth........
Sharyn Baker
Instructor
Health and Safety Division
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado
email: sharyn.baker@uchsc.edu
> ----------
> From: Jeff Rubin
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 1999 12:49 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Respiratory Protection during Bulk Waste Processing in
> Outdoor Facility
>
> There aren't many satisfactory options out there that combine chemical
> protection with flame/heat protection. Shielded or coated chemical
> protective clothing MAY over brief flash protection, but if it's more than
> that, most "bunny suits" become shrink-wrap. Even if you wear Nomex or
> PBI
> material over the suit, you're still looking at material that can melt to
> your skin if you're caught in a hot-spot. Most fire depts. haven't
> comfortably resolved this issue, either.
>
> As Don pointed out - assess relative hazard severity. Anyone out there
> have different experience or know of some newer products that actually
> work?
>
> JNR
>
> >I'd be curious to hear opinions on the body protection needed in this
> >scenario. I typically use a plastic-coated, sealed seam disposable
> >coverall for splash protection, but sometimes think a flame resistant lab
> >coat or coverall such as nomex(r), and cloth head/neck cover of the sort
> >firefighters wear would be a better choice when handling flammables,
> >especially when you have reason to worry about reactivity among
> containers.
> >Day to day, the splash issue seems to be the more pressing concern, but
> >the fire worry is the big ticket item. Whaddya think?
> Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS
> College of Natural Sciences G2500
> W.C. Hogg Building
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, TX 78712-1199
> (512) 471-6176 (O)
> (512) 471-4998 (F)
> jrubin@mail.utexas.edu
> http://www.utexas.edu/cons/safety/
>
> > >
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:42:19 +1300
From: Tony Haggerty
Subject: Re: Respiratory Protection during Bulk Waste Processing in
Outdoor Facility
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There is a material which consists of transfer coated Polyurethane on a
cotton base which is splash resistant and fire retardant. The secret s to
have a very thin layer of PU which is hard to control. It was used as over
trouser material by some Fire Services.
The European Space Agency investigated this material and found that when the
construction was right it worked well but if the PU layer got too thick
then the fire retardancy dropped.
Fire Departments generally take the approach of controlling the atmosphere
and or ignition sources and selecting protective clothing accordingly. Some
British brigades had a policy of wearing a total encapsulating splash suit
over fire fighting gear and SCBA set. Rumour has it they wore a blue top
and red tights under this *grin*
The long term answer is definitely that these operations should only be
carried out in controlled areas with adequate ventilation and no sources of
ignition. Nomex coveralls or even cotton will give some protection.
Tony
Haz Subs Adviser
NZFS
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:53:41 -0600
From: Katie Crysup
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
In-Reply-To: <006e01be64d5$9fca4ec0$0100007f@BBURNS>
Mime-Version: 1.0
At 12:53 PM 3/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't want to reopen an old thread, but in our shop we find non-laboratory
>work for expectant mothers.
We do the same in our labs for expectant mothers.>
>I think, if you allow other pregnant females, you have to let her, if, as
>you say, the feeding mechanism is sealed away from lab chemicals. Why not?
>
Is she hooked up to the feeding mechansim at all times, like an IV? Or can
she not "eat" during lab?
I think it is just easier and less concern for all involved if she is
allowed to have a non-laboratory option in order to get her grade. What
about her health and safety issues? What training have the TA's had in
handling a situation with her should something happen to her during lab?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nick Pinizzotto
>To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu
>Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:44
>Subject: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
>>Okay folks,
>>
>>Just wanted to let you know about the phone call I just received from a
>>physician here.
>>
>>She stated that she is seeing a patient who is pregnant and having
>difficulty
>>in keeping food down. They are going to put her on a nasal/gastric tube
>with a
>>pump and feedbags. She wanted to know if it was okay for her to wear it and
>>eat in the lab.
>>
>>Can anyone come up with an excuse why she shouldn't be eating in the lab?
>>The bags are prepared in the pharmacy so there is no opening and loading in
>>the lab. Better yet would our friends at OSHA consider this "willful
>disregard
>>of the chemical hygiene plan?"
>>
>>I think it gives new meaning to the term "strapping the feed bag on."
>>
>>Nick Pinizzotto
>>Environmental Health Officer
>>Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
>>Thomas Jefferson University
>>nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
>>215-503-5853
>>
>>
Katie Crysup
Chemistry Laboratory Coordinator
Texas A&M University -- Corpus Christi
6300 Ocean Drive, CS 130
Corpus Christi, Tx 78412
512-994-5701 (O)
512-994-2742 (F)
kcrysup@falcon.tamucc.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:02:00 -0500
From: "Tayman, Tammy"
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Okay, perhaps I'm a little confused here. Is this a person "consuming" at a
lab where they work? Is this a patient being treated in a "lab" setting?
Is this a student? An employee? None of the above? Help?
Tammy Tayman
----------
From: Nick Pinizzotto
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:41PM
Okay folks,
Just wanted to let you know about the phone call I just received from a
physician here.
She stated that she is seeing a patient who is pregnant and having
difficulty
in keeping food down. They are going to put her on a nasal/gastric tube with
a
pump and feedbags. She wanted to know if it was okay for her to wear it and
eat in the lab.
Can anyone come up with an excuse why she shouldn't be eating in the lab?
The bags are prepared in the pharmacy so there is no opening and loading in
the lab. Better yet would our friends at OSHA consider this "willful
disregard
of the chemical hygiene plan?"
I think it gives new meaning to the term "strapping the feed bag on."
Nick Pinizzotto
Environmental Health Officer
Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
Thomas Jefferson University
nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:04:26 -0500
From: Nick Pinizzotto
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Comments: To: ttayman@MC.CC.MD.US
In-Reply-To: <199903022109.PAA110284@saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
For clarification:
The patient is an employee (not a Student) here in a research lab. The
physician is a doctor here at Jefferson. The physician is treating the patient
in a method to eliminate her nausea due to pregnancy. I have been assured that
the system is a closed system and there is no opportunity for inadvertent
exposure.
I must admit that I was kinda surprised by the responses.
Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one to remove
pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a must however if
we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper ppe etc.), is
the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there who have sued
employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are percieved to have an
increased risk for adverse exposures.
Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and engineering
controls to ensure that employees are working safely with chemicals.
Nick Pinizzotto
Environmental Health Officer
Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
Thomas Jefferson University
nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:04:54 +1300
From: John Downey
Subject: Re: flash points
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Hooray. Anybody feel like chipping in to help buy a Pensky-Marten?
Seriously, Beth, why not try approaching some local industries, preferably
large ones, and see if you can get some contributions towards the cost, as
part of their annual grants to public good. The spinoff for them is that
their company logo is plastered all over the equipment and they get to use
valuable info that isn't around at present. You may be pleasantly
surprised. Does your faculty have a policy on soliciting from outside
agencies?
John Downey
Hazardous Substances Officer
Waitakere City Council
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beth Brubaker [SMTP:beth.brubaker@MURRAYSTATE.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 7:11 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: flash points
>
> I plan to propose flash point testing of mixtures as an undergraduate
> research project. We'll start with simple alcohol/water mixtures and move
> up to other solvent mixtures. Our main hurdle will be purchasing the test
> equipment. If this goes through, I'll post data as it's compiled.
>
> Beth Brubaker
> Lab/Safety/Waste Coordinator
> Murray State University Department of Chemistry
> (502) 762-6390
> beth.brubaker@murraystate.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:16:00 -0500
From: "Tayman, Tammy"
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Comments: To: Nick Pinizzotto
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Just remember: You're liability continues until the child reaches age of
majority plus a year or two (depending on the state). The woman and the
employer cannot negate the rights of the unborn child. If you knowingly
allow a pregnant woman to have even the remotest chance at exposure to a
known teratogen, carcinogen, mutagen, etc, do you really think a jury is
gonna go in *your* favor?!? What would the *prudent* person do? I know
what I would do!
Tammy Tayman
----------
From: Nick Pinizzotto
To: ttayman@MC.CC.MD.US
Cc: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 5:04PM
For clarification:
The patient is an employee (not a Student) here in a research lab. The
physician is a doctor here at Jefferson. The physician is treating the
patient in a method to eliminate her nausea due to pregnancy. I have been assured that the system is a closed system and there is no opportunity for inadvertent exposure.
I must admit that I was kinda surprised by the responses.
Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one to remove
pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a must however
if we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper ppe etc.),
is the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there who have
sued employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are percieved to have
an increased risk for adverse exposures.
Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and
engineering controls to ensure that employees are working safely with chemicals.
Nick Pinizzotto
Environmental Health Officer
Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
Thomas Jefferson University
nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:20:37 -0600
From: Harry Elston
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
At 12:41 PM 3/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay folks,
>
>Just wanted to let you know about the phone call I just received from a
>physician here.
>
>She stated that she is seeing a patient who is pregnant and having difficulty
>in keeping food down. They are going to put her on a nasal/gastric tube with a >pump and feedbags. She wanted to know if it was okay for her to wear it and >eat in the lab.
>
>Can anyone come up with an excuse why she shouldn't be eating in the lab?
>The bags are prepared in the pharmacy so there is no opening and loading in
>the lab. Better yet would our friends at OSHA consider this "willful
disregard
>of the chemical hygiene plan?"
>
>I think it gives new meaning to the term "strapping the feed bag on."
If this is in an academic setting, why not letting her comp out of the lab
portion or reduce the credit value for the course so she doesn't even have
to be in the lab? Being pregnant and unable to eat is bad enough, but if
she's exposed to something and there's problems with the pregnancy, you can
bet that there will be hell to pay later on. If it's industrial, maybe
consider changing the CHP to add a "declared pregnancy" option to avoid
risk of exposure to unborn children.
I remember when I was an undergraduate at Hillsdale College. There was a
11 year old prodigy in our chemistry class and the professor simply said,
"not in my laboratory." He was given comparable work to perform outside
the laboratory and the course credit was reduced from 4 to 3 to make up for
it. None of the other students really cared.
For all of the ADA people out there, I do not believe that "pregnancy" is
defined as a "disability" under ADA, but I may be mistaken.
Personally, I'd recommend for you to find something else for her to do. I
think that keeping her out of the lab for the reason of protecting her
unborn child is of higher value than reducing your liability from an ADA
problem or OSHA audit. Sometimes you just have to take the moral high
ground on thiese issues, and in my opinion, the morally right thing to do
is protect the mom and her child.
This may be a situation that whatever you do, it will be wrong. Just
choose the best option.
Harry
Harry J. Elston, NRCC-CHO
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety
My opinions only, not my employer's, blah, blah,blah
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world,
she has to walk into mine"
-Rick, Casablanca
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:17:54 -0500
Reply-To: Bob Burns
From: Bob Burns
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Yeah, Nick, these are all good issues, and you are right about exposing
no-one. However, zero exposure is a dream, IMHO. WE (industrial R&D) find
other work for expectant mothers. IN my view, the fetus is much more
sensitive to exposure than is an adult, and that is why I advocate removal.
However, I will admit if someone challanges us we would probably have to let
them work in lab. But why would they? They get their usual pay to do
literature searches and the like. It is professional work.
We had a thread on this a while ago, and I believe the majority agreed with
your opinion. Then there is another whole can of worms with students, which
is really not my issue, but I do see the problem.
Hope this helps. Like so many issues we discuss, we can all express
opinions, but y0u still have to make a judgement about what is the prope
thig for YOU to do. That's why they pay us the big bucks!
Bob
"EVERYTHING IS EASY FOR THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT."
Robert L. Burns
R&D Group Leader
Speciality Chemicals Division
RUETGERS Organics Corp.
201 Struble Road
State College, PA
phone 814 231 9214
fax 814 238 1567
email rburns@bigfoot.com
>Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one to remove
>pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a must however
>if we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper ppe etc.),
>is the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there who have
>sued employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are percieved to >have anincreased risk for adverse exposures.
>
>Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and
engineering
>controls to ensure that employees are working safely with chemicals.
>
> Nick Pinizzotto
>Environmental Health Officer
>Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
>Thomas Jefferson University
>nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
>215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:21:48 -0800
From: Gillian Gardner
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Personally, I've gone through two pregnancies while maintaining my work in
laboratories. That said, I was careful to take proper precautions. For
example, always working in a fume hood when using halogenated solvents,
no matter how small the quantity and always wearing gloves. Also, I
delegated filling the hazardous waste drum to someone who wasn't pregnant.
Basically, I educated myself as to the hazardous and did not perform work
that would present a danger to myself or my child. Both my employers for
the two pregnancies were happy with that compromise as was I. I have
advised students in organic chemistry lab who are pregnant to consider not
taking the laboratory due to the fumes that arise in an organic lab full
of students. The two times this has occurred, the student has opted to
wait and take organic chemistry lab after her pregnancy.
I would think if the feeding system is closed, then it should not be an
additional hazard and only the "normal" hazards of working in a laboratory
while pregnant need to be considered. While we prohibit eating in the
laboratory, this doesn't seem to be eating per se in that the food is not
out in the open and going from hand to mouth.
Just my opinion.
Gillian Gardner
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Nick Pinizzotto wrote:
> For clarification:
>
> The patient is an employee (not a Student) here in a research lab. The
> physician is a doctor here at Jefferson. The physician is treating the patient
> in a method to eliminate her nausea due to pregnancy. I have been assured that
> the system is a closed system and there is no opportunity for inadvertent
> exposure.
>
> I must admit that I was kinda surprised by the responses.
>
> Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one to remove
> pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a must however if
> we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper ppe etc.), is
> the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there who have sued
> employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are percieved to have an
> increased risk for adverse exposures.
>
> Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and engineering
> controls to ensure that employees are working safely with chemicals.
>
> Nick Pinizzotto
> Environmental Health Officer
> Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
> Thomas Jefferson University
> nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
> 215-503-5853
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:21:00 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Could taking an organic lab during early pregnancy (months 2-6) lead to
problems in development of amniotic bands or something similar?
Thanks!
Helen
-----Original Message-----
From: Gillian Gardner [SMTP:gardner@LCLARK.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 5:22 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Personally, I've gone through two pregnancies while maintaining my
work in
laboratories. That said, I was careful to take proper precautions.
For
example, always working in a fume hood when using halogenated
solvents,
no matter how small the quantity and always wearing gloves. Also, I
delegated filling the hazardous waste drum to someone who wasn't
pregnant.
Basically, I educated myself as to the hazardous and did not perform
work
that would present a danger to myself or my child. Both my
employers for
the two pregnancies were happy with that compromise as was I. I
have
advised students in organic chemistry lab who are pregnant to
consider not
taking the laboratory due to the fumes that arise in an organic lab
full
of students. The two times this has occurred, the student has opted
to
wait and take organic chemistry lab after her pregnancy.
I would think if the feeding system is closed, then it should not be
an
additional hazard and only the "normal" hazards of working in a
laboratory
while pregnant need to be considered. While we prohibit eating in
the
laboratory, this doesn't seem to be eating per se in that the food
is not
out in the open and going from hand to mouth.
Just my opinion.
Gillian Gardner
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Nick Pinizzotto wrote:
> For clarification:
>
> The patient is an employee (not a Student) here in a research lab.
The
> physician is a doctor here at Jefferson. The physician is treating
the patient
> in a method to eliminate her nausea due to pregnancy. I have been
assured that
> the system is a closed system and there is no opportunity for
inadvertent
> exposure.
>
> I must admit that I was kinda surprised by the responses.
>
> Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one
to remove
> pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a
must however if
> we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper
ppe etc.), is
> the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there
who have sued
> employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are
percieved to have an
> increased risk for adverse exposures.
>
> Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and
engineering
> controls to ensure that employees are working safely with
chemicals.
>
> Nick Pinizzotto
> Environmental Health Officer
> Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
> Thomas Jefferson University
> nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
> 215-503-5853
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:17:46 -0500
From: "Julie J. O'Brien"
Subject: Re: flash points
In-Reply-To: <99Mar3.110441nzdt.32258@breathe.waitakere.govt.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Re: Industries pitching in for the cost of a Pensky-Martens flash point
apparatus
Another option would be to find an industry who uses one & might be
interested in the data. We don't use isopropanol, unfortunately, or I would
have just had the results done myself at work.
It's interesting to note that it often does not take much of a low flash
point chemical in a mixture to affect the flash point in a mixture with,
say, water. We've had processing problems because we had by-products with
<10% of a low flash point material and it caused the mixture's flash point
to be low enough for the material to be classified as flammable per DOT
standards. That can really drive up waste disposal costs quickly.
Julie O'Brien
PCR, Inc. and
EXPO Children's Museum
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:34:03 -0800
Reply-To: Marc Neuffer
From: Marc Neuffer
Subject: Request from Macedonia
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am forwarding this message we received for comment by the group... please
respond to original sender at zzprogs@soros.org.mk
We sent our reply, but feel that members of the group can provide better.
Thanks.
Regards,
Marc Neuffer
SafetyInfo.Com
-----Original Message-----
From: Milan Petkovski
To: safety1@localaccess.net
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 6:53 PM
My name is Milan Petkovski and I have graduated in Occupational Safety
Engineer from Macedonia a small country in Europe. I am interested how my
colleagues from around the world deal with certain problems, especially in
the field of recognizing our profession on the scientific [professional]
bases. We have a big problem here in Macedonia with this issue. Many of our
colleges can not find job arrangements because the prudent jobs are
fulfilled with persons with inadequate educational level. Second, I am
interested in learning about the existence of any International Alliance of
the Occupational Safety Engineers. Is there such an Organization in the
world on International bases? Please, if you know the answer to this
question reply as soon as possible. Thank You.
Sincerely,
Milan Petkovski
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:38:41 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
Comments: To: RNorman@BIORELIANCE.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-01 15:06:31 EST, you write:
<< It just seems clear to me that OSHA meant for both standards to apply. >>
Randy presents a clear and reasonable argument. However, my reading of the
scope, section (a), of the lab standard leaves me with the equally clear
belief that there was no intention to have both standards apply.
Recently, I spoke with the Director of the PESH in NY and his regulatory
interpreter. Both confirmed that my interpretation was 100% correct.
The presumption (which I believe is reasonable) in the lab standard is that if
you develope a plan of good practice and follow it, you do not need to do that
other stuff (Haz Com). ... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:38:39 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Recent Grad Seeks Job
Comments: To: Safety ,
NAOSMM@LISTSERV.RICE.EDU, hs-canada@ccohs.ca, dchas-l@SIU.EDU,
biosafty@mitvma.mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi NACHOs, SAFETYs, and BIOSAFETYs,
I met a student, Stephen Flynn, last year at Keene State. He
has recently completed his studies and is looking for....
"I've thought long an hard about a career choice and have firmly
decided that laboratory safety is where I belong. I've always felt at
home with labs and scientists. The unique combinations of degrees and
an interest in toxicology, health and safety seems to make me rather
well suited, and I know that I'd find such a position, and the
associated people extremely stimulating." ....
"I've graduated in December with a BS in Safety Studies to add to my
former BS in Chemistry/Geololgy. I'm trying to find a "particular"
job. The job that I'm looking for is an entry level or somewhat
experienced (I have a couple of years of IH experience) laboratory
safety specialist."
Please contact Stephen directly if you have information about a
position for which he might apply in the New England Area.
Stephen Flynn, 42 Pine Street, Keene, NH 03431 603-352-1850
jsflynn@cheshire.net
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 06:51:39 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: delete my address from list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-02 09:07:20 EST, you write:
<< Please delete my address from your mailing list until further request.
Thanks.
Ahmed H. Fayoumi
fayoumi@kfupm.edu.sa >>
Hi Ahmed,
Please use the information below to complete the SIGNOFF. ... jim
Please save this message for future reference, especially if this is the
first time you subscribe to an electronic mailing list. If you ever need
to leave the list, you will find the necessary instructions below.
Perhaps more importantly, saving a copy of this message (and of all
future subscription notices from other mailing lists) in a special mail
folder will give you instant access to the list of mailing lists that you
are subscribed to. This may prove very useful the next time you go on
vacation and need to leave the lists temporarily so as not to fill up
your mailbox while you are away! You should also save the "welcome
messages" from the list owners that you will occasionally receive after
subscribing to a new list.
To send a message to all the people currently subscribed to the list,
just send mail to LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU. This is called "sending mail to
the list", because you send mail to a single address and LISTSERV
makes copies for all the people who have subscribed. This
address
(LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU) is also called the "list address". You must never
try to send any command to that address, as it would be distributed to all
the people who have subscribed. All commands must be sent to the
"LISTSERV address", LISTSERV@SIU.EDU. It is very important to understand
the difference between the two, but fortunately it is not complicated.
The LISTSERV address is like a FAX number that connects you to a machine,
whereas the list address is like a normal voice line connecting you to a
person. If you make a mistake and dial the FAX number when you wanted to
talk to someone on the phone, you will quickly realize that you used the
wrong number and call again. No harm will have been done. If on the other
hand you accidentally make your FAX call someone's voice line, the person
receiving the call will be inconvenienced, especially if your FAX then
re-dials every 5 minutes. The fact that most people will eventually
connect the FAX machine to the voice line to allow the FAX to go through
and make the calls stop does not mean that you should continue to send
FAXes to the voice number. People would just get mad at you. It works
pretty much the same way with mailing lists, with the difference that you
are calling hundreds or thousands of people at the same time, and
consequently you can expect a lot of people to get upset if you
consistently send commands to the list address.
You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF LABSAFETY-L"
command to LISTSERV@SIU.EDU. You can also tell LISTSERV how you
want it to confirm the receipt of messages you send to the list. If you do
not
trust the system, send a "SET LABSAFETY-L REPRO" command and LISTSERV
will send you a copy of your own messages, so that you can see that the
message was distributed and did not get damaged on the way. After a while
you may find that this is getting annoying, especially if your mail
program does not tell you that the message is from you when it informs
you that new mail has arrived from LABSAFETY-L. If you send a "SET
LABSAFETY-L ACK NOREPRO" command, LISTSERV will mail you a
short acknowledgement instead, which will look different in your
mailbox
directory. With most mail programs you will know immediately that this is
an acknowledgement you can read later. Finally, you can turn off
acknowledgements completely with "SET LABSAFETY-L NOACK NOREPRO".
Contributions sent to this list are automatically archived. You can get a
list of the available archive files by sending an "INDEX LABSAFETY-L"
command to LISTSERV@SIU.EDU. You can then order these files with a "GET
LABSAFETY-L LOGxxxx" command, or using LISTSERV's database
search facilities. Send an "INFO DATABASE" command for more information
on the latter.
This list is available in digest form. If you wish to receive the
digested version of the postings, just issue a SET LABSAFETY-L DIGEST
command.
If you are going on vacation or will be away for business and would like
to suspend email delivery, send a SET LABSAFETY-L NOMail command.
To restore service, send SET LABSAFETY-L Mail.
Please note that it is presently possible for other people to determine
that you are signed up to the list through the use of the "REVIEW"
command, which returns the e-mail address and name of all the
subscribers. If you do not want your name to be visible, just issue a
"SET LABSAFETY-L CONCEAL" command.
More information on LISTSERV commands can be found in the LISTSERV
reference card, which you can retrieve by sending an "INFO REFCARD"
command to LISTSERV@SIU.EDU.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:09:39 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Concealed Members
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi NACHOs,
Someone asked about "concealed members". If you look back at the list
directions you received and "saved" when you joined NACHO, it says....
"Please note that it is presently possible for other people to determine
that you are signed up to the list through the use of the "REVIEW"
command, which returns the e-mail address and name of all the
subscribers. If you do not want your name to be visible, just issue a
"SET LABSAFETY-L CONCEAL" command."
Regards.... Jim
PS. LSW is getting ready to announce twelve one-day seminars throughout New
York State in April and May. If you would like to consider hosting one of
these at your place in exchange for two free registrations, please contact
Tricia McGann at lswpfm@aol.com. She can fax you more details.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:49:01 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: flash points
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-02 17:11:01 EST, you write:
<< Hooray. Anybody feel like chipping in to help buy a Pensky-Marten? >>
Hi NACHOs,
How expensive are these? ... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:13:31 -0500
From: Dewey Williams
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
In-Reply-To: <000e01be6502$e7844d60$4061add1@ucrpd>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
If given the option, wouldn't a woman take the non-lab work to protect
herself and child? I would give here the option of doing non-lab work, at
the same pay. If she refuses then get her to sign a waiver stating that
there will be no repercussions due to possible exposure. As someone
pointed out, however, this still makes you liable to the fetus. But it
makes the mother just as responsible.
The 'prudent' thing to do is to remove her and the child from any possible
harm.
>>Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one to remove
>>pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a must however
>if
>>we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper ppe etc.),
>is
>>the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there who have
>sued
>>employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are percieved to have
>an
>>increased risk for adverse exposures.
>>
>>Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and
>engineering
>>controls to ensure that employees are working safely with chemicals.
>>
>> Nick Pinizzotto
>>Environmental Health Officer
>>Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
>>Thomas Jefferson University
>>nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
>>215-503-5853
>>
>>
Dewey Williams - Lab Manager
mailto:williams@email.uncc.edu
UNC-Charlotte Chemistry Dept. http://www.chem.uncc.edu
"These are my ideas and no one else will claim them."
"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate"
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:46:31 -0700
From: "Greene, Ben"
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Perhaps I have missed something concerning the application of the lab
standard v. Haz Com. Am I wrong about this: When at work and in the lab
doing lab work I am covered by the lab standard. But when I leave the
lab (still at work) and go to a welding shop I am not covered by the lab
standard but by Haz Com and welding standards. When I go from there
(still at work) to a test location where threshold quantities of highly
hazardous chemicals are used, I am covered by Process Safety and Haz
Com, but not by the lab standard. Later in the day (still at work),
when I swing by a QA lab that is part of a production process, I am not
covered by the lab standard (according to the lab standard), but by Haz
Com. When I am on work-sponsered travel and visiting/working in a lab
not owned by my employer, I am covered by the lab standard and must
abide by MY chemical hygiene plan. All depends on where you are while
at work. Must be equally as complicated for universities and other
interdisciplinary facilities. Comments?
Ben Greene, Ph.D.
AlliedSignal
Las Cruces, NM
> ----------
> From: Labsafe@AOL.COM[SMTP:Labsafe@AOL.COM]
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:38 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
>
> In a message dated 99-03-01 15:06:31 EST, you write:
>
> << It just seems clear to me that OSHA meant for both standards to
> apply. >>
>
> Randy presents a clear and reasonable argument....
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:31:18 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Briefly, The lessons I take home from the Johnson Controls case and the ADA
are that there's no prohibition of offering a non-lab assignment as long as
pay, leave, etc. is preserved, BUT if the employee refuses the reassignment,
then you must make any "reasonable accommodation" that can make it safe for
her to do her normal duties, or modify her duties with her approval as much
as necessary. Given the financial resources of most Universities, it may be
very hard to prove financial hardship sufficient to release you from your
responsibility to accommodate. If you want to use safety reasons for
excluding her from a job she has had and desires to continue in, IMHO you'll
want to be able to prove that there is no way to make it safe without posing
a financial hardship (as defined in ADA) on the University.
Of course if this is a student, ADA may or may not apply the same way. Can't
say I've looked into the non-employee angle at all.
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
-----Original Message-----
From: Dewey Williams [SMTP:williams@EMAIL.UNCC.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 8:14 AM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
If given the option, wouldn't a woman take the non-lab work to
protect
herself and child? I would give here the option of doing non-lab
work, at
the same pay. If she refuses then get her to sign a waiver stating
that
there will be no repercussions due to possible exposure. As someone
pointed out, however, this still makes you liable to the fetus. But
it
makes the mother just as responsible.
The 'prudent' thing to do is to remove her and the child from any
possible
harm.
>>Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one
to remove
>>pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a
must however
>if
>>we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper
ppe etc.),
>is
>>the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there
who have
>sued
>>employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are
percieved to have
>an
>>increased risk for adverse exposures.
>>
>>Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and
>engineering
>>controls to ensure that employees are working safely with
chemicals.
>>
>> Nick Pinizzotto
>>Environmental Health Officer
>>Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
>>Thomas Jefferson University
>>nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
>>215-503-5853
>>
>>
Dewey Williams - Lab Manager
mailto:williams@email.uncc.edu
UNC-Charlotte Chemistry Dept. http://www.chem.uncc.edu
"These are my ideas and no one else will claim them."
"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the
precipitate"
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:36:17 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Lab Std vs. Formaldehyde Std
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Since Jim has at least agreed I have a decent argument (of course I thought
I did), I feel okay about sending it to the list now. I had simply sent it
to Jim privately.
For your consideration:
-----Original Message-----
A very interesting issue. Actually, I feel it is fairly clear that OSHA
INTENDS labs to be covered by the Formaldehyde Standard. (before you delete
this, please read on.)
Looking at section (a)(2)(i) of the Lab Std, the question is: Does the
formaldehyde standard "state otherwise"?
If you look at the "Scope and application" section (a) of the Formaldehyde
Std., it merely says that it applies "to all occupational exposures to
formaldehyde" - the SAME wording as in other substance-specific health
standards, which are very clearly intended to be superceded by the Lab Std
for labs. So the answer to the operative question is clearly "NO" if the
language of the standard is all you have.
HOWEVER (and this is what has kept us involved with the Formaldehyde Std.)
look at the "Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment"
section of the preamble to the revised Formaldehyde Std. [57 FR No. 102 (May
27, 1992), pp. 22302 and 22305 especially]. Published more than 2 years
AFTER the Lab Standard, one would hope that OSHA would know whether to
exclude Labs or at least treat them differently in the analysis. (Yes I'm
one of those poor brave souls who usually reads preambles to final rules!
One day I must get a life.)* :-)
In their cost analysis, OSHA very clearly and specifically assesses the
impact on "Laboratories", including "histology and pathology labs". The
table on p. 22305 clearly shows that they believe labs will incur costs
associated with Engineering controls, Medical Removal Protection (MRP), and
Training requirements. The analysis of MRP and Training costs make no
indication that labs will experience any impact differently from any other
affected industry. Some incremental increase in costs for Training and
Engineering controls may still arguably have arisen even under the lab
standard (due to the changed PELs). However MRP is not part of the picture
unless the whole formaldehyde standard applies. (MRP is not Medical
Surveillance, which does apply if the AL is "routinely exceeded".)
However, labs aren't mentioned elsewhere in the preamble to the 1992
revision. Main discussion of applicability to labs was probably in the
preamble to the initial (1987) version. Unfortunately I couldn't find the
1987 preamble.
I likewise couldn't run down a copy of the preamble to the Lab Std. (shame
on me if I didn't save it!). I was pretty sure that OSHA used the
Formaldehyde Standard as am example of one of those which DOES apply to labs
and was therefore NOT to be superceded by the Lab Std. (I believe their
stated intention was that BOTH regs be applied to work with such
substances.) If I didn't read it in the preamble, then the point was
hammered into my brain by SOMEONE because I used the Formaldehyde Std as an
example of one which we still have to comply with in my Lab Std training
class from the outset. It was a clear question then and the answer I had was
that both apply. Could've sworn that the guidance came straight from the
preamble.
IMyHO, at best one can say that OSHA failed to include wording in the
revised Formaldehyde Standard to carry out their intentions. In 1992, OSHA
apparently failed to realize that the 1987 version didn't state in the
regulation that it applies to labs and that it would need to in the wake of
the Lab Std. One would probably win the battle in court, should OSHA issue a
Form. Std. citation to a lab. However, as always, strict regulatory
compliance falls far short of my goal as a Health and Safety pro. It just
seems clear to me that OSHA meant for both standards to apply.
Of course I would just LOVE to get my hands on a definitive ruling by OSHA
on the question. But even finding one, I realize that the Formaldehyde
Standard establishes a "standard of care" which I must uphold as long as I
haven't very good reason to explain why I should do any particular part of
it differently.
That's my take on it all. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts. (And
of course if you have any specific info. from OSHA...) Sorry so wordy.
(Could have been worse, trust me.)
Thanks!!
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:21:04 -0500
From: Bob Burns
Subject: Re: Lab Std vs. Formaldehyde Std
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
IN the preamble to the Lab Standard, Fed. Register Vol. 55 No. 21, page
3311, it says: "OSHA sees no reason why laboratories, other than histology,
pathology and anatomy laboratories, which use formaldehyde should not be
covered by this laboratory standard."
I can't tell if the intent was to continue the formaldehyde standard as
well, but I suspect it was.
Hope this helps!
Bob
"SEMPER ADVENTURUS!!!"
Robert L. Burns
R&D Group Leader
Specialty Chemicals Division
RUETGERS Organics Corporation
201 Struble Road
State College, PA 16801
phone 814-231-9214
fax 815 333 4805
email rburns@bigfoot.com
>A very interesting issue. Actually, I feel it is fairly clear that OSHA
>INTENDS labs to be covered by the Formaldehyde Standard. (before you delete
>this, please read on.)
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:53:16 -0400
From: Don Abramowitz
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Mime-Version: 1.0
>Briefly, The lessons I take home from the Johnson Controls case and the ADA
>are that there's no prohibition of offering a non-lab assignment as long as
>pay, leave, etc. is preserved, BUT if the employee refuses the reassignment,
>then you must make any "reasonable accommodation" that can make it safe for
>her to do her normal duties, or modify her duties with her approval as much
>as necessary.
Now that we are fully back to the thread on pregnancy in the laboratory
setting, I'll venture that Johnson Controls case makes asking an employee
to sign a waiver completely inappropriate. With regard to ADA, my
understanding is that students are covered under the public accomodations
aspects of the Act. I don't know whether ADA in fact recognizes
uncomplicated pregnancy as a disability - can anyone confim?
We've had several laboratory-based Chemistry and Biology professors and
students remain at their posts through pregancies. Our approach, as
reviewed with the college's attorney, has been to address pregnancy only
when people self-identify their status, to provide them lots of information
from the literature on reproductive hazards, to offer them alternatives to
lab work (or a refund of tuition if they choose to drop courses - can't
quite guarantee full credit for say, organic chemistry w/o lab work), and
to work with them to minimize exposure if they choose to remain in the
labs. Modifications have included use of respirators, finding someone else
to perform specific tasks, and substitutions of particular lab
exercises/materials, but I have not encountered anyone who was willing to
take a non-lab alternate position.
This approach is based as much on the culture of our institutions as on our
concerns about risk. I present it as an example, rather than as a
suggested solution.
Don
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:55:56 -0500
From: Nick Pinizzotto
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
Comments: To: Labsafe@aol.com
In-Reply-To: <6426f19b.36dcaec1@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jim,
I've had more than one argument with consulting trainers about the very topic
of the Lab Standard replacing the RTK standard. I agree with you, my
interpretation is that it supersedes the hazcom standard.
We've always trained as such.
Nick Pinizzotto
Environmental Health Officer
Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
Thomas Jefferson University
nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:42:02 -0600
From: Beth Brubaker
Subject: Re: flash points
Mime-Version: 1.0
It looks to me as if the Tag Closed Tester is most appropriate for
solvent/water mixtures. The Pensky-Martens is applicable to high-viscosity
materials. Fisher Sci. has one available at a catalog price ~$1600. I
assume a refrigerating circulator would also be required to cool the system
below ambient temperature. This would be ~$1800.
Beth Brubaker
Lab/Safety/Waste Coordinator
Murray State University Department of Chemistry
(502) 762-6390
beth.brubaker@murraystate.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:28:46 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Re: Lab Std vs. Formaldehyde Std
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
* IN the preamble to the Lab Standard, Fed. Register Vol. 55 No. 21,
page
* 3311, it says: "OSHA sees no reason why laboratories, other than
histology,
* pathology and anatomy laboratories, which use formaldehyde should
not be
* covered by this laboratory standard."
Hmmmmmmm...
I went looking for the related compliance directive for the revised standard
at www.osha.gov . The one from Nov 1990 (CPL 2-2.52)
( OSHA's formaldehyde standard enforcement procedures) talks about the
interface with the Lab Standard specifically, as the Lab Standard final rule
had been issued... Here it is, straight from OSHA:
******************************************
"The laboratory standard, 29 CFR 1910.1450, specifically does not apply to
formaldehyde use in histology, pathology, and human or animal anatomy
laboratories; however, if formaldehyde is used in other types of
laboratories which are covered by the laboratory standard the employer needs
to comply with 29 CFR 1910.1450 "
********************************************
This is what OSHA inspectors use to direct their enforcement of the
Formaldehyde Standard. I think the intent is clear. Sorry I didn't fully
research this before "opening my big mouth". The above is what we all needed
to know from the get-go! Of course now seeing it, I remember reading this
before, exactly as stated here.
Obviously if OSHA tells their inspectors this, then we had better be ready
to defend ourselves if we choose not to "do" the formaldehyde standard in
histo, path, or anatomy labs.
BTW, OSHA now has some preambles on their website. Don't know how
comprehensive, but I must say it behooves one to read either preambles or
compliance directives or both for any reg that may apply. I know takes lots
of time, but take it a little bit at a time. It can also enrich your
training tremendously if you know more about WHY OSHA has chosen to require
what they do.
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:31:51 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I concur 100%, with the caveat that I feel that OSHA doesn't communicate
this very clearly, in preamble or actual reg.
Also remember as another has already pointed out, that any exposures outside
of the lab are covered under Haz Comm and any substance-specific standards
for the substance.
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:01:52 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
However:
It you have both manufacturing/quality labs and research labs you may need
to do both since the manufacturing areas do not necessarily fall under your
CHP.
Thanks!
Helen
-----Original Message-----
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM [SMTP:Labsafe@AOL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:39 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
In a message dated 99-03-01 15:06:31 EST, you write:
<< It just seems clear to me that OSHA meant for both standards to
apply. >>
Randy presents a clear and reasonable argument. However, my reading
of the
scope, section (a), of the lab standard leaves me with the equally
clear
belief that there was no intention to have both standards apply.
Recently, I spoke with the Director of the PESH in NY and his
regulatory
interpreter. Both confirmed that my interpretation was 100%
correct.
The presumption (which I believe is reasonable) in the lab standard
is that if
you develope a plan of good practice and follow it, you do not need
to do that
other stuff (Haz Com). ... jim
LSW is a national non-profit educational organization dedicated to
making
health and safety an integral and important part of science
education. Free
copies of our Laboratory Safety Guidelines, seminar schedule,
Publications
List, AV-Lending Library List, and membership information are
available on
request. The LABSAFETY-L discussion list is a public service of
LSW.
******************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:49:49 -0500
From: Michelle DeStefano
Subject: Re: welcome
Mime-Version: 1.0
Dear fellow "NACHO's",
As a new member, I have been asked to introduce myself, so here goes... I
am a supervisor in a research mycobacteriology laboratory where our focus is
tuberculosis. My main interest is biosafety and I am a CBSP (Certified
Biological Safety Specialist). I am a member of our institution's Biosafety
Committee. In addition, I am Chair of the Research Safety Subcommittee
which is a "hands-on" type of committee that is comprised almost exclusively
of technical staff. We try to address all the safety issues that are
involved in working in a research laboratory as well as trying to keep up
with the ever-changing regulations. (That keeps us REALLY busy) This is
the reason that I felt subscribing to this discussion group would be a
useful tool.
Some of the main issues I have are: what do you do to provide effective
support to staff and how do you provide follow-up? We have a semi-annual
walk-thru of the facility and compliance goals, but I would like to see more
of the staff get involved.
Nice "meeting" all of you...
CNY Research Corporation
800 Irving Avenue
Syracuse NY 13210
e-mail : destefam@cnyrc.org
phone : (315) 477 4597
fax : (315) 476 5348
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:24:58 -0800
From: Michael Ahler
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
In-Reply-To: <45C82258A1B2D111892500805FCC9B0D011C04CA@nt05.wstf.nasa.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Re:"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ben,
Your treck through all your areas at work sounds right to me ( Lab
standard vs. haz com) except for one.
When you are in a laboratory owned and operated by others, whether or
not you are "working", you should be covered by the Chemical Hygiene
Plan for THAT laboratory, not the Plan for the lab where you usually
treck.
Only my first impression.
Thanks.
Michael Ahler, CHO
mahler@calpoly.edu
Risk Management
Cal Poly
San Luis Obispo, California
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:20:20 -0600
Reply-To: "swiki@bihs.net"
From: Swiki Anderson
Subject: Re: C Un.....-Re: PREVENTION BY COST EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING TH
E BASIS PROBLEM?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mr. Norman, Obviously I offend you and I apologize for that. Offending you
was not my purpose.
Now allow me to now make a confession to you. I taught in an engineering
college for 17 years and have been in the consulting business for about 20
years, with specialty work in labs. About four years ago, largely as a
result of a lawsuit against us, I was forced to go to the library and dig
into what took place historically in laboratory air flow and control
systems. One day after reviewing some of the work of other others, it hit
me like a ton of bricks. The early scientists had pull only ventilation
systems in their labs, they did work in hoods and their primary concern was
containment ventilation within the hood. And, by Golly, they did one heck
of a job, accomplishing what was needed. The goal was containment in
devices designed for containment purposes... fume hoods and other capture
devices.
We blew it when we started trying to air condition labs and tried to go to
push-pull system. Also going to a cheaper hood designs with lousy
aerodynamic characteristics did not help. As a matter of fact this hurt the
development effort. We have been wrestling with the push aspects since to
include how to sweep the room with make up air, when to introduce the air
in to the room, how to keep the hood sashes shut or at minimum opening at
all time, how to control the air flows so the exhaust rate is always
greater than and set the room supply rate, etc.. and the contributing
factors to the overall problem since that started in the early 1950s goes
on and on..
I begun to realize --- to understand in great depth --- containment
ventilation versus dilution ventilation. And heck, I was a member of the
ASHRAE group that wrote the first ASHRAE 110 Standard... the one that is
concerned with use of tracer gas to prove containment. Talk about feeling
stupid!!! YES... I had designed lab air systems to meet 10 or 20 or 15
ACH... and YES, I had written big bad specifications for hoods and YES,
we had done mock-up studies, and the list goes on and on. However, I did
not understand what I should have understood. I had to keep asking my self
WHY is this taking place? Why is this not repeatable? Why does this
factor seem to be of significance in case A and not in case B?
The revelation of the concept of containment versus dilutions was the
beginning of my understanding. And what did I learn? Well, we don't need
10 or 15 or 20 ACH to contain material in a fume hood or other capture
device and if we have this many, we can not protect the dunce that insist
on doing something outside a hood that should be done in the hood. I
learned that we need to design on the basis of the air flow concept and not
on the basis of satisfaction of some "rabbinical" type item that is so
concerned with exactness of some fact that it allows "..the baby to be
thrown out of the bath water." And, so help me, it is so simple to me now
that I wonder why i glossed over the concept for so long! Now, how can I
encourage you and others like you to "wake up and smell the roses" and
learn and experience what I have learned? This to me is very much like
instrument flying..When I was going through the training, before i caught
on, I has passed the tests with flying colors, I knew the equations, I had
been a VFR pilot for some time, etc....but didn't go together for me until
the day the it all clicked in my mind. I had to put it all together in my
own heads to be able to safely take off in a sea of white, with the
confidence to do that come about painfully in regards to time and effort
spent before it "clicked".
Now, I had one in our group take me to task regarding Columbia and tell me
that I did not know what I was talking about and should keep my opinions to
myself. This person also did not like the "tone" of what I wrote. With
regard to what happened at Columbia, let us logic through it.
The OSHA regs are concerned with concentration exposures of the user.
Since most users don't stick their heads in a fume hood, it is logical to
me that concentration can be much higher in a hood then they are in the
room where the hood is installed. If the concentrations in the room are
high then they should be, then the only source of contamination has to be
what someone is doing in the work space that they ought not be doing or the
hoods or other devices are not containing as they should. Can you agree
with this? If outflow exist from the hood then something must be wrong.
If the source is in the room, then we must deal with a different set of
wrongs. Containment in the hood is a one ventilation problem and dilution
in the room is another problem. I believe that harmful activities should
be conducted in the hoods or similar such devices.
Regardless, for OSHA to find fault given the ways the regs are written,
someone has had to take some long term (time) samples in order to condemn
the operation as faulty. Otherwise they would have no basis for
condemnation under the OSHA regs would they? If the regs condemn on the
basis of concentration then the ventilation system lacks sufficient volume
to dilute the material to a safe level in the work place, does it not?.
Thus the work place has a problem. If the system fails to contain the
material in the hood, then the hood has a ventilation related problem, does
it not?
I can not believe that some OSHA regulator is going to issue a citation
without some measurements or other sustainable basis for condemnation; that
would invite the wrath of every one plus great ridicule would it not?
Could it possibly be that someone, perhaps an employee, has taken the data
and turned it over to OSHA? Oh, I agree that the OSHA inspector probably
did not take data and I also agree that he needs training. God, with the
OSHA office in Houston and the staff they have, I wonder how they have the
manpower to answer the phone. They like all of the OSHA offices are
underfunded and the staff, at least in that office is really spread thin!
The point is, if you have rust on the outside of your hoods, the brass is
green, and other tell signs of high concentrations exist in your labs, your
labs may not be enjoying containment ventilation. Now what are we going to
do about it? Shoot the messenger? We can but that is not going to solve
the problem. Given the large number of labs I visit and the problems I see
over and over and given the fact that I can offer performance proof of the
claims that I make and guarantee correct for these type problems or at
least minimizing the workplace concentration problem COST EFFECTIVELY,
what can I say? I am spend a great deal of my time and effort trying to
educate and improve the work place by sharing what I have painfully
learned, done at my expense. Am I wrong? Good engineering and
performance is done on the basis of measured and repeatable performance.
Oh, well.
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman, Randy [SMTP:RNorman@BIORELIANCE.COM]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 2:55 PM
* Many lab users and lab safety people don't know the difference
* between these two concepts (see http://www.saai-svc.com/engineer
* /html/tech-notex.htm and click on Dilution vs. containment
Ventilation!
Where are all of these incompetent lab safety people?? Why "trash" them so
HERE? Haven't met a one of them yet that didn't know the difference between
dilution and local exhaust ventilation. If they know there's a lab std.
they
must know of the need for local exhaust devices and know or quickly learn
when they should be used. I would posit that if they've been proactive
enough to subscribe to this listserver, they have probably also learned at
least the basics.
* If a lab has a dilution ventilation system then it is not working
* correctly or the release rate of the toxic material is to high.
???? - I am guessing what is meant is that one should not count on dilution
ventilation as your only means of protection from those materials which
should be used in a hood. However, adequate dilution ventilation is very
important for a lab! We require 10 Air Changes/Hr minimum (yes I know ACH
is
a rather outmoded measure, but it's easy to verify).
What does 10 ACH guarantee? What is your basis of dictating 10 ACH? Why
not 20 ACH? Could higher flows and greater face velocities hurt the
situation rather than help it?
Again, I hope I do not offend you and you will continue to question me. I
always learn when someone makes me think and defend what I am doing and
saying.
Kindest Regards
Swiki Anderson, Ph.D., P.E.
President
Swiki Anderson and Associates, Inc.
Consulting Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumentation Engineers
1516 Shiloh Ave.
Bryan, Texas 77803
v. 409.779.6068, x11; f-6085
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:34:38 -0700
From: Teresa Robertson
Organization: CSU Bakersfield
Subject: NACHO Meeting March 22nd in Anaheim
Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I've met so very few of you face-to-face, that I am very much looking
forward to the National ACS Meeting in Anaheim, California, later this
month!
Are we still on for a NACHO Breakfast Meeting, 7:00 a.m., on Monday
March 22nd? (..."in the restaurant of the hotel where the Council
Committee on Chemical Safety meets at 8:30 a.m. to noon"...)
Do we have a "meetings" link at our NACHO site? I could not find one.
Can we ask ACS to include a NACHO Meeting link in their
Anaheim-meeting-information at their website?
Teresa Robertson
CSUB
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:29:58 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: Lab Standard - HAZCOM - Formaldehyde Standard
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I believe all three apply depending on the use of the chemical.
I quote from the regulation:
(a) Scope and application. (1) This section shall apply to all
employers engaged in the laboratory use of hazardous chemicals as defined
below.
(2) Where this section applies, it shall supersede, for laboratories,
the requirements of all other health standards in 29 CFR 1910, subpart Z,
except as follows:
(i) For any OSHA health standard, only the requirement to limit
employee exposure to the specific permissible exposure limit shall apply for
laboratories, unless that particular standard states otherwise or unless the
conditions of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section apply.
(ii) Prohibition of eye and skin contact where specified by any OSHA
health standard shall be observed.
(iii) Where the action level (or in the absence of an action level, the
permissible exposure limit) is routinely exceeded for an OSHA regulated
substance with exposure monitoring and medical surveillance requirements,
paragraphs (d) and (g)(1)(ii) of this section shall apply.
In my terms:
When we are using formaldehyde in a laboratory the formaldehyde is covered
under the Lab Standard. However, you have to refer to the Formaldehyde
Standard to determine if the Standard lists a PEL and if so whether it
specifically states that the PEL does not apply to laboratories and finally are
there any skin and eye contact prohibitions. Since there is no statement in
the Formaldehyde Standard that the PEL does not apply to laboratories, the PEL
and skin and eye contacts section of the Formaldehyde Standard are incorporated
into the Lab Standard.
When we are using formaldehyde to decontaminate a Biological Safety Cabinet
inside one of our laboratories the HAZCOM Standard and the Formaldehyde
Standard apply.
It seems confusing but a simple analogy for me is if I am dissolving something
in a beaker with alcohol the Lab Standard applies. If I am cleaning the
writing off the outside of a beaker with alcohol the HAZCOM standard applies.
And if there was an Alcohol Standard sections of it would always apply.
Bill Schultz
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:12:16 -0700
From: "Greene, Ben"
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Mike - I would agree if the other lab's plan is more stringent or more
protective than my own. My current plan specifies we follow whichever
is more stringent. Hypothetical Example - a person embarks on a paid
training course at another lab in which there is minor hands-on mixing
of reagents (such as for instrumental analysis) required. The other
lab's plan does not require goggles when handling liquids, only safety
glasses. The person's employer's plan requires goggles. The person
asks for and wears goggles in accordance with his/her plan. If the
person had worn safety glasses according to the other lab's plan and had
received an injurious liquid splash to the eye, would not the person had
violated his/her employer's plan and would not his/her employer be
liable for not implementing the provisions of the employer's plan that
would have protected the eyes against a splash?
My opinion only, of course.
Ben Greene, Ph.D
AlliedSignal
Las Cruces, NM
> ----------
> From: Michael
> Ahler[SMTP:Ahler_Michael_D/cpslo_employee1@POLYMAIL.CPUNIX.CALPOLY.EDU
> ]
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 11:24 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
>
> Ben,
>
> Your treck through all your areas at work sounds right to me ( Lab
> standard vs. haz com) except for one.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:35:41 -0800
From: Melonee Cruse
Organization: Chaffey College
Subject: Re: Containment vs Dilution
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Whew! That was more than a mouthful from Ms Anderson, but boy did I
learn a lot. Thanks for that insightful discussion. It is a pity that
you had to defend yourself because someone took your tone the wrong way.
Please LabSafety folks lets try to be less defensive or offensive. Take
it with a grain of salt and not as a personal or professional attack. If
you feel someone has the wrong tone or is offensive - address them
personally. The rest of us could do with out the "bickering"!
Just a thought (not an attack!)
Melonee Cruse
Chaffey Community College
Rancho Cucamonga, California
mcruse@chaffey.cc.ca.us
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:26:45 -0500
From: Janeen LaPierre
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello all.
I have been quietly reading all the replies this posting has generated. I will say that I posted several missives on my opinion of pregnancy in the lab last year. I'm sure you can check them out in the archives so I'll try not to repeat myself.
As several have pointed out, this could be a loose-loose situation for any employer. This said, I can not see that the feeding apparatus you describe as being a violation of "eating in the lab". I would be concerned with the potential of some chemicals to react with the bag or tubing material, but this could easily be confirmed as a possibility or not after review of the chemicals involved. Again I must say that education is the number one tool for preventing problems. With or without the feeding stuff, you still have the unborn child to consider.
Personally, I had a very difficult time with nausea and vomiting for the whole of my last pregnancy. I managed to dehydrate myself at one point which earned me a day in the hospital connected to an IV. My doctor required bed rest for me for many different points in the pregnancy. Lab work or paper work were out of the question. If your worker's physician thinks she can continue to work in her current capacity, I would guess they see no serious problems or they would advise her differently. Maybe working in conjunction with her physician would be best. Let the doctor review the risks and they issue a determination. We have used this tact with students here very successfully. I have found the docs are very often more conservative than even myself in risk assessment. I also think it might be easier for her to follow her doctors orders on this sensitive issue than perhaps a mandate from administrative types who could be construed as trying to cover their butts.
These situations need to be handled case by case in a systematic way that allows for differences in risk based on the facts as we know them today. Some lab duties are less stressful than some paper pushing tasks and may therefore be less dangerous to an unborn babe and his/her mother. Look at all the facts and then look again.
Good luck. If you would like to discuss this further, e-mail me directly. This is one of my pet issues. Hope this helps, Janeen.
*****************
Janeen Lapierre, CHO
College of Osteopathic Medicine
University of New England
11 Hills Beach Road
Biddeford, ME 04005
E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU
Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446
Opinions are mine and not those of UNE.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:28:52 -0800
From: Ray Campbell
Subject: Re: NACHO Meeting March 22nd in Anaheim
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
As I work only a few miles away, I would like information on activities for
NACHO members. I have not seen anything else besides this posting.
Ray Campbell REA CHO
310-257-1080
At 09:34 AM 3/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I've met so very few of you face-to-face, that I am very much looking
>forward to the National ACS Meeting in Anaheim, California, later this
>month!
>
>Are we still on for a NACHO Breakfast Meeting, 7:00 a.m., on Monday
>March 22nd? (..."in the restaurant of the hotel where the Council
>Committee on Chemical Safety meets at 8:30 a.m. to noon"...)
>
>Do we have a "meetings" link at our NACHO site? I could not find one.
>
>Can we ask ACS to include a NACHO Meeting link in their
>Anaheim-meeting-information at their website?
>
>Teresa Robertson
>CSUB
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:15:54 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We have many contract employees and visiting scientists at our institute. I
questioned OSHA about the status of these people and the Lab Standard. The
response that I received was that we are the controlling employer and therefore
all work is to be performed under the requirements of our chemical hygiene
plan.
This interpretation is no different that that of a sub contractor working for a
general contractor at a construction sight. In that situation the general
contractor is the controlling employer and the employees of the sub contratctor
must comply with the HAZCOM program of the general contractor.
Bill Schultz
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:29:51 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Re: My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Yes, but.....??
I expect that the contract employee's employer would still have some
liability if the host employer's program was deficient. Probably not at risk
of an OSHA citation, but if anyone were hurt, their employer takes the
worker's comp. "hit". Clearly, contractors and host employers H&S pros must
work together. Putting aside the law, it would be unethical to allow your
employees to be exposed to undue hazard just because it's not technically
your responsibility.
Shared responsibility is just plain ethical. Okay so I'm na飗e....
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Schultz [SMTP:william_schultz@DETRICK.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 4:16 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
We have many contract employees and visiting scientists at our
institute. I
questioned OSHA about the status of these people and the Lab
Standard. The
response that I received was that we are the controlling employer
and therefore
all work is to be performed under the requirements of our chemical
hygiene
plan.
This interpretation is no different that that of a sub contractor
working for a
general contractor at a construction sight. In that situation the
general
contractor is the controlling employer and the employees of the sub
contratctor
must comply with the HAZCOM program of the general contractor.
Bill Schultz
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 14:47:37 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Re: My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Just a question...If the sub contractor owns the building (but doesn't do
lab work) & the prime contractor is leasing space from the sub contractor
for doing lab work, whose CHP?
Thanks!
Helen
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Schultz [SMTP:william_schultz@DETRICK.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 2:16 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
We have many contract employees and visiting scientists at our
institute. I
questioned OSHA about the status of these people and the Lab
Standard. The
response that I received was that we are the controlling employer
and therefore
all work is to be performed under the requirements of our chemical
hygiene
plan.
This interpretation is no different that that of a sub contractor
working for a
general contractor at a construction sight. In that situation the
general
contractor is the controlling employer and the employees of the sub
contratctor
must comply with the HAZCOM program of the general contractor.
Bill Schultz
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:12:19 -0500
From: "Dr. Linda A. Swihart"
Subject: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
...for example?
If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab work
in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a new
hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the Lab
Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
Standard does not require)?
Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:21:36 +1300
From: John Downey
Subject: Re: flash points
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
You should be able to buy a refrigerated waterbath that will be adequate for
your purposes for a lot less than $1800. most refrigerated baths have
circulating pumps included as standard. You may even find one in your
surplus equipment cupboard.
I haven't checked, but have a look at the ASTM test method for flash points
and follow that. It will prescribe the apparatus needed for different
temperatures and viscosities.
Good Luck
John Downey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beth Brubaker [SMTP:beth.brubaker@MURRAYSTATE.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 5:42 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: flash points
>
> It looks to me as if the Tag Closed Tester is most appropriate for
> solvent/water mixtures. The Pensky-Martens is applicable to
> high-viscosity
> materials. Fisher Sci. has one available at a catalog price ~$1600. I
> assume a refrigerating circulator would also be required to cool the
> system
> below ambient temperature. This would be ~$1800.
>
> Beth Brubaker
> Lab/Safety/Waste Coordinator
> Murray State University Department of Chemistry
> (502) 762-6390
> beth.brubaker@murraystate.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:21:40 -0700
From: "Greene, Ben"
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
In the preamble to 1910.1450 maintenance workers are intended to be
covered under the CHP. To my understanding it doesn't matter if the
work in the lab is "scientific" or not; if they are working in the lab
then they are lab workers, and it is whether they may be exposed to
hazardous chemicals in a lab. If they may be exposed, then the CHP
applies.
My interpretation
Ben
> ----------
> From: Dr. Linda A. Swihart[SMTP:swihart@PURDUE.EDU]
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 3:12 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
>
> ...for example?
>
> If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab
> work
> in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a
> new
> hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
>
> or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
>
> What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the
> Lab
> Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
> Standard does not require)?
>
> Linda
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:58:05 -0600
From: EH&S Compliance
Subject: Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and
engineering controls to ensure that employees are working safely with
chemicals.
That is what we are about, but there are a few times (IMHO) that there are
populations that can be at risk when the rest are not. Rather different
case in point, here in Texas we get a few heat waves. The elderly and
children are at greater risk from heat related problems (generally) than
others.
The same levels that could be hazardous for a mother & fetus may not have
the same effects on another worker. And remember, not all chemicals have
been evaluated for teratogenic effects. You may not know what safe levels
are. I would not want to be the one discovering those levels.
I believe the lawsuits were more than likely related to downgrade in pay as
well as change in job.
In some labs I don't think it would be a problem, but in others I would
want to have them do something different. Evaluate the chemicals she works
with and the ones others around her use. The problems associated with
accidents and accidental exposure as well as 'normal' exposure could have
lasting effects.
As far as the tube, any way it could catch on something?
Rebecca Levins
EH&S Compliance Specialist
RSR Corporation
Dallas, Texas
RSRrdl@onramp.net
(214) 583-0245
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Pinizzotto [SMTP:Nick.Pinizzotto@MAIL.TJU.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 4:04 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Devil's advocate to eating in the lab.
For clarification:
The patient is an employee (not a Student) here in a research lab. The
physician is a doctor here at Jefferson. The physician is treating the
patient
in a method to eliminate her nausea due to pregnancy. I have been assured
that the system is a closed system and there is no opportunity for
inadvertent
exposure.
I must admit that I was kinda surprised by the responses.
Let me float some other questions.....I for one have not been one to remove
pregnant females from their jobs. Assessing the situation is a must however
if
we employ good hygienic technique (ie. use of fumehoods, Proper ppe etc.),
is
the person at any increased risk????? There are women out there who have
sued employers (and won) for removing them from jobs which are percieved to
have an increased risk for adverse exposures.
Isn't that what we are about? Finding methods, work practices and
engineering controls to ensure that employees are working safely with
chemicals.
Nick Pinizzotto
Environmental Health Officer
Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
Thomas Jefferson University
nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:15:06 +1100
Reply-To: ternai@techinfo.com.au
From: "Prof. B. Ternai"
Subject: Re: flash points
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The book was published by the Enjay Chemical Company in 1961 and 1966.
The data is from Brunjes, A.S. and Bogart, M.J.P., Ind.Eng.Chem., 35,
255 (1943)
Prof. B. Ternai
ternai@techinfo.com.au
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:30:47 EST
From: Marshall Huckaby
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Ben, I believe the standards apply to the work site (process or work being
done) not to the individual or job title.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:05:49 -0500
From: "Dr. Linda A. Swihart"
Subject: flam gas expansion ratios?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Email reached me tonight from a State Hazardous Materials Response Team
Coordinator asking how/where to quickly find expansion ratio information
for various flammable gases. I don't have a quick answer for him and am
hoping that someone here might have a reference off the top of your head.
The expansion ratio for LPG seems to be commonly accepted as 270, i.e. 1
volume of liquefied petroleum gas gets you 270 volumes of gas at standard T
and P. can anyone here provide, or recommend where to look for, expansion
rations for other flammable gas mixtures or relatively pure substances?
I'm not sure if he truly just wants only flammable gases, but that's what
the email says.
I checked the Compressed Gas Association and can't find any free info
specific to this question, although they do sell a Handbook of Compressed
Gases which looks a little promising. Not much other web info that I can
find on quick search. (And I am at home in my jammies or I might be
tempted to make visit to the library.)
And for my curiosity, does anyone know the approximate ratios of
hydrocarbons in LP gas?
Thanks,
Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:25:25 -0700
From: Sharyn Bake
Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
All of the gases below as cryogenic liquids from my notes (as given by Sax
and CGA material - collected over the years) :
Argon = 840 to 1
fluorine= 980 to 1
helium = 700 to 1
hydrogen = 848 to 1
krypton = 695 to 1
natural gas (as methane) = 635 to 1
neon = 1445 to 1
nitrogen = 694 to 1
oxygen = 857 to 1
xenon = 560 to 1
propane = 270 to 1
gasoline 37 to 1
CO =680 to 1
chlorine = 458 to 1
Can't remember Ammonia but it is quite high, in the 800 range I think. Also
note, that some references may vary a bit but it is not critical. For
example, oxygen may be listed in one reference as 857 and in another
reference at 860.
Hope this helps.
Sharyn Baker
Instructor
Health and Safety Division
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado
email: sharyn.baker@uchsc.edu
> ----------
> From: Dr. Linda A. Swihart
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 1999 9:05 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: flam gas expansion ratios?
>
> Email reached me tonight from a State Hazardous Materials Response Team
> Coordinator asking how/where to quickly find expansion ratio information
> for various flammable gases. I don't have a quick answer for him and am
> hoping that someone here might have a reference off the top of your head.
>
> The expansion ratio for LPG seems to be commonly accepted as 270, i.e. 1
> volume of liquefied petroleum gas gets you 270 volumes of gas at standard
> T
> and P. can anyone here provide, or recommend where to look for,
> expansion
> rations for other flammable gas mixtures or relatively pure substances?
>
> I'm not sure if he truly just wants only flammable gases, but that's what
> the email says.
>
> I checked the Compressed Gas Association and can't find any free info
> specific to this question, although they do sell a Handbook of Compressed
> Gases which looks a little promising. Not much other web info that I
> can
> find on quick search. (And I am at home in my jammies or I might be
> tempted to make visit to the library.)
>
> And for my curiosity, does anyone know the approximate ratios of
> hydrocarbons in LP gas?
>
> Thanks,
> Linda
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:40:14 -0700
From: Sharyn Bake
Subject: flam gas expansion / addendum
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
All of the gases below as cryogenic liquids from my notes (as given by Sax
and CGA material - collected over the years) :
Argon = 840 to 1
fluorine= 980 to 1
helium = 700 to 1
hydrogen = 848 to 1
krypton = 695 to 1
natural gas (as methane) = 635 to 1
neon = 1445 to 1
nitrogen = 694 to 1
oxygen = 857 to 1
xenon = 560 to 1
propane = 270 to 1
gasoline 37 to 1
CO =680 to 1
chlorine = 458 to 1
LPG = 600-1 (principally as propane/butane with small amounts of other
hydrocarbons)
Can't remember Ammonia but it is quite high, in the 800 range I think. Also
note, that some references may vary a bit but it is not critical. For
example, oxygen may be listed in one reference as 857 and in another
reference at 860.
Hope this helps.
Sharyn Baker
Instructor
Health and Safety Division
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado
email: sharyn.baker@uchsc.edu
> ----------
> From: Dr. Linda A. Swihart
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 1999 9:05 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: flam gas expansion ratios?
>
> Email reached me tonight from a State Hazardous Materials Response Team
> Coordinator asking how/where to quickly find expansion ratio information
> for various flammable gases. I don't have a quick answer for him and am
> hoping that someone here might have a reference off the top of your head.
>
> The expansion ratio for LPG seems to be commonly accepted as 270, i.e. 1
> volume of liquefied petroleum gas gets you 270 volumes of gas at standard
> T
> and P. can anyone here provide, or recommend where to look for,
> expansion
> rations for other flammable gas mixtures or relatively pure substances?
>
> I'm not sure if he truly just wants only flammable gases, but that's what
> the email says.
>
> I checked the Compressed Gas Association and can't find any free info
> specific to this question, although they do sell a Handbook of Compressed
> Gases which looks a little promising. Not much other web info that I
> can
> find on quick search. (And I am at home in my jammies or I might be
> tempted to make visit to the library.)
>
> And for my curiosity, does anyone know the approximate ratios of
> hydrocarbons in LP gas?
>
> Thanks,
> Linda
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:14:34 +1300
From: Tony Haggerty
Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Linda,
CHOs in Jammies gives a whole new dimension to this forum *grin*.
Sharyn has provided a pretty comprehensive list although I strongly disagree
with her 600:1 for LPG. The figure is closer to 270:1 and varies with the
composition. I too am at home but not quite to the jammies stage, but from
memory Butane is about 250:1 and Propane is about 290:1. A "commercial mix"
i.e.pretty much as extracted, in this neck of the woods is 60 Propane: 40
Butane plus odds and sods.
I think buried on my shelves in the office is a handbook of properties of
common gases which gives expansion ratios in a different form from which the
ratios of liquid to gas can be derived. It's a year or two since I referred
to it and I've moved offices since then. I'll look it up tomorrow and pass
on anything useful.
I'm 21 hrs ahead of the West Coast and 18 hours ahead of the East Coast (I
think) so when is tomorrow? In the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy the
answer was 42!!
Regards
Tony Haggerty
Haz Subs Adviser
NZ fire Service
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:23:26 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Applicability of Compliance Directives
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-03 12:22:44 EST, you write:
<< I went looking for the related compliance directive for the revised
standard
at www.osha.gov . The one from Nov 1990 (CPL 2-2.52)
( OSHA's formaldehyde standard enforcement procedures) talks about the
interface with the Lab Standard specifically, as the Lab Standard final rule
had been issued... Here it is, straight from OSHA:
******************************************
"The laboratory standard, 29 CFR 1910.1450, specifically does not apply to
formaldehyde use in histology, pathology, and human or animal anatomy
laboratories; however, if formaldehyde is used in other types of
laboratories which are covered by the laboratory standard the employer needs
to comply with 29 CFR 1910.1450 " >>
Hi NACHOs,
Keep in mind that since the Compliance Directive is not the regulation, but
rather only an interpretation, it would ultimately be the US Supreme Court
that would decide the meaning of the regulation. The regulation itself does
not speak to any distinction of applicability in histology, pathology, and
human or animal anatomy
laboratories.
One critical issue, within the regulation, would be whether it meets the
definition of a laboratory. This definition includes use of small quantities.
If large quantities are involved then perhaps it is not a "laboratory" any
more for purposes of regulatory coverage (irrespective of the sign on the
door). ... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:23:28 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: NACHO Breakfast in Anaheim
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-03 14:22:47 EST, you write:
<< Are we still on for a NACHO Breakfast Meeting, 7:00 a.m., on Monday
March 22nd? (..."in the restaurant of the hotel where the Council
Committee on Chemical Safety meets at 8:30 a.m. to noon"...) >>
Hi NACHOs,
I won't be attending and Pat Hamm won't be staying through Monday. So, we
need somone to volunteer to be the host/arranger/announcer (here) if there is
still going to be a breakfast. Any takers?
Our next gathering will likely be in Philadelphia in conjunction with the
LS&EM meeting the week of July 26th. The lab safety seminar is on Thursday,
July 29th and the CHO prep course is on Friday, July 30th. The NACHO
gathering would be either Wednesday or Thursday evening depending on what's
going on with the conference. I'll have to check with Frank. .... Jim
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:23:29 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Lab Standard - HAZCOM - Formaldehyde Standard
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-03 14:40:35 EST, you write:
<< When we are using formaldehyde to decontaminate a Biological Safety Cabinet
inside one of our laboratories the HAZCOM Standard and the Formaldehyde
Standard apply.
It seems confusing but a simple analogy for me is if I am dissolving
something
in a beaker with alcohol the Lab Standard applies. If I am cleaning the
writing off the outside of a beaker with alcohol the HAZCOM standard
applies.
And if there was an Alcohol Standard sections of it would always apply. >>
Hi NACHOs,
It's not clear to me what the basis is for making this distinction.
Part of lab work is keeping the lab equipment clean (inside and out - although
in many labs they seem to have forgotten this ). Therefore, I still
believe that it is the lab standard that applies.
The exceptions, as noted in the standard, speak for themselves. Stay
routinely below the appropriate limits. If you can't, follow the substance
specific standard.
... Jim
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:23:24 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Lab Standard in Others' Labs
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-03 10:42:26 EST, you write:
<< When I am on work-sponsered travel and visiting/working in a lab
not owned by my employer, I am covered by the lab standard and must
abide by MY chemical hygiene plan. >>
Hi NACHOs,
The issue of what to do in other's labs will depend in part on the other lab's
visitor policy. ... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:40:53 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: NACHO Meeting March 22nd in Anaheim
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-03-03 16:19:02 EST, you write:
<< As I work only a few miles away, I would like information on activities for
NACHO members. I have not seen anything else besides this posting. >>
Hi NACHOs,
Sounds like Ray Campbell would be a great host. Hey Ray, what do you say!
... jim
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:52:58 -0500
From: Janeen LaPierre
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>>>snip>>>>
If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab work
in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a new
hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the Lab
Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
Standard does not require)?
To address Linda's questions:
Here at UNE, we train these folks in special sessions prior to the work beginning in a lab area. I point and wave to show them the hazards that I could not remove from the area. I show them the CHP and tell them the Chemical Inventory can be viewed on the computer. If there are any chems that could be a problem, they get the MSDS for the stuff. I require them to wear the PPE required for the area. All of our maintenance and housekeeping folks are trained in lab safety if they work in those areas. They all know who to see before starting work in a specified building or lab. Its communication that keeps alls these regs from falling down around our ears.
In my opinion, regardless of title or department, if you work in a lab you need lab safety training and you need to wear the PPE needed in the area when you enter. Does it matter if we call it Haz-Com or CHP? The same info needs to be disseminated to all workers in these hazardous areas. For what its worth, Janeen.
PS I will be giving a general lab safety training session at the Northern New England Chapter ERAPPA"s spring conference later this month. I will be speaking to this very issue of how to train Maintenance and housekeeper types who work in lab areas. I'm very excited about UNE's commitment to furthering this type of safety training. If you want more info, e-mail me directly.
*****************
Janeen Lapierre, CHO
College of Osteopathic Medicine
University of New England
11 Hills Beach Road
Biddeford, ME 04005
E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU
Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446
Opinions are mine and not those of UNE.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:09:03 -0500
From: "Thomas J. Shelley"
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990303171219.00858960@postoffice.purdue.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
>...for example?
>
>If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab work
>in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a new
>hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
>
>or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
>
>What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the Lab
>Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
>Standard does not require)?
Dear Colleagues--Technically, those who are normally Haz Com workers,
such as those folks Linda mentions above, should be trained under the Lab
Standard as well as the Haz Com Std. The feasibility of doing this, especially
at a large organization such as ours (11,500 staff), is overwhelming. We
have taken a middle road. I have prepared a separate (from regular Haz
Com training) training program for the staff of our technical shops called
"Lab Hazards for Non-Lab Workers" which is basically a Lab Standard
training for those who work in labs that aren't lab staff. Several hundred
plumbers, carpenters, electricians, control shop staff, masons, etc., who
work at Cornell have had this training. Our Care of Buildings department
(janitorial/custodial staff) has a separate training program that deals
with working in a lab environment which is presented to several hunderd
C of B staff over time. This is basically a specialized program similar to
my "Lab Hazards for Non-Lab Workers" training which is presented by
C of B in-house training staff. This type of training definitely pays off
as the increased worker awarness prevents accidents and incidents and
increases the overall safety of labs. The non-lab staff have contacted me
numerous times when they find unsafe conditions or practices, none of
which would have been reported by the lab staff themselves. (Imagine!!)
My $.02. Tom
*********************************************************
Tom Shelley, Chemical Hygiene Officer, Cornell University
Department of Environmental Health and Safety, 125 Humphreys Service Building,
Ithaca, NY 14853. (607) 255-4288 tjs1@cornell.edu
****************************DISCLAIMER********************
The comments and views expressed in this communication are strictly my own and
are not to be construed to officially represent those of my peers,
supervisors or
Cornell University.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:26:20 -0500
From: Naomi Kelly
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990303171219.00858960@postoffice.purdue.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
We require inventories and MSDSs in laboratories. It seems practical and
covers a lot of bases (i.e., emergency personnel know what is in the
laboratory before they enter if there is an inventory and requiring MSDSs
provides a uniform, practical way of ensuring the availability of "known
reference material" on the signs and symptoms of exposure, PELS, handling,
storage, and disposal of hazardous chemicals found in the laboratory...as
required in the Lab Standard.
It also covers you in many other situations, such as the one you described
here.
At 05:12 PM 3/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
>...for example?
>
>If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab work
>in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a new
>hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
>
>or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
>
>What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the Lab
>Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
>Standard does not require)?
>
>Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:28:33 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: Re[2]: My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
When dealing with contract employees you should specify in the contract who is
liable for the medical requirements of the Lab Standard. If you do not then
OSHA will hold both the controling employer and the contract employees employer
equally liable. OSHA doesn't care who provides the coverage as long as it is
provided. And the information concerning who and how the coverage is provided
must be provided to the contract employee at the time of initial assignment.
Workers comp is a totally different ballgame. It is not an OSHA issue but a
DOL issue which usually requires a legal determination to find out who is
responsible, with many different issues taken into consideration. However,
this can also be resolved by stating who is responsible for what in the
contract.
The logic for the Chem Hygiene Plan of the controlling employer being the
applicable one is based on the philosophy of the Lab Standard, each laboratory
is unique and therefore no one plan is valid everywhere. If this were not so
OSHA could have issued a Chemical Hygine Plan rather than requiring everyone
to write their own.
I have a problem with assuming employees are going to be exposed to undue
hazards because they are working under someone elses Chem Hygiene Plan. Unless
you have evidence to the contrary you should be able to assume that everyones
Chem Hygine Plan is as good for their work situation as yours is for your work
situation. This would not preclude employees who feel they get no satisfactory
resolution for safety issues brought up to the controlling employer from
reporting the situation to the contracting employer.
Keep in mind that there are comnpanies out there that supply contract employees
to laboratories just the way Manpower supplies contract employees to general
industry. These companies do not have laboratories, there sole function is to
supply contract employees, therefore they are not covered under the Lab
Standard.
Bill Schultz
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/3/99 4:29 PM
Yes, but.....??
I expect that the contract employee's employer would still have some
liability if the host employer's program was deficient. Probably not at risk
of an OSHA citation, but if anyone were hurt, their employer takes the
worker's comp. "hit". Clearly, contractors and host employers H&S pros must
work together. Putting aside the law, it would be unethical to allow your
employees to be exposed to undue hazard just because it's not technically
your responsibility.
Shared responsibility is just plain ethical. Okay so I'm na飗e....
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:28:42 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: Re[2]: My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The prime contractor is the only one doing lab work and therefore would be the
only one required to have a CHP.
Bill Schultz
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/3/99 2:47 PM
Just a question...If the sub contractor owns the building (but doesn't do
lab work) & the prime contractor is leasing space from the sub contractor
for doing lab work, whose CHP?
Thanks!
Helen
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Schultz [SMTP:william_schultz@DETRICK.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 2:16 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:My Chem Hygiene Plan vs Your Chem Hygiene Plan
We have many contract employees and visiting scientists at our
institute. I
questioned OSHA about the status of these people and the Lab
Standard. The
response that I received was that we are the controlling employer
and therefore
all work is to be performed under the requirements of our chemical
hygiene
plan.
This interpretation is no different that that of a sub contractor
working for a
general contractor at a construction sight. In that situation the
general
contractor is the controlling employer and the employees of the sub
contratctor
must comply with the HAZCOM program of the general contractor.
Bill Schultz
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:24:39 -0700
From: Teresa Robertson
Organization: CSU Bakersfield
Subject: Re: NACHO Breakfast in Anaheim
Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes:
><< Are we still on for a NACHO Breakfast Meeting, 7:00 a.m., on Monday
> March 22nd? (..."in the restaurant of the hotel where the Council
> Committee on Chemical Safety meets at 8:30 a.m. to noon"...) >>
>Hi NACHOs,
>I won't be attending and Pat Hamm won't be staying through Monday. So,
>we
>need somone to volunteer to be the host/arranger/announcer (here) if
>there is
>still going to be a breakfast. Any takers?
The Monday was only a suggestion from a month or more ago. Would
Sunday before the certification exam be better? I think so, and then I
won't stay through Monday either!
Teresa Robertson, CCHO
CSUB
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:43:44 -0600
Reply-To: "swiki@bihs.net"
From: Swiki Anderson
Subject: Re: Containment vs Dilution and Some Humor!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Melonee,
Thanks for the note. It was a pick up for me today for several reasons.
First, I am an worn-out old upper middle aged male and when my wife saw
the Ms. her comments was, "Wow, I am not going to claim you for the female
species! Not under any circumstances!! Your are to old and ugly."
Needless to say the name "Swiki" which is my real name (my father gave it
to me because he wanted his children to have unusual names) has been the
point of initiation for a many a conversation. Seems Dad was working with
a guy that had a pet crow with a name similar to Swiki and, like all the
Andersons, he spelled it wrong, pronounced it wrong and I got stuck with
it. Being named after a dadgum bird is not the worst thing however. They
put me in a girls PE class when I went to Jr. High and then wouldn't let me
stay when they found out I was male. Considering what some of my students
sometimes named me, well, Swiki is not to bad!
Regarding defending myself, I like a good argument and I have not taken
offense at what was published. Because I feel very strongly about the
problems in the laboratory work place and the impact of improper
ventilation as a frequent cause of the problem, I do hope that I can
enlighten others. I have seen some suffering needlessly caused because of
lack of support and change when thing were not correct. I always learn
when I am called upon to defend my ideas and to me, debate, especially when
technical centered is educational. Moreover, if I can't prove my ideas
with reproducible data, I ought to be questioned. I think that this is one
of the things that Jim had in mind when he and the rest of the folks set
this up and I have really enjoyed and benefited from most of what I have
seen on this site. It is working as it should and I am confident that if I
need an answer to questions I have, I have in excess of 600 sharp minds
available to help me.
I do appreciate your consideration and concern, however. And I thank you
for your comments.
Swiki Anderson
----Original Message-----
From: Melonee Cruse [SMTP:mcruse@BUNNY.CHAFFEY.CC.CA.US]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 1:36 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Containment vs Dilution
Whew! That was more than a mouthful from Ms Anderson, but boy did I
learn a lot. Thanks for that insightful discussion. It is a pity that
you had to defend yourself because someone took your tone the wrong way.
Please LabSafety folks lets try to be less defensive or offensive. Take
it with a grain of salt and not as a personal or professional attack. If
you feel someone has the wrong tone or is offensive - address them
personally. The rest of us could do with out the "bickering"!
Just a thought (not an attack!)
Melonee Cruse
Chaffey Community College
Rancho Cucamonga, California
mcruse@chaffey.cc.ca.us
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:57:44 -0800
From: Melonee Cruse
Organization: Chaffey College
Subject: OSHA Training
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Greeting Lab Safety Professionals:
Is anyone familiar with the OSHA Training Institute? These are Education
Centers that offer OSHA training courses designed by OSHA. I am
interested in taking the "Trainer Course in Occupational Safety and
Health Standards for General Industry". This course will make me an
"Outreach Trainer" and anyone trained by me in a 10- or 30 hour general
industry course will receive a card (verifying completion) from the
Department of Labor.
I will not be an OSHA trainer but I will be an authorized OSHA General
Industry Outreach Program Trainer.
Anyone taken this course?
Melonee Cruse
Chaffey College
Environmental Technology Program Coordinator
mcruse@chaffey.cc.ca.us
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:32:21 -0500
From: "Bondanza, Donna"
Subject: Re: OSHA Training
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Greeting Lab Safety Professionals:
Is anyone familiar with the OSHA Training Institute? These
are Education Centers that offer OSHA training courses designed by OSHA. I
am interested in taking the "Trainer Course in Occupational Safety and
Health Standards for General Industry". This course will make me an
"Outreach Trainer" and anyone trained by me in a 10- or 30 hour general
industry course will receive a card (verifying completion) from the
Department of Labor.
I will not be an OSHA trainer but I will be an authorized
OSHA General
Industry Outreach Program Trainer.
Anyone taken this course?
Melonee,
I have taken the Outreach Trainer course and found it very useful. I used
it as a means to become familiar with the OSHA standards. I took home a lot
of reference material and many contacts. I'm not sure whether or not it
would be sufficient as your only exposure to the standards for general
instruction. I felt that I would need more if I was to go out and train,
however, for the scientists at my company, it was enough to conduct safety
training.
The big missing point in the class was no exposure to the Lab Standard!
This was why I needed more course work. They are training for general
industry not laboratories. HazCom was covered. I can give you more
specific info if you want it.
As means of an introduction, I am a pharmaceutical chemist for a drug
delivery company called NanoSystems(tm), which is a division of Elan
Pharmaceutical Technologies. I have been interested in Safety for several
years and my company has encouraged and supported my training. Besides my
formulation duties I am an active member of our Safety Committee and our
Spill Response Team (HazWoper). I also coordinate and conduct our monthly
safety sessions.
Donna M. Bondanza
610-313-5139
bondanzad@nanosys.com
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:42:44 -0500
From: "Dr. Linda A. Swihart"
Subject: Re: OSHA Training
In-Reply-To: <36DEE5B8.10E15584@chaffey.cc.ca.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Melonee wrote:
>Is anyone familiar with the OSHA Training Institute? These are Education
>Centers that offer OSHA training courses designed by OSHA.
I have not, but for the information of anyone interested, the OSHA Training
Institute Education Centers web site is at
http://www.osha-slc.gov/Training_toc/ted_out.html
Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:38:10 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My interpretation on this:
The HAZCOM Standard does not require a chemical inventory. The word inventory
does not exist in the regulation. The regulation does require a listing of
chemicals present in the work place. There is not even a requirement to list
the work areas where the chemicals are present.
The Lab Standard does not require a listing of chemicals.
The HAZCOM standard applies to any chemical which is known to be present in the
workplace in such a manner that employees may be exposed under normal
conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.
If your laboratory chemicals are kept in closed containers there should be no
exposure of non laboratory employees such as custodial staff under normal
conditions of use since they do not use the chemicals. When maintenance
personnel are performing repairs or preventive maintenance functions in a
laboratory no procedures should be performed that could expose them to
chemicals. By following these two simple steps the chemicals in the laboratory
are excluded from the HAZCOM standard and therefore a list of them need not be
maintained.
If the chemicals in the laboratory are not being used and are properly stored
(in closed/sealed containers) there should be no need for PPE for the above
mentioned employees.
This does not relieve you of the responsibility to train the above mentioned
employees of the hazards of the chemicals that they may routinely use in the
performance of their custodial or maintenance procedures or PPE required for
use of these chemicals.
Under HAZCOM these employees do need training to the extent necessary to
protect them in the event of a spill or leak of a hazardous chemical present in
the area (I once had a plumber knock a bottle of formaldehyde to the floor
while working in a laboratory). That is simple to do by instituting a policy
that in the event of a spill or leak of a chemical from a container or an
unknown odor in an area where chemicals are present the employee will
immediately leave the area and contact safety personnel.
I consider the situation of the above mentioned employees similar to that of
employees who work in a warehouse full of hazardous chemicals where the
employees only handle chemicals in sealed containers which are not opened under
normal conditions of use. Under these conditions paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of the
regulation does not apply. In other words the employee does not have to be
informed of the location and availability of the written hazard communication
program, including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals, and material
safety data sheets required by this section.
This does not remove the responsibility for MSDSs' for the chemicals that the
custodial of maintenance personnel would use in performing their duties. This
only relieves the responsibility for providing MSDSs' for the chemicals stored
in the laboratory where they are performing their duties.
Thanks for the stimulation.
Bill Schultz
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/3/99 5:12 PM
..for example?
If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab work
in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a new
hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the Lab
Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
Standard does not require)?
Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:59:28 -0500
From: Sharon Reed
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hmmm. My luck is that, being a research division at a manufacturing facility,
my labs fall under both standards pretty much all the time, because of the
constant commerce between the union people and lab people. We need to develop
methods and processes used on the shop floor and therefore keep all MSDSs on
hand and available at all times, while maintaining a strong chemical hygiene
plan for our work. About the only hazcom requirement we don't follow is
training every individual chemist on every individual MSDS, which they have do
to in the manufacturing departments. Thank God I don't have to do that!!!
We have found that, in having the MSDSs available, they have become invaluable
tools for information when designing new methods and processes, so it has
actually been a positive thing for us to follow both standards.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:00:11 -0700
Reply-To: terrie@cc.usu.edu
From: Terrie Wierenga
Organization: USDA-ARS PPRL
Subject: Re: OSHA Training
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Melonee:
I took the General Industry course (course 501) offered by the Rocky
Mountain OSHA Outreach Education Center just this last January. I found
it very worthwhile, although it did focus mainly on 1910.1200 issues.
Not much was said about 1910.1450 unless we two lab people asked a
question. They do pack a lot of information into the course hours and
send you home with one HUGE notebook of info plus a recent edition of
the 1910 standard. One of the lab exercises was to actually look in the
standard for specific references dealing with things such as working
surfaces, eyewash inspections, etc. I think it does help to have some
experience with safety issues before you take the course. I've been
CDSO for our three research units for 7 years now. If nothing else, the
course gives you definitions for the many safety terms so that at least
you're talking the same language with the regulators.
Hope this helps!
Terrie
****
Terrie Wierenga, CDSO, LRPO
USDA-ARS Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory
1150 East 1400 North
Logan, UT 84341
v: 435-752-2941
f: 435-753-5681
e: terrie@cc.usu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:32:13 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Same here...it's really not that difficult to have both.
Thanks!
Helen
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Reed [SMTP:Sharon_Reed@PALL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 1:59 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Lab Standard v. Haz Com Standard
Hmmm. My luck is that, being a research division at a manufacturing
facility,
my labs fall under both standards pretty much all the time, because
of the
constant commerce between the union people and lab people. We need
to develop
methods and processes used on the shop floor and therefore keep all
MSDSs on
hand and available at all times, while maintaining a strong chemical
hygiene
plan for our work. About the only hazcom requirement we don't
follow is
training every individual chemist on every individual MSDS, which
they have do
to in the manufacturing departments. Thank God I don't have to do
that!!!
We have found that, in having the MSDSs available, they have become
invaluable
tools for information when designing new methods and processes, so
it has
actually been a positive thing for us to follow both standards.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:17:20 -0700
From: "Greene, Ben"
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
My interpretation is that if there are no hazardous chemicals that the
electrician could be exposed to (and I believe this can be accomplished
by either removal or control), the lab standard by definition does not
apply. If the fume hood has hazardous chemicals in containers in it or
contains residues of hazardous chemicals in it that the electrician
could be exposed to, the lab standard applies. Unless you eliminate the
hazard (remove the containers, decontaminate the hood), the lab standard
applies. But is it practical to remove all chemicals from the entire
lab? Not. Even if the lights are mounted in such a way that the
interior of the hood need not be accessed, I would think it nearly
impossible to eliminate all of the other hazards in the lab. The
electrician would have to know where tools/boxes cannot be placed; such
as potentially the interior of the hood, and know that inadvertent
breaking into ductwork, which may also contain hazardous chemicals in
residues, could result in exposure. Same with sweeping the floor. Does
the person cleaning the floor know there is potential for contamination;
is the same mop and bucket used in a chem lab used in general hallway or
office areas; is the mop and bucket cleaned appropriately? Does the
person emptying the garbage know that the empty triple rinsed reagent
bottles or sample containers may contain residual contamination? I
agree with a previous response that lab standard training geared toward
maintenance folks is beneficial and I believe required in this kind of
situation.
My interpretation.
Ben
> ----------
> From: Bill Schultz[SMTP:william_schultz@DETRICK.ARMY.MIL]
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 1:38 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the
> hood?
>
> My interpretation on this:
>
> The HAZCOM Standard does not require a chemical inventory. The word
> inventory
> does not exist in the regulation. The regulation does require a
> listing of
> chemicals present in the work place. There is not even a requirement
> to list
> the work areas where the chemicals are present.
>
> The Lab Standard does not require a listing of chemicals.
>
> The HAZCOM standard applies to any chemical which is known to be
> present in the
> workplace in such a manner that employees may be exposed under normal
> conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.
>
> If your laboratory chemicals are kept in closed containers there
> should be no
> exposure of non laboratory employees such as custodial staff under
> normal
> conditions of use since they do not use the chemicals. When
> maintenance
> personnel are performing repairs or preventive maintenance functions
> in a
> laboratory no procedures should be performed that could expose them
> to
> chemicals. By following these two simple steps the chemicals in the
> laboratory
> are excluded from the HAZCOM standard and therefore a list of them
> need not be
> maintained.
>
> If the chemicals in the laboratory are not being used and are
> properly stored
> (in closed/sealed containers) there should be no need for PPE for
> the above
> mentioned employees.
>
> This does not relieve you of the responsibility to train the above
> mentioned
> employees of the hazards of the chemicals that they may routinely use
> in the
> performance of their custodial or maintenance procedures or PPE
> required for
> use of these chemicals.
>
> Under HAZCOM these employees do need training to the extent necessary
> to
> protect them in the event of a spill or leak of a hazardous chemical
> present in
> the area (I once had a plumber knock a bottle of formaldehyde to the
> floor
> while working in a laboratory). That is simple to do by instituting
> a policy
> that in the event of a spill or leak of a chemical from a container
> or an
> unknown odor in an area where chemicals are present the employee will
> immediately leave the area and contact safety personnel.
>
> I consider the situation of the above mentioned employees similar to
> that of
> employees who work in a warehouse full of hazardous chemicals where
> the
> employees only handle chemicals in sealed containers which are not
> opened under
> normal conditions of use. Under these conditions paragraph
> (h)(2)(iii) of the
> regulation does not apply. In other words the employee does not have
> to be
> informed of the location and availability of the written hazard
> communication
> program, including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals, and
> material
> safety data sheets required by this section.
>
> This does not remove the responsibility for MSDSs' for the chemicals
> that the
> custodial of maintenance personnel would use in performing their
> duties. This
> only relieves the responsibility for providing MSDSs' for the
> chemicals stored
> in the laboratory where they are performing their duties.
>
> Thanks for the stimulation.
>
> Bill Schultz
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
> Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at
> Internet-Mail
> Date: 3/3/99 5:12 PM
> ..for example?
>
> If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab
> work
> in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a
> new
> hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
>
> or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
>
> What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the
> Lab
> Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
> Standard does not require)?
>
> Linda
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:34:15 +1300
From: Tony Haggerty
Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Linda/Sharyn
Further Info on gas expansion ratios.
I have a book called Properties of Technical gases produced by Liquid Gas
Equipment Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. They use a property called the
Condensing Ratio which gives the volume of liquid condensed in cubic
decimetres (litres) per cubic metre of gas (1000 litres) at NTP.
Not all of the gases Sharyn quoted are in this book but there are others for
future reference. Whilst some agree with her figures, others are vastly
different.
LPG I quoted yesterday as ~270:1 and this is confirmed. Methane I have as
1244:1 which is approximately twice your figure
You or Sharyn may wish to continue this discussion off forum
Regards
Tony Haggerty
techton@ihug.co.nz
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:04:02 -0600
From: EH&S Compliance
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
The list requirement is not OSHA's HazCom. It is EPA's SARA Right-to-Know
under 40 CFR 370.
"40 CFR 370.20(a)
(a) General. The requirements of this subpart apply to any facility
that is required to prepare or have available a material safety data sheet
(MSDS) for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 and regulations promulgated under that Act."
As far as the warehouse stuff:
"29 CFR 1910.1200(b)
(4) In work operations where employees only handle chemicals in sealed
containers which are not opened under normal conditions of use (such as are
found in marine cargo handling, warehousing, or retail sales), this section
applies to these operations only as follows:
(i) Employers shall ensure that labels on incoming containers of hazardous
chemicals are not removed or defaced;
(ii) Employers shall maintain copies of any material safety data sheets
that are received with incoming shipments of the sealed containers of
hazardous chemicals, shall obtain a material safety data sheet as soon as
possible for sealed containers of hazardous chemicals received without a
material safety data sheet if an employee requests the material safety data
sheet, and shall ensure that the material safety data sheets are readily
accessible during each work shift to employees when they are in their work
area(s); and,
(iii) Employers shall ensure that employees are provided with information
and training in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section (except for
the location and availability of the written hazard communication program
under paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section), to the extent necessary to
protect them in the event of a spill or leak of a hazardous chemical from a
sealed container."
"29 CFR 1910.1200(c)
Definitions.
Use means to package, handle, react, emit, extract, generate as a
byproduct, or transfer.
Work area means a room or defined space in a workplace where hazardous
chemicals are produced or used, and where employees are present.
Workplace means an establishment, job site, or project, at one geographical
location containing one or more work areas."
The warehouse exemption appears very shaky ground to me. I would not trust
the it to apply in this case. Notice they use examples of operations where
the chemicals are never opened at that place of business. Your lab
chemicals are not 'sealed'. Under normal conditions of use they are used in
the lab, maybe not by the janitors, but they are used. Now we do not train
our employees under haz com on all the individual chemicals on site, but on
haz com in general, on msds, labels, and on the chemicals they will be
working with. We do have the msds on site, and a program in place.
Now at least the standard for labs state 'employers' not lab employees
engaged in the lab use of haz chemicals.
"29 CFR 1910.1450(a)(1)
(1) This section shall apply to all employers engaged in the laboratory use
of hazardous chemicals as defined below."
however
"29 CFR 1910.1450(a)
(3) This section shall not apply to:
(i) Uses of hazardous chemicals which do not meet the definition of
laboratory use, and in such cases, the employer shall comply with the
relevant standard in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, even if such use occurs
in a laboratory."
So I would think if I have any employee who is in a lab and around
chemicals that are used as lab chemicals then the lab standard applies. If
they use janitorial supplies or paint or epoxies for the repair of the
building, etc. and it doesn't fit the definition of laboratory use then haz
com applies to those chemicals. However, I am not as well versed in the
application of the lab standard vs haz com as some of the other list
members are and I have seen some excellent replies to this issue.
"29 CFR 1910.1450(b)
(b) Definitions-
Laboratory use of hazardous chemicals means handling or use of such
chemicals in which all of the following conditions are met:
(i) Chemical manipulations are carried out on a "laboratory scale;"
(ii) Multiple chemical procedures or chemicals are used;
(iii) The procedures involved are not part of a production process, nor in
any way simulate a production process; and
(iv) "Protective laboratory practices and equipment" are available and in
common use to minimize the potential for employee exposure to hazardous
chemicals.
Employee means an individual employed in a laboratory workplace who may be
exposed to hazardous chemicals in the course of his or her assignments."
Rebecca Levins
EH&S Compliance Specialist
RSR Corporation
Dallas, Texas
RSRrdl@onramp.net
(214) 583-0245
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Schultz [SMTP:william_schultz@DETRICK.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 2:38 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
My interpretation on this:
The HAZCOM Standard does not require a chemical inventory. The word
inventory
does not exist in the regulation. The regulation does require a listing
of
chemicals present in the work place. There is not even a requirement to
list
the work areas where the chemicals are present.
The Lab Standard does not require a listing of chemicals.
The HAZCOM standard applies to any chemical which is known to be present
in the
workplace in such a manner that employees may be exposed under normal
conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.
If your laboratory chemicals are kept in closed containers there should be
no
exposure of non laboratory employees such as custodial staff under normal
conditions of use since they do not use the chemicals. When maintenance
personnel are performing repairs or preventive maintenance functions in a
laboratory no procedures should be performed that could expose them to
chemicals. By following these two simple steps the chemicals in the
laboratory
are excluded from the HAZCOM standard and therefore a list of them need
not be
maintained.
If the chemicals in the laboratory are not being used and are properly
stored
(in closed/sealed containers) there should be no need for PPE for the
above
mentioned employees.
This does not relieve you of the responsibility to train the above
mentioned
employees of the hazards of the chemicals that they may routinely use in
the
performance of their custodial or maintenance procedures or PPE required
for
use of these chemicals.
Under HAZCOM these employees do need training to the extent necessary to
protect them in the event of a spill or leak of a hazardous chemical
present in
the area (I once had a plumber knock a bottle of formaldehyde to the floor
while working in a laboratory). That is simple to do by instituting a
policy
that in the event of a spill or leak of a chemical from a container or an
unknown odor in an area where chemicals are present the employee will
immediately leave the area and contact safety personnel.
I consider the situation of the above mentioned employees similar to that
of
employees who work in a warehouse full of hazardous chemicals where the
employees only handle chemicals in sealed containers which are not opened
under
normal conditions of use. Under these conditions paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of
the
regulation does not apply. In other words the employee does not have to be
informed of the location and availability of the written hazard
communication
program, including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals, and
material
safety data sheets required by this section.
This does not remove the responsibility for MSDSs' for the chemicals that
the
custodial of maintenance personnel would use in performing their duties.
This
only relieves the responsibility for providing MSDSs' for the chemicals
stored
in the laboratory where they are performing their duties.
Thanks for the stimulation.
Bill Schultz
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________
________
Subject: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/3/99 5:12 PM
.for example?
If an company employee or contractor's employee is performing non-lab work
in a chemical lab, say electrical work on the hood, or ductwork for a new
hood in existing facilities, or plumbers putting in a new sink....
or the custodial staff sweeping and emptying wastebaskets?
What if this employee asks to see the chemical inventory (which the Lab
Standard does not require) or the MSDSs for everything (which the Lab
Standard does not require)?
Linda
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:04:44 -0700
From: Sharyn Bake
Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi Tony,
I have never seen of your reference but then, it appears you live in New
Zealand. However, I will stand corrected, if necessary. I was writing from
memory last night well past bedtime and I may have erred in some of the gas
expansion ratios. Others can look at their references and decide who is
correct.
In any case, it is not terribly significant when one is talking about
expansion ratios if one knows that all of these gases can create hazards
some distance from a spill. In addition to other information, of course, one
would want instruments which measured the LFL for the flammable gases and
O2 sensing equipment. For example, if one was approaching within 20% of the
LFL , one would be prudent to get the h--- out of the area.
When one is concerned about population exposure, prudence and general
guidelines published here in the states usually should be invoked to remove
people at risk from the area. These generic guidelines are found in the U.S.
DOT Emergency Response Guidebook and in other publications. These guidelines
are founded in part on a number of tragic accidents in the U.S. in years
past where the concept of expansion ratio was ignored or perhaps not even
understood at the time of the accident.
In other words, it is more the principle of high expansion ratios that one
needs to know about and teach. The exact ratio is not necessary to know for
emergency response efforts. so, weather it is 270 for LPG or what I wrote is
not really the issue. The area must be evacuated and all ignition sources
removed or prevented, if possible.
Sharyn Baker
just my opinion
> ----------
> From: Tony Haggerty
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 1999 3:34 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
>
> Linda/Sharyn
> Further Info on gas expansion ratios.
>
> I have a book called Properties of Technical gases produced by Liquid Gas
> Equipment Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. They use a property called the
> Condensing Ratio which gives the volume of liquid condensed in cubic
> decimetres (litres) per cubic metre of gas (1000 litres) at NTP.
>
> Not all of the gases Sharyn quoted are in this book but there are others
> for
> future reference. Whilst some agree with her figures, others are vastly
> different.
>
> LPG I quoted yesterday as ~270:1 and this is confirmed. Methane I have as
> 1244:1 which is approximately twice your figure
>
> You or Sharyn may wish to continue this discussion off forum
>
> Regards
> Tony Haggerty
> techton@ihug.co.nz
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 17:56:34 -0800
Reply-To: Marc Neuffer
From: Marc Neuffer
Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information Act Request
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We received this request from Dan Cronin of the American Bureau of Shipping.
They are searching for auto-ignition temps for the list of compounds below.
This is a bit our of our area... can anyone direct them to a good source?
Thanks
Marc Neuffer
SafetyInfo.Com
( I have truncated his original MSG)
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Cronin
The chemicals for which we need the auto-ignition temperature are listed
below. These names are taken from The International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
(IBC Code) which is published by the International Maritime Organization.
We greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter
Alkyl(C3-C4) Benzenes
Alkanes(C6-C9)
Alkyl acrylate-vinylpyridine copolymer in toluene
n-Butyl propionate
m-Chlorotoluene
o-Chlorotoluene
Cycloheptane
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
Ethyl amyl ketone
Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
Ethylcyclohexane
Ethylene glycol monoalkyl ethers
Heptanol (all isomers) (q)
Hexyl acetate
Long-chain polyetheramine in aromatic solvent
Methyl butyrate
Methyl heptyl ketone
2-Methyl-2-hydroxy-3-butyne
Methylcyclohexane
Nitropropane (60%)/Nitroethane (40%) mixture
Nonene (all isomers)
Noxious liquid, F.,(10), n.o.s., S.T. 3, Cat. A
Noxious liquid, F.,(16), n.o.s., S.T. 3, Cat. C
Olefin mixtures (C5-C7)
1,3-Pentadiene
n-Pentyl propionate
alpha-Pinene
Polyalkyl (C18-C22) acrylate in xylene
Polyolefinamine in alkyl (C2-C4) benzenes
Polyolefinamine in aromatic solvent
n-Propyl chloride
Propylbenzene (all isomers)
Propylene dimer
Propylene trimer
1,3,5-Trioxane
Best Regards,
Dan Cronin
American Bureau of Shipping
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:47:44 +1300
From: Tony Haggerty
Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sharyn
I sort of agree. For practical purposes, yep get the hell out. It was just
that two of your figures were out by a factor of 2. One up and one down
which can become significant.
Don't be confused by the fact that I'm in New Zealand, the source I quoted
came from Edinburgh in Scotland. I'm also familiar with the US DOT ERG
Book. Did you know you can download it from the Canutec site?
I was curious about your sources and wondered if I'd miscalculated but LPG
was the give away. Its been quoted as 270:1 for at least 25 years.
I'll try to post some more detail but it's Friday and I have to deliver Haz
Mat training to Gold miners next week so it may be later rather than sooner.
Cheers
Tony
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:13:30 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1910.1450 (a)(3)(i) states that this section shall not apply to uses of
hazardous chemicals which do not meet the definition of laboratory use.
In the case of an electrician fixing a hood it is not necessary to even read
the definition of laboratory use since the electrician is not using chemicals.
I agree that the cabinet has to be made safe for the electrician to work in but
that is an issue that is seperate from the Lab Standard. There may be many
standards, and if nothing specific applies there is always the general duty
clause, that OSHA could cite you for if the work was not performed safetly or
in a safe environment but I don't believe the Lab Standard is one of them.
What you are doing with the electrician is saying that the minute he walks into
a laboratory he/she leaves the HAZCOM Standard behind and assumes the Lab
Standard. Would anyone assume that under the HAZCOM Standard, at a time before
the Lab Standard was written, that when an electrician walked into a laboratory
he/she left all the requirements of the HAZCOM Standard behind except for
sections (3)(i)(ii)(iii) and (iv), the only sections of the HAZCOM Standard
that applies to laboratories.
Bill Schultz
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/4/99 2:17 PM
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:01:58 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thee list requirement is not OSHA's HazCom. It is EPA's SARA Right-to-Know
under 40 CFR 370.
"40 CFR 370.20(a)
(a) General. The requirements of this subpart apply to any facility
that is required to prepare or have available a material safety data sheet
(MSDS) for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 and regulations promulgated under that Act."
The list is an OSHA requirement. Inventory reporting is an EPA requirement.
It is questionable as to whether or not a laboraotry falls under this regualtion
based on the above cite. Under the Lab Standard we are not required to have
available a material safety data sheet for hazardous chemicals. The wording in
the regulation is, "Employers shall maintain any material safety data sheets
that are received with incoming shipments of hazardous chemicals, and ensure
that they are readily accessible to laboratory employees." Regardless of what
good practice is the regulation does state that I must obtain an MSDS if did not
arrive with the shipment.
But beyond semantics there are two other exceptions to Subpart B-Reporting
Requirements. 370.25 Inventory reporting states that I must supply an inventory
report to certain agencies on hazardous chemicals present above the established
threshold levels. If you do not have chemicals above the threshold level then
you do not have to submit an inventory report. If you do not have to submit a
report then why would you have to inventory? Keep in mind the section you quote
is "Reporting Requirements" not "Inventory Requirements". There are over 2500
individual chemicals at our institute and I can tell you without an inventory
that we have no chemcials in quantities large enough to require reporting.
The second exception is that any substance used in a research laboratory is
exempt from the reporting requirements of Title III of the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, Section 312, Public Law 99-499. The
exemption is listed under Section 311(e) of Title III. Since our laboratory is
a research laboratory we are exempt.
I am not arguing the pros' or cons' of inventories. There are many situations
where an inventory is beneficial regardless of what the regulations say. But
there are also many situations where an inventory has no real benefit and in
this situation one should not be maintained because a regulation that does not
apply requires one.
Bill Schultz
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:53:37 -0500
From: "Warren C. Pinches"
Subject: Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I concur. As I recall the genesis of the Lab Standard, it was created
because in a lab environment that uses many chemicals, many of them only
fleetingly, Hazcom was considered too inflexible. The Lab Standard was
intended to relax some of the restrictions of Hazcom. This was considered
an acceptable trade-off because lab personnel were presumed to be
technically knowledgeable about chemicals and able to research chemical
information on their own. Saying the Lab Standard applies to tradespeople
seems to give them less, not more protection.
I have read many CHPs; most contain general hazard information that
parallels Hazcom, and then go on to discuss how to do lab procedures and
*use* chemicals safely. There often isn't much in a CHP that would be
useful to tradespeople. Mostly what they need to know in a lab is straight
out of Hazcom -- how to recognize unexpected chemicals releases (generally
spills), and what to do about it (a speedy exit).
Warren C. Pinches
Bill Schultz on 03/05/99 08:13:30 AM
Please respond to LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
cc: (bcc: Warren Pinches)
Subject: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
1910.1450 (a)(3)(i) states that this section shall not apply to uses of
hazardous chemicals which do not meet the definition of laboratory use.
In the case of an electrician fixing a hood it is not necessary to even
read
the definition of laboratory use since the electrician is not using
chemicals.
I agree that the cabinet has to be made safe for the electrician to work
in but
that is an issue that is seperate from the Lab Standard. There may be
many
standards, and if nothing specific applies there is always the general
duty
clause, that OSHA could cite you for if the work was not performed safetly
or
in a safe environment but I don't believe the Lab Standard is one of them.
What you are doing with the electrician is saying that the minute he walks
into
a laboratory he/she leaves the HAZCOM Standard behind and assumes the Lab
Standard. Would anyone assume that under the HAZCOM Standard, at a time
before
the Lab Standard was written, that when an electrician walked into a
laboratory
he/she left all the requirements of the HAZCOM Standard behind except for
sections (3)(i)(ii)(iii) and (iv), the only sections of the HAZCOM
Standard
that applies to laboratories.
Bill Schultz
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/4/99 2:17 PM
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:39:09 -0500
From: Janeen LaPierre
Subject: Re: OSHA Training
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I have not taken the course but I would be interested in more info on it and others. Can you point me in that direction. Thanks, Janeen.
*****************
Janeen Lapierre, CHO
College of Osteopathic Medicine
University of New England
11 Hills Beach Road
Biddeford, ME 04005
E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU
Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446
Opinions are mine and not those of UNE.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:16:27 -0700
From: "Greene, Ben"
Subject: Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Consider this: The preamble to 1910.1450 FR vol 55 no.21, January 31,
1990 page 3315 states: "The final standard defines employee as an
individual employed in a laboratory workplace who may be exposed to
hazardous chemicals in the course of his or her assignments. Such
individuals may actually work in the laboratory or because of their work
assignments may be required to enter a laboratory where potential
exposures may occur. In the latter category, OSHA considers maintenance
and custodial personnel as meeting the definition of employee." I agree
that the examples of fume hood/duct residues or floor contamination do
not meet the intent of laboratory use, but I remain convinced the lab
standard does apply to the electrician working in the lab considering
what the preamble states.
Ben
> ----------
> From: Warren C. Pinches[SMTP:Warren_Pinches@PRAXAIR.COM]
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 7:53 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing
> the hood?
>
> I concur. As I recall the genesis of the Lab Standard, it was created
> because in a lab environment that uses many chemicals, many of them
> only
> fleetingly, Hazcom was considered too inflexible. The Lab Standard
> was
> intended to relax some of the restrictions of Hazcom. This was
> considered
> an acceptable trade-off because lab personnel were presumed to be
> technically knowledgeable about chemicals and able to research
> chemical
> information on their own. Saying the Lab Standard applies to
> tradespeople
> seems to give them less, not more protection.
>
> I have read many CHPs; most contain general hazard information that
> parallels Hazcom, and then go on to discuss how to do lab procedures
> and
> *use* chemicals safely. There often isn't much in a CHP that would be
> useful to tradespeople. Mostly what they need to know in a lab is
> straight
> out of Hazcom -- how to recognize unexpected chemicals releases
> (generally
> spills), and what to do about it (a speedy exit).
>
> Warren C. Pinches
> Bill Schultz on 03/05/99 08:13:30
> AM
>
> Please respond to LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
>
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> cc: (bcc: Warren Pinches)
> Subject: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
> 1910.1450 (a)(3)(i) states that this section shall not apply to uses
> of
> hazardous chemicals which do not meet the definition of laboratory
> use.
>
> In the case of an electrician fixing a hood it is not necessary to
> even
> read
> the definition of laboratory use since the electrician is not using
> chemicals.
>
> I agree that the cabinet has to be made safe for the electrician to
> work
> in but
> that is an issue that is seperate from the Lab Standard. There may
> be
> many
> standards, and if nothing specific applies there is always the
> general
> duty
> clause, that OSHA could cite you for if the work was not performed
> safetly
> or
> in a safe environment but I don't believe the Lab Standard is one of
> them.
>
> What you are doing with the electrician is saying that the minute he
> walks
> into
> a laboratory he/she leaves the HAZCOM Standard behind and assumes the
> Lab
> Standard. Would anyone assume that under the HAZCOM Standard, at a
> time
> before
> the Lab Standard was written, that when an electrician walked into a
> laboratory
> he/she left all the requirements of the HAZCOM Standard behind except
> for
> sections (3)(i)(ii)(iii) and (iv), the only sections of the HAZCOM
> Standard
> that applies to laboratories.
>
> Bill Schultz
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
> Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at
> Internet-Mail
> Date: 3/4/99 2:17 PM
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:01:18 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Two areas I think are worthy of mention, since 40 CFR 20 was cited.
First, in the definitions found at 40 CFR 370.2, "Hazardous Chemical...does
not include...Any substance to the extent it is used in a research
laboratory or a hospital or other medical facility under the direct
supervision of a technically qualified individual". Of course this
exclusion doesn't cover chemicals used in support areas like boiler rooms,
janitor closets, etc.
Second, there are thresholds for reporting under EPA regs implementing
sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA (SARA Title III). See 40 CFR 370.20 (b)(1),
(2) and (3). Unless requested, you do not need to submit MSDS nor a chemical
inventory (Tier I or II) unless you have at least 500 pounds or the TPQ
(whichever is less) of any Extremely Hazardous Substance (see list at 40 CFR
355, Appendix A) OR more than 10,000 pounds of any other chemical covered
under OSHA regs. This final threshold was published in the Federal Register
on 07/26/90 (55 FR 30632 and following). The original intent was to lower
the thresholds to zero eventually, but EPA realized how overwhelmed they
would be with info. on substances posing very little real hazard to
emergency responders or the surrounding communities.
That said, our LEPC has passed regulations requiring floor plans and
inventories be reported to them under a local regulation of their own. And
those same regs do apply to lab use of chemicals, but we (certain H&S types
from the High Tech Council of Maryland) were able to get some special and
appropriate treatment for labs after many long meetings with them.
I could go on and on, but the above addresses the issues raised fairly well.
NOT to brag, but I try to keep up with SARA requirements as I am the
Governor's appointee representing "High Technology Business" on our LEPC. If
anyone knows of ANY error in or revision to what I just quoted please let
me know.
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:37:09 -0500
From: Janeen LaPierre
Subject: Re: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
*****************
Janeen Lapierre, CHO
College of Osteopathic Medicine
University of New England
11 Hills Beach Road
Biddeford, ME 04005
E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU
Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446
Opinions are mine and not those of UNE.
>>> Bill Schultz - 3/4/99 3:38 PM >>>
My interpretation on this:
>>>snip
If your laboratory chemicals are kept in closed containers there should be no
exposure of non laboratory employees such as custodial staff under normal
conditions of use since they do not use the chemicals. When maintenance
personnel are performing repairs or preventive maintenance functions in a
laboratory no procedures should be performed that could expose them to
chemicals. By following these two simple steps the chemicals in the laboratory
are excluded from the HAZCOM standard and therefore a list of them need not be
maintained.
While we may not have to maintain MSDS's in the labs, and we may not have to conduct lab safety training to non lab employees, what should the prudent person do? We had a situation in our new lab building where the head of housekeeping instructed the housekeepers to apply polish to the bench tops in the chem labs every night. The housekeepers were unaware of possible chemical contamination on these surfaces. Granted, they should be cleaned up at the end of the day but we are talking students, lots of students and they can be real pigs in lab. It is our job to train them in good lab practices and chemical hygiene but there is still a very high risk of contamination in these labs. Housekeepers need to be trained so they are aware and know what to look for. The flip side is, if the lab is a mess on a particular night, I find out about it the next day and can correct the situation right away. Housekeepers are not blamed for not doing their job and none is put in undo jeopar!
dy in these teaching environments.
Keeping MSDS's in the labs has proven to be a valuable teaching tool for students as well as employees. Professors and researchers use them as a reference material as well. I think the benefits of keeping these on hand for chemicals that are being used in the lab in question is just a good idea, regardless of which reg will be invoked.
>>>snip
If the chemicals in the laboratory are not being used and are properly stored
(in closed/sealed containers) there should be no need for PPE for the above
mentioned employees. Again, we are assuming that no lab activities are taking place when these nonlab folks enter. This is not always the case. We have had cases where maintenance folks needed to get into a lab area while lab was going on. They need to know that if class is going on, they need to wear the PPE all the students and instructors are wearing. They need to know that the instructor and lab coordinator must be told of their activities in lab areas prior to work beginning. These all sound easy enough, but trust me, this does not always happen. We had an electrician shut down ventilation in a lab during class because he needed to replace some lights in an adjacent office area. He wasn't in the lab but he sure did impact the safety of the area. That kinda stuff doesn't happen now because they receive training to point out the unforseen impact they could have on lab areas.
>>>>snip
(I once had a plumber knock a bottle of formaldehyde to the floor
while working in a laboratory). That is simple to do by instituting a policy
that in the event of a spill or leak of a chemical from a container or an
unknown odor in an area where chemicals are present the employee will
immediately leave the area and contact safety personnel.
Having policies in place such as the one you mention above is great but you need to train to it or it is useless. I find the acceptance of such policies is greater when they are accompanied by explanations. Did your plumber understand that Formaldehyde could evaporate and create an atmosphere immediately life threatening? Anyone working in the lab must have a healthy respect for chemical safety in my opinion. I must say that my educational endeavors here have been greatly appreciated by both the maintenance folks and the housekeepers as well as the administrative types in charge of these departments. I started by training the two housekeepers working in my labs nights and it has grown into a presentation for all housekeeping and maintenance folks at the university.
Yes it takes some time but the benefits to the employer far exceed the cost for time in training.
For what its worth, Janeen.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:07:17 -0800
From: Nick Spare
Subject: CHP/HC in general
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi all,
I realize that this is just a pipe dream, but wouldn't it be wonderful if
politicians and lawyers could just learn how to write in English (or
whatever the audience's native language is) rather than legalese. Then we
could spend more time applying the rules rather than discussing
interpretations of them!!
Editorial over. (These are absolutely my views and should not be viewed any
other way etc. etc. etc.)
Nick Spare
Pilot Chemical Co.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 00:16:51 -0600
From: EH&S Compliance
Subject: Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Bill,
You are right. I was not saying, though, that the SARA applied to labs.
That was the only place I remembered an inventory being needed, not under
Haz Com and did not state it clearly. (But would have been wrong anyway,
since it is in Haz Com.) Most of our facilities fall under the Community
Right to Know law and because of it we deal with inventories. Since the
reports were due March 1st it was very fresh in my mind. I personally don't
believe 40 CFR 370.20 applies to labs. At least that is what I understand,
have been taught and do. However, some states do have laws that are more
stringent. In New York, Indiana and Texas we don't report our lab chemicals
or waste on the Tier II; they follow the federal regulations. In
California, we report for the lab and include waste. Their thresholds are
also quite a bit lower (200ft3, 55gal, 500lbs) and happen to capture our
lab gas and it seems like everything else on-site (big pain).
So with your encouragement, I went looking in the Haz Com once again and
found the requirement for inventories in the section for Written Hazard
Communication Program 1910.1200(e). I also agree that it should be a
judgement decision based on safety (and other considerations) as to keep an
inventory or not if there is not a regulation for it.
Rebecca Levins
EH&S Compliance Specialist
RSR Corporation
Dallas, Texas
RSRrdl@onramp.net
(214) 583-0245
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Schultz [SMTP:william_schultz@DETRICK.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 8:02 AM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Thee list requirement is not OSHA's HazCom. It is EPA's SARA Right-to-Know
under 40 CFR 370.
"40 CFR 370.20(a)
(a) General. The requirements of this subpart apply to any facility
that is required to prepare or have available a material safety data sheet
(MSDS) for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 and regulations promulgated under that Act."
The list is an OSHA requirement. Inventory reporting is an EPA
requirement.
It is questionable as to whether or not a laboraotry falls under this
regualtion
based on the above cite. Under the Lab Standard we are not required to
have
available a material safety data sheet for hazardous chemicals. The
wording in
the regulation is, "Employers shall maintain any material safety data
sheets
that are received with incoming shipments of hazardous chemicals, and
ensure
that they are readily accessible to laboratory employees." Regardless of
what
good practice is the regulation does state that I must obtain an MSDS if
did not
arrive with the shipment.
But beyond semantics there are two other exceptions to Subpart B-Reporting
Requirements. 370.25 Inventory reporting states that I must supply an
inventory
report to certain agencies on hazardous chemicals present above the
established
threshold levels. If you do not have chemicals above the threshold level
then
you do not have to submit an inventory report. If you do not have to
submit a
report then why would you have to inventory? Keep in mind the section you
quote
is "Reporting Requirements" not "Inventory Requirements". There are over
2500
individual chemicals at our institute and I can tell you without an
inventory
that we have no chemcials in quantities large enough to require reporting.
The second exception is that any substance used in a research laboratory is
exempt from the reporting requirements of Title III of the Superfund
Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, Section 312, Public Law 99-499.
The
exemption is listed under Section 311(e) of Title III. Since our
laboratory is
a research laboratory we are exempt.
I am not arguing the pros' or cons' of inventories. There are many
situations
where an inventory is beneficial regardless of what the regulations say.
But
there are also many situations where an inventory has no real benefit and
in
this situation one should not be maintained because a regulation that does
not
apply requires one.
Bill Schultz
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:28:07 -0600
Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
From: Dave Peterson
Subject: Re: auto-ignition temperatures
Comments: To: Daniel Cronin
Subject: Time: 10:13 AM
OFFICE MEMO Re: auto-ignition temperaturesDate: 3/5/99
Daniel,
Someone posted your request for the subject information on the National Association of Chemical Hygiene Officers listsever (NACHO). One reference that I have that lists many of the chemicals you requested (but not all) is Lange's Handbook of Chemistry by John A. Dean (pages 5.135-5.141), fourteenth edition, ISBN 0-07-016194-1. This reference also recommends looking for additional compounds in National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Handbook, 14th ed., 1976. Hope this helps.
David P. Peterson
Environment, Safety & Health Coordinator
Environmental Research Division
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
dppeterson@anl.gov
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:48:06 -0600
From: Erik Talley
Subject: List Open Again
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
LabSafety-L List Subscribers:
I accidentally used a command on the list which "locked" it so the list
has been down. It is unlocked now so everything should be restored to
normal. Sorry for the inconvenience...
Erik
____________________________________
Erik Talley, Assistant Director
Center for Environmental Health and Safety
Southern Illinois University
erik@cehs.siu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:34:53 -0500
From: Bill Schultz
Subject: Re[4]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the h
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You are right the wording of 29 CFR 1910.1450 states under definitions,
"Employee means an individual employed in a laboratory workplace who may be
exposed to hazardous chemicals in the course of his or her assignment."
The wording of 29 CFR 1910 states under definitions, "Employee means a worker
who may be exposed to hazardous chemicals under normal operating conditions or
in foreseeable emergencies. Workers such as office workers or bank tellers who
encounter hazardous chemicals only in non-routine, isolated instances are not
covered."
They both say basically the same thing.
At least under the HAZCOM regulation you know that you only have to cover
people who may be exposed under normal operating conditions or foreseeable
emergencies. You are even given examples of people who do not fall under the
regulation such as office workers.
If you set up your program based on the definition of an employee under the Lab
Standard rather than who it applies to then you must include everyone in the
building including office workers. And since the regulation requires you to
inform the employees of the signs and symptoms of exposure to the chemicals
they may be exposed to as well as PEL and TLVs' that becomes quite a task based
on the assumption that they may be exposed to any chemical in the building.
And the information will be given to people who probably will not understand it
and could care less.
I think the key is the term exposure. I do not consider being in a room full
of chemicals exposure. And with proper policies in place the only potential
exposure would be a unforeseeable accident.
In our institute, administrative employees who do not work with chemicals are
informed that all chemical work is performed inside laboratories in which the
air pressure inside the laboratory is negative to the outside so there is no
escape of fumes from the laboratories. The only potential for exposure is the
unlikely event that someone transporting a chemical between laboratories drops
it in the hall while they are present. In this instance they are to leave the
area and notify Safety. They are required to sign a document stating that they
have been given this information.
Employees who do not work with chemicals under the definition of "laboratory
use" but may be exposed to solvents, cleaning agents, etc. receive HAZCOM
training. They are required to adhere to the HCP. They are taught how to
interpret MSDSs' and to deal with the limited quantity of chemicals that they
may use while performing their duties. They are not allowed to use chemicals
that have not been approved by the CHO. If they are in a laboratory or a
hallway and a chemical is spilled they are instructed to leave the area and
notify Safety. They are required to sign a document that they have been given
this training.
Employees who work in the laboratories performing functions defined as
laboratory use of chemicals are covered under the Lab Standard. They receive
the required training under the Lab Standard. They are required to adhere to
the CHP. They also are told to leave the lab in the event of a spill outside
of a chemical fume hood and to notify Safety. They are required to sign a
document that they have been given this training.
It is probably impossible to get agreement on this issue without a written
interpretation from OSHA, two written interpretations would probably not
resolve the issue, but I believe if your program meets the intent of the law to
protect employees based on their job duties you will be in a defensible
position.
That's it for me on this issue. I think I got overstimulated.
Bill Schultz
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the h
Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/5/99 8:16 AM
Consider this: The preamble to 1910.1450 FR vol 55 no.21, January 31,
1990 page 3315 states: "The final standard defines employee as an
individual employed in a laboratory workplace who may be exposed to
hazardous chemicals in the course of his or her assignments. Such
individuals may actually work in the laboratory or because of their work
assignments may be required to enter a laboratory where potential
exposures may occur. In the latter category, OSHA considers maintenance
and custodial personnel as meeting the definition of employee." I agree
that the examples of fume hood/duct residues or floor contamination do
not meet the intent of laboratory use, but I remain convinced the lab
standard does apply to the electrician working in the lab considering
what the preamble states.
Ben
> Please respond to LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
>
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> cc: (bcc: Warren Pinches)
> Subject: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:40:03 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: CHP/HC - Wish OSHA would be clearer.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I wonder if anyone from OSHA ever reads our stuff. It seems to me it would
give them more confidence in the ability of intelligent people to develop
programs that do what should be done if only OSHA provided easy to work with
requirements. Bill Schultz's evaluation (overstimulated or not) was
refreshing in its logic and simplicity.
Thanks!
Helen
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 00:33:02 -0600
From: EH&S Compliance
Subject: Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Statement of 40 CFR 320 looks great. Since you did so well in Maryland could you talk to the LA County Fire Department? :)
Rebecca Levins
EH&S Compliance Specialist
RSR Corporation
Dallas, Texas
RSRrdl@onramp.net
(214) 583-0245
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman, Randy [SMTP:RNorman@BIORELIANCE.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 9:01 AM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Re[2]: CHP/HC -- What about the electrician fixing the hood?
Two areas I think are worthy of mention, since 40 CFR 20 was cited.
That said, our LEPC has passed regulations requiring floor plans and
inventories be reported to them under a local regulation of their own. And
those same regs do apply to lab use of chemicals, but we (certain H&S types
from the High Tech Council of Maryland) were able to get some special and
appropriate treatment for labs after many long meetings with them.
I could go on and on, but the above addresses the issues raised fairly well.
NOT to brag, but I try to keep up with SARA requirements as I am the
Governor's appointee representing "High Technology Business" on our LEPC. If
anyone knows of ANY error in or revision to what I just quoted please let
me know.
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:24:00 +1300
From: John Downey
Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Are there any physical chemists on the forum? I had a funny feeling that
there should be a formula for predicting this property based on molecular
size, bond lengths and strengths and 437 other abstruse parameters designed
to trip dumb students. If anybody can come up with something, it would make
a good exam question for someone and maybe help the rest of us in a
practical way.
John Downey
Waitakere City Council
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Haggerty [SMTP:techton@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 11:34 AM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
>
> Linda/Sharyn
> Further Info on gas expansion ratios.
>
> I have a book called Properties of Technical gases produced by Liquid Gas
> Equipment Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. They use a property called the
> Condensing Ratio which gives the volume of liquid condensed in cubic
> decimetres (litres) per cubic metre of gas (1000 litres) at NTP.
>
> Not all of the gases Sharyn quoted are in this book but there are others
> for
> future reference. Whilst some agree with her figures, others are vastly
> different.
>
> LPG I quoted yesterday as ~270:1 and this is confirmed. Methane I have as
> 1244:1 which is approximately twice your figure
>
> You or Sharyn may wish to continue this discussion off forum
>
> Regards
> Tony Haggerty
> techton@ihug.co.nz
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:17:28 -0800
Reply-To: Marc Neuffer
From: Marc Neuffer
Subject: Humor & Safety Info News
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gooood Morning! --- 8 March 1999
More Free Safety Info to save you Time & Money
***********************************************************
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for
their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
***********************************************************
NEW THIS WEEK ON SAFETY INFO.COM
[SAFETY PROGRAMS] - 2 new programs added - Tool Safety & Fall Prevention
[WEEKLY POSTER] - Only Authorized Employees May Operate Equipment
[WEEKLY BRIEF] - Back Injury Prevention
LOW PRICE FINDER] - Great Prices on Respirators!!!
[DOT INFO] - 2 Items sent in by Roy Wallace - Hours of Service Tracker
(Excel File) & Power Point Training Presentation "Safety Compliance & DOT
HazMat"
[EPA INFO] - You can now browse 75 Environmental Topics
[COMPUTER STUFF] - New Section - 9 Safety Computer Programs you can Download
or Execute on-line.
[OSHA STANDARDS] - we now have the Top 100 OSHA Standards on-line -
categorized & grouped by topic
**********************************************************
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock.
**********************************************************
Now taking requests for Poster and Safety Brief Topics - let us know what
you would like to see in the coming months.
**********************************************************
Don't forget to register for the Free Software - New Winner & New Software
title each month.
**********************************************************
BUMPER STICKER: "The gene pool could use a little chlorine."
************************************************
Regards & Best Wishes
Marc & Neil
Safety Info.Com
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:25:06 -0500
From: "Norman, Randy"
Subject: Re: flam gas expansion ratios?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Are there any physical chemists on the forum? I had a funny feeling
that
there should be a formula for predicting this property based on
molecular
size, bond lengths and strengths and 437 other abstruse parameters
designed
to trip dumb students. If anybody can come up with something, it
would make
a good exam question for someone and maybe help the rest of us in a
practical way.
RESPONSE:
(Not a Physical Chemist per se, but I did get an A in the course, so here
goes:)
The ideal gas law provides a rough estimate, but for real gases I prefer the
van der Waals equation of state:
[p+(n2a/v2)](v-nb) = RT
Where (forgive if this seems really obvious): p = pressure, v = volume of
gas, R= the gas constant, n= the number of moles, T= the absolute
temperature (Kelvin) and a and b are substance-specific constants (which may
be found in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and similar
references).
Just plug in the absolute temperature and pressure, and look up a and b for
the substance you're evaluating and you can easily calculate the volume
occupied by each mole of it. To convert this measure to an expansion factor,
use the density of the liquid and molecular weight of the substance. I've
spent too much time on this already, but the math is pretty straightforward
once you've got the van der Waals equation and appropriate constants a and
b.
Yes I guess this IS P-Chem.!
Randy Norman
Safety Specialist Sr.
BioReliance Corporation
Rockville, MD 20850
Rnorman@bioreliance.com
"Success is a journey, not a destination" - Ben Sweetland
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:07:26 -0600
From: Brian Olson
Subject: JOB ANNOUNCEMENT: CSO/CHO
Comments: To: SAFETY@LIST.UVM.EDU
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I received an error from the listserver that my first post did not take.
I'll try again. Sorry if it posts twice:
> This is a highly independent and rewarding position. If interested, or
> know someone who is, have them contact me or our HR department at
> hr@promega.com
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Promega Corporation a world leading biotechnology company headquartered in
> Madison WI is currently seeking the following individual to join us:
> CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HYGIENE OFFICER
> You will coordinate and maintain activities performed regularly in the
> Environmental Health & Safety Department and focus on chemical hygiene
> chemical safety product safety evaluation & MSDS production and hazard
> communication. You will also set up and facilitate safety training; review
> and update safety programs; and manage all duties related to chemical
> processing/disposal (including waste identification and profiling) collect
> store and distribute waste to an outside agent and maintain records and
> create annual reports.
> A B.S. or M.S. degree in Industrial Hygiene Physical Science or Life
> Science which includes 12 credits in chemistry (including organic
> chemistry) as well as additional credits in any combination of the
> following courses: chemistry environmental health biology toxicology or
> industrial hygiene is required. Four years' lab related experience;
> knowledge of OSHA DNR IATA regulations; employee safety training
> experience; and hands-on experience using air-sampling dosimetry
> calibration and other industrial hygiene equipment preferred.
> A background with international Safety regulation and ISO 9000 prior lab
> experience and the demonstrated ability to use a PC (Word Excel and other
> windows based programs) are preferred. For confidential consideration
> please mail or e-mail your resume to: Promega Corporation Human Resources
> 2800 Woods Hollow Rd Madison WI 53711. E-mail: hr@promega.com. EOE For
> additional information please visit our website at http://www.promega.com
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Olson
> Manager, EHS
> Promega Corporation
> Madison, WI
> Fax: 608-277-2677
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:46:00 -0600
From: EH&S Compliance
Subject: Workshop on Compliance with Environmental Regulations in Academic
I saw this on another list of mine and thought a few of you may be interested. Sorry about the crosspost if you have seen it already.
Rebecca Levins
EH&S Compliance Specialist
RSR Corporation
Dallas, Texas
RSRrdl@onramp.net
(214) 583-0245
--------------
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:41:24 -0500
From: Mary Liu
Subject: Workshop on Compliance with Environmental Regulations in Academic
Settings
WHAT IS IT? A workshop for administration and EHS staff of New England
colleges and universities. This one day workshop provides attendees with an
enhanced understanding of regulations applying to universities and
colleges and how these regulations are enforced. Available pollution
prevention opportunities are also discussed.
WHEN IS IT? Wednesday, March 24, 1999
WHERE IS IT? Harvard Medical School, Tosteson Medical Education Center, 260
Longwood Ave., Boston, MA. Limited on-site parking available. By public
transportation: the MBTA Green "E" Line near the Longwood stop.
WHAT WILL IT COST? $25/person, which includes continental breakfast, lunch,
and break.
CONFERENCE SPONSORS: US EPA, Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of
Public Health
QUESTIONS? Joan Jouzaitis of EPA (617-918-1846) would be glad to answer any
questions you have about this event. Please contact her about accessibility
requirements. The site is handicapped accessible.
AGENDA:
7:30 Registration for Colleges/Universities within the Charles River
Watershed
7:45 Charles River Watershed Status Report and Next Steps (A discussion for
institutions within the Charles River Watershed area)
8:00 General Registration for Conference Attendees
8:45 Introduction/Welcome
9:15 Compliance: Historical Problems (Patterns of non-compliance and
specific case studies)
10:30 Break
10:45 Regulations 101: A Brief History of Statutory Overview (RCRA, SPCC,
UST and CAA with tips for meeting regulatory requirements)
12:00 Project XL: Background, Issues, and Next Steps
12:30 Lunch
1:15 Panel Discussion: The University Perspective on Environmental
Compliance (A facilitated discussion with EHS personnel from private and
state colleges and universities)
2:30 Auditing a Campus (Briefings on the Northeast Partnership for
Environmental Technology Education's Green Campus Project; Mass. DEP's Clean
State Initiative; Pfizer's University Laboratory SEP)
3:10 Closing Remarks and Discussion
HOW TO REGISTER: Send $25 registration fee per attendee (checks payable to
Harvard Medical School Campus Operations) by March 12 to
Ms. Abby McGarry
Administrative Manager
Harvard Medical School
Campus Operations
180 Longwood Ave.
Boston, MA 02115
Attn: March 24 Conference
Please include the following information:
1.) Name(s)
2.) College/University or other affiliation
3.) Address
4.) Phone number
5.) Fax number
6.) E-mail
EPA's contractor this event, AEAI, will mail a confirmation letter to you,
along with detailed directions.
------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:07:16 -0600
From: Brian Olson
Subject: SURVEY RESULTS AVAILABLE: CONTACT ME!
Comments: To: SAFETY@LIST.UVM.EDU, radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
FYI, this is being sent to the SAFETY, RADSAFE, LABSAFETY and BIOSAFETY
mail-lists.
In early February, I asked you to participate in a Safety CBT (Computer
Based Training) survey. To those who participated, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME - a copy of the survey will automatically be sent out to you today (via
email).
Anyway, I mentioned that I would send out the results towards the end of the
month. Thanks for your patience. To save bandwidth, (it is quite long) I
am asking anyone that is interested in the results of the survey to send me
an email directly (bolson@promega.com). I will email you the results.
Thanks all!
Brian Olson
Manager, EHS
Promega Corporation (biotech company)
bolson@promega.com
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:25:36 -0500
From: Nick Pinizzotto
Subject: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi folks,
Anyone like to comment on how to rinse down and clean a standard labcasework
cabinet which obviously stored acids of some sort in a former lablife.
The lab is being renovated and our painters want to sand and repaint the
cabinet. I have observed very small salt precipitates on parts of the cabinet.
I have no knowledge about the types of acids formerly stored there and whther
any perchloric may have resided there.
Would you recommend anything more than than a saturating with watermist from a
garden sprayer? Anyone ever deal with a circumstance like this?
Would appreciate any suggestions/feedback.
Nick Pinizzotto
Environmental Health Officer
Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
Thomas Jefferson University
nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:40:56 EDT
From: Jennifer Reader
Organization: Environmental Health and Safety
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
Comments: To: Nick Pinizzotto
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
water, soap, scrub brush, elbow grease.
Jennifer Reader, B.S., M.S.P.H.
Hazardous Materials Safety Officer
Environmental Health and Safety
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada
519-824-4120 X3190 Fax 519-824-0364
e-Mail jennifer@ehs.uoguelph.ca
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:36:01 -0800
From: Debbie Decker
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
In-Reply-To: <34A791663B6@ehsnet.nw.uoguelph.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
At 03:40 PM 3/9/99 EDT, you wrote:
>water, soap, scrub brush, elbow grease.
>
>Jennifer Reader, B.S., M.S.P.H.
>Hazardous Materials Safety Officer
>Environmental Health and Safety
>University of Guelph
I might add some baking soda to the mix. And a pair of gloves to keep
"your hands soft and younger-looking" (I've been doing way too much data
entry today!)
Deb.
Debbie Decker
EH&S UCDavis
(530)754-7964
dmdecker@ucdavis.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:44:12 -0500
Reply-To: Bob Burns
From: Bob Burns
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Unless you suggest perchloric acid, I'd go with the old favorite- soap and
water, then rinse. Soap is basic enough to neutralize any traces of acids
left behind.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Pinizzotto
To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu
Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 3:27 PM
Subject: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
>Hi folks,
>
>Anyone like to comment on how to rinse down and clean a standard
labcasework
>cabinet which obviously stored acids of some sort in a former lablife.
>
>The lab is being renovated and our painters want to sand and repaint the
>cabinet. I have observed very small salt precipitates on parts of the
cabinet.
>I have no knowledge about the types of acids formerly stored there and
whther
>any perchloric may have resided there.
>
>Would you recommend anything more than than a saturating with watermist
from a
>garden sprayer? Anyone ever deal with a circumstance like this?
>
>Would appreciate any suggestions/feedback.
>Nick Pinizzotto
>Environmental Health Officer
>Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
>Thomas Jefferson University
>nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
>215-503-5853
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 18:02:45 -0500
From: Don Abramowitz
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
In addition to the recommendations thus far, a quick dab with a wet strip
of pH paper will tell you a little about the salt residues, and might guide
you as to how well you are neutralizing things with your soap and baking
soda. Since some people like to store all their "corrosives" together
(despite our collective best efforts), the pH paper will also tip you off
to the presence of NaOH, etc., which might call for some citric acid in
lieu of baking soda.
Don
>Anyone like to comment on how to rinse down and clean a standard labcasework
>cabinet which obviously stored acids of some sort in a former lablife.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donald Abramowitz, CIH
Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer
Bryn Mawr College| Swarthmore College
101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:11:44 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi all:
I saw the following on the web
http://www.prizim-inc.com/LSEMconference.htm
Can anyone tell me about this conference? It is apparently annual and in
"Professional Safety" magazine, it is billed as a conference that experts in
Laboratory Safety convene at.
I would like to know if anyone in this group has gone to these conferences.
Are they good sources of information?
Thanks!
Helen
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:42:03 -0600
From: Jeff Rubin
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
I haven't been to the conferences, but it's a pretty good newsletter. I
believe the newsletter editor either subscribes to or monitors the
Labsafety list: I guess we'll find out...
JNR
>http://www.prizim-inc.com/LSEMconference.htm
>
>
>Can anyone tell me about this conference? It is apparently annual and in
>"Professional Safety" magazine, it is billed as a conference that experts in
>Laboratory Safety convene at.
>
>I would like to know if anyone in this group has gone to these conferences.
>Are they good sources of information?
Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS
College of Natural Sciences G2500
W.C. Hogg Building
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1199
(512) 471-6176 (O)
(512) 471-4998 (F)
jrubin@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.utexas.edu/cons/safety/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:21:54 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Information Please!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi all:
I saw the following on the web
http://www.prizim-inc.com/LSEMconference.htm
Can anyone tell me about this conference? It is apparently annual
and in "Professional Safety" magazine, it is billed as a conference that
experts in Laboratory Safety convene at.
I would like to know if anyone in this group has gone to these
conferences. Are they good sources of information?
Thanks!
Helen
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:24:13 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: Info Please
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I have a real question about that since I didn't see NACHO or CCHO mentioned
anywhere on the website.
Thanks!
Helen
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Rubin [SMTP:jrubin@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 4:42 PM
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Subject:Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
I haven't been to the conferences, but it's a pretty good
newsletter. I
believe the newsletter editor either subscribes to or monitors the
Labsafety list: I guess we'll find out...
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 18:39:45 -0500
From: "Thomas J. Shelley"
Subject: Re: Information Please!
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
>Hi all:
>
>I saw the following on the web
>
>http://www.prizim-inc.com/LSEMconference.htm
>
>
>Can anyone tell me about this conference? It is apparently annual
>and in "Professional Safety" magazine, it is billed as a conference that
>experts in Laboratory Safety convene at.
>
>I would like to know if anyone in this group has gone to these
>conferences. Are they good sources of information?
Dear Helen and Colleagues--This is an excellent conference. I have been
to the entire series of conferences and have given presentations and
trainings for several years. I would highly recommend LS&EM '99
for laboatory EH&S staff who have not attended. Tom Shelley
*********************************************************
Tom Shelley, Chemical Hygiene Officer, Cornell University
Department of Environmental Health and Safety, 125 Humphreys Service Building,
Ithaca, NY 14853. (607) 255-4288 tjs1@cornell.edu
****************************DISCLAIMER********************
The comments and views expressed in this communication are strictly my own and
are not to be construed to officially represent those of my peers,
supervisors or
Cornell University.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:58:17 -0800
From: Ray Campbell
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
I printed out the information as I am in Southern California near the AQMD.
They offer a section by the EPA on lab status under section 112 of the
CAAA. There is also a presentation by the AQMD on pollution prevention.
This is a breakout session for industry, academia and government. In the
afternoon, a session on AB 966 -laboratory waste handling. A discussion of
the Environmental Management Guide for Small Laboratories follows. The
session ends with room air distribution and health and safety concerns.
The cost is $100.00. (50 for academia and government). I have not attended
such a course, but I have attended seminars sponsored by the AQMD, with and
without the EPA and they have been excellent. I plan to attend this one.
Ray Campbell REA CCHO
310-257-1080
At 04:11 PM 3/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi all:
>
>I saw the following on the web
>
>http://www.prizim-inc.com/LSEMconference.htm
>
>
>Can anyone tell me about this conference? It is apparently annual and in
>"Professional Safety" magazine, it is billed as a conference that experts in
>Laboratory Safety convene at.
>
>I would like to know if anyone in this group has gone to these conferences.
>Are they good sources of information?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Helen
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 18:52:11 -0600
From: Jeff Rubin
Subject: Incentives
Mime-Version: 1.0
Howdy,
It's creativity time! We're about to embark on something I've wanted to do
for more than year - go through a bunch of our lab buildings and
systematically get rid of a bunch o' junk. We're creating a one-time
streamlined procedure for large-scale equipment and chemical removal as
part of the organization for our new School of Biological Sciences. The
process will end up taking two months or so, but only a day or three for
any lab group. The clean-out will require people to put aside packrat-ism
as well as having many students (I assume) do the bulk of the work. Any
suggestions for incentives that can lighten this up? Yes, I know that the
joy of more and safer lab space should be incentive enough, but these are
life-sciences faculty and students. Here're a few things I already have in
mind:
* Pizza and beer (not in the labs, of course) for students doing the dirty work
* Awards for:
- most chemical containers tagged for disposal (maybe provide a small
raffle with entries proportional to number of chem disposal tags?)
- largest single item removed
- largest space (volume or surface area) "liberated" (absolute and relative
categories)
- most unusual item disposed of
- greatest age disparity between equipment and person getting rid of it
You get the idea. Suggestions welcome, just keep 'em legal (but not
necessarily tasteful)...
Onward,
JNR
Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS
College of Natural Sciences G2500
W.C. Hogg Building
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1199
(512) 471-6176 (O)
(512) 471-4998 (F)
jrubin@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.utexas.edu/cons/safety/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:35:45 -0800
From: Neal Langerman
Subject: Re: Wash down of former acid storage cabinet.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Purchase some "Liquid Acid Neutralizer" from JV Mfg in Green Bay, Lab
Safety, or JT Baker and spray the area with it. Rinse with water, test with
pH paper, Repeat until clean.
Neal
At 03:25 PM 3/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>Anyone like to comment on how to rinse down and clean a standard labcasework
>cabinet which obviously stored acids of some sort in a former lablife.
>
>The lab is being renovated and our painters want to sand and repaint the
>cabinet. I have observed very small salt precipitates on parts of the cabinet.
>I have no knowledge about the types of acids formerly stored there and whther
>any perchloric may have resided there.
>
>Would you recommend anything more than than a saturating with watermist from a
>garden sprayer? Anyone ever deal with a circumstance like this?
>
>Would appreciate any suggestions/feedback.
>Nick Pinizzotto
>Environmental Health Officer
>Dept. Environmental Health & Safety
>Thomas Jefferson University
>nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu
>215-503-5853
*************************************************************
NEAL LANGERMAN chemsaf@ix.netcom.com
ADVANCED CHEMICAL SAFETY
8909 Complex Drive
San Diego CA 92123-1418
619 874 5577 (phone) 619 874 8239 (FAX)
619 990 4908 (cellular)
visit our homepage: http://www.chemical-safety.com
*************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:50:25 EST
From: Gilbert Smith
Subject: Re: Info Please
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/9/99 6:30:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hbgerhard@MEDLOGIC.COM writes:
> I have a real question about that since I didn't see NACHO or CCHO mentioned
> anywhere on the website.
>
NRCC is linked to the "LS&EM- the Conference" web page through "LS& EM
Supporters."
See: LS&EM - The
Conference
As a matter of fact, the first NRCC-CHO certification exam was given at the
LS&EM Conference in San Diego in 1997. The CHO exam was also given at the
Conference in 1998, and is scheduled for the 1999 Conference.
NACHO met informally at the 1998 Conference.
Gilbert Smith
NRCC
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:09:27 -0500
From: Mary Ann Solstad
Subject: Re: Information Please!
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
If your lab is chemical, I would go instead to the ACS meetings, the next
one of which is in Anaheim about 3/21/99. For geology, biology and various
misc. sciences, I think you might find much of interest at LSEM. A much
smaller group, a few select exhibits, and good chances to compare notes.
Jim Kaufman, of this list, usually runs a workshop at LSEM and at ACS
meetings. Generally the CHO workshops and exams might be given at both
also. One is sponsored by a scientific society, the other by a for profit
group--that is not to denigrate the latter.
Mary Ann
At 04:21 PM 3/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi all:
>
>I saw the following on the web
>
>http://www.prizim-inc.com/LSEMconference.htm
>
>
>Can anyone tell me about this conference? It is apparently annual
>and in "Professional Safety" magazine, it is billed as a conference that
>experts in Laboratory Safety convene at.
>
>I would like to know if anyone in this group has gone to these
>conferences. Are they good sources of information?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Helen
>
Mary Ann Solstad, CIH 4 A's of Safety
SOLSTAD Health & Safety Evaluations Attitude
16 Pequot Rd, Marblehead, MA 01945 Awareness
781-631-4748 tel, 781-631-1832 FAX Automatic Application
Authority
Past Chair, DivCHAS, ACS
msolstad@mediaone.net
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:39:24 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Info Please
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/9/99 6:30:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hbgerhard@MEDLOGIC.COM writes:
<< I have a real question about that since I didn't see NACHO or CCHO
mentioned
anywhere on the website. >>
Hi NACHOs,
For the past few years, LSW has been a sponsor of LS&EM, offered a one-day
seminar, had our first public meeting there last year (50 attended), RJG
Associates offered the CHO exam prep course, and NRCC gave the CHO exam. All
this will happen again this July in Philly. ... Jim Kaufman
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:40:39 +0000
From: Nigel McCarter
Subject: Rhodamine
Mime-Version: 1.0
A science lab I deal with has had a spill of Rhodamine dye in a dangerous
goods store. Rhodamine is flurescent pink dye used to trace water flows in
hydrological work. It is not hazardous, but visible at very low
concentrations.
Most of the spill has been cleaned up, and we are left with very red
concrete contained within a bund.
Has anyone any bright ideas for neutralising the dye in situ?
Nigel
Nigel McCarter
Safety Management and Information Services Ltd
Box 23 019 Hamilton New Zealand
Phone (64) 7 858 2429 Fax (64) 7 858 2689
Mobile 021 212 4901
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:27:54 -0300
From: "Aziz M. Abu-khalaf"
Subject: information
Mime-Version: 1.0
Hi everybody
We need to make available the following safety items in our department:
Sound level meter
Video tapes on safety
I would appreciate giving information on the best of these, or the one
you are using in safety field.
Many thanks.
Aziz.
****************************************************************************
*******
Aziz M. Abu-Khalaf ***** Tel: 00966 1 4676894
Chemical Engineering Department ***** Fax: 00966 1 4678770
King Saud University ***** E-mail: amkhalaf@ksu.edu.sa
PO Box 800 *****
Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia *****
****************************************************************************
*******
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 05:37:17 EST
From: Labsafe@AOL.COM
Subject: Your Favorite Lab Safety Videos
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi NACHOs,
That recent question about videos made me thinks it might be good to have the
list on our web site as a FAQ.
So, please send me a copy of your reply or a list of your favorites so that I
can compile the list and post it here and on the web site. Please include the
title, length, year of release, source, the appropriate audience, and any
editorial comments.
Thanks, .... Jim
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:52:47 -0600
From: Ward R Phifer
Subject: Re: Information Please!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Helen -
The Laboratory Safety & Environmental Management Conference is an
excellent forum for exchange among laboratory safety professionals. I
have attended 4 or 5 of them and have always been impressed with the
professionalism and organization of Prizim in putting together a good,
well attended program. Highly recommended!
Russ Phifer
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:21:54 -0700 "Helen B. Gerhard"
writes:
>Hi all:
>
>I saw the following on the web
>
>http://www.prizim-inc.com/LSEMconference.htm
>
>
>Can anyone tell me about this conference? It is apparently
>annual
>and in "Professional Safety" magazine, it is billed as a conference
>that
>experts in Laboratory Safety convene at.
>
>I would like to know if anyone in this group has gone to
>these
>conferences. Are they good sources of information?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Helen
>
Russell Phifer
WCC Environmental LLC
PO Box 39, 439 S. Bolmar Street, West Chester, PA 19381
610-696-9220 / 610-344-7519 fax
envasset@juno.com
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:18:48 -0800
Reply-To: Marc Neuffer
From: Marc Neuffer
Subject: ANSI Z590 - My Letter
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear fellow list members, the new proposed ANSI Standard regarding "Safety
Professionals" has caused quite a stir in the safety community. For more
info, visit the National Safety Council web site http://www.nsc.org and
click on the Z590 link at the top of the page to get their take in the
issue. This will affect almost every business in the US, down the road,
when the government requires companies to have a "Safety Professional" as
defined by the proposed standard.
Below are excerpts from my letter to Tim Fisher (ASSE)
Dear Mr. Fisher:
I realize that engineers, being a 3rd generation engineer myself, have an
instinctive need to quantify the world and wrap things up in nicely defined
terms - that's the nature of engineering. However, safety, in the applied
sense, for a business, is a staff position that generally falls under the
Human Resources hat.
In your organization's attempt at "title protection" you have provided a too
narrow definition and self supporting qualification requirement that
precludes other certifying criteria of equal value to companies. The
current wording effectively eliminates "certification" through other
established and historic avenues. Your organization is sounding more and
more like a Labor Union attempting to use the government to create an
environment which will increase your membership and influence in the
profession.
It takes no special "qualification" to read and understand safety standards
and regulations. The art and the "professionalism" is in the successful
application of these in an industrial or business environment. In my
experience, a great, and possibly major, part of the effort required of
Safety Managers is in the effective "selling" of safety. Additionally,
application of "safety" in the world of business involves changing
employees (and management's) behaviors and value systems. So perhaps, to be
considered a true safety professional, we should all be certified sales
people and psychologists.
-end excerpt-
Regards & Best Wishes
Marc Neuffer
www.safetyinfo.com
(256)840-9530
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:01:26 +0000
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: Herman curtis
Subject: Rhodamine
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Just get some more rhodamine and stain the whole area. The red color
will go along with the "dangerous goods";-)
Herman Curtis
Department of Physical Science
Cameron University
2800 W Gore Blvd
Lawton, OK 73505
hermanc@cameron.edu (580)591-8007 ,(580)581-2323
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:55:09 -0700
From: "Helen B. Gerhard"
Subject: ANSI Z590 - Except from Another Letter
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi All:
I have also sent a letter.
I would like to get a copy of the Draft ANSI standard that ASSE has
authored. As with the National Safety Council
(http://www.nsc.org/osh/z590.htm ) , I am
very concerned with the movements being made to "codify" terminology.
I do understand the need to assure that certain titles carry some standard
information with them. However, having entered the safety profession from a
B.S. Chemistry background rather than an engineering or safety curriculum, I
am feel that only recognizing the latter is not wise. Additionally, there
are many excellent educational opportunities which promote safety which (if
NSC's reading of the draft is true) would not be valued or recognized by
this ANSI standard.
As our society moves towards integration of functional areas (e.g. QEH&S),
as indicated by Lockheed-Martin's corporate strategy and the OSHA/EPA
cooperation in government, this segmentation may potentially lead to
problems for safety and environmental professionals. I believe that ASSE
needs to create a collation among other safety groups to assure that we are
not creating division rather than cooperation between safety professionals.
The strategy that is being used begs the question "what is the real goal
here?"
I would be interested in working towards an integrated approach.
Thanks!
Helen
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:27:08 -0800
From: Debbie Decker
Subject: Re: Rhodamine
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990310184039.008288d0@pop.clear.net.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
At 06:40 PM 3/10/99 +0000, you wrote:
>A science lab I deal with has had a spill of Rhodamine dye in a dangerous
>goods store. Rhodamine is flurescent pink dye used to trace water flows in
>hydrological work. It is not hazardous, but visible at very low
>concentrations.
>Most of the spill has been cleaned up, and we are left with very red
>concrete contained within a bund.
>
>Has anyone any bright ideas for neutralising the dye in situ?
Nigel:
A small anecdote about rhodamine: During WWII, the explosives
manufacturers dyed RDX pink with rhodamine so's the soldiers could tell the
difference between the various types of det cord and explosives they were
using. In this time frame (1940's), a one pound jar of rhodamine was
dropped and broken on a loading dock of a manufacturer of RDX. When I
spoke with this bunch in the 80's (about dyeing RDX with rhodamine - some
things never change), one of their chemists related how the rainwater
running off this dock was still pink, 40 years later.
Good bloody luck, Nigel! I never was able to find anything that could get
rhodamine off anything. Under some circumstances, it stained the stainless
steel drying trays we used to dry the pink RDX! Rinsing one's hands in
acetone would certainly lighten it up but then, that's not a really good
idea for one's skin. If you come up with something, I'd be interested to
know what you found.
Cheers,
Deb.
Debbie Decker
EH&S UCDavis
(530)754-7964
dmdecker@ucdavis.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:39:44 -0400
From: Don Abramowitz
Subject: Re: Incentives
Mime-Version: 1.0
>* Awards for:
>- most chemical containers tagged for disposal (maybe provide a small
>raffle with entries proportional to number of chem disposal tags?)
>- largest single item removed
>- largest space (volume or surface area) "liberated" (absolute and relative
>categories)
>- most unusual item disposed of
>- greatest age disparity between equipment and person getting rid of it
>
You've covered all the good ones. How 'bout a prize for the most hazrdous
item disposed of?
Also, consider slipping a few "prize tickets" or gold-painted peanuts or
other such tokens in and among the more notorious rats nests as an
incentive for people to root through their stuff. Turn in the token for a
prize of some sort.
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donald Abramowitz, CIH
Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer
Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College
101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:45:05 -0800
Reply-To: Marc Neuffer
From: Marc Neuffer
Subject: Copy of ANSI Z590
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
For those who would like a copy of the ANSI Z590 Standard
Send E-mail to tfisher@ansse.org with your mailing address .... also, it
would be helpful if you asked them to post it on their site.. they may
respond if they receive enough requests
Regards
Marc Neuffer
www.safetyinfo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Helen B. Gerhard
To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 8:49 AM
Subject: ANSI Z590 - Except from Another Letter
>Hi All:
>
>I have also sent a letter.
>
>I would like to get a copy of the Draft ANSI standard that ASSE has
>authored. As with the National Safety Council
>(http://www.nsc.org/osh/z590.htm ) , I am
>very concerned with the movements being made to "codify" terminology.
>
>I do understand the need to assure that certain titles carry some standard
>information with them. However, having entered the safety profession from
a
>B.S. Chemistry background rather than an engineering or safety curriculum,
I
>am feel that only recognizing the latter is not wise. Additionally, there
>are many excellent educational opportunities which promote safety which (if
>NSC's reading of the draft is true) would not be valued or recognized by
>this ANSI standard.
>
>As our society moves towards integration of functional areas (e.g. QEH&S),
>as indicated by Lockheed-Martin's corporate strategy and the OSHA/EPA
>cooperation in government, this segmentation may potentially lead to
>problems for safety and environmental professionals. I believe that ASSE
>needs to create a collation among other safety groups to assure that we are
>not creating division rather than cooperation between safety professionals.
>The strategy that is being used begs the question "what is the real goal
>here?"
>
>I would be interested in working towards an integrated approach.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Helen
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:12:36 -0500
From: Mark Yanchisin
Subject: Acrolein release and resulting questions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Greeting!!
Does anyone have any thoughts on how long inhibited acrolein should be
stored? Aldrich says 6 months, but couldn't answer if the inhibitor would
loose it's potency after time. Also- anyone know what the odor threshold
is? I have looked at 4 MSDSs and various fact sheets and references, but
can't find anything about the odor threshold.
What started this is that we had a 250 ml bottle blow-up. Actually it is
more likely a cracking of the bottle from a slow pressure build up. The
bottle cracked into bigger pieces and did not end up everywhere as small
shards as it would have in explosion. I'm guessing that the acrolein
polymerized, as the residue looked like a pile of semi-solid shaving cream
with brown glass in it!!!
The bottle broke in a refrigerator late at night. The lab group has a
roving security/safety guard who goes through all labs nightly to look for
potential problems. (All lab staff rotate this duty a week at a time. So
they do rounds every night- all 365 of them a year!! What a concept!!) The
grad student found the odor and initiated the response. Odor was throughout
the 2nd floor of a 4 story building after the refrig door was opened.
Building was closed over night (0300 to 0730) while it vented. Building
reopened next morning with just the lab being closed. We did send 3 folks
to the ER for a precautionary exam, but all were OK.
We do not have any idea on how old the acrolein is. I have most of the
label, but not enough to show the lot number, or I would call Aldrich to try
to date it.
Storage guidelines say to store under nitrogen, as it reacts with oxygen. I
doubt this bottle was purged with N2 after use. It also reacts with light.
It was not wrapped in foil, as light sensitive chemicals usually are in the
lab, but it was in a dark refrig. Does anyone know if there a delay in the
reaction to exposure to either light or oxygen or does it react on exposure?
My concerns are to come up with guidelines for storage, handling etc.- so we
can put together a "lessons learned" fact sheet for folks. Any input is
appreciated!! I promise to post it here once I get it together!!
Thanks in advance for any thoughts and info!!
Mark Yanchisin
Coordinator for Clinical and Lab Safety
Programs
University of Florida Env. Health and Safety
PO Box 112190
Gainesville, FL 32611-2190
352-846-2550 (T)
352-392-7386 (F)
Mark@ehs.ufl.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:29:09 -0500
From: "Walters.Douglas"
Subject: Re: Acrolein release and resulting questions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
There are several reported odor thresholds for acrolein ranging from
0.02-1.8 ppm, depending on the reference in the 1989 AIHA Odor Threshold
book.
Doug Walters
> ----------
> From: Mark Yanchisin
> Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 3:12 PM
> To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU
> Subject: Acrolein release and resulting questions
>
> Greeting!!
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on how long inhibited acrolein should be
> stored? Aldrich says 6 months, but couldn't answer if the inhibitor would
> loose it's potency after time. Also- anyone know what the odor threshold
> is? I have looked at 4 MSDSs and various fact sheets and references, but
> can't find anything about the odor threshold.
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:38:25 -0400
From: Don Abramowitz
Subject: Re: Acrolein release and resulting questions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Also- anyone know what the odor threshold
>is? I have looked at 4 MSDSs and various fact sheets and references, but
>can't find anything about the odor threshold.
The Laboratory Chemical Safety Summary (LCSSs) for acrolein says: "
pungent, lacrimatory, intensely irritating odor detectable at 0.02 to 0.4
ppm" and indicates a vapor pressure of 210 mmHg at 20 癈 .
There is a swell list of LCSSs (as seen in Prudent Practices) at the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute web site. There is a list of 150 or so common lab
materials, each formatted a bit like an MSDS available at:
http://www.hhmi.org/science/labsafe/lcss/tlisting.htm
It also mentions that hydroquinone is a typically used inhibitor in the
commercial product, and that it is possible to inadvertently lose the
inhibitor by distilling the stuff.
Check the LCSS for a bit more on reactivity/polymerization.
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donald Abramowitz, CIH
Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer
Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College
101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:53:45 -0500
From: "Dr. Linda A. Swihart"
Subject: Re: Copy of ANSI Z590
In-Reply-To: <00bb01be6b3f$44383ac0$4fc6e4d0@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
I emailed Tim Fisher and received an extremely swift and pleasant response.
I had asked for an electronic version if it were possible, and offered to
format it for web presentation (and put it somewhere, not necessarily LSW
website, but I have other places too).
He replied that he had put it in the snail mail to me, and that
"We have tried electronic distribution before, and it
was a disaster. The problem was making revisions/notes to the standard and
then sending it on. At the end we had to respond to comments on standards
we had not even written. We are sticking with the paper distribution. It
costs more and is a hassle, but we do have a way to control some aspects of
the standards integrity."
Will let people know when it gets here and how easy it might be to share
electronically -- with the understanding that it's a 'snapshot' of a
possibly-fast-changing draft. (I could try scanning it but that's usually
a terrible idea... of course it's been a while since I tried it and
technology has improved...)
Linda
At 01:45 PM 3/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
>For those who would like a copy of the ANSI Z590 Standard
>Send E-mail to tfisher@ansse.org with your mailing address .... also, it
>would be helpful if you asked them to post it on their site.. they may
>respond if they receive enough requests
>
>Regards
>Marc Neuffer
>www.safetyinfo.com
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:11:22 -0800
From: Nick Spare |