ROPA-1996-704.pdf - NFPA

Report of the Committee on

Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data

F. Owen Kubias, Chair Rocky River, OH

Robert A. Michaels, Secretary RAM TRAC Corp., NY

Jacqueline E. Alpert, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL William J. Bradford, Brookfield, CT Laurence G. Britton, Union Carbide Corp., WV Paul L. Errico, Ogden Services, CT

~ hn B. Farley, M&M Protection Consultants, CA ark L Grossman, Reliance Nat'l Risk Specialists, NY

William R. Heltzig, The Dow Chemical Co., MI Ron A. Kirscb, Occupational Health Services Inc., TN Arthur A. Krawetz, Phoenix Chemical Laboratory Inc., IL RolandJ. Land, Jardine Insurance Brokers, NY

J ohn Moskal, Arthur D Little, Inc., MA ennifer L. Nelson, AT&T Co., NJ Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section

Curtis G. Payne, U.S. Coast Guard (G-MTH-1), DC Gary Robinson, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., IL

Rep. The Alliance of American Insurers William J. Satterfield, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co., CT Norman V. Steere, Norman V. Steere Assoc., Inc., MN

Alternates

Todd M. Christensen, M&M Protection Consultants, CA (Alt. toJ. B. Farley)

Robert A. Kingsbury, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL (Alt. toJ. E. Alpert)

Nonvoting

Howard H. Fawcett, Wheaton, MD (Member Emeritus) an van der Linde, Samsom Chemical Publishers, Netherlands ra Wainless, U.S. Dept. of Imbor/OSHA, DC

Staff Liaison: Guy P~ Colonna

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibil- ity for documents on the classification of the relative hazards of all chemical solids, liquids and gases and to compile data on the hazard properties of these hazardous chemicals.

The Report of the Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data is presented for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 704-1990, Standard System for the Identification of the F'tre Hazards of Material. NFPA 704-1990 is published in Volume 7 of the 1995 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphle t form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data, which consists of 18 voting members. The results of the balloting can be found in the report.

(Log #CP11) 704- 1 - (Foreword): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Revise the 2nd paragraph of the Foreword to read as follows:

"As originally conceived, t hepu rpose of the standard is to safeguard the lives of those individuals who may be concerned with fi~'e* emergency response occurring in an industrial plant or storage location where the ~ hazards of materials may not be readily apparent." SUBSTANTIATION: These changes are made as editorial in order to clarify the intent and applicability of the standard. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Farley, Moskal

(Log #CP7) 704- 2 - (Chapter 1 ): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Replace the word "reactivity" with "instability" where it appears in Chapter 1 as follows:

1-1.1 This standard shall address the health, flammability, and related hazards that may be presented by short-term,

acute exposure to a material during bandling under conditions of fire, spill, or similar emergencies.

1-4.1 This system identifies the hazards of a material in terms of three principal categories: "health," "flammability," and " ~ ~ . " It indicates the degree of severity by a numerical rating that ranges from four (4), indicating severe hazard, to zero (0), indicating no hazard.

1-4.2 The information is presented by a spatial ar rangement of numerical ratings with the health rating always at the nine o'clock position; the flammability rating always at the twelve o'clock position; and the ~eaet iv~ ~ rating always at the three o'clock position. Each rating is located in a square-on-point field, each of which is assigned a color: blue for health hazard; red for flammability hazard; yellow for t~-aetiv~ ~ hazard. Alternately, the square-on-point field may be any convenient contrasting color and the numbers themselves may be colored. See pages 9-10 for examples of the spatial arrangements.

1-5.2 The system is based on relative rather than absolute values. Therefore, it is anticipated that conditions of storage and use may result in different ratings being assigned to the same material by different persons. Furthermore, the guidance presented in the following chapters is necessarily limited. For example, flash point is the primary criterion for assigning the flammability rating, but other criteria may be of equal importance.For example, autoignition temperature, flammability limits, and susceptibility of a container to failure due to fire exposure also must be considered. For ~ , emphasis has been placed on the ease by which an energy-releasing reaction is triggered. For health, consideration is given not only to inherent hazard but also to protective measures that must be taken to minimize effects of short-term exposure. SUBSTANTIATION: This change is editorial in order to be consistent with the change in Chapter 4 to the name of the hazard category from "reactivity" to "instability". COMMIT'rEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: BRITTON: Accept with editorial change, l-4.1 should not state

that a "0" rating indicates no hazard. It should state "minimal or no hazard." This is because health arid reactivity hazards can exist for "0" rated materials even though these are relatively low under anticipated conditions. The reactivity definition is very specific and a "0" rating does not for example discount reactions between chemicals.

264

N F P A 7 0 4 1 A 9 6 R O P

(Log #CP12) 704- 3 - (1-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Classification and Propert ies of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-1.1 to read as follows:

"1-1.1 This s tandard shall address the health, flammability, reactivity, and related hazards that may be presented by short-term, acute exposure to a material du, k,g l-.~,dll.~g unde r condit ions of fire, spill, or similar emergencies ." SUBSTANTIATION: These changes are made as editorial in order to clarify die in tent and applicability of the s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 N O T RETURNED: 2 Farley, Moskal

(Log #CP13) 704- 4 - (1-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous CAaemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-1.2 to read as follows:

"1-1.2 This s tandard provides a simple, readily recognized, easily unde r s tood system of markings tha t provides a general idea of the hazards of a material and the severity of these hazards as they relate to h ~ . d l h ~ , 7~;~ v . . . . . . ;: . . . . ~ v ~ s ~ r c , ~ d c~,uh c,l emergency

. The objectives of the system are: ( remainder uncha]aged)" TIATION: These changes are made as editorial in order

to clarify the in tent and applicability of the s tandard. COMMITrEE ACTION: AccepL NUMBER OF COMMr[TEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP9) 704- 5 - (1-2.3): Accept SUBMI'I~I'ER: Technical Commi t t ee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-2.3 as follows:

1-2.3" This s tandard is not in tended to address: (a) Occupat ional exposure (b) Explosive and blasting agents (c) Chemicals whose only hazard is one of chronic heal th hazards (d) Teratogens, mutagens , oncogens, etiologic agents and other

similar hazards In addition, create an Appendix note as follows: A-1-2.3 The Commit tee recognizes that the potential may exist for

certain materials to cause a carcinogenic or teratogenic effect f rom acute exposure(s) . However, there is no t sufficient data available to dais Commit tee to allow for the deve lopment of numer i c ratings based u p o n carcinogenic or tera togenic potential. SUBSTANTIATION: The Commi t tee revised this section in order to more adequately indicate what the s tandard is no t in tended to address. The Appendix note was created to demons t ra te that the Commit tee has considered die hazards associated with carcinogens and teratogens, bu t feels that at dais t ime there is no practical approach for deal ing with t h e m within the numer i ca l r a f ing framework. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KIILSCH: I prefer "carcinogens" instead of "oncogens."

(Log #3) 704- 6 - (1-2.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: s a m u e l J ]E orter, Lakeridge, VA RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 1-2.4 dlat states:

"This s t andard is no t applicable to commercia l explosive material. This includes any explosive, blasting agent, emuls ion explosive, water gel, or de tona tor as def ined in accordance with NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code".

SUBSTANTIATION: These signs are be ing misused for explosive facilities and are creat ing hazardous situations. As indicated by the substant iat ion for proposal 704-1 of the 1989 Fall TCR, these signs are in t ended to address hazards only unde r emergency conditions, and explosive fires should never be fought , as indicated by the criteria in NFPA 495, 1990 edition, paragraphs 2-1.1 and 7-1.6. Cur ren t signs and placards clearly identify explosives in accordance with DOT, ATF, and IME requi rements and fur ther placarding creates a dangerous situation by implying tha t fire f ight ing can be implemented . The NFPA Technical Commi t tee on Explosives feels that this is an issue requir ing immedia te a t tent ion before this dangerous practice becomes common . COMMITI~EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 704-7 (Log #5) for action. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee accompl ished what the submit ter p roposed by accept ing a similar Proposal, 704-7 (Log #5). The Commit tee preferred the r ecommenda t i on of dais o ther proposal because it was more succinct. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #5) 704- 7 - (1-2.4 (New)): Accept SUBMI'['I 'ER: T.P. Dowling, Institute of Makers of Explosives RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 1-2.4 stating:

"This s tandard is no t applicable to commercial explosives materials as def ined in NFPA 495, Exolosive Materials C o d e . " SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 495, SBCCI Fire Code, Uni fo rm Fire Code, ANSI A10.7 Standard, and IME Safety Library Publications all advise " N E A R fight explosive fires." Explosive facilities have special s igning requirements . Unless NFPA 704 clearly states tha t it is N O T applicable to commercial explosive facilities, the 704 symbols may be placed on or near such facilities indicating that fire f ight ing is r e c o m m e n d e d or permitted. This could create a very serious safety hazard for emergency responders. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE ~EMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP2) 704- 8 - (1-5.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 1-5.4 with the following:

Based upon professional j u d g m e n t it may be appropr ia te to either increase or decrease the hazard rating to more accurately assess the likely degree of hazard that will be encountered . SUBSTANTIATION: The in tent with dais modificat ion is to indicate that die use of professional j u d g m e n t is applicable for all hazard categories and not jus t the heal th hazard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP1 ) 704- 9 - (2-1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Classification and Properties o f Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-1.3 as follows; it should now read as follows:

2-1.3 The oral route of exposure, i.e. ingestion, is highly unlikely unde r the condit ions ant icipated by this standard. If si tuations are encounte red , however, where the oral toxicity values indicate a signiflcandy different heal th hazard rating than f rom other, more likely routes of exposure or where the oral toxicity values would tend to either exaggerate or minimize the hazards likely to he encountered, then professional j u d g m e n t shall be exercised in assigning the heal th hazard rating. In such cases, other routes of entry may be considered to be more appropr ia te to assessing the hazard. AIs,,, bo~cd c.,-~ pi ,,fc~.c.lc, L~I jad~.~c.A, ;Z ,~,x) b.-

265

N F P A 7 0 4 - - A 9 6 R O P

S~mflarly, inhalat ion of dusts and mists is unlikely u n d e r the condit ions ant icipated by dais s tandard. In such cases, the heal th hazard ratings should also be based on data for the more likely routes of exposure. SUBSTANTIATION: The intent with this modification is to indicate that the use of professional j u d g m e n t is applicable for all hazard categories and not jus t the heal th hazard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: BRITTON: The revised 2-1.3 text allows heal th rat ing via oral

exposure routes to be reduced according to the form of the material being considered. However it does no t include heal th rat ing due to eye contact as a case where professional j u d g m e n t can be applied, Eye contact may be the exposure route giving the h ighes t heal th rating even in cases where eye contact is improbable and professional j u d g m e n t could be applied in the same way as for oral ingestion of pellets, etc.

It might be useful to note in the 704 Chapter 2 text that the ass ignment of heal th rating allows no mitigation for use of protective equipment . This is implicit f rom the example of eye contact; a material such as glacialacetic acid may be rated "3" based on eye contact even though (per NFPA 49 and old 704) a "2" rated material would require eye protection such as a full face mask which would prevent eye exposure.

The above comm en t s also apply to the NFPA 49 Appendix B r ecommenda t ions for protective equ ipment . These have been deleted f rom revised 704. If retained in 49, it would be useful to clarify that no heal th rat ing mitigation is inc luded for the e q u i p m e n t being worn. The existing reconmaendat ions will in many cases be excessive, for example entry of areas conta in ing a non-volatile, h igh flash-point chemical rated a "3" on the basis of eye contact.

(Log #12) 704- 10 - (2-1.3 and 2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: RolandJ . Land, Jard ine Insurance Brokers, New York, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 2-1.3 Revise to read:

"The oral, i.e. ingestion and eye contact route of exposure is highly unlikely unde r the condit ions ant ic ipated by this standard, ff si tuations are encountered , however, where their values indicate a significantly different heal th hazard rat ing than f rom other, more likely route of exposure or where their values would t end to exaggerate the hazards likely to be encountered , t hen professional j u d g m e n t shall be exercised in assigning the heal th hazard rating. In such cases, o ther routes of entry mus t be cons idered to be more appropriate to assessing the hazard. Similarly, inhalat ion of dusts and mists is unlikely u n d e r the condit ions ant icipated by this s tandard. In all such cases, the heal th hazard ratings shou ld also be based on data for the most likely routes of exposure".

2-3.1, 3 Revise first paragraph to read: "3 Materials that, on shor t exposure, could cause serious temporary

incapacitation or major residual injury. This degree usually includes:"

2-3.1, 3, Delete last paragraph. 2-3.1, 2, Revise last paragraph to read: "Materials tha t ei ther are severely corrosive to skin on single, shor t

exposure or cause irreversible eye damage." 2-3.1, 1, Revise last paragraph to read: "Materials tha t cause severe but reversible respiratory, skin or eye

injury." 2-3.1, 0, Revise last paragraph to read: "Materials that are modera te respiratory or eye irritants."

SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of NFPA 704 is to provide basic informat ion to emergency response personnel enabl ing t h e m to decide wbefller to evacuate the area or c o m m e n c e emergency control procedures. It is also in t ended to provide them with informat ion to assist in selecting fire f ight ing tactics and emergency procedures. Therefore , it is impor tan t to reserve the more severe degree of hazard for those materials wbose hazards pose a significant threat to emergency response personnel .

The cur ren t criteria for ,assigning degrees of heal th hazards due to eye effects overstates the hazards to emergency response personnel and may result in a response decision that is no t justified. As with the oral route of exposure it is highly unlikely that unde r the condit ions anticipated by this s tandard that eye contact with the

materials will occur. If the emergency responder is wearing normal turn out gear it is highly unlikely that material whe ther spilled, dripping, flowing or otherwise be ing released will contact the eyes. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In absence of o ther toxicological data the Commit tee does not suppor t reducing the heal th hazard rating for those materials which were rated as a "3" only because they are corrosive to the eyes. Further, the Commit tee considers major residual injury to include irreversible eye damage. The Commit tee believes that eye contact and inhalat ion of dusts and mists are likely routes of exposure, unde r certain conditions, and should be reta ined in the rating criteria. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 4 NOT RETURNED: 2 Farley, Moskal

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BRADFORD: I do not consider that our cur ren t use of eye damage

wlfich results in so many ratings of 3 for the heal th hazard is proper. I suppor t Mr. Land ' s revision of 2-1.3. While eye damage is impor tan t it should no t be overemphasized as it currently is.

ERRICO: In reviewing NFPA 704 1 have found no actual criteria existing to justify effects on the eyes. Since this is the case, it may be to the commit tee ' s advantage to set-up a sub-commit tee to review the problem and set a goal of def in ing criteria for eye effects. There are some tests tha t have been conducted, a review of their results would aid us in developing a baseline to guide us in the hazard ratings.

HEITZIG: I feel that the Commit tee has placed an excessive exposure rating on the eye contact and tha t this proposal was an excellent m e t h o d to correct this oversight. The Commi t tee should discuss Log #12 in m u c h greater detail J0efore the commit tee rejection.

LAND: Cur ren t 704 criteria for establishing the heal th hazard rating scheme for "eye" effects has no scientific basis. There is no previous commit tee documen ta t i on for tire scheme. The UN rat ing system that forms the basis for the majority of the criteria in this s tandard has no criteria for eyes.

It appears to have been "pulled out of the air." There is "NO BASIS FOR THE CURRENT CRITERIA."

There is a test available to measure the affect a material on eyes known on the "Drays Test." The Technical Commi t tee should restudy this issue.

(Log #CP3) 704- 11 - (2-1.4): Accept SUBMI'[ ' I~R: Technical Commit tee on Classification an d Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-1.4 to read as follows:

2-1.4* For purposes of assigning the heal th hazard rating, only the inhe ren t physical and toxic propert ies of the material shall be considered, unless the combust ion or decomposi t ion products present a significantly greater degree of risk.

Add the following cor responding Appendix item: A-2-1.4 Some materials have products of combust ion or decompo-

sition that may presen t a significantly greater degree of hazard than the inhe ren t physical and toxic propert ies of the original material. The degree o f hazard is d e p e n d e n t on the condit ions at the t ime of the incident. NFPA 49 provides informat ion on products of combust ion when available. SUBSTANTIATION: This change was made in order to clarify the Commit tee ' s in tent regarding the use of combus t ion or decomposition products when assigning heal th hazard ratings. COMMYITEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP4) 704- 12- (2-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Classification an d Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: 2-3 Degrees of Hazard.

2-3.1 The degrees of heal th hazard shall be ranked according to the probable severity of the effects of exposure to emergency response personnel . For each degree of hazard the criteria are listed in a priority order based upon the likelihood of exposure. Data f rom all routes of exposure shall be considered when applying p ro fe s s iona i judgmen t to assign a heal th hazard rating.

266

NFPA 7 0 4 - - A96 ROP

4 Materials that, unde r emergency condit ions may be lethal. The following criteria shall be cons idered when rat ing materials:

Gases whose LCS0 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is less than or equal to 1000 parts per million (ppm);

Any liquid wimse sa tura ted vapor concentra t ion at 20°C is equal to or greater than ten l imes its LC50 for acute inhalat ion toxicity, flits LC50 is less than or equal to 1000 parts per million (ppm);

Dusts and mists whose LC50 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is less than or equal to 0.5 mill igrams per liter ( rag /L) ;

Materials whose LD50 :for acute dermal toxicity is less than or equal to 40 mill igrams per ki logram (mg/kg) ;

Materials whose LD50 :for acute oral toxicity is less than or equal to 5 milligrams per ki logram (mg/kg) ;

3 Materials that, u n d e r emergency conditions, may cause serious or p e r m a n e n t injury. T h e following criteria shall be considered when rating materials:

Gases whose LC50 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is greater than 1000 parts per million (ppm), but less than or equal to 3000 parts per million (ppm);

Any liquid whose saturated vapor concentra t ion at 20°C is equal to or greater than its LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity, if its LCS0 is less than or equal to 3000 parts per million (ppm) and that does no t meet the criteria for degree of hazard 4;

Dusts and mist whose LC50 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is greater than 0.5 mill igrams per liter ( rag /L) , but less than or equal to 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) ;

Materials whose LD50 for acute dermal toxicity is greater than 40 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) , bu t less than or equal to 200 milligrams per ki logram (mg/kg) ;

Materials that are corrosive to the respiratory tract; Materials that are corrosive to the eye or cause irreversible corneal

opacity; Materials that are severely irritating a n d / o r corrosive to skin; Materials whose LDS0 for acute oral toxicity is greater than 5

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) , bu t less than or equal to 50 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) .

2 Materials that, u n d e r emergency conditions, may cause temporary incapacitation or residual injury. T he following criteria shall be considered when rating materials:

Gases whose LCS0 for acute inhalat ion toxicity i sgrea te r than 3000 parts per million (ppm), but less than or equal to 5000 parts per million (ppm);

Any liquid whose sa turated vapor concentra t ion at 20°C is equal to or greater than one-fifth (1 /5) its LCS0 for acute inhalat ion toxicity, if its LC50 is less than or equal to 5000 parts per million (ppm) and that does no t mee t the criteria for ei ther degree of hazard 3 or degree of hazard 4;

Dusts a n d mists whose LCS0 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is greater than 2 mill igrams per liter ( m g / L ) , bu t less than or equal to 10 milligrams per liter ( rag/L);

Materials whose LD50 for acute dermal toxicity is greater than 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) , bu t less than or equal to 1000 milligranrs per kilogram (mg/kg) ;

Materials that are respiratory irritants; Materials that cause irritating, bu t reversible injury to the eyes; Materials that are pr imary skin irritants or sensitizers; Materials whose LD50 for acute oral toxicity is greater than 50

milligrams per kilogram, but less than or equal to 500 milligrams per ki logram (mg/kg) .

1 Materials that, unde r emergency conditions, may cause significant irritation. The following criteria shall be considered when rat ing materials:

Gases and vapors whose LC50 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is greater than 5000 parts per mill ion (ppm), but less than or equal to 10,000 parts per million (ppm);

Dusts and mists whose LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity is greater than I0 milligrams per lit.er ( rag/L) , but less than or equal to 200 milligrams per liter ( rag/L);

Materials whose LD50 for acute dermal toxicity is greater than 1000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) , but less than or equal to 2000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) ;

Materials that are slightly irritating to the respiratory tract, eyes, and skin;

Materials whose LD50 for acute oral toxicity is greater than 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) , but less than or equal to 2000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) .

0 Materials that, u n d e r emergency conditions, would offer no hazard beyond tha t o f ordinary combust ible materials. The following criteria shall be considered when rat ing materials:

Gases and vapors whose LC50 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is greater than 10,000 parts per mill ion (ppm);

Dusts and mists whose LCS0 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is greater t han 200 mill igrams per liter (mg /L) ;

Materials whose LD50 for acute dermal toxicity is greater than 2000 mill igrams per kilogram (mg/kg) ;

Materials whose LD50 for acute oral toxicity is greater than 2000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) ;

Essentially non-irri tat ing to the respiratory tract, eyes, and skin. SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee reorganized and simplified the heal th hazard rating criteria requ i rements in order to provide better guidance to users for application of dais system. The proposed change indicates the priority for consider ing the rat ing criteria by exposure route du r ing emergency response conditions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #1 ) 704- 13 - (2-3.1): Reject Note: This proposal appea red as c o m m e n t 704-16 which was held

for fur ther study f rom the Fall 89 TCD, which was on proposal 704-2 SUBMITTER: RiehardY LeVine, CHEC Inc RECOMMENDATION: Add TLV Ceilings and TLV STELs as heal th measures for vapors and gases warning numbers . SUBSTANTIATION: Inhalat ion is the most serious heal th hazard unde r emergency conditions. Data on inhalat ions in the form of LC50's are seriously lacking or flawed. TLV Ceilings and TLV Stels which have stood the test of l ime for people not animals, are available for mos t material with which we are concerned. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submit ter did no t provide specific guidance as to how to incorporate the values for the TLV Ceiling and STEL concent la t ions into the cur rent quantitative rating scheme. The Commit tee has considered these values and others (IDLH), for example) when establishing heal th hazard ratings for materials in NFPA 49 and NFPA 325. However, the Commit tee believes that use of these exposure levels should be restricted to professional j u d g m e n t and not be added to the rat ing criteria at this time. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #13) 704- 14- (2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Norman V. Steere, Norman V. Steere & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete all five definit ions which refer to acute oral toxicity in Section 2-3.1. (Each degree of heal th hazard has a definit ion referring to specific toxicity values. For example: "Materials whose LD50 for acute oral toxicity is...") (These s ta tements appear on pages 704-6 and 704-7). SUBSTANTIATION: Establishing oral toxicityvalues as part of the definit ion of health hazard is extremely mis leading for the stated audience for dais s tandard. Toxicity is usually d is t inguished f rom hazard by heal th and safety professionals. As an example, sod ium cyanide is probably as toxic as hydrogen cyanide, but sod ium cyanide is N O T as hazardous as hydrogen cyanide. NFPA 49-1994 does recognize the difference in hazard by assigning a 3 heal th hazard to sod ium cyanide and a 4 to hydrogen cyanide, bu t it should no t be necessary for the NFPA 49 Commit tee to have to exercise its professional j u d g m e n t to state the hazard.

Section 2-1.3 states that "The oral route of exposure, i.e., ingestion, is highly unlikely unde r the condit ions ant icipated by this s tandard." Therefore, we propose that the inclusion of oral toxicity values be deleted. Deletion of acute oral toxicity values will avoid confusion by anyone who wishes to use and explain the NFPA system for identification of hazards of chemicals. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee has previously discussed this and de t e rmined that it supports us ing data f rom all routes of exposure as the basis for developing the hazard rating for chemicals. For dermal , skin/eye, and inhalat ion the h ighes t rat ing level will be used to assign the rating. The Commit tee recom- m e n d e d and cont inues to r e c o m m e n d us ing professional j u d g m e n t for all o ther routes (forms of oral exposure) in the absence of o ther data.

267

N F P A 7 0 4 - - A 9 6 R O P

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: STEERE: Establishing oral toxicity values as part of the definit ion

of heal th hazard is extremely misleading for the stated audience for this standard. Toxicity is usually d is t inguished f rom hazard by heal th and safety professionals. As an example, sod ium cyanide is probably as toxic as hydrogen cyanide, bu t sod ium cyanide is NOT as hazardous as hydrogen cyanide.

Al though NFPA 49-1994 does recognize the difference in hazard by assigning a 3 heal th hazard to sod ium cyanide and a 4 to hydrogen cyanide, but it should no t be necessary for the NFPA 49 Commit tee to have to exercise its professional j u d g m e n t to state the hazard.

(Log #14) 704` 15 - (2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: N o r m a n V. Steere, N o r m a n V. Steere & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete all five definit ions which refer to dusts and mists. (Each degree of heal th hazard has a definit ion referring to dusts and mists. For example: "Dusts and mists whose LCS0 for acute inhalat ion toxicity is..."). SUBSTANTIATION: Dusts and mists are not likely to be gene ra ted by ordinary spills and fires of hazardous materials, and inc luding toxicity values of dusts and mists as part of the definit ion of heal th hazard is misleading.

Section 2-1.3 states that "Similarly, inhalat ion of dusts and mists is unlikely u n d e r the condit ions ant icipated by this s tandard." Therefore, we propose that the inclusion of toxicity values for dusts and mists be deleted.

Deletion of toxicity values for dusts and mists will avoid confusion by anyone who wishes to use a n d explain the NFPA system for identification of chemical hazards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: While dusts and mists are less likely to occur, the Commit tee believes that these condi t ions are possible unde r some situations and shou ld cont inue to be addressed. For rating the heal th hazard for solids, this would be the only applicable criteria. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: STEERE: Dusts and mists are not likely to be genera ted by ordinary

spills and fires of hazardous materials, and including toxicity values of dusts and mists as part of the definit ion of heal th hazard is misleading.

(Log #CPS) 704- 16 - (Chapter 3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Chapter 3 Flammability Hazards

3-1 General. 3-1.1 This chapter shall address the degree of susceptibility of

materials to burning. Since many materials will bu rn u n d e r one set of condit ions but will no t bu rn u n d e r others, t he form or condit ion of the material shall be considered, a long with its i nhe r en t properties. The defini t ions for liquid classification are f ound in NFPA 30, Flammable and Combust ible Liquids Code.

3-2 Degrees of Hazard. 3-2.1 The degrees of hazard shall be ranked according to the

susceptibility of materials to bu rn ing as follows: 4 Materials that will rapidly or completely vaporize at a tmospher ic

pressure and normal ambien t t empera ture or tha t are readily dispersed in air, a nd which will bu rn readily. This ,leg, cc us,.olly. includes:

Flammable gases; Flammable cryogenic materials; Any liquid or gaseous material that is liquid while u n d e r pressure

and has a f lash poin t below 73°F (22.8°C) and a boiling point below 100°F (37.8°C) (i.e.Class IA 7. . . . . . . bl~ liquids);

Materials that ignite spontaneous ly when exposed to air. 3 Liquids and solids tha t can be ignited u n d e r almost all ambien t

tempera ture conditions. Materials in this degree p roduce hazardous a tmospheres with air u n d e r a lmost all ambien t t empera tures or,

t hough unaffec ted by ambien t temperatures , are readily ignited u n d e r a lmost all conditions. This dcgzcc us,,,l",}- includes:

Liquids having a flash poin t below 73°F (22.8°C) a n d having a boiling poin t at or above 100°F (37.8°C) and those liquids having a flash poin t at or above 73°F (22.8°C) and below 100°F (37.8°C) (i.e.Class IB and Class IC ,q . . . . . . bl~ liquids); Materials that on account of their physical form or environmenta l

condit ions can form explosive mixtures with air and that are readily dispersed in air;

Materials that burn with extreme rapidity, usually by reason of self- conta ined oxygen (e.g., dry nitrocellulose and many organic peroxides).

2 Materials that mus t be moderate ly heated or exposed to relatively h igh ambien t tempera tures before ignition can occur. Materials in this degree would no t u n d e r normal condit ions form hazardous a tmospheres with air, but unde r h igh ambien t tempera tures or unde r modera te heat ing may release vapor in sufficient quanti t ies to produce hazardous a tmospheres with air.

This dog, c¢ asually includes: Liquids having a flash poin t a t o r above 100°F (37.8°C), bu t not

exceeding 200°F (93.4°C) (i.e. Class II and Class IliA c~,-,b~o;SIA~ liquids);

Solid materials in the form of coarse dusts that may burn rapidly but that generally do no t fo rm explosive a tmospheres with air;

Solid materials in a fibrous or sh redded fo rm tha t may burn rapidly and create flash fire hazards, such as cotton, sisal, and hemp;

Solids and semisolids that readily give off f lammable vapors. 1 Materials that mus t be p rehea ted before ignition can occur.

Materials in this degree require considerable preheat ing, u n d e r all ambien t t empera ture conditions, before ignition an d combust ion can occur~ This dcgi-~c as~.,,lly includes:

Materials that will bu rn in air when exposed to a t empera tu re of 1500°F (815.5°C) for a period of 5 minu tes or less; Liquids, solids, and semisolids having a flash point above 200°F

(93.4°C) (i.e.Class IIIB c,,i-,,Lt~dblc liquids); Most ordinary combust ible materials. 0 Materials that will no t burn .This dc~5, cc ~o~,llz includes any

material that will no t burn in air when exposed to a t empera ture of 1500°F (815.5°C) for a p e r i o d of 5 minutes . SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee reorganized and simplit]ed the flammabili ty hazard rating criteria requ i rements in order to provide better guidance to users for. application of this system. The change to the level "2" hazard rating criteria was made to be consistent with the NFPA 30, Class II and IIIA liquid definitions. The words "flammable and combustible" were deleted an d jus t the liquid classification was reta ined to be consistent with NFPA 30. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1 N O T RETURNED: 2 Farley, Moskai

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BRITTON: The inclusion of"mater ia ls tha t ignite spontaneous ly

when exposed to air" as "4" flammabili ty hazards requires addit ional language to exclude materials that self-heat in bulk over long periods or at elevated temperatures . Only pyrophoric materials should be rated F=4 as opposed to coal and fish scraps known to occasionally self-heat a n d i g n i t e in bulk, or materials that self-heat and ignite only at elevated temperatures . Appendix E to Part 173 of 49CFR def ines pyrophoric materials unde r Division 4.2(a) and assigns Packing Group 1 to all pyropboric solids and liquids. Self hea t ing materials (Division 4.2(b) and Packing Groups II and III) should not be rated as F=4. The text shou ld state "Pyrophoric materials that ignite spontaneously upon brief exposure to air u n d e r ordinary a tmospher ic conditions." See also Proposal 704-26 (Log #CP14) comment .

(Log #11) 704- 17 - (3-2.1 (New)): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTERa David C. Tabar, The Sherwin-Williams Company RECOMMENDATION: Revise existing text by adding the following new Flammability Hazards text to existing descript ions adjacent to Flammability Hazard "1":

• Liuuids in containers. IBC's. or oortable tanks that have no fire ooint when tested bvASTM D-92. Cleveland Open C u t Test Method. uo to the boilin~ Point of the liquid or uo to a t empera ture at which tlae samole bein~ tested shows an obvious nhvsical chanae.

• Mixtures whe~,e at least 85 ne rcen t 9f the in~rec[ients (by v volume~ are not susceotible to 'burnin¢, a n d the Flammabilitv Hazard Ratings of i n ~ e d i e n t s suscenfible to burn in~ do no t exceed:

0 nercen t for a ~ r e ~ a t e Flammabill ty Hazard 4 i n~ed ien t s , and

268

N F P A 7 0 4 - - A 9 6 R O P

5 c • e r c e n t for aggregate Flammability Hazard 2 and 3 in~edients,

15 percent for a~Lrre~-ate Flammability Hazard 1.2. and 3 ingredi- entsz

-OR- 0percent for a~re~ate: Flammability Hazard 4 ingredients, and lfi percet3t for a.~re~ate Flammability Hazard 1.2. and 3 water-

tuiscible ingredients. SUBSTAN'i'IATION: (A) ASTM D 92, "Cleveland Open Cup Test Method" fire point testing and formula analysis involving coatings products and test mixtures. (b) NFPA 30 intent: "The fiquids intended for exclusion by this section of the code are those that show a flash point when tested in accordance with a tag or other closed-cup methods, but which do not burn. Water-base paints, which are formulated with small amount of flanlmable or combustible solvents, are one example."... NFPA Flammable and Combus- tible Liquids Code Handbook. (c) NFPA 30 (1993) Sec. 4-1.2 par (e) (chapter exclusions by ASTM D-92, Cleveland Open Cup Test Method); (d) NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Action on Section 4-1.2 at Orlando, F1; and (e) Hughes Report and independent laboratory testing involving mixtures (to be provided under separate COVer).

in Test 1, a latex dryfail, flat white coatings product was tested for fire point via ASTM D-99, and for flash point via ASTM D-93PMCC (Pensky-Martens Closed Cup). The selected sample product has a higher concentration of hydrocarbon volatiles (VM&P Naphtha at 9.7 percent by volume) than typical "latex paints," wbicb have very little concentrations, if any, of Class IB (flammability Hazard Rating 3) ingredients.

Under the PMCC flash point test method, no flash point was observed by the independent test laboratory. The ASTM D-92 fire point test method requires the determination of ignition and subsequent burning of the test material for at least five seconds. This is accomplished by a test flame passed across the open test cup during a slow, constant, measurable rise in temperature.

The sample product was slowly heated in the Cleveland Open Cup Test Apparatus. Early into the test, the sample began to solidify at the surface, thus achieving "a physical change." Note than NFPA 30 Section.4-1.2(e) (]993) considers "an obvious physical change" to be a means by which "no fire point" could be established. However, after continued heating between 185-190°F, the solid surface material broke through with only a single "bubble" which burned very briefly for a period of approximately five seconds, flais could be considered a borderline test Looked at conservatively, one could conceivably state ti~at fl~e product had a fire point of 190°F; however, no flash point was observed via PMCCl Conversely, one could argue that "an obvious physical change" occurred (from liquid to solid) and that the burning in the open cup which occurred briefly was not sufficient to be concerned about. Generally, the constituents of this product involved the following ingredients: VM&P Naphtha (4.9 percent by weight, and 9.7 percent by volume), other oils, alcohols, glycols, polymers, surfactants, solids (earfll, talc, TI02, etc.) and water. A further breakdown would show the following aggregate summation of constituerA ingredients, by volume, as identified by their Flammability Hazard Ratings:

Latex Dryfall Hat White #1001

NFPA 704 Flammability Aggregate Ingredients Hazard Rating by Volume

"0" 80.3% 'T' 9.8% "2" 0.2% "3" 0.0% "4" 0.0%

Total 100.0%

In Test 2, an industrial maintenance latex gloss enamel coatings product was tested. The product formulation consists of 22 ingredients. The majority of the ingredients (e.g., acrylic emulsion, solids, surfactants and water) has a Flammability Hazard Rating of "0." The breakdown of the aggregate ingredients by NFPA 704

Flammability Hazard Ratings were as follows:

Industrial Maintenance Latex Gloss Enamel #101

Flammability Aggregate Ingredients Hazard Rating by Volume

"0" 86.7% "1" 9.0% "2" 4.3% "3" 0.0% "4" 0.0_%

Total 100.0%

In this test, the independent test laboratory found - via the Cleveland Open Cup Test Method (ASTM D-92) - that the product "Foamed over at 155°F ", and had no identifiable fire point per ASTM D-92. A flash point of 166°F using ASTM D-93 (PMCC) was identified and reported. Clearly, the product would not be capable of burning in a real-world fire scenario, particularly in a sprinklered occupancy. Additional information: A Hughes Associates report and analysis by an independent testing

laboratory involving mixtures is being provided separately. NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA

Headquarters. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Revise existing text by adding the following new Flanmlability

Hazards text to existing descriptions adjacent to Flammability Hazard "1": • Liouids that have no fire ooint when tested bv ASTM D-92.

S t and~ l Test Method for Flash Point and Fire Point by Cleveland t h e n Gut.

Iiacorporate new reference to Appendix E. COMMI'FrEE STATEMENT: Accept the first part of the recommendation to revise the flammability hazard rating criteria for "1" hazard ratings by adding the fire point method to the criteria. The Committee believes that specifying the type of container (containers, IBC's or portable tanks) is not necessary, so that has also been deleted from the submitter's proposal. The remainder of the proposal was rejected because the Commit-

tee believes that the data submitted may not be applicable to all mixtures of products in commerce. The approach seems feasible, and the Committee encourages the submitter to develop additional data for further review and consideration. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP6) 704- 18 - (Chapter 4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Chapter 4 Instability Hazards

4-1 General. 4-1.1 This chapter shall address the degree of susceptibility of

materials to release energy. Some materials are capable of rapid release of energy by themselves, as by self-reaction orpolymerization, or can undergo violent explosive reaction if contactedwith water or other extinguishing agents or with certain other materials. 4-1.2 The violence of reaction or decomposition of materials may

be increased by heat or pressure, by mixture with certain other materials to form fuel-oxidizer combinations, or by contact with incompatible substances, sensitizing contaminants, or catalysts.

4-1.3 Because of the wide variations of accidental combinations possible in fire or other emergencies, these extraneous hazard factors (except for the effect of water) cannot be applied in a general numerical scaling of hazards. Such extraneous factors must be considered individually in order to establish appropriate safety factors, such as separation or segregation. Such individual consideration is particularly important where significant amounts of materials are to be stored or handled. Guidance for this consideration is provided in NFPA 49, Hazardous Chemicals Data.

4-1.4 q'he degree of reactivity hazard shall indicate to fire fighting and emergency personnel that the area should be evacuated, that a fire must be fought from a protected location, that caution must be used in approaching a spill or fire to apply extinguishing agents, or that a fire may be fought using normal procedures.

269

N F P A 7 0 4 ~ A 9 6 R O P

4-2 Definitions. 4-2.1 For the purposes of this standard, a reactive material is one

that can enter into a violent chemical reaction with water. Reactions with other materials may also result in violent release of energy but are beyond tile scope of this standard.

4-2.2 For the purposes of this standard, an unstable material is one that, in tile pure state or as commercially produced, will vigorously polymerize, decompose or condense, become self-reactive, or otherwise undergo a violent chemical change under conditions of shock pressure, or temperau~re.

4-2.3 Stable materials are those that normally have the capacity to resist changes in their chemical composition, despite exposure to air, water, and heat as encountered in fire emergencies.

4-3 Degrees of Hazard. 4-3.1 The degrees of hazard shall be ranked according to ease,

rate, and quantity of energy release as follows: 4 Materials that in themselves are readily capable of detonation or

explosive decomposition or explosive reaction at normal temperatures and pressures. This dog;co totally includes materials that are sensitive to localized thermal or mechanical shock at normal temperatures and pressures.

3 Materials that in themselves are capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or explosive reaction, but that require a strong initiating source or that must be heated under confinement before initiation. This dog, cc aaa~lly includes:

Materials that are sensitive to thermal or mechanical shock at elevated temperatures and pressures;

Materials that react explosively with water without requiring heat or confinement.

2 Materials that readily undergo violent chemical change at elevated temperatures and pressures. This dog;co ~a;;ally includes:

Materials that exhibit an exotherm at temperatures less than or equal to 150°C when tested by differential scanning calorimetry;,

Materials that may react violenflywith water or form potentially explosive mixtures with water.

1 Materials that in themselves are normally stable, but that can become unstable at elevated temperatures and pressure. This degree rrm-nfly includes:

Materials that change or decompose on exposure to air, light, or moisture;

Materials that exhibit an exotherm at temperatures greater than 150°C, but less than or equal to 300°C, when tested by differential scanning calorimetry.

0 Materials that in themselves are normally stable, even under fire conditions.This d~8, . . . . . . II 1 includes:

Materials that do not react with water; Materials that exhibit an exotherm at temperatures greater than

300°C but less than or equal to 500°C when tested by differential scanning calorimetry;

Materials that do not 'exhibit an exotherm at temperature less than or equal to 500°C when tested by differential scanning calorimetry. SUBSTANTIATION: The changes to this section are editorial and provide clarification for the intent of this hazard category. This category title is being changed from "reactivity" to "instability" to more appropriately convey tile nature of the hazard that is addressed by this category. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 15 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Farley, Moskal

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: BRITTON: It is unclear what is meant by 'Molent." A "3" rating

(such as for potassium) is clear since explosive reaction without heat or confinement is required. A "1" rating for water reactivity is not mentioned but it is implied that this rating includes materials that react non-violently with water. However, for "2" ratings it is unclear wbether the violent reaction with water must be immediate or whether this can include events associated with confinement and runaway reaction. This is significant in the use of the "W" symbol, which should be given to materials for which water is unsuitable in emergency response situations and which would be rated reactivity "2" or "3." This should not include all runaway reactions even if the reaction can accelerate to fast (violent) rates. Nevertheless, the Chapter 4 conceptual definition for a "2" reactivity does not exclude heat or confinement and does not require immediate reaction. This difficulty might be addressed in the proposed Appendix D heat of mixing test (see Proposal 704-19 (Log #6) if this effectively excludes accelerating reactions with water that are initially non-violent. However, since this test is not mandatory the concept of 'Molent" should be defined more fully in Chapter 4.

(Log #6) 704- 19- (4-2, 4-2.1 and 4-2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Norman E. Scheffier, Dow Chemical Company RECOMMENDATION: It is proposed that the definitions in Section 4-2, namely 4-2.1 and 4-2.2 be modified as follows:

4-2.1 For the purposes of this standard, a reactive material is one that can enter into a violent chemical reaction with water. Guide- lines for determination of water reactivity hazard ratings can be found in Appendix D. Reactions with other materials may also result in violent release of energy but are beyond the scope of this standard.

4-2.2 For the purposes of this standard, an unstable material is one that, in the pure state or as commercially produced, will vigorously polymerize, decompose or condense, become serf-reactive or otherwise undergo a violent chemical change under conditions of shock, pressure, or temperature. Guidelines for determining thermal stability ratings can be found in Appendix D. SUBSTANTIATION: There is a lack of information regarding the definitions of reactivity and instability. This revision to 4-2 directs the user of NFPA 704 to Appendix D that is proposed to be revised in an additional proposal that defines reactivity with water based on both by heats of mixing and descriptive terms, and defines instability based on the value of instantaneous power density. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: BRITTON: It is unclear whether the proposed test excludes slow

reactions which could accelerate to fast rates. Some example results using well known water reactive materials of different degree would be useful in assessing whether the test properly identifies reactions of low rate for which water would not be excluded as an emergency response agent.

(Log #7) 704- 20 - (4-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Norman E. Scheffier, Dow Chemical Company RECOMMENDATION: The proposed revised wording for 4-3 is shown below. Additional wording is shown in underline. Additional related changes are included in definitions in 4-2 and proposed revisions to Appendices D and E which have been submitted in separate related proposals.

4-3 Degrees of Hazard 4-3.1 The degrees of hazard shall be ranked according to ease,

rate, and quantity of energy release as follows: 4 Materials that in themselves are readily capable of detonation or

explosive decomposition or explosive reaction at normal temperatures and pressures. This degree usually includes:

Materials that have an instantaneous power density (product of heat of reaction and reaction rate) at 250°C of 1,000 W / m L or greater.

Materials that are sensitive to localized thermal or mechanical shock at normal temperatures and pressures.

3 Materials that in themselves are capable or detonation or explosive decomposition or explosive reaction, but that require a strong initiating source or that must be heated under confinement before initiation. This degree usually includes:

Materials tllat have an instantaneous power density. (product of heat of reaction and reaction rate) at 250°C at or above 100 W / m L ,and below 1.000 W/mL.

Materials that are sensitive to thermal or mechanical shock at elevated temperatures and pressures;

Materials that react explosively with water without requiring heat or confinement.

2 Materials that readily undergo violent chemical change at elevated temperatures and pressures. Tbis degree usually includes:

Materials that have an instantaneous power density (product of heat of reaction and reaction rate) at 250°C at or above 10 W / m L and below 100 W/mL.

Materials that may react violently with water or form explosive mixtures with water.

1 Materials that in themselves are normally stable, but that can become unstable at elevated temperatures and pressures. This degree usually includes;

Materials that have an instantaneous power density (product of heat of reaction and reaction rate) at 250°C at or above 0.01 W / m L and below 10 W/mL.

270

N F P A 7 0 4 1 A 9 6 R O P

Materials tha t react vigorouslv with water but no t violently. Materials that change or decompose on exposure to air, light, or

moisture. ~ l . • i A , i . i , . ~ 1 . . . . . . . l

0 Materials that in themselves are normally stable, even unde r fire conditions. This degree usually includes:

Materials that have a t ms tan taoeous power density (product of hea t of reaction and reaction rate) at 250°C below 0.01 W / m L .

Materials that do no t react with water;

O U U ~ O g L l ~ d d U I ~ I I ~ 1 ~ ' J U ~ I L U d U U ~ I V I I ~ l l L ~ d ~ g O ] ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ [ j u ~

Materials that do not exhibit an exo the rm at t empera ture less than or equal to 500°C when tested by differential scanning calorimetry.

Additional informat ion is p roposed to be included in 4-2, Defini- tions, in Appendix D and Appendix E. Revisions to Appendix D give a descript ion of the power density. SUBSTANTIATION: The definit ion for the five degrees of hazard for reactivity ratings are too general and do not allow for adequate objective differentiation. There is a need to have additional data criteria for de ternf in ing the ratings to make their selection more objective. Presendy, the reactivity definit ions have the least a m o u n t of detail compared to the heal th and flammability criteria. Bodl the heal th and flammabili ty defini t ions are based on data which makes the ass ignment of ratings more precise and easier to do.

It is impor tan t that an additional correlation of data be incorpo- ra ted into the defini t ion of the reactivity ratings. A recen t study has been done by T h o m a s C. Hofelich of Dow in which correlations have been made of power density mad the reactivity ratings. This proposal is being made in conjunct ion with an upda t ing of definit ions in 4-2 and revisions to Appendices D and E.

The reactivity rat ing is an extremely valuable rating tool which is used in the de te rmina t ion of the Fire and Explosion Index (available th rough AIChE) which is used globally for risk assessment of process p lant units. The reactivity rating is used for the de terminat ion of material factors which is a key factor in Fire and Explosion Indices. COMMIT1"EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: BRITTON: The ins tan taneous power density is an unfamil iar

concept not previously used by UCC, so we abstain on the instability definitions. The water reactivity definit ion was c o m m e n t e d on for Proposal 704-19 (Log #6).

(Log #4) 704- 21 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: Dave Klunk, Santa Fe Springs Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: I propose tha t the n u m b e r s for the heal th (blue) and flammabili ty (red) fields be white in color. SUBSTANTIATION: The 704 s tandard does no t specify the color of the n u m b e r s which are placed on the heal th (blue), flammability (red), and reactivity (yellow) and special hazard (white) fields. Most placard manufac tu re r s are supplying black n u m b e r s which fail to show up against the blue a nd red fields. This change would make the n u m b e r s be more visible, especially at night. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Chapter 6, Figure 6-1, Figure 1 intentionally does no t specify the color for the numbers , but allows the user or enforcer to specify the color tha t provides for the proper contrast. For example, the white n u m b e r placed on the yellow (instability) background may not be adequately visible either. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTKE ACTION:


(Log #10) 704- 22 - (6-1, Appendix A): Accept SUBMITTER: N o r m a n E. Scheffler, Dow Chemical Company RECOMMENDATION: It is p roposed that the te rms numer ica l hazard rat ing or hazard rating be used ins tead of the te rm "signal"

when describing the n u m b e r s used for showing the hazard ratings for health, flammability, and reactivity on containers. This would apply to Figures 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 6-1, and to Figures 6-2 and 6-3. In the table in Appendix A, the use of the te rm "hazard ratin~g," would be more appropriate than the undef ined term "signal. ' SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the word "signal" for the n u m b e r s which are to be placed on the tanks and e q u i p m e n t covered in NFPA 704 is somewhat s t range and may not be readily unders tood. Signal is no t def ined in NFPA 704. In 1-4.1 describing the Hazard Identification System, the te rm numerical ratings is used. Hazard ratings are easily unde r s tood by users of this Standard. In t roducing the new term signal can be a bit confus ing to some people. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept.

Replace "signal" with "hazard rating" where it appears in text. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP8) 704- 23 - (A-l): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committe'e on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Delete Appendix A-1. SUBSTANTIATION: The ed i tor ia lchanges were made in order to make the d o c u m e n t conform with the NFPA Manual of Style. Appendix A-1 and Appendix B were deleted because the Commit tee believes tha t the informat ion did no t contr ibute to the user ' s under s t and ing of the document . The Commit tee was concerned that the abbreviated informat ion conta ined in both Appendices may have caused confusion and led to the misuse of the requirements . Appendix A-2 (moved to Appendix B) was re ta ined since it documen t s the basis for the heal th hazard rating criteria. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #15) 704- 24 - (A-2): Reject SUBMITTER: Norman V. Steere, Norman V. Steere & Associates, I n c .

RECOMMENDATION: Delete all references to oral toxicity and dusts and mists. SUBSTANTIATION: Establishing oral toxicity values as part of the definit ion of heal th hazard is extremely misleading for the stated audience for dais s tandard, and dusts and mists are no t likely to be encountered .

Section 2-1.3 states that "The oral route of exposure, i.e., ingestion, is highly unlikely unde r the condit ions anticipated by this s tandard." Therefore, we propose that the inclusion of oral toxicity, values.be deleted. Deletion of acute oral toxicity values will avoid confusion by anyone who wishes to use and explain the NFPA system for identification of hazards of chemicals. Dusts and mists are not likely to be genera ted by ordinary spills and fires of hazardous materials, and includingtoxic i ty values of dusts and mists as part of the definit ion o fhea l t h hazard is misleading.

While oral toxicityvalues are certainly a concern for materials in t ransportat ion, because of the dangers of toxic materials r u n n i n g down into s t reams and into the g r o u n d waters, such values are misleading for storage and emergency response to most spills (which we believe will be by industrial p lant personnel on their premises.) COMMITEEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action and Commit- tee Sta tement on Proposals 704-14 (Log #13) and 704-15 (Log #14). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: STEERE: Establishing oral toxicityvalues as part of the definit ion

of heal th hazard is extremely misleading for the stated audience for this standard, and dusts and mists are not likely to be encoun te red except in occupational exposures.

")71

N F P A 7 0 4 - - A 9 6 R O P

(Log #CP10) 704- 25 - (A-2-3.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commi t tee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: Create Appendix note to 2-3.1 as follows:

A-2-3.1 Certain materials u p o n release may cause frostbite. Frostbite, as a heal th hazard, should be related to the sk in /eye c o m p o n e n t of the heal th hazard rat ing criteria. SUBSTANTIATION: T he Commit tee wanted to acknowledge that frostbite represents a potential hazard tha t should be considered when de te rmin ing the heal th hazard rating. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: BRITTON: It is unclear how frostbite hazard will be signaled. Is

this to be included in the assessment of heal th rating? In 49 the potential for frostbite is presently no ted in the s ta tement of hazards.

(Log #CP 14) 704- 26 - (Appendix B): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data RECOMMENDATION: 1. Delete existing Appendix B.

3" Replace old Appendix B with existing Appendix A-2. . Make the title of Appendix B Health Hazard Rating

In developing this edit ion of NFPA 704, file Commit tee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemicals Data de t e rmined tha t the s tandard should provide quantitative guidel ines for de te rmin ing the numer ica l heal th hazard r a t i n g o f a material. In addition, the Commit tee agreed tha t a "4" or a "3"hea l th hazard rating shou ld be assigned to any material classified as a "Poison- Inhalat ion Hazard" by the U.S. Depa r tmen t of Transpor ta t ion (DOT). This classification, "Poison-Inhalation Hazard", was adopted by DOT f rom the Uni ted Nations (UN) criteria detailed in the UN publication, Recommenda t ions on the Transpor t of Dangerous Goods, 4th Edition - Revised, 1986.(See also Notice o f Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 50, p 5270 et seq., February 7, 1985, and Notice of Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 50, p.41092 et seq., October 8, 1985.)

Tbe IJN criteria for inhalat ion toxicity is based upon the LC50 and saturated vapor concentra t ion of the mater ia l .Fur thermore , in addit ion to inhalat ion toxicity, the UN has established criteria for oral and dermal toxicity, as well as corrosivity. Based upon these criteria, the UN assigns a given material to categories called Packing Groups I, II, or III. Packing Group I materials represent a severe hazard in transport , Group II materials a serious hazard, and Group III materials a low hazard.

The Commit tee decided to adopt the UN criteria for toxicity and corrosivity, and correlate Packing Groups 1, II, and III witb the heal th hazard ratings "4," "3," and "2," respectively. Adopt ion of the UN system has several advantages. First, it addresses bazards in transportat ion, which are similar to the type of emergencies likely to be encoun te red by fire f ight ing personnel and emergency responders .Most o ther hazard ranking systems have been developed for occupational exposures.

Secondly, the UN system is well established, and it i s p r e s u m e d tha t a large n u m b e r of cbemical manufac ture rs have already classified (or can easily classify) materials into the appropr ia te Packing Groups. Finally, users of chemicals can assign "4," "3," or "2" heal th hazard ratings by establishing if chemicals have been assigned to UN Packing Groups due to toxicity or corrosivity.

In order to establish "1" and "0" heal th hazard rankings, the Commit tee utilized criteria for the "1" a n d "0" ratings conta ined in the Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMIS) developed by the National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA) (Hazardous Materials Identification System Revised, Implementa t ion Manual, 1981 ). Al though the NPCA criteria were developed for occupational exposure, the "1" and "0" criteria are on the low end of the hazard spec t rum and are fairly consis tent with, and complementa ry to, the "4," "3," and "2" ratings based upon the UN criteria.No UN criteria was established for eye irritation, and the Commit tee adop ted NPGA "3," "2," and "1 ," and "0" criteria as heal th hazard ratings for eye irritation.

The Commit tee made a n u m b e r of revisions to the proposed hazard rat ing system to provide conformity with existing industrial practice and to recognize limitations and availability of corrosivity and eye irritation into a single "skin/eye contact" category and utilize descriptive terms for dae heal th hazard rat ings.Minor changes

were made to the "2," "1," and "0" criteria for oral toxicity and to the "1" and "O" criteria for dermal toxicity. Specifically, the distinction between solids and liquids in the oral toxicity criteria was eliminated, and the cutoff between "1" and "0" rankings for oral an d dermal toxicity was lowered f rom 5000 to 2000 mg /kg .

In summary, the "4," "3," and "2" heal th hazard rankings for oral, dermal, and inhalat ion toxicity are based primarily on UN criteria. Tbe "l" and "0" heal th hazard rankings for oral, dermal, and inhalat ion toxicity, and all of the "skin/eye contact" rankings are based primarily on NPCA criteria.

For the assistance of the user of tills s tandard, the following definit ions are quo ted f rom Section 6.5 o f Recommenda t ions on the Transpor t of Dangerous Goods, Four th Revised Edition, 1986, publ ished by the Uni ted Nations, New York, NY.

"LD50 for acute oral toxicity. "That dose of the substance adminis te red which is most likely to

cause dea th within 14 days in one half of both male an d female young adul t albino rats. The n u m b e r of animals tested shall be sufficient to give a statistically significant result and be in conformity with good pharmacological practice. The result is expressed in milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

"LD50 for acute dermal toxicity "That dose of the substance wltich, adminis tered by cont inuous

contact for 24 hours with the bare skin of albino rabbits, is most likely to cause death witifin 14 days in one half of the animals tested. The n u m b e r of animals tested shall be sufficient to give a statistically significant result and be in conformity with good pharmacological practice. The result is expressed in milligrams per ki logram of body weighL

"LC50 for acute toxicity on inhalation: "That concentra t ion of vapor, mist or dus t which, adminis te red by

cont inuous inhalat ion to both male and female young adul t albino rats for one hour , is most likely to cause dea th within 14 days in one haft of the animals tested, ff the substance is adminis te red to the animals as dust or mist, more than 90 percent of the particles available for inhalat ion in the test mus t have a d iameter of 10 microns or less, provided that it is reasonably foreseeable that such concentra t ions could be encoun te red by man dur ing transporL The result is expressed in milligrams per liter of air for dusts and mists or in milliliters per cubic meter of air (parts per million) for vapors."

The following informat ion quoted f rom Section 6.4 of the above- cited Recommenda t ions also applies:

"The criteria for inhalat ion toxicity o f dusts and mists are based on LC50 data relating to 1 hour exposures and where such informat ion is available it should be used. However, wbere only LC50 data relating to 4 hou r exposures to dusts and mists are available, such figures can be mult ipl ied by four and the p roduc t subst i tuted in the above criteria, i.e. LC50 (4 hour )x 4 is considered e,cjuivalent of LC50 (1 hour ) .

' The criteria for inhalat ion toxicity of vapors are based on LC50 data relating to 1 hour exposures, and where such informat ion is available it should be used. However, wbere only LC50 data relating to 4 hour exposures to dusts and mists are available, such figures can be mult ipl ied by two and the product subst i tuted in the above criteria, i.e. LC50 (4 hour) x 2 is considered equivalent of LC50 (1 hour) ." SUBSTANTIATION: Tbe editorial changes were made in order to make the d o c u m e n t conform with the NFPA Manual of Style. Appendix A-1 and Appendix B were deleted because the Conuni t tee believes that the informat ion did not contr ibute to dae user 's unde r s t and ing of the document . The Commit tee was concerned that the abbreviated informat ion conta ined in both Appendices may have caused confusion and led to the misuse of the requirements . Appendix A-2 (moved to Appendix B) was re ta ined since it documen t s the basis for the heal th hazard rating criteria. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: BRITTON: The 49CFR definit ions for pyrophoric materials (See

Proposal 704-16 (Log #CP5) could be inc luded with the UN criteria. Also, will the qualitative descript ions of f lammabili ty hazard be

moved to Appendix C?

(Log #8) 704- 27 - (Appendix D): Accept SUBMITTER: Norman E. Scheffier, Dow Chemical Company RECOMMENDATION: The proposed revision of Appendix D is shown below..Addit ional related changes are inc luded in the definit ions in 4-2, 4-3, and Appendix E which have been submi t ted in separate related proposals.

272

N F P A 7 0 4 ~ A 9 6 R O P

It is p roposed that the title of Appendix D be changed f rom "Reactivity, Differential Scann ing Calorimetry (DSC)" to "Reactivity, Thermal Hazard Evaluation Techniques ."

This Appendix is no t a par t of the requ i rements ( r ecommenda- tions) of this NFPA document , bu t is inc luded for informat ion purposes only.

D-1 Water Reactivity. Heat of mixing tests between a chemical and water can provide a

measure of how vigorous the reaction with water will be in a fire f ighting scenario. The re are two scenarios to be considered: a material that rapidly releases hea t on contact with water and a material that rapidly releases hea t and gas on contact with water. These guidel ines apply only to the first scenario, i.e., a chemical that reacts exothermically to release hea t on contact with water, but does no t produce gaseous or tow boiling (< 100°C) by-products or azeotropes.

REACTIVITY RATING HEAT OF MIXING DESCRIZrOR

4

600 cal./gm or ~reater At or above I00 ca]/gm and

below 600 cal/gm At or above 30 ca] rgra and

below 100 cal/grn Below 3 cal/ m

Reactivity with water not considered for rating of 4

Explosive Violent

Vigorous

Non-Reactive

The hea t of mixing should be de t e rmi ned using a Two Drop Mixing Calorimeter (Hofelich, 1994) or equivalent technique us ing a 1:1 ratio of chemical to water.

D-2 Thermal Stability Thermal stability for hazard evaluation purposes may be done by a

n u m b e r of methods . Frequently used techniques include DTA (Differential Thermal Analysis), DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimetry) and ARC (Accelerating Rate Calorimetry). These tests should be pe r fo rmed in a m a n n e r mee t ing or exceeding the requ i rements out l ined in ASTM E-537-86 (for DTA or DSC) or ASTM E-XXX (in deve lopment for ARC).

D-3 Ins tan taneous power density (IPD) is calculated as the product of the enthalpy of decompos i t ion / reac t ion and the initial rate of reaction, de t e rmined at 250°C. This quanti ty represents the a m o u n t of hea t energy per uni t 6 m e per uni t vo lume (W / mL ) that a material will initially give at 250°C. T he values which make up the power density may be obtained f rom the rmodynamic tables, calculations and exper imenta l measurements . The values are mos t easily obtained f rom appropria te measu remen t s us ing differential scanning calorimetry (A~STM E-698-79) or adiabatic runaway calorimetry (Townsend, 1980). In a typical calculation, the rates of reaction as a funct ion of t empera ture are obtained and expressed in terms of an Arrhenius expression and an overall, initial-rate

i expression (Laidler, 1965). This rate expression represents the initial rate of decomposi t ion where the decrease in concentra t ion of the material as a result of the decompos i t ion / reac t ion has no t progressed to a significaxlt (< 5%) level. This allows one to use the initial concentra t ion of the material in the simplified rate expression. See Appendix E fi)r the references.

REACTIVITY RATING INSTANTANEOUS POWER D E N S I T Y A T 250°C

4

2

1

0 Below 0.01 W / m L

lt000 W / m L or greater At or above 100 W / m L and below 100 W / m L At or above 10 W / m L and below 100 W / m L

At or above 0.01 W / m L and below 10 W / m L

In order to clarify the ~dculat ion of ins tan tane°us power density, a sample calculation is provided.

Differential s cann ing calorimetry was ca rded out and the following parameters were obtained for a material of interest:

Enthalpy of decomposi t ion (AH): -80.5 ca l /g Arrhenius Activation EnerR-y (Ea): 36.4 kca l /mol Arrhenius Pre-exponentialV?A( PRE): 1.60 x 10+15 s-1 Reaction Order (n) 1 Initial concentra t ion of material, or

density of pure material (Conc.): 0.80 g / m L The initial rate of decomposi t ion of the material at 250°C may be

calculated us ing the foUowing Arrhenius expression where R is the universal gas whose value is taken as 1.987 cal /( tool °C):

Rate = Conc Order x ApRE x e - E a / R T

- .Orde r - g - I - O r d e r UN'TS:m-- = /&) ×e

Rate =0 .80 +1 x l . 6 0 x l 0 +15 x e

Rate = 0.80 +1 x l . 6 0 x l 0 +15 x e

Rate = 0.79.mgxs

-- 9,~zfflO L987~273+250)

- 38.400 1039

The power density is given as the product of this decomposi t ion and the enthalpy of decomposi t ion (the value of 4.184 W / c a l / s allows the use of uni ts W / m L ) :

caY~.l

C~(molxK) xK

IPD = -zM-I x Ra te

U N I T S : w ~ c a l x ~ x 4 184 w mL = g mLxs "

IPD = - ( - 8 0 . 5 ) x 0 . 7 9 x 4 .184 ='~y~

IPD = 6 3 ~ x 4.184--~-~. sXmL c ~

IPD = 270m- ~-

The ins tantaneous power density (IPD) is used as a positive value: the greater the power density, the greater the rate of energy release per volume. Therefore the exotherrnic enthalpy of reaction, thermodynamical ly taken with a negative sign to show release of heat to the sur roundings , is taken as a negative so as to rectify the sign of IPD. This material, having an IPD = 270 W / m L would be rated a 3 per

the table. (For the references refer to the new proposal for Appendix E.)

SUBSTANTIATION: There is a lack o f informat ion regarding the definit ions of reactivity and instability. This revision to Appendix D provides a m e t h o d to de te rmine both reactivity and instability on an objective basis. Data for heat of reaction with water and instantaneous power density provide a basis for the objective de terminat ion of the reactivity rating of materials. Developments regarding the improvements to the reactivity and instability definit ions have been developed by Thomas C. Hofelicb and Brenda A. Prine of Dow Chemical Company. C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Accept. N U M B E R O F C O M M I T T E E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O V O T E : 18 V O T E O N C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N :


(Log #9) 704- 28 - (Appendix E): Accept SUBMITTER: N o r m a n E. Scheffier, Dow Chemical Company R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : The proposed revision of Appendix E is shown below. Additional related changes are inc luded in the 4-2, 4- 3, and Appendix D whicb have been submi t ted in separate related proposals.

In the proposed revisions, the under l ined port ions are the proposed revisions.

Appendix E - Referenced Publications E-I.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protect ion Association, 1

Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101. Quincy, MA 02269-9101 NFPA 49-1994. Hazardous Chemicals Data NFPA 325M-1994. Fire Hazard Properties of Flarnmable Liquids,

Gases, and Volatile Solids. NFPA 491M-1991, Hazardous Chemical Reactions. E-1.2 ASTM Publications. American Society for Test ing Materials,

1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. ASTM D-56-93. Standard Method for Test for Flash Point by the

Tag Closed Tester ASTM D-3828-93. Test Method for Flash Point by Setatlash Closed

Tester ASTM D-3278-89. Flash Point of Liquids by Setaflash Closed Tester

273

N F P A 704 - - A96 R O P

ASTM D-93-94, Test Methods for Flash Point by tile Pensky-Martens Closed Tester ASTM E-502-84, Flasll Point of Chemicals by Closed Cup Methods ASTM E-537-86. Standard Test Method for Assessing the Thermal

Stability of Chemicals by Methods of Differential Thermal Analysis ASTM E-472-86. Practice for ReDortin~ Thermoanalytical Data ASTM E-967-92. Practice for Tehapevature Calibration of Differen-

tial Scannin~ Calorimeters and Differential Thermal Analyzers ASTM E-69~8-79. Standard Test Method for Arrhenius Kinetic

Constants for Thermally Unstable Materials ASTM E-XXX. Standard Test Method for Assessing tile Thermal

Stability of Chemicals by Methods of Accelerating Rate Calorimeu-y (in develomnent/ E-1 .30d ie r Publications Frurip, D. I.. T. C. Hofelich,, A. N. Swerud and L. F. Whiting,

"Some Siml~le Rules-of-Thumb for DSC Data Interpretation," 1991 NATAS Proceedings, 1991.

Hofelich. T. C.. D. 1. Frurit). and 1. B. Powers. "The Determination of Compatibility via';Fhermal Analysis and Mathematical Modeling. "Process Safetv ~Pro~ress." Vol. 13. no 4. Dn 227 - 233, 1994. v

Hofelich. T. C. an~l R. C. Thomas, "The "Use/Misuses of the 100 De~ree Rule in the InterPretation of Thermal Hazard Tests, "CCPS International Svrnr)osiuni on Runaway Reactions. New York pp 74 - 85, March 7, 1989:

Laidler, K. L.. Chemical Kinetics, McGraw Hill, New York, Chapter .% 1965.

Tovalsend. D.J. and I. C. Tou. "Thermal Hazard Evaluation by an Accelerating Rate Calorimeter." Thermochemica Acta, vol. 37,' t)n 1- 30. Elsevier Scientific Scientific Publishin~ Co., Amsterdam. 198"0~

Tou,J. C., and L. F. Whiting. "A Cradle-Glass Ampoule Sample Container for Differential Scanning Calorimetric Analysis," Thermochemica Acta. Vol. 42, Elsevier Scientific Scientific Publish- ing Co., Amsterdam, 1980. Whiting, L. F., M. S. LaBean and S. S. Eadie. "Evaluation of a

Capillary Tube Sample Container for Differential Scanning Calorimetry," Thermochemica Acta. Vol. 136, Elsevier Scientific Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1988. SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of the revision of this section, Appendix E, Referenced' l~blicat ions, is to give more complete and up-to-date references which go along widl the other proposed revisions to NFPA 704 Sections 4-2, 4-3, and Appendix D. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


274

Date post:	19-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ROPA-1996-704.pdf - NFPA

Documents