Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON

Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data AGENDA

First Draft Meeting September 23, 2014

10 AM-4 PM EDT Conference Call/Adobe Connect Meeting

1. Welcome. Ron Kirsch, Chair

2. Introductions and Update of Committee Roster. (attached)

3. Approval of ROC Meeting Minutes from September 29-30, 2010. (attached)

4. Staff updates. Nancy Pearce.

a) Committee membership update. b) Annual 2016 revision cycle schedule review. (attached) c) New Process Presentation.

5. Review of Public Inputs. (attached)

6. Review of Standard NFPA 704 “Diamond” examples for incorporation into annex of NFPA 704 (attached)

7. Review of draft Annex explaining 704 versus GHS including QuickCard (Summary and QuickCard attached)

8. Other/New Business.

9. Scheduling Next Meeting

10. Adjournment.

Address List No PhoneClassification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data CLA-AAA

Nancy Pearce09/05/2014

CLA-AAA

Ron A. Kirsch

ChairApplications International Corporation10920 Via Frontera, Suite 400San Diego, CA 92127-1732

E 01/01/1992CLA-AAA

Robert A. Michaels

SecretaryRAM TRAC Corporation3100 Rosendale RoadSchenectady, NY 12309

SE 1/1/1991

CLA-AAA

Jason Beam

PrincipalCasella Waste Systems58 Skip RoadBuxton, ME 04093

U 10/23/2013CLA-AAA

Laurence G. Britton

PrincipalProcess Safety Consultant848 Sherwood RoadCharleston, WV 25314

SE 1/1/1987

CLA-AAA

Laura Draelos

PrincipalSandia National Laboratories1515 Eubank SE, MS0909Albuquerque, NM 87123

U 08/11/2014CLA-AAA

Richard Gowland

PrincipalEuropean Process Safety CentreHoly Lodge, Lynn RoadHeacham, Norfolk, PE31 7HY United Kingdom

U 1/16/1998

CLA-AAA

Walter Groden

PrincipalAIG Property CasualtyGlobal Technical Office-Energy & Engineered Risk64 Seely PlaceScarsdale, NY 10583-2627Alternate: Karl Leipold

I 03/07/2013CLA-AAA

David W. Hollinger

PrincipalDrexel University3201 Arch Street, Suite 350Philadelphia, PA 19104-2756

U 03/03/2014

CLA-AAA

Ronald Keefer

PrincipalMenlo Park Fire Protection District170 Middlefield RoadMenlo Park, CA 94025

E 4/5/2001CLA-AAA

Arthur A. Krawetz

PrincipalPhoenix Chemical Laboratory, Inc.3953 West Shakespeare AvenueChicago, IL 60647-3497

RT 1/1/1979

CLA-AAA

Kenneth D. Lewis

PrincipalEvonik Degussa CorporationPO Box 868Theodore, AL 36590NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionAlternate: Cynthia J. Wernet

U 10/27/2005CLA-AAA

Caroline Miller

PrincipalChemADVISOR, Inc.5806 Innsbruck RoadEast Syracuse, NY 13057

SE 08/09/2012

CLA-AAA

David F. Peterson

PrincipalMadison, Wisconsin Fire Department964 Bedford DriveJanesville, WI 53546

E 7/12/2001CLA-AAA

David T. Phelan

PrincipalBergenfield Fire Department114 Niagara StreetDumont, NJ 07628

E 03/05/2012

1

Address List No PhoneClassification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data CLA-AAA

Nancy Pearce09/05/2014

CLA-AAA

Brian Primeau

PrincipalMIT Lincoln Labs244 Wood Street, Room S0-755Lexington, MA 02420

RT 08/09/2012CLA-AAA

Gary Robinson

PrincipalLiberty Mutual Group6260 East Riverside Blvd., Suite 106Loves Park, IL 61111-4418

I 1/1/1991

CLA-AAA

Grayson Sack

PrincipalCashins and Associates, Inc.21 Fisher StreetNatick, MA 01760

SE 10/23/2013CLA-AAA

William J. Satterfield, III

PrincipalHydrogen Safety, LLC/Rode & Associates, LLC35 Brookwood RoadBristol, RI 02809-1206

I 1/1/1986

CLA-AAA

Stephen Sides

PrincipalAmerican Coatings Association1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20005

M 08/09/2012CLA-AAA

James O. Vigerust, Jr.

PrincipalCB&I2440 Louisiana Boulevard NE, Suite 300Albuquerque, NM 87110

SE 10/28/2008

CLA-AAA

David B. Wechsler

Principal27706 Dalton Bluff CourtKaty, TX 77494American Chemistry Council

U 4/15/2004CLA-AAA

Karl Leipold

AlternateAIG Energy & Engineered Risk894 Laurel WayArnold, MD 21012-1617Principal: Walter Groden

I 07/29/2013

CLA-AAA

Cynthia J. Wernet

AlternateThe Boeing Company568 May StreetArroyo Grande, CA 93420NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionPrincipal: Kenneth D. Lewis

U 03/07/2013CLA-AAA

Jennifer H. Lawless

Nonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborOccupational Safety & Health Administration200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 3718Washington, DC 20210

E 08/09/2012

CLA-AAA

Nancy Pearce

Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

1/11/2012

2

Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data

MEMORANDUM

TO: Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data FROM: Denise Beach, Senior Engineer/Staff Liaison DATE: December 15, 2010 RE: NFPA 704 ROC Meeting Minutes Enclosed are the minutes from the September 29-30, 2010 ROC meeting. Please feel free to bring any substantive incorrect items to my attention. The ROC meeting concludes the NFPA 704 Annual 2011 Revision Cycle. The next meeting will be scheduled as needed and details will be forwarded as they become available. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (617) 984-7501 or via email at [email protected].

MINUTES OF MEETING

Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data

September 29-30, 2010 Sheraton Gateway Suites O’Hare

Rosemont, IL

I. Attendance: Principal Members/Staff: Gary Robinson, Technical Committee Chairman, Liberty Mutual Group, IL Denise Beach, NFPA, MA Ron Keefer, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA Arthur Krawetz, Phoenix Chemical Laboratory Inc., IL Kenneth Lewis, Industrial Fire Protection Section, AL James Vigerust, Shaw Group Inc., NM

II. Minutes of Meeting: 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. on September 29, 2010.

The Technical Committee (TC) members introduced themselves and identified their affiliation.

2. Chair’s Remarks. Chairman Gary Robinson welcomed the TC members to the

meeting. 3. Staff Liaison Update. The staff liaison made a brief presentation on the scope,

purpose and timeline of the NFPA revision process. 4. Minutes Approval. The minutes from the January 2010 ROP meeting were

approved as written. 5. NFPA 704 Report on Comments. The public comments were reviewed and acted

upon. One new committee comment was created. Dr. Krawetz reported that the Fifth Edition of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods is now available in Canada, but has not been listed on any U.S. websites. The Committee noted in the ROP meeting that a review of this document is needed. Committee actions will be presented in the Annual 2011 Report on Comments (ROC) to be sent to all members and submitters of comments. Anyone else who would like to receive a free copy can view or download the ROC via our website at www.nfpa.org.

6. Old Business.

A. Water Reactivity Task Group: Larry Britton, Bill Satterfield and Richard Gowland. None of the task group members were present, therefore the TC held

http://www.nfpa.org/�

this action item over for the next meeting. MSDS’s for the chemicals have been posted on the CLA-AAA e-Committee page. See Attachment C for additional notes made by the TC for consideration by the task group.

B. Materials held for further review. The TC recommendations can be found on Attachment D. The recommendations are based on the MSDS’s posted on the CLA-AAA e-Committee page.

7. Other Business. As noted in Item 5, the Fifth Edition of the UN Recommendations

on the Transport of Dangerous Goods was found by Dr. Krawetz in Canada. The Technical Committee requested that NFPA Staff obtain a copy and compare it to Annex B of NFPA 704.

11. Next Meeting. The ROC meeting completes the committee work for the Annual

2011 revision cycle. The next meeting will be scheduled as needed. 12. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m. on September 30, 2010.

Attachment A: NFPA 704 ROC Minutes

Oxidizers. Water reactivity & instability questions

1. Hold this entire item for further study by task group. There are several chemicals whose MSDS states that “Contact with water or moist air may generate flammable and/or toxic chemicals," yet "extinguishing media" includes "water". Since their instability rating is 1 (rated by MDL), I’m assuming they’re NOT water reactive. None listed in Bldg Code HazMat book or FPG as W unless noted otherwise. Oxidizers including: Sodium peroxide – CAS 1313-60-6 (49, Bldg & 430) – but Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemicals (p. 1383 of 4th edn) says contact causes ignition. Britton also thinks should be W. (listed in Bldg as W); review I=1 rating of sodium peroxide if indeed W. [MSDS BC48] Calcium hypochlorite CAS 7778-54-3 (49, Bldg & 430) – 49 reports “chlorine gas released when wet in “health haz” section; Consider ratings of 3-0-1 and 3-0-0 in BldgCode. Noted in 49 as “thermally unstable” in “Statement of Hazards” section Potassium Dichloroisocyanurate CAS 2244-21-5 (49, Bldg & 430 ). Noted in 49 as “reacts with water, releasing chlorine gas” and “thermally unstable” in “Statement of Hazards” section [MSDS BC65] Nitric Acid, Fuming CAS 7697-37-2 (49, Bldg & 430) Britton reported “Nitric acid doesn't react chemically with water and is moderately exothermic so that boiling isn't expected. However to avoid localized overheating and splattering the concentrated acid should be added to water rather than the other way around, with good mixing. If water is added to concentrated acid care should be taken obviously - but the hazard doesn't rate a W." Sodium Dichloroisocyanurate CAS 2893-78-9 (49, Bldg & 430). 49 has H=2 and I=2 =1. Bldg has H=1 and I=1; MDL has 2-0-2. [MSDS BC13 and BC69]

2. Hold this entire item for further study by task group. In 430, SODIUM

DICHLORO-S-TRIAZINETRIONE Dihydrate is listed as a Class 1 oxidizer, whereas SODIUM DICHLORO-S-TRIAZINETRIONE is listed as a Class 3. Are they pretty similar in other aspects? I rated the dehydrate as 1-0-1 OX and the other as 1-0-2 OX and not water reactive.

3. These items were not clearly marked. A. Nitrogen Tetraoxide 10544-72-6 classified as “oxidizing gas”. Why was gas given oxidizer class number? NFPA 5000 defines oxidizing gas as “A gas that can support and accelerate combustion of other materials”. 78-88-6 – Dichloropropene – currently rated at 3-3-0. This appears to be correct based on Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety data sourced from American Industrial Hygiene Industrial Journal volume 19-1958. What is the question? 57-57-8 betaPropiolactone – Highly toxic but no NFPA 704 rating

85-44-9 Phthalic anhydride – 1530 mg/kg oral rate indicates H2 is correct, not highly toxic; but NFPA 49 shows as corrosive with H=3. MSDS says corrosive, therefore change the Building Code database to H=3, toxic. 3457-61-2 -- tert-Butyl Cumene Peroxide. Highly toxic but H=2. Which class rating at what concentrations? Check with NFPA 400 on organic peroxides? Hold for further study.

Attachment B: NFPA 704 ROP Minutes

Materials held for further review. The following items need committee review. A. Chemical Changes

a. Formaldehyde. Formaldehyde (100%) is not commercially available in pure form, such as a compressed gas, owing to polymerization, therefore it will be removed from the FPG. SL Note: Formaldehyde is listed in the 14th edition of the FPG. It is in NFPA 49 as “a flammable gas or combustible solutions”. It is listed in NFPA 325 as 37% with 15% methanol and 37% methanol-free. The Committee should review the listings and recommend modifications. See PCDCA conclusions (attachment C.3, #8): change NFPA 325’s AIT (ignition temp) to 430C. SL Note: This change was not made. For the proposed AIT modification, the PCDCA conclusions were based on three respected sources: International Chemical Safety Card (ICSC) that is peer-reviewed, EPA’s Air Toxic Information and Sax 6th edition. The existing flammability limits were confirmed and should be maintained. <Research by Mickey Norsworthy>

b. o-Methoxybenzaldehyde. See Attachment B.1. c. Di-tert-butyl peroxide. CAS 110-05-4 The TC reviewed the MSDS and noted that “eye contact causes severe corrosion”, therefore health rating should be 3. NFPA Staff should update the Building Code database and the FPG. The TC also noted that flammability rating should also be 3 based on the closed cup flash point. NFPA Staff should update the Building Code database and the FPG. d. Mustard Oil Alternate CAS # should be listed as 8007-40-7.

B. Chemical Changes - Items held from previous meetings. a. Peroxides in NFPA 432 (12-00 ROC agenda, now found in

“PrevMtgRatingQuestions.pdf” file on committee website). The TC requested that a letter be sent to L. Britton to determine if this is still an issue.

b. Flammability rating of chloroprene This issue was resolved in 2001. c. Flammability and instability ratings of gallium phosphide The FPG shows

rating of 3-3-2. Committee members are requested to provide input as no one could recall exactly what the issue was and whether it was resolved.

C. Chemicals highlighted during creation of book, Building and Fire Code

Classification of Hazardous Materials. See Attachment C.2. These were chemicals rated by Amy that I would like committee to review. Either “new” chemicals or committee ratings I had serious questions about. Amy will likely need to pull the MSDSs and create another .pdf file of the scanned MSDSs for committee review. D. Changes proposed by the PCDCA. The Physical and Chemical Data Consistency Advisory Committee (PCDCA) made some suggested changes based on inconsistent data throughout the NFPA codes and standards. See Attachment C.3 for suggested changes to 49 and 325.

Attachment B.1: – o-Methoxybenzaldehyde RE: Inquiries about o-methoxybenzaldehyde synonym: o-anisaldehyde; CAS 135-02-4

1. No original source for disputed 104ºF oc (40ºC) flashpoint reported in NFPA 325. NFPA 325 quotes the flashpoint as 104ºF oc (40ºC); when I go back to the archives, the flashpoint is listed as 244ºF (oc) with the source listed as “Ansul Chemical Company, Marinette, Wisconsin (Laboratory Results)”.

2. What is correct flashpoint?

a. Our archives quote 244ºF (oc) from the Ansul Chemical Company lab results;

b. MDL quotes 243ºF (117ºC) using SCC method; I’m assuming this is the Setaflash Closed Tester, which states in NFPA 704 that this method is to be used for aviation fuels or for “liquids having flash points in the range of 32ºF (0ºC) to 230ºF (110ºC)”. This chemical doesn’t seem to fall in this range.

c. The questioner quoted Aldrich, Sax and Acros with the flashpoint as 243ºF (117ºC).

3. If NFPA 325 uses 104ºF as the flashpoint, why is the flammability rating 1? It appears it would be a 2 from the flashpoint data of 104ºF; it appears to have a rating of 1 if the higher flashpoint is used.

4. Boiling Point of 275ºF (135ºC) questioned.

a. MDL quotes a boiling point of 457-471ºF (236-244ºC) b. Questioner quoted CRC Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals as

470ºF (243.5ºC).

5. CONCLUSION: The flashpoint should be changed to 243ºF (117ºC) with a flammability rating of 1 and the boiling point changed to the MDL range of 457-471ºF (236-244ºC).

Attachment B.2: Products in Building Code database that “Amy rated” to be checked by 704 TC from October 2005 minutes

1. Sodium Dichromate CAS 10588-01-9. Not currently in 325 or 49; Amy rated 3-0-0 OX; originally from NFPA 430, Annex B.2. The TC reviewed data: LC50 (4 hr, rat) .124 mg/l; LD50 Dermal 1000/mg/kg; LD50 Oral 50 mg/kg. The TC concluded that the health rating should be 4. NFPA Staff will update the Building Code Database and FPG. 2. Di-tert-butyl peroxide 110-05-4 – The TC reviewed the MSDS and reaffirmed rating of 3-3-4OX. 3. 4-(2-Aminoethyl)-Morpholine 2038-03-1 Appears to be corrosive - consider changing Health Rating to "3" from "2". MSDS’s presented at the meeting disagree on corrosiveness. Further research is needed. 2 flammability means II or IIIA but MDL has FP =345F(scc) Flammability rating should be changed to a 3. 4. Diglycol Chlorohydrin 628-89-7 – The TC reviewed the MSDS and reaffirmed current rating. 5. Beta-Propiolactone 57-57-8 – The MSDS listed LC50 (1 hr rat) data as 25 ppm. Therefore health rating should be 4. NFPA Staff will update Building Code database and FPG. 6. Tri-n-Butyl Borate 688-74-4 MSDS does not indicate corrosive; Oral toxicity LD50 of 2150 mg/kg – mouse. Therefore health rating should be 1. NFPA Staff will update the Building Code Database and FPG. 7. Sodium Peroxide 1313-60-6 MSDS states "may explode on contact with water," yet "extinguishing media=water". 704 rating from MDL, yet I=1 insinuates not water reactive; Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemicals (p. 1383 of 4th edn) says contact causes ignition. Larry Britton, TC member agrees. MSDS BC48 The TC held this item for further task group study. 8. tert-Butyl Hydroperoxide 75-91-2 Note: May explode. See NFPA 49 contained in this Guide. How was 4 flamm rating determined and what is OSHA class? NFPA 432 rates it as a 3-2-2. The MSDS lists it as corrosive to eyes, therefore health rating should be 3. Flash point listed as 80.1 deg F, therefore flammability rating should be 3. The TC could not identify source of rating instability and refers that question to the full committee. 9. tert-butylstyrene CAS # 1746-23-2. NFPA Staff will update building code database. 10. Linalool, Synthetic, 78-70-6 The TC reviewed the MSDS and found no indication that linalool acts as an oxidizer. 11. Methyl Formate 107-31-3 – The TC followed the procedure in the Building Code Handbook and determined that methyl formate is toxic in accordance with that procedure. 12. Vinyl Ethyl Ether 109-92-2 – The TC followed the procedure in the Building Code Handbook and determined that vinyl ethyl ether is toxic in accordance with that procedure. 13. Vinyl Toluene 25013-15-4– is it toxic or highly toxic? Listed as INS for now. The TC did not find sufficient data to determine toxicity. NFPA Staff will request updated MSDS from other sources. 14. 19624-22-7 The TC reviewed available data and confirmed OSHA class IC.

15. Triisobutylaluminum 100-99-2 The TC reviewed available data and confirmed OSHA class IB. 16. Triethylaluminum 97-93-8 The TC reviewed available data and identified OSHA class as IB. Data did not conclusively indicate toxicity, therefore should be left as INS for now. 17. Diisobutylaluminum Hydride 1191-15-7 FIRE: 4. May ignite spontaneously on exposure to air. The TC members present reviewed the rating and agreed that IB is appropriate. 18. Petroleum Crude Oil 8002-05-9 Note: I rating based on MDL; why would MDL call a F=4 a IB? 19. Petroleum Ether 64475-85-0 Looks like we also did in 4-98 with -2-0(????) FIRE: No fl pt on MSDS. Retained present rating in absence of data in support of a change. USCGs CHRIS: F1 pt= 105-1400F, oc. 8-03: Why would MDL call it a IB? Other MSDS’s classify as 1A; leave blank for now. 20. Chromic Acid 1333-82-0 The TC followed the procedure in the Building Code Handbook and determined that chromic acid is highly toxic in accordance with that procedure. 21. Cumene 98-82-8 is it toxic or highly toxic? Listed as INS for now. 22. Methyltrichlorosilane 75-79-6 is it toxic or highly toxic? Listed as INS for now. 23. p-Nitrotoluene 99-99-0 is it toxic or highly toxic? Listed as INS for now. 24. Sulfuric Acid. Any reason for Sulfuric acid to change from being 3-0-2 W as in NFPA 49? Why toxic = no in the Building & Fire Code Classification of Hazardous Materials? 25. Hydrochloric Acid – The TC requested that NFPA Staff change the toxicity of hydrochloric acid to toxic.

Attachment C.3: PCDCA proposed changes The TC members present had no objections to the recommended changes but requested that NFPA Staff distribute to entire committee to solicit further comments.

1. Acetic Acid (64-19-7). Change AIT to 426C from 516C in NFPA 49 and from 463 in NFPA 325. For acetic acid, the PCDCA conclusions were based on upon review of twenty (20) sources, including fourteen (14) safety data sheets. For the autoignition temperature, the exact same values for these proposed changes were observed in the following sources: Hazardous Substances Databank, and MSDSs from Genium and Fisher.

2. Acetic Anhydride (108-24-7). Change FP to 49C from 52C in NFPA 49. Change AIT to 316C from 630F (332C) in NFPA 49. Change LFL to 2.7% from 2.9% in NFPA 49. For acetic anhydride, the PCDCA conclusions were based on upon review of twenty (20) sources, including fourteen (14) safety data sheets. For the flash point, the exact same values for these proposed changes were observed in the following sources: NFPA 325, Hazardous Substances Databank, NIOSH Pocket Guide, and Malinkrodt/Baker MSDS. For the proposed changes for flammability limits and autoignition temperature; the exact same values were observed in the following sources: NFPA 325, ChemInfo, Hazardous Substances Databank, and Malinkrodt/Baker MSDS.

3. Ethylene Oxide (75-21-8). Change FP to –20C from –20F in NFPA 325. The ------20F data were also in New Jersey HSFS, NIOSH Pocket Guide who likely copied it incorrectly from us (notify Mike Barsan of NIOSH if we change). For ethylene oxide, the PCDCA conclusions were based on upon review of eight sources. The existing flashpoint was confirmed and should be maintained; the exact same value was observed from ChemInfo and NFPA 49. Other data source for closed cup flashpoint such as Chemical Search and Retrieval System, CHRIS, and Hazardous Substances Data Bank reported the value at “<0°F”. <Note to TC – Krawetz’s research with PCDCA>

4. Acrylonitrile (107-13-1). Says “water soluble in 325 and in 49 says “not soluble”—reconcile. Change NFPA 49 UFL to 3 and UFL to 17.and make notation that FP of 0C is (oc).

5. Ethyl Nitrate. In this particular case, it was noted that there were data inconsistencies between NFPA 86 and NFPA 325. Upon further research, the PCDCA was unable to locate a manufacturer of this material. Of the reputable Internet MSDS databases, the PCDCA was unable to locate ethyl nitrate. The committee theorized that the material is made only in small lots. In the event that there is some unique reason for NFPA 86 to keep the material, it is suggested that the LFL value be made consistent with NFPA 325, either by changing NFPA 86 or proposing change to NFPA 325.

6. Benzene. Change NFPA 49 LFL to 7.8 to be consistent with NFPA 325 and the findings of the PCDCA (Gowland did this chemical).

7. Ethyl Benzene (100-41-4). Change NFPA 49 and 325 FP to 15 C (cc). Change NFPA 49’s flammability limits to 0.8 and 6.7 to be consistent with PCDCA and NFPA 325. For ethyl benzene, the PCDCA conclusions were based on upon review of eleven sources. Three sources has the flash point of 21C (325, 49 and

497), three had 15C (NFPA 86, Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Lab Safety, and CP Chemicals MSDS)and three had 18C (OSHA web page, International Chemical Safety Card and the Merck Index). The most conservative number from equally reputable sources was chosen as the “official NFPA value”. <Research done by Mickey Norsworthy>

8. Formaldehyde. Change NFPA 325’s AIT (ignition temp) to 430C. For the proposed AIT modification, the PCDCA conclusions were based on three respected sources: International Chemical Safety Card (ICSC) that is peer-reviewed, EPA’s Air Toxic Information and Sax 6th edition. The existing flammability limits were confirmed and should be maintained. <Research by Mickey Norsworthy>

9. Ethyl Ether or Diethyl Ether (60-29-7). Change AIT to 160C, ensure FP is –45C cc, Flamm lims are 1.9 and 36.

2016 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE*Public Input Dates may vary according to standards and schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Pleasecheck the NFPA Website for the most up to date information on Public Input Closing Dates and schedules at

www.nfpa.org/document # (i.e. www.nfpa.org/101) and click on the Next Edition tab.

ProcessStage

Process Step Dates forTC

Dates forTC with

CCPublic Input Closing Date for Paper Submittal* 6/6/2014 6/6/2014Public Input Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PI)* 7/7/2014 7/7/2014Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 12/12/2014 9/12/2014

Public Input Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 1/30/2015 10/24/2014Stage Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 2/20/2015 11/14/2014

(First Draft) Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot recirc 2/27/2015 11/21/2014Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 11/28/2014Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 1/9/2015Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 1/30/2015Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 2/20/2015Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot recirc 2/27/2015Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 3/6/2015 3/6/2015

Public Comment Closing Date for Paper Submittal* 4/10/2015 4/10/2015Public Comment Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PC)* 5/15/2015 5/15/2015Final Date to Publish Notice of Consent Standards (Standards thatreceived no Comments)

5/29/2015 5/29/2015

Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (Standards that receivedno Comments)

6/12/2015 6/12/2015

Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 10/30/2015 7/24/2015Comment Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 12/11/2015 9/4/2015Stage Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 1/4/2016 9/25/2015

(Second Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/11/2016 10/2/2015Draft) Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 10/9/2015

Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 11/20/2015Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 12/11/2015Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 1/4/2016Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/11/2016Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 1/18/2016 1/18/2016

Tech Session Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 2/19/2016 2/19/2016Preparation Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent

Standards4/15/2016 4/15/2016

(& Issuance) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards 5/3/2016 5/3/2016SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards 5/13/2016 5/13/2016

Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/13 16/2016 6/13 16/2016

Appeals and Appeal Closing Date for Standards with CAMs 6/29/2016 6/29/2016Issuance SC Issuance Date for Standards with CAMs 8/4/2016 8/4/2016

Approved:__October 30, 2012 Revised___December 4, 2013_____________________

Public Input No. 12-NFPA 704-2013 [ Global Input ]

Global change throughout the document: revise text and requirements to be compatible with newOSHA hazard marking system.

Type your content here ...

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Even though the NFPA 704 hazard identification system has been around for decades, has stood the test of time, and is widely accepted and in use by fire departments across the U.S., OSHA has chosen to go a different direction with their “new” hazard marking system. Since OSHA and NFPA 704 are no longer compatible, this creates a new dilemma for firefighters. Even prior to OSHA’s change, the DOT requirements for markings and NFPA 704 were dissimilar. OSHA’s actions exacerbate the situation by creating a third hazard identification / hazard marking system. This is simply too confusing for first responders and the regulated industry. If nothing is done, certain products will have three different sets of markings – DOT, OSHA, and NFPA 704 – depending on where they are in transportation, stored in packaging or shipping containers, or inside a building.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein

Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 16:52:17 EDT 2013

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Public Input No. 23-NFPA 704-2014 [ Global Input ]

Revise NFPA 704 to match the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard.


The danger of two separate standards with very differing methods of communicating the hazard of materials if readily obvious. This creates a significant danger of misunderstanding being communicated to fire fighters, occupants, emergency responders and users of the products.


Submitter Full Name: Anthony Apfelbeck

Organization: Altamonte Springs Building/Fire Safety Division

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 11:02:48 EDT 2014


2 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Public Input No. 25-NFPA 704-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.1 ]

2.3.1 ASTM Publications.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

ASTM D 92, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup, 2005 2012B .

ASTM D 3065, Standard Test Methods for Flammability of Aerosol Products, 2006, reapproved 2013.

ASTM D 6668, Standard Test Method for the Discrimination Between Flammibility Ratings of F = 0 and F =1, 2006 , reapproved 2010 .


Updated to current editions.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship

Public Input No. 26-NFPA 704-2014 [Chapter G]


Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Jun 10 01:53:03 EDT 2014


3 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM


2.3.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM D 92, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup, 2005 2012b .

ASTM D 3065, Standard Test Methods for Flammability of Aerosol Products, 2006 2001(2013)

ASTM D 6668, Standard Test Method for the Discrimination Between Flammibility Ratings of F = 0 and F =1, 2006 2001(2010) .


Update the year date for standard(s)


Submitter Full Name: Steve Mawn

Organization: ASTM International

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 13:14:43 EDT 2014


4 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM


3.3.3 Fire Point.

The lowest temperature at which a liquid will ignite and achieve sustained burning when exposed to a testflame in accordance with ASTM D 92, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland OpenCup Tester . [ 30, 2012] (see also 4.4).


Definitions are not enforceable and cannot contain references to codes, standards or regulations. The reference to ASTM D92 is being placed in the new 4.4.



Public Input No. 35-NFPA 704-2014 [Chapter 4]


Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler

Organization: GBH International

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



5 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Public Input No. 35-NFPA 704-2014 [ Chapter 4 ]

Chapter 4 General

4.1 Description.

4.1.1

This system of markings shall identify the hazards of a material in terms of the following three principalcategories:

(1) Health

(2) Flammability

(3) Instability

4.1.2

The system shall indicate the degree of severity by a numerical rating that ranges from 4, indicating severehazard, to 0, indicating minimal hazard.

4.1.3

The information shall be presented by a spatial arrangement of numerical ratings, with the health ratingalways at the nine o'clock position, the flammability rating always at the twelve o'clock position, and theinstability rating always at the three o'clock position.

4.1.4*

Each rating shall be located in a square-on-point field (commonly referred to as a diamond), each of whichis assigned a color as follows:

(1) Blue for health hazard

(2) Red for flammability hazard

(3) Yellow for instability hazard

4.1.5

Alternatively, the square-on-point field shall be permitted to be any convenient contrasting color and thenumbers themselves shall be permitted to be colored. (See Figure 9.1(a) through Figure 9.1(c) forexamples of the spatial arrangements.)

4.1.6

The fourth quadrant, at the six o'clock position, shall be reserved for indicating special hazards and shall bein accordance with Chapter 8. No special color is associated with this quadrant.

4.2 Assignment of Ratings.

4.2.1

The hazard evaluation required to determine the correct hazard ratings for a specific material shall beperformed by persons who are technically competent and experienced in the interpretation of the hazardcriteria set forth in this standard.

4.2.2*

Assignment of ratings shall be based on factors that encompass a knowledge of the inherent hazards of thematerial, including the extent of change in behavior to be anticipated under conditions of exposure to fire orfire control procedures.

4.2.3

The system shall be based on relative rather than absolute values, requiring that considerable judgment beexercised.

4.2.3.1

Based on professional judgment, the hazard rating shall be permitted to be either increased or decreasedto more accurately assess the likely degree of hazard that will be encountered.

4.2.3.2*

It shall be anticipated that different physical forms of the material or conditions of storage and use couldresult in different ratings being assigned to the same material.


6 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

4.2.3.3*

Where more than one chemical is present in a building or specific area, professional judgment shall beexercised to indicate ratings using the following methods:

(1) Composite Method. Where many chemicals are present, a single sign shall summarize the maximumratings contributed by the material(s) in each category and the special hazard category for the buildingand/or the area.

(2) Individual Method. Where only a few chemicals are present or where only a few chemicals are ofconcern to emergency responders (taking into account factors including physical form, hazard rating,and quantity), individual signs shall be displayed. The chemical name shall be displayed below eachsign.

(3) Composite–Individual Combined Method. A single sign shall be used to summarize the ratings via theComposite Method for buildings or other areas containing numerous chemicals. Signs based on theIndividual Method shall be used for rooms or smaller areas within the building containing smallnumbers of chemicals.

4.2.3.4*

When mixtures of chemicals are being rated, actual data on the mixture itself shall be used to obtain theratings for health, flammability, and instability.

4.3* Location of Signs.

Signs shall be in locations approved by the authority having jurisdiction and as a minimum shall be postedat the following locations:

(1) Two exterior walls or enclosures containing a means of access to a building or facility

(2) Each access to a room or area

(3) Each principal means of access to an exterior storage area

4.4 Fire point. The lowest temperature at which a liquid will ignite and achieve sustained burning whenexposed to a test flame in accordance with ASTM D92, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points byCleveland Open Cup Tester.


This is simply being moved from the definitions section.



Public Input No. 34-NFPA 704-2014 [Section No. 3.3.3]


Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler

Organization: GBH International

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



7 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 704-2013 [ Section No. 5.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]


8 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 704-3 (Log #CC1) which was held from the A11 ROC onProposal 704-8.

The degrees of health hazard shall be ranked according to the probable severity of the effects of exposureto emergency response personnel detailed in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Degrees of Health Hazards

Degree of Hazard* Criteria†

4 — Materials that, underemergency conditions, can belethal

Gases whose LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity is less

than or equal to 1000 parts per million (ppm)

Any liquid whose saturated vapor concentration at 20°C(68°F) is equal to or greater than 10 times its LC50 for

acute inhalation toxicity, if its LC50 is less than or equal to

1000 ppm

Dusts and mists whose LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity is

less than or equal to 0.5 milligram per liter (mg/L)

Materials whose LD50 for acute dermal toxicity is less than

or equal to 40 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

Materials whose LD50 for acute oral toxicity is less than or

equal to 5 mg/kg

3 — Materials that, underemergency conditions, cancause serious or permanentinjury

Gases whose LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity is greater

than 1000 ppm but less than or equal to 3000 ppm

Any liquid whose saturated vapor concentration at 20°C(68°F) is equal to or greater than its LC50 for acute

inhalation toxicity, if its LC50 is less than or equal to 3000

ppm, and that does not meet the criteria for degree ofhazard 4


greater than 0.5 mg/L but less than or equal to 2 mg/L

Materials whose LD50 for acute dermal toxicity is greater

than 40 mg/kg but less than or equal to 200 mg/kg

Materials that are corrosive to the respiratory tract

Materials that are corrosive to the eye or cause irreversiblecorneal opacity

Materials that are corrosive to skin

Cryogenic fluids that cause frostbite and irreversible tissuedamage

Compressed liquefied gases with boiling points at orbelow -55°C (-66.5°F) that cause frostbite and irreversibletissue damage

Materials whose LD50 for acute oral toxicity is greater than

5 mg/kg but less than or equal to 50 mg/kg

2 — Materials that, underemergency conditions, cancause temporary incapacitationor residual injury

Gases whose LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity is greater

than 3000 ppm but less than or equal to 5000 ppm

Any liquid whose saturated vapor concentration at 20°C(68°F) is equal to or greater than one-fifth its LC50 for

acute inhalation toxicity, if its LC50 is less than or equal to


9 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Degree of Hazard* Criteria†

5000 ppm, and that does not meet the criteria for eitherdegree of hazard 3 or degree of hazard 4


greater than 2 mg/L but less than or equal to 10 mg/L



Compressed liquefied gases with boiling points between-30°C (-22°F) and -55°C (-66.5°F) that can cause severetissue damage on contact, depending on duration ofexposure

Materials thatare respiratoryirritants

Materials that cause severe but reversible irritation to theeyes or lacrimators

Materials that are primary skin irritants or sensitizers



1 — Materials that, underemergency conditions, cancause significant irritation

Gases and vapors whose LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity

is greater than 5000 ppm but less than or equal to 10,000ppm


greater than 10 mg/L but less than or equal to 200 mg/L



Materials that cause slight to moderate irritation to therespiratory tract, eyes, and skin



0 — Materials that, underemergency conditions, wouldoffer no hazard beyond that ofordinary combustible materials

Gases and vapors whose LC50 for acute inhalation toxicity

is greater than 10,000 ppm


greater than 200 mg/L


than 2000 mg/kg


2000 mg/kg

Materials that are essentially nonirritating to the respiratorytract, eyes, and skin

*For each degree of hazard, the criteria are listed in a priority order based on the likelihood of exposure.

†See Section B.3 for definitions of LC50 and LD50.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved

704_PI_2_Held_Comment_704-3_TC_CLA-AAA_.pdf Held Comment 704-3



10 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

In the 2011 revision cycle, the committee reviewed the substantiating data used to develop the subject text in the Annual 2001 Report on Proposals. The substantiating data indicates that materials having boiling points between -30 C and -55 C cause freezing to exposed flesh within 1 minute, whereas materials having boiling points less than -55 C cause freezing to exposed flesh within 30 seconds. The difference in duration of exposure between 30 seconds and 1 minute was deemed meaningless in the context of the duration of an emergency response. Therefore, the committee believed that this better meets the intent of degree of hazard 3, and has modified the language accordingly.However, in reviewing Annual 2011 comment Log #2, the committee recognized that time duration may be a factor in the physical hazard related to frostbite or tissue damage when dealing with the release of compressed liquefied gas. In addition, the reference in ACGIH booklet appears to refer to the environmental hazard of cold temperature and wind chill, not the hazard presented by the chemical release. The committee needs to review the reference material in more detail to better understand how it applies to the release of compressed liquefied gases.


Submitter Full Name: TC on CLA-AAA

Organization: TC on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemical Data

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri May 24 09:54:43 EDT 2013


11 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM


8.2.4 *

Materials that are simple asphyxiant gases shall be permitted to be identified with the letters “SA” and shallbe limited to the following gases: nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, and carbon dioxide and xenon.


I the past few years their has been event that Carbon dioxide has cause death or injury due to the leakig of CO2 from berevage system. These location include Phoenix, AZ and another city in GA.

The CGA has issued a safety alaert alert SA - 22 - 2011 POTENTIAL OF CARBONATED BEVERAGE SYSTEMS TO CREATEA LIFE-THREATENING ENVIRONMENT.

Addtional CO2 is now being used for swimming pools to control PH and even in large referginrantion system.

BY adding this new text fire fihgters safety will increase.


Submitter Full Name: Joe McElvaney

Organization: Phoenix Fire Department

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Feb 07 14:28:07 EST 2014


12 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Public Input No. 26-NFPA 704-2014 [ Chapter G ]

Annex G Informational References

G.1 Referenced Publications.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections ofthis standard and are not part of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for otherreasons.

G.1.1 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2012 edition .

NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .

NFPA 400, Hazardous Materials Code, 2010 edition 2013 with 2014 errata .

NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing,and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, 2006 edition 2012 .

NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and WoodworkingFacilities, 2012 edition with 2013 errata .

Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, 13th edition, 2002 2010 .

G.1.2 Other Publications.

G.1.2.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM D 56, Standard Method of Test for Flash Point by the Tag Closed Tester, 2005, reapproved 2010 .

ASTM D 86, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, 20092012 .

ASTM D 93, Test Methods for Flash Point by the Pensky-Martens Closed Tester, 2008 2013 with 2014errata .

ASTM D 2879, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure–Temperature Relationship and InitialDecomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, 1997 2010 .

ASTM D 3278, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus,1996, reaffirmed 2004 reapproved 2011 .

ASTM D 3828, Standard Test Method for Flash Point by Small Scale Closed Tester, 2009 2012A .

ASTM E 537, Standard Test Method for Assessing the Thermal Stability of Chemicals by Methods ofDifferential Thermal Analysis, 2007 2012 .

ASTM E 698, Standard Test Method for Arrhenius Kinetic Constants for Thermally Unstable Materials,2004 2011 .

ASTM E 1226, Test Method for Pressure and Rate of Pressure Rise for Combustible Dusts, 2005 2012A .

ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 2007.

ASTM E 1981, Guide for Assessing the Thermal Stability of Materials by Methods of Accelerating RateCalorimetry, 1998 2013e2 .

Test Method E 502, Standard Test Method for Selection and Use of ASTM Standards for the Determinationof Flash Point of Chemicals by Closed Cup Methods, 2007, reapproved 2013 .

G.1.2.2 UN Publications.

United Nations, UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017.

Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, 4th revised edition.


13 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

G.1.2.3 U.S. Government Publications.

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

Federal Register, “Notice of Final Rule,” Vol. 50, p. 41092 et seq., October 8, 1985.

Federal Register, “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” Vol. 50, p. 5270 et seq., February 7, 1985.

G.1.2.4 Other Publications.

Bretherick, L., Handbook of Reactive Chemicals, 6th 7th edition, Boston: Butterworths, 1999 2006 .

Britton, L. G., “Survey of Fire Hazard Classification Systems for Liquids,” Process Safety Progress, Vol. 18,No. 4, Winter, 1999.

Hanley, B., “A Model for the Calculation and the Verification of Closed Cup Flash Points for MulticomponentMixtures,” Process Safety Progress, Summer 1998, pp. 86–97.

Hofelich, T. C., “A Quantitative Approach to Determination of NFPA Reactivity Hazard Rating Parameters,”Process Safety Progress, Vol. 16, No. 3, p. 121, 1997.

Hofelich, T. C., D. J. Frurip, and J. B. Powers, “The Determination of Compatibility via Thermal Analysis andMathematical Modeling,” Process Safety Progress, Vol. 13, No 4. pp. 227–233, 1994.

Laidler, K. L., Chemical Kinetics, Chapter 3, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

American Coatings Association, Hazardous Materials Identification System Revised, ImplementationManual, 1981.

Stull, D. R., “Fundamentals of Fire and Explosion,” AIChE Monograph Series, No. 10, Vol. 73, 1977.

G.2 Informational References.

ASTM D 235, Standard Specification for Mineral Spirits (Petroleum Spirits) (Hydrocarbon Dry CleaningSolvent), 2002, reapproved 2012 .

ASTM D 6668, Standard Test Method for the Discrimination Between Flammability Ratings of F = 0 and F= 1, 2006 2001, reapproved 2010 .

G.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections. (Reserved)


Referenced new editions.



Public Input No. 25-NFPA 704-2014 [Section No. 2.3.1] New editions referenced.


Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Jun 10 16:05:46 EDT 2014


14 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Public Input No. 32-NFPA 704-2014 [ Section No. G.1.2.1 ]

G.1.2.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM D 56, Standard Method of Test for Flash Point by the Tag Closed Tester, 2005(2010) .

ASTM D 86, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure,2009 2012 .

ASTM D 93, Test Methods for Flash Point by the Pensky-Martens Closed Tester, 2008 2013e1 .

ASTM D 2879, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure–Temperature Relationship and InitialDecomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, 1997 2010 .

ASTM D 3278, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus,1996, reaffirmed 2004 2011 .

ASTM D 3828, Standard Test Method for Flash Point by Small Scale Closed Tester, 2009 2012a .

ASTM E 537, Standard Test Method for Assessing the Thermal Stability of Chemicals by Methods ofDifferential Thermal Analysis, 2007 2012 .

ASTM E 698, Standard Test Method for Arrhenius Kinetic Constants for Thermally Unstable Materials,2004 2011 .

ASTM E 1226, Test Method for Pressure and Rate of Pressure Rise for Combustible Dusts, 2005 2012a .

ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 2007.

ASTM E 1981, Guide for Assessing the Thermal Stability of Materials by Methods of Accelerating RateCalorimetry, 1998 98(2012)e2 .

Test Method E 502, Standard Test Method for Selection and Use of ASTM Standards for the Determinationof Flash Point of Chemicals by Closed Cup Methods, 2007 07(2013) .






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



15 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

Public Input No. 33-NFPA 704-2014 [ Section No. G.2 ]

G.2 Informational References.

ASTM D 235, Standard Specification for Mineral Spirits (Petroleum Spirits) (Hydrocarbon Dry CleaningSolvent), 2002 02(2012) .

ASTM D 6668, Standard Test Method for the Discrimination Between Flammability Ratings of F = 0 and F =1, 2006 01(2010) .






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



16 of 16 7/10/2014 8:51 AM

NFPA and the Technical Committee on Classification are aware of the potential impact that the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) incorporation into OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) has on the NFPA 704 Standard System and its users. Currently the NFPA 704 standard stands as written and there is no immediate plan to change the system. The NFPA 704 standard is widely used and recognized by emergency responders and safety personnel for identifying the hazards of short term/acute exposure to materials under conditions of fire, spill, or similar emergencies. The Committee will carefully consider any impact before changing a consensus standard system that has been protecting emergency responders, employees, and the public for over 50 years. It should be noted that OSHA does not necessarily see a conflict between HCS and NFPA 704. OSHA recognizes that the NFPA 704 label was developed to provide information to emergency personnel responding to a spill or fire. In comparison, OSHA’s Hazard Communication System provides information for workers exposed to materials primarily under normal conditions of use. OSHA has indicated that the GHS numbers are not relative ratings of hazards but are used for the purpose of classifying hazards into categories for proper labeling and training information. These GHS numbers are not required on the Hazard Communication labels, but will be included in Section 2 of the new SDS (Safety Data Sheet) format. The concern is that these numbers, which appear to be relative hazard ratings, could be mistakenly identified as NFPA 704 ratings and be transcribed to the NFPA 704 label. Since the two systems have inverse number systems, (for example 4 is the most hazardous rating in NFPA 704 but the least hazardous in OSHA’s GHS classification) this error in transcription could lead to incorrect identification of the hazard in an emergency response. The key to distinguishing the two systems is education. NFPA and OSHA worked to develop a “Quick Card” to explain the two systems and their differences. This card is available for download at www.nfpa.org/704 under “Additional Information” on the first tab. You may sign up for email alerts at the top of the document information page to receive an email alert when any additional NFPA 704 document related information is posted to the page. NFPA will continue discussions with OSHA and with emergency responders to insure that we address all concerns.

http://www.nfpa.org/704

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION

HEALTH HAZARDS

4 – Can be lethal

3 – Serious or permanent injury

2 – Temporary incapacitation or

residual injury 1 – Significant irritation

0 – No hazard beyond

ordinary

combustibles

FLAMMABILITY HAZARDS

4 – Rapidly or completely vaporize

and burn readily

3 – Ignite readily in ambient

conditions

2 – Ignite when moderately heated 1 – Require preheating for ignition

0 – Will not burn under

normal fire conditions

SPECIAL HAZARDS

Oxidizers OX

Water Reactives W

Simple Asphyxiants SA

INSTABILITY HAZARD

4 – May detonate or have explosive reaction

3 – Shock and heat may

detonate or cause

explosive reaction

2 – Violent chemical change at

elevated temperatures

1 – Unstable if heated

0 – Normally stable

NFPA 704 HazCom 2012

Purpose Provides basic information for emergency personnel responding to a fire or spill and those planning for emergency response.

Informs workers about the hazards of chemicals in workplace under normal conditions of use and foreseeable emergencies.

Number System:NFPA Rating and OSHA’s Classification System

0-4 0-least hazardous 4-most hazardous

1-41-most severe hazard 4-least severe hazard• The Hazard category numbers are NOT

required to be on labels but are required on SDSs in Section 2.

• Numbers are used to CLASSIFY hazards to determine what label information is required.

Information Provided on Label

• Health-Blue• Flammability-Red• Instability-Yellow• Special Hazards*-White

*OX Oxidizers W Water Reactives SA Simple Asphyxiants

• Product Identifier• Signal Word• Hazard Statement(s)• Pictogram(s)• Precautionary statement(s); and• Name address and phone number of

responsible party.

Health Hazards on Label

Acute (short term) health hazards ONLY.

Acute hazards are more typical for emergency response applications.

Chronic health effects are not covered by NFPA 704.

Acute (short term) and chronic (long term) health hazards. Both acute and chronic health effects are relevant for employees working with chemicals day after day. Health hazards include acute hazards such as eye irritants, simple asphyxiants and skin corrosives as well as chronic hazards such as carcinogens.

Flammability/Physical Hazards on Label

NFPA divides flammability and instability hazards into two separate numbers on the label.

Flammability in red sectionInstability in yellow section

A broad range of physical hazard classes are listed on the label including explosives, flammables, oxidizers, reactives, pyrophorics, combustible dusts and corrosives.

Where to get information to place on label

Rating system found in NFPAFire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials OR NFPA 704 Standard System for Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response 2012 Edition. Tables 5.2, 6.2, 7.2 and Chapter 8 of NFPA 704

OSHA Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 (2012).

1) Classify using Appendix A (Health Hazards) and Appendix B (Physical Hazards)

2) Label using Appendix C

Other The hazard category numbers found in section 2 of the HC2012 compliant SDSs are NOT to be used to fill in the NFPA 704 diamond.

Supplemental information may also appear on the label such as any hazards not otherwise classified, and directions for use.

website www.nfpa.org/704 www.osha.gov ORwww.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html

QUICKCARD

Comparison of NFPA 704 and HazCom 2012 Labels

W2

40

National Fire Protection Associationwww.nfpa.org | 800.344.3555 U.S. Department of Labor

www.osha.gov | 800.321.OSHA (6742)

For more information:

Identifi er: NOMIXUP 7042012

DANGER!Hazard Statements: Extremely Flammable Gas

May Cause Cancer May Cause Respiratory Irritation

Precautionary Statements: Keep away from heat/sparks/open fl ames/hot surfaces.-No Smoking Obtain special instructions before use. Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood. Avoid breathing vapors and mists. Wear protective gloves and eye protection. If inhaled: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing. Call poison center/doctor if you feel unwell. Leaking Gas Fire: Do not extinguish unless leak can be stopped safely. Eliminate all ignition sources if safe to do so. Store in tightly closed container in a well-ventilated place, locked up.

Dispose of contents in accordance with local/regional/national regulations.

XYZ Chemical Company 123 Main St. Anywhere , NY, USA 1-800-000-1111

In Contact with Water Releases Flammable Gas

Use outdoors or use in a well-ventilated place.

QUICKCARD

The substance: “NOMIXUP 7042012”

To create an OSHA label per HazCom 2012:

Step 1: Perform the classification in accordance with Appendix A: Health Hazards & Appendix B Physical Hazards of 29 CFR 1910.1200 - this is where you find the criteria for each hazard class and hazard category.

Class: Flammable Gas, Category 1

Class: Carcinogen, Category 1B

Class: Specific Target Organ Toxicity (Single Exposure), Category 3

Class: Substances and Mixtures Which, in Contact with Water, Emit Flammable Gases, Category 3

Step 2: Gather labeling information (Pictograms, Signal Word, Hazard Statements) from Appendix C of 29 CFR 1910.1200 based on the chemical’s hazard class and category.

Step 3: Create the Label

National Fire Protection Associationwww.nfpa.org | 800.344.3555 U.S. Department of Labor

www.osha.gov | 800.321.OSHA (6742)

For more information:

To Create NFPA 704 label:

Step 1: Collect information on hazards from applicable sections of SDS. Some SDSs may provide the NFPA diamond symbol with hazard rating numbers filled in already. Note: Do NOT use the hazard category numbers given in section 2 of HazCom 2012 compliant SDS on 704 label!

If the diamond is not provided on the SDS you can obtain the information under the following sections of the SDS. Note that additional information may be provided in other sections of the SDS.

• Health hazard information under Section 11 • Flammability information under Section 9 • Instability information under Section 10 • Special information under Section 9, 10, 11

Step 2: Obtain current edition copy of NFPA 704 or view on line at www.nfpa.org/704. Compare the criteria on the SDS sections as shown above with the criteria shown in Tables 5.2 (Health), 6.2 (Flammability), 7.2(Instability) and 8.2(Special Hazards)

Step 3: Place numbers for the degree of hazard associated with the criteria obtained in Step 2 in the correct quadrant of NFPA 704 placard.

Identifi er: NOMIXUP 7042012

DANGER!Hazard Statements: Extremely Flammable Gas

May Cause Cancer May Cause Respiratory Irritation

Precautionary Statements: Keep away from heat/sparks/open fl ames/hot surfaces.-No Smoking Obtain special instructions before use. Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood. Avoid breathing vapors and mists. Wear protective gloves and eye protection. If inhaled: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing. Call poison center/doctor if you feel unwell. Leaking Gas Fire: Do not extinguish unless leak can be stopped safely. Eliminate all ignition sources if safe to do so. Store in tightly closed container in a well-ventilated place, locked up.

Dispose of contents in accordance with local/regional/national regulations.

XYZ Chemical Company 123 Main St. Anywhere , NY, USA 1-800-000-1111

In Contact with Water Releases Flammable Gas

Use outdoors or use in a well-ventilated place.

W2

40

NFPA Label for NOMIXUP 7042012

Documents

Technical Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous