In the situation you describe, I wouldn't vent them and be done. Save your project some $. It sounds like the chemical inventory is pretty low risk.
My $0.02 - getting what you pay for!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 5, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Chance, Brandon ---
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
>
> Debbie,
>
> Always my voice of reason and keeping me sane. These hoods are all being
> installed in Earth Sciences labs (with one in engineering). I am thinking
> about the following course of action.
>
> Option 1: Meet with all of the researchers and find out which plan to use
> as ċ3random storageċ2 with proper segregation, and which plan to use it as
> true ċ3flammable storageċ2. I suspect most will not be using it as solvent
> storage since these are not labs that use flammables or solvent much. In
> the cases where they are using them as random storage, vent them and
> remove/cover the flammable label. In the case of labs using them as
> flammable storage, keep the NFPA integrity and donċ1t vent them.
>
> Option 2: I am overthinking and overcomplicating this whole endeavor and
> should just not vent them and be done with it.
>
> I have about 48 hours to ultimately decide this. :)
>
> Thanks for your comments,
> Brandon
>
>
>
> On 3/3/17, 6:00 PM, "ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety on behalf
> of Debbie M. Decker"
>
>> Ooo - I'd be concerned about that. Very.
>>
>> Had a situation once where the under-hood flam storage cabinet was vented
>> directly into the fume hood, through the work surface, behind the
>> baffles. The vent material was Polypropylene, which supports combustion,
>> creating a fire pathway directly into the flam cabinet, if a fire were to
>> develop in the fume hood.
>>
>> I made them remove the vent, cap and seal the holes in the work surface
>> with epoxy and then vent it directly into the exhaust above the fume
>> hood. And then worked closely with the Fire Marshal to create the
>> document I referenced earlier.
>>
>> If it's too expensive to do it correctly, then it will be even more
>> expensive to correct it when Something Bad happens later.
>>
>> My $0.02 worth.
>>
>> Debbie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
>> [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Chance, Brandon
>> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 3:28 PM
>> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Venting UNDER HOOD Flammable Cabinets
>>
>> Ralph, you hit it on the head.
>>
>> My thoughts on this are that labs that are using the under hood cabinets
>> for flammable storage are storing relatively small amounts (relative to
>> full size storage cabinets, which I would not vent) and in many cases are
>> storing secondary containers of various shapes, sizes, and seals. Not to
>> mention, due to ease in access, researchers tend to store everything
>> under the sun in the cabinets.
>>
>> From an exposure standpoint, I would rather them be vented and in most
>> cases, due to cost, they are not going to be vented directly to the
>> outside per NFPA 30, but vented behind the hood baffles with the little
>> inexpensive vent kits that manufacturers provide.
>>
>> Insofar as the stakeholders, every research I have ever asked wants them
>> vented so that they donċ1t stink.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHO
>> Associate Director of Environmental Health and Safety Office of Risk
>> Management Southern Methodist University PO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX
>> 75275-0231
>> T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664
>> bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu
>>
>>
>> " our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to interfere
>> with the work ċ2 Neal Langerman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/3/17, 4:15 PM, "ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety on behalf
>> of Stuart, Ralph"
>>
>>>>> I have read a number of other university design standards and they
>>>> are also inconsistent.
>>>
>>> I have seen similarly inconsistent approaches to this question from
>>> project to project even within the same institution with a single design
>>> standard.
>>>
>>> In my mind, it's a classic capital costs vs. operating costs question,
>>> as installing compliant vents for a flammable cabinet requires the
>>> expense and time of finding a protected route to the building's exhaust
>>> point. On the other hand, skipping the venting means that inventory
>>> control of the contents of the cabinet becomes very important to protect
>>> the quality of the stored chemicals and the exposure of the lab workers
>>> to unpredictable chemical emissions. So I think that the outcome of this
>>> discussion, as with so many lab design questions, will depend on the
>>> project budget and the relative priorities of the stakeholders in the
>>> design process.
>>>
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>> - Ralph
>>>
>>> Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
>>> Environmental Safety Manager
>>> Keene State College
>>> 603 358-2859
>>>
>>> ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keene.edu
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This e-mail is from DCHAS-L, the e-mail list of the ACS Division of
>>> Chemical Health and Safety.
>>> For more information about the list, contact the Divisional secretary at
>>> secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
>>
>> ---
>> This e-mail is from DCHAS-L, the e-mail list of the ACS Division of
>> Chemical Health and Safety.
>> For more information about the list, contact the Divisional secretary at
>> secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
>>
>> ---
>> This e-mail is from DCHAS-L, the e-mail list of the ACS Division of
>> Chemical Health and Safety.
>> For more information about the list, contact the Divisional secretary at
>> secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
>
> ---
> This e-mail is from DCHAS-L, the e-mail list of the ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety.
> For more information about the list, contact the Divisional secretary at secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
This e-mail is from DCHAS-L, the e-mail list of the ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety.
For more information about the list, contact the Divisional secretary at secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org