From: Harry Elston <harry**At_Symbol_Here**MIDWESTCHEMSAFETY.COM>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (12 articles)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 07:43:35 -0500
Reply-To: harry**At_Symbol_Here**midwestchemsafety.com
Message-ID: 001601d892c8$57a168a0$06e439e0$**At_Symbol_Here**midwestchemsafety.com
In-Reply-To <914EE885-8919-4F8B-A55C-8320931BEA87**At_Symbol_Here**me.com>


Dan,

 

This is just one of the reasons why EPA needs to get out of the occupational safety business. Perhaps with the latest SCOTUS decision reigning in EPA's overreach, ACC and individual manufacturers will begin the processes to stop their intrusion on occupational safety under SNUR/PMN regulations.

 

Harry

 

From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> On Behalf Of Daniel Kuespert
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 05:43
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (12 articles)

 

 

On Jul 8, 2022, at 06:03, Ralph Stuart <membership**At_Symbol_Here**DCHAS.ORG> wrote:



US EPA FINDS NEW RISKS FOR 3 SOLVENTS: METHYLENE CHLORIDE, N-METHYLPYRROLIDONE (NMP), AND PERCHLOROETHYLENE
...
The changes include no longer assuming workers wear personal protective equipment. For each of the three solvents, eliminating that assumption resulted in a slight increase in the number of uses with unreasonable risks. …

 

 

While I certainly follow the justification for assuming workers don't wear PPE, since many times they don't, and PPE is supposed to be a last-ditch protection, I do wonder how many uses of chemicals in the lab would be judged "unreasonable risks," given that there is little to protect many researchers from the chemicals they're working with other than the fume hood (if they use it correctly) and their gloves/lab coat.

 

Because it's so hard to find a good glove for NMP, I try to discourage its use whenever I can. I probably should do so for CH2Cl2, as I recall (without looking at a compatibility chart) that it goes through nitrile gloves, particularly exam gloves, pretty quickly. 

 

Is it even possible to reduce that risk in the lab, practically speaking? Granted, researchers are using less dichloromethane or whatever than someone removing graffiti from an overpass, so the supply-side of the risk is reduced, but I don't really see an inherent way to reduce the risk due to use conditions in a lab without going to exotic solutions like remote manipulators (waldos).

 

Regards,

Dan

 

-------------------------------------------------

Daniel Kuespert, PhD, CSP

Member, American Chemical Society (ACS)

Member, ACS Division of Chemical Health & Safety (CHAS)

Chair-elect, CHAS 2022

Associate, CCS, 2021-2022

CHAS Fellow

 

11101 Wood Elves Way

Columbia, MD 21044-1003

410-992-9709 vox

443-980-0989 mobile

 

Please use dkuespert**At_Symbol_Here**pm.me for ACS business;

I am decommissioning dankuespert**At_Symbol_Here**me.com for priority email.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daniel Reid Kuespert, PhD, CSP

11101 Wood Elves Way

Columbia, MD 21044

410-992-9709

 

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post



The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.