Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:29:56 -0500
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ILPI <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Subject: Re: 4 more on MSDS's and DOT
In-Reply-To: <011620101247.23226.4B51B55A00077BED00005ABA22243651029B0A02D29B9B0EBF0A020190010C0E07D20B07900E0B**At_Symbol_Here**att.net>
One thing I would
like to see, and many of my colleagues agree, is more uniformity with
regards to the layout of MSDSs. There are content requirements,
but to my knowledge, no requirement for format.
OSHA used to recommend their own Form 174, but has encouraged the
ANSI format for many years now. Most manufacturers have moved
towards ANSI in recent years, but, again, there is no regulatory mandate
for that. See:
But there is light on the
horizon!
Once the US adopts the Globally
Harmonized System, MSDS's will finally have a set format which basically
mirrors the ANSI format. It will be a number of years before the
rule making process results in the biggest change to the HazCom Standard
since it was written, and I think that a lots of folks on the list would
want to contribute their thoughts during the public comment periods this
will entail. See:
While
the "Globally Harmonized System" name suggests that MSDS's around the
world will have the same format, there will still be some differences.
The GHS is a model framework only and can't be applied everywhere
unchanged. For example, the GHS calls for complete toxicological
and ecological information, including consumer protection, an area that
is outside OSHA's authority. Likewise, GHS requires transportation
information that, in the US, falls under DOT. Nonetheless, it will
greatly align MSDS's around the world and make life easier with respect
to import/export.
Rob
Toreki