| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2013 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: [DCHAS-L] Stony Brook chemistry incorporates lab safety into Research Day celebration Date: April 18, 2013 7:53:15 AM EDT Author: "Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety" |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Date: April 18, 2013 7:03:13 PM EDT Author: Monona Rossol |
Beware of searching the C&L inventory for classifications. There are 57 entries of classifications for “acetone”!!!!!!!!!!. Learn how to classify and do your own. The SCHC has a two day course on GHS which includes classification and the AIHA has partnered with the SCHC to offer a Registry course. OSHA HAZ COM 2012 differs in some ways for the original GHS and may include phrases as mentioned below. The EU CLP requires a numbering system of fields( i.e. 1.1,1.2,….)which is only a requirement for the EU. Some different requirement for different regions of the world. Make sure you know the specifics of the region first
Mike Buczynski
Program Manager- Global Product Stewardship & Sustainability
Office of Sustainable Development
Church & Dwight Co. Inc.
469 North Harrison Street
Princeton, New Jersey 08543
(: 609.806.1928 (Note Change)
+: michael.buczynski**At_Symbol_Here**churchdwight.com
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim Gates
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:40 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS third time and I'll get it right.
The R&S phrases and orange square pictograms are an old system - pre GHS - and will be going away. The new Hazard & Precautionary phrases are the new GHS/OSHA phrases. Manufacturer's have 3 years from the publication date to rewrite their SDSs, so you will see lots of old info for awhile, and the bigger manufacturer's will start to change over first.
The GHS H&P phrases had numbers "H200", "H310", etc. OSHA did not bring those code numbers into the new regulation, but EU did. So, you may see them on SDSs for materials that are sold in Europe. They are helping me enter the info into my SDS db. Don't use those numbers for training, tho. They won't be on all the SDSs and are not part of the OSHA new scheme. It will only lead to confusion in the workers (too much new info & it won't always be available)..
I've found this web site very useful during training for classifying chemicals or finding which chemical has a particular hazard code: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database
As for the categories vs. NFPA. Don't stress about it. It won't be that confusing for the worker. The labels & SDSs won't solely list that (it must be included, tho). Its 1 part of the new scheme. It will be used by the manufacturer to select the signal word & pictogram. Those are the new elements that workers will use and we should concentrate on our training. OSHA will allow the NFPA & HMIS pictograms to be included on the labels & SDS (read the preamble! Mine is color coded & dog-eared). Manufacturer's must understand & embrace the new category numbers. Workers have to understand the new pictograms & hazard statements. NFPA can still continue to be used in labs & other workplaces on labels or areas, but NFPA was never meant to be anything but a quick visual warning as to a chemical's relative risk. It does not give any specific hazard info. WHen they look at a bottle label, workers will see the red diamond with the hazard pictogram & (maybe) the NFPA diamond with the familiar 0-4 numbers. NFPA isn't used by all manufacturer's, so unless your workplace is relabeling all containers, it shouldn't have been the sole info the worker uses for hazard assessment. I'd like to think or workers, especially the lab people, can understand this new system.
Kim Gates
Laboratory Safety Specialist
Environmental Health & Safety
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-6200
Kim.Gates**At_Symbol_Here**stonybrook.edu
631-632-3032
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site: http://www.stonybrook.edu/ehs/lab/
Please note my name and email have changed.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:03 PM, George Walton <g.c.walton**At_Symbol_Here**reactives.com> wrote:
One issue is confusing me is the interplay of Risk and Safety Phrases (R- and S- Phrases) and Hazard and Precautionary Phrases (H- and P- Phrases.) Within the last 24 hours, we have downloaded MSDSs from large American chemical supply houses. One supplier uses R and S and the other uses H and P. At either the higher technical levels (researchers, etc.) or lower skill levels (former GIs trying to get along), I really don’t see the difference. We have downloaded R and S lists from the UK Health and Safety Executive and H and P lists from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and made copies for each work area. The HSE list also shows the little orange squares for explosives, oxidisers, flammables, etc.
George Walton
Reactives Management Corporation
1025 Executive Blvd., Suite 101
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Office: 757-436-1033 Fax: 757-548-2808
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Allen Niemi
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:41 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED..CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS
Like some others we have not tackled the training yet and I'd be interested in some suggestions on how we would keep the lab workers from finding out about the conflict and becoming confused? Do we say, continue to use the NFPA (or whatever) system and ignore the GHS numbers on the SDS?
Al
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu> wrote:
> How is anyone tackling the issue of NFPA and other ranking numbers for flammability, toxicity, etc. vs GHS?
I gave a presentation on this topic yesterday to other health and safety professionals where this question came up. My answer agreed with Kent that the numbering system within GHS does not have to be directly used by the person working with the chemical, and I would prefer to avoid discussing with lab workers.
This is particularly a problem in labs because the conflict in the numbering system is not only with NFPA; biosafety and laser safety numbering systems go from 1 to 4 in increasing the hazard level, and if we say chemicals go in one direction and other hazards in the other, the audience is likely to become frustrated and confused.
Cent. Cent.
- Ralph
Ralph Stuart CIH
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Cornell University
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu
--
Allen Niemi, PhD
Director
Occupational Safety and Health Services
Room 322 Lakeshore Center
Michigan Technological University
Phone: 906-487-2118
Fax: 906-487-3048
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post