| 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: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:40:52 -0500 Author: Monona Rossol |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:08:53 -0500 Author: Monona Rossol |
If there were a list of chemicals and their proper GHS classifications, that would also make oversight a snap. Do I hear, faintly off in the distance, hoofbeats?
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle Sullivan <Sulliva1**At_Symbol_Here**AOL.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Fri, Nov 22, 2013 9:25 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters
The lists that are in the Chemwatch article are government lists of
chemical classifications/hazards from the Japanese, New Zealand and South Korean
governments.
There is another study done by the UN GHS secretariat. They compared
the transportation hazards to the EU CLP/GHS hazards, "GHS classification of dangerous goods most commonly carried:
comparison between transport classification and EU CLP
Regulation". This paper which is posted on
the UN GHS website shows a similar lack of harmonized hazard
classifications.
The EU ECHA Classification and Labeling Inventory that records industry GHS
hazards also shows the lack of harmonization. For example there are 69 entries
for acetone and 119 for toluene.
However, the UN GHS subcommittee is aware of this lack of
harmonization. They are looking at approaches to developing a global list that
would have harmonized hazard classifications for chemicals.The USA government is
chairing the UN working group looking at developing this globally
harmonized list of chemicals classified according to the GHS.
____________________________
Michele R. Sullivan, Ph.D.
MRS Associates
Sulliva1**At_Symbol_Here**aol.com
a message dated 11/21/2013 1:11:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU writes:
I
noticed an interesting article
at
https://www.swiftpage6.com/speasapage.aspx?X=2Y0RSDXNI9G1KQ0R00YEWW
about
the challenge of GHS:
What does GHS stand for?
The
Excercise
Chemwatch have undertaken a systematic comparison of GHS
classification published by official sources in:
Europe (ECHA)
Japan
(NITE)
New Zealand (CCID)
Korea (NIER)
A total of 12,452 Substances
were reviewed.
Interestingly there was very little overlap between
Substances reviewed by any two Jurisdictions - Korea and New Zealand reviewed
1494 Substances in common.
However, where Substances in common where
assigned GHS Classifications, fewer than 8% were in agreement - New Zealand
and the European Union agreed on only 75 Substances of 939 Substances.
In summary:
< 8% Harmonisation between any 2
Jurisdictions
< 0.6% Harmonisation between any 3
Jurisdictions
===
I'm not quite sure of what to make of this data. I
wonder if anyone on the list has done international comparisons that include
the US?
- Ralph
Ralph Stuart CIH
Chemical Hygiene
Officer
Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Cornell
University
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post