From: George Walton <g.c.walton**At_Symbol_Here**REACTIVES.COM>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS third time and I'll get it right.
Date: April 17, 2013 6:03:44 PM EDT
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: <005701ce3bb7$6e041ba0$4a0c52e0$**At_Symbol_Here**>

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
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?



On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**> 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


Allen Niemi, PhD
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

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
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.