| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2016 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: [DCHAS-L] EPA requests our help Date: Friday, December 9, 2016 at 9:30:33 AM Author: "Your, Jeff" <jyour**At_Symbol_Here**JCU.EDU> |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Hazard Statement codes Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:18:30 +0000 Author: "Shoshenskiy, Nicole" |
OSHA HCS 2012 does not include the GHS hazard statement codes, the
precautionary statement codes or the pictogram codes. However, OSHA does not
prohibit including the hazard statement and precautionary statement codes on HCS
2012 SDSs along with the required text. Per the GHS, these GHS codes are intended for reference purposes
only. The GHS hazard statement and precautionary statement codes not part of the
hazard/precautionary statement text and should not be used to replace it. While
the codes may be useful in language translation situations, their main purpose
is for example to be used in computer programing the GHS information. The GHS
pictogram code is not part of the pictogram and should not appear on labels or
in section 2 of the SDS. As you mention, these GHS codes do not help in understanding the
hazards or the precautionary measures for the chemical, as the actual hazard and
precautionary statement text and pictograms do. For example just using the code
H220 or P210 does not provide helpful information to the user of the chemical
product and is not the intent of the GHS. Michele Sullivan, Ph.D.
In a message dated 12/9/2016 8:00:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Ralph.Stuart**At_Symbol_Here**KEENE.EDU writes:
> I
would suspect that someone shared the same concern I have about code numbers -
why have them? Why not just write what it means?
The
person who raised the question with me is in the process of mining GHS
information to organize it into more useful safety information about
departmental chemical inventories. When writing computer code for this
purpose, the H codes are easier to work with than the whole phrase. As other
people indicated, Sigma-Aldrich includes them on their SDS's, so I hadn't
noticed that many US SDS's don't have them.
I agree that, in general,
human to human communication is best done in plain English rather than codes,
but humans are not the only ones involved in 21st Century communication.
;)
Thanks to everyone for their response on this topic.
-
Ralph
Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Keene
State College
ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keene.edu
---
This e-mail is from
DCHAS-L, the e-mail list of the ACS Division of Chemical Health and
Safety.
For more information about the list, contact the Divisional
secretary at
secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post