GHS Labeling

[annettstanley]

The way my HoD and I are reading it is if we send anything in to the labs they must be labelled with the new GHS labels. Technically anything we receive after 1/1/2017 should be labelled properly and a lot of the older products may need new labels to make them readable anyway.

[linotas]

I interpreted the new amendment for Safe Work Australia to say that we didn't re label if it was pre 1/1/2017. Prior to the amendment that came out a week or so ago, it was the case that if it left the chem store, it had to be relabeled. The amendments have been issued but are yet to be passed into the official document.

If you wanted to be 100% sure, just transfer the amount of solid you need for the prac into a secondary container and label accordingly.

[Merilyn1]

I'm with you Linotas - that was my understanding too. I rarely send the full container into a class room for fear of contamination. I have small samples in specimens jars that go out to classes.

[linotas]

Yes Merilyn, thats what we do as well. I only ever trust original containers to the senior Chem teacher. We relabel specimen containers with a small amount of solid for in classroom use.

[leepy]

Our School uses a program called Risk Assess. This company has just included labels into their program. I have had email conversations with this man on a few occasions about GHS. His labels have very little if any safety phrases etc. as he says schools fall into the category of decanted or transferred chemicals.

For this category there is a guide that the pictograms and text need to be of a certain size that corresponds to the size of the container. There is no downgrading of labelling for smaller quantities of a chemical. eg 2M Sodium Hydroxide in 500ml bottle has same labelling as a dropper bottle of 2M Sodium Hydroxide the only difference is the size of text and pictogram you can add a hazard statement if there is enough room. However there is very little text on both sizes so it will fit a dropper.
The decanting and transfer of chemicals category's is much much simpler than the labels that are on Chemwatch ffx.

I think the man that is involved with Risk Assess would know what he is talking about and what will be coming in as law for schools, as he was involved with writing the 2001 issue of CSIS and his program is used in other countries like Canada aswell as Australia. He has all the links to Safe work Australia on his site to read for yourself.
In conclusion don't get to far ahead with labelling until someone from the dept. actually tells schools what labels they want or you could find they are all wrong. The dept has already said that all containers in chemical storerooms (original) do not need to be relabelled as they are compliant as is.

[leepy]

I looked at the webview and this info on school biz and they are all old info. The only new info was that we don't have to relabel original containers in chemical storerooms.

[kimmy]

i am so over this GHS stuff,
it is the one thing doing my head in there is so many things that are not set in stone so to speak.
So do we re lable
so do we do old stock
do we only do new stock
If we have not been directed by our principal why are we doing this.

Does anyone have a direct answer to what we actually have to do.
i did the course with Phillip earlier this year and yes it was great but still so many unanswered questions.

?????????

[nickykinz]

Having looked at the RiskAssess labels i have spent some time on Chemwatch making my own. I trust Philip and RiskAssess but i worry that if i use his labels rather than Chemwatch that i wont be compliant. But i liked the fact that his were fairly simple. I read his notes on sizes of GHS icons etc. and made a few different templates. Ones for different sized bottles, ones that have more than 2 or 3 GHS icons (as they need to be squished up a bit differently to fit them all on) and ones for stock bottles that have the DG class on there and some other extra info. It took me a while to get them set up but i hope that they will need minimal effort to produce a compliant label directly from Chemwatch. I have tried to attach an example but not sure if it will work. This is for a 50mL dropper bottle.

1M SULFURIC.PNG

I plan to relabel all decanted chemicals and stock solutions made by me, but leave all other stock/bulk chemicals that are in their original packaging.

[kimmy]

found my own answer by searching

SchoolBiz Article: 10 June 2016: Labelling of Chemicals - Update for Schools

This article provides an update to schools regarding the new Globally Harmonised System (GHS) of chemical labelling.

This new system of labelling for chemicals has being introduced in Australia through national and state work health and safety legislation and will replace the current labelling requirements for chemicals. The changes are effective from 1 January 2017. SafeWork NSW has recently published fact sheets which are available at: http://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/__data/a ... t-8028.pdf

Following recent amendments to the regulation of GHS, it is important to be aware that users of hazardous chemicals are not required to relabel or dispose of existing stock because the label is outdated. GHS compliant labelling will only be required for all products purchased after 31 December 2016. Schools are requested to not undertake any relabelling of stock.

dditional information regarding GHS will be published during 2017. Please refer to the Asset Management Directorate intranet site for updates: https://detwww.det.nsw.edu.au/assetmana ... school.htm

For further information, please contact the Asset Management Directorate Compliance and Safety Unit on telephone (02) 9561 1011 or your WHS Consultant through the WHS Hotline on 1800 811 523.


So NO we dont have to re label the chemicals that we already have only new ones and ones that go out into the labs.

[bigmack]

Kimmy , I'm hearing you about being over it all .
Thanks for posting the Schoolbiz , it looks like what J posted HERE

It is so good to Not have to re label existing stock by the end of the year . I had already started though as I figure sooner or later they will end up in the classroom .At our school , they just take the whole jar , not a decanted amount . So I have done a lot of the more commonly asked for ones first .
Labeling containers in the chem store I found relatively easy . With a few exemptions ( mostly relatively benign chemicals , where some have deemed it a warning while others have deemed it non hazardous ) , the majority will have very similar SDS's from different suppliers so you can be fairly confident that your GHS label will be adequate .

The big bugbear for me is Solutions .
Unless you can find a supplier that has the exact Mols/L available and has done an SDS ( in GHS ) for it , we have no idea and are forced to default to a full blown GHS .

Head teacher asked me to washout and refill 64 dropper bottles for a senior precipitation prac as she thought they might have been contaminated and wanted the students to get the best chance of a result .....far enough .Also a good time to relabel the droppers in GHS ......But no....it was so confusing and I was about to apply by default full blown GHS labels to droppers that CSIS has listed as Non ,hazardous according to WHS simply because I could not find a SDS to prove the relavant GHS label required .....What a load of bollocks .

So ended up re-labeling them with a Generic label and applying the appropriate "Green" CSIS dot .
I know I will have to re-label this lot again . I am really hoping that the new CSIS will have all this sorted out in a clear table .

We should not be forced to subscribe to Risk Assess so we can work out appropriate labeling

[superbug]

We use Risk Assess at my school but the labels dont have all the necessary info that is required by law to be compliant so we dont use it. I feel your pain.

[ELIZABETH]

All the info in the FAQ section of the RiskAssess labeling function assures us it is compliant with all relevant rules and laws governing decanted chemicals (and it's way easier to use than ChemWatch). As I've said before, I won't make my own labels using DGen or any other method because,
A. My Word processing skills are very rudimentary, and,
B. Someone else has already done the hard yards, so I can use their expertise. Problem solved IMO.

[linotas]

All the info in the FAQ section of the RiskAssess labeling function assures us it is compliant with all relevant rules and laws governing decanted chemicals (and it's way easier to use than ChemWatch). As I've said before, I won't make my own labels using DGen or any other method because,
A. My Word processing skills are very rudimentary, and,
B. Someone else has already done the hard yards, so I can use their expertise. Problem solved IMO.

Yes. After asking question as my recent RA PD at which our state systems chief WHS officer was at and facilitated, I, and my HOD, are happy that using the RA labels satisfy our legal requirements. I have personally read the relevant parts of the legislation (and/or Safe Work Australia fact sheets/codes of practice) and am happy with it all.

[linotas]

We use Risk Assess at my school but the labels dont have all the necessary info that is required by law to be compliant so we dont use it. I feel your pain.

What information do you not think is there that is required?

[superbug]

I use chemwatch - D-gen.
My HOD informed me that the Risk Assess labels are not compliant and I am not to use them. So I have to follow their direction.
I have to use chemwatch and have learnt how to modify a chemical name, as its annoying when they have company name and chemical name in title. So I remove the manufacturers name. I have been able to use laser waterproof labels that fit on the dropper bottles. They dont smudge or smear and are in colour Incl. the dot. Here is what my HOD wants me to do in pic.

[linotas]

I know you guys have to use the coloured dots as per you DET document, but technically, according to the GHS legislation nothing but what is set out in the legislation is permitted on the label.

But you are right, you have to follow the directive by your employer as ultimately, the principal is the person the buck stops with if anything happens.

[Merilyn1]

I'm happy with what Riskassess have on offer. As Linotas as done, I have read the code of practice and it all makes sense to me. I think the confusion arises because we are really dealing with very small quantities. Chemwatch labels could be being designed for containers which hold hundreds of litres of chemical. Makes our dropper bottles, and even a 500mL stock bottle fairly benign. My other concern with Chemwatch is the source information. If you are going to use their labels, I would cross-reference their information with what Riskassess categorise them as.
At the end of the day, you have to do what you are told, though.

[Bec :)]

Hi There! I was wondering what people are using to relabel? Chemwatch or Riskassess? and reasons why?
Thanks have a great day!

[Labbie]

Hi Bec, please read the above GHS Labelling, I have merged the posts for you, as their is a lot of information.

[Merilyn1]

I'm using Riskassess - but you'd probably get that from my previous posts. I find the Riskassess labels very simple to print off and I'm confident that the information on them is correct. Chemwatch just gives me a headache - I don't want to have to redesign my own labels. I have also encountered a number of inaccuracies with the information.

Bottom line, Riskassess is designed specifically for schools and Chemwatch isn't. But you do need to follow instructions from your hierarchy.