In 2012, OSHA revised what they call the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). The HCS establishes a standard for creating Safety Data Sheets (SDS) which were previously called Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).
The goal, according to OSHA was to establish “a consistent user-friendly 16 section format” for Safety Data Sheets. This is a worthy goal as the purpose of safety data sheets is to provide valuable safety information in case there is some type of emergency such as a fire or chemical exposure.
Have you ever really looked at the MSDS or SDS that you receive? They are anything but user friendly. I looked at one for a polycarbonate that said if you have skin contact with polycarbonate the affected area should be washed with soap and water for 15 to 20 minutes minimum. I’m not sure what negative health effects that you could have from touching polycarbonate but washing with soap and water for 20 minutes will certainly cause some adverse health effects. And, what exactly does sweet aromatic smell like any way? If there is a fire at my facility, do I call 911 and tell them to have the fire department bring carbon dioxide or water fog? What the hell is a sold extinguishing agent?
How about some information that ordinary people can use in an emergency and real advice for people to use to prepare their facilities for emergencies?
Many material manufacturers and suppliers provide processing guides for the materials that they sell. Often, these data sheets are so general as to almost be useless. However, I see a mistake on a great number of processing guides and I think should be corrected. It relates to the nozzle temperature.
In this post, I want to talk about the proper way to express test results on certificates of analysis. To explain this, I am going to talk about the concept of significant figures (or significant digits). What are significant figures?
According to Wikipedia:
“The significant figures of a number are digits that carry meaning contributing to its measurement resolution.”
Confused? Let me explain.
When I first started hearing about the ISO 9000 quality system in the 1990’s there was a lot of resistance to it. A lot companies were unhappy about being pressured or required to adopt the ISO 9000 system by their customers. It was not looked at as being a benefit to their businesses; it was looked at as a giant hoop that you had to jump through in order to be able to get business opportunities from some larger companies. I never agreed with this viewpoint. I saw the benefits of at least some parts of the ISO 9000 standard pretty early on.
Since the 1990’s, the ISO 9000 standard has gone mainstream. Numerous industries have adopted it. No one more vigorously than the auto industry which has their own version which they call TS 16949 (basically ISO 9000 plus some specific auto industry requirements).
However, since then, some cracks have developed that are causing the ISO 9000 system to not only become just a hoop that companies have to jump through, but a series of flaming hoops. Some changes need to be made in order for this system to achieve its goals and actually work for the companies trying to adopt it.