edited by

tips TIM CHAMPION

Johnson C. Smith Universiw Charlone, NC 28216

Teaching the Teachers Lab Safety Douglas K. Mandt 4525 126th Avenue Ct. E., Sumner, WA 98390

Recently "Teacher Bashing" has been a popular sport among some members of the press. Unfortunately, some of these criticisms are valid. One reason for this is that there is a wide variation in the level of training. This is partieu- larly true in the area of laboratory safety.

Safety Background Survey Seven yean ago the University of Washington Chemis-

try Department surveyed chemistry teachers in the state to determine their background in an attempt to fmd an ap- propriate level to operate a summer workshop for High School Chemistry teachers. A very high percentage return was received from all regions of the state. None of the re- spondents reported formal training in laboratory safety. Similiar results have been reported for the State of Texas, by Moore who found that none of the chemistry teachers had had lab safety and management training (1). Safety training and compliance is one activity that most chemical manufacturers and processors deem to be very important for all employees. Their motive is money. It is less expen- sive to prevent accidents than to pay for damage, clean up and injury. In contrast, school districts seldom initiate safety training and often allow unsafe laboratory practices and chemical storage conditions to exist. In this era where litigation abounds, insurance premiums are rising, and the possibility of costly citations by OSHA and other regu- latory bodies, the money factor is becoming a motivational force in the schools. Well-designed safety plans, training and practices can help to reduce these costs.

In recent years academic laboratories have become more sensitive to safety issues. More stringent rules on storage, transportation and disposal of chemicals, and especially the OSHAregulations for worker safety, have been widely adopted and enforced (2).

Safety Training Programs Many chemistry teachers have picked up a great deal of

practical safety behavior in academic laboratory courses. There they were required to follow safety procedures, such as wearing eye protection or protective clothing during their training. Another avenue for safety training has been through attendance at safety workshops and articles on safety in journals such as The Science Teacher and The Journal of Chemical Education. The examples of co-work- ers have oRen encouraged others to become more safety conscious. These informal sources have oRen been the only avaliable route for safety training. However, the need for formal safety training still exists.

In the spring of 1979 the Washington State science su- pervisor, called together several teachers to form a steer- ing committee for the organization of a safety training pro- gram for chemistry teachers (3). Subsequently, two two-day safety workshops were offered during the next

Table 1. Malor Topics of the March 1983 Workshop

safe physical facilities potential problems due to toxic, carcinogenic and highly reactive reagents

chemical waste management fire safety storage of hazardous materials how to wnduct a safely audit

three years. In addition, a third, regional, workshop(was presented to teachers from Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Oregon, as well as Washington (4).

In May 1980, the first workshop was held on the campus of the University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington. It focused upon raising the awareness of district administra- tors as well as chemistry teachers. School districts were invited to enroll a district level administrator and a senior chemistry teacher as a team. The concept was that the dis- trict would become more conscious of laboratory safety and the participating chemistry teacher be recognized as a rep- utable authority with whom they could work to improve lab safety.

The instructors for the workshop included industrial hy- gienists from the University of Washington, fire marshals, lawyers who were familiar with school law and liability, industrial experts such as Don Hedberg of Lab Safety Sup- ply, and college and high school instructors. Topics such as handling and storage of hazardous chemicals, legal issues, chemical waste management, and fire safety were offered to all participants. (See Table 1.)

The results were very positive. An evaluation of the pro- gram was completed by all participants at the conclusion of the workshop. This evaluation indicated that the admin- istrators left with a better understanding of the problems of the chemistry teacher and with the knowledge that safety could be enhanced without closing the labs. The teachers left with a greater awareness of how to manage their labs in a safer manner.

Follow-up data indicated a need for more training. Many chemistry teachers did not attend the workshop. Many who did attend indicated a need for more training to safely clean up their laboratories and their stockrooms and to make their laboratory activities safer.

In 1982, the steering committee was reconvened, and planningfor a second two-day program began. The empha- sis of the second workshop was outreach to school districts that did not have teachers with a strong background in chemistry, or did not have an opportunity to have their

Volume 70 Number 1 January 1993 59

teachers receive safety training in the initial training ses- sion.

To the original steering committee, a program supervisor for chemical hazards from the Washington State Depart- ment of Social and Health Services-DSHS) was added. DSHS was interested because many of their field agents lacked training in school laboratory safety, as did the teachers. Thus, plans included training DSHS agents. The CIGNA Insurance Group had been approached for assis- tance in funding. Their response was positive, combined with the request that we train some of their field agents. They have a vested interest in school laboratory safety from their underwriting of school insurance.

School Districts were-requested to allow their chemistry teachers who attended the workshop to be available to serve as laboratory auditors for a of two to three years. One to three requests per year for the services of each teacher to conduct safety audits were anticipated.

The second worksho~ took lace in March 1983. on the campus of Pacific ~u tde ran university, near ~ a c o k a . The training focused on the recormition of mtential hazards in the labrand ways a school could impmve a lab for the pro- tection of teachers and students. Thirty-five teachers, and 15 agents from DSHS or CIGNAparticipated in the train- ing.

Safety References Following classroom presentations, each participant

evaluated one of the college's laboratories. The trainees were then debriefed as to what thev found. and what was missed. The new auditors also received cdpies of several references. includine the NIOSHIOSHA Pocket Guzde to Chemical k a r d s . Eretherick's, Hazards in the Chemical Laboratory. a Merck Index. and some suggested check lists that might be used.

Over 50 audits were conducted within the next six months. Schools were assisted in cleaning out and organ- izing stockrooms, laboratories and classrooms, and even off~cee Also a number of small scale workshops were held throughout the Puget Sound area by teachers who had at- tended the training.

A few teacher-auditors are still doing an occasional lab audit. Acall for assistance to the State Science Supervisor is referred to an auditor in the area near them. An agree- ment between the districts is then negotiated to pay for the costs of substitutes and other expenses for the auditor. An on-site inspection of the chemistry facilities is carried out together with interviews with the instructors and admin- istrators. The observations and recommendations are pre- sented verbally to the staff, followed up with a complete written report within seven to 10 days.

The state of Washington has no ongoing safety program in the Ofice of Education. Safety issues are the in thc De- partment of Labor and Industry; the agency that adminis- ters the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Admin- istration (WISHA). Most school districts in Washington lack a written safety plan that outlines procedures and re- sponsibilities for insuring lab safety (5).

Of all the chemistry teachers in the state, approximately 113 have been to safety programs of one type or another in the past nine years. Most still lack formal safety training.

This condition of safety neglect has begun to change since the new OSHAregulations on chemical hygiene have

'Washington has an OSHA approved plan known as WISHA. The statutes describing the regulations on Chemical Hygiene are:

(a) WAC 296-62-400, Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in the Laboratory, pan Q.

(b) Chapter 49.17 RCW. 90-17-051 Order 90-lo), (2396-62-400), filed 811 3190, effective 9124190).

Table 2. Suggested Topics for Undergraduate Safety Class

Topics Approx. hours

legal requirements and liability 1

chemical hygiene and use of MSDS 6

safe storage of chemicals 3 chemical waste treatment and disposal 3 inventory systems and recordkeeping 2

review and monitoring of lab exercises 2 special techniques for handicapped 1

safety inspections 1

safety equipment and fire prevention 1

gone into effect.' In early 1991, it brought to the attention of several science supervisors, that our entire state was out of compliance. There were no chemical hygiene plans in writing, no mechanism for training teachers on the use of MSDA data sheets, no medical survey plans in operation. Districts do not have a qualified chemical hygiene officer.

However, many schools have cleaned up their labs, they are by and large collecting the MSDS data (some have bought an entire set from chemical suppliers for about $300 per set), and many are continuing to improve the safety of their labs. These are looked upon as acts of good faith by the Department of Labor and Industry, the agency responsible for administrating WISHA (OSHA) regula- tions in the State of Washington. The WISHAadministra- tors have indicated their willingness to work with the cur- rent steering committee as they begin to develop plans to assist all the schools in the state to comply with the new regulations within a reasonable time.

Mandated Safety Training School districts are now mandated to provide safety

training for employees in addition to complying with the other facets of the new standard. They need to begin pro- viding training in laboratory safety, chemical storage, waste disposal and chemical hygiene. It would be much more practical to do this as a part of the pre-service teacher training than our current attempts to contact teachers in their classrooms and get them to a training program. This would allow inservice programs to focus on changes and the updating of safety information.

The undergraduate major for chemistry teachers needs to include direct education in good safetv techniaues. This should comprise of at least 20clock ho& (~ablk 2) of in- struction on safe and prudent practices. Included could be topics such as how to interpret MSDS data, the treatment and disposal of wastes on an appropriate scale for high school laboratories, developing and maintaining safe chemical storage, and chemical inventories.

The presence of safety equipment in a laboratory may be misleading. Fire blankets can be effective when properly used, but if improperly used they may act as a chimney that vents heat and topic fumes into the face of an accident victim. Fire extinguishen in a lab may look comforting, but how many teachers know how to use one effectively when suddenly faced with a large burning spill of organic solvents? Can teachers judge when it is time to leave the fire and get out?

Conclusion We can no longer afford to put teachers in the classroom

without some training in laboratory safety. It is a major problem to train teachers who:are in the classroom. This

60 Journal of Chemical Education

involves training trainers, arranging for sites, disruption of schedules, as well as the expense of getting teachers to the site. All of these obstacles can be overcome, but the pro- cess of playing catch up is inefficient and may produce in- consistent training and implementation. We need to train teachers to manage a lab, as well as how to instruct in the lab before they are sent into the classroom.

This training in lab safety need not be limited to future instructors. Industry would welcome new bench chemists from the BS level to the PhD level who come to them well grounded in basic chemistry, in modern instrumentation, and in safe lab management. This is a major area of em- ployee training for the chemical industry. It would be less expensive for them to hire chemists who already have training in laboratory safety and could move quickly into the specific training reauired for their iob.

he argument fo;inciuding safety a id chemical hygiene in the undergraduate major is a bmad-based one. How-

ever, the need for undermaduate safetv training. is ereat- est for the beginning secondary teacher. The g a l & and welfare of both teachers and students remain in ieo~ardv . . until we begin traming teachers how to work and-function safelv The alternative may be a reaction of school hoards and iegislatures to eliminate chemistry laboratories from high school education.

Literature Cited 1. Moore, John T J Chm. Edue. 1990.67. 166. 2.Afea selected ref2.~feaseleetedreferenees:n2.~feaseleetedreferenees:: (a) National Researeh Council. Pmdanf M t & s far HaNilingHorardoua Chemhls in

l o b m f o r i m National AcademvPreas. 1983.

3. Kent, J.; Mandt, D. K Washington Scz. Teach. J 1984 24,1%22. 4. Berry, K G. Chem. Unity. 1981,2(31: 6 9 . 5. Mandt. D. K Cwrzbulurn in Conezt 1987, 15(1), 2 6 2 7 .

Volume 70 Number 1 January 1993 61