We use some of these metrics as well, but the one metric that gets the biggest rise out of senior administration is our lab inspection scores.
Now that our inspection scores are included in an annual report that goes all the way up to our Board of Governors, there is a genuine desire on the part of our senior
administration to improve compliance. In the early days when we started doing this we were frequently questioned about how we arrived at our scores and whether we were being fair, but after years of defending and explaining that all of our inspection items
are grounded in legislation and that we weren’t making this stuff up, the principal question we are now hearing is what is being done about low scores? This has had the effect of mobilizing key senior people to press for improvement and we are now experiencing
a sea change in the area of lab safety culture.
Patience is a virtue, especially in safety - it only took me 30 years to reach this stage.
W.
Wayne Wood | Director, Environmental Health and Safety –
Directeur, Sant=E9, securit=E9
et environnement| McGill University | 3610 rue McTavish Street, 4th floor | Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1Y2 | Tel: (514)
398-2391
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu]
On Behalf Of Gates, Kim
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 8:10 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Reporting indicators for a lab safety dashboard
These indicators are similar to a project/report I need to develop for senior management on lab safety. We’re very good at reporting incident/injury/accident data on the dashboard, but that doesn’t
reflect a lab safety culture. Some of the things I was thinking of including for the senior management dashboard on lab safety:
# people trained, # training classes, haz waste collected, high hazard chemical SOPs reviewed, # policies approved, # people observed wearing PPE/not wearing PPE
What would you add? What “lab safety dashboard” are you using?
Thanks as always,
Kim
ACTIVELY CARING
Kim Gates | Director, Global Chemical Hygiene Officer | Global Environmental Affairs and Safety | ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES | 125 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY 11747 |
Tel: 631-531-1034 | Cell: 631- 327-7318 | Fax: 631-752-5693 |
kgates**At_Symbol_Here**estee.com
PSave a tree. Don't print this e-mail unless it's necessary
Per John Nail’s question about assessments ….
Leading indicators of bad things to happen:
Frequency of “small” (non-Hazwoper) spills
Frequency of cuts, slips, trips, falls, dropped glassware, etc
Leading indicators of good things
Frequency that a safety moment is included in department seminars, research group meetings, etc
Frequency that a “safety note” is included in lab notebooks (teaching or research)
Frequency that lab level instruction (on a technique or piece of equipment) is noted by the mentor in the mentee’s
lab notebook
I could go one, but you get the idea. We have lots of metrics we can look at and over time, we will identify the one’s which
are most predictive. A study done in the semi-conductor industry showed that tracking small spills reduced the occurrence of large spills.
Neal
Given today's obsession with academic assessment (thanks Congress!), if laboratory safety is mandated, as either a stand alone course or as an aspect of our current
laboratory courses, we would be required to assess it.
Assessment requires numerical measurements. Other than reported injuries, what is measurable in regards to laboratory safety?
The fact that students pass a mandatory safety quiz demonstrates that they have 'learned' (often short term memory) the rules, we all know that they frequently don't
follow the rules. As we've seen, science teachers don't always follow the rules of 'common sense' regarding 'don't pour flammable solvents on a fire'.. Assessing behavior and attitudes are much more difficult than assessing information.
A question for those of us who teach undergraduates: how do we assess laboratory safety, particularly for our teaching laboratories?
What amount of safety do ACS accredited programs actually require?
There is still no course requirement. It is assumed that the appropriate level of knowledge, skill, and attitude about chemical hygiene that is needed to pursue a career in chemical industry or academia will be acquired piecemeal in their laboratory work throughout
the course of their undergraduate studies.
What about requiring more safety education and training in order for a chemistry program/degree to be ACS accredited?
Good luck. Chemical hygiene is not regarded as a curriculum item on the level of organic, inorganic, pchem, etc. by the CPT. Additionally, there is currently very little flexibility in the course work for the undergraduate degree - I think ours has 1 or
2 elective hours. That would be a start, but often for the various concentrations the electives have to be outside the major. I have been teaching a chemical safety course for for about 8 years, but is very hard to populate because of the tight curriculum.
That being said - I have 10 students registered for this course next spring - an all time record!
The better option for now is to incorporate higher level information and risk assessment it into some of our other existing courses (much as the CPT envisions I guess). We use Intro to research (junior course) and Senior research (capstone course). Of course
all the lab courses do the normal safety activities.
Sammye
On 11/6/2015 9:55 PM, Baker, Sheila wrote:
What amount of safety do ACS accredited programs actually require? I don't recall much if any when I went through school. Even as a TA in grad school our safety training
consisted of only watching a video. I know ABET is trying to increase safety training in chemical engineering. What about requiring more safety education and training in order for a chemistry program/degree to be ACS accredited?
That's consistent with my feeling. All these little fixes, such as explaining to chemists
they shouldn't pour solvent on a flame, are going nowhere. This fixes one demo at a time. What is missing is the basic safety training which should be taught over a number of years of school and development of a deep general knowledge of how chemicals behave.
That knowledge can't be cerebral. It needs to be visceral due to a lot of hands on experience.
All that is just plain missing in most graduates today. Maybe it's that they use computers instead of hands on. But whatever the cause,
the demos have to go.
We have the same issues in Art and Theater. College age kids are coming into programs who have never used a screw driver or a hammer
and they want to work on table saws and try to weld. You can't do that with your thumbs--which are the only coordinated appendages they have.
We are assuming these young chemistry grads have skills they just don't have. Their minds and verbal skills are quick so we assume
they also have knowledge, safety savvy and common sense. They don't.
Take their toys away. Leave the "entertainment through chemistry" to people specially experienced in doing this in rooms equipped for
it. How many more times do we have to see this same thing to "get it?"
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: roberth_hill <roberth_hill**At_Symbol_Here**MINDSPRING.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2015 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
I guess I think this happened because the teacher did not recognize or understand the
hazard. I think this is because their safety education was missing or inadequate and/or a safety ethic was missing or inadequate. Most of you have heard my thoughts on this before. Until we start educating our undergraduates in lab safety, we will continue
to have teachers, graduate students, and chemists with poor knowledge of safety and poor safety ethics.
Co-author of Laboratory Safety for Chemistry Students
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Rita Kay Calhoun <r..calhoun**At_Symbol_Here**MOREHEADSTATE.EDU>
Date: 11/06/2015 3:55 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
I disagree that the question is why did the teacher do the demo. The question was why was the teacher so stupid as to pour a flammable liquid onto a flame. Anyone over the age of 6 should know that this is dangerous. I sometimes wonder if the recent increase
in the apparent lack of "common sense" (yes, I said common sense because it is common sense to be wary of flames) is an unexpected result of the fear of even minor dangers that has resulted in many schools only doing experiments that a kindergartener could
do. In order to be able to cross a street safely, you actually have to practice crossing a street safely. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, perhaps we should learn/teach how to bathe the baby without drowning it.
Kay
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Frankie Wood-Black
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 3:07 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
A question for the group and maybe to a wider audience. After the last set of announcements and the CSB alert, my question is related to why this teacher chose to do it. One reason may have been that they felt they could do it because they had numerous times.
The other is that they were unaware of the recommendations NOT to do this particular demonstration anymore. SO - my question is - is there an avenue that we should be using to inform teachers about the hazards of this experiment that have not been utilized
previously - and if so - what would it be????
--
--
******************************************************************************
We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do everything with nothing.
Teresa Arnold
Samuella B. Sigmann, NRCC-CHO
Senior Lecturer/Safety Committee Chair/Director of Stockroom
A. R. Smith Department of Chemistry
Appalachian State University
525 Rivers Street
Boone, NC 28608
Phone: 828 262 2755
Fax: 828 262 6558
Email:
sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**appstate.edu
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that the use of this information or
dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the
original message.
Thank you.
