DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:52:02 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Samuella B. Sigmann" <sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**APPSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Safety Training
In-Reply-To: <D6A894F6502BDF43AF0C4A59BB97404F079652AE**At_Symbol_Here**EXCLUSTER.pu.win.princeton.edu>
Thanks, Robin -
Having never worked in industry, I only know the problems that are
encountered in academics. My only compliance enforcement is that if I
ask a researcher to do something and they don't - I can ask them again.
It is my opinion that the American Chemical Society should add a
required safety course in their certified programs. Additionally,
researchers and administrators will not respond to enforcement until it
is part of the tenure and promotion process for keeping a research lab.
There also needs to be stronger enforcement from the granting agencies -
They should be doing on site inspections before releasing money to PIs.
That will get their attention.
Just my thoughts,
Sammye
Robin M. Izzo wrote:
>
> If only it were that simpleÖ an outright ban on laboratory work until
> the worker has completed safety training. In a way, we have that, but
> it is so much more complicated and I honestly believe that only those
> who work in academia can appreciate that.
>
> First, letís talk about WHO these laboratory workers are. There are
> several types, here are a few:
>
> - Faculty, who rarely actually work in the lab, but are ultimately
> responsible.
>
> - Staff ñ it is a true luxury for a lab to have a professional staff
> member. This is a rarity.
>
> - Post-doctoral associates ñ in the lab for months or years. For the
> most part, they have spent nearly all of their time in academic
> teaching labs or university research labs where the ìsafety cultureî
> varies from institution to institution and from department to
> department. They are making very little money and donít see themselves
> as employees. They are the prodigal stepchildren of the university.
>
> - Graduate students ñ technically, they are not employees, but in most
> cases, the veteran grad students will have at least some leadership
> responsibilities in the lab. Depending on their degree, they could be
> there for 6 months to 6 years.
>
> - Visiting researchers ñ may be in the lab for weeks or months or
> years, depending on the project. May officially be an employee or
> student of another institution
>
> - Undergraduate students ñ may be in the research lab for an academic
> project, as a volunteer, as a part-time employee
>
> - High school students ñ may be in the research lab for an academic
> project, may volunteer for ìexperienceî, may be a part-time employee.
>
> Now, how do they get here?
>
> - Faculty ñ spend weeks or months preparing for start-up. Depending on
> how the university is set up, their hiring may be separate from staff
> hiring. At Princeton, the Dean of Faculty hires faculty and lab staff,
> while Human Resources hires admin staff. They have different rules,
> procedures, etc depending on which group hires them.
>
> - Staff ñ may be hired through the Dean of Faculty (apart from the
> Human Resources side of things) or through the same route as a
> standard employee. May arrive any time of the year.
>
> - Post-docs ñ may arrive any time of the year, usually by arrangement
> with the department
>
> - Graduate students ñ usually arrive at the beginning of a semester or
> during the summer
>
> - Visiting researchers ñ may arrive any time of the year, usually by
> arrangement with the department
>
> - Undergraduate student ñ may start working in the lab any time and if
> not paid, nobody outside the lab might even know they are associated
> with the lab
>
> - High school students ñ may arrive any time of the year, but usually
> during the summer. If paid, perhaps HR knows. Many will volunteer and
> it could be that only the principal investigator knows that they are
> associated with the lab.
>
> So, already things are complicated. There is not a single system for
> entering the laboratory environment. Thus, for most universities, it
> is the responsibility of the principal investigator/faculty to ensure
> that all have been through training, among many, many other
> responsibilities, including teaching, writing, mentoring, etc.
>
> At Princeton, it is mandatory for anyone working in research
> laboratories to attend the 3 hour laboratory safety training provided
> by EHS. That is a University Policy and there are consequences for
> non-compliance. It applies to faculty, staff, post-docs, students,
> visitors, paid or unpaid. Our degree of compliance varies:
>
> - Faculty ñ 100% compliance. EHS receives reports from the Dean of
> Faculty of all new faculty hires. EHS contacts the department to see
> if they will have a research lab. If they will, we contact them and
> tell them of the requirement for Laboratory Supervisor briefing ñ a
> one-on-one training session that focuses on their role as a supervisor
> and introduces them to the safety culture. If they give us a hard time
> about making arrangements, we will escalate from the Chair to the Dean
> of Research. So far, in 10 years we have never had to do that.
>
> - Staff ñ there are not many and we have very good compliance
>
> - Graduate students ñ excellent compliance ñ our training is part of
> their orientation
>
> - Undergraduates ñ very good compliance ñ our training is part of the
> curriculum for most science and engineering majors, but non-majors may
> be an issue
>
> - Post-docs and visiting researchers ñ variable. Truly depends on how
> much the department knows of what is happening in the labs and the how
> well the PI is paying attention.
>
> - High school students ñ recently banned, but we had excellent
> compliance because there was a formal program for review and approval
> of minors in the lab and they could not begin work until they attended
> training.
>
> Lab Safety Training is instructor-led classroom training. We offer it
> at least once a month. We simply donít have the staffing to do much
> more than that, but in February, June and September, when most are
> beginning their stint at Princeton, we conduct numerous sessions. If
> someone is not able to attend before they are scheduled to begin in
> the lab, then they can work in the lab only if someone in the lab who
> has been trained is willing to take responsibility for them and they
> are supervised at all times by a trained individual. They must attend
> the next session.
>
> As for undergraduate teaching labs, Teaching Assistants and
> instructors are given safety curriculum to provide to all students,
> and safety is written directly into the procedures.
>
> I donít think Princetonís approach is unique, yet we still donít have
> 100% compliance. We take it very seriously and are constantly looking
> for ways to improve, but it is an uphill battle, not because people
> donít care and not because people complain, but because universities
> are incredibly decentralized and it is unrealistic to expect that
> every faculty member is going to be vigilant about it. If they are
> not, the decentralized nature means that there may not be enough
> additional checks and balances.
>
> Thatís my 2 cents (given the length, maybe more like $2).
>
> Robin
>
> Robin M. Izzo, M.S.
>
> Associate Director, EHS
>
> Princeton University
>
> 609-258-6259 (office)
>
> /Leap and the net will appear. /- Zen Saying
>
> /When you stumble, make it part of the dance. /- Unknown
>
> Save a tree...please don't print this or any document unless truly
> necessary.
>
> *From:* DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU] *On
> Behalf Of *ILPI
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:50 AM
> *To:* DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [DCHAS-L] Safety Training
>
> Academia needs to wake up and have a simple outright ban on all
> laboratory work until the worker has completed their mandatory safety
> training. We don't allow folks to start driving and then "get around
> to" getting their driver's licenses, do we?
>
> I agree that most EHS departments have enough grief being seen as an
> arcane enforcer rather than safety/productivity partner in academia,
> however this one simple rule needs to be written in stone so it isn't
> unwritten in blood.
>
> In my 4 years at MIT, not one person ever said "I can't wait to start
> work but have to take my training class first." They just started in
> the lab. Now, that was back in the days when the web was still a
> twinkle in Tim Berners-Lee's eye and things have likely improved to a
> fair degree. However, the attitude of "work now and safety when I get
> around to it" is still rampant at most academic institutions and is a
> direct result of failure to promote safety culture.
>
> I conjecture that this failure of academic institutions to teach and
> promote safety culture in their curriculum and department is the root
> cause of the vast majority of accidents at such institutions. Training
> should start on day 1 with the formal presentations, and on day 1 the
> message should be that safety is an integral part of planning every
> single laboratory operation (not just experiments, either). Safety
> planning/procedure should be written into the laboratory notebook of
> every undergraduate student (and for that matter, graduate student and
> postdoc). Only then can our system start graduating students competent
> in safety culture - students who can then go on to industry without
> culture shock or into academia with the seeds of long-overdue change.
>
> Rob Toreki
>
> PS: One other issue at the major institutions is that it is simply
> impossible for the PI of a 20-person group to be on top of all safety
> matters in their operation. Authority is delegated or diffused to the
> point that folks are basically winging it in many cases. I know people
> who saw their research advisor perhaps once every two or three weeks
> and they were lucky to talk to him or her for 20 minutes. Those
> previous moments will focus on one's thesis work results from the past
> 2 weeks and plans for the coming 2 weeks are the reason for the
> meeting; safety will never, *ever* come up. But this digresses into
> another conversational thread.
>
> =====================================================
>
> Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
>
> you know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com
>
> esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or
> toll-free: (866) 326-5412
>
> Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Dan Herrick wrote:
>
> As others have noted, the approach that works well in industry won't
> work as well in academia. If the people not attending training are
> employees of the academic institution (facilities staff, maybe?), you
> may be able to implement some of the performance-based consequences
> whcih have been suggested. For faculty, undergrads, grad students, and
> post-docs, this is not realistic.
>
> We have web-based training for a number of modules (Haz Waste, General
> Chem, etc) and we require documentation of Lab Specific training every
> year. All training is also recorded in a system where we can track
> metrics by PI and follow up on incomplete training. For continually
> non-compliant folks, I try all the usual channels - multiple emails,
> reminders of when live courses are given, attempts to give live
> courses to an entire research group at a group meeting all at once,
> etc. Usually people complete training eventually, if only because they
> are sick of my repeated emails. Sometimes it comes down to individual
> visits with individual PIs - they may not be actively "avoiding"
> training , they may just legitimately be extremely busy. If one
> "sells" it right, this can come across not as "You didn't do your
> training!" but "How can I help you ensure the safety of your
> laboratory in the most effective way?" In the long run, the latter is
> more helpful than the former.
>
> A lot of it does come down to the safety culture that is created
> within the academic institution. If EHS is viewed as a helpful partner
> in ensuring that research proceeds in an effective manner, and if
> there is buy-in from University leadership and Departmental leadership
> regarding established safety programs, then "escalating" the
> continually non-compliant to the next level of "management" is
> straight-forward and should produce results. If EHS is viewed as
> merely an ancillary part of the campus that enforces regulatory codes
> or as a group which tends to impede research being done, or if top
> level folks at the University are not interested in or engaged in
> safety, the task is much harder.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Dan Herrick
>
>
>
> EHS Coordinator
>
>
>
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>
>
>
> Mechanical Engineering Department, Research Laboratory of Electronics,
>
>
>
> Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
>
>
>
> herrickd**At_Symbol_Here**mit.edu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:01:19 -0600
> From: ldamon**At_Symbol_Here**FVCC.EDU
> Subject: [DCHAS-L] Safety Training
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
>
> I am wondering how others address employees ìblowing-offî safety
> training. There always seem to be the few employees that invariably
> are no shows for the trainings.
>
> Thanks in advance for your repliesÖ
>
> Laura Damon
>
> Coordinator of Instructional Safety and Chemical Hygiene
>
> Flathead Valley Community College
>
> ldamon**At_Symbol_Here**fvcc.edu
>
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
