Absolutely, Ralph, that is what should be happening. But the traditional paperwork session is what will meet the law. And combined with the OSHA requirement for enforcement of the safety rules, it will sort of work OK.
'
Your way is the ideal. And there should be documentation of that follow up, those observations and inspections.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Wed, Aug 28, 2013 12:26 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Judge denies three Harran defense motions
> And "documented training" means exactly what it says. Sit down sessions provided by the school or the professor with attendance taken and ideally a short test at the end to
provide proof of comprehension.
I don't entirely agree with this. In my mind, a training program consists not only of a single explanation of the expectations for doing hazardous work, but follow up oversight
through observations of the worker and inspections of the work process over time. Otherwise, this process does not demonstrate comprehension, but simply appears to be a transfer of responsibility from the supervisor to the trainee.
The challenge in an academic environment is that the institutional culture is oriented towards education rather than training and there are no expectations for follow up after
the final test in the educational setting. This expectations gap is part of the challenge the National Research Council's Task Force on laboratory safety culture is facing.
The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org. The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.
