About This Archive | DCHAS-L 2019 Index | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | DCHAS-L Home Page
From: Bruce Van Scoy <bvanscoy**At_Symbol_Here**TWC.COM>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [EXT] Re: [DCHAS-L] Letter to the National PTA regarding the rainbow flame demo
Date: Oct 1, 2019 21:50 UTC
Reply-To:
ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
In-Reply-To: Re: [DCHAS-L] [EXT] Re: [DCHAS-L] Letter to the National PTA regarding the rainbow flame demo
Monona,
You are right-on with this answer, but I think it needs expanded upon. Yes, administrators and teachers need to enforce the rules. ACS should NOT lead in the defense of enforcing the lack of a written risk assessment with training. What ACS should do is provide examples of the accidents/injuries that have routinely occurred over the past years with those that continue to occur, with a solid example of what is expected of BOTH administrators and teachers. If this was done, administrators would know what to look for in the assessment, teachers would know what is expected and could be held accountable if not following the "Lesson Plan incorporating the assessment". Regardless of OSHA, this would allow a sound legal footing for teachers to be held liable and negligent. Note: I am not a J.D., just a safety person. But I do agree with a previous post that minimizing the reactive ingredients would lesson the risk, but that has to be recognized up front - in the lesson plan. This demonstration has caused and continues to cause to much harm to youth, maybe a different approach may provide different results. Great example of needing a high level root cause analysis. If proven well enough, administrators and teachers would have to take note.
I'm running into a brain block, but wasn't that called the limiting reactant in basic chemistry? It's been a long day-
BruceV
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 12:22 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [EXT] Re: [DCHAS-L] Letter to the National PTA regarding the rainbow flame demo
Not having an eye wash where employees are using or storing chemicals that are Category 2A or lower is a violation of 1910.151.
And under hazcom, doing a demo with metal salts and methanol requires a written risk assessment and training.
So you are absolutely right when you say there are rules in place but they are not enforced. And that's why the OSHA citations are always given to the employer. OSHA requires the employer to enforce the rules. But steadfastly ignore this obligation. And it is my opinion that school administrators, the people OSHA expects to enforce the rules, know bupkis about safety.
Monoan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Tenney <jtenney46**At_Symbol_Here**ATT.NET>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2019 10:48 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [EXT] Re: [DCHAS-L] Letter to the National PTA regarding the rainbow flame demo
Please remember under OHSA, 29CFR1910 (section 5 a), OSHA have the power to pursue penalties if the employer, school, does not supply a place free of recognized hazards. I would say an uncontrolled open flame would qualify. Not having an eyewash when handling caustics, could be another fineable offense. There are rules in place but the employers lack the knowledge to make sure they are being enforced and/or protections are in place.
This biggest problem has always been training and education. It would be nice if the ACS would set up a free program (maybe a small fee like 20 dollars a year) for school systems or educators to have access to training material when it comes to demos. (I know am pushing it to someone else to do) That would address how to perform the experiment safely, high quality videos of those that cannot be done safely in most high school chemistry labs. We do have a division of chemical education.
If OSHA would just fine one of these incidents then maybe that would wake some systems up to getting some training for the teacher of at least forcing a review of the demo before it is performed to see how safe it is.
Jeff
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Harold Ingmire
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 9:56 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [EXT] Re: [DCHAS-L] Letter to the National PTA regarding the rainbow flame demo
Thank you - very interesting problems in industries I am not familiar with (arts). Maybe the liability insurance companies for schools should step up a bit.
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 9:21 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [EXT] Re: [DCHAS-L] Letter to the National PTA regarding the rainbow flame demo
You have never stumbled across statutes specific to education under OSHA because there aren't any.
EPA rules are usually industry- or process-specific and they have a bunch of rules specific to education.
But OSHA just divides their standards between Construction and General Industry (not counting Maritime). School employees do work that is usually under General Industry standards unless those employees are engaged in defined construction activities such as renovating, painting or decorating.
It's a rather clumsy system actually. And the people I deal with in both education and the theatrical and film industries have great difficulty in accepting that they are not "special." They are just another ordinary industry under OSHA and the rules all apply to them. They have trouble seeing the front lip of the stage as a fall hazard under General Industry and the construction of a set as coming under the Construction standards. Or they have difficulty understanding that the workers are under the Construction standards while building the set, but they have to design and build the set to meet General Industry safety standards because the Actors, set dressers, etc., who will access the set are General Industry workers.
So to with education. Most of the work comes under General Industry such as hazcom or lab standard, PPE, materials handling, etc. And there are the students. Young students do not come under OSHA so that leaves some interesting gaps filled usually by strict liability. College and/or grad students in some schools are under workers comp and OSHA, but often are not, again leaving it to liability.
But in theater and film, we have paid "workers" who are infants, young children and/or older children. Some of the OSHA rules designed for adults are applied to them and that is often a big problem for us, especially the PELs.
I can think of better ways to do this, but I've noticed no one has put me in charge.
Monona