Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Previous by Date:
Subject: Re: Safety Training
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:06:34 -0700
Author: "Debbie M. Decker"
|
|
Next by Date:
Subject: Re: Safety Training
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:03:30 -0400
Author: George Walton
|
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:56:15 -0700
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: Eric Clark <erclark**At_Symbol_Here**PH.LACOUNTY.GOV>
Subject: Re: Safety Training
In-Reply-To: <D6A894F6502BDF43AF0C4A59BB97404F2C3E2D**At_Symbol_Here**EXCLUSTER.pu.win.princeton.edu>
I worked both sides of this one. When I was a chemistry graduate student,
I did the usual research like everyone else, and I finished up my research
project and wrote a thesis. Then I was done and I was gone. Safety and
compliance issues were not my problem; it was academic freedom at it's
best. I received no instructions and I didn't have a clue.
Ten years later I visited the same university as a state hazardous waste
compliance inspector. And I found, among other things, several gallons of
my own research waste still stashed in the cabinets beneath the instruments
where I worked at the time!
Eric
Eric Clark, MS, CCHO, CHMM
Safety & Compliance Officer
Los Angeles County Public Health Laboratory
>>> "Robin M. Izzo" 8/28/2010 6:39 AM >>>
Rob,
I don't think any of us in academia that our situation "merits permitting
untrained folks to perform tasks that require training." That's my point
- we have a structure and policies in place, but he reality is that the
decentralized nature of a university makes it easier to have some people
in the lab that have not attended this required training.
You say that nobody should be permitted to work in the lab until they can
show proof of training. I agree. But think about it - who is permitting
people to work in the lab? Who is the gatekeeper? For the most part, it
is faculty and if that faculty member does not make it a priority to check
on training - there's the disconnect.
We are constantly impressing upon faculty the importance of training. We
send reminders several times a year. When we inspect a lab, we talk to
the people working in the lab and check their training records. Our level
of compliance continues to improve, but it is not perfect. We share
stories of incidents that occur on our campus and elsewhere, illustrating
the consequences. We go to faculty meetings, we make things as simple as
we can for them.
Further complicating things is that so many of us use the term "lab
worker". Most of the lab population in academia don't see themselves as
"workers". It is an academic pursuit. We don't differentiate between
students and staff when it comes to training requirements, but we have to
be very careful of semantics. If I say that anyone who works in a lab
must attend training, the person who did not attend training will explain
that he or she did not think it applied to them.
The people in these labs tend to be young. This generation of students
ignores e-mail and uses Google to answer their questions. It is a
challenge just making them aware of the training requirements.
Please don't confuse frustration with giving up and accepting the status
quo. It's a major challenge and we have been chipping away at it. I
think that the best thing we have going for us is that our training
program is well-executed and has a very positive reputation. But the
fact is, it is "different" than a lab of research professionals and our
level of control is simply not the same. We are not giving up or giving
in and, frankly, every time I hear someone outside of academia suggest
that it can't be so complicated, I find it difficult not to feel insulted,
as if we don't agonize over the issue and don't care.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Robin M. Izzo, M.S.
Associate Director
Environmental Health and Safety
Princeton University
262 Alexander St.
Princeton, NJ 08544
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List on behalf of ILPI
Sent: Fri 8/27/2010 5:52 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Safety Training
I worked in four major research university labs from 1985 through 2000 -
in virtually every possible capacity: undergraduate researcher, graduate
student, postdoc, professor, and I understand very well the complexities/nu
ances/conflicts. You've summarized them nicely for those who may not be
aware, thanks.
It's your first line that caught me there - "If only it were that simple".
That's my point. It *should* be that simple. Academia is bound by the
"this is the way it has always been done" and "we can't change the system"
mindsets (probably inherited from university bureaucracies). Not only
with respect to safety and lab procedures, but rules in general.
There is no good reason why it CAN'T be that simple. When you get
employed, you head off to the university employment office and they have
to get your W-9 (citizenship) and W-4 (tax withholding) etc. set up. You
can't work until they have those. Period.
"There is not a single system for entering the laboratory environment" -
that's my point, too. There should be. And it starts with a simple
requirement that you don't perform lab work until you have a piece of
paper saying that you are cleared to work in the lab. No PI or supervisor
can accept someone into the lab without safety training. Period. It's a
really good incentive to get your training done.
We have all kinds of OSHA and workplace rules regarding training requiremen
ts - no one drives the forklift without being certified. No one draws
blood without BOP training. Would anyone here like have their kidney
dialysis treatment performed by someone who is planning on "getting around
to" blood-borne pathogen training next week? So why would something that
ridiculous be acceptable in a lab that uses t-butyllithium? As a former
professor, I'm ashamed that chemistry and EHS departments have the
audacity to claim that their situation is "different" and merits permitting
untrained folks to perform tasks that require training.
Safety is the first and foremost concern in *every* laboratory operation.
Period. You relax that rule, bend it, or break it and the consequences
(as we have seen) can be fatal. Reinforcing the importance of safety by
*requiring* safety training before *any* work begins telegraphs the role
of safety and is an important first step (of many) that academia needs to
take to embrace the safety culture mindset.
Rob Toreki
========================
=========================
=====
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 27, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Robin M. Izzo wrote:
If only it were that simple. 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, let's 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 - it is a true luxury for a lab to have a
professional staff member. This is a rarity.
- Post-doctoral associates - 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 "safety
culture" varies from institution to institution and from department to
department. They are making very little money and don't see themselves as
employees. They are the prodigal stepchildren of the university.
- Graduate students - 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 - 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 - may be in the research lab for
an academic project, as a volunteer, as a part-time employee
- High school students - may be in the research lab for
an academic project, may volunteer for "experience", may be a part-time
employee.
Now, how do they get here?
- Faculty - 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 - 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 - may arrive any time of the year, usually by
arrangement with the department
- Graduate students - usually arrive at the beginning of
a semester or during the summer
- Visiting researchers - may arrive any time of the year,
usually by arrangement with the department
- Undergraduate student - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - there are not many and we have very good
compliance
- Graduate students - excellent compliance - our training
is part of their orientation
- Undergraduates - very good compliance - 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 - 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 - 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 don't 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 don't think Princeton's approach is unique, yet we still don't
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 don't 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.
That's 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/proce
dure 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.
=09
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.
=09
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-complian
t 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.
=09
Good luck.
Dan Herrick
=09
=09
=09
=09
EHS Coordinator
=09
=09
=09
=09
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
=09
=09
=09
=09
Mechanical Engineering Department, Research Laboratory of
Electronics,
=09
=09
=09
=09
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department
=09
=09
=09
=09
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 "blowing-off" safety
training. There always seem to be the few employees that invariably are
no shows for the trainings.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Laura Damon
Coordinator of Instructional Safety and Chemical Hygiene
Flathead Valley Community College
ldamon**At_Symbol_Here**fvcc.edu
=09
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post