Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:07:52 -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: Kim Auletta <kauletta**At_Symbol_Here**NOTES.CC.SUNYSB.EDU>
Subject: Re: Boston College incident follow up
In-Reply-To: <4E0B1695020000BA0002E911**At_Symbol_Here**gwsmtp1.smith.edu>
The DOE has an excellent "lessons learned" program. There reports used to
be available to the public, but I think most now require a
password/account to get to. http://www.hss.energy.gov/csa/analysis/ll/
Kim Auletta
Lab Safety Specialist
EH&S Z=6200
Stony Brook University
kauletta**At_Symbol_Here**notes.cc.sunysb.edu
631-632-3032
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site: http://www.stonybrook.edu/ehs/lab/
Remember to wash your hands!
From: Margaret Rakas
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Date: 06/29/2011 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Boston College incident follow up
Sent by: DCHAS-L Discussion List
Frank Demer's database and that of the AIHA are terrific. Frank's stands
out to me because of the institutional support, while the AIHA database is
'anonymous'--you don't know where the incidents occurred.
While I don't doubt many institutions do have a 'what happened/how to
prevent it' review, that knowledge often appears to be kept within the
institution. Whether this is for legal reasons, or the PR folks don't
like to have this information available, or another reason, I don't know.
And of course, from time to time C&E News will print letters from
researchers about an experiment that should have been standard, but
wasn't. What is particularly helpful about a database collated by EH&S is
that you can see accidents that occurred in biology, biochem, neuroscience
labs, etc. These are important chemical-use research areas where the
researchers are not focused on the chemical aspects and might be reluctant
to go to a "Accidents in Chemistry Labs" blog or even know about C&E News.
The "we don't talk about it to outsiders" response has happened to me
personally as I tried to follow up with a college in New England regarding
a chemical fire that was reported via the news. It hit home because a
year or so earlier, they had contacted me about an accident here. I
shared my details with them and other colleges in our New England Small
Colleges Association, precisely so a repeat incident could be avoided
elsewhere. Unfortunately their institution did not permit reciprocation.
And I think if you look at a number of these incidents, many which don't
involve employees (and bring in OSHA) or which occur at private
institutions (so no FOIA requirements) are not shared with the community
beyond what is first reported in the news (and we know how helpful THAT is
at getting to the root cause!) And they should be, at least in a database
that shields the institution, if desired.
My personal opinion only, not legal or business advice, and may not be the
opinion of my employer or any group to which I belong.
Margaret Rakas
>>> "Koza, Mary Beth (Environment Health & Safety)"
6/29/2011 11:20 AM >>>
Group,
I take exception to suggesting that serious academic
institutional/departmental follow-up response is not a normal part of the
accident review. Many academic institutions have a process, consisting of
root cause analysis and lessons learned. Making such a broad statement
is counterproductive to the importance of safety.
Mary Beth Koza
Director of EHS
University of North Carolina - Ch
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of
ILPI
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:25 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Boston College incident follow up
I concur that realistic, repetitive training can go a long way to
ameliorating panic reactions in emergency situations. Alas, the resources
and institutional commitment for this sort of thing are lacking in most
academic situations, and for some folks it just won't ever sink in.
One low-cost method that may be effective is to place a site-specific
poster-size emergency checklist in the most visible common area of the
laboratory/suite. Focus on the most important response issue
(fire/explosion, for example) only. Hopefully, the workers in the area
will better retain their key emergency response skills (or eventually
learn them through osmosis) or perhaps they may even turn to the poster in
an emergency (911 called, fire alarm pulled, evacuation, personnel
accounted for etc. etc.). As a small example of what I mean, see the
fire checklist I have posted at
http://www.ilpi.com/safety/extinguishers.html#Using
I have never personally seen laboratory safety training materials discuss
that the trainee or his/her coworkers may freeze, panic, or do something
completely wrong in an emergency situation. A coworker's inappropriate
reaction can not only be distracting or disorienting, it can compound an
already bad situation. I encourage everyone to include this topic in
their training courses.
Recent events (UCLA, Yale etc.) aside, I have never personally seen
serious academic institutional/departmental follow-up response with
Lessons Learned from minor accidents, major incidents, or near misses.
Having a protocol for a formal analysis (What happened? Facts instead of
departmental gossip. What went wrong? How could this be avoided? What
SOP's should change? etc.), ensuring that the analysis is distributed to
all possible stakeholders, and archiving it on an easily accessible web
site is a great way of making sure that history does not repeat itself. I
have the impression that this kind of analysis is the norm at places like
DuPont, but, sadly, in my own personal experience, academic institutions
often fail to do so either out of liability/publicity concerns, leadership
inertia/vacuum, or both. Formal accident followups should be SOP and
the importance of these should be stressed in academic safety training
courses.
Finally, those archived incidents make great case studies that should be
utilized in laboratory training. After giving the full spiel, take the
time to pull out a couple of case studies and ask the trainees what should
have been done, what could have been improved etc. Interactive training
forces the trainees to think about the issues and the instructor achieves
instant feedback on how effective the training has been. This makes
training a much more interesting experience for both parties. If you are
fortunate enough not to have any site-specific cases to use, a wealth of
them are available at
http://www.aiha.org/insideaiha/volunteergroups/labHandScommittee/Pages/LaboratorySafetyIncidents.aspx
The unexpected dangers reported at
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/safety/index.html also afford additional
scenarios.
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 Jun 28, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Peter Zavon wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 David C. Finster said to the DCHAS-L Discussion
List in part:
I would "second" Brad's comments about the need for training
and education that exposes students to simulated events and
that is heavily based on repetition. Truth is: people panic
when confronted with unexpected events and, in knowing this,
it's almost laughable that one of first "rules" we teach in a
panic-inducing situation is "not to panic." Yeah, right. So,
I tell students to go ahead and "panic" (for a BRIEF moment!)
to get that out of the way and then "go back to your
training".
Since panic is a visceral reaction that prevents reason and logical
thinking, it seems to me that telling people "not to panic," either in
training or at the time of a frightening event, is one of the most useless
instructional activities imaginable. Repetitive simulated practice that
other have endorsed is the way to go. That is likely to prevent panic by
reducing the novelty of the situation.
"Don't panic" as an instructional step is on a par with "Be more careful"
in
counseling someone whose apparent lack of attention is thought to have
caused an "accident." Both phrases make the speaker fell better, but
neither
conveys actionable guidance.
Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY
PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com
The DOE has an excellent "lessons
learned" program. There reports used to be available to the public,
but I think most now require a password/account to get to. http://www.hss.energy.gov/csa/analysis/ll/
Kim Auletta
Lab Safety Specialist
EH&S Z=6200
Stony Brook University
kauletta**At_Symbol_Here**notes.cc.sunysb.edu
631-632-3032
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site: http://www.stonybrook.edu/ehs/lab/
Remember to wash your hands!
From:
Margaret Rakas <mrakas**At_Symbol_Here**SMITH.EDU>
To:
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Date:
06/29/2011 12:22 PM
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L]
Boston College incident follow up
Sent by:
DCHAS-L Discussion
List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Frank Demer's database and that of the AIHA are terrific.
Frank's stands out to me because of the institutional support, while the
AIHA database is 'anonymous'--you don't know where the incidents occurred.
While I don't doubt many institutions do have a 'what
happened/how to prevent it' review, that knowledge often appears to be
kept within the institution. Whether this is for legal reasons, or
the PR folks don't like to have this information available, or another
reason, I don't know. And of course, from time to time C&E News
will print letters from researchers about an experiment that should have
been standard, but wasn't. What is particularly helpful about a database
collated by EH&S is that you can see accidents that occurred in biology,
biochem, neuroscience labs, etc. These are important chemical-use
research areas where the researchers are not focused on the chemical aspects
and might be reluctant to go to a "Accidents in Chemistry Labs"
blog or even know about C&E News.
The "we don't talk about it to outsiders" response
has happened to me personally as I tried to follow up with a college in
New England regarding a chemical fire that was reported via the news. It
hit home because a year or so earlier, they had contacted me about an accident
here. I shared my details with them and other colleges in our New
England Small Colleges Association, precisely so a repeat incident could
be avoided elsewhere. Unfortunately their institution did not permit
reciprocation. And I think if you look at a number of these incidents,
many which don't involve employees (and bring in OSHA) or which occur at
private institutions (so no FOIA requirements) are not shared with the
community beyond what is first reported in the news (and we know how helpful
THAT is at getting to the root cause!) And they should be, at least
in a database that shields the institution, if desired.
My personal opinion only, not legal or business advice,
and may not be the opinion of my employer or any group to which I belong.
Margaret Rakas
>>> "Koza, Mary Beth (Environment Health & Safety)"
<MBKOZA**At_Symbol_Here**EHS.UNC.EDU> 6/29/2011
11:20 AM >>>
Group,
I take exception to suggesting
that serious academic
institutional/departmental follow-up response is not a normal part of the
accident review. Many academic institutions have a process, consisting
of root cause analysis and lessons learned. Making such a broad
statement is counterproductive to the importance of safety.
Mary Beth Koza
Director of EHS
University of North Carolina
- Ch
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu]
On Behalf Of ILPI
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:25 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Boston College incident follow up
I concur that realistic, repetitive
training can go a long way to ameliorating panic reactions in emergency
situations. Alas, the resources and institutional commitment for
this sort of thing are lacking in most academic situations, and for some
folks it just won't ever sink in.
One low-cost method that may be
effective is to place a site-specific poster-size emergency checklist in
the most visible common area of the laboratory/suite. Focus on the
most important response issue (fire/explosion, for example) only. Hopefully,
the workers in the area will better retain their key emergency response
skills (or eventually learn them through osmosis) or perhaps they may even
turn to the poster in an emergency (911 called, fire alarm pulled, evacuation,
personnel accounted for etc. etc.). As a small example of what I
mean, see the fire checklist I have posted at http://www.ilpi.com/safety/extinguishers.html#Using
I have never personally seen laboratory
safety training materials discuss that the trainee or his/her coworkers
may freeze, panic, or do something completely wrong in an emergency situation.
A coworker's inappropriate reaction can not only be distracting or
disorienting, it can compound an already bad situation. I encourage
everyone to include this topic in their training courses.
Recent events (UCLA, Yale etc.)
aside, I have never personally seen serious academic institutional/departmental
follow-up response with Lessons Learned from minor accidents, major incidents,
or near misses. Having a protocol for a formal analysis (What happened?
Facts instead of departmental gossip. What went wrong? How
could this be avoided? What SOP's should change? etc.), ensuring
that the analysis is distributed to all possible stakeholders, and archiving
it on an easily accessible web site is a great way of making sure that
history does not repeat itself. I have the impression that this
kind of analysis is the norm at places like DuPont, but, sadly, in my own
personal experience, academic institutions often fail to do so either out
of liability/publicity concerns, leadership inertia/vacuum, or both.
Formal accident followups should be SOP and the importance of these
should be stressed in academic safety training courses.
Finally, those archived incidents
make great case studies that should be utilized in laboratory training.
After giving the full spiel, take the time to pull out a couple of
case studies and ask the trainees what should have been done, what could
have been improved etc. Interactive training forces the trainees
to think about the issues and the instructor achieves instant feedback
on how effective the training has been. This makes training a much
more interesting experience for both parties. If you are fortunate
enough not to have any site-specific cases to use, a wealth of them are
available at http://www.aiha.org/insideaiha/volunteergroups/labHandScommittee/Pages/LaboratorySafetyIncidents.aspx
The unexpected dangers reported at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/safety/index.html
also afford additional scenarios.
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 Jun 28, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Peter
Zavon wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 David C. Finster said to the DCHAS-L Discussion
List in part:
I would "second" Brad's
comments about the need for training
and education that exposes students
to simulated events and
that is heavily based on repetition.
Truth is: people panic
when confronted with unexpected
events and, in knowing this,
it's almost laughable that one
of first "rules" we teach in a
panic-inducing situation is "not
to panic." Yeah, right. So,
I tell students to go ahead and
"panic" (for a BRIEF moment!)
to get that out of the way and
then "go back to your
training".
Since panic is a visceral reaction that prevents reason and logical
thinking, it seems to me that telling people "not to panic,"
either in
training or at the time of a frightening event, is one of the most useless
instructional activities imaginable. Repetitive simulated practice that
other have endorsed is the way to go. That is likely to prevent panic by
reducing the novelty of the situation.
"Don't panic" as an instructional step is on a par with "Be
more careful" in
counseling someone whose apparent lack of attention is thought to have
caused an "accident." Both phrases make the speaker fell better,
but neither
conveys actionable guidance.
Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY
PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post