edited by MALCOLM M. RENFREW University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83843
Developing Departmental safety Procedures George F. Palladlno United States Military Academy. West Point, NY 10996 The increased emphasis on safety in academia has been recently highlighted by Kaufman (I).That author points to the impact of OSHA and the increased number of liabilitv suits findine facultv . neelieence - - as two areas contributing to the recognition of safety in the chemical education curriculum.
LTC George Palladino, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, United States Military Academy, received a BS in Chemistry at Siena College, Loudonville, NY in 1961. He received a MS in Chemistry in 1971 and a PhD in Chemistry in 1974, both from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. MA. ~ r h & s p e n t17 years on activeduty in the liS Army, hulding a variety ,,I' positions in both the h e l d Artillery and the Chemical Corps. He sewed as a nuclear weapons officer in Germany in 1963-64 as a part of the service. He was an instructor and assistant professor a t the United States Military Academy from 1971-74. His current interest in Safety Procedures developed when he was reassigned to the United States Military Academy in 1976.
The topic of Personal Liahility of Chemical Educators was elucidated by Sweeney earlier (2). A recent article by Bush reports some glaring shortfalls in the safety procedures a t academic institutions (3). The guiding principle that Sweeney suggested was "the duty itself that each of us, including the laboratory professor, has is to not expose others to an unreasonable risk" (2). . . While there arc numemus g~neralmfery refrrmces listed by Kaufmnn (11, it is important to recognize that each department must develop its own standard operating procedures in order to adapt the available safety references to the specific situation of the respective institution. Examples of this are the euidelines contained in the CRC ~ a n d b o oof i Laboratory Safety, section 4 on Fire Hazards (4). The section is broken into four subsections: Fire-Protected Storage for Records and Chemicals, Flame Extinction and Combustion Supression, Flammable Liquids, and Flammabilitv Characteristics of Combustible Gases and vapors. Of these subsections the second and third have general applicability, hut the first subsection is limited to management or engineering considerations and the last subsection is theoretical in nature and not strictly applicable to undergraduates and laboratory laborers. To assign the whole section as a training assignment is Unrealistic. Moreover, even in the useful subsections some streamlinine could be accomolisbed to give guidance to the speciiic cwnmunit).. As examples, the authorized l ~ l storage k Iwarwn(s1 should lhe irlenrif~rd,and ,prcific guidance to students and employees concerning transporting, ventilation, and smoking is required. The language must he simple and unambiguous. While the ideal situation would have all oersonnel trained sufficientlv in chemical ratory personnel, technicians, laborers, students, and even professors creates an unstable situation for safety. Certainly a reading library on safety should he available, and students and professors should be required to read certain oublications (1). However. there is aereat difference in the backeround of each ofthe c l a w s olprr%onnelwhthandlr rhemlcals or uho mfluence the handlmg and discharge of chemical wastes. Indeed, each institution has a responsibility to the eom-
plete range of personnel involved (students, technicians, professors) and to the commu"it.". ----,The responsibility of the drparrment is rituatim nperitic; that is,drpendent irlxm the local conditions. The dcpartmcnull or institutional responsibility depends on the educational range of workers, the community requirements, the type of research or experiments being conducted and other such situational factors. Thus, while many references for safety are available and many standard practices are required (I), it is incumbent upon each department to develop, codify, and promulgate standard procedures for internal dissemination. The institutional Safety Standard Operating Procedures (Safety SOP) can he of great value to the institution. First, the development of the Safety SOP will cause the department to identify, by name, the safety coordinator for the department. Second, the development of a Safety SOP will cause an exhaustive review of current oractiees. Third, a Safety SOP will be educational. Alrhuurh great detail is selfdrfenting, some key c m m e n t s on rationalp for certain procedures is extremely valuable. Fourth, the Safety SOP will he a valuable source of information and reference. Fifth, the Safety SOP will serve as a checklist for self or external evaluation. Sixth, the Safety SOP willcontain the situation specific guidelines for all personnel within the department. The development of a Safety SOP is a comprehensive but rewarding task. The first step is a consideration of topics. Certainly, other more comprehensive safety references (1,5) contain the general topics to be considered. But all tonics need not he covered. For example: Why include a section on radioactive ~ubrtanrerrf them is no current rrquirement7 Why nut just indicate that the topic was considered by containing a section titled, "Radiation Hazards-To Be Published?" Another key point to consider when develooine . .. the Safetv SOP is the wide ranee of the nudirnre. Remember that some knowle d w of disposal is required by all penmnel. ~~
~~
~
~~~
(Continuedon page A312) Volume 57, Number 11, November 1980 / A311
Safety
. ..
is educational for student and laborer alike)
but that it is difficult to insure that all personnel have intimate knowledge of chemical terms such as pH or knowledge of the rationale behind different storage or disposal procedures. Specific instructions are required for each situation. As a guiding principle the comment, "Make no presumptions or assumptions-check" (61, should he included in every Safety SOP. Below is an outline of a Safety SOP that was developed for a department which was primarily focused on undergraduate edueation and had a wide variety of expertise (from common lahorer to PhD with 20 years experience). Also included are some parenthetical comments/suggestians.
Salety SOP ( 6 )
Section Topic A Introduction
Sub-topie General Introduction Containers Contact Lenses Working Alone Emergency Evaluation Alarm
C Handling, Storage and Disposal of Chemicals
classification)
Definition of Terms (Classes of explosives, corrosives, etiological agents, etc.) Corrosives Flammables Explosives Water and Air Reactive Chemicals Oxidizing Agents Personal Protection (What is available?) Handling Procedures (What is available?) Receipt of Shipments (Who is in charge?) Checking and Labeling of Shipments Relabeling Preparations Transporting Chemicals in Bulk (use elevator) Safe Preparation Procedures Refilling Bottles in Lahs and Classrooms
B Chemical
Types of Chemical Hazards (This Hazards (use U.N.
Location of Hazardous Materials for Experiments Clean up of Used Labware Ventilation Spills and Splashes Flammable Liquid Storage Toxic Chemical Storage Reactive Chemicals Acid-Sensitive Chemicals Chemi~alsDisposed of in the Trash Chemicals Flushed Down the Drain Hazardous Chemicals (special disposal requirements) Special Notes D Fire Safety
Fire Extinguishers Fire Alarm Bores Fire Fighting(lfit lasts more than a few minutes-let the experts fight it.) Evacuation (A plan should be available for each room.)
E Mechanical andI Mechanical Safety Physical (Include Safety reproduction (Protection systems.) even secretarial staff here.) Compressed Gas Cylinders F Laboratory Supervision
Initial Lab Briefing Briefing for Individual Experiments Supervision (Layout specific responsibility here.) Clean up and Waste Disposal
G Radiation H Safety Committee (see Ref ( 1 )
Composition Duties
I Education
A312 / Journal of Chemical Education
.,.. "..,
Responsibility for Education of Employees New Departmental Personnel Training (graduate assistants) Safety Lihrary (Where it is and who is responsible for maintaining it?)
J First Aid
K Accidents
Chemicals in the Eye Chemicals on the Body Inhalation of Chemicals Ingestion of Corrosive Chemicals First Aid Kits Reporting Procedures Proper Documentation
While the above is certainly not all inclusive, it is a good example of a Safety SOP written for a specific situation. Copies of the SOP outlined above (less section K) may he obtained from the author.
Literature Cited (11 Kaufman, J. A,. "ssfetyin the Aead~micLaboratori." J. CHEM. EDUC.. 55, AS37 (1976). (21 Sweeney, T . L., "The P e ~ n a Liability i of Chemical Edueatora," Prepared for program on Chemical Ed". c a w OSHAand Lisbility,ACSSan F~aneUeoMeeting, August 30.1976. (31 Bush, D.. J. CHEM. EDUC.. 54A161(1979). (4) "CRCHsndhookof Laboratory Safety." PndEd. (Edifor Steeteetee,N. V.),TheChemiealRubbcrCo,Cievciand, Ohin
(5)
.+Gehin.Academic Lsborstoricad." A P u b E ~ t i tofi the
American Chemical k i e t y , Committee on Chembal Safety, 3rd Ed, August 1373. (61 "SAFETY SOP," Department of Chemiotry. United Statea Military Academy. West Point, Neru York. Jointiyvritton by MAJ J. D. Hapkins (USAR1,Dr. W. D. Loehle, end MAJ G. F. Paiiadino.
Volume 57. Number 11, November 1980 1 AS13
