- High School Chemistry Safety Survey Edward G. Senkbeil Salisbury State University, Salisbury, MD 21801 The continuing discoveries of more hazardous properties of chemicals, the environmental problems of hazardous chemical storage/disposal, and the increasing possibility of liability for negligence in instructing science safely have made science teachers increasingly safety conscious. A com~rebensivesafety training.. program for prospective chemis&/science teachers, however, has not been considered a high priority in the past. In a survey of 272 academic institutions in the United States in 1984, only 2%required a safety course for chemistry majors.' Students commonly graduate with bits and pieces of safety training from their laboratory experiences. In the same survey1, 26 respondents of the 50 state departments of education that are responsible for teacher certification had no safety training requirements and a ~~ v r~ o ~ r i atraining te was done a t the college level. . ~felt -Student aiiitudes toward safety (in the school laboratory, in the home. and at their future workplace) can be greatly affected hy their high school chemistry experiences.?Therefore. it is imvortant that chemistry teachers he appropriately trained insafety. T o determine the level of need for safety training, and the present status of safety in the high school chemistry class, 18 local area high schools were visited, and the chemistry teachers were surveyed. I t was felt that more pertinent information about teachers' attitudes, needs, and questions concerning safety could be obtained in this manner, rather than through a mail-out survey. The 18 high schools were on the predominantly rural Delmama Peninsula (two Delaware,. three Virginia, and 13 Maryland high schools). This is the immediate area near Salisbury State University, which is considering the possibility of offering safety training proerams for area science teachers. Each safety survey took approximately 1.5 to 2 h, and consisted of a survey of the lahoratorvand stockroom, and a discussion with the chemistry teach&). ~
~
-
Laboratory Safely Equlpment Survey Results of the laboratory safety equipment survey are given in Tahle 1. Safety showers and eye washes were usually found to be accessible and clearly marked. Routine testingof this eoui~ment.however. was not usually performed. A con~-~~~ cem 02 skveral chemistry teachers was that, although their lab had shower and eve wash facilities, often biology labs in their school did not. safety goggles were required by all the chemistry high school teachers surveyed. Sanitizing cabinetdfacilities for the goggles were not present in 39%of the chemistry labs. Chemistry teachers were concerned about the containment of accidents in their labs. Master gas shut-offs were found in 83% of the labs, while 28% had master electrical shut-offs. Most electrical shut-offs were in an electrical breaker box some distance down the hallway, making i t difficult to shut down electricity quickly in an emergency. Spill kits (either manufactured or teacher prepared) were found in 39% of the labs surveyed. Although most high schools have mercury, few had kits to appropriately handle a spill. Only a few had some form of absorbent (spill bags, vermiculite. kittv litter) to contain a maior spill. Although most high schoois do not handle large volumes of chemicals, spill kits provide an additional safety precaution and can ~
410
~
Journal of Chemical Education
Table 1. Laboratory Safety Equlpment Survey ( % of 18 schwls surveyed) YES
NO
1. An appropriate eye wash station is in working order. 2. There is a safety shower in lhe lab. 3. Students are required to wear safety gaggles. (ANSI approved). 4. Goggles are sanitizedldisinfected between labs. 5. There are appropriate fire extinguishers in the lab. 6. There is a master gas shutdff valve in the lab. 7. There ise masterelectrical cut-off switch in the lab. 8. Firstaid kit is available in the lab. 9. There Is an approved fire blanket present in the lab. 10. An enclosed fume hwd Is present in the lab. 11. Glass safety shields are available far demonstrations. 12. Spill kits are availablein the lab. 13. Fire alarm procedures are posted and exits marked. 14. There are separate waste Containers for broken glass.
also be used t o teach students about the chemistry of cleanup procedures. Although 67%of the chemistry teachers had first-aid kits in their labs, it is generally the school policy to send the student directly to the nurse (if present a t the school) or directly t o the principal's office. This policy is due to the risk of untrained teachers being liable for any first-aid administered. First-aid and CPR training have been sporadically offered to the teachers surveyed but are not science teacher reauirements. ~ u m hoods e (stationary or portable) were found in 94%of the chemistry labs. Most chemistry labs had one hood (approximately 2- X 3-ft work area), and its most common use was for demonstrations. Generally, the number of student labs done under the hood was minimal because of lack of space and the teacher's desire not to use extremelv hazardous materials. Chemlcal StockroomlStorage Survey Tahle 2 shows the results of the stockroom/storage survey. A major concern of the teachers is the proper ventilation of the chemical stockroom. There was a separate ventilation system for air removal in 33% of the stockrooms surveyed. The others were thought t o be vented with the rest of the school's air flow system. In 33%of the schools surveyed, the chemical preparation room was part of the stockroom, al-
' Pesta. S.; Kaufman. J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 63.A242-A247.
Marsick, D. J.; Thornton, S. F. J. Chem. Educ 1 9 8 8 , 6 5 . 4 4 8 - 4 4 9 .
Table 2.
Chemical Slockroom/Sloraas S u m r (% of 18 schools surveyed) . . Yes NO
1. The smckroom has a separate 2. 3.
4. 5.
6. 7. 6.
ventilating system. The stockroom has a firelsmoke alarm system. The chemicals are in alphabetical ordw (otherthan acids, bases, and org. solvents). Appropriate flammables cabinet is being used. Appropriate acids cabinet Is being used. Stockroom shelves have rafety lips. Stockrwm IS locked and not generally available to students. Stockrwm has a water sprinkler
33 56 (11% unsure) 28 72
28
72
56
44
39
61
6
94
78
22
39
61
though it was not commonly used for preparations because of poor ventilation. Air flow was not measured in this survey. Excluding large hottles of acids, bases, and organic solvents. 28% of the teachers surveyed used alphabetical ordering f i r the chemicals. The ordering procedure most commonlv used by the other 72% is some form of the Flinn pn&dure found in their annual safety products catalog.' Flammable cahinets were found in %%of the labssurveyed, although sometimes a variety of chemicals such as acids, bases, and oxidizers were also found in them. Acid cabinets were found in 39%of the labs, hut acids such as acetic arid and nitric acid were often intermixed with the other strong acids. Schools in countiesfdistricts without hazardous waste disposal programs (see discussion below) have a variety of old and unwanted chemicals on their shelves. Teacher Questlonnalre/Survey
Table 3 is the tabulated results of the teachers questionnaire on a variety of safety topics. Although all three states in which high schools were surveyed have teacher safety manuals, only 67% of the chemistry teachers were aware of them and had them available. While annual fire equipment inspections by the fire marshal are common, routine laboratory inspections within the school system occur in only 28% of the schools surveyed. Teachers directly involved with these routine insoections have found them to be helpful in maintaining a safer working environment. The Hazard Communication/Right to Know Program has been explained in some form to 61% of the teachers contacted, with roughly half of these receiving formal training. A chemical inventory list was maintained by 89%of the schools surveyed, and these were generally a requirement of the county/district school system. Approximately one-half (56%) of the teachers surveyed were aware that a file of MSDS is available to them and ~enerallyhoused a t .- . - - sheets . -- each school or a t the county school admihistrative office. The chemistrv teachers surveved are genuinely interested in teaching safety to their students and-commonly incorporate safety lectures/programs a t the beginning of each academic year. Most teachers (72%) have students sign a form indicatine that they have been made aware of laboratory safety procedures and policies. Teachers commonly incorporated safe laboratory practices in their prelah discussions. The majority of teachers felt that students are interested in safety. Some teacher suggestions to increase student enthuFllnn Scientific Inc. ChemlcalCatalog/ReferenceManual; 1989. *Gerbvich. J. A.; Miller. J. J. Chem Educ. 1989, 86. 433-434.
( % of 18 schools surveyed)
1. Stale safety manual is available to teachers. 2. Routine laboratory Inspections are mandatory. 3. Safety workshopslupdate safety programs are of high priaity in your county schwl system. 4. Hazard Communication Program has been explained to teachers. 5. A chemical inventory iiR is maintained and updated. 6. MSDS sheets are on file and readily available to teachers. 7. A written student safety policy is explained to students and signed by them. 8. Accident reports are maintained by the teacher. 9. Chemical orders handled lhraugh one individual. 10. New science personnel required to go throuqh safety training prqlram. 11. List of hazardous ~ h a m l ~ ~ l ~ . (recommended not to be used in high school labs) Is available. 12. A hazardo~swaste management policy is M t up and functioningat
YES
NO
67
33
28
72
44
56
61
39
89
11
56
44
72
28
94
6
72
28
11 72 (17% unsure) 94
6
28
72
+haschnnl
siasm toward safety were t o give personal accounts of accidents or near accidents and to allow students to do short skits demonstratine safetv m l e s Accident reverts are commonly not kept by ieacheis but are maintain& by the nurse 's or ~ r i n c i ~ a loffice. only i8% of the chemistry teachers surveyed indicated that their countv/district school svstem had a hazardous waste management program. This implies some form of policv in which unwanted stock chemicals and hazardous wastes &e periodically (every 6 months to 2 years) picked up and properly disposed. In the other 72% of schools, roughly half of the schools have had a one-time removal of unwanted chemicals during the past eight years, while the others have had no major removal program. As seen in this visitation, this allows a variety of old and outdated chemicals, (both hazardous and nonhazardous), t o remain in some high school stockmoms. Disposal of hazardous waste chemicals (by a waste disposal company) is an expensive project, and this appears to be one of the major reasons why some counties have no waste manaaement oroaram. Coordination and consolidation of waste-disposal activities among many schools (as receutlv comdeted in Iowa) has been shown to reduce the cost by a s much as 70%.4 This survey suggests that high school chemistry teachers are safety conscious and are generally interested in safety training a t various levels. Listed are six major areas of concern in which teachers expressed an interest for safety training. 1. General overview of science safety in the school setting, including
designing a school safety program. This was requested by teachers with minimal safetv trainine backeround or exoeriences.
3. ~ e & aspectsol l safety. k ' h i are teachers ijable for9 4. Pn,prr vrntilation in the science rlassromdlaboramry. A small perrenmgr of the lahoratorirs !,isired had a direct power vent for the room. Most teachers rely on opening windows to improve
ventilation problems.
Volume 68
Number 5 May 1991
411
Development of a hazardous waste management program. This includes coverage of what is defined as hazardous, ways of minimizing or redueine the amount of hazardous chemicals. and oron. . r r storn~eldiap~ssl of halardnus waves. 6. Suhat~tutitmsf
