Laboratory Safety and Inspection Procedures An In-Service Format Bradley Vohe, Supervisor of Science, and Gary E. Dunkleberger, Director of Curriculum and Staff Development Carroll County Board of Education, 55 North Court Street, Westminster, MD 21157 Long ago we learned that students learn science best by active participation or 'doing for themselves" rather than just hearing or reading about it. Although this approach is known to be sound, school systems often fail to use it when they conduct teacher training. Recently, some efforts have been made to extend this direct, hands-on approach to teacher training in laboratory inspection procedures. For us, the idea began several years ago when we decided to train teachers to inspect laboratory facilities as an k wo>kshop that reOSHA inspector would. ~ h training sulted was one that could be easily completed in a half day. It covered the following four topi&: Discussion of Liability Parameters Discussion of Identifieation of General Safety Concerns Lab Inspection Post-Discussionof Laboratory Inspection
ity that they begin to question the worth of lab activities. Obviously, if the discussion ended here, the final result would negatively affect good science teaching, rather than enhance it. As a result, more emphasis was placed on discussing the ways in which science teachers could minimize their liability, while still providing worthwhile laboratory experiences. Less emphasis is placed on the presentation of legal problems. Many of the ideas for minimizing liability were almost common sense in nature. while others reauired chanees in customary teacher practices. In the next section we discuss orocedures and strateeies that teachers could imolement in their own classrooms.
-
-
Safety Procedures and Strategies Consistency in Enforcing Rules
The workshoo orovided teachers with a basic overview of important safeiifactors without becoming too technical in nature. Most im~ortantlv.it eave teachers the o ~ ~ o r t u n i t v to immediately gpply t& information in a laddratory ih which safety hazards had been set up for them to find.
Simply communicating the rules and expectations to both students and their parents is not enough. It is absolutely essential that the teacher consistently enforce all rules. Courts have held that a rule that is not enforced by the teacher is, indeed, not a rule a t all.
Introduction to Liability for Science Teachers In the first portion of the workshop, participants were given a brief overview of teacher liability as it relates to laboratory safety. Then we outlined how individual teachers can fulfill their obligations in their own classroom laboratories.
Safety Contracts
The Obligation of the Teacher To help teachers understand this process, it was pointed out that; on the question of negligt&e, courts base their decisions on the specific facts in each case. A student who suffers harm from a laboratory accident could bring suit against an individual staff member, the administration, or both. Discussion was held concerning the teachers' responsibility to act in the manner of a reasonably prudent s&nce teacher. Although it is the responsibility ofa suing plaintiff to show that ateacher breached the duty to a d with required care, the standard by which this is judged is based upon the "reasonable person rule". A particular legal burden is given to science teachers: to know what potential dangers exist and to avoid them in their actions. Several coqrt rulings were used to illustrate the ways in which science teachers are held responsible to provide proper supervision beyond what is expected of most other teachers. Extensive consideration was eiven to the fact that science teachers must use reasouake and prudent "iudmnent in the selection and execution of laboratorv activities.
-
Recommendations for Minimizing Liability Discussion of legal considerations alone often makes science teachers so apprehensive of their own potential liahil-
A safety contract signed by both the students and their parents is an approach sometimes used by teachers. By signing it, students indicate that they have received, read, and agreed to the safety rules and procedures provided. Although this does not absolve a teacher of anv leeal responsibility resulting from negligence, it does provide an important function. At the very least, i t conveys to both st;dents and their parents that t h e teacher i s serious about the behavior and safety of students in the science laboratory. It also answers any question that may arise later concerning whether students were eiven safety instruction. samples of safety contracts are-available from the Sargent Welch Scientific Company.
-
- -
Mastery of Skill Performance One thing that the teacher can do before students are actually allowed to begin working on laboratory experiments is to ensure that all possess a mastery of the basic lab skills that will be required. To do this, a number of stations can he set up around the room where students can practice the required skill until the teacher passes them on it. Such an approach helps to document that a student knew how to oerform a eiven task. thus makine a charee of teacher neiligence more difficuit. At the s&e time,-it provides for better instruction because students have the basic lab skills as they begin each lab during the rest of the year. Cognitive Testing By their very nature, there are many safety rules and practices that do not easily lend themselves to being assessed in the laboratory Teachers should also wnsider givVolvme 69 Number 2 Februaly 1992
147
ing students a written test that covers these types of expectations. Students who fail to demonstrate a minimum proficiency score (perhaps 90%)should he required to r e t k e the test until they are able to do so. Teachers should retain copies of these tests for the remainder of the year, so that they are available should the need arise. I n this way three things can be shown: The student received proper instruction in laboratory safety. The student demonstrated a high degree of understanding. The teacher had fulfilled this fundamental responsibility.
Late-Entering Students
While teachers may do all these things with students early in the s c h ~ oyear, l it is just a s important to provide the same information to the students who were absent then or who enrolled later in the school year. Courts have held that teachers are not excused from responsibility due to the late entry or absence of a student when safety material was covered. Although providing this information to late-entering students may be difficult, teachers must make such an accommodation for their own protection. Unsupervised Activities
Sometimes, perhaps without considering the possible ramifications. teachers allow students to work without supervision. his might happen when the teacher leaves the r w m for 'Sust a minute"-approximately the time required for a n accident to occur. Reasons like getting a ditto or going to the bathmom may be important, but the practice can never be excused. When leaving a lab, only a qualified professional should be used to cover the class. However, "unsupervised activity" can also have other meanings: having a student lab aide prepare chemicals awav from the teacher and not under the teacher's direct supervision; or allowing students to work on a make up lab activitv on their own after school. Manv l e d actions have resulted from students being left alone to complete worthwhile laboratorv activities without direct teacher suoervision. Such actibns leave the teacher defenseless &odd harm occur.
-
Prelab Safety Discussion
Even after students have received safety information early in the year and have demonstrated their understanding of it, teachers still have the responsibility to alert students to potential safetv hazards before each lab. I t can never be assumed that students are aware of the chemical hazards involved. Hygiene
Because repeated exposure to chemicals can harm people. it is wise to reduce or eliminate exmsure to chemicals. &&hers should ensure that procedu>es are designed to minimize such exposure to students. The simplest rule for students would be "Don't let chemicals get on you or in you." To facilitate this, the following practices were suggested. Require that students wash their hands after every labara-
"-.,.
tn*..
Require students to wear approp"ate protective coveringeither lab coats or aprons. Prohibit students from eatine. -. drinkine. -. or even chewine gum while in the lab area. Do not allow students to apply makeup in the laboratory area. Require students to wear proper footwear that provides adequate coverage in the event of chemical spills (no sandals or opened-toed shoes). Require students, both boys and girls, to restrain their long hair to prevent possible problems. 148
Journal of Chemical Education
Safety Eyewear
Eye protection should be worn a t all times in the laborat o j . &ggles should be splash-proof and able to withstand H frontal impact. ANSI standards are generallv referenced in most state laws related to eyewear-requirements. Eyewear should fit snugly around the face and have air vents with a plastic domed cap to prevent liquid chemicals dripping downinto the eye chamber in the event of a n accident. Consequently, plastic-frame glasses are not to be recommended and may, indeed, be illegal by many state laws. Where state law does permit use of regular eyeglasses, only those stamped "287" should be considered shatterproof. Contact Lenses
Both hard and soft contact lenses can make it nearly impossible to rinse chemicals away if they are splashed into the eye. In addition, soft contacts have been found to absorb chemical fumes, thus providing prolonged, continual exposure as the eyes are bathed in a solution of that chemical. To have students remove their contacts is not a s easy a s it might appear because they may then run the risk of eye injury. I t was suggested to teachers that they do three things. Determine at the start of the year which students are affected. Send a letter to their parents, outlining the potential problem and how it will be handled. Then announce labs a day in advance so that students who have re~wlarglassed can wear them. Srudrnriahndonat h a w rrgnlnrglasscsshould be alluwed to work in thc bcsr-ventilored3re3 of the Nan, ~referahl~ in the fume hood. Fire Safety
Fire safety is sometimes a n area not properly addressed by teachers a s they provide students with laboratory safety instruction, but all students need to be wen-versed in safety expectations in this regard. At the very minimum, students should know the following: the procedures to follow in case of fire
the location of all laboratory exits the location and proper operation of the nearest fire extinguisher the location of .the nearest fire alarm the location of the fire blanket Laboratory Safety Inspection
Aprocedure should be established for periodic laboratorv inspections by instructors. An inspection form that focuses upon specific areas of possible concern should be used each ti&e and retained afterward. The purpose of this procedure should be to look systematically and deliberately for problems that might go unnoticed because they had become part of the everyday environment. Consequently, it is not advantageous for individual teachers to inspect their own classrooms. Any hazards or needs that can not be remedied by the individual teacher should be made known to the school administration. If oromot action is not forthcomine. the safety concern s h k d be submitted, in writing, to b z h the science su~ervisorand buildine administration. Usuallv. ..a written statement of need produces action. More importantly, however, with a written statement, the individual teacher rightfully transfers responsibility for these problems to the school administration.
-
General Safety Concerns and Procedures Following the liability discussions of the workshop, appropriate time was spent identifying specific safety con-
cerns for the science teachers. Unfortunately, the formal training of science teachers neglects the entire question of classroom safety. Due to this lack of information, science teachers have often fallen into a false sense of security. This false sense is often compounded by the fact that a teacher may have frequently used some questionable practices over many years without experiencing a problem. When this sense of security is broken, a s teachers begin to comprehend their own liability, they often feel a t a further loss due to inadequate training in safe practices for school laboratories. During these safety discussions many questionable activities were identified and discussed. Pmbably the most difficult fact for manv science teachers to face is that some of their "favorite" demonstrations or practices are not considered safe. and thus thev are no longer appropriate. For example, labs using w h i t e ~ h o s p h o r u s ; s o d i ~potassium, ~, or potassium chlorate probably have no useful place in high school science classes, given considerations of safety. Although interesting, these activities bring with them inherent safety problems and are not worth the risk of accidents. Some of the other areas of concern identified during the discussions included: ~
hazardous chemicals present in certain biological stains (For example, Million's reagent contains concentrated nitric acid and mercury.) the use of formaldehyde in preserving specimens the use of alcohol burners in the laboratory +thestorage of chemicals with other, incompatible chemicals .the use of highly toxic or carcinogenic chemicals like benzene, carbon disulfide, trichlaroethylene, etc. t h e storage of chemicals in an exhaust hood storingchemicals in alphabetical order rather than in family groupings
Laboratory Inspection After the group discussions, teachers participated in a laboratory inspection. Teachers were asked to use the information discussed in the previous session to identify safetv violations in the laboratorv. This was the most crucial portion of the training, and p&ticipants indicated that thev valued this ort ti on of the . promam the most. I n fact, in every case i t was a pleasant surprise to see the high level of interest and the professional manner participants displayed during the laboratory inspections. Both a chemistry classroom and a biology classroom, with adjoining storage areas, are required for this lab inspection. Forty inspection sites can be establishedin these classrooms and storage areas, with a maximum of four safety violations a t each site. Teachers were randomly paired and assigned to different stations a s their starting points for the inspection. This eliminated congestion and promoted a n improved academic atmosphere for the inspection. Inspectors were asked not to touch or alter any of the displayed apparatus or to open any closet doors located a t the station. Should this occur, the control fador of the inspection would be compromised. Any participants that followed would then observe "new" violations. In one case, these requests were not followed. By the time the later groups passed through the station, one safety hazard had been eliminated, while another was created a t a different station. Unfortunately, in most host schools the inspection sites were all too easily generated. I t was oRen quite easy to orovide teacher inspectors with a wide range of safety hazards because they already existed in the room. I t became more a matter of simply finding them and placing stations a t the site. The unsafe situations found most often were
broken goggles or goggles that do not meet ANSI standards unlabeled containers of chemicals incompatible chemicals placed together chemicals not recommended for use in the high schools (e.g., ether, benzene, mercury, etc.) paar housekeeping and residues of chemicals on countertops .combustible chemicals not properly stored in a flammable cabinet food in the laboratory prep area or refrigerator lack of a fire blanket emergency showers not working master valves for gas lines not available for immediate shut offin the event of an emergency fume hoods that were poorly located or not in working order safety showers or eyewashes absent or not working a large inventory of chemicals that could not be justified by the amount needed to run a science program chemicals stored beyond their expiration date chemicals stored in bottles lvine -~~ . on their sides rusty clmtamrrs of mar?ndli chemicals stored nlph.&tirally, thus allowmg incompntihles to he stored near each other hares placed hrjidr sclds or oxidizrrs placed near orgnnirs chemical sturuw shelves that lack the lips needed to prevent bottles from b&g knocked from the shelves bottles of liquids stored on top shelves, thus making their removal dangerous bottles of acid not sitting in plastic trays that would contain the liquid in the event of accidental breakage .boxes of materials stored on top of cabinets and within a short distance of the ceiling that would prevent the proper operation of the sprinkling system improperly caged animals that could injure students no fire extinguisher burner hoses that were either missing or taped accumulation of bottles of chemical wastes poor security in the laboratory area -
.
~~~~~~
~
-
~
.
Post-Discussion of the Laboratory Inspection Activities After the laboratorv insoection, teachers discussed their observations and reactions to the inspection experience. As they related the in-service experience to their daily practice, they found that a teacher's task in the matter of safety can be described in simple terms. Summarily, teachers must identify the existence of a safety problem, determine what can be done about it, and then do it. When indiv~dualteachers are unable to correct a safety hazard because it requires an action or a remedy from the srhool administration, they should not hesitate in putting the concern in writing to both the principal and supervisor. Bv takine that action. the teacher not onlv informs the adGnistraLr, but also transfers responsibhity to that individual, should it remain uncorrected. ?
-
Summary Courts have altered the role of the science teacher. This role means the continued uoerading of safetv . exoectations . and the elimination of experiments that may contain hazards not worth takine. This half day of training provided teachers with a n und&tanding of some of the &re common safety problems found in their own classrooms. The success of the workshop could be measured by the fact that teachers went back to their own classrooms, found safety hazards, and corrected them. Hopefully, the workshop changed the very way these teachers approached the wholeissue of laborat& safety. Teachers are not exempt from legal responsibility for damages occurring from their own judgment errors &
-
Literature Cited
Volume 69 Number 2
February 1992
149
