Resources - Safety Info

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From November 1996 issue of ‘Crucible’ Volume 28.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the last decade, a pressing issue that has been hotly debated and discussed among science teachers in Ontario, and for that matter, throughout North America, has been the often contentious reactions to Board implemented bans and restrictions on the use of certain chemicals. The purpose of this article is to explore some of the issues that surround these bans and restrictions.

As science teachers, and members of the STAO Safety Committee, we are acutely aware of the implications of such bans and restrictions. They obviously have an impact on what sorts of teacher demonstrations and student lab activities can be done. As well, in this era of increased litigations, they introduce potentially career-threatening implications for science teachers should non-compliance result in a negligence claim. At the outset, it is important that we state the position of the STAO Safety Committee.

• Belief 1 - Student experimentation is central to modern science education.
• Belief 2 - Proper attitude, knowledge, and common sense regarding safety must be practiced by both teachers and students.
• Belief 3 - The teacher must ensure that students understand the potential dangers inherent lab settings, and in the specific lab activities they engage in.
• Belief 4 - Hazardous experiments should not necessarily be removed from the curriculum, but they should be made safer so that the risk is reduced.
• Belief 5 - The opportunity to instruct students on the proper use of hazardous materials usually outweighs by far the false sense of security we gain by banning them.
• Belief 6 - Informed science teachers should decide which chemicals have associated risks that are so great they outweigh the educational value of the chemical's use.

With these principles in mind, we set out to discover which chemicals are banned or restricted in a variety of jurisdictions. From this compilation, we have identified several problematic issues and have suggested a future direction.

The Data

Lists of banned and restricted chemicals were obtained from nine Ontario school Boards, from both urban and rural areas. We also obtained similar lists from British Columbia and the United Kingdom. Some examples of banned and restricted chemicals are shown below.

Banned

Restricted

Even this short sampling (from our list of 115 chemicals) illustrates many of our concerns regarding bans and restrictions. Some Ontario Boards had quite extensive and comprehensive lists, whereas others had very short lists. As well, there was remarkable similarly between several of the Ontario Board lists which, at face value, suggests a strong degree of agreement between the two jurisdictions. On closer examination, it becomes obvious that one of the Boards relied heavily on the document of the other, even citing it as a major reference.

Concern 1: Macro versus Micro

In Ontario, each school Board has produced its own list of banned and restricted chemicals (although there is currently an increase in collaboration among several urban Boards), while both British Columbia and the U.K. have one official document that applies to the entire geographic area. In fact, the British Columbia and U.K. lists are quite comprehensive in their breadth and depth and provide information about the dangers of each chemical regardless of whether it carries the designation of being banned or restricted. Few of the Ontario lists can make the same claims, but for good reason. It takes a tremendous amount of energy and dedication by a group of people (typically science teachers) to generate such chemical lists. Thus, it should not be surprising that the breadth and depth of Ontario lists vary widely, nor should it be surprising when one Board's list is almost entirely adopted by another Board.

Concern 2: Banned versus Restricted

Ideally, Boards would ban chemicals that violate safety belief #6 and restrict chemicals that are consistent with the spirit of safety beliefs #4 and #5. Several of the chemical lists from Ontario Boards comprised only banned chemicals, and did not even use the "restricted chemical" designation. Our survey indicates that there is broad agreement about the designation of some chemicals (e.g. benzene and benzoyl peroxide), general trends about the designation of some others (e.g. carbon disulfide and carbon tetrachloride), but little agreement about the designation of some others (e.g. liquid bromine and calcium hydride). What is really needed is a clear criterion for designating chemicals as banned or restricted, and this requires leadership and direction from the Ministry of Education and Training, rather than having this exercise done on a Board by Board basis.

Concern 3: Breadth of Lists

It is worrying that there is lack of agreement by different Boards on the proper designation of certain chemicals. In the case of benzene, for example, six Boards banned its use. Why did this substance not appear on the lists of the other three Boards? Was it because they deemed its use to be acceptable, or was it because this chemical had been overlooked? There is a real issue to be addressed, in that different Ontario Boards have apparent lack of consistency regarding the appropriateness of certain chemicals for use in the classroom

Concern 4: Depth of Lists

From some Boards, the list of banned chemicals comprised 20 or so chemicals, without any rationale for their inclusion. In other cases, very detailed documents have been produced that identify the hazards associated with each chemical (not just those that are designed as banned or restricted). Some Boards chose to include National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) chemical safety information (which uses the four-coloured diamond as a means of conveying health, flammability, reactivity, and special case dangers on a 0-4 scale). Of course, it should not be surprising to know that in some cases, there is even disagreement about the NFPA values for a given chemical (which is probably due to differences among chemical suppliers). None of the lists from any jurisdiction made any suggestions regarding safer alternative chemicals that could be used. If the educational value of certain student lab activities and teacher demonstrations is not in question, then we need to look for alternatives that do not have the associated risks present in the banned chemical.

Conclusion and Recommendations

We recognize that raising these concerns regarding banned and restricted chemicals may rekindle some of the vociferous debates surrounding the issues. It is important to bring these concerns to light because we live in an age where someone can successfully sue a company because they spill the company's hot coffee in their own lap. More important, the concerns that have been raised clearly point to the importance of leadership and direction that can only come from the Ministry of Education and Training. Each school Board should not have to repeat the process of developing a comprehensive list of chemicals, identifying their dangers, designating some of the chemicals as banned or restricted, and making suggestions regarding safer alternatives. This Board by Board approach currently applies to the creation of laboratory emergency and safety procedures as well. The Ministry of Education and Training needs to make a commitment to providing much more leadership in this area of health and safety. The development of a comprehensive Safety Manual, that states a uniform policy for all school Boards and science teachers of Ontario, would seem to be long overdue.

References

The Association for Science Education (1988) Topics in Safety. London: ASE. pp. 50-62.

British Columbia Ministry of Education (1990) Science Safety Resource Manual. Victoria: Province of British Columbia.