text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1


Hi Harry and All:
  I agree with what Harry has said.  It don't believe that the problem
centers on the lack of rigor in the standards.  The problem, it seems to
what I have seen, is that they are not utilized as they should be. 
Accountability is absent many times.

  Before increasing the strength of the standards, we need to figure out
how to enforce - encourage academics to use them.  I would hope that a
community of educators could somehow be educated to know that they need
to be policing themselves so that the proper approach is shown to the
students. That hope being stated, I think everyone needs a system to
keep them honest and their practices relevant.  I think this will take a
combination of education of adminsitrators/faculty/staff on their "duty
of Care", as well as sticks and carrots.
Ed Miller

On Tue, August 4, 2009 7:46 am, Harry Elston wrote:
> Neal et al.:
>
>
>
> I'm going to fall on the other side of the fence on this one - I don't
> want
> to see the lab standard any stronger than what it is.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that Cal-OSHA missed the boat on this one and the lab
> standard is fine as it's written.  There is far enough teeth in the
> statement regarding CHPs "...capable of protecting employees from the
> health
> hazards associated with hazardous chemicals in that laboratory..."
> (1450(e)(1)(i))
>
>
>
> Making the Lab Standard prescriptive would be counter-productive for
> safety
> in the laboratory.  Keeping the standard performance based places the
> burden
> of safety squarely where it should be:  Front-line management, or in this
> case, the PI.  A prescriptive plan places the safety burden on "The Safety
> Guy/Gal" who has to go around and look to insure that every jot and tittle
> of the standard has been met.
>
>
>
> H
>
>
>
>
>
> From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of
> NEAL LANGERMAN
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:14 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Article from Chemical and Engineering - very
> complete
> information about UCLA fatality
>
>
>
> Peter and others -
>
> Unfortunately, UCLA and the lab had a CHP which satisfied Cal-OSHA.  The
> reason that there is little mention in the UCLA discussion of the Lab
> Standard and related is that UCLA is a good example of the standards
> weaknesses.
>
>
>
> Any yes, it would be great to strengthen 1910.1450 and there are
> discussions
> along those lines, but that takes changing an existing OSHA standard.  Not
> easy.
>
>
>
> There are many ideas being discussed and this list is a good forum for the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> So, how would YOU suggest (1) improving the lab standard and (2) getting
> OSHA to do it?
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential
> and
> protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended
> recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message
> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
> you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>
> NEAL LANGERMAN
> ADVANCED CHEMICAL SAFETY, Inc.
> 7563 CONVOY Ct
> SAN DIEGO CA 92111
> (858) 874 5577 (phone, 24/7)
> (858) 874 8239 (FAX)
> www.chemical-safety.com 
>
>
>
> From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of
> Reinhardt, Peter
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:10 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Article from Chemical and Engineering - very
> complete
> information about UCLA fatality
>
>
>
> Kudos to C&E News for this excellent review and analysis.
>
>
>
> I continue to be surprised that there is so little mention of OSHA's lab
> standard or Chemical Hygiene Plans, and no mention in this article. UCLA
> is
> required by California law to have a Chemical Hygiene Plan, and their
> internal report (and CalOSHA citation) mentions it. Experts in the article
> discuss the need for lab-specific risks assessment, policies, procedures
> and
> training. The Chemical Hygiene Plan is the tool for all these things. In
> response to this tragedy I think it would be good if ACS DivCHAS worked to
> strengthen the use and implementation of laboratory Chemical Hygiene
> Plans.
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> Peter A. Reinhardt
>
> Director, Office of Environmental Health & Safety
>
> Yale University
>
> 135 College St., Suite 100
>
> New Haven, CT   06510-2411
>
> (203) 737-2123
>
> peter.reinhardt**At_Symbol_Here**yale.edu
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Debbie M. Decker
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:38 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: [DCHAS-L] Article from Chemical and Engineering - very complete
> information about UCLA fatality
>
>
>
> http://pubs.acs..org/cen/science/87/8731sci1.html
> 
>
>
>
> Debbie
>
>

Edward J. Miller, Ph.D.
Chairperson and Professor of Chemistry
SUNY Plattsburgh

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post