Final thoughts on UCLA fatal accident. 1. Chan
ge in
procedure. Go beyond th
e buddy
system (just having another person "somewhere=" in the lab)
when someone has to
handle a particularly dangerous chemical. Have someone watching from a saf
e
distance and ready to act if anything goes wrong. 2. Chan
ge in
attitude. Universities suffer from "intellectual machismo=E2
=80=9D . At least they
did when I was there 25 years ago. It comes from the top (professors): If you are smart enough to be
here,
you are smart enough to figure this out on your own. It comes from the bottom (students): If I am smart enough to be
here, I
am smart enough to figure this out on my own. Get over it, you are there to learn. You are especially there to learn
how to
protect life and limb! Before using a chemical such as tert-butyl lithium, a student sho
uld do a
thorough safety review of an approved procedure with an experienced person
.
For the sake
of
continuing this discussion, I=E2=80=99m leaning on Harry=E2=80=99s side
of the fence (see, we
can agree on some things, Harry). As noted,
prescriptive-based standards are what resulted in OSHA getting slammed
in its
early days- guard rails at specific heights, toilet seats=E2=80=99
dimensions
not to exceed=E2=80=A6. etc, etc (My wife worked for OSHA in =E2
=80=9976- she
quickly went over to the industrial sector) I am, however
, open
to incorporation of Behavior-based compliance language into the
standard; Chemical Hygiene Committees may meet the requirements of
the
standard, but, as with many/ most committees, what gets said around a
conference table doesn=E2=80=99t always get mandated in the laboratory.&
nbsp; A safety
program in an individual laboratory is only
as good as the occupants want it to be. Changing behavi
or is
not easy, and, some will say, near impossible. So, how does a univ
ersity
offer incentive to not only develop but sustain safe laboratory
practices? Administrative example- if the Department Head is
not
on board, why should the PI=E2=80=99s comply? If there are
no
regularly-scheduled departmental meetings in which safety is on the agen
da
EVERY time, then there is no sustainability. If there are no regul
arly
scheduled meetings led by the PI, in which safety procedures are discuss
ed for
the SPECIFIC experiments being conducted, then everyone assumes everyone
knows
safe procedures for working with reactives. It=E2=80=99s all about
communication, and that can be a sensitive topic. (We had a
fire
here due to a researcher=E2=80=99s error in mistaking sodium hydride for
sodium
hydroxide). A new graduate student does not want to appear to be
uninformed on a laboratory technique- this is where senior researc
hers
need to step up- there=E2=80=99s nothing like shared experience as
a training
tool. That line goes far beyond the realms of laboratories.&
nbsp;
(Reading a manual on how to replace pads on disc brakes and having someo
ne
show you how is a perfect example.) As a
performance-based standard, Harry is right that the CHP is direct &
straightforward. What it cannot do is change behavior- unfortunate
ly
that sometimes only happens as a result of fire, explosion, or
death. -Stefan Wawzy
niecki,
CIH, CHMM NRCC-CH
O University of
Connecticut From:<
/SPAN> DCHAS-L
Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Harry Elston Neal et
al.: <
/FONT> I'm goin
g to
fall on the other side of the fence on this one - I don't want to see th
e lab
standard any stronger than what it is. <
/FONT> Personal
ly, 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 regard
ing
CHPs "...capable of protecting employees from the health hazards associa
ted
with hazardous chemicals in that laboratory..." (1450(e)(1)(i))
<
/FONT> Making
the Lab
Standard prescriptive would be counter-productive for safety in the
laboratory. Keeping the standard performance based places the burd
en 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. <
/FONT> H
<
/FONT> <
/FONT> From:<
/SPAN> DCHAS-L
Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of NEAL LANGERMAN Peter
and others =E2=80=93 Unfortuna
tely,
UCLA and the lab had a CHP which satisfied Cal-OSHA. The reason th
at
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.
FONT> 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.
FONT> There are
many
ideas being discussed and this list is a good forum for the
discussion.
FONT> So, how
would YOU
suggest (1) improving the lab standard and (2) getting OSHA to do
it?
FONT> ------------
-------------------------------
--------------------------------------- The infor
mation
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 intende
d
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have receiv
ed
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the
message and deleting it from your computer.
FONT> From:<
/SPAN> DCHAS-L
Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Reinhardt, Peter Kudos to C&a
mp;E
News for this excellent review and analysis. I continue
to be
surprised that there is so little mention of OSHA=E2=80=99s lab standard
or Chemical
Hygiene Plans, and no mention in this article. UCLA is required by Calif
ornia
law to have a Chemical Hygiene Plan, and their internal report (and CalO
SHA
citation) mentions it. Experts in the article discuss the need for
lab-specific risks assessment, policies, procedures and training. The Ch
emical
Hygiene Plan is the tool for all these things. In response to this trage
dy I
think it would be good if ACS DivCHAS worked to strengthen the use and
implementation of laboratory Chemical Hygiene Plans. Pete<
/FONT> Peter
A.
Reinhardt Director, Of
fice of
Environmental Health & Safety Yale<
/FONT>
University 135
College St., Suite 100 New
Haven, CT
06510-2411 (203)
737-2123 peter.reinha
rdt**At_Symbol_Here**yale.edu From:<
/SPAN> DCHAS-L
Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Debbie M. Decker Debbie
<
SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:
46
AM
To:
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L] Article from Chemical and Engineering - very complete
information about UCLA fatality
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:1
4
PM
To:
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L] Article from Chemical and Engineering - very complete
information about UCLA fatalityNEAL
LANGERMAN
ADVA
NCED
CHEMICAL SAFETY, Inc.
7563 CONVOY Ct
SAN DIEGO CA 92111
(858)
874
5577 (phone, 24/7)
(858) 874 8239 (FAX)
www.chemical-safety.com
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:1
0
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
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:3
8
PM
To:
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:
[DCHAS-L] Article from Chemical and Engineering - very complete informat
ion
about UCLA fatality