in the Chemical laboratory Edited by NORMAN V. STEERE, School o f Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., 55455
XXIV. The Establishment of a University Safety William H. Watson, Safety Coordinator, The Florida State University, Tollohassee, Florida
1. Be dumahle and strong enough t o last a student throngh college; 2. Should require no maintenance under ~ ~ o mmael; 3. Should be designed n, that one size will fil, all students. This would be necessary sinco wi1.h a n assortment of sims there would be a n inventory problem; 4, Should be uljncjtable without any special equipment.
aB
feature
Safety in the Chemical Labora. lory for Beginning Students
Eye Protection Program
In Jlme 1965, Florida became the 12th State to pass n bill safeguarding the eyesight of s1.udent.s and fneulty in laboratories srd iihops. The .first Law was passed in Ohio in 1963. Prior to this time, very few universities had a comprehensive eye protertion program. The Bill passed by the Florida Legislature requires that eye protection devices be wurn by every stitdent and teacher in schoolx, ecrlleges snd universities in t,he folluwing rotme.;: ( 1 ) \hr.atinnal or indnslrial art shtjps or Inboratori*~ involving work with Hot, molten metals; Milling, yawing, burning, shaping of any solid mnterids; Heat, treatmenl,, tempering or kiln firing of any met,al or other materials; Weldin#; Cnustir or explosive materials; (2) Chemical or combined chemicalphysical laboratories irivolving caostic or explosive rhemienls or hot, liquids or solid^. I t became lhc job of the Safety Department tu put the program at, Florida State University into operation, Ollr main pmblem we snon learned was the fact that, we xere fared with fourteen separate dopnrtments thnt w d d be irlvulved in the program, each with different requirements. An over-dl safety glasses program would necessnrily require bhal, one xet of rrgdntions he designed t o fit all departments. To make d l particulars of the Bill known and tn establish t h e university's safety glasres program, the Vice Prwident of Academic Affairs held a meeting with t,he I~lendsand Chairmrtnu of all dcp&ments involved. We found that, at a mcet,ing of this aise many questions and details could not he resolved and i t was decided thnt n suhmmmittee of six people he appoint,ed t,o draw up the poliries of an eye aafet,y program. At +,he firsl meetiug of the sub-cammitt,ee it was decided that the eye protect,ion devices must incorporate the fdluwing:
...a
:companies, After esamining samples from several we found that sperlaele-type safety glasses either with or without side shields are the most practical for our use. They are far more comfort,ahlethan plastic covered goggles or viritur's glmses. Mnst important, they are far more durable heesuse t,he glass lens does not scratch as does a. plastic lens. I t was also decided that glasses with adjustable temples wauld relieve us from having a large inventory of many different sizes. Plastic side shields that a u l d be attached t o the spectacle-type safety glasses were chosen since that would allow the d e psrtments t,o buy the separate shields and attach them in those situat.ions where bhey were needed. In many shops and labs on campus, visitor's glasses were heing used a5 eye protection. I t was pointed out that under t h e new Legislation a n y eye pn,t,eetion being worn is required to meet the American Standard Assorirtt~ion22.1 1959 Code.* The questiun of prescription glamei and their cost was raised. I t was felt that this cost would be an added expense m a w students worild find difficult t o meet. Disc~tssionwas then held on t,he mean.; bv which the safet,y glmses wnnld he purchased and made available t,o t,he stodenta. The three alternatives decided upon wore:
1. The Bookstore would pnrehn-e the glawen and nell them tu (lie i~ldividual studenlrj. The Booksl,ore wodd t r y in make some provision far redemption of glasses that rvere in good conditiorr, and resell them to students much in the same manner t h a t they resell books. 2. Student stations-t,he department would buy the glasses and reut them to the students a t $1 a. t,rimest,er. This &ernative would not be preferable sinre it would require the departments I,, handle money. 3. The Department would blly them and require a deposit which would he returned if the glasses were turned in at. end of the trimester in good condition. Copies of the minnten of the meetinr were sent to all department heads and chairmen involved, together with a letter from t,he Safety Coordinator reqrlestil~g them to read rarefdly the suggestion and then decide on the hesl way for the program to he handled iu their departments. * A copy of this Code is avnilnble from American Standard Association, Inc., 10 East 40th Street, New Yark 16, N.Y.
Joint Symposium of the Division of Chemical Education with the Committee on Chemical Safety. ACS Pittsburgh Meeting, Monday, March 28, 1966, 10:30 t o 12:00 a.m. I. Reeognizingand Protecting Agaiurt High Energy Reactions Stuart R. Brinkley, Comber, Pit,tsburgh, Pa. 2. Reragnizingand Protecting Against Toxic .Materials William Reinhart,, U. of Pittsburgh 3. Sources of Chemical Safety Information and Assistance Norman V. Steere, U. of A h nesota 4. School and Department Organina tion for Chemical Safety Ernest I. Beeker. U. of Massachusettn, Boston 5. Changing Aspects of School and Teacher Liability for Laboratory Becidents John E. Evans, Evans, Ivory & Evans, Pittsburgh Another meeting of the committee waq held abo~lta week later. The member of the committee who had been appointed to find out about the prescription gla~ses informed the committee that goggles and face shields worn over prescription gl.zs.ces would meet the Safety Code. He showed the members t,he types of goggles and face shields that wauld meet the standards. I t was the opinion of the members that it would be best t o have some of each type of eye protection, LC., spcctaclca, gaggles and/or face shields available so that (hey could be applied in each situation where needed. Beasuse of distortion and discomfort students who have t o wear prescription glasses many hours a day under goggles or face shields shoi~ld be enconraged to buy presrript,iunsafety glasses. This point brought up the cost of having an eye doctor fill otlt the presrription hlanks t o be sent t o the supplier and it wasuggesled that the local eye doctors bc anoroached t o see if thev wauld comerate . with the nniversity in charging an agreed fee far this service. llembers of the committee now began stating instances in which gla~seswould not he needed in their labs and shops and reqtresting irrformatinn as t o whether thes wohd have to wear them anyway. i t was agreed that the law was specific in that the students must wear safety gla9ses in industrial art shops and clmses where chemicals, acids, gases, molten met,alz, and eanstic or explosive materials arr wed. I t was also stated that the Safet,y (Conlinuedon paw ABB9)
.
Volume 43, Number 3, March 1966
.
/
~~
A227
Safety
...
Office would not be policing departments and that the eye protection program would be the resoonsibilitv of the individual department Lnd that,"therefore, it would he up to each department to decide in which classes safety glasses were needed. After discussion of this point, it was the decision of the members to keep all three distribution alternatives and to let each depart,. ment decide an the best policy for each situation rather than to have a universit,ywide policy. It was decided that the date by which the students would be required to have safety glasses would be the 5th day of the month following the time that glasses were stocked on campus. A definite program was then drawn op and sent out to $1 interested parties under the signature of the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The program stated: All affected departments must insist that students and teachers abide by this new Law. As of the 5t,h of the month following the time that glasses are st,ocked on campus, no students or teachers should he allowed in any affected shop or lnboratory without eye protection. I t is fully realized that one uniform eye safety program would not meet the varying needs of each department and, therefore, several methods and suggestion3 are listed below that may be used by your department. The decision as to the best method will be left to the individual department.
Program suggestions: (1)Primary notices to he given to the students by their laboratory or shop instructor to the effect that as of the 5th day of the month next following av&bility of glasses, no student will be allowed in any shop or laboratory without approved eye protection. Should your depsstment require that the students buy their awn glasses, a supply of glasses should be maintained that could be rented to the forgetful student for 256 for one class or laboratory period. (2) The laboratory or shop instructor should advise the students that the approved eye protection glasses are available at the University Bookstore and that any eye protection, no matter where purchased, must meet the American Standard's Safety Code for eye protection. (3) Students wearing prescription glasses should he advised that they have the following alternatives:
(a) They can get prescription safety gla?ses by taking a special order
with their Rx and send it to the supplier together with the student's check. (b) They can purchase goggles or face shields that will fit over their prescription glasses. (4)
Copies of the Law should be posted (Cmlinued a page A230)
on bulletin boards in all Isburstories and shops that are afieeted. ( 5 ) Postern concerning eye pratecti~n will be made available to all departments. Special signs xt,ating "Caution E~~ PI.". teetion 3'l.lust Be Worn in This Area," should be posted in all afiected areas. Posters will be furnished by the Safety Ikpartment. I t was stressed that the most important, part, of t,he program would be for the inst,rrletorv to educate the st,~~dent,s in the purpose and need for t,he Law. Receipt of t,he order blanks from the departments enabled u s to places. purchase order far glasses. From the time that glasses a t r e stocked in our Ulliversity nookfitare o w eye safety will he mmdatory campus-wide.
Editor's
Note
The Nntionnl Fire Protecbion Association hz?i granted permission to reprint laborabory fire reports which have been publirhed in Fire News and Fire Record Bulletin FR5R-3, "Oaeupaney Fire RecordLahorat,ories." The lat,ter bulletin may he ohtsined for fifty cent,s from theNFPA a t GO Bal terymaroh St., Boston, RIassarhusetts 02113.
A230
/
Journal of Chemical Education
EXPLOSIONS
frieeratnr. ienited the refricerator insula-
A which had supposedly been improved to provide some protection was ruined by a mild explosion in a polymerization research lsbul.at,,ry. The volatile materials stored in the refrig. errttor either reacted with each other or vapors were ignited hy sparks from electrical equipment that had been left in the refrigerator. The watchman, though hearing no explosion, saw fire as he passed the lahora tory. The fire was confined tc, the refrigerator and the surrounding floor, though the building was protected by an autumatic alarm system and a sprinkler system, prompt discovery of the fire by the watchman and prompt use of a rnrbm dioxide extinguisher extinguished the fire befClre either the sprinkler or alarm system operated.
Laboratory glassware, supplies and insbruments as well as some of the light fixtures were broken. Four automatic sprinklers within the area extinguished most of the fire. The remaining smoldering insulation was ext i w i s h e d with a pail of water.
November 23, 1956, Cambridge, Ma~~achusetts--$10,000
A placed Open of plastic material in the nrrmplosion-proof, household type refrigerator, Flammable from the Open accumulated in the refrigerat'or and exploded that ningu'hen the temperature eontrrd "parked. 'lo One was in the laboratory. The refrigeratur was demdished; 13 plain windows were sma~hed; 2 metal sash windows were distorted; ~~~~~t 20, 1957, R ~ ~ J , ~yo,k ~ ~ wooden ~ ~ , benches, laboratory hood, desks, chairs, wiring, doorsu.ere damaged; labura$3000 tory intruments, glarsu%re, reagents, and An explosiun in an ordinary, nonesresearch test equipment were destrwed. plosion-proof refrigerator involved vapors Smoke damage extended to several other coming from 24 beakers, esrh containing laboratories and the hallway. Fire de150 ml of pentane. A cloth towel covered part,ment extinguishment wad prompt and the beakers. After the concentration of efficient. vapors entered the explosive range for pentane (1.5-7.8% of volume) t,hey were February 27, 1950, Newton, Massoignited by a. spark from the exposed elerchureM-$5000 trical temperature control located inside Vapors from flammable liquids (ether the ~drigerztor. (Conlint~erlon page .1#32) The explosion badly damaged the re-
Safety
...
and benzene) in open beaker8 in an 8 cu f t nonexplosion-proof, household type refrigerator exploded in a research chemistry lahnri~turyin the baqement of t,he 4 story fire-resistive building. A sparking contact, on a thermostatic control in the refrigerator was the probable igniting source. Explosinn damage to the refrigerator, windows and glassware comprised most of the loss. Neither of the student8 working within the lab was injured. Attempts to extinguish the fire with eavban dioxide extinguishers were thwarted by the heat and chemical fumes. ELECTRICITY
''Electrical mishaps cause the greatest number of laboratory fires. The worst of these fires break down into two groups: (1) wiring and ( 2 )thermostats. "Wi"ng is responsible for fires mainly because of the temporary nature of many laboratory experiments. The NFPA National Electrical Code (No. 70) will provide reasonable protection against wiring faults. "Thermostat-caused fires are due to reliance on a single thermostat. Any thermostatic controlled device in which failure of the thermostat to shut off would cause over-heating should be equipped either with a fsil-ssfe circuit or with a secondary, high temperature cutoff thermostat. Thermostats used when flammable vapors, gases and combustible dusts are present should be of a type design for use in such hazardous locations."
August 22, 1957, Kingston, Ontorio Fire occurred at s. research laboratory when a liquid hydrocarbon with properties similar to gasoline escaped from in. seamless dmwn st~.inless steel piping through which it normally flowed a t 2000 psi and a t between 392 and 572°F. An electric element heater attached to the pipe provided the heat. When flow stopped due to low liquid level in the supply to the piping, the liquid overheated a t the heating element location znd ruptured the steel tubing. The intense fire then immediately broke out in released liquid and destroyed laboratory equipment and plywood paneling. Extinguishment was accomplished in about 15 min with carbon dioxide extinguishers and one hose stream. In addition to the absence of a lowliquid-level dlarm on the supply reservoir to the piping, another serious design weakness on the equipment was the location of the thermostat for the element heater downstream from the heater where it could regulate temperature only if liquid was flowing.
May 15, 1957, End Piffsburgh, Pennsylvoni~$3000 During the night h e broke out a t an electrically heated viscosity tester which wss kept heated continually because of the time required to bring its oil bath up to (Continued on page A B 4 )
Safety
...
temperature. Apparently thermostat failure nllowed the ail in the bath to overheat and eventually ignite. Fire was confined L u the workbench and flammable liquids in beakers by the operation of one sprinkler.
March 21, 1957, Renrselaer, New York-$15.000 Laboratory benches and equipment were damaged by a. fire that broke out on a wooden lab bench during the night. Failure of the thermostat on an incubator sitting on the bench was the prabrtble cause. In the absence of sprinklers the fire was not immediately detected and controlled. I t had spread to several beakers oi alcohol, xylene and other flammable liquids on the bench and on shelving by the time i t was discovered hy the watchman on his 3 A.M. round. On arrival firemen found fire confined to a relatively small ares, but because of the dense black smoke were forced to fight the fire a t a distance with hoses equipped with nprny ncwSes. The smoke caused addit,ional damage to the laboratory and adjacent corridors.
January 16, 1956, Muskogee, Oklohorn-$50,000 The sixth and seventh stories of the unsprinklered l k t o r y fire-resistive building were badly damaged by fire that started in a, pat,hological laboratory on the sixth floor. Origin was in an unattended lab room some t,ime after a technician had gone into tho room, turned an electrically o p erated incubators and sterilizers and then left the mom. Investigators believe that n short rirruit in one of the appliance cords caused the fire. The cords were draped hehind wooden shelves on whirh records and paraffin blocks were stored. The fire spread out of control on the shelving, hroke plain glass door paneln and spread to the main lah across the hall. Here it hurst fmm sixth-story windows and recntored the building through t,heplain glass seventh-story windows. OPERATIONAL FEATURES
"These case histories show that while Isburatmy mishaps are sometimes the fault of the operator, they often orcur during seemingly innocent operations or on repetit,ions uf proven experiments. Lsboratory management should not rely solely on the prevention of accidents. The need for protection must be recognized and the protection devices planned, installed and maintained. "Cleanliness, an important feature of lab fire safety, applies particularly to hoods and duets!'
Ocfober 3, 1957, Delowanna, New Jersey$2000 In order t o separate crystdls that had been precipitated from benzene, an employee poured the 4 g d mixture from a 7gal glass jar to a. stainless steel vaouum filter. Fire broke out during the opera-
(Cmlinued on page A%%)
A234
/
Journal of Chemical Educafion
Safety
...
tion that severely injured the employee and burned workbenches, broke glassware snd smoked up the lab. Other employees put out the fire on the clothing of the victim with portable carbon dioxide extinguishers. Six sprinklers controlled the fire in the laboratory until it was finally extinguished with dry chemical extinguishers. ~ caused by discharge of The f i was static electricity that accumulated on the vacuum filter during pouring. A grounding wire with clip to ground the filter was available but was not used. August 11, 1951, Columbus, O h i e
$3500 1)uring thr rryntheik 01 hydrornrtwns c,f the cy~lnpmtcneand ryrloprnrnne cries by the Dieckmann reaction an explosion occurred that seriously injured two men and caused damage to the building and laboratory equipment. The first stage of reaction, addition of a dispersion of sodium in toluene to adipic ester dissolved in toluene, had been completed and the second stage, addition of methyl iodide to the reaction flask was in process when an explosion occurred. Apparently the methyl iodide was added too rapidly, musing the reaction mixture to boil so rapidly that the capacity of the reflux condenser was exceeded. Toluene vauors surpnl frcm the rnrderli~rand t w o $ 1 , ~ per, in rhe 3-rrerk tlllsk I nmc Im.ie xllowt~p; some of rhe rcaetirm m\ture, inrluding
A236
/
Journal of Chemical Education
pieces of sodium, to boil over. On being exposed to the air, a piece of sodium on the floor ignited and almost immediately thereafter the toluene vapor-sir mixture in the room exploded (explosive range of toluene is 1.4-6.7% of volume in air). March 22, 1955, West Allis, Wisconsin
$48,000 An explosion occurred in an unsprinkled, latory, 70-ft by 150-ft brick building which had been converted from an automobile sales and senrice agency into a researoh Ishoratory for classified government nuclear energy work. The laboratory supervisor was cleaning the residue of NaK from a steel container (6 in. diameter by 6 ftlong) with kerosene in accordance with established practice. The cylinder exploded. Oftioials believe that water in some way entered the container and reacted with the NaK. Condensation due t o a raoid fall in temperature on the day of the explosion was one possible explanation. October 22, 1947, Lachine Quebec
-$ZOO Explosion of perohloric acid residue in the fume hood caused minor explosion damage and fire that burned chemically coated wood of the fume hood. The hood was used for assaying steels, which involved the use of hot 70% perchloric acid. As perehloric acid fumes were driven off, apparently some of *hem condensed in the fume hood and ducts. 16 is thought that contact of a gas flame with deposits on the
ledge of the window of the hood may have mused the explosion. PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION
"Private fire protection not only includes a laboratory fire program, and portable extinguishers but &xed fire protection systems. These systems go hand in hand with life safety. They protect a laboratory building $1 day, every day, whether the building is in use or not. Water sprinkler systems have the dual advantage of being extinguishing media as well as illarm devices. Automatic alarm systems me designed to give the occupants, as well as the fire fighters, prompt notification. Special hazards can be protected by fixed extinguishing systems of COs, foam or dry powder." May 14, 1958, Cleveland, Ohio--
$1 . 5.000 .
Fire that extensively damaged a product controllaboratory in the fourth story of the 4story fireresistive building demonstrated the need for periodic checks of electrical laboratory equipment, the need for sprinkler protection and the need for watchman tours to take the watchman through the inside of the buildings. Caused by a short circuit of a. laboratory hot plate, the fire involved wooden lab benches, a hood and combustible interior trim and extended through a vent opening to a. wood-joisted false roof that had been erected two feet above the concrete roof deck. An outsider ssw flames coming from fourthstory windows a t 4:30 A.M., an hour after the watchman had passed by the outside of the building on his appointed round.
