edned by
MALCOLM M. RENFREW UniversiQ of Idaho
.
M s m w . Idaho 83843
Impressions of Safety in Universities in the United States of America Dick Bush Universitv Safetv Adviser and Radiation Protection Officer ~niversi6of ~i;min~ham, Birmingham 6 15 ZTT, England
During summer 1976, I visited the U.S.A. for six weeks on a Winston Churchill Travelling Fellowship to examine safety arrangements and procedures in teaching, research, and medical establishments. The U.S.A. was selected because an Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA) came into operation there in April 1971, and one object of my visit was to assess the impact of that Act.
Leglslation OSHA is similar in purpose to the U.K.'s Health and Safety a t Work Act (HSWA) which came fully into operation on 1st April 1975. One important difference though is that under OSHA each state has the option of submitting its own safety plan far approval
Dick Bush. Safety Adviser and Radiation Protection Officer a t the University of Birmingham, England, graduated a t the University of Durham, England in 1953, receiving a B.Sc. in Physics. After working for sir years on microwave devices, he moved into the safety field, initially being mainly concerned with radiation safety a t nuclear power stations, gaining both design and operational experience. In parallel with this, he gradually beeame more involved in general safety, and in 1972 took on his present post a t the University of Birmingham, having joined that establishment in 1966 as Radiation Protection Officer only. Mr. Bush is a member of various professional societies concerned with safety in the U.K., and is theauthor of a number of papers on radiation and general safety. In 1976 he succeeded in obtaining a Winston Churchill Travelling Fellowship which allowed him to visit the U.S.A. to carry out the study reported in this paper.
hy the federal authorities, whereas in the U.K. no such option is available to counties under HSWA. A similarity between the two Acts is that legal proceedings cannot be brought against "Crown property'' in the U.K. under HSWA, and that OSHA is not enforceable in federal or state-owned establishments in the U.S.A. Bath OSHA and HSWA are broad enabling Acts with no detailed technical content. In the U.K. the technical requirements appear in regulations and codes of practice issued under HSWA. whereas in the U.S.A. rhey appear in the Federal Kryisrrr. Anorher similar~tybetween the A ~ t ris that nrithw roncerns melf directly with the saietg of students
Establishments Visited Visits were made t o universities covering a size range of 6,500 to 40,040 students, some are private and others are state financed, and some give emphasis t o particular subject areas, e.g., agriculture, engineering, medicine, science, etc. To gain as wide as pmsible an appreciation of safety in the U.S.A., I alsovisited the National Safety Council, the Occupational Safetv & Health Administration. the Depnrtment of Health, Educarion and M'elfnre, Argonnr h'or~onalLnhcmtory, Srarlr Analyrical lnc. rlight industry) and Lukcns Steel Co. (heavy industry). ~
~
Safety Organization in the Universities All theuniversities I visited had radiation protection committees, hut four had no general safety committees and only three had committees soecializine in bio-hazards. Onlv two of rhr un~versitieshad intepatrd safrty organizations with all asprrrsot~a1'~ry under the directicm of one persun, althuuyh orheri were considering moving in that direction. Two universities had no University Safety Officer (USO), one had no University Radiation Protection Officer, and few had specialist Fire Prevention Officers, fire safety normally being dealt with by the USO, often ~
~
with considerable assistance from the local Fire Marshall. Departmental safety committees and Departmental Safety Officers were to he found a t only about half of the universities, and a t none of them had labor unions any recognized role in safety matters. In contrast to this, the U.K.'s HSWA gives labor unions certain rights with regard to safety. In the general safety field, the university committees are mainly advisory, as are most of the USO's, although some USO's had authority to stop dangerous activities including those of contractors working on the campus. Executive authority normally rests with a senior administrator such as the Vice President for Business Affairs who is responsible for taking appropriate action (based an the advice of the USO) including the allocation of funds and resources. The terms of reference of some USO's include campus road safety, and two were also involved with security. Almost all the USO's were consulted on the safety aspects of new buildings and projects and "re-modelling jabs" and considered this to be an important part of their work. Mast USO's also received accident reports and carried out follow-up investigations. Assistance with the disposal of hazardous waste materials was also a duty for many USO's. An interesting feature a t many ofthe U.S. universities concerns the assistance received from the insurance carriers; i t was not uncommon for them to carry out regular safety inspections of a general type and also for them to be represented an the university safety committee. Such close involvement of insurance carriers in the general safety business of U.K. universities is unusual, although insurers do carry out routine inspections of elevators, lifting tackle, and pressure vessels in the U.K., hut in general their involvement is restricted to such specific items. In the U.S.A., Campus Safety Officershold annual conferences in the same way that the Universities Safety Association organizes annual meetings for University Safety Officers in the U.K. In the U.S.A. there is, however, no comparable organization to the Safety Working Party of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors & Principals of the Universities of the U.K., which has published a code of practice for safety in universities and tries to achieve uniformity of safety standards in U.K. universities.
Fire Safety Overall the standards of fire protection were high, particularly in the newest buildings; many had sprinkler systems installed in laboratories and corridors, and virtually all outside doors were fitted with panic bolts. It was not uncommon however to find that fire stop doors in corridors were wedged in the open position, although the use of magnetic catches that would automatically release in the event of a fire was increasing. Many extract ventilation hoods in kitchen areas were fitted with fire detectors linked t o carbon dioxide gas floodidg facilities. Fire detectors are often also located in rubbish chutes in halls of residence. In a few older buildings, however, deficiencies still exist as far as fire alarms and (Continued on page A1651
Volume 56. Number 4, April 1979 1 A161
Safety
.. .
alternative means of escape are concerned. Some large chemical laboratories had no fire alarm systems and some had only a single access and escape door. Also in some halls of residence, escape routes were not provided with emergency lighting. Rather surprisingly, fire drills are not carried out in most aeademic buildings and even in some halls of residence. Less conventional techniques for protecting fire escape routes were in use in some places, e.g., air pressurization of a staircase, and protection of an open stairway using an array of water jets to provide a "water curtain" in the event of a fire. T o assist air eirrulation in lahwxories, sume drrm on esrpne n,uk cvrridm uere fitted with luuvres whwh would clwe autmnatically if the fire alnrms were sounded.
Mechanical Safety At that time OSHA did not reauire drills and lathes to be ~. marded. ~.~and fewwere. The hlndes on nir-nrrulnrlun fans were invnrinhly well-guardpd a i were most pulleys and helts on vacuum pumps, etc. Overall, the standards of mechanical guarding were inferior to those in the U.K., probably because U.K. safety legislation does require guards on certain machines for which there was no federal requirement for guarding in the U.S.A.
Laboratory Safety The use of eye protectors was compulsory in many chemical laboratories, and portable safety screens were provided to protect experimenters and others. Most laboratories had emergency showers, eye wash fountains, water sprays, and large fire blankets, probably t o a greater extent than in the U.K. The importance of regular functional checks on emergency showers was stressed. Standards of general ventilation were generally high, hut there were some exceptions. Laboratories were well-equipped with fume cupboards, and in some universities these w&e graded according to their suitahilitv. for oarticular ooerations. and flow. rates ware rhrrkrd at SIX-month intervals. In eonrmst, howrver. at wme pstablishmenu, it appeared that flwmate~were nut known and were never measured. A frequently mentioned problem was re-admission of air discharged from fume cupboards into lahoratories due to poor discharge arrangements and bad positioningof intakes. Intakeof vehicle diesel fumes hv havine air intakes located near loading ha& also caused problems. In some of the newest chemical laboratories, small exhaust hoods were positioned a t bench level for each student. Concern was evident over toxicity and carcinogenicity of chemicals. Many recognized carcinogens are being successfully eliminated in laboratories or used only in very dilute farm-reference was frequently made t o an OSHA list of fourteen carcinogens. Chemicals t o which references were fre-
quently made with regard to toxicity problems were chloroform, toluene, benzene, formaldehyde, trichloraethylene, carbon tetrachloride. and mereurv. Arrangemenl~fm and smndards of swrace of h12hly flammable liquids in lnboratorics vnrlerl
