1in the Chemical I aborutory I
7
I
' . .a
Edited by NORMAN V. STEERE, 1 4 0 Melbourne Ave., S;E. Minneapolis, Minn. 5541 4
CIX.
1-
-
EVALUATION OF EXISTING STANDARDS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Research Needed for Laboratory I Safety Standards-Part
Electrical Hazards Norman V . Steere, CSP, Safety Consultant, 140 Melbourne Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55414
INTRODUCTION Defining research needs for laboratory safety standards must begin with consideration of the purpose of such standards, and follow with evaluation of existing standards and data available for developing new standards. Where present standards are not adequate new standards will be needed, and research will be needed where there is not enough reliable data available upon which to base the new standards. We have examined existing standards that deal with laboratory safety and found none that were written specifically far the laboratory, except one that did not have full participation by personnel from the type of laboratory for which the standard was drawn. Standards for control of labaratory hazards of electricity, radiation, mechanical and thermal energy, and atmospheric pressure differentials can be based on existing consensus standards, with refinements that may be needed to make requirements appropriate to labaratory operations. We believe that new standards are needed for control of biological, chemical and fire hazards in the laboratory, and that a great deal of research is needed to provide an adequate data base for new laboratory safety standards. The greater part of this article consists of a series of proposed research projects to develop criteria for laboratory safety standards. Many of the proposed projects will also be useful in providing a scientific basis for improvements in several of the general industry standards that are being used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under the Oceupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
CRITERIA FOR STANDARDS The basic purposes of safety standards should be reduction of frequency and se-
by the organizations that prepare consensus standards. Safety standards frequently are unsophisticated and unscientific because their development is usually done with the limited time available from unpaid committee members and with very little money for staff support or research. Judicious application of safety standards depends an a responsive system for evaluating alternate methods of compliance, as well as on a well-trained field staff and effective channels of communication. Since no safety standard can anticipate every possible hazardous situation, inflexible or uneven enforcement of standards is likely to result unless there is a system whereby enforcement personnel can quickly obtain a research evaluation of a standards variation, and can feed hack information on the need for standards changes. Rapid and effective communication is required so that time is not wasted and money spent making changes that may have been found unnecessary. Adequate input to safety standards development by laboratory personnel who will be affected by the standards is important so that the standards can be tailored to current laboratory practices and hazards. Active participation by laboratory personnel on standards committees shauld be promoted as an effective means of assessing the possible interference of stsndards control measures with laboratory operations. In addition, other laboratory personnel should be informed and encouraged to evaluate and comment an proposed standards during the development process. Achieving active participation by laboratory personnel will require financial suooort .. that does not now exist. and achieving awareness and comment's will require a special effort by standards-making organizations. Beyond the efforts to achieve input from laboratory personnel, we recommend that the standards-development process include preparation of a "research impact
g e ~ ~ q g p , c f i d g ~ . & ~ ~ r l ~ + ; ~ c ; " , " , ~ : : ~ ~ e n c est..temmt ~ "
of inlunes, costs of contra measures, and interference of control measures with operations. To be mast effective in achieving a balanced reduction of all of these factors, safety standards must have a scientific basis, judicious application, and adequate input from the personnel who will be affected by the standards. A scientific basis for safety standards seems an obvious need, but there is almost no evidence of adequate criteria research
The National Electrical Code covers common electrical hazards, although it does not deal with the extreme voltaees
nn asaeqrmont nf
the imnart
o f h v la'b&atd& safety itindaids o n the cost and operations of research and other laboratory functions. To avoid safety standards that place an unbalanced concentration on reduction of accidents, fires and injuries, the "research impact statement" should be directed at evaluation of compliance costs versus the benefits expected, and a t the extent of interference of control measures with common laboratory operations.
for common laboratory hazards, and necessary changes should be sought.
Mechanical Hazards The long history of standards for pressure vessels, floor opening protection, platforms, machine guarding and other mechanical hazards suggest that there is no need for special research or standards for mechanical hazards in laboratory operations. The exception may be standards for extreme high pressure equipment that is used only in the laboratory.
Radiation Hazards Standards for safe use of ionizing radiation in the laboratory have been in use for many years and are presumed to be adequate. A safety standard for lasers has been completed by the members of a committee of the American National Standards Institute, and data seems to be available to provide a scientific basis for a microwave radiation safety standard.
Thermal Hazards (non-fire) The hazards of contact with temperature extremes are readily understood, measured, and controlled by guarding, labeling, and education. Several recent serious injuries from burning hair ignited by laboratory burners indicate a need for improved hazard recognition and education, rather than for development of a separate safety standard.
Hazards of Atmospheric Pressure Differentials Space and deep-sea research and hypobaric and hyperbaric laboratories are specialized, relatively limited in number and population at risk, and generally govern-. ment-supported. If additional safety stanJ-+,r-".la-drd+rrdd~.d&m'~..~~a.,ri
.
