D. Sassone, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM; A. Jin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA; S. Kawalewsky, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA; K. Groves, S2-Sevorg Services, Rutheron, NM.
Review and assessment of new biological laboratories for health and safety has become more demanding with the number of BSL-3 laboratories in the United States. There are over 1400 BSL-3 laboratories nationwide, over 40 in the University of California system alone, and many more planned. Yet there is no tool for evaluation of these laboratories. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) are each constructing BSL-3 laboratories. To aid in developing the safety basis and readiness assessment approach for authorization of operations for our BSL-3 laboratories, a group of safety and health representatives met to develop a common approach and to share resources where appropriate. As a result of the focused efforts of a subgroup that included LANL, LLNL, and UCSD biosafety officers and a consultant, two checklists were developed. These checklists, “Procedural Work Readiness” and “Facility Operations Readiness,” detail facility start-up acceptance and evaluation criteria. The facility checklist is applicable to new facility start up, and is meant to be used by project managers, facility managers, and Biosafety Officers. Many engineering controls that are a facility’s responsibility for maintenance and operation are in this checklist, e.g., ventilation and HEPA filters. The procedural checklist is meant to be used by BSL-3 Laboratory Directors and Biosafety Officers, is useful in evaluating operational BSL-3 facilities and reflects requirements for the research staff. Many activity-specific standard operating procedures, as well as equipment such as centrifuges, are reflected in this checklist. The items in the checklists are derived from applicable standards for BSL-3 laboratories, e.g., CDC/NIH. These checklists provide a useful tool for biosafety experts and managers on factors to be considered in determining effectiveness of controls and readiness to operate a BSL-3.
J. Seabury, L. McLouth, P. Blodgett, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
Laboratory research institutions face continual challenges in maintaining compliance with current safety code requirements. In many cases, facilities are old, safety equipment was procured and installed based upon now-obsolete standards, and best practices indicate that upgrades to current standards should be performed. In other cases, facilities are either being remodeled or constructed new. The challenge is to provide for worker health and safety in existing facilities and new installations while optimizing the use of scarce resources including dollars and professional staff.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a large U.S. Department of Energy-funded research institution, formed an interdisciplinary team to formulate standard practices on emergency eyewashes and safety showers, and to manage their installation. This team, led by industrial hygienists, includes architects, engineers, and plumbers, prioritizes existing facilities for upgrades, resolves installation issues, and validates that the equipment has been installed properly. The written materials developed by this team standardize, where possible, but retain flexibility to respond to specific situations.
This presentation shows how OSHA 1910.151(c) and ANSI Z136.1 have been used as the basis for formulating design and installation standards, and how these requirements were interpreted and implemented. It shows how performance-based code requirements were translated into real-world installations, and demonstrates how specific challenges continue to be met. The presentation demonstrates how equipment and chemical inventory information are used to infer operations in a laboratory; discusses how upgrade requirements differ for minor versus major remodel; and gives examples of what types of eyewash and shower equipment can be used in upgrades and new installations. The interdisciplinary approach resolves issues right up front in the design phase before expensive rework becomes necessary.
T. Mattis, P. Goetchius, Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Inc., Knoxville, TN; P. Payonk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC; W. Harris, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, PA.
During the decommissioning of research or industrial laboratories, chemical work benches and fume hoods are frequently removed because there has been no effective method to measure or evaluate the quantity of chemicals remaining on these laboratory surfaces. Regardless of the condition of the laboratory or its intended reuse, the lack of definitive regulatory guidance and concerns about future liability from adverse health impacts frequently force the removal and destruction of otherwise serviceable benches and fume hoods.
A sampling protocol and a new risk-based evaluation methodology were developed to determine if laboratory surfaces were sufficiently clean and safe for decommissioning and future unspecified industrial uses. The methodology employed a thorough cleaning of the laboratory surfaces followed by wipe sampling of representative areas. The quantity of each chemical remaining on the laboratory surfaces after cleaning was estimated based on analytical results. This quantity remaining was compared to the quantity required to produce an adverse human health effect, based on traditional EPA risk guidance, an industrial reuse scenario, and default exposure parameters. A pass or fail determination for each laboratory was reported.
Over 300 laboratory rooms containing benches and fume hoods at a large government research facility were cleaned, sampled, and evaluated using this system. All laboratory equipment sampled passed the risk-based evaluation, most by a wide margin of safety. In the absence of clearly defined regulatory guidance, this novel approach provided a practical, economical, and readily-accepted risk-based measure of the effectiveness of decontamination.
P. Greenley, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Under an EPA Consent Decree, MIT is required to implement a system for determining who needs what training. The faculty wanted one system that would address all EHS training needed at the Institute. Over an 18-month period, EHS and IT professionals worked to develop training needs assessment software that would support both research and support personnel at the Institute. A web-based training needs assessment was developed for research personnel that supports multiple department and principal investigator affiliations, covers 40 EHS training areas, allows trainees to choose web-based or classroom training, and supports department-specific training requirements. For research support personnel, the training needs assessment software links job titles to required EHS curriculum.
The development, testing, and implementation of the training needs assessment will be described. Its acceptance and evolution since the launch in September of 2003 will be presented.
S. Miller, URS Corporation, Denver, CO.
Employees who work in geotechnical laboratories test materials such as soil, rock, aggregate, concrete, and asphalt. The activities involved may result in workers’ exposure to various chemical hazards, including reagents, solvents, and silica; physical agents such as noise, heat, vibration, repetitive motion; safety hazards such as sharps and moving machinery parts; and radiological hazards (sealed sources used in nuclear gauges). Manual labor is often required to prepare samples, resulting in potentially greater exposures. Many employees are seasonal, or also perform other construction-related duties.
Regulatory compliance is a challenge because these laboratories don’t fit the chemical or analytical laboratory template, and OSHA regulations, such as the Laboratory Standard, are not specific to these laboratories. Many laboratories are run by small companies with few resources for health and safety. Larger companies or agencies may operate scores of field laboratories in various locations under the umbrella of other construction services, and these laboratories may not receive the attention of safety and hygiene professionals. Also, traditional full-shift sampling to determine exposure to hazards such as respirable silica may not be effective in identifying controls because of the dynamic nature of the work.
Task hazard/control analyses for typical activities were developed that can be used at numerous laboratories in a variety of locations. Simple chemical hygiene plan templates and other templates were developed for dealing with chemical reagents, signs and labels, safety meetings, visitor safety, and emergency response plans. OSHA hazard communication training and other required training programs geared specifically to the geotechnical laboratory environment were developed so that each laboratory can easily provide site-specific training on an as-needed basis. A task-based approach to exposure monitoring was used to focus limited resources on effective controls.
Other professionals may be able to apply this approach to similar laboratory or construction operations.
R. Petersen, CPP Inc., Fort Collins, CO.
An important element of laboratory health and safety is the quality of the indoor environment. An element of the indoor environment that is frequently overlooked is the potential impact of pollutants exiting laboratory stacks and coming back into the building through air intakes, operable windows, or entrances. The primary pollutant sources addressed in the paper are accidental and routine emissions from chemical fume hoods. The minimum acceptable concentration varies based on the types of chemicals used and the emission rate of these chemicals. Three methods are frequently used to evaluate whether the concentration levels due to these emissions from a fume hood exhaust stack (or other pollutant source) are less than appropriate health and odor limits: analytical, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and wind-tunnel modeling. Analytical methods, for the most part, consist of “rules of thumb” and simple algebraic equations that are either highly inaccurate or provide only a qualitative indication of the expected indoor air quality. CFD and wind-tunnel modeling, on the other hand, provide a quantitative evaluation of the expected air quality due to the various emission sources associated with a laboratory. Some laboratory designers and owners have the impression that of these two modeling techniques, CFD is the newer and better method. Recent research shows quite the opposite for this type of application (i.e., external flows). Wind-tunnel modeling, on the other hand, is often used as the standard for testing CFD and analytical methods, and still appears to be the superior method. This paper will discuss the pros and cons of the three methods and will present applications of the methods to various real-world laboratory design situations. The paper will also discuss how the chemical utilization in fume hoods can be restricted based upon the concentration levels predicted at the air intakes and other sensitive outdoor locations.
K. Schmerber, URS Corporation, Denver, CO; K. Borud, M. Rothney, Roche Colorado Corporation, Boulder, CO.
Numerous methods for cleaning laboratory glassware are currently available. Existing analytical method constraints at Roche Colorado Corporation (RCC) exclude the use of dishwashers and other automated glassware cleaning systems. Therefore, solvent-based laboratory glassware cleaning is performed to remove interfering residues and represents an area of potential chemical exposure. Typical cleaning steps include initial solvent wash, soap and water cleansing, and final solvent rinse to dry the glassware. Acetone, a common solvent used for this purpose, has an ACGIH TLV® of 500 ppm 8-hour time-weighted average and a 750 ppm 15-minute short-term exposure limit.
Exposure monitoring during glassware cleaning has indicated that airborne concentrations of acetone may exceed occupational exposure limits (OELs). Factors that contribute to elevated airborne concentrations are lack of local exhaust ventilation, limited air circulation near sinks, poor sink drainage, and use of hot water. OSHA’s hierarchy of controls requires that feasible engineering controls are the preferred method of compliance for protecting employees from airborne contaminants and are to be implemented first.
To address the potential exposure to acetone vapors, engineering controls designed and implemented include a custom countertop slotted sink hood and in-sink downdraft system. The primary drawback to the countertop system was the potential for solvent vapors to move across the breathing zone. Other issues included the loss of countertop space and that the systems were aesthetically unpleasing. In-sink systems eliminate the potential for solvent vapors to cross the breathing zone and also minimize the loss of countertop space.
Field validation after installation indicated that both ventilated sinks were effective at containing airborne acetone concentrations well below acetone’s OELs. These results verified that the intended goal of protecting laboratory personnel was achieved and provided continued alignment with RCC’s Responsible Care commitment of providing a workplace free of recognized health hazards.
K. Ahn, M. Ellenbecker, S. Woskie, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA; L. DiBerardinis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
A new quantitative method using dry ice, warm water, and a carbon dioxide (CO2) direct-reading detector was developed for testing in-use laboratory fume hoods. Dry ice pieces were deposited into warm water in a mixing bowl to generate CO2 gas and water fog. CO2 concentrations were then measured using a CO2 direct-reading detector. This new hood test method is much cheaper, easier to use, and less time consuming than the industry standard ASHRAE 110 tracer test method and it can be used in the dynamic conditions found in an operating laboratory while providing reliability and precision. In addition, the visual effect of water fog can be used effectively in training workers to reduce their exposure to air contaminants.
The CO2 concentrations using the new test method were compared to the measurement results using the ASHRAE 110 tracer gas test method. With the suggested criteria for the acceptable control level, the results using the new test method were comparable to those using the ASHRAE method.
A systematic investigation of the effects of worker movements, work practices, and environmental conditions on hood performance was conducted using the new test method. Standardized hand, arm, and trunk motions were used to investigate the effects a worker’s upper body movements. The following relationships between CO2 concentration in front of the worker and tested factors were found:
Posted May 30, 2004