Safety Considerations at SSRL

- I. Evans

Safety has been a high profile issue in the past few months. Given that, it may be helpful to review some of the basics of the SSRL Safety Program.

As in any industry or organization, safety as a program or an individual act has become a standard part of doing business. SSRL is no exception. The aim is to provide a facility and conduct research in a safe and healthful manner. From experience we know that this is best achieved using engineering controls, i.e., building an experiment that eliminates the hazard from the onset. However, from a practical standpoint a mixture of both engineering and administrative controls are needed to ensure an effective and cost efficient program.

Safety as applied to user experiments follows a pre-determined path at SSRL, to ensure both staff and regulators that the facility has identified any hazards associated with an experiment and taken the required measures to either mitigate or control that hazard. In safety terms it's the "3 Es" and the often forgotten "A" of safety.

1. Evaluation

The first step that needs to be taken is to determine whether a hazard exists, which is achieved by conducting a safety analysis or safety review of the original user proposal. This review can give us the first indications that hazards exist, whether they be in the form of chemicals, radioactive materials, biohazards, lasers, etc. Proposals that have identifiable hazards receive the usual "safety star."

The safety star is an SSRL marker that alerts us later during the scheduling process that more safety information may be required. It is also at this stage that the type of hazard is classified into a quantitative figure based on a "worst case scenario." As an example, the accidental release of a small amount of an innocuous chemical, while still posing some hazard, is substantially different to a release of a small amount of highly radioactive material. Later the experiment will require more detail on how the material will be stored, handled, and used.

2. Engineering

With the hazard identified, the next step is to determine what can be done to control it. Options can vary from complicated engineering controls to administrative measures or personnel protective equipment. Usually a combination of the above is preferred, as it provides for and maintains an acceptable level of safety, and also keeps costs within reason. The controls chosen will depend on the nature and severity of the hazard and type of experiment to be run.

Simple solutions often offer the best results. The control of a toxic material may be achieved by using a fume hood to prepare samples, or a hazard may be significantly reduced or eliminated by using smaller quantities of a substance. Then again, some experiments have hazards that provide a greater risk to both users and staff and need more elaborate controls. Laser systems may require access controls to prevent inadvertent exposure to personnel. High pressure gas systems may require on-line monitoring, etc.

3. Education

The third step of this program is to satisfy SSRL that personnel are both familiar with the hazard and educated in how the controls work. It is not unreasonable to expect the user to be knowledgeable about the materials used in their experiment. However, training in the safe operation of the experiment is often neglected and pushed to the side as "not needed," or "too long." In essence, training is the backbone of all safety programs and assures that personnel are familiar with the hazard and how to control it effectively. It can be as simple as reading an MSDS sheet and knowing how to handle a hazardous material (whether it be in the lab setting, or in a spill situation), or a hands-on demonstration of how an interlock system works.

It is widely recognized that the amount of training increases with the risk and hazard(s) associated with an experiment, yet the cost in both time and resources is minimal when compared to the value placed on lost beam time, damaged equipment, or personnel injured through accidents.

Assessment

The final element of a safety program is the need to examine or review the experiment when all the safety measures are in place. This serves two functions; one to assure all controls are correctly installed and operating as planned, and two, as a means to identify whether there might be something we could be doing better that would provide us with an improved level of safety. To assure compliance with SSRL or other standards, the actual review of the experiment can only be carried out by SSRL staff with the help of the user. Yet to improve the program, input is required from all those involved throughout the process.

We can see from the above that by addressing hazard identification or risk assessment systematically, a means will be provided to achieve a safe working environment and at the same time satisfy required laws and regulations. As SSRL strives to maintain a safe and healthful work environment for both its users and staff, your input to improve the quality or level of safety is always welcomed. After all, your safety is in your hands.

[SSRL Welcome Page ] [Research Highlights]  [Beamlines] [Accel Physics]  [User Admin]   [Announcements] 

December 2, 1996