- Email: [email protected]
Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups
JCHAS 872 1–4
Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has recently updated its laboratory safety program, utilizing an integrated approach to reduce the biological, chemical, and radiological safety silos, and conveying the importance of basic laboratory safety to all departments across campus. The updated approach to educate on the core of laboratory safety was well-received by the researchers. The new program tackles many of the challenges associated with auditing and managing safety at a large research university. These challenges include identifying and visiting all research laboratories on campus, reporting findings in a timely manner, facilitating responses to deficiencies, and educating all researchers on the OSHA Laboratory Standard.
Q1
By Stephanie Tumidajski
Q2
A robust laboratory safety program at a large university is imperative to support the safety needs of those performing research in the vast array of research settings. With sustainability in mind, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) has recently developed a new laboratory safety program that better engages research groups across campus. At UIUC, the Division of Research Safety (DRS) focuses on safety in laboratory spaces conducting research. It is the goal of DRS to stress the importance of laboratory safety for all units on campus and that each aspect of laboratory safety (radiological, laser, chemical, biological, electrical, etc.) is equally important. Researchers need to be educated to take safety seriously, acknowledge areas of improvement in their laboratories, and begin creating a safety culture of their own. It is difficult for a researcher to know the requirements of laboratory safety and be in compliance with the OSHA Laboratory Standard1 without having the Stephanie Tumidajski, Ph.D., is affiliated with the Chemical Safety Professional, Division of Research Safety, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 101 S. Gregory St. Urbana, Illinois 61801 (Tel.: 217 244 1360; fax: 217 244 6594; email: [email protected]). 1 Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.1450, Title 29, 1990.
1871-5532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
necessary experience. As a result, UIUC needed to develop an improved safety program that better informed and engaged the research groups regarding the requirements of managing safety. This new program includes explaining standards and regulations to the researchers in order for laboratory groups to simultaneously be in compliance and function safely. The challenges for creating a program to engage a diverse campus are numerous. Currently the campus accommodates laboratories in chemistry, engineering, veterinary medicine, psychology, animal sciences, etc., with future plans for a medical school. A laboratory safety program that covers the needs of different research spaces with the ability to be sustainable when new departments are formed, requires a robust platform for safety management that is adaptable. Another challenge is maintaining an inventory of Principal Investigators (PIs) and their laboratory spaces. Relocations, staff turnover, and shared laboratory spaces make it difficult to receive accurate facility information from departments to determine where active laboratories are located. Interacting with numerous laboratories in a reasonable amount of time and tracking the interactions is greatly desired, but also an anticipated challenge to address. Before the new laboratory safety program was introduced, DRS also had a lack of knowledge concerning the location of many chemical hazards. Although biological and radioactive materials are registered and tracked, a chemical inventory is not a central requirement on
campus. A chemical inventory system is desired in order to identify hazard levels for laboratory spaces and alert those entering the spaces. DRS wants to stress that chemical hazards in all laboratory spaces need to be assessed, not just in traditional wet-chemistry labs. If the hazards exist, they must be identified, assessed, and monitored similarly to biological and radiological hazards. With these challenges in mind, DRS sought to provide a sustainable, adaptable, and engaging program for campus. One of the best ways to convey the importance of laboratory safety to all units on campus was with an in-person interaction between DRS safety professionals and the researchers. A strategy was created with the support of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) to reach out and visit the laboratories of every Principal Investigator on campus in one year. For the consistency of the information discussed and reported during these meetings, visits were conducted as a general laboratory safety audit in teams of two, using four safety professionals. There was anticipated resistance to the visits since not all departments were interacting with DRS on a regular basis. Prior to this campus-wide program, DRS had to be invited into departments to conduct general laboratory safety audits. With the support of the OVCR, all departments were required to receive visits from DRS and be educated on safety requirements and the resources DRS has to help improve their laboratory safety.
ß Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
1
JCHAS 872 1–4
Figure 1. Dashboard on the DRS website used to manage user safety.
Before beginning the first round of audits in 2014, DRS developed a new database to house the information and data to be collected. The database was designed to help better manage laboratory safety on campus, and make it easy for Principal Investigators and their groups to take an active role in this management. Facilities, personnel, and laboratory hazards can all be managed by the PI using the system. Each user has a dashboard that provides shortcuts to information associated with their safety profile at UIUC (Figure 1). A group Safety Contact can be assigned by the PI and has the same access to the database as the PI. This role enables a shared ability to manage information concerning hazards, space assignments, audit responses, etc. The Safety Contact role helps DRS better engage the lab group in laboratory safety because they are generally working in the lab on a daily basis and able to better manage day-today safety tasks. The database also allows those with a university ID to request to join a PI’s laboratory profile. The function of having personnel assigned to a PI was designed to track training records and manage who is 2
working in the laboratories. The future applications of this website will use these roles and user connections to improve the safety network on campus. During the lab visits, a hazard profile was constructed for each room/PI and stored in the online database. This documented chemical hazards in close agreement with categories of the Globally Harmonized System. Also included in the hazard profile are biohazards, radioactive materials, X-ray, and electrical hazards. The information in this hazard profile outlines the areas where lab specific training is required, and is also listed on a door sign to alert emergency responders, building service workers, and anyone entering the lab of potential dangers (Figure 2). Laboratory groups are expected to update this hazard profile as needed in order to maintain an accurate representation of the laboratory hazards. Within one year, 708 audit events took place including 641 principle investigators and 1,726 rooms. Rooms included research laboratories and support rooms for these laboratories. The laboratories audited are spaces that contain chemical, biological,
radiological, or laser hazards and need a Laboratory Safety Plan for proper training of the researchers.2 All departments with research laboratories were visited. The audit checklist was divided into two parts following initial feedback from PIs. The ‘‘laboratory audit’’ portion contained 96 checklist items, all of which could be addressed by the research group. A laboratory is defined as a Principal Investigator and a room. Multiple laboratory audits can be submitted for one room depending if it is shared by multiple PIs. The second part of the audit was a ‘‘facility infrastructure audit.’’ This audit checklist contained 13 different findings pertaining to a specific room. Each room has one annual facility infrastructure audit, even if it is shared by multiple PIs. Items on this checklist included the basic necessities of a laboratory space (e.g., sink for 2 UIUC has a Hazard Communication program for spaces on campus that are not laboratories but use hazardous chemicals. Spaces enrolled in this program are not part of the Laboratory Safety Program.
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2016
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
JCHAS 872 1–4
Figure 2. Example laboratory door sign.
handwashing, safety shower and eyewash, functioning fume hood, etc.) This audit report was meant to be addressed by a facility manager for the building; however, the PI must indicate they viewed the facility infrastructure audit and are aware of the issues. The two audits were conducted during the same visit. One of the main topics of discussion during this first round of audits was regarding a Laboratory Safety Plan, required for each laboratory group. At UIUC the Laboratory Safety Plan includes all safety information for the space (requirements of a Chemical Hygiene Plan, Biosafety Manual, Radioactive Materials Safety Manual, electrical safety, etc.). The Laboratory Safety Plan summarizes how all of safety is managed in the lab. It is not necessarily a binder of forms, but a living plan of safety management. Prior to our audits, many research groups relied only on general safety training, and did not train on lab specific hazards. The OSHA Laboratory Standard lists the expectations for training in these facilities and a complete Laboratory Safety Plan would
satisfy all the OSHA requirements. DRS recognizes not all groups will manage safety the same way, so it was important to be flexible when discussing the requirement for a Laboratory Safety Plan while maintaining the vision of compliance and efficacy of the plan. Giving the groups some degree of flexibility with the plan development allows them to be more engaged in developing something that works for them and not be restricted to templates that do not work well for their type of laboratory and research. Audit findings are recorded in the DRS database following each audit event. A variety of reports can be generated to determine most frequent findings sorted by different means. However, it became evident that the number of findings do not tell the entire story about safety in laboratories. Several observations in the laboratories proved that our presence and explanations of compliance were all that was necessary to improve certain areas (flushing eyewashes more frequently, visually inspecting fire extinguishers, etc.). Many researchers were simply not aware of the requirements.
Notable observations that were more concerning to the DRS staff included incompatible chemical storage, improper compressed gas storage, waste accumulation, no plan for spill response, improper use of chemical fume hoods, and finally lack of lab specific safety training. These findings warrant immediate response to avoid more serious injury to persons and property. All findings are discussed during the audit so a plan for resolution can begin immediately. Most audit reports are issued within 24 h of the visit. Submitting referrals to other safety groups on campus or an occasional follow-up with PIs and safety contacts sometimes delays issuing the final report beyond the 24 h. All department heads and managers are given access to audit reports for laboratories within their department. They have the ability to read through all the reports which is a daunting task when the department may contain twenty or more PIs. DRS developed a role-based department overview menu in the database to view facilities, staff, hazard assessments, and audits
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2016
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
3
JCHAS 872 1–4
Figure 3. Example of a Department Summary.
for the department manager role. This feature also provides a department audit summary for the year (Figure 3). The summary focuses on three areas that are of great interest to those in this role including (1) eyewashes and safety showers available and in compliance, (2) complete lab safety plans, and (3) response rate to audit findings. The summary also provides metrics for the entire university to be compared to the individual department for these three areas. It provides departments the ability to judge their compliance relative to campus as a whole. There are several positive outcomes from the first round of general laboratory safety audits. The audits offered the OVCR a snapshot of the state of laboratory safety at UIUC. As a result, an emergency eyewash/shower maintenance testing program was initiated for all areas on campus. Other positive results include an increased request for chemical waste disposal (including many legacy chemicals), improvement to safety guidance on the DRS Webpage, and departments beginning to improve areas where they struggled with laboratory safety (e.g., SOP development, facility infrastructure improvements). The second round of annual audits began July 1st. One goal for returning 4
to the labs is to determine the barriers and challenges the researchers experience when trying to address the previous year’s audit findings. We have noticed a significant improvement to the safety in labs after only a few months of audits. Many labs addressed their issues but some did not record the responses in the database, skewing metrics. At UIUC, responding to the audits is considered part of the required OSHA annual evaluation of laboratory safety. Not addressing the findings will serve as a deficiency in the subsequent audit events. Principal Investigators are expected to respond to their audits within two weeks. Some findings are more difficult to address in a short time frame, but a plan should be put in place to address the issues in a timely manner. In summary, the audits were well received by the researchers for their usefulness. The first round of audits resulted in increased awareness about the safety resources on campus and a proper Laboratory Safety Plan. Returning to the labs, we are taking a closer look at what they have developed for their Laboratory Safety Plan and determine if it is sufficient for the type of work they perform in the laboratory. It is a goal of DRS to keep this annual audit program active and
engaging in order to improve the safety culture on campus. Improvements will be made each year after evaluating the process and receiving feedback from researchers. DRS acts as a liaison between regulatory bodies and the research labs as well as consultants for safety needs on campus. It is important to use this role to work with the researchers and limit any barriers between them and safety so they are able to take an active role in safety without interfering with their research goals. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The general laboratory safety audits were completed by four Chemical Safety Professionals, Anja Metz, Christopher Motter, Patrick Wood, and Stephanie Tumidajski. It was the combined effort of this group and the following members of DRS who made the new Laboratory Safety Program a success: Monica Miller (Director), Tina McGill (Senior Project Specialist), Peter Ashbrook (former Director), Steven Holland (Research Safety System Developer), Michael Kammin (former System Developer), and Cal Primer (System Developer). The Division of Research Safety would like to thank the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research for their support in this continuous effort.
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2016
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has recently updated its laboratory safety program, utilizing an integrated approach to reduce the biological, chemical, and radiological safety silos, and conveying the importance of basic laboratory safety to all departments across campus. The updated approach to educate on the core of laboratory safety was well-received by the researchers. The new program tackles many of the challenges associated with auditing and managing safety at a large research university. These challenges include identifying and visiting all research laboratories on campus, reporting findings in a timely manner, facilitating responses to deficiencies, and educating all researchers on the OSHA Laboratory Standard.
Q1
By Stephanie Tumidajski
Q2
A robust laboratory safety program at a large university is imperative to support the safety needs of those performing research in the vast array of research settings. With sustainability in mind, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) has recently developed a new laboratory safety program that better engages research groups across campus. At UIUC, the Division of Research Safety (DRS) focuses on safety in laboratory spaces conducting research. It is the goal of DRS to stress the importance of laboratory safety for all units on campus and that each aspect of laboratory safety (radiological, laser, chemical, biological, electrical, etc.) is equally important. Researchers need to be educated to take safety seriously, acknowledge areas of improvement in their laboratories, and begin creating a safety culture of their own. It is difficult for a researcher to know the requirements of laboratory safety and be in compliance with the OSHA Laboratory Standard1 without having the Stephanie Tumidajski, Ph.D., is affiliated with the Chemical Safety Professional, Division of Research Safety, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 101 S. Gregory St. Urbana, Illinois 61801 (Tel.: 217 244 1360; fax: 217 244 6594; email: [email protected]). 1 Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.1450, Title 29, 1990.
1871-5532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
necessary experience. As a result, UIUC needed to develop an improved safety program that better informed and engaged the research groups regarding the requirements of managing safety. This new program includes explaining standards and regulations to the researchers in order for laboratory groups to simultaneously be in compliance and function safely. The challenges for creating a program to engage a diverse campus are numerous. Currently the campus accommodates laboratories in chemistry, engineering, veterinary medicine, psychology, animal sciences, etc., with future plans for a medical school. A laboratory safety program that covers the needs of different research spaces with the ability to be sustainable when new departments are formed, requires a robust platform for safety management that is adaptable. Another challenge is maintaining an inventory of Principal Investigators (PIs) and their laboratory spaces. Relocations, staff turnover, and shared laboratory spaces make it difficult to receive accurate facility information from departments to determine where active laboratories are located. Interacting with numerous laboratories in a reasonable amount of time and tracking the interactions is greatly desired, but also an anticipated challenge to address. Before the new laboratory safety program was introduced, DRS also had a lack of knowledge concerning the location of many chemical hazards. Although biological and radioactive materials are registered and tracked, a chemical inventory is not a central requirement on
campus. A chemical inventory system is desired in order to identify hazard levels for laboratory spaces and alert those entering the spaces. DRS wants to stress that chemical hazards in all laboratory spaces need to be assessed, not just in traditional wet-chemistry labs. If the hazards exist, they must be identified, assessed, and monitored similarly to biological and radiological hazards. With these challenges in mind, DRS sought to provide a sustainable, adaptable, and engaging program for campus. One of the best ways to convey the importance of laboratory safety to all units on campus was with an in-person interaction between DRS safety professionals and the researchers. A strategy was created with the support of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) to reach out and visit the laboratories of every Principal Investigator on campus in one year. For the consistency of the information discussed and reported during these meetings, visits were conducted as a general laboratory safety audit in teams of two, using four safety professionals. There was anticipated resistance to the visits since not all departments were interacting with DRS on a regular basis. Prior to this campus-wide program, DRS had to be invited into departments to conduct general laboratory safety audits. With the support of the OVCR, all departments were required to receive visits from DRS and be educated on safety requirements and the resources DRS has to help improve their laboratory safety.
ß Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
1
JCHAS 872 1–4
Figure 1. Dashboard on the DRS website used to manage user safety.
Before beginning the first round of audits in 2014, DRS developed a new database to house the information and data to be collected. The database was designed to help better manage laboratory safety on campus, and make it easy for Principal Investigators and their groups to take an active role in this management. Facilities, personnel, and laboratory hazards can all be managed by the PI using the system. Each user has a dashboard that provides shortcuts to information associated with their safety profile at UIUC (Figure 1). A group Safety Contact can be assigned by the PI and has the same access to the database as the PI. This role enables a shared ability to manage information concerning hazards, space assignments, audit responses, etc. The Safety Contact role helps DRS better engage the lab group in laboratory safety because they are generally working in the lab on a daily basis and able to better manage day-today safety tasks. The database also allows those with a university ID to request to join a PI’s laboratory profile. The function of having personnel assigned to a PI was designed to track training records and manage who is 2
working in the laboratories. The future applications of this website will use these roles and user connections to improve the safety network on campus. During the lab visits, a hazard profile was constructed for each room/PI and stored in the online database. This documented chemical hazards in close agreement with categories of the Globally Harmonized System. Also included in the hazard profile are biohazards, radioactive materials, X-ray, and electrical hazards. The information in this hazard profile outlines the areas where lab specific training is required, and is also listed on a door sign to alert emergency responders, building service workers, and anyone entering the lab of potential dangers (Figure 2). Laboratory groups are expected to update this hazard profile as needed in order to maintain an accurate representation of the laboratory hazards. Within one year, 708 audit events took place including 641 principle investigators and 1,726 rooms. Rooms included research laboratories and support rooms for these laboratories. The laboratories audited are spaces that contain chemical, biological,
radiological, or laser hazards and need a Laboratory Safety Plan for proper training of the researchers.2 All departments with research laboratories were visited. The audit checklist was divided into two parts following initial feedback from PIs. The ‘‘laboratory audit’’ portion contained 96 checklist items, all of which could be addressed by the research group. A laboratory is defined as a Principal Investigator and a room. Multiple laboratory audits can be submitted for one room depending if it is shared by multiple PIs. The second part of the audit was a ‘‘facility infrastructure audit.’’ This audit checklist contained 13 different findings pertaining to a specific room. Each room has one annual facility infrastructure audit, even if it is shared by multiple PIs. Items on this checklist included the basic necessities of a laboratory space (e.g., sink for 2 UIUC has a Hazard Communication program for spaces on campus that are not laboratories but use hazardous chemicals. Spaces enrolled in this program are not part of the Laboratory Safety Program.
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2016
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
JCHAS 872 1–4
Figure 2. Example laboratory door sign.
handwashing, safety shower and eyewash, functioning fume hood, etc.) This audit report was meant to be addressed by a facility manager for the building; however, the PI must indicate they viewed the facility infrastructure audit and are aware of the issues. The two audits were conducted during the same visit. One of the main topics of discussion during this first round of audits was regarding a Laboratory Safety Plan, required for each laboratory group. At UIUC the Laboratory Safety Plan includes all safety information for the space (requirements of a Chemical Hygiene Plan, Biosafety Manual, Radioactive Materials Safety Manual, electrical safety, etc.). The Laboratory Safety Plan summarizes how all of safety is managed in the lab. It is not necessarily a binder of forms, but a living plan of safety management. Prior to our audits, many research groups relied only on general safety training, and did not train on lab specific hazards. The OSHA Laboratory Standard lists the expectations for training in these facilities and a complete Laboratory Safety Plan would
satisfy all the OSHA requirements. DRS recognizes not all groups will manage safety the same way, so it was important to be flexible when discussing the requirement for a Laboratory Safety Plan while maintaining the vision of compliance and efficacy of the plan. Giving the groups some degree of flexibility with the plan development allows them to be more engaged in developing something that works for them and not be restricted to templates that do not work well for their type of laboratory and research. Audit findings are recorded in the DRS database following each audit event. A variety of reports can be generated to determine most frequent findings sorted by different means. However, it became evident that the number of findings do not tell the entire story about safety in laboratories. Several observations in the laboratories proved that our presence and explanations of compliance were all that was necessary to improve certain areas (flushing eyewashes more frequently, visually inspecting fire extinguishers, etc.). Many researchers were simply not aware of the requirements.
Notable observations that were more concerning to the DRS staff included incompatible chemical storage, improper compressed gas storage, waste accumulation, no plan for spill response, improper use of chemical fume hoods, and finally lack of lab specific safety training. These findings warrant immediate response to avoid more serious injury to persons and property. All findings are discussed during the audit so a plan for resolution can begin immediately. Most audit reports are issued within 24 h of the visit. Submitting referrals to other safety groups on campus or an occasional follow-up with PIs and safety contacts sometimes delays issuing the final report beyond the 24 h. All department heads and managers are given access to audit reports for laboratories within their department. They have the ability to read through all the reports which is a daunting task when the department may contain twenty or more PIs. DRS developed a role-based department overview menu in the database to view facilities, staff, hazard assessments, and audits
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2016
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006
3
JCHAS 872 1–4
Figure 3. Example of a Department Summary.
for the department manager role. This feature also provides a department audit summary for the year (Figure 3). The summary focuses on three areas that are of great interest to those in this role including (1) eyewashes and safety showers available and in compliance, (2) complete lab safety plans, and (3) response rate to audit findings. The summary also provides metrics for the entire university to be compared to the individual department for these three areas. It provides departments the ability to judge their compliance relative to campus as a whole. There are several positive outcomes from the first round of general laboratory safety audits. The audits offered the OVCR a snapshot of the state of laboratory safety at UIUC. As a result, an emergency eyewash/shower maintenance testing program was initiated for all areas on campus. Other positive results include an increased request for chemical waste disposal (including many legacy chemicals), improvement to safety guidance on the DRS Webpage, and departments beginning to improve areas where they struggled with laboratory safety (e.g., SOP development, facility infrastructure improvements). The second round of annual audits began July 1st. One goal for returning 4
to the labs is to determine the barriers and challenges the researchers experience when trying to address the previous year’s audit findings. We have noticed a significant improvement to the safety in labs after only a few months of audits. Many labs addressed their issues but some did not record the responses in the database, skewing metrics. At UIUC, responding to the audits is considered part of the required OSHA annual evaluation of laboratory safety. Not addressing the findings will serve as a deficiency in the subsequent audit events. Principal Investigators are expected to respond to their audits within two weeks. Some findings are more difficult to address in a short time frame, but a plan should be put in place to address the issues in a timely manner. In summary, the audits were well received by the researchers for their usefulness. The first round of audits resulted in increased awareness about the safety resources on campus and a proper Laboratory Safety Plan. Returning to the labs, we are taking a closer look at what they have developed for their Laboratory Safety Plan and determine if it is sufficient for the type of work they perform in the laboratory. It is a goal of DRS to keep this annual audit program active and
engaging in order to improve the safety culture on campus. Improvements will be made each year after evaluating the process and receiving feedback from researchers. DRS acts as a liaison between regulatory bodies and the research labs as well as consultants for safety needs on campus. It is important to use this role to work with the researchers and limit any barriers between them and safety so they are able to take an active role in safety without interfering with their research goals. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The general laboratory safety audits were completed by four Chemical Safety Professionals, Anja Metz, Christopher Motter, Patrick Wood, and Stephanie Tumidajski. It was the combined effort of this group and the following members of DRS who made the new Laboratory Safety Program a success: Monica Miller (Director), Tina McGill (Senior Project Specialist), Peter Ashbrook (former Director), Steven Holland (Research Safety System Developer), Michael Kammin (former System Developer), and Cal Primer (System Developer). The Division of Research Safety would like to thank the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research for their support in this continuous effort.
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2016
Please cite this article in press as: Tumidajski, S., Laboratory safety: Engaging 600+ research groups. J. Chem. Health Safety (2015), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.12.006