From Accident Analysis to Accident Preven3on at UCLA Symposium: Laboratory Safety 25 Years a0er the OSHA Laboratory Standard

From Accident Analysis to Accident Preven3on at UCLA Symposium: Laboratory Safety 25 Years a0er the OSHA Laboratory Standard Professor Craig Merlic Execu2ve Director

OSHA Laboratory Standard Minimize exposure of workers to hazardous chemicals in laboratories through: Develop and implement a Chemical Hygiene Plan Designate a Chemical Hygiene Officer Establish standard opera2ng procedures Require personal protec2ve equipment Establish engineering controls and waste disposal procedures Train all laboratory personnel Monitor work environment for selected chemical levels Require labeling of hazardous chemicals What new approaches are needed to make laboratories safer?

UCLA - December 29, 2008 Sheharbano Sangji

Accident APermath Repercussions across UCLA campus University of California system Chemistry departments and universi2es na2onwide Federal agencies Professional socie2es A very tragic accident that has had true impact improving safety prac2ces and the culture of safety in academic laboratories

UCLA Response UCLA ini3ated a wide array of changes and ac3vi3es in response to the accident, Cal/OSHA inspec3ons, and legal fillings. Chancellor Vice Chancellor for Research Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Laboratory Safety UC Center for Laboratory Safety Laboratory Safety CommiTees Environment, Health and Safety Departments Faculty Research Staff Graduate Students and Undergraduate Students Changes top to bohom were required to change the culture of safety

UCLA Response: Environment, Health & Safety Increased staff Increased frequency and scope of inspec2ons Revised inspec2on checklist and procedures Revised inspec2on reports Increased training programs Created Laboratory Hazard Assessment Tool (LHAT) Enhanced performance metrics Increased technical exper2se PhD Scien2sts Safety Videos SOP Library

UCLA EH&S Safety Inspec2ons 5000 Lab Groups 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Laser PPE Bio Rad Lab # of Lab Groups Keys to effec3ve inspec3ons: Knowledgeable inspectors Thorough inspec3ons Follow- up on deficiencies

UCLA Unannounced PPE Inspec3ons 2010 Compliant 71% (181) Non- Compliant 29% (74) 15% 14% 19% 6% 17% 20% 9% Lab Coats Eye Protec2on Gloves Open- Toe Shoes Shorts/Skirts Non- PPE Food/Drink

UCLA Unannounced PPE Inspec3ons 2013 Compliant, 1276 (95%) Non- Compliant, 62 (5%) 2% 17% 2% 3% 29% 9% 38% Lab Coats Eye Protec2on Gloves Open- Toe Shoes Shorts/Skirts Non- PPE Food/Drink

UCLA Response - Faculty Required PI safety training ini2al and annual Required monitoring of researchers PPE Required training of lab staff Required documenta2on of training Required response to inspec2ons Required changes to lab maintenance Required changes to chemical storage and handling Required changes to lab protocols Required documenta2on of protocols Key Points: Communicate responsibili2es and set expecta2ons for both faculty and lab workers Culture of safety established by acceptance of safety requirements and faculty engagement

Compliance vs Safety: Two Views EH&S view? COMPLIANCE high overlap SAFETY

Compliance vs Safety: Two Views PI / Researcher view? COMPLIANCE low overlap SAFETY

Interna2onal Survey on Laboratory Safety Prac2ces Partnership with BioRAFT and Nature Publishing Group Analysis of U.S. survey responses included 991 academic lab workers, 133 government lab employees and 120 private industry lab workers Key Finding: Independent of EH&S ac2vi2es, academic labs whose principal inves2gator ac2vely monitored safe lab opera2ons reported substan2ally fewer injuries I. Schröder, D.Y.Q. Huang, O. Ellis, J. H. Gibson, N. L. Wayne; J Chem Health and Safety, 2015

Impact of PI or Lab Supervisor Safety Engagement on the Number of Injuries in the Lab Injuries witnessed or personally experienced by students and postdocs (n=406) 80% Major injuries Minor injuries Students and postdocs 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 1 to 2 3 to 5 PI monitors lab safety PI may or may not check safety PI does not monitor lab safety 0 1 to 2 3 to 5 6+ Lab Injuries Key Points: Faculty Engagement SeUng Expecta3ons I. Schröder, D.Y.Q. Huang, O. Ellis, J. H. Gibson, N. L. Wayne; J Chem Health and Safety, 2015

The Garcia- Garibay Approach to Laboratory Safety Culture Problem: New Chair of Chemistry and Biochemistry had a high number of findings from EH&S inspec2ons of his laboratory Solu3ons: Faculty Engagement Rota2ng Laboratory Safety Officer posi2on who does twice- daily inspec2ons to beter appreciate the value of safety regula2ons Frequent safety quizzes in mee2ngs to give researchers an opportunity to assess their safety knowledge Use of an overnight reac2on form posted on lab doors as a safety communica2on best prac2ce

The Garcia- Garibay Approach to Laboratory Safety Culture Document outcome in terms of changes to the lab Safety Culture as evidenced by EH&S inspec2on results Results: Number"of"Findings" 20" 18" 16" 14" 12" 10" 8" 6" 4" 2" 0" Departmental"Average"Compared"To"Garcia)Garibay"Group"" from"2011"to"2013" 2011"" 2012"" 2013)1"" 2013)2"" 2011" 2012" 2013)1" 2013)2" 2014" Department"Average" Inspec;on"Year" Personal" Environmental" Behavioral" Garcia)Garibay"Group"

But Before We Congratulate Ourselves

Analysis of UCLA Safety Incidents Department vs UCLA vs UC System vs Outside World How are we doing? What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong? How do we compare against other universi2es? How do we compare against government labs? How do we compare against industry? Can incident data be used to drive safety ac2vi2es?

Reported Safety Incidents in the UCLA Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Injury Year 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Total Laceration 2 2 2 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 18 Chemical exposure 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 16 Biological exposure 1 1 Thermal burn 1 2 1 1 5 Needle Stick chemical 1 1 1 3 Needle Stick biological 1 1 UV radiation to eyes 1 1 Hit by object 1 1 1 1 4 Hit by object in eye 1 1 1 3 Animal bite - squirrel 1 1 Carpal tunnel / back pain / 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 1 16 Slip fall on level 2 3 5 1 1 12 Slip fall on stairs 1 1 1 1 4 Strain lifting 1 1 1 1 1 5 Emotional mental stress 1 3 1 1 6 Total Injuries 10 8 8 13 10 7 13 12 7 3 5 96! Low incidence rate per year, but aggregate iden3fies key injuries

Reported Safety Incidents in the UCLA Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Department results over eleven years: Average number of reported injuries per year: 8.7 Average number of lab- specific injuries per year: 4.1 Average number of non- lab injuries per year: 4.6. Total lab popula2on of more than 500 faculty, staff researchers, postdoctoral scholars, graduate students, and undergraduate students: Lab- specific accident rate: 0.8% Overall accident rate: 1.7% All of UCLA in 2013: 1,324 accidents reported from employees in 182 departments 51 departments with 5 or more reported accidents Roughly 20,500 career employees, 11,500 graduate students, 2000 postgraduate trainees, and 2500 undergraduate student employees Overall UCLA accident rate: 3.6%

Reported Safety Incidents in the UCLA Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Department results over eleven years: Lab- specific accident rate: 0.8% Overall accident rate: 1.7% UCLA in 2013: Lab- specific incident rate: 1.5 % Overall UCLA accident rate: 3.6% State of California* in 2012: All industries including state and local governments accident rate: 4.0% Colleges, universi2es and professional schools accident rate: 2.9%. All manufacturing accident rate: 3.2% Chemical manufacturing accident rate: 2.8% * Data from the Survey of OccupaOonal Injuries and Illnesses compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor StaOsOcs, U.S. Department of Labor

Reported Research Laboratory Incidents at UCLA The Good: Laboratory accidents comprise a small frac2on of the total of 1,366 accidents reported from employees in 182 departments in 2013 The Bad: Limited change since massive overhaul of safety programs The Ugly: Is our approach wrong? Number of Incidents 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Lacera2ons Needle s2cks Biohazard exposures Animal bites/scratches Chemical exposures Bodily trauma Slips and falls Ergonomic issues

What can we learn from incidents? Where do they occur? What type of accidents occur? Did safety interven2ons since 2008 lead to reduc2ons in the number or type of incidents?

Types of Lab Incidents 2008-2014 (833 total) Thermal Burn 2% Other Exposures 1% Unknown cause Object in Eye 1% 2% Allergies 4% Needles2cks 6% Contusions Sprains 12% Strains (Ergon.) 15% Chem. Exposure 17% Animals 13% Lacera2ons 15% Biohaz. exposure 12%

Biohazard Exposures 2008-2014 Splash to eye 10% 104 Incidents Splash to body 6% Unknown 2% 29/62 departments with biohazard exposures 2 departments with 10 or more chemical exposures (46% of total) Animals 10% Needle s2cks 18% Lacera2ons 54% Incidents 40 30 20 10 Largely Preventable Incidents 0 Pathology & Lab Medicine Div. Lab Animal Medicine

Chemical Exposures 2008-2014 144 Incidents Lacera2on 1% Inhala2on 32% Splash to eyes 28% Splash to body 35% Needle s2ck 5% Incidents 35/62 departments with chemical exposures 5 departments with 10 or more chemical exposures (48% of total) 20 15 10 5 0 Largely Preventable Incidents

19/62 Departments had more than 10 incidents in the last 7 years 39% Div. Lab Animal Medicine Pathology & Lab Medicine 2 Departments/Divisions reported 359/833 lab incidents 5% 14% 39% Chemistry &Biochemistry 60 50 14% Lab Incidents In the Div. Lab Animal Medicine decreased significantly in the last 4 years. Incidents 40 30 20 10 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Longitudinal Analysis of Incident 40 Types Incidents 30 20 10 0 Chemical Exposure Biohazard Exposure Lacera2ons w/o exp Needles2cks w/o exp Contusions/Acute Sprains Strains (Ergon.) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 No Change in Types of Incidents Incidents 25 20 15 10 5 0 Animal Bites/Scratches w/o Exposure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Except for Animal Incidents

Training Changes at Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine DLAM course overhauled in Fall 2011 by James McCabe, new Training Manager at UCLA School of Medicine Coursework remodeled to give students more 2me to focus on handling and restraint, while reserving addi2onal techniques or specific tasks for other class 2mes Hands- on course improved by increasing the exposure 2me and providing students a more relaxed environment with less rushing and stress Students who remain uncomfortable are offered follow- up course 2me Students who require more technical training are scheduled one on one to ensure proficiency KEY POINT: Lab- specific training by engaged supervisor

Is work in academic laboratories safe? Continued improvements need to be made! We know where we need to improve We know faculty engagement is crucial Lab-specific training can have a big impact

Safety Training Consor2um Membership organiza2on of research universi2es to develop online safety training for the research community Goal: Develop high quality, engaging online training modules to promote safety for researchers Administered by the UC Center for Laboratory Safety htp://safety- consor2um.org

Safety Training Consor2um Course Subject Areas: General Lab Safety Animal Safety Biological Safety Chemical Safety EH&S Training Nanomaterials safety Physical Safety Radia3on Safety htp://safety- consor2um.org

CONCLUSIONS Lab safety is a lot like exercise, thinking about it once a month is not good enough A sustained approach is necessary There is no magic bullet A mulopronged set of acoons is required Lab- specific training can have a significant impact Engagement by faculty is the most effec2ve ac2on with a documented impact on safety AcOve parocipaoon by direct supervisors reduces injuries and promotes a culture of safety Must think beyond the OSHA Laboratory standard Further reducoons in accident rates can be made

Acknowledgements Dr. Imke Schroeder (UCLA, UCCLS) Dr. Nancy Wayne (UCLA, UCCLS) Advisory Board, UC Center for Laboratory Safety Advisory Board, Safety Training Consor2um UCLA EH&S UC Enterprise Risk Management UC Risk & Safety Solu2ons