Approved Environmental Safety and Risk Management Committee Meeting Minutes April 24, 2014 Present: Next meeting: Megan Adams, Mary Baum, Chris Burkmar, Amy Campbell, Greg Cantrell, Liz Coligieri, Sue Dupre, Steve Elwood, Rhonda Hospedales, Robin Izzo, Stef Karp, John Kolligian, Sanjeev Kulkarni, Paul LaMarche, Jerry Levine, Missy McGinn, Paul Ominsky, Bob Ortego, Rick Register, Nilu Schroff, Laura Strickler, Jackie Wagner, Treby Williams, October 13, 2014, 200 Elm Drive I. Minutes Minutes of the February 20, 2014 meeting were approved. II. Discussion Saw Stop Greg Cantrell Recently, two accidental workplace injuries occurred when workers hands came into contact with the blade of a SawStop table saw, which uses a small electrical charge to monitor the status of the table saw s blade and triggers a safety device to stop and retract the blade within 5 milliseconds when a finger or body part comes into contact with the blade.. In the first instance, a worker s left thumb came into contact with the blade, resulting in an injury that required stitches. The workers was wearing gloves while operating the table saw. The gloves were found to be non-conductive, which possibly interfered with the effectiveness of the SawStop technology. It is also possible that the glove material became entangled in the saw blade, allowing the worker s thumb to remain in contact with the blade for a slightly longer period of time. While it may seem counter-intuitive, gloves should not be used while operating rotating equipment, as the glove material may become entangled in the rotating surface and result in a significant injury. In the second instance, a worker s left hand inadvertently came into contact with the blade as he attempted to retrieve part of a board he had just cut. His injury was limited to a very small cut on the middle finger of his left hand, easily treated with a Band-Aid. As a result of these events (which occurred in the same department), a safety stand down was called by senior managers, who met with workers to discuss the incidents and lessons learned. A working group comprised of EHS, departmental supervisors, and workers (including the two injured workers), was formed to review table saw use and develop appropriate work practices to further reduce the likelihood that similar incidents. Lessons Learned Paul Ominsky Paul reviewed some of the facts from last year s bomb threat and the incident at Nassau Hall. On June 18, 2013, the University received a bomb threat. Since the FBI and other law enforcement agencies could not rule on whether or not it was a credible threat, the decision was made to evacuate. We needed to find a good place for those walking to congregate.
Overall, we seemed to do a pretty good job of evacuation, with a few traffic backups and built-in choke points due to configuration of some roads. Some people did not know what it meant to evacuate. Some were not sure if the message was real. We said to go home, but what does that mean to students? We should have established a press area earlier. We should have established a press area sooner. We not have a process in place to have FAA put overhead flight restrictions to avoid helicopters. Helicopters interfered with people being able to hear the blue light tower messages. There was good coordination with municipal, state and federal responders. We had a methodical way of clearing buildings. The threat was diffuse, possibly involving multiple buildings. Some laboratory animals were not returned to the vivaria. Some experiments were left running. There was no Com Center backup. While it would have been helpful to have some notion as to how long it was likely to last, since it was an evolving event, we did not know what the protocol was going to be to clear the buildings. For the future, a message such as Updates will be provided regularly. Do not expect to return to campus today could be helpful. On October 8, 2013 at around 7 PM, Public Safety (DPS) communications officers received a call from an administrator in Nassau Hall reporting that she heard what sounded like gunshots. After an extensive search by police and SWAT, nothing was found. Later, it was determined that a maintenance worker had been working on one of the doors and the hammering probably sounded like gunshots. Communication was critical. Initial message to Nassau Hall residents was confusing, especially after hours. Good coordination with local authorities. DPS arrived first, but should not have gotten as close as they did since they were unarmed. Princeton Police had fewer officers available than we would have expected. Since the incident, DPS and Princeton Police have been conducting mini drill, including transferring calls to Princeton Police, tours around campus, etc. Some people misinterpreted the message Stay away from Nassau Hall. Some locked down. DPS needs to connect the dots in a better way, manage the confusion and ask the right questions. The protocol for how to respond to shots in the building has evolved. Used to be that you establish a perimeter and two people go in. Now the first person goes in. We need to adjust this. Princeton Police leadership change is a good chance to re-establish our relationship with them. There has been good progress on this. Jerry Levine shared that at PPPL, a lawn mower backed into a gas meter, causing a gas leak. They learned that they need to protect the meters. When they notified the people involved, they did not notify everyone, which, in hindsight, they should have, since anyone could have come upon it.
Paul Ominsky showed the FBI active shooter video. Many universities are posting these videos on their websites. We like this one because it talks about what to expect without being gory. A review and feedback from these two incidents and other emergencies seemed to have a common theme: Training. People want more training. They want to know what to do in various types of emergencies. Some PTENS messages have terms that they may not understand. Communications. PTENS and other messages need to be clear. People want to know what to do and what to expect. We are in the midst of creating a better messaging plan for winter storms. Updates. People want regular updates during an event and want to know when it is considered to be over. References. People want a better website with more information and resources. Emergency Management Structure Rhonda Hospedales Rhonda presented an overview of the proposed emergency management structure. See the documents provided with the meeting agenda. After reviewing plans for many universities, we found four categories of teams needed for planning and managing emergencies: President Senior management group Emergency management group Emergency response boots on the ground: Emergency support functions All departments will be asked to complete their continuity of operations plans. By reviewing the plans, we can find overlaps in responsibilities and can clarify roles. Lead Paint in University Housing Jackie Wagner See the attached PowerPoint presentation. At the last Health, Safety and Accessibility meeting, HSA agreed to fund the assessment and mitigation of lead paint hazards for multi-dwelling units. This should take two to three years. Once completed, we will look at townhouses and single-family houses. The goal is to have all housing be lead hazard free, and as many as possible be lead free. Lead-free means that all paint and contaminated soil is removed Lead hazard free means that lead paint or contaminated soil may remain, but is kept in safe condition. Radon in University Buildings Sue Dupre and Bob Ortego Sue and Bob reviewed the status of the radon assessment and mitigation program Began in 2007 There are still only a handful of contractors licensed in NJ to deal with radon. 10,000 tests of ground level and basement rooms of every academic and housing building.
Mitigated radon levels in 101 buildings. Still have four locations that cannot be mitigated below 4 picocuries per liter, which is the EPA guideline for residential radon. These four buildings have levels between 4 and 15 picocuries per liter. In 2007, ESRM agreed that the 4 picocurie limit be used even for non-residential buildings. The group recommended considering a different limit for non-residential. Sue and Bob will bring this recommendation to the Radon Steering Committee. See the attached handout for additional information from the Radon Steering Committee and their recommendation. The group agreed with the recommendation and suggested that Paul LaMarche be invited to the next steering committee meeting to discuss a new limit. Training and Access to Labs Robin Izzo This topic was tabled due to time constraints. Respectfully submitted, Robin Izzo, Secretary
A Summary of Remaining Radon Program Issues Prepared by Sue Dupre Radiation Safety Officer Testing and Mitigation on Properties Not Solely Owned and Occupied by Princeton University In buildings the University owns and occupies, even partially, we will take responsibility for testing and mitigation. This includes properties occupied by close affiliates such as U- NOW. If the University owns land but another party is responsible for structures and improvements on that land, that party will be responsible for testing and mitigation. In properties occupied by University employees or students but not owned by the University, the University will require that the owner perform radon testing. Commercial properties owned by Princeton University will not automatically be tested by the University. The University will perform testing at the request of parties occupying such spaces. Properties that are a mix of ownership and occupancy will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the Radon Steering Group. The 4 pci/l action level used for University-owned and occupied buildings will continue to be the action level used for all buildings in the testing program. Periodicity of Retesting The original plan was to test at a frequency of ten years. The testing program began in 2007. The plan approved by the Radon Steering Group in January 2014 calls for retesting every ten years in the following locations rather than in all locations tested during the initial round of testing: All previously elevated locations All renovated, disturbed locations 25% of all residential spaces, chosen randomly 5% of all non-residential spaces, chosen randomly. Future of the Radon Steering Group The Radon Steering Group will continue as a standing committee through the next testing cycle. The Group will meet to resolve issues about the testing of commercial properties for the current testing cycle.
Managing Lead Paint Hazards Staff, Graduate Student and Faculty Housing State of New Jersey Regulations For Multiple Dwelling Units Expectation: all multiple dwelling housing units* will be maintained in a manner that reduces exposure to lead hazards * Multiple Dwelling Occupancies College Road 8, 12, 14 Dickinson College Road West 80-81 Alexander 172-190 Prospect 15, 19, 47 University Place 18-40 Edwards Wyman Cottage Dean Mathey Apts. Ferris Thompson 120 Prospect
State of New Jersey Regulations For Multiple Dwelling Units Two Options Assess Address /correct lead hazards Re-inspect, annually, those units with lead paint or Follow Assume Standard presence of lead Treatments* and follow standard treatments Standard Treatments* indicates that all painted surfaces in all multiple dwelling units will be assumed to contain lead, unless proven otherwise. Annually or at turnover, whichever is sooner, all painted surfaces must be checked and rendered lead-safe ; wipe samples must be analyzed regularly to verify unit is free from contamination.
Compliance Check Current Status Multiple Dwelling Occupancies Assessed Not Assessed Dean Mathey College Road Ferris Thompson College Road West 8 Dickinson (ODC) 172-190 Prospect 120 Prospect (ODC) 18-40 Edwards 15, 19, 47 University Place 12, 14 Dickinson 80-81 Alexander Wyman Cottage Lead-Free Lead -Hazard Free 8 Dickinson Dean Mathey Lawrence (1999) 120 Prospect Ferris Thompson (as of 2012)
For all housing units, including those not considered to be multiple dwelling units: Cost estimates to renovate units to a lead-free or lead-hazard free status have been developed. Housing units have been prioritized for assessment, based on: Regulatory requirements Likelihood to house children Ease/expense associated with converting unit to lead (hazard) free status
Assess all multiple dwelling occupancies in priority order Address lead hazards identified during assessment Obtain lead hazard free certificate Conduct annual inspections to evaluate condition of lead-painted surfaces
Assess units not considered to be multiple dwelling occupancies, following prioritization scheme developed by Lead Steering Committee. Address identified hazards.