Re: Energy Dept. Nuke Contractors Fined

[Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>]

>Back when I was teaching laboratory courses I had similar experiences.  We
>had safety goggles, eyewash fountains, showers, dress codes (closed-toe
>shows, etc.) and some students routinely ignored the safety precautions.
>Fortunately there were no major accidents that we got sued for in my labs --
>though there were a couple of nasty ones -- but a similar thing happens at
>universities and the institution is sued.  OSHA was supposed to take care of
>the problem of employers not providing PPEs and safety equipment.



"Back when I was teaching laboratory courses I had similar 
experiences. We had safety goggles, eyewash fountains, showers, dress 
codes (closed-toe shows, etc.) and some students routinely ignored 
the safety precautions."

I have never seen a university that does not have "following safety 
rules" as a requirement. When I was in or when I taught lab courses 
(1960's and 70's) ALL lab courses started with a safety lecture. This 
was especially true when working with toxic chemicals and potential 
carcinogens, mutagens, pathogens, etc. Any student who did not follow 
the safety rules (eye protection, etc.) was cautioned and 
re-instructed. Further violations and they were removed from the 
course and given the "opportunity" to repeat it. In the 60's 70's and 
90's, I have seen graduate students lose positions because of failure 
to follow safety rules. Students not following safety rules (or not 
being removed if they continued to violate safety rules) is a failure 
of the instructor to perform their duty to the institution and to the 
student. Simple "duty" rules apply. That is, the instructor has the 
duty to instruct on safety rules AND to ENFORCE them.


"a similar thing happens at universities and the institution is 
sued." It is not clear what the "similar thing" is. In the case at 
issue the contractors were not being sued. They were being assessed 
fines for violations. Only in the last 12 months has there been 
statute that allowed fines to State of California facilities (such as 
universities). However, it seems reasonable that if there is a safety 
(OSHA) rule that is broken there may be a fine. If the "is sued" is 
by a worker, that is a workers comp issue and no suits result (unless 
the claim is denied). If the person suing is an injured student then 
the process is no different than other liability suits - that is, you 
still need to show duty, causality, foreseeable, negligence, 
causation, etc.



"OSHA was supposed to take care of the problem of employers not 
providing PPEs and safety equipment." What does this relate to? This 
thread does not have a single sentence (that I would find) that 
relates to "the problem of employers not providing PPEs and safety 
equipment." Additionally, this statement is ludicrous. OSHA is a rule 
setting and an enforcement agency. They are no different from other 
similar agencies. The only way that I know that an agency (such as 
OSHA) can assure that ALL employers are providing PPEs and safety 
equipment is to have an OSHA representative there all the time. Is 
NRC "supposed to take care of the problems of employers" violating 
10CFR19, 20, 50, etc."? Well then, they too would have to have a rep 
at each specific locations all the time. Is the California Highway 
Patrol supposed to "take care" of the problem of excessive speed? 
Well their present program is a total failure. Perhaps they need to 
place an officer in the passenger seat of every car. At least I could 
then use the car pool lane.

Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html