[labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done?

[Weaver, John R]

Tony -

This is a valuable and well-thought-out response. I have many of the same thoughts and feelings; we have been battling those issues at the BNC for the entire life of the facility. I'm very interested in hearing some responses to your thoughts.

John


John R. Weaver
Strategic Facilities Officer
Birck Nanotechnology Center
1205 West State Street
West Lafayette IN 47907
(765) 494-5494
jrweaver at purdue.edu<mailto:jrweaver at purdue.edu>
nano.purdue.edu



From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Tony L Olsen
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 12:44 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done?

Vince/All

It is my opinion that there is no single method that satisfies all needs and all options to augment a system need to be considered and vetted.  Multiple approaches should be implemented - even a system of a nearby buddy has its weaknesses.  Currently, we only implement an active buddy system after-hours and want to augment it, too, so I would like to add to this discussion with my opinions and concerns with the hope that some viable solutions will be identified that we can each consider for our facility.

As mentioned, we ALWAYS require a buddy after-hours, regardless of activity or duration.  We have no restrictions on after-hours activities.  The buddy must be an active member of the lab, who also has after-hours access.

First, I consider it a mistake to assume that a lab member can be affected only by those hazards/dangers that he/she has direct control of.  Even if a member is entering the lab for a few minutes to retrieve some items, check on a tool, use a microscope, etc., there are still hazards present that put them at risk.  Anything can go wrong at any time - regardless of what the lab member(s) may or may not be doing.  And, sometimes it has nothing to do with the lab, but the member himself/herself.  As an example, a few years ago a researcher was working alone in the fab and recognized he was going into diabetic shock.  We had no idea he was diabetic, nor is it anything we would ask our members.  Anyway, he left the fab and made it as far as the vending machine before he passed out and was found some time later.  Thank goodness he made it out of the fab or the outcome may have been very bad.  I've also had an individual faint while in the cleanroom.  I have no control over the health or alertness of any individual member entering the cleanroom.  Consequently, being alone in the cleanroom for any reason or length of time is a risk I am unwilling to take.

Second, I hate exceptions - especially those that loosen restrictions.  They are difficult to monitor and enforce.  A global, consistent rule is much easier to manage.  Members will almost always interpret the rules to simplify their actions.  If I were to allow some activities without a buddy, I know it won't be long before I've got users breaking the rules and doing prohibited activities - both intentionally and unintentionally.  And, I have no desire to review video every morning to monitor after-hours activities.  Currently, I get a report every morning that tells me who was in the lab after-hours and when they left.  It takes me about 5 seconds to scan the report and identify violations - including the member that swiped out immediately and stayed in the lab alone.  It is quick and easy - although not fool-proof.  (Also, some facilities are able to physically and electronically prevent some activities and operations from use after-hours.  This is good and generally effective, but a desperate researcher with a rapidly approaching deadline will often find a work-around.)

Now, our buddy policy applies only to the cleanroom.  We do have a couple of small labs outside the cleanroom where we do not require an after-hours buddy.  Also, our surface analysis lab is exempt from the buddy requirement.  BTW, resistance to our buddy policy dropped when we changed our billing structure to eliminate ALL charges for entering the cleanroom.  It seemed wrong to charge a financial penalty to the buddy.

However, even with a buddy requirement in place, the active communication between members remains a big challenge.  A nearby buddy can be easily distracted and wander away. Two members can be in the lab for hours together, yet never see each other.  So far, I have been unsuccessful at getting members to regularly check on each other.   To that end, we are also considering some panic buttons or live displays of other bays to be used WITH our buddy requirement, but have no solid solution.  Consequently, I am also interested in other ideas/solutions presented.

Here are some more thoughts.

*       Panic buttons are only effective if they can be activated by the victim - and heard by the buddy who may be too far away.

o   A person who is unconscious cannot activate the alarm.

o   They should probably be portable, attached to the researcher, not permanently attached to a wall or wet bench.

?  A person could be conscious but unable to reach a fixed button.

o   The sound cannot be confused with an evacuation alarm.

o   A strobe or flashing light may also be considered - as long as it can be seen anywhere inside the facility.

o   It would also be good to alert staff automatically.

*       Phone apps or other systems that detect a fall may only be good for that purpose.  They would not work for an injury or chemical exposure or even someone unconscious in a chair.  I would question the false alarm rate, too.

*       If using a fixed camera system, where are the blind spots?  How will you cover them?

*       If using a robot, where is the redundancy?

o   How reliable is the wi-fi, server, network, and video stream?

o   What is your plan when the robot is not available or functioning?

o   What if it fails while a member is relying on it?

o   How will the robot react to an event?

*       If employing active, remote monitoring through a video system or robot, how do you ensure the person monitoring remains alert and focused on the task - especially if it is a lengthy duration?

o   How do you know who is the active monitor?

o   How far away from the lab is the monitor?

o   How does the researcher in the lab know if the monitor is still paying attention?

o   What is the active communication path between the researcher and the monitor?

o   How does the monitor decide a situation needs attention?

o   How long is the delay before anyone can respond?

?  Who will respond?

?  How will they verify it is safe to enter the lab?  (This is especially relevant if a man is down.  One victim is a tragedy.  Two victims is inexcusable.)

*       Have you consulted your EHS authority and legal department to ensure your approach(es) will not hold you or your organization liable - both financially and criminally?

*       Are you comfortable enough with your system(s) to trust the health, well-being, and life of your own child, siblings, parents, spouse, or partner to it?

I'm certain there are other concerns that I have not presented.  I apologize for my lengthy response, and thank those who have read through it.  More importantly, I hope it will generate more dialog for all of us to consider.  I applaud those who have worked through these issues and have effective solutions.  I am anxious to hear from them, since we, too, need to augment or modify our current system.

tonyO


Tony Olsen
Nanofab Cleanroom Supervisor/Process Engineer
University of Utah
36 S Wasatch Dr, Suite 2500 SMBB
Salt Lake City,  UT  84112
801-587-0651 office
801-587-3077 fax
www.nanofab.utah.edu<http://www.nanofab.utah.edu/>




From: Luciani, Vincent (Fed) [mailto:Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:30
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done?

Hello All,

Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are also reexamining our after-hours access  and buddy-system policy.  It is always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an interesting topic.  Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment with the "best practices" that are being described;  buddy system, CCTV cameras buddy matchmaking etc.  We do allow 24/7 use of our external microscopy labs that pose little risk.  However, we have recently been discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost effective manner.  So, I'll as the group:

Has anyone found a technology solution they like?  We have discussed the "I have fallen and can't get up" type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone apps that detect falls etc.  At a minimum we are pondering a system where there are 3 categories of activities:
1) Activities where no buddy system is needed.  For example:  operating a SEM or an AFM.
2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum:  For example: Operating a sputter system or RIE system.
3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.:  Anything that requires manual handling of dangerous liquids.

Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a buddy system?

Best,
Vince


Vincent K. Luciani
NanoFab Manager
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology<http://www.cnst.nist.gov/>
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA
+1-301-975-2886

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20161007/c565b221/attachment.html>