Environment, Health and Safety Offices of the Top 30 Research Universities in the U.S.A. - Focused on the Case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT)

미국 상위 30개 연구 중심 대학들의 실험실 환경보건안전 담당 부서 - MIT 사례를 중심으로

Objectives: The objectives of this research are to examine the missions, organization, and programs of the environmental, health and safety(EHS) offices of the major research universities in the U.S.A., particularly the case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT) EHS Office, and to suggest ways to address the EHS issues of the universities and research institutes in South Korea. Methods: The top 30 research universities in the U.S.A. were selected by the total amounts of research funds they annually received. The web sites of the 30 universities were searched to identify the names of the departments that address environment, health, and/or safety related issues, the missions of those departments, the major programs of those departments, and the number of staff in those departments. Also, a case study was conducted for the Environment Health and Safety Management System and the Environment, Health and Safety Office of the MIT, using literature and web searches and a meeting with the Director of the MIT Environment, Health and Safety Office. Results: All the top 30 research universities in the U.S.A. had designated departments that dealt with EHS issues. Most of them were by the name of or similar to environmental, health and safety. The mission statements of those departments were mostly about improving the safety and health of their community members, improving the environment, and complying to EHS regulations. Most of those departments had an environmental management program, industrial hygiene program, radiation protection program, safety program, and biosafety program as their major programs. The components of the environment, health and safety management system(EHS-MS) of the MIT were examined in detail. In contrast, not many universities in South Korea had designated departments that dealt specifically with EHS issues. Also, the number of fulltime staff for EHS was only 1-2 in most of the Korean universities and their work duties included only general safety, while neglecting other health/environment related issues. Conclusions: Well organized and functioning environmental, health and safety offices were present in all of the top 30 research universities in the U.S.A., whereas similar organizations of the universities in South Korea were virtually non-existent and/or had very limited EHS activities. Therefore, in order to reduce potential risks of accidents and health problems in the Korean universities and research institutions, well established and functioning EHS-MSs and EHS offices are warranted. The case of the EHS-MS and EHS Office in the MIT demonstrate a successful case to follow.