Government
ACS study shows OSHA rules won't work in labs the U.S. Response to the survey was excellent, with slightly more than 40% of the forms returned. Analysis of the survey was by the ACS Department of Public Affairs and the results were sent to OSHA last week. The ACS survey replies to five general statements concerned with use of hazardous chemicals in labs and how lab workers should be protected. The statements were first brought up when debating the OSHA cancer policy, and although generally believed to be true within the scientific community, there had not been much evidence to back them up. ACS contends that its survey supports the statements, which hold that rigid monitoring and engineering controls to reduce toxic chemical exposure are not effective in laboratories. The first general statement contends that labs handle a large number of toxic chemicals and that routine monitoring of all of them isn't possible because monitoring methods don't exist or there are no applicable OSHA standards. ACS found that 51% of labs responding use more than 25 chemicals daily, and that 9% use more than 200 chemicals daily. That the best protection is believed to be better training is demonstrated by the finding that 36% of the labs have voluntarily improved working conditions for handling hazardous chemicals and 38% have improved employee safety programs. A second belief is that routine monitoring for exposure to toxic chemicals will not work because of the short-term and low-level use of these
The American Chemical Society has told the Occupational Safety & Health Administration that setting rigid standards for worker exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories is not an effective way to protect laboratory workers' health, and that safety training programs should be the keystone to OSHA's laboratory safety and health policy. A recent ACS survey supporting this view shows that the use of toxic chemicals in labs tends to be in very small quantities for limited amounts of time, and that they are used by professionals and informed workers. OSHA is considering regulations to protect laboratory workers from exposure to hazardous chemicals and is seeking alternatives to the substance-specific standards that are used for protection of chemical plant employees. The agency currently has regulations requiring exposure monitoring for use of 27 chemicals, such as benzene, asbestos, arsenic, and lead. Unless OSHA establishes regulations or guidelines specifically for labs, these employees will be subject to the same rules as plant workers. ACS conducted its extensive survey of lab practices concerning hazardous chemicals to give some solid information to OSHA. The survey was prepared by the ACS Task Force on Occupational Safety & Health, chaired by Inara M. Brubaker of UOP Inc., Des Plaines, 111. Questionnaires were mailed to 1439 labs of all sizes and functions—academic, private, and industrial—chosen at random from the more than 5300 facilities in
Likelihood of a lab safety program increases with the number of lab workers % of labs with safety programs 100 •
Industry
80 60
40
20
1-9
10-24
25-99 Number of lab workers
a No university labs reporting had more than 500 workers.
24
C&ENJuly20, 1981
100-499
500-2500 3
substances by lab workers. The survey showed that about 76% of the labs use OSHA-regulated chemicals, and in most of these, only about 10% of the workers use those substances. More than 70% of the labs with OSHA-regulated chemicals said they had them in less than 50-g quantities (except benzene). Still, 20% of the labs reported having some kind of personal monitoring program where it seems warranted by the use and toxicity of the chemicals. A third statement used to argue against rigid standards is that it cannot be predicted what chemicals will be used in a laboratory, hence it is not possible to monitor them effectively. The ACS survey finds this to be true. Of the labs responding, 45% said they make up to nine unexpected chemical purchases per year and 3.5% said they make more than 150 unexpected chemical purchases. Another argument is that lab workers or their supervisors are highly trained concerning the use of chemicals and that decisions on worker safety would best be left in their hands. The ACS survey confirms that most workers are highly trained, finding that better than 73% of all lab workers have at least a bachelor's degree. Safety programs also are increasing worker awareness of hazards. The survey shows that only 7.8% of industrial lab workers are employed where there is no safety program, and that just 33.3% of academic workers are not involved in a safety program of any kind. The final statement is that monitoring would be prohibitively expensive and that more good for the worker would be done by improving work practices and facilities. The survey finds that most monitoring programs cost less than $500 per person but 17% of those responding said it costs them more. And this does not just include monitoring of OSHA-regulated chemicals, but mercury, toluene, formaldehyde, and many others not listed by OSHA. ACS recommends that OSHA establish good chemical practice guidelines for lab workers and that the guidelines require safety programs in all labs. The society suggests that OSHA use the National Academy of Sciences report "Prudent Practices for Handling Hazardous Chemicals in the Laboratory" as a guide for developing the safe work practices. In general, ACS maintains that all chemicals should be handled properly and carefully, not just those labeled hazardous. David Hanson, Washington
