.I .h w e questions, while no1 all t h a t n n l l d In. r u ~ i t dalrearly , s 1 0 whet her Hertlein's ddla retluirt, 11s113 1 t . l ~e r~i o u ; d c ~ h t as m a k e i t possible t o d r a w conclusions w i t h regard t o t h e safety of s t u d e n t laboratories. N o t o n l y i s i t still a n o p e n q u e s t i o n as t o h o w generally OSHA s t a n d a r d s a r e m e t i n t h e s e l a h w ratories, h u t t h e s t a n d a r d s t h e m s e l v e s m a y n o t be a d e q u a t e . Often.. t h e "v a r e m a d e m o r e s t r i n "e e n t a s n e w d a t a b e c o m e available. S t u d e n t s use m a n y s u b s t a n c e s which h a v e n o t been sufficiently s t u d i e d t o h a v e s t a n d a r d s s e t a t a l l (e.g., h r o m a b e n z e n e i n Hertlein's s t u d y ) . T h e q u e s t i o n of synergistic effects r e m a i n s onen. Hertlein's conclusion would l e a d to complacency, which s e e m s t o u s t o t a l l y u n j u s t i f i e d at t h i s point.
Michael E. Green Amos Turk
..
~~~
.. .
City College of the City University of New York New York, NY ID031
'
Note added in proof: The U.S. Supreme Court has sinee ruled in favor of the AS'S.
Reply to Comment on Monitoring Airborne Contaminents in the Laboratory
G r e e n a n d T u r k raise 8 p o i n t s regarding m y arlicle i n t h e M a y , 1979 issue to which I n o w reply.
was obtained. How this failure can be related to s&h a high coneent r a t i m is not known. and no attemot was made t o sneculate. T h e
vapors were collected during a 10 ;,r 15-minute sampling period ( a highly unlikely situation). Of the substances monitored only chlurotirrm has an estahlished ceiling value, and the only instance where this was exceeded was in the case o f t h e "snomalws" value. Data shown in the article are averages (all of them), and when the worst possible assumptions are made t o calculate the ceiling value, it is evident that rmeealed OSHA limit excursims do not exist. 2) The official T1.V for benzene is still 10 ppm as determined over an M-hour time-weighted sampling period, despite OSHA's unsurcessfd attempt to pmmulgate ah,we;standard. w e accept the current legal standard sinee OSHA's recommended benzene time-weighted averaee ITWAI threshold limit value (TLV) of 1 oom and ceilinz of 5 p p L a r e not federal law (and are considered t o have poor prospects r,flmvming law). We must reasonably conclude that this lahoratary is operating in compliance with standards. T h e three values questioned are all below 10 ppm when they are time-weighted as required. What the table in thearticle does not show are the eolculoted worst possible benzene excursiuns. T h e original data reveal that they vary from 1.6 to 88 ppm with an average of 13.6 ppm. Only the 88 ppm value is in excess of the current henzene ceiling slandard: the remaininr 15 values are below 50 oom (the current < ~ t I . n ; l w l w w e w , Since ,I h k h l ~w>I,k~-1,r h m ,211 the lh w t m w l h n
