Evaluation of airborne asbestos concentrations associated with the maintenance of brakes on an industrial overhead crane.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate potential airborne asbestos exposures during brake maintenance and repair activities on a P&H overhead crane, and during subsequent handling of the mechanic's clothing. METHODS: Personal (n = 27) and area (n = 61) airborne fiber concentrations were measured during brake tests, removal, hand sanding, compressed air use, removal and reattachment of chrysotile-containing brake linings, and reinstallation of the brake linings. The mechanic's clothing was used to measure potential exposure during clothes handling. RESULTS: All brake linings contained between 19.9% to 52.4% chrysotile asbestos. No amphibole fibers were detected in any bulk or airborne samples. The average full-shift airborne chrysotile concentration was 0.035 f/cc (PCM-equivalent asbestos-specific fibers, or PCME). Average task-based personal air samples collected during brake maintenance, sanding, compressed air use, and brake lining removal tasks ranged from 0 to 0.48 f/cc (PCME). The calculated 30-minute time-weighted average (TWA) airborne chrysotile concentration associated with 5-15 minutes of clothes handling was 0-0.035 f/cc PCME. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that personal and area TWA fiber concentrations measured during all crane brake maintenance and clothes handling tasks were below the current OSHA 8-h TWA Permissible Exposure Limit for asbestos of 0.1 f/cc. Further, no airborne asbestos fibers were measured during routine brake maintenance tasks following the manufacturer's maintenance manual procedures. All short-term airborne chrysotile concentrations measured during non-routine tasks were below the current 30-minute OSHA excursion limit for asbestos of 1 f/cc. This study adds to the available data regarding chrysotile exposure potential during maintenance on overhead cranes.

The challenge of predicting problematic chemicals using a decision analysis tool: Triclosan as a case study.

Manufacturers lack a reliable means for determining whether a chemical will be targeted for deselection from their supply chain. In this analysis, 3 methods for determining whether a specific chemical (triclosan) would meet the criteria necessary for being targeted for deselection are presented. The methods included a list-based approach, use of a commercially available chemical assessment software tool run in 2 modes, and a public interest evaluation. Our results indicated that triclosan was included on only 6 of the lists reviewed, none of which were particularly influential in chemical selection decisions. The results from the chemical assessment tool evaluations indicated that human and ecological toxicity for triclosan is low and received scores indicating that the chemical would be considered of low concern. However, triclosan's peak public interest tracked several years in advance of increased regulatory scrutiny of this chemical suggesting that public pressure may have been influential in deselection decisions. Key data gaps and toxicity endpoints not yet regulated such as endocrine disruption potential or phototoxicity, but that are important to estimate the trajectory for deselection of a chemical, are discussed. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:198-207. © 2016 SETAC.

Chemical assessment state of the science: Evaluation of 32 decision-support tools used to screen and prioritize chemicals.

The last decade has seen an increased focus on evaluating the safety and sustainability of chemicals in consumer and industrial products. In order to effectively and accurately evaluate safety and sustainability, tools are needed to characterize hazard, exposure, and risk pertaining to products and processes. Because many of these tools will be used to identify problematic chemistries, and because many have potential applications in various steps of an alternatives analysis, the limitations and capabilities of available tools should be understood by users so that, ultimately, potential chemical risk is accurately reflected. In our study, we examined 32 chemical characterization tools from government, industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The tools we studied were diverse, and varied widely in their scope and assessment. As such, they were separated into five categories for comparison: 1) Screening and Prioritization; 2) Database Utilization; 3) Hazard Assessment; 4) Exposure and Risk Assessment; and 5) Certification and Labeling. Each tool was scored based on our weighted set of criteria, and then compared to other tools in the same category. Ten tools received a high score in one or more categories; 24 tools received a medium score in one or more categories, and five tools received a low score in one or more categories. Although some tools were placed into more than one category, no tool encompassed all five of the assessment categories. Though many of the tools evaluated may be useful for providing guidance for hazards - and, in some cases, exposure - few tools characterize risk. To our knowledge, this study is the first to critically evaluate a large set of chemical assessment tools and provide an understanding of their strengths and limitations.

A cross-sectional analysis of reported corporate environmental sustainability practices.

The concept of sustainability evolved throughout the 1970s and 1980s, but was formally described by the 27 principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992. Despite the passage of nearly 20years, to date there are no uniform set of federal rules, regulations, or guidelines specifically governing the environmental aspects of sustainability practices or related requirements in the United States. In this benchmark analysis, we have collected information on the sustainability programs of the five largest US companies in each of the 26 industrial sectors [based on the Forbes Global 2000 through 2009 (n=130)]. For each company, we reviewed the most recent corporate sustainability, citizenship, or responsibility report, limiting our scope to environmental components, if available. Ten criteria were identified and analyzed, including leadership, reporting, external review, certification, and individual components of environmental sustainability programs. With respect to the prevalence of sustainability components between various business sectors, we found that the Drugs and Biotechnology (87%), Household and Personal Products (87%) and Oil and Gas Operations (87%) industries had the most comprehensive environmental sustainability programs. Using the nine components of environmental sustainability as a benchmark, we identified four key components as the characteristics of the most comprehensive environmental sustainability programs. These were (1) empowering leadership with a commitment to sustainability (80%), (2) standardized reporting (87%), (3) third-party evaluation of the sustainability programs (73%), and (4) obtaining ISO 14001 certification (73%). We found that many firms shaped their own definition of sustainability and developed their associated sustainability programs based on their sector, stakeholder interests, products or services, and business model. We noted an emerging area that we have called product sustainability - one in which toxicologists and environmental scientists can play a vital role helping to ensure that a manufactured item will indeed be considered acceptable for distribution now, as well as in the coming years. Numerous examples or case studies are presented.