Are green building features safe for preventive maintenance workers? Examining the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Many newly constructed green buildings (GB) are certified using the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for new construction and major renovation which focuses on architectural and mechanical design to conserve energy, reduce environmental harm, and enhance indoor quality for occupants. This study evaluated the preventive maintenance (PM) worker occupational safety and health (OSH) risks related to the design of GB. METHODS: PM job hazard analyses (JHA) were performed on the tasks required to operate and maintain five GB features selected from 13 LEED certified GB. A 22-item JHA and OSH risk scoring system were developed. RESULTS: Potentially serious OSH hazards included: green roofs made of slippery material without fall protection; energy recovery wheels and storm water harvesting systems in confined spaces; skylights without guard rails; and tight geothermal well mechanical rooms constraining safe preventive practices. CONCLUSIONS: GB can present PM OSH risks and these should be eliminated in the building design phase.

Redesigning chemicals policy: a very different approach.

The chemical policies of the 1970s were limited by the assumptions that lie at their foundation and focused narrowly on only the most hazardous chemicals. The effective management of chemicals requires policies that focus on the entire body of chemicals and the production systems that make them. The future will require comprehensive chemicals policies that work within a systems framework to phase out the most hazardous chemicals, progressively transition away from the remaining chemicals of concern by substituting safer chemicals and technologies, and invest heavily in a new generation of safer and more sustainable chemicals.

Reforming state-level chemicals management policies in the United States: status, challenges, and opportunities.

During the last several years there has been increasing public concern about chemicals in everyday products. Scientific studies are increasingly revealing the build-up of some substances in ecosystems and in our bodies and new findings are linking exposures to hazardous chemicals to a range of adverse human health effects. Despite these trends, there has been little federal initiative in the United States on reforming chemicals management policies for well over two decades, even though a variety of analyses have identified significant gaps in the regulatory structure. As has historically been the case, states are beginning to fill the holes in federal leadership. This article explores this emerging state leadership and establishes a vision for and elements of policies to reduce hazardous chemicals in the products we buy and the places we go. It examines international efforts to reform chemicals management policies, such as the European REACH legislation and corporate leadership in advancing safer products. Finally, it outlines specific challenges states face in developing integrated, comprehensive chemicals management policies. We conclude that while there are plenty of challenges to implementation of chemicals policy reforms, it is a propitious time for states to become leaders in policy innovation that can help achieve safer production systems and products for future generations. This article is part of a Lowell Center for Sustainable Production report entitled "Options for State Chemicals Policy Reform" that provides in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of policy options to address a range of aspects of state-level chemicals policy reform. The article has been edited slightly for use in New Solutions. The report has been widely distributed to policy-makers, advocates, and others across the United States.

The U.S. experience in promoting sustainable chemistry.

BACKGROUND, AIM AND SCOPE: Recent developments in European chemicals policy, including the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) proposal, provide a unique opportunity to examine the U.S. experience in promoting sustainable chemistry as well as the strengths and weaknesses of existing policies. Indeed, the problems of industrial chemicals and limitations in current regulatory approaches to address chemical risks are strikingly similar on both sides of the Atlantic. We provide an overview of the U.S. regulatory system for chemicals management and its relationship to efforts promoting sustainable chemistry. We examine federal and state initiatives and examine lessons learned from this system that can be applied to developing more integrated, sustainable approaches to chemicals management. MAIN FEATURES: There is truly no one U.S. chemicals policy, but rather a series of different un-integrated policies at the federal, regional, state and local levels. While centerpiece U.S. Chemicals Policy, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has resulted in the development of a comprehensive, efficient rapid screening process for new chemicals, agency action to manage existing chemicals has been very limited. The agency, however, has engaged in a number of successful, though highly underfunded, voluntary data collection, pollution prevention, and sustainable design programs that have been important motivators for sustainable chemistry. Policy innovation in the establishment of numerous state level initiatives on persistent and bioaccumulative toxics, chemical restrictions and toxics use reduction have resulted in pressure on the federal government to augment its efforts. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that data collection on chemical risks and phase-outs of the most egregious chemicals alone will not achieve the goals of sustainable chemistry. These alone will also not internalize the cultural and institutional changes needed to ensure that design and implementation of safer chemicals, processes, and products are the focus of the future. Thus, a more holistic approach of 'carrots and sticks'--that involves not just chemical producers but those who use and purchase chemicals is necessary. Some important lessons of the US experience in chemicals management include: (1) the need for good information on chemicals flows, toxic risks, and safer substances.; (2) the need for comprehensive planning processes for chemical substitution and reduction to avoid risk trade-offs and ensure product quality; (3) the need for technical and research support to firms for innovation in safer chemistry; and (4) the need for rapid screening processes and tools for comparison of alternative chemicals, materials, and products.

Occupational safety and health in china, part I: u.s.-China symposium on "integrating occupational and environmental health".

A joint China-U.S. symposium entitled "Integrating Occupational and Environmental Health" was organized by the Department of Science and Technology of Hebei Province, PRC, and the Department of Work Environment at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, U.S.A. A framework called "Sustainable Production" was proposed by U.S. participants to link environmental and worker protection. Sustainable production focuses on systems of production that integrate concerns for the long-term viability of the environment, worker health and safety, the community, and the economic performance of firms and other enterprises. The disciplines of environmental and occupational health and safety were brought together by Chinese participants under the unifying theme of the development, implementation, and impact of new technologies. As production processes are increasingly concentrated in China, collaboration among U.S. and Chinese environmental and occupational health and safety professionals is ever more essential.

Nanotechnology and environmental and public health considerations.

Nanotechnology has arrived on the scene much as did predecessor technologies--hailed for its purpose and accepted with enthusiasm amid bursts of research, funding, and news of creative applications. But the early efforts to consider its environmental aspects have been small even though the implications for environmental and public health are broad. A well-crafted policy framework is needed, one linked to a clearer understanding of the direct and indirect effects, benefits, and risk of nanotechnology. A precautious approach would foster policy interventions to prevent harms by slowing developments where the risks are high and focus scientific effort on dispelling ignorance and uncertainty, especially in those areas where the consequences of being wrong are substantial. This kind of approach also would impose the burden of demonstrating the safety of the technology primarily on its proponents. The process of producing guidelines for other technologies is considered.

The problem of current toxic chemicals management.

In this article, we explore the limitations of current chemicals management policies worldwide and the evolution of new European, International and U.S. policies to address the problem of toxic chemicals control. It is becoming increasingly apparent that current chemicals management policies in Europe and the United States are inadequate. There is a general lack of toxicity and exposure information on chemicals in commerce and the vast majority of chemicals were considered safe until proven guilty in legislation. Governments must then prove each chemical is dangerous through a slow and resource-intensive risk assessment process. For more than a decade, Nordic countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, have actively promoted integrated chemicals policies to address contamination of critical waterways. They have successfully used a variety of voluntary and mandatory policy tools, such as education, procurement, lists of chemicals of concern, eco-labeling, research and development on safer substitutes, and chemical phase-out requirements, to encourage companies using chemicals to reduce their reliance on harmful substances and to develop safer substitutes. While previously isolated to particular countries, innovative and exciting European-wide policies to promote sustainable chemicals management are now moving forward, including the recently published draft Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of CHemicals (REACH) policy of the European Union. A sweeping change in chemicals management policies in Europe is inevitable and it will ultimately affect manufacturers in the U.S. and globally. The European movement provides an opportunity to initiate a discussion on integrated chemicals policy in the U.S. where some innovative initiatives already are underway.

Joint occupational and environmental pollution prevention strategies: a model for primary prevention.

Occupational and environmental health issues are not always considered simultaneously when attempting to reduce or eliminate hazardous materials from our environment. Methods used to decrease exposure to hazardous chemicals in the workplace often lead to increased exposure in the environment and to the community outside the workplace. Conversely, efforts to control emissions of hazardous chemicals into the environment often lead to increased exposure to the workers inside the plant. There are government regulations in place that ensure a safe work environment or a safe outside environment; however, there is little integration of both approaches when considering the public's health as a whole. This article examines some of the reasons behind this dichotomy, focusing on the regulatory and policy frameworks with respect to workplace and environment that have resulted in the inability of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to coordinate their efforts to protect public health. The components of the Pollution Prevention Act and its potential to serve as a model for integrating occupational and environmental health are discussed. Limitations regarding enforcement of pollution prevention, as well as its disconnection from the work environment are equally highlighted. The article finishes by examining the barriers to integrating the occupational and environmental health paradigms and the promotion of primary prevention in public health.

Making materials matter.

For sustainability, it would be much more effective and economically efficient to focus on designing and using less hazardous materials. By paying more attention to the materials that we manufacture and use, we could pay less attention to their impacts on people and the environment. The environmental costs of materials show up in damage from materials extraction, pollution, energy consumed, and waste material disposal. The model on which the materials management system is based is flawed. Future systems must be cyclical ones of sustainable managed material flows that conserve resources and minimize dissipation. Material recycling and reuse must be primary components, along with new extraction, harvesting, and treatment practices. Needed are new policies that promote human health and environmental quality, as well as economic efficiency and product effectiveness. The policies may be either public or private, but they must be integrative and focused on the full life cycle of materials. This sustainable materials economy will require new information systems, re-direction of materials markets, reconfiguration of corporate missions and designs, changes in government policies, and public engagement.