Editorial

The CDC Leads on Indoor Environmental Quality

Word has been circulating among the chemically sensitive that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a policy for indoor environmental quality in all its facilities. My first reaction to this was, ho- hum, another document of best practices for avoiding liability issues. Was I ever wrong. This is a policy that marks true leadership in protecting workers’ health.

Historically, the problems of indoor environmental quality have been dismissed as imaginary or too confounding for the human intellect to resolve, but the CDC has demolished those canards with its “Indoor Environmental Quality Policy.” This provides standards for air quality and other factors affecting environmental quality, including a fragrance-free policy. It also establishes procedures for reporting and investigating complaints. There is even a stated policy to accommodate, where possible, the needs of those with allergies and chemical intolerances.

Some of the highlights of this document include:

Ÿ Guidelines for construction and renovation projects that identify routes of exposures, less toxic materials and protection of workers.

Ÿ Ventilation systems must be protected from harboring toxic materials.

Ÿ Vehicles are not allowed to idle near air-intakes or entryways.

Ÿ Efforts must be made to interrupt pollutant pathways.

Ÿ Activities that will expose workers to excess odors, noise, and dust should be scheduled for nonduty hours. Where that is not possible, workers will be given five days’ notice so that those with chemical sensitivities can make alternative arrangements.

Ÿ Integrated pest management practices must be utilized. When pesticides are needed, the least toxic must be used.

Ÿ Cleaning products must meet “green” specifications. They must be odor free.

Ÿ Scented or fragranced products are prohibited at all times in all interior space owned, rented, or leased by the CDC.

Ÿ Personal care products such as colognes are not to be applied inside the buildings. Employees are encouraged to be as fragrance free as possible when they arrive to work. They are also encouraged to avoid using scented laundry detergents and fabric softeners.

Ÿ The document provides the procedures for employees to file complaints and the investigation requirements.

People who are chemically sensitive are ecstatic about this new policy. Not only does it provide hope for access to employment if adopted universally, but it attempts to bring sanity to the growing problem of human overexposure to chemicals in the indoor environment.

Those who have developed chemical sensitivity have long worked for prevention of this happening to others. In the early 1990s, a group working for recognition of chemical injuries maintained a database of people affected by chemical sensitivity in Washington state. At the time, we were sure that someone in the medical and scientific communities or health department would be interested in learning how so many people were becoming chemically sensitive, so we kept a list of names and the events that precipitated their illness. It started to play like a broken record.

There were the incidents such as spills and other accidents that sickened groups of people. There were groups of employees sickened by the chemicals used on the job. There were individuals sickened by exposures from renovations done in the workplace and at home. There were individuals who became ill after pesticides were sprayed in the workplace and still others whose workstations were located near sources of fumes such as photocopiers. One man’s office was the recipient of fumes coming from a lab where workers used exhaust hoods for cookie storage.

A recurring culprit turned out to be the clean-air intake for ventilation systems in buildings. A large office building had its clean- air intake vents located near its busy loading dock. A school building had its idling buses line up where the intake vents were located. Tar roofing jobs were done without turning off the vents that took air into the building from the roof. There were a few incidents when school gym floors were refinished and the air system moved the air into classrooms. Airline flight attendants were sickened by fumes entering the cabin. And, far from finally, an airline office was located over the maintenance hangar.

As the list grew to several hundred names, it became obvious that there was no great mystery about why people were becoming ill. Carelessness and ignorance about chemical toxicity and routes of exposure were behind most of the incidents. Had there been environmental policies such as those in the CDC document, most of these incidents would not have occurred.

The CDC does not make any link to causation of illness, but its new policy does reflect a long overdue respect for proper environmental hygiene. It is a policy that deserves to be duplicated in homes and workplaces across the country. But we cannot stop there. Carelessness with chemical exposures is all around us. Recently, the Los Angeles Times reported that an investigation was under way into a makeshift beauty salon that had been set up in a hospital’s intensive care ward for newborns. The smell of acetone permeated the unit. Closer to home, it is not unusual to see a shopper who has placed a toddler into a shopping basket with Weed & Feed and fresh produce. And how many of us know what was stacked in the cart before we place our food, supplements, and clothing? Is the neighborhood yard fanatic someone who respects the safety warnings on the packaging, or who thinks cautions are unnecessary? Are you warned when your children are exposed to herbicides and pesticides in their schools?

We all need to become more aware of those activities that are introducing contaminants into our environment and expect knowledgeable handling and safety considerations whether we are consumers, employees, parents, students, or just plain citizens. The CDC has taken a big step toward increasing awareness; let’s hope it spreads.

The CDC policy may be viewed at : http://www.thecanaryreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CDC-2009-Indoor-Environmental-Quality.-internal-policy542.pdf. You can also search the Canary Report website: www.thecanaryreport.org.

Katherine Duff