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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshfordN. A., Crisis in the Workplace, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.
2.
For a more thorough examination of the occupational and environmental health movements, please refer to the following books: BermanD., Death on the Job, Occupational Health and Safety Struggles in the United States, Monthly Review Press, New York and London, 1978; ColtenC. and SkinnerP., The Road to Love Canal, Managing Industrial Waste before EPA, University of Texas Press, Austin1996; GottliebR. (ed.), Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1993; NobleC., Liberalism at Work, The Rise and Fall of OSHA, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1986; RosnerD. and MarkowitzG., Dying for Work: Workers' Safety and Health in Twentieth-Century America, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1989; and WoodingJ. and LevensteinC., The Point of Production, Work Environment in Advanced Industrial Societies, The Guilford Press, New York, 1999.
3.
GottliebR. (ed.), Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1993.
4.
BermanD., Death on the Job, Occupational Health and Safety Struggles in the United States, Monthly Review Press, New York and London, 1978.
5.
SlatinC., Training for Action: The Political Economy of the Superfund Worker Training Program, doctoral dissertation, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, pp. 649, 1999.
6.
SlatinC., Training for Action: The Political Economy of the Superfund Worker Training Program, doctoral dissertation, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, pp. 649, 1999.
7.
NobleC., Liberalism at Work, The Rise and Fall of OSHA, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1986; and RosnerD. and MarkowitzG., Dying for Work: Workers' Safety and Health in Twentieth-Century America, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1989.
8.
Some would argue that, in practice, certain members of the public are unfairly exposed to hazardous environmental toxins because of race and class. For a more detailed discussion of this, see DowieM., Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997.
9.
In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was created in an attempt to regulate working conditions, including health and safety, by offering a means for collective bargaining for better wages and working conditions.
10.
RappaportS. M., Threshold Limit Values, Permissible Exposure Limits, and Feasibility: The Bases for Exposure Limits in the United States, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 23, pp. 683–694, 1993.
11.
RoachS. A. and RappaportS. M., But They Are Not Thresholds: A Critical Analysis of the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 17, pp. 727–753, 1990.
12.
GibsonS., How OSHA Dealt with Asphalt Fumes, New Solutions, 5(1), pp. 34, 42–44, Fall 1994.
13.
When workers wear respirators, they do so behind workplace walls. It is one method the employer uses to ensure that exposure to a hazardous substance is kept below the permissible exposure limit. If the public wore respirators, everyone would know the environmental conditions around them were dangerous. The public would not tolerate this.
14.
GottliebR. (ed.), Reducing Toxics, A New Approach to Policy and Industrial Decisionmaking, Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 98–103, 1995.
15.
Moure-ErasoR. and TsongasTheodora, Benzene and Public Health Policy, New Solutions, 1(2), pp. 13–21, 1990.
16.
GottliebR. (ed.), Reducing Toxics, A New Approach to Policy and Industrial Decisionmaking, Island Press, Washington, D.C., p. 102, 1995.
17.
GottliebR., Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement, Island Press, Washington, D.C., p. 274, 1993.
NobleC., Liberalism at Work, The Rise and Fall of OSHA, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Chapter 1, 1986.
21.
LevensteinC.WoodingJ., and RosenbergB., Occupational Health, A Social Perspective, in Occupational Health, Recognizing and Preventing Work-Related Disease and Injury (4th Edition), LevyB. and WegmanD. (eds.), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2000.
ColtenC. and SkinnerP., The Road to Love Canal, Managing Industrial Waste before EPA, University of Texas Press, Austin, Chapter 4, 1996.
24.
For additional information about the role of the health and safety manager at three printed wire board companies in Massachusetts, see ArmentiK., Primary Prevention for Occupational Health: Using the Pollution Prevention Model to Promote the Integration of Occupational and Environmental Health, doctoral dissertation, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Massachusetts, Chapter 5, 2001.
25.
Pollution Prevention Policy Statement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, 54(16), January 26, 1989.
26.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 United States Code of Federal Regulations, section 13102.
27.
GottliebR. (ed.), Reducing Toxics, A New Approach to Policy and Industrial Decisionmaking, Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 74–78, 1995.
28.
Such EPA initiatives include the Industrial Toxics Project or the “33/50” Initiative, the Common Sense Initiative, Design for the Environment, the Environmental Leadership Program, the Green Lights Program, Project XL, Energy Star Computers, and the Source Reduction Review Project.
29.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Annual Report of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics FY 1995, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington D.C., 1997.
30.
GottliebR. (ed.), Reducing Toxics, A New Approach to Policy and Industrial Decisionmaking, Island Press, Washington, D.C., Chapter 3, 1995.
31.
Pollution prevention tools created by the EPA include ChemSTEER, or Chemical Screening Tool for Exposures & Environmental Releases, the Green Chemistry and Green Engineering programs, and the Design for the Environment. Other tools have been created by the University of Massachusetts Lowell (Work Environment Program), the Toxics Use Reduction Institute, the University of Tennessee, Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, and Purdue University, Indiana Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe Materials Institute.
32.
OchsnerM., Pollution Prevention: An Overview of Regulatory Incentives and Barriers, New York University, Environmental Law Journal, 6(3), 1998.
33.
Massachusetts General Laws, Toxics Use Reduction Act, HB6161, Chapter 21I, 1989.
34.
Massachusetts General Laws, Toxics Use Reduction Act, HB6161, Chapter 21I, 1989.
35.
GeiserK., The Greening of Industry: Making the Transition to a Sustainable Economy, Technology Review, August–September 1991.
36.
Massachusetts General Laws, Toxics Use Reduction Act, HB6161, Chapter 21I, 1989.
37.
RossiM.EllenbeckerM., and GeiserK., Techniques in Toxics Use Reduction: From Concept to Action, New Solutions, 2, pp. 31–32, Fall 1991.
38.
ArmentiK., Primary Prevention for Occupational Health: Using the Pollution Prevention Model to Promote the Integration of Occupational and Environmental Health, doctoral dissertation, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, Chapter 5, 2001.
39.
PennyJ. and Moure-ErasoR., Application of Toxics Use Reduction to OSHA Policy and Programs, Methods and Policy Report No. 12, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, 1995.
40.
PennyJ. and Moure-ErasoR., Application of Toxics Use Reduction to OSHA Policy and Programs, Methods and Policy Report No. 12, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, 1995.
41.
U.S. Department of Labor, Progress Report, FY 1991, Workplan Under the OSHA/EPA Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1992.
42.
PennyJ. and Moure-ErasoR., Application of Toxics Use Reduction to OSHA Policy and Programs, Methods and Policy Report No. 12, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, 1995.
43.
The conference was developed as a result of the work of the Senior Policy Advisor for Chemical Exposure Prevention (SPACEP). This position was created under the FY 1992 MOU Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreement (IPA) with the University of Massachusetts Lowell. It was intended to introduce and formulate the concept of pollution prevention as a major policy option of OSHA for the primary prevention of chemical exposures (including chronic health effects and acute events) in the work environment. The position was filled by Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso, Professor of the Work Environment Department, College of Engineering, at the University. For more information, please reference the report by Dr. Moure-Eraso titled, Pollution Prevention/Source Reduction and Occupational Safety and Health, Activities of OSHA's Senior Policy Advisor on Chemical Exposure Prevention (SPACEP): Final Report to Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Lowell, Massachusetts, 1995.
Research attempting to measure the effects of pollution prevention intervention programs on worker safety and health has been done. For more information, reference K. Armenti, doctoral dissertation, Primary Prevention for Occupational Health: Using the Pollution Prevention Model to Promote the Integration of Occupational and Environmental Health, Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2001, RoelofsC., Pollution Prevention and the Work Environment: The Massachusetts Experience, in Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 15(11), pp. 843–850, 2000, and SivinD., doctoral dissertation, Pollution Prevention and Worker Toxic Exposures: A Method, Johns Hopkins University, Ann Arbor: UMI2002.
46.
For a detailed discussion of industry motivation for pollution prevention, Including interviews, see EPA document 100-R-96-001 and 100-R-96-001a, “Prototype Study of Industry Motivation for Pollution Prevention” and “Interview Results.”
47.
AshfordN. A. and CaldartC., Technology, Law and the Working Environment (Revised Edition), Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1996.
