A Guide for Building Managers: Introduction

You may know someone who has environmentally sensitivities; you may not even be aware of it. Environmental sensitivities, a hidden disability, are estimated to affect 15 per cent of our population. These individuals have been sensitized to environmental agents and experience associated reactions.1 People with environmental sensitivities suffer often disabling reactions to substances in our air, water and food at concentrations that are presently considered acceptable for the general population.

Many workers who have environmental sensitivities encounter difficulties in obtaining the accommodations they need to work productively, or to work at all. It should not be so. We hope that the many benefits accruing to both employers and employees of providing accommodation to workers who have this disability will become apparent as you read this Guide.

In the following real-life examples, workers with environmental sensitivities have been provided with accommodation by their employers, demonstrating that it is both possible and beneficial to remove workplace barriers for members of this group, allowing them to remain valued, productive employees.

Lisa worked for a large information technology company. During a pregnancy, Lisa developed sensitivities to many substances, including scented products, fabric softeners, off-gassing from carpets, photocopiers, printers, cleaning products and building materials. Her reactions included life-threatening anaphylaxis, asthma, skin rashes, muscle weakness and severe headaches, among others. Lisa was diagnosed with environmental sensitivities to many foods and chemicals and was counselled to manage her sensitivities by avoiding offending agents. In spite of Lisa's efforts to control her exposures to irritants and resulting reactions, she continued to suffer severe reactions while in the workplace. After her maternity leave, Lisa's employer provided her with the equipment necessary to set up a home office, and assigned projects that Lisa could perform effectively from home. Lisa participated in meetings by teleconference, or colleagues and others attended meetings at her home. Fellow employees were educated to arrive at meetings scent-free, and without fabric softener or freshly dry-cleaned clothes, in order to avoid triggering a reaction. As a result of these accommodations, Lisa was able to continue working productively as a highly skilled worker with the company.

Johanne works for a large government organization. She has sensitivities to chemicals and experiences anaphylactic reactions to some foods and natural substances. She has been assigned an enclosed office which helps protect her from electromagnetic radiation (to which she has a sensitivity) and from off-gassing of pollutants such as those emitted by cleaning products, building materials, printers and photocopiers, and scented products used by other employees. In addition, a portable "HEPA" (high efficiency particulate arrestor) filter air cleaner was purchased for her by her employer out of a special fund available to departments within her organization for accommodation of disabilities. The cost of maintaining the air cleaner by periodic replacement of the filters is paid for out of the unit's budget. Johanne's office has a window that provides some natural light. All of Johanne's fellow employees are aware of her disability and the need to avoid wearing scented products when working near her. Many of her colleagues, but unfortunately not yet all, avoid wearing scented products. Johanne is able to work a late afternoon shift, helping her to avoid the highest levels of indoor air pollutants, which occur between the mid-morning and mid-afternoon hours. Only cleaning products that Johanne is able to tolerate are used in her office. When new furniture was purchased for her unit, Johanne's supervisor gave her the opportunity to select tolerated hardwood furniture. The new finish on the furniture was allowed to off-gas for several weeks while Johanne was on vacation. As a result of this successful accommodation, Johanne remains a valued and effective member of her workplace team.

Vince developed environmental sensitivities during the early 1980s while working in a sealed office building. During major renovations on the floor of the building where his unit was located, his employer provided him with alternative accommodation on a different floor of the same building, isolated from the renovations and better tolerated by Vince. His employer provided a closed office, allowing Vince to avoid some of the indoor air contaminants and ambient noise associated with construction. His office was equipped with an air purifier. Eventually, Vince found that he was completely unable to tolerate the indoor environment at that location and, at Vince's request, his employer granted a transfer to a more tolerable environment.

In the course of a major retrofit to its headquarters building, a large government department made the decision to proactively eliminate barriers to employees who have environmental sensitivities. Tolerable building materials and furnishings were selected. The employer constructed "service centres" in key locations, which are separately ventilated rooms under negative pressure where VOC- (volatile organic compound) producing equipment such as printers and photocopiers are isolated. Books and files that may harbour mould and dust are stored in the service centres. Kitchens for the use of employees are also separately ventilated to the outside air. Coats and boots are stored in ventilated closets near office entrances. Tolerable, low-VOC or no-VOC cleaning products are used throughout the building. Employees with environmental sensitivities are individually accommodated in closed offices with openable windows, older furniture and hard flooring such as natural linoleum floors, if tolerated, and other accommodations, as needed. One boardroom in the building is dedicated to accommodating employees who have environmental sensitivities, although the room is routinely used by others as well. The boardroom has natural linoleum floors and is equipped with older furniture, good ventilation and openable windows. The boardroom is designated as fragrance-free, so that individuals who book the boardroom are advised that no scented products, newspapers, foods or volatile chemicals may be brought into the room. A sign outside the boardroom sets out the conditions of use. From time to time, bulletins are sent to all employees reminding them to refrain from using scented products in the workplace, in order to accommodate employees who have environmental sensitivities.

The benefits of accommodating employees who have environmental sensitivities by making general improvements can be demonstrated not only through anecdotes such as those detailed above, but also in terms of productivity. Indoor building environments have been shown to affect productivity between 1.5% and 6%.2 Gains in productivity have also been demonstrated to pay for the cost of building and air quality improvements in about 1.6 years.3

What are some of the specific barriers or problems facing employees who have environmental sensitivities in the workplace?

Off-gassing of volatile organic compounds from many building materials in newly constructed and remodelled buildings are particularly problematic. Indoor environments affect human health, behaviour and learning ability.4

The benchmark used to assess indoor air quality – ASHRAE Standard 62–2001, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality – is based on the premise that it is acceptable for up to 20 per cent of a HEALTHY, ADULT population to express dissatisfaction with the level of air quality set by the standard. In ASHRAE Standard 62–2001 it is acknowledged that:

Typically, research was done using odour-based criteria, with healthy young adult males as subjects, and with an expectation of an eight-hour exposure in an industrial setting. The exposures which are the basis of the ASHRAE Standard 62–2001 are not the substantially higher exposures that the most vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, older people, children (who may be housed in daycare centres in a workplace setting), and persons with disabilities may experience in their workplaces. These standards are clearly inadequate to protect the most vulnerable populations.

Internally generated contaminants account for about 50 per cent of indoor air quality problems, and poor system design, operation and maintenance deficiencies account for the remainder.6 Most office buildings in operation today were not designed to accommodate energy restrictions, pollutants generated by modern synthetic materials, chemical cleaners or office equipment (such as computers, printers, fax machines and photocopiers). Energy restrictions imposed since the 1980s permit up to 85 per cent recycled air. Health Canada investigated 95 Canadian buildings in 1984 and found that 68 per cent had problems attributed to “inadequate ventilation”, resulting in poor indoor air.7

Indoor air today is composed of hundreds, even thousands, of different compounds at very low concentrations, and has been referred to as a "chemical soup". Further, indoor air quality investigators only select certain compounds for testing and measurement. The synergistic effects of the cumulative total concentrations of contaminants have not been established. Given these factors, it is not surprising that there has been a concurrent appearance of related health problems, and that these complaints are becoming more numerous and severe. (The Ontario Workers Compensation Board approved 127 claims between 1988 and 1992 due to health problems related to airborne contaminants.)8

Many employees are presently missing working days because of inadequate office environments. A failure to provide good indoor environments in our office buildings means that many employees are not performing their work as productively as they might be.

Some of the toxins, irritants and sensitizers that contribute to unhealthy indoor environments include:

The World Health Organization estimates that 30 per cent of homes and buildings today contain enough indoor pollutants to cause health effects that range from a sniffle to very serious health problems. Since 90 per cent of the average Canadian's time is spent indoors, and since air pollution is two to five times, and occasionally more than 100 times, greater indoors,9 indoor air quality will increasingly become an issue of accommodation and access.

1. National Academy of Sciences, "Workshop on Health Risks from Exposure to Common Indoor Household Products in Allergic or Chemically Diseased Persons", cited by Nicholas A. Ashford and Claudia S. Miller in the introduction to Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes (2nd ed., 1998), p. xxii.

2. Productivity: Important Consideration, But Difficult to Measure", IEQ Strategies, December 1999, p. 3.

4. Bruce M. Small, "Recommendations for Action on Pollution and Education in Toronto: A Report Prepared for the Pollution and Education Review Group of the Board of Education for the City of Toronto", a consultation paper, May 1985, pp. 56–57.

5. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc., ASHRAE Standard 62–2001, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, Atlanta, GA, 1999, section 2.3, p. 3.

6. Tedd Nathanson, Guide for Indoor Air Quality: Investigative Services, Public Works and Government Services Canada, May 1995, p. 1.

7. J. Kirkbride, H. K. Lee and C. Moore, “Health and Welfare Canada’s Experience in Indoor Air Quality Investigations”, Indoor Air ’90: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Toronto, 1990, Vol. 5, pp. 99–106, at pp. 104, 106.

8. Ontario Workers Compensation Board, Database of Lost-time Claims, 1988–1992, cited by Rob Robinson, "Indoor Environment: Healthy Air Means Higher Productivity", Engineering Dimensions, May/June 1992, p. 19, endnote 2.

9. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Home Page, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Indoor Air, IAQ Tools for Schools. See also: R.W. Bell et al., The 1990 Toronto Personal Exposure Pilot (PEP) Study (Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1991), p. 11.

ASHRAE Standard 62–2001

Toxins/Irritants/Sensitizers