MSD's (Musculoskeletal disorders) are the number one type of work-related lost time injury in the province of Ontario making up over 40% of all injuries. Workplace MSD claims cost employers millions of dollars in direct costs and billions of dollars in indirect costs.

By implementing an MSD prevention program in your workplaces some of the benefits you will achieve are:
• reduce the number of reported MSDs thereby reducing the number of Ministry of Labour visits and WSIB claims
• reduce costs - both direct and indirect costs
• create a safer workplace
• have healthier employees
• less loss time injuries and
• lower recruitment costs (recruitment, orientation, training, morale etc.)

The costs of MSD Claims equated to an hourly cost per employee vary based on the annual salary. For example, an employee who earns an annual salary of 15,000 would cost approximately $10.10 per hour; an employee who earns $75,000 annual salary would cost approximately $50.48 per hour.

Be proactive and implement an ergonomic program in your workplace. Train and advise your workers. Ensure that they participate in the program through early reporting of MSD symptoms or concerns. Regularly identify and assess risk factors. Implement controls to reduce workers' exposure to MSD risk factors. To ensure preventive measures are working - follow up.

Ministry of Labour blitzes are planned to continue. MSD programs and prevention best practices do not have to be complex systems. Ensure your return to work policy; procedures and program are up to date with MSD requirements under the Ministry of Labour and OHSA guidelines. If you have an effective health and safety program you already have a solid foundation to develop your MSD prevention program.

Posted by Lynne at 06:49 PM | Permalink

This article from the May 14 edition of the Montreal Gazette suggests that deposit-refund systems are alive and well La Belle Provence, despite some rumours to the contrary, and are poised for expansion.

Minister toasts deposit return

Arcand says he is looking to improve system

BY MICHELLE LALONDE, GAZETTE ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

MAY 14, 2011

Quebec's environment minister says rumours that the province is poised to abolish the deposit-return system on beverage containers are false. In fact, Pierre Arcand says he is considering increasing deposit amounts and expanding the program to include wine bottles.

Arcand made the comments at a news conference Friday where an environmental group was launching a new, province-wide coalition called Pro-Consigne Québec that will work to improve and expand the deposit-return program.

Last November, Arcand announced the government would be reviewing the deposit system on beverage containers, such as soft drink cans. This alarmed environment groups, who feared the minister was listening to soft drink retailers and other industry players who don't like the deposit-return system because it costs them money.

But Arcand says he is examining which system, curbside recycling or deposit-return, would result in more drink containers being recuperated and he will make his decision based on which proves to be most effective at keeping recyclables and reusables out of the waste stream.

He said he has not made the decision yet, but he attended yesterday's news conference to clarify that he was not against deposit-return systems.

"I simply wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to say very clearly that we do not intend to eliminate the deposit-return system at all and if I had to give you my personal opinion, I think the two systems will be used in parallel for a long time."

But according to Karel Ménard of the Front commun québecois pour une gestion écologique des déchets, deposit-return systems for all beverage containers is clearly the best environmental choice and the minister only needs to improve and expand the existing system to get better results.

The deposit price has been 5 cents on soft drink containers and beer bottles since the system was introduced in 1984.

Ménard said it is obvious that price should be at least doubled to encourage consumers to return the containers for a refund.

He noted that Quebecers buy about a billion plastic bottles of water each year and about half of those end up as litter or in landfill sites. Meanwhile, from 68 per cent to 93 per cent of drink containers with a deposit on them are recuperated.

The city of Montreal's Alan De-Sousa says expanding the depositreturn system to include plastic water bottles and wine bottles is a "no brainer."

"For me, it's a no-brainer that if other communities and other provinces have put in place a take-it-back system for wine bottles, well, we can also have our SAQ do the same," De-Sousa, Montreal's executive committee member responsible for sustainable development issues, said at the launch.

The cities of Montreal and Laval are members of the Pro-Consigne Québec Coalition along with about 20 environmental groups, unions, and industry groups such as the Aluminum Association of Canada, and the Quebec Brewers Association.

mlalonde@montrealgazette.com

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 08:57 PM | Permalink

The Citizen’s Alliance United for a Sustainable Environment (“CAUSE”) and the North Dufferin Agricultural Community Task Force (“NDACT”) have issued a news release about a company controlled by Boston-based hedge fund The Baupost Group that has submitted “Canada’s largest ever quarry application in order to extract limestone to a level 200 feet below the water table.”

According to the release, the proposed mega quarry site covers 2,316 acres of prime agricultural farmland in Dufferin County, just north of Toronto, Ontario, also known as the Headwaters area because it is the source of several major rivers including the Grand, the Nottawasaga and the Pine.

“Local citizens, community-based groups and a number of environmentally concerned NGOs are upset and angry,” the release states. “They are calling on the McGuinty government to subject this mega quarry proposal to a Provincial Environmental Assessment. An official request was submitted to Ontario Environment Minister John Wilkinson last week by the law firm of Davis LLP, solicitors for the Citizen’s Alliance United for a Sustainable Environment (“CAUSE”).”

“The mega quarry proposal would entail the ongoing management of 600 million litres of water every day, FOREVER. The blasting and extraction of limestone would destroy farms that are made up of Honeywood Silt Loam, a unique ‘high land’ horticultural soil with its own classification in the Canadian Soil Registry. It would interfere with the source water of these major river systems and could place them at risk.”

“The massive scale and potentially devastating environmental impacts associated with such a large industrial extraction operation warrant the most comprehensive environmental review available,” contends Carl Cosack, a local area farmer and Vice-Chair of the North Dufferin Agricultural Community Task Force (“NDACT”). “I am confident that most Ontarians would be shocked to learn that the government has yet to decide to subject the largest open pit mine of its kind ever contemplated in Ontario to a proper environmental review, “ he added.

The Provincial Cabinet has the option of designating this project as an undertaking subject to the more appropriate and comprehensive Environmental Assessment Act. As it stands, the mega quarry proposal requires a zoning change under the Planning Act and a licence from the Ministry of Natural Resources under the Provincial Aggregate Resources Act. “Consideration of the mega quarry proposal under these two pieces of legislation deprives the people of Ontario of a comprehensive review of the potential impacts that it could have on the environment, and instead effectively punts the approvals process to the Ontario Municipal Board,” noted Dr. Harvey Kolodny, a Director of the Citizen’s Alliance United for a Sustainable Environment (“CAUSE”). “We are calling on the Premier to exercise his good judgement to ensure that the interests of Ontarians are properly addressed under the Environmental Assessment review process” Kolodny added.

Interested parties may wish to watch the video below and forward the link to friends. Although the deadline has passed for comments, it’s never too late for additional support letters. Write to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and also the Ministry of the Environment at Queens Park, with a copy to the Premier.

Here’s the video URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgS0m2XtBbI

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 02:38 AM | Permalink

Warmer weather is coming our way. It is time to review your company policies and procedures on heat stress.

Overexposure to heat can stress the body’s cooling system. When the heat is combined with other stressors such as hard physical work, loss of fluids, fatigue or some medical conditions, it may lead to heat-related illness, disability and even death.

Heat Stress- the overloading of the body’s cooling system- can happen to anybody even if you are young and fit. In Ontario heat stress is usually a concern during the summer. This is especially true early in the season, when people are not used to the heat.

Some industries or operations involving high air temperatures, radiant heat sources from molten materials, high humidity, and direct physical contact with hot objects or strenuous physical activities have a potential for heat stress all year round. These include iron and steel foundries, brick firing and ceramic plants, glass products facilities, rubber product factories, bakeries, laundries, smelters and steam tunnels.

How We Cope With Heat
Normal body temperature is 37º Celsius (98.6º Fahrenheit). This temperature must remain constant for the body to work well. When the body heat increases, the body removes heat through the skin. Blood vessels near the skin open up to bring more warm blood to the surface. Heat then escapes and the body cools. When the air temperature is high, the main source of cooling is the evaporation of sweat. However, when the humidity is high, sweat does not evaporate as quickly and has little or no cooling effect. The hotter or more humid the environment, the harder your body must work to get rid of its excess heat.

If the air is moving (for example, from fans) and it is cooler then your body, it is easier for your body to pass heat to the environment.

Workers over the age of 40 should be more careful because of a reduced ability to sweat.

The Legal Requirements
Employers have a duty under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. This includes developing hot environment policies and procedures to protect workers in hot environments due to hot processes or hot weather.

For compliance purposes, the Ministry of Labour recommends the Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) for Heat Stress and Heat Strain published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). These values are based on preventing unacclimatized workers' core body temperatures from rising above 38°C.

Posted by Lynne at 10:27 PM | Permalink

Thanks to the Ontario Waste Management Association (www.owma.org) I’m able to offer the following analysis of an emerging situation with respect to waste exports across the Ontario-Michigan border. This is a situation not only of interest to haulers in the waste industry but also to companies whose solid waste is shipped south of the border.

Here’s what OWMA wrote in a recent email to members:

It appears Canadian waste remains an issue in Michigan as we move towards Senate elections in 2012.

Despite the successful agreement between Michigan and Ontario to end the shipments of Ontario municipal wastes to Michigan by 2011, Senator Stabenow has introduced legislation called the “Stop Canadian Trash Act.” It proposes to charge a $500 fee for every truck hauling waste into the U.S. to cover the cost of inspections by Homeland Security. Stabenow argues it is an issue of national security and points out that only one percent of international waste vehicle are screened for radiation. The new law would require all vehicles be inspected and impose a $10,000 penalty each time an importer failed to provide to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection information relating to the volume and contents of each vehicle.

This proposal would likely violate the North American Free Trade Agreement and be challenged.

Senator Levin has also introduced a bill aimed at guaranteeing the efficacy of equipment and procedures employed by the Homeland Security Department's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) branch for identifying chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons in “municipal solid waste.”

The bill would require a CBP report to Congress on whether its measures are as effective as the methodologies and technologies used by the bureau to screen for those materials in other items of commerce entering the U.S. through commercial motor vehicle transport. If the Bureau of Customs cannot demonstrate that screening of municipal waste shipments is adequate, then they have six months to implement the technologies to meet adequate screening procedures. If such measures are not implemented, then the secretary of Homeland Security shall deny entry of any commercial motor vehicle carrying municipal solid waste from Canada until the secretary certifies that the methods and technology used to inspect the waste vehicles are as effective as the methods and technology used to inspect other vehicles.

We have reached out to NSWMA and to Senator Levin's Office and will keep members updated as to future developments.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 10:41 PM | Permalink