« June 2011 | Main | August 2011 »

July 25, 2011

Confined Space

Confined Space
July 14th, Canadian Press released the story of a 35 year old Niagara Region man who was trapped inside a machine in a warehouse and died. Although this is one of the most recent in Ontario, it is not the only one we have heard about across the province or the country for that matter.

CCOHS - outlines in great detail the Confined Space requirements in completing a Confined Space Hazard Assessment and development of a Control Program for your workplaces. This process is mandatory for any confined spaces you have in your workplace. Specific regulations apply to confined space programs dependant on your jurisdiction. Review these regulations before putting your confined space program in place.

Had the Niagara Region Employer had an effective confined space program in place would the accident have happened - we are unsure at this time, as all the details have not been released during the investigation process?

As of July 1, 2011 regulations under the OHSA for confided space in Ontario have changed. Go to E-Laws http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_050632_e.htm to view the revised regulations in Ontario. The Ontario Ministry of Labour (MoL) has consolidated all legal requirements relating to work in confined spaces into a single regulation. Despite the numerous confined space accidents and hazards they face in the farming sector, agricultural workers will continue to be excluded from regulatory protection in Ontario. Review NIOSH regulations for farming and your local regulatory requirements per province.

To begin your program development and assess the risks in your workplace - go to http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/confinedspace_intro.html and start the process. Don't wait until there has been an accident.

There are many great training programs across the program. Go to your local Health and Safety Association, local Health and Safety Trainers and find out who has the best fit for your organizational needs.

Free Willy, for real

In the environmental trade press we have an expression that we normally share with new editors and writers: “None of the three ‘Fs’ please: no fur, fins or feathers.” This is a shorthand way of say, we’re a practical industry magazine that offers technical and engineering solutions to pollution and waste management problems; stick to articles that help people do their job (i.e., reach the plant floor) and stay away from GreenPeace-type stuff about saving animals.”

I generally stay away from the three Fs in my writing and editing for the magazines for which I’m responsible, but once in a while a wildlife preservation story catches my attention that I really have to share, and think my blog space is the best place to do it.

So, please find below a news release I just received about an issue I care about, and that is the captive whale and dolphin display industry, and a new documentary that claims to expose brutality and exploitation. My own opinion is that one day soon we’ll view displays and shows featuring whales and dolphins much the way we currently view Victoria-era bear-bating street shows, as cruel and barbaric.

You can watch the film for free online by following this link:

http://www.afallfromfreedom.com

(There is a trailer for the movie and also a link to watch the film online for free. You can also download the movie or buy a DVD.)

Here’s the news release:

New Film Exposes the Long and Controversial History of Sea World and the Entire Captive Dolphin and Whale Display Industry

SAN FRANCISCO, July 25, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Sea World is responsible for the death of thousands of dolphins and whales, so states former Sea World biologist Dr. John Hall. That is the thread of the first comprehensive documentary film to explore the sordid history of the captive whale and dolphin display industry. A Fall From Freedom, an 82-minute film produced by San Francisco-based EarthViews Productions, includes interviews with scientists, marine mammal biologists, former trainers, activists, and current and past marine park representatives. It is available for viewing free of charge on its website, http://www.afallfromfreedom.com

Narrated by Mike Farrell (M*A*S*H, Providence), A Fall From Freedom digs deep into the history of the captive dolphin and whale industry. Topics covered in the film include:

Sea World representatives secretly promoted the Japanese dolphin drives where thousands of animals are driven to shore and brutally killed, in order to provide their parks with replacement animals, says Dr. John Hall, former Sea World biologist.

There is no educational value to having whales or dolphins in a captive environment, states former Sea World biologist Dr. John Hall and former Sea World killer whale trainer Dr. John Jett.

Contrary to the claims of many marine parks and aquariums, captive killer whales die far more frequently and at a far earlier age than they do in the wild, says Dr. Naomi Rose, biologist for Humane Society International.

Sea World has been involved in illegal and unethical actions to assure their parks are well stocked with killer whales, states former Sea World biologist Dr. John Hall.

The Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums has worked tirelessly to reduce government oversight on the health and well-being of captive whales and dolphins, states Dr. Naomi Rose.

Sea World representatives have claimed that whales and dolphins are not highly intelligent, sophisticated, and social animals. Dr. Lori Marino, a leading expert on killer whale intelligence and social dynamics, asserts that their intelligence and social dependence is second only to humans.

Sea World and other marine parks claimed that the rehabilitation and release back to the wild of Keiko, star of the Free Willy movie, was a failure from the start. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy-Keiko Foundation argues that the project was a rousing success, which proved that these animals can be taken from captivity, rehabilitated and returned to the wild.

A Fall From Freedom is a comprehensive history of facilities worldwide that hold whales and dolphins for public entertainment. The film was sponsored by Friends of Animals, Humane Society of the U.S., Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, BlueVoice, the American SPCA, The Summerlee Foundation, the Donald Slavik Family Foundation, and The Campbell Foundation.

EarthViews Productions has been producing environmental documentaries for nearly 40 years, including Where Have All the Dolphins Gone?, a one-hour film on the killing of dolphins during tuna fishing operations, hosted by the late George C. Scott, which was broadcast primetime on Discovery Channel and was partly responsible for all U.S. tuna canners accepting only dolphin-safe tuna. Its other films include The Free Willy Story: Keiko's Journey Home, a primetime Discovery Channel original program, narrated by Rene Russo, and a primetime TBS Special, A World With Dolphins, hosted by Bridget Fonda.

Contact:

Stan Minasian
Executive Director/Senior Producer
EarthViews Productions
Fort Mason, Quarters 35N
San Francisco, CA 94123
415 775-4636
delphinus@aol.com
http://www.afallfromfreedom.com
http://www.earthviewsproductions.com

July 19, 2011

US debt threatens environmental programs

The high-stakes political showdown between Republicans and Democrats/President Obama in Washington over the 14 trillion debt and the debate about raising the legal debt ceiling should be of interest to anyone concerned about environmental issues, because as the United States sinks further and further into debt, there will be less and less money available to spend fixing environmental problems.

I recommend readers watch the documentary "I.O.U.S.A." or at least the free 30 minute version on You Tube (here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

I've come to believe that within my lifetime the USA will cease to be a significant world power because of its debt level, the trade imbalance, and (most importantly) the refusal of politicians to do what’s necessary to balance the books.

Americans have a very simplistic belief that they will always "do alright" no matter what, because that's how it has been in the past. I think that belief will be their undoing. No one is prepared to take the 'scorched earth" steps required to get out of debt. The 'coup d’état" that Wall Street performed on the US government a few years ago (that led to the bank bailouts – and which was so well documented in the movie "Inside Job") has made things much worse.

Canada must, I believe, build stronger ties with Europe and other nations and not depend so heavily on its neighbor to the south, which is starting the circle the drain.

Anyway, watch I.O.U.S.A. and decide for yourself. (And pay attention to how much federal spending goes to the military!)

July 17, 2011

Ministry of Labour targets Small Shops in Ontario

In Ontario there have been a rash of Ministry of Labour orders for Noise Studies targeting small auto shops and small manufacturing shops with around 5-19 employees. These are shops that have never had an inspector walk through their doors and don't know what to say or for that matter what to do.

As indicated in my article in HAZMAT Magazine, permissible noise exposure is dependent on the duration per day in hours an individual is exposed and on the decibel level of the noise they are exposed to. Under the OHSA, WSBC, ISO, EPA, NIOSH, CCOHS, OSHA, CSA and other governing bodies across Canada and North America, maximum decibel levels have been set based on for example 8 hours of exposure.

Excessive noise exposure depends on a number of other factors over and above daily hours exposure limit:
 Loudness of the noise dB
 Duration (frequency) of exposure (outlined above)
 Assessment of noise and determination if it is from a single source or multiple sources
 Personal exposure measurement

If you are unsure of your requirements under the legislation, contact your sectors Health and Safety Association, a local Health and Safety Consultant or your local Ministry of Labour Hygienist.

For regulations governing Canada’s provinces I have provided a few links for you to review:
CCOHS – Occupational Exposure Limits in Canada outlines the following regulations by province:

• Canada
Canada Labour Code, Part II, (R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2)
Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations, (SOR/86-304)
Section 7.4(1)(b)
• British Columbia
Worker's Compensation Act
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (BC Reg 296/97 as amended)
Section 7.2 [B.C. Reg. 382/2004, s.1]
• Alberta
Occupational Health and Safety Code
Section 218; Table 1 of Schedule 3
Also see Tables 16.1 and 16.2 (p.16-9) of OHS Code Explanation Guide
Table 1 and Table 2
• Saskatchewan
Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 [R.R.S. c.0-1.1, r.1]
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, 1996
Part VIII, Section 113 (1)
• Manitoba
Workplace Safety and Health Act [R.S.M. 1987, c. W210]
Workplace Safety and Health Regulations (Man. Reg. 217/2006) Part 12
• Ontario
Occupational Health and Safety Act [R.S.O. 1990, c.1]
Industrial Establishments (R.R.O. 1990, Reg 851)
Section 139
• Quebec
Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety [R.S.Q., c.2.1]
Regulation respecting Occupational Health and Safety (O.C.885-2001)
Division XV, Sections 130-141
• New Brunswick
Occupational Health and Safety Act
General Regulation (N.B reg. 91-191 as amended)
Part V, Sections 29 to 33
• Nova Scotia
Occupational Health Regulations
N.S. Reg. 112/76
Section 4 (references ACGIH TLVs, as updated annually)
• Prince Edward Island
Occupational Health and Safety Act
Occupational Health and Safety Act General Regulations (E.C. 180/87)
Part 8, Section 8.1 (references ACGIH TLVs, as updated annually)
• Newfoundland and Labrador
Occupational Health and Safety Act
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (C.N.L.R. 1165/96)
Section 50 (references ACGIH TLV, as updated annually)
• Northwest Territories
Safety Act
General Safety Regulations (RRNWT 1990, c. S-1, R-028-93 as amended)
Section 30 and 31, Schedule A, Table 1
• Nunavut
Safety Act
General Safety Regulations (RRNWT 1990, c. S-1)
Section 30 and 31, Schedule A and
Mine Health and Safety Regulations, R-125-95
Section 9.19-9.26, Schedule 5
• Yukon Territories
Occupational Health and Safety Act
Occupational Health Regulation (O.I.C. 1986/164)
Section 4

Ontario Ministry of Labour – Physical Agents outlines the following:
1. The employer shall inform workers about the dangers of hazardous noise exposure and instruct and supervise workers on the proper use and maintenance of hearing protection when it is required.
2. The employer should identify areas where workers may be exposed to noise levels over 90 decibels for sustained periods.
3. The employer should reduce noise levels where possible by using sound barriers, ensuring equipment is maintained or, by other engineering means.
4. Where noise levels cannot be reduced below 90 decibels, appropriate hearing protection should be provided to the workers who are exposed.

Be prepared - check to see if you have to complete a noise study inyour place of business. Don't wait until your local inspector issues an order or worse - a fine!

July 11, 2011

Best Management Practices for excess soil

The issue of soil recycling (e.g., excess soils from construction and demolition sites) is picking up steam, notably in Toronto where members of a subcommittee of the Ontario Environment Industry Association (ONEIA) and others attended an information session and participated in conference calls on Best Management Practices (BMP) of excess soils. Kathleen Anderson of Ontario’s environment ministry has been coordinating some of this conversation.

The ministry has been commended for bringing forward BMP proposals as the development of plans and tracking of soils is worthwhile. According to a summary of one presentation, a number of concerns and issues have been raised, such as:

- provide Soil Mapping to assist with soil management in a regional context (as the Dutch have done)
- reliance on two Qualified Persons (for source site and receiving site) seems unwieldy
- issues with financial assurance: how calculated? payable to whom (municipality or third party)?
- interface of large and small sites will result in complexities
- definition of “intended use”: Dutch have a three year limitation on soil banking
- need to support objective, as Dutch have, that slightly contaminated soil can be reused
- public consultation is unnecessary if ministry criteria have been met (this will serve only to delay the process)
- Ministry guidance required to ensure that a consistent approach is taken by municipalities across Ontario
- certain municipalities indicated that public consultation is included in their by-laws but agreed that provincial guidance is needed for suitable fill locations (e.g., not on an aquifer)
- procurement identified as a continuing problem for contractors: risk is placed on private sector but might not have access to testing documents
- procurement: receiving sites are not identified by municipalities (cost implications)

During a question period, Kathleen Anderson indicated that the ministry has had preliminary discussions on the proposed BMP with other ministries but that feedback from MTO, MOI and MNR would be sought.

A municipal survey tabled at the June 29 meeting -- Municipal By-law Review -- revealed that only 23 of 85 municipalities have a relevant by-law that mentions soil quality. Of these 23, 14 provide a description of unacceptable material without referring to either the EPA or specific soil quality criteria under O.Reg. 153/04 (as amended). Eight refer to the EPA without a specific reference to soil criteria under O.Reg 153/04. Only one municipality out of 23 makes specific reference to O.Reg. 153/04, Table 1 standards for fill. As a result of this survey, three recommendations were made:

1) form a provincial-municipal-industry working group to develop a consistent approach for soil management in municipal by-law and procurement practices,

2) province to provide guidance to municipalities on specific regulations and applicable tables to be used in by-laws, and

3) develop a protocol for contractors and developers that are generating and receiving soils at site but are not subject to the Record of Site Condition.

Parties interested in Best Management Practices for excess soils should contact ONEIA and follow progress on this important file in the coming months. Soil is a valuable resource worth recycling that should not simply be hauled to landfill disposal.

Visit www.oneia.ca

July 08, 2011

Understanding the Training Requirements Under WHMIS Regulation

By law, every employer is solely responsible for ensuring their employees are adequately trained in WHMIS. This includes identifying if the workplace requires WHMIS training or not. Under Regulation 860 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, WHMIS training is required for all employees who are exposed to or likely to be exposed to a hazardous material or controlled product found at the workplace. This definition includes employees who do not use any controlled products, but who have physical access to them.

The definition of controlled products can be confusing to many employers especially as the distinction of a product can change based on the quantity purchased or the distribution methods used. Regulation 860 outlines that an employer shall assess all biological and chemical agents found at the workplace to determine if they are in fact hazardous. This can be particularly difficult when dealing with the example of bleach: when purchased in bulk, bleach is a controlled product; when purchased at the grocery store marketed for home use, bleach does not require WHMIS labelling. This holds true as well when transferring products: some products do not require WHMIS labelling when left in the container they were purchased in, but by transferring them into new/smaller containers WHMIS labelling is required and therefore WHMIS training is necessary. Employers can save their workplaces from having to comply with WHMIS by eliminating unnecessary controlled products. This can be as easy as purchasing many cleaning products directly from the grocery store instead of in bulk from suppliers. While this may cost more money upfront, employers will save time and money in the long run by not having to comply with WHMIS regulation.

If employers find that they cannot eliminate their controlled products, training must be reviewed at least annually or more often if there is a change in product. The Canadian Department of Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSDC) provides employers with six training requirements to comply with the mandatory aspects of the WHMIS Regulation 860. HRSDC states that employers must ensure that:

1. The workplace education program is developed together with the health and safety representative/joint health and safety committee;

2. Workers can recognize and describe the meaning of the WHMIS symbols and other symbols used in the workplace;

3. Workers understand the concept of WHMIS and the legislative requirements of labelling, MSDS and training;

4. The training program is workplace specific and is presented at a level that may be understood by all workers at the workplace;

5. A program is developed and implemented to train new workers and to retrain experienced workers regarding new information; and

6. The entire program is reviewed at least annually.

By ensuring that your training program has met all of the above requirements, your workplace will be fully compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act’s WHMIS Regulation.

July 04, 2011

The politics of asbestos

This article from the Globe and Mail provides a pretty good overview of the politics around Canadian asbestos mining and exports.

My own position is that I'm okay with asbestos mining (in itself) if the conditions for workers are safe. White Chrysotile is safer than the highly friable brown material that used to be used in insulation. Like many other people, my main concern is that our country exports asbestos for use in products and materials (e.g., concrete pipe) to countries where safety standards for handling the material may be negligible. Canada joined with just four other countries (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam) in opposing the addition of asbestos to a list of dangerous substances under the Rotterdam Convention. (The calibre of Canada's partners in this move speaks volumes.) Adding asbestos to the list might harm marketing efforts, but would not lead to the strict banning of the material; instead, Canada would simply have to obtain acknowledgement from the receiving country that it understands the risks associated with the material. As the article below implies, it's very odd that Canada is engaging in this kind of boosterism for a dangerous industry/product that employs so few people. Keep the product legal, perhaps, but help ensure its safe use around the world.

Here's the article:

Workplace safety

Even the dying and the doctor support chrysotile mining in Asbestos

JULIAN SHER and BILL CURRY

ASBESTOS, QUE. AND OTTAWA— From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Jul. 01, 2011 10:45PM EDT

Last updated Saturday, Jul. 02, 2011 11:44AM EDT

Donald Nicholls remembers when the white fibres from the open pit mine that still dominates this town blanketed its streets like snow.

“You could leave tracks from the dust that fell overnight,” said Mr. Nicholls who started working in the mine fresh out of high school back in 1950. “It was much, much worse back then.”

He’s slowly dying of asbestosis, a respiratory disease brought on by inhaling those white particles. But like almost everyone else in town, the 79-year-old supports the reopening of the mine, allowing Canada to ramp up its export of chrysotile asbestos – a variant of the very mineral that is killing him.

In the face of widespread international hostility, Canada too has become an unabashed proponent of exporting a product linked to lung disease and cancer. The Conservative government’s decision last week to block an international agreement to restrict the sale of chrysotile incited condemnation around the world and across the country.

The Canadian Cancer Society called it an “unethical decision” that left it “shocked and embarrassed.”

So far, none of this appears to faze the Prime Minister. Asked about the backlash, his spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, would not explain Mr. Harper’s thinking on the issue. “The government’s policy position is clear,” he said in an e-mail.

Conservatives and the mine industry insist chrysotile – white asbestos used mainly to reinforce cement – is safe if handled properly, compared to the much more toxic brown asbestos used in insulation.

Beyond that, it’s a position the Tories don’t want to talk about or explain.

On the face it, the economics of the struggling industry in terms of jobs and exports hardly seems worth the international black eye. Those who see crass politics at play point to the electoral map. The surprise wave that elected 59 NDP MPs in Quebec reduced the Conservative base to a group of five ridings south of the St. Lawrence that includes the asbestos region.

Conservatives campaigned as defenders of Quebec’s regional interests. Supporting asbestos fits with that theme.

Meanwhile, many in Asbestos, a town of 7,000 people 180 kilometres east of Montreal, feel they are under siege.

“They say we are exporting death, but that is not true,” said Bernard Coulombe, the owner of the Jeffrey Mine and a tireless booster of its products. “They treat it like it was anthrax. If it was really as dangerous as they say it is, we’d all be lying dead in the streets. Why is the world against us?”

Last month, Mr. Coulombe himself was savagely skewered on Jon Stewart’s much-watched The Daily Show, called a “douchebag” and told that the word “asbestos” in English means “slow, hacking death.”

The World Health Organization and a slew of international scientists have declared that exposure to all forms of asbestos poses too great a risk for workers and the public.

Closer to home, a coalition of Quebec environmental groups last week called for a shutdown of the mines here and in nearby Thetford Mines that are at “the root of an epidemic of deaths around the world.”

Instead, the Quebec Liberal government has given Mr. Coulombe a $58-million loan guarantee to help find new investors.

And on June 24, the federal Conservative government sided with Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan at a summit in Switzerland to successfully block the inclusion of asbestos on a United Nations list of hazardous materials.

“We don’t want to be on a banned list, that would bring shame for us,” said Mr. Coulombe, who started as an engineer in the mine in the 1960s and bought the declining operation in 1991 with hopes of bringing back its glory days of earlier decades.

Much stricter safety controls are in place in the Canadian mines today, but industry opponents say all Canada has done is export its problems – to countries like India where workplace standards for health and safety can be negligible.