Pump Down The Volume: Noise Pollution Is Serious Stuff.
While it’s impossible to make a factory blasting at full output TV studio quiet, steps can be taken to reduce noise as much as possible – which translates into high productivity and fewer worker’s comp claims for hearing loss.
– By Isaac Rudik
In a world where workplace and outside noise can seem like an unyielding din, it is easy to take hearing for granted. Moreover, symptoms of hearing loss can be overlooked since they appear gradually and are seldom associated with pain. As a result, increasing deafness remains unnoticed often for years until it’s too late.
In fact, among all occupational hazards, noise is the biggest cause of permanent disability claims settled by Ontario’s Worker’s Compensation Board. According to WSIB, hearing loss due to high workplace noise levels resulted in roughly $100-million in claims paid out over a recent 10 year period.
As a result, Ontario’s Ministry of Labour introduced strict limits for workplace noise exposure. Among other things, the government reduced the allowable exposure time to noise by workers in half. The Environment Ministry deals with preventing excessive noise in Ontario, and sounds produced by human activity is controlled by the laws in the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which holds that noise is a contaminant with adverse effects on workers.
Why? Because researchers proved that an individual exposed to 85dba for eight hours a day, week after week, will suffer hearing loss. The louder the sound, the less time it takes. Thus, the noisier the workplace, the fewer exposures and time it takes to produce significant – and, for employers, costly – hearing loss.
Achieving Results
While it’s impossible to make a factory blasting at full output TV studio quiet, steps can be taken to reduce noise as much as possible.
Executives at an Ontario tool-and-die maker knew they were in a noisy business; it’s in the nature of what the company does. But they were intent on reducing noise levels as much as possible. For one thing, they didn’t want to be socked with expensive worker’s comp claims if employees started suffering hearing problems; for another, they recognised that high noise levels meant lower productivity.
The company developed a three-prong strategy: Remove, Reduce, and Rest.
The company removed as much noise as possible from its plant and then reduced the amount of noise entering the workplace. Following exposure to loud noise, auditory rest is crucial to allow recovery time for the hearing system.
The plant formed a management-worker committee and following guidelines created by the Canadian Hearing Society.
First, noise was reduced at the machinery sound source, either by isolating machines or installing insulating materials to muffle sound and vibration.
Next, within the plant sound barriers made of acoustic materials were installed along with adding machine enclosures, equipment mounts, exhaust silencers and mufflers. Where possible, sound-absorbing coatings were applied to machines and plastic gears substituted for metal ones. Each helped reduce noise.
Finally, schedules were re-configured to allow workers to rotate to less noisy areas during their shift. They were also provided personal hearing protection and instructed on its proper use.
Primary Solution
The company used a variety of SONEX Panels which provided it with a range of acoustic solutions that met both functional and aesthetic requirements. The panels are used in everything from industrial facilities to manufacturing plants, warehouses, schools and universities, churches, multi-purpose rooms, cafeterias, offices, retail stores, recording studios and many other locations requiring acoustical control.
SONEX panels were chosen for their adhesive-applied installation and are all made with Willtec® foam, which is fire rated Class 1. At the same time, SONEX Valueline Baffles helped improve communication, reducing echo and reverberation in large open areas such as the production plant and warehouse.
Although the company absorbed an up-front investment, it noticed improved productivity on the plant floor almost immediately. Moreover, it received a number of points towards its LEED certification as an all-around healthy and green workplace – which is paying off in employee retention.
Coupled with reducing the likelihood of joining a long line of companies facing worker comp claims for hearing loss, the company is delighted it pumped down the volume.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. (www.compliancesolutionscanada.com), Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Taking The LEED In Controlling Indoor Air Quality And Pollution
Taking The LEED In Controlling Indoor Air Quality And Pollution
A growing number of people work in “sick buildings” that cause problems for workers ranging from simple fatigue to complex respiratory illnesses.
- By Isaac Rudik
When judges and support staff working in the historic Alberta Court of Appeal building in Calgary began experiencing fatigue, respiratory illnesses, and eye, ear, and nose irritation, they wondered if the famous building in which they worked was causing their multiple health complaints.
So building managers brought in Professor Tang Lee, a University of Calgary specialist in sick buildings to conduct air sampling. He confirmed high levels of a toxic microbe growing as mould throughout the building, recommending the building be closed until the toxin could be removed.
It turned out that the court house was a veritable Petri dish of bacteria, thanks to an improperly installed air intake system. Not only were toxins alive and well and living in the building’s air conditioning, they took up residence and were multiplying in the furniture and carpets – even the court’s files and books. Making matters worse, when judges took files home with them, they inadvertently carried toxins to their residences, in some cases making family members ill.
In effect, the historic building was like a setting for an absurd horror movie: The Spores That Consumed Calgary.
Common Problem
In fact, the Appeals Court building problem is not an isolated, one-off incident. Indoor air pollution causes 14-times more deaths than outdoor air pollution according to the WHO, and Washington’s EPA reports indoor air pollution is one of five top environmental threats to human health.
It turns out that many commercial offices are highly toxic environments from the glues, paints, organic chemicals, adhesives and formaldehyde used during construction and finishing. These contribute to indoor air pollution through off-gassing that may continue years after new construction or renovations are completed.
The problem is both widespread and deadly: Statistics Canada reports that, in 2003, some 1.3- million people were diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities from working or living in what the media dubs “sick buildings.” Since most of us spend roughly 90% of our day indoors, indoor air quality is a serious health risk factor.
Healthy Buildings Increase Profits
Enter the Canada Green Building Council (CGBC). Although the acronym could be mistaken for an Eighties heavy metal band, CGBC actually manages LEED Canada for new construction and major renovations; LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green building rating system.
Among other things it does, LEED sets an indoor environment quality including carbon dioxide monitoring, ventilation effectiveness, construction management, using low-emitting materials, indoor chemical and pollutant source control, system controls, thermal comfort, and using daylight
to supplant HVAC.
But beyond charts, graphs and reports, LEED has established the economic benefits of healthy buildings. Making general improvements is demonstrated to increase worker productivity of up to 6%. Productivity gains pay for the cost of building and air quality improvements in less than two years.
Fast Payback
Why such a fast payback?
Because the cost of indoor air quality sensors such as a readily available, multi-gas detector models that cost less than $2,500. They monitor everything from carbon monoxide and oxygen levels to hydrogen sulphide, combustibles and exotic, problem-causing gases such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, chlorine, ammonia, hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide and chlorine dioxide.
Sick buildings not only produce sick workers, they rob profits from a company’s bottom line – and do so year after year. Yet there are effective, low-cost ways of monitoring an office, factory or warehouse to ensure it stays healthy. They are an easy way to prevent complicated problems.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. (www.compliancesolutionscanada.com), Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
A growing number of people work in “sick buildings” that cause problems for workers ranging from simple fatigue to complex respiratory illnesses.
- By Isaac Rudik
When judges and support staff working in the historic Alberta Court of Appeal building in Calgary began experiencing fatigue, respiratory illnesses, and eye, ear, and nose irritation, they wondered if the famous building in which they worked was causing their multiple health complaints.
So building managers brought in Professor Tang Lee, a University of Calgary specialist in sick buildings to conduct air sampling. He confirmed high levels of a toxic microbe growing as mould throughout the building, recommending the building be closed until the toxin could be removed.
It turned out that the court house was a veritable Petri dish of bacteria, thanks to an improperly installed air intake system. Not only were toxins alive and well and living in the building’s air conditioning, they took up residence and were multiplying in the furniture and carpets – even the court’s files and books. Making matters worse, when judges took files home with them, they inadvertently carried toxins to their residences, in some cases making family members ill.
In effect, the historic building was like a setting for an absurd horror movie: The Spores That Consumed Calgary.
Common Problem
In fact, the Appeals Court building problem is not an isolated, one-off incident. Indoor air pollution causes 14-times more deaths than outdoor air pollution according to the WHO, and Washington’s EPA reports indoor air pollution is one of five top environmental threats to human health.
It turns out that many commercial offices are highly toxic environments from the glues, paints, organic chemicals, adhesives and formaldehyde used during construction and finishing. These contribute to indoor air pollution through off-gassing that may continue years after new construction or renovations are completed.
The problem is both widespread and deadly: Statistics Canada reports that, in 2003, some 1.3- million people were diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities from working or living in what the media dubs “sick buildings.” Since most of us spend roughly 90% of our day indoors, indoor air quality is a serious health risk factor.
Healthy Buildings Increase Profits
Enter the Canada Green Building Council (CGBC). Although the acronym could be mistaken for an Eighties heavy metal band, CGBC actually manages LEED Canada for new construction and major renovations; LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green building rating system.
Among other things it does, LEED sets an indoor environment quality including carbon dioxide monitoring, ventilation effectiveness, construction management, using low-emitting materials, indoor chemical and pollutant source control, system controls, thermal comfort, and using daylight
to supplant HVAC.
But beyond charts, graphs and reports, LEED has established the economic benefits of healthy buildings. Making general improvements is demonstrated to increase worker productivity of up to 6%. Productivity gains pay for the cost of building and air quality improvements in less than two years.
Fast Payback
Why such a fast payback?
Because the cost of indoor air quality sensors such as a readily available, multi-gas detector models that cost less than $2,500. They monitor everything from carbon monoxide and oxygen levels to hydrogen sulphide, combustibles and exotic, problem-causing gases such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, chlorine, ammonia, hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide and chlorine dioxide.
Sick buildings not only produce sick workers, they rob profits from a company’s bottom line – and do so year after year. Yet there are effective, low-cost ways of monitoring an office, factory or warehouse to ensure it stays healthy. They are an easy way to prevent complicated problems.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. (www.compliancesolutionscanada.com), Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Something In The Air Smells Funny.
Something In The Air Smells Funny.
Chlorine may be the most-commonly used toxin in business. Its use is so widespread that few people even notice “death head” label warnings anymore yet chlorine can cause worker illness, injury and death.
– by Isaac Rudik
You can’t avoid noticing chlorine in the air: It’s pungent, biting, eye-tearing, odour is unmistakable – and potentially very dangerous. That’s why, when a train carrying chlorine tankers derails or a tanker truck overturns, an entire town or neighbourhood is evacuated quickly by authorities, hospitals are put on stand-by and reporters rush to the scene.
For example, not long ago a chlorine manufacturer in Canada was pumping the gas into an awaiting rail tanker. But the coupling was not properly fastened to the train car from the feed pipe and chlorine leaked into the air. Two employees working at tanker plus one who was nearby and rushed to their aid were overcome by the toxic effects, suffering injuries to their lungs, eyes and exposed skin. People in nearby businesses and a few close-by apartment buildings were hustled onto busses and taken to a school as a precaution until the air was cleared of gas and the leak sealed.
As a toxic gas that irritates and can even destroy the respiratory system, chlorine is a potentially lethal industrial ingrediant. Because it is heavier than air, it can accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces. Even more dangerous, chlorine gas is a strong oxidizer which can ignite flammable materials.
Easily Overlooked
The risks of chlorine are easily overlooked and even forgotten about until there is an incident.
When most people think of chlorine, they either think of a laundry product as in chlorine bleach or what gets dumps in a swimming pool to control algae and bacteria. Indeed, many of us use chlorine products regularly without giving it a second thought.
But, chlorine may be the most-commonly used toxin in business, employed for everything from water treatment and pulp bleaching in paper mills to disinfecting equipment in food processing plants. Moreover, it is widely employed in producing countless consumer products ranging from laundry cleaners and tires to antifreeze, household cleaners and pharmaceuticals.
In fact, the use of chlorine is so widespread that few people even notice the “death head” warnings on labels anymore despite the fact that, in many industrial applications, chlorine can cause worker illness, injury and even death.
But industrial facilities that produce or use chlorine cannot be sanguine about its handling and storage.
Breathe Easily
When workers breathe even low concentrations of chlorine, it can aggravate the respiratory system and exposure to the gas can irritate the eyes because it reacts with water and cells, changing it into hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid. Neither is pleasant.
So it is incumbent upon businesses to take simple steps to provide adequate protection.
Workers can be protected by being issued gloves, masks and protective clothing. At the same time, work areas in which chlorine is present need portable air sampling devices, complete with exposure level alarms. Finally, fume hoods are a must to enhance localized ventilation.
Chlorine gas is one of those industrial components that carry a significant risk but which too many businesses seem to overlook – until it’s too late. Conducting a risk audit is one way to help ensure that the gas stays in the container and workers won’t suffer if there’s an accidental leak.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc., Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Chlorine may be the most-commonly used toxin in business. Its use is so widespread that few people even notice “death head” label warnings anymore yet chlorine can cause worker illness, injury and death.
– by Isaac Rudik
You can’t avoid noticing chlorine in the air: It’s pungent, biting, eye-tearing, odour is unmistakable – and potentially very dangerous. That’s why, when a train carrying chlorine tankers derails or a tanker truck overturns, an entire town or neighbourhood is evacuated quickly by authorities, hospitals are put on stand-by and reporters rush to the scene.
For example, not long ago a chlorine manufacturer in Canada was pumping the gas into an awaiting rail tanker. But the coupling was not properly fastened to the train car from the feed pipe and chlorine leaked into the air. Two employees working at tanker plus one who was nearby and rushed to their aid were overcome by the toxic effects, suffering injuries to their lungs, eyes and exposed skin. People in nearby businesses and a few close-by apartment buildings were hustled onto busses and taken to a school as a precaution until the air was cleared of gas and the leak sealed.
As a toxic gas that irritates and can even destroy the respiratory system, chlorine is a potentially lethal industrial ingrediant. Because it is heavier than air, it can accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces. Even more dangerous, chlorine gas is a strong oxidizer which can ignite flammable materials.
Easily Overlooked
The risks of chlorine are easily overlooked and even forgotten about until there is an incident.
When most people think of chlorine, they either think of a laundry product as in chlorine bleach or what gets dumps in a swimming pool to control algae and bacteria. Indeed, many of us use chlorine products regularly without giving it a second thought.
But, chlorine may be the most-commonly used toxin in business, employed for everything from water treatment and pulp bleaching in paper mills to disinfecting equipment in food processing plants. Moreover, it is widely employed in producing countless consumer products ranging from laundry cleaners and tires to antifreeze, household cleaners and pharmaceuticals.
In fact, the use of chlorine is so widespread that few people even notice the “death head” warnings on labels anymore despite the fact that, in many industrial applications, chlorine can cause worker illness, injury and even death.
But industrial facilities that produce or use chlorine cannot be sanguine about its handling and storage.
Breathe Easily
When workers breathe even low concentrations of chlorine, it can aggravate the respiratory system and exposure to the gas can irritate the eyes because it reacts with water and cells, changing it into hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid. Neither is pleasant.
So it is incumbent upon businesses to take simple steps to provide adequate protection.
Workers can be protected by being issued gloves, masks and protective clothing. At the same time, work areas in which chlorine is present need portable air sampling devices, complete with exposure level alarms. Finally, fume hoods are a must to enhance localized ventilation.
Chlorine gas is one of those industrial components that carry a significant risk but which too many businesses seem to overlook – until it’s too late. Conducting a risk audit is one way to help ensure that the gas stays in the container and workers won’t suffer if there’s an accidental leak.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc., Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Cancer In The Workplace: Soil Contamination’s Lingering Danger.
Cancer In The Workplace: Soil Contamination’s Lingering Danger.
This is the fourth in our series on how workplace health and safety issues can elevate cancer risks, and how to control potential problems. This article focuses on soil pollution.
– by Isaac Rudik
One thing about many cancer-causing toxins used by industry: The risk continues long after they have injured or killed workers. A prime example is the solvent used in paint. A key ingredient is something called “2-nitropropane.” Not only can brief, unprotected exposure to it kill people, once it enters the soil it stays there for hundreds of years.
For example, two construction workers became ill recently after applying an epoxy resin coating containing 2-nitropropane in the confined space of an underground concrete vault. One man died 10 days later and although the second man recovered, he has had persistently elevated levels of a harmful serum in his pancreas. These cases show the importance of both effective industrial education and protective work practices.
Even non-industrial toxins can be deadly.
For example, The New England Journal of Medicine reported 25 years ago that radon, a common radioactive gas emitted by soil, stones and most building materials, may be responsible for as many as 10,000 lung cancer deaths among non-smokers in the United States each year. Follow-up studies reveal nothing to contradict the original findings.
Thus, industry must take special care not to add to the problem – and to ensure that workers are adequately protected as well as minimising the risk of contaminating soil.
Many Potential Sources
A large number of industrial processes use toxic material directly, or employ materials that contain toxins.
These can range from arsenic and PAH’s such as benzoapyrene to garden variety diesel oil products.
Diesel oil can be especially deadly if mishandled. Frequently, soil testing at industrial sites find that the contamination levels from petrocarbons – often diesel products – greatly exceed guidelines mandating clean-up. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that occupational exposure to fuel oils are probably carcinogenic in humans based on animal studies suggesting that repeated contact seems to cause liver and skin cancer.
If diesel products leak into the soil, the cancer-causing by-products take hundreds of years to disappear, spreading their deadly impact into residential areas and farms where they become part of the food chain.
Other heavy metals commonly used by business cause a range of medical problems, both when unprotected workers are exposed as well as if they contaminate the soil around an industrial site. These include heavy metals such as zinc, barium and cadmium – very common in industry – as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzoflourantheme.
Studies indicate that soil contaminated by these minerals and compounds can lead to so-called “cancer clusters” both in the workplace and surrounding communities. A cancer cluster is defined by doctors as “(an) aggregation of relatively uncommon events or diseases in space and/or time in amounts that are believed or perceived to be greater than could be expected by chance.” Many instances brought to the attention of health and environmental regulators are “occupational” in that patients in a cluster are identified in terms of their workplace.
Costly Problems, Inexpensive Prevention
Controlling soil contamination from the workplace and in the surrounding community can be a complex problem. When a hazard is discovered, the clean-up cost is enormous to say nothing of potential expenses resulting from worker illnesses, community problems, fines and lawsuits.
Still, there are ways to minimize and even eliminate the risks:
· Worker education is the always first step to ensure that employees understand what they are dealing with and how to prevent potential problems.
· Ensure that toxic material is stored properly in appropriate sealer containers or rooms.
· Install self-contained treatment filters to capture inadvertent spills and run-offs.
Some of this is simply common-sense, some is already required by law and some – such as installing plant site water treatment facilities – is under serious consideration by regulators. A workplace audit where risks are involved will reveal ways to minimize potential problems.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. , Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
This is the fourth in our series on how workplace health and safety issues can elevate cancer risks, and how to control potential problems. This article focuses on soil pollution.
– by Isaac Rudik
One thing about many cancer-causing toxins used by industry: The risk continues long after they have injured or killed workers. A prime example is the solvent used in paint. A key ingredient is something called “2-nitropropane.” Not only can brief, unprotected exposure to it kill people, once it enters the soil it stays there for hundreds of years.
For example, two construction workers became ill recently after applying an epoxy resin coating containing 2-nitropropane in the confined space of an underground concrete vault. One man died 10 days later and although the second man recovered, he has had persistently elevated levels of a harmful serum in his pancreas. These cases show the importance of both effective industrial education and protective work practices.
Even non-industrial toxins can be deadly.
For example, The New England Journal of Medicine reported 25 years ago that radon, a common radioactive gas emitted by soil, stones and most building materials, may be responsible for as many as 10,000 lung cancer deaths among non-smokers in the United States each year. Follow-up studies reveal nothing to contradict the original findings.
Thus, industry must take special care not to add to the problem – and to ensure that workers are adequately protected as well as minimising the risk of contaminating soil.
Many Potential Sources
A large number of industrial processes use toxic material directly, or employ materials that contain toxins.
These can range from arsenic and PAH’s such as benzoapyrene to garden variety diesel oil products.
Diesel oil can be especially deadly if mishandled. Frequently, soil testing at industrial sites find that the contamination levels from petrocarbons – often diesel products – greatly exceed guidelines mandating clean-up. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that occupational exposure to fuel oils are probably carcinogenic in humans based on animal studies suggesting that repeated contact seems to cause liver and skin cancer.
If diesel products leak into the soil, the cancer-causing by-products take hundreds of years to disappear, spreading their deadly impact into residential areas and farms where they become part of the food chain.
Other heavy metals commonly used by business cause a range of medical problems, both when unprotected workers are exposed as well as if they contaminate the soil around an industrial site. These include heavy metals such as zinc, barium and cadmium – very common in industry – as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzoflourantheme.
Studies indicate that soil contaminated by these minerals and compounds can lead to so-called “cancer clusters” both in the workplace and surrounding communities. A cancer cluster is defined by doctors as “(an) aggregation of relatively uncommon events or diseases in space and/or time in amounts that are believed or perceived to be greater than could be expected by chance.” Many instances brought to the attention of health and environmental regulators are “occupational” in that patients in a cluster are identified in terms of their workplace.
Costly Problems, Inexpensive Prevention
Controlling soil contamination from the workplace and in the surrounding community can be a complex problem. When a hazard is discovered, the clean-up cost is enormous to say nothing of potential expenses resulting from worker illnesses, community problems, fines and lawsuits.
Still, there are ways to minimize and even eliminate the risks:
· Worker education is the always first step to ensure that employees understand what they are dealing with and how to prevent potential problems.
· Ensure that toxic material is stored properly in appropriate sealer containers or rooms.
· Install self-contained treatment filters to capture inadvertent spills and run-offs.
Some of this is simply common-sense, some is already required by law and some – such as installing plant site water treatment facilities – is under serious consideration by regulators. A workplace audit where risks are involved will reveal ways to minimize potential problems.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. , Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Cancer In The Workplace: “Safe Enough” Can Hide Dangers.
Cancer In The Workplace: “Safe Enough” Can Hide Dangers.
This is the third in our series on how workplace health and safety can elevate cancer risks, and how to control potential problems. This article focuses on hidden cancer dangers lurking in occupation safety issues.
– by Isaac Rudik
Only a madman or a fool would work with dimethyl sulphate without wearing a certified safety mask to protect against inhaling its lethal fumes.
Yet even a conscientious employer may not spot hidden dangers in what is otherwise thought of as a “safe” plant.
Not long ago, a company brought us in to conduct a thorough compliance audit in an attempt to hold the line of its insurance premiums, which the insurer was threatening to hike. As we walked through the facility, the chief operating officer pointed proudly to the numerous health and safety measures the company had installed over the past few years. When we came to a sealed part of the plant where dimethyl sulphate was being used, he began telling me about how insistent the supervisors, managers and executives are about workers being masked at all times.
That’s when I grabbed the man’s arm and pulled him hard towards the exit. Shocked and surprised, as I tugged him away he gave me one of those “are you nuts or something?” looks that comes from disbelief and what, to him, was my incomprehensible behaviour. Once we were safely outside the workspace, I removed my mask and told him, “That place is a breeding ground for cancer.”
What caused me to backtrack so rapidly was the stunning sight of a half dozen workers, all wearing proper breathing apparatus, yet some were working in short sleeved shirts and none wore adequate eye protection. I pointed out that regardless of how powerful the ventilating system is in the room, particulate-sized carcinogens from dimethyl sulphate can enter the body through the skin and eyes.
Never Safe Enough
Needless to say, the COO who was so proud of what his company does to protect workers was stunned. He admitted that it never occurred to him or anyone else at the factory, whether shop floor workers or corner office executives, that they were unknowingly creating a risk despite their sincere, best efforts to create and maintain a safe workplace.
The problem is that dimethyl sulfate and many other common chemicals used in a number of manufacturing processes can cause severe external burns when skin contact is made and damages internal organs if it enters the body through the skin. As a result, strong ventilation systems and individual breathing apparatus for workers are not enough to remove the danger.
Consequently, anyone working around such compounds needs more protection including overalls, and goggles. The entire workplace should be fitted with a spill contamination system. In fact, the government lists 60 precautions that companies need to undertake. Some of these include:
· Always keep the material locked inside proper storage containers when not being used.
· Always store according to MSDS.
· Keep the material away from break rooms and cafeterias.
· Store containers in a well-ventilated place.
· Be sure that ignition sources are kept far from the material.
· Never eat or drink when using the compound.
· Whenever leaving the work area, remove clothing that may be contaminated.
· If a worker begins to feel ill, seek medical advice immediately.
· Follow the manufacturer’s recommendations on recycling.
Real Risks
The risks from dimethyl sulphate and other cancer-causing chemicals are very real yet the dangers can be totally hidden – even from companies that believe they are taking care to protect vulnerable workers.
When so many types of protection are relatively inexpensive and easy to use, there is no excuse for a business of any size not to ensure that workplace health and safety issues are thoroughly addressed.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. , Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
This is the third in our series on how workplace health and safety can elevate cancer risks, and how to control potential problems. This article focuses on hidden cancer dangers lurking in occupation safety issues.
– by Isaac Rudik
Only a madman or a fool would work with dimethyl sulphate without wearing a certified safety mask to protect against inhaling its lethal fumes.
Yet even a conscientious employer may not spot hidden dangers in what is otherwise thought of as a “safe” plant.
Not long ago, a company brought us in to conduct a thorough compliance audit in an attempt to hold the line of its insurance premiums, which the insurer was threatening to hike. As we walked through the facility, the chief operating officer pointed proudly to the numerous health and safety measures the company had installed over the past few years. When we came to a sealed part of the plant where dimethyl sulphate was being used, he began telling me about how insistent the supervisors, managers and executives are about workers being masked at all times.
That’s when I grabbed the man’s arm and pulled him hard towards the exit. Shocked and surprised, as I tugged him away he gave me one of those “are you nuts or something?” looks that comes from disbelief and what, to him, was my incomprehensible behaviour. Once we were safely outside the workspace, I removed my mask and told him, “That place is a breeding ground for cancer.”
What caused me to backtrack so rapidly was the stunning sight of a half dozen workers, all wearing proper breathing apparatus, yet some were working in short sleeved shirts and none wore adequate eye protection. I pointed out that regardless of how powerful the ventilating system is in the room, particulate-sized carcinogens from dimethyl sulphate can enter the body through the skin and eyes.
Never Safe Enough
Needless to say, the COO who was so proud of what his company does to protect workers was stunned. He admitted that it never occurred to him or anyone else at the factory, whether shop floor workers or corner office executives, that they were unknowingly creating a risk despite their sincere, best efforts to create and maintain a safe workplace.
The problem is that dimethyl sulfate and many other common chemicals used in a number of manufacturing processes can cause severe external burns when skin contact is made and damages internal organs if it enters the body through the skin. As a result, strong ventilation systems and individual breathing apparatus for workers are not enough to remove the danger.
Consequently, anyone working around such compounds needs more protection including overalls, and goggles. The entire workplace should be fitted with a spill contamination system. In fact, the government lists 60 precautions that companies need to undertake. Some of these include:
· Always keep the material locked inside proper storage containers when not being used.
· Always store according to MSDS.
· Keep the material away from break rooms and cafeterias.
· Store containers in a well-ventilated place.
· Be sure that ignition sources are kept far from the material.
· Never eat or drink when using the compound.
· Whenever leaving the work area, remove clothing that may be contaminated.
· If a worker begins to feel ill, seek medical advice immediately.
· Follow the manufacturer’s recommendations on recycling.
Real Risks
The risks from dimethyl sulphate and other cancer-causing chemicals are very real yet the dangers can be totally hidden – even from companies that believe they are taking care to protect vulnerable workers.
When so many types of protection are relatively inexpensive and easy to use, there is no excuse for a business of any size not to ensure that workplace health and safety issues are thoroughly addressed.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. , Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Cancer In The Workplace: Airborne Workplace Pollution Can Be Hazardous To Living.
Cancer In The Workplace: Airborne Workplace Pollution Can Be Hazardous To Living.
The first in our series on how workplace health and safety can cause hazards, and how to control potential problems. This article focuses on air pollution.
– by Isaac Rudik
Even though the number of previously-fatal cancers is diminishing as medicine finds effective ways of treating them, they are still a serious enough problem for businesses to consider ways of minimizing them in the workplace.
Admittedly, some exposure from sources such as UV radiation and smoke may occur in both work and non-work contexts. Moreover, there is no way to reliably differentiate between cancers in the same organ caused by different factors. Estimating the extent of occupational cancer is complex and estimates vary according to the method used. Still, it is probable that up to an estimated 11% of cancers are attributable to occupational exposure.
Still, as data collection widens and more is learned about the long-term impact of exposure to carcinogens, it is likely that within the next three-to-five years Ontario businesses will come under increasing pressure to minimize risks.
Proactive Steps
Already, businesses have a legal, pro-active requirement to eliminate workplace hazards so the regulatory framework for broadening the scope to include carcinogens is in place. Indeed, some businesses already work with stiff, cancer-related regulations: For example, printing companies using UV inks, which can cause cancer upon contact, must take steps to ensure workers are protected adequately and report incidents if they occur.
At the same time, chemicals in the workplace whether for personal hygiene or used in the workplace saturate the air. In a recent case, a worker complained about strong scents coming from co-workers. A supervisor requested a supplier provide information about a space deodorant used in lavatories, discovering a possible link between adverse negative health effects and chemicals commonly found in the space deodorants. A simple search for alternatives with fewer harmful chemicals produced substitute options to replace the more harmful space deodorant being used.
As with other hazards, ensuring that workplace exposure to carcinogenic agents does not occur is the best way to reduce occupational cancer. Options range from replacing known carcinogens to the use of enclosed systems and protective clothing.
What researchers are looking for are so-called “cancer clusters.” These happen when reporting of an unexpectedly high incidence of cancer shows up in a defined population or geographical area – such as a manufacturing plan. Some cancer clusters are suspected of resulting from occupational exposure because they are identified with workers in a particular location. Cancer cluster investigations seek to identify unrecognised exposure to known carcinogens and the adequacy of protective measures.
Avoiding Problems
With or without regulations, there are a number of practical, low-cost ways for businesses that deal with potential, cancer causing material can take:
· Ensure workers use eye and face protection if aerosols or splashes are anticipated.
· Use mechanical devices for all pipefitting procedures to prevent contaminated air from seeping into the workplace.
· Make sure that materials that may generate an aerosol is kept in suitable containment devices such as a fume hood, biological safety cabinet, or glove box.
· Capture vapors or aerosols through exhaust ventilation at the worksite, using a fume hood or biological safety cabinet.
· When moving carcinogens in hallways or corridors, make sure they are stores inside a secondary container that seals closed and is leak-proof.
· Place a door card warning at entrances to work areas.
Much of this is simply common-sense and some is already required by law. An audit of a workplace where there might be a cancer risk will reveal whether additional protection is needed.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. , Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
The first in our series on how workplace health and safety can cause hazards, and how to control potential problems. This article focuses on air pollution.
– by Isaac Rudik
Even though the number of previously-fatal cancers is diminishing as medicine finds effective ways of treating them, they are still a serious enough problem for businesses to consider ways of minimizing them in the workplace.
Admittedly, some exposure from sources such as UV radiation and smoke may occur in both work and non-work contexts. Moreover, there is no way to reliably differentiate between cancers in the same organ caused by different factors. Estimating the extent of occupational cancer is complex and estimates vary according to the method used. Still, it is probable that up to an estimated 11% of cancers are attributable to occupational exposure.
Still, as data collection widens and more is learned about the long-term impact of exposure to carcinogens, it is likely that within the next three-to-five years Ontario businesses will come under increasing pressure to minimize risks.
Proactive Steps
Already, businesses have a legal, pro-active requirement to eliminate workplace hazards so the regulatory framework for broadening the scope to include carcinogens is in place. Indeed, some businesses already work with stiff, cancer-related regulations: For example, printing companies using UV inks, which can cause cancer upon contact, must take steps to ensure workers are protected adequately and report incidents if they occur.
At the same time, chemicals in the workplace whether for personal hygiene or used in the workplace saturate the air. In a recent case, a worker complained about strong scents coming from co-workers. A supervisor requested a supplier provide information about a space deodorant used in lavatories, discovering a possible link between adverse negative health effects and chemicals commonly found in the space deodorants. A simple search for alternatives with fewer harmful chemicals produced substitute options to replace the more harmful space deodorant being used.
As with other hazards, ensuring that workplace exposure to carcinogenic agents does not occur is the best way to reduce occupational cancer. Options range from replacing known carcinogens to the use of enclosed systems and protective clothing.
What researchers are looking for are so-called “cancer clusters.” These happen when reporting of an unexpectedly high incidence of cancer shows up in a defined population or geographical area – such as a manufacturing plan. Some cancer clusters are suspected of resulting from occupational exposure because they are identified with workers in a particular location. Cancer cluster investigations seek to identify unrecognised exposure to known carcinogens and the adequacy of protective measures.
Avoiding Problems
With or without regulations, there are a number of practical, low-cost ways for businesses that deal with potential, cancer causing material can take:
· Ensure workers use eye and face protection if aerosols or splashes are anticipated.
· Use mechanical devices for all pipefitting procedures to prevent contaminated air from seeping into the workplace.
· Make sure that materials that may generate an aerosol is kept in suitable containment devices such as a fume hood, biological safety cabinet, or glove box.
· Capture vapors or aerosols through exhaust ventilation at the worksite, using a fume hood or biological safety cabinet.
· When moving carcinogens in hallways or corridors, make sure they are stores inside a secondary container that seals closed and is leak-proof.
· Place a door card warning at entrances to work areas.
Much of this is simply common-sense and some is already required by law. An audit of a workplace where there might be a cancer risk will reveal whether additional protection is needed.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc. , Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
When Looking For Small Risks, Don’t Ignore The Big Ones.
When Looking For Small Risks, Don’t Ignore The Big Ones.
While work-related accidents sidelining employees for fewer than 20 days are down sharply, there is a dramatic rise in more serious injuries. Is the provincial ministry partially to blame?
– By Isaac Rudik
Here’s a bit of good news for companies and their workers: Non-fatal accidents and injuries in Ontario that result in fewer than 20 days away from work are declining rather dramatically. But there is also some bad news: Incidents serious enough to keep an employee off work for 21 or more days are up sharply – as much as 23% for injuries where someone is on accident leave for more than one month.
The question is to what extent is the Ministry of Labour responsible for the numbers? In its zeal to compel businesses to suss out big risks that cause relatively minor injuries, it has created the unintended consequence of enabling companies to overlook more serious but less frequent potential accident and injury risks that happen less frequently but cause more damage.
But regardless of the ministry’s emphasis, businesses must continue to reduce the risk from potential accidents that create long-term recovery and may cause environmental damage.
Ergo, Ergonomics
It turns out that one of the biggest causes of serious accidents and injuries comes when handling high risk material. Too many businesses use a standard dolly – pretty much the same style your neighbour rents when he asks you to help him move a few boxes to the cottage – even when hauling gas cylinders, drums and other hazardous material around a factory or warehouse. But there’s a relatively simple and inexpensive way to prevent more serious injuries and accidents: Use ergonomically correct equipment, especially when handling hazardous materials.
The harsh fact is that one size does not fit every handling situation.
Take a typical, 55 gallon storage drum as an example. Depending on what is being done with it, there are at least four different ergonomically correct devices to move the drum without risking an injury to a worker – or a potential environmental hazard because the wrong equipment was used to transport the drum from one place to another and the drum tips, rolls and opens. The list of correct equipment includes a truck, a dolly, a cradle and a stacker.
Yet when we are asked to do a safety compliance audit, more often than not one of the things we find is the wrong equipment being employed improperly. In one instance, we found a pallet stacker being used to stack drums despite the fact that there is no way to secure a drum to a pallet lifting device. As a result, workers are at risk of injury, the company is at risk of hefty fines if there is an accident and the environment may be at risk from an avoidable spill.
Smart Moves
It’s just a smart business move to ensure that a material handling solution fits the specific situation.
The smart way to protect both the company and its employees is to always use ergonomically proven material handling solutions. Normal dollies should only move non-gas, non-hazardous and not-liquid materials. Everything else requires a specialised piece of equipment.
Using the correct handling cart for different applications does require a small investment in material handling and during a recession holding down costs is especially important. But the price for the correct material handling equipment is peanuts compared with the huge cost of a worker suffering a debilitating, long term disability, the price of cleaning up the environment after a spill and paying out cold cash to the government for the fines it levies.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc., Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
While work-related accidents sidelining employees for fewer than 20 days are down sharply, there is a dramatic rise in more serious injuries. Is the provincial ministry partially to blame?
– By Isaac Rudik
Here’s a bit of good news for companies and their workers: Non-fatal accidents and injuries in Ontario that result in fewer than 20 days away from work are declining rather dramatically. But there is also some bad news: Incidents serious enough to keep an employee off work for 21 or more days are up sharply – as much as 23% for injuries where someone is on accident leave for more than one month.
The question is to what extent is the Ministry of Labour responsible for the numbers? In its zeal to compel businesses to suss out big risks that cause relatively minor injuries, it has created the unintended consequence of enabling companies to overlook more serious but less frequent potential accident and injury risks that happen less frequently but cause more damage.
But regardless of the ministry’s emphasis, businesses must continue to reduce the risk from potential accidents that create long-term recovery and may cause environmental damage.
Ergo, Ergonomics
It turns out that one of the biggest causes of serious accidents and injuries comes when handling high risk material. Too many businesses use a standard dolly – pretty much the same style your neighbour rents when he asks you to help him move a few boxes to the cottage – even when hauling gas cylinders, drums and other hazardous material around a factory or warehouse. But there’s a relatively simple and inexpensive way to prevent more serious injuries and accidents: Use ergonomically correct equipment, especially when handling hazardous materials.
The harsh fact is that one size does not fit every handling situation.
Take a typical, 55 gallon storage drum as an example. Depending on what is being done with it, there are at least four different ergonomically correct devices to move the drum without risking an injury to a worker – or a potential environmental hazard because the wrong equipment was used to transport the drum from one place to another and the drum tips, rolls and opens. The list of correct equipment includes a truck, a dolly, a cradle and a stacker.
Yet when we are asked to do a safety compliance audit, more often than not one of the things we find is the wrong equipment being employed improperly. In one instance, we found a pallet stacker being used to stack drums despite the fact that there is no way to secure a drum to a pallet lifting device. As a result, workers are at risk of injury, the company is at risk of hefty fines if there is an accident and the environment may be at risk from an avoidable spill.
Smart Moves
It’s just a smart business move to ensure that a material handling solution fits the specific situation.
The smart way to protect both the company and its employees is to always use ergonomically proven material handling solutions. Normal dollies should only move non-gas, non-hazardous and not-liquid materials. Everything else requires a specialised piece of equipment.
Using the correct handling cart for different applications does require a small investment in material handling and during a recession holding down costs is especially important. But the price for the correct material handling equipment is peanuts compared with the huge cost of a worker suffering a debilitating, long term disability, the price of cleaning up the environment after a spill and paying out cold cash to the government for the fines it levies.
Isaac Rudik is a compliance consultant with Compliance Solutions Canada Inc., Canada’s largest provider of health, safety and environmental compliance solutions to industrial, institutional and government facilities.
E-mail Isaac at irudik@csc-inc.ca or phone him at 905-761-5354.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)