Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CSR | September 2016 | News ide levels in the parking garage rose to 425 ppm — nearly three- and-a-half times the limit. While legislation about in- door air quality differs across Canada, Canadian occupa- tional health and safety regula- tion states that when there is no specific legislation on the topic, all employers and building own- ers must oblige by the "general duty clause." This clause, com- mon to all Canadian occupa- tional health and safety legis- lation, states that an employer must provide a safe and healthy workplace. This includes pro- viding workers, tenants and all occupants with good quality air. In the case of the Toronto parking garage, six workers were using four gasoline-powered (carbon monoxide emitting) washers to perform the work, when the internal exhaust fans in the garage stopped operating. The workers used portable fans instead, but carbon monoxide levels in the garage continued to rise, undetected. Training is critical An investigation into the case re- vealed that neither the workers nor the supervisor had received formal training on the hazards of carbon monoxide or how to pro- tect themselves from poisoning. In fact, they hadn't received any formal health and safety training other than Workplace Hazard- ous Materials Information Sys- tem (WHMIS), and some had not even received that. "A lack of awareness about the hazards of contaminants means a worker may not know when something is wrong, and may not ask any questions," says Elia Ster- ling, president of Theodor Ster- ling Associates, in Vancouver. That's important, since voic- ing concerns can trigger air monitoring, notes Sterling. "In B.C., Worksafe regulations ad- dress indoor air quality in all workplaces and require that a workplace is inspected and mea- surements are taken — but only if there's a complaint." "One of the weaknesses with the regulations is that there's no specific requirement to continu- ously monitor unless it's consid- ered to be an industrial setting," says Sterling. "And a worker in a parking garage in a commercial building, that would be kind of a grey area where it would be as- sumed the building standards would protect the worker be- cause the fans would be set to turn on if the level were to ex- ceed a certain point." Educating workers about en- vironmental hazards can help manage risk. "Employers need to insist that everyone is trained," says Ben Scipione, director of health and safety for Paramount Safety Consulting Inc. in Ham- ilton, Ont. "There are too many times where people are too com- placent." Beyond industrial settings Some types of businesses — areas where gas-powered machines regularly operate — seem a more likely zone for carbon monoxide exposure, at first glance. "When an employee's operating any fossil-fired fuel equipment, an employer should protect them with good ventilation and an air monitor," says Scipione. "Carbon monoxide buildup can also come from furnace rooms and gas appliances like cooktops," says Sterling. There's risk outside of indus- trial settings, as well. "Our re- search has shown that greener, newer buildings are not safer," says Sterling. "Problems occur when different ventilation sys- tems for different parts of the building work to defeat each other. For example, for energy ef- ficiency purposes, many exhaust systems for parking garages are on a sensor and are not continu- ous. Building ventilation systems may also operate intermittently. Then there's a pressure differen- tial between the parking garage or furnace room where carbon monoxide is produced, and the elevator shafts or stairwells lead- ing to the rest of the building. This can cause an effect where the elevator or stairwell actually pulls the contaminant, like car- bon dioxide, from the sources to other areas of the building." By the numbers According to the Canada Safety Council, carbon monoxide is the leading cause of fatal poison- ings in North America. Known as the "silent killer," exposure to high concentrations can cause death in a few minutes. Because it's odourless and colourless, workers may not be aware when they've exceeded the recom- mended exposure limit (one- time limit is 125 ppm, recom- mended exposure limit is 25 ppm). According to the Canada Safety Council, even low con- centrations can lead to head- aches, nausea and dizziness. As workers experience low levels of exposure over time, they may show fewer warning symptoms, although the gas is no less toxic. "You might become desensitized over time," says Scipione. "For example, because I'm exposed to carbon monoxide more regularly, I might be ex- posed to a 150 ppm and not ex- perience a headache. Somebody else who's never been exposed to higher concentrations may be in an environment where there are 20 ppm and start getting a head- ache and getting nauseated." He adds, "My situation is a little bit more dangerous." Waiting for symptoms is not an effective or safe method of monitoring air quality, says Ster- ling. "Long-term low-level expo- sure does have negative effects," he says, adding, "There's a rule of thumb that in an office build- ing levels should be around one- tenth the occupational health and safety limit." (This applies to both the 25 ppm recommended exposure limit and the one-time exposure limit of 125 ppm.) "We recommend a proac- tive monitoring program, even though that isn't required by regulation," says Sterling. "It is just the prudent thing to do, just a risk management tool. I would urge all building owners and em- ployers to implement a proactive air quality management system." Sterling points out that savvy workers may take things into their own hands, if employ- ers don't. "There's a growing demand among consumers to know what's happening in the air they breathe and in the water they drink. It's getting easier and more affordable to actually carry around and wear personal devic- es that will measure what the ex- posure levels are," says Sterling. "I think we're going to see more and more of that — people wearing their own monitors if a building owner or property manager doesn't have a pro- gram in place," says Sterling. "We don't know how accurate those monitors are, and then the in- terpretation of that information is left to each individual's own imagination, or the inconsistent information they might find on- line." He adds, "It's much better to manage that and provide ac- curate information to the people who work in your buildings." Roadblocks and trends Despite the merits of managing risk, not every company proac- tively monitors air quality. "With smaller companies, it's usually a cost issue," says Scipione. "With larger companies, it's more about the infrastructure. It's more 'I'm so busy. I can't get it done. It's not a priority.'" There may be a trend, though, to greater focus on the issue. "We've noticed a significant in- crease in the Ministry of Labour requests to have monitoring equipment onsite," says Scipi- one. "At the end of the day we have to protect these workers, or we won't have anyone to work for us." He adds, "It also impacts future hiring because you're go- ing to have companies that have a bad reputation." Building and architecture trends may also influence the need for air quality monitoring. "There was a lot of awareness about air quality back in early 1980s when there was an epi- demic of sick buildings related to dialing back ventilation systems and turning off the lighting for energy efficiency," says Sterling. "Then standards and codes were modified to improve buildings and conditions at the expense of using more energy. We're now coming back to a period where we're cutting back on lighting and ventilation systems." If there is a drive to greater air quality awareness, it may be part of a larger cultural shift, says Sterling. "For employers, there's a growing awareness, but even more, people in general are be- coming more concerned about the environment around them its affect on their wellbeing." Monitoring < pg. 1 Commercial workplaces not immune to risk

• Cover