Dozens of groups are pressing Ottawa to join more than 50 countries in banning asbestos, a move the Liberal Party supported while in opposition.

A letter sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau this month notes that Canada still allows the use of asbestos and lacks a comprehensive strategy to phase out the substance or to promote safe substitutes.

Separately, the Canadian Cancer Society has also sent a letter to the government, a copy of which was given to The Globe and Mail, calling for a nationwide ban on all asbestos products, a rare step for the country’s largest national health charity.

“It’s time to send a clear message and establish clear policy to end asbestos, end any confusion about its dangers, any confusion about the toll it’s taken, and any debate there is about a mythical ‘safe’ exposure level, and most importantly, [end] the exposure of Canadian workers and families to this potentially deadly substance,” said Gabriel Miller, director of public issues at the Canadian Cancer Society.

In an e-mailed statement, Health Canada said it will carefully consider whether further controls of asbestos are necessary, in addition to the measures the government has in place to protect Canadians from exposure.

Adding to a sense of urgency is the federal government’s plans to boost spending on infrastructure. Those plans raise concerns that asbestos in pipes, cement or other building materials could wind up in new construction.

“Given the huge investment that the federal government is going to make around infrastructure, this is the time to say ‘we’re not going to repeat past mistakes,’ ” said Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, the county’s largest labour organization, which is also calling for a comprehensive ban on asbestos.

Backed by nurses’ associations, building trades councils, unions and some city councils, the letter to the Prime Minister makes 11 recommendations, among them: passing legislation that bans the use of asbestos; prohibiting the use of asbestos-containing materials in federal infrastructure projects; and ensuring safer disposal and creating a national registry of asbestos exposure locations and diseases. It also wants to see a broad public-health response to asbestos diseases.

The World Health Organization says all types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and other types of cancers along with asbestosis. It says the most efficient way to eliminate these diseases is to stop the use of asbestos.

But Statistics Canada trade data show asbestos-related imports rose to a six-year high last year – $8.3-million in 2015 from $6-million a year earlier. About half of that was in brake pads and linings, while this country also imported raw asbestos, sheets and pipes, clothing and fabricated products. Exports have markedly declined, but Canada still exported $1.2-million to other countries in clothing, building materials and fabricated products.

Asbestos is the top on-the-job killer in Canada. New cases of mesothelioma – a cancer caused almost exclusively by asbestos exposure – have more than doubled in the past two decades. Each year, more than 2,000 people are diagnosed with asbestos cancers and other diseases, according to Cancer Care Ontario. About 150,000 Canadian workers are exposed to asbestos in their workplaces, Carex Canada estimates, among them construction workers and contractors, mechanics, shipbuilders and engineers.

Canada was once one of the world’s top producers of asbestos, and shut its last mine in 2011. The federal government in the past had defended the industry and maintained a position of “safe and controlled use,” a stand that was harshly criticized by doctors, scientists, advocates and those who have been affected by asbestos-related diseases. Countries including Australia, Germany and Britain have banned the mineral.

In an interview a year ago, Liberal MP Geoff Regan – now Speaker of the House – told The Globe and Mail he speaks for the party in favouring a ban of all asbestos use in Canada.

That’s what Renée Guay is hoping to see soon. She watched her father pass away in “unbearable” pain in 2011 from mesothelioma at age 59. He was exposed at a manufacturing plant in St. Catharines, Ont., where he worked as an engineer. Her uncle, who worked in the same facility, was diagnosed with asbestosis last year.

“It’s discouraging … and it just goes back to that Canada doesn’t have a plan, and how is this okay? We’ve known this is an issue for years, and no one’s doing anything. It doesn’t make any sense.”

The number of new mesothelioma cases rose to a record 580 in 2013, according to Statscan. Mesothelioma has a long latency period, of 10 to 50 years, and researchers expect new cases will continue to climb.

“There is no sign that we have reached the peak,” said Paul Demers, director at the Occupational Cancer Research Centre, who estimates that about 80 per cent of these cancers stemmed from workplace exposure to asbestos, and almost all of the rest “due to exposure at home from the clothes of a family member who worked with asbestos” or through other forms of environmental exposure.

His team’s analysis, based on studies of exposed workers, pegs the number of lung cancers attributable to occupational asbestos exposure at about 2,000 in 2013.

“This government stated clearly when they got elected, they’re going to be relying on science-based decisions, and there’s no question that the WHO and even now Health Canada have come to realize that asbestos is a carcinogen,” said Mr. Yussuff, himself exposed to asbestos dust when he worked at a General Motors truck plant, and wonders about the impact that has had on his health. Given the body of evidence. “I hope the government will do the right thing, because knowing that fact, why would you allow this substance to be imported, and why would you allow Canadians to be exposed to it?”

Asbestos was the most common source in workplace death claims in 2014, cited in 388 cases, most-recent data from the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada show. In that year, mesothelioma was the No. 1 cause of death in accepted fatality claims.

“When you look at the No. 1 [occupational] disease that people are going to die from, asbestos is right up there,” said Dr. Andréane Chénier, national health and safety specialist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Hundreds of people are dying from asbestos-related diseases every year, “and you know this is going to be a very slow, very painful death. It’s heart wrenching to watch, and there’s no cure. But it’s preventable – we know this stuff is bad.”

“There is no safe use. People keep saying oh no, there are safe ways to use it – no there aren’t. There aren’t because it’s not fibres you can see, it’s the fibres you can’t see.”

In Ottawa, Michaela Keyserlingk says she’s tired of waiting. “I’m deeply disappointed” no action has been taken, said Ms. Keyserlingk, whose husband of 47 years died in 2009 of mesothelioma, after exposure as a cadet in the Canadian navy. “We lived this perfect life. And then suddenly, my husband who ran marathons and played tennis couldn’t get enough air … he survived [with mesothelioma] for the next 2 1/2 years. This cancer and lack of oxygen, he had real anxiety attacks … he was skin and bones. I terribly miss not being able to talk to him.”

“I had thought when the Liberals were elected I could now relax and think everything would be in good hands. And I’m not convinced any longer that this is the case.”

 

This article originally published in the Globe and Mail newspaper: 

Health Canada completed the Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, a comprehensive review and analysis of the potential adverse health effects associated with diesel fuel use in Canada. The report focuses on diesel exhaust (DE) emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles (excluding rail and marine applications) and targets impacts resulting from general population exposures. The assessment includes a review of diesel fuels, engines and emissions, a review of exposure to DE, an evaluation of the health effects associated with DE exposure, as well as a quantitative analysis of the population health impacts associated with the contribution of DE to criteria air contaminant concentrations in Canada. This report does not address the health risks of diesel fuel itself, which is under review as part of the Chemicals Management Plan of the Government of Canada and will be reported elsewhere.

Internationally, the potential health effects of DE exposure have long been recognized, and great effort has resulted in substantial reductions in diesel emissions, including in Canada. A key accomplishment has been the introduction of stringent emission regulations for new diesel vehicles and engines, resulting in improved engine and emission control technologies in both the off-road and on-road diesel fleets. In addition, the quality of diesel fuel used in on-road, off-road, rail, marine and stationary engines has improved, particularly in terms of the sulphur content. Some jurisdictions have undertaken additional initiatives to mitigate in-use diesel engine emissions and human exposure to them, such as inspection and maintenance programs, retrofit and scrappage programs and idling restrictions. However, the Canadian in-use diesel fleet is still dominated by engines pre-dating the most recent emission standards.

Diesel-powered vehicles are pervasive on major roadways and in urban centres in Canada. It is reasonable to assume that most Canadians are regularly exposed to DE. Because of the variable and complex nature of DE and the fact that DE constituents are emitted by other pollution sources, it has been difficult to quantify general population exposure to DE. Several surrogates have been used to represent DE, all of which have had their limitations. The respirable fraction of elemental carbon is considered to be one of the better options used to date.

This risk assessment considered the reviews and conclusions of the California Environmental Protection Agency (1998)^Footnote1 and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002)^Footnote2 human health risk assessments for DE and provided detailed review of the health effects literature published since 2000. The available information supports the conclusion that DE emissions have direct effects on human health.

The newly published health studies along with supporting evidence from work published prior to 2000 provide sufficient evidence to conclude that DE is carcinogenic in humans and is specifically associated with the development of lung cancer. Although the risk estimates are generally small, the population health risks are considered to be significant given the ubiquitous presence of DE emissions in Canada. The evidence is also suggestive that DE may be implicated in the development of cancer of the bladder in humans, but further research is required to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn. A limited number of studies have investigated other cancers in association with DE exposure, but the evidence is inadequate to draw conclusions regarding causality. Overall, these conclusions are consistent with the categorization of DE as a human carcinogen (Group 1) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.^{Footnote3,Footnote4}

Regarding non-cancer health effects and the potential causal role of DE in their development, a number of conclusions are drawn from the existing literature. The evidence supports a causal relationship between acute exposure to DE at relatively high concentrations and effects on the respiratory system, including increases in airway resistance and respiratory inflammation. Under conditions of chronic exposure, DE exposure is likely to be causal in the development of respiratory effects. It was concluded that DE exposure is likely to be causal in the development of adverse cardiovascular outcomes following acute exposure and in the development of adverse immunological responses. The evidence reviewed is suggestive of a causal relationship between DE and 1) adverse cardiovascular outcomes following chronic exposure, 2) adverse reproductive and developmental effects and 3) central nervous system effects following acute exposure to DE. Currently, there is inadequate evidence to draw conclusions regarding the potential neurological impacts of chronic DE exposure.

Based on traditional risk assessment methodologies and with regard to general population exposures, a short-term exposure guidance value of 10 µg/m³ and a chronic exposure guidance value of 5 µg/m³ have been derived based on diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) to protect against adverse effects on the respiratory system. The available evidence indicates that respiratory effects occur at lower concentrations of DE than those associated with other non-cancer adverse effects, and so these guidance values are considered protective against the non-cancer health impacts of DE exposure. However, it is recognized that there have not been adequate large scale epidemiological studies of non-cancer effects associated with either short-term or chronic DE exposure to conclusively characterize the exposure-response relationships. More research is needed to elucidate this and to evaluate the potential role of DE in the observed non-threshold population health effects of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5).

In general, it has been shown that sensitive subpopulations, such as the elderly, children and asthmatics, can be at greater risk of adverse respiratory effects due to DE exposure. Exposure of the elderly and asthmatics to traffic-related DE has been shown to increase respiratory inflammation. Also, pulmonary function decrements have been demonstrated in asthmatics exposed to traffic-related DE. Furthermore, traffic-related DE exposure in children has been implicated in potential asthma development later in life. The guidance values for short-term and chronic DE exposure presented above account for the enhanced sensitivity of subgroups in the population.

Overall, it is concluded that DE is associated with significant population health impacts in Canada and efforts should continue to further reduce emissions of and human exposures to DE.

As part of this assessment, efforts were also made to quantify the population health impacts associated with the contribution of DE to criteria air contaminant concentrations in Canada. The analysis of population health impacts was conducted in a stepwise manner with the use of computer simulation tools to 1) estimate emissions from the Canadian diesel fleet, 2) estimate the impact of those emissions on ambient concentrations of criteria air contaminants across the country and 3) estimate population health impacts resulting from the incremental contribution of DE to air pollution levels. This was undertaken for calendar year 2015, and results were assessed on a national, provincial/territorial and regional basis. This analysis is complementary to the traditional risk assessment approach presented above.

The air quality scenarios modelled with A Unified Regional Air Quality Modelling System (AURAMS) and the Air Quality Benefits Assessment Tool (AQBAT) were selected in order to provide an indication of the potential air quality and health impacts associated with diesel fuel use in on-road and off-road applications in Canada. On-road and off-road diesel applications are responsible for substantial levels of pollutant emissions. Compared with other mobile sources, diesel vehicles and engines contribute significantly to nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and PM_2.5 emissions, whereas gasoline mobile sources contribute the majority of carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Diesel source emissions are notably important in large urban areas, such as Greater Vancouver, Toronto and Montréal, where a large fraction of the Canadian population resides. Diesel emissions are also important along major trucking routes and roadways connecting major cities (e.g. Windsor-Québec corridor), as well as in agricultural and mining areas (e.g. Alberta). The characteristics of the mobile fleet and the dominating economic sectors in a particular region determine the influence of diesel emissions. The concentration of diesel emissions in specific geographic areas leads to distinct air quality impacts across Canada.

Diesel emissions are estimated to contribute significantly to ambient concentrations of NO₂, PM_2.5 and ground level ozone (O₃). The air quality modelling results show that on-road diesel emissions contribute significantly to air pollutant concentrations in urban and economically active areas and along major transportation routes. Off-road diesel emissions, which are more widely distributed than on-road diesel emissions, affect air quality in both rural and urban areas. The combination of on-road and off-road emissions leads to greater air quality impacts in the largest Canadian urban centres, notably Greater Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montréal. Off-road diesel emissions also have a relatively large impact in less developed areas characterized by few other sources of pollutant emissions (e.g. remote mining communities).

Based on the current health impact analysis, on-road and off-road diesel emissions result in significant and substantial population health impacts and societal costs in Canada via the contribution of DE to ambient concentrations of criteria air contaminants. The modelling undertaken estimates that on-road diesel emissions are associated with 320 premature mortalities for 2015 (valued at $2.3 billion), with 65% and 35% of the estimated mortalities attributable to ambient PM_2.5 and NO₂, respectively. On-road and off-road diesel emissions are associated with 710 premature mortalities (valued at $5.1 billion), with 65%, 32% and 3% of the estimated mortalities being attributable to ambient PM_2.5, NO₂ and O₃, respectively. Diesel emissions are also associated with significant numbers of acute respiratory symptom days, restricted activity days, asthma symptom days, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, child acute bronchitis episodes and adult chronic bronchitis cases across Canada. Results from the AQBAT simulations for the current assessment suggest that on-road and off-road emissions each contribute approximately equally to population health impacts. The results also indicate that both on-road and off-road diesel applications have significant health impacts in major Canadian urban centres. Diesel emissions have higher health impacts in the most populated provinces, such as British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, and in the most populated census divisions, which correspond to the Greater Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montréal areas. The greatest air quality impacts are also observed in those areas. Overall, it is concluded that efforts should continue to further reduce emissions of DE in Canada, particularly in areas with large populations.

To obtain an electronic copy of the Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, please contact AIR@hc-sc.gc.ca.

On March 1, 2016, the Alberta Ministry of Labour launched the third year of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Futures – Research Funding Program. OHS Futures is accepting research applications for projects that support the prevention of occupational injury, illness and disease in Alberta workplaces.

OHS Futures formalizes the way researchers, institutions, industry, and labour organizations across Canada access funding for OHS research. The program links government with experts with the purpose of enhancing OHS knowledge and capacity within the province.

A one-hour information session will be held via WebEx on March 17, 2016 at 2:00 pm MST. To register for the session, please email Amy Elefson – Research and Evaluation Associate at .

In the meantime, please visit the OHS Futures website (www.work.alberta.ca/ohsfutures) for information on research priorities, applicant eligibility, the application package, application assessment, data sharing, and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under which the information you provide is being collected.

The Application Package, consisting of an online application and application supplement, is now available on the OHS Futures website. The submission deadline is May 2, 2016 at 11:59 pm MST.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us directly at .

Sincerely,

 

 Dr. Lisa Ross-Rodriguez, MSc, PhD

Director | Occupational Disease and Injury Prevention

OHS Policy and Program Development | Alberta Labour

Phone: 780.638.1069 | Cell: 780.690.0410 | Fax: 780.644.2100

8th Floor Labour Building, 10808-99 Ave | Edmonton, AB  T5K 0G5

 

Drilling and pipeline work is noisy business and according to a new report, it’s taking an alarming toll on the hearing of workers in B.C.’s gas and oil industry.

In a bulletin WorkSafeBC says those oil and gas patch workers are experiencing noise-induced hearing loss at a rate of 33 percent, over twice the rate of workers in other noisy jobs.

“It raises a few alarm bells,” said Budd Phillips, regional prevention manager with WorkSafeBC in Fort St. John. “Approximately one-third of workers were starting to show signs of noise-induced hearing loss.”

WorkSafe doesn’t know if ear protection is absent, improperly used, or just inadequate for all the noise. But Phillips says companies need to do a better job making sure their employees are protected.

Workers often don’t use the ear protection they are given, said Art Jarvis of Energy Services B.C. — which speaks for 1,600 companies working in B.C.’s gas patch.

“Definitely if you’re working beside a frac crew with screaming engines, that’s a noisy location,” said Jarvis.

The report is based on tests conducted in 2014 and notes that young workers are most likely to forego hearing protection devices entirely, with 27 percent of those under-21 reporting they didn’t use hearing protection.

WorkSafeBC regulations require that employers provide workers with CSA rated hearing protection and test them annually when workplace noise exceeds a certain exposure limit.

Only 15 percent of oil and gas workers were tested in 2014.

This article originally published on CBC News Canada and can be viewed at by clicking here 

The new American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection, Z88.2-2015, which was approved by ANSI on March 4, 2015, overcame significant challenges during the past two decades. The updates to the 1992 revision of Z88.2 were substantially delayed while professional disagreements over appropriate assigned protection factors (APFs) for air-purifying half-mask respirators were addressed through a lengthy appeals process. In December 2010, the ANSI Board of Standards Review Panel denied the final appeal and recommended that a new subcommittee start the review process.

The new Z88.2 subcommittee was established in October 2011. It had the distinct advantage of the previous draft standard along with the many updates in related federal regulations and guidance documents, national consensus standards, and advances in relevant research.

RELATED GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS

Subsequent to the ANSI approval of the 1992 version of Z88.2, NIOSH promulgated its final rule on Respiratory Protective Devices. That regulation updated performance standards for air-purifying particulate respirators, and NIOSH published several guidance documents addressing their selection, use, and limitations. OSHA revised its Respiratory Protection Standard in 1998. Later, the agency added definitions and requirements for APFs and Maximum Use Concentrations (MUCs). OSHA APFs were established after thorough evaluation of available peer-reviewed literature, including workplace protection factor studies, comments submitted to the public record, and testimony from hearings. Proper respirator selection is an important component of an effective respiratory protection program, and the OSHA APFs provide employers with necessary information for selecting respirators for employees exposed to airborne contaminants. OSHA also revised its fit-testing procedures in 2004. The agency published various guides in support of these updated regulations, including a guide on APFs. A recent update to the Department of Transportation’s specifications for shipping containers also informed the work of the Z88.2 subcommittee. Other national consensus standards considered in the preparation of Z88.2-2015 are listed in the “Resources” sidebar below. The subcommittee considered a substantial body of research that was published after the 1992 revision of Z88.2. This information related to the proper use and performance of respiratory protection in general, including workplace and laboratory evaluations of NIOSH-approved particulate respirators and the effectiveness of fit-testing.

BY RICHARD W. METZLER, JAMES S. JOHNSON, DAVID L. SPELCE, AND TIMOTHY R. REHAK 

Originally published in AIHA  Synergist September 2015