AIHA Alberta Local Section

  • Home
  • Join Us
    • Registration
    • Membership Benefits
  • Education
    • CM Points
    • AIHA Webinar
  • Resources
    • Member’s Library
    • Newsletters
    • Outreach
    • Industry Links
  • Services
    • Equipment Suppliers
    • IH Consultants
    • Laboratories
    • Advertising Opportunities
    • Sponsorship
  • Careers
  • About Us
    • Executive Board
    • Historical Executives
    • About Local Section
    • The Profession
    • Code of Ethics
    • Policy
    • Award of Recognition
  • Contact Us
  • Member’s Log In

OHS Futures – Grant Funding Program

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

 

Oil and gas workers suffering hearing loss at double the rate of other noisy industries

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 

An Introduction to ANSI/ASSE Z88.2-​2015, Practices for Respiratory Protection

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

The Ethical Mentor

 Ethics are a critical aspect of our profession. As industrial hygienists, we are guided by the ethical guidelines published by industrial hygiene professional associations (and, for those certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, the enforceable ABIH Code of Ethics).

The public maintains certain expectations of what members of our profession represent and how our ethical behavior should relate to the professional services we offer. Industrial hygienists are expected to provide advice based on our knowledge and expertise for the purpose of preventing injury and disease. We gain this knowledge and expertise through a lifelong process of education, work experience, and feedback.

We learn ethics through a similar process of interactions with peers, parents, mentors, and even our children regarding social and professional expectations and norms. The author George Head has written that right and wrong can be different for individuals and groups based on profession, life experiences, religious beliefs, and an infinite number of other confounding factors. In professional ethics, there may be multiple rights and multiple wrongs, and we may disagree with one another on how to resolve a particular ethical dilemma.

At the beginning of our career, we learn ethics first by the “right-and-wrong” method, usually through feedback from supervisors and peers. As we become more seasoned professionals, however, we often lack feedback loops for our behaviors. We become the “supervisor,” and we must ponder the ethical nature of some decisions by ourselves.

When I’m unsure about the resolution of an ethical dilemma, I often seek counsel from a mentor. At the beginning of my career, these mentors were older than I was. As my career has progressed and my experience broadened, I often seek ethical counsel from peers and younger professionals. Multiple perspectives help ensure that I have the appropriate information to make a decision. Occasionally, I pose an ethical dilemma to my young daughter. I am almost always surprised by the maturity, thought, and accuracy of her responses.

The author David Clutterbuck has written in detail about corporate ethical mentorship. I propose that we take Clutterbuck’s idea one step further and engage in professional ethical mentorship. Professional ethical mentors are people who help you think through ethical dilemmas. They need to be trustworthy and good listeners. They may help you develop your ability to anticipate, avoid, and resolve ethical dilemmas. Resolution may not be easy, and an ethical mentor can help guide you through potential pitfalls.

Ethical mentors should have deep insight into human behavior and life experience. They should pose insightful questions and help others reflect upon their values, judgments, and actions. They must be capable of processing complex, emotionally charged dilemmas without becoming emotional. They can’t be judgmental. The outcome of ethical mentoring is counsel that improves the ability of the mentee to make sound and reasoned decisions.

As you read the hypothetical case studies below, consider how an ethical mentor might have helped the characters address their ethical dilemmas.

The Missing Aspergillus Species

A 60-year-old individual was diagnosed with Aspergilloma. The individual claimed that the disease was due to exposure to indoor mold in a recreational vehicle. Three industrial hygiene consultants investigated this claim, and each contributed a report and professional opinion. All agreed that the cause of disease was mold from inside the RV.

The first consultant conducted culturable surface sampling that presented sampling data dominated by Penicillium species. Although fungi classified as “other” were identified in the samples, the laboratory did not identify the species. Additional culturable surface samples identified 10 species of fungi, which were dominated (greater than 50 percent) by three species of Penicillium. No species of Aspergillus were identified.

The second consultant took non-culturable surface samples from the RV that were dominated byCladosporium species and Aspergillus/Penicillium-like fungi. 

Both the first and second consultants took non-culturable air samples that were dominated by Asp/Pen-like fungi, and no individual species of Aspergillus was identified. The laboratory report clearly stated that there could be no interpretation as to whether the fungi identified in the RV was definitively Aspergillusor Penicillium species because this type of sampling does not differentiate between spores of the two types.

The third consultant, who had a doctorate in toxicology and was a former director of an IH laboratory, based his opinions on the findings of the first two consultants and concluded that the Aspergilloma was caused by mold from within the RV. 

The ethical issue here is that although none of the causative agents of Aspergilloma were identified, these consultants were attributing causation to exposure to an Aspergilloma-causing fungus within an RV. All three consultants either failed to recognize or ignored the fact that they did not find Aspergillus species within the RV, which would be necessary (among other things) to opine that exposure to Aspergillus species caused a disease. Here, the first two consultants did not have much experience and simply may not have known better. But the third consultant was aware of the differences in sampling and analytical techniques and limitations of the different sampling types.

Questions to consider: 

  • How might the first two consultants have resolved these ethical lapses? How might their resolution differ from that of the third consultant?

  • Because the first two consultants were inexperienced, is their lapse in judgment less severe than that of the more senior consultant?

  • How could an ethical mentor have helped the inexperienced consultants respond to this dilemma? 

The Not-So-Drunken Yankee

Jake was a very tall young man who weighed approximately 340 pounds. One summer, shortly after moving to south Texas, he started working in the oil field. At the end of his first week on site, the foreman reported to the safety supervisor that Jake was drunk. The company had a strict alcohol and drug-use policy, and Jake was taken to the safety supervisor’s trailer and questioned about whether he had been drinking. He acted erratically and did not provide direct answers, so the safety supervisor drove him approximately one hour to the company’s regional headquarters to submit to a drug test.

The drug screen was negative for alcohol and drugs. The safety supervisor then drove Jake back to the job site and sent him home. On Jake’s way home, a fellow motorist reported him as a drunk driver. He was pulled over and became erratic with the officer, who jailed him on suspicion of drunk driving. Two days later, jailers noticed that Jake had become severely lethargic. He was transported to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with and treated for heat stroke.

Questions to consider: 

  • What ethical lapses did the company make in its treatment of Jake?

  • Was it incumbent upon the safety supervisor and other personnel in the home office to consider other reasons for Jake’s strange behavior?

  • Would there have been an opportunity for an ethical mentor to play a role in this situation? 

  • How could the company have acted as an ethical mentor?

  • How can industrial hygienists use this case as an example to mentor young professionals?

The Self-Reference

A young industrial hygienist named Jill is hoping to take the CIH exam. Her supervisor is very busy and has not yet filled out her reference form despite multiple requests.

Jill approaches her supervisor again, reference form in hand, as the deadline for applications is looming. She asks him to take a moment to complete it so that it can be mailed off by the deadline. He signs the form, hands it back to her, and instructs her to fill in the blank reference information and mail the form.

Jill fills in the reference form and mails it. A few months later, she passes the CIH exam.

Questions to consider: 

  • What ethical lapses occurred here?

  • Was it inappropriate of the supervisor to require Jill to fill in the reference form?

  • Should the supervisor have reviewed the information contained in the reference before he signed the form?

  • Is Jill’s supervisor someone who should be considered an ethical mentor?

Everyone Makes Mistakes

Everyone occasionally has lapses in ethical judgment. None of us learn ethical behavior by ourselves: we must receive feedback, learn cultural and professional norms, and agree to subscribe to those norms. The important aspect of our behavior, then, is not necessarily that we had a lapse in ethical judgment but that we recognized the lapse and responded to it. We are the proverbial guinea-pigs of our ethical being because we all make mistakes and must resolve them in our own way. Resolving ethical lapses may not be easy, and a multitude of resolutions may exist. In these cases, the counsel of an ethical mentor can prove very helpful. 

MICHAEL D. LARRAÑAGA, CIH, CSP, PE, PhD, is principal consultant for ENVIRON, a member of the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors, and a director of the American Board of Industrial Hygiene. He can be reached at .

Resources

  • Clutterbuck, David: “Step Forward the Ethical Mentor,” http://bit.ly/clutterbuck-ethics (October 2013).

  • Head, George: “Where Our Ethics Come From,” http://bit.ly/head-ethics (March 2006). 

Chemical Exposures to Oil and Gas Workers

Media reports drew attention to the deaths of nine workers involved in manual tank gauging, sampling, and fluid transfer at oil and gas extraction sites in USA. In all nine cases, which occurred at crude oil production tanks during the period 2010–2014, the inhalation of volatile petroleum hydrocarbons is considered a possible contributing factor. Information from various sources on these fatalities and reported exposures at other sites appears below.

All nine victims were either working alone or not being observed at the time of death. In each instance, hydrogen sulfide exposure was ruled out as a possible cause. Four of the fatalities occurred during tank gauging, a task in which workers determine fluid levels by inserting gauges through hatches in the tops of tanks. Due to the tanks’ internal pressure, opening a hatch can release a plume of hydrocarbon gases. These gases can contain benzene, a carcinogen, as well as ethane, propane, and butane. NIOSH investigators have determined that concentrations of these hydrocarbons can exceed immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) levels near open tank hatches.

To limit worker exposures to hydrocarbons, NIOSH recommends that oil and gas extraction companies implement technology that allows remote monitoring of tank fluid levels. If remote monitoring isn’t feasible, use of respiratory protection may be required, including a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). NIOSH warns that air-purifying respirators will not protect workers from exposures to certain hydrocarbons and do not protect workers in oxygen-deficient atmospheres.

June/July By the Numbers

Sources

  • Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, “Evaluation of Some Potential Chemical Exposure Risks During Flowback Operations in Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction: Preliminary Results,” October 2014

  • NIOSH Science Blog, http://bit.ly/tankgauging and http://bit.ly/tankgauging-update

  • NIOSH, “Suspected Inhalation Fatalities Involving Workers during Manual Tank Gauging, Sampling, and Fluid Transfer Operations on Oil and Gas Well Sites, 2010-2014,” http://bit.ly/inhalation-report

  • Petro Global News, “After Nine Deaths, Industry Grapples with Inhalation Risks,” http://bit.ly/petro-inhalation

  • The Wall Street Journal, “Why Did These Oil Workers Die?” http://bit.ly/wsj-oilworkers

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next Page »

Current Membership

  • You are not logged in.

Upcoming Events

There are no upcoming events.

Follow Us

Subscribe to our Email list

* indicates required

What is industrial hygiene?

© 2021 AIHA - Alberta Local Section  Privacy Statement   Terms & Condition Contact Us