Hello Everyone! It is an honour to serve as the next president of OHAO. First, I want to thank John Petherick for his service in the past year. He has been an excellent president and example for me and I know that I will continue to rely on him and the rest of the Board to support me in the coming year. I would also like to thank the outgoing Board members, Chris Rahm and Altaira Hildebrand, for their service to the Board and the Asso-ciation. It has been a pleasure serving on the Board with them.

When I was first studying to becoming an occupational hygienist, I never thought that one day, I would join the Board of OHAO, let alone become the president. As I take on this role, I want to let you know why I decided to become an active OHAO member – early on in my career, I took a lot from the profession – I had many excellent senior professionals that were my mentors that I constantly asked questions to, and that guided me in making the right career decisions. They not only imparted professional wisdom, but technical knowledge as well. I spent a lot of my early years absorbing as much technical and professional knowledge as I could. At some point, I realized that it was important to start giving back to the profession. I joined OHAO, and started becoming an active member by serving on a committee. Then, four years ago, I join the Board. I was fortunate enough to

serve with many wonderful colleagues, and I have learned a lot about the profes-sion, and how to work together collabora-tively. If you haven’t already, I encour-age you to take the plunge, and to get involved in a committee or the Board.

I am excited for the many initiatives that OHAO has started in the last year, to sup-port our strategic plan. I will continue to support the Board as we roll out new initiatives. Last fall, I announced our new and more modern logo at the Symposium. Along with the logo re-design, we are also rolling out an updated website that will have a more professional look, and will be easier to navigate. These changes support our mission to fostering commu-nication and networking.

In the coming year, OHAO will con-tinue to host regional meetings in dif-ferent parts of Ontario, including our now annual meeting in the Ottawa area. The regional meetings started two years ago as a way to foster relationships and connect with our colleagues who may not be able to travel to the Symposia in Toronto. These meetings would not be able to happen without the support of our members and other professionals living and working in these areas. This year, we will continue to look into holding regional meetings in conjunction with other professional organization as part-

Highlights in this Issue of OH Forum

Editor’s Message ............. 3

Health Physics ..............4

Canada, Coal, Petcoke & Asbestos .......................6

Student Award Recipient Research Summary ......7

The Occupational Exposure Banding Process: Guidance for the Evaluation of Chemical Hazards ........9

Noisy News.................10

Hugh Nelson Award Recipent Acceptance Speech .......................12

President’s Message

OH FORUM 1 - 2017 (Vol 40 No 2)

OH

FORUM

OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE VOL. 40, NO. 2 MAY 2017

ISSN #08436088

ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

Letty Wong, CIH, ROH

OH FORUM 2 - 2017 (Vol 40 No 2)

OH

FORUM

OH Forum is published quarterly by the Occupational Hygiene Asso-ciation of Ontario, and distributed free of charge to all members.

Deadlines for articles and advertising are as follows:Issue DeadlineFebruary 10th of JanuaryMay 10th of AprilAugust 10th of JulyNovember 10th of October

Enquiries or suggestions should be directed to:

Editor - OH Forum c/o OHAO Tel: (905) 567-71966700 Century Ave Suite 100 Fax: (905) 567-7191Mississauga, Ontario L5N 6A4 www.ohao.org

Circulation: 300 Vol 40, No.2

OH FORUMO OHAO 2017-18 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT: Letty Wong CIH, ROH PRESIDENT ELECT: Glenn Wood, CIH, ROH IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT: John Petherick, CIH, ROH SECRETARY/TREASURER: Joanna Tam, BSc, MHSc, CIH

DIRECTORS: Rhiannon Filip, CIH, ROH, CRSP Negin Ghanavatian, MHSc Anne-Marie Landis-Groom, BSc, MHSc, CIH, ROH Jeff Mallany, ROH Sneha Panchal, M.SC, RMCCM Nancy Wilk, MHSc, CIH O EDITORIAL TEAM

EDITOR: Christine Sidhom, MSc (A),CIH,CRSP BOD REPRESENTATIVE: Letty Wong CIH, ROH NEWSLETTER LAYOUT: Nikki Wright, CAE COLUMN EDITORS: Jim Desormeaux, OHST, COHC Michael G. Grey, CHP, ROH Tim Kelsall, CIH, ROH Christine Sidhom, MSc (A), CIH, CRSP

O CONTRIBUTORS: Christy Bou-Fadel Paul Bozek, BASc MEng MBA PEng CIH ROH Michael Grey, CHP, ROH Tim Kelsall, CIH, ROH, INCE Bd Cert Christine Sidhom, MSc (A), CIH, CRSP E.A. Sullivan, PhD, COH, ROH, CChem Letty Wong CIH, ROH

Mission StatementTo advance the profession of occupational hygiene and to serve the interests of our members by:

• sponsoring professional development and training; • promoting public and legal recognition;• developing partnerships with stakeholders;• providing public education;• fostering communication and networking.

rev. May 2010

O OHAO COMMITTEE CHAIRS Hugh Nelson Award: John Petherick, CIH, ROH Membership: Don Shaw, CIH, ROH Mentorship: Chun-Yip Hon, Phd, CPHI(C), CRSP, ROH Newsletter/Publications: Christine Sidhom, CIH, CRSP, ROH Nominations: Anne-Marie Landis-Groom, BSc, MHSc, CIH, ROH Program: Glenn Wood, CIH, ROH Public Affairs/Education: Jeff Mallany, ROH Website: John Petherick, CIH, ROH

O ADVERTISING RATES Cost: Business Card $50.00*

1/4 page $295.00*

1/2 page $345.00*

Full page $460.00*

*plus HST #R127720134

BONUS: Run your advertisement for 3 consecutive issues and save 33%

O 1/4 page Career advertisements (including jobs wanted) are published free of charge

ners, to develop continued partnerships, as per our mission statement.

In the next year, we also hope to promote the profes-sion among university students. Last year, in conjunction with Ryerson, three board members attended a lunch and learn where we discussed industrial hygiene, our personal experience in the profession, and the mentorship program. The event was a success, and we were able to bring more recognition to our organization, and to the profession for undergraduate students. The mentorship program is also continuing in its second year now. It is a great way to bring together young and seasoned professionals. I have person-ally had a very rewarding experience so far acting as a mentor the past two years. We currently have more mentees than mentors. I would encourage you to sign up as a mentor and to give back to the community. In the coming year, we hope to continue to promote the profession further by way of partnering with students from Ryerson and other univer-sities.

I am excited for the next year, and I will do my best to con-tinue the mission of OHAO, to advance the profession, and to serve the interests of our members.

Letty Wong, CIH, ROH

2017 (Vol 40 No 2) - OH FORUM 3

Editor’s Message Welcome to this issue of the OH Forum. Thank you very much to everyone who contributed.

Welcome also to the new OHAO Board as well as our new President, Letty Wong, who will accompany me and the newsletter contributors who every season that we publish the newsletter.

I am finding in my career that communication, more precisely the skill of effectively communicating, is becoming more and more a skill that I need to maintain and improve. Whether it is one on one meeting, training, or using technology and social media to communicate health and safety messages, in my opinion, effective communication is an invaluable skill of the occupational hygienist. I once had a mentor state from a hygiene perspective, the employee is often your first instrument in your hygiene assessment (this applied mostly to air quality issues at the time) and I constantly remind myself to listen well to what the employees are stating. Even Steven Covey, states that one of the habits of hightly effective people is to “seek first to understand, then to be understood”. We, as hygienists, are also one of the assets in their tool box to communicate hazards, communicate risk along side supervisors and managers and teach others how to communicate this as well, We also encour-age workplace parties to listen to each other.

That being said, we hope that this newsletter is also a good resource to communicate experiences and knowl-edge to each other, and of activities going on in our Association. You are invited to join our Newsletter and Publications Committee to .communicate with otherhygienists about all the good things that you do! I look forward to hearing from you. Just contact the OHAO office and they will put you in touch with me. We are always looking for contributions to the OH Forum.

Enjoy this issue.

Christine Sidhom, MSc (A), CIH, CRSP

OH FORUM 4 - 2017 (Vol 40 No 2)

OH

FORUM

—Column Editor—Michael Grey, CHP, ROH

SAIC Canada

Health Physics

SCHEER Opinion on Biological Effects of UVCAt the request of the European Commission, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) has prepared an opinion on the “Biological effects of UV-C radiation relevant to health with particular reference to UN-C lamps’. SCHEER, formerly called the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, provides opinions on questions concerning emerging or newly identified health and environmental risks and on broad, complex or multidisciplinary issues that require a comprehensive assessment of risks to consumer safety or public health and related issues not covered by other European Union risk assessment bodies. The increas-ing use of germicidal UVC lamps in food processing, HVAC systems and waste water treatment, together with reports of adverse effects following accidental exposure to these sources, lead the EC to request SCHEER to provide an opinion on three questions:

1. What are the potential effects on human eyes and skin;

2. Is there a wave-length dependent safety threshold; and

3. Are there other safety aspects that should be consid-ered?

The Committee’s opinion was published on 2 February 2017 and it is available online at https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/opinions_en. An ear-lier SCHEER opinion on the “Biological effects of ultra-violet radiation relevant to health with particular reference to sunbeds for cosmetic purposes” is available on the same webpage.

Ultraviolet C is non-ionizing radiation with a wavelength of between 280 nm and 100 nm. Ultraviolet radiation in this range of wavelengths is absorbed by the atmosphere; longer wavelength UVC (280 – 200 nm) is absorbed by ozone while shorter wavelengths (200 – 100 nm) are absorbed by diatomic oxygen. As a result, UVC from the Sun is com-pletely absorbed before it reaches the ground

There are 5 types of UVC lamps in use:

1. Mercury or mercury-amalgam (usually with indium or gallium) lamps – several different types exist but most produce 254 and 185 nm UVC radiation, fused quartz glass transmits both wavelengths while soft glass, also called sodium-barium glass, absorbs the 185 nm radia-tion which will produce ozone. Often the sodium-bar-ium glass lamps are called ‘ozone-free’ while the quartz glass lamps are called ‘ozone-generating’ lamps;

2. Excimer lamps – high voltage AC fields, with frequen-cies in RF or microwave rage, create very short-lived excited dimers of noble gases and halogens which decay by the emission of UVC light. Common excimer lamps include XeBr* (282 nm), KrF* (248 nm), KrCl* (222 nm) and ArF* (193 nm);

3. UVC LEDs – UVC light emitting dioxides can be pro-duced from materials like aluminum gallium nitride (247-280 nm) and aluminum boron nitride (214 nm). LEDs operate at low DC voltages but are not as intense as mercury lamps;

4. Pulsed UV lamps –produce intense, short-duration pulses of incoherent full spectrum light. Xenon flash tubes with a quartz envelope and operating at high cur-rent densities can have peak emission rates in the UV-C and pulse rates of about 120 Hz; and

5. Deuterium lamps – hydrogen plasma arc lamps pro-duce radiation over the entire UV band with com-paratively little visible or IR. Deuterium lamps have a higher output and longer life than hydrogen lamps and are often considered superior to hydrogen arc lamps despite their higher cost. These lamps usually have

2017 (Vol 40 No 2) - OH FORUM 5

fused quartz envelopes, which are transparent to UVC because of their high operating temperature,

These artificial sources of UVC are increasingly being used to disinfect water and to produce ozone to break down organic contaminants. They are also being installed in HVAC systems to disinfect both the air stream and cooling coils. .Fixed installations of low pressure mercury lamps are being used to disinfect air in hospitals, laboratories and in high occupancy areas like airports, cinemas and homeless shelters and for odor reduction in sewage treat-ment plants and restrooms. Hand held units (disinfection wands) are being used to sanitize surfaces in public areas and offices (e.g.: computer keyboards). Finally, germicidal UVC systems are used in food processing both to prevent food borne illnesses and to prolong storage life. There have been reports of injuries from many of these sources.

The SCHEER committee concluded that:

“There are few studies of exposure to humans under normal conditions of use and insufficient data on long-term exposure to UV-C from lamps.

Adverse effects to the eye and skin in humans are reported mainly from accidental acute exposure to high levels of UV radiation from UV-C lamps. Although mechanistic studies suggest that there are wavelength-dependent exposure thresholds for UV-C regarding acute adverse effects to human eyes and skin, except for erythema, quantitative estimation of exposure thresholds for long-term health effects could not be derived from currently

available data. Due to the mode of action and induced DNA damage similarl to UV-B, UV-C is considered to be carcinogenic to humans. However, currently available data are insufficient for making a quantitative cancer risk assessment of exposure from UV-C lamps.

UV-C lamps emitting radiation at wavelengths shorter than 240 nm need additional risk assess-ment of the associated production of ozone in the environment.

More data are needed on the exposure of general population and workers.”

The committee also provided the following recommenda-tion for further study:

“Data is needed on medium-and long-term health effects from exposure to UV-C from lamps to both workers and the general public, under normal use conditions. Little is known about exposures from private use of UV-C lamps.

Exposure data is also scarce for the use of UV-C irradiation in disinfection of water. Moreover, UV-C sterilization is increasingly used in medical facilities, for example in operating theatres. In such cases the potential material degradation due to the UVC exposure should be further studied, before such practices are established.”

OH FORUM 6 - 2017 (Vol 40 No 2)

OH

FORUM

Canada, Coal, Petcoke & AsbestosE.A. Sullivan, PhD, CIH, ROH, CChem

OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE esteems ideality but exer-cises practicality in hazard assessment and risk manage-ment for protecting exposed populations, and in develop-ing exposure controls commensurate with risk. Notice of Intent in the Canada Gazette Part I (17 December 2016) and media reports on a proposed asbestos ban1-3 and coal exports4 illustrate aspects of occupational and environmen-tal health, beyond the control of occupational hygienists.

Canadian asbestos production began in 1878 (Thetford Mines), peaked in 1973 and ceased in 2012. Importation of asbestos-containing construction materials and friction products such as brake pads – worth $8.2 million in 2015 – continues but will cease in 2018 when/if the proposed ban is implemented.5 The proposal includes ‘new workplace health and safety rules, changes to the building code and an expanded inventory of public buildings that contain asbestos’. A private member’s Bill 88 (8 December 2016) similarly proposes banning the use, reuse, import and trans-port or sale of all asbestos in Ontario.6 Seemingly O. Reg. 278/05 is inadequate; Bill 88 would require the Ministry of Labour to create a public registry of all provincially owned or leased buildings containing asbestos. A previous attempt (Bill 51, 2012) to ban the importation of asbestos-contain-ing brake pads into Ontario, lapsed. Asbestos toxicity has been evident for many decades. The federal government now declares2 that ‘When it comes to [the health effects of] asbestos, the science is very clear’ yet, while Canada – more accurately, Quebec – still had an asbestos industry, governments of both parties favoured trade and employ-ment over health…30 years after Ontario’s royal commis-sion and IARC’s carcinogenicity classification.

Coal is an important commodity: coking coal is used in steel production and thermal coal in electricity generation. In 2015, Canada produced ~62 million tonnes of coal,7 half coking and half thermal. Canada is the third-largest producer of coking coal, after Australia and the US; most is exported, mainly to Asia.8 The Canadian coal industry has a large economic footprint, directly and indirectly employing

42,000 and contributing significantly to government rev-enues and the GDP.8 The combustion of coal for electricity generation has carbon and air pollution impacts, both of which result in health and economic damages that are ulti-mately borne by society. Owing to concern about climate change, global initiatives are being pursued to curb carbon emissions by phasing out coal. The western provinces pro-duce the majority of Canadian coal. Almost all thermal coal produced in Canada is consumed for domestic electricity generation,8 especially in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.9

Coal power is associated with substantially more sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals including mercury, and particulate emissions per unit of generation than any other power source in Canada. Emissions contribute to heart diseases, respiratory illnesses including lung cancer, neurodevelopmental effects and premature deaths. It has been estimated10 that a national phase-out of coal-fired power by 2030 would avoid 1,008 premature deaths and health outcomes valued at nearly $5 billion (including health and lower productivity costs) between 2015 and 2035; the projected savings would come from the reduc-tion of smog-related air contaminants. However, emissions inventory data suggest that Canadian air quality might be affected more by cross-border sources of pollution than by domestic coal phase-out.11

Petroleum coke (petcoke) is an oil refinery by-product, ‘dirtier’ than coal12 but cheaper by about 25%...a globally significant feedstock.13 Upgrading tar sands bitumen gen-erates about 9 million tonnes of petcoke annually; some is used as fuel but a significant amount is stockpiled in Alberta – by 2012 more than 70 million tonnes and increas-ing by 4 million tonnes annually.12 On average, Canada also imports 1.8 million tonnes of petcoke annually from the US.14 To some extent, the Canadian petcoke problem can be circumvented by export to the US and Asia; unrefined, diluted tar sands bitumen can be transported via the exist-ing and proposed Keystone (TransCanada), Trans Mountain

2017 (Vol 40 No 2) - OH FORUM 7

(Kinder Morgan) and Lines 3 & 9 (Enbridge) pipelines, or by rail to transit ports on the east and west coasts, or to US Gulf Coast refineries. The federal government rejected Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, by prohibiting tanker transportation off British Columbia’s north coast. At full capacity, Keystone XL (‘eXport Limited’) alone could produce over 45,000 tonnes of petcoke daily,12 for eventual US domestic use or export.

Banning asbestos imports might reduce risk but arguably the damage is already done.3 Prohibition, now, appears more for optics than for substantial health benefit. His-torically, prohibiting asbestos, although a recognized car-cinogen, proved difficult enough. Compared to airborne asbestos, carbon emissions are much less toxic; also, coal and petcoke have huge economic and political benefits in trade and employment. Because the estimation of adverse health effects is uncertain, health is likely a secondary con-sideration in cost-benefit analyses for coal phase-out and tar sands expansion. The use of thermal coal is declining but the demand for coking coal continues, as steel remains a major factor in the global economy. Elimination of haz-ards, particularly carcinogens, is the most effective control: banning asbestos would be widely acclaimed. A few spe-cialists address mainstream occupational and environmen-

tal health issues associated with coal and petcoke combus-tion products but the wider health and societal concerns are in the political arena.

Links

1. http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2016/2016-12-17/html/notice-avis-eng.php#nl3

2. http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1169989 3. http://www.lfpress.com/2016/05/11/time-to-ban-asbestos-in-construction-

auto 4. http://www.lfpress.com/2016/12/18/coal-exports-expose-canadas-hypocrisy 5. http://canadianlabour.ca/ban-asbestos-what-are-we-asking6. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&Bil

lID=44787. http://www.coal.ca/production/8. http://www.coal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Coal-Mining-in-Canada_

final_June2016.pdf 9. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-coal-by-the-numbers-1.340856810. https://www.pembina.org/reports/out-with-the-coal-in-with-the-new-final.

pdf 11. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/did-the-coal-phase-out-reduce-

ontario-air-pollution 12. http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2013/01/OCI.Petcoke.

FINALSCREEN.pdf13. http://www.energy.alberta.ca/EnergyProcessing/pdfs/Alberta_Midstream_

Chemical_Cluster_Site_Requirements_Study.pdf14. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.

ashx?n=PET&s=MCKEXCA1&f=M

Online references accessed 4 April 2017.

Student Award Recipient Research Summary

OHAO created the Student Award at the time of the organization’s 50th Anniversary. The intent of the award is to recognize student achievement and encourage their participation in OHAO events such as the Symposiums. The selection is based upon performance in selected courses in

the University of Toronto and Ryerson University programs. The recipients are invited to either provide a brief presentation at a Symposium and/or write an article for the OH Forum.

Antineoplastic Drug Exposures and Safe-Handling Practices in Non-Acute Healthcare Settings Including Community Pharmacies, Veterinary Clinics and Long-Term Care Homes

Christy Bou-Fadel | OHAO Student Award Recipient

Healthcare workers who prepare or administer antineoplas-tic drugs, or those who work in areas where these drugs are used, are at risk for exposure to these agents. Such exposures can result from direct contact during handling of these drugs or handling of contaminated drug vials and containers, clothing and medical equipment. Indirect contact with various sources including patient excreta and secretions, such as urine, feces and sweat are also sources of exposure for these workers. Healthcare workers occu-pationally exposed to these agents have exhibited a wide

OH FORUM 8 - 2017 (Vol 40 No 2)

OH

FORUM

range of health outcomes, including short-term acute effects such as nausea and vomiting, blood count declines and skin and mucous membrane irritation. Long-term effects including reproductive toxicity, cardiotoxicity and chromosomal damage (a precursor to cancer) have also been noted in these workers.

Ever since exposure to antineoplastic drugs has been rec-ognized as an occupational health concern, various studies have focused their efforts on assessing the exposure risk faced by healthcare workers who handle these agents. Nevertheless, very few of these studies have attempted to characterize the aforementioned risk within non-acute healthcare settings such as community pharmacies, veteri-nary clinics and long-term care homes. Similarly, despite the numerous safe handling guidelines that have been developed for use by workers who handle antineoplastic agents, very few of these guidelines address circumstances surrounding the specific exposure risks present in non-acute healthcare settings.

As part of an ongoing project at the Occupational Cancer Research Centre, I worked as part of a team to further examine the issue of occupational exposure to antineo-plastic drugs in non-acute healthcare settings including community pharmacies, long-term care homes and veteri-nary clinics. To do this, a systematic literature review that synthesized what is already known about the antineoplastic drug exposure levels within community pharmacies, vet-erinary clinics and long-term care homes was completed. Additionally, as part of an ongoing project, an online-based survey was created and distributed in order to deter-mine the extent to which antineoplastic drugs are used in Ontario’s community pharmacies, veterinary clinics and long-term care homes, and to identify the safe drug han-dling practices for antineoplastic drugs employed within these settings, the degree of compliance with these prac-tices and any barriers to compliance.

Our review confirmed that there is a very limited body of data that quantifies the extent of antineoplastic drug contamination and thus the potential for exposure to anti-neoplastic drugs within veterinary clinics, community pharmacies and long-term care homes. Nevertheless, the

studies showed that there is potential for exposure to these agents within these settings. Importantly, these studies were limited in that so few samples were collected and/or the facilities that were assessed were not representative of all veterinary settings, community pharmacies and long-term care homes. Additionally, almost all of the studies in which exposure measurements via wipe samples were col-lected, were only conducted over a period of one to three days. This may not be representative of typical exposures as levels of surface contamination may vary depending on patient load, quantity of prescribed antineoplastic drugs and whether recommended work practices are followed. For this reason, current studies on antineoplastic drug exposures within these three settings lack accuracy and generalizability. Through our review we were able to con-clude that the frequency of antineoplastic drug prescription and/or administration within veterinary settings, long-term care homes and community pharmacies will continue to rise and as such, employees within these facilities will be at an increased risk of exposure to these agents and their cytotoxic effects.

For this reason, more research is needed in order to quan-tify exposure levels to antineoplastic drugs and any associ-ated health effects to employees in these non-acute health-care settings.

Given the known health effects of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and the growing use of these agents within non-traditional settings, we must better understand and control the risks of exposure to antineoplastic drugs. Additional research that quantifies the extent of antineo-plastic drug contamination, exposure and any associ-ated health effects within non-acute healthcare settings is needed and if completed would likely play a role in increasing worker adherence to safe handling guidelines and thus decreasing the potential for exposure.

2017 (Vol 40 No 2) - OH FORUM 9

The Occupational Exposure Banding Process: Guidance for the Evaluation of Chemical HazardsNIOSH is seeking comment on this DRAFT Current Intelligence Bulletin, by June 13, 2017. The document can be accessed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CDC-2017-0028-0002

OELs are critical in protecting workers from exposure to dangerous concentrations of hazardous materials but only about 1% of commercially available chemicals have authoritative OELs. The NIOSH occupational exposure banding process seeks to create consistency in characterizing chemical hazards so control decisions can be made for chemicals lacking OELs.

The concept of using hazard-based categories to communicate potential health concerns is not new. It was pioneered by the pharmaceutical industry and entered the industrial hygiene mainstream in 1988 as COSHH-Essentials, to help small-to-medium enterprises in the UK identify control strategies; this approach, based on many years of problem-solving by occupational hygienists, has subsequently been applied as toolkits in the Developing World where profes-sional resources are scarce. The NIOSH occupational exposure banding process differs from other hazard classification and category-based systems, in that it focuses on occupational exposure bands not as a direct link to control strategies but rather as defining a range of exposures to protect worker health. It includes:

• a three-tiered system that allows users of varying expertise to utilize the process;• determination of potential health impacts based on nine toxicological endpoints separately;• hazard-based categories linked to quantitative exposure ranges;• assessment of the process via extensive evaluation exercises to determine accuracy and repeatability.

The information provided by occupational exposure bands in concert with exposure assessment can be used to measure the effectiveness of controls that are in place, and whether additional controls would be advisable. Occupational expo-sure banding requires sophisticated inputs and the document envisages a significant role for occupational hygienists.

Incidentally, a validation exercise published recently in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2017, 61(3): 270-283 https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/61/3/270/3038217/An-Assessment-of-the-Robustness-of-the-COSHH has shown that the COSHH-Essentials ‘target airborne concentration ranges’ (Exposure Range Bands) remain relevant for identifying adequate control measures, targeting exposure assessment and monitoring, for the vast majority of haz-ardous substances.

Ern Sullivan, PhD, CIH, ROH, CChem

OH FORUM 10 - 2017 (Vol 40 No 2)

OH

FORUM

CSA Z107.56 and the Safe Use of Music PlayersRésumé Il y a eu beaucoup d’inquiétude au sujet des jeunes (et plus) personnes écou-

tant les lecteurs de musique personnels dans le cadre de leur vie quotidienne et la façon de les protéger contre la perte d’audition. CSA Z107.56 com-prend une section sur l’estimation de l’exposition au bruit dans les casques qui met cette question en perspective. Basé sur des recherches indiquant que la plupart des gens régler le volume de la musique et de la parole à environ 15 dB au-dessus de la température ambiante actuelle la norme fournit une estimation de leur exposition au bruit.

En supposant, comme la norme fait, que les écouteurs typiques offrent peu de réduction du bruit ambiant, la plupart des gens ne seront pas exposées au-dessus de 85 dBA à condition que le bruit de fond est inférieur à 70 dBA. Dans la pratique, cela signifie que la surexposition devrait être rare sauf dans les rues très fréquentées ou dans des véhicules plus forts, tels que les voitures de sport, le transport à grande vitesse et des avions.

Cela limite les domaines de préoccupation considérablement et devrait aider

à cibler les moyens utiles pour contrôler la surexposition.

Mots-clés: Musique, exposition au bruit, les normes de bruit des casques de CSA, le bruit des transports, le bruit de la circulation

Abstract There has been much concern about young (and older) people listening to

personal music players as part of their daily life and how to protect them from hearing loss. CSA Z107.56 includes a section on estimating noise exposure under headsets which puts this issue in perspective. Based on research indicating that most people set the volume of music and speech at about 15 dB above the existing ambient the standard provides an estimate of their noise exposure.

Assuming, as the standard does, that typical earbuds provide little reduc-tion to the ambient noise, most people will not be exposed above 85 dBA provided the noise background is below 70 dBA. In practice, this means that overexposure should be rare except on very busy streets or in louder vehicles, such as sports cars, high speed transit and aircraft.

This narrows the areas of concern considerably and should help in targeting

useful ways to control overexposure.

Keywords: Music, noise exposure, headsets CSA noise standards, transpor-tation noise, traffic noise

The 2013 update of CSA Standard Z107.56 {1} contained a new section entitled “Workers exposed to music play-ers, radios, or other sound reproduction devices”. It takes advantage of a new Estimation Method proposed by David Quirt and based on research by Christian Giguere et al summarised in Reference [2].

The standard takes advantage of the behaviour of most lis-teners who adjust the sound level of music to be about 15 dB above the background noise they are exposed to. Such behaviour is unlikely to be seen only among workers and provides a method for identifying when exposure to music, reproduced speech, etc. is likely to be hazardous outside work without the need for any instrumentation. Given the widespread use of personal music players this has been a public concern for some time.

In practice, assuming the music is from a speaker or from a headset, earbud, etc. with minimal inherent noise reduction, which is a conservative assumption used in the standard unless test data is available, it can be expected that the user will adjust the sound level about 15 dBA above the ambient noise they are exposed to and provided the music plays more than say 80% of the time their noise exposure will be 15 dB above the ambient noise in their location. Put another way, if we take the 85 dBA limit used in most countries as the industrial noise limit as indicative of the point at which there is a concern, then provided the ambi-ent sound level was below 70 dBA there should not be a concern unless the person were exposed more than 40h a week. There is certainly evidence that some people can suffer hearing loss from long term exposure below 85 dBA in the workplace. Listening to music more than 40h a week does occur but is not that widespread, certainly not while being exposed above 70 dBA. In addition, even poorly designed headsets will provide some attenuation, so 70 dBA appears to be a reasonable cutoff.

Most residences would be well below 65 dBA except when music or TV was playing or a householder was vacuuming. Unless a person was listening to earbuds while watching TV or vacuuming for a very long time, there should be little concern. Tool use in home workshops can exceed 70 dBA but generally would not occur for extended periods.

—Column Editor—Tim Kelsall, CIH, ROH, INCE Bd.Cert.

Hatch Noise & Vibration Group

Noisy News

2017 (Vol 40 No 2) - OH FORUM 11

Outdoors, most streets except major arterials would be below 70 dBA Leq on sidewalks, so the main concern would be people listening to a music player while walk-ing close to a major arterial. This is already considered a hazard from a safety standpoint and the extra concern should reinforce the need to avoid such behaviour.

Using gas powered tools such as lawnmowers would also clearly be a noise concern, with or without music players, although the players would exacerbate the problem con-siderably. Again it would be unlikely that many would be exposed to gas powered tools for many hours a week out-side the workplace. Encouraging the use of hearing protec-tion and discouraging music players while operating such equipment would be worthwhile.

Recreational activities can also have high sound levels and headset use should be discouraged with those activities.

Offices would generally be fine for using earbuds, but industrial areas and loud stores with music could be a concern. In any case, workplace noise exposure is already regulated and controlled, although work is needed to spread the information needed to do this properly.

The other major venue for public noise exposure would be transportation.

Neitzel et al measured sound levels on public transit in New York City [3], getting results from 71 to 80 dBA, the latter in the subway. Exposure time would generally be lim-ited but long term headset use in transit vehicles should be discouraged.

The interior noise in cars has been tabulated in Reference [4]. Up to 100 km/h only 7 of the 130 cars tested exceed 70 dBA. At 120 km/h 22 of the 130 cars exceeded 70 dBA, mostly high powered sports cars. With windows open 79 dBA can be reached as low as 50 km/h [5]. It can be con-cluded that there is little hazard to hearing in playing music in cars except for high powered cars at very high speed or in cars with open windows. There are of course those who add and play high powered sound systems to cars and that is an obvious recreational concern.

Reference [4]iv(which admittedly is old) also indicates that most seats on passenger jet aircraft are above 80 dBA. On a recent flight an Airbus 321 produced 76 dBA at the author’s seat. Using a headset to listen to music or a movie would exceed the daily allowed noise dose of 85 dBA in less than 48 minutes in an ambient of 80 dBA, 144 minutes at 76 dBA. This is clearly one reason why noise cancelling headsets are so popular on aircraft and provided they drop the sound level by 10 – 15 dBA they should be protective, while also improving the sound quality.

This leads to a discussion of what can be done.

• Do not listen to a music player in noisy environments such as:

1. When other music or shows are being played. 2. While walking near busy major arterial roads. It is

both unsafe and can cause hearing loss. 3. During noisy recreational activities, like using

power tools, clubbing and power boating or in venues already playing music or TV,

• Use noise cancelling headphones or headsets with measured passive protection while listening to music or recordings in high speed powerful cars or in any car with the windows open.

• Use noise cancelling headphones or headsets with pas-sive hearing protection providing at least 10-15 dB noise reduction on passenger jet aircraft and subways.

This list is probably not complete but is sufficient to give most lay people sufficient guidance to avoid situations where listening to music, radio, TV, etc. would be likely to be hazardous to their hearing over the long term. It also indicates that most uses of personal music players should not adversely affect hearing unless unusual volume levels are selected.

1. CSA Standard Z107.56-13 Measurement of “Noise Exposure2. Christian Giguere et al Direct and indirect methods for the measurement

of occupational sound exposure from communication headsets NCEJ Sept 2012

3. Richard Neitzel, MS, Robyn R. M. Gershon, DrPH, MHS, Marina Zelt-ser, BS, Allison Canton, BA, and Muhammad Akram, PhD Noise Levels Associated With New York City’s Mass Transit Systems Am J Public Healthv.99(8); Aug 2009

4. http://www.auto-decibel-db.com/index_kmh.html 5. Passenger noise environments of enclosed transportation systems By United

States. Office of Noise Abatement and Control

OH FORUM 12 - 2017 (Vol 40 No 2)

OH

FORUM

Hugh Nelson Award Recipent Acceptance Speech

Paul Bozek, BASc MEng MBA PEng CIH ROH

You know you’re getting old when….…

• you have to take your glasses off to read something• they give you the Hugh Nelson Award• you were taught by Hugh Nelson. It’s true, I was!

I stumbled into this profession right after graduating from Chemical Engineering when I got my first job in Environ-mental Health and Safety at the University of Toronto and the requirement was that I sign up for the Master of Engi-neering degree. I was supposed to major in Hazard Control Engineering but decided that I liked the look of Industrial Hygiene better…and that opened my eyes and career to Occupational Hygiene. And my boss, Chris McNeill (now retired and living on Vancouver Island) didn’t stop me.

Soon after starting work, I met John Murphy who intro-duced me to moonlighting as a consultant, and spread a lot of red ink on my crude reports (which I hope made me a better hygienist). He also introduced me to Andrea Sass Kortsak and Jim Purdham, who have been my men-tors ever since….and who eventually trusted me enough to teach hygiene to their students at the University of Toronto.

Over the decades, I have had the fortune to work in both consulting and academia, which has afforded me access to workplaces all over Canada and occasionally even in the Caribbean. This was a perfect blend to allow me to bring real life examples into the classroom to help teach the next generation of hygienist. I couldn’t have thought of all those problem set questions and case studies that I’ve used over the years without having worked in both worlds, and for that I am truly grateful.

I am also grateful for the community of practise that I have all around me through OHAO. This association is an anchor for keeping me in touch with people, knowledge

and ideas that help me sustain my practise. I am happy to have served in the past and will continue to volunteer for OHAO as long as I am able. I believe these symposiums and things like the recently formed mentoring program that Chun Yip Hon started are important to the future hygienists of this province.

One of the reasons I still volunteer for OHAO and CRBOH is that I am worried about the future of the profession. It seems to me that we, as a profession, have not achieved the goals of professional recognition that I first heard about 25 years ago from those who were leading the community at that time. It really bothered me when I heard that the province of Ontario decided that dog groomers need to be licensed to protect the general public…what, from a bad hair cut? I love my dog, but truly believe that workers (and

2017 (Vol 40 No 2) - OH FORUM 13

employers) need the protection from non-professionals making bad decisions on designated substances assess-ments or asbestos location surveys or air sampling reports more than they need to be protected from bad dog groom-ers.

I remember hearing the argument many years ago that there are not enough hygienists in the province to make it fea-sible for the government to restrict non—certified or non-registered hygienists from practising hygiene. Well, 5 years ago, there was no such thing as a Toxic Reduction Planner, but the Ministry of Environment invented a new profes-sion, including a qualification exam and need for ongoing maintenance points to re-qualify, for those who sign off on toxic reduction plans. So why should workers and employ-ers be any less protected than the public from toxic pollut-ant exposures!

About a year ago, a producer from an investigative news show contacted me. He was developing a story about a worker who died suddenly, and the widow blamed the workplace where he worked. They wanted me to comment on a hygienist’s report about the workplace done a few months before the worker died. Since it was not in Ontario and I didn’t know the consultant, I agreed. It wasn’t a bad report, and actually addressed the issues sufficiently, but I told the reporter about my pet peeve; dog groomers need to be licensed but hygienists don’t. He was intrigued, and even asked me to give him stories about where things went horribly wrong because hygienists weren’t licensed. I could have given him a few stories, but then remembered the Code of Ethics and the Non-disclosure agreements I

have signed over the years, so declined. But I want all of you to think about this; are there cases where bad hygiene by incompetent persons endangered someone? If you have examples that you can share, please get in contact with me and we can take it to the media.

I also encourage you to continue to raise the profile of the profession by volunteering and getting the word out. Go to your kid’s school on career day and let them know what you do and why it is so important. Volunteer to become a formal mentor for a new hygienist. If you don’t think that professional recognition is so important for hygiene, then maybe we should be debating it here. CRSP’s would love to become THE voice for OH&S in Canada, and are much larger than we are, so should we give up and merge with them? I don’t think so, but we need to move forward as a profession or else we will be swallowed up by something else that has broader appeal to employers, unions or the government.

In closing, I would like to say thanks to:

• the Hugh Nelson Award Selection Committee• My mentors; Jim Purdham and Andrea Sass-Kortsak• My wife, who didn’t complain about all that time away

from home for work. Especially when I went to India to sample silica workers for both Valentine’s Day and our 20th anniversary, and also for hosting all those Stu-dent BBQ’s every September.

• And to my students past, present and future. I love my job!

MOL BlitzesOn March 31, 2017 the MOL announced the focus of the blitzes and initiatives for April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. There are Provincial blitzes, Provincial initiatives and Regional initiatives scheduled.

Occupational Hygiene related inspections include -Occupational diseases in mines and mining plants -Compliance on personal protective equipment and high visibility clothing in Mining -Noise in all sectors -WHMIS in all sectors -Ergo-nomics in all sectors

For more information, consult https://www.ontario.ca/page/workplace-inspection-blitzes-and-initiatives.