Alberta Construction Association Update November, 2013

Outline Overview of Silica Project results Update on review of Occupational Exposure Limits Proposed changes to Part 4 of the OHS Code

Update on Silica Project Results

Occupational Sampling Overview 343 samples collected (288 workers) –199 samples above OEL, adjusted for shift length (58%) –171 samples above 8-hour OEL o mg/m 3 (50%) –102 samples above NIOSH REL of 0.05 mg/m 3 (30%) Total of 40 work sites evaluated (29 fixed, 11 temporary) between 2009 and 2012

IndustryN Min. (mg/m 3 ) Max (mg/m 3 ) GM (mg/m 3 ) 95% CI of GM % Above Alberta OEL % Above NIOSH REL Sand and Mineral Processing New Construction Aggregate Mining and Crushing Demolition Abrasive Blasting Oil and Gas Foundry Manufacturing, Misc Mining Asphalt Plant Earth Moving/ Road Building Cement Plant Limestone Quarry Exposure Results By Industry

Occupations with Potentially High Exposures (Top Ten ) OccupationN Min (mg/m 3 ) Max (mg/m 3 ) GM (mg/m 3 ) % Above Alberta OEL % Above NIOSH REL Bricklayer & Concrete Coring/Cutting/Finishing Electrician Equipment Operator (Mining-Underground) Painter Labourer (Non-Mining) Lab Analyst/Technician Plant Operator Carpenter Equipment Operator (Non-Mining) Mechanic/Technician

Worker Exposure: Key Finding Additional worker groups were over- exposed –Task that was being done at the time –Incidental exposure

Controls: Common Themes Build-up of dust even where ventilation systems used Enclosures and barrier systems often ineffective (incomplete, tied back, damaged or ignored) Use of dry cleaning methods/compressed air Lack of facilities for hand washing prior to eating, drinking, smoking PPE issues –RPE not properly cleaned and stored –Clothing and other equipment not decontaminated Inadequate decontamination (facilities not used even if available)

Compliance with OHS Legislation Multi-faceted issue –Information from exposure monitoring project indicates that there are compliance issues –Awareness of hazard –Work practices/hygiene issues More work is needed to evaluate potential barriers to compliance and develop tools to assist employers and workers

Moving Forward Regulatory changes Linking to CAREX exposure database Improve occupational disease tracking and reporting Work with stakeholders to help develop best practices and tools

Key Take Home Messages Worker exposure highly affected by work activity and potential for incidental exposure Generally, Alberta companies evaluated have many of the appropriate controls already in place but they are not always used to their full advantage Work procedures have a large impact on workplace exposures Lack of awareness of hazard contributes to issues with work practices

OEL Review Status

Alberta OEL Review Process Technical Working Group with representation from industry, labour and government In principle, 2012 ACGIH TLVs adopted Evaluation criteria established to identify a short list of substances requiring detailed review After review, the technical working group provides recommendations to the OHS Policy Proposed changes sent out for broad stakeholder review

Detailed Review About 110 substances reviewed Rational for identifying these substances: 1.There was a significant difference between the current OEL and the TLV 2. The substance did not have an OEL 3. The substance did not have a TLV 4. Substance likely to be present/used at Alberta work sites

OEL Review Criteria Scientific documentation and rationale for ensuring health and safety of workers Availability of sampling/analytical methods Limits set in other jurisdictions Existing and potential compliance issues Applicability to Alberta Social expectations

Technical Review—Highlights More deviations from the TLVs in this round—a lot of focus on availability of measurement methods Introduction of new size selective limits (inhalable, thoracic) Consensus reached on a number of “high profile” substances

SubstanceCurrent OEL mg/m 3 (ppm) ACGIH TLV mg/m 3 (ppm) WG Recommendation mg/m 3 (ppm) Asphalt5 (total)0.5 (inhalable) Carbon Black3.5 (total)3.0 (inhalable) Ethyl Benzene100/12520 Flour Dust0.5 (total)0.5 (inhalable) Formaldehyde0.75/1 (c)0.3 (ceiling)0.75(ceiling) Hydrogen Sulfide10/15 (c)1/510 (ceiling) Naphtha400calculation400 Nitrogen Dioxide3/50.21 (ceiling) Portland Cement10 (total)1 (respirable) Sulfur Dioxide2/50.252/5 Sulfuric Acid1 (total)0.2 (thoracic) Toluene5020 Trichloroethylene50/10010/25 Wood Dust0.5 (WRC) 5 (total) 0.5 (WRC) 1 (other) Inhalable Limits 0.5 (WRC) 1 (hardwood) 5 (other) Total Limits

Proposed Changes to Part 4

Highlights of Proposed Changes to Part 4 To address exposure measurement generally –Method used must be technically correct and appropriate to the exposure circumstances –Specify minimum information that must be recorded (consistency with Part 16) Changes to Code of Practice requirements –Linked to potential for exposure (apart from some specified substances) –Elements of code of practice specified

Restricted area requirements to apply only to asbestos New requirement to conduct an assessment of asbestos containing materials and prepare a report Notification of asbestos projects increased to three working days Training for asbestos workers linked to potential for exposure Highlights of Proposed Changes to Part 4

Revisions to Section 40 –Additions to health history –Changes to frequency for health assessments (fewer x-rays) –Requirement to notify Director of Medical Services for workers suffering from occupational disease from exposure to silica, coal dust, asbestos or lead –Registry for workers in hazardous occupations