Top Ten lists are often the topic of very enjoyable discussions. Whether its movies, music, sports teams, or restaurants. However some top ten lists aren’t based on entertainment value and taste, some are based on more serious topics. As the year comes to a close, the National Safety Council and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced the preliminary Top 10 most frequently cited workplace safety violations for the 2019 fiscal year.
Once again, Fall Protection – General Requirements is OSHA’s most frequently cited standard in the most cited violations of 2019. This makes nine years in a row that Fall Protections has topped this list. Although there is some good news with that as the number of citations for fall protection was 7,720 last year and dropped down to 6,010 for the 2019 fiscal year. The rest of the preliminary list of OSHA’s Top 10 violations for the fiscal year 2019 also remained mostly the same from last year, with only one minor change. Lockout/Tagout, which was ranked No. 5 in 2018, is now No. 4, switching places with Respiratory Protection. Below is the 2019 most cited violations per OSHA.
Fall Protection – General Requirements (1926.501): 6,010 violations
Hello everyone. I’m back with the subject of TDG training. In my last blog, we made it clear who has responsibility for a list of the most important elements. We used the sections of the Canadian TDG Regulations for each part stating the implications of the various stakeholders.
Now, in order to fully understand what TDG requires as training, we will discuss what is the normal duration for a TDG training that would provide you with adequate skills and especially training applicable to your responsibilities.
It should be noted that the primary purpose of Part 6 of the TDG (article 6.2) is to ensure that the person has a solid knowledge of all of the topics listed in paragraphs (a) to (m) that relate directly to the person’s duties and to the dangerous goods the person is expected to handle, offer for transport or transport.
It is important to clarify here that Transport Canada does not define clearly or exactly what training should contain. TDG leaves much room for the interpretation of what constitutes appropriate training, and it remains the responsibility of the company to establish this.
For this reason, we will be discussing a training standard in the industry and it is equally important to believe that if a training facility declares that it is certified by the government or any other departmental entity that this is completely false. Continue Reading…
Hello everyone and welcome back! In my last blog, we made it clear who needs to be trained by using the definitions available to us in the Canadian TDG Regulations. Now, let’s try to properly interpret what TDG requires as training. It should be noted that the primary purpose of TDG regulations is the safety of dangerous goods in transport and to achieve an acceptable level of safety, it is, of course, essential that the persons managing dangerous goods in transport have adequate competency. To do this, in Part 6 of the TDG, the Regulations clearly state that any person who handles, offers for transport, or transports dangerous goods must have appropriate training and hold a training certificate. To fully understand what constitutes appropriate training, we must refer to article 6.2 and this article states that a person must have a solid knowledge of all the listed topics as well as the dangerous goods that he is called to handle, transport or offer for transport.
Let’s try to understand these topics that are specified and for each of the points, I will name who is responsible under the TDG.
Classification from Part 2 of the TDG. What does classification mean? This consists of defining whether your product meets the characteristics of a dangerous good included in one or more of the 9 hazard classes. Person responsible for this Continue Reading…
Here is one more blog in support of knowing it is autumn even though the weather may not feel like it. The Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in California just published a revised list. If you aren’t familiar with the OEHHA, you likely do know about California’s Proposition 65 list. As per usual, the list has changed a few times over the course of the year.
To refresh your memory, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 is the official name for California’s Proposition 65. The list has to be revised and republished at least once per year. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the agency responsible for the implementation. Chemicals are added or removed from the list when some other “authoritative body” makes a determination regarding a substances ability to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
Shown below are all of the new substances that were added and or removed by month. They are listed by name, type of toxicity, and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS). Now would be a good time to see not only if you are up to date on the new required “warnings” but if any of your products or substances were added to the new list.
Proposition 65 – Additions and Deletions
Bevacizumab for female developmental effect with CAS 216974-75-3
If you were planning on watching your favorite movie or a TV show on your Macbook Pro on your next flight well instead you may need to take a book.
Following Apple’s recall in June 2019 for certain 15-inch Macbook Pro laptops sold between September 2015 to February 2017, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has announced that effectively immediately these laptops are prohibited on all US commercial fights. This isn’t a new regulation but rather a reminder of already existing regulations which bans recalled lithium batteries and lithium battery powered devices for air carriers. These Macbook pros contain lithium batteries which may overheat and pose a fire safety risk. This restriction applies to both carry-on and checked in luggage.
Ensure you check your Macbook Pro model to confirm you are not in the recall group.
In June of this year, I was invited to participate in the Commercial Vehicle Safety and Enforcement (CVSE) Inspectors Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Challenge in Surrey, BC, Canada as a judge. I know it doesn’t sound fun but honestly, it was awesome.
The challenge was over a 3-day period and the competitors were seven (7) very qualified CVSE inspectors from all over BC to test their skills and knowledge. The winner from this competition would go on to compete in the North American Inspectors Championship (NAIC) in Pittsburgh, PA, USA. The NAIC includes the best of the best inspectors from Canada, the United States and Mexico competing for the title of Grand Champion. This is some serious stuff and of course, comes with bragging rights!
For the provincial competition, the competitors first have to write a series of qualifying exams, which advances them to the provincial competition. This year’s competition consisted of driver interview, dangerous goods cargo tank inspection, coach bus inspection, and dangerous goods packaging inspection.
I came in as a judge for the dangerous goods inspections. We provided some of the dangerous goods packaging with “compliance issues”. That was fun for me. I got to make dangerous goods stuff incorrect on purpose for once.
A few incompliance issues that I added:
put primary and subsidiary hazard labels on opposite sides of the package,
The Labor Day Holiday generally symbolizes the end of summer for many people. For many businesses it is the end of their fiscal year. For parents in many areas it means back to school. For the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) it means releasing notices of proposed rulemakings. We also have OSHA publishing their Top Ten Violations. Finally, it is time for IATA to publish the list of significant changes for their upcoming edition.
Keep in mind, these changes are in the 61st edition of the IATA. It goes into force January 1, 2020. The other thing to remember is these are just a list of “significant” changes. Some of the changes always seem a bit cryptic to me. Plus, I’m one of those folks that takes the old one and compares it to the new one to better understand exactly how it changed. Guess it comes from being a visual learner.
If you should want to read the list of changes, it can be found here. A brief overview of some of the changes are shown below for quick reference. There is a little something for everyone in the industry. As you read through, there are some times where I added some information to supplement the change as it is stated on the publication.
Brief Summary of Some Proposed Changes by Section:
When a train carrying flammable liquids is involved in an incident, first responders are often the first on scene. These types of incidents are not typical for first responders. They require a unique approach. And for that reason, Transport Canada has put out a video on how to respond to rail-car incidents that involve flammable liquids. Below are the factors and steps from the video when dealing with these types of incidents.
A Rail Car is involved in an accident and a fire starts on impact. The rail car is properly placarded with the appropriate class 3 flammable Placard. Below are the factors that can influence the fire as well as steps and tools to utilize during the incident.
Whether it’s Gasoline, Diesel, Ethanol, Crude oil, or bitumen, knowing the properties of each is important to first responders because all can behave differently under spill and fire conditions. This is where the importance of proper placarding will come into play as first responders can detect exactly what type of flammable substances are on the train based on the UN number. Below are important factors of flammable substances that would help first responders determine the proper course of action:
Viscosity- Gives an indication on how fast the fire can spread.
Density- Will determine if substance will sink or float if it is near a body of water.
ERAPs are unique to Canada, and are intended to ensure support for local responders in catastrophic spills, such as the 2013 Lac-Mégantic derailment. Essentially, they require consignor of significant amounts of high-risk dangerous goods to establish a specific protocol, often involving an on-call response team, that can assist local responders in case of a release. Transport Canada must review and approve the plan before the consignor can offer or import affected shipments (although the approval only has to be issued once.)
The amendment has three main goals:
clarify ERAP implementation and reporting;
enhance emergency preparedness and response; and
make housekeeping changes that address smaller issues.
The amendment replaces all the text of Part 7, although unamended requirements will remain the same. Changes also occur in Parts 1, 3 and 8.
Clarifying Implementation of ERAPs
The original requirements of Part 7 didn’t go into any detail as to how an ERAP would be implemented – presumably it would be by emergency responders or by the person with control of the released material, but it’s never been established precisely. The amendment addresses initial notification of an accident requiring ERAP response, and clarifies that the person with the ERAP Continue Reading…
IHU 2019 Proposed Amendment: Pre-Gazette I Consultation
In late March, Transport Canada posted a notice on their public website regarding a pre-Gazette I consultation on proposed amendments to the TDGR. The consultation was distributed to selected stakeholders by email on March 4.
This proposal is the latest in a series of international harmonization updates (“IHU”) to incorporate changes to reflect the current editions of the UN Model Regulations (UN Recommendations), ICAO Technical Instructions for air, and the IMDG Code for ocean shipment. In addition, the Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation Council work planning effort has suggested several items that would facilitate reciprocity in shipping dangerous goods between the two countries.
Updating to 20th edition and preparation for 21st edition.
Incorporate packaging updates by adopting 3rd edition TP14850 (pending repatriation to CGSB as standard CGSB-43.150-xx), normalize EC-allowed practices on batteries; allow UN3175 in FIBC 13H3 & 13H4.
Marking/Labeling: text on labels, banana labels on cylinders, require orientation arrows for liquids, marine pollutant, and Lithium Battery Mark on overpacks.
Language issues under review, include determining the options on the use of either or both English/French and circumstances when a different second language might appear (i.e. foreign sourced material).
Consider adding provisions for optional hazard class text on placards – see also marking/labeling.
Allow US placards for re-shipping road/rail within Canada. In addition to text issues, this would allow re-shipping with US Continue Reading…