[vickyp]

in reply to: hearing-protection-for-disabled-employees #103405

First of all, sorry to keep you waiting. This is a very tricky question. The rules are easy to explain but difficult to apply. Let’s start with PPE. Your obligation is to make reasonable accommodations for the worker’s hearing disability to the point of undue hardship. To figure out what to do with this individual, you need to engage them in an accommodations process to determine their needs. Don’t speculate as to what damage X kind of PPE will do. Ask the employee. You can also require reasonable verification of the hearing impairment–assuming you have doubts as to whether it really exists. You may also require the person to undergo medical evaluation.
As for emergency response, it’s your responsibility to ensure that your evacuation and response plan and procedures accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities. For the hearing impaired, that may require lights or strobes instead of alarms. Again, it all depends on the individuals, their abilities/disabilities and their needs. Hope that helps. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Multi provincial workers #103404

The basic rule is that OHS requirements are based on the site of the work, not residence. Site issues can get complicated, though, if you’re in a federally regulated industry but work at a site governed by provincial OHS law.
Following the OHS laws isn’t a problem since requirements for workers don’t vary much by jurisdiction. Take comfort in knowing that it’s up to your employer and/or prime contractor if you work on construction sites where workers of multiple employers work, to know and comply with the local OHS requirements.
Generally, workers comp claims must be filed in and subject to the laws of the jurisdiction where the worksite is located. However, things can get tricky, for example, if the injury occurs away from the site in another province, e.g., where a trucker working for an Ontario employer gets into an accident in Manitoba. The good news is that you should be able to approach the Worker Advisor or workers’ comp agency of the jurisdiction for guidance in filing your claim.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Vision impairment and Forklift driving #103403

Wow, that’s tricky. Technically, you’d have no liability exposure if you verified that your forklift operators have received and maintained all of the required licensing and certification in your jurisdiction. But there’s another factor at play, namely, your obligation under the OHS Act (Sec. 25(2)(h) in Ontario but all jurisdictions have similar rules) to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. Your recognition of potential visual impairment problems among forklift operators puts you on notice of a potential hazard triggering potential liability under Sec. 25(2)(h). Stated in terms of due diligence, notice of the hazard makes any incidents or injuries that result from the hazard reasonably foreseeable, thereby triggering your need to take reasonable steps to guard against it.
So, what measures should you take’ That’s tricky not only because the operators are licensed but also because their visual impairment–or perceived impairment–is a disability protected by and requiring accommodations under human rights laws. Long story short: You need to first figure out if your suspicions are true. This is where you should really talk to a lawyer. But while I can’t offer you legal counsel–especially since I don’t know all the facts, I can offer some general pointers with the understanding that they’re NOT LEGAL ADVICE:
Suggest approaching the workers and expressing your concerns and asking why they don’t have a vehicle licence. Let them know you’re being constructive and supportive and that you’re in no way seeking to bust or discipline anyone.
Depending on their response, you may need to ask the workers to take an eye test administered by a qualified and independent ophthalmologist or other healthcare professional and furnished at your own expense with no costs to the workers.
If visual problems are identified, you need to determine whether they’re a safety hazard. If so, you need to address them, being mindful of the workers’ rights to reasonable accommodations to the point of undue hardship. Removing them from forklift operation duty should be a measure of last resort that you undertake only after determining that there are no other ways to accommodate, e.g., requiring them to wear prescription eyewear. But given a stark choice between safety and accommodation, safety rules. Stated differently, endangering any person’s safety is undue hardship, not reasonable accommodation. Your goal, though, should be to do anything reasonably possible to avoid having to make that choice.
Hope that answer was worth the 3-week wait. Feel free to follow up at glennd@bongarde.com
by having the operators take an eye exam.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Injury statistics #103402

First, I apologize for keeping you and all of the other OHSI members waiting 3 weeks for a response. This is a great question but one that’s incredibly hard to answer. First and foremost, there’s probably no single answer. The ratio will be affected by a number of different risk factors, including industry, type of injury, physical characteristics of the victim, site location, etc. I was able to find one statistical study, from the Alberta Mine Safety Association, https://abminesafety.ca/resources/stats, reporting that in 2022, Alberta mines experienced 360 first aid injuries and 47 medical treatment injuries. That translates into roughly a 1:9 ratio, which feels intuitively accurate. Let me keep digging and I’ll get back to you if I find more statistics. Glenn 

[vickyp]

in reply to: Ontario Pre-Start Review . #103401

A similar question was asked a while back, here is the answer:
“The current rule (Sec. 7(7) of the Ontario Industrial Establishments Regulation) is that a PSR isn’t required if a “rack or stacking structure is designed and tested for use in accordance with current applicable standards.” However, a PSR would be required if such equipment is modified. There are no references to how old the system is or grandfathered dates…”
 
https://ohsinsider.com/ask-the-expert-do-older-racking-systems-require-pre-start-safety-review/

[vickyp]

in reply to: Ammonia Use #103400

It would help to know which jurisdiction you’re in. But even without this information, I can say as a general matter that ammonia is deemed a hazardous chemical for which a number of safety measures are required. At a minimum, you’ll need to:

1. Measure and assess the levels to which your workers are exposed
2. Take measures to keep exposure levels at or below the particular OEL (occupational exposure limit) for ammonia in your  jurisdiction
3. The first required measure: Substitution of less toxic materials if reasonably practicable
4. If substitution isn’t reasonably practicable and ammonia use and exposure can’t be avoided via implementation of engineering controls, e.g., ventilation, exhaust filters, etc.
5. Work controls to minimize exposure, e.g., frequent breaks, safe work procedures, evacuation measures, etc.
6. PPE, including respiratory protection–which generally should be used as a last resort and/or as a supplement to engineering/work controls rather than as primary means of protection

Products containing ammonia would also likely be deemed “hazardous products” for which WHMIS protections are required, including:
A. Safety training and instruction for exposed workers
B. Maintaining an up to date, proper MSDS that complies with 1998 WHMIS requirements OR an SDS complying with new GHS requirements. After Dec. 1, 2018, the MSDS will no longer be valid and only an SDS will do
C. Ensuring that a proper WHMIS workplace label is attached to the container. Between now and Dec. 1, the WHMIS label can meet EITHER the old WHMIS OR new GHS rules. After that, though, the label must meet GHS and only GHS requirements
Last but not least, make sure you review all of these safety measures at least once a year and more often as necessitated by changes in work conditions, incidents or other indications that your current measures may not be suitable to current hazards.
That’s about it in a nutshell. Hope this helps. 
 
**This is an answer from a previously asked question on Ammonia use.**

[vickyp]

in reply to: what-kind-of-policy-do-i-need-for-an-employee-using-their-personal-vehicle-to-go-to-sites #103399

Employee-Owned Vehicles Policy

[vickyp]

in reply to: what-kind-of-policy-do-i-need-for-an-employee-using-their-personal-vehicle-to-go-to-sites #103398

Employee-Owned Vehicles Policy

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Small Scale Excavation Alberta #103397

As per the Alberta legislation:
Before workers begin working in a trench/excavation more than 1.5m deep and closer to the wall than the depth of the excavation workers must be protected from cave-ins or sliding materials by properly sloped slide walls, temporary protective structures (shoring) or a combination of sloped walls & shoring. Side wall slope must be 30-45 degrees depending on the soil type.
So long as you can maintain that slope, there is no need for shoring. Doing the math you’ve provided, 4m wide would be the absolute minimum width to maintain a 45 degree slope, and this would essentially look like an inverted cone; so you may need to go wider or look at shoring depending on how large an area you want the bottom of the excavation to be.
To prevent falls into an open trench/excavation, you should ensure the it is covered. A simple solution could be a piece of plywood, or an expandable trellis mat, to ensure the hole is properly secured. It allows for easy inspection, is a physical barrier between the workers and the fall hazard, and can be secured to the ground. However, given the dimension you are proposing, this would require framing and a lot of plywood, clearly marking and/or roping/fencing off the excavation would comply with regulations and protect the worksite.
There are a few other things to consider before you start digging, and I would recommend you start at https://ohsinsider.com/excavation-trench-safety-compliance-game-plan/, https://ohsinsider.com/know-the-laws-guarding-requirements-for-trenches-and-excavations/ and https://ohsinsider.com/trench-excavation-safety-checklist/.
 

[vickyp]

in reply to: Risk Assessment for confined space in Federally regulated work places #103396

Thanks Glenn, that will work.

[vickyp]

in reply to: Risk Assessment for confined space in Federally regulated work places #103395

I’m stumped. I just can’t find a Confined Spaces Hazard Assessment form geared to the new COHS requirements–not even from the federal government itself. What i can do is create a template for you and all of our users. But I won’t be able to get to it until early August. Will that do you any good’ If not, please feel free to contact me at glennd@bongarde.com and we can see if there’s anything I can do now. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Risk Assessment for confined space in Federally regulated work places #103394

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/health-safety/reports/confined-spaces/guidance-interpretation-application.html#h2.4

[vickyp]

in reply to: Risk Assessment for confined space in Federally regulated work places #103393

Hmmm. Let me look around for a template. If we don’t have one, we’ll definitely create one. Here’s a link to the MOL guidance. I’ll loop back with you on the assessment template tomorrow. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/health-safety/reports/confined-spaces/guidance-interpretation-application.html

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Confined Space – Atmospheric Monitoring & Rescue Plans #103392

I apologize for taking so long but this is very tricky stuff. 
1. Atmospheric monitoring: The OHS Indust Est Regs and MOL Guidelines https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/12e50884-233c-402c-b2db-f6ee9b34e46f/down%20loads/1ccel0mvg_236085.pdf’ver=1604978844695   don’t specifically address this. What they do say is: 

• Testing must be done before entry and re-entry and while workers are inside, preferably on a continual basis
• Testing must include sampling and use approved methods
• Testing must be done by somebody with proper experience, training and knowledge
• Instruments must be properly calibrated

There’s nothing about WHERE the tests should be performed. This is consistent with other provinces which offer more detailed guidance than Ontario, including Alberta and BC. My theory is that the reason they don’t address this is that, as you suggest, test methods vary depending  on atmospheric conditions, space configuration, equipment used, testing techniques, etc. So, I guess the short answer to the first question is “it depends.” 
2. Rescue: I’m a lawyer and not an industrial engineer and I’m totally unqualified to make a recommendation on rescue techniques. What I can offer is a broad regulatory perspective. Before workers enter, you need to ensure there’s a method and equipment in place to ensure they can get out in time if an emergency arises. Relying on 911 isn’t enough. Nor is relying on an outside service if there’s a chance of delay in responding. Nor is relying on in-house personnel, other than the attending worker who’s stationed by the space at all times and has the training and equipment necessary to effect rescue. As a last resort, workers must be capable of and equipped to self-rescue. But beyond these general regulatory principles, I can’t recommend particular techniques, services or equipment.
Thanks for the excellent question and your patience. I hope the answer was worth the wait. Glenn

[vickyp]

in reply to: Private: Confined Space – Atmospheric Monitoring & Rescue Plans #103391

Thank you! We are a municipality in Ontario; provincially regulated.

[Author]

Posts