After reading through the…

After reading through the proposed Code Adoption Document, I have many substantial concerns about the changes proposed in Clause 1.2.1.

First, how does 4.4.1 apply to fully self-contained diesel burning construction and maintenance equipment, such as Towable Light Towers, Pumps, Wood Chippers, etc that do not require external piping or venting and therefore would not meet the definition of “install” under O. Reg 213/01?. Specifically the inspection requirements of CSA B138.2-17 and the type of person qualified to perform it. Can a “trained and competent” person perform this inspection as provided for in CSA B138.2-17?

The Canadian Rental Association and the Ontario Petroleum Transporters and Technicians Association have informally received guidance from R. Sumabet, Engineer Specialist and G. Thong-Kielo, Engineer that TSSA intends to interpret the definition of install found under O. Reg 213/101 to include items that are simply “placed in position” without also requiring piping and venting as if the three conditions found in the definition were joined by an “or” instead of an “and.”

If TSSA does in fact intend to read the definition to require only one of the conditions to be met, then Section 4.4 should not be put in force until such time as O. Reg 213/01 is amended to explicitly exclude self-contained portable equipment or a new simplified ROT certificate can be created to qualify “installers” to perform the inspection required under CSA B138.2-17. If the second option is selected, industry would also need time to train installers under any new certificate. Delivery drivers, and construction crews should not be required to be OBT-1’s or OBT-2’s in order to disconnect a trailer, park it, and turn on a light, pump water, chip branches and brush, or perform other daily tasks associated with rental and construction.

I have further concerns with 4.4.2 as proposed. Why is TSSA proposing to fundamentally change scope of CSA B138 from “Portable” to “Temporary?” The very nature of portable equipment requires different build components from its stationary counterparts. What is the rationale for disregarding the intended scope of CSA B138 and arbitrarily redefining the scope to mean “Temporary?” If the scope of the standard is to be modified to mean temporary, why do it in a manner that is Ontario-specific? TSSA has representatives on the CSA B138 working group, if the entire scope of the standard is to be modified it should be done by the standards working group so that all the implications of that change can be properly evaluated.

As proposed 4.4.2 would effectively prevent equipment rental companies from utilizing CSA B138 at all, since we would have to assume that our equipment might be used for 91 days or longer and would therefore need to comply with CSA B139 at some point in its life cycle.

Additionally, I have concerns with 4.4.3 Part a), which suggests that all equipment would have to be approved in compliance with CSA B138.1-17 with no allowance for compliance with CSA B139 despite the earlier requirement that if it is stationary for 91 days it it would no longer be compliant unless it was installed in compliance with B139.

The intent of part b) appears to be “grandfathering” equipment less than 10 years old, and manufactured prior to December 1st, 2025. However, if TSSA’s intention is to interpret the definition of “install” to include portable self contained equipment then any “grandfathering” would be meaningless, since the “installer” would have to ensure it meets the standard immediately. Given the temporary nature of equipment rental this would require an enormous undertaking on the part of rental companies to retrofit our entire fleet of portable diesel equipment within the 60 day timeframe you are proposing once comments close and this code adoption document is enforced.

How are we supposed to determine the date of manufacture on equipment when that information is not included on the model plate of a significant percentage of pre-existing equipment?

Where is the risk data showing that this inspection is suddenly necessary on older equipment that has been operating safely up until now? Especially since there doesn’t appear to be a corresponding requirement for equipment manufactured to CSA B138.1-17 after December 1st, 2025 to ever receive an inspection. Is equipment manufactured prior to 2025 somehow more dangerous than equipment manufactured after that date?

Even if we were to somehow get the entire rental fleet retrofitted within the 60 day window indicated by TSSA’s timeline for adoption of this Code Adoption Document, we would effectively be remanufacturing safe, engineered, tested, and field proven equipment with parts we found at the hardware store. Equipment rental companies and other end users would lose product liability protection that is currently provided by equipment manufacturers since we would need to assume the role of manufacturer in order to retrofit existing equipment.

Finally, if all portable equipment is going to be subject to an installation inspection by an OBT in order for that equipment to be refueled. How is the fuel distributor going to ensure that no one has moved the equipment 2m or 200m, which would invalidate the existing inspection.

Portable equipment is designed to be easily moveable by end users. That is why CSA B138.2-17 envisions the site inspection to be done by a “trained and competent” person. I don’t need to be a gas technician to start my car, why do I need to be an Oil Burner Technician to use a light?