From 1965 to 2006, there were about 2.2 million tank car shipments of chlorine, and only 788 accidents involving them occurred.

Many Questions About Railroad Escape Respirator Proposal

The proposal published by the Federal Railroad Administration is unworkable as written because it would require performance that currently approved escape respirators aren't tested for, ISEA and others said in their comments.

Comments posted Monday and in recent days about the Federal Railroad Administration's proposed Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus rule contend the rule is unworkable as currently written for several reasons.

The American Industrial Hygiene Association said the NPRM's proposed requirements to conduct and document pre-trip inspections of the respirators "is unnecessary and overly burdensome," and the International Safety Equipment Association pointed out that the NPRM calls for the escape respirators to be certified by NIOSH or ISO, but ISO is not a certifying body -- instead, it writes standards.

The proposal was published Oct. 5, 2010; it included as Appendix B a draft specification from the Association of American Railroads. But ISEA's Dec. 6 comments, published over the signature of ISEA President Dan Shipp, said it is not appropriate for that specification to be included in the final regulatory text for several reasons. One example: the specification says an escape respirator must protect the wearer's respiratory system, head, and neck against a challenge concentration of 10,000 ppm for anhydrous ammonia and chlorine gas, but the two protocols specified in the NPRM -- NIOSH's, found in 49 CFR Part 84, and the ISO standard 23269-1:2008(E) -- do not test against those two agents.

The specification also says respirators must be rugged enough to withstand being stored inside a railcar but does not detail the testing methodology for determining this. "Currently, neither ISO nor NIOSH emergency escape breathing device standards require testing for vibration and rough handling that would sufficiently replicate this environment," Shipp wrote. "In order for an acceptable respirator to meet this criterion, an objective test protocol with specific testing and pass/fail criteria will need to be developed."

FRA's proposal fulfills a congressional requirement in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, but the proposal itself (available along with submitted comments in this online docket) shows how few hazmat inhalation casualties occur on U.S. railroad lines. From 1965 to 2006, there were about 2.2 million tank car shipments of chlorine, and only 788 accidents involving them occurred. Two of those accidents involved the deaths of railroad employees -- a Macdona, Texas, spill in June 2004, in which NTSB cited crew fatigue as a contributing factor, and the Graniteville, S.C., spill on Jan. 6, 2005.

Only 2.6 percent of the 2,594 train and engine rail employee casualties during a recent 10-year period involved inhalation of hazmats, it states. Citing an October 2007 AAR report, the proposal says from 1997 to 2006, railroads' fatality rate from inhalation of hazardous material was 1 fatality per 5.7 million shipments of the top 125 hazmats.

Download Center

HTML - No Current Item Deck
  • Safety Management Software - Free Demo

    IndustrySafe Safety Software’s comprehensive suite of modules help organizations to record and manage incidents, inspections, hazards, behavior based safety observations, and much more. Improve safety with an easy to use tool for tracking, notifying and reporting on key safety data.

  • What is Behavior Based Safety?

    Learn the ins and outs of Behavior Based Safety (BBS), a process that informs management and employees of the overall safety of the workplace through safety observations.

  • How to Properly Use Job Safety Observations

    While there are many pros and cons of behavior based safety programs, often times these programs fail because of poor implementation. Learn how to properly use safety observations that result in improvement.

  • The 4 Stages of an Incident Investigation

    So, your workplace has just experienced an incident resulting in the injury or illness of a worker. Now what? OSHA recommends that you conduct investigations of workplace incidents using a four-step system.

  • Levels of a Risk Matrix:

    Risk matrices come in many different shapes and sizes. In the following blog article, we break down the three most popular sizes of a risk matrix — 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 — and reveal the pros and cons of each.

  • Industry Safe

OH&S Digital Edition

  • OHS Magazine Digital Edition - March 2020

    March 2020

    Featuring:

    • HUMAN FACTORS
      The Case for Managing Human Factors at Heights
    • DRUG TESTING
      An Overview of SAMHSA'S New Oral Fluid Testing Guidelines
    • HAND PROTECTION
      Cutting to the Chase
    • PROTECTIVE APPAREL
      Choosing the Right Protective Clothing
    View This Issue