Representative Engagement Scenario
Mining & metals · Canada (multi-province)
CSA B167 gap assessment across a multi-site operation
An operator with several sites needs one consistent overhead-crane compliance program, but every site uses a different provider and a different definition of compliant.
Discipline:CSA B167 Compliance Consultant
Typical situation
Corporate reliability cannot answer basic questions: which cranes carry the highest safety exposure, how many periodic inspections are overdue, and what closing the gap would involve. Site teams resist any program that ignores their own duty cycle and operating reality.
Common risk
Without one register and one scoring basis, safety-critical findings and routine reliability findings get treated the same way. Insurers and regulators see inconsistency rather than a managed program, and closure work is prioritized by whoever raises it loudest.
How CAG would approach it
- Walk the cranes with site maintenance personnel rather than auditing from a desk.
- Score findings against CSA B167, applicable provincial occupational health and safety requirements and CMAA class.
- Separate safety-critical findings from reliability findings so they are never prioritized together.
- Build one master closure register with an owner, target date and evidence requirement per item.
- Produce a single executive summary the operator can share with insurers and leadership.
Potential client benefit
One defensible compliance picture across sites, with safety-critical work clearly separated, sequenced and assigned.
Representative Engagement Scenario — This example illustrates a typical type of assignment rather than one specific project. It is not a record of a single client engagement and contains no client, facility or manufacturer information.
Facing a similar crane decision?
A confidential first discussion, with no obligation.
Request a Second Opinion