steve clouthier, crsp manager of safety & training hydro ottawa 1 health & safety role of...

1Steve Clouthier, CRSP Manager of Safety & Training Hydro Ottawa

HEALTH & SAFETY

Role of the Engineer in Safety Management


Agenda

• Due diligence• Duties of workplace parties• Penalties for violations of OH&S Act• Recent Cases• Dose of reality• Key learning points have a green background


RESPONSIBILTY & ACCOUNTABILITY

• As engineers, in whatever capacity you work in, you take on moral and legal responsibilities for the work you do, for the people that construct the things you design.


RESPONSIBILTY & ACCOUNTABILITY

• Another way to grasp the scope of your responsibilities and accountabilities in the workplace is to fully comprehend what it means to be “duly diligent”.


DUE DILIGENCE

• Simply stated, due diligence means taking care.• When applied to the workplace it means taking

every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect the health and safety of all workers.


BEING DUE DILIGENT MEANS

• You fully understand your obligations under legislation

• You have identified all risks that are foreseeable.• Taking the precautions reasonable in the

circumstances as they apply to every situation. • Due diligence is assessed case by case, not as

a blanket for all activities.


BEING DUE DILIGENT MEANS

• Being duly diligent means you have used foresight to counteract the hindsight that will be used if something occurs and Hydro Ottawa faces prosecution.


LEGAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYER UNDER THE OHSA – SECTION 25 & 26

• Duty to provide a safe workplace• Duty to comply with the regulations• Duty to provide information and to educate

workers • Duty to appoint a “competent supervisor”


LEGAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYER UNDER THE OHSA – SECTION 25 & 26

• Obligation to provide training• Obligation to establish a health and safety

system• Duty to take every precaution reasonable


DUTIES OF THE SUPERVISOR UNDER THE OHSA – SECTION 27

• Duty to ensure worker comply with Act• Duty to ensure workers use equipment,

devices and clothing • Duty to advise workers of danger• Duty to provide written instructions• Duty to take every precaution reasonable


Duties of a Worker

• Duty to comply with the Act• Duty to use equipment, protective devices and

clothing provided • Duty to use equipment, protective devices and

clothing provided • Duty not to make protective devices ineffective• Duty not to make operate machine or device in

dangerous manner


DUTIES OF ENGINEERS

• A professional engineer as defined in the Professional Engineers Act, contravenes this Act if, as a result of his or her advice that is given or his or her certification required under this Act that is made negligently or incompetently, a worker is endangered


PENALTIES

• Penalties for individuals – Can be fined up to $25,000 or be imprisoned for up

to one year or both per offence • Penalties for corporations

– Can be fined up to $500,000 per offence• Penalties assessed by professional bodies


Due diligence required for defence

If prosecuted for failing to comply with the duties of a Constructor, Employer or Supervisor, one must prove their due diligence

They must show to the court how every precaution reasonable in the circumstances was taken to prevent the occurrence


Noteworthy

• Under the penalties section of the Act (Section 66.4) is the fact the accused (individual or corporation) is liable for the acts or neglect of their managers, agents, directors, supervisors, etc.

• This would also include the negligence and incompetence of an engineer working for the accused.


Current Case in the Courts

• Two professional engineers from Windsor who have been charged with providing faulty advice and certification of a multi-point suspended scaffolding system.

• The scaffold in question collapsed causing several painters to plunge into the icy Detroit River – one worker died


Current Case in the Courts

• This is the first ever that charges have been laid against engineers under the Act.

• Both engineers face penalties of $25,000 and one year in jail per offence


RECENT CASES• March 21, 2001 – (Ottawa based) Medis Health and

Pharmaceuticals was fined $50,000 for violating the OH&S Act that resulted in serious injuries to a worker. A worker had been searching for the source of a loud high-pitch noise coming from a conveyor belt when his arm was dragged into the conveyor, resulting in multiple fractures. The guard on the conveyor was found to be inadequate.o Medis Health and Pharmaceuticals was convicted for failing to in their

duty to provide a safe workplace


RECENT CASES• May 23, 2001 – Gareau Holding Company, an Ottawa

company that cuts and cores cement on construction projects, was fined $50,000 for violations that resulted in serious head injuries to a worker. The worker was standing on a forklift platform when it gave way due to a mechanical failure of the forklift. The worker suffered a concussion.o Gareau was convicted for failing in their duty to provide a safe

workplace. The forklift had not been properly inspected and fall prevention devices were not in use.


RECENT CASES

• September 18, 2001 – Sandvik Steel Canada, an Arnprior based manufacturer of steel products was fined $68,000 for a violation that resulted in worker injury. The worker’s hand got caught in a production machine and two fingers were crushed.o Sandvik was convicted for failing to ensure the

machine was locked out and for failing in their duty to provide a safe workplace.


RECENT CASES

• October 26, 2001 – Falconbridge Limited, which operates the Lockerby Mine in Walden Ontario, was fined $75,000 for a violation of the Act. A miner, who was working alone at 1768 meters below ground at the time, was installing plugs in holes he drilled, when a piece of rock weighing 680 kg came loose from a side wall and fell on his leg. – Falconbridge was convicted for failing in their duty to take all

precautions reasonable for the protection of a worker. Specifically in this case, for not maintaining regular communication with the worker.


RECENT CASES

• November 1, 2001 – Brockville based Alstom Canada Inc., a was fined $120,000 for a violation that resulted in serious leg injuries to an employee. The worker was using a torch to cut through a beam supporting a heat exchanger weighing 27,000 kg, when a temporary beam used to support the load, bent and failed. The worker was trapped for 2 hours under the load. – Alstom was convicted for specific violations of the Industrial

Regulations and for failing in their duty to provide a safe workplace.


RECENT CASES

• November 2, 2001 – C.M. Midway Ltd., a Glencoe Ontario based travelling carnival operation, was fined $75,000 and a company officer was jailed for 45 days, for violations that resulted in injuries to an underage worker. The underage worker was helping to dismantle a ride when the ride’s cars collapsed on the worker.– C.M Midway was convicted for employing an underage worker

and for failing in its duties to provide instruction to a worker and provide a safe workplace.

– The officer of C.M. Midway was found guilty of the same charges and jailed for 45 days


RECENT CASES• November 29, 2001 – Vaughn Hydro was fined $160,000 for

a violation that resulted in the death of a worker. The forestry worker was working out of a bucket truck using a gas-powered pole saw (a saw on an extendable pole). The saw came into contact with a live 13, 800-volt line, electrocuting the worker and also causing the gas tank on the saw to explode, engulfing the worker in flames.– Vaughn Hydro was convicted for failing to take all precautions

reasonable to prevent the accident. This pole saw was all metal – nonconductive models were available on the market.

– The worker’s supervisor was convicted on the same charges and was fined $8500


RECENT CASES

• December 12, 2001 – Selkirk Canada Inc., a Brockville manufacturer of fireplace products, was fined $75,000 for a violation that resulted in serious hand injuries to a worker. The worker was reaching into a punch press to retrieve a formed metal coupling, when the ram of the die came down crushing the worker’s hand and severing three fingers.– Selkirk was convicted in failing in their duty to provide a safe

workplace. One year earlier, Selkirk had been issued orders under the Act to the supervisor, co-signed by the employer, to correct a problem with adjustment of pull back protective devices.


RECENT CASES

• July 3, 2001 – INCO Limited of Sudbury, the world’s largest nickel producer, was fined $650,000 for a violation that resulted in the death of a worker. An employee was killed while placing a blasting charge underground at the company’s Copper Cliff Mine.– INCO was convicted for failing in their duty to comply with the

Regulations and for taking all precautions reasonable - $325,000 on each count.

– The worker’s supervisor was found guilty of the same charges and fined $4000

Steve Clouthier, CRSP Manager of Safety & Training Hydro Ottawa

27


28

Real Life Example


29


30


31


32


MNIMUM REQUIREMENTS

• As the previous examples show, workplace H&S responsibilities are not to be taken lightly

• The OHSA and its various regulations are the minimum requirements/tools to guide the workplace parties on what is required.

• Any due diligent company should have a “managed system” (or loss control management system) in place that will exceed these


ENGINEER’S ROLE

• Engineers play a key role by ensuring that the chances of accidental injury, illness, equipment failures and other losses are minimized and/or controlled through the implementation of various engineering controls, change management systems and


GENERAL DETERRENCE

• Aggressive enforcement and prosecution by the MOL is the instrument of deterrence to prevent recurrences at the same workplace.

• It is also their vehicle to motivate other employers to ensure they take action to prevent accidents in their workplaces

• This is called general deterrence


P.ENG. CODE OF ETHICS

Your duty as an engineer to:• Act at all times with devotion to high ideals of personal

honour and professional integrity• Act at all times with knowledge of developments in the

area of professional engineering relevant to any services that are provided

• Act at all times with competence in the performance of any professional engineering services that are undertaken


YOUR CHALLENGE

• The art & science of engineering must account for all foreseeable losses during all engineering phases

• From the design on the coffee table napkin, to the finished product.


THE DESIRED RESULT

• The best opportunities to prevent losses from occurring are in the hands of engineering staff

• The causes of loss must be identified and be engineered out wherever possible


CHANCES ARE

• Let me put that success into context for you with the following statistics:

• The chances of winning the lottery are – 1 in 14 million (or so)

• In 1997 the chances of dying from an occupational injury in Canada – 1 in 16,735

• The chances of occupational death in the utility industry – 1 in 2000


IN CONCLUSION

• “All things are hidden, obscure and debateable if the cause of the phenomena be unknown, but everything is clear if this cause be known”

– LOUIS PASTEUR


In Conclusion

• The causes of most accidents are predictable – it takes the synergy of engineering practice and safety management to ensure we are diligent in their prevention.

steve clouthier, crsp manager of safety & training hydro ottawa 1 health & safety role of...

Documents

safety systemduty

endangeredsteve clouthier

workers duty

clothing duty

ohsa section

diligent meansyou

diligent meansbeing

precautions reasonable