electrical safety in ontario - 2006 report

2006Ontario Electrical Safety Report

This document was prepared by the Engineering and Regulatory

Division of The Electrical Safety Authority. For queries and

additional information, please contact Francis Hardy at

[email protected].

ESA Electrical Safety Report 2006

ContentsExecutive Summary 4

1.0 Introduction 5

2.0 Electrocutions and Electrical-Related Injuries 5

2.1 Total Electrocution Count 5

2.2 Occupational Electrocutions and Injuries 11

2.3 Non-Occupational Electrocutions and Injuries 24

3.0 Powerline Statistics 28

4.0 Fire Statistics 37

4.1 Fatalities caused by Electrical Fires 44

5.0 Recommendations, Initiatives and Strategies 52

5.1 Present and Ongoing Initiatives 52

5.2 Future Initiatives 54

5.3 Recommendations and Future Strategies 54

Glossary 55

�

2006 ESA Electrical Safety Report

Ontario has reported 212 fatalities between 1998 and 2006. Of these, 102 were the result of electrocution and 110 the result of fire of an electrical nature.

Electrocutions in Ontario can be divided into three categories:(i) powerline deaths(ii) deaths in the electrical trade(iii) other

Powerline contact deaths accounted for 53% of electrocution cases in Ontario, and all were ‘inadvertent’ contact. Death to those in the electrical trade accounted for 16% of all electrocutions. The rate of electrocution per million of population in 2006 was 0.946 in Ontario, compared to 0.718 in 2005, a rise in the fatality rate of 32%. The rise is attributed to the increase in electrocution incidents in 2006.

Of 12 electrocutions in 2006, seven were occupation-related and five were non-occupational. Occupational electrocutions continue to outnumber non-occupational electrocutions by almost 2 to 1. The total number of occupational electrocution cases in the province for the period is 66, compared to 36 in non-occupational settings.

Electrocution numbers continue to decline over the nine-year period. Fourteen was the average number of fatalities per annum from 1998 to 2001, lowering to 9.5 in the period from 2002 to 2006. Compared to BC, Alberta and Quebec, Ontario has the lowest occupational fatality rate (based on 2002-2005 figures). The rate of death is decreasing from 1.12 in 2003 to 1.01 in 2006. The drop in the occupational electrocution rate from 2001 is approximately 27%.

Since 1998, males have accounted for 96 electrocution cases, with females at six. Most electrocutions take place in the summer and early fall. June to October constituted 71% of all fatalities in 2006. Ladder and antenna type electrocutions continue to be absent in 2006.

The probability of sustaining a fatality when an injury occurs in the electrical industry is ten times higher than the average occupational-type injury. Repair and maintenance are the most prevalent type of work when the worker is electrocuted, with human error continuing to be the most probable cause of the electrocutions. Electrical workers continue to be the largest of the trade groups being killed. This statistic is shared with the United States. Ontario averages 2.5 critical injuries annually as a result of working around an electrical panel.

In the last four years, powerline deaths accounted for less

than 50% of the overall electrocution count. There has been no farmer powerline death in the last two years. Non-occupational electrocution has been declining steadily.

In the period from 1998 to 2006, the electrocution count in the first four years was 21, and in the last four years was 13, a reduction of more than 33%.

Between 1997 and 2001 there were 82 electrical fire fatalities and from 2002 to 2006, there were 28 fire fatalities …..a decline of 66%. 86% of electrical fire fatalities occur in residential settings. 59% of these fatalities took place in the cooking area. Fire fatalities associated with misuse of electrical equipment accounted for 55% of total electrical fire fatalities. Distribution equipment was reported to be involved with 25 of the 102 fire fatalities between 1997 and 2005. Extension cords and temporary wiring were the primary cause of death when fires were initiated by distribution equipment. It is interesting to note that with electrical fires in buildings, those built prior to 19751 accounted for 76% of the fatalities; the Ontario Fire Marshal sets this demarcation point of 1975.

To address the powerline safety issue, ESA has shifted its concentration of awareness campaign to address contact by heavy construction equipment, particularly dumptrucks. ESA is partnering with local distribution companies (LDCs) and eight key industry associations to distribute the message of ‘Look up, Look out before you lift your load’ to its members. This campaign includes materials such as a two-sided safety card, and a two-sided sticker that warns drivers to stay in their vehicle in the event of a powerline contact.

ESA is continuing with its campaign to eliminate live work on 347-volt lighting. With the requirements to install a disconnect to a ballast when replacing ballasts, at the time of writing, electrical contractors are now installing the disconnecting feature on new and renovation projects.

After the successful test result from Kinetrics in 2006, proving that it is advantageous to use fused leads with multimeters, ESA has a campaign underway offering each electrical contractor in Ontario an exchange of one of their regular leads for a new fused lead. ESA is continuing to seek support from the MOL to have the use of fused leads mandated in the workplace, and having the use required in the new CSA Standard z462, the workplace safety for electrical workers.

In its long term strategy, ESA is exploring how to significantly reduce powerline incidents, injuries and fatalities in the electrical trade, and improve electrical safety standards in older buildings.

Executive Summary

1 Reason for the demarcation point is to correspond to the change in the building code

�


This report is the sixth report on the state of electrical safety in the Province of Ontario.

The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) operates as a delegated authority on behalf of the provincial government in accordance with Part VIII, section 113 of the Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.15, Sched. A, and the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.19. Within its mandate the ESA is responsible for electrical safety in Ontario as designated by Ontario Regulation 89/99, 570/05 and Regulation 22/04. The matters arising from these regulations include administration, inspection and enforcement in regard to electrical installations, electricity distribution systems and the licensing of Electrical Contractors and Master Electricians within the province.

ESA thanks industry partners, as the report is not possible without the assistance from the Ministry of Labour (MOL), the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) for fire-related electrical accidents and incidents, the Chief Coroner for Ontario, for cases of fatalities in Ontario, and Fire Departments for notifying ESA of electrical fires. Other data used in this report are from the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) for non-occupational injuries across Canada, Workers’ Safety Insurance Board of Ontario (WSIB) for occupational injuries in Ontario and The National Work Injury Statistics Program (NWISP) for occupational injuries and fatalities across Canada.

This section of the report covers the period from 1998 to 2006, with statistics for a nine-year running period. It is a compilation of the Ontario Coroner’s records 2, ESA records 3, the Ministry of Labour reports4 and numbers provided by NWISP. Where there are discrepancies in the number of fatalities reported by various organizations, ESA uses the data provided by the coroner and the MOL.

The electrocution cases in the report are all incidental electrical contacts with the exception of what is reported by CIHI. Suicides, deliberate intent to injure, and death by lightning strikes are all excluded. However, electrocutions as a result of vandalism, prank or theft of electricity, or electrocutions as a result of a vehicle hitting a utility pole are counted as part of the statistics. This section analyzes occupational and non-occupational fatalities and injuries as the result of incidental contact with electricity. Deaths resulting from a fall but initiated by an electrical contact to the worker would not be recorded as an electrocution.

The report separates occupational from non-occupational incidents for reason of stakeholder interest and strategic initiatives.

2.1. Total electrocution count In the nine-year period from 1998 to 2006, Ontario reported 102 deaths due to electrocution, with the average annual death rate of 11.3. The rate of electrocution per million of population in 2006 was 0.946 in Ontario, compared to 0.718 in 2005. The rise in the fatality rate was 32%, being attributed to the increase in electrocution incidents in 2006.

In 2006, Ontario had twelve electrocutions compared to eight and nine in 2004 and 2005 respectively. In 2003, the rate was the same as in 2006 with twelve deaths. Figure 1 shows the electrocution rate (electrocution deaths per million of population) in Ontario from 1971 through 2006.

1. 0. Introduction 2. 0. Electrocutions and Electrical-Related Injuries

2 From year 1998-2004 3 From year 1999-2005 4 From year 1998-2005

6


Figure 1Electrocution Rate in Ontario 1971-2006

Figure 2 Electrocution Count 1998 to 2006 5

Figure 2 illustrates the actual numbers of electrocutions between 1998 and 2006. In the first four years of this period, there were 56 deaths in Ontario, compared to 41 deaths in the last four years, roughly a drop of 20%.

Deat

hs/m

illio

n

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

Num

ber o

f Dea

ths

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

20

15

10

5

0

Summary of 2006 Electrocutionsn There were a total of 12 electrocutions in 2006; seven were occupational-related and five were non-occupational related. n 2006 saw some anomaly in the types of electrocutions, namely a rise in the number of non-occupational electrocutions.

From the five non-occupational electrocutions, four occurred in residential facilities.

ÑThe number of electrocutions in residential facilities was relatively high in 2006.

5 Based on Coroner and ESA records

�


Trending Events:n Powerline contact still accounts for the largest portion of electrocution cases in Ontario but its prevalence is declining. In

2006, powerline electrocution accounted for 42% of electrocution count.

n For four years the occupational electrocution count has remained at seven (see Figure 6).

n Despite a relatively high number of non-occupational electrocutions in 2006, occupational electrocution continues to outnumber non-occupational electrocution.

n 2006 marked another year Ontario had a fatality involving an electrician. In the nine-year span, there were 17 deaths involving electrical trades with eight to electricians, six to linepersons and three to apprentices.

n One farmer was electrocuted in 2006, this time by faulty wiring. In the nine-year span, Ontario saw 11 farm-related deaths (see Table 1).

n There was one cottage/water related electrocution in 2006.

n There were no ladder or antenna contact electrocutions in Ontario in 2006. The last non-occupational electrocution involving a ladder was in 2001; the last occupational ladder electrocution was in 2003. Table 2 shows ladder and antenna incidents in the nine-year span.

n The number of electrocutions in residential facilities was relatively high in 2006.

Non-Trending Events:n 2006 saw six fatalities in residential facilities. This is the highest since 1999 and triple the count of 2004 and 2005. The number of residential electrocutions in 2006 was the highest since 1999 (See Table 3).

n No fatalities involving work on 347-volt lighting were reported. One serious injury involving multimeter usage was reported.

n There were an unusually high number of non-occupational electrocutions in 2006. Twice in the last four years – 2003 and 2006 – we have seen this anomaly. In both years there were two fatality events involving wiring installations.

n Two anomalies took place within one accident this year. One female was killed in 2006, in an incident where a heating lamp fell accidentally in the bathtub, electrocuting her. There has not been an electrocution of a female since 2001; nor has there been a death involving electrocution with water in a bathtub (this has not happened in Ontario for more than a decade).

n There were an unusual number of dumptruck powerline contact fatalities (three) this year. To compare, there were only two other dumptruck fatalities in the nine-year span – one in 1998 and another in 2003.

n From occupational type of work, the prevalence of construction versus repair and maintenance incidents was reversed. In 2006, construction accounted for 58% of the occupational fatalities and repair was 14% (see Figure 4). In 2005, the eight-

year trend was 63% for repair and maintenance work and 19% for construction work.

n This year, “knowingly working live” electrocution was not the main cause of most occupational electrocutions (see Figure 11). This is contrary to the previous eight-year history.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Non-Powerline 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4Powerline 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 7Total 0 1 2 2 1 3 1 0 1 11

Table 1Farming Electrocutions in Ontario 1998-2006 6

6 Based on ESA and Coroner reports

�


Equipment 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Antenna 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Ladder 1 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 13Total 5 6 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 18

Table 2Ladder and Antenna-related Electrocutions in Ontario 1998 to 2006 7

Figure 3Increase in Residential Electrocutions in 2006 8

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Num

ber o

f Dea

ths

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 4 9

Occupational Electrocutions in 2006Type of Work

Production 14%

Farming 14%

Repair/maintenance 14%Construction 58%

7 Based on ESA and Coroner reports 8 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records 9 Based on MOL report

�


Electrocutions according to facility type are shown on Table 4. As can be seen, residential was most common with non-occupational electrocution and industrial facilities the most likely place for occupational electrocutions. Table 3 shows how powerline electrocution greatly influences the number of electrocutions in residential fatalities.

Table 4Electrocutions in Ontario by Facility-Type 1998 to 2006 11

Death according to voltage level is shown on Table 5. The greatest increase in number of deaths is noted at the 120-volt level. Incidence has increased by 50%, with its change from 10% in the 1998 to 2005, to 15% for the 1998 to 2006 period. The increase was attributed to the high number of residential fatalities in 2006.

High voltage electrocutions only just outnumbered low voltage electrocutions.

Table 5Electrocution by Voltage Level 1998 to 2005 13

Table 3Comparing Residential Electrocutions to All Electrocutions in Ontario 10

Facility 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of residential electrocutions 8 6 4 2 0 4 2 2 6All electrocutions 18 12 13 13 5 12 8 9 12Percentage of residential to all electrocutions 44% 50% 31% 15% 0% 33% 25% 22% 50%Residential powerline electrocutions 6 5 2 2 0 2 1 1 2

Facility Type Number of Occurrences Occupational Non-Occupational Percentage

Residential 13 21 33%Public place 12 10 11 21%

Industrial 18 0 18%Farm 9 2 11%

Commercial 8 0 8%Institution 3 0 3%

Utility 3 0 3%Mining 1* 0 1%

Campground 0 1 1%Marina 1 0 1%Military 0 1 1% Total 66 36 100%

* There is a revision to the count of fatalities in mining. The number is changed from two to one to reflect where the fatality actually occurred. The fatality had been moved to ‘public place’.

Voltage Level Fatalities Percentage120 V 15 15%347 V 9 9%

Between 347 and 750 V 7 7%Low Voltage (under 750 Voltage not specified) 12 12%

Unknown 5 5%Over 750 V 54 53%

Total 102 100%10 Based on ESA and Coroner records 11 Based on ESA and Coroner records 12 Public place is defined as roads, conservation area, parks, playground 13 Based on ESA and Coroner records

10


Summary and Trending:We now have a longer-term outlook from the last nine years in Ontario:

n Electrocution numbers continue to decline in the nine-year period. The average fatality per annum in the years from 1998 to 2001 was 14 while the average from 2002 to 2006 was 9.5.

n Males accounted for 96 electrocution cases compared to females at six.

n The ratio of male to female electrocution cases is 16:1. No female occupational fatality had been reported in the last decade.

n Powerline electrocution represented 53% (54 deaths) of all electrocutions in the province in the period of 1998 to 2006. The prevalence of powerline electrocution is slowly decreasing. The driving factor behind the decrease is the declined prevalence of non-occupational deaths in the nine-year period.

n Occupational electrocutions consistently outnumbered non-occupational electrocutions each year in the last nine years (see Figure 6).

n Residential facilities accounted for 33% of all electrocutions (Table 4). Note that residential facilities, public places, and industrial facilities accounted for 72% of all electrocutions in Ontario (Table 4).

n Frequency of antenna and ladder electrocutions has continued to decrease in Ontario. Table 2 showed the nine-year history of ladder and antenna related deaths in Ontario. The last time Ontario had a ladder or antenna death was in 2003.

n Total occupational electrocution cases in the province for the period are 66, compared to 36 in non-occupational settings.

n Summer and early fall are months where most electrocutions took place. June to October constituted 71% of all fatalities in the year. (see Figure 5)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 5Electrocutions in Ontario by Month 14

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

nOccupational n Non-Occupational

ÑHigh voltage electrocutions accounted for more than half of all electrocutions – these are powerline-related electrocutions.

Num

ber o

f ele

ctro

cutio

ns

14 Based on MOL, Coroner and ESA records

11


The numbers on Table 6 are based on data collected by the NWISP. Note that the numbers derived from NWISP can differ from actual electrocution count since the number of fatalities recorded by NWISP only reflects fatalities and injuries to companies registered with respective WSIBs in each province. For example, one-person companies, small family businesses, and a person performing work for other than monetary values were more likely not included in the fatality count.

Benchmarking was conducted for the period of 2002 to 2005, a four-year period. In this period, Ontario had an occupational electrocution rate of 0.552 per million population of labour force. Comparison with other provinces can be seen on Table 6. To provide perspective, in the United States, electrical fatality rate for 2002 was 0.21 for 100,000 workers 15, which translates to 2.1 per million workers.

There were a total of 66 occupational-related electrocutions between 1998 and 2006 in Ontario. The annual number of electrocutions has remained quite stable in the nine-year period, with a spike in 2001 balanced with a dip in 2002 (see Figure 6). With the exception of 2002, the number of incidents of occupational electrocutions has never been below seven in the nine-year period.

Figure 6Occupational vs. Non-Occupational Electrocutions 17

Despite the unchanging count of occupational electrocutions in the last four years, the average electrocution incident in the first four years of this period is still higher than the last four years of the period (8.75 and 7.00 respectively). Figure 6 shows that since 1999, occupational electrocutions always outnumbered the non-occupational electrocutions. Since 1999, occupational electrocutions has accounted for no smaller than 60% of all electrocutions in Ontario (see Figure 7). Figure 7 and Table 7 show the electrocution rate of worker/million labour population18. Despite the same number of electrocutions in Ontario in the last four years, the rate of death seems to be decreasing from 1.12 in 2003 to 1.01 in 2006. The drop in electrocution rate from 2001 is approximately 27% (Figure 8).

Province Occupational Fatality RateBritish Columbia 1.110

Alberta 0.822Ontario 0.552Quebec 0.740

Table 6Occupational Fatality Rate (per million population of labour force) 2002 to 2005 16

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

n Occupational n Non-Occupational

2.2. Occupational Electrocutions and Injuries

15 Cawley, James C, PE, Homce, Gerald T, PE, Trends in Electrical Injury, 1992-2002 16 Based on NWISP records 17 Based on ESA records18 Labour population are extracted from Statcan

12


Figure 7Occupational fatality rate in Ontario

Table 7Electrocution Rate of Workers in Ontario (per million population of labour force) 2001 to 2006

Figure 8Continued Prevalence of Occupational Electrocutions in Ontario– by percentage (occupational electrocutions to all electrocutions) 19

Facility 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Electrocution rate per million workers 1.68 0.50 1.13 1.11 1.09 1.01Rate of increase or decline from year to year Down 70.5% Up 126.5% Down 1.6% Down 1.3% Down 7.6%

Deat

hs/m

illio

n wo

rker

s

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.2

0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

19 Based on ESA records

13


There has been little change in the last three years in the distribution of occupational electrocutions when sorting by facility type. Industrial, residential, farm, commercial and public places are the five most common facilities where occupational electrocutions occur (Figure 9).

Figure 9Occupational Electrocutions by Facility Type 1998 to 2006 20

Figure 10Occupational Electrocution by Type of Work 1998 to 2006 21

Commercial 12%

Industrial 26%Residential 19%

Public place 15%

Farm 14%Utility 5%

Institution 5%Mining 2%

Marina 2%

Repair/maintenance 57%

Other 16%DemolitionDisassemblingInstallationMovingPackingProductionUtilityVehicleOther

Farming 4%

Construction 23%

20 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records 21 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

1�


The anomaly in 2006 was so great that it managed to influence the nine-year profile when sorting electrocutions according to facility type. In ESA’s 2005 Ontario Electrical Safety Report, repair/maintenance and construction work for 1998 to 2005 accounted for 63% and 19% of all occupational electrocutions respectively. For 1998 to 2006, the percentage was changed to 57% and 23% respectively (Figure 10), a decrease of almost 10% in repair and maintenance work, and an increase of almost 20% in construction.

A comparison between occupational and non-occupational electrocutions in residential facilities is shown in Table 8. The non-occupational fatality count between 1998 and 2001 was 13, while only eight through the period of 2002 to 2006, a decline of more than 33%. The decline is more dramatic considering a jump to four non-occupational fatalities in 2006. The decline in residential deaths is directly related to the decrease in ladder-contact fatalities.

Table 8Residential Electrocutions (Occupational versus non-occupational) 1998 to 2006 22

Incorrect procedure and human error continue to be the main cause of occupational electrocutions (see Figure 11).

Figure 11Occupational Electrocutions Probable Cause 23

Year Non-Occupational Occupational Total Total Powerline only Total Powerline only

1998 5 3 3 3 81999 3 2 3 3 62000 4 2 0 0 42001 1 1 1 1 22002 0 0 0 0 02003 2 1 2 1 42004 1 0 1 1 22005 1 1 1 0 22006 4 0 2 2 6Total 21 10 13 11 34

* There was an adjustment in the count of electrocutions in mining and public place. The number of mining accidents was changed from 2 to 1 to reflect the actual location of the fatality.

Incorrect procedure and human error 66%

Equipment failure 2%

Incorrect installation 2%

Aged equipment 2%

Poor design 2%

System failure 2%

Faulty equipment 8%

Unknown 10%

Improper procedure 4%

Lack of maintenance 2%

22 Based on ESA records 23 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

1�


The MOL has sorted likely cause of electrocutions into three major groups. They are: knowingly working live with the equipment or system, inadvertent contact with electricity, and injuries caused by faulty equipment. Figure 12 shows that knowingly working with live equipment and inadvertent contact are the most common causes of electrocutions though the prevalence in 2006 between these was reversed. Since 2000, knowingly working live accounted for at least 40% of occupational electrocutions. In 2006, inadvertent contact was the most prevalent cause.

Figure 13 shows the percentage of fatalities where the worker knew they were working with energized equipment. With the exception of 2006, electrocutions by knowingly working with energized equipment had been increasing since year 2000. In 2006, this type of incident dropped dramatically. In 2005 ESA launched a “Don’t Work Live” campaign to educate and inform electricians and facility owners about the dangers of working live on electrical systems. In 2006 MOL instituted tougher regulations associated with working on live electrical systems. The decrease may be due to these factors, but it remains to be seen if this decrease will continue in following years.

Figure 13Occupational Electrocution “Knowingly Working Live” 1998 to 2006 – by percentage (“working live” electrocutions to all electrocutions) 25

Figure 12 *Occupational Electrocutions – Likely Cause 1998 to 2006 (MOL) 24

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

10

8

6

4

2

0

Num

ber o

f Dea

ths

n Live equipment n Inadvertent n Faulty equipment

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

24 Based on MOL records 25 Based on MOL records

*MOL fatalities differ from ESA’s report number; for 2006 the difference is that MOL counted lightning fatalities; ESA did not.

16


The electrical trade workers 26 continue to be the largest group by occupation-type being electrocuted (a total of 26% in Figure 14) in the 1998 to 2006 period. The statistics are consistent with the United States, where the electrical trades accounted for 24% of their electrical fatalities 27 between 1992 and 2002. The same study revealed that electricians and apprentices were the largest group sustaining the most fatalities (Table 9).

Table 9Ten Occupations Sustaining the Most Fatal Electrical Injuries (U.S. statistics) 1992 to 2002 28

Table 10 shows the actual count of electrocutions in the last nine years in the electrical trade in Ontario. The nine-year history indicates an average of almost two deaths annually with this trade group. Table 10 also shows that that in the last four years, there has been at least one electrician electrocuted in each year.

Table 10Electrocutions to the Electrical Trade 30

Occupation 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 2003 2004 2005 2006 TotalApprentice 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3

Electrician 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 8

Lineperson 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 6

Total 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 17

Occupation TotalElectricians and apprentices 566

Construction labourers 259Electrical power installers and repairers 237

Groundskeeper and gardeners, except farms 134Truck drivers 119Farm workers 118

Labourers except construction 112Carpenters 98

Managers and administrators, n.e.c. 91Painters, construction and maintenance personnel 71

ÑIn the nine-year period, the electrical trade workers 29 were the largest group by occupation-type being electrocuted.

26 Electricians, linespersons and apprentices 27 Cawley, James C, PE, Homce, Gerald T, PE, Trends in Electrical Injury, 1992-2002 28 Cawley, James C, PE, Homce, Gerald T, PE, Trends in Electrical Injury, 1992-2002 29 Electricians, linespersons and apprentices 30 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

1�


Figure 14Occupational Electrocution by Job Type 1998-2006 31

Labourer 14%Others 11%

Supervisor 3%

Roofer 3%

Millwright 3%

HVAC 3%

Driver 5%

Siding 5%

Apprentice 5%Maintenance 9%

Lineperson 9%

Farmer 12%

Electrician 12%

Operator 3%

Crane Operator 3%Three dumptruck-related deaths in 2006 are reflected in Figure 15. Prevalence of fatalities in occupational situations involving a driver (eg. truck) have increased from 3% in the period 1998 to 2005 to 5% in the period from 1998 to 2006.

In the last three years there have been no ladder-related electrocutions in the workplace, decreasing the percentage of this type of fatality over the nine-year period. In ESA’s 2005 Ontario Electrical Safety Report, prevalence of ladder injuries were 18% for that eight-year period; in this report, that number has decreased to 15% (see Figure 15). Dumptruck incidents were classified in last year’s Report under ‘others’; this year, with three related dumptruck fatalities, its prevalence had been raised to 8%.

Figure 15Occupational Electrocution by Equipment Used 1998 to 2005 32

Ladder 15%

Others 28%

Wiring 15%

Dumptruck 8%

Ballast 8%

Aerial Work Platform 6%

Auger 6%

Crane 5%

Radial Boom Derrick 3%

Pipe 3%

Drill 3%


1�


33 http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibobj.nsf/LookupFiles/DownloadableFile2005StatisticalSupplement/$File/2278A_StatSup.pdf34 Based on MOL, Coroner and ESA records

Table 11 shows the comparison between fatalities and injuries. The higher the ratio between injuries over fatalities, the lower the probability of sustaining a fatality when an injury occurs. For all injuries in Ontario, the ratio of injuries to fatalities is 158.5 to1 for the two-year period. For electrical related injuries, the ratio is 13 to1. Thus, the probability of sustaining a fatality when the injuries occur in the electrical industry is ten times higher than if it were another type of injury.

Figure 16 shows the relationship between non-critical injuries to fatalities of an electrical nature in the workplace between 1998 and 2006. The ratio of fatality to injury in this nine-year span is 15 to1. For every 3.5 injuries, one critical injury occurs and for every four critical injuries, one fatality occurs.

The electrical trade continues to show dominance in occupational electrocution cases. The number is even larger when looking at critical injuries of an electrical nature. Table 12 shows the number of occupational critical injuries of an electrical nature from 2003 to 2006. From 59 critical injuries, 25 injuries occurred to the three electrical trades. Thus, almost half of critical injuries of an electrical nature occurred to the electrical trades. Description of injuries to electricians revealed that the majority of these injuries occurred when performing work around the electrical panel.

Table 13 shows a more detailed count of critical injuries reported by the MOL. It is more likely that the actual number of injuries to electricians is more that reported in the Table. The MOL record the occupation as electrician only

Table 11Ratio of All Occupational Fatality to Injury versus Electrical in Ontario 2004 to 2005

2004 2005Fatality 572 564

Injury 90,397 89,734

Injury to Fatality Ratio 158:1 159:1

2004 2005Fatality 7 7

Injury 84 97

Injury to Fatality Ratio 12:1 14:1

All injuries and fatalities 33 Electrical injuries and fatalities

Non-Critical

Death

Critical

15

4

1

Figure 16Bird Triangle of Electrical Injury,

Critical Injury and Fatality 1998 to 2006 34

when they have confirmed occupation with their investigators. In the nine-year span, Ontario had seen 25 critical injuries to electricians or apprentices, an average of 2.5 critical injuries per year when working on a panel.

ÑThe probability of sustaining a fatality when an injury occurs in the electrical industry is ten times higher than if it were another type of injury.

1�


The MOL reported a continued decline in the number of critical injuries between 1998 and 2006 (Figure 17).

Occupation Number of Critical InjuriesElectrician 15

Not specified 20Apprentice electrician 6

Labourer 5Lineperson 4

Maintenance 2Handyperson 1

Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning 1Machinist 1Manager 1

Owner 1Supervisor 1

Tree Trimmer 1Security Guard 1

Total 59

Table 12Occupational Critical Injuries 2003 to 2006 35

Table 13Panel critical injuries 1998 to 2006 36

Figure 17Occupational Fatalities and Injuries 1998 to 2006 37

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

n Fatalities n Critical n Non-Critical

Num

ber o

f Occ

urre

nces

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All workers 10 7 7 9 3 3 4 7 4

Electrical only 5 5 5 2 2 0 1 3 2

35 Based on MOL records 36 Based on MOL and ESA records 37 Based on MOL records

20


Electrically-related injuries cost Ontario $21.8 million for 1998 to 2006, roughly $2.4 million per annum. WSIB recorded 1509 claims in the period, with an average claim cost of $14,449 per claim.

Table 14 shows the number of claims by industry and respective total and average cost per claim. When looking at average cost per claim, steel and construction ranked the most costly of all industries while services, though it had most number of claims, had one of the lowest cost per claim. The construction sector as a whole also had the highest dollar claim as an industry, claiming $8.4 million in the nine-year period.

Sector Number of Claims Approximate Total Cost Average cost per claimAgriculture 19 $18,074 $951Municipal 9 $33,126 $3,681Forestry 12 $53,258 $4,438Services 349 $1,596,431 $4,574

Pulp and paper 11 $53,371 $4,852Food 36 $179,314 $4,981

Automotive 86 $660,469 $7,680Education 8 $73,204 $9,151Schedule 2 125 $1,168,821 $9,351

Chemical/process 55 $631,106 $11,475Health care 56 $714,889 $12,766

Manufacturing 342 $4,472,940 $13,079Electrical utilities 42 $642,159 $15,290

Mining 17 $349,900 $20,582Transportation 53 $1,129,909 $21,319Construction 244 $8,377,536 $34,334

Steel 45 $1,649,828 $36,663

Table 14Electrical Injuries by Sector and Claims (Number of claims and Cost per claim) 1998 to 2006 38

Table 15 further illustrates the severity of electrical injuries in construction. With the exception of injuries involving relays and rheostats, all electrical injuries in construction, according to the cost, were more severe than the average. Most injuries in construction cost more than $30,000. Table 16 further reveals why some of the injuries were so costly. From the 244 injuries, 106 were to multiple body parts or systems. These injuries, a reflection of the cost, appeared quite severe.

ÑConstruction electrical injuries are more severe than the average in all industry.

38 Based on WSIB records

21


Table 15Electrical Injuries in Construction by Claims (Number of claims and Cost per claim) 1998 to 2006 39

Electrical Area Number of claims Approximate Total cost Average cost per claimElectrical Wiring 77 $2,546,770 $33,074

Electric parts n.e.c.* 42 $1,835,729 $43,707Switchboards, switches, fuses 27 $927,467 $34,350

Powerlines 9 $377,228 $41,914Fire, Flame 9 $359,008 $39,889

Fire, flame, smoke n.e.c. 6 $151,723 $25,287Relays, rheostats, starters, controls 5 $18,048 $3,609

Other type source of injury each with less than five claims 69 $2,161,559 $31,326

Table 17 shows the difference in severity when sorted by gender. Male electrical injuries tend to be three times more severe than that of females. The table also shows the prevalence of male compared to female. The ratio is almost 4 to 1. The service sector and manufacturing sector had the largest number of female injuries at 149 and 52 respectively, most likely a reflection of the labour force in those sectors.

Table 16Occupational Electrical Injuries in the Construction Industry – according to body part injured (Number of claims and Cost per claim) 1998 to 2006 40

Body part of injury Number of claims Approximate Total cost Average cost per claimMultiple body parts n.e.c * 77 $3,290,107 $42,728Hand(s), except finger(s) 61 $1,388,711 $22,765

Systems, body n.e.c. 15 $901,140 $60,076Fingers, except thumb 11 $83,410 $7,582

Forearm(s) 9 $54,159 $6,017Multiple body parts, unspecified 9 $793,006 $88,111

Multiple upper extremities 7 $209,796 $29,970Shoulder 5 $21,350 $4,270

Body systems, unspecified 5 $489,241 $97,848Other parts of the body each with less than five claims 45 $1,146,611 $25,480

Table 17Occupational Electrical Injuries by Gender (Number of claims and Cost per claim) 1998 to 2006 41

Sex Number of Claims Approximate total cost Average cost per claimFemale 322 $1,942,269 $6,032

Male 1187 $19,862,074 $16,733

39 Based on WSIB records 40 Based on WSIB records 41 Based on WSIB records

* n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified

22


Table 18 shows the event of the injuries by gender. Note that with female injuries, there were only six events involved as opposed to 17 with males. The cost of injury, even for the same event, was much less with females. For examples, the average claim cost of contact with transformer is $14,000 for females and $21,000 for males.

Table 18Occupational Electrical Injuries by Event and Gender (Number of claims and Cost per claim) 1998 to 2006

Event Number of claims Approximate total cost Average cost per claimFemale

Contact with electric current 131 $660,546 $5,042Contact with hot objects 63 $47,765 $758

Contact with electric current n.e.c.* 49 $382,176 $7,799Contact with wiring, transformers 42 $599,051 $14,263Contact with skin,eye(s) or other 5 $998.00 $199

Other type event of injury each with less than five claims 32 $251,732 $7867Male

Contact with electric current 344 $2,888,069 $8,395Contact with wiring, transformers 310 $6,701,998 $21,619Contact with electric current n.e.c. 162 $3,828,556 $23,633

Contact with hot objects 143 $559,845 $3,915Explosion n.e.c.* 44 $914,149 $20,776

Contact with overhead power lines 36 $1,930,214 $53,617 Contact with skin,eye(s) or other 24 $75,273 $3,136

Contact with electric current, unspecified 17 $206,708 $12,159Struck by lightning 15 $1,113,411 $74,227

Fire, n.e.c.* 12 $325,492 $27,124Contact with underground 9 $811,680 $90,186

Struck by slipping handheld object 8 $3,547 $443Exposure to welding light 8 $7,026 $878

Unknown 7 $201,517 $28,788Struck by falling object 5 $8,148 $1,629

Fire in residence or building 5 $4,401 $880Other type event of injury each with less than five claims 38 $282,031 $7,421

There were no incidents involving contact with overhead or underground conductors and struck by lightning with females.

When looking at the cost per claim, contact with underground and overhead powerlines are the most costly claims, costing an average of $90,186 and $53,617 respectively per claim. Contact with electrical current was most prevalent of all claims for both gender, accounting for 31% of the total claims.

* n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified

23


Table 19 further shows the disparity between male and female injuries. Again, in almost every nature of the injury, female injuries were generally less severe than with males. Note that third-degree burns are absent in female injuries; yet, from the 1187 male injuries, 301 were second-degree burns or worse.

In ESA’s 2005 Ontario Electrical Safety Report, data was gathered from 1998 to 2005. Data for this report, the nine-year period from 1998 to 2006, were almost identical, with electric shock as the most prevalent injury (see Figure 18).

The MOL categorized the likely cause of injuries into four groups as seen in Figure 19. Knowingly working live figured prominently in the likely cause of injuries, the same as in fatality cases. Figure 19 clearly shows how consistent knowingly working live incidents outnumbered the other cause of injuries. Note that in injuries, knowingly working live injuries seemed to be declining according to the MOL, the opposite of statistics for fatalities.

Nature Of Injury Number of claims Approximate total cost Average cost per claimFemale

Electrocutions and electric shocks 197 $1,172,143 $5,949Second-degree electrical burns 50 $50,006 $1,000

Electrical burns, unspecified 34 $709,724 $20,874First-degree electrical burns 29 $6,838 $235

Electrical burns n.e.c. 10 $2,514 $251Other type of injury – each with less than five claims <5 $1,043

MaleElectrocutions and electric shocks 520 $5,969,543 $11,479

Electrical burns, unspecified 238 $4,671,248 $19,627Second-degree electrical burns 230 $2,653,414 $11,536

First-degree electrical burns 94 $1,032,940 $10,988Third-degree electrical burns 71 $4,804,912 $67,674

Electrical burns n.e.c. 34 $730,014 $21,471

Table 19Occupational Electrical Injuries by Gender and Nature of Injury (Number of claims and Cost per claim) 1998 to 2006

Second-degree electrical burns 19%

First-degree electrical burns 8%

Electrocutions, electric shocks 47%

Figure 18Electrical Occupational Injuries Type of Injuries 1998-2006 42

Electrical burns, unspecified 18%

Third-degree electrical burns 5%

Electrical burns, n.e.c. 3%

42 Based on WSIB records

2�


Summary of Occupational Electrocutions and Injuries:nCompared to Alberta, B.C. and Quebec, Ontario has the lowest electrical occupational fatality rate in the period 2002 to 2005.nESA was aware of 66 occupational electrocutions between 1998 and 2006. With the exception of 2002, the number of electrocutions has not

dipped below seven in the nine-year period, though the number of fatalities in the first four years is higher than the number in the last four years.

nSince 1999, the number of occupational electrocutions has always outnumbered the non-occupational.nThe occupational rate of fatalities has been declining since 2001. Cumulatively, the decline is approximately 27%.nIndustrial, residential and public places, and farms accounted for the majority of the facility type where people were electrocuted in the

workplace.nRepair and maintenance is the most prevalent type of work when a worker was electrocuted.nHuman error continues to be the most probable cause of occupational electrocutions.nElectrical workers continue to be the largest trade group being killed. This statistic is shared with the U.S.nIn the nine-year period, eight electricians were killed in Ontario on the job.nThe ratio of injury to fatality with electrocution is 14 to 1 in 2005, compared to 158 to 1 in all occupations in Ontario. This ratio shows the

relative danger of electrical work.nOntario averages more than two electricians or apprentices seriously hurt in the nine-year period while working on an electrical panel.nConstruction electrical injuries seemed to be the most serious in all industry sectors.nThe ratio of male to female occupational electrical injuries is approximately four to one.nThe nature of the injury for males tend to be more serious than females, even for contact with the same type of equipment.

There were 36 non-occupational electrocutions between 1998 and 2006 in Ontario. Figure 20 shows the number of electrocutions per year. The graph shows radical decline from 1998 to 2002, going from nine fatalities to two fatalities respectively; then an anomaly in 2003 where the fatality count rose to five, the same level as in 2006. In the first four years of this period, the total number of deaths was 21; the last four years it was 13, more than 33 % reduction.

2.3. Non-Occupational Electrocutions and Injuries

Figure 19Occupational Injuries – Likely Cause (MOL) 1998 to 2006 43

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

25

20

15

10

5

0

n Meters n Live Equipment n Inadvertent n Faulty

Num

ber o

f inj

urie

s

43 Based on MOL records

2�


The facility where the non-occupational electrocutions occurred is illustrated on Figure 21. Non-occupational electrocutions in residential facilities continue to outnumber the other facilities. The percentage of electrocutions in residential facilities that are non-occupational are much larger than the percentage of electrocutions in occupational settings (refer to Figure 9). There have been two deaths in the last three years involving cottages, old wiring/equipment and water. Non-occupational electrocutions continue to be absent in commercial, industrial or institutional facilities, stating that these facilities seem to be able to consistently prevent injuries to the general public in their respective facilities.

Figure 20Non-Occupational Electrocutions 1998 to 2006 44

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

10

8

6

4

2

0

Num

ber o

f dea

ths

Figure 21Non-Occupational Electrocutions by Facility Type 1998 to 2006 45

Military 3%

Farm 6%Residential 57%

Public place 31%

Campground 3%

ÑThe percentage of electrocutions in residential facilities that are non-occupational are much larger than the percentage of electrocutions in occupational settings.

44 Based on ESA and Coroner records 45 Based on ESA and Coroner Records

26


Table 20 provides the actual numbers of electrocutions in each facility from 1998 to 2006. From the five fatalities in 2006, four occurred in residential facilities. Table 20 also shows that from 36 fatalities in public places and residential property-type, 20 were powerline-related.

Distribution by age group is shown in Figure 22. Most common are injuries in the range from 20 to 54 years old… this being the largest group of population in the workforce and most likely to undertake work that may involve using equipment or devices powered by electricity.

Figures 22 and 23 show the comparison between all Canada and Ontario Data. The data profile for Ontario is similar to the Canada profile for age groups. The working age (ages from 20 to 54) have the greatest incident of electrical injuries. In the 2003 ESA Electrical Safety Report, Table 15 shows that 55% of injuries to children less than five years old are due to placing an object or finger into an electrical outlet. A further 8% are due to placing an electrical cord in the mouth. The balance are associated with injury from electrical appliances. Also note that in the U.S. a proposal has been made to the National Electrical Code to include tamper-resistant receptacles primarily to deal with this issue.

Male outnumbered female injuries at least by a 5:1 ratio each year according to Figure 24. This ratio was true in almost all age groups.

Facility/Property Type Total fatalities Powerline-related fatalitiesCampground 1 0

Farm 2 0Military 1 1

Public place 11 9Residential 21 10

Total 36 20

Table 20Non-Occupational Electrocution by Facility Type 1998 to 2006 46

Figure 22All Canada Occupational and Non-Occupational Injuries by Age Group 1998 to 2004 47

300275250225200175150125100

755025

0

<1 year

1-4 years

5-9 years

10-14 years

20-24 years

25-29 years

30-34 years

35-39 years

40-44 years

45-49 years

50-54 years

55-59 years

60-64 years

65-69 years

70-74 years

75-79 years

80-84 years

85-89 years

90 years a

nd up

15-19 years

46 Based on ESA and Coroner Records 47 Based on CIHI Records

2�


Figure 23Occupational and Non-Occupational Injuries by Age Group – Ontario only 1998 to 2004

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

<1 year

1-4 years

5-9 years

10-14 years

20-24 years

25-29 years

30-34 years

35-39 years

40-44 years

45-49 years

50-54 years

55-59 years

60-64 years

65-69 years

70-74 years

75-79 years

80-84 years

90 years a

nd up

15-19 years

Table 21Electrical Injuries by Gender in

Ontario (CIHI data) 1998 to 2004

Figure 24Electrical Injuries by Gender in Ontario (CIHI data) 1998 to 2004

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

n Female n Male

Num

ber o

f inj

urie

s

Female Male1998 11 961999 15 1002000 7 822001 10 712002 9 552003 10 582004 9 48Total 71 510

2�


Summary of Non-Occupational Fatalities and CIHI Data

nThe number of non-occupational electrocutions continues to decline.nIn Ontario the working age group (ages 20 to 54) have the greatest incident of electrical injuries. nFrom the five non-occupational fatalities in 2006, four occurred in residential facilities, two were powerline-related, and other two were

related to wiring installation.nNon-occupational electrocutions in residential facilities continue to outnumber the other facilities.nMale outnumbered female injuries at least by a 5:1 ratio each year; this is true for both occupational and non-occupational.

Powerline-related electrocutions accounted for 54 of the 102 electrocutions in the period from 1998 to 2006 – 53% of all electrocutions. Of these, 34 were occupational in nature and 30 non-occupational. The year-to-year numbers of powerline-related electrocutions are presented in Figure 25. To compare, Figure 20 showed how non-occupational fatalities had steadily declined in the last nine years.

Figures 26 and 27 clearly show how electrocutions with overhead powerlines play a major part in the overall electrocution statistics. The decline of electrocutions in the nine-year period was largely due to a decrease in powerline contact (Figure 26), especially in the non-occupational sector. In the first four years of this period, powerline deaths accounted for roughly 60% of all electrocutions; in the last four years, they accounted for less than 50% of the overall electrocution count. Figure 28 further demonstrates the reduction of powerline fatalities in the non-occupational sector. Figure 28 shows that with the exception of 2005, powerline fatalities in the non-occupational sector in the last four years did not exceed 10% of the total electrocution count in Ontario. However, since 2004, where prevalence of powerline electrocution was at an all time low (25%); powerline incidents have crept up again in 2005 and 2006 to 42%.

3.0. Powerline Statistics

Figure 25 Powerline Electrocutions – Occupational versus Non-Occupational 1998 to 2006

n Non-Occupational n Occupational1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Num

ber o

f dea

ths

ÑIn the first four years of this period, powerline deaths accounted for roughly 60% of all electrocutions. In the last four years, they accounted for less than 50% of the overall electrocution count.

2�


Figure 26 Powerline Electrocutions versus All Electrocutions 1998 to 2006 48

n All electrocutions n Powerline electrocutions

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f dea

ths

Figure 27Prevalence of Powerline Deaths in Ontario 1998 to 2006 (percentage of powerline deaths to all electrocutions) 49

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

ÑThe declining trend in powerline electrocutions in Ontario is primarily due to a decline in ladder and antenna-related deaths.

48 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records 49 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

30


Figure 28 Prevalence of Non-Occupational Powerline Electrocutions to All Electrocutions by percentage

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

In non-occupational powerline electrocutions, the difference between the first four-year period and the last four-year period is startling. In the first four years, the lowest prevalence was around 22% while in the last four years, the highest prevalence was 22.5%, an anomaly in 2005.

Though ladders are still the most common piece of equipment in use when fatalities occur (through inadvertent contact with powerlines), the incidence of “ladder events” is dropping, there have been no such deaths in the last three years. From 1998 to 2005, ladder events accounted for 34% of occupational electrocutions; from 1998 to 2006, the number has dropped to 29% (see Figure 29).

Figure 29 Powerline Electrocutions – by Equipment Used 1998 to 2006 50

Ladder 24%

Auger 4%

Crane 4%

RBD 4%

Broom 2%

Dumptruck 9%

Scaffold 2%

Sprayer 2%

Tree trimmer 4%

AWP 8%Car 7%

Flagpole 4%

None 6%

Pipe 4%

Balloon 2%

Pole 2%

Handglider 2%

Fishing pole 2%

Eavestrough 2%

Antenna 9%

50 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

31


Conversely, the prevalence of dumptruck fatalities had increased five-fold with the three fatalities of 2006. Figure 30 shows that in occupational powerline electrocutions, there was a greater variety in terms of equipment used when contacting powerlines than in non-occupational settings (Figure 31). It should be noted that it had been two years since a farming fatality involving powerline has occurred. These fatalities to the farming community usually occur once every two years.

Figure 30 Occupational Powerline Electrocutions – by Equipment Used 1998 to 2006 51

Ladder 29%

Dumptruck 15%

Crane 6%

RBD 6%

Antenna 3%

Broom 3%

Tree trimmer 3%

Pole 3%

Scaffold 3%

Sprayer 3%

Auger 6%

Pipe 6%

AWP 12%

Eavestrough 3%

Antenna, car and ladder were the top three types of equipment used in non-occupational powerline electrocutions.

Figure 31Non-Occupational Powerline Electrocutions – by Equipment Used 1998 to 2006

Handglider 5%

Flag pole 10% Tree Trimmer 5%

Antenna 20%

Balloon 5%

Car 20%

Fishing pole 5%

Ladder 15%

None 15%

51 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

32


Table 22 also shows non-occupational powerline fatalities and the type of equipment used.

When sorting powerline fatalities according to where they occurred, 84% of the fatalities occurred in residential, public and farm settings (Figure 32).

Little has changed in the trend since last year; the largest change is the number occurrences at a public place – an increase of 4% – more than a 13% increase from last year, due to dumptruck accidents.

The biggest change in the percentage of type of equipment used is in a public place – due to the three dumptruck fatalities in 2006. The change of percentage is from 23% to 29% – a 26% change.

Equipment Used Occupational Number of Fatalities

Occupational Percentage

Non-Occupational Number of Fatalities

Non-Occupational Percentage

Ladder 10 29% 3 15%Aerial Work Platform 4 11% 0 -

Auger 2 6% 0 -Crane 2 6% 0 -Pipe 2 6% 0 -

Radial Boom Derrick 2 6% 0 -Antenna 1 3% 4 20%Broom 1 3% 0 -

Dump truck 4 12% 0 -Pole 1 3% 0 -

Scaffold 1 3% 0 -Sprayer 1 3% 0 -

Tree trimmer 1 3% 1 5%Truck 1 3% 0 -

Eavestrough 1 3% 0 -None 53 0 - 3 15%

Car 0 - 4 20%Flagpole 0 - 2 10%

Balloon, fishing pole and handglider 0 - 3 15%Total 34 100% 20 100%

Table 22Powerline Deaths in Ontario 1998 to 2006 52

Figure 32All Powerline Deaths – by Facility Type 1998-2006 54

Mining 2%

Residential 38%

Public place 35%

Military 2%

Commercial 2%

Utility 4%

Industrial 4%

Farm 13%

52 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records 53 No equipment used, such as climbing on a utility or transmission tower and touching the conductor54 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

33


Labourer 23%

Tree trimmer 3%

Crane rigger 3%

Farmer 17%

Driver 9%Siding 9%

Lineperson 15%

Crane operator 3%

Painter 3%

Maintenance 3%

Roofer 6%

Operator 6%

Public place 29%

Residential 32% Mining 3%

Farm 21%

Industrial 6%

Utility 6%

Commercial 3%Figure 34 shows a similar trend to last year in non-occupational powerline deaths; only one was recorded last year. Table 23 shows the decline in farmer deaths involving powerline incidents.

The MOL indicated a rise in reported powerline contact. As with occupational injuries, the MOL cited better reporting from employers as one of the reasons for the increase in powerline contact incidents (Figure 36).

Figure 34Non-Occupational Powerline Deaths

– by Facility Type 1998 to 2006 56

Residential 50%

Military 5%

Public place 45%

Table 23 Farming Deaths Involving Powerline

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006Number of Fatalities 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0

Figure 35Occupational Powerline Deaths – by Occupation Type 1998 to 2006 57

Figure 33Occupational Powerline Deaths – by Facility Type 1998 to 2006 55

55 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records 56 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records 57 Based on ESA, MOL and Coroner records

3�


The breakdown of the type of equipment involved in occupational powerline contact as reported by MOL is seen on Table 24.Figure 37 shows the decline in powerline fatalities in residential facilities. Since 2000, the number of deaths per year has been no greater than two.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 36Reported Powerline Contact to the MOL 1998 to 2006 58

250

200

150

100

50

0

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

Table 24Reported Powerline Contact to the MOL 1998 to 2006 59

Overhead Powerline Buried CableCrane Dumptruck Treefelling Other Digging Other

2006 16 23 9 89 55 92005 19 21 9 87 45 152004 11 16 5 57 53 92003 16 19 9 63 35 62002 16 20 4 50 36 62001 16 22 5 43 27 72000 15 10 3 59 32 31999 11 26 2 48 27 11998 10 17 8 39 27 7Total 130 174 54 535 337 63

ESA reported contact with powerlines shows a slightly different picture than MOL reports because the Distribution Regulation does not require reporting of occupational powerline incidents.

Incident contact reported to ESA for the 14-month period shows a different picture... tree cutting and back hoe being most common (Figure 38 and Table 25).


3�


Figure 37Decreased Powerline Electrocution in Residential Facilities 1998 to 2006

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Num

ber o

f dea

ths

Figure 38Serious Incident Report to ESA January 2006 to April 2007

Delivery truck 7%

Faulty utility equipment 9%

Other 19% including scaffold, ladder, handglider etc.

Cement truck 1%

Boom truck 4%

Back hoe/high hoe, excavator 14%

Crane 7%

Dig-ins 11%Tree cutting 14%

Dumptruck 9%

Storm-related 5%

ÑThe number of powerline electrocutions has been steadily decreasing – incidents have declined overall by 44% in the last nine years.

36


Table 25Serious Incident Report (reports to ESA) January 2006 to April 2007

Cement truck 2Boom truck 6

Back hoe / high hoe / excavator 20Crane 11

Dig-ins 16Tree cutting 20Dumptruck 13

Storm 7Delivery truck 10

Faulty utility equipment 13Other 30

Tree trimming / cutting 41%

Handglider 6%

Faulty utility equipment 15%

Other 26%(including car accident, etc.)

Dig-in 12%

Figure 39 shows the profile of powerline contact only by members of the public (non-occupational). The profile of powerline contact for these is quite different than the for the occupational group, as shown by the MOL on Table 24.

Summary of Powerline Statistics:nPowerline-related fatalities account for 54 of the 102 electrocutions in Ontario

from 1998 to 2006.nDespite reduced occurrence of powerline incidents in the last four years,

powerline deaths are still most common type of electrical death.nPowerline deaths have decreased dramatically in the last four years. From 1998

to 2001 there were 35 electrocutions involving powerlines; from 2002 to 2006, the count has been reduced to 16 – more than a 50% drop.

nAs in non-powerline-related deaths, occupational electrocutions involving powerlines are greater than non-occupational electrocutions with powerlines (34 deaths to 20 respectively). The ratio of powerline occupational to non-occupational deaths have never been smaller than 2:1 since 2002.

nNon-occupational powerline deaths continue to decline. Since 2000, the number of deaths per year has been no greater than two.

nThe general decline in powerline deaths can be attributed to fewer deaths in residential facilities, reduced farming incidents and fewer deaths involving ladder and antenna contact of power lines.

Figure 39Contact Report with Utility-Owned Equipment by Public – January 2006 to April 2007 (Contacts involving members of the public only)

ÑNon-occupational deaths continue to decline. There have been two or less deaths per year since 2000.

3�


The Ontario Fire Marshal reported 28,688 fires in 2005 (see Figure 40), where 9,048 fires were structural loss fires. In the same year, the OFM recorded 2,477 electrical fires with reported property loss (see Table 26). The OFM reported 26,589 electrical fires between 1998 and 2005 60 in Ontario, an average of about 2,600 electrical fires per year. Extracting from Figure 40, looking at the period from 1998 to 2005, the decline in total electrical fires in Ontario in the eight-year span was 12% , while structural fires* declined by 9%, and electrical fires decreased by 23% (Table 26) for the same period. The prevalence of electrical fires has declined at a faster rate than structural fires and the trend seems to indicate that the decline in structural fires is directly proportional to the decline in electrical fires.

Figure 40Fires in Ontario 1996 to 2005 61

�.0. Fire Statistics

Table 26 Electrical Fires in Ontario 1998 to 2005

Year Number of fires with loss Number of fires with no loss Total electrical fires1998 3382 487 38691999 3349 494 38432000 3015 496 35112001 2785 388 31732002 2788 437 32252003 2728 439 31672004 2399 428 28272005 2477 497 2974Total 22,923 3,666 26,589

l All fires n All loss fires u Structural loss fires ¢ Residential loss fires1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

33,000

30,000

27,500

24,000

21,000

18,000

15,000

12,000

9,000

6,000

3,000

0

l

n

u

¢

Num

ber o

f fire

s

ll

l

l

l

l l

l

l

nn n

n n n nn

n

u u u u u u uu u

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢¢

Decline of:

11%

28%

22%

25%

60 2006 records were incomplete 61 Based on OFM website July 4,2007, http://www.ofm.gov.on.ca/english/Publications/Statistics/fireloss/default.asp*“Structural fires” refers to fires involving buildings (as opposed to vehicles or mobile homes).

3�


As seen on Table 26, the OFM makes a distinction between fires with reported property loss and fires without property loss. Fires with no loss constituted approximately 17% of all fires. This report, because the relatively insignificant numbers of fires without loss, will look at only fires with property loss.

Table 27 Electrical Fires by Facility Type 1998 to 2005

Residential facilities figure prominently in electrical fires, accounting for 78% of all electrical fires in the province (see Table 27 and Figure 41). This profile had not changed in the last nine years.

Figure 41Electrical Fires by Occupancy Type 1998 to 2005

Property type Number of fires Percentage of totalAssembly occupancies 1002 4.4%

Business and personal services occupancies 574 2.5%Industrial occupancies 1754 7.7%

Institutional occupancies 333 1.5%Mercantile 849 3.7%Residential 17881 78.0%

Structures and properties not classified by OBC 530 2.3%Total 22,923

Structures or properties not classified by OBC 2%

Assembly 4%

Business and personal services 2%

Industrial 8%

Institutional 2%

Mercantile 4%

Residential 78%

ÑElectrical fires have declined at a rate faster than all fires in Ontario.

3�


1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

u Distribution equipment n Electrically-fueled source l Fire with loss

l

n

u

l

ll l l

l ln

nn n n

n n

uu

u u uu u

Figure 42Electrical Fires – Source of Ignition 1998 to 2005

Figure 42 and Figure 43 show electrical fires according to the source of ignition. These can be separated into three major sections: fires from an electrically-fueled source (such as electrical appliances and cooking equipment, lighting equipment, heating equipment), fire from distribution equipment (such as permanent or non-permanent electrical wiring, distribution panels, junction boxes), and others.

As can be seen in Figure 42, the rate of decline of electrical fires corresponds largely to the rate of decline of electrically-fueled source fires. In the eight-year span, the number of fires originating from distribution equipment has not declined at all.

Figure 43Electrical Fires – Source of Ignition 1998 to 2005

Distribution equipment 31%

Others 2%Electrically-fueled source 67%

�0


Figure 44Electrical Fires by Ignition Source 1998 to 2005

Figure 44 and Table 28 further divide the electrically-fueled ignition source fire into subclasses. Cooking equipment is shown as the most common source in Figure 44, accounting for the majority of all fires ignited by electrically-fueled source equipment or appliances.

Appliances 11%

Heating equipment, chimneys etc. 5%

Lighting equipment 5%

Other electrical or mechanical 4%

Processing equipment 1%Cooking equipment 39%

Electrical distribution

equipment 31%

Appliances 2902Cooking equipment 10621Lighting equipment 1222

Other electrical or mechanical 1014Processing equipment 335

Heating equipment, chimneys etc. 1284Non-electrically-fueled source 9198

Total 26,576

For electrically-fueled ignition source fires, the top seven types of equipment fueling the fire are shown in Figure 45. Stoves, range-top burners, ovens and other cooking equipment accounted for 56% of all electrical fires by electrically-fuelled ignition sources.

Table 28Electrical Fires by Ignition Source 1998 to 2005

Figure 45 Electrical Fires by Electricity-Fuelled Ignition Source 1998 to 2005 (Top Seven Devices or Appliances)

Stove, range-top burner 47%

Various others 25%

Clothes dryer 7%

Oven 5%

Other cooking items (eg. toaster, kettle, frying pan) 4%

Incandescent lamp, light bulb or spotlight 4%

Other electrical 4%

Other appliances 4%

Others 4%

�1


Non-cooking-related appliances represent 11% of all electrical fires (Figure 44). Within that piece of the pie, further breakdown of appliances is illustrated on Table 29, with clothes dryer representing almost half of all appliance fires.

Table 29Appliance as Ignition Source (other than cooking) 1998 to 2005

Figure 46 Appliance as Ignition Source (other than cooking) 1998 to 2005

Iron or pressing machine 48 2%Electric blanket or heating pad 55 2%

Air conditioner - window or room unit 67 3%Washing machine 119 5%

Television, radio, stereo, tape recorder, etc. 193 8%Refrigerator or freezer (including vending machine) 236 9%

Other appliances 640 26%Clothes dryer 1135 46%

Total 2,493

Iron, pressing machine 2%

Electric blanket, heating pad 2%

Air conditioner - window or room unit 3%

Washing machine 5%

Television, radio, stereo, tape recorder, etc. 8%

Refrigerator, freezer (includes vending machine) 9%Other appliances 26%

Clothes dryer 46%

Table 30Electricity-Fuelled Ignition Source

– Cause of fire 1998 to 2005

Cause of fire Number of fires Percentage of totalArson 70 0.4%

Children playing 100 0.6%Design/construction/maintenance deficiency 1395 9.0%

Mechanical/electrical failure 3877 24.9%Misuse of ignition source/equipment 6632 42.6%

Misuse of material first ignited 1331 8.5%Other 1014 6.5%

Undetermined 1150 7.5%Vehicle Accident 7 -

Total 15,576

�2


Figure 47 Electricity-Fuelled Ignition Source – Cause of Fire 1998 to 2005

Figure 47 and Table 32 show that misuse was the most common cause of fires qualified as fires by an electrically-fueled ignition source (42%).

Figure 48 Electrical Fires of Ignition Source – Electrical Distribution Equipment

Other 8%Misuse of ignition

source or equipment 42%

Mechanical or electrical failure 25%

Design/construction or maintenance deficiency 9%

Misuse of material first ignited 9%

Undetermined 7%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

500

250

0 ln

u u

l Fire fatalities n Fire injuries u Number of residential fires ¢ Number of fires

¢

Num

ber o

f fire

s

l l l l l l l l ln n n n n n n n n

u u u u u uuu

¢¢ ¢

¢¢ ¢ ¢

¢ ¢

�3


Figure 48 shows the number of fires caused by electrical distribution equipment. Roughly half of the fires occur in residential settings.

Table 31 shows the type of distribution equipment causing the fires, with circuit wiring, distribution equipment and electrical cord being most prevalent.

Table 31Distribution Equipment Fires by Source 1998 to 2006

It should be noted that in OFM investigated reports revealed that all panel board fires were originated at the connection.

Figure 49Distribution Equipment Fires by Source 1998-2006 62

Source Number of fires Percentage of totalTerminations (inc. receptacles, switches, lights) - copper 2 -

Meter 82 1%Circuit wiring - aluminum 121 2%

Terminations (inc. receptacles, switches, lights) - aluminum 147 2%Transformer 269 4%

Service/utility lines (includes power/hydro transmission) 446 6%Terminations (includes receptacles, switches, lights) - copper 769 11%

Other electrical distribution item 833 12%Distribution equipment (includes panel boards, fuses, circuit boards) 1251 17%

Extension cord or cable 1616 22%Circuit wiring - copper 1641 23%

Total 7,177 100%

Distribution equipment (includes panel boards, fuses, circuit boards) 17%

Extension cord or cable 22%

Other electrical distribution item 12%

Terminations (includes receptacles, switches, lights) - copper 11%

Service/utility lines (includes power/hydro transmission) 6%

Transformer 4%

Terminations (inc. receptacles, switches, lights) - aluminum 2% Circuit wiring - aluminum 2%

Meter 1%Circuit wiring - copper 23%

62 Based on OFM records

��


Figure 49 and Table 31 show a different profile of cause of fire than shown in Figure 50. With distribution equipment, the cause of fire according to the OFM was due mostly to mechanical and electrical failure (64%). What is not revealed in the cause of mechanical or electrical failure is the actual reason for the failure. ESA is requested to investigate approximately 40 fires per year out of the more than two thousand fires per year in Ontario. In ESA fire-investigated cases (which most often do not involve investigation of cooking fires), incorrect installation and improper maintenance accounted for 34% of the cause of fire Figure 50) while equipment and system failure accounted for 13% of the cause.

Figure 50 Likely cause of Fire (ESA) 1998 to 2006

Figure 51 illustrates the number of electrical fires that have resulted in fatalities. The figure shows the number of events versus the number of people fatally injured in the 1997 to 2006 period. There were 94 fire events that resulted in 110 fatalities, an average of 11 fatalities per year. In most years, the number of events is equal to the number of people fatally injured, which means in most cases, the fire resulted in only one death as opposed to multiple deaths. Actual fatality events and fatalities can be seen on Table 32. Figure 51 clearly shows the drastic decline in fatalities in recent years. From 1997 to 2001, there were 66 electrical fires resulting in fatalities and from 2002 to 2006, there were 28 fires resulting in fatalities, a decline of 66%.

�.1. Fatalities Caused by Electrical Fires

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

n Number of events n Actual number of people killed

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

Figure 51Fatality Numbers in Electrical Fires 1998 to 2006 63

63 Based on OFM records

Incorrect installation 23%

Improper use 14%

Others 19%

Lack of maintenance 9%

Equipment failure 7%

Unknown 7%

Incorrect procedure 7%

System failure 6%

Improper installation 4%

Misuse 4%

��


Table 32 Fire Fatalities versus Electrical Fire Events

Number of fatalities per eventYear 1 2 3 4 5 Total Events Total fatalities1997 19 2 1 0 0 22 261998 18 0 0 0 0 18 181999 8 3 0 0 0 10 132000 9 0 0 0 0 9 92001 10 1 0 1 0 12 162002 2 1 0 0 0 3 42003 6 1 0 0 0 7 82004 1 0 0 0 0 1 12005 3 1 0 0 1 5 102006 5 0 0 0 0 5 5Total 80 9 1 1 1 92 110

While stovetop-related fatalities have declined dramatically in the last five years, over the period 1998 to 2006 they represented 32% of all electrical fire-related fatalities. Table 33 shows that between 1997 to 2001 there were 41 fires that led to fatalities, while between 2002 and 2006, the number was reduced to four. The decline in the number of electrical fire fatalities is directly attributable to the decrease in the number of stovetop fire fatalities.

Figure 52Fire fatalities – Electrical Fires by Likely Cause 1997 to 2005 64

1997 131998 121999 52000 62001 52002 12003 02004 02005 22006 1Total 45

Table 33The Number of Stovetop Fire Fatality Events

Misuse of material first ignited 1%

Mechanical or electrical failure 20%

Other 13%

Undetermined 8%

Design/construction/installation or maintenace deficiency 3%

Misuse of ignition source of equipment 55%

Misuse is cited as the most common cause of fatalities by the OFM, accounting for 55% of all the death cases (Figure 52). Please note that the period from 1997 to 2005 is used for most Tables and Figures involving electrical fire fatalities. At the time of writing ESA had only limited information on electrical fire fatalities in 2006.

64 Based on OFM records, 2006 information was excluded since cases were still being investigated

�6


Figure 53Electrical Fire Fatalities by Event – Object First Ignited 1997 to 2005

Table 34 and Figure 54 clearly illustrate how prevalent residential properties in electrical fire fatalities. 95% of the electrical fire fatalities occur in residential properties. Figure 53 shows that soft goods and wearing apparel were most prevalent as object first ignited. The OFM data ties wearing apparel to stove-top fires.

Table 34Electrical Fire Fatality Events by Facility type 1997 to 2005

Other objects 7%

Materials 11%

Furniture 3%

Gases 5%

Building component 2%

Flammable or combustible liquids 11%

Miscellaneous 14%

Undetermined 14%

Soft goods and wearing apparel

33%

Facility type Number of fatality events Percentage of totalAgricultural 1 1.1%

Apartment, flat, tenement with business 3 3.5%Attached dwelling (eg. rowhouse, townhouse, etc.) 3 3.5%

Automobile 1 1.2%Detached dwelling 38 43.7%Detached garage 1 1.1%

Mobile home 3 3.5%Motor home, camper or trailer 1 1.1%

Motor vehicle repair garage 1 1.1%Multi-unit dwelling – two to six units 8 9.2%

Multi-unit dwelling – seven to 12 units 2 2.3%Multi-unit dwelling – over 12 units 18 20.7%

Open land (eg. light ground cover, bush, grass, etc.) 1 1.1%Rooming, boarding or lodging house 1 1.1%

Semi-detached dwelling 5 5.7%Total 87 100%

ÑElectrical fire fatalities have resulted in averaged 11 deaths per year in the nine-year span, but have declined dramatically in the last five years, averaging 5.4 deaths per year.

��


Figure 54Electrical Fire Fatalities by Event – Facility/Property Type 1997 to 2005

ÑBuildings built prior to 1975 accounted for 76% of the fatalities.

Table 35 Electrical Fire Fatality Events by Area of Origin 1997 to 2005

Road vehicles 1%

Other residential 2%

Rooming/group/retirement home 1%

Vehicle sales/service 1%

Detached/semi-attached residential 53%

Multi-unit dwelling32%

Mobile home or dwelling 5%

Miscellaneous property 1%

Miscellaneous or specialty vehicle 1%

Dual/residential/ business/apartment 3%

Area of origin Total fatality eventsAttic area 1

Concealed ceiling area 1Cooking area or kitchen 51

Dining or beverage area (inc lunchroom, café, mess, etc.) 1Electrical systems 1

Engine area 1Garage 3

Laundry area 2Living area (eg. living, TV room, recreation, etc.) 12

Lobby or entranceway 1Other - unclassified 1Other storage area 1

Sleeping area or bedroom (inc patient room, dormitory, etc.) 9Supply storage room (inc maintenance or document storage etc.) 1

Washroom or bathroom (inc toilet, rest or locker rooms) 1Total 87

Table 35 illustrates that the kitchen or cooking area accounts for 14% of electrical fire fatality events resulted in two or more deaths. The kitchen or cooking area accounts for 57% of the electrical fire fatality events and living areas account for 13%.

��


Table 36 Electrical Fire Fatality Events by Ignition Source 1997 to 2005

Number of fatalities per eventSource of Ignition 1 2 3 4 5 Total events Total deaths

Circuit wiring - aluminum 0 0 0 0 1 1 5Circuit wiring - copper 2 2 0 0 0 4 6

Clothes dryer 0 1 0 0 0 1 2Cord or cable for appliance or electrical article 2 0 0 0 0 2 2

Deep fat fryer 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Distribution equipment (inc panel boards, fuses, circuit breakers) 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Electric blanket or heating pad 2 0 0 0 0 2 2Extension cord or temporary wiring 3 2 0 0 0 5 7

Incandescent lamp - light bulb or spotlight 2 0 0 0 0 2 2Meter 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Not reported 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Open-fire barbeque - fixed or portable 2 0 0 0 0 2 2

Other cooking items (eg. toaster, kettle, electric frying pan) 3 0 0 0 0 3 3Other electrical 0 0 0 1 0 1 4

Other electrical distribution item 3 0 0 0 0 3 3Oven 3 0 0 0 0 3 3

Space heater - fixed 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Space heater - portable 1 2 0 0 0 3 5

Stove or range-top burner 41 2 1 0 0 44 48Television, radio, stereo, tape recorder, etc. 2 0 0 0 0 2 2

Terminations (inc receptacles, switches, lights) - copper 2 0 0 0 0 2 2Vehicle - electrical 2 0 0 0 0 2 2

Total 75 9 1 1 1 87 105

When fires were initiated by distribution equipment and resulted in fatalities, the most common ignition sources were identified as extension cord or temporary wiring, followed by copper wiring and aluminum wiring. They accounted for 72% of electrical fires by distribution systems that resulted in fatalities.

The OFM also sorted fatalities according to building age. 85% of fire fatalities involving cooking equipment occurred in buildings built before 1975 65; 82% of fire fatalities involving wiring, wiring termination, electrical distribution equipment and temporary wiring occurred in buildings built before 1975 (Table 37 and Figure 55).


��


Table 37Electrical Fire Fatalities by Building Age 1997 to 2005

Number of fatalities per eventConstruction date 1 2 3 4 5 Total events Percentage

Prior to 1945 21 0 0 1 1 23 26.4%1945 to 1975 31 7 1 0 0 39 44.8%

After 1975 11 1 0 0 0 12 13.8%Renovated after 1975 5 1 0 0 0 6 6.9%

Not applicable 2 0 0 0 0 2 2.3%Not reported or other 5 0 0 0 0 5 5.7%

Total 75 9 1 1 1 87

Constructed prior to 1945 26%

Other 8%

Renovated after 1975 7%Constructed after 1975 14%

Constructed 1945-197545%

Figure 55Fire fatalities by Building Age 1997 to 2005

�0


The Ontario Fire Marshal Stovetop Survey

The OFM shares ESA concerns regarding stove top fires. Between 1995 and 2004, Ontario averaged approximately 6580 preventable residential fires annually, averaging 1749 cooking fires annually or 27% preventable residential fires for the period. In this period, 76% of total cooking-related fires or an annual average of 1323 fires were attributed to stovetops.

Cooking equipment attributed to 175 average per year home injuries between 2000 and 2004, with an annual average of seven fatalities. Cooking equipment was the second-leading ignition source responsible for preventable fire fatalities in the period. It is important to note that fire prevalence were lower than the market share in gas-fuelled stovetop.

The Ontario Fire Marshal’s Public Safety Council, a council with stakeholders concerned with fire prevention, formed a Stovetop Technical Subcommittee to look further into stovetop fires. The Committee, which is chaired by ESA, had representatives from the fire services, ESA, CSA, ULC, Health Canada, Canadian Appliance Manufacturing Association and the OFM.

The OFM conducted a survey from Aug 1, 2005 to July 2006, requesting Ontario fire departments to complete a survey for every stovetop fire they attended in a residential property. 1244 surveys were completed in this time period yielding the following results.

n In 69% of the fires, fire departments reported that cooking left unattended was the key factor contributing to the fire.

n Oil or grease was the object first ignited in 49% of the fires. Other food items were responsible for igniting additional 28%.

n 61% of fires did not spread beyond the stovetop, with 32% spreading into the kitchen and 7% beyond the kitchen.

n 46% of fires were extinguished by occupants, 21% were self extinguished and 25% extinguished by the fire department.

n Higher incidence of stovetop fires was reported in multi-unit dwellings, a significantly higher incidence in subsidized residential dwellings (Figure 56).

n A higher incidence of injuries was reported in fires where the occupants attempted to extinguish the fire.

n Although subsidized dwellings account for 6% of dwelling units in Ontario, 13% of fires occurred in subsidized dwellings. Incident rate of stovetop is almost three times higher in subsidized dwellings.

n Stovetop fires peak at 5:00pm. Fire fatality reports indicate that fatal fires occur between 11:00pm to 6:00am this is contrary to previous hypothesis that most cooktop fires were thought to be alcohol or drug related.

n The 20 to 29 age group accounted of the highest fire incident rate.

n The most common cause of stovetop fires was due to people being distracted or forgetting (51%).

�1


Figure 56Stove Top Fire Survey – Type of Residence

n Detached n Semi-detached n Attached n Multi-unit

Dwelling Type

50

40

30

20

10

0

Fire Summary:n 70% of fires were ignited by electrically-fuelled appliances, lighting or equipment.

n Electrical fires accounted for approximately 10% of all fires with loss in Ontario

n Ontario averaged approximately 3300 electrical fires in the eight-year span.

n Electrical fires in Ontario are declining at a rate double of all fires (23% to 12%) respectively.

n Overall, misuse of electrical equipment and appliances is the main cause of electrical fires and electrical fires causing death in Ontario.

n 57% of electrical fire deaths were cooking related.

n For electrical distribution equipment, the main cause of fire was mechanical or electrical failure. ESA investigation of fires over 200 such fires pointed to incorrect installation or lack of maintenance as the reasons behind the failures.

n 88% of fire fatalities occurred in residential dwellings.

The stovetop fire survey revealed the following:n 69% of cooktop fires were the direct result of cooking left unattended.

n 61% of fires did not spread beyond the stovetop. Stovetop fires peak at 5:pm with the 20 to 29 years age group accounting for the highest incident rate. This is contrary to previous hypotheses that most cooktop fires were alcohol or drug-related.

Ñ69% of cooktop fires were the direct result of cooking left unattended.

�2


Summary of Fire Statisticsn Between 1998 and 2005, the number of electrical fires has decreased by 23%.

n Cooking equipment remains the most common cause of electrical fires (56%); driers were most prevalent as non-cooking appliances causing fires (46%).

n Fires to panelboards revealed that incorrect wiring methods or loose wires were the main cause of the fire.

n While the cause of fire with distribution equipment was identified as mechanical and electrical failure by the OFM, ESA-investigated fires of this nature supported OFM findings that they revealed that incorrect installation and improper maintenance accounted for 34% of the fires.

n Buildings built prior to 1975 66 accounted for 76% of the fatalities.

n For cooktop fires, the 20 to 29 age group had the highest incident rate.

5.1. Present and ongoing initiatives

Addressing injuries involving knowingly working with energized 347-volt ballast systemsThe requirement of specifying disconnect for each luminaire from branch circuits has been incorporated as part of the 2006 Canadian Electrical Code and addresses the root cause of 347-volt lighting electrocutions, namely not de-energizing prior to performing electrical work. This change was included in Ontario’s amendments to the electrical safety code in January 2007. New construction and renovation in Ontario are installing the disconnecting devices. There were no fatalities involving 347-volt lighting in 2006.

Addressing multimeter injuries as a result of user errorVerify the SolutionFirst, ESA engaged an independent research laboratory to undertake basic research to verify that fused leads can provide an effective solution for preventing injuries caused by user error when using a mulitmeter. Part of the research was to identify the essential features of the fused lead that would reduce injuries caused by user error.

Contractor AwarenessIn parallel to the testing, ESA launched a communication awareness campaign with contractors, alerting them to the danger of user error when using multimeters.

Developed a ProductOnce ESA received proof that fused leads could minimize injuries from user error, ESA contracted a manufacturer to develop the product using the specifications created from the research.

Seeded the Marketplace with the ProductESA then seeded the marketplace with the fused lead, offering an ESA-funded exchange program to electrical contractors, exchanging contractors’ old leads with the fused lead that ESA had developed. ESA is hoping that this initiative will create a demand and encourage multimeter manufacturers to include fuse leads when selling new multimeters.

Working to Improve the StandardESA is continuously working with CSA to improven the manufacturing standards of the multimeter. n the workplace procedure when using a multimeter.

Outreach Programs to ApprenticesESA is now working with Ontario colleges on an outreach electrical safety program with electrical apprentices on the safe use of multimeters.

�.0. Recommendations, Initiatives and Strategies


�3


Addressing powerline electrocutionsIn 2006, ESA with support and funding from LDCs across the province, have initiated a major powerline safety awareness campaign to address powerline contact deaths in the farming communities. ESA promoted powerline safety targeted at southwestern Ontario, where most of the farmer powerline fatalities occurred. The campaign involved strategic advertisements with selected publications, an increased visibility of ESA in farmers’ shows and warning/awareness posters to farmers on powerline contact.

Three dumptruck-related powerline deaths in Ontario in 2006 prompted ESA and its partners to launch a powerline safety campaign for dumptruck operators. In the spring of 2007 a campaign was introduced that warns drivers to “Look up, Look out before your lift your load.” This campaign has been distributed to all Local Distribution Companies, 390 dumptruck operators/brokers, and to eight key industry associations for distribution to members. This campaign includes materials such as a two-sided safety card, a two-sided sticker that warns drivers to stay in their vehicle in the event of a powerline contact and warns others to Stay Back!, a one-sided sticker that reminds drivers to check for overhead powerlines before lifting their load, and a roadway sign that warns of overhead powerlines on construction sites. The second campaign focuses on sharing important public safety information to assist the public in responding to “Stormy Weather”. This campaign focuses on providing safety tips associated with downed powerlines, emergency standby generators, and flooding. This campaign has been channeled to the top 500 Ontario media outlets for use in the event of storms. Advertisements have been placed in community newspapers in high-risk storm areas as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources. These two campaigns are in response to feedback from ESA Councils and in reviewing powerline incident reports. The industry associations that are being used to support the channeling of safety information include:

n Ontario Road Builders’ Association

n Ontario Trucking Association

n Municipal Health and Safety Association of Ontario

n Ontario Good Roads Association

n Transportation Health & Safety Association of Ontario

n Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association

n Construction Safety Association of Ontario

n Ministry of Labour

Addressing electrical firesESA continue to seek partnership with other agencies possessing the same common mandate. ESA will continue to support the OFM on their effort to reduce electrical fires such as stove and cooking-related electrical fires. ESA is also continuing its attempt to improve its relationship with fire departments; and insurance companies need to be better involved than presently. ESA participated for the first time in the Ontario Association of Fire Department’s Fire Safety Show in Toronto in May, 2007. ESA also participated in the 51st Annual Training and Educational Symposium, sponsored by the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officer Association and hosted by the Richmond Hill Fire Department in June 2007.

��


5.2. Future Initiatives

Preventing electrical fires caused by cooktop stovesThrough its participation in the Ontario Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council, The OFM, with the help of all fire departments in Ontario conducted the “Stove Top Fire Survey” with successful results. The Stove Top Subcommittee, at the time of writing is currently mapping strategies on how best to increase the profile of this problem with the stove top manufacturers and the insurance industry.

Preventing Accidents with Incorrect Use of MultimetersESA will continue to seek support from stakeholders on the use of fused leads with multimeters in the workplace in the Province of Ontario. With the development of the CSA Z462, the Standard for Workplace Electrical Safety, the equivalent of National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) 70E, the Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplace, ESA will continue to attempt to influence the CSA Committee to require the use of fused leads with multimeters in the workplace.

Engaging stakeholders to identify areas of highest riskWith the recommendation from the safety management workshop projects conducted in 2006 of the need to improve ESA data and investigation to identify root cause of fatalities, injuries and fires, ESA is planning to a) improve its data collection capabilities by developing improved criteria of required information and interaction with other agencies (TSSA, MOL, WSIB), and b) improving its investigation capabilities to identify trending and root cause by developing a specialized team to investigate serious incidents and reporting.

Partnership with the OFMThe OFM had allowed ESA to examine OFM investigated fires in its office in Midhurst, Ontario to better understand electrical fires. ESA and OFM are working towards a new memorandum of understanding that would allow better cooperation between the two organizations.

Partnership with the MOLWith greater cooperation between the MOL and ESA, the two organization are continuing to work on further improving relationship with each other.

5.3. Recommendations and Future Strategies

At the time of writing, ESA is still crafting its long-term plan of reducing electrical injuries and electrical fires. Items under consideration are:

n Increase workplace safety with the electrical trade

n Create a strategy that would significantly reduce powerline incidents

n Seek initiative that would reduce fires in buildings older than 30 years.

��


Accident – An undesired or unplanned event, resulting in property damage, injury or fatality.

Aerial Work Platform (AWP) – a self-propelled work platform device, capable of lowering and lifting its work platform by mechanical means.

AFI – Application for Inspection, an application for performing electrical installation that requires inspection, as defined by the Ontario Electrical Safety Code.

CIHI – Canadian Institute of Health Information, a subsidiary of Health Canada, a not-for-profit organization responsible for collecting all health information across Canada.

Cost of Injury – Cost of injury as calculated by the WSIB in compensation, medical aid and pension.

CSAO – Construction Safety Association of Ontario, an accident prevention advisory organization, funded by the WSIB, serving the construction sector.

ECAO – The Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario – a contractor association for unionized electrical contractors.

Electrician – A worker whose occupation is identified as working primarily with electricity.

Electrocution – An accidental death, caused by contact with electricity.

Fatality – an injury resulting in a death.

Human error – An inappropriate or undesired human decision or behaviour that reduces or has the potential to reduce the safety or system performance.

IAPA – Industrial Accident Prevention Association – one of the Safe Work Agencies, responsible for monitoring safety performances of industrial companies in Ontario.

LDC – Local Distribution Company.

LTI – Lost Time Injury, a term defined by the WSIB for an occupational injury that resulted in a worker missing more than one shift of work.

MOL – Ministry of Labour of Ontario.

Non-Occupational injuries – Injuries occurring other than in the workplace.

NWISP – National Work Injury Statistics Program, an organization that serves as a repository of all occupational injuries in Canada.

Occupational Injury – an injury occurring in a workplace.

OEL – Ontario Electrical League – a contractor-based association of non-unionized electrical contractors.

OFM – The Office of Fire Marshal, a provincial organization responsible for the prevention of fires in Ontario.

Powerline – Outside/outdoor electrical cable or wire, used to distribute electrical energy.

RBD – Radial Boom Derrick

Traumatic Injury – Injury as a result of a sudden or violent act.

WSIB – Workplace Safety Insurance Board, an organization responsible for compensation of workplace injuries.

Glossary

electrical safety in ontario - 2006 report

Documents