Tag | fall protection training in Ontario
Seven years of research, consultation and legal drafting have produced new â€˜Fall Protectionâ€™ requirements in New Brunswick that came into force on January 1, 2009.
Changes to the General Regulation, under the provinceâ€™s OH&S Act, include the following: preference for systems that do not allow a worker to fall, such as guardrails and travel restraints; additional instruction and training obligations; new provisions for roofing and weatherproofing sectors; reference to new and updated Canadian Standards Association guidelines; and extra responsibilities for building owners to ensure anyone carrying out work on their behalf complies with the rules.
â€œIn the area of fall protection, we felt we werenâ€™t keeping up with current standards,â€ suggests Richard Blais, director of the chief compliance office at Work-SafeNB in Saint John. â€œWe felt there was not enough substance in our current legislation and we needed to enhance that,â€ Blais says.
A major thrust of the amendments is to establish what he calls a â€œhierarchy of intervention.â€ The idea is to focus on fall prevention as opposed to rescue after a fall, he says. â€œI think people work a lot faster and certainly theyâ€™re a lot safer when you have guardrails than when you have fall arrest or safety monitors.â€
The provision for a control zone safety monitor, who helps ensure that workers do not fall, existed before the new amendments, says Blais, â€œbut it was lacking in specificity in terms of what employers should do.â€
The amendments require a fall protection code of practice for those working from a height of 7.5 metres or more and when working within a control zone with a safety monitor, he says.
Another key amendment is clarification of responsibilities for building owners to ensure that anyone conducting work for them remains in compliance, he adds. Even though New Brunswickâ€™s OH&S Act currently addresses the general duty provisions of owners with regard to health and safety, the view of WorkSafeNB officials is that there was not â€œenough teethâ€ in the act.
â€œWe put in a lot of emphasis on responsibilities of building owners to ensure the legislation itself was being followed by the contractors that they hire,â€ Blais says.
â€œThe industry has been using the standards in the new regulation for quite some time now,â€ suggests Roy Silliker, general manager of the New Brunswick Construction Safety Association.
The Miramichi, New Brunswick-based association was in the process of reviewing its own fall protection awareness course, Silliker says. Officials, however, have decided to hold off on moving forward until WorkSafeNB information sessions, expected to be held across the province during the month of February, have been completed.
I have completed an 8 part mini-series for â€˜Fall Protectionâ€™ in Ontario. It was originally added to the blog around August-September timeframe (2011) and it is my understanding that many companies are using them as the framework of their own internal program. It was my pleasure to add such information to aid in a safer work environment. As a review, section 26 of the Ontario â€˜Constructionâ€™ regulation 213/91 contains almost everything needed to build a decent ‘Fall Protection’ program in your company.
Remember â€“ In Ontario, â€œALL Accidents are Preventableâ€
â€˜Workâ€™ and â€˜Playâ€™ safe.
Daniel L. Beal CHSEP â€“ Foundation Level
VP & Senior Trainer
Excerpt from the Canadian Press
A slew of occupational health and safety charges have been laid against mine operator Vale Limited in connection with a double fatality one year ago.
On June 8, 2011 at the companyâ€™s Stobie Mine in Sudbury, Ontario, about 350 tons of wet, sandy muck came barrelling down an ore pass. An investigation by Vale found that a crash gate into the area where supervisor Jason Chenier, 35, and Jordan Fram, 26, were working was left open, and the muck, which had been stuck in the ore pass, came loose and flooded the area.
Excerpt from the Government of Ontarioâ€™s â€˜Newsroomâ€™
1780226 Ontario Inc., formerly known as Direct Line Environmental Services Inc., a liquid waste management company, was fined $50,000 on November 24, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker. Lyndon Bingley, a supervisor from the company, was fined $7,500 in relation to the same incident.
Excerpt from the Ontario governmentâ€™s â€˜Newsroomâ€™
Jeld-Wen of Canada Ltd., a Toronto window and door manufacturer, was fined $50,000 on October 21, 2010, for a violation the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker.