2012
ONTARIO
ELECTRICAL
SAFETY REPORT
12th Edition
Contents
Report from the Chief Public
Safety Officer...................................................1
4.0Overview of Fires in Ontario..................37
4.0 Summary of Statistics....................40
Executive Summary........................................2
4.1Fires Resulting in Fatalities.................... 41
4.1 Summary of Statistics.....................44
1.0
Purpose of this Report.............................6
1.1
Role of the Electrical Safety Authority......7
1.2
Key Findings of the 11th Edition OESR....7
4.2Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel
of the Ignition Source of the Fire...........45
4.2 Summary of Statistics.....................47
1.3
Case Studies............................................8
2.0Electrical-Related Injuries and Fatalities....9
2.1Electrocutions and Electrical
Burn Fatalities..........................................9
2.1 Summary of Statistics..................... 12
4.3Cooking Fires with Electricity as the
Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire...48
4.3 Summary of Statistics..................... 51
4.4Electrical Distribution Equipment with
Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition
Source of the Fire..................................52
4.4 Summary of Statistics.....................56
4.5.1 Case Study: Fire Example # 1................57
2.2Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities
and Injuries............................................ 13
2.2 Summary of Statistics.....................20
4.5.2Case Study: Fire Example # 2................59
2.3Non-Occupational Electrical-Related
Fatalities and Injuries.............................22
2.3 Summary of Statistics.....................24
5.0Product Safety.......................................61
5.0 Summary of Statistics.....................63
2.4Electrical Injury and Emergency
Department Visits in Ontario,
2002–2011.............................................25
2.4 Summary of Statistics.....................28
5.1Case Study: Lighting Fixture Fires.........64
Case Study: Electrical Worker................29
Methodology.................................................66
2.5
5.1.2Case Study: Baseboard Heater Fire.......65
Acknowledgements........................................ 66
Fire Source Data............................................68
3.0Utility-Related Equipment...................... 31
3.0 Summary of Statistics.....................34
3.1Case Study: Overhead Powerline
Contact..................................................35
Bibliography...................................................70
Glossary.........................................................72
Introduction from
The Electrical Safety Authority’s
Chief Public Safety Officer
Electrical Safety Authority
Data underpins information; information facilitates awareness; awareness can inspire action
– this is how change happens. The 12th edition of the Ontario Electrical Safety Report (OESR)
is designed to underpin the first part of the change process.
The goal of this report is to contribute to the collective effort of many partners to reduce the
number of electrical safety incidents in Ontario and eventually eliminate all electrical-related
fatalities, injuries and damage. The OESR consolidates data from multiple sources, enabling
us to effectively monitor established trends and spot emerging patterns in the area of
electrical incidents. Most importantly, the report is a tool that the Electrical Safety Authority
and others interested in electrical safety can use to develop a deeper understanding of the
nature of electrical incidents, where they occur, and to whom. Continued efforts in researching
the underlying causes and risk factors are essential for improving public electrical safety.
Only with a clear and comprehensive understanding of these incidents can we take meaningful
action to more effectively prevent them.
As evident in this year’s report, we continue to see positive progress. However there remain
areas requiring focus. Chief among these are the rate of safety incidents involving electricians
and electrical workers, and the number of fires involving cooking on electric stove-tops or
ranges. ESA is focusing particular effort on these persistent areas of harm while continuing
to work to reduce the overall rates of electrical safety incidents.
We are grateful for the support of the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL), the Workplace Safety
and Insurance Board (WSIB), the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), the Office of
the Fire Marshal (OFM), and The Office of the Chief Coroner for
Ontario. These organizations have not only contributed their data,
but also their insight and support, enabling us to create this key
electrical safety resource.
Compiling the Electrical Safety Report is truly a team effort.
I would like to acknowledge ESA’s Joel Moody, Jenifer Robertson,
Francis Hardy, and Said Ismail for their contributions to the
development of this important body of work that will inform ESA’s
safety efforts and those of our partners.
Doug Crawford*
Chief Public Safety Officer
*Doug Crawford retired from ESA in August 2013 after a long and distinguished career in public service. ESA
would like to recognize the contributions he has made towards improving electrical safety and achieving the
goals of the Harm Reduction Strategy.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
1
Executive Summary
For more than eleven years, the Ontario Electrical Safety Report (OESR) has been
produced by The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) to provide a comprehensive assessment
of electrical fatalities and incidents in Ontario. The Report is used by ESA to better
understand the dynamics of electrical safety. From these insights come strategies to
improve electrical safety in the province.
The OESR provides a comprehensive assessment of electrical fatalities and incidents that
occur in Ontario. Data presented in this report has been compiled from multiple sources,
investigations, and root cause analyses. This report is broadly used by safety stakeholders
and business operators to gain a better understanding of potential electrical risks and
high-risks areas, and to encourage the development of initiatives to improve the state of
electrical safety in Ontario.
Comparison of Electrical-related Fatalities to Fire Fatalities,
per Million Population 2003 to 2012
Overall Five-year Rolling Average Fatalities in Ontario
Fatalities per
Million Population
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
Electrocutions
and Burns
0.93
0.85
0.77
0.74
0.73
0.63
0.61
0.56
0.43
0.38**
Electrical Fire
1.10
1.05
0.98
0.84
0.92
0.93
0.84
0.80
0.69
0.64**
Total Electrical
2.03
1.90
1.75
1.58
1.65
1.56
1.45
1.36
1.12
1.02**
Conclusion: The five-year average fatality rate has decreased 38% over the last five years.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records. ** Preliminary data subject to change.
2
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
Over the past ten years, 2003 to 2012, there has been a decline in the rates of electrical-related
fatalities, fire fatalities (where the ignition source was identified as electrical) and electrical
injuries in Ontario. While progress is being made to reduce the number of incidents, the causes
and contexts remain the same. Concerted efforts are needed for rates to continue to decrease.
Electrical Fatalities
In the past ten years, 145 electrical fatalities have been reported in Ontario. From 2003 to 2012,
71 people died by electrocution (non-intentional death caused by contact with electricity) or by
the effects of burns, and 74 died as a result of fires where the ignition source was identified as
electrical, though electricity may not have been the primary source of the fire. In comparison,
for the ten-year period from 2002 to 2011, there were 144 electrical fatalities – 74 electrocution
and electrical burn fatalities and 70 fire deaths.
Electrical-Related Fatalities (Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities)
The rate of electrical-related fatalities (non-intentional death caused by contact with
electricity) continues to decline:
•
•
From 2003 to 2007, there were 46 electrical-related fatalities, a rate of
0.73 per million population.
From 2008 to 2012, there were 25 electrical-related fatalities, a rate of
0.38 per million population; a rate decrease of 48%.
Utility-related equipment electrocutions have accounted for almost half (49%) of all electricalrelated fatalities in the past ten years. In addition:
•
•
From 2003 to 2007, 37% of all electrical-related fatalities in Ontario were from
powerline contact (17/46).
From 2008 to 2012, 44% were powerline related (11/25).
Occupational electrical-related fatalities continue to outnumber non-occupational deaths by a
ratio of 2 to 1:
•
•
From 2003 to 2007, 33 of the 46 (72%) electrical-related fatalities were occupational.
From 2008 to 2012, 15 of the 25 (60%) electrical-related fatalities were occupational.
Electrical tradespeople accounted for 29% of all electrical-related fatalities in the workplace
between 2003 and 2012, and they continue to be critically injured on the job when working on
energized electrical panels or ballasts/347V lighting. The number of fatalities for the utility
worker sector has increased. Due to small numbers, it is not possible to report this as a trend,
but this is an area for increased surveillance.
Non-occupational electrical-related fatality rates have remained steady compared to last year.
The small number of incidents makes trending challenging; however, five-year rolling
averages can assist in identifying patterns:
•
•
he five-year average number of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities has
T
decreased from 3.8 to 2.0 over the last ten years.
The rate of electrical-related fatalities per million population has decreased from
0.32 to 0.15 over the same period of time. This is a decline of 53%.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
3
Fire Fatalities and Events
The number of electrical fires declined 35% between the years 2008-2012.
Cooking-related fires continue to be the most common type of electrical fire, although the
rates are declining:
•
•
In 2002, there were 1,322 cooking fires.
In 2011, there were 722 cooking fires. This is a 42% reduction.
Electrical distribution fires, as defined by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM)1,
are also declining:
•
•
In 2002, there were 1,000 electrical distribution fires.
In 2011, there were 500 electrical distribution fires. This is a 50% reduction.
Priority Issues
ESA uses the incident data in the OESR to identify those areas that present the greatest risk
to Ontarians, to track changes in incident data, and to identify emerging trends.
Based on data collected over the past ten years, ESA has identified that over 70% of
all electrical injuries and fatalities occur in four specific areas. These areas have been
identified as priorities for reducing electrical fatalities, serious injuries, damage and
loss in Ontario.
•
•
•
•
1
4
Powerline contact accounted for almost half of all electrical-related fatalities
in the past ten years.
Electrical workers accounted for 14% of all occupational fatalities between 2008
and 2012. There are at least two critical injuries to electricians each year. Safety
incidents tend to be associated with unsafe work practices.
Misuse of electrical products and unapproved or counterfeit products account
for a significant number of safety incidents. More than 900 fires and an average
of six fatalities each year. These fires are mainly caused by the misuse of stove-top
equipment where unattended cooking has resulted in fire fatalities.
Electrical infrastructure fires in buildings, such as detached residential
structures accounted for roughly 750 fires and an average of four fatalities
annually.
The
OFM definition of “distribution equipment” is electrical wiring, devices or equipment, the primary
function of which is to carry current from one location to another. Thus, wiring, extension cords, termination,
electrical panels, cords on appliances, etc. are considered distribution equipment. This is different than
Distribution Equipment as defined by Local Distribution Companies.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
ESA Initiatives
Based on insights from the OESR, ESA introduced a Harm Reduction Strategy in 2010 to
focus on addressing those harms that represent the majority of incidents. ESA is working
towards a goal of a 30% reduction in electrical fatalities between 2010 and 2015. More detail
on ESA efforts can be found at www.esasafe.com.
ESA cannot reach its goal without the significant work and support of many partners and
stakeholders within the electrical safety system. They range from those who generate and
distribute electricity – such as electrical equipment manufacturers, standards
organizations, safety organizations, installers of electrical equipment, educators, facility
owners, injury response and treatment providers, government, researchers and injury
prevention specialists, safety regulators, and worker safety advocates – to those who are
the end users of electricity.
Working together, we seek to reduce the number of electrical fatalities, injuries and fires
with the ultimate vision of ‘Getting to Zero’.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
5
1.0
Purpose of this Report
OUR GOAL
Avoid preventable
injuries of an
electrical nature to
reduce disability,
deaths, lost time
from work, and
health care
demands.
WHO’S AT
RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians
1.0 Purpose of this Report
This is the 12th report on the state of electrical safety in the Province of Ontario.
It is a compilation of statistics on electrical incidents: electrical-related fatalities;
injuries of an electrical nature; and death, injuries, and damage caused by fire
incidents identified by the Office of the Fire Marshal of Ontario and local fire
departments as having “electricity identified as the fuel source”.
The purpose of this report is to provide stakeholders within the broad electrical
safety system with an update on the state of electrical safety in Ontario. Those
stakeholders include:
•
•
•
Purpose of this Report
•
•
•
•
•
1.0
•
1.1
1.2
•
1.3
lectrical utilities and those organizations that generate, transmit and
e
distribute electricity;
organizations that design, manufacture, distribute and supply
electrical products;
electrical contractors who install, repair and maintain electrical wiring
installations and products in our homes, workplaces and public spaces;
regulators and various levels of government that write policies and
regulations to protect public safety;
Canadian and international organizations that develop standards for
electrical installation and products;
academic and commercial organizations that focus on safety research
and development;
various organizations, such as insurance companies, that create policies
that drive organization and consumer behaviour to reduce risk;
health care providers, workplace and community-based safety
organizations, education and training organizations that provide public
communication, increase hazard-mitigation skills and awareness;
consumers who purchase electrical products, and use and rely on
electricity every day in their home, workplaces, and public spaces;
and more.
All of these organizations have a role in improving electrical safety in Ontario.
It is hoped that this Report helps educate and inform members of the electrical
safety system by identifying key electrical safety risks. This information can be used
to develop and improve standards, identify areas for continued safety research,
shape the development of workplace and community-based safety programs, and
lead to improved training, education, and communications programs.
6
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
1.1
Role of The Electrical Safety Authority
1.1 Role of The Electrical Safety Authority
ESA is an Administrative Authority acting on behalf of the Government of Ontario with specific
responsibilities under Part VIII of the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Safety and Consumer Statutes
Administration Act,1996. As part of its mandate, ESA is responsible for administering regulation in
four key areas:
•
•
•
•
Ontario Electrical Safety Code (Regulation 164/99);
Licensing of Electrical Contractors and Master Electricians (Regulation 570/05);
Electrical Distribution Safety (Regulation 22/04); and
Electrical Product Safety (Regulation 438/07).
The following are key findings of the previous edition of this report (to access the full report,
visit www.esasafe.com):
Role of the Electrical Safety Authority
Between 2002 and 2011:
1.0
ESA operates as a private, not-for-profit corporation. Funding derives from fees for safety
oversight, safety services, and licensing of electrical contractors and master electricians.
Activities include:
•
•
•
•
•
ensuring compliance with regulations;
investigating fatalities, injuries and fire losses associated with electricity;
identifying and targeting leading causes of electrical risk;
promoting awareness, education and training on electrical safety;
engaging with stakeholders to improve safety.
1.2 Key Findings of the 11
th
•
•
•
•
Edition of the OESR
There were 144 electrical-related fatalities consisting of:
• 74 electrical-related fatalities; and
• 70 fatalities from fires with electricity identified as the ignition source.
Work-related electrical deaths accounted for 48 (65%) of the 74 electrical-related
fatalities.
With the steady decline of workplace electrical-related fatalities to non-electrical
trade workers, and virtually no change in the yearly deaths of electricians in the
ten-year period, the prevalence of electricians electrocuted on the job increased from
8% between 2000 and 2004 to 20% between 2005 to 2009, as a percentage of all
electrical-related fatalities.
Fires, with electricity identified as the fuel of ignition, decreased by 39% between
2001 and 2010. Both cooking-equipment fires and electrical distribution equipment
fires have declined.
1.1
1.2
1.3
In the five-year period 2007 to 2011:
•
•
•
The rate of electrical-related fatalities per million population was 0.43.
The rate of death by fire where electricity was identified as one of the sources
of ignition was 0.69.
There was a decrease in powerline-related deaths. They accounted for 41% of all
electrical-related fatalities, compared to 36% in the previous five-year period.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
7
1.3
Case Studies
1.3 Case Studies
This report features several case studies of ESA root-cause investigations.
ESA conducts these investigations of select, serious incidents (fatalities, critical injuries
and serious fires), in order to determine the underlying root causes. The learnings from
these investigations help to prevent future incidents and fatalities.
ESA’s investigations go beyond compliance with any code, regulations or standard and
are not limited to electrical safety dimensions, but examine occupational health and
safety and the role of the integrated safety infrastructure.
Root-cause investigations assess both the events leading up to the incident and the
surrounding conditions, and the events or conditions that went wrong and contributed
to the incidents.
The case studies presented have been modified to protect the privacy of the
individuals involved.
Case studies for fire-related incidents are generously provided by the Office of the
Fire Marshal.
Case Studies
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
8
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.0
Electrical-Related Injuries and Fatalities
2.0 Electrical-Related Injuries
OUR GOAL
2.1 Electrocutions and Electrical
Avoid preventable
injuries of an electrical
nature to reduce
disability, deaths, lost
time from work, and
health care utilization.
and Fatalities
Burn Fatalities
WHO’S AT RISK?
Electrocution happens when someone is exposed to a lethal amount
of electrical energy. To figure out how contact with an electrical
source happens, characteristics of that source before the
electrocution (pre-event) must be evaluated.
Electrical-Related Injuries and Fatalities
All 13.5 million
Ontarians.
For death to occur, the human body must become part of an active
electrical circuit with a current that’s capable of over stimulating
the nervous system or causing damage to internal organs. The
extent of injuries depends on the current’s magnitude (measured in
Amps), the path the current takes through the body, and how long it
flows through the body (event). The resulting damage to the human
body and the emergency medical treatment ultimately determine
the outcome of the energy exchange (post-event). (National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, 1991).
Five-year Rolling Average Electrical-Related Fatalities Rate
in Ontario, 2003-2012
1
Fatalities Per Million Population
1.0
2.0
0.9
2.1
0.8
2.2
0.7
2.3
2.4
0.6
2.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
0
Rate
0.93
0.85
0.77
0.74
0.74
0.63
0.61
0.56
0.43
0.38
Conclusion: 48% decrease in the five-year rolling average electrocution and electrical burn
fatalities rate over the last five years.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
9
2.1
Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities
Number of Electrical-Related Fatalities in Ontario, 2003-2012
2
Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities
Number of Fatalities
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Number
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
12
8
9
12
5
6
7
6
4
2
Conclusion: 83% reduction in the number of electrical-related fatalities since 2006.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
Five-year Rolling Average Powerline Electrocution Rate
in Ontario, 2003-2012
3
0.70
Electrocutions
per Million Population
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Rate
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
0.59
0.48
0.40
0.31
0.27
0.21
0.23
0.22
0.15
0.17
Conclusion: 37% decrease in the five-year rolling average rate; 2003-2007 to 2008-2012.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
10
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.1
Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities
Percentage of Electrocution and Electrical Burn Fatalities
by Facility Type in Ontario, 2003-2007 and 2008-2012
4
5%
Residential
Utility
40%
Public
place
35%
Mining
30%
Institution
25%
Industrial
20%
Farm
15%
Commercial
10%
Campground
0%
Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities
Utility
Residential
Public Place
Mining
Institution
Industrial
Farm
Commercial
Campground
2003 – 2007
2.2%
15%
11%
17%
4.3%
0%
15%
30%
4.3%
2008 – 2012
0%
20%
0%
4%
4%
0%
20%
36%
16%
Conclusion: Increase in percentage for utility, residential and commercial facilities.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
Five-year Rolling Average Occupational and Non-Occupational
Electrical-Related Fatality Rate in Ontario, 2003-2012
5
2.0
Fatalities per Million
Labour Force
Fatalities per Million
Population
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
0.00
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
Non-Occupational
0.32
0.27
0.21
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.22
0.20
0.15
0.15
Occupational
1.18
1.10
1.03
0.90
0.96
0.81
0.71
0.65
0.50
0.41
Conclusion: 57% reduction in the five-year rolling average rate for occupational
electrical-related fatalities; 2003-2007 to 2008-2012. 29% reduction in
the five-year rolling average rate for non-occupational electricalrelated fatalities; 2003-2007 to 2008-2012.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
11
2.1
Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities: Summary
2.1 Summary of Statistics
Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities
•
There were 71 electrical-related fatalities reported in Ontario in the ten-year span
between 2003 and 2012, down from 74 in the period between 2002 and 2011.
•
The five-year rolling average electrical-related fatalities rate has decreased 48%
over the last five years. When one compares five-year periods, there were 46
electrical-related fatalities in the 2003 to 2007 period and 25 in the 2008 to 2012
period. This is a difference of 21 electrical-related fatalities.
•
When the 2003 to 2007 and 2008 to 2012 periods are compared, there has been a
37% decrease in the five-year rolling average rate for powerline electrocutions.
•
The sectors that continue to show an increase in proportions are residential,
commercial facilities and utilities.
•
Between 2003 to 2007 and 2008 to 2012, there was a 57% reduction in the five-year
rolling average rate for occupational electrical-related fatalities, and a 29%
reduction in the five-year rolling average rate for non-occupational electricalrelated fatalities.
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
12
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
2.2 Occupational Electrical-Related
Occupational electrical-related fatalities are a significant and ongoing
problem and a particular hazard to those who routinely work near
electrical sources. Studies have shown that the highest proportion of
electrocution deaths is among electricians, utility workers and those
working in construction and manufacturing industries. As well, electricalrelated fatalities are more common among workers who are younger than
the average age of occupational deaths overall. Contact with overhead
powerlines is reportedly by far the most frequent cause of fatal
occupational electrocution injury (Taylor, 2002).
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
OUR GOAL
Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Avoid preventable
injuries of an electrical
nature to reduce
disability, deaths, lost
time from work, and
health care utilization.
WHO’S AT RISK?
All 7.4 million
members of Ontario’s
labour force.
Section 2.5 provides a case study that is representative of the risk factors
associated with electrical-related fatality or electrical injury for electricians.
Number of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities in Ontario, 2003-2012
Number of Fatalities
1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Occupational
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
7
7
7
7
5
2
4
5
2
2
Conclusion: 71% reduction in occupational electrical-related fatalities since 2006.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
13
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Occupational Safety Five-Year Average in Ontario
Five-year Average Number
of Electrical-Related
Fatalities and
Serious Injury
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
2
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
Occupational
Safety Overall
35
32
28
28
24.6
22.2
20.6
15.8
13
Electrical Workers
2.4
4.6
5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6
5.6
5.8
Conclusion: 54% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2003-2007 to 2008-2012.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
Five-year Rolling Average Occupational Electrical-Related Fatality Rate
in Ontario, 2003-2012
3
Fatalities per Million
Workforce
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Occupational
Electrocutions
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
1.18
1.10
1.03
0.91
0.96
0.81
0.71
0.65
0.50
0.41
Conclusion: The five-year rolling average occupational electrocution rate has decreased
65% over the last ten years.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
14
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Percentage of Electrical-Related Fatalities by Facility Type in Ontario,
2003-2007 and 2008-2012
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
4
Campground
Commercial
Farm
Industrial
Institution
Mining
Public place
Residential
Utility
0
5
Institution
Mining
Public
place
Residential
Utility
30
Industrial
25
Farm
20
Commercial
15
Campground
10
2008 – 2012
0%
27%
0%
6.7%
6.7%
0%
27%
27%
6.7%
2003 – 2007
0%
15%
4.2%
19%
4.2%
0%
10%
13%
4.2%
Conclusion: Increase in percentage for utility, residential, and commercial facilities.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
5
Percentage of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities
by Type of Work in Ontario, 2003-2007 and 2008-2012
Construction
Delivery
Disassembling
Farming
Installation
Moving
Other
Production
Repair/Maintenance
Utility
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Other
Production
Repair/
maint
Utility
60%
Moving
50%
Installation
40%
Farming
30%
Disassembling
20%
Delivery
10%
Construction
0%
2003 – 2007
30%
0%
3.0%
6.1%
0%
3.0%
0%
3.0%
55%
0%
2008 – 2012
20%
6.7%
0%
0%
6.7%
0%
6.7%
0%
33%
27%
Conclusion: Increase in percentage for utility, other, installation, and delivery.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
15
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
6
Probable Cause of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities
in Ontario, 2003-2012
Faulty Equipment
Human Error
Lack of Maintenance
Aging Equipment
Poor Design
Improper Procedure
Other/Unknown
0%
10%
20%
Faulty
Equipment
Human
Error
2.1%
6.3%
Probable Cause
of Fatalities
30%
40%
Lack of
Aging
Maintenance Equipment
2.1%
2.1%
50%
60%
70%
Poor
Design
Improper
Procedure
Other/
Unknown
2.1%
62.5%
22.8%
Conclusion: More than 60% are possibly due to improper procedures.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
7
Percentage of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities
by Occupation in Ontario, 2003-2007 and 2008-2012
2.0
Apprentice Electrician
2.1
2.2
Electrician
2.3
2.4
Power Lineperson
2.5
Other Trades
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Apprentice
Electrician
Electrician
Power
Lineperson
Other
Trades
2003-2007
6%
18%
6%
70%
2008-2012
0%
13%
13%
74%
Conclusion: No change in electrocution percentage for all electrical
trades people.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
16
70%
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
80%
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Number of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities by Occupation
in Ontario, 2003-2012
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Apprentice Electrician
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Electrician
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
Power Lineperson
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Total Electrical Trade
2
2
3
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
Other Trades
5
5
4
6
3
1
4
4
1
1
2.0
Number of Electrical-Related Fatalities
2003
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
8
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2.1
Occupational
Electrocution
7
7
7
7
5
2
4
5
2
2.2
2
2.3
2.4
Conclusion: In the last ten years, 29% of occupational electrical-related fatalities were by
electrical trades people.
2.5
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
17
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Number of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims
in Ontario by Sex, 2003-2012
9
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Number of Claims
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Female
30
43
44
36
31
31
20
25
17
17
Male
122
131
108
137
99
74
76
63
53
62
Conclusion: 77% of claims are made by males.
Source: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Number of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims
in Ontario by Sector, 2003-2012
Number of Claims
10
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Construction
Manufacturing
Government/
Municipalities
Health Care
Automotive
Transportation
Electrical
Chemical/
Process
Food
Steel
Agriculture
Mining
Pulp & Paper
Education
Forestry
Number of Allowed
Lost Time Claims
Services
0
294
247
222
126
61
50
47
45
39
28
20
17
10
5
5
3
Conclusion: 24%, 20%, and 18% of claims occur in the services, construction, and
manufacturing sector, respectively.
Source: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
18
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Number of Claims
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
Number of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims
in Ontario by Top Ten Sources, 2002-2011
11
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Heating, cooling
and cleaning
machinery
Fire, flame and
smoke
Metal woodworking
and plastic, rubber,
concrete and other
processing
Miscellaneous
machinery
Hand tools,
powered
Furniture and
fixtures
Special process
machinery
Machinery,
unspecified, NEC
Steam, vapour,
liquids
Total
Number of Allowed
Lost Time Claims
Mechanical tool
and electric parts
0
564
111
53
52
51
43
32
31
26
24
1219
Conclusion: 46% of claims are sourced to machine tool and electrical parts.
Source: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Bird Triangle of Electrical Injury, Critical Injury and Fatality 2003 to 2012
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
1 Death
2.4
2.5
4 Critical Injuries
20 Non-critical Injuries
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
19
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries: Summary
Number and Percent of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims
in Ontario by Nature of Injury, 2003-2012
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
12
Percent Claims
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003 – 2007
2008 – 2012
2003 – 2012
Burns (electrical)
356
170
526
Electrocutions,
electric shocks
425
268
693
Conclusion: Claims for electric shock represented 57% of claims over the last ten years.
Source: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
2.2 Summary of Statistics
In the 2003 to 2012 period, there was a total of 48 occupational electrical-related fatalities
(an average of 4.8 electrical-related fatalities per year) compared to 49 electrical-related
fatalities from 2002 to 2011 (an average of 4.9 electrical-related fatalities per year).
2.0
2.1
With the exception of 2008, occupational electrical-related fatalities outnumbered nonoccupational electrical-related fatalities. Since 2006, there has been a 71% reduction in
the number of occupational electrical-related fatalities.
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Statistics Directly Related to Harm Reduction Priorities –
Worker Safety
Five-year Rolling Averages Compared
Number of worker-related electrical fatalities and critical injuries – based on data reported by
the Ministry of Labour, incidents investigated by ESA, confirmed with the Coroner’s
office report.
54% decrease in the five-year rolling average;
2003-2007 to 2008-2012.
20
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.2
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries: Summary
Comparing two five-year periods, the occupational electrocution rate dropped from
0.96 in 2003 to 2007, to 0.41 in 2008 to 2012. This was a 57% reduction.
•
The five-year rolling occupational electrocution rate has decreased from 1.18 to
0.41 over the past ten years. This was a 65% decrease.
•
Over the past ten years, occupational electrical-related fatalities occurred most
frequently in residential facilities, public places, and commercial facilities.
•
Over the five-year periods 2003 to 2007, and 2008 to 2012, the percentage of
occupational electrical-related fatalities for utility, residential, and commercial
facilities has increased.
•
Over 60% of the probable causes of occupational electrical-related fatalities were
because of improper procedure. This percentage increases to 69% when combined
with human error factors.
•
In the 2003 to 2012 period, electrical tradespeople accounted for 29% of all
electrical-related fatalities in the workplace. This percentage is the same as the
2002 to 2011 period.
•
When reviewing the data by sectors (as classified by the WSIB), the service sector
has the most electrical injuries with construction and manufacturing as the second
and third most common. 62% of claims occur in these three sectors.
•
Machine tool and electric parts are the most common source of injury.
•
Statistics from the WSIB confirm the danger of electricity. Electrical burns
represent 43% of electrical injury claims while electrocutions/electric shock
comprise the remaining 57%.
Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries
•
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
21
2.3
Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries
2.3 Non-Occupational Electrical-
OUR GOAL
Related Fatalities and Injuries
Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries
Avoid preventable injuries
of an electrical nature to
reduce disability, deaths,
lost time from work, and
health care utilization.
Injuries are a significant health problem. They are the leading cause of
death for young people, and contribute substantially to the burden on
the health care system. Many injuries are predictable and preventable.
WHO’S AT RISK?
All 13.5 million Ontarians.
Number of Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities
in Ontario, 2003 to 2012
Number of Electrical-Related Fatalities
1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Non-Occupational
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
5
1
2
5
0
4
3
1
2
0
Conclusion: 1 00% reduction in non-occupational electrical-related fatalities since 2007.
No recorded non-occupational electrical-related fatalities in 2012.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
22
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.3
Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries
Five-year Rolling Average Non-Occupational Electrical-Related
Fatality Rate in Ontario, 2003-2012
0.35
Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries
Electrical-Related Fatalities
per Million Population
2
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Non-Occupational
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
0.32
0.27
0.21
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.22
0.20
0.15
0.15
Conclusion: 53% reduction in non-occupational electrocution five-year rolling average rate
over last ten years.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
Percentage of Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities
by Facility Type in Ontario, 2003-2012
3
100%
2.0
90%
2.1
Percentage
80%
2.2
70%
2.3
60%
2.4
50%
2.5
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Facility
Campground
Farm
Public Place
Residential
Utility
4%
9%
17%
53%
17%
Conclusion: 52% of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities occur
at residential-type facilities.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
23
Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries: Summary
Percentage of Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities
by Type of Activity in Ontario, 2003-2012
Other
Recreation
Repair/
Maintenance
Theft
Vehicle
Type of Activity
Not Available
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lawn Cutting
Percentage
Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries
100%
90%
80%
70%
Installation
4
Construction
2.3
4%
4%
9%
9%
4%
22%
22%
22%
4%
Conclusion: 66% of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities occur during
recreation, theft, or repair/maintenance activities.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2.3 Summary of Statistics
2.0
2.1
•
Between 2003 and 2012, there were 23 non-occupational electrical-related
fatalities (an average of 2.3 electrical-related fatalities per year) compared to
25 electrical-related fatalities between 2002 and 2011 (an average of 2.5
electrical-related fatalities per year.) With the exception of 2008, non-occupational
electrical-related fatalities outnumbered occupational electrical-related fatalities.
Since 2006, the number of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities has
reduced by 100%; for the first time since 2007 there were no non-occupational
electrical-related fatalities.
•
Looking at the rate of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities per million
population, the rolling five-year averages show a decline from 0.32 to 0.15.
This is a 53% reduction over the last ten years.
•
Public places, utility, and residential facilities are the most common locations
for non-occupational electrical-related fatalities, with close to 70% of
non-occupational electrical-related fatalities occurring at these facilities.
•
44% of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities happen during recreation
and repair and maintenance activities.
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
24
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.4
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario
2.4 Electrical Injury and Emergency
OUR GOAL
Department Visits in Ontario, 2002-2011
How electricity causes injury varies depending on the magnitude of the
current, how it’s transmitted (direct or indirect), where it enters and leaves
the body, the path the current takes through the body and the surrounding
environmental conditions (e.g. wet or dry environment) (Duff & McCaffrey
2001).
Exposure to electricity can result in a range of injuries. For example, it can
lead to cardiovascular system injuries (e.g. rhythm disturbances), cutaneous
injuries and burns, nervous system disruption, and respiratory arrest, as
well as head injuries, and fractures and dislocations (caused by being
‘thrown’ or ‘knocked down’ from the severe muscle contractions induced
by the current) (Duff & McCaffrey 2001; Koumbourlis 2002).
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario
Avoid preventable
injuries of an
electrical nature
to reduce
disability, deaths,
lost time from
work, and health
care utilization.
WHO’S AT
RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians
Number of Emergency Department Visits by Sex for Electrical
Injury
1
2500
2000
Number of Visits
1500
2.0
2.1
1000
2.2
2.3
2.4
500
2.5
0
Female
Male
Total
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
513
498
597
619
580
538
597
532
582
314
1099
1196
1260
1546
1483
1254
1188
1142
1164
665
1612
1694
1857
2165
2063
1792
1785
1674
1746
979
Conclusion: The number of emergency department visits for electrical injuries
has decreased in the last five years.
Source: Ambulatory All Visit Main Table (NACRS, CIHI), Intellihealth, MOHLTC
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
25
2.4
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario
Number of Emergency Department Visits for Electrical Injury
by Age and Sex
2
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario
Number of Visits
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
00 – 05 – 10 – 15 – 20 – 25 – 30 – 35 – 40 – 45 – 50 – 55 – 60 – 65 – 70 – 75 – 80 –
85+
04 09 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84
Female 357 206 247 559 803 742 638 446 414 352 252 151
86
26 40 21
70 68 35
Total 816 430 534 1345 2477 2373 2126 1837 1807 1399 959 644 301 96 108 56
Male 459 224 287 786 1674 1631 1488 1391 1393 1047 707 493 215
18
21
39
12
8
20
Conclusion: 28% of all visits (4,592) were reported for people between the ages of 20 and 29.
18% of all visits (2,934) were reported for people under the age of 20.
Source: Ambulatory All Visit Main Table (NACRS, CIHI), Intellihealth, MOHLTC
Location of Burns Associated with Electrical Injury
3
2000
Number of Visits
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
1500
1000
500
Burn of Trunk
Burn of
Shoulder and
Upper Limb,
Except Wrist
and Hand
Burn of Wrist
and Hand
Burn of Hip
and Lower
Limb, Except
Ankle and
Foot
Burn of Ankle
and Foot
Burn of Eye
and Adnexa
Burn of Other
Internal
Organs
Total
Burn of Head
and Neck
0
147
51
168
1548
40
45
67
124
Conclusion: Of the cases where the principal diagnosis was a burn, the majority
1,406 or 71%) were of the wrist and hand.
Source: Ambulatory All Visit Main Table (NACRS, CIHI), Intellihealth, MOHLTC
26
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.4
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario
Primary Diagnosis of Emergency Department Visits
for Electrical Injury
4
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario
Number of Visits
15000
12500
10000
75000
5000
2500
0
Effects of Electric
Current (T75.4)
Effects of Lightning
(T75.0)
Burns
(T20-T31)
Other
Diagnoses
12669
699
2158
1841
Total
Conclusion: 73% of all cases had a principal diagnosis of effects of electric current, and
an additional 12% of cases had a principal diagnosis of burns.
Source: Ambulatory All Visit Main Table (NACRS, CIHI), Intellihealth, MOHLTC
Number of Emergency Department Visits for Electrical Injury
by Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) levels
Number of Visits
5
2500
2.0
2000
2.1
1500
2.2
1000
2.3
500
2.4
0
Resuscitation/
Life Threatening
Emergent/Potentially
Life-Threatening
Urgent/
Potentially Serious
Less-Urgent/
Semi-Urgent
Non-Urgent
Total
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
19
29
30
28
35
42
26
35
27
18
372
422
556
688
676
562
617
596
641
393
766
794
844
981
938
800
790
682
726
404
391
375
368
430
370
340
327
338
321
149
64
1612
74
1694
59
1857
38
2165
44
2063
48
1792
25
1785
23
1674
19
1734
10
974
2.5
Conclusion: 78% of all visits (12,722) were classified on the Canadian Triage and
Acuity Scale (CTAS) at levels 1-3 (Resuscitation, Emergent, or
Urgent).
Source: Ambulatory All Visit Main Table (NACRS, CIHI), Intellihealth, MOHLTC
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
27
2.4
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario: Summary
Place Where Electrical Injury Occurred
6
Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario
4000
Number of
Events
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Home
Industrial and
Construction Area
Residential
Institution
School, Other
Institution and
Public Area
Sports and
Athletics Area
Street and
Highway
Trade and
Service area
Other
Specified Place
of Occurrence
Unspecified Place
of Occurrence
Total
Farm
0
65
1702
1455
54
316
40
56
1090
680
3765
Conclusion: Electrical injuries were found to occur at the home (1,702 or 18%),
at industrial and construction areas (1,455 or 16%), and trade and
service areas (1,090 or 12%).
Source: Ambulatory All Visit Main Table (NACRS, CIHI), Intellihealth, MOHLTC
2.4 Summary of Statistics
2.0
2.1
•
From 2002 to 2011, approximately 17,367 visits to Ontario hospitals’ Emergency
Departments were because of an electrical injury. The number has decreased between
2007 and 2011.
•
Men visited Emergency Departments more than twice as often as women (11,997 or 69%
vs. 5,370 or 31%).
•
28% of all visits (4,850) were by people between the ages of 20 and 29. And, 18% of all
visits (3,125) were by people under 20 years old. This pattern is observed for both males
and females.
•
83% of all Emergency Departments visits (13,537) were classified as Canadian Triage
and Acuity Scale (CTAS) levels 1-3 (Resuscitation, Emergent, and Urgent).
•
In 73% of all cases, the principal diagnosis was the effects of electric current and in 4%
of cases the principal diagnosis was effects of lightning. Burns were the principal
diagnosis in an additional 12% of cases.
•
In cases where a place of occurrence code was provided, the most common was in the
home (18%), followed by industrial and construction locations (15%), and trade and
service areas (12%).
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
28
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2.5
Case Study
2.5 Case Study: Electrical Worker
An electrician was modifying an electrical circuit in a ceiling space at an educational
facility. To perform this task, he de-energized the specific circuit but left the other circuits
in the same junction box energized. While making the wiring modifications, his right thumb
and baby finger touched an energized conductor and he received a shock of non-critical
nature.
This job required modifying the control of lighting in the ‘lock down room’ (Figure 1) in the
daycare area of the educational facility. The lighting was on a motion sensor (Figure 2) which
turned the lights off when there was no motion in the daycare after a certain period of time.
The educational facility wanted the fluorescent light in the lock down room to run using the
manual light switch rather than the motion sensor.
Case Study
2.0
2.1
2.2
Figure 1: Light in the lock down room
Figure 2: Motion sensor
2.3
2.4
2.5
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
29
2.5
Case Study
2.5 Case Study: Electrical Worker (continued)
The electrician was employed by the educational facility. He went to the daycare, verified the
installation, identified the work to be done and began the modification. When he attempted
to put marettes on the last loose wires, he received a sudden electric shock.
The electrician stopped and stepped down the ladder to regain his composure. After a short
time, he climbed back up the ladder and saw more wires without marettes. The electrician
attached marettes to those wires. He went to the mechanical room and turned the breaker
on to verify that the light in the lock down room worked separately and that the motion
sensor worked for the rest of the daycare area.
The electrician then drove to the hospital where he was checked out and released the
same day.
Further investigation revealed the following:
•
•
Case Study
•
•
2.0
2.1
2.2
Safe work procedures as required by the employer’s safety policy were not
followed by the worker in the past. The investigation revealed that this was not
the first time the worker had disregarded work procedures. The safe work
procedures included using personal protective equipment and lock out.
The process to deal with workers who did not follow safe work procedures did
not change the worker’s unsafe behaviour. Despite repeated warnings from his
employer the worker continued to place himself and his employer at risk.
Electrical safety training did not change the unsafe behaviour of the worker.
The employer, invested in electrical safety training for the crew, which included the
hazards of working energized without proper protection. Again, this failed to
change this worker’s unsafe behaviour.
No audits of safe work procedures to assess whether they were followed were
conducted. Despite having a safety policy, safety procedures and training; the
employer did not conduct audits to determine if the safety procedures were
followed and if the investment in training was ineffective.
2.3
2.4
2.5
Safe work procedures as required
by the employer’s
safety policy were
not followed by the
worker in the past
30
The process to deal
with workers who
did not follow safe
work procedures did
not change worker
unsafe behaviour
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
Electrical
safety training did not
change worker unsafe
behaviour
No audits of safe
work procedure –
to assess whether
they were followed
– were conducted
Victim
received
a shock
3.0
Utility-Related Equipment
3.0 U tility-Related Equipment
2
OUR GOAL
Avoid preventable injuries
of an electrical nature to
reduce disability, deaths,
lost time from work, and
health care utilization.
High voltage and distribution lines carry a lot of energy or power
and if not treated with respect can be fatal. Electrical substations
and transformers are fenced and covered to keep the public away
from potential electrical shock hazards.
WHO’S AT RISK?
All 13.5 million Ontarians.
1
Number of Utility-Related Equipment Electrocutions in Ontario, 2003-2012
Utility-Related Equipment
Number of Electrocutions
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
3.0
3.1
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total Electrical-Related Fatalities in Ontario
12
8
9
12
5
6
7
6
4
2
All Utility EquipmentRelated Electrocutions
6
2
4
5
2
3
5
4
2
2
Powerline
Electrocutions
6
2
3
5
1
2
4
2
1
2
Conclusion: Over the past ten years, utility-related equipment accounted for 49% of all
electrical-related fatalities.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2
tility-related equipment means electrical equipment and devices used by Local Utility Company (or privately owned comU
pany) to distribute electricity to facilities or buildings. Examples of such equipment are; overhead or underground powerline
(including equipment on utility poles), substation, electrical vaults, high voltage switchgear or transformer.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
31
3.0
Utility-Related Equipment
Five-year Rolling Average Powerline Electrocution Rate
in Ontario, 2003-2012
2
Electrocutions per Million
Population
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Utility-Related Equipment
Rate
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
2008 –
2012
0.59
0.49
0.40
0.31
0.27
0.21
0.23
0.22
0.15
0.17
Conclusion: Over the past ten years, the five-year rolling average for powerline
electrocution rate has decreased by 71%.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
Powerline Safety Five-Year Average
3
Five-year Average Number
of Overhead Powerline
Contacts
3.0
3.1
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Powerline Safety
Overall
2003 – 2007
2004 – 2008
2005 – 2009
2006 – 2010
2007 – 2011
2008 – 2012
155
160
169
156
145
130
Conclusion: Powerline Safety Five-Year Average has decreased 16% between 2003 to 2007
and 2008 to 2012.
Source: ESA records
32
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
3.0
Utility-Related Equipment
Number of Electrical Incidents by Event in Ontario, 2003-2012
Number of Incidents
4
250
200
150
100
50
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Overhead
Powerline Contact
106
101
173
169
208
134
132
112
118
148
Underground
Powerline Contact
48
77
91
89
144
90
42
52
45
60
Vaults, Substations
and Padmounts
0
0
14
1
12
11
6
3
3
0
Utility-Related Equipment
2003
Conclusion: From the highest levels in 2007, overhead powerline contacts are
down 29% and underground powerline contacts are down 58%.
Source: ESA records
Number of Utility-Related Electrical Incidents by Outcome
in Ontario, 2003-2012
Number of Events
5
60
3.0
50
3.1
40
30
20
10
0
Critical Injury
Fatality
Non-Critical Injury
Property Damage
Unknown
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
10
6
7
19
0
7
2
1
25
0
9
5
12
54
0
12
5
7
41
0
5
1
29
58
0
3
3
12
9
0
7
3
17
1
3
4
3
7
0
0
2
2
16
0
1
0
2
19
0
0
Conclusion: Most types of injuries have decreased over the last ten years.
Source: ESA and Coroner’s records
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
33
3.0
Utility-Related Equipment: Summary
3.0 Summary of Statistics
•
From 2002 to 2012, there were 35 electrical-related fatalities associated with utilityrelated equipment, which is 49% of the total electrical fatalities in Ontario in that
period. This number has decreased by three deaths when compared to the previous
ten-year period (2002 to 2011).
•
Contact specifically with powerlines accounted for 28 of the electrical-related
fatalities in the latest ten-year period which is the majority (80%) of utility-related
equipment deaths.
•
Over the past ten years, the five-year rolling average for powerline electrocution rate
has decreased by 71%.
Utility-Related Equipment
Statistics Directly Related to Harm Strategy Priority –
Powerline Contact
Five-year Rolling Averages Compared
The statistics below represent the number of worker and non-worker powerline-related
contact incidents: Worker data reported by the MOL; Non-worker incidents based on data
reported to ESA.
The Powerline Safety Five-Year Average has
decreased by 16% between 2003 to 2007 and
2008 to 2012.
3.0
3.1
3
34
•
Although still the number one and number two sources of electrical incidents by
events, overhead powerline contacts have decreased by 29%, and underground
powerline contacts have decreased by 58% since the highest numbers in 20073.
However, the number of reported overhead powerline contacts has increased by 25%,
and the number of reported underground powerline contacts has increased 33%
compared to last year.
•
Most types of injuries as a result of powerline and utility-related equipment have
decreased over the last ten years.
Caution must be taken when interpreting these statistics as undercounting may occur.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
3.1
Case Study
3.1 Case Study: Powerline Contact
A worker received a fatal shock when the precast concrete load he was guiding became
energized as a result of the wire rope from the boom truck coming into contact with an
energized overhead powerline. The fatality occurred during a road reconstruction project.
A road rebuilding project included excavation of the existing road, replacing the sewer
system which included manholes and catch basins and repaving the roads (Figure 1). The
incident occurred at the beginning stage of the project, where a precast concrete company
was making a delivery with a boom truck at the site. With no designated area for unloading,
the boom truck operator set his truck randomly at the jobsite and began unloading with the
help of two workers from the road building contractor; one worker was at the flatbed of the
truck, and the other, the victim, was on the ground. The crew unloaded four precast
concrete without incident. As the boom truck operator manoeuvered the fifth load towards
the ground, the victim helped guide the load by grabbing one of the legs of the sling
suspending the load. The wire rope then made contact with the powerline and the worker
received a severe shock and fell to the ground convulsing. The boom truck operator then
guided the boom rope away from the powerline. Another worker rushed to the injured
worker and performed CPR while the boom truck operator called 911. Rescue personnel
transported the injured worker to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.
Further investigation revealed the following:
•
No designated drop zone on site. One purpose for designating a drop zone for
material is to ensure safety, namely to minimize reversing vehicles and to avoid
powerline contact. This site did not have a designated drop zone which resulted in
material being dropped in the vicinity of an overhead powerline.
Safety policy and procedure were not followed, no signaller was used. Despite
their awareness of the presence of the overhead powerline (one of the road crew
actually posted the danger overhead poster earlier in the day), all workers from the
two separate employers did not follow their safety work procedure. All knew that a
signaller was required when working in the vicinity of the powerline, and yet, no one
took the role of a signaller to ensure that any part of the crane did not come close to
Case Study
•
3.0
3.1
Figure 1: “Danger Overhead Wires” signs posted and barrier blocking traffic.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
35
3.1
Case Study: Utility-Related Equipment
3.1 Case Study (continued)
Figure 2: Post-incident hazard
the powerline that would jeopardize the safety
of the workers. In addition, the precast supplier
had a safety policy that prohibited any other
company to board the flatbed truck. In the
investigation, it was revealed that the boom
truck operator’s view might have been
obstructed by the worker standing in front of
him on the flatbed.
Post Incident Hazard (Figure 2)
Rescue and investigation personnel attending the
scene were unaware that the boom’s wire rope was
less than the required minimum distance to the
energized powerline. The potential for more injuries
or fatalities was still present placing rescue and
investigation personnel in a hazardous situation.
Case Study
3.0
3.1
No designated drop
zone on site
36
Safety policy and
procedure were not
followed, no signaller
was used
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
Victim
was
electrocuted
Rescue and
Emergency
personnel
assisted while
hazard present
4.0
Overview of Fires in Ontario
4.0 Overview of Fires in Ontario
OUR GOAL
Avoid preventable
injuries of an electrical
nature to reduce
disability, deaths, lost
time from work, and
health care utilization.
Fire remains a significant threat to life and property in urban
and rural areas. In 2002 (the latest available nationwide data in
Canada), a total of 53,589 fires were reported in Canada. This
number includes 304 fire deaths, 2,547 fire injuries, and billions of
dollars in property losses. Structural fires, especially residential
fires, remain a critical concern. The large number of electrical
incidents and the associated dollar loss, as well as the number of
“deliberate fires” and the associated dollar loss, are the two other
areas of major concern (Asgary, Ghaffari, & Levy, 2010).
WHO’S AT RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians.
Overview of Fires in Ontario
Loss Fires in Ontario, 2007-2011
1
Number of Loss Fires
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
4.0
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Structure Loss
8911
8098
8286
8037
7522
Residential Loss
6346
5837
5914
5834
5400
All Loss
14310
13151
12945
12849
11501
Electricity is Identified
as One of the
Ignition Sources
2757
2634
2220
2175
1965
Stove-top Fires
814
818
747
750
627
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Conclusion: 20% decrease in all loss fires. 16% decrease in structural-loss fires.
15% decrease in residential loss fires.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario Loss Fires 2007 to 2011
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
37
4.0
Overview of Fires in Ontario
Ignition Source for Structure Loss Fires in Ontario, 2007-2011
2
Percent
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Heating and
Cooling
17%
9%
9%
1%
2%
1%
Other Electrical
or Mechanical
Electrical Wiring
7%
Other Open
Flame Tools
Cooking
2%
Undetermined
Cigarettes
11%
Miscellaneous
Candles
4%
Matches or
Lighters
Lighting
(excluding
Candles
Processing
Equipment
Arson
Overview of Fires in Ontario
Percent
Appliances
0%
10%
20%
4%
3%
Conclusion: Most common ignition sources: Cooking 17%, Arson 11%,
Electrical wiring 9%, Heating and cooling 9%, Cigarettes 7%, Appliances 4%.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario Loss Fires 2007 to 2011
3
4.0
Five-year Average Number of Structure Loss Fires
by Ignition Source in Ontario, 2002-2006 and 2007-2011
Cooking
4.1
Heating, Cooling
4.2
4.3
Electrical Wiring,
Outlets, etc.
Cigarettes
4.4
4.5
Appliances
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Cooking
Heating,
Cooling
Electrical Wiring,
Outlets, etc.
Cigarettes
Appliances
2002 – 2006
1535
924
847
549
399
2007 – 2011
1410
730
740
548
365
Conclusion: 8% decrease for cooking. 21% decrease for heating, cooling. 13% decrease
for electrical wiring. 9% decrease for appliances.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario Loss Fires 2002 to 2011
38
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
1800
4.0
Overview of Fires in Ontario
Percentage of Structure Loss Fires Fuelled in Part
by an Electrical Ignition Source in Ontario, 2007-2011
4
40%
Percent
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Cooking
Equipment
Electrical
Distribution
Equipment
Exposure
Heating
Equipment,
Chimney, etc.
Lighting
Equipment
Miscellaneous
Open Flame
Tools, Smokers’
Articles
Other Electrical,
Mechanical
Processing
Equipment
Undetermined,
Unknown, Not
Reported
11%
40%
30%
0.1%
4.2%
5.6%
1.5%
0.6%
5.5%
0.7%
0.8%
Overview of Fires in Ontario
Percent
Appliances
5%
0%
Conclusion: Most common ignition sources: Cooking equipment 40%,
Electrical distribution equipment 30%, Appliances 11%.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2000-2011 Data
Electrical Product Fires Five-Year Average
Five-year Average
Number of ElectricalRelated Product Fires
5
2500
2000
4.0
1500
4.1
1000
4.2
500
4.3
4.4
0
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
Appliances
389
361
340
332
329
321
311
293
264
Cooking Equipment
1410
1298
1209
1200
1167
1145
1126
1089
996
Lighting Equipment
218
214
217
219
221
215
199
167
145
Other Electrical, Mechanical
170
169
181
185
193
189
179
162
143
Processing Equipment
53
47
45
42
43
40
37
30
25
2203
2090
1992
1979
1952
1910
1853
1739
1574
Product Safety Overall
4.5
Conclusion: 21% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2002-2006 to 2007-2011.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2000-2011 Data
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
39
4.0
Overview of Fires in Ontario: Summary
4.0 Summary of Statistics
•
•
•
•
Ontario reported 40,854 structural-loss fires (fires resulting in an injury, fatality, or dollars
lost) in the span between 2007 and 2011. This number is down from 41,700 in the period
between 2006 to 2010.
Residential loss fires account for 72% of the structural-loss fires in Ontario from 2007 to 2011.
Stove-top fires account for about 10% of structural-loss fires.
Since 2007 there has been a 20% decrease in all loss fires, a 16% decrease in structural-loss
fires, and a 15% decrease in residential loss fires.
For the period between 2007 and 2011, the Office of the Ontario Fire Marshal identified the
following as the most common ignition sources for all structural-loss fires:
Overview of Fires in Ontario
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comparing the two periods (2002 to 2006 and 2007 to 2011) for the average number of structure
loss fires per year by ignition source, there was an 8% decrease for cooking, 21% decrease for
heating/cooling, 13% decrease for electrical wiring, and a 9% decrease for appliances.
•
When structural-loss fires were restricted to those with electricity as the identified fuel source,
but not necessarily the primary fuel energy source, the most common electrical-related
products involved were:
•
•
•
4.0
4.1
Cooking 17%
Arson 11%
Electrical wiring 9%
Heating and cooling 9%
Cigarettes 7%
Appliances 4%
Cooking equipment 40%
Electrical distribution equipment 30%
Appliances 11%
4.2
4.3
Statistics Directly Related to Harm Reduction Priorities –
Product Safety
4.4
4.5
In electrical-related product fires – involving appliances, cooking equipment, lighting equipment,
other electrical and mechanical equipment and processing equipment – there was a 21%
decrease in the five-year rolling average (2002 to 2006 vs. 2007 to 2011) based on data
reported to the Office of the Fire Marshal (where fuel energy was identified as electricity).
40
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.1
Fires Resulting in Fatalities
4.1 Fires Resulting in Fatalities
OUR GOAL
Avoid preventable
injuries of an
electrical nature
to reduce
disability, deaths,
lost time from
work, and health
care utilization.
Fires are a threat to public safety in terms of potential death, injury, and financial
costs. In Canada in 2002, there were 53,589 fires, including 304 fire deaths,
accounting for $1,489,012,263 in property losses. Most commonly (41%), these
fires involved residential properties (Council of Canadian Fire Marshals, 2002).
The frequency of residential fires is concerning because they are the most
common source of fire-related death (Miller, 2005). Specifically, in 2002, 82% of
the 304 Canadians who died in a fire, died in a residential fire. (Council of
Canadian Fire Marshals, 2002). Similarly, 80% of Americans who died in a fire in
2006, died in a residence (Karter, 2007). In the early 1990s, residential fires
caused the deaths of between 4,000 to 5,000 Americans and injured an additional
20,000 each year (Baker and Adams, 1993).
WHO’S AT
RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians
Fires Resulting in Fatalities
Fire Death Rate in Ontario: All Fatalities
Deaths per Million Population
1
20
15
4.0
4.1
10
4.2
4.3
5
4.4
4.5
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
7
8.9
7.9
6.9
6.4
7.2
7.7
7.4
6.1
6.7
Ontario Population
in Millions
12.1
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.7
12.8
12.9
13.1
13.2
12.9*
All Fire Fatalities
85
110
98
86
81
92
99
97
80
87
Fire Death Rate
Conclusion: 4% decrease in death rate in all fatalities.
Source: The Office of the Fire Marshal investigates fatal fires in Ontario. Revised: October 2011
*indicates preliminary data subject to change
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
41
4.1
Fires Resulting in Fatalities
Fire Death Rate in Ontario: Structure Fires
2
Deaths per Million
Population
20
15
10
5
0
Fires Resulting in Fatalities
Fire Death Rate
Structure Fires
Ontario Population
in Millions
Fatalities in
Structure Fires
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
6.5
8.1
6.9
6.3
5.9
6.6
6.8
6.3
5.4
6.3
12.1
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.7
12.8
12.9
13.1
13.2
12.9*
79
100
86
79
75
84
88
83
71
81
Conclusion: 3% decrease in death rate structure fires.
Source: The Office of the Fire Marshal investigates fatal fires in Ontario. Revised: October 2011
*indicates preliminary data subject to change
Fire Death Rate in Ontario: Electricity as Ignition Source
3
20
Deaths
per Million
Population
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
15
10
5
0
4.5
Fire Death Rate
Electricity as Fuel
Fires
Ontario Population
in Millions
Fatalities in Electricity
as Fuel Fires
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0.33
0.57
0.08
0.80
0.47
0.70
0.78
0.61
0.76
0.39
12.1
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.7
12.8
12.9
13.1
13.2
12.9*
4
7
1
10
6
9
10
8
10
5
Conclusion: 18% increase in death rate with electricity as ignition source.
Source: The Office of the Fire Marshal investigates fatal fires in Ontario. Revised: October 2011
*indicates preliminary data subject to change
42
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.1
Fires Resulting in Fatalities
Cause Classification
for All Fire Fatalities and Fatalities
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Where Electricity is Fuel of Fire, 2002-2011
4
80%
90%
100%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Undetermined
Under Investigation
Intentional
Unintentional/
Preventable
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Under Investigation
Intentional
Unintentional/
Preventable
Fatalities in Electricity
as Fuel Fires
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
97.2%
All Fire Fatalities
31.0%
2.0%
16.0%
51.0%
Fires Resulting in Fatalities
Undetermined
Conclusion: 97% of fires identified with electricity as fuel are considered unintentional
or preventable.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
Percentage of Fatalities for Fires Fuelled at Least by Electricity
by Ignition Source, 2002-2011
5
Percentage
35.0%
4.0
30.0%
4.1
25.0%
20.0%
4.2
15.0%
4.3
10.0%
4.4
5.0%
4.5
Ignition
Source %
8% 14% 3% 6% 1% 0% 7% 3% 1% 6% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3% 31% 1%
1%
Water Heater
Other Electrical
Distribution Items
Other Heating
Equipment
Other Lighting
Equipment
Space Heater –
Portable
Stove, Range-top
Burner
Television, Radio,
Stereo, Tape
Terminations (incl.
receptacles,switches,
lights) – Copper
Other Electrical
Meter
Other Cooking Items
(e.g. toaster)
Deep Fat Fryer
Electric Blanket,
Heating Pad
Extension Cord,
Temporary Wire
Incandescent
Lamp – Light Bulb
Cord, Cable for
Appliances
Clothes Dryer
Circuit Wiring –
Aluminum
Circuit Wiring –
Copper
0.0%
0%
Conclusion: Stove or range-top burners account for 31% of fire fatalities fuelled at
least by electricity.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
43
4.1
Fires Resulting in Fatalities: Summary
Electrical
Wiring
Heating
Lighting
(exc. candles)
Matches or
Lighters
Miscellaneous
3%
10%
3%
2%
1%
5%
2%
2%
2%
Undetermined
Cooking
13%
Cigarettes
Candle
0%
Other Open
Flame Tools
Other
Electrical /
Mechanical
Arson
Percentage
Ignition Source %
Appliances
Residential Fatal Fires: Ignition Source, 2002-2011
6
20% 37%
Conclusion: Cigarettes are the source of 20% of fatal residential fires.
Fires Resulting in Fatalities
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
4.1 Summary of Statistics
•
Ontario reported 915 total deaths due to fires 4 between 2002 and 2011. This number is down from
946 total deaths in the period between 2001 to 2010. In 2002, when there were 85 fire deaths, the
population was 12.1 million, which results in a fire death rate of 7 per million population. In 2011
there were 87 fire deaths, the population was 12.9 million, which results in a fire death rate of 6.7
per million population. This is a 4% decrease in the death rate when comparing these two time
periods.
Ontario also reported 826 total deaths in structural-loss fires (fires resulting in an injury, fatality,
or financial loss) between 2002 and 2011. This number is down from 851 total deaths in the period
between 2001 to 2010. In 2002 there were 79 fire deaths in structures, and the population was
12.1 million, which results in a fire death rate of 6.5 per million population. In 2011 there were 81
fire deaths in structures, and the population was 12.9 million, which results in a fire death rate of
6.3 per million population. This represents a 3% decrease in death rate when comparing these
two time periods.
The Office of the Fire Marshal data identifies 70 deaths in fires for which electricity was the fuel
of ignition source between 2002 and 2011. Since 2002, the death rate in this type of fire has
increased from 0.33 deaths per million of population to 0.39. This represents an increase of 18%
over this ten-year period.
For fires where electricity as fuel was identified as the ignition source, 97% of the fires were
considered unintentional or preventable. These types of fires have a greater percentage
classified as preventable/unintentional fires than fires where electricity is not identified as the
fuel of the ignition source.
The number of fires and fatalities may change for the years 2010 and 2011 depending upon the
conclusion of active investigations.
Stove or range-top burners account for 31% of fire fatalities fuelled at least by electricity.
Cigarettes were the source of 20% of fatal residential fires.
•
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
•
•
•
•
•
4
44
Fire deaths do not include fire deaths in vehicle collisions.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.2
Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
4.2 Fire Incidents with Electricity as
Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of Fire
OUR GOAL
the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Avoid preventable
injuries of an
electrical nature
to reduce
disability, deaths,
lost time from
work, and health
care utilization.
More than 50,000 fires occurred in Canada in 2002, accounting for $1,489,012,263
in property losses; nearly half of these fires (41 %) occurred in residential
structures (Council of Canadian Fire Marshals, 2002). Previous research has
found that the primary sources of residential fires are cooking, smoking
cigarettes, heating equipment, or electrical malfunction (Ahrens, 2007; Diekman,
Ballesteros, Berger, Caraballo, & Kegler, 2008; Duncanson, 2001; Hall, 2008;
Leistikow, Martin, & Milano, 2000; Miller, 2005).
WHO’S AT
RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians.
Summary of Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source
in Ontario, 2002-2011
1
4000
Number of Fires
3500
3000
2500
2000
4.0
1500
4.1
1000
4.2
500
4.3
0
4.4
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Number of Fires
With Loss
2875
2851
2497
2595
2640
2681
2557
2094
2024
1823
Number of Fires
With No Loss
506
476
476
560
484
441
403
203
177
145
Total Fires with
Electricity as the Fuel
3381
3327
2973
3155
3124
3122
2960
2297
2201
1968
4.5
Conclusion: Over the past ten years: 37% decrease in loss fires,
42% decrease in total fires.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
45
4.2
Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
2
Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of Fire
Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source
by Classification of Building or Structure, 2002-2011
Residential
Mercantile
Industrial
Care and Detention
Business and Personal
Services
Assembly
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Assembly
Business and
Personal
Services
Care and
Detention
Industrial
Mercantile
Residential
2002-2006
816
472
370
1352
702
12248
2007-2011
597
335
235
893
510
9801
Conclusion: From 2002-2006 to 2007-2011: 36% decrease in fires for care and detention
buildings, 34% decrease in fires in industrial buildings, 20% decrease in fires
in residential buildings.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
3
Source of Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source
in Ontario, 2002-2006, 2007-2011
4.0
Other
4.1
Lighting Equipment
4.2
Heating Equipment,
Chimney, etc.
4.3
Electrical Distribution
Equipment
4.4
4.5
Cooking Equipment
Appliances
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Appliances
Cooking
Equipment
Electrical
Distribution
Equipment
Heating
Equipment,
Chimney, etc.
Lighting
Equipment
Other
2002-2006
10%
38%
30%
4%
7%
11%
2007-2012
11%
41%
28%
5%
6%
10%
Conclusion: The distribution by source of fire has not changed much in the 2002-2006 to
2007-2011 periods.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
46
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
45%
4.2
Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire: Summary
•
Ontario reported 24,637 loss fires and 3,871 no loss fires for a total of 28,508 fires
in which electricity was the fuel of the ignition source of the fire from 2002 to 2011.
Over this same time frame, there was a 37% decrease in loss fires, and a 42%
decrease in total fires.
•
Examining the total fires by classification of building or structure between 2002 to
2006 and 2007 to 2011 finds:
•
•
•
•
Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of Fire
4.2 Summary of Statistics
36% decrease in fires for care and detention buildings
34% decrease in fires in industrial buildings
20% decrease in fires in residential buildings
The distribution by source of fire has not changed much in the 2002 to 2006 and
2007 to 2011 time frames. Cooking equipment, electrical distribution equipment,
and appliances remain the top three sources.
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
47
4.3
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
4.3 Cooking Fires with Electricity as
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of Fire
OUR GOAL
the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Avoid preventable
injuries of an electrical
nature to reduce
disability, deaths, lost
time from work, and
health care utilization.
The OFM fire loss reporting system identified cooking equipment as
the leading ignition source associated with preventable home injuries.
It accounted for an annual average of 184 injuries and six fatalities
between 2003 and 2007. Cooking equipment was the second leading
ignition source associated with preventable residential fire fatalities
during this five-year period. These fires resulted in an average loss
of $23.1 million annually. (Reducing Residential Stove-top Fires In
Ontario, OFM 2009).
WHO’S AT RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians.
Section 4.5.1 provides a case study that is representative of the risk
factors associated with cooking fires.
Cooking Equipment Fires vs. Distribution Equipment Fires, 2002-2011
1
4000
Number of Fires
3500
4.0
3000
2500
2000
1500
4.1
1000
4.2
500
4.3
0
4.4
4.5
Cooking Equipment
Electrical Distribution
Equipment
Total Cooking Equip
and Electrical Distribution Equip Fires
Total Fires with
Electricity as the Fuel
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
1322
1239
1097
1108
1233
1158
1130
1002
920
772
1000
985
897
993
865
908
859
604
507
500
2322
2224
1994
2101
2098
2066
1989
1606
1427
1272
3381
3327
2973
3155
3124
3122
2960
2297
2201
1827
Conclusion: Since 2002, there has been a 48% decrease in cooking equipment fires
and a 50% decrease in electrical distribution equipment fires.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
48
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.3
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Number of Fires
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of Fire
Cooking Equipment Fires with Electricity
as the Fuel by Ignition Source, 2002-2011
2
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Microwave
29
33
20
43
26
29
21
29
31
44
22
27
21
38
30
19
17
14
14
14
Open Fired Barbecue Fixed or Portable
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
147
134
114
123
110
128
113
47
60
48
140
12
149
13
110
8
135
14
143
17
145
24
127
12
104
7
71
8
64
5
960
879
809
784
887
812
818
793
750
627
1322
1239
1097
1108
1233
1158
1130
1002
920
772
Deep Fat Fryer
Other Cooking Items
(e.g. toaster, kettle,
elec frying pan)
Oven
Range Hood
Stove, Range-top
Burner
Total
Conclusion: Stove range-top burners remain the most common ignition source for cooking fires
of an electrical nature, but the number has decreased 35% over the past ten years.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
3
Stove-top Fires versus Cooking Fires by Possible Cause, 2002-2011
4.0
4.1
Children Playing
4.2
Design/Construction/
Maintenance Deficiency
4.3
Intentional
4.4
Mechanical/
Electrical Failure
4.5
Misuse of Ignition Source/
Material First Ignited
Other
Undetermined
0
1000
Children
Playing
2000
Design/
Construction/
Maintenance
Deficiency
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Misuse of
Mechanical/
Ignition Source/
Intentional Electrical
Material First
Failure
Ignited
8000
9000
Other Undetermined
Stove-top Fires
29
97
55
236
6234
528
227
Cooking Fires
46
320
74
686
7336
744
400
Conclusion: For stove-top and all cooking fires, the number one possible cause is misuse of
ignition source/material.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
49
4.3
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Stove-Top Fires: 2002-2006 and 2007-2011
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of Fire
4
5000
Number of Fires
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2002 – 2006
2007 – 2011
4319
3800
Stove-top Fires
Conclusion: The number of stove-top fires has decreased 12% from 2002-2006
to 2007-2011.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
Electrical Product Fires Five-Year Average
Five-year Average
Number of ElectricalRelated Product Fires
5
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1999 –
2003
2000 –
2004
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
Appliances
389
361
340
332
329
321
311
293
264
Cooking Equipment
1410
1298
1209
1200
1167
1145
1126
1089
996
Lighting Equipment
218
214
217
219
221
215
199
167
145
Other Electrical,
Mechanical
170
169
181
185
193
189
179
162
143
Processing Equipment
53
47
45
42
43
40
37
30
25
Product Safety Overall
2203
2090
1992
1979
1952
1910
1853
1739
1574
Conclusion: 21% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2001-2005 to 2006-2010.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
50
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.3
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire: Summary
•
In the ten-year period from 2002 to 2011, there were 10,981 fires identified
as cooking equipment fires. Since 2002 there has been a 48% decrease in
this type of fire.
•
Although the frequency of incidents has decreased 35% over the past ten years,
stove and range-top burners remain the most common (81%) ignition source for
cooking fires of an electrical nature.
•
Between the two five-year periods, there was a drop of 12% in total stove or
range-top fires.
Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of Fire
4.3 Summary of Statistics
Product Safety Five-year Average
Number of electrical-related product fires. A product fire is defined as one involving
appliances or cooking equipment or lighting equipment or other electrical, mechanical
or processing equipment as the ignition class source as classified by the Office of the
Fire Marshal (OFM) data set.
21% decrease in the five-year rolling average;
2002-2006 to 2007-2011.
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
51
4.4
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
OUR GOAL
4.4 Electrical Distribution Equipment
Avoid preventable
injuries of an
electrical nature
to reduce
disability, deaths,
lost time from
work, and health
care utilization.
In 2007, an estimated 25,200 reported non-confined home structure fires in the
United States involving electrical distribution or lighting equipment resulted in 270
deaths, 1,050 injuries, and $663 million in direct property damage.
with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition
Source of the Fire
Electrical distribution or lighting equipment accounted for 6% of home structure
fires between 2003 and 2007, ranking fourth among major causes behind cooking
equipment, heating equipment, and intentional. Electrical distribution or lighting
equipment also accounted for 12% of associated deaths (ranking behind smoking
materials, heating equipment, and cooking equipment) (Hall, 2010).
WHO’S AT
RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians.
Section 4.5.2 provides a case study that is representative of the risk factors
associated with electrical distribution fires.
Electrical Distribution Equipment Fires in Ontario, 2002-2011
1
4000
Number of Fires
3500
4.0
4.1
4.2
3000
2500
2000
1500
4.3
1000
4.4
500
4.5
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Electrical Distribution
Equipment
1000
985
897
993
865
908
859
604
507
500
Total Cooking Equipment
& Electrical Distribution
Equipment Fires
2322
2224
1994
2101
2098
2066
1989
1606
1427
1272
Total Fires with
Electricity as the Fuel
3381
3327
2973
3155
3124
3122
2960
2297
2201
1827
Conclusion: 50% decrease in number of distribution equipment fires over
the past ten years.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
52
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.4
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
2
Distribution Equipment Fires by Ignition Source
in Ontario, 2002-2011
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Circuit Wiring Aluminum (Includes
Conductors)
23
16
20
15
28
14
24
6
6
9
Circuit Wiring - Copper
(Includes Conductors)
211
192
206
226
206
211
192
145
121
127
Cord, Cable for Appliance,
Electrical Articles
122
139
115
114
114
121
126
93
79
70
Distribution Equipment
(Includes Panel Boards,
Fuses, Circuits)
161
167
150
155
142
127
112
101
85
85
Extension Cord,
Temporary Wiring
92
96
78
102
78
87
83
52
58
47
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Meter
12
14
11
13
11
12
16
7
9
1
4.0
1200
Number of Fires
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Other Electrical
Distribution Item
Service/ Utility Lines
(Includes Power/ Hydro
Transmission Lines)
Terminations - Aluminum
(Including Receptacles,
Switches and Lights)
Terminations – Aluminum
(Including Receptacles,
Switches, Lights
Transformer
Total
4.1
128
125
117
104
113
105
118
78
50
58
4.2
4.3
80
80
63
100
71
66
69
46
35
38
18
26
16
16
11
23
12
8
3
3
109
86
85
95
61
102
69
45
41
45
44
44
36
53
30
40
38
23
20
17
1000
985
897
993
865
908
859
604
507
500
4.4
4.5
Conclusion: Circuit wiring - copper (including conductors) remains the top ignition source, but
the numbers have decreased 40% over the last ten years.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
53
6000
4.4
5000
Electrical4000
Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
3000
2000
1000
0
Electrical
Distribution Equipment Fire Possible Cause
in Ontario, 2002-2011
3
Number of Fires
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Design/
Construction/
Maintenance
Deficiency
Intentional
Mechanical/
Electrical Failure
Misuse of
Ignition Source/
Material First
Ignited
Other or
Undetermined
Vehicle Collision
Possible Cause
Children
Playing
0
12
929
15
4844
503
801
18
Conclusion: 57% of distribution equipment fires are possibly due to
mechanical/electrical failure.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
54
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.4
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Distribution Equipment Fires Five-Year Average
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
Five-Year Average Number of
Electrical Fires
4
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2001 –
2005
2002 –
2006
2003 –
2007
2004 –
2008
2005 –
2009
2006 –
2010
2007 –
2011
Circuit Wiring –
Aluminum, Copper
(includes conductors)
206
208
206
208
203
194
190
Distribution Equipment
(includes panel boards,
fuses, circuits)
140
131
125
113
108
102
98
Cord, Cable for Appliance, Electrical Articles
111
109
109
107
107
108
105
Other Electrical
Distribution Item
108
107
100
100
99
99
96
Terminations –
Aluminum, Copper
(includes Receptacles,
Switches, Lights)
102
91
92
87
82
75
74
Extension Cord,
Temporary Wiring
80
82
80
78
76
72
69
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
Service/Utility Lines
(includes Power/Hydro
Transmission lines
54
Transformer
33
30
29
29
29
25
26
Aging Infrastructure
Overall
836
809
788
766
747
716
699
51
47
44
42
41
42
4.4
4.5
Conclusion: There has been a 14% decrease in the five-year rolling average;
2002-2006 to 2007-2011.
Source: Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario 2002-2011 Data
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
55
4.4
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire:
Summary
4.4 Summary of Statistics
Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire
•
In the ten-year period from 2002 to 2011, there were 8,118 fires identified as
distribution equipment fires. There has been a 50% decrease in electrical
distribution equipment fires over that period. The OFM defines distribution
equipment as electrical wiring or devices or equipment where the primary
function is to carry current from one location to another. Thus, wiring,
extension cords, termination, electrical panels, cords on appliances, etc.
are considered distribution equipment.
•
Circuit wiring – copper (including conductors) remains the main ignition source,
but the numbers have decreased 40% over the last ten years.
•
Mechanical/electrical failure accounts for 57% of the possible cause of fire.
Only 6% is contributed to misuse. Approximately 11% is contributed to an installation
or maintenance deficiency.
Statistics Directly Related to ESA Harm Reduction Priorities –
Aging Infrastructure – Distribution Equipment Fires
Number of electrical wiring related fires, such as copper and aluminum wiring, extension
cord, appliance cord, termination and electrical panel – electrical devices categorized by the
Office of the Fire Marshal as Distribution Equipment – based on data reported to the Office of
the Fire Marshal with fuel energy identified as electricity.
14% decrease in the five-year rolling average;
2002-2006 to 2007-2011.
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
56
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.5
Case Studies
4.5.1
Case Study: Fire Example #1
A stove-top fire causing a fatality and damage to the property.
A fire in the kitchen of an apartment in a high-rise building resulted in a fatality. The fire was
investigated by the local fire department, the police and the Office of the Fire Marshal. The most
credible ignition sequence was determined to be a pot of cooking oil that was left on an energized
burner of a stove in the kitchen.
Some of the resulting damages in the apartment were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Case Study
•
reas of demarcation, created by the consumption of the paint finish from the gypsum wallboard,
A
on the exposed portion of the east wall and upper portion of furnishings along that wall.
Charring penetration into the combustible constituents of the kitchen cupboards closest
to the stove.
Area of demarcation created by discolouration and oxidation of the metallic parts
of the dishwasher.
Area of demarcation created by oxidation of the metallic construction of the refrigerator.
Discolouration and oxidation mostly concentrated towards the metallic housing of the switch
controls for the stove’s heating elements. This was mostly concentrated towards and
surrounding the rear right hand side element.
Discolouration and oxidation to the metallic construction of the stove-top concentrated
surrounding the rear right burner. Discolouration and charring to the paint finish was also
discernible towards that part of the appliance.
Soot deposits on the enclosing walls and furnishings of the living room and dining room.
Thermal effects on combustible portions of items such as the television in the living room.
Areas of demarcation on the upper portions of the walls in the bedroom, washroom and laundry
room showed soot accumulation as a result of smoke migration.
4.0
4.1
4.2
The occupant of the apartment was discovered on the couch in the living room when fire personnel
entered the premises. The next door neighbour had smelled smoke odours and discovered the fire.
Two hours prior to the discovery of the fire, someone had brought the occupant home to the
apartment.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.3
4.4
4.5
57
4.5
Case Studies
4.5.1
Case Study: Fire Example #1 (continued)
Investigation findings:
•
•
•
•
•
he point of origin of the fire was determined to be at the location of the rear right
T
burner of the stove-top. No evidence could be found to indicate any other point of
origin in the apartment.
Although no pot was found on the stove, the fuel for the fire was deemed to be the high
temperature oil in a pot on the rear right burner of the stove. The pot or pan was likely
disturbed or moved during fire suppression in the kitchen.
Excavation and screening of fire debris resulted in finding the presence of several
pots and pans which were oxidized from heat exposure.
Switch housing for the elements was disassembled and the rear left burner
was determined to be in the ‘OFF’ position. However, positions of the other three
switches could not be determined due to the combustible constituents being
partially consumed.
An empty bottle of alcohol was discovered adjacent to where the deceased was
found on the couch.
Case Study
Pot of
cooking
oil left
unattended
on
energized
burner
Apartment
fire and
fatality
4.0
4.1
The investigation found that there is a need to be attentive when cooking, and to never leave
the stove unattended.
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
58
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
4.5
Case Studies
4.5.2
Case Study: Fire Example #2
A receptacle fire causing $125,000 damage to the property.
An incident is seldom the result of one single contributing factor. In most cases, some
contributing factors exist months or years prior to the incident actually occurring. ESA also
found that should any of these contributing factors be eliminated the incident would not have
occurred. The case below is no exception.
A fire in a receptacle located in a basement recreation room of a detached raised ranch home
resulted in $125,000 damage. The fire was investigated by the local fire department, and the
Office of the Fire Marshal. The only viable ignition sources was electrical; a duplex receptacle.
Some of the resulting damages in the house included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Case Study
•
•
•
Exterior fire patterns were limited to above an east basement window. The upper
portion of the window was consumed by heat and flames. Directly above the window
smoke and soot deposits were found.
The main floor had no fire patterns but suffered smoke damage and soot deposits.
The basement, with the exception of the recreation room, sustained heat and smoke
damage.
The recreation room sustained significant charring to the north east side of the room.
A sofa nearest a duplex receptacle, along the east wall suffered the most damage.
Two sofas along the north wall suffered some damage, the one closest to the east
side suffered more damage.
A sofa along the south wall suffered fire damage, more severely towards the east
side of it.
The remains of a natural Christmas tree in the southeast corner of the recreation
room were found near the point of origin.
The duplex receptacle on a short south wall sustained the most charring and fire
damage.
A V-pattern was delineated on the wall above the receptacle, indicating a source of
fire and heat.
The area below the receptacle was not damaged.
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
59
4.5
Case Studies
4.5.2
•
Case Study: Fire Example #2 (continued)
A closet door adjacent to the south wall suffered severe charring and fire damage. The
top of the door was compromised, allowing embers to enter the closet and ignite
combustibles within the closet.
Investigation findings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Case Study
The Christmas lights on the tree had been plugged in and turned on when the fire
occurred. The lights were LED type. There was no evidence of defects on the lights.
The occupants of the house were out at the time of the fire.
It was more than six hours between when the last person left the house and the fire
was discovered by a passing motorist.
The point of origin of the fire was determined to be the duplex receptacle along the
short south wall in the recreation room – the receptacle that the Christmas lights were
plugged into.
No other viable or credible ignition sources were found.
The cause was determined to be a loose or poor connection between the permanent
wiring and one of the receptacle terminals, causing high resistance fault, charring the
plastic components of the receptacle, resulting in parallel arcing.
The arcing caused the projection of incandescent material from the receptacles,
igniting the nearby natural Christmas tree and eventually igniting nearby furniture such
as the sofas. The fire also spread to the closet just south of the area of origin.
4.0
4.1
Loose
wiring in
duplex
receptacle
4.2
4.3
4.4
Receptacle was
within proximity of
the combustible
Christmas tree
4.5
60
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
Christmas
lights were left
plugged in and
unattended
House
fire with
excessive
damage
5.0
Product Safety
5.0 Product Safety
OUR GOAL
Avoid preventable
injuries of an
electrical nature
to reduce
disability, deaths,
lost time from
work, and health
care utilization.
In July 2007, Ontario Regulation 438/07 was passed. It strengthened ESA’s ability
to manage electrical product safety in Ontario. The intent of the regulation was to
develop a robust system for the management of identified electrical product safety
concerns given the increasing prevalence of product incidents reported to ESA.
Since the coming into force of the provincial regulation, several changes
occurred; most notably the coming into force of similar federal legislation, the
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) in 2011 which created concurrent
product safety systems for consumer electrical products in Ontario, including
mandatory reporting obligations. In anticipation of the federal legislation coming
into effect; ESA and Health Canada entered into a formal information sharing
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
WHO’S AT
RISK?
All 13.5 million
Ontarians.
Number of Electrical Product Incidents Reported to ESA
in Ontario, 2005-2012
1
Product Safety
Number of Reports
1800
1600
1400
1200
5.0
1000
5.1
800
600
400
200
0
Number of Reports
Submitted
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
170
234
274
475
679
817
1601
1220
Conclusion: 157% increase in number of reports since 2008.
Source: ESA Product Safety Reporting System
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
61
5.0
Product Safety
Electrical Product Incidents Reported to ESA by Report Category
in Ontario, 2012
2
Number of Reports
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Report Category
Voluntary
Mandatory
530
690
Conclusion: 43% of electrical product incident reports are voluntary.
Source: ESA Product Safety Reporting System
Product Safety
Number of Electrical Safety Product Issues by Priority Level
in Ontario, 2012
3
700
Number of Issues
5.0
5.1
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Priority Level
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Priority 4
156
638
218
208
Conclusion: 52% of safety issues are priority level 2.
Source: ESA Product Safety Reporting System
62
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
5.0
Product Safety: Summary
Percentage of Electrical Product Safety Investigations by Types
in Ontario, 2012
Percentage of Investigations
4
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Investigation Type
Certified
With Suspected
Counterfeit Label
Unapproved
82%
16%
2%
Conclusion: 82% of product safety investigations were classified
as involving certified products.
Source: ESA Product Safety Reporting System
Product Safety
5.0 Summary of Statistics
•
5.0
Since 2008, there has been a 157% increase in the number of electrical product
incidents reported to ESA. As Health Canada continues to implement their system,
the number of reports submitted to ESA began to drop in 2012. This systemic change
accounts for much of the drop in reported incidents, rather than inferring that the
number of actual incidents dropped.
•
57% of the product safety investigations initiated by ESA in 2012 were as a result of
the mandatory reporting requirements of Regulation 438/07.
•
ESA assigns an investigation type and priority category to all reported incidents in
order to determine the proper response strategy. 52% of safety issues were
classified as priority level 2. This priority level indicates that based upon the results
of the investigation, ESA may direct a range of corrective action plans to ensure that
no further serious electrical incidents or accidents occur.
•
Product safety investigations are classified into three major categories: Unapproved
(a product that does not meet labelling criteria but may not necessarily be unsafe),
Certified (a product that was properly certified but reported to have a safety
problem or perceived safety problem), and products with a suspected counterfeit
label. In 2012, 82% of product safety investigations involved certified products.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
5.1
63
5.0
Case Studies
5.1.1 Case Study: Lighting Fixtures Fires
ESA received a report of an incident where a light fixture caught fire at a hospital. The
fixture was in a patient room and the fire was put out by a fire extinguisher. No damage or
injury occurred, as the fire was discovered quickly after starting.
ESA’s product safety staff assigned the highest priority to this investigation – priority 1.
A review of the certification body (CB) database indicated that there had been no similar
reported incidents involving light fixtures produced by this specific manufacturer.
Product Safety Case Studies
The manufacturer built a representative sample to examine the fixture more closely and get
a better understanding of the potential for failure. When installing/changing the lamp, they
noticed that the insulating back of the double lamp holder started to separate from the lamp
holder body. Further analysis revealed that this separation allowed arcing between the lamp
pins and lamp holder contacts and ultimately caused the lamp holder to start smoking. This
led them to believe that lamp holder failure was the source of the fire at the hospital.
Upon the above discovery, the manufacturer contacted the hospital and advised them to
remove the second lamp from the fixture to avoid any repeat incidents.
The manufacturer contacted the supplier of the lamp holders and advised them of the issue.
The supplier recalled all of the manufacturer’s stock of the suspect lamp holders and sent
replacements which were modified to include a reinforced backing. The replacement lamp
holders were sent to the hospital for installation.
The manufacturer’s investigation of the replacement lamp holders found that the cardboard
fibre backing of the lamp holder was not rigid enough and/or fastened in such a way to
prevent the possibility of the lamp holder contacts from protruding and being exposed. The
potential for exposure of the lamp holder contacts presented a shock or fire hazard. Taking
this into consideration, they felt it was best to redesign the light fixture for all future
production and to no longer use the double lamp holder components. They decided to
design an additional sheet metal bracket to retain standard single ‘tombstone’ type lamp
holders. The bracket with standard lamp holders created a subassembly to replace the
existing double lamp holders. By virtue of their design, the standard lamp holders ensure a
positive retention of the lamp without any possible chance of the lamp pins or lamp holder
contacts being exposed. This design change went into effect immediately for all future
production of this model.
5.0
5.1
64
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
5.1
Case Studies
5.1.2 Case Study: Baseboard Heater Fire
A fire official submitted a mandatory report regarding a fire allegedly caused by a
baseboard heater. Very little information regarding the product was available to ESA as the
nameplate was damaged in the fire.
Additional information was requested by ESA and it was determined from the packaging that
the heater was approved by a certification body (CB). The ESA database was used to confirm
whether there were any similar incidents involving this heater. None were found. Based on
the severity of the incident, the investigation was assigned a risk assessment of priority 1.
A product incident report was sent to the certification body and the manufacturer based on
information available to determine the root cause analysis of the problem. The root cause of
the incident was due to a faulty switch which overheated and caused the surrounding
enclosure to ignite. The certification of the heater was suspended by the CB pending further
corrective action.
ESA requested corrective action from the manufacturer in order to notify the public of this
unsafe heater. A recall notice was prepared by the retailer and posted in conjunction with a
communication plan.
Case Studies
5.0
5.1
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
65
Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without the assistance of the many industry partners who
share data. ESA acknowledges and thanks the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) for
providing information, and notifying ESA of occupational electrical injuries and cooperating
with ESA in the investigation of these incidents.
ESA thanks the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) for its continuing support in providing
information on fire-related electrical incidents and accidents, partnering with ESA on
stove-top fire initiatives, and notifying ESA of electrical fire incidents.
ESA also thanks the following organizations for their support:
•
The Coroner’s Office of Ontario for sharing coroner’s information on electricalrelated fatalities and other deaths in Ontario;
•
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario (WSIB) and the Association of
Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) for providing occupational
injury information; and
•
The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) for providing information on
emergency department visits for electrical injury.
Methodology
ESA receives data from various resources to compile this report. These include the Coroner,
Ministry of Labour (MOL), the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada
(AWCBC), the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM), and the Workplace Safety and Insurance
Board of Ontario (WSIB). ESA cross-references the data with the Coroner reports, the
OFM’s report and ESA’s root-cause investigation data to ensure accuracy and understanding
of the incidents. Data on non-serious incidents is taken as provided.
ESA also uses population data from Statistics Canada to determine electrocution and death by
fire as rate per population and rate per labour population to determine occupational injury rates.
The 2003 to 2012 electrocution statistics are based on Ontario Coroner’s reports, ESA records,
and the Ministry of Labour’s (MOL) reports. At the time of writing, the Coroner’s reports for
2011 and 2012 are only partially completed due to pending investigations and confirmations.
Data provided by the Office of the Chief Coroner takes precedence over other data in the
event of discrepancies.
The electrocution and electrical burn fatality cases in the report are unintentional in nature.
Suicides, deliberate attempt to injure, are all excluded; as well as death by lightning strike.
Electrocution as a result of criminal activities such as theft of power, vandalism, pranks or
as a result of a vehicle hitting a utility pole are counted as part of the statistics but are not
included as part of the preventable deaths. Death resulting from a fall but initiated by an
electrical contact to a worker would not be recorded as an electrocution and therefore not
counted as part of electrical injury data.
66
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
The report separates occupational from non-occupational (the general public) incidents for
reason of stakeholder interest and to aid in identifying strategies to reduce the harm.
Case definition
Lost Time Injuries
Lost time injury data was provided by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Enterprise
Information Warehouse, data as at March 31, 2013 for all injury years. Lost Time Injuries
(LTIs) refers to all allowed claims by workers who have lost wages as a result of a
temporary or permanent impairment. Lost Time Injury counts include fatalities.
Allowed Lost Time Injuries for Electrical Burns and Electrical-related fatalities are based
on the following CSA Z795-96 Nature of Injury Codes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
05200
05201
05202
05203
05290
09300
ELECTRICAL BURNS
FIRST-DEGREE ELECTRICAL BURNS
SECOND-DEGREE ELECTRICAL BURNS
THIRD-DEGREE ELECTRICAL BURNS
ELECTRICAL BURNS, N.E.C.
ELECTROCUTIONS, ELECTRIC SHOCKS
Please note that since the data is as of March 31, 2013 for all injury years (2003-2012), the
earlier years are more mature than the more recent years.
Emergency Department Visits
Separations data from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was provided by the
Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Emergency Department separation data
used in this report is classified according to the Canadian Modification of the 10th revision of
the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CA).
The inclusion criterion for the report was the presence of T75.4, T75.0, W85, W86, W87, or
X33 codes indicating an electrical injury including being a victim of lightning, among any of
the diagnosis or external cause codes assigned to a record.
Reliability of Data
The numbers and figures in this report are based on current information provided to ESA as
of July 31, 2013.
Parts of this material are based on data and information provided by the Canadian Institute
for Health Information. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements
expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Canadian Institute
for Health Information.
These numbers may change in subsequent reports due to additional information
received after the publication of the report. These changes and explanations will be noted
in future reports.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
67
Fire Source Data
The OFM reports its data by calendar year. Data collection and verification for the year has a
one-year lag in reporting in the OESR. The OFM does not publish Ontario statistics until all
fire departments have reported. The larger departments – Toronto and Hamilton generally
do not finish their filing until September of the following year. At the time of writing, some
OFM data for 2012 is not available and data for 2011 is presented instead.
ESA reports fire incidents based on data provided by the OFM to ESA on:
•
all fires where the fuel of the ignition source was reported as electricity
•
fire incidents investigated by OFM
In addition, ESA conducts its own investigation of fires when called by the local fire
department to assist or when jointly investigating fire incidents with the OFM. ESA presents
data that is consistent with the reporting convention of the OFM. Fires are reported by
ignition source where the fuel of the ignition source was reported as electricity. It is worth
noting that with the exception of fires with distribution equipment and fires identified as
electricity as the ignition source by the fire departments or OFM, electricity was not the
primary fuel associated with the fire. These situations are illustrated below.
In the OESR, these fires will be categorized into two types of fires.
These are:
1. Fires caused by the ignition of combustibles (liquid and solids) around an electrical
device, equipment, appliance or installation, but were not the direct result of a failure
of electrical equipment or devices or electrical current or arc flash coming into contact
with the object. When the primary fuel associated with the fire is not electricity (such
as leaving a stove unattended with the oil catching fire), the OFM label these fires as
cooking fires rather than electrical fires. In addition, the OFM does not recommend
using numbers of fire deaths to identify trend and key issues.
Typically, these types of fire were the direct result of misuse of the equipment, device or
appliance. Some examples of these types of fires are:
68
•
grease fires on an electrical stove-top as a result of cooking left unattended
•
clothing catching fire while cooking
•
clothes dryer catching fire caused by the appliance overheating due to improper
cleaning of the lint cache
•
combustible catching fire around heaters or electronics when they are placed too
close to the heat source
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
2. Fires caused by the ignition of combustibles around an electrical device, equipment,
appliance or installation and were the direct result of the failure of the device, equipment
or installation. In these cases, typical fires are caused by insulation surrounding electrical
wiring failing and igniting a combustible in close proximity, or equipment or devices
failing, causing them to overheat and later, start a fire. Insulation failure could be caused
by natural aging, premature aging resulting from overloading, or by mechanical
breakdown of the insulation. Fires related to wiring and wiring devices are classified
by the OFM as distribution equipment. Please note that the definition of distribution
equipment in the fire section is quite different than the definition of distribution equipment
in the powerline section of the report. Examples of these fires are:
•
Carpet igniting caused by heat build-up of an extension cord placed under a carpet.
Over time the insulation of the extension cord fails due to foot traffic on the cord
which leads to mechanical breakdown of the insulation.
•
Electrical wires poorly terminated and an installation performed without using any
protective enclosure. Arcing occurs over time resulting in a fire of combustibles
around the wires.
•
Fire caused by a failure of a seized motor powered by electricity.
In the fire section of the OESR, ESA uses OFM’s method of categorizing types of
ignition source class. By OFM’s definition, distribution equipment are electrical
wiring, devices or equipment whose primary function is to carry electrical
current from one location to another. Therefore, wiring, extension cord,
termination, electrical panel, cord on appliances are considered distribution
equipment. Please note that distribution equipment defined by the OFM is not the
same as Distribution Equipment defined by the Local Distribution Companies.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
69
Bibliography
Ahrens, M. (2007). Home Structure Fires. Report produced for the Fire Analysis and Research
Division, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy: MA.
Asgary, A., Ghaffari, A., & Levy, J. (2010). Spatial and temporal analyses of structural fire
incidents and their causes: A case of Toronto, Canada. Fire Safety Journal, 45(1), 44-57.
Baker, D.E. & Adams, P. (1993). Residential Fire Detection. University Extension, University
of Missouri-Columbia: Columbia.
Berry JG Harrison JE 2006. Hospital separations due to injury and poisoning, Australia
2001–02. Injury Research and Statistics Series Number 26. (AIHW cat. no. INJCAT 78)
Adelaide: AIHW.
Byard RW, Hanson KA, Gilbert JD, James RA, Nadeau J, Blackbourne B, & Krous HF 2003.
Death due to electrocution in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Paediatric Child
Health 39: 46–48.
Celik A, Ergun O & Ozok G 2004. Pediatric electrical injuries: A review of 38 consecutive
patients. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 39 (8):1233–7.
Council of Canadian Fire Marshals. (2002). Annual Report: Fire Losses in Canada. Council of
Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners: Ottawa.
Diekman, S.T., Ballesteros, M.F., Berger, L.R., Caraballo, R.S., & Kegler, S.R. (2008).
Ecological level analysis of the relationship between smoking and residential-fire mortality.
Injury Prevention, 14: 228-231.
Driscoll TR, Mitchell RJ, Hendrie AL, Healey SH, Mandryk JA, and Hull BP 2003.
Unintentional fatal injuries arising from unpaid work at home. Injury Prevention 9:15–19.
Duff K & McCaffrey RJ 2001. Electrical injury and lightning injury: A review of their
mechanisms and neuropsychological, psychiatric, and neurological sequelae.
Neuropsychology Review 11 (2):101–116.
Duncanson, M. (2001). Cooking, Alcohol and Unintentional Fatal Fires in New Zealand Homes
1991-1997. Produced for the New Zealand Fire Service Commission Research Report
Number 16.
Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Project Protocol [1991]. Morgantown,
WV: Division of Safety Research, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
George E N, Schur K, Muller M, Mills S & Brown T L H 2005. Management of high voltage
electrical injury in children. Burns 31 (4):439–44.
Hall, J.R. (2008). Home Fires Involving Cooking Equipment: Executive Summary.
National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division: Quincy, M.A.
70
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
Karter, M.J. (2007). Fire Loss in the United States during 2006. National Fire Protection
Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division: Quincy, M.A.
Koumbourlis AC 2002. Electrical Injuries. Critical Care Medicine 30 (11 (Suppl.)):S424–30.
Leistikow, B.N., Martin, D.C., & Milano, C.E. (2000). Fire injuries, disasters, and costs from
cigarettes and cigarette lights: A global overview. Preventive Medicine, 31: 91-99.
Miller, I. (2005). Human Behaviour Contributing to Unintentional Residential Fire Deaths
1997-2003. New Zealand Fire Service Commission Research Report Number 47.
Nguyen BH, MacKay M, Bailey B, & Klassen TP 2004. Epidemiology of electrical and
lightning related deaths and injuries among Canadian children and youth. Injury Prevention
10: 122–124.
Ontario Fire Marshal. (2009). Reducing Residential Stove-top Fires In Ontario: Toronto.
Taylor AJ, McGwin G Jr, Valent F, Rue LW 3rd 2002. Fatal occupational electrocutions in the
United States. Injury Prevention 8 (4):306-12.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
71
Glossary
CIHI – Canadian Institute of Health Information,
a subsidiary of Health Canada, a not-for-profit
organization responsible for collecting all
health information across Canada.
Human error – An inappropriate or undesired
human decision or behaviour that reduces or
has the potential to reduce the safety or system
performance.
Cost of Injury – Cost of injury as calculated by
the WSIB in compensation, medical aid and
pension.
IHSA – Infrastructure Health & Safety
Association – the developer and provider of
prevention solutions for work environments
involving high-risk activities such as working at
heights or working with high voltage electricity.
IHSA was formed in January 2010 by
amalgamating the Construction Safety
Association of Ontario (CSAO), the Electrical &
Utilities Safety Association of Ontario (E&USA),
and Transportation Health and Safety
Association of Ontario (THSAO).
CTAS – The Canadian Triage & Acuity Scale – a
tool that enables Emergency Departments (ED)
to triage patients and perform rapid patient
assessment. The CTAS levels are designed
such that level 1 represents the sickest patient
and level 5 represents the least ill patient.
Distribution equipment (fire section) –
Electrical equipment or device carrying
electricity from one point to another, or
electrical equipment or devices that connect
or disconnect one conductor to another.
Electrical Apprentice – A worker who has yet
to satisfy academic and field experience to
become an electrician journeyperson.
Electrician – A worker whose occupation is
identified as working primarily with low voltage
electricity. Electricians in this report can be
someone designated by the employer to
perform low-voltage electrical work.
Low Voltage – An electrical system with the
load (voltage) of less than 750V.
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
Electrical-Related Fatality – All deaths
resulting from electrocutions and electrical
burns.
NACRS – The National Ambulatory Care
Reporting System contains data for hospitalbased and community-based emergency and
ambulatory care (for example, day surgery and
outpatient clinics).
Electrocution – An accidental death caused by
contact with electricity.
Non-occupational injuries – Injuries occurring
in a location other than in the workplace.
Fatality – An injury resulting in a death.
NWISP – National Work Injuries and Statistics
Program, an organization that serves as a
repository of all occupational injuries in Canada.
High Resistance Fault – Long-lived events in
which the fault current is not high enough to trip
the circuit overcurrent protection.
High Voltage – An electrical system with the
load (voltage) equal or greater than 750V.
72
Lineperson – A worker whose occupation is
identified as someone working with high voltage
electricity.
2012 Ontario Electrical Safety Report
Occupational Injury – An injury occurring in a
workplace.
OFM – The Office of the 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.
Traumatic Injury – Injury as a result of a
sudden or violent act.
Utility-related Equipment – Refers to electrical
equipment and devices used by Local
Distribution Companies or privately-owned
companies to distribute electricity to the
general public or to buildings owned by the
private companies.
WSIB – Workplace Safety and Insurance Board,
an organization responsible for compensation of
workplace injuries.
This document was prepared by
the Regulatory Division of the
Electrical Safety Authority.
For queries and additional information,
please contact Joel Moody at
joel.moody @electricalsafety.on.ca