Regulators with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have proposed $130,200 in penalties to Texas oil and gas drilling company Ringo Drilling in the wake of a June accident in which a worker was electrocuted.

According to OSHA, the 25-year-old worker, Servando Salinas Cervantes, died while performing repair work on an oil drilling rig.  After an investigation, OSHA safety inspectors found that the company failed to train workers on electrical equipment hazards, failed to provide guardrails to keep workers from falling into holes more than four feet deep near a well, and did not ensure stepladders were used properly. In another serious violation, inspectors found that the company did not properly guard electrical junction boxes.

Among other penalties against the company included three repeat violations for failing to provide worker protection from platform falls, not inspecting electrical cords and failing to ensure proper strain relief for electrical cables. The company was cited for similar violations in 2008 and again last year.

Ringo Drilling has 15 days to contest the findings with OSHA.

A Quebec crane operator working at a construction site in downtown Montreal was sent to hospital when the crane she was operating tipped on its side, trapping her inside.

The worker, an employee of Pétrifond Fondation, was apparently performing piledriving with a foundation beam on a slope at the time of the accident. Montreal firefighters arrived at the scene about five minutes later and extricated the worker within an hour. She was then placed on a Kendrick Extrication Device, which braces the head, neck and torso in a neutral position to help prevent further injury, and was immediately transported to hospital.

Quebec’s workplace safety board, the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST) is investigating. They plan to look at factors such as the work method, whether or not the equipment was used properly, if the worker received adequate training, if she was aware of occupational health and safety dangers and if she was properly supervised.

CSST initially shut down the site, a 450-unit condominium development project overseen by general contractor Développements Immobiliers Séville, but reopened it several days later after the employer provided a safe work procedure for the stabilization and removal of the crane. The crane was then successfully removed, and the CSST is performing a mechanical examination of the machine.

CSST notes that a routine inspection of the site about a month before the accident found no Occupational Health and Safety issues, but that a stop-work order was issued at another site involving Pétrifond Fondation because workers were working too close to electrical lines.

Toronto packaging manufacturer Electro-Pack Inc. was fined $50,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was injured.

The incident that led to the fine occurred on December 5, 2009, when a worker was using a machine that forms plastic using heat and a press. The worker discovered the machine was jammed and attempted to remove the jam by reaching inside. The machine cycled while the worker’s hand was still inside, and the hand was seriously injured.

Electro-Pack Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the machine was equipped with a guard or other device to prevent access to the moving part.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Lynette Stethem, who also imposed the mandatory 25% victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

The owners of a metal coating and painting plant located in Macon, Georgia, Aerospace Defense Coatings of Georgia, has been hit with at least $168,000 in state and federal penalties for serious and in some cases “willful neglect” of worker safety, in addition to violations of hazardous waste storage and air pollution laws.

United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspectors found that, according to safety records, the company exposed employees to as much as 50 times the legal limit of chromium without informing them.

The OSHA citations were issued last November and many were required to be corrected by January of this year, but the agency is still not satisfied that working conditions at the plant are safe. The facility uses hexavalent chromium in its plating operation, and its use can cause respiratory damage and lung cancer, skin rashes and chrome ulcers, depending on the type and level of exposure.

According to an OSHA news release, the agency inspected the plant in May 2010 after they received a complaint concerning a lack of personal protective equipment and mishandling, storing and disposing of chemicals.

That inspection found a number of serious problems. For example, workers were not provided with a place to eat, drink or wash without chromium residues. Wipe tests of a lunch bag, refrigerator and water fountain found chromium dust on the surfaces. The company had also failed to provide any protective clothing in a number of cases, and those respirators and other protective clothing that were provided were found to be inadequate or not stored so as to prevent contamination. Inspectors also concluded that workers were not receiving adequate training, and were unable to recognize the hazards or symptoms of chromium exposure.

After the inspection, OSHA found willful violations related to respirator protection, chromium overexposure, personal protective equipment and failure to perform periodic monitoring of chromium exposure. Willful violations are those committed intentionally or with “plain indifference to worker safety and health.” They also cited a number of serious violations, included failing to post test results that showed illegally high chromium exposure for employees, failing to provide a changing area to prevent cross contamination, failing to have a medical surveillance program to protect employees, and not training employees to respond to hazardous waste emergencies. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Because the company had violated OSHA rules previously, in 2005 and 2008, they were cited for eight repeat violations related to hazardous waste, emergency response preparation, employee training, providing personal protective equipment for acids, and respirator training and storage.

OSHA originally proposed a $300,000 fine for 19 health violations it called serious, repeated or willful. That total was reduced in exchange for the company’s agreeing not to fight the penalties in court.

A North Salt Lake City business, Thermal West Industrial Inc., has sued the University of Utah over a plumbing failure last November that left 12 workers with scalding burns.

The accident occurred beneath a parking lot in a vault near 300 South and 1850 East last November 1. The company had been hired by the university to install hot-water piping trunks in a new tunnel system through the school’s campus. As they worked on the underground pipe, at least 40,000 gallons of hot water poured into the tunnel system through a water line that was designated inactive and abandoned, burning the workers with 400 degree (Fahrenheit) steam, resulting in injuries to 12 workers, three of them critical.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated the work-related accident and found Thermal West Industrial was not at fault. In April, the Utah Labor Commission cited the university for failing to cap the inactive water line, even though it was still connected to active lines.

In its lawsuit, Thermal West claims it has lost customers since the incident because the worker’s injury reports caused the contractor’s safety rating to drop, resulting in lost contracts with some of its biggest customers. In all, the suit seeks $4,505,000 in lost contract revenue and $325,000 in increased workmen’s compensation costs.

Ontario Court Clarifies Employers’ Incident Reporting Obligations

Although executives with the Blue Mountain Resort are unhappy and plan to appeal the recent ruling, the Ontario Divisional Court has issued a ruling clarifiying Section 51 of Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, which outlines the duties of an employer in all critical injury and fatality incidents.

According to Section 51, whenever a person is killed or critically injured from any cause at any workplace, the employer must notify an MoL inspector, as well as all other workplace parties. The employer must then secure the scene until an inspector clears the site, and send the ministry a written report on the incident within 48 hours.

But in the incident that led to the ruling, which occurred in December 2007, a resort guest drowned in an unsupervised pool at Blue Mountain, and the incident was never reported to the MoL. They only learned of it when a Ministry inspector conducted a field visit to the resort in March 2008. When the inspector found out, he wrote an order directing the resort to formally notify the MoL.

Justice Wailan Low, writing for the court, followed an earlier ruling from the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), disregarding the resort’s argument that notification was unnecessary because the pool was not a workplace, per se, at the time of the incident. The resort had argued that the hazard involved in the guest’s drowning while apparently performing exercises underwater wasn’t likely to affect a worker, and they noted that whenever a guest was involved in a serious incident that could also have affected a worker, Blue Mountain had always been quick to notify the MoL.

In dismissing their argument, Justice Low noted that the OLRB “ought to have given recognition to the fact that [their] facilities are dual use premises – they are both recreational premises and a workplace, and the use may change depending on the circumstances.”

According to legal experts, the court ruling may impact a large number of Ontario workplaces, because it requires all employers to report all fatal and critical injuries that occur at a workplace, even if worker health and safety is in no way involved. The MoL is likely to see a much greater number of notifications from employers from industries such as health care, municipal, retail and other service sectors in which workers interact with the public.

The MoL considers the court’s decision to be consistent with their policy on enforcement of these requirements. They consider the requirement to be a reasonable expectation and in no way burdensome for employers.

A new project was unveiled by WorkSafeBC last week, one that hopes to get the word out about the importance of injury prevention at construction sites throughout British Columbia. If the project proves a success, that message will be difficult to miss, since the goal is to set up workplace signs everywhere to remind everyone working on construction sites to take safety precautions.

But WorkSafeBC is taking this project a step further than just promoting safety within the worksite itself. They are actually hoping to expand the scope of the message into the rest of the community at large by placing signs in areas, such as fences, that can be seen by the general public, and not just the construction workers themselves. This way, WorkSafeBC hopes to remind everyone to stay safe on the job, wherever they may work.

In 2010, WorkSafeBC saw 14,405 injury claims from construction sites across the province. Of that number, 32 of the injuries led to worker deaths, which is the largest number of work-related fatalities in any industry sector.

WorkSafeBC launched the project in partnership with The Community Against Preventable Injuries, otherwise known as Preventable, as well as a number of employers, including Stuart Olson Dominion, ITC Construction Group, Kindred Construction Ltd., Lafarge Aggregate & Concrete, and PCL Construction.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour (MoL) issued nine work orders, including two work-stoppage orders, after two miners died underground at Vale’s Stobie mine in Sudbury, Ontario. According to the MoL, the work orders were issued to secure the mine and to make sure workers aren’t exposed to any immediate danger.

Some of the orders dealt with excessive water around ore passes, although the MoL was hesitant to cite that as the actual cause of the accident. Inspectors are investigating the incident to determine if health and safety regulations were followed, and to make sure the workplace is safe.

The two workers, Jason Chenier, 35, and Jordan Fram, 26, both of Sudbury, were working 900 metres underground in an ore pass, a vertical opening where ore is dropped to a lower level for handling, when they were suddenly overtaken by loose rock known as ”muck.”

Coincidentally, just a few days before the accident, Vale was awarded the John T. Ryan Trophy for the sixth time in seven years. The award, given to Canada’s safest metal mine, was presented to them because two of the company’s mines in Thompson, Manitoba, T1 and Birchtree, were tied for the lowest reportable injury frequency per 200,000 work hours. The award is given by the Canadian Institute of Mining every year.

Vale hasn’t set a date for resuming full production at the mine, but they have told workers they can stay home if they want until then, and they’re making counseling available to those who request it. Those who report for work will be provided with other jobs in the meantime.

Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is scheduled to stand trial in March 2012 on Occupational Health and Safety Act charges stemming from an industrial accident that injured a worker at the Halifax Shipyard three years ago.

The accident that led to the charges occurred on March 4, 2008, when a 50-year-old worker who was performing maintenance on the dry dock fell about six metres. Emergency personnel were called, and the worker was taken to hospital with unspecified injuries. The Nova Scotia Labour Department immediately launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fall.

The result of that investigation led to the Labour department charging Irving Shipbuilding with four offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act: failing to protect employees from a hazard of falling, failing to ensure there were adequate guardrails, failing to make sure workers entering a confined space wore full body harnesses; and failing to ensure the worker who fell had been provided with confined-space training.

The company had originally scheduled to go to trial in Halifax provincial court this coming September, but lawyers appeared before Judge Anne Derrick last week to ask for postponement, and she rescheduled the trial for 10 days, beginning March 5.

Halifax Shipyard is one of four yards, along with Seaspan Marine Inc. in Vancouver, Seaway Marine and Industrial in Ontario, and the Davie Yards in Quebec, who are bidding on Ottawa’s $35-billion national shipbuilding program. Irving Shipbuilding Inc. hopes to land the bulk of the contract, about $25 billion worth of work building 20 navy vessels.

According to an economic impact study done by the Conference Board of Canada, if they win the combat vessel contract, it could mean more than 11,000 new jobs in Nova Scotia by 2020, the height of construction. The deadline for bids is July 21, with a decision expected in September.

Ontario-based Goldcorp Canada Ltd., a mining operation doing business as Musselwhite Mine, an underground gold mining operation, was fined $50,000 last week for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a Ministry of Labour (MoL) inspection.

A Ministry inspector visited the Musselwhite Mine, located about 650 kilometers northwest of Thunder Bay, on November 14, 2009. As the inspector reviewed the mine’s training records, it was determined that one of the mine’s workers was not registered as fully trained in all of the prescribed training programs required for work in a hard rock underground mine.

As a result of that inspection, Goldcorp Canada Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a worker was trained as prescribed. Justice of the Peace Edith Baas imposed the $50,000, and also imposed the statutorily required 25% victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act.

A failure to properly train one worker cost the company a total of $62,500.