THE DISCIPLINE FILE
THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No.: 19-012-RDO continued
Verifying isolation 213 A worker must not perform work on machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected until (a) the actions required by subsection 212(1) are completed, (b) the machinery, equipment, or powered mobile equipment is tested to verify that it is inoperative, and (c) the worker is satisfied that it is inoperative. Securing isolation Securing by individual workers 214(1) Once all energy-isolating devices have been activated to control hazardous energy in accordance with section 212(1), an employer must ensure that a worker involved in work at each location requiring control of hazardous energy secures each energy isolating device with a personal lock. 214(2) Once each energy-isolating device is secured as required by subsection (1), the worker must verify that the hazardous energy source has been effectively isolated. 214(3) If more than one worker is working at each location requiring hazardous energy to be controlled, (a) each worker must attach a personal lock to each energy-isolating device, and (b) the first worker applying a lock must verify that the hazardous energy source has been effectively isolated. 214(4) If a worker who has placed a personal lock is reassigned before the work is completed, or the work is extended from one shift to another, an employer must ensure that (a) another worker, authorized by the employer to do so, attaches a personal lock to the energy-isolating device prior to removal of the reassigned or departing worker's lock, or (b) there is an effective and orderly transfer of control of the reassigned or departing worker's lock.
Date: July, 5, 2019
Case No.: 19-012-RDO
14. Only after the incident in question did the Member consider the formal implementation of a hazardous energy isolation procedure, commonly referred to as a lockout/tagout procedure, as referenced in the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Code , 2009. 15. The Member, as the Responsible Member for the Permit Holder, failed to comply with the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Code , 2009, which states: Part 15 Managing the Control of Hazardous Energy: Isolation 212(1) If machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment is to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, an employer must ensure that no worker performs such work on the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment until it has come to a complete stop and (a) all hazardous energy at the location at which the work is to be carried out is isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device and the energy-isolating device is secured in accordance with section 214, 215, or 215.1 as designated by the employer, or (b) the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment is otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevents its accidental activation and provides equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under (a). 212(2) An employer must develop and implement procedures and controls that ensure the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment is serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected safely if (a) the manufacturer's specifications require the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment to remain operative while it is being serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted, or inspected, or (b) there are no manufacturer's specifications and it is not reasonably practicable to stop or render the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment inoperative.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF [PROFESSIONAL MEMBER A], P.ENG., AND [PERMIT HOLDER B]
The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has conducted an investigation into the conduct of [Professional Member A], P. Eng., ("the Member") and [Permit Holder B] (“the Permit Holder”) with respect to a complaint initiated by an individual (“the Complainant”), dated October 22, 2017 ("the Complaint”). A. THE COMPLAINT The investigation related to an allegation that the Member, as the Responsible Member for the Permit Holder, engaged in unprofessional conduct and/or unskilled practice of the profession with respect to his handling of the Complainant's safety concerns. The Investigative Committee investigated the allegation that the Member failed to act on safety concerns brought forward by the Complainant. The Investigative Committee separately investigated the actions of a former employee of the Permit Holder, also a Professional Member, brought forward by the Complainant. 1. The Member graduated in 1982 with a bachelor of engineering degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Saskatchewan. 2. The Member is the President and Responsible Member for the Permit Holder. 3. On March 3, 2017, a former employee of the Permit Holder, a professional member, was testing equipment in the Permit Holder's workshop. 4. The former employee failed to detect the hazard of a live lead wire containing full bus voltage of 700 volts, while handling an electrical cable, which then contacted a metal door frame, causing an arc flash. 5. No injuries resulted. However, if the former B. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS (i) Background
employee or other company employees in the workshop had touched the live lead wire, serious injury or death may have occurred.
6. The incident in question was immediately discussed amongst all employees present,
including the Complainant, and with the Member by teleconference. The former employee generated an incident report and drafted an isolation procedure, and two days later, a company meeting occurred with all employees to discuss the incident and safety procedures. (ii) Facts relating to the allegation: whether the Member failed to act on safety concerns brought forward by the Complainant. 7. The Complainant became concerned prior to the incident in question with the former employee's competency as it related to his testing of electrical equipment in the Permit Holder's workshop. 8. The Complainant raised her concerns with the Member and requested he hire another professional member with more experience. 9. The Member refused the Complainant's request and stated that he had full confidence in the former employee. 10. The Member stated that the former employee had made a mistake and it was an isolated incident. 11. Another former employee reported that a general untidiness of the workshop, which was shared with another company, may have contributed to the incident in question. 12. No former employees interviewed reported any safety concerns while working at the Permit Holder. 13. The Permit Holder's Professional Practice Management Plan (PPMP) did not contain any reference to safety procedures.
58 | PEG WINTER 2019
WINTER 2019 PEG | 59
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker