Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Safety in the Quebec construction industry: An overview of and possible

improvements in hazardous energy control using lockout on construction
sites by electricians, pipefitters, refrigeration mechanics and
construction millwrights
Damien Burlet-Vienney a, *, Yuvin Chinniah b, Ayoub Nokra b, Abdallah Ben Mosbah b
a
Department of Mechanical and Physical Risk Prevention, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), 505 De Maisonneuve, Blvd. West,
Montreal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada
b
Department of Mathematics and Industrial Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, P.O. Box 6079, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, QC H3C 3A7, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Lack of proper energy control on construction sites leads to numerous worker fatalities every year. Energy
Lockout control refers to the concept of lockout and other methods used in particular in North America. The aim of this
Energy control exploratory research project was to achieve a better understanding of energy control practices in the Quebec
Construction site
construction industry for four trades: electricians, pipefitters, refrigeration mechanics and construction mill­
Safety of machinery
wrights. For each trade, 10 or so semistructured interviews were conducted by means of an open-ended ques­
tionnaire, developed with reference to the current provincial regulatory requirements. The 95 experiences
described by the 38 participants were compiled by trade and type of construction sites (i.e., residential, com­
mercial/institutional, industrial). This qualitative analysis revealed that energy control compliance with regu­
latory requirements in force varies mainly with the type of construction site. The responsibilities of principal
contractors, who have a legal obligation to supervise energy control on construction sites, are generally well
defined contractually before work begins on industrial sites and some major commercial/institutional sites. On
other types of construction sites, energy control is a more complex issue, as the client does not always have the
required technical expertise. In this case, the worker must choose whatever work method seems appropriate. In
most cases, this method is not lockout as defined in the regulation. Based on the findings, possible ways to
promote individual control over energy sources involving planning, equipment design and simplified procedures
are presented.

1. Introduction implementation of energy control, as well as the regulations and stan­

1.1. Energy control in construction
Under North American regulations, when performing work involving
servicing, maintenance, troubleshooting, inspection, cleaning and set-
up in a machine’s hazardous zone, lockout or another energy control
method must be applied to ensure worker safety (e.g., OSHA 29 CFR
1910.147, 1989; Gouvernement du Québec, 2021a). Lockout is defined
as “an energy control method designed to install an individually keyed
lock on an energy isolating device or on any other device allowing for
the control of energy such as a lockout box” (Gouvernement du Québec,
2021a; CSA, 2020). Karimi et al. (2018, 2019) have studied the
dards that apply to companies in the manufacturing sector in particular.
Their articles describe the associated principles and problems.
In Quebec, one of the biggest provinces in Canada, new regulations
on lockout applied to the construction industry are in force (Gou­
vernement du Québec, 2021b). Four million workers are exposed to this
type of risk annually in the United States and as such, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is currently preparing a pro­
posal for lockout applied to construction sites (OSHA, 2021).
Under the regulations now in force in Quebec, the principal
contractor (PC) is responsible for the application of energy control
methods, including lockout, on construction sites during each phase of
the project. The PC is “the owner or any other person who, on a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: damien.burletvienney@irsst.qc.ca (D. Burlet-Vienney).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105468
Received 4 June 2021; Received in revised form 10 August 2021; Accepted 23 August 2021
Available online 8 September 2021
0925-7535/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Burlet-Vienney et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468

construction site, is responsible for the carrying out of all the work” Table 1
(Gouvernement du Québec, 2021c). This concept can be difficult to Accident statistics related to electrical energy in construction.
implement in a construction site context. The PC must ensure that one or Country Period Statistics Reference
more procedures describing the energy control method are developed
U.S.A. 2003–2006 49% of the fatalities caused Janicak (2008); Myers-
and applied for every machine or electrical installation used on its by contact with electricity Lawson School of
construction site (Gouvernement du Québec, 2021b, sec. 2.20.5). occurred in the construction Construction (2017);
Moreover, if lockout is not possible, current regulations allow for the use industry (492 of 997 Volberg et al. (2017)
of an energy control method other than lockout, provided that a risk deaths).
Fatalities due to contact
analysis shows that the chosen method ensures equivalent safety (sec. with electricity represent
2.20.2 and 2.20.4). The PC must make sure that the individuals having around 9% of all the deaths
access to the danger zone of the machine are trained and informed on in the construction industry
the energy control method applied (sec. 2.20.8). The PC must also (4th highest cause). The
proportion of deaths by
provide the necessary lockout material unless that duty is delegated to
electrocution among young
employers (subcontractors) or self-employed workers through a formal workers is significantly
coordination mechanism (sec. 2.20.10 and 2.20.11). These regulatory higher in the construction
requirements, which apply to all types of construction sites similarly (i. industry than in all other
e., residential, commercial/institutional, industrial, civil engineering) industries.
Japan 1959–2003 60% of the fatalities caused Ichikawa (2016)
and each phase of a construction project, constitute the framework of by contact with electricity
this research. occurred in the construction
Based on a description of the various construction trades, electricians industry (approximately
and powerline technicians, pipefitters and pipe welders, refrigeration 100 a year).
Taiwan 1996–2002 Out of 255 cases of Chi et al. (2008)
mechanics, boilermakers and construction millwrights are the trades
electrocution in the
most likely to be involved in the application of an energy control method construction industry
(Conseil Provincial du Québec des métiers de la construction, 2021). examined over the period,
This list is not restrictive, as any worker can be called upon to apply an 24.3% were caused by tool
energy control procedure. or equipment failures,
20.8% by poor work
In addition to the regulations, standards CSA Z460 and ANSI Z244.1
practices, 13.7% resulted
provide management-related information (CSA, 2020; ANSI, 2016). In from accidental contact
the 2020 version of standard CSA Z460, an annex specific to construc­ with live parts, and 9% were
tion sites has been added. Some general recommendations are given. In caused by defective
switching off of electrical
summary, here are the main points: 1. Assign responsibility for the
systems.
lockout program right from the start of work so that you don’t have to
play catch-up; 2. On major construction sites, lockout needs grow as
work proceeds (e.g., different types of energy and different trades are verification of energy isolation could prevent around 125 fatalities a
added); 3. Anticipate the use of alternative methods to lockout, as there year in the construction industry in the United States. According to
are always situations in which they are necessary; 4. At new building McCann et al. (2003), hazardous energy control did not used to be a
sites, start by installing “consumer” equipment first, then work back up widespread practice in construction in the United States. Other studies
the chain to energizing the site’s electrical network, so that workers are have shown that the primary causes of fatality from electrical contact in
exposed to electrical hazards for the shortest time possible (CSA, 2020, Taiwan are failure to follow safety guidelines, such as working live,
Annex I). failure to maintain safe working distances, improper use of personal
In the United States, standard ANSI/ASSE A10.44 (ANSI/ASSE, protective equipment and poor work practices (Chi et al., 2008).
2014) is specific to construction (i.e., “for construction and demolition
operations”). However, its content is fairly standard in relation to other 1.2.2. Accidents in Quebec
standards governing energy control. In order to have exhaustive data on serious and fatal workplace ac­
cidents attributable to hazardous energy control problems in construc­
1.2. Accidents related to energy control in construction tion for a given jurisdiction, statistics were compiled for the period
1990–2017 for the jurisdiction where the study was carried out (Quebec,
1.2.1. General statistics Canada). All types of energy were taken into consideration, not just
The construction industry accounts for approximately 20% of work- electricity. Of the 1646 serious and fatal accident investigation reports
related fatalities in Canada and the United States (Association of made available for the period by the Quebec Occupational health and
Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada, 2018; Bureau of Labor Sta­ Safety (OHS) Board (CNESST), 30 were selected for this study (1.8%)
tistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2019). The scientific literature on the (CNESST, 2021). These 30 events resulted in 27 deaths and 5 serious
control of hazardous energy in the construction industry chiefly focuses injuries and a fatality rate of approximately 0.65 deaths per 100,000
on the analysis of workplace accidents in connection with electrical construction workers. Commercial and industrial sites accounted
hazards (e.g., Cawley and Brenner, 2012; Zhao et al., 2015). Some sig­ equally for 75% of the cases examined. The residential construction
nificant accident statistics on this topic are given in Table 1. sector represented 16%, and the civil engineering sector 9%.
Electricity is not the only hazard to which workers are exposed when Sixty-six percent of the accident victims were killed or injured
performing maintenance, although it is generally the most common one through direct or indirect contact with a live part, underscoring the
on construction sites. For example, in the United States, “contact with danger of electrical hazards. Electricians are the workers most affected,
objects or equipment”is also a major cause of fatality in the industry, accounting for close to 50% of the victims. The causes given in the ac­
even more so than electrical contact (Janicak, 2008; Myers-Lawson cident reports are unsafe work methods, especially intentional or un­
School of Construction, 2017). This accident category is also poten­ intentional live work, accessible live parts, work performed by non-
tially related to an energy control problem. competent people and a lack of supervision. Thirty-three percent (7/
Energy control, according to some studies, is one of the recommen­ 21) of the cases related to an electrical contact involved a non-
dations that needs to be implemented. According to Janicak (2008), electrician (e.g., maintenance employee, plumber, carpenter).
implementation of effective energy control programs and proper

2
D. Burlet-Vienney et al.
The other third of the accident victims came into contact with a
moving part. The causes stated in the reports are machines with acces­
sible moving parts (e.g., no guards), unsafe work methods with a non-
controlled machine shutdown and then accidental machine start-up,
and lastly coordination and supervision problems. Contacts with mov­
ing parts occur primarily in the civil engineering and industrial sectors
(e.g., mobile machinery).
1.3. Anticipated problems with regulatory compliance based on the
literature
Construction projects stand out in particular by their growing
complexity, their uniqueness or their changing workforce (Feng and
Trinh, 2019). Certain sector characteristics can make OHS management,
including energy control, more complex. Table 2, while not exhaustive,
lists some aspects of this reality (Fang and Wu, 2013; Wang et al., 2016).
To be effective, management systems in the construction industry
must focus on ensuring good synergy of human, material and organi­
zational resources (Jiang, 2012). That applies to the management of
energy control, which requires work planning (e.g., written procedure
with identification of energy sources, equipment), trained staff, good
communications, supervision and monitoring.
Integrating and implementing risk prevention in the management
information systems of small and medium-sized businesses in the con­
struction industry is a complex undertaking, according to Segarra
Cañamares et al. (2017) in Spain. For instance, the systematic use of
external accident prevention consultants, coupled with a lack of
collaboration in the application and integration of the risk prevention
plan on the construction site, can create a problem. According to
Romero Barriuso et al. (2018), most accident prevention trainers for this
sector in Spain were not construction specialists and the courses they
gave were not adapted to the level of the workers.
A number of studies have been conducted by researchers to identify
the common causes of accidents based on retrospective data, in an effort
to prevent future incidents. According to Winge et al. (2019), risk
management, close supervision and workers’ actions are key factors.
Many different factors can influence risk perception. For example, ac­
cording to Trillo-Cabello et al. (2021), discrepancies in risk perception
among experts are greater in the early stages of a construction project.
Ayhan and Tokdemir (2019) have developed an accident prediction
Table 2
Examples of construction project problems that can impact OHS management.
Specific problem Examples
Complexity and variety of • Construction site constantly changing
construction process • Transitional, interrelated activities
• Coactivities
Outdoor work
•
• Type of construction site with a variety of
constraints (e.g., residential and industrial)
Construction site uncertainty • Problems related to work planning between
and planning client and subcontractor
Expected discrepancy between project planning
•
and execution
• Unplanned disruptions and continuous
optimization of planning to meet deadlines and
address discrepancies
Number of main players Diversity of trades and workers involved in
•
involved in process different phases of project (e.g., architects and
engineers at design phase, contractors in
construction phase, client in operations phase)
• Variety of constraints between trades
• Diversity of size of companies involved
Variety of workforce and OHS • Workforce coming and going, of different origins
culture and mostly temporary
• Rigid culture resistant to change
• Inadequate safety-conscious behavior (e.g., fail­
ure to apply rules) and little management
involvement
3
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468
model based on artificial intelligence. Some researchers have proposed a
problematic area detection mechanism. Others have used fuzzy logic to
develop risk assessment tools for construction sites (Mohandes and
Zhang, 2019; Koulinas et al., 2019).
1.4. Objectives
Lack of proper energy control on construction sites leads to
numerous worker fatalities every year, as accident statistics indicate.
The problems identified in Section 1.3 were anticipated, but they had
not yet been studied for the specific context of energy control on con­
struction sites. The aim of this research was therefore to achieve a better
understanding of energy control practices (lockout and other methods)
in the construction industry in Quebec. The research focused on four
trades whose work requires them to apply an energy control method:
electricians, pipefitters, refrigeration mechanics and construction mill­
wrights. The residential, commercial/institutional and industrial sectors
were covered, but civil engineering was not. The study was primarily
exploratory and qualitative. Developing this knowledge will promote
compliance with regulatory requirements, provide more training con­
tent and offer guidelines for workers in their efforts to implement energy
control methods. In contrast with the previous studies on lockout in
Quebec and in US (e.g., Karimi et al., 2018, 2019 [manufacturing];
Chinniah and Burlet-Vienney, 2013 [municipal sector]; Poisson and
Chinniah, 2015, 2016 [forestry]; Yamin et al., 2016 [manufacturing];
Burlet-Vienney et al., 2017 [mobile equipment]), this study is specific to
the construction industry and as such is first of its kind.
2. Method
2.1. Sampling
For each of the four trades targeted in the study, 10 or so participants
took part in a semistructured interview and completed a questionnaire,
in accordance with the principles of qualitative research (Brikci and
Green, 2007). The number of 10 participants per trade was chosen on
the basis of the saturation principle (Gillham, 2000). This means that
data collection ceases when the information collected in the various
situations becomes repetitive. The number 10 was a good compromise
between the exploratory nature of the study and the desire to document
a wide variety of work situations. To be included in the study, partici­
pants had to work in the construction industry (e.g., contractor,
unionized worker, member of a trade), have a minimum of two years’
experience and work on different types of construction sites so as to
cover a variety of work situations. Purposeful sampling was used, as
participants were chosen for their extensive knowledge about a phe­
nomenon of interest and their willingness to participate (Palinkas et al.,
2015; Patton, 2005). Last, each participant was paid a similar fixed
amount for a maximum duration of a two-hour interview in order to
compensate them for their time.
In the end, 38 participants were interviewed over a 20-month period.
The trade of the participant is shown in Table 3 and the experience of the
participant is presented in Table 4.
Table 3
Role of participants by trade.
Trade Role occupied Total
Apprentice Journeyperson Foreperson Other
Electrician 1 5 2 2 10
Refrigeration 0 8 0 0 8
mechanic
Construction 0 6 4 0 10
millwright
Pipefitter 0 7 3 0 10
Total 1 26 9 2 38
D. Burlet-Vienney et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468

Table 4 Table 5
Experience of participants by trade. Number of recent experiences described in interviews, by trade and type of
Trade Years of experience in Seniority in company
construction site.
trade (years) Trade Experiences shared by type of construction site
<5 6–10 >10 <1 2–3 >3 n.a. Residential Commercial/ Industrial Total
Institutional
Electrician (10) 2 4 4 2 2 6 0
Refrigeration mechanic (8) 0 1 7 1 1 6 0 Electrician (10) 5 10 12 27
Construction millwright (10) 1 2 7 4 0 3 3 Refrigeration 0 12 10 22
Pipefitter (10) 3 2 5 1 2 6 1 mechanic (8)
Total 6 9 23 8 5 21 4 Construction 0 4 10 14
millwright (10)
n.a.: not available.
Pipefitter (10) 1 17 14 32
Total 6 43 46 95
In terms of participants’ roles, the sample consisted essentially of
journeypersons and forepersons (35/38). Sixty percent of participants
had over 10 years’ experience in their trade. The sample nevertheless Table 6 summarizes, by trade, the main types of equipment, work
included 16% of participants with less than five years’ seniority in a and forms of energy concerned by energy control, according to the
trade. That provided us with the perspective of people who had not been participants’ sample. Generally speaking, the problem of energy control
in their trade for very long. Eighty-nine percent of participants were and lockout does not exist so long as the equipment in question is not yet
unionized, and 86% were employed at the time of the interview. As for energized, connected or plugged in (e.g., new construction site, instal­
the employers, 37% had fewer than 50 employees, while 39% had over lation of new equipment).
100. This diversity made the study more interesting, as a company with
two employees will have different OHS means and knowledge than one 3.2. Incidents
with a hundred employees.
Energy control incidents occur fairly frequently in the construction
industry, if the experiences of our participants are to be believed. Close
2.2. Data collection and analysis tool to 85% of participants (32/38) said they had experienced or witnessed a
noteworthy incident or a close call related to an energy control problem
A semistructured interview was conducted with each participant to (e.g., electric shock, machine restart with no serious consequences).
get them to talk about their past experiences. The interviews were car­
ried out using a questionnaire that had first been validated (with two 3.2.1. Situations described by electricians
interviews). The questionnaire content was based on the regulations Virtually all electricians surveyed (9/10) had already had an electric
currently in force, the reference standard and the most recent studies on shock or had had their fingers burned (or seen it happen live to a
lockout (Gouvernement du Québec, 2021b; CSA, 2020; Karimi et al., coworker), some on 347 V, others on 600 V. Typical incidents include
2018, 2019). The questionnaire consisted of four main sections and accidental contact with a neutral return line on commercial lighting
several subsections. The main sections were: Section 1 - Identification of (cause by a split of the 600 V circuit in 3 × 347 V with the same neutral;
participant (i.e., training, experience, knowledge of energy control); if just a single 347 V breaker is locked out, a neutral return is possible by
Section 2 - Participant’s energy control practice in relation to regulatory the two other breakers), contact with the top of the panel that is still live
requirements; Section 3 - An open-ended narrative in which participants and accessible, contact when testing voltage, an unlocked circuit
describe at least two typical work experiences on a construction site; and breaker put back to “ON” by another worker without asking, poorly
Section 4 - A discussion about the influence of certain factors on energy identified wiring leading to someone getting an electric shock, and a
control (i.e., type of construction sites, type of work required, commu­ problem with a no voltage test (e.g., voltage detector pen ineffective
nication with PC, coactivity). The study was approved by the ethics with shielded cables). One electrician said: “I’ve already been zapped by
committee at Polytechnique Montreal.
The interviews were retranscribed and approved by the researchers Table 6
present at the time of the visit. Each participant’s data were classified by Types of equipment involved in control of hazardous energy, by trade.
topic in an analysis grid developed in Excel© (Microsoft, 2010). The
Trade Equipment
trends by trade and by type of construction site were then identified. The
Electrician Electrical panel: circuit breaker, disconnect switch, etc.
data were compared with the regulatory requirements in force. •
• Generating set, transformer
• Cable, switch, lighting
3. Results – Interviews • Heating, ventilation, heat pump
• Motor, industrial equipment
Control panel, automation, smoke alarms
3.1. Energy control situation •
Refrigeration • Air-conditioning and refrigeration system: compressor,
mechanic condenser, expansion valve, evaporator and fan
Participants described a total of 95 recent experiences requiring the • All sectors: monoblock units (e.g., installed on roofs), split
control of hazardous energy (whether the control took place or not) on units (e.g., mini-splits in residential), unit heaters
residential, commercial/institutional and industrial sites. The data on • Supermarkets, convenience stores and restaurants: cold
storage rooms, refrigerated display cases, ice machines
these experiences are broken down in Table 5 by trade and type of • Industrial: refrigerated warehouses
construction site. Construction • Industrial mechanic: all kinds of industrial equipment.
Most of the experiences that participants shared took place in the millwright Machine, overhead cranes, ovens, conveyors, compressors,
commercial/institutional and industrial sectors. Few experiences in the pumps, motors, hoppers, crushers, robots, turbines, etc.
Elevator mechanic: public and private elevators, escalators,
residential sector were described, with the exception of some cases by •
material hoists
electricians, as lockout isn’t really practiced in that sector, participants Pipefitter • Piping, valves, tanks, pumps, drains: water, natural gas,
said. This point was discussed specifically in the interviews, however. chemicals, oil, etc.
Very few representative experiences in the civil engineering sector were • Natural gas boilers, oil-fired boilers, natural gas burners,
mentioned by participants, which explains why that sector was not steam feed pipes
Water heaters, radiators
included in the study.
•

4
D. Burlet-Vienney et al.
347 V on a commercial job. It was a suspended ceiling. I was an ap­
prentice. Only the switch was off. I got the current through the neutral
return.”
3.2.2. Situations described by refrigeration mechanics
All the refrigeration mechanics we met had had electric shocks (e.g.,
600 V) or been struck by a belt. They do a lot of diagnostics on air-
conditioning/refrigeration units. For the diagnostics, they have to stop
and start equipment all the time, and sometimes they can’t remember
whether the power is on or off. Also, when they’re doing diagnostics on
low voltage, they’re close to the power part of the panel. Regarding
moving components, one refrigeration mechanic broke a finger: “I was
trying to slow down a pulley [dust extractor] with the friction of my
glove. I often used to do it. I wasn’t really paying attention. I was doing
two things at the same time. My glove got dragged along by the pulley.”
3.2.3. Situations described by construction millwrights
The incidents observed by industrial mechanics included untimely
equipment restarts, whether because of no lockout or improper lockout
(e.g., wrong disconnect switch). For example, one industrial mechanic
saw “a worker start working on a crusher in a foundry without locking
out. Someone turned the machine back on. It started running with the
worker on top.”
3.2.4. Situations described by pipefitters
The problems described by pipefitters concerned (i) the closing of the
wrong valve or the reopening of a (non-locked out) valve by a third
party, (ii) defective (leaky) valves, (iii) improper purging or product
return (e.g., benzene, steam) or (iv) electrical energy sources nearby
when doing pipefitting work (e.g., underground lines, temporary panel).
One pipefitter witnessed an accident that occurred when work was being
done on a heat exchanger that hadn’t been locked out: “When a quick-
connect was disconnected, there was a backflow of steam and the
worker got burned.”
3.3. Lockout and regulations
All study participants had a good understanding of the purpose of
energy control and the application of lockout. Here are some represen­
tative examples of the definitions given, going from simplest to most
detailed: “It’s for my safety”, “Make sure that when you’re working on a
piece of equipment, no one can turn the power on” and “You have to cut
off all power in a safe way, and each worker has to put his or her lock on
it.” Based on the answers from participants, a small percentage of them
(18%) were familiar with the energy control regulations in force.
However, a number of participants agreed that they had seen continuous
improvement in energy control over the last 10 years or more among
clients, apprentices and employers, starting with the industrial sector,
which has been pushing contractors to organize their practices better.
Participants familiar with regulatory changes said that in their view
there was a discrepancy between the requirements of the Code and the
reality on residential and commercial construction sites, especially
regarding the identification of the PC and therefore the PC’s supervisory
and coordination role (e.g., lockout material, written procedures).
3.4. Aspects of management related to energy control
3.4.1. Specific training
Eighty-nine percent of participants (32/36) confirmed that they had
taken at least one training course specifically on lockout and energy
control during their career. On the other hand, 10% of participants (4/
36) stated they have not received any such specific training. In two
thirds of cases (24/36), participants said they had taken the training
courses as part of a briefing to be granted access to an industrial site. In
22% of cases (8/36), the employer took the initiative and provided the
training for its employees. In the other cases, the training course was a
5
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468
union initiative or was taken on a volunteer basis by the participant.
The information gathered about training seems to indicate that
participants mainly learned about the theoretical aspects of lockout
from their industrial site experiences.
3.4.2. Material
Under the regulations, “the principal contractor must provide
lockout material including individually keyed locks, except if an
employer or self-employed worker is responsible therefor”(Gouverne­
ment du Québec, 2021b, sec. 2.20.11). Under this section, there are
several possibilities for who is responsible for providing the lockout
material and accessories. What usually happens, the study participants
said, is that the PC provides the padlock and accessories on industrial
sites and major commercial/institutional sites, whereas workers use
their own material on the other construction sites (e.g., residential,
standard commercial/institutional).
According to participants, it is crucial for workers to have the pos­
sibility of being independent of the PC with respect to padlocks, by being
given their padlocks at best during their training or, if not, then through
their employer. In their view, “workers who don’t have padlocks won’t
bother with lockout”; “if you have your own padlock, there’s no excuse.”
A number of participants noted that outside of the industrial sector, it
is not unusual for a worker to use a single lock to protect several
workers, even though this is contrary to what the regulations prescribe.
Also, in cases where workers do not have the necessary lockout material,
or have lost or mislaid it, participants say they resort to alternative
means (e.g., tie-wraps, tape) to make the work area safe.
3.4.3. Energy control procedures
According to study participants, lockout or energy control proced­
ures like those mentioned in the regulations are used only on certain
industrial sites and major long-term commercial/institutional sites.
Except in a few cases, written lockout procedures are not used on resi­
dential or general commercial/institutional sites. According to partici­
pants, whether or not formal lockout procedures are used for a specific
job can also be influenced by the nature of the work. There is less like­
lihood of a formal lockout procedure being used for a service call or on a
new construction site than if workers will be at a site for several days
dealing with existing installations.
A number of participants even raised questions about the usefulness
of having a systematic lockout procedure on a construction site. Ac­
cording to one participant, the lockout procedure amounts to: “Turn off
the power and put your padlock on the disconnect switch. Most equip­
ment has only one power source (disconnect switch).” In actual practice,
participants say that if a lockout/energy control procedure exists, then
workers use it.
3.4.4. Audits
During the interviews, participants were asked whether their lockout
practices were audited by a foreperson, a representative of the PC or
someone else. Half of them stated that they had never been audited
regarding lockout over the course of their careers. The other half
recalled being audited, mainly on some industrial sites by the PC or on a
major commercial/institutional site by the foreperson or an assigned
inspection officer.
3.5. Energy control methods used on construction sites
3.5.1. Experiences of electricians
The electricians in the study shared 27 representative energy control
experiences during the interviews. Table 7 gives the data on the elec­
tricians’ experiences by type of construction site and type of work, as
well as energy control preparation, control method used and follow-up.
In this and the following tables, “preparation” includes the authorization
to perform the work, the briefing in relation with energy control, and the
verification of training by the designated PC. The application columns
D. Burlet-Vienney et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468

Table 7
Representative experiences described by electricians.
Type of construction site Energy control
Type of work
Preparation Application Follow-up

No Yes No control No power (NP) Lockout or justified alternative No Yes

Residential (5) 5/5 0/5 2/5 2/5 1/5 5/5 0/5

• New condo, basement reno

• Electrical panel, wiring, outlets, lights, heating, etc.
Commercial/Institutional (10) 7/10 3/10 5/10 2/10 3/10 6/10 4/10

• Hospitals, convention centers, stores

• Heating, 347 V lighting, 600 V panel, adding circuits, etc.
Industrial (12) 3/12 9/12 1/12 1/12 10/12 4/12 8/12

• Petrochemical, manufacturing, sawmills, wind turbines

• Adding circuits, connections, machines, motors, transformers, etc.

refer to the use and enforcement of a lockout procedure or another

control method. Three categories were used: no control, no power Table 8
Representative experiences described by refrigeration mechanics.
without padlock (NP), and lockout or other formal method. Last,
“follow-up” includes the management of special cases (e.g., padlock Type of Energy control
construction site
forgotten, continuity) as well as the verification of the application Preparation Application Follow-up
Type of work
measures by the designated PC. No Yes No NP Lockout or No Yes
On residential and commercial sites, there are normally no lockout control justified
procedures. For these two types of sites, it can be seen that lockout or a alternative
formal alternative method is applied in less than one third of cases (4/ Commercial/ 12/ 0/ 0/12 12/ 0/12 12/ 0/
15). In total, only 8 jobs out of 15 (53%) were performed under NP or Institutional 12 12 12 12 12
lockout. According to the study participants, if electricians are required (12)
to lock out on a major residential site, the solution most commonly used
• Offices,
is to switch off and lock out the main panel and to use a generator restaurants,
outside with extension cords to supply power to the site (which is not the stores,
best option, considering the risk of falls on stairways, for instance). A hospitals
number of noncompliant practices were reported, such as (1) an elec­ • Monoblocks,
ventilator/
trical panel with pre-made open slots (for future circuit breakers) turned
evaporators
on with only one circuit breaker in position and accessible live parts, and Industrial (10) 3/ 7/ 0/10 1/ 9/10 6/ 4/
(2) changing an electrical panel without shutting off the power. 10 10 10 10 10
In the industrial sector, the management of lockout and the use of • Refrigerated,
placards seems to be established practice in over 75% of the cases agri-food
warehouses
described by the electricians in our study. The main difference, ac­ • HVAC
cording to the electricians, concerns the supervision by the PC and the equipment,
involvement of dedicated resources, which is not the case in the resi­ compressor
dential and commercial/institutional sectors most of the time. Last, motors,
evaporators
some electricians stated that commercial sites were the riskiest overall
because of the lack of supervision, the voltage required and the
complexity of the circuits. is to turn the local disconnect switch for the unit to off without affixing a
The electricians had the following comments and recommendations: padlock and then checking absence of voltage (12/12). According to the
1. Use a multimeter to test voltages, as voltage detector pens are not refrigeration mechanics who work on roofs, lockout shouldn’t be
always reliable (e.g., shielded cables); 2. Allocate the right amount of mandatory in cases like this. They say that they affix their padlock only
time to jobs to encourage electricians to work safely; 3. Install cutoff in cases where they don’t have exclusive control over the local discon­
points that are easy to lock out; and 4. Ensure more supervision on nect switch (e.g., no local disconnect on the roof [6/8] or when other
construction sites. workers present in work area). In the industrial sector, in most cases, the
refrigeration mechanic is briefed by the PC (7/10) and follows the en­
3.5.2. Experiences of refrigeration mechanics ergy control method requested by the PC, i.e., lockout (9/10). Refrig­
The refrigeration mechanics in the study shared 22 representative eration mechanics follow the lockout procedure prepared by the PC or
energy control experiences. Table 8 sets out the data for the refrigeration take care of the lockout themselves. Lockout placards specific to a piece
mechanics’ experiences, by type of construction site and type of work. In of equipment are only available in certain industries, however.
most cases, the mechanics worked alone and in isolated locations (e.g., The refrigeration mechanics made the following recommendations:
roofs). As for electricians, there seems to be a difference in hazardous 1. Enforce a requirement for roof units to be equipped with a clearly
energy control practices between the commercial/institutional sector identified local disconnect switch that can be locked out; and 2. Physi­
and the industrial sector. cally separate the control part (low voltage) of an electrical panel from
In the commercial/institutional sector, the experiences described by the power part, so as to reduce the risks to workers performing
the mechanics were all very similar. The refrigeration mechanics mostly diagnostics.
work on monoblock units on roofs. The client usually has no technical
competency. No lockout procedure is available or requested by the 3.5.3. Experiences of construction millwrights
client. The basic energy control method used by refrigeration mechanics The construction millwrights reported in the interviews on 14

6
D. Burlet-Vienney et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468

representative energy control experiences. The data on their experiences systematic practice.
are given by type of construction site and type of work in Table 9 (nine The study pipefitters made the following suggestions: 1. Generalize
industrial mechanics and one elevator mechanic). The commercial ex­ the installation of valves that can be purged in order to facilitate lockout;
periences were shared by the elevator mechanic. 2. Separate out the points at which water and electricity can be cut off at
In heavy industry, energy control management appears to comply installations; designers currently have a tendency to group them
with current regulatory requirements, based on the accounts of the study together to optimize space; 3. Ensure that an electrician is on hand to
participants: construction site briefing, training, coaching, lockout lock out the electrical part of an energy control system; and 4. Conduct
preparation (e.g., lockout box), lockout placard or specific work permit risk analyses so that energy control measures can be adapted (e.g., risk is
and regular audits. In addition, according to the industrial mechanics different with water than with glycol).
interviewed, lockout is an integral part of their practice, as their work
often requires them to put their bodies inside industrial equipment. 4. Discussion
For elevator mechanics, there is usually no construction site briefing
or technical follow-up. The main work method used is an alternative 4.1. Actual practices
method based on the control system on the elevator car roof, emergency
stops and checking that the car is not moving. The 95 representative experiences described by the study partici­
The only factor the mechanics mentioned regarding whether or not pants, broken down by type of construction site and trade, are presented
to use lockout was the nature of the work to be performed, and espe­ in Tables 7–10. These experiences are based solely on the interviews
cially whether power was needed for diagnostics or an adjustment (e.g., conducted with the participants, as no on-site observations were made.
conveyor belt). All trades taken together, industrial sites are the only type of site
where energy control is structured and supervised in most cases (37/46
3.5.4. Experiences of pipefitters for preparation, 30/46 for follow-up). Industrial sites are also the only
The pipefitters interviewed shared 32 representative energy control type of site where lockout is the energy control method used in most
experiences. Data on the main types of work they mentioned are given cases (39/46, or 85%, of industrial site experiences described). Indus­
by type of construction site in Table 10. The data in the table indicate trial sites where the PC is generally easily identifiable seem to be suited
that, as for the other trades, the industrial sector is better organized in to the regulatory requirements (which are based on supervision by a
terms of energy control. clearly defined PC). Industrial mechanics were the only study partici­
Generally speaking, in the residential and commercial/institutional pants who said that lockout was an integral part of their practice. For the
sectors, there is no construction site briefing or follow-up by the PC other trades, lockout seems to be a measure that complements no-power
regarding energy control (14/18). The control method used is to turn the (NP) work when necessary.
disconnect switch off, close the valves, in some cases disconnect the On other types of construction sites, the situation is different, as
piping if necessary, and check that there is no energy (11/18). When workers are not supervised by a clearly identified PC (e.g., lack of
lockout is used, according to the study participants, it can be partial (e. preparation and follow-up) with a few exceptions in the case of large
g., electricity only) or be done by a third party for the whole group (e.g., commercial/institutional sites. There is no energy control procedure, no
electrician, foreperson). In some cases, the primary purpose of lockout is information on risks and installations, and no coordination on the cli­
to prevent material damage. In the industrial sector, most of the expe­ ent’s part. The concept and identification of the PC are not as clearly
riences mentioned concerned regulatory requirements with a briefing by established as in the case of industrial sites. Communication is inade­
the PC, lockout boxes and supervision by the PC (10/14). Locking out quate in this regard (e.g., when does the client not play the role of PC?).
valves is sometimes not a sufficient measure, owing to the pressures and The method that workers prefer to use in these situations is to work with
products involved. In addition, a pipe should be sealed off and/or isolated energy sources, but without exclusive control over cutoff points
purged if there is a problem with a valve. Purging was one of the tech­ with a personal padlock. Electricians are the only trade that regularly
nical problems mentioned by the pipefitters. It should be noted that even works with energized systems (i.e., live) without necessarily following
in the industrial sector, the use of prepared lockout placards is not a the measures specified in the dedicated standards (CSA, 2018). The
other trades mentioned working with energy only when they were doing
diagnostics.
Table 9 These results illustrate the discrepancies between the regulatory re­
Representative experiences described by construction millwrights. quirements, on the one hand, which do not make any distinctions for
Type of construction Energy control different types of construction sites, and the reality of actual practices,
site
Preparation Application Follow-up on the other, especially for construction sites in the residential and
Type of work
commercial/institutional sectors. Supervision by the designated PC is
No Yes No NP Lockout or No Yes
control justified
therefore a key factor in the choice and content of an energy control
alternative method when performing a job. Without this supervision, workers will
choose a work method that seems appropriate to them. To judge by the
Commercial/ 4/ 0/4 0/4 4/ 0/4 4/ 0/
Institutional (4) 4 4 4 4 study interviews, workers seem to make their decisions in a more or less
conscious way based on a cost-benefit analysis (e.g., In what situations is
• Shopping center, it worth the cost to put my personal padlock on an isolating device?).
university, airport The main factors mentioned are summarized in Table 11.
• Elevator,
escalator
Beyond the type of construction site and the supervision provided by
Industrial (10) 0/ 10/ 0/10 0/ 10/10 1/ 9/ the PC, here are the main takeaways:
10 10 10 10 10
• Petrochemical, • If the installations are not yet powered up/connected, no energy
manufacturing,
control measures are taken. Risk becomes a factor when power is
steelmaking
• Conveyors, supplied to the installations on a site. At that time, energy control
pumps, hydraulic methods must be implemented and used. This can be a challenge for
jacks, motor the PC in terms of communication and supervision. According to the
couplings, chutes, interviews, this aspect is relevant to the work of electricians and
belts
pipefitters in particular. Moreover, we could mention that energy

7
D. Burlet-Vienney et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468

Table 10
Representative experiences described by pipefitters.
Type of construction site Energy control
Type of work
Preparation Application Follow-up

No Yes No control NP Lockout or justified alternative No Yes

Residential (1) 1/1 0/1 0/1 1/1 0/1 1/1 0/1

• Sump pumps, water heaters, dishwashers, washing machines

Commercial/Institutional (17) 13/ 4/17 0/17 10/ 7/17 13/ 4/17
17 17 17
• Hospitals, universities, offices, stores
• Water, natural gas, air lines. Pumps, furnaces/boilers, ventilation units
Industrial (14) 3/14 11/ 0/14 4/14 10/14 5/14 9/
14 14
• Petrochemical, agri-food, pulp and paper
• Natural gas, oil, chemical lines. Furnaces/boilers, industrial burners, machines

any work with water will be more a question of possible material

Table 11
Summary of factors mentioned by study participants regarding choice of control
method.
Factors Underlying concepts
PC requirements • PC requirements: planning and supervision
• Related to type of construction site: industrial >
institutional > commercial > residential
• Refers to organizational aspect: briefing, material,
procedure, follow-up, etc.
Phase of • Energy present or not: not connected to energy sources,
construction power supply phase, connected
Type of work • Service call (emergency) or planned construction site
• Work duration, time available to perform work
• Energy needs
Control over cutoff • Identification, accessibility and ease of locking out
points • Work alone or as part of a team
• Eye contact with cutoff point
• Availability of lockout material
Energy source • Type of energy
• Potential intensity/seriousness of possible accident
Pressure and • Leeway available (e.g., impact of energy cutoff)
conviction • Knowledge and acceptance of risk
control must be done during each phase of the construction project,
not only during specific phases or conditions.
• If the work has to be done in a rush, without planning, for a service
call (breakdown), for instance, then time becomes a factor. If lockout
would take too much time, another method is sometimes chosen
instead. This also applies in the case of short-term jobs and diagnostic
jobs where energy is needed intermittently.
• The ease of applying lockout is a major factor. For isolating devices,
accessibility (e.g., distance to travel, area with authorization),
identification (e.g., numbering, up-to-date technical plan) and pos­
sibility of applying a padlock without having to add any accessories
(e.g., chain) are all taken into consideration.
• The level of control over switching the isolating device to off is a
criterion respecting the need to apply one’s personal padlock (e.g.,
likelihood that another worker will handle the isolating devices).
According to study participants, the least risky situations are work­
ing alone in an isolated location where you can keep an eye on the
isolating devices (e.g., refrigeration mechanics working on roofs). In
contrast, the most risky situations are working with other trades from
other companies (e.g., pipefitters with electricians). It is precisely
because they work alone, without the involvement of other trades,
that refrigeration mechanics are not in the habit of locking out the
local disconnect switch of monoblock units on roofs.
• The type of energy and the energy intensity, which chiefly determine
the seriousness of any injury in the event of an accident, are two of
the main factors that workers take into account when choosing what
energy control method to implement. For example, for pipefitters,
damage, whereas work with chemicals could possibly endanger
worker health and safety. Decisions about the appropriate energy
control level are made accordingly.
• Other factors that come into play in the cost-benefit analysis are the
leeway the worker enjoys and various individual aspects. Cutting off
service to users, for example, can be an issue for electricians. Clients
can apply a lot of pressure to keep the length of the power inter­
ruption to a minimum or even to avoid it completely. Coworkers who
are less concerned about the importance of energy control can also
have an influence on behavior and decisions on construction sites.
Workers’ convictions about energy control and their ability, and the
possibility they have, to contest certain decisions are also criteria
that were often mentioned by the study participants. Worker
conviction can be influenced by training taken, the people a worker
apprenticed with, and the various experiences a worker encounters
on construction sites.
These factors that enter into the cost-benefit analysis are not exclu­
sive to the construction industry. They can be found in any industry/
area of work where the energy control method is not imposed on
workers. However, this kind of cost-benefit analysis seems to be con­
ducted all the time by workers on residential and commercial/institu­
tional construction sites, where they may be less supervised and operate
in places and on installations that may potentially change every day.
With the data collected for this study it is difficult to classify these fac­
tors by order of importance. Together they make up a whole, and how to
apply them is specific to each situation. At this stage, it should be
remembered that the control of energy is regulated and workers should
not have to do a cost-benefit analysis.
4.2. Ideas to explore
4.2.1. Work planning
Based on the study results, work planning and supervision are the
key to applying appropriate control methods. Designating a PC and
having the PC assume responsibility are essential factors. So, regardless
of the construction site, the client and the subcontractor must agree
formally, before the work begins, on: 1. Who will play the role of the PC
within the meaning of the regulations, i.e., who will assume effective
responsibility for energy control; 2. When and how is technical infor­
mation about the installations to be shared; 3. The duration and timing
of a job, so as to ensure that enough time is allotted to it to allow for
proper energy control and so that equipment can be shut down without
constraint; and 4. The availability of an electrician, if necessary, to
control the electrical energy.
4.2.2. Lockout training and material
When the energy control method is not imposed, a worker’s choice of

8
D. Burlet-Vienney et al.
method may be influenced by his or her knowledge about the subject
and the availability of lockout material. There are therefore good
grounds for focusing on energy control training and making lockout
material available to workers. The idea in this case is to provide workers
with as many tools as possible so that they can apply a control method
that complies with best practices, regardless of the context regarding the
designation of the PC.
For training, in the broad sense of the term, study participants said it
would be interesting to: 1. Include a mandatory training module on
energy control as part of the vocational training program. A module of
this kind should include a practical component to prepare students to
manage whatever energy control problems arise in the field (e.g., client
doesn’t want power cut off; no way to lock out isolating device); 2. Stress
energy control during journeyperson training and include that concept
in the test to become a journeyperson; 3. Establish an audit system on
construction sites, whether conducted by the PC or the subcontractor’s
employer, in order to ensure continuous improvement in practices.
Regarding lockout material, the PC or the designated entity must
provide dedicated material to ensure a certain level of quality of the
material being used on the construction site. Beyond this principle, it
would be interesting if workers on a construction site could each have
access to personal padlocks and accessories essential to their trade, in­
dependent of the PC, so that they are always able to lock out, regardless
of the circumstances and the type of construction site. Lockout material,
which could be provided during the vocational training course, would
be part of the basic “toolbox.”
4.2.3. Cutoff points and design
After knowledge and access to lockout material, the ease of locking
out an isolating device in the cutoff position is an incentive to do so in
less-supervised situations. The fewer obstacles to lockout there are, the
greater the likelihood the worker will do it. The owners of installations
and system designers should therefore ensure that their isolating devices
(e.g., circuit breakers, disconnect switches, valves)are clearly identified,
accessible, can be locked out and are nearby. When this kind of equip­
ment is designed, it would also be useful to anticipate what kind of
diagnostic tasks will be required, as this could facilitate the work of
tradespeople and also reduce risks.
From a practical standpoint, as mentioned in standard CSA Z460
(CSA, 2020), to limit exposure to energy sources on new construction
sites, it is recommended that work begin with the installation of “con­
sumer” equipment (e.g., appliances, light fixtures, outlets) and that the
construction site be powered up in stages, from one area to the next.
4.2.4. Procedures and risk analysis
With the exception of industrial construction sites, installation
owners generally do not draw up specific energy control procedures.
Documentation management on construction sites is fairly complex. To
promote the development and presence of energy control procedures on
non-industrial sites, the notion of “owner of the equipment”, rather than
justPC, could be exploited. If each owner wrote lockout procdures for
their equipment, that would make everything easier.
It would also be interesting to make available a simple risk analysis
checklist and generic energy control procedures by trade for common,
non-complex jobs (e.g., a single energy source). The idea is to formalize
the decision-making process as a guide to workers when there is less
supervision. In addition, there are always some situations where lockout
does not apply. When a construction site first opens, it is a good idea to
try to anticipate what alternatives to lockout can be used. Energy control
must be done during each phase of the construction project, not only
during specific phases or conditions.
Exemption from specific written procedures under certain conditions
(e.g., combination of a single energy source, a single cutoff point, a
single padlock, noresidual energy), as mentioned in some energy control
standards, could also be explored with a view to simplifying document
management (ANSI, 2014).
9
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468
5. Conclusion
The interviews conducted with the 38 participants revealed that
compliance with regulatory requirements governing energy control
varies and is not always easy to achieve in the context of work on a
construction site. This variability can be seen in particular when data
from different types of construction site are analyzed. Overall, on in­
dustrial sites and major commercial/institutional sites, energy control is
implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements, for all trades.
For these two types of site, the PC is usually well defined contractually
before the work begins. This concept becomes more complex in situa­
tions where the client has no technical expertise regarding the equip­
ment that must be worked on.
According to the interview participants, lockout is rarely the energy
control method chosen by workers when the designated PC does not
impose it, and this is especially true for electricians, pipefitters and
refrigeration mechanics. In most of the reported experiences where
there were no requirements and no supervision by a designated PC,
energy control consisted in isolating the energy sources and checking
that there was indeed no energy. Contrary to regulatory requirements,
workers’ use of alternative methods to lockout is not customarily
documented by a risk analysis, except in a few cases in the industrial
sector.
The ideas we have proposed exploring are based on participants’
suggestions and on the factors involved in worker cost-benefit analyses.
The purpose of putting forward these ideas to explore is to minimize the
costs and increase the benefits of the analysis in order to tip the balance
in favorof individual control over energy sources (e.g., personal pad­
locks). Simplifying energy control management (e.g., no documentation
in some specific cases), while still staying safe on small construction
sites, also seems to be an idea worth exploring, as does the development
of a risk analysis system specific to the construction industry as a way of
formalizing the choice of an energy control alternative to lockout. The
transition to digital technology represented by Industry 4.0 could be one
way to help with the planning of energy control on major construction
sites (Arayici and Coates, 2012; Fargnoli and Lombardi, 2020).
Lastly, to carry on from this study, construction site observations,
other trades, and civil engineering sites are all topics that would be
worth exploring in further studies. The construction site observations in
particular will complement the participants’ narratives by detailing the
work activity related to the control of energy (e.g., why and when
lockout is applied).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en
santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST, Canada) for funding this research.
References
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE), 2014. The Control of Hazardous Energy – Lockout, Tagout and Alternative
Methods (ANSI/ASSE Z244.1). ANSI/ASSE, Des Plaines, IL.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE), 2016. The Control of Hazardous Energy, Lockout,Tagout and Alternative
Methods (ANSI/ASSE Z244.1). ANSI/ASSE, Des Plaines, IL.
Arayici, Y., Coates, P., 2012. A system engineering perspective to knowledge transfer: A
case study approach of BIM adoption. Virtual Reality-Human Computer Interaction
179–206.
Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada, 2018. National Work Injury,
Disease and Fatality Statistics 2016-2018. From https://awcbc.org/wp-content/upl
oads/2020/05/National-Work-Injury-Disease-and-Fatality-Statistics-2016-2018.pdf.
D. Burlet-Vienney et al.
Ayhan, B.U., Tokdemir, O.B., 2019. Predicting the outcome of construction incidents.
Saf. Sci. 113, 91–104.
Brikci, N., Green, J., 2007. A Guide to using Qualitative Research Methodology. Health
Services Research Unit: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2019. National Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries in 2018 (USDL-19-2194). From https://www.bls.gov/news.
release/pdf/cfoi.pdf.
Burlet-Vienney, D., Chinniah, Y., Aucourt, B., 2017. Safe Maintenance Work on Mobile
Equipment - Issues and Recommendations. Professional safety 62 (12).
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2018. Workplace Electrical Safety (CSA Z462-
18). CSA, Mississauga, ON.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2020. Control of hazardous energy - Lockout and
other methods (CSA Z460-20). CSA, Mississauga, ON.
Cawley, J.C., Brenner, B.C., 2012. Occupational electrical injuries in the US, 2003–2009.
In: IEEE IAS Electrical Safety Workshop, Daytona Beach, FL, pp. 1–5.
Chi, C.F., Yang, C.-C., Chen, Z.-L., 2008. In-depth accident analysis of electrical fatalities
in the construction industry. International Journal of IndustrialErgonomics 39 (4),
635–644.
Chinniah, Y., Burlet-Vienney, D., 2013. Study on lockout procedures for the safety of
workers intervening on equipment in the municipal sector in Quebec. International
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 19 (4), 495–1411.
Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST),
2021. Centre de documentation. From https://www.centredoc.cnesst.gouv.qc.ca/.
Conseil Provincial du Québec des Métiers de la Construction, 2021. Collective agreement
2017-2021, Industrial sector. From https://cpqmci.org/wp-content/uploads/2020
/01/Convention_Industrial.pdf.
Fang, D., Wu, H., 2013. Development of a Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model for
construction projects. Saf. Sci. 57, 138–149.
Fargnoli, M., Lombardi, M., 2020. Building Information Modelling (BIM) to Enhance
Occupational Safety in Construction Activities: Research Trends Emerging from One
Decade of Studies. Buildings 10 (6), 98.
Feng, Yingbin, Trinh, Minh Tri, 2019. Developing Resilient Safety Culture for
Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 145
(11), 04019069. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001720.
Gillham, B., 2000. The research interview. Continuum, London, UK.
Gouvernement du Québec, 2021. Chapter S-2.1, R-13 - Regulation respecting
occupational health and safety. From http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/sh
owdoc/cr/S-2.1,%20r.%2013.
Gouvernement du Québec, 2021. Chapter S-2.1, R-6 - Safety Code for the construction
industry. From http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cr/S-2.1%2C%20r.%
204.
Gouvernement du Québec, 2021. Chapter S-2.1 - Act respecting occupational health and
safety. Fromhttp://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/showdoc/cs/s-2.1.
Ichikawa, N., 2016. Electrical Fatality Rates in Japan, 2002–2011: New Preventive
Measures for Fatal Electrical Accidents. IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag. 22 (3), 21–26.
Janicak, C.A., 2008. Occupational fatalities due to electrocutions in the construction
industry. J. Saf. Res. 39 (6), 617–621.
Jiang, G., 2012. Research on the Model for Coordination and Management System of the
Construction Project. In: International Conference On Civil Engineering And Urban
Planning 2012, Yantai, China, pp. 540–543.
Karimi, B., Chinniah, Y., Burlet-Vienney, D., Aucourt, B., 2018. Qualitative study on the
control of hazardous energy on machinery using lockout and alternative methods.
Saf. Sci. 107 (8), 22–34.
10
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105468
Karimi, B., Burlet-Vienney, D., Chinniah, Y., Aucourt, B., 2019. Hazardous Energy
Control on machinery: Understanding the use of alternative methods to lockout. Saf.
Sci. 118 (11), 519–529.
Koulinas, G.K., Marhavilas, P.K., Demesouka, O.E., Vavatsikos, A.P., Koulouriotis, D.E.,
2019. Risk analysis and assessment in the worksites using the fuzzy-analytical
hierarchy process and a quantitative technique – A case study for the Greek
construction sector. Saf. Sci. 112, 96–104.
McCann, M., Hunting, K.L., Murawski, J., Chowdhury, R., Welch, L., 2003. Causes of
electrical deaths and injuries among construction workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43 (4),
398–406.
Mohandes, S.R., Zhang, X., 2019. Towards the development of a comprehensive hybrid
fuzzy-based occupational risk assessment model for construction workers. Saf. Sci.
115, 294–309.
Myers-Lawson School of Construction, 2017. Preventing fatalities in the construction
industry. From https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Safety%20%26%
20Health/AGC-VT%20Fatality%20Report%20%5BFinal%5D_0.pdf.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 1989. The Control of Hazardous
Energy (Lockout/Tagout) (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147) From https://www.osha.gov/l
aws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.147.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 2021. Control of hazardous
energy (lockout) in construction (part 1926) (preventing construction injuries/
fatalities; Lockout). From https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_do
cument?p_id=4425&p_table=UNIFIED_AGENDA.
Palinkas, Lawrence A., Horwitz, Sarah M., Green, Carla A., Wisdom, Jennifer P.,
Duan, Naihua, Hoagwood, Kimberly, 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data
collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration
and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42 (5), 533–544.
Patton, M.Q., 2005. Qualitative research. Wiley Online Library.
Poisson, Pascal, Chinniah, Yuvin, 2015. Observation and analysis of 57 lockout
procedures applied to machinery in 8 sawmills. Saf. Sci. 72, 160–171.
Poisson, Pascal, Chinniah, Yuvin, 2016. Managing risks linked to machinery in sawmills
by controlling hazardous energies: Theory and practice in eight sawmills. Saf. Sci.
84, 117–130.
Romero Barriuso, A., Villena Escribano, B.M., Segarra Cañamares, M., González
García, M.N., Rodríguez Sáiz, A., 2018. Analysis and diagnosis of risk-prevention
training actions in the Spanish construction sector. Saf. Sci. 106, 79–91.
Segarra Cañamares, M., Villena Escribano, B.M., González García, M.N., Romero
Barriuso, A., Rodríguez Sáiz, A., 2017. Occupational risk-prevention diagnosis: A
study of construction SMEs in Spain. Saf. Sci. 92, 104–115.
Trillo-Cabello, A.F., Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A., Rubio-Romero, J.C., 2021. Perception of risk
in construction. Exploring the factors that influence experts in occupational health
and safety. Saf. Sci. 133.
Volberg, V., Fordyce, T., Leonhard, M., Mezei, G., Vergara, X., Krishen, L., 2017. Injuries
among electric power industry workers, 1995–2013. J. Saf. Res. 60 (2), 9–16.
Wang, J., Zou, P.X., Li, P.P., 2016. Critical factors and paths influencing construction
workers’ safety risk tolerances. Accid. Anal. Prev. 93, 267–279.
Winge, S., Albrechtsen, E., Mostue, B.A., 2019. Causal factors and connections in
construction accidents. Saf. Sci. 112, 130–141.
Yamin, Samuel C., Bejan, Anca, Parker, David L., Xi, Min, Brosseau, Lisa M., 2016.
Analysis of workers’ compensation claims data for machine-related injuries in metal
fabrication businesses. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59 (8), 656–664.
Zhao, D., McCoy, A.P., Kleiner, B.M., Smith-Jackson, T.L., 2015. Control measures of
electrical hazards: An analysis of construction industry. Saf. Sci. 77, 143–151.