Diving tower edge protection

From Worksafe

Purpose

This safety alert highlights the risk of falls from diving tower structures and provides guidance on risk controls. It applies to parts of diving towers where there is a risk of someone falling onto a solid structure below. It does not apply to parts of diving towers directly above water.

Background

In early 2021 there was a serious incident involving a four-year-old at a swimming pool facility in Queensland. The child fell nearly three metres onto concrete from the first level of a multi-level dive tower. The exact circumstances of the incident are not known, but it appears the child slipped under the mid-rail of the barrier.

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) requires that, for particular types of buildings, a ‘continuous barrier be provided alongside a trafficable surface’ including balconies, decks, and stairways, where it is possible to fall one metre or more measured from the level of a trafficable surface to the surface beneath.

Further guidance on performance requirements of barriers to prevent falls is in the BCA, for example:

• The intent of the barrier requirements is to prescribe provisions to minimise the risk of a person falling from a stairway, raised floor level (such as a balcony, landing or the like).

• Children are at particular risk of falling off, over or through ineffectively designed or constructed barriers. Accordingly, the requirements of the BCA aim to ensure that a barrier reduces the likelihood of children being able to climb or fall through a barrier.

Despite the above, it appears that diving towers may fall outside the definition of a building/structure that is required to comply with the continuous barrier requirements of the BCA.

Contributing factors

Falls can occur from elevated platforms for a number of reasons, including inadequate edge protection. On diving towers, the risk is increased as the structure is often wet and there is a greater risk of slipping. The risk of falls for children can be greater as they are smaller and are more likely to fit through openings in a barrier. In addition, children can often take impulsive actions without assessing the potential consequences (e.g. running, climbing, and sitting on a barrier). Therefore, risk controls need to account for situations where children are permitted to use diving towers.

Even if a structure has been inspected and approved as compliant with the BCA it does not guarantee that an incident will not occur, nor does it demonstrate duties under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 have been fulfilled.

Action required

If you are an operator of a swimming pool facility, you have duties as a person conducting a business or undertaking under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. These duties apply for workers and people using the facility (e.g. members of the public) and include the need for buildings and structures to be safe for their intended use.

Edge protection

Irrespective of the how a diving tower is defined under the BCA, operators need to ensure the risk of falling from one level to another or to the ground is eliminated, or if that is not possible, minimised. Continuous barrier edge protection requirements under ‘Access and Egress’ provisions of the BCA provide control measures for this. Edge protection should be provided as a continuous barrier so that children cannot fall through, or easily climb over, the barrier. One example is fitting a polycarbonate barrier to the inside of the edge protection. The type of barrier fitted should be fit for the specific application. A building practitioner’s advice should be obtained on a suitable barrier and how it is to be fitted. The barrier should not create a risk of cutting and or abrasions to people. The barrier should not allow a toe hold for small children so that it can be climbed.

Owners of swimming pool facilities should take steps to do this as soon as practicable. Until these barriers are fitted, additional procedures and a higher degree of supervision will need to be applied by operators of swimming pool facilities.

Safety procedures and rules

Operators of swimming pool facilities must ensure that, in addition to suitable engineering/building controls, comprehensive administrative controls are in-place. This can include a combination of rules, signage, and supervision by trained staff. While water safety can be a focus of pool staff, there is also a need to be mindful of the potential for injuries to occur out of the water, including those due to falls from one level to another.

Gold miner fined $150,000 after workers injured driving underground.

Australia’s second-largest gold producer, Northern Star Resources, was recently fined $150,000 in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court after two workers were injured in a vehicle collision underground.

The incident occurred at Northern Star’s Millennium mine in Kalgoorlie in December 2017.

One of the workers lost control of a light truck while travelling downhill and steered into the mine wall to slow the vehicle.

The worker and passenger suffered injuries from the collision.

At the time of the incident, the truck displayed incorrect load capacity signage and was carrying a load that exceeded the safe operating maximum by more than 1.9 tonnes.

The worker driving the truck had not completed the required training and assessment to operate the vehicle.

Andrew Chaplyn, director mines safety at the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety said the incident demonstrates why it is vital for employers to provide their employees with the instruction, training and supervision they need to work in a safe manner.

“It’s up to mining operators to ensure workers have completed the required training and assessment for specific vehicles and sites,” he said.

“The incident also highlights the need for mining operators to conduct comprehensive risk assessments and ensure they have implemented the appropriate controls.”

Chaplyn said all equipment and vehicles must display signage that shows the correct safe carrying weight.

“Site procedures should include up-skilling operators in calculating the safe working load limit if necessary.”

SA: Woolworths Group fined $120,000 over bakery trolley injury.

Woolworths Group was recently fined $120,000 over an incident in which a bakery trolley fell onto a worker causing serious injuries.

In August 2018, a worker was moving a two-metre high bakery trolley, which had been loaded with bread products from the supermarket bakery department.

As the worker was walking backwards and manoeuvring the trolley, the trolley wheel jammed, causing the worker to fall backwards and the trolley to fall on to her.

The worker sustained fractures to her sternum, lumbar vertebrae, and tibia, as well as soft tissue injuries.

SafeWork SA identified that the wheels of the trolley showed signs of deterioration which compromised movement and was top-heavy.

This resulted in little force enabling it to topple.

Woolworths did not have a system for inspection and maintenance of bakery trolleys, despite having maintenance processes for other equipment.

Woolworths Group pleaded guilty in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of duties under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

The SAET convicted Woolworths Group Ltd and imposed a fine of $120,000 before applying a 40 per cent discount for an early guilty plea.

Employers have a primary duty to provide a safe working environment to workers, including equipment required in the course of their work, said SafeWork SA executive director, Martyn Campbell.

“No matter what equipment you are using, big or small, all equipment should be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure the health and safety of workers,” said Campbell.

In sentencing, Deputy President Magistrate Cole accepted the defendant’s contrition, the support offered to the injured worker, and that the defendant “took immediate action to remove all of the comparable bakery trolleys, and then in a timely manner implemented a system of inspection and maintenance for its bakery trolleys”.

$60,000 in fines after worker trapped under hoist.

A Campbellfield manufacturer in Victoria and its director have been convicted and fined a combined $60,000 after a worker was injured by a robotic hoist in 2019.

Timberwood Panels Pty Ltd and director Iain Agyeman pleaded guilty in the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court to two charges each of failing to provide or maintain safe systems of work and failing to provide information and instruction.

They were fined $35,000 and $25,000 respectively and ordered to pay costs of $3640.

The court heard that in June 2019 a worker was crushed by a robotic hoist used to lift and stack timber panels while attempting to clear a malfunction.

The worker suffered serious back and leg injuries and remains on restricted duties.

WorkSafe Victoria inspectors found interlocks on gates in the area around the hoist had been bypassed, allowing access points to be opened without shutting machines off.

Guarding had also been removed, allowing access to other danger areas.

The system of work was unsafe, the training about risk identification was inadequate and safety procedures were ignored, the court heard.

Such a careless approach to safety would not be tolerated, said WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety Julie Nielsen.

“To remove guarding and deactivate interlock systems shows a blatant disregard for safety and sadly this worker is continuing to live with the consequences,” she said.

“WorkSafe will not hesitate to prosecute employers who fail to ensure the safety of their workers is always their first priority.”

Manufacturer fined $135,000 after bystander death.

The importance of following manufacturers’ instructions and carrying out inspections and maintenance on schedule was brought home after a business was recently fined $135,000 for its part in a fatal incident.

The Maroochydore Magistrates Court was told the roof product manufacturing company was well overdue to carry out its 10-year major inspection of a crane, as required by the Australian Standard and the manufacturer’s recommendations.

The inspection was 18 months overdue and the defendant did not have a maintenance plan or schedule in place to ensure periodic inspections and maintenance were done when required.

Part of the company’s business included manufacturing metal products such as flashing and roof sheeting and delivering them on two leased trucks with vehicle loading cranes.

The defendant was responsible for maintaining one truck – the ‘rack truck’ and two locking mechanisms were fitted to each outrigger of the crane to prevent it extending in transit.

A company worker was driving the truck when an outrigger on the crane extended, causing it to strike a parked van, pushing it backwards, dragging another man who’d been standing at the back underneath it. He suffered fatal injuries.

The court heard the company was aware of the need for a 10-year inspection and a mandatory major inspection and service would have included a check of the locking mechanisms.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigators found the truck driver failed to engage the primary locking mechanism on the passenger side outrigger.

The secondary locking mechanism was damaged and would not have given adequate and reliable restraint.

In sentencing, Magistrate Haydn Stjernqvist noted the defendant company was responsible for the maintenance of the crane. He accepted the company had no system in place to ensure the trucks it used were properly maintained, and that the truck was being driven on public roads, exposing the public to risk.

Post-incident improvements made by the defendant, including the purchase of new cranes and the commencement of an ongoing service contract with a specialist company to inspect and maintain the cranes, were considered by the magistrate, and also the company’s lack of previous convictions, cooperation with the WHSQ investigation, and guilty plea.

The company was convicted under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for failing to comply with health and safety duties.

It was fined $135,000 and ordered to pay professional and court costs of almost $1,600. No conviction was recorded.

Worksafe WA charges shed company over worker death.

WorkSafe WA has commenced prosecution action against a shed building company and its director over the fall death of a worker and the serious injury of another worker in March 2020.

MT Sheds (WA) Pty Ltd and company director Mark Thomas Withers face a total of seven separate charges including charges in relation to the death of Jake Williams and serious injuries to Fraser Pinchin last year.

The charges include one alleging circumstances of gross negligence against MT Sheds (for which a maximum penalty of a $2.7 million fine applies) and a charge against Mark Withers that alleges the company’s gross negligence offence occurred with his consent or was attributable to his neglect (for which a maximum penalty of a $550,000 fine and five years’ imprisonment applies).

Other charges include allegations that neither Mark Withers nor either of the two employees involved in the incident held high-risk work licences for work they were performing, and that MT Sheds allowed Jake Williams to do construction work when he did not hold a construction induction training certificate.

It is alleged that on the day of the incident, the two workers were installing roof sheets on a shed they were constructing on a farm for agricultural purposes without appropriate safety control measures in place.

A strong wind or willy-willy lifted a sheet from the pack of roof sheets they were working near, causing them both to fall from a significant height.

It is alleged that Jake Williams fell approximately nine metres from the apex of the roof, suffering fatal injuries, while Fraser Pinchin fell around seven metres from the roof’s edge near the gutter line, suffering multiple fractures of the pelvis, hip, wrist and ribs.

Young workers hand caught in Hippo mixer.

A Brisbane and Gold Coast flooring company has been fined $50,000 over a workplace safety incident in which a young labourer suffered serious injuries when his hand became caught in a portable mixer.

The company pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court recently to breaching Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011 by failing to comply with its health and safety duties and exposing a worker to a risk of death or serious injury.

The court heard that the defendant supplied seamless resin flooring and had been subcontracted to lay an epoxy floor in a commercial business. The company engaged a labour hire company who provided an 18-year-old labourer, who had three years of construction industry experience.

A Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation found that on 16 November 2017, the labourer attended the workplace and signed a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) before being supervised by another employee, who provided safety information on mixing resin and chemicals. The worker was trained in the use of the “Hippo Mixer”, an 85-litre portable mixer, and was instructed to scrape down the sides of the mixer using a steel rod, although it is unclear whether he was told to do so while the mixer was on or off.

The labourer mixed 20-30 batches of resin throughout the course of the day, where he scraped the machine’s sides while it was operational. While performing the work, the steel rod became caught in the machine’s mixing blade and pulled the labourer’s hand in, with the 18-year-old sustaining a fractured left wrist and finger, and some soft tissue injuries.

The court heard that family-owned flooring company should have provided adequate instruction, training and supervision on using the Hippo mixer; provided information to workers on its hazards (the manufacturer’s instructions); and ensured workers followed the instructions specifically to keep hands and objects clear while the machine was operating.

In sentencing, Magistrate Judith Daley took into account the defendant’s lack of prior convictions, its cooperation with the investigation and the guilty plea. Her Honour accepted that some training was given to the injured worker but commented that it was not adequate, noting that the SWMS related to safe handling of chemicals required for resin mixing rather than use of the Hippo mixer.

Her Honour observed that the injured worker was not checked on throughout the day, having carried out 20-30 mixes without turning off the Hippo mixer. Her Honour also commented that general deterrence looms large in sentencing matters of this type.

The court noted that the company was a family company that had traded for 40 years and had not been convicted of any other WHS breaches, and that it had implemented significant changes post-incident, including no longer using the Hippo mixer.

The company was fined $50,000 and ordered to pay costs of $2846

Disregard for safety in asbestos fined.

A house painter’s failure to protect his workers and the public from asbestos has been labelled disgraceful by a Brisbane magistrate.

The defendant recently was fined $3000 after pleading guilty to three charges in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. The charges related to breaches of Queensland’s workplace safety laws by failing to ensure the health and safety of others and directing or allowing a worker to use a high-pressure water spray on asbestos or asbestos containing material.

He also was penalised for not complying with an improvement notice, with the $48,291.09 cost to clean and make safe the property and its neighbours left to the Queensland Government.

The court heard that the defendant breached the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and regulation while painting a Norman Park house, which he was aware contained asbestos. He also did not hold a current QBCC trade contractor’s licence after failing to renew.

Work commenced on 21 February 2019 when witnesses saw a worker cleaning the roof using water and a subsequent ‘muddy splotchy’ substance adhering to a neighbour’s external wall. In response to complaints, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland inspectors found that the roof was corrugated asbestos cement sheeting.

Testing revealed asbestos contamination caused by high-pressure water spray blasting of the roof. The defendant received an improvement notice to make the property safe and ensure all asbestos was contained, labelled and disposed of, which did not happen.

In sentencing, Magistrate Michael Quinn observed the seriousness of the offending, particularly as the safety of the community was put at risk. Magistrate Quinn was of the view that the defendant’s conduct was very close to a wilful disregard of his duties and responsibilities.

Jumping castle business fined $50,000.

Overview

At a recent hearing in the Southport Magistrates Court, a Gold Coast jumping castle business was fined $50,000 for failing to comply with its primary health and safety duty, exposing workers to a risk of serious injury or death.

The small business rented jumping castles on the Gold Coast and employed casual workers to drop off, set up and collect the amusement devices.

At the start of each shift, the workers collected a truck as well as a ‘run sheet’ containing details of the day’s deliveries or pick-ups. The trucks were pre-packed by a supervisor and not checked by the workers prior to their shift.

On the job training consisted of a buddy system, where a less experienced worker would be paired with a more experienced worker for a day or so and shown what to do. The defendant company had no formal safety training in place for its workers and no specific training in regard to the use of, or transporting of, generators which were used when mains power wasn’t available.

On 10 February 2018, three casual workers were delivering the last jumping castle for the day to a customer at Tallebudgera. At the time, all three men had been employed by the defendant for six months or less. In fact, for one worker, it was his first day.

Arriving on site, the men opened the truck’s back doors and noticed petrol fumes. The generator, which hadn’t been secured at all, was on its side with a puddle of petrol on the floor.

Two of the workers climbed into the back of the truck to retrieve the generator and clean up the petrol. The workers noticed the petrol cap was lose and there was a battery hanging off the side of the generator by a wire. When one man was putting the battery back in place, the wires sparked, and an explosion occurred. There was no fire safety equipment on the truck and the two men suffered significant burn injuries.

A QPS fire scene examination found the generator to be the most probable ignition source leading to the explosion and fire, noting the situation present in the rear of the truck caused all three components of the fire triangle to be present (oxygen, fuel source and ignition source). Expert evidence stated the generator should’ve been secured whilst being transported.

In sentencing, Magistrate Mark Howden found the incident arose from a combination of events, including the generator not being secured, a lack of training and the fact there was no safety equipment on the truck. Magistrate Howden noted that securing the generator would’ve prevented the incident and that simple procedure wouldn’t have been overly burdensome for the defendant.

His Honour took into account it was a small business and the effect the penalty would have on it, the impact of COVID-19 (which included a halved turnover and far less employees) and limited financial assistance given to the two injured workers by the defendant.

Magistrate Howden considered, as an important aspect for specific deterrence, a significant change in management processes and procedures post incident. This included the purchase

of new generators fitted with fire safety equipment, formal training for workers on fire safety and generator use, and the revamping of the buddy system to include a supervisor signing off on training.

His Honour also noted the need for general deterrence, particularly in circumstances where the incident could have been easily avoided.

In sentencing, Magistrate Howden had regard to the defendant’s otherwise good criminal history and that there had been no issues since the incident.

The company was convicted of one charge under sections 32 and 19 (1) of the Work Health and safety Act 2011, fined $50,000 and ordered to pay professional and court costs of almost $4,100.

No conviction was recorded.

Dismounting from moving tractor causes death.

Overview

A North Queensland produce company was fined $150,000 in the Bowen Magistrates Court for a 2019 incident that resulted in the death of a 37 year old worker who was crushed when he dismounted from a moving tractor.

In March 2019, the deceased was driving six workers slowly around the paddock as they planted capsicum seedlings while seated in plastic seats in the planter attached to the tractor.

The deceased was previously seen dismounting the moving tractor to restock the seedling trays and a short time later the planting crew heard a cry for help. He was found under the wheel of the planter and was later declared deceased at the scene by Queensland Ambulance from heart and chest injuries.

He had worked for the organisation for nine years and dismounting from the moving tractor was common practice until around mid-2018 when the defendant introduced a policy prohibiting it. The policy included the statement ‘never get off a moving tractor’.

Records indicated that the deceased had signed a document confirming he took part in the safety induction only a month earlier but continued to dismount and was remanded for it three times before his death.

Upon sentencing, Magistrate James Morton took into account the defendant’s plea of guilty, noting that the defendant had put in place policies and procedures for the safety of workers, however, in this instance, they were clearly aware that this particular policy was not being followed nor enforced.

His Honour also stated that the incident was a very tragic one as it was a family owned company who had worked closely with the man for nine years. The incident could have been avoided had the defendant been more forceful in its approach to enforcing the policy.

His Honour commented that the consequences of the risk were clearly severe, the probability of the risk was very real and the additional steps that could have been taken to avoid the incident were not burdensome or inconvenient.

The company was fined $150,000 plus court costs. No conviction was recorded.

Worker injured after fall from roof

Overview

In March 2021, a worker suffered serious injuries when he fell approximately six metres through a roof after walking on an old skylight panel that had previously been covered. It appears the void cover plate was held in place by pop rivets. These findings are not confirmed, investigations are still ongoing.

Safety issues

Falls, particularly falls through roofing, are a major cause of workplace deaths and serious injuries. The risk from a fall depends on whether fall control measures are implemented, the height involved and the surface directly below the work area. There may be additional risk when working on or near fragile roof surfaces. Roofs are likely to be fragile if they are made with:

• asbestos roofing sheets

• poly carbonate sheets (alsynite) or plastic commonly used in skylights

• fibre cement sheets

• liner panels on built-up sheeted roofs

• metal sheets and fasteners (especially when corroded).

Before commencing any work on a roof or at height, all surfaces must be inspected to identify any potentially fragile spots. All locations and tasks which could lead to a fall should also be identified. This includes access to areas where the work is to be done. Close attention is required for tasks:

• on any structure or plant being constructed or installed, demolished or dismantled, inspected, tested, repaired or cleaned

• on a fragile surface (for example, poly carbonate or cement sheeted roofs, rusty metal roofs, fibre glass sheeting roofs and skylights)

• on a sloping or slippery surface where it is difficult for people to maintain their balance (for example, on glazed tiles or a metal roof that is wet from morning dew or light rain)

• near an unprotected open edge or internal void area (for example, removed roof sheeting).

Possible control measures to prevent similar incidents

The WHS Regulation requires specific fall risk control measures to be implemented, where it is reasonably practicable to do so. For example:

• if the work is construction work, then Chapter 6 of the WHS Regulation applies

• if the work meets the definition for high risk construction work (e.g. if the work is over two metres and it is a complete roof replacement of a large shed) then a safe work method statement must be prepared as provided for in the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011. Further regulations would also then apply (for e.g. Part 6.3 Sub-division 2 “Falls” which provides prescriptive control measures).

Effective controls for the risk of falling from a height are often made up of a combination of controls. Some common control measures can include but are not limited to the following examples:

• Constructing a roof with the roof structure on the ground and then lifting it into place – this can eliminate many falls from heights hazards but is only suitable for the construction of some roofs on new structures where the roof can be lifted into place. In addition, lifting the roof into place will create other hazards that need to be addressed.

• Using an elevating work platform (EWP) to do work on a roof so workers can remain within the EWP and avoid standing on the roof. This is primarily an example of substituting the hazard for a lesser hazard. However, an EWP design may also be considered an engineering control measure and the EWP must be assessed to determine whether it is the most suitable one for the task/s.

  • The safe operation of EWPs also relies on safe work procedures (i.e. administrative controls), which includes ensuring operators hold the relevant high risk work licence (where required) to operate the particular EWP.

• Ensuring safety mesh, complying with AS/NZS 4389:2015, has been installed under the roofing and skylights and perimeter edge protection (complying with the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011). Both safety mesh and edge protection are primarily engineering control measures that address the risk of falling through the roof or off the roof edge. However, safe systems of work need to be implemented for the workers installing the safety mesh and edge protection.

• Travel restraint systems intended to prevent a fall from a roof edge by physically restricting how close a worker can get to a roof edge. These systems are generally unsuitable where a fall through a roof can occur (i.e. because the roof is fragile or there is no safety mesh under the roof sheeting). They also largely rely on worker training and the worker following a safe system of work. A travel restraint system is a combination of an engineering control (system design), administrative control and personal protective equipment (i.e. the tethering lines and harness).

• Fall arrest systems for work on roofs are the least preferred risk control measure because they do not prevent a fall occurring but arrest the fall once it has occurred. The worker can still be injured, even if the fall arrest system is set up correctly and the worker's fall is arrested before the worker hits the ground or another obstruction. After the fall, the worker must be rescued both promptly and safely. Fall arrest systems are primarily a form of personal protective equipment but also rely on engineering controls (i.e. anchorage point strength, harness and lanyard design) and administrative controls (e.g. making sure the lanyard is connected and not too long).

In addition to the hierarchy of controls, the manufacturer’s instructions, should be followed, for the safe operation and use of plant, machinery and/or systems engaged by the PCBU.

Failures of concrete pump fittings and hoses.

Purpose

This  safety alert highlights the risk of failure of concrete pump delivery lines including  failures of end fittings.

Businesses  that fit end fittings to concrete delivery hoses and pipes should follow and  document sound engineering practices and provide information on inspection  methods to customers.

Concrete  pump owners should obtain information from suppliers of pipes and hoses on the  manufacturing methods used and appropriate inspection methods.

Background

There have been incidents in Queensland where delivery lines  have failed and sprayed concrete under pressure.

Failures included a:

• rubber delivery hose failure

• coupling stem cracking with the end breaking away (refer Photograph 1)

• end fitting starting to separate from the rubber hose (refer Photograph 2) with the concrete spraying out of the gap

• flange cracking and breaking away from a steel 90-degree, 6-inch to 5-inch reducer bend, located at the hopper (refer Photographs 3 and 4).

Concrete  pumping pressure can be in excess of 85 bar, especially when blockages occur. All  of these incidents had the potential for serious injuries if workers had been near  to where the failure occurred. In one incident, a car’s windscreen was broken  approximately 15 metres away.

Contributing factors

Hoses and end fittings can  fail due to:

• the pressure rating of the concrete pump exceeding that of the rubber hose or end fittings

• incorrect tolerances on the inner and outer parts of the coupling

• the swaging or crimping procedure does not comply with the manufacturer’s specifications

• incorrect specifications for the rubber hose

• excessive wear—especially on the internal part of the fitting from concrete flow.

Flanges on steel pipes can  fail due to:

• poor welding due to incorrect electrodes, incorrect preparation, lack of penetration, or other welding irregularities

• flanges and pipes being made from steel types that can be difficult to weld

• poor matching of flanges to pipes (i.e. the flange doesn’t fit well on the pipe end)

• mishandling of the pipe flange (i.e. bashing the flange or pipe with a hammer when the adjacent pipe and/or hose clamp isn’t aligned)

• poorly fitting hose clamps (e.g. incorrect size, concrete build up).

Action required

Concrete pump owners

Concrete pump owners need to ensure that the pressure rating  of the concrete pump does not exceed that of the pipeline. For example, if a  pump is rated at 85 Bar concrete pressure then it is unacceptable for steel  pipeline to be replaced with rubber hose with a maximum rating of 45 Bar. Owners  must also take reasonable steps to ensure that a quality assurance program is followed  while attaching the end fittings so that failure of the end fittings is avoided.  It is generally easier to obtain certification from a local supplier when  purchasing equipment.

If a concrete pump owner imports components from overseas, it  may be more difficult to obtain trustworthy information on the manufacturing  process. This is the case when the overseas supplier is unknown or there is no  manufacturer's mark. Unscrupulous manufacturers have also been known to copy  manufacturers' names and trademarks, so marking of products alone may not  provide adequate evidence that the product is fit for purpose.

A concrete pump owner who imports equipment from overseas  takes on the duties of an importer under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act). The importer must carry out, or arrange to have carried out, any  calculations, analysis, testing, or examination of the equipment to control safety  risks.

Suppliers of pipes and hoses

Suppliers of hoses and pipes with end fittings should ensure  a quality assurance program is followed while attaching the end fittings and  that information on this program is available for the purchaser.

Suppliers should also provide documented instructions on the  operating parameters of the product along with inspection methods to be used.

If the supplier attaches end fittings to pipes or hoses, the  supplier takes on the duties for manufacturers under the WHS Act in addition to  those duties for suppliers.

Fitting end fittings to hoses

End fittings are attached  to rubber hoses using two methods, crimping and swaging. With the  crimping method, compressive forces are  applied radially to the outside part (ferrule) of the end fitting with the  inner stem inserted inside the end of the hose. A crimped end fitting can be  clearly recognised by obvious indentations on the outside of the end fitting  (refer Photograph 5). With the swaging method, the end fitting is attached to  the hose when the end fitting is pushed onto the end of the hose under  hydraulic pressure. Although there will be some marking on the end fitting from  the manufacturing process, swaged end fittings do not have obvious indentations  like a crimped end fitting. Photograph 2 is an example of a swaged end fitting  that is partly separated from the hose.

Although crimping and  swaging are fundamentally different, both methods rely heavily on using quality  components of the correct tolerances along with ensuring a stringent process  for attaching the end fittings is followed.

Hose manufacturers will typically  only certify that their hose is capable of withstanding specified concrete  pressures when high quality hose ends are fitted. Some hose manufacturers operate  under the concept of a matched pair where they will only guarantee their  hose for a maximum pressure, when end fittings from a particular manufacturer using  a verifiable crimping or swaging method are used.