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.

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

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.

Forklift operator seriously injured by falling pallet

In February 2021, a warehouse facility worker was seriously injured when several pallets fell onto the forklift he was operating.

Initial enquiries indicate he was using the forklift to place a stack of pallets onto storage racking when for reasons yet to be established the pallets fell and landed on the forklift’s overhead protection cage but also struck the back of his head. Investigations are continuing. These are not confirmed and investigations are ongoing to find the root cause.

WHS Issues

In warehouses, factories and other workplaces, forklifts are used to lift, stack and transfer loads. While forklifts are a practical materials-handling solution for many businesses, each year they are involved in many workplace deaths and injuries.

Hazards associated with forklifts include those arising from:

• power sources - electrical, hydraulic and mechanical

• its load-carrying capacity

• the type of loads being lifted and moved

• the size of the operating area and the slope or evenness of the ground

• blind spots created by the mast and other parts of the forklift.

• instability – for example, carrying an unevenly balanced load; braking too quickly with a load; braking or accelerating while cornering; or striking low doors or overhead structures.

To learn more about the WHS risks of forklifts and falling objects, visit the Worksafe QLD website here.

Operator killed by reversing telehandler.

In January 2021, a worker on a private property was fatally injured when a telehandler ran over him. Early investigations show the telehandler was loading a crop-dusting plane with fertiliser at a private airstrip on the property when the operator reversed it over a worker.

Telehandlers pose a number of risks to operators and pedestrians. These include:

• colliding or contacting people or objects such as other vehicles or plant and energised powerlines

• overturning

• objects falling on the operator

• operator being ejected.

Read more here to learn more about the WHS risks and how to prevent them in the future.

Tractor rollover incidents

In January 2021, a farmer died when the tractor he was operating struck a log and rolled. The farmer had been using the tractor to pull out a bogged car and do some spraying. He was thrown from the tractor when it rolled and was trapped underneath the rear mounted chemical tank.

Just a day earlier, two workers suffered significant injuries when the tractor they were using rolled down the side of a hill. The contractors were spraying weeds on a farm.

Safety issues

Tractors and other agricultural mobile plant are essential for a range of rural operations and activities. They are versatile and can have numerous functions, not only on farms, but many other workplaces. Tractors can be safe when operated properly, however, like any equipment, they can be dangerous if used incorrectly.

Operating tractors and other items of agricultural mobile plant on uneven ground, slight and steep slopes, edges of depressions, contour banks or water courses presents rollover dangers, as does towing or pulling loads. Slopes that can be negotiated safely in dry conditions may be unsafe in the wet, as the tractor can slide.

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) must ensure the provision and maintenance of safe plant. Higher order risk controls include designing plant to be without risks to health and safety. Safety features which should be addressed at the tractor design, manufacture and operational stages that can also be applied to other mobile plant include:

1. roll-over protective structures (ROPS)

2. falling object protective structures (FOPS)

3. guards

4. protection from noise and ultraviolet radiation exposure

5. other measures for operator health and safety (e.g. seat belts).

Ways to manage health and safety

Taking steps to manage risks is a condition of doing business in Queensland. Effective risk management starts with a commitment to health and safety from those who manage the business. If an incident occurs, you'll need to show the regulator you’ve used an effective risk management process. This responsibility is covered by your primary duty of care in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

Use the hierarchy of controls to help decide how to eliminate and reduce risks in your place of work. The hierarchy of controls ranks types of control methods from the highest level of protection and reliability to the lowest. It’s a step-by-step approach to eliminating or reducing risks. You must work through the hierarchy of controls when managing risks, with the aim of eliminating the hazard, which is the most effective control.

Possible control measures to prevent similar incidents

• Replacing an old tractor or other mobile plant without rollover protection with a model that has a factory fitted ROPS or retrofitting existing plant with an approved ROPS where possible. The WHS Regulation 2011 contains regulatory provisions regarding ROPS on tractors that must be complied with.

• Consultation with the manufacturer or engineer when retrofitting a ROPS.

• A ROPS is a structure designed and constructed to prevent or minimise the risk of death or injury to the operator as a result of the tractor or other agricultural mobile plant rolling over in any direction.

• A seat belt also prevents the operator from being ejected during use or a roll-over. Where the tractor or other agricultural mobile plant is fitted with a seatbelt and a ROPS is present, the seatbelt should be worn by the operator. If a seat belt is not being worn, and the tractor rolls, there’s a strong likelihood the operator will be crushed by the tractor.

• Logbooks should be maintained to record scheduled maintenance and repairs and any modifications which might affect the safe operation of the tractor.

• Conducting inspections as well as servicing and maintenance in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. For older items of mobile plant where operating instructions are not available, operational procedures and instructions for use should be developed by a competent person. The PCBU must also provide adequate training to all tractor operators, including the development of safe work procedures in line with the manufacturer's instructions for the operation of a tractor or other agricultural mobile plant.

• Assess the environment the plant will be operating in for potential hazards such as gradient and terrain and determine if the plant is appropriate for the task.

For hazards similar to these particular incidents, PCBUs must first consider controls that most effectively eliminate the risk or, where not reasonably practicable, that minimise the risks. Hazards such as the uncontrolled movement of mobile plant and risks brought about by poor systems of work may also be minimised by implementing administrative controls, so far as is reasonably practicable. A safe system of work can include:

• Driving tractors and other agricultural mobile plant at speeds slow enough to keep control over unexpected hazards. Operators should watch out for ditches, embankments, and depressions – unstable banks can cause overturns.

• Never allowing people to ride on tractor carryalls.

• Being aware that loads with high centres of gravity and tanks carrying liquids make a tractor less stable – a tank partially full of liquid will cause the load to shift quickly as the liquid sloshes around the tank.

• Not driving on gradients in wet conditions where there is high risk of overturning caused by the tractor sliding or its wheels sinking into the ground.

• Only towing a load, or attempting to pull a tree stump, using the designated tow point that is lower than the rear axle height. Using a tow point higher than the rear axle height can cause the tractor to backflip.

• Reducing speed before turning or applying turning brakes. Where a differential lock and turning brakes are fitted, ensure the differential lock is disengaged, and the turning brakes are locked together before travelling from one work site to another.

• Descending slopes cautiously with the tractor or other agricultural mobile plant in low gear.

• When a tractor is bogged in mud or in a ditch, drive out in reverse gear. Logs and planks should only be used behind the rear wheels to increase traction, as using logs and planks in front of the rear wheels increases the chance of the wheels locking which can cause the tractor to backflip.

• Only climb on or off a tractor or other agricultural mobile plant that is stopped. Do not dismount while the engine is running unless the transmission is in the neutral or park position and the parking brake is effectively engaged.

• If towing a trailer, ensure the load is evenly balanced and well secured. Always operate the vehicle at low speed.

If you are working in a remote area or working alone, always let someone know where you are going and when you are expected back. Also, make sure good communications are in place – for example, assessing mobile phone coverage and using personal two-way radios.

NQ company fined $150,000 after worker crushed.

At a recent hearing in the Cairns Magistrates Court, a North Queensland diesel mechanical repair and sugar cane harvesting business was fined $150,000 following an incident in 2017 when a worker was crushed to death trying to fix a cane haul-out vehicle.

On 7 October 2017, three workers, including a company director, were harvesting cane at a Mowbray farm. One of the cane haul-out vehicles developed an hydraulic line leak and the director, believing it was simply a hose that needed tightening, instructed the driver to fix the fitting in the assembly area around 500m away. The man did the repair alone, but around 20 minutes later, a colleague discovered he’d been crushed between the ‘haul-out’ vehicle and a stationary bulk fuel trailer.

The defendant company had in place a system for field repairs such as this one. Normally, one of its mechanics would be called in to do the job. However, on this occasion this process wasn’t followed as the director believed the easy fix could’ve been done by the driver.

To protect staff, the defendant company should have had in place a prohibition on workers doing field repairs single-handedly (in compliance with the operator manual for the vehicle and also the Rural Plant COP), as well as developing and instructing workers on the appropriate system for field maintenance.

In this instance, the duty holder failed to comply with primary safety duty and exposed a worker to a risk of serious injury or death. It appears the driver had attempted to fix the problem without turning off the machine and was crushed to death.

In sentencing, Magistrate Joseph Pinder accepted the company directors, one of whom had diesel mechanic qualifications, had previously told the driver not to work on a machine when it was operating, though noted this instruction hadn’t been given on the day of the incident.

Magistrate Pinder took into consideration the company’s significant co-operation in the investigation by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, an early guilty plea and remorse expressed by the directors. His Honour noted the company had no prior WHS convictions, but deemed this breach was toward the mid-level range of objective seriousness and that general deterrence loomed large in his penalty consideration.

The defendant company was fined $150,000 plus court costs of just under $1,100. No conviction was recorded.

Worker killed attempting to jump start a tractor.

In December 2020, a worker suffered fatal injuries attempting to jump start a tractor. Early investigations indicate two men were working together and one of them drove a car into the machinery shed where the tractor was parked. The automatic vehicle was left in drive with the handbrake on. After applying jumper leads to the tractor, one of the workers opened the car door, and whilst standing next to the vehicle on the driver’s side, pushed the accelerator. At this time, it appears the car lurched forward and trapped the man.

Prevention:

Control measures will vary depending on the type of vehicle. Controls may include, but are not limited to:

• Never use a vehicle to jump start another vehicle unless both vehicles are in park (automatic gearbox) or neutral (manual gearbox) with park brakes applied.

• Consider using a mobile battery pack (i.e. secured to a hand trolley) to jump start vehicles.

• Only operate a vehicle from the designated operator’s position (i.e. in the case of a car or truck, sitting in the driver’s seat).

• If possible, operate the vehicle on flat level ground.

• Do not drive or operate the vehicle on excessive slopes, or on ground that is too slippery or too soft to safely support it.

• Follow the manufacturer's recommendations to safely operate the vehicle, particularly in relation to;

  • maximum allowable ground slope

  • allowable ground conditions and restrictions for soft or slippery surfaces

  • specific setup requirements including vehicle restraints (i.e. wheel chocks) as specified for use with the vehicle.

• Before starting the work, conduct a risk assessment of the site conditions where the vehicle is to travel or operate.

• If the vehicle cannot safely access or operate in the proposed location, an alternate work method should be used.

• Ensure the hand/park brake is on before exiting the vehicle.

• Ensure the brakes, including the hand/park brake, are well maintained.

• Install a warning system to alert drivers when the hand/park brake hasn’t been applied (these can be easily retro fitted).

• Do not stand in the potential path of a vehicle when the engine is running.

Person falls from tank.

In November 2020, a man sustained serious head injuries after falling from a water tank that had just been put in place by a vehicle loading crane. It appears he was standing on the tank close to the crane.

Prevention:

Falls are a major cause of death and serious injury. The risk of falling is common in construction, but may also occur during many other work activities.

The risk of serious injury from a fall is largely dependent on the height, but also the surface below (e.g. working on a roof near an unprotected edge or performing installation work from a ladder). A risk management approach must be used to manage the risks of falls from heights.

Managing work health and safety risks is an ongoing process.

Risk management involves four steps:

1. Identify the hazard – find out what could cause harm

2. Assess the risk – understand the nature of the harm that could be caused by the hazard, how serious the harm could be and the likelihood of it happening

3. Control the risk – implement the most effective control measure reasonably practicable in the circumstances

4. Review risk controls – asses control measures to ensure they are working as planned.

Other controls that can be looked at and analysed:

• Substitution Controls: Replacing with something of lesser risk.

• Engineering Controls: Changing physical characteristics of the plant/system of work.

• Administrative Controls: Information, training, instruction or supervision necessary to control the risks associated with plant.

• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Use of PPE to reduce injuries.

Roofing manufacturer fined after fatality.

At a recent hearing in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court, a roof product manufacturing company was fined for its part in an incident which saw a man killed almost two years ago.

Part of the company’s business included manufacturing metal products such as flashing and roof sheeting and delivering these to customers. It leased two trucks with vehicle loading cranes from an associated company. One of those trucks was referred to as the ‘rack truck’ and the defendant was responsible for its maintenance. The crane attached to that particular truck was fitted with two stabilising legs, also referred to as outriggers, one on each side. Each outrigger was designed to readily slide outwards and retract. Two locking mechanisms were fitted to each outrigger to secure it in the retracted ‘transport position’ and prevent it extending. The primary mechanism was a spring-loaded handle which, when manually engaged would hold the retracted outrigger in place. The secondary mechanism was a hooked latch designed to automatically clip over a U-shaped bar once the outrigger was in the transport position. It was designed to prevent the outrigger from sliding outwards if the primary mechanism failed or was not engaged.

On 5 February 2018, a man employed by the defendant company, was driving the truck through a housing estate, when the passenger side outrigger on the crane extended, causing it to strike a parked van. The force pushed the van backwards, dragging another man who’d been standing at the back underneath it. He suffered fatal injuries.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigators found the truck driver had failed to engage the primary locking mechanism on the passenger side outrigger before leaving the estate. The secondary locking mechanism was bent and worn. Testing showed this back-up device would not, on its own, have provided adequate and reliable restraint without an engaged primary locking mechanism. The investigation could not determine whether the passenger side outrigger extended as a result of a failure of the secondary locking mechanism or because the driver didn’t to properly retract the outrigger in the transport position.

At the time of the incident, the crane was well overdue for its 10-year major inspection as required by the Australian Standard and the manufacturer’s recommendations. The inspection was approximately 18 months overdue. The defendant did not have a maintenance plan or schedule in place to ensure periodic inspections and maintenance were done when required. The company was also aware of the need for a 10-year inspection, having received a quote for its other truck-mounted crane. A mandatory major inspection and service would have, amongst other things, included a check of the primary and secondary locking mechanisms to ensure they operated effectively and identified the need to fit a warning device in the vehicle cab to indicate when an outrigger was not in the transport position.

In sentencing, Magistrate Haydn Stjernqvist noted the defendant company was responsible for maintenance of the crane, with the truck and crane being used regularly in its business. Magistrate Stjernqvist referred to the aggravating circumstances of the case which included that the company had no system in place to ensure the trucks it used as part of its daily operations were properly maintained, the truck was being driven on public roads thus exposing unsuspecting members of the public to risk, and the defendant was aware of the need to conduct a 10 year major inspection for its other crane truck, yet had not made inquiries to obtain a quote for a similar service of the subject truck.

His Honour considered 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. He also took into account the defendant company’s lack of previous convictions, cooperation with the WHSQ investigation and guilty plea.

The company was convicted of an offence against section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 of failing to comply with health and safety duty as a person with management or control of plant at a workplace to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that the plant was without risks to the health and safety of any person and that failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.

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

Company fined for putting public safety at risk.

A flooring business has been fined $35,000 and its director given a 12-month court ordered undertaking after it was found the company had failed to follow its own Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for a building project, putting public health at risk.

A flooring business has been fined $35,000 and its director given a 12-month court ordered undertaking after it was found the company had failed to follow its own Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for a building project, putting public health at risk.

The company and the director both pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court to failing in their health and safety duties under Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and exposing people to a risk of death or serious injury.

On 24 July 2018, company workers, including the sole director, applied a floor levelling compound to a commercial building foyer, which needed time to dry. Boards and mats were placed on the newly finished surface, creating a path along the wall from the emergency exit doorway to the centre lift in the foyer. However, the workers did not put down matting in front of lift three, the closest to the emergency exit.

Bollards and traffic cones were placed in the area but not near the emergency exit or lift three. Later that morning, two members of the public slipped and fell crossing the floor, with one sustaining a fractured left patella.

The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation found the company’s SWMS identifying slip hazards and safety controls was not followed and an exclusion zone or adequate delineated pathway, including signage, not implemented.

In sentencing, Magistrate Suzette Coates accepted the workers had made arrangements for entry to the building by tenants and the defendants did their best, albeit incompetently, to alleviate the risk, but were not successful.

Magistrate Coates acknowledged workers attempted to mitigate the risk of injury and the company had relied to some extent on the principal contractor to mitigate the risk, commenting that relying on others is dangerous when liability arises for the person performing the work.

Relatively early guilty pleas were considered when imposing the $35,000 fine for the company and the 12-month court ordered undertaking pursuant to section 239 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, with a recognisance of $5,000, for the director.

Court and professional costs of almost $1,700 were ordered against the defendants, with no convictions recorded.