Tanker Heights
Content
The Safe Loading of Cement Tankers
(and prevention of silo contamination)
IQA-CCAA
Construction Materials Industry Conference
11-14 October 2006
Contents
•
Background
•
CCAA Working party formation
•
Alternatives considered
•
Tanker safety platform guideline
•
Contamination and silo design
•
Contamination survey
•
What’s next?
1
• Coloured cements (eg offwhite, brightonlight)
• Type GP Portland (normal)
• Type GB Flyash Blend
• Lime
• Flyash
• Type LH Low Heat
• Type GP Portland (2nd Silo)
• Type GB Slag Blend
• Type HE High Early Strength
• Type SR Sulphate Resistant
2
Traditional cement tanker loading process
The phone call that you don’t want
- 28 August 2005
3
4
5
Some examples of tanker ladders
6
Some examples of tanker ladders
Some examples of tanker ladders
7
Some examples of tanker ladders
Some examples of tanker ladders
8
Some examples of tanker ladders
Typical driver safety risk
9
Formation of the CCAA working party –
Dec 2005
Objectives
1. Safe loading of cement road (and rail) tankers
2. Preventing cross contamination during unloading
operations
3. Standardisation of cement silos and tanker operation
and design to improve the interface between tanker
fleets and silos
Working party membership
• Bob Reid
Cement Australia
• Ron Bull
Cement Australia
• Greg Davis
Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd
(seconded from SKM)
• Nick White
Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd
• John Derrin
Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd
• Chris Parsons
Hanson Construction Materials
• Guy Martin
Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd
• Ken Slattery
CCAA
• Tom Glasby
CCAA
• Neil Taylor
Intec Services Pty Ltd (Cement Operations
Consultant)
10
1. Safe loading of tankers
a)
Elimination
–
b)
Prevention
–
c)
stable and secure work platform
Restraint
–
d)
use of remotely activated hatches
Reducing
effectiveness
guards and/or barriers
Arrest
–
harness/cable systems
a) Elimination – use of Remotely
Operated Hatches
• US technology through
Convair
• operate using
compressed air
• installed on 25 Kandos
– Clyde railwagons (3
per wagon)
• teething problems –
– Pins bending
– Erratic closing/opening
– Closure security
– Dust susceptibility
11
Knappco automated hatches
Advantages
+ used at ground level so
driver fall risk eliminated
+ reduces risks associated
with manual handling
+
+
+
+
quick operation (in principle)
readily used at any facility
relatively mature technology
quickfit to existing Convair
hatches
Disadvantages
─ will require high level access
at some time (eg spillage
clean up)
─ specialist support and
materials needed
─ must be fitted to every
tanker (up to 3 hatches)
─ longer retrofit for some
─ doesn’t allow tank checks
b) Prevention (loading platforms)
• Providing stable and secure work platforms
– most already heading this way
– few installations comply totally with AS1657
– various solutions have been tried to cope with:
• variable tanker configurations and dimensions
• variable prime mover configurations
• available space and headroom restrictions
• loading technology – telescopic vs sock
• travelling socks
• weighbridge access limitations - height
• range of work practices, etc
• different hatches used for loading dependent on axle loads
12
Some examples of loading platforms
Some examples of loading platforms
13
Some examples of loading platforms
Some examples of loading platforms
14
There is a wide range of tanker heights to
consider
c) Restraint
• TRAM system
Not desirable due to safety and compliance risks
15
c) Restraint
• Collapsible handrails
Not desirable due to safety and compliance risks
d) Arrest – harness/cable systems
• Eliminated early in process due to unacceptable
safety and compliance risks
16
Comparing caged platforms and remote
hatches
Platforms and safety cages
Remote hatches
platforms will (always) be
required at most locations
used at ground level so driver
fall risk eliminated
proper platform design will
facilitate safe loading and
access to equipment
specialist support & materials
will be needed
doesn’t obviate need for high
level access
must be fitted to each tanker
(up to 4? hatches)
reduces risks associated with
manual handling
doesn’t allow tank checks
will require development of
(auto) sampling system
improved oversight of loading
process
uses robust, simple and
familiar technology
better QA implications
doesn’t absolutely eliminate fall
risk
Design guideline for bulk cement
tanker safety platforms
•
Location – preferably integrated with loading spout, roofed, may
need to be separate
•
Height – optimised for 3.9 m high tankers, accommodate 3.5–4.3 m
•
Headroom – minimum 2.1 m above highest tanker
•
Standards – comply with AS 1657, 4100,1664, 4024
•
Access – stairs, ramp preferable to variable pitch stairs, slope
<=20 degrees
•
Safety - caged platform with handrails all sides
•
Security - access controls, drive-off control risks
•
Tanker alignment – graduated distance scale for correct alignment
•
Dust proof cabin where possible – safety from major spillage
incident
17
Suggested platform configuration for typical
tanker
Elements of a typical platform
18
Possible ramp and cage configurations
Configuration for ramps above and parallel to
tankers
19
Safety cage with floor sections
Safety cage without floor sections
20
Road tanker guideline to complement
platform design
• Involvement of tanker manufacturers
• Height 3.8 – 3.9 m
• Maximum height, including prime mover 4.1m
• Hatches of 510mm diameter, open to rear
• End hatches at least 1.2m from tanker top end
• Non-slip tank top surface with no trip hazards
between toe/kick rails, or at least 900mm wide
• On-board access equipment not recommended
(guideline incorporates provision if needed )
Good examples of loading platforms
21
Good examples of loading platforms
Good examples of loading platforms
22
Good examples of loading platforms
Good examples of loading platforms
23
Good examples of loading platforms
2. Preventing cross contamination
during unloading
• Various contamination prevention systems in use
• Contamination survey to ascertain extent of
problem
• Data from cement producers and major premix
customers
• Most events recorded by cement producers
• 2003 – 2005 period
24
Silo contamination events for each State (2003-2005 inc)
Annual silo contamination events
20
18
Reported by Cement suppliers
16
Reported by Premix Majors
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Qld
NSW
Vic
SA
WA
Tas
NT
State / Territory
Silo contamination events by Company (2003 - 2005)
Annual silo contamination events
12
Company X
Company Y
Company Z
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003
2004
Year
2005
25
Number of 25 tonnes deliveries per event (8 Miot/yr)
80,000
Supplier X
Supplier Y
Supplier Z
25 t deliveries per event
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2003
2004
Year
2005
Contamination prevention methods in
use
• Lock and key
• Fill pipe colour coding
• Tanker anti-contamination plates
• Electronic systems –
– Online back to terminal
– Swipe cards
– Dallas key systems (Siloguard)
26
Issues with the existing anticontamination systems
• Fill point colour coding systems differ – NRMCA
standard not used consistently
• Different use of locks and keys – between states,
within companies, different times
• Broad range of colours with anti-contamination
plates
• Anti-contamination plates not always used
• Different electronic systems used
• Overall – no clear industry standards,
unacceptable levels of contamination incidents
Anti-contamination systems – next
steps
• Development of industry basic standard for use
of locks and keys, colour coding (fill pipes and
anti-contamination plates)
• Use of more sophisticated or electronic systems
at discretion of individual companies
• To be incorporated into “draft guideline for
unloading bulk tankers and silo operations at
premix concrete plants”
• Working party formed and commenced in
October 2006, to be completed mid 2007.
27
Thank you.
Questions?
28
(and prevention of silo contamination)
IQA-CCAA
Construction Materials Industry Conference
11-14 October 2006
Contents
•
Background
•
CCAA Working party formation
•
Alternatives considered
•
Tanker safety platform guideline
•
Contamination and silo design
•
Contamination survey
•
What’s next?
1
• Coloured cements (eg offwhite, brightonlight)
• Type GP Portland (normal)
• Type GB Flyash Blend
• Lime
• Flyash
• Type LH Low Heat
• Type GP Portland (2nd Silo)
• Type GB Slag Blend
• Type HE High Early Strength
• Type SR Sulphate Resistant
2
Traditional cement tanker loading process
The phone call that you don’t want
- 28 August 2005
3
4
5
Some examples of tanker ladders
6
Some examples of tanker ladders
Some examples of tanker ladders
7
Some examples of tanker ladders
Some examples of tanker ladders
8
Some examples of tanker ladders
Typical driver safety risk
9
Formation of the CCAA working party –
Dec 2005
Objectives
1. Safe loading of cement road (and rail) tankers
2. Preventing cross contamination during unloading
operations
3. Standardisation of cement silos and tanker operation
and design to improve the interface between tanker
fleets and silos
Working party membership
• Bob Reid
Cement Australia
• Ron Bull
Cement Australia
• Greg Davis
Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd
(seconded from SKM)
• Nick White
Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd
• John Derrin
Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd
• Chris Parsons
Hanson Construction Materials
• Guy Martin
Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd
• Ken Slattery
CCAA
• Tom Glasby
CCAA
• Neil Taylor
Intec Services Pty Ltd (Cement Operations
Consultant)
10
1. Safe loading of tankers
a)
Elimination
–
b)
Prevention
–
c)
stable and secure work platform
Restraint
–
d)
use of remotely activated hatches
Reducing
effectiveness
guards and/or barriers
Arrest
–
harness/cable systems
a) Elimination – use of Remotely
Operated Hatches
• US technology through
Convair
• operate using
compressed air
• installed on 25 Kandos
– Clyde railwagons (3
per wagon)
• teething problems –
– Pins bending
– Erratic closing/opening
– Closure security
– Dust susceptibility
11
Knappco automated hatches
Advantages
+ used at ground level so
driver fall risk eliminated
+ reduces risks associated
with manual handling
+
+
+
+
quick operation (in principle)
readily used at any facility
relatively mature technology
quickfit to existing Convair
hatches
Disadvantages
─ will require high level access
at some time (eg spillage
clean up)
─ specialist support and
materials needed
─ must be fitted to every
tanker (up to 3 hatches)
─ longer retrofit for some
─ doesn’t allow tank checks
b) Prevention (loading platforms)
• Providing stable and secure work platforms
– most already heading this way
– few installations comply totally with AS1657
– various solutions have been tried to cope with:
• variable tanker configurations and dimensions
• variable prime mover configurations
• available space and headroom restrictions
• loading technology – telescopic vs sock
• travelling socks
• weighbridge access limitations - height
• range of work practices, etc
• different hatches used for loading dependent on axle loads
12
Some examples of loading platforms
Some examples of loading platforms
13
Some examples of loading platforms
Some examples of loading platforms
14
There is a wide range of tanker heights to
consider
c) Restraint
• TRAM system
Not desirable due to safety and compliance risks
15
c) Restraint
• Collapsible handrails
Not desirable due to safety and compliance risks
d) Arrest – harness/cable systems
• Eliminated early in process due to unacceptable
safety and compliance risks
16
Comparing caged platforms and remote
hatches
Platforms and safety cages
Remote hatches
platforms will (always) be
required at most locations
used at ground level so driver
fall risk eliminated
proper platform design will
facilitate safe loading and
access to equipment
specialist support & materials
will be needed
doesn’t obviate need for high
level access
must be fitted to each tanker
(up to 4? hatches)
reduces risks associated with
manual handling
doesn’t allow tank checks
will require development of
(auto) sampling system
improved oversight of loading
process
uses robust, simple and
familiar technology
better QA implications
doesn’t absolutely eliminate fall
risk
Design guideline for bulk cement
tanker safety platforms
•
Location – preferably integrated with loading spout, roofed, may
need to be separate
•
Height – optimised for 3.9 m high tankers, accommodate 3.5–4.3 m
•
Headroom – minimum 2.1 m above highest tanker
•
Standards – comply with AS 1657, 4100,1664, 4024
•
Access – stairs, ramp preferable to variable pitch stairs, slope
<=20 degrees
•
Safety - caged platform with handrails all sides
•
Security - access controls, drive-off control risks
•
Tanker alignment – graduated distance scale for correct alignment
•
Dust proof cabin where possible – safety from major spillage
incident
17
Suggested platform configuration for typical
tanker
Elements of a typical platform
18
Possible ramp and cage configurations
Configuration for ramps above and parallel to
tankers
19
Safety cage with floor sections
Safety cage without floor sections
20
Road tanker guideline to complement
platform design
• Involvement of tanker manufacturers
• Height 3.8 – 3.9 m
• Maximum height, including prime mover 4.1m
• Hatches of 510mm diameter, open to rear
• End hatches at least 1.2m from tanker top end
• Non-slip tank top surface with no trip hazards
between toe/kick rails, or at least 900mm wide
• On-board access equipment not recommended
(guideline incorporates provision if needed )
Good examples of loading platforms
21
Good examples of loading platforms
Good examples of loading platforms
22
Good examples of loading platforms
Good examples of loading platforms
23
Good examples of loading platforms
2. Preventing cross contamination
during unloading
• Various contamination prevention systems in use
• Contamination survey to ascertain extent of
problem
• Data from cement producers and major premix
customers
• Most events recorded by cement producers
• 2003 – 2005 period
24
Silo contamination events for each State (2003-2005 inc)
Annual silo contamination events
20
18
Reported by Cement suppliers
16
Reported by Premix Majors
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Qld
NSW
Vic
SA
WA
Tas
NT
State / Territory
Silo contamination events by Company (2003 - 2005)
Annual silo contamination events
12
Company X
Company Y
Company Z
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003
2004
Year
2005
25
Number of 25 tonnes deliveries per event (8 Miot/yr)
80,000
Supplier X
Supplier Y
Supplier Z
25 t deliveries per event
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2003
2004
Year
2005
Contamination prevention methods in
use
• Lock and key
• Fill pipe colour coding
• Tanker anti-contamination plates
• Electronic systems –
– Online back to terminal
– Swipe cards
– Dallas key systems (Siloguard)
26
Issues with the existing anticontamination systems
• Fill point colour coding systems differ – NRMCA
standard not used consistently
• Different use of locks and keys – between states,
within companies, different times
• Broad range of colours with anti-contamination
plates
• Anti-contamination plates not always used
• Different electronic systems used
• Overall – no clear industry standards,
unacceptable levels of contamination incidents
Anti-contamination systems – next
steps
• Development of industry basic standard for use
of locks and keys, colour coding (fill pipes and
anti-contamination plates)
• Use of more sophisticated or electronic systems
at discretion of individual companies
• To be incorporated into “draft guideline for
unloading bulk tankers and silo operations at
premix concrete plants”
• Working party formed and commenced in
October 2006, to be completed mid 2007.
27
Thank you.
Questions?
28
