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

Whats next?

 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

Traditional cement tanker loading process

The phone call that you dont want

- 28 August 2005

Some examples of tanker ladders

Some examples of tanker ladders

Some examples of tanker ladders

Some examples of tanker ladders

Some examples of tanker ladders

Some examples of tanker ladders

Typical driver safety risk

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
doesnt 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

doesnt obviate need for high

level access

must be fitted to each tanker

(up to 4? hatches)

reduces risks associated with

manual handling

doesnt allow tank checks

will require development of

(auto) sampling system

improved oversight of loading

process
uses robust, simple and
familiar technology
better QA implications
doesnt 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 3.54.3 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