re: falls risk & priority assessment report - deakin ... · december 2008 69967 geelong...

22nd December 2008 Our Ref: 69967 69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus.doc.MD0143

Michael O'Donoghue Deakin University Burwood Campus 221 Burwood Highway BURWOOD VICTORIA 3125

Dear Michael

Re: Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report - Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong

Please find enclosed our Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report, reference 69967, conducted at Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong. This work was conducted for Deakin University on the 11th December 2008 by Jason Hoare.

This report is in reference to a request by Deakin University to undertake risk reviews to establish a priority list of the previously identified non-compliant balustrades, in order to allocate funds to modify / replace the balustrades that have been assessed as posing the greatest risk.

If any further information is required or if you have any queries regarding this information please do not hesitate to contact this office on (03) 9890 8811.

Yours sincerely

NOEL ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

JASON HOARE Health, Safety and Environment Consultant

Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3 / 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 Australia

Ph: (03) 9890 8811 Fax: (03) 9890 8911 www.noel-arnold.com.au

69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus.doc.MD0143:JGH

Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report

Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong

69967 MD0143

December 2008

December 2008

69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus.doc MD0143:JGH Page: iii

Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong Executive Summary NAA was requested by Deakin University to visit the Geelong Waterfront Campus to undertake risk reviews to establish a priority list of the previously identified non-compliant balustrades, in order to allocate funds to modify / replace the balustrades that have been assessed as posing the greatest risk.

This report documents the findings of a Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report conducted at Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong. The audit was performed by Jason Hoare on 11th December 2008.

The report has been developed with reference to the following legislative compliance requirements:

• Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004;

• Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 with specific reference to Section 3.3 Prevention of Falls;

• The Building Code of Australia 2008; Part D2.16 and D2.17

The scope of the assessment was limited to the evaluation of the balustrades identified in the Total Essential Services Group Balustrade Compliance Reports as being non-compliant with Parts D2.16 and D2.17 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 2008.

Key Findings

The key findings and priority issues to be addressed are as follows:

Priority 1 Extreme Risk - Organise Rectification/Modification Works Immediately

• WF Chancellor Area Central (Level 4) (Refer to Plan Ref 30 and Photo 26) – This area was under construction at the time of the inspection, but access to the area was still available. The balustrade height from the landing was reportedly measured at 990mm, the gap between the landing and the balustrade rail was measured at 900mm. Access should be restricted to this area until works have been completed and a conforming balustrade has been installed.

Priority 2 High Risk - Organise Rectification/Modification in the short term

• Fire Stairs North East of Stage Area (Level 3) – The non-compliant issue (climbable members between 150mm and 760mm) as identified in the Total Essential Services report is only applicable if the stairs are used for general access purposes. If this is the case, the balustrade should comply with Section D2.16(g)(ii)(B) of the BCA. A conforming infill panel (suitable for use in fire isolated stairs) should be secured to the inside of the balustrade to prevent access to the climbable members.

Other Priority Items

Detailed recommendations relating to the identified Priority 1 – Priority 7 risks are documented within Appendix A of this report.

The falls risks identified within this report should be eliminated where practicable or if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate the risk, reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

December 2008

69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus.doc MD0143:JGH Page: iv

Statement of Limitations This report has been prepared in accordance with the agreement between Deakin University and Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd. Within the limitations of the agreed upon scope of services, this work has been undertaken and performed in a professional manner, in accordance with generally accepted practices, using a degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by members of its profession and consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is solely for the use of Deakin University and any reliance on this report by third parties shall be at such party's sole risk and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or for other uses. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support any other objective than those set out in the report, except where written approval with comments are provided by Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd. This report relates only to the identification of asbestos containing materials used in the construction of the building and does not include the identification of dangerous goods or hazardous substances in the form of chemicals used, stored or manufactured within the building or plant. “The following should also be noted: While the survey has attempted to locate the asbestos containing materials within the site it should be noted that the review was a visual inspection and a limited sampling program was conducted and/or the analysis results of the previous report were used. Representative samples of suspect asbestos materials for collected for analysis. Other asbestos materials of similar appearance are assumed to have a similar content. Not all suspected asbestos materials were sampled. Only those asbestos materials that were physically accessible could be located and identified. Therefore it is possible that asbestos materials, which may be concealed within inaccessible areas/voids, may not have been located during the audit. Such inaccessible areas fall into a number of categories. (a) Locations behind locked doors. (b) Inset set ceilings or wall cavities. (c) Those areas accessible only by dismantling equipment or performing minor localised demolition

works. (d) Service shafts, ducts etc., concealed within the building structure. (e) Energised services, gas, electrical, pressurised vessel and chemical lines (f) Voids or internal areas of machinery, plant, equipment, air-conditioning ducts etc. (g) Totally inaccessible areas such as voids and cavities created and intimately concealed within the

building structure. These voids are only accessible during major demolition works. (h) Height restricted areas. (i) Areas deemed unsafe or hazardous at time of audit In addition to areas that were not accessible, the possible presence of hazardous building materials may not have been assessed because it was not considered practicable as: 1. It would require unnecessary dismantling of equipment; and/or 2. It was considered disruptive to the normal operations of the building; and/or 3. It may have caused unnecessary damage to equipment, furnishings or surfaces; and/or 4. The hazardous material was not considered to represent a significant exposure risk 5. The time taken to determine the presence of the hazardous building material was considered

prohibitive. Only minor destructive auditing and sampling techniques were employed to gain access to those areas documented in Appendix A. Consequently, without substantial demolition of the building, it is not possible to guarantee that every source of hazardous material has been detected. During the course of normal site works care should be exercised when entering any previously inaccessible areas or areas mentioned above and it is imperative that work cease pending further sampling if materials suspected of containing asbestos or unknown materials are encountered. Therefore during any refurbishment or demolition works, further investigations and assessment may be required should any suspect material be observed in previously inaccessible areas or areas not fully inspected previously, i.e. carpeted floors. This report is not intended to be used for the purposes of tendering, programming of works, refurbishment works or demolition works unless used in conjunction with a specification detailing the extent of the works. To ensure its contextual integrity, the report must be read in its entirety and should not be copied, distributed or referred to in part only.”

December 2008

69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus.doc MD0143:JGH Page: v

Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

2. Objective....................................................................................................... 1

3. Background................................................................................................... 1

4. Scope of Work............................................................................................... 1

5. Limitations of Risk Assessment and Priority Assessment............................ 1

6. Methodology................................................................................................. 1 6.1 Risk Assessment Process .................................................................................... 2 6.2 Risk Assessment Methodology .......................................................................... 2

6.2.1 Probability.......................................................................................................2 6.2.2 Consequence................................................................................................2 6.2.3 Risk Level.........................................................................................................3

6.3 Regulatory Assessment....................................................................................... 3 6.4 Priority Risk and Compliance Assessment for Control of Identified Non-Compliant Balustrades ......................................................................................... 4

7. Findings .......................................................................................................... 5 7.1 Site Description.................................................................................................... 5 7.2 Discussions with Key Site Personnel .................................................................. 5 7.3 Review of Available Documentation ................................................................ 5

8. Key Findings .................................................................................................. 5

9. Reference Documents.................................................................................. 6

Appendix A: Risk Assessment & Priority Listing

Appendix B: Photographic Reference

Appendix C: Plan Location Reference

December 2008

69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus.doc MD0143:JGH Page 1

1. Introduction This report documents the findings of a Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report conducted at Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong. The audit was performed by Jason Hoare on 11th December 2008.

The report has been developed with reference to the following legislative compliance requirements:

• Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004;

• Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 with specific reference to Section 3.3 Prevention of Falls; and

• The Building Code of Australia 2008; Part D2.16 and D2.17.

2. Objective The objective of the review is to prepare in consultation with Deakin University a report that prioritises the OHS risks associated with the identified non-compliant balustrades at the campus, in order to facilitate the expenditure of funds to modify / rectify these balustrades in order of the risk/non-compliance posed.

3. Background NAA was requested by Deakin University to undertake risk reviews of the identified non-compliant balustrades contained in the Total Essential Services report.

It is understood the aim of the review is to prepare in consultation with Deakin University a report that prioritises the OHS risks associated with the identified non-compliant balustrades at the campus, in order to facilitate the expenditure of funds to modify / replace these balustrades in order of the risk posed. This assessment will assist Deakin University with its commitment to responsible OHS&E governance, and the provision of safe building access for patrons of Deakin University and other members of the public.

4. Scope of Work NAA was requested by Deakin University to visit the Geelong Waterfront Campus to undertake risk reviews to establish a priority list of the identified non-compliant balustrades in order to allocate funds to modify / replace the balustrades that have been assessed as posing the greatest risk.

The project is limited to the identified non-compliant balustrades in the Total Essential Services Group Balustrade Compliance Reports as being non-compliant with Parts D2.16 and D2.17 of the Building Code of Australia 2008.

5. Limitations of Risk Assessment and Priority Assessment The project is limited to the identified non-compliant balustrades contained in the previous report conducted by Total Essential Services Group. NAA was not requested to undertake a re-assessment to determine any further non-compliant balustrades located at the University campus.

The theatre area of the university was being used for rehearsals at the time of this inspection and has not been assessed as part of this report.

The buildings were occupied at the time of assessment and the survey was conducted during normal business hours.

6. Methodology A review of Total Essential Services Groups’ Balustrade Compliance report for Geelong Waterfront campus was undertaken prior to the site visit in order to develop a suitable risk assessment and prioritisation tool specific to the needs of Deakin University.

December 2008


NAA undertook a review of the site on the 11th December 2008, which included a visual inspection and physical measurement of the previously identified non BCA compliant balustrades at the Geelong Waterfront campus. An assessment was made (using the methodology shown below in Section 6.2) to determine prioritisation in order to facilitate the expenditure of funds to modify / replace these balustrades based on the risk posed.

6.1 Risk Assessment Process The risk assessment was undertaken in accordance with the following methodology:

• Information obtained during discussions and visual observations with reference to the information contained in the following documents:

Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004;

Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 with specific reference to Section 3.3 Prevention of Falls; and

The Building Code of Australia 2008; Part D2.16 and D2.17.

• Inspection of identified non compliant balustrades was undertaken on the 11th of December 2008.

• Consultation and liaison with the following personnel:

Michael O’Donoghue – Manager OHS, Human Resources Division.

Pat Brislane – Facilities Management Division – Waurn Ponds.

• Identification of areas where fall hazards exist (noting those greater than 2m).

• Identification, within the safe practical constraints of access, key activities in the locations identified.

• Assessment and prioritisation of non-compliance issues.

• Provision of recommendations in relation to identified risk issues and controls to address the non-compliance as far as is practicable.

6.2 Risk Assessment Methodology The methodology adopted for the assessment of risk entails a semi-quantitative measure of risk based on two critical factors, namely the probability and consequence of the hazard being realised as per the guidelines in AS 4360. The following factors are used:

6.2.1 Probability

The probability measures the likelihood of an event linked to the identified hazard occurring or being realised. The ratings are from 1 to 5.

Probability (P) Example Rating

Most likely The most likely result of the hazard/event being realised 5

Likely Has a good chance of occurring and is not unusual 4

May occur Can be envisaged to occur, but would be unusual 3

Unlikely Has not been known to occur after many years of exposure 2

Rarely Is practically impossible and has never occurred 1

6.2.2 Consequence

The consequence is the physical outcome of the hazard and provides an indication of the severity of the risk in relation to the detrimental effects to humans, property and productivity. A rating of 1 to 4 is used.

December 2008


Consequence (C) Example Rating

Extreme Death 4

High Long term serious injury/permanent disability 3

Medium Medical treatment/lost time injury/some days off 2

Low Minor abrasions, bruises, cuts, first aid type injury 1

6.2.3 Risk Level

The risk score is based on the product of the two key factors, namely probability and consequence as detailed in the following matrix:

PROBABILITY

Consequence Rarely

1 Unlikely

2 May Occur

3 Likely

4 Most probable

5

Low – 1 1 1 1 2 2

Medium – 2 1 2 2 3 3

High – 3 2 3 3 4 4

Extreme – 4 3 3 4 5 5

Table 1: Risk Level

6.3 Regulatory Assessment In facilitating the process of prioritising the level of risk with the requirements of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 with specific reference to Section 3.3 Prevention of Falls and the Building Code of Australia 2008; Part D2.16 and D2.17, the following process has been designed and adopted.

Regulatory Compliance Score

Degree of Compliance

Satisfactory Partial Compliance

Major Non-compliance

Regulatory Reference

Intent of Act, Regs, BCA generally

satisfied

Intent satisfied for most

requirements

Intent not satisfied for any

requirements

OHS Act 2004

Provision of safe workplace and equipment

OHS Regs

- Falls Greater than 2m - Nature of fall prevention controls in place

BCA

- Nature of non-compliance & potential contribution to a fall. - Degree of compliance

1 2 3

Table 2: Regulatory Compliance Score

December 2008


6.4 Priority Risk and Compliance Assessment for Control of Identified Non-Compliant Balustrades The following priority ranking has been developed by combining the Risk Level shown in Section 6.2.3 (Table 1), with the Regulatory Compliance score shown in Section 6.3 (Table 2). The result generates a Priority ranking from P1 – Extreme risk to P7 – Very Low Risk in order to facilitate the expenditure of funds to modify / rectify the balustrades in order of the risk posed.

Priority Score Regulatory Compliance

Risk Level 1 (Satisfactory) 2 (Partial) 3 (Major Non)

1 (Low) P7 P6 P5

2 P6 P5 P4

3 P5 P4 P3

4 P4 P3 P2

5 (Extreme) P3 P2 P1

Table 3: Priority Score

The mandated control measures require elimination of the fall hazard if practicable, or if not practicable, via engineering and administrative controls. The following priority assessment guide has been adopted to assist in the programming and budgeting of risk controls for the identified non-compliant balustrades.


The location is subject to an extreme level of risk exposure to personnel, with a significant potential for a fall, resulting in serious to fatal consequences. Prompt control or remedial measures is recommended.


The location is subject to a high level of exposure to personnel, with potential for a fall, resulting in serious consequences. Short term controls are required. Appropriate controls are to be taken as soon as practicable.

Priority 3 Medium / High Risk- Organise Rectification/Modification Works in the short to medium term

The location, whilst posing a fall risk, presents a medium to high risk of exposure to the fall hazard. Risk control works are to be planned, programmed and actioned in the short to medium term.

Priority 4 Medium Risk – Organise Rectification/Modification Works in the medium term

The location, whilst posing a fall risk, presents a medium risk of exposure to the fall hazard. Risk control works are to be planned, programmed and actioned in the medium term.

Priority 5 Medium / Low Risk – Organise Rectification/Modification Works in the medium to long term

The location, whilst posing a fall risk, presents a medium to low risk of exposure to the fall hazard. Risk control works are to be planned, programmed and actioned in the medium term.

December 2008


Priority 6 Low Risk – Organise Rectification/Modification Works in the long term

The location poses a low level of risk exposure to a fall, and can be managed via administrative or long term engineering controls.

Priority 7 Very Low Risk – Organise Rectification/Modification Works in the long term

The location poses a very low level of risk exposure to a fall, and can be managed via administrative or long term engineering controls.

7. Findings 7.1 Site Description Deakin University – Waterfront campus is located at Gheringhap Street, Geelong. The University consists of a 320-seat lecture theatre, science and technology centre, cafeteria, library, bookshop, Computer Aided Design (CAD) laboratories and design studios.

7.2 Discussions with Key Site Personnel Discussions were held with the following people who provided the Deakin University induction and relevant information on campus layout and facilities:

Date Name - Title Company Information Provided

Nov 2008 Michael O’Donoghue

Deakin University

Previous reports

Priority inspections required

Relevant floor plans

Nov 2008 Pat Brislane Deakin University

Deakin University induction

Campus Maps

7.3 Review of Available Documentation The following documents were provided for review. The contents of these reports were considered in undertaking this assessment.

Title Name of Company Date of Report

Balustrade Compliance Report Total Essential Service Group August 2007

8. Key Findings The key findings and priority issues to be addressed are as follows:


• WF Chancellor Area Central (Level 4) (Refer to Plan Ref 30 and Photo 26) – This area was under construction at the time of the inspection, but access to the area was still available. The balustrade height from the landing was reportedly measured at 990mm, the gap between the landing and the balustrade rail was measured at 900mm. Access should be restricted to this area until works have been completed and a conforming balustrade has been installed.


• Fire Stairs North East of Stage Area (Level 3) – The non-compliant issue (climbable members between 150mm and 760mm) as identified in the Total Essential Services report is only applicable if the stairs are used for general access purposes. If this is the case, the balustrade should comply with Section D2.16(g)(ii)(B) of the BCA. A conforming infill panel (suitable for use in fire isolated stairs) should be secured to the inside of the balustrade to prevent access to the climbable members.

Other Priority Items

December 2008


Detailed recommendations relating to the identified Priority 1 – Priority 7 risks are documented within Appendix A of this report.

The falls risks identified within this report should be eliminated where practicable or if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate the risk, reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

9. Reference Documents • Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004;

• Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 with specific reference to Section 3.3 Prevention of Falls;

• The Building Code of Australia 2008; Part D2.16 and D2.17; and

• Total Essential Services Report for Deakin University – Geelong Waterfront Campus, dated August 2007.

December 2008

69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus.doc MD0143:JGH

Falls Risk & Priority Assessment Report Deakin University

Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong Appendix A: Risk Assessment & Priority Listing

DCP (Level 1-4)

South Side Main

Entrance Stairs

(Internal)

Photo 1 1A

Potential fall distance = 3 - 4m Balustrade height from landing measured at between 985mm -

995mm

2 3 3 1 P5

DCP (Level 2)

South Side Main

Entrance Stairs

(Internal)

Photo 2 1B

Potential fall distance = 2 - 3m Gaps between vertical steel

balustrade posts measured at 150mm

2 3 3 1 P5

DCP (Level 2)

West Side Fire Stairs (Internal)

Photo 3 2

Potential fall distance = 2 - 3m Gaps between rails measured at

up to 360mm (The risk rating is given assuming

that these stairs are used for general access)

2 3 3 2 P4

DCP (Level 2)

South Side Main

Entrance Stairs

(Internal)

Refer to Photo 1 3

Potential fall distance = <2m Balustrade height from landing

measured at 980mm2 2 2 2 P5

Date Of Inspection: 11 Dec 2008

Risk Level

PHOTO REF

(App B)HAZARD / OBSERVATIONS Prob.

(P)

PLAN REF

(App C)RECOMMENDATIONS

Remove floor covering or raise height of balustrade to >1m

Install infill panels between steel uprights to reduce gap to <125mm

Install a bottom rail to reduce the gap to <150mm. The gap between the mid and

top rails complies with Section D2.16(g)(i)(B) of the BCA, for Fire

Isolated Stairways. However if these stairs are used for general access

purposes, as implied in the Building Surveyors report (No gap should exceed

125mm), it is recommended the balustrade comply with D2.16(g)(ii).

Deakin University - Geelong Waterfront Campus

BUILDING SPECIFIC LOCATION Cons

( C )

Regulatory Compliance

Score (See Table 2)

PRIORITY (See Table 3)

RISK ASSESSMENT (See Table 1)

Raise height of balustrade assembly to >1m

69967 Geelong Waterfront Campus Balustrade Assessment.xls 1


Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



DCP (Level 2)

North Side Fire Stairs (Internal)

Photo 4 4APotential fall distance = 2 - 3m Balustrade height from landing


DCP (Level 2)


Photo 5 4B

Potential fall distance = 2 - 3m Gaps exceeding 125mm, gaps

between rails measured at 160mm and gaps between treads

measured at 150mm

2 2 2 1 P6

DCP (Level 2)

East Side Fire Stairs (Internal)

Photo 6 5A

Potential fall distance = 2 - 2.5m Gaps exceeding 125mm, gaps between treads measured at

140mm

1 2 1 1 P7

DCP (Level 2)


Refer to Photo 6 5B

Potential fall distance = 2 - 2.5m Gaps exceeding 125mm, gaps

between rails measured at 300mm

(The risk rating is assuming that these stairs are used for general

access)

2 2 2 2 P5

The gap between the rails complies with Section D2.16(g)(i)(B), for Fire Isolated Stairways. However if these stairs are used for general access purposes, as

implied by the Building Surveyors Report (no gap should exceed 125mm), it is

recommended they comply with D2.16(g)(ii).

Secure an infill panel to each stair tread to reduce gaps to <125mm


The gap between the rails complies with Section D2.16(g)(i)(B)of the BCA, for Fire

Isolated Stairways. However if these stairs are used for general access

purposes, as implied by the Building Surveyors Report (no gap should exceed




Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



DCP (Level 3)


Photo 7 6APotential fall distance = 2 - 3m Balustrade height from landing


DCP (Level 3)


Refer to Photo 7 6B


between rails measured at up to 350mm


access)

2 3 3 2 P4

DCP (Level 3 & 4)


Photo 8 7


between rails measured at up to 370mm


access)

2 3 3 2 P4

WF (Level 2-4)


Photo 9 8Potential fall distance = 2 - 6m Balustrade height from landing



The gap between the rails complies with Section D2.16(g)(i)(B) of the BCA, for

Fire Isolated Stairways. However if these stairs are used for general access

purposes, as implied by the Building Surveyors Report (no gap should exceed


Install a bottom rail to reduce the gap to <150mm. The gap between the rails

complies with Section D2.16(g)(i)(B)of the BCA, for Fire Isolated Stairways. However if these stairs are used for

general access purposes, we recommend they comply with

D2.16(g)(ii).




Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



WF (Level 2)

Chancellor Area Central

(Internal)

Photo 10 9

Potential fall distance = 3 - 4m Balustrade height from landing


WF (Level 2-4)

Chancellor Area Central

Stairs (Internal)

Photo 11 10



WF (Level 2-4)


Photo 12 11



WF (Level 2)

Stairs In Foyer to

Stage Area (Internal)

Photo 13 12

Potential fall distance = 1.5m Balustrade height from landing


WF (Level 2)

South Side Central Fire

Stairs (Internal)

Photo 14 13

Potential fall distance = 2 - 3m Gap from landing to the underside

of bottom rail measured at 220mm

2 3 3 2 P4Install an additional bottom rail to reduce

the gap to <150mm







Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



WF (Level 2)

Central Stairs

Adjacent Security Office

(Internal)

Photo 15 14

Potential fall distance = 2 - 8m Gaps between vertical balustrade

posts measured at 140mm2 4 3 2 P4

WF (Level 1-4)

Fire Stairs North East Of Stage

Area (Internal)

Photo 16 15



2 4 3 2 P4

WF (Level 2)

Stairs South East of


N/A 16

No access could be gained to this area as rehearsals were being carried out in the theatre at the

time of this inspection

- - - - -

WF (Level 1-4)

North West Fire Stairs (Internal)

Photo 17 17

Potential fall distance = 2 - 4m Balustrade height from nosing of

stairs measured at 835mm2 3 3 2 P4

WF (Level 3)

Stairs South East of


N/A 18

No access could be gained to this area as rehearsals were being carried out in the theatre at the

time of this inspection

- - - - -

Install infill panels between steel uprights to reduce gap to <125mm

Install an additional bottom rail to reduce the gap to <150mm

Raise height of balustrade assembly to >865mm



Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



WF (Level 3)

Mezzanine Area Above

Foyer To Stage

(Internal)

Photo 18 19



WF (Level 3)

South Side Central Fire

Stairs (Internal)

Refer to Photo

1420



2 4 3 2 P4

WF (Level 3)Chancellor

Area Central (Internal)

Photo 19 21



WF (Level 3)

Central Void Area Above

Security Office

(Internal)

Photo 20 22









Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



WF (Level 3)

Fire Stairs North East Of Stage

Area (Internal)

Refer to Photo

1623

Potential fall distance = 4 - 8m Climbable members between

150mm - 760mm (The risk rating is assuming that these stairs are used for general

access)

3 4 4 3 P2

WF (Level 3)

Stairs In Foyer to


Photo 21 24



WF (Level 4)

Central Void Area Above

Security Office

(Internal)

Photo 22 25

Potential fall distance = 3 -10m Balustrade height from landing


WF (Level 4)East Wing

Stairs (Internal)

N/A 26

The balustrade that was reportedly measured at 950mm

could not be located at the time of this audit

- - - - -

Section D2.16(g)(ii)(B) of the BCA does not apply to fire isolated stairways. However if these stairs are used for

general access purposes, as implied in the building surveyors report, it is

recommended that the balustrade comply with the above mentioned section of the

BCA.





Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



WF (Level 4)East Wing

South Stairs (Internal)

Photo 23 27



WF (Level 4)

Void Area North Of

Foyer Theatre (Internal)

Photo 24 28



WF (Level 4)North West Fire Stairs (Internal)

Photo 25 29a



WF (Level 4)North West Fire Stairs (Internal)

Refer to Photo

2529b

Potential fall distance = 2 - 3m Gaps exceeding 125mm, gap from landing to the bottom rail

measured at 170mm

2 3 3 1 P5

WF (Level 4)Chancellor

Area Central (Internal)

Photo 26 30


was reportedly measured at 990mm, This area was under

construction at the time of audit and only a top rail was present

4 4 5 3 P1





Access to this area should be restricted until construction works have been

completed and a conforming balustrade has been installed.



Risk Level

PHOTO REF


(P)

PLAN REF




( C )


Score (See Table 2)



WF (Level 4)South West

Stairs (Internal)

Photo 27 31

Potential fall distance = 2 - 6m Gaps between vertical steel

balustrade posts measured at 130mm

1 4 3 1 P5Install infill panels between steel uprights

to reduce gap to <125mm


December 2008



Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong Appendix B: Photographic Reference

December 2008


PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2

PHOTO 3 PHOTO 4

PHOTO 5 PHOTO 6

PHOTO 7 PHOTO 8

December 2008


PHOTO 9 PHOTO 10

PHOTO 11 PHOTO 12

PHOTO 13 PHOTO 14

PHOTO 15 PHOTO 16

December 2008


PHOTO 17 PHOTO 18

PHOTO 19 PHOTO 20

PHOTO 21 PHOTO 22

December 2008


PHOTO 23 PHOTO 24

PHOTO 25 PHOTO 26

PHOTO 27

December 2008



Deakin University - Waterfront Campus, Gheringhap Street, Geelong Appendix C: Plan Location Reference

BALUSTRADE COMPLIANCE REPORT ��

Suite 4 / 405 Nepean Hwy Frankston PH: 9783 3735

www.tesg.com.au

Compliance Report

Prepared for:

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY

GEELONG WATERFRONT CAMPUS

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

JimG

Text Box



www.tesg.com.au

Disclaimer This report is based on the visual inspection carried out on the 16th August 2007. Total Essential Services Group has not been requested to consider any client risk management objectives to reduce any risk to occupants. The items described in this report and their findings do not therefore attempt to minimise losses to the property and contents of the building and are solely limited to the Building Code Australia Part D 2.16 and D2.17 and the requirements of the relevant building regulations. No liability will be accepted for any loss occurring in relation to the use of this report or its content by any third party for any purpose. Name Signature Date Prepared By Chris Gray

Dip. Build. Surveying

22 August 2007

Reviewed By Brad Johannsen

Grad Cert F.Eng B.Tech Building

Surveying

31 August 2007

© Total Essential Services Group holds copyright over the content of this document. You can use this document for information purposes but cannot show it to others or make copies without our permission.

JimG

Text Box



www.tesg.com.au

Geelong Waterfront Campus Building DCP

Balustrade height: 995mm. Space between steel uprights at the corner of the balustrade was measured at 150mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

Balustrade height: 1000mm.


Distance between rails was measured at up to 360mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

Balustrade height: 995mm. Distance between rails was measured at 160mm and distance between treads was measured at 150mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

Distance between rails was measured at 300mm and distance between treads was measured at 140mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

JimG

Text Box

LEGEND 1 PLAN LOCATION REFERENCE - REFER TO APPENDIX A

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Note: Plan layout provided by Essential Services Group

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

1a

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

1b

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

2

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

3

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

5a

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

5b

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

4a

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

4b

JimG

Line

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au





Balustrade height: 970mm. Distance between rails was measured at up to 350mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

Distance between rails was measured at up to 370mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

6a

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

6b

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

7

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au




Balustrade height: 1000mm Distance between rails was measured at up to 400mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

Balustrade height: 1045mm Distance between rails was measured at up to 370mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 1b

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 1a

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 7

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au

Geelong Waterfront Campus Building WF

Balustrade height: 1035mm. Distance from the nosing line to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at 220mm and is required to be not more than 150mm.









JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

8

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

9

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

10

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

11

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

12

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

13

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au


Level 2 continued




Balustrade height: 1015mm Distance from the nosing line / landing to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at up to 525mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.


Refer to Fire Door photo below.


Refer to Balustrade photo below.

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 8

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

14

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

15

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

16

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au


Balustrade in Fire Isolated Stairs on level 1

Distance from the nosing line to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at 65mm and is required to be not more than 150mm. Distance measured between rails was 280mm and is to be no more than 460mm.

The height above the nosing line to the top of the balustrade was measured at 835mm. The height is to be not less than 865mm as per Part D2.16 BCA.

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

17

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au





Balustrade height: 1005mm. Distance from the nosing line to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at 150mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.






Glass Balustrade height: 1000mm. Balustrade height: 990mm.





JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 8

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 10

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

18

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

20

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 28

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

19

JimG

Line

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au


Level 3 continued





Balustrade height: 1015mm. Distance from the nosing line / landing to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at up to 525mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.


As per level 2


JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

21

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

22

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 15

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 16

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au


Level 3 continued

Balustrade height: 990mm. Openings between rails were measured at 135mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.


Non-climbable members required between 150mm and 760mm as the fall is greater than 4.0m. Ref D2.16 BCA


JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 14

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

23

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

24

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au










JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

25

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

26

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

27

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

28

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 10

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au


Level 4 continued





Balustrade height: 965mm. Distance from the landing to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at 170mm and is required to be not more than 150mm.

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

29a

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

29b

JimG

Line

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

30

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 30

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 15

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

31

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au


Level 4 continued


Balustrade height: 990mm. Distance from the nosing line to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at 130mm. Any openings are not to permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it.

No Access

Balustrade height: 1025mm. Distance from the landing to the underside of the bottom rail was measured at 215mm and is required to be not more than 150mm.

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box


JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 14

JimG

Line

JimG

Oval

JimG

Text Box

Refer to 13

JimG

Line



www.tesg.com.au

Observations: Building WF

1. Fire Door Sign on the wrong side of the door. 2. No fire safety Door signs on level 1 exit doors.

3. Ensure 1.0m Path of Travel to an exit is maintained at all times.

Fire doors must be signed FIRE (or SMOKE) DOOR DO NOT OBSTRUCT DO NOT KEEP OPEN This lettering is to be no less than 20mm and in a colour that’s contrasting to its background, on the side of the door that faces a person seeking egress, as per part D2.23 BCA. For doors that discharge from a fire isolated exit –“FIRE SAFETY DOOR – DO NOT OBSTRUCT” on both sides to the door.

JimG

Text Box

JimG

Text Box




www.tesg.com.au

No fire safety Door signs.

Maintain 1.0m Path of Travel

JimG

Text Box

JimG

Text Box
