Maintenance inspection engineer found negligent

ACCORDING to Louise Bell and Rechelle Brost from Deacons, a recent court case shows engineers and maintenance personnel need to be thorough in performing seemingly inconsequential or minor services.

Engineers are often asked to inspect and certify works. As the court case showed, engineers need to gain access to all parts of the machinery, and if this is not possible, this lack of access should be documented in the inspection report.

The BHP Coal Goonyella Riverside Mine used a O&K Orenstein bucket wheel excavator (BWE) for 18 years, until it suddenly collapsed due to a fracture in its central tower.

An O&K employee had previously suggested steel stiffeners to be welded onto the main tower. The crack which eventually led to the collapse started at the end of one of these stiffeners, causing losses of over $50m.

As a result, O&K was found to be negligent in its design of the stiffeners. However, inspections-provider Krupp Engineering was also sued. In 1999, the company had sent an engineer to inspect the entire BWE. He failed to notice the crack developing at the top of the stiffener because he did not look there.

Had he used a mirror, a cherry picker, or a manboat to access the section of the equipment, he would likely have detected the crack. The engineer was found to have breached his duty of care by not gaining a sufficient vantage point for the inspection of the critical area.

Both the engineer and Krupp were found negligent in the inspection and in writing the report. Krupp was found in breach of contract under the Trade Practices Act 1974, and found liable for misleading and deceptive conduct because of the inaccurate report.