First, describe the work and worksite
A specialist crew will apply wet-mix shotcrete to a released ground-level reinforced wall face outdoors using a pump, delivery line and air-assisted nozzle. A separate operator controls the pump. This fictional learning example describes planned controls; it records no actual inspection or work authorization.
- No overhead spraying, confined enclosure, structural repair design or dry-mix gunite is included.
- The actual system instructions determine hose, coupling, nozzle and pressure-control arrangements.
- A task-specific exposure assessment addresses cement, silica, rebound and any accelerator; wet application alone does not settle respiratory protection.
Questions before work
- Who controls the pump and nozzle stop/restart communication?
- How are hoses and couplings supported and restrained for this system?
- Which exposure controls and protection apply to rebound and additives?
Build the analysis one step at a time
What will the worker do? How could someone be harmed? What prevents or reduces that exposure? Who checks the control, and when?
1. Release the spray zone
Hazard: Rebound can strike another crew; the receiving reinforcement or access may be unstable.
Control: Foreperson checks the wall and reinforcement release, screens or separates the spray zone and establishes safe nozzle footing and escape access. Stop overlapping work at the receiving face.
Verification: Crew walks the spray boundary and confirms receiving conditions.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Shotcrete produces a wider exposure area than the finished wall.
2. Stage and connect the system
Hazard: A hose coupling can separate or a pressured line can whip.
Control: Assigned personnel install compatible, rated hose and coupling assemblies with the specified restraints and supports. Inspect wear and routing; keep connection points away from access and never substitute unverified fittings.
Verification: System operator verifies the assembly against the actual pump/nozzle instructions.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Pressure equipment needs a matched assembly, not improvised connections.
3. Brief and test communication
Hazard: Unexpected start or air discharge can throw the nozzle or expose a worker to spray.
Control: Agree separate stop and restart signals between nozzleman and pump operator. Conduct the specified startup checks in a cleared area with nozzle control established; anyone may call stop.
Verification: Both operators demonstrate the signals before charging the line.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Distance and noise can make ordinary shouting unreliable.
4. Apply shotcrete
Hazard: Nozzle reaction, rebound, noise and airborne material can injure the nozzle crew.
Control: Trained nozzleman uses the planned stance and spray sequence; keep helpers outside rebound and hose movement. Apply exposure controls and assessed eye, face, skin, hearing and respiratory protection; keep fresh-air access.
Verification: Lead monitors footing, nozzle response and exposure controls during spraying.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Wet mix can still generate harmful airborne exposures.
5. Respond to a blockage
Hazard: Opening a charged line can release stored pressure violently.
Control: Stop the system, isolate it and relieve and verify pressure under the manufacturer’s blockage procedure before any coupling is opened. Restrict the response to assigned trained personnel; never strike or open a pressured connection.
Verification: System operator establishes and verifies the safe state before intervention.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A pump stop does not by itself prove the line is depressurized.
6. Clean and close the work
Hazard: Uncontrolled cleanout or hardened rebound can expose cleanup workers.
Control: Use a separately planned system cleanout method and exclude people from any discharge path. Collect rebound and slurry using wet or appropriate HEPA methods; protect the wall and report hose or coupling defects.
Verification: Foreperson confirms cleanup limits and receiving-area handover.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Cleaning can create different pressure and dust exposures from spraying.
What does a useful control look like?
| Needs improvement | More useful for this scenario |
|---|---|
| Work carefully and wear PPE. | Agree separate stop and restart signals between nozzleman and pump operator. Conduct the specified startup checks in a cleared area with nozzle control established; anyone may call stop. |
| Check that everything is ready. | Foreperson checks the wall and reinforcement release, screens or separates the spray zone and establishes safe nozzle footing and escape access. Stop overlapping work at the receiving face. |
Decisions that change the analysis
Does wet-mix spraying remove the need to assess silica exposure?
No. Evaluate the actual material, spraying, rebound and cleanup tasks under the employer’s silica program. Do not treat a concrete saw’s Table 1 control row as the method for shotcrete.
What must the crew record for actual use?
Identify the actual equipment and work boundaries, responsible people, applicable criteria, inspection findings and open actions. Resolve changes with affected crews and obtain required project authorization before work.
Agree when the crew will pause
- Loss of nozzle control, abnormal pressure or suspected blockage.
- Hose damage, coupling movement or failed communication.
- Airborne exposure, rebound boundary or receiving-wall conditions change.
After a pause, correct the condition, reassess the work, and obtain required authorization before restarting. Keep unresolved actions visible.
Download the worked example and free template
No account or paid membership required. The worked example contains planned controls. The blank template is for your own work; neither includes fabricated inspection results, signatures or approval.
Your editable working copy
Build and download your draft
Start blank or load the learning example. Replace its assumptions with your actual conditions and involve the people doing the work. Your entries stay in this browser tab; download a copy before leaving or refreshing.
1. Describe your work and site
2. Work through each task
Describe an observable step, how someone could be harmed, and the control that acts on that hazard. Identify who checks it and what evidence is needed.
3. Record changes, checks, and open actions
Walk the work area, review with the crew, and resolve missing controls. Follow the required approval process. This tool does not judge completeness, verify signatures or authorize work.
Open the downloaded file in a browser, then use Print → Save as PDF for a printable copy.
Training needs to confirm
- System-specific nozzle and pump operation, stop signals and verified pressure relief.
- Silica and additive hazard instruction, with respiratory-program requirements when protection is needed.
Confirm applicable qualifications, task instruction and actual training evidence for the people assigned. Related toolbox talks support crew discussion; they do not establish competence.
Common questions
Can this example be used as a JSA?
Adapt its Task | Hazard | Control analysis to the employer’s format and actual conditions. The example is a teaching aid, not evidence that controls were checked.
What changes if the project requires an AHA?
Use the governing AHA format, risk method, supporting records and acceptance process. The published formwork AHA demonstrates that additional structure; changing a JHA title does not supply it.
Are these resources part of a paid course?
This walkthrough, browser draft builder and downloads are free public resources, separate from Academy course enrollment.
References and source note
- OSHA 1926.702 Concrete equipment and tools
- OSHA 1926.1153 Respirable crystalline silica
- ASA Shotcrete hose blockage safety guidance
Original instructional scenario with planned controls. Primary references support hazard planning. Use actual equipment and product instructions, project design and employer requirements to establish field criteria. Use actual equipment instructions and site requirements alongside these references. Reference review: October 9, 2026.