Damage to underground services is highly dangerous, costs money and can substantially delay work. When the underground service is a major accident hazard pipeline (MAH pipeline or MAHP), such as a high-pressure gas or petrochemical pipeline, then the result of any damage can be devastating.
In 2004 at Ghislenghien, Belgium, a high pressure gas MAHP was damaged during the construction of a factory car park. The damage went unnoticed for 14 days until the pipeline ruptured and caused a huge explosion. Twenty five people were killed, and 150 people were seriously injured.
In 2007 an incident occurred in Great Britain, with similar causes to the Belgian disaster. There could have been serious consequences when high pressure natural gas MAHPs were uncovered during construction of an office car park.
The project originally involved the construction of an office building under a design and build contract. Towards the end of the project the Client for the work decided that they required extra car parking space and this would be built over the MAHPs. The design and build contractors did not undertake this further work and left the site.
The Pipeline Operator had previously met with the design and build contractors and informed them of the risks of working nearby MAHPs. The Pipeline Operator also met with the Client and explained that the design and construction methods had to be agreed before work could begin on the car park extension. The Client was also told that trial holes were needed to accurately locate the pipelines and that the Pipeline Operator needed to be on site to supervise this and mark out the pipeline routes.
The Client had no experience of managing construction risks near to MAHPs and did not understand how dangerous the pipelines could be if damaged. The Client only vaguely understood their health and safety responsibilities and communication with designers, contractors and the Pipeline Operator was poor. The Client did not recognise that the car park extension was a separate Construction, Design and Management (CDM) project and so did not notify HSE.
Increasing pressure to let the office building led the Client’s Chairman to hire groundwork contractors to start work on the car park extension. No one employed by the Client understood the risks well enough to challenge this decision. The Client did not inform the Pipeline Operator when the work was due to start. The Pipeline Operator did not know that the Client had employed new contractors who had not been briefed by them on the risks from the MAHPs.
The groundwork contractors had no prior experience of working near MAHPs and were not informed of the risks from the pipelines by the Client.
The groundwork contractors did not obtain underground services plans from any utility companies before starting work. They carried out the site clearance and then started digging the trial holes without authorisation or supervision from the pipeline Operator. As the groundwork contractors did not understand the risks from the MAHPs they pulled up the pipeline marker posts before reducing ground levels across the site with a mechanical excavator. The cathodic protection cables laid above the pipelines were also pulled up.
Work was stopped immediately when an inspector from the pipeline Operator visiting an adjacent site saw the unauthorised construction work. This may well have stopped the near-miss from becoming a major incident with widespread damage and loss of life.
Costs incurred by the Client included an increase in insurance premiums, lengthy delays to the construction work, and replacing the pipeline marker posts and cathodic protection. HSE also subjected them to a detailed investigation. If the construction work had caused an explosion and injury or death the Client and groundwork contractor would have been put out of business by the costs and both would have been investigated for breaches of Health and Safety legislation and Manslaughter.
The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) Gas and Pipeline Unit commissioned researchers at the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to highlight the underlying issues and factors that contributed to this third party MAHP infringement. You can view the full report to find out more detail about this incident.