Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
December 4, 2012

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

Simple check would have avoided huge gas explosion

Dozens of flats, which were in the process of being converted at the site of a former hospital, were destroyed by a massive gas blast, caused when a demolition foreman cut through a cast-iron gas pipe in an underground tunnel.

Despite querying with his superiors whether the pipe should be removed, the worker was told to go ahead, Manchester Crown Court heard on 29 November. Sparks from the petrol-powered hand-held saw he was using ignited gas, which was released when he cut the pipe. This caused a huge fireball, from which the 41-year-old man suffered severe burns to his hands and face.

The explosion, on 8 December 2009, was followed by another blast an hour later, when the still-leaking gas ignited again. This demolished a large part of the entire construction site at the Didsbury Gate development of the former Withington Hospital, in Manchester.

Residents from hundreds of homes were evacuated by the emergency services following the initial explosion, including 21 apartments that were occupied, as well as a number of businesses, three schools, a hospital, two health units and a police station. It was necessary for the Urban Search and Rescue team to be brought in to search the rubble in case anyone was trapped.

Debris from the site also landed on a nearby primary school, damaging buildings, a play area and the school’s power supply.

The court was told that PJ Livesey Group, the Trafford Park-based principal contractor for the development, had obtained a diagram from National Grid during the planning stages of the project, which showed a gas main entering the site.

However, the company failed to arrange for a detailed survey to be carried out to identify where the pipe ran, and wrongly informed workers on the site that the gas pipes had been decommissioned.

PJ Livesey Group pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of HSWA by failing to ensure the safety of its employees and members of the public. It was fined £50,000 on each charge and told to pay full costs of £21,404.

The company said in mitigation the incident had been an oversight in a previously unblemished 30-year safety record; it took safety seriously and had safety management systems in place; it took pride in its reputation; and it had not been a case of saving time or money. It also evacuated the site very quickly after the first blast.

PJ Livesey has since taken steps to tighten up the process around underground services on sites to ensure they are positively identified and located, and their status, whether live or dead, confirmed.

Thomas Merry, the HSE investigating inspector, told SHP: “The company failed to identify what the pipes were before they were cut. They did not know what they were, or what they contained, or whether they were under pressure or full of water.

“If the company had cross-checked with the service drawing from National Grid, it would have shown up the gas pipe. If those questions had been asked, this incident would not have happened. A simple check would have identified it as being live, and avoided months of disruption and heartache for those residents who lost their homes.”

Judge Jeffrey Lewis said the explosion had “potential consequences that could have been catastrophic”. The risk to life or property of a live gas main on the site was “enormous”. 

Echoing the judge’s sentiments, inspector Merry added: “This was a major incident, which led to a massive emergency response and significant disruption to the neighbourhood. It was only luck that more people weren’t seriously injured, or even killed in the explosion.”

The Safety Conversation Podcast: Listen now!

The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.

Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
Bob
11 years ago

Good to see CDM working again?

I suppose the proposed revised CDM reg`s will no doubt enlighten all participants of thier legal obligations and thus avoid such repeated incidents?

It defies belief that this sort of cock up continues without addressing failure beyond the contractor, and the fact they all participants are deemed competent really should be brought into questioning?

It`s far to easy to stop at the contractor and point the finger solely upon them.

Someone appointed them?

Filberton
Filberton
11 years ago

You could throw a few more names into the hat perhaps?

Had the client been made aware of their duties?
Did the CDM-C not advise on the need and quality of pre-construction information?
Did the client, perhaps with CDM-C review the construction phase plan before start?
Was there a reg.29 written method statement?
Was the demoliion contractor appointed as Principal contractor (or is this another Typo?)
Had the client ensured adequate management on site during the construction phase -reg.9

Robert
Robert
11 years ago

So, the company has safety management systems in place. Who, then, took any notice of them? Did they even apply the very basics of HSG 47. Assuming it was an F10 notifiable project, there surely must have been reference made within the CPP about utilities avoidance and the need for surveys etc.
Does it then raise levels of competency relating to CDMC from a CPP review perspective? Striking hazardous utilities seems to be a more than frequent ocurrence and it is really simple to do a check.

Topics: