Cutting fuel pipeline with oxy 
2003 Reader Submission
Pending Acceptance
> NSW - Australia: Cutting fuel pipeline with oxy torch
> Date: 01 October 2002
>
> Three prosecutions arose out of an incident where a worker died after
having cut a fuel pipeline with an oxy torch.
>
> A construction company was contracted to construct a drainage line under
the Warringah Mall complex. The manufacture and erection of the structural
steel work was subcontracted to a steel contractor. Electrical services,
sprinklers and an old disused fuel pipeline needed to be removed from the
undercroft in order for the steel work to go in.
>
> On 7 October 1998 the contracted project manager, an electrical contractor
and the foreman of the steel contractor discussed the work. The electrical
contractor warned the foreman in the presence of the project manager not to
cut the fuel pipe with an oxy-acetylene torch. The foreman said there was
plenty of room and he would work around it.
>
> On 9 October 1998, while cutting steel beams from a cherry picker adjacent
to the fuel pipeline, the foreman asked a worker to remove the pipeline with
an oxy torch. The worker refused, saying he did not know what was in the
pipeline. The foreman took the oxy torch and started cutting the pipeline
himself. The worker saw a small flame, but the foreman repeated that there
was "nothing in the pipe".
>
> After the foreman had cut through a 7 m section of the pipeline, he
proceeded to cut through a bracket holding the pipeline in place. The
remaining pipeline dislodged, fuel poured onto the foreman and ignited. He
was engulfed in flames and died about 13 hours later from the severe burns
he had suffered.
>
> Construction contractor convicted
> The construction contractor was charged with breach of sec 16(1) of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW) and pleaded guilty.
>
> The Industrial Relations Commission of NSW in Court Session said that if
the company had introduced a hot work permit system for itself and its
subcontractors, such a permit would not have been issued for cutting the
fuel pipeline. This indicated the simple measure by which the accident could
have been avoided.
>
> The company was convicted and fined $45,000 (Inspector Sharpin v Christie
Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 209, 23 August 2002).
>
> Project manager convicted
> The company engaged as project manager was also prosecuted for breach of
sec 16(1) of the Act and pleaded guilty. It had been aware of the pipeline
but failed to remove it or ensure it was safe for workers. It had also
failed to assess whether the pipeline was a risk to health and safety and
failed to prevent persons from working with oxy-acetylene cutting equipment
on or near it.
>
> In terms of culpability, the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW in
Court Session could not distinguish the project manager's position from that
of the construction contractor. It was a first offence for both companies
and the elements of contrition and responsiveness to the incident were
similar.
>
> As the principle of parity in sentencing applied, the project manager was
convicted and fined $45,000 (Inspector Sharpin v Bovis McLachlan Pty Ltd
[2002] NSWIRComm 210, 23 August 2002).
>
> Employer convicted
> The structural steel subcontractor was prosecuted for breach of sec 15(1)
of the Act as the foreman's employer but pleaded not guilty.
>
> The Court found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable
doubt that the structural steel subcontractor had failed to provide and
maintain a safe system of work. Therefore the company was guilty of the
offence.
>
> In this case, the Court delayed the sentencing until the parties could be
given opportunity to address the issue of penalty (Inspector Sharpin v Enpro
Engineering Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 211, 23 August 2002).Submitted on 10/03/2002
Submitted by:
Anonymous
Reference:
NSW IRelation Comm 1 October
Copyright © 2002 DarwinAwards.com
|
