Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 0

March 2017

Code of Practice

Upstream Polyethylene Gathering

Networks – CSG Industry

Version 4

Companion Paper CP-05-001

Safety in Construction

Rev 0

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 1

© The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association 2017

Important note on use of the APGA Code of Practice for Upstream Polyethylene Gathering Networks in the Coal Seam Gas Industry.

This Code of Practice has been developed for the use of organisations involved in the CSG industry,

primarily in Australia and New Zealand.

The Code of Practice, and its Companion Papers, and any surrounding material, are copyright to

APGA and APGA must be identified as the copyright owner. For licence inquiries, please email

apga@apga.org.au

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 2

Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 3

Disclaimer................................................................................................................................................ 3

Feedback process .................................................................................................................................... 3

Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 4

1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 5

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

3 CSG network design ........................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Design ...................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Field development plan .......................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Crossings: selection and detailed design ................................................................................ 7

3.4 Crossings: gravel roads and tracks .......................................................................................... 8

3.5 Crossings: railways and bitumen roads................................................................................... 8

3.6 Bellholes .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.7 Larger diameter PE pipes ........................................................................................................ 8

4 Hazards and risk management / control measures ........................................................................ 9

4.1 Driving ..................................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Lifting and handling ............................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Excavation: installation by ploughing as an alternative of trenching ................................... 10

4.4 Right-of-way Clearance. ........................................................................................................ 11

4.5 Working in confined spaces: bell holes ................................................................................. 11

4.6 Safe systems of work ............................................................................................................ 11

5 References .................................................................................................................................... 12

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 3

Acknowledgements This Companion Paper has been prepared by the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association (APGA)

CSG Committee working group. The working group members contributed significant time and

resources at the working group level in developing and reviewing this companion paper and their

support is acknowledged.

Disclaimer Although due care has been undertaken in the research and collation of this Companion Paper, this

Companion Paper is provided on the understanding that the authors and editors are not responsible

for any errors or omissions or the results of any actions taken on the basis of information in this

document.

Users of this Companion Paper are advised to seek their own independent advice and, where

appropriate, to conduct their own assessment of matters contained in the Companion Paper, and to

not rely solely on the papers in relation to any matter that may risk loss or damage.

APGA gives no warranty concerning the correctness of accuracy of the information, opinions and

recommendations contained in this Companion Paper. Users of this Companion Paper are advised

that their reliance on any matter contained in this Companion Paper is at their own risk.

Feedback process Feedback on this Companion Paper or recommendations for the preparation of other Companion

Papers is encouraged.

A form has been provided to enable the submission of feedback. The form can be found on the

APGA website under Publications or by following this link: http://www.apga.org.au/news-

room/apga-code-of-practice-pe-gathering-networks-feedback-form-companion-papers/

If there are problems with the feedback form, please contact:

Secretariat

Australian Pipelines and Gas Association

PO Box 5416

Kingston ACT 2604

Email: apga@apga.org.au

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 4

Preface Companion Papers have been developed by the Working Group responsible for the APGA Code of

Practice for Upstream PE Gathering Networks – CSG Industry (the Code) as a means to document

technical information, procedures and guidelines for good industry practice in the coal seam gas

(CSG) industry.

Since 2008, the development of the LNG export industry based in Gladstone, Queensland, with its

related requirement for a large upstream CSG supply network of pipelines and related facilities

presented the impetus for significant improvements in design and best practice approach.

The principal motivation for the initial development of the APGA Code of Practice was safety and

standardisation in design and procedures and to provide guidance to ensure that as low as

reasonably practicable (ALARP) risk-based requirements were available to the whole CSG industry.

Accordingly, the Code is focused solely on this industry and the gathering networks using locally-

manufactured PE100 pipeline. The Code is a statutory document within Queensland.

The incorporation of Companion Papers in Version 4 of the Code is intended to provide information

and best practice guidelines to the Industry, allowing the Code to be limited to mandating essential

safety, design, construction and operation philosophies and practices.

These documents form part of the suite of documents together with the Code and are intended to:

a) be used in the design, construction and operation of upstream PE gathering networks b) provide an authoritative source of important principles and practical guidelines for use by

responsible and competent persons or organisations.

These documents should be read in conjunction with the requirements of the Code to ensure sound

principles and practices are followed. These documents do not supersede or take precedence over

any of the requirements of the Code.

A key role of the Companion Papers is to provide the flexibility to incorporate endorsed industry

practices and emerging technologies expeditiously, as/when necessary.

A related benefit is that the Companion Papers can be referenced by the wider resources industry

which uses similar PE gathering networks for gas or water handling, including coal bed methane

(CBM) in underground coal mines; mine de-watering; or the emerging biogas industries (agricultural,

landfill, etc.).

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 5

1 Scope Construction safety is addressed in Sections 2.9 and 2.10 of the Code, which are very broad in scope.

Specifically, these mandate that the most stringent of the various regulatory requirements, and

those of relevant sections of the Code, shall apply. As such, within Queensland (at least), Code

requirements for construction safety aspects are considered to apply for both brownfield and

greenfield activities.

The scope of this Companion Paper is from conceptual design to the commissioning of the relevant

gathering network component, essentially addressing relevant subjects in Sections 4 - 10 of the

Code.

Both greenfield (new) or brownfield (old/existing) construction safety issues are highlighted.

The specific challenges presented by crossings-either of other pipelines (HP/LP gas or water), creeks

and rivers, or roads/railways, and bell holes are addressed.

As detailed in the Companion Paper CP-04-006 System Design Considerations, the development of

each petroleum lease is normally based on a field development plan, or equivalent, for optimised

gas recovery which is modified by numerous factors (land use, existing infrastructure-roads,

railways, etc.), stakeholder input, topography, and other factors, often including phased

development of sub-blocks. An isolation policy shall guide the provision for isolation valves, for both

construction and operation, (including future expansion and addition of cross-connect or inter-

connect valves), as appropriate.

CSG construction activity shall normally conform to the resources industry’s HSE standards based on

‘golden rules’, ‘lifesavers’, or the equivalent, which recognise the major hazards implicit in this

industry. Specifically, these include, in approximate priority order for construction:

• driving

• lifting (and handling)

• excavation

• working in confined spaces

• safe systems of work [SSOW] -permitting, etc.

• electrical safety

• retained (static) energy.

Normal mandatory procedures to achieve ALARP e.g. risk assessments, HAZOPs, work permit

systems, endorsed work procedures, etc. are used.

2 Introduction Gathering network construction is normally an ongoing activity throughout the life of all CSG fields.

The continued application of construction safety policies is required to maintain the well-earned

safety performance of the CSG industry. As local contractors are used (and continue to be over many

future years) by the industry, their staff and families may often become included in, and often

advocates for the CSG industry, which improves local community acceptance. This has been proven

in several CSG locations over the past two decades, and the importance of such indirect safety

enhancement should not be overlooked.

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 6

For actual gathering network construction activities, the industry now has a significant core of

experienced staff competent in CSG construction support activities mainly resident in Queensland,

and several companies have an increasing group of such staff who are residents in the CSG patch,

supported by locally-based testing, inspection services and PE/steel fabrication shops. Several firms

have a ‘reside within one hour’ employment policy. Local use of these has similar safety advantages.

Indications are that this trend is increasing.

NOTE: The rapid rate of CSG expansion over the past decade, coupled with the involvement of many

non-local senior staff, and contractors, contributed to a variety of HSE policies and procedures.

While well-intentioned in themselves, as construction contractor staff moved between various

projects, these differences in themselves often created unnecessary challenges to optimum safety

performance.

This issue was recognised in 2013-2014 and the Safer Together forum and working groups were

established with continuing positive outcomes. The implementation from mid-2016 of a standard

CSG industry induction package was one such outcome. For technical aspects, a tri-partite forum

system was also legally established to initiate and enable standardisation of many aspects, including

pipeline crossings, emergency response methods and several gathering network components.

Additionally, increased focus on competencies for design, construction, operations and maintenance

tasks, as outlined in CP-02-001 Competency, further reinforce such priorities.

The direct construction safety benefits of such initiatives cannot be overstated.

3 CSG network design 3.1 Design With reference to the Code of Practice (CoP) Section 4, CSG networks comprise a challenging design

dilemma. Excluding main header/trunklines, both gas and water systems operate after the initial

500-1500 days of their operating life at pressures and flows in many cases much less than their

original design levels (by several multiples, CP-11-002 nominates ~ 2 bar for gas, 4 bar for PFW); this

is further reinforced by the rating of modern PE 100 material at normally observed operating

temperatures, compared to design maximums. Such criteria provide numerous challenges to

conventional ‘formulaic’ assurance modelling techniques, which can produce ultra-conservative

designs.

Accordingly, a risk-based fit for purpose (FFP) design methodology has been developed to meet

ALARP criteria and is strongly recommended for all CSG networks, (at least as a value check). Section

4 of the CoP summarises this approach, with further details provided in CP-04-001 Design Factors:

risk-based design. Specifically, CoP Section 4.6.3 mandates the requirement for a third-party review

by a competent designer or assessor. Design and (pressure) testing protocols have been developed

to match these design initiatives.

Safety in construction can be also be impacted greatly by construction design issues e. g.

complicated designs for (buried) infrastructure may lead to increased lifting risk if the structure is

not designed to match either preferred installation techniques or available construction equipment

in the market, therefore requiring further higher levels of planning, bespoke lifting techniques and

possibly an elevated risk to construction personnel on site. To reduce construction safety risks it is

important to ensure that construction competent staff are engaged by the designer to provide

construction input and review of the design. CoP Section 2.9.1 mandates that designers should carry

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 7

out constructability reviews at prescribed intervals throughout the design phase to gain experienced

construction input into the design. This will ensure any possible construction issues are identified

and corrected early in the design process, so that these can be rectified prior to any site works

commencing and thus avoid timely and costly field variations. Examples of issues to be avoided

include:

• Skid sizes (e.g. manifolds) should always fit transport envelopes to reduce risk during transport.

• Construction equipment constraints need to be catered for, to ensure construction ALARP can be achieved.

3.2 Field development plan Essentially, these plans incorporate the layout of wells, access tracks and gathering system

components. They typically incorporate integrated nodal design; node locations for water in-line

facilities (infield storage ponds, in-line boost facilities etc. to address elevation challenges); locations

for future nodal gas boost compression; third-party infrastructure (overhead power lines or buried

pipelines); rivers and major creeks; roads and railways; etc. Addressing the latter can influence both

the types of crossings (often trenchless for major crossings) and influence the associated isolation

valve locations as detailed in the design process flow diagrams (PFDs).

Gathering construction methodologies are influenced by these factors, in addition to land usage, soil

type and associated geotechnical factors.

Whilst subject to Operator policies and practices, and specific local conditions, significant

construction safety advantages have been identified by using a single mobilisation for civil works,

wherein the gathering contractor prepares the initial access roads, tracks and leases, installs the

gathering network. During the ROW rehabilitation, the construction track is adapted to a suitable

standard for the subsequent drilling and completions rig crew and their support vehicles.

Advantages can often include significant safety (minimal SIMOPS), schedule and cost advantages,

with less disturbance by using narrower corridors.

Further safety advantages are gained by using pre-installed gathering systems for the delivery of

drilling water, further reducing the task/scope of vehicle movements by road water deliveries using

the road and track network. (Data from similar U.S. water delivery tasks indicates that in some

reported instances road delivery is 30 times more hazardous than pipeline).

From a safety (or specifically HSE) viewpoint, most evidence from the 20,000 km of gathering

network installed to date, suggests that the simplest design is often the most cost-effective, and

safest both to construct and operate.

3.3 Crossings: selection and detailed design Crossings represent perhaps one of the most serious construction safety issues, many involving all

Top 5 ‘lifesavers’, in particular those involving trenchless technologies, which procedures all require

at least two (2) entry/exit bell holes. Wherever possible, where the field development plan identifies

the need for future significant gas/water transfer pipelines, pre-investment of suitable sleeves

should be considered when road and pipeline networks are initially installed. In locations where

funding the upgrading of local council roads is forthcoming, such pre-investment by cost-effective

prior open trench installation should be agreed with council authorities.

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 8

3.4 Crossings: gravel roads and tracks For these relatively low-trafficked roads, open trenching is strongly recommended, on the basis of

safety, less disruption and cost. Negotiations with local councils need to stress the former point, and

optimally standard crossing designs can be agreed, preferably across full industry. A related matter is

depth of cover, which should not be required to vary beneath trafficked sections, based on CoP

section 4.10.

3.5 Crossings: railways and bitumen roads These crossings shall normally be constructed using trenchless technology, details of which are

provided in the Code and Companion Paper CP-05-003. These primarily use bell holes at the

nominated entrances and exits. Refer below for details.

Principal safety controls in this instance are signage, accurate ‘as built’ data stored appropriately

and, where critical sleeving/casing of the installed PE pipe.

3.6 Bellholes These are included in both green and brownfield construction, and involve the mobilisation of

significant specialised plant and equipment [with associated driving tasks]; excavation to create the

working space (note: not all bellholes are necessarily identified as ‘confined space’); lifting

equipment; pipe and components and significant risk assessment and subsequent permitting.

While bellholes are a construction ‘necessity’, the size and duration of occupancy of these holes can

be significantly reduced by pro-active overall design, facilitating and optimising offsite prefabrication

and pre-pressure testing of components to be installed, minimising the in-hole welding task.

For greenfield projects, off-site prefabrication and optimum use of spooling and manifolds can limit

the need for the use of ‘cold tapping’ techniques which inherently require longer in-hole duration in

(slightly) larger holes.

An alternative suitable for smaller size spur and flow lines (with reasonable flexibility) is to fabricate

and install the valves into the PE pipe strung on the surface prior to lowering into the trench, albeit

with minor issues related to actuator installation.

In summary, optimised design can remove/minimise the use of bellholes for spur or flowlines,

limited to only the wellhead connection and tie-in to the major system.

3.7 Larger diameter PE pipes PE pipes of nominal diameter exceeding 630mm (DN630) can present several construction

challenges, especially those with high wall thicknesses (lower SDR), which can include the following:

• Rope bending may not be possible, and pre-fabricated bends shall need to be procured;

• Pre-fabricated joints for spur and flow line connections to the header/trunk may be required;

• Installation in separate parallel, rather than same trench options may warrant review. (Note: this factor should be identified at both the construction safety plan workshop and/or design SMS, based on whole-of-life considerations). All such buried manifolds and valve connections are strongly recommended to be reviewed by the designated Constructor, assisted by an experienced third-party consultant, to minimise complexity prior to procurement;

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 9

• High point vent and low point drain connections may need to be provided by pre-fabricated (and tested) pup joints; or alternative designs adopted; and

• Pressure testing volumes may be higher, requiring in some instances either additional testing water or, for pneumatic testing, larger exclusion zones.

PE 100 pipelines larger than DN 800 may present additional construction safety challenges due to

the following issues:

• Maintenance of ovality and roundness related to possible temperature-related ‘slumping’ during 24 hour (night/day/night) cycles, especially when wall thicknesses exceed 25mm.

• Likely requirement to utilise additional backfill and compaction methods to prevent possible squashing of the pipe due to the size/weight of the larger pipe if haunches of the pipe are not compacted correctly. (Note: Adaption of conventional cross-country steel pipeline construction methods using select backfill material and vibrating haunches has proven to be an acceptable methodology).

• Tie-in points and facility locations (isolation valves, high point vents, low point drains) along large bore sections can potentially involve very large bell holes, which (in addition to requiring large spoil storage challenges within the ROW) often require risk assessment of issues such as trench collapse, falls from heights, restricted work zones and enhanced confined space protocols.

• Significant practical restrictions related to the use of EF couplings have been identified for PE pipe of larger than DN 630, due to quality related issues such as potential inconsistencies in ovality, flat spots, etc. which while within specification tolerances often present significant alignment challenges essential for superior welding.

4 Hazards and risk management / control measures The top five (5) major ‘lifesavers’ or ‘golden rules’ applicable to construction are addressed as

outlined below.

4.1 Driving Safety case methodologies (or equivalent) by all main CSG operators have identified driving as the

principal risk in the whole-of-life of upstream projects, both the construction and operations, which

has been confirmed by evidence to date. A holistic approach to address such risks should address

the following aspects.

Controls measures adopted include:

• adoption of Safer Together protocols and procedures

• journey and fatigue management/ travel protocols

• driver awareness/defensive driving training

• vehicle monitoring systems

• contractor residential qualifications-less travel/FIFO/DIDO.

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 10

Track design. A significant learning point for tracks in fields and paddocks with grazing stock, is to

reduce the width (to single lane only) and subject to the condition of the track, permit travel by 4WD

only and at maximum speeds of 15kmh; this speed not only minimises stock disturbance, but also

reduces the likelihood of collision with stock or wildlife. Self-evidently, this has safety, cost reduction

and construction time advantages.

Operationally, transit times can be reduced by gaining landholder acceptance for the installation of

cattle grids at fencelines, rather than gates.

4.2 Lifting and handling For PE pipeline construction, these tasks occur in three (3) main activities:

• pipeline delivery to and stringing on right-of-way

• welding

• installation into trench.

The hazards associated with these tasks can be mitigated by using the following practices:

a) Pipe delivery. Maximise PE pipe delivery directly from the extrusion plant/yard to the ROW after clearing, with minimum use of intermediate stockpiles. Suggested targets are 80% for PE pipe less than DN450, and 90% for larger pipe sizes in the Surat Basin, not less than 50% elsewhere.

NOTE: Formally designating pipe delivery optimisation to the construction

contractor, with related incentives, is a proven method of achieving this outcome,

with associated cost savings to complement the safety benefits.

b) Butt welding. Use coiled pipe where possible up to DN 200, thereafter ~ 95% of ROW butt welds should use FastFusion (or proven equivalent) units (several larger units with capability up to DN 1000 are available in the CSG patch, innumerable for standard sizes). These units both minimise lifting by crane/excavator and provide a controlled welding atmosphere with associated QA benefits.

c) EF welds/Pre-fabrication. Wherever possible, for the installation of risers, isolation valves, vents, drains and buried PE manifolds/junctions utilise prefabrication and testing of integrated components to minimise on-site assembly, with related additional lifting.

d) Field welding (either butt or EF) should accordingly be minimised, with fit-for-purpose (normally smaller) bellholes occupied for shorter periods.

4.3 Excavation: installation by ploughing as an alternative of trenching

Ploughing technologies are available for single PE pipes up to DN 630, and dual (gas/water) PE pipes

up to DN 315. While subject to both geotechnical and topographic factors, these techniques provide

the following inherent safety advantages and warrant serious consideration by construction

managers:

• lifting tasks-reduced by 2-300% per lineal metre laid

• less equipment required, leads to reduced driving tasks.

In cultivated areas, other benefits are reduced ‘footprint’ (x,y,z in laser-levelled paddocks) and

minimised surface soil disturbance.

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 11

4.4 Right-of-way Clearance. As detailed in CP-04-006, in recent years gathering system design and construction has been greatly

enhanced by the use of LIDAR and drone technology, with both construction data and the provision

of as constructed deliverables now able to use cloud technology. Accordingly, while gas and water

PE transfer pipelines may continue to use processes outlines in referenced APGA publications, the

design and development of the gathering system for the spur and flowlines alongside designated

single lane tracks and roads can best be expedited by the mobilisation of a single civils contractor

preparing the construction right of way (ROW), gathering networks easement and wellhead lease,

rather than two separate mobilisations, often involving larger disturbance.

Significant safety, schedule and cost savings can result from the avoidance of such simultaneous

operations (SIMOPS), in addition to greatly reduced plant washdown requirements for earthmoving

plant for those properties whose landholders require such protocols. In such instances such civil and

subsequent works should be sequenced from clean to ‘dirty’ properties or fields.

In forestry or timbered country, during right of way clearance, experience has dictated that the

heavy plant used for initial tree clearing should be fitted with enclosed mesh cages protecting the

operator from branches which may intrude into the cab, and related protection devices.

4.5 Working in confined spaces: bell holes Not all bell holes meet the nominated criteria as confined spaces, with all associated permitting and

personnel competencies involved.

Brownfield activities involve the added hazard of possible gas presence, and additional monitoring

and other controls may be required, as detailed in the next section. Other than driving, such ‘live’

activities have been assessed as the highest risk in CSG field activities.

4.6 Safe systems of work Rigorous safe system of work (or permit to work systems) have been established by the major CSG

players. It is vital these systems are fit for purpose, (not too overly cumbersome such that they are

not fully understood and possibly bypassed) and adopted by all personnel involved. Key features of

such SSOW systems include:

• Standard Safer Together induction to apply to all staff in the CSG patch.

• All contractor (and sub-contractor) staff shall be competent, and possess all the VOCs necessary for their designated role.

• All activities should normally be supervised by competent Projects (Owner’s) representative staff with appropriate knowledge of the hazards and tasks so as to ensure that all safety aspects are addressed at each site.

• Minimise simultaneous activity levels and number of contractors on site (SIMOPS) as detailed above.

Companion Paper CP-05-001 Safety in Construction Rev 0 12

5 References

The following Companion Papers should be referenced, as required, to optimise the use of this

paper.

APGA Guideline Onshore Pipelines: Construction Safety^

CP-02-001 Competency

CP-04-001 Design Factors and Risk Based Design

CP-04-006 System Design Considerations

CP-05-002 Ploughing Specification and Procedures

CP-05-003 Trenchless Technologies

CP-05-004 Safety in Operations

CP-08-001 Alternatives for exclusion zone reduction

CP-11-003 Guidelines for Maintenance and Modifications

Note: ^ The Code and this Companion Paper scope covers both conventional gas and water transfer

PE pipelines, in addition to PE gathering systems. While the basic principles of construction safety

for pipelines are similar to those covered by the APGA Guideline, most specific construction aspects

differ significantly; such differences include pipe manufacture, storage, handling, transport,

stringing, welding, installation, pressure testing, purging and commissioning. Gathering systems are

even more complex, with varying pipe dimensions and wall thicknesses. All staff need to ensure that

procedures adopted are appropriate, and applied by competent staff and contractors.