the west angelas petroleum (gas) pipelines and … · the west angelas petroleum (gas) pipelines...

THE WEST ANGELAS PETROLEUM (GAS) PIPELINES AND

STATIONS (WAPPL) PROJECT – A NEW APPROACH TO

PIPELINING

KEITH HORSTMANN, PROJECT MANAGER, KT- OSD JOINT VENTURE

IAN KEMBALL, PROJECT MANAGER, KT- OSD JOINT VENTURE

WAL TERLECKI, AREA MANAGER PETROLEUM PIPELINES – IRON ORE PROJECTS, RIO TINTO PROJECTS, TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

1 Introduction

Rio Tinto is one of the largest producers of Iron Ore in the world and last year produced 280Mt from its 15 Pilbara mines. As part of its ongoing expansion strategy it implemented the Power System Upgrade (PSU) 330 Project that includes the development of new power generation and transmission infrastructure throughout the Pilbara Region of Western Australia to support a production expansion. This initiative included the development of an 85km gas pipeline from the Goldfields Gas Pipeline to a new gas-fired power station located at the West Angelas Mine. This project is referred to as the West Angelas Petroleum (Gas) Pipeline and Stations, or ‘WAPPL’, Project.

The nature and extent of the contract, and the relationship between owner and contractor, resulted in some unique and interesting challenges and outcomes. This paper describes some of those challenges and outcomes, and concludes with the legacy initiatives that will impact the pipeline industry in the future.

2 Project Overview

WAPPL is an 85km 14” pipeline and stations contract that was let as a design and construct (EPC) contract by Rio Tinto. The pipeline and stations is licenced under the Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969; WA licence number PL 97. The pipeline bypasses 87 recorded heritage sites and at its highest point is 767 metres above sea level. Station facilities included pig launcher/receivers, filtration, regulation, heating, cathodic protection and communications.

Project Fast Facts

Pipeline Length 85km

Pipe Diameter DN350

Pipe Material API 5L ERW X65

Pipe Wall Thickness 6mm and 9mm

Pipe Coating 3LPE , 3LPE + RJ, 3LPE + CC (24mm)

Stations Inlet, mainline valve and delivery

Pipeline system capacity 60.9TJ/day

Workforce 196 at peak

Contract Award April 2012

Early Works Start Date (Test Pitting) 28 August 2012

Construction Start Date 01 April 2013

Construction Completion Date 04 December 2013

Pipeline Operations – delay to commissioning December 2013 to February 2015

Commissioning February 2015 to April 2015

The EPC contract was awarded on a lump sum basis to a joint venture of Monadelphous KT Pty Ltd and OSD Projects Pty Ltd; the ‘KT-OSD Joint Venture’. The contract was managed by the Rio Tinto Projects - Technology and Innovation Group. The responsibilities within the JV were:

• MKT: Construction

• OSD: Project management, engineering, procurement and commissioning

The JV was responsible for all site management and project execution with auditing undertaken by the Rio Tinto owner’s personnel which included one full time person at site. The project team with Rio Tinto agreed project KPI’s around the following key result areas all of which were met:

• Health, Safety & Environment;

• Schedule;

• Cost;

• Community Interface;

• Quality; and

• Client Relationship;

Approximately 12% of employees on the Project (23 people) were from traditional owner groups. These personnel were trained in and assigned a wide range of duties during construction, including the all-important task of handling fauna that made its way into the trench or onto site. Fauna handling training comprised a course delivered by Polytechnic West. The project was LTI free with no material environmental incidents or tenure breaches. The project was delivered to schedule and budget.

3 Health and Safety

For the JV, safety is at the forefront of everything that we do. The JV, through its values and motto; The Safe Way is the Only Way, sent a very powerful safety message to all those employed on the project. This strong safety attitude, together with an alignment to the Rio Tinto 9 Life Saving Commitments set the ground rules for a very safe project. Prior to construction start various workshops were held between representatives of the JV and Rio Tinto to incorporate the Rio Tinto 9 Life Saving Commitments into normal pipeline construction activities. One should understand that for the Rio Tinto, core business is the mining and delivery of iron ore. Rio Tinto’s key safety focus areas are different than those that would be experienced on pipelines. To adapt the Rio Tinto 9LSC to pipeline construction, and ensure full compliance, was a challenge for both parties. Through open discussion and co-operative participation at these workshops full alignment was achieved by, in some cases, changing the way a ‘pipeliner’ would normally carry out the activity. Throughout the entire project there were no serious incidents or injuries recorded by JV personnel. This was a credit to all those involved in the project.

Project Safety Statistics

Total Hours 335,538

Lost Time Injury (LTI) 0

Restricted Work Injury (RTI) 0

Medical Treatment Injury (MTI) 1

First Aid Injury (FAI) 9

LTIFR 0

Near Misses 5

TCIFR 3.43

Take 5’s 9,089

JHA’s New & Reviewed 348

Toolbox Meetings 49

Inductions Completed 332

Safety Interactions 1,633

Hazards Reported and Actioned 54

Daily Prestart Meetings 1,545

Fortnightly H & S Inspections 29

Fortnightly Environmental Inspections 21

Management Tours 42

BAC Conducted 21,075

Random Drug Tests Conducted 211

Monthly HSE Committee Meetings 6

Kilometres Driven 1,305,170

3.1 Mental Health Awareness Program

The JV instigated a concerted mental health awareness campaign, including presentations, workshops and fundraising events onsite. This campaign highlighted the increased risks to mental health for remote workers, promoted awareness and encouraged open communication within the project team. The program was subsequently adopted and presented to all Rio Tinto employees in the Pilbara.

3.2 Life Saving Commitments

One of the challenges of building a gas pipeline on a mining site is compliance to the expectations of the mining community. Some work practices typical to pipeline construction are simply not acceptable in a mining environment. Rio Tinto implemented its ‘9 Lifesaving Commitments’ Program in 2013. Rio Tinto 9 Life Saving Commitments

01 I will never approach operating HEAVY EQUIPMENT without making verbal positive contact with the operator.

02 I will ensure my vehicle is SAFE FOR DRIVING and will drive responsibly and to conditions.

03 I will never WORK AT HEIGHTS without appropriate fall protection or fall prevention.

04 I will never work in the line of fire of a SUSPENDED LOAD.

05 I will ensure all ELECTRICAL HAZARDS are understood and controlled before starting any work.

06 I will not enter a CONFINED SPACE appropriate authorization and training.

07 I will ensure all ENERGY SOURCES HAVE BEEN ISOLATED and my personal locks have been placed before working on any piece of equipment.

08 I will talk to my supervisor if I am FATIGUED and I will not present to work under the influence of ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUGS.

09 I will not work within three metres of a RAILWAY without appropriate authorization.

The JV convened an extensive workshop program to assess each aspect of pipeline construction within the context of the 9 Lifesaving Commitments and made the following amendments to its work practices to ensure compliance.

9LSC Workshop No 1: Alignment Outcomes and Recommendations

1) Travel along the designated ‘passing lane’ along the ROW should not require the implementation of Lifesaving Commitment 1 in relation to pipeline construction activities off the ‘passing lane’.

2) ‘Positive Verbal Communication’ is acceptable under Lifesaving Commitment 1 when approaching operating heavy equipment when made to and through the work crew supervisor / spotter and subsequently being advised it is safe to approach.

3) ‘Positive Verbal Communication’ by means of hand signals is acceptable between the spotter and the operator where radios or other traditional verbal communication is unable to be utilized (for example equipment without cabs) under Lifesaving Commitment 1.

4) Confirm that working adjacent to an open trench is not considered working at heights under Lifesaving Commitment 3 is required.

5) If working adjacent to an open trench is considered to be ‘working at heights’ under Lifesaving Commitment 3, then a clear definition of the distance from the top of the open trench to where personnel can be without triggering ‘working at heights’ is required.

6) If working adjacent to an open trench is considered to be ‘working at heights’ under Lifesaving Commitment 3, then further investigation is required as to how some construction activities can be completed safely, with the required integrity and accuracy and in accordance with this Lifesaving Commitment or safely under an exemption to this Lifesaving Commitment.

7) KT-OSD JV investigate relevant working at heights mitigation measures in relation to machinery maintenance and inspections to ensure that they are able to be conducted in alignment with this Lifesaving Commitment 3.

8) Confirmation that working under and adjacent to a ‘supported load’ where the load is supported at both ends by stationary supports (wooden skids, sand bags, etc.) is not considered to be working ‘in the line of fire of a suspended load’ under Lifesaving Commitment 4 is required.

9) Confirmation that working under and adjacent to a ‘supported load’ where the load is supported at one end by stationary supports (wooden skids, sand bags, etc.) and the other end by lifting equipment utilizing a sling or similar equipment where the load it is not above shoulder height is not considered to be working ‘in the line of fire of a suspended load’ under Lifesaving Commitment 4 is required.

10) Confirmation that working adjacent to a ‘suspended load’ where the load is suspended at no greater than shoulder height and the personnel does not place their body in the ‘line of fire’ of the load if it should fall is not considered to be working ‘in the line of fire of a suspended load’ under Lifesaving Commitment 4 is required.

11) Discussion be undertaken with respect to the mitigation measures for how to implement maintenance of machinery and equipment with there is a need for installation of new parts or under vehicle maintenance which requires personnel to work under a suspended or supported load with regard to Lifesaving Commitment 4.

12) Confirmation that personnel in a bell-hole is not considered to be working in a confined space as it is designed for human occupancy and is a designated work area under Lifesaving Commitment 6.

13) Confirmation that an open trench is not considered a confined space under Lifesaving Commitment 6.

14) Should recommendation 12 not be agreed, then a definition of when an open trench becomes a confined space is required to define both depth and width. This is to also take into account whether the pipe is within the trench or not as this would reduce the depth at which the trench should be considered for personnel activity.

9LSC WORKSHOP NO 2: Acceptance of Recommendations from Workshop No 1

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 01: HEAVY EQUIPMENT

The first recommendation, Travel along the designated ‘passing lane’ along the ROW should not require the implementation of Lifesaving Commitment 1 in relation to pipeline construction activities off the ‘passing lane’, was accepted. Furthermore, workshop attendees agreed the following: • Controls required in restricted construction right-of-way (CROW) and small work areas within

CROW.

• Risk assess each location at restricted CROW.

• Delineate locations and activities at restricted CROW.

• Implement traffic management (including traffic cones etc.) at restricted CROW.

The second recommendation, ‘Positive Verbal Communication’ is acceptable under Lifesaving Commitment 1 when approaching operating heavy equipment when made to and through the work crew supervisor / spotter and subsequently being advised it is safe to approach, was accepted and the following action was agreed: • Ensure Supervisor / Delegated Spotter is at the ‘actual worksite’ and controlling it.

The third recommendation, ‘Positive Verbal Communication’ is acceptable under Lifesaving Commitment 1 when approaching operating heavy equipment when made to and through the work crew supervisor / spotter and subsequently being advised it is safe to approach, was accepted and the following action was agreed:

• Hand Signals are accepted alternative to verbal positive communications as a means of

communications.

It was also agreed that the word ‘verbal’ should not be considered as the only means of communications relating to this Commitment. It was not always necessary to make verbal communication, with hand signals being considered acceptable as an initial means of positive communications in the first instance.

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 02: SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE DRIVING

As there was complete alignment on this item at workshop 1, no further discussion was required.

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 03: WORKING AT HEIGHTS

Workshop participants reviewed recommendation four, Submission that working adjacent to an open trench is not considered working at heights under Lifesaving Commitment 3, and were of the view that working adjacent to an open trench was considered as working at heights. Therefore, the fifth recommendation, If working adjacent to an open trench is considered to be ‘working at heights’ under Lifesaving Commitment 3, then a clear definition of the distance from the top of the open trench to where personnel can be without triggering ‘working at heights’ is required, was accepted and the following items and actions were agreed: • Standard work practices are to be implemented addressing activities where personnel may be

required to enter the 2m zone and specific controls are to be implemented.

• Review standard KT-OSD JHA to identify prompts for personnel to assess working from heights

criteria.

• KT-OSD in-house, work-specific training to be conducted that includes KT-OSD VOC

competency. Personnel who are trained will have a means to positively identify them as

competent to work within the 2m zone.

• Personnel working within 2m zone (e.g. fauna handlers, spotters, surveyors) have a spotter,

does not walk alongside the trench, walks a distance, stops, walks up to trench, inspects and

steps back, walks out of 2m zone, continues.

• When open trench exists, pipe gang operations will be offset to 4 metres from the trench

centreline. This will require an extra side boom for lowering-in operations and longer boom

lengths.

Workshop participants agreed that all of the action items listed under recommendation five were to be referred to in recommendation six, If working adjacent to an open trench is considered to be ‘working at heights’ under Lifesaving Commitment 3, then further investigation is required as to how some construction activities can be completed safely, with the required integrity and accuracy and in accordance with this Lifesaving Commitment or safely under an exemption to this Lifesaving Commitment. In addition to these, the following action was also noted:

• Stipulate a 2m exclusion zone in the project induction package.

Based on recommendation seven, KT-OSD JV investigates relevant working at heights mitigation measures in relation to machinery maintenance and inspections to ensure that they are able to be conducted in alignment with this Lifesaving Commitment 3, the following actions were agreed upon among the workshop participants: • Plant risk assessment to be conducted on all types of equipment to be used on the project.

Plant risk assessment templates are to include working from heights, freefall potential and

working under suspended loads.

• Plant risk assessments will be submitted to RTIO for endorsement of the use of the identified

equipment on the project.

• JHAs are to be developed specific to working at heights/suspended loads for pre-start

inspections, maintenance and repair activities on machinery.

• Personnel working in freefall requires RTIO Project Manager’s approval (as per Iron Ore

Document No.RTIO-HSE-0090983-Rev1.2: Working at Heights Practice).

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 04: SUSPENDED LOADS

Recommendations eight, nine, ten and eleven were accepted, subject to the specific items and actions pertaining to each of these recommendations, which are detailed below: Recommendation eight, Submission that working under and adjacent to a ‘supported load’ where the load is supported at both ends by stationary supports (wooden skids, sand bags, etc.) is not considered to be working ‘in the line of fire of a suspended load’ under Lifesaving Commitment 4 is required: • Supported load is defined as a system that completely removes the energy that would result

from collapse / failure (e.g. 100% neutralized).

• The load is supported on both sides. This item is critical for welding, coating, abrasive blasting,

wrapping, etc.

Recommendation nine, Submission that working under and adjacent to a ‘supported load’ where the load is supported at one end by stationary supports (wooden skids, sand bags, etc.), and the other end by lifting equipment, utilising a sling or similar equipment where the load it is not above shoulder height is not considered to be working ‘in the line of fire of a suspended load’ under Lifesaving Commitment 4 is required:

• When stabbing the pipe during welding operations use sand bags or similar to absorb the

impact and stop lateral movement of the pipe.

Recommendation ten, Submission that working adjacent to a ‘suspended load’ where the load is suspended at no greater than shoulder height and the personnel does not place their body in the ‘line of fire’ of the load, is not considered to be working ‘in the line of fire of a suspended load’ under Lifesaving Commitment 4 is required: • When walking the pipe for any distance (excluding stabbing and loading operations), an

approved construction procedure is implemented. The procedure will specify the mechanism

(e.g. wand of 1m length or tag lines) to be used to exclude personnel from being in the line of

fire and remove the risk of uncontrolled movement of pipe.

Recommendation eleven, Submission that maintenance of machinery and equipment, when there is a need for installation of new parts or under vehicle maintenance that it is a restricted work area and standard work practices are to be implemented addressing activities that requires personnel to work under a suspended or supported load with regard to Lifesaving Commitment 4: • Risk assessment to be conducted for maintenance requirements on all types of equipment to

be used on the project.

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 05: ELECTRICAL HAZARDS

It was agreed that pipeline construction activities are aligned with this Lifesaving Commitment at workshop 1 and this Commitment did not require further discussion.

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 06: CONFINED SPACES

The primary discussion in relation to confined space was the determination of whether an open trench is deemed a confined space should personnel be required to enter for various activities (checking bedding, survey, installation of trench breakers, fauna retrieval, etc.) Recommendations 12, 13 and 14 are listed below, with the relevant agreed-upon items and actions. Recommendation twelve, Submission that personnel in a bell-hole is not considered to be working in a confined space as it is designed for human occupancy and is a designated work area under Lifesaving Commitment 6: • Approved standard working procedures (including typical drawings) to be provided to RTIO.

Recommendation thirteen, Submission that an open trench is not considered a confined space under Lifesaving Commitment 6: • Approved trench entry procedure (entry and egress, benching, battering) to be provided to

RTIO.

Recommendation fourteen, Should recommendation 12 and 13 not be agreed, then a definition of when an open trench becomes a confined space is required to define both depth and width. This is to also take into account whether the pipe is within the trench or not as this would reduce the depth at which the trench should be considered for personnel activity, was made with the view that if recommendation 12 was not agreed upon, then, an alternative was to be considered. Since

recommendation 12 was accepted among the participants, it was agreed that recommendation 14 was not required.

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 07: ENERGY SOURCES

It was agreed that pipeline construction activities are aligned with this Lifesaving Commitment at workshop 1 and this Commitment was not further discussed.

LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 08: FATIGUE AND SUBSTANCE USE


LIFE SAVING COMMITMENT 09: PROXIMITY TO RAILWAY


3.3 Fatality Prevention Program

The purpose of the Fatality Prevention Programme (FPP) is a Rio Tinto initiative to identify potentially catastrophic situations in the workplace (regardless of likelihood) that could lead to a fatality or multiple fatalities. These Potentially Fatal Events (PFEs) are ‘high consequence, low probability’ situations, which are then addressed to reduce or eliminate the associated risk. All PFEs are identified and placed on a register along with the status of their corrective actions. The objectives of the FPP are to:

• Raise awareness and understanding of PFEs;

• Utilise personnel with relevant industry experience to help identify PFEs and share the learning

with other less-experienced persons;

• Identify the specific PFEs that could occur on site;

• Prioritise the critical PFEs that need to be actioned first;

• Promote the direct involvement of line management in safety interactions with employees;

• Determine and implement appropriate controls;

• Monitor the ongoing effectiveness of the controls through targeted observations, inspections

and interactions;

• Measure progress in PFE prevention;

• Enable all site personnel and senior management to become involved in an important safety

involvement initiative that helps drive safety leadership and safe behaviours.

During the first FPP 7 potentially fatal events were identified by working groups that included persons from Rio Tinto and the JV undertaking a detailed review of the site works.

One potentially fatal event to highlight is failure of the winch mechanism of the bending machine

(stored energy in the rope wire released and operator controls are alongside the pipe feed route).

This resulted in guarding being installed on the bending machine. This machine had been in use for

many years and a fresh set of eyes looked at the bending machine in a completely different way.

Though low probability, there could be a high consequence injury in the case of a failure.

4 Challenges

The major challenges encountered during the Project included:

• Adapting Rio Tinto 9 Life Saving Rules to pipeline construction;

• Remote location with limited access;

• Lack of suitable water sources;

• 87 recorded heritage sites on corridor;

• Ground conditions from loose sand to hard rock;

• Inability to move borrow material between Miscellaneous Licenses

• Terrain – highest pipeline WA at 767m;

• Inclement weather;

• West Angelas power station contractor going into administration;

• Hydrotesting in three sections to meet schedule, and the associated elevation changes.

5 Commercial Approach

From the outset, Rio Tinto made it clear that it required a lump sum price with minimal provisional sums or schedules of rates. This was a challenge for a pipeline in the Pilbara where rock was a certainty (but could not be quantified), and heavy rainfall hundreds of kilometres away could impact on the pipeline construction and access. As a consequence of all project approvals not being secured until well after Award it was not possible to fully establish the geotechnical, hydrological, environmental and heritage parameters associated with the site. During the pre-Award period Rio Tinto and the JV workshopped all of these risks to arrive at equitable mechanisms within the lump sum contract structure to ensure that neither party was disadvantaged. These mechanisms covered: • Rock and the use of rockjacket and concrete coating;

• Access restrictions for weather or other reasons;

• Delays outside the control of the JV;

This equitable consideration and management of risk continued throughout the project and resulted in every challenge being resolved quickly and optimally.

6 Risk Management

a. Contract The EPC format was a significant change from Rio Tinto standard practice which was historically based on an EPCM delivery model requiring the constructor to build the facilities to a design by others under supervision of the EPCM contractor. Rio Tinto chose this model because: • Gas pipelines is not core business and involves different skills and experience;

• Reduce overheads (EPCM Contractor);

• Obtain the benefit of a performance guarantee;

• Reduce project duration.

b. Ground Conditions As a consequence Rio Tinto approvals not being in place prior to award of the contract there was no opportunity to accurately gauge the ground conditions other than for a desktop study. A mechanism in the Contract provided for adjusting the lump sum and schedule after test pitting had been undertaken.

c. Route alignment

Price was based on pipeline from A to B with a ‘wiggle’ allowance. The final alignment was not able to be confirmed until all heritage sites had been identified and recorded.

d. Weather

The Pilbara region is subject to seasonal cyclones and extensive flooding that can result in substantial disruptions to construction activities. It was therefore agreed to exclude this risk from the lump sum.

e. Self-management as EPC contractor The absence of an EPCM Contractor required that the EPC Contractor be responsible for most supervisory activities, subject to Rio Tinto audit. This meant, for example, that the JV was approving its own clearing permit requests, monitoring all quality aspects, etc.

f. Schedule

The test pitting program demonstrated the quantity of rock along the CROW and the disparity to the Geotech desktop study report. Given the lack of borrow along the CROW and the approvals (EP Act 1986 WA Part V) timeline required to quarry borrow for 3 LPE. Jointly the JV and Rio Tinto approached the schedule impact of the rock agreeing to additional rock jacket pipe and other schedule mitigation measures.

7 Rio Tinto Owners Team

The pipeline project formed part of the larger Power System Upgrade (PSU) project for Rio Tinto. The PSU project was over seen by a Project Manager and support by Area Managers for the project areas spread across the Pilbara. The offsite and onsite works WAPPL was overseen by the Area Manager – Petroleum Pipelines on a full time basis, environmental, and HS advisor on a part time basis. As an EPC contract, Rio Tinto conducted regular audits of HS and E, mobilisation compliance and quality checks. No significant conformances were raised during construction. The lump sum contract along with an EPC contractor proving to be competent in execution allowed a small Owner’s team which reduced the traditional costs associated with having an EPCM contractor managing the contract on behalf of a client.

8 Project Approvals

The Rio Tinto Approvals Request Process ensures that the relevant regulatory approvals, and has completed biological and heritage surveys, prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities or installation of infrastructure. The process assists Rio Tinto in maintaining legislative compliance and our social licence to operate, and minimizes the risk of disturbing any protected areas. After the process is complete, the Approvals Permit Owner is issued with an APPROVALS PERMIT that will typically require the Permit Owner (Rio Tinto Project Manager) to ensure compliance with a number of conditions prior to commencing, during, and at the conclusion of the work. Activities that involve ground disturbance, clearing of vegetation, installation of infrastructure, or increasing processing plant capacity, will require an Approvals Permit. Typical activities include, but are not limited to, the following: • Installing, upgrading or maintaining roads or tracks;

• Construction/demolition of buildings and infrastructure (permanent or temporary);

• Pits, waste dumps, stockpiles (establishment and expansion);

• Exploration/evaluation drilling;

• Hydrogeological drilling, bore establishment, test pumping and groundwater extraction;

• Monitoring bores;

• Geotechnical works;

• Laydown areas;

• Pipelines, power lines;

• Processing plant upgrades that will increase throughput capacity.

The JV provided much of the input working with the Rio Tinto Approvals team to gain the necessary approvals. Agreement was made between the JV and Rio Tinto that for the high level approvals such as State Agreement, these would be managed by Rio Tinto. For lower level approvals (Shire) these would be administered by the EPC. This is a diversion from the norm for Rio Tinto where a contractor not an EPCM manager is given this authority. As the pipeline and stations are licenced under the Petroleum Pipelines Act it was agreed that the petroleum approvals would be managed by the Rio Tinto Area Manager and the JV directly. For WAPPL approximately 40 pieces of applicable legislative requirements were assessed for compliance to construct a cross country pipeline in Western Australia. Key approvals/agreements required for this project were: • State Agreement;

• Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969 WA;

• Land tenure;

• Biological;

• Heritage;

• Indigenous Land Use Agreements;

• Shire;

• Water;

• Native vegetation clearing.

Environmental Protection Act 1986 WA part IV and part V assessments were undertaken and respective regulating agency’s advised that WAPPL did not trigger part IV or V approvals. 28 approvals permits were issued for the project for geotechnical investigations, mainline construction including stations, access track use and maintenance, access track widening and water access. The first approvals request permit for Geotechnical investigations was raised May 2010 with the first construction approvals permit raised October 2012. A large part of the project success was due to the JV and Rio Tinto approvals team working in a collaborative manner to ensure no approvals delays or non-compliances during execution.

9 Design

In a typical pipeline project the client provides a design, specification and the materials to be implemented by the constructor, and then watches over him to ensure he gets what he is paying for. For WAPPL the design of the pipeline including the alignment and the selection of materials was the responsibility of the JV. The Rio Tinto Contract Specification stated the requirements for technical compliance but the JV was responsible for ensuring the appropriate level of quality and compliance. Route optimization and feature surveys were for the JV to determine as well as all compliance requirements to AS2885. The only requirement for the JV was that all works had to be contained within the approvals permit areas. For the pipeline, this was a nominally a 100 m wide corridor. This corridor was based on preliminary study works and alignment selection.

10 Aboriginal Involvement

Indigenous employment remains a fundamental area where the pipeline industry can continue to make significant contributions to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous outcomes. Indigenous employment was therefore a key focus for the JV in offering valuable skills and experience to these people on a major construction project. A key goal of Rio Tinto and the JV was to build capacity within the native title groups on whose land the pipeline was constructed on – the Nharnuwangga Wajarri Ngarlawangga and Yinhawangka people. These personnel were trained in and assigned a wide range of duties during construction, such as trades assistants, operators, pipeline labourers and fauna handlers. The SMC Group, a Western Australia Indigenous Company, was engaged to supply and operate the “Wet Mess” at the project camps. Approximately 12% of employees on the Project (23 people) were from traditional owner groups. These personnel were trained in and assigned a wide range of duties during construction, including the all-important task of handling fauna that made its way into the trench or onto site. The influence of the Indigenous personnel was extremely positive and they were an integral part of a very successful construction phase. In order to achieve this, Rio Tinto and the JV had a very strong focus on Indigenous consultation and involvement from the outset of project conception. The archaeological and ethnographic survey process was very thorough and successful, with all resulting aboriginal heritage sites within 100m of the construction footprint being fenced and signposted before construction began. Central to the engagement with the native title groups was in having a dedicated JV liaison. This liaison was able to coordinate native title group personnel that were dispersed far and wide in WA to attend numerous consultations, inductions and training in Meekatharra and Perth.

As a consequence of the initiatives of Rio Tinto and the JV the main cultural heritage objectives of the project were achieved: • Sustaining the natural environment;

• Enhancing the social and cultural environment of the local communities;

• Fostering relationships and working in partnership with traditional owners to enhance Project

outcomes;

• Enhancing the commitment of Rio Tinto and the JV to cultural heritage and environmental

responsibility.

11 Heritage Site Protection

Archaeological and ethnographic surveys began by Rio Tinto in April 2012. This was a very thorough process involving traditional owners, specialist consultants and Rio Tinto specialists. The process resulted in two significant corridor realignments, and the identification of some 87 aboriginal heritage sites within 100m of the proposed pipeline alignment. The final ROW and pipeline alignment was optimised to avoid all recorded sites. There were two tenure corridors of 1000 m (KP00-24) and 600 m (KP24- EoL) wide. Within this area a 100 m wide approvals permit area was selected providing the best location for pipeline construction based on previous study information. During heritage surveys, heritage sites encountered required additional permit areas to be sort or reduction in the 100 m boundary at

times to as little as 16m pinch points due to the size of heritage sites. Finding CROW working space was an iterative process between the JV and Rio Tinto. Heritage site protection fencing and signposting was required to ensure heritage sites were appropriately protected during earthworks and construction activities carried out in the vicinity or to ensure that an area is clearly demarcated as a no-go area, in order to avoid disturbance to known European and Aboriginal heritage sites within the vicinity of the construction project, to manage new Aboriginal heritage sites/artefacts uncovered or identified during construction, to ensure no disturbance of heritage areas other than those approved under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 WA. To further protect these sites the following was implemented:

• Site personnel were made aware through inductions, pre-start meetings and JHAs of their

responsibilities under cultural heritage legislation, avoidance sites, requirements of working near heritage fencing, and procedures for unexpected discoveries;

• All personnel on site were advised on an ongoing basis that heritage breaches are extremely serious incidents and that it is an offence under relevant legislation to interfere or disturb heritage sites;

• Site personnel were advised that if they suspect that a heritage site has been discovered all work in the affected area must stop and the Construction Manager notified for referral to Rio Tinto.

12 Native Vegetation Clearing

Clearing areas are approved by the State of Western Australia under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and pursuant Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004. Additional provisions under the Native Title (State Provisions) Act 1999 and subsidiary Regulations may also reduce the scope of clearing operations. The Project is restricted to clearing a very specific allocation of vegetation. Clearing is subject to ongoing internal and external audit. The State Government requires regular reporting of clearing works undertaken.

To comply with these requirements Rio Tinto have implemented a rigorous ‘Clearing Permit System’ that the JV was required to implement and manage. The system involves multiple layers of control through GIS analysis and management on the ground. Through implementation and adherence to this systematic clearing process and applying lessons from a clearing incident, the Project was able to achieve a 100% record of native vegetation clearing with no regulatory breaches in challenging terrain.

The process used for native vegetation clearing that resulted in us achieving zero clearing breaches. The Project site is a challenging one, with undulating terrain and several steep slopes and side slopes. There are also numerous aboriginal heritage sites immediately adjacent to construction which restricted the Construction Right of Way.

All clearing on the Project was subject to a rigorous process both digitally and on the ground. All construction activities were limited to within the Approvals Request boundary, which is constrained by tenure, Native Vegetation Clearing Permit, activity type, aboriginal heritage, flora, fauna and fauna habitats and so on. The Project Clearing Permits were then administered within this AR boundary. Clearing Permit polygons were reviewed spatially against all clearing constraints and against the activity approvals criteria before permitting survey in the field. The system we used to demarcate clearing in the field was a thorough one. Before any clearing on the Project began, all aboriginal heritage and flora and fauna avoidance sites within 100m of pipeline construction were fenced and signposted. Barricading fencing was installed on the clearing boundary when the boundary was within 10 metres of an avoidance site or the AR. When the clearing boundary was between 10 and 25 metres of an avoidance site or the AR, star pickets and sleeves were placed at 10m intervals along the clearing boundary as an extra layer of protection.

Before clearing could commence all clearing equipment was required to have a GPS installed with all boundaries depicted, and all movements of this equipment were recorded by the GPS. For all boundary clearing, a spotter had to be in place with 2 way radio communications. The entire clearing crew, environmental advisor and construction manager were required to visually inspect the clearing area prior to clearing so that all boundaries, avoidance sites and other conditions were understood by all personnel.

Despite having all of this in place, a minor clearing incident occurred early in the clear and grade phase. The identified cause was that a spotter had guided a bulldozer straight from a boundary pole to an outside corner pole of a rectangular extra work space, missing the inside corner pole. This was a minor breach of the clearing permit which had no tenure, NVCP, aboriginal heritage or flora or fauna impacts. Nevertheless, the Project took this as an opportunity for improvement to prevent any future over-clearing. The corrective actions included developing a simple system for the boundary marker poles. All bends and any changes of direction in the clearing boundary were marked with 6m poles with 3 orange stripes on the top. The marker poles were complemented by marker paint on the ground and cones where necessary to avoid any confusion. Straight line clearing boundaries were demarcated by 3m poles with a blue stripe on the top. These changes further minimized the chance of misreading clearing boundaries, and have been adopted as the standard for clearing on future Joint venture projects. After these improvements there were no further breaches of the Project clearing permits. WAPPL has been completed with no breaches of tenure, NVCP, or aboriginal heritage sites.

13 Fauna Management

Trench fauna is a major environmental risk during pipeline construction. The methodology for onshore pipelines causes inevitable impacts to native fauna. Land clearing and trenching in particular alter the landscape, disturb fauna habitat and cause direct impacts to native species. Trenching is the activity with the greatest potential for fauna impacts. Trenches are essentially vast fauna pit traps, often stretching for many kilometres and disrupting fauna interaction with the landscape. Once in the trench, fauna face a lack of shelter, extreme heat, dehydration and predation. Large scale fauna mortalities in trenches have occurred in Western Australia. In 2004, the EPA was forced to step in on a project and tighten conditions around trenches. Ongoing concerns by regulators over trench fauna mortalities have seen conditions such as twice-daily trench inspections, limits to length and time of open trench, and fauna shelters and ramp provision become standard. These conditions dramatically reduce the fauna impacts from open trenches. However, the increasing expectations around trench management had resulted in escalating costs, particularly around the need for fauna specialists such as zoologists throughout the trenching program. The challenge we took up for the Project was to minimise fauna impacts, while controlling the escalating commitments that had become standard in the industry. We were able to meet this challenge by building the necessary knowledge and skills from within the Project group, rather than employing fauna specialists. This was achieved by developing a custom training course in partnership with Polytechnic West. Prior to commencing work on the pipeline, fauna officers and the Site Environmental Officer attended the commissioned WAPPL Fauna Handling Training Course, obtain a DEC license for reptile relocation (Regulation 17 licence), to be competent in the procedures to provide assistance in fauna species identification and rescue, be aware of vouchering procedures if necessary, be aware of the operating procedure for euthanizing fauna, be familiar with the ecology of species that may be encountered across the Project area, be familiar with how trench inspections were conducted to ensure potential for fauna mortality is reduced, risks to fauna and handler health and safety are minimised, and accurate data collection.

Prior to commencing work on the pipeline, all fauna team members attended a Fauna Team Induction presented by the Site Environment Advisor. This is in addition to fauna impact management as a component of the general induction given to all site personnel. On the ground, the fauna handling program was managed by the Site Environmental Advisors. Fauna handling teams worked in groups of two, with at least one handler being fully trained in the fauna handling program. These fauna handlers were responsible for capture, release, first aid and detailed recording of each fauna interaction. In the times when fauna handlers were not required, they resumed their roles as trades assistants, operators etc. This ensured that these resources were used efficiently and maximum experience could be gained by native title group personnel. Using this training program and fauna management approach, the Project was extremely satisfied with the outcomes of fauna management on site, with very minimal fauna impacts. While this involved a larger upfront cost, the cost recovery across the Project in following this method was significant. Fauna handling was an important part of the Indigenous employment strategy. In conserving native fauna in the natural environment, the native title personnel provided a definite two-way learning experience for the project group. The JV trained and employed 6 additional handlers from the Nharnuwangga Wajarri Ngarlawangga and Yinhawangka people, the traditional owners, who were assisting with fauna handling and gaining experience with other aspects of pipeline construction.

Fauna Handling Statistics

Total Fauna Recoveries 604

Total Fauna Mortalities 51

Trench Fauna Recoveries 569

Trench Fauna Mortalities 30

Trench inspections for fauna were conducted the following way over a 9 month period: 1. Open trench not to exceed a length capable of being inspected and cleared by fauna clearing

persons within timeframes stated below; 2. Open trench to be cleared and recorded twice daily, no later than 3.0 hours after sunrise

(within 2.5 hours if daily temperatures expected to exceed 35°C), with clearing to be repeated before sunset (i.e. between 3-6 pm);

3. Open trench to be cleared no more than an hour prior to backfilling; 4. Compliance checks were completed daily to ensure that fauna ramps, trench plugs, fauna

shelters, and other fauna structures are maintained correct manner. Fences inspections are considered at above ground facilities to monitor any interactions with fauna. Compliance checks were completed daily.

The following reports and records were maintained: • Data Collection and database integrity;

• Photographs (including date and time taken, location kilometre point (KP) and GPS;

• Weekly reports on fauna interactions, together with any information on opportunistic sightings;

• Monthly performance monitoring reports on fauna management whilst any trench remains

open;

• A final summary report.

Successful completion of the skills learned in the course earned the participants recognised Units of Competency, that can be built on with further training. We believe it is important to achieve Units of Competency as opposed to just getting a participation certificate. With the trench fauna inspection component of the Project completed, we are very satisfied with the outcomes of the fauna management on site. While there was a larger upfront cost involved in developing a more intensive and tailored fauna training program, the cost recovery across the Project in following this method is significant. We look forward to working with Polytechnic West, alongside regulators and Clients on future projects to achieve continuous improvement in fauna management. The JV is proud of the implementation of the Indigenous employment strategy, developing real, transferable experience and qualifications to the native title groups. We believe this is a good initiative for the industry – building knowledge and awareness within organizations so that continuous improvement in Indigenous employment and fauna management is achieved.

14 Deckhand Pipe Handling

WAPPL saw the use of a device, a Deckhand®, that eliminated the hazards associated with the unloading of rock jacket and concrete weight coated pipe such as working at heights and working in the line of fire. In the past rock jacket and concrete weight coated pipe could only be unloaded with the use of traditional lifting methods, such as sling with end hooks and tag lines which also introduced working at height issues when rigging the pipe. PSU330 Project Manager Terry Humphrey saw the use of the Deckhand® as a win/win for RTIO and the JV. “Minimising the requirement for working at heights and in the prevention of working in the line of fire of suspended loads are two of Rio Tinto’s priority safety initiatives. The Deckhand® provided a significant contribution to the elimination of these two hazards on the pipeline project. As an added benefit the deckhand proved to be significantly more efficient that the traditional method of manually slinging and handling of the line pipe. The use of the Deckhand® provided a win/win opportunity for Rio Tinto’s safety performance and JV’s desire to minimise construction time and hence costs”, Terry said. The introduction of the Deckhand®, was a major safety initiative which also the improved efficiency of the stringing process. The Deckhand® uses NASA developed technology to provide positive control of pipeline lengths with a full range of movement and has never been used in the pipeline industry in Australia in this application.

15 Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation of cleared native vegetation is the key final aspect of successful pipeline construction. Key for the JV was to leave the pipeline CROW contours in as close a condition as possible pre works. This required assessment pre and post construction of survey and photographic information. The reinstatement of topsoil and cleared vegetation was closely controlled. After the rains of January 2014, the regrowth of liberated seed was impressive.

16 Consumer Gas Pipeline

After the early demobilization of the power station contractor the consumer gas pipeline connecting the WAPPL Delivery Station to the Gas Turbines was left incomplete. The JV was engaged to undertake an audit and gap analysis of the abandoned work and in particular its compliance to the Gas Standards Act 1972 and Gas Standards Regulations 1999. Subsequently the JV ‘back-engineered’ the pipeline system to establish compliance, rectified incomplete and defective work, and commissioned the entire facility.

17 Schedule Management

The driving date for the execution of the works was the gas on date to the power station. All aspects of the job focused solely on achieving this date. Pipelines are generally impacted by approvals constraints. At the time of test pitting Rio Tinto had not completed all of the required heritage services across the pipeline route. To overcome this, approvals were granted for three sections of CROW that worked in with the JV test pitting program. As discussed previous, additional rockjacket pipe was purchased to speed up pipeline construction. The nearby pastoral station Turee Creek was approached to provide commercial accommodation for a poor boy crew based near KP00. At all stages of execution of the project, from design to completion, maintaining the schedule date was paramount to the JV.

18 Commissioning

Due to delays of the power station construction the pipeline was purged with nitrogen and the JV provided integrity patrols for 13 months prior to the commencement of commissioning. Commissioning commenced late February 2015. Due to inclement weather conditions resulting in road access being cut commissioning was undertaken by the use of helicopter. First gas was supplied to the Power Station on 15 March with no loss of supply to date. A JV crew size if six plus the Rio Tinto representative commissioned the pipeline along with specialist sub-contractors (water bath heaters, cathodic protection). A mark of a quality pipeline installation is the DCVG and CP commissioning data. Zero defects were recorded for the pipeline and a CP current draw of 20 mA which is an outstanding result.

19 What Went Wrong

All projects have their fair share of issues. For a lump sum EPC contract risk resides with the Contractor. A great amount of planning by the JV and in unison with Rio Tinto mitigated known risks. Full site access was not available for the start of test pitting due to on-going approvals. The JV reacted by taking flexible approach to the test pitting schedule that worked in with available approvals. Early during the construction period the schedule was 25% behind plan due to the extent of tree felling with clear and grade works. Additional resource was mobilised to recover schedule.

Part way through construction during programmed QA inspection by the JV, the coating inspector tested a joint coating that failed pull test. Further investigation found that there was a defect with a batch of the coating primer. This required the stripping of approximately 800 pipe joints and air freight of replacement primer and tape wrap. The works were re-scheduled and resourced so as to meet schedule. A number of the valves for the stations required rework due to failing repair inspection. Also a number of items were late for delivery. At each point the JV reacted to challenges to manage the schedule and to challenge itself to find schedule solutions.

20 Legacy Initiatives

As a consequence of addressing the numerous project challenges a number of initiatives were developed that have been, or will be, put in to use on future projects: • Temporary wash down bays have now been adopted by RTIO Exploration;

• Fauna handler training for indigenous peoples;

• Land clearing processes and controls - conduit pegging for CROW;

• Use of Deckhand for pipe handling

• Commercial mechanism for dealing with unknown trenching conditions

• Commercial approach linking impacts of adverse weather to site access provisions

• Mental Health Awareness Program

• Fatality Prevention Program

the west angelas petroleum (gas) pipelines and … · the west angelas petroleum (gas) pipelines...

Documents