$131K in fines after gas explosion engulfs four workers in flames

In Queensland, a water tube boiler company (the PCBU), its director and a worker (a qualified gas technician) have been fined a total of $131,000 following a gas explosion at a Bundaberg workplace that caused serious injuries.

The incident

The incident occurred on 26 June 2023. The PCBU had been engaged to supply and install an industrial steam boiler at the premises and, approximately three weeks prior to the incident, had sent two workers to attend the site and fit out the boiler room.

The boiler room was an enclosed concrete-walled room attached to the main building and the two workers were a qualified boilermaker and a labourer. They did not complete the job and returned to complete it on the day of the incident.

Also attending on 26 June was a qualified gas technician, engaged by the PCBU to attend the facility to commission the boiler. The gas technician was accompanied by his father, acting as his assistant.

The gas technician’s process involved ensuring the boiler’s safety mechanisms and other critical operational features functioned correctly before feeding fuel into the burner and igniting it to produce steam — a process that, ordinarily, would take several hours.

On learning prior to commencing the process that the boiler was not ready for commissioning (there was no water feeding into the tank and the LPG supply line had not been purged of non-combustible gas), the gas technician contacted the company’s director to inform him of the issues.

The director then instructed the gas technician to do the purge and charge the principal contractor for it. Neither the PCBU nor the gas technician had a documented procedure for purging larger volumes of gas, there was no specific training in relation to the task, and there was no risk assessment or safe work method undertaken.

The gas technician commenced the procedure to purge the boiler and arranged for the bulk supply valve to be opened, introducing pressurised LPG into the main supply line. Due to the unavailability of feedwater, he could not purge through the boiler. He instead utilised an air compressor hose that he found nearby, but realised that conducting the purge in this manner would take days, not hours.

To expedite the process, he opened the primary gas isolation valve on the ‘gas train’ and vented the pressurised gas from the supply line through the open filter housing, directly into the atmosphere of the enclosed boiler room. The gas detector alarmed some time after releasing the gas, indicating that the supply line was now charged with LPG.

The gas technician’s father was positioned near the boiler while this process was underway, the labourer was on top of the boiler installing insulating material around pipework, and the boilermaker was assembling pipework for the feedwater tank.

It became necessary to braze a single copper elbow onto a length of pipe, at which point the labourer came down from the boiler roof to retrieve a tool from the truck. The boilermaker lit his oxy-acetylene torch and ignited the LPG, engulfing all four workers in flames.

The gas technician, labourer and boilermaker all received full thickness burns, while the gas technician’s father received minor thermal burns. Both the labourer and boilermaker were subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the labourer also being diagnosed with a major depressive disorder.

Aftermath and sentencing

The defendant updated its SWMS for the boiler commissioning process following the incident, creating a document for the pre-commissioning testing, and also engaged a WHS officer.

The company, its director and the gas technician were sentenced in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). In sentencing, the magistrate took into account that the risk was real and present and that it materialised.

The magistrate also had regard to the victim impact statements of two of the injured workers and the serious nature of the offence. In mitigation, a very early plea of guilty, cooperation with the investigation, and lack of any previous history was taken into account.

With respect to the gas technician, the magistrate also had regard to the ongoing consequences for him and the extra-curial punishment he suffered with his burn injuries. Having considered various authorities, and, in all of the circumstances, given the serious nature of the breach, he issues the following convictions and fines:

• The PCBU — $100,000 plus costs of $500 and $105.35 for filing.
• The director — $22,000 plus costs of $500 and $105.35 for filing.
• The worker — $9000 plus costs of $500 and $105.35 for filing.
   

The magistrate exercised his discretion to not record convictions against the defendants.

Image credit: iStock.com/Natalya Bosyak. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.