Ms.Kamini
Jaiswal, Advocate Vs. Union of India & Ors [1997] INSC 249 (4 March 1997)
A.M.
AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
Mrs. Sujata
V.Manohar, J The petitioner is a practising advocate. She has filed the present
petition as a public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. The respondents are the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as `GAIL'), the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
(hereinafter
referred to as `ONGC'), the Central Pollution Control Board and the Union of
India.
The
petitioner contends that the high pressure gas pipelines laid by GAIL and/or
ONGC are unsafe in certain specified places and are potentially hazardous. The
petitioner has prayed that these pipelines should be closed until an
independent enquiry by experts certifies and declares that these pipelines are
safe for further operation. The petition was filed pursuant to gas leakage from
a high pressure gas pipeline of GAIL at Dhaula Kuan in Delhi on or about 8th of July, 1993.
GAIL
was formed in the year 1984 for the purpose of handling natural gas related
activities. Originally ONGC had planned the HBJ pipeline which was to run from Hazira
to Babrala and Jagdishpur for supply of gas to the fertilizer and power plants enroute.
This pipeline was taken over by GAIL from ONGC in the conceptualisation stage
itself.
Subsequently,
GAIL added additional pipelines and spurlines to the HBJ pipeline. ONGC had
also laid around 680 kms. of pipelines in various locations of the country such
as the Gujarat region, Bombay region, K.G.basin, Cauvery basin
etc.
All
these pipelines were transferred to GAIL, a health check of all these lines was
carried out when it took over these pipelines. After the check, necessary
corrective action which included replacement of some of the pipelines was also
taken by GAIL both from the safety point of view as well as operational point
of view. As of now, GAIL operates a total of 2974.856 kms. of pipelines.
The
petitioner has contended that the pipelines have not been laid as per
applicable international standards ANSI/ASME B 31.8 of 82. The specific
averments in the petition relate to the DESU-Maruti Spurline laid by GAIL which
admeasures about 35 kms. According to the petitioner, the terms and conditions
on which GAIL had given the contract for laying this pipeline have not been
complied with. She contends that gas leakage detection and automatic shutting
down system has not been provided. Telesupervisory system is not provided. Gas
pipeline was requried to be buried at least 1.5 metres below the ground. But
the gas pipeline has not been so laid. The gas pipeline was required to be laid
keeping adequate distance from human settlements but this has also not been
done and lastly she contends that GAIL has not obtained clearance from the
Department of Explosives. She has alleged lack of experience, lack of
supervision or control by GAIL officials and mismanagement by GAIL so that the
contractors have used sub-standard material and bad workmanship in laying the pipeline
in violation of the safety guidelines. This resulted in gas leakage from this
pipeline at Dhaula Kuan on 8th July, 1993.
GAIL
has filed a datailed affidavit in reply to these allegations. It has laid
before us three reports of experts in connection with the laying of the DESU-Maruti
Spurline as also in connection with the safety of its pipeline system.
GAIL
has also furnished to us datailed technical material in connection with the
allegations made by the petitioner.
GAIL
has submitted that it had decided to lay the DESU- Maruti Spurline which is a
short line by using their in- house experience. They had given a contract for
the laying of this pipeline stipulating all the necessary conditions ensuring
safety of the system. The contractor, however, defaulted in many ways while
laying this pipeline.
Ultimately
GAIL was compelled to terminate his contract.
There
is an arbitration pending between GAIL and the contractor in connection with
the defective workmanship and the termination of the contract. GAIL contends
that it was this defective workmanship which led to the gas leakage at Dhaula Kuan.
In connection with this accident GAIL set up a committee consisting of the
Additional Director, Oil Industry Safety Directorate and two GAIL officers not
connected with the project to report on the investigation of the failure of the
DESU-Maruti pipeline at Dhaula Kuan. This report was placed before us. The
committee has reported that (a) the area near Dhaula khan being rocky normal
mode of trenching using explosives was not possible due to close proximity to
close proximity to traffic/habitations. Hence manual rock cutting had to be
done. Consequently, against the tender specifications of 1.5 meter soil cover,
about 1.0 meter cover could be achieved. (b) The space constraints with dense
traffic near Dhaula Kuan restricted the use of conventional pipe lowering
machinery for extended hours. (c) Necessary and sufficient details of existing
utilities like underground cables, pipes were not available from civic
authorities. (d) On excavation of the leakage affected area, it was observed
that the bottom of the pipeline was found to be resting on a cable. (e)
Inspection of buried pipeline route revealed soil settlement at various
locations near Dhaula Kuan Park Area after heavy rains. This caused
accumulation of stagnant water in some areas. One of the factors noted by the
committee was that none of the persons associated with supervision of the job
were aware about the existence of a cable underneath the pipe. Hence the HDPE
the HDPE Sheet which is normally placed between the pipeline and the cable had
not been placed.
We
need not examine at length the various facts found by the commitee as leading
to that accident. What is more important, GAIL set up an internal committee to
pin-point the lapses and to suggest corrective measures. This committee's
report is also produced before us. The committee noted that the specifications
in the tender were very clear, exhaustive and adequate to take care of the
safety aspects.
However,
some of the specifications as set out in the report were not taken care of by
the contractor. It noted that some of the construction activities may not have
been inspected by GAIL personnel or the inspection report may not represent the
real status of the activity. The committee has commented upon trenching work
and the fact that the cover of the pipe was at some places even less than 1.0
meter although the tender specification was 1.5 meters. This may be on account
of the rocky soil and the prohibition on the use of explosives on account of
the vicinity of the area to habitation. It commented on the defects in the
inspection reports. It was also pointed out that thickness of the compacted
padding on top of pipe corrosion coating should have been at least 150 MM.
Padding material should have been graded soil/sand and/or other materials
containing no gravel, rock or lumps of hard soil. Such padding material bas not
been observed at various points during the inspection. The report is a very
detailed report setting out other defects also. It had made various
suggestions; some of the suggestions being that (1) GAIL should deploy third
party - Inspecting Agency for such activities of pipe laying; (2) That GAIL
should supervise and monitor the activities of the third party inspecting
agency and the activities of the contractor in respect of the compliance of
tender specification; (3) That no deviation should be permitted by Engineer Incharge;
(4) Necessary formats should be developed to ensure total conformity to the specification
requirements; (5) GAIL Engineers and Supervisors should be given training programmes
and (6)S(T) GAIL should have own qulity audit cell for overiewing the quality
compliance in totality.
GAIL
also carried out a post-construction integrity survey through Sofregaz, an
international agency known foe its expertise in this area. Sofregaz was asked
to carry out investigation and report whether safe engineering practices have
been followed during construction of the existing underground pipelines; (2) to
ascertain whether the pipeline has been laid as per standard construction
specification/codes and to review the QA/QC procedures, namely, welding
procedure specifications, material specifications, coating and cathodic
protection and to recommend modifications/improvements wherever required. It
was also required to carry out other datailed examinations as set out in its
terms of reference. Ir was also required to carry out other detailed
examinations as set out in its terms of control quickly any leak/burst etc. It
was required to report on the status of pipeline, critical areas, preventive
measures, disaster management plan, remedies and recommendations. Sofregaz
report sets out that on its general assessment there was no apparent alarming
deficiency in the pipelines with respect to safe operation and safety of life
and property. GAIL should, however, take action to attend to the points listed
in the minutes of the discussions for further improvement of long term safety
of the pipelines. It also said that based on the survey of the depth of cover
over the pipelines to the extent observed, it considers it to be well within
the acceptable limit with reference to the standard followed by GAZ DE FVRANCE
in normal condition of operation. As such it was not necessary to undertake
further lowering of the pipeline from the present state of cover to the extent
observed. The detailed point-by-point action plan of Sofregaz and the action
consequently taken by GAIL in connection with each of the recommendations has
been set out in detail as Annexure 2 to the report of Sofregaz is the outcome
of a post-construction inergrity survey for pipelines in and around Delhi. A technical survey by an
independent agency was considered necessary in view of the fact that the Delhi pipeline network was the first
urban and sub-urban gas dis tribution system executed by GAIL. A decision to
have such a survey through international competitive bidding by an experienced
international company was taken on 22.6.1993 even prior to the occurrence of
the gas leak at Dhaula Kuan. The cost of such technical audit is part of the
approved cost of the project itself.
A
detailed status report has also been submitted dealing with diverse aspects of
maintenance of the pipeline network in the country. It deals with the health
check of the pipelines taken over from ONGC and the operation and maintenance
control of the entire pipeline system in the country. The streamlining of
procedures achieved over a period has led to GAIL obtaining certification by
International Organisation for Standardization (ISO 9002) and conferment of the
Oil Industry Safety Award to GAIL for the year 1992-93. GAIL has also pointed
out that high pressure gas pipelines owned and operated by it across the
country are laid as per international standards and in fact GAIL has prescribed
even more stringent standards than the international code ANSI 31.8. It has
annexed a comparative table in which, inter alia, the minimum cover of a pipe
under ANSI is 75 cms. while GAIL has prescribed 75 cms. to 1.5 meters. GAIL
has also taken the following important decisions to streamline the procedures
in the matter of execution of works :
(i) To
have a 3-layer polythene coating which has a higher resistance to handling
damage;
(ii)
To execute the work with an overall consultancy by third party agency with
backup consultant;
(iii)
To have inspection both during procurement as well as construction by third
party agencies along with the check inspecting agency in addition to an audit
group of GAIL consisting of persons from a project other than the particular
projects being audited; and (iv) To provide all future pipeline systems with
optical fibre cable links to the various nodal points to ensure safe
communication.
Looking
to the detailed information furnished by GAIL and the measures taken by it as
set out in the material which is disclosed by GAIL, we do not think any further
action is now required to be taken by this Court. GAIL has been at paints to
allay the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner. Looking to the material on
record, we do not think that any further directions are required. The petition
is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2