Regulating urban development around major accident hazard pipelines: a systems comparison of governance frameworks in Au
- PDF / 1,849,115 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 72 Downloads / 164 Views
Regulating urban development around major accident hazard pipelines: a systems comparison of governance frameworks in Australia and the UK Orana Sandri1 · Jan Hayes1 · Sarah Holdsworth1
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Buried high-pressure natural gas pipelines crisscross both urban and rural areas transporting fuel gas from where it is produced to where we use it. The general public is mostly unaware of their existence, but the consequences of failure are significant. The most common cause of failure of such pipelines is from third-party activities, particularly excavation around a pipeline. As a result, urban expansion to accommodate growing cities in historically rural areas containing high-pressure pipelines poses a significant risk given that a pipeline rupture and fire can cause multiple fatalities over a significant area. Currently, this risk is managed with varying degrees of success, with competing stakeholder needs and conflicts in regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions resulting in a lack of awareness of risk, or responsibility shifting between stakeholders. In worst cases, homes and infrastructure have been built in close proximity to pipelines with no prior consultation with relevant experts. This paper uses a systems approach to understand the effects of regulatory frameworks on practices in three case study sites, two in Australia and one in the UK, that manage development around pipelines in different ways. The comparative case studies, informed by interview data with stakeholders and a desktop analysis of regulation and policy, highlight how the different regulatory processes within the three governance systems shape different outcomes in stakeholder practices and pipeline safety and community amenity. A systems approach to evaluation sheds light on the limitations of some reductionist efforts to address the issue by stakeholders and highlights more systemic opportunities for regulatory reform. Keywords Regulation · Systems thinking · Safety · Pipelines · Risk · Major accident hazards
1 High‑pressure pipeline accidents Pipelines remain the safest way to transport hazardous materials relative to other modes (Osland 2015), for example road and rail. Major pipelines carry essential materials including gas and petroleum from extraction points, to processing plants, then on to homes and businesses. The focus of this paper is high-pressure natural gas transmission pipelines, which are normally ‘cross-country lines, buried underground or under water’ (Papadakis 1999, p. 91). Despite their relative safety, pipeline ruptures have occurred, often with significant consequences. Around the world, examples
* Orana Sandri [email protected] 1
School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
of the significant consequences to people, property and the environment as a result of pipeline rupture and subsequent explosions have been seen. In 2010 in San Bruno, USA, a pipeline ruptu
Data Loading...
