Fallen pylon inquiries descend into acrimony and farce

Friday, 4 October 2024

ANALYSIS: Tensions between national grid owner Transpower and the Electricity Authority over Transpower’s culpability for the collapse of one of its pylons in June appear to have become deeply entrenched.

Meanwhile, workplace safety regulator WorkSafe has confirmed it does not think it needs to investigate the collapse of the 17 tonne tower.

The pylon, north-west of Auckland, toppled after two workers employed by Transpower contractor Omexom breached procedures by undoing the nuts on three of the pylon’s legs during maintenance, instead of only having one leg unsecured at any one time.

The Electricity Authority stated in its September report into the incident that cut power to much of Northland that Transpower “missed an opportunity to take action to address concerns relating to baseplate maintenance refurbishment raised by staff”.

In 2021 a senior Transpower engineer identified a gap in the knowledge of the maintenance crews undertaking foundation work, including baseplate refurbishment work, it reported.

His recommendation for extra training was not acted on, it said.

The Electricity Authority’s comments about the “missed opportunity” were amplified by Energy Minister Simeon Brown who said Transpower “failing to act on these opportunities has led to terrible consequences for the people of Northland”.

However, emails subsequently released to The Post by Transpower confirm the extra training the engineer was suggesting concerned the painting of pylon base plates.

He suggested providing wider access to a course on the coating of base plates that he said he had got a lot of positive feedback.

Transpower grid delivery manager Mark Ryall said the engineer’s suggestion “did not pertain to any risk around nut removal”, which the Electricity Authority’s 149-page report did not make clear.

“I am confident that if the engineer had any concerns over removal of nuts that they would have escalated it as a health and safety concern through management,” he said.

The Electricity Authority (EA) said it stood by its report, brushing off suggestions its commentary about the engineer’s advice could have been misleading.

It explained in a statement that it believed it was possible that issues other than painting could have come up during the course.

If the Transpower engineer’s recommendation had been acted on it was possible the two workers who removed too many nuts from the Northland pylon might have received formal training.

That “may have covered critical elements such as tower stability and the number of nuts to be removed at any one time”, it said.

Sarah Sinclair, the independent chairperson of the EA’s inquiry admitted when questioned on the day its report was released that it had not spoken to the workers who were on site when the pylon collapsed.

That meant it was not able to ask them why they removed too many nuts from the pylon’s base plates or what was going through their mind at the time, for example if they believed that was a more efficient way to do the work.

Transpower’s own separate report into the incident, published in July, may be as close as anyone ever gets to understanding what happened on the day, as it did at least speak to the workers, but it also didn’t shine much of a light.

What seems to have come across is that the workers didn’t know it wasn’t a good idea.

“Interviews with the Omexom field staff involved in the incident were difficult; the team members were very evidently significantly distressed by the incident,” it said.

Transpower said they either could not provide answers or recall information needed to provide clear answers.

“For this reason, it has not been possible to determine why the removal of nuts from more than one tower leg … occurred.”

The Electricity Authority appeared to suggest that the resources involved in producing its report had been primarily internal.

It has since estimated its external costs at $134,000, which included payments to Sinclair, a consultant engineer, a project coordinator, a communications consultant, a legal consultant and a report designer.

We may never know whether the workers on the scene might be able to provide a bit more information, now a bit of time has passed and they are presumably less distressed.

A spokesperson for WorkSafe said it was talking to Transpower and Omexom about “future health and safety systems and practices”.

“We saw an opportunity to influence the businesses involved to improve their health and safety systems and practices and that work is ongoing,” she said.

But the workplace accident investigator said it had decided not to investigate the actual accident.

“Therefore engaging with the workers who were on location at that time is not required,” it said in a statement.