A propane leak occurred at around 8:30 a.m. on a buried 20 mm copper pipe (1.5 bar pressure) of an LPG distribution system of a subdivision. The leak occurred when the pipe was damaged by a piece of heavy equipment during refurbishment work performed by a contractor. The contractor’s employees, who were using an excavator with a toothed bucket to remove material, sought safety without cutting off the pipe’s gas supply. They informed the propane supplier’s contractor in charge of supervising the work. The propane gas seeped into the nearby homes via the electrical conduits. An explosion followed by a fire occurred inside the garage of one of the homes 45 minutes after the pipe was punctured. The fire spread to two adjoining homes. The contractor in charge of supervising the refurbishment work arrived more than 90 minutes after being informed of the leak. After the explosion, the company doing the work isolated the gas system then informed the firefighters. A safety cordon was put up and some forty firefighters were called in to bring the fire under control. No injuries were reported. One home was gutted and two others were severely damaged. A family of four was rehoused by the social landlord.

Multiple safety failures on the part of the gas utility operator:

• it had not been checked whether the refurbishment contractor had all the necessary information to perform the work safely ;
• the contractors had not been asked to indicate how quickly they could respond to emergencies ;
• the choice had been made to declare the works “gas-free” despite the risks at the worksite. Additional safety measures were not provided to remedy this choice ;
• the emergency phone number is subject to a surcharge and does not put callers directly in contact with the gas utility’s emergency call centre ;
• the system map that was provided to the contractor was not usable.

Failures of the contractor in charge of supervising the refurbishment:

• did not follow the gas utility’s procedure: failed to inform the utility and firefighters and failed to cut off the gas supply;
• failed to grasp the urgency of the call about the gas leak and come to the site quickly.

Failure of the contractor in charge of performing the work:

• failed to follow the safety measures defined by the technical guide for work performed near gas lines (Art. R.554-29 of the French environmental code): a technique not suited to the degree of uncertainty was used, the emergency response service (SDIS) was not called, and the residents were not evacuated. The contractor was unaware of the existence of this guide.