HOW TO WRITE A LETTER FOR SAFETY VIOLATION OF HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TEST.

A SAMPLE LETTER OF VIOLATING THE SAFETY REQUIREMENT FOR THE HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TEST BY CONTRACTOR SUBCONTRACTOR OR MANAGER.

Dear (sir or name the person or department to address) 

(straight into the matter avoid the conventional letter writing method) 

Today (Date) a hydrostatic pressure test was rejected on multiple occasions during several inspections in the day. (subcontractor or manager name) the subcontractor of (Main contractor name) E&C assigned for the installation and commissioning of the firefighting system at the project was observed ignoring subsequently to advance the safety aspect during pressure testing. 

The scenario of inspection: 

The scope of the inspection is for approximately 400-meter length and 250mm diameter HDEP pipe for the firefighting system which shall apply the pressure of 14 bar (205.056 psi) at (mention the location). 

The initial inspection was carried out in the minoring by (Consultant or Contractor name here) (WSP) a team accompanying HSE and Technical who combinedly rejected to perform any hydrostatic pressure test since the contractor fails to ensure; 

• The firefighting pipeline is not secured from any movement while applying the 14-bar pressure (205.056 psi) as the pipeline is exposed to any movement or becomes projectile during testing. 
• Pipeline ends are not sported with required thrust blocks as a requirement for additional safety factors to avoid the end caps becoming projectile. Which could further risk the neighboring workers and adjacent public traffic considering the hefty pressure will be on the pipeline. 
• The area of the pressure test location is not protected with barriers and fences identifying the type of work to be performed, the risk associated, and best practices. 

(Consultant or Contractor name here) team escalated the anxiety to the contractor to mitigate findings but not limited to improve best practices as the process of hydrostatic pressure test associate extreme risk of applying 14 bar pressure on the line. 

A second inspection request was made by the contractor at midday and the (Consultant or Contractor name here) conducted an inspection. Throughout the inspection, it was observed there were no substantial rectifications were done by the firefighting contractor as they only managed to place some random blocks weigh approximately 350 kg on the line to be pressured 14 bar. Other than this the contractor is unwilling to execute a meaningful rectification rather than investing time in arguing. The request has been rejected by the (Consultant or Contractor name here) for rectification without a fail. 

The third inspection request was made again in the evening by the contractor for the re-inspection demanding the rectifications made to secure the pile line. Nonetheless, the contractor provided inferior thrust blocks, all the thrust block provided weighed approx. 350kg all together1.4 tone for the pressure to be applied for the line is 14 bar pressure. Which could not withstand the pressure in the end cap expediting in the event of displacement this could be projectile. 

This series of acts by the firefighting contractor (contractor or manager name) shows the unwillingness of safeguarding the works, workers, and the public. (contractor or manager name) delve into arguing to continue hydrostatic pressure test perilously rather than investing time to improve the safety of the work that involves extreme risk. Preforming of the test was rejected with a combined conclusion that the contractor to improve the requirement while performing a hydrostatic pressure test and shall confirm the support and thrust blocks provided is adequate. 

On (Date) 

(Consultant or Contractor name here) raises the concern through a letter and email to the contractor that at (mention the location) the contractor was observed performing the hydro-test of fire hydrant line violating all the safety measures and putting operatives exposed to the high pressurised line. In the earlier stages, when the subcontractor (contractor or manager name) was preparing for the hydro-test for (mention the location), the site team along with (contractor or manager name) construction in-charge for the same was called for a meeting and were briefed on the stipulated requirements to proceed with the hydro-test. However, when the subcontractor started the testing at (mention the location), they completely ignored the safety requirements, and even the proposed pipeline was not completely secured to hold such pressure (14 bar). It was further learned that during last night the subcontractor applied pressure on the system and when the pressure reached 13 bar, the joint at the end cap failed and displaced the thrust block. The thrust block provided was not adequate to bear such pressure and had a high chance to burst the line. 

The major concerns observed are as follows;

• The pressure test proceeded without any inspection and permit in place.
• Both ends of the pipe were not secured with an adequate thrust block to hold the end cap and prevent it from blowing up.
• Joints of the pipe in multiple areas are exposed, but adequate measures are not taken to prevent unauthorized people away.
• A large number of operatives are working on top and nearby the pressurized line without any protection in place.
• Lever hoist and web-sling are used to hold the joints which are not as per the approved method statement and procedures. The slings used are not certified and not confirmed it can withstand such pressure.
• Proper packing is not provided to fill the gap between the pipe end and thrust block. Pieces of steel pipes are used to fill the gap, which could easily fail.
• At multiple locations, the pipe is not backfilled or adequately secured with concrete blocks to prevent any pipe movement or detachment during the pressure test.

The sole responsibility of the delays occurred for the hydrostatic pressure test of the firefighting line at (mention the location) is the (contractor or manager name). Their attitude of unwillingness and arguing to avoid a chance of occurrence rather than advancing little time to improve the safety. Even though the project possesses all the resources to execute the hydrostatic pressure test as the site has a record of several hydrostatic pressure tests has been conducted safely without tolerating any safety aspects. 

Regards 

Your name and 

Communication detail with company tag.