Method Statement for Pipe Bursting — UK
A free, UK Society for Trenchless Technology-aligned method statement for static and pneumatic pipe bursting — covering launch and reception pit safety, service avoidance, drag-in HDPE pull force and the engineer's hold-point the highways inspector actually asks for.
UK (RAMS) example document — Two-Storey Rear Extension — 14 Birchwood Lane, Reading. Client: Mr & Mrs A. Whitfield (Private Client). Site: 14 Birchwood Lane, Reading, RG1 5JT. Scope: Construction of a two-storey rear extension (6.4m × 4.2m) to an existing semi-detached dwelling. Works comprise breaking out of existing rear elevation, trench-fill foundations to 1.0m, traditional cavity blockwork to first floor, pre-stressed concrete lintels, timber roof structure with natural slate finish, plus alterations to existing rear wall to form structural opening with rolled steel joist (RSJ 203×102 UB23). Works programmed over 9 weeks with a peak site team of 6 operatives. Hazards assessed: Manual handling — blocks, lintels, plasterboard, Working at height — independent scaffold & roof structure, Buried services strike during excavation, Collapse of excavation / trench wall, Hand-arm vibration (HAVS) — breaking out, drilling, Silica dust — cutting blocks, brick, concrete, Vehicle/pedestrian segregation — narrow domestic street.
Full version
Preview first. No card needed. Download when you're happy.
- Site-specific draft
- Pipe Bursting hazards baked in
- Ready for competent-person review
Built around recognised UK method statement structure — hazards, controls, sequence, PPE and sign-off. Ready for competent-person review.
Pipe bursting is the trenchless replacement of a host pipe (typically pitch fibre, clay or AC) by fracturing it in-situ and pulling through a new HDPE main behind a bursting head. It looks low-risk because the dig footprint is tiny, but the highest-consequence trenchless incident on the UK record (the 2017 Coventry collapse of a 1.2m-deep launch pit, one fatality, £450,000 fine on the principal contractor — HSE ref E305441017) was on a pipe-burst job, traced to an unbraced launch pit and a missing CAT scan. This page sets out what a defensible UK pipe bursting method statement looks like in 2026 — pit safety, service location, pull setup, drag-in — with a free editable template.
When is it required?
Pipe bursting on any UK water, sewer or gas main needs a written method statement before the pull rig is delivered to site. UK Society for Trenchless Technology (UKSTT) good-practice guidance and the water company's adoption standard (e.g. Severn Trent's Sewers for Adoption 8, Thames Water's Modular Drainage Construction Specification) both require the MS, the pull-force calculation, the host-pipe survey and the service-location report 4–6 weeks before mobilisation. Under CDM 2015 the principal contractor must include it in the construction phase plan, and BS EN 805 governs the water-main rehabilitation case. Highway works require a Section 50 licence and NRSWA permit on top.
What a good one looks like
A defensible pipe bursting MS runs to 8–14 pages and names every specific. It identifies the host pipe (e.g. '150mm pitch fibre foul sewer, IL 1.8m at MH4, IL 2.2m at MH6, 86m run, CCTV survey by JN Bentley ref CCTV-2026-04-088'), the new product (e.g. 'GPS PE100 RC 180mm SDR17, blue water main potable specification'), the rig (e.g. 'Hammerhead HB75 static burst rig, 75-tonne pull, cert in appendix B'), the pit sizes (e.g. 'launch pit 2.4 x 1.8 x 2.3m deep, reception 1.8 x 1.2 x 2.0m deep'), the bracing (e.g. 'MGF MP150 hydraulic frame, designed pull-force 78kN, Cat 3 check by RSK ref TWD-PB-2026-014'), the service strikes register, and the pressure-test acceptance per BS EN 805.
Pipe Bursting hazards & controls
The site-specific hazards a pipe bursting MS must address, with the controls that take residual risk to an acceptable level.
| Hazard | Persons at risk | Controls | Residual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pit collapse during launch and reception works | Pit crew | Engineered pit support (MGF, Mabey or equivalent) designed to Cat 3 for any pit >1.2m; never use timber poling on pipe-burst pits; daily inspection by competent person; spoil set back >1.5m from edge; ladder access at each end; rescue plan | Medium |
| Buried services strike during pit excavation | Pit crew | CAT4+ scan in 3 directions; PAS 128 GPR for any depth >1.2m; service drawings on site; trial holes hand-dug; permit-to-dig signed; gas main isolation booked where work within 3m of LP gas main | Medium |
| Fragmenting host pipe — flying ceramic or AC fragments | Pit crew, ops | AC asbestos check on any pre-1985 host pipe; UKATA-trained crew and HSG189 controls if asbestos confirmed; eye protection FFP3 RPE during burst; exclusion zone around pit during pull | Medium |
| Pull-rig rope failure under high tension | Anyone in pit | Pull-force calc against UKSTT guidance; rope rated >150% calc max; SWL load cell at the rig; abort if pull exceeds 110% calc; no personnel between rig and launch pit during pull; banksman on radio to operator | Medium |
| Manual handling — HDPE coil 200–800 kg, fittings | Crew | Coil cradle and de-coiler; never manual roll of coil >50 kg; tag lines on suspended loads; lift plan signed by AP for any plant lift; lifting accessories within 6-month inspection | Medium |
| Confined space entry to launch/reception pits >1.2m | Pit crew | Confined space risk assessment; gas test (O2, CO, CH4, H2S) before entry and continuous; tripod and harness for any pit >2m; top-man on radio; entry log; no single entry | Medium |
| Working in standing water / Weil's disease (foul sewer) | Crew on foul sewer rehab | Wellingtons + Tyvek + nitrile gauntlets; Weil's awareness card; tetanus current; eye-wash on site; supervisor briefed on 2–30 day incubation; first-aid kit with antiseptic | Low |
| Plant strike — pull rig, lorry, excavator | Pit crew, public | Heras around the works; banksman on every reverse; reversing alarms; CPCS-certified plant ops; high-vis class 2; pedestrian segregation on highway works under Chapter 8 TM | Medium |
Step-by-step sequence
- 1
1. Pre-mobilisation, survey & TWD sign-off
CCTV survey of host pipe completed; report in appendix A. Pull-force calc completed against UKSTT guidance and host material. TWD for pits Cat 3 checked. NRSWA permit and Section 50 issued. Crew briefed, sign-on register.
- 2
2. Site set-up, TM and pit excavation
TM signed per Chapter 8 if highway. CAT4+ and PAS 128 scan, trial holes. Pits excavated under engineered support (MGF or equivalent), inspected and signed off by TWS.
- 3
3. Host-pipe access & new HDPE prep
Host pipe broken into at both pits. New HDPE main butt-fused on the surface (typically McElroy Acrobat 250) per WIS 4-32-08, fusion log in appendix C. Bursting head and pull rod connected.
- 4
4. Pull setup & pre-pull check
Rig anchored in reception pit on engineered baseplate. Pull rope tensioned. Load cell zeroed. Comms tested between op and banksman. Personnel cleared from both pits and the run.
- 5
5. Burst pull
Pull at controlled rate (typically 2–5 m/min static burst). Load cell continuously read. Abort if pull >110% calc. Site engineer monitors ground heave on adjacent surfaces with optical level.
- 6
6. Connection & pressure test
New HDPE main connected to existing pipework at both ends with mechanical or electrofused fittings. For water main, pressure test to BS EN 805 (typically 1.5x working pressure for 1 hour with <0.2 bar drop); for foul, CCTV inspection by the adopting authority before backfill.
- 7
7. Reinstatement & records
Pits backfilled and reinstated to NRSWA spec. Surface restored. As-built (plan, depth, fittings, fusion log, pressure-test cert) submitted to adopting authority within 28 days. MS, TWD, Cat 3, permits, pull-force log and pressure test bundled to QA file.
Pitch-fibre to HDPE burst, 86m of 150mm foul sewer (Solihull)
A West Midlands trenchless contractor on a Severn Trent S104 sewer adoption produced a 11-page MS for the burst-replacement of 86m of 150mm pitch-fibre foul sewer between two manholes serving 6 dwellings. Key entries: host pipe pitch fibre (asbestos-free, confirmed by sample taken 12/04/2026), IL 1.8m at MH4 falling to 2.2m at MH6, CCTV survey by Lanes Group ref CCTV-2026-04-088; new product GPS PE100 RC 180mm SDR17 (foul, brown stripe), butt-fused on surface per WIS 4-32-08, fusion log appendix C; rig Hammerhead HB75 static burst (75-tonne pull cert dated 14/02/2026), calc max pull 41kN against host friction so rope rated 75kN; pits launch 2.4 x 1.8 x 2.3m, reception 1.8 x 1.2 x 2.0m, MGF MP150 hydraulic frames Cat 3 checked by RSK ref TWD-PB-2026-014 rev B; CAT4+ in 3 directions + PAS 128 GPR by Subscan Technology, 1 unknown comms cable identified and rerouted before excavation; gas test on every pit entry by Crowcon Gas-Pro IR; pull 03/05/2026, max recorded 38kN (93% calc), ground heave on adjacent kerbs <2mm under optical level; CCTV post-pull by Lanes 04/05/2026, no defects; reinstated 06/05/2026, S104 adoption inspection signed by Severn Trent inspector 18/05/2026. The MS, the TWD pack, the Cat 3 check, the fusion log and the CCTV report were the five documents Severn Trent's adoption team audited.
Or build a site-specific pipe bursting MS in 5 minutes
The free template is a blank Word document. The Riskora builder ships with the pipe bursting hazard library baked in — pick the preset, edit the site-specific bits, download a signed PDF.
Common mistakes that get a pipe bursting MS rejected
- ·Using timber poling on a 2m+ launch pit — Coventry 2017 fatal was exactly this
- ·Skipping the PAS 128 GPR scan because 'utility records look clear' — gas-main strikes during pipe-burst pit excavation account for 4 RIDDOR-reportable incidents in 2024
- ·No pull-force load cell or no abort criteria — over-pulling fractures the host pipe sideways into adjacent services
- ·Asbestos host pipe (pre-1985 AC water main) burst without HSG189 controls — automatic HSE Improvement Notice
- ·Ground heave during pull on shallow runs (<1m cover) damaging surface — needs continuous optical-level monitoring on adjacent kerbs and slabs
- ·Pressure test passed but acceptance criteria not in the MS — water company auditors reject the as-built
Frequently asked questions
Can we burst an asbestos cement water main?
Yes, but under HSG189 asbestos controls and only with a UKATA-trained crew. The fragmented AC pipe is a Class 1 asbestos waste and the pits are confined-space asbestos environments. Most water companies prefer slip-lining over bursting for AC mains to avoid the fragmentation.
How is the pull force calculated?
Following UKSTT guidance: F = µ x (W x L) + (P x A) where µ is the friction coefficient (typically 0.3 for HDPE through native soil), W is the new pipe weight per metre, L is the pull length, P is the bursting-head break pressure and A is the host area. The pull force calc must be in the MS appendix.
Do we need a Section 50 licence?
Yes — any opening of the highway for a private connection (water, sewer, gas) requires a Section 50 of NRSWA 1991 from the highway authority. Pipe burst pits in the carriageway need both Section 50 and the works-promoter NRSWA permit.
What's the pressure-test acceptance for a new water main?
BS EN 805 typically requires 1.5 x working pressure for 1 hour with <0.2 bar drop, plus a static test for 24 hours at working pressure. The water company will specify the exact acceptance in the adoption specification — the MS must reference it.
Is bursting always quicker than open-cut?
Almost always on runs over 30m and any depth >1.5m. Below 30m or in shallow runs (<1m cover) open-cut is often quicker and cheaper because the launch and reception pits dominate the time. The MS should show the open-cut comparison.
Related method statements & RAMS
Download the template, or build it in 5 minutes
Riskora is an assistive document preparation tool. Every method statement must be reviewed and signed by a competent person before use.