Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

PG&E Now Charged With Felonies In San Bruno Pipeline Explosion - Recent development 11

Status
Not open for further replies.
MJCronin

MJCronin

Mechanical
Apr 9, 2001
5,086
0
36
US
"Federal prosecutors allege that PG&E knowingly relied on erroneous and incomplete information when assessing the safety of the pipeline that eventually ruptured, sparked a fireball and leveled 38 homes in San Bruno."


Eight were burned alive......

Many on these engineering fora stated that this was an act of God........ or a risk one willingly assumes when buying property.


The Feds think differently...... as do I

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Trust me, we've had dozens of "Westrays" here. You don't have to go much further than West Virginia and the coal mining industry for that. Compared to shaft mining of coal, virtually ever other industrial endeavor in this country looks like a safety paradise.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PG&E Pleads Not Guilty to Charges From San Bruno Pipeline Explosion
California Utility Charged With Knowingly Breaking Federal Safety Rules

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
From the Wall Street Journal 4-21-14

PG&E Pleads Not Guilty to Charges From San Bruno Pipeline Explosion
California Utility Charged With Knowingly Breaking Federal Safety Rules


PG&E pleaded not guilty Monday to criminal charges that the company knowingly broke federal safety rules before a fatal natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, Calif., in 2010.

"While we don't believe any employee intentionally violated federal pipeline safety regulations, San Bruno was a tragic accident and we're accountable for that," PG&E said in a statement following the arraignment in federal court in San Francisco.

Earlier this month, a federal grand jury issued a 12-count indictment accusing PG&E of "knowingly and willfully" failing to keep important pipeline records and not paying proper attention to parts of its aging natural gas pipelines, including the section that exploded.

If found guilty of all 12 felonies, PG&E could face nearly $3.5 million in statutory penalties. The court also could impose an alternative fine based on any financial gain the company received as a result of the violation or on victims' losses, according to the U.S. Justice Department, which is prosecuting the case with the California Attorney General's office.

The indictment alleges Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of knowingly violating the federal Pipeline Safety Act, which dates back to 1968, between 2003 and 2010. In the only previous criminal case brought under the act, Olympic Pipeline Co. and three of its employees pleaded guilty in 2002 to violating pipeline safety rules before a petroleum pipeline exploded in 1999, killing three people in Bellingham, Wash.

PG&E's high-pressure gas pipeline in San Bruno exploded on Sept. 9, 2010, igniting a fire that damaged or destroyed more than 100 homes and killed eight.

Federal investigators found that the utility used a method for testing the strength of the gas line that they consider outdated and dangerous. The test, which boosted the pressure of the gas flowing through the pipe above the allowed maximum level about every five years, probably weakened the pipeline, which had faulty welds and other flaws, investigators said.

The utility should have used water to test its pipes, according to the National Transportation Safety Board's August 2011 report on the disaster. PG&E has been using water to test its old pipelines since the explosion, using a method called hydrostatic testing.

San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson, who attended the court hearing, said people in her city believe PG&E is guilty of the charges.

"San Bruno was not an accident," she said, "it was a result of decades of mismanagement and failure to maintain the system."

PG&E faces potential state fines and penalties that could total about $2 billion. Lawyers for the state have accused the utility of breaking federal and state safety rules for decades in a pending case at the California Public Utilities Commission.



MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I may be stupid and ignorant, but doesn't hydrostatically testing a pipe involve applying pressure above normal limits? In terms of stressing the pipe line material, what is the difference between using water and using a gas?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not stupid or ignorant, you're Electrical. [wink]

If a vessel charged with pressurised liquid fails, the pressure decays to zero very rapidly and the energy released is minimal. A vessel full of compressed gas will release an enormous amount of stored energy if it fails.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i think the answer to the question, is


doesn't hydrostatically testing a pipe involve applying pressure above normal limits? whether the test is hydrostatic or pneumatic, the test pressure is established based on codes / regulations / standard procedures. It may be some percentage of MAWP which is generally higher than normal operating pressure. One problem is that MAWP may decrease over the lifetime of the pipe such that the normal operating pressure may have to be reduced.

In terms of stressing the pipe line material, what is the difference between using water and using a gas? no difference, you can test with water or air. but if the pipe fails the test, the resulting leak will either release a bit of water or a lot of air
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In the link ("Pipeline Problems through the Decades")provided by MJCronin, PG&E found more than a few leaks (some bursts) in pipe subject to its hydrotesting. Imagine the damage if those bursts had exploded during pneumatic testing with natural gas. By the end of 2013, they replaced 104 miles of pipe out of 539 miles tested.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Baker,

I was going to bring up the open flouting of West Virginia mining laws in the 1880's and 1890's, which did not get any notice regardless of hundreds of deaths, until a mining company president was put in prison. That's when the decision was made to try to use contemporary standards of safety commonly practiced in England and the rest of Europe.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Question: Which was there first, the pipeline or the houses? Exactly who trespassed on whom? Not that it matters.
The issue is when you buy a property, you should look before buy, for things like power lines, pipelines, old mining activity, etc.

If the pipeline had been owned by say the BLM, who would be blamed? The fact that it was PG&E shoulden't make a difference. The decision was made by a person, and maybe not the CEO.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cranky,

If the pipeline needed more clearance around it to keep the public safe, the owner should have bought that land. Given the extreme title searching mandated for mortgages - I HIGHLY doubt there was any kind of "trespass" by the house owners.

Sure, when you buy a house you should look for these things - but the operator has a responsibility to operate in a safe manner and not endanger the public.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If the pipeline needed more clearance around it then the right-of-way should have been bigger, not that they should have bought it.

One of the details that news stories typically leave out (and this might be the case) is that right-of-way may have been violated. which is part of my question.

Agreed that the operator should have operated in a safe manor. However in some industries the goverment will tell you what it thinks is a safe manor. which I heard might have happened.

Some pipeline explosions in the past were found to be because of corrosion due to the removel of corrosion protection. And if this might be the case here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay, maybe ROW means something different to you than to me. For roads and railroads, the ROW is typically owned by the State or the railroad company, respectively.

Your description sounds more like an easement, not a ROW. Is the terminology different for pipeline?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know for electric lines we have an easement, and I believe that is true for gas lines.

The problem is at some point someone was paid for that easment, and it is transfered when the land is sold. The new owners sometimes think they bought the land, so therefore they can do what they want.

We see this in the electric industry where people will plant trees (not small ones but big ones) under the power lines. They are reminded that there is an easment after the power company cuts the trees to the ground (usually only done on transmission lines). And of corse they are mad because the mean old power company cut down there trees.

So it would not suprise me if garden sheds, garges, fences, trees, leveling fill, etc., were not put over the gas line, dispite the red markers. I've even seen where someone was digging a pool under a power line, and had a permit from the city (which was later revolked).

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PG&E Pleads Not Guilty to Charges From San Bruno Pipeline Explosion

California Utility Charged With Knowingly Breaking Federal Safety Rules

From the Wall Street Journal: April 21, 2014



PG&E Corp pleaded not guilty Monday to criminal charges that the company knowingly broke federal safety rules before a fatal natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, Calif., in 2010.

"While we don't believe any employee intentionally violated federal pipeline safety regulations, San Bruno was a tragic accident and we're accountable for that," PG&E said in a statement following the arraignment in federal court in San Francisco.

Earlier this month, a federal grand jury issued a 12-count indictment accusing PG&E of "knowingly and willfully" failing to keep important pipeline records and not paying proper attention to parts of its aging natural gas pipelines, including the section that exploded.

If found guilty of all 12 felonies, PG&E could face nearly $3.5 million in statutory penalties. The court also could impose an alternative fine based on any financial gain the company received as a result of the violation or on victims' losses, according to the U.S. Justice Department, which is prosecuting the case with the California Attorney General's office.

The indictment alleges Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of knowingly violating the federal Pipeline Safety Act, which dates back to 1968, between 2003 and 2010. In the only previous criminal case brought under the act, Olympic Pipeline Co. and three of its employees pleaded guilty in 2002 to violating pipeline safety rules before a petroleum pipeline exploded in 1999, killing three people in Bellingham, Wash.

PG&E's high-pressure gas pipeline in San Bruno exploded on Sept. 9, 2010, igniting a fire that damaged or destroyed more than 100 homes and killed eight.

Federal investigators found that the utility used a method for testing the strength of the gas line that they consider outdated and dangerous. The test, which boosted the pressure of the gas flowing through the pipe above the allowed maximum level about every five years, probably weakened the pipeline, which had faulty welds and other flaws, investigators said.

The utility should have used water to test its pipes, according to the National Transportation Safety Board's August 2011 report on the disaster. PG&E has been using water to test its old pipelines since the explosion, using a method called hydrostatic testing.

San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson, who attended the court hearing, said people in her city believe PG&E is guilty of the charges.

"San Bruno was not an accident," she said, "it was a result of decades of mismanagement and failure to maintain the system."

PG&E faces potential state fines and penalties that could total about $2 billion. Lawyers for the state have accused the utility of breaking federal and state safety rules for decades in a pending case at the California Public Utilities Commission.

Write to Cassandra Sweet at cassandra.sweet@wsj.com


MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The last three paragraphs are illuminating
PG&E cited an array of reasons for the delays, including the time needed to acquire land rights and construction and environmental permits.

In a separate filing, PUC Administrative Law Judge Maribeth Bushey praised the utility for improvements in its record-keeping system, flaws in which had been cited as one of the causes of the San Bruno explosion.

"We find that PG&E has made great strides to improve its natural gas system records management from the time we began this proceeding," Bushey wrote in her filing. "PG&E's efforts show an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement."
Click to expand...

So PG&E are some kind of villains because it is taking time to "acquire land rights ... and permits".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ACtrafficengr
  • Locked
  • Question
A parent's question re: ChemE & CompSci 9
2
Replies
20
Views
35
JohnRBaker
JohnRBaker
GregLocock
  • Locked
  • News
Engineers Australia pussyfooting around 50% unemployment in immigrant engineers
Replies
10
Views
11
GregLocock
GregLocock
DirtSmuggler
  • Locked
  • Question
Where will Geotech engineers be most valued in 5 years? 6
Replies
10
Views
15
SWComposites
SWComposites
EngineerRam
  • Locked
  • Question
Decoupling of Buyer's and Seller's Agents Fees - Real Estate - Implications on Engineering Industry
Replies
11
Views
15
IRstuff
IRstuff
NOLAscience
  • Locked
  • Question
Eng-Tips.com Has Been Sold to WTWH Canada, Inc.
Replies
18
Views
19
SnTMan
SnTMan
Back
Top