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

[MJCronin]

"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."

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/pge-charged-with-felony-in-san-bruno-pipeline-explosion/

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.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=281116

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

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[zdas04]

TomDOT,
Ever tried to get a permit to build pipe? Ever tried to acquire ROW? Both can take decades. I've never done it in California, but some of my relatives have had piplines built on their property and they were pretty easy and signed early. The time from getting their check for surface damages and incurring those damages was 9 years (other land owners were not a quick to sell the ROW). Every project is different, but to assume that 4 years in a long time is pretty outrageous.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[weldstan]

In California, there are State agencies(mutiple), County & City pemitting requirements plus the Owner's issues/legal rights. Then there are the non-profit organizations opposed to any growth/new building. Sometimes it's a wonder that anything gets done within four years.

 

[rconnor]

You guys are right. Let’s bring back the glory days of deregulation in California’s energy market. I mean it worked so well for them in 2000!!! Kenneth Lay for Governor!!!

 

[TomDOT]

David,

They aren't building out a new pipeline - that's an entirely different beast. This is pipeline where the ROW was settled years (or more typically decades) ago.

They haven't even managed to pressure test what they have.

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
Neither of us has any clue what the heck you are talking about. Maybe whatever sycophant gave you the star for the random snipe could explain it. No don't bother, I just don't care.

TomDOT,
There are a lot of different things that you need ROW and permits for. I would expect that PG&E is currently in a position that no one wants to be the one who signed a permit for PG&E so things move even slower than normal.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

The point is, zdas04, that many seem to be trying to scapegoat the issue here onto regulations/regulators. This is done under the assumption that the system would work much more efficiently if the market was allowed to operate more independently. I just wanted to note that the energy sector in California was allowed to operate more independently in the late 1990’s and the results were less than stellar. I do agree that suggesting that Kenneth Lay run for Governor posthumously was silly. But hey, I can’t be serious all the time!

More on point, this situation highlights the need for changes to prevent this from happening again. Two such changes could be tighter regulations with more oversight or strong punitive action to incentivize companies to invest in maintenance and reliability. The former comes with added costs to an already thin and stretched budget of regulators. Furthermore, it is not the job of regulators to babysit companies; it is the companies that need to be accountable. Both points lead to the latter change.

To borrow a quote from moltenmetal, companies are algorithms. If X, the cost to perform preventative/regular maintenance, is greater than Y, the chance of a failure, times Z, the cost of a failure (both internal loss and external punitive measures), then usually the maintenance doesn’t get done. The threat of punitive measures needs to be real and needs to be substantial in order to affect that equation. In this way, regulations and punishments for breaking them, act to impose a sort of artificial morality onto an amoral entity (note: amoral, as in the absence of morals (descriptive), not immoral, as in morally wrong (judgmental)). In the absence of those, we continually see the amorality of companies seep through, such as in the case of Enron (my first point).

It is for this reasons that I agree with MJCronin that action needs to be taken against PG&E.

 

[JohnRBaker]

As long as we have members of Congress who claim that it's perfectly all right to repair leaking pipelines using duct tape and trash bags, even going out of their way to compliment those who have done so sighting them for their innovative solutions, we are going to be hard pressed to get effective legislation which has any hope of addressing issues like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/oil-pipe-trash-bags_n_5366659.html

And on a related topic, we have other people in Congress strongly objecting to even the IDEA that it might be time to review 50 year old oil-drilling saftly regulations which probably needs updating due to the many significant changes in oil and gas extraction technology, one example being hydraulic fracturing, which has occurred over that same period of time:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/don-young-oil-drilling_n_5359342.html

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.

 

[davefitz]

In my opinion, the process of placing blame on a guilty party is only a small part of what we are to learn from this event. That part of the process is mostly a psychological paliative and only provides a small deterrance to future problems.

Moving forward, the regulations should change, mandating inspection of pipelines by 3rd parties, and the records should be available for public review. Real estate transactions should include providing the prospective buyer a summary of the risks associated with that area ( pipelines, railcars, mudslides, etc)

And, more importantly and more relevant to most of the people posting on this topic, it should serve as a reminder that the engineering tasks each of us are involved with have a safety impication for the operators of the equipment and the public; most design standards and codes are actually "safety codes" and the provisions of each paragraph were likely paid in blood from past accidents of one sort or another.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad "

 

[TomDOT]

Dave, that regulation change sounds very reasonable - Frankly, the risk profile should be included in the survey and possibly in the title search.

 

[zdas04]

It does sound reasonable in a vacuum. 3rd party inspectors. How could that be bad? Who gets on the list to do the job? Who ensures that the crony on the list is qualified? Who writes the check to the inspector (the company will end up paying, but if they pay the 3rd party directly then who is he working for? If the money comes from the government then you have to find inspectors that can tolerate 90 wait for payment). I've seen this "independent 3rd party" thing tried numerous times and never seen one where is seemed to work.

Public records? Who maintains them, on what schedule, how tough is it to convince a clerk to lose a record?

There is no panacea to the very real problem of aging infrastructure. Bridges outlive their useful life. Roads need major repairs. Pipeline integrity needs to be assessed and managed. There are ways to do that. One that seems to have a chance is to require a maintenance bond when the pipeline is permitted just like we do with oil and gas wells (plugging costs are part of drilling costs not end-of-life maintenance budget). It hasn't been perfect with wells, but it has been pretty good. Regulations could require a maintenance plan (with a schedule) to be included in the permit application, and the reserve fund would be earmarked for those activities. The whole "you tell me what you are going to do to ensure public safety and I'll audit to make sure you did it model" has had some significant successes where proscriptive "you have to run smart pigs every 3 years" regulations haven't worked very well at all.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[TomDOT]

David,

Property survey and/or title search really should be able to encompass listing pipelines, easements, age of the pipeline and such without too much strain on the surveyors or title company.

 

[cranky108]

ZDAS, the same thing can be said for listing risk for any property. Who is qualified to evaluate those risks, and who is responcible if that risk changes?
Not that I feel it is worthless to do. The buyer should do there homework.

Things not listed is mine subsistance, high isocronic levels, military base nearby, bad drivers, convicted sex perverts or where should it end.

Maybe this is more of a home inspection thing. The buyer should hire someone to provide a list of hazards outside the home.
But lets not go as far as the lead based paint thing, where the seller must certify the home has or has not any lead based paint.


Another issue is external damage to pipelines, where the corrosion after the damage slowly erodes the pipe from the outside. Should contractors be required to report there activities within a easment or right of way?

 

[TomDOT]

Cranky, that lead based paint thing must be state specific. I'm pretty sure around here you only need to disclose lead paint if you have knowledge of it. As a seller, if you don't know, you don't need to disclose. Not much of a burden.

 

[weldstan]

In California, the safety regulatory body is the CPUC, which was implicated/complicit in the catastrophy. In Texas, the Railroad Commission is the regulatory body responsible for safety. In both States, safety is not their only responsibility. From my observations of the CPUC, when I worked for a Gas Utility, and during my last 18+ years in Texas observing the actions of the Railroad Commission, neither regulatory body appears to be truly interested in Safety of the public.

 

[JohnRBaker]

When these commissions are made-up of mostly FORMER and/or FUTURE employees of the organizations that they're supposed to be watching over, what other outcome were you expecting?

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.

 

[cranky108]

Or they are made up of university professors with an agenda.

 

[weldstan]

Or Political Lackeys or Cronies/Campaign Contributors to appropriate Elections Committees.

 

[JohnRBaker]

I've generally noticed that most regulatory agencies are staffed with so-called 'industry experts', which in and of itself is probably not a bad idea, until you see the 'revolving door' between these agencies and the entitees that they are supposed to be regulating. But then that's SOP in many areas of government. Ever notice that retired high-ranking military officers either become pundits for cable-news networks or end up on the BOD's of the companies which supply hardware to the Pentagon...

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.

 

[davefitz]

Zdas04;
The public access to attributes of systems related to properties is well established as part of the GIS system, and almost all munincipalities in the USA allow public access to the GIS system attributes. Adding a hazard attribute or pipeline attribute is just one more file set.

Also, there are now many commercial software packages that allow maintanence of NDT and inspection data for pipelines ( and other equipment types) , tied into GPS coordinates. The feasibility is not in question ,just the political will to do it. Much like the ability to prove a worker has the right to work in the USA- very easy to supply such a system, but zero political will to do it.

3rd party inspector certification is not too difficult either- it does not need to be based on a corrupt political system , unless that is what one wants and expects.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad "

 

[cranky108]

As I said, a risk assesment is great, as long as the risk is known. But old things that predated GIS are not always on the GIS system. Old mines, pipelines, dump sites, etc. Other things also may not be listed because things have traveled, like ground water contamation. And natural things can also become issues like radon.

The problem is if one of these are not listed, it becomes fodder for lawyers.

Even with an up to date GIS, locaters, and mandatory call before you dig laws, we still experence weekly dig into our power lines. So this is the basis of my pessismesm.