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]

It sounds like you are happy that the Feds have decided to punish someone. This administration has a very strong track record of obstructing activities that would have ameliorated a problem and then levying fines when the inevitable happens. So far the office of pipeline safety has been about as effective at increasing pipeline safety as the 9/11 terrorists were at urban renewal, but they can always find someone to fine, sue, or charge with a felony. That department is all about making sure that someone other than regulators is blamed for everything.

The pipe failure and subsequent fire/explosion was a horrible event. The results were devastating. There is plenty of blame to share. How about charging the regulator who claimed that shutting the line down to reevaluate its MAWP would cause unreasonable disruption in service? How about the e-NGO's that blocked every alternative route to replace it?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[weldstan]

One of ths accusations was that the weld defect/flaw would be readily detectable when the pipeline was installed. That accusation is patently absurd based on the state of the art of welded pipe examination at that time. While I can fault PG&E for the calamity, especially when they originally stated the pipe was seamless and later when they indicated that they could not inspect the line with a smart pig due to geometry. They could have devised other methods of investigation when considering age, exposure to earthquakes and increased traffic and building.

 

[zdas04]

I saw that in the charges and wondered too.

I also wondered what the purpose of the suit really is. The normal purpose of a felony indictment is to punish somebody with either fines or jail time. Fines will be paid out of their reserve for claims account which doesn't impact the company's current income. There were zero human beings named in the suit so jail is off the table (I suppose you could put the corporate logo in a cell, but I doubt if it would mind). The only purpose I can see is to establish a record so more people could sue them. This case makes no sense.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[rb1957]

PG&E accepted the decision not to inspect, for whatever reason, and continued to operate (and to make money). If they felt they Had to inspect the pipeline for safety they had options ...
1) appeal to a higher authority
2) go public and cry "for safety's sake ..."
3) shutdown the line "by accident" but i suspet this'd get them penalties
4) resign from their license to distribute gas along the pipeline.

anyways, now we've had the accident, i'm sure the bureaucrats will be more carful next time ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[JohnRBaker]

There were zero human beings named in the suit so jail is off the table...

Well it appears that the five conservative Supreme Court Justices, in their 2010 'Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission' ruling, may be saying that corporations are people, or was that limited to only when a corporation wants to donate money to a political campaign? I mean, can they now invoke the 5th Amendment when being asked for information about their behavior in something like this?

Like one political commentary said, "I won't believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."

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.

 

[zdas04]

John,
I couldn't agree more. Citizen's United was as bone-headed a ruling as a corrupt court could possibly hand down. The indictment in this case is right up there with it. A corporation cannot do any of the things that they have been accused of--people did or did not do those things. Maybe if PG&E loses the case, the next step will be to use that ruling to indict the people who signed off on the decisions? Seems like it would have used fewer of the taxpayer's dollars to skip a step, but the Federal Government Sees All, Knows All.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[cranky108]

Sounds to me that the news people have gotten a hold of some bad information and ran with it (there usual mode of operation).

I am sure there was a reason the pipe could not be inspected, but it sounds like there are too many things that have been said. The truth is out there.

But it is true that regulators are not charged for there mistakes. Like the kid that blames everyone else for there actions.

There is a money issue here somewhere.

 

[MJCronin]

zdas04:

"It sounds like you are happy that the Feds have decided to punish someone."

No,..... I am glad that the feds will be starting a criminal investigation involving the corporate people whose job it is to ensure public safety. If our legal system does not have any teeth, and we all decide that "there is plenty of blame to go around" and that this somehow was an act of God, more will die.... more will be burned to death in the future.

The ancient gas system was being operated at or above its design pressure

If it is determined that we must inspect/replace all piping over 50 years old....then lets do it

If its determined that the money sucking CA real estate agents should have never sold houses in that location....then lets correct it

I do not feel in any way sorry for a corporation that was running a 50-year old, poorly welded and never inspected piping system and then does not want to take responsibility for accidents.

The operating pressure for that segment of the gas system was quickly dropped after the accident.... Why do you think that action was taken ?

Zdas, since the San Bruno explosion, what regulatory changes are now in place to prevent a similar accident in California or any other US state ?

Don't you think that it is time to send corporate America a message ?....

I WANT JUSTICE.....




MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[TomDOT]

weldstan - you wouldn't have noticed 6 "pups" field-welded in a row? NTSB also believes the weld defect in the failed pup would have been visible. This wasn't just welded pipe instead of seamless, it was defective welded pipe, installed against the standards of the time.

"The National Transportation Safety Board's investigation found that the rupture of Line 132 was caused by a fracture that originated in the partially welded longitudinal seam of one of six short pipe sections, which are known in the industry as "pups." The fabrication of five of the pups in 1956 would not have met generally accepted industry quality control and welding standards then in effect, indicating that those standards were either overlooked or ignored. The weld defect in the failed pup would have been visible when it was installed"

Are you calling the official NTSB report absurd?

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/PAR1101.html

 

[zdas04]

MJCronin,
Nothing about this indictment is going to result in "justice". If that is what you want then you are due for a letdown.

A rational regulatory response to that catastrophe would be a review of the inspection/operations regulations and a review of the zoning regulations to determine: (1) if strict compliance would have prevented or lessened the impact of this event; (2) if it would have, then what state/federal compliance measures need to be corrected to improve the chances of people complying; and (3) if PG&E's actions were within the law, what changes to the law would have prevented the event. But, no. The regulatory response is "who do we blame that is not us".

If the review I suggested turns out that a reasonable person acting in strict compliance with state and federal regulations would not have prevented the failure, then get on with fixing the regulations. If an individual knowingly violated the law then that human being should have been indicted. Indicting PG&E simply enriches lawyers and makes headlines. No justice to be had there.

The changes I've seen to pipeline safety brought about from San Bruno and the El Paso Natural Gas explosion in New Mexico a few years earlier has been very slow, very muddled and pretty weak. Mostly it has been an increase in bureaucracy with few changes in pipeline operation. I've read the new regulations and they are mostly just a change in jurisdiction for the old regulations (with some new, barely comprehensible, diagrams that courts are interpreting in a different way for every case).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[weldstan]

Yes. There once was a failure in a pipeline butt weld which was purposefully made with the bevels such that only a capping pass was made; the two adjacent 45 degree bevels being in intimate contact with each other. It passed the RT of the time (high speed/coarse grain). It also passed the hydrostatic test. One cannot equate today's NDE with that of the 1950's for pipeline construction and hold the then examiners (PG&E) culpable now under today's standards. I have seen numerous weld failures where the standard examination methods implemented were used at the time but proved inadequate.

We routinely made wrinkle bends in pipe lines and I replaced more than a few which cracked. Should one of these fail catastophically, should the company be criminally responsible when that was the standard during the 1940s and 50s and before the imposition of 49 CFR?

By the way, I am absolutely in favor of inspecting our existing, decaying pipeline and transportation infrastructure and repairing or replacing whenever required.

 

[JohnRBaker]

If an individual knowingly violated the law then that human being should have been indicted.

If this pipe was installed 50 years ago, the likelihood that the person responsible is still around, if he's even still alive, is very remote. What should be done in that case? Does not a corporation bear at least some responsibility for the poor workmanship of it's employees even if they are long retired or deceased?

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.

 

[zdas04]

Since there were no pipeline regulations when the pipe was laid, it is unlikely that anyone violated any laws 50 years ago. There are current laws that require pipeline operators to do stuff to reduce risk to the public. If this stuff was not done, then someone made the decision not to do it. If records of doing this stuff were falsified then some person made the decision to falsify the records. Going after individuals has the potential to change behaviors. Going after a corporation has the potential to enrich large law firms.

Let's say that PG&E is found guilty of some of the allegations. They can be fined (the fines could have been levied without the lawsuit by the way, but that wouldn't have gotten the publicity) or the court can go with the nuclear option and remove PG&E's right to operate pipelines. That puts one of the largest networks of piping in the country on the block at fire sale prices. The chances that people buying the pipe for pennies on the dollar will do a hugely better job than PG&E has done is vanishingly small. Bottom feeders will buy it. Maintenance will go downhill (yes, there is considerable room for it to go downhill), and there will be other disasters, after which the bottom-feeder companies that own the pipe will be discovered to be shell companies with no assets to seize and all company officers having moved to a non-extradition country. Doesn't sound like justice to me.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[MJCronin]

zdas04,

Without teeth in regulation, and the threat of criminal penalties, regulation is meaningless......

People died because a company purposefully and knowingly STRETCHED THE OPERATIONS of an ancient and dangerous system.

They were supposed to be responsible for safety, they were not.

Yes, Zdas, I recognize your deep concern over the possible future sale of PG&E to irresponsible.

I recognize your point that no amount of punishment will bring back the dead

I also recognize that this is a significant watershed event, where the gas distribution business will take notice and will act with a new motivation.

What if it were your one of close family that were killed ?

What if you had to identify the charred body ? Would you still feel the same ?

Anyone ?


MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[DHambley]

Since the San Bruno disaster is the LAST time a deadly event will ever ever occur due to negligence of employees in a public utility, then we can all correctly agree that we should do nothing about it. Right? We're all in agreement here?

Darrell Hambley P.E.
SENTEK Engineering, LLC

 

[StoneCold]

I think that the problems in piping are widespread. Not only in transport lines but in plant lines as well. Unqualified people inspecting and enforcing, or not enforcing the current codes. I believe there are very few people inspecting piping systems who actually know the code and do things correctly. The inspector/designers don't really know what to do or don't care. When the perpetrators are caught the fines to the company are minimal and are shrugged off. I would suggest a change to the enforcement policy that goes like this. When you are caught with a compliance violation the corrective action must be performed by an outside contractor. Whatever the cost to bring you into full company wide compliance by the contractor must be documented. The fine levied is then three times that amount.
No negotiations, no bargaining, no "this was an exception", done. As the systems stand right now it is cheaper to lie and say it is ok than to actually stand up for what is right. That needs to change.

My two cents.
StoneCold

 

[zdas04]

MJCronin,
Did you read my post? My point was and continues to be that indicting the company is simply grandstanding and will do nothing to prevent reoccurance or to punish the guilty. None of the possible outcomes of this trial will result in things becoming better. Corporations are simply stacks of paper. Lock them up. Flog them. Burn them. They don't have the capacity to care.

The regulators should be asking "who made what decisions that contributed to the failure?" and "were those decisions in violation of the law?" and "What can be done to the regulations to prevent reoccurance?" Instead they are grandstanding and chasing headlines. My problem is not that there is an indictment, my problem is that it is simply a sham.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[MikeHalloran]

My problem is that the politicians and the regulators think that I am stupid enough to believe the sham is anything other than a sham.

I'm insulted. You should be insulted too.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[CELinOttawa]

I have nothing to say about this specific trajedy - So far outside of my expertise as to be nearly absurd; However, it reminds me of the Westray mine disaster here in Canada. Despite the OBVIOUS failures to protect the workers, the IGNORING of safety rules, the TOTAL LACK of protocols and inspections, no one was ever punished. A Royal Commission was held which produced a massive report. In the introduction to the report produced, Mr. Justice Peter Richard stated that:

The Westray Story is a complex mosaic of actions, omissions, mistakes, incompetence, apathy, cynicism, stupidity, and neglect. Some well-intentioned but misguided blunders were also added to the mix. It was clear from the outset that the [tragedy] was not the result of a single definable event or misstep.

The outcry was so loud, so persistent, and so powerful that we here in Canada have now enacted Bill C-45, [highlight #FCE94F]which makes corporate executives and managers personally responsible for the correct dispatch of safety related works and standards by the Corporate Individual[/highlight], ie: Exactly what so many posters above have been saying would be reasonable.

Perhaps the US has now had its Westray... Only time and the vigor, or absence, of public outcry will tell.