Federal court throws out parts of new pipeline safety rule 1

Federal court throws out parts of new pipeline safety rule because of
faulty cost-benefit analyses



Good to know the courts are keeping America safe. No engineers need apply.


--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

As I understand the article, the Court did NOT say that the proposed rule was wrong, only that the agency didn't properly justify it as required.

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

Correct. However I read this as the provisions of PHMSA's ruling are not currently in effect. It said the ruling on 4 of 5 standards are overturned.

It thus appears that HF welding can continue and that cracks will not need to be immediately repaired and 4 of 5 standards no longer apply. It also appears that the basis for the strike down was not that the judge determined these provisions are safe to ignore, only that the cost analysis was not completed.
I therefore believe this allows a potential risk to public safety, that PHMSA attempted to rectify, to continue unabated.



--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Court's Complete Ruling
PHMSA, No. 23-1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that four of the five challenged standards were inadequately justified. Specifically, PHMSA failed to properly analyze the costs associated with the high-frequency electric resistance welding (ERW) standard, the crack maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) standard, the dent-safety-factor standard, and the corrosive-constituent standard. The court noted that PHMSA either did not recognize new costs imposed by these standards or provided inconsistent explanations regarding the costs.

Click to expand...

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Just like the Chevron. Let the judge decide what the requirements or regulations are necessary, no engineers or technical expertise is needed.

The Max8 could be flying by Christmas Thanksgiving.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

So, what now?

As a PE, or simply a good engineer, I believe that I would simply disregard the court ruling. We must design and build our systems to be as safe as reasonably possible, considering all known factors, regardless at times what a design code says, or does not say and I also believe it is also regardless of what a judge may say, or not say. When considering my responsibility during design, construction and for providing adequacy for future service. I would consider the "advice" of PHMSA as a known factor. Assuming that the cost of my resulting design is reasonable, ie worth the mitigation of the substantial risk mentioned in the cases discussed in the article and the 2017 Lowell, Massachusetts disaster, not mentioned, that killed 1, terrorized the city for several days, damaged more than 100 structures and cost $1 Billion in insurance settlements PLUS caused the company stock to plumet and even caused their loss of "gas distribution franchise" in Massachusetts, any mitigation cost less than say $4 to 5 billion could be justifiable.

Open Letter to Honerable Judge Pan,
I disagree. My design is my design. Keep your hands off. I will not be held liable for any design deficiency that may arise due to the consequences of your ruling. You have done nothing with your ruling, except possibly increasing the risk to the public in delaying full and immediate implementation of PHMSA safety measures, which in my opinion will be eventually found to be cost effective anyway, surely if they include a cost of potential risk. That much has been determined by previous disasters of similar nature. Given the substantial costs of potential risk and maintaining public safety to the highest standards, why did you not implement the Pipeline Safery Act in full, pending resolution of the cost analysis? That would have at least increased public safety during the resolution of the cost analysis phase. As it is, your ruling has delayed 10 or more years of work in trying to resolve 4 important causes contributing to the onset of at least 3 major disasters. I would recommend to you that you kindly reconsider your ruling. The American people deserve to be as safe as reasonably possible. Not left with continued exposure to multimillion dollar and loss of life consequences.

Open Letter to INGAA,
What games are you playing here? On what basis did you challenge PHMSA's rulings in court of law? I would really like to know. If you don't like a PHMSA regulation, you can appeal it at the agency level, where it can usually be decided based on technical merit. Do you not agree that resolving these things on a technical level is the best way to reach effective solutions, considering costs, risks, technical merit and the need for public safety? Yet here you are in court, throwing such critical engineering questions up in the air and allowing them to fall in a haphazard manner based on what? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The whims of parties uneducated and inexperienced in any engineering fields? How does that strategy improve upon the technology, standards of service, customer satisfaction, your industry's shareholder's concerns and the image of the industry you claim to represent? Do you not already know that NOBODY wants any pipelines anymore, especially one built in their backyard. These kinds of strategies do not help resolving that issue and frankly they also do not help your own association members, their activities, nor their engineers. It seems extremely short sighted. Well I do imagine it does make the lobbiests and lawyers a few bucks. Other than that, your motivation fails me. Please explain. Challenging PHMSA rulings based on "Flaws in the regulatory process" is a counterproductive strategy. It does nothing in regard to resolving the issues at hand. In fact it does the exact opposite. Why are you not working to resolve these important safety issues in a mutually acceptable manner as quickly as possible, with focus on increasing safety? If you are not doing that, you have no business in objecting to safety rulings. You are just muddying the water.


--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Engineering Code of Ethics:

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.