Source of List re: Columbia Gas "Un"Safety Record (of some 1700 pipeline operators)

[Nina White]

"Of some 1700 pipeline operators, Columbia Gas  was listed  #2 in having the most Federal Enforcement Actions filed against it and # 1, in terms of failure to respond and comply with the citation actions brought against it." ( I saw this on a slide that I think Vin had).  Does anyone have the source? A copy? Does it exist online?  

This sure doesn't sound like the record of a company I would choose to do work of the magnitude PSU has had in mind.   But I can also imagine that many assumptions were made by those with (and without) engineering credentials. The sheer number and magnitude of these assumptions, that were apparently not based on solid facts, makes my head swim.  Were the implications not so serious, it might even be humorous-- in a totally different context, (i.e., changing lightbulbs?).   

I confess, I've always "assumed" that, as a group, engineers were precise and detail-oriented. Yet from Columbia Gas, I've seen fuzzy math and slick, sweeping claims that lack the necessary substance--or, in some cases, seem to have no substance at all (magical thinking?).  Perhaps many of the folks at PSU and at the borough deferred to those who they imagined had the proper credentials without considering that they may also have had blind spots (conflict of interest ?).   

I am sure this recent challenge and request for transparency has been very difficult for PSU. Maybe some of their officials  "assumed" that they could trust the summaries and claims they were given by engineers who "do this work all the time."  Although frustrating, I would hope that they can soon see this as a Good thing.  Before April 1,  all of the PSU decision makers lacked much critical information.  Now more critical and valuable information is available for them to consider BEFORE serious mistakes are made-- mistakes that could have consequences ranging from costly to catastrophic.

Public Safety Issues are huge!!! The fact that at least one engineer had "no idea" about PIR (Potential Impact Range) as regards the project that was proposed for this High Consequence Area is beyond belief.  As my neighbor, Leif Jensen, closed a post here back in March: "Deep Breaths....."   

   

 

 

    

    

[Vincent Crespi]

On Apr 23, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Nina White wrote:

"Of some 1700 pipeline operators, Columbia Gas  was listed  #2 in having the most Federal Enforcement Actions filed against it and # 1, in terms of failure to respond and comply with the citation actions brought against it." ( I saw this on a slide that I think Vin had).  Does anyone have the source? A copy? Does it exist online?  

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/operator/Operatorlist.html

Click Show All Available Operators and scroll away...

 The fact that at least one engineer had "no idea" about PIR (Potential Impact Range) as regards the project that was proposed for this High Consequence Area is beyond belief.

The PIR ignorance of Rob Cooper I can understand – he's not a pipeline guy. But 2 minutes of googling could have given him the answer.

    

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NoPSUPipeline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tonopsupipelin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to nopsup...@googlegroups.com.
 
 

[Nina White]

Vin, Thanks so much for the reference.  It looks like they have recently updated this site to reflect incidents, federal inspections, & federal enforcement actions from 2006 to date (April, 2013), so things may have changed from when you did your slide.  

I have a question and, for fairness, some corrections to my previous post.  I'm no expert in reading these things so maybe someone else checking this or another place will find something different than I have.  It is a long list.   First a question: Is it "Columbia Gas Transmission Corp" who has been planning this project with PSU (as opposed to Columbia Gas of PA)?  It does seem that they may be the one.  I ask this because Columbia Gas reported no incidents for 70 miles of pipeline on this list between 2006-2013. Columbia Gas Transmissions Corp reported 35 incidents for their 11,838 miles of pipeline.  Also, the list that I found at this site lists  # miles of pipeline, # of reported incidents, # of  federal Inspections (I can't see where it says these are "for cause" vs just routine), and # Federal Enforcement Actions.  Anyway, Columbia Gas Transmissions Corp. had 231 federal inspections (but this may not be related to their safety performance at all).  Finally it lists that they reported 32 Federal Safety Actions against them. I did NOT see a column for whether or not they complied to these.

 What I'd like to correct  are the comments that I made in my previous post.  I based these on my recollections and my notes from hearing so many details and speakers at the April 1 meeting.  I couldn't actually see the slide from the back of the room, so I am sorry if I jumped ahead of what you were reporting and showing.   From what  I could see on the site tonight, neither Columbia Gas Transmission Corp nor Columbia Gas of PA have the second most incidents or citations against them and they were  NOT  Number 1 in their failure to comply to enforcement actions. Failure to Comply to Enforcement Actions was NOT tallied at all here so none of the companies had a number for this.   

Also, Vin, thanks for providing clarity about Rob Cooper.  I don't wish to be unfair to him, especially being that "he's not a pipeline guy."  I can appreciate that this has been difficult for him as well. Nevertheless, I stand by my conviction that the safety implications of this are huge. PIR (Potential Impact Range) is a very significant consideration with a 12 inch, high-pressure pipeline in this high density, High Consequent Area with families, churches, pre-schools etc., etc. Thank you again for your work on this aspect.  As you know, there are set-back requirements for just this reason. It would be unconscionable if the parties involved at PSU and/or Columbia Gas were to continue to use semantics, especially to "game" their slipping between the cracks of well-founded safety regulations. 

I'd like to close by thanking all of you who have been thinking and working so hard.  This is such an important issue.  I hope that it will receive the conscientious and professional attention that it deserves from ALL those who need to know these things.  It is a great opportunity to Do the RIGHT THING. 

 And for now, 'to sleep, perchance to dream'....but definitely NOT about pipelines. 

                                               Nina White, Fairmount Ave, Highlands neighbor  

   

---

Subject: Re: [NoPSUpipeline] Source of List re: Columbia Gas "Un"Safety Record (of some 1700 pipeline operators)
From: nano...@mac.com
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:09:38 -0400
CC: l-highla...@lists.psu.edu; jso...@comcast.net; nopsup...@googlegroups.com
To: ninar...@hotmail.com

[Johan Zwart]

Hello Nina,

If there are misunderstandings about specific data then I think it is better to sort those out individually before it is send to the general listserve. Other people are watching these messages as well. Only the Columbia Gas benefits discussions about internal misunderstandings.

[Matthew Dahlhausen]

Hi - 

To offer a differing perspective, I think this is the appropriate place for sorting out misunderstandings.  If we are asking for completely transparency from the borough and the college, then we ought to demonstrate transparency on our own part.  If we are really about civility, then we should engage Columbia Gas with our concerns and ask for clarification.  

To make the argument that Columbia Gas is wanting in the safety of its pipelines, we need to demonstrate that 1) They have a significant number of incidents and federal enforcement actions in comparison to other companies.  It would be appropriate to normalize the incident data by looking at the number of incidents per pipeline-mile.  2) That the incident or federal action rate has not improved over time and 3) That this rate is significantly above what would be expected from a widely accepted risk threshold, e.g. one in a million lifetime risk.   

  

It seems more appropriate to focus on PIR, as this is already an industry standard. 

If we are trying to make a claim of concern particular to Columbia Gas, we may want to consider Don Hahn's concern of who takes over safety measures in the event of a bankruptcy, which the company went through in the mid 1990s.  This concern was a reason for rejecting the permit.  

http://www.columbiagaspa.com/about-us/company-history

-Matt

[Vincent Crespi]

Nina,

Yes, the corporate structure of Nisource, the parent company of Columbia gas, is complex. I chose Columbia gas transmission as the comparison case because the line they are planning here is more characteristic of a transmission line than a distribution line, so it is the safety culture of that side of the parent entity that is most relevant.

The data I got from that site was as presented on march 31, 2013. At that point, it was displaying data since 2006.

Sent from my crappy flip-phone