Was the deadly pipeline explosion in the community of San Bruno, California, resulting in eight deaths and millions of dollars in damage, worth the risk?  Apparently, the owners of the pipeline think so.  Instead of making costly repairs to correct defective welds on this segment of the pipeline PG&E decided it was worth it to accept the risk.  But, PG&E are not the only ones that accepted some risk.
More than fifty years ago when the PG&E pipeline was first constructed there were few, if any, homes built near the right of way where the explosion occurred.  Years later, San Bruno city planning officials thought it was worth the risk to approve development of residential housing units next to the pipeline right of way.  San Bruno land developers thought it worth the risk of constructing hundreds of new homes along the pipeline right of way.
Individuals moving to San Bruno and buying homes next to the pipeline right of way thought it was worth the risk. Most didn’t think about the risk of something that was out of sight and out of mind.  When all you have is a small sign every few feet to remind you about a sleeping giant, just below the ground surface, it’s easy to forget and not think about the risk of something that might not happen.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is the federal agency responsible for the safe operation of the more than 450,000 miles of interstate pipelines in the United States (U.S.).  The mission of the PHMSA pipeline program is “To ensure the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the Nation’s pipeline transportation system.”  The safety of more than two million miles of intrastate pipelines is the responsibility of another 50 state pipeline regulating agencies.
It is the goal of every pipeline owner and regulating agency to reduce the risk of pipeline explosions and fires resulting in fatalities, injuries and millions of dollars of damage. In a recent presentation a representative of the PHMSA described pipeline risk management using these words: “The overall risk of a pipeline can be reduced, controlled, or altered, but it cannot be reduced to zero.”
So, who is to blame for the San Bruno pipeline explosion?  PG&E certainly has a large part, if not all, of the blame for electing to delay repairs of defective welds.  Repairs would have been very expensive in this highly developed area of San Bruno.  PG&E had also received a number of complaints about “gas odors” in the area several weeks prior to the explosion.
City planners and land developers share some of the blame for allowing the construction of homes along the right of way, without requiring adequate setback distance.  Finally, individuals buying homes next to the pipeline right of way must share a small part of the blame for accepting the risk.
Using lessons learned from San Bruno and other pipeline incidents the PHMSA has published a report titled, “Keeping Communities Safe: Pipeline Risk and its Application to Local Development Decisions.”  This publication will go a long way in helping future city planners, land developers and prospective homeowners to better understand the risk associated with living next to a sleeping giant.  A copy of the PHMSA publication is available at: http://lepcnews.squarespace.com/pipeline-risk/.