Probe into San Bruno Pipeline Explosion Focuses on Corrosion
While Washington Discusses Implications of Fatal Blast
A high-pressure Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) gas line ruptured on Thursday, September 9, 2010, sending a wall of fire into a quiet California neighborhood just 14 miles from San Francisco. The Crestmoor Canyon neighborhood in San Bruno, California, was rocked by the sudden thunderous explosion, which killed eight people, injured scores of others and destroyed 37 homes.
Both the California Public Utilities Commission and the National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the fatal explosion. Officials have listed internal corrosion on the 30-inch-diameter pipeline as one potential cause for the blast. A PG&E document shows that PG&E knew and was concerned about corrosive liquids found in four Bay Area natural gas pipelines, including the one that burst in San Bruno.
The most recent reports list a weld or weak section of the pipe as the culprit that may have led to a catastrophic failure in the pipeline. Experts who studied pictures of the mangled pipe segments have suggested that old welds, corrosion, brittle pipes or widening cracks could have caused the aging pipeline to suddenly burst. According to one expert, the pipe “unpeeled and failed catastrophically.”
Federal investigators are also looking into the inferior shut-off valves, which took workers almost two hours to manually close after the explosion. Some state officials have said that those valves should have been automatically or remotely controlled. In a recent hearing regarding the blast an NTSB official said “There's no question that if the valve had been turned off sooner, it would've caused less damage."
The ongoing investigation has raised eyebrows about PG&E and the role the utility company may have played in the blast. The utility giant has become the focus of intense scrutiny as investigators look into neglect of the aging pipeline as a possible cause. Documents and records about PG&E’s history have surfaced that suggest the utility has repeatedly failed to protect its clients and the public.
Some of these reports are focused on PG&E’s questionable spending. Three years ago state regulators agreed to pay the company nearly $5 million to replace portions of the South San Francisco natural pipeline, the same pipeline that burst. The work was scheduled to take place in 2009, but it never happened. It is unclear where the money was spent.
This is just one example of what appears to be decades of PG&E spending money allotted for pipeline replacement on “other priorities.” Between 1993 and 1995, the gas company was given $80 million more than it spent for its gas pipeline replacement program - a sum big enough to have completely replaced the highest risk pipelines in the Bay Area.
Weeks after the deadly blast the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2010 was introduced by California Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Proponents hope the legislation will improve safety inspections and hold operators of pipelines, like PG&E, more accountable for similar disasters.
------------------------------------------
On Friday October 1, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing in Washington, D.C. to discuss the deadly explosion. Present at the hearing were Senators Boxer and Feinstein, along with San Bruno Mayor, Jim Ruane, and PG&E President Christopher Johns. The hearing focused on potential causes of the explosion and how to prevent a similar tragedy from happening again. Feinstein called for an increase in pipeline inspections by state and federal officials and Boxer called pipeline safety an urgent issue that “has implications for everyone.”
Both the California Public Utilities Commission and the National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the fatal explosion. Officials have listed 
