The San Francisco Chronicle is quietly making investigative journalism history in its coverage of the San Bruno pipeline disaster - and what they've been reporting is shocking but sadly, not surprising.
On 09 September of this year, a Pacific Gas & Electric pipeline exploded in a residential neighborhood in San Bruno, CA. It created a wall of fire more than 1,000 feet high, killed 8 people, and destroyed 38 houses.
I'll outline some of the Chronicle's reporting below the jump - but this is why we still need newspapers, especially in this era of payoffs, corruption and corporate greed.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Chronicle has uncovered information that should disturb any of their customers currently living near or over one of their gas transmission lines. This is an excerpt from a story they ran on 19 December:
An audit done just four months before the deadly San Bruno pipeline explosion suggested that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. was improperly taking shortcuts to use an inspection method for high-pressure natural gas lines that cannot detect some dangerous problems.
...The May audit raised additional issues about how PG&E was carrying out its inspections and other measures it took to safeguard the more than 1,000 miles of high-pressure gas lines in urban areas of Northern and Central California.
The inspectors said PG&E had a spotty safety protocol that lacked specifics on what records needed to be kept and how quickly the utility needed to document the existence of a problem.
They said there was no evidence that key supervisors involved in PG&E's corrosion inspections "had received formal training," as required by law.
Quoting a story from 16 December:
California regulators warned Pacific Gas and Electric Co. last year that persistent safety problems in its gas distribution system were putting the public at risk, according to a strongly worded letter obtained by The Chronicle.
The letter from a senior gas safety inspector suggests the relationship between regulators and the utility leading up to the deadly Sept. 9 pipeline explosion in San Bruno was more contentious than top state officials have portrayed publicly.
It also refers to cases in which the utility was apparently ignorant of key aspects of its own system, a finding similar to what federal investigators looking into the San Bruno disaster concluded in an interim report released Tuesday.
"It is apparent to us that the failure of PG&E to provide adequate procedures, or the failure of PG&E personnel to follow established procedures, has resulted in safety risks that would most likely not have been created" if the utility had abided by the law, Sunil Shori, a safety inspector with the California Public Utilities Commission, wrote in a Feb. 13, 2009, letter that The Chronicle obtained under the state public records law.
And the coverage today of how cozy the lobbyist/regulator relationships were during the Bush era:
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. led the successful lobbying campaign to persuade federal regulators writing natural-gas safety rules seven years ago to endorse a pipe inspection method many experts see as deficient - the technique used on the pipeline that later failed catastrophically in San Bruno.
A PG&E executive was one of the main industry proponents of the then-new testing regimen, interviews with people who were involved in the rule-writing process and a Chronicle review of documents show. The federal government's decision to allow the method saved PG&E millions of dollars because the utility didn't have to upgrade its system to accommodate other inspection technology.
...At one public hearing in Washington, D.C., in March 2003, at which Eastman presented a case for direct assessment, U.S. Transportation Department executive Sam Bonasso called for a show of hands. Industry officials and contractors packed the room, government officials were less numerous, and there was one person representing the general public: Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline safety consultant from Redmond, Wash., who maintained that direct assessment was inferior to other testing methods.
The whole story is a worthwhile, although nauseating, read.
These are Chronicle stories from just this week. They've been relentless since the tragedy in investigating PG&E's pipeline safety procedures and their cozy relationship with regulators. The story that has emerged has been nothing short of appalling.
Our only real protection from having gas transmission lines exploding in our neighborhoods is an informed populace who will demand changes, both in inspection protocols and oversight. The Chronicle is doing an invaluable public service in informing their readers.
Newspapers matter. They have the staff, the funding, and the experience to peel the layers from a tragedy such as the San Bruno explosion and I have no doubt that their coverage will eventually force change at PG&E and the PUC. Sadly, the Chronicle has experienced the same severe financial difficulties that are devastating many urban dailies. Given the problems with infrastructure throughout the country, I wonder how many corners might be cut without worry of exposure from a financially weakened or shuttered press.
Buy a local newspaper today. Subscribe if you can. They're the thin grey line in your community that might keep you safe one day.