Thursday, June 11, 2015

NJ lawmaker's Pipeline bill puts many human lives in jeopardy.

What a JOKE! (a dangerous joke)

NJ lawmaker introduces natural gas pipeline bills

Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:30 pm | Updated: 6:59 am, Thu Jun 11, 2015.

By David Levinsky Staff writer

TRENTON — A New Jersey assemblyman has introduced legislation in response
to New Jersey Natural Gas' proposal to build a pipeline through northern Burlington,
Monmouth and Ocean counties.

Assemblyman Ronald Dancer's [bill] would also mandate a minimum 100-foot buffer
between high-pressure natural gas pipelines and any occupied homes or buildings.

Dancer, R-12th of Plumsted, said the bills were written to enhance public safety and
provide more public input when locating natural gas pipelines.

"We can't be too cautious when pipelines are being run through the most densely
populated state in the country
Dancer said in a statement. "I have proposed some
common-sense safeguards that will alleviate risk and calm some of the fears associated
with potentially explosive pipelines."
... "

The safety of our residents should not be up for negotiation in an application,"
he said. "By making BPU's own safety (regulations) the law, my bill makes public
safety a priority."

Dancer's comments here are ABSURD, a dangerous joke.

I have been recently investigating something called the PIR formula (Potential
Impact Radius) which is codified by PHMSA as part of federal pipeline safety
law.  The formula the feds uses is bad, even PHMSA admits this, and has had
hearings to discuss how to improve it.

During my investigation, I have examined a few of the largest recent
pipeline failures, where I could find certain parameters needed by the
formula, including MAOP (Max Allowable Operating Pressure)
and pipeline diameter.

Have a look at what I found:
Sissonville WV 514'ft
Carlsbad NM 676'ft
Appomattix 958'ft
San Bruno, CA 1,024'ft.
Cleburne TX 1,400'ft

Does it look like a 100'ft buffer
is going to "alleviate risk",

* NB: My numbers may differ from actual reports, for these reasons.

  1. Remarkably, the blast radius measurement is not in every failure investigation report
  2. Commonly NTSB measures "blast radius" from the center of the burn zone, and NOTusing the rupture as the center of the circle. This is bad because the PIR formula does not work like that. Commonly the burn zone is asymmertrical. So, this under-estimates the Impact Radius as measured from the point of failure

So I have come up with these numbers by painstakingly examining photographs of the incident, and then going to Google Earth, and measuring the distances. This method is admittedly error-prone and is not the same as going to the site with a hand-held GPS unit. But my numbers are most likely within 10% of geo-true readings I would imagine.



May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

No comments: