 |
Re: PUC bridge inspection program too understaffed to move forward
Author: J
Date: 10-06-2014 - 15:23
There have been a number of mishaps over the years involving bridges - pretty much in every case a bridge has failed after a derailment. Notable exceptions include the derailment of the solid booster rocket train on a short line bridge in Alabama back in 2007. I have heard that the bridge was undergoing repairs and that the specific movement was under the direction of on-site railroad supervisory personnel when the mishap occurred.
CPUC has a habit of aggressive regulation. After Cantara Loop the agency attempted to mandate a whole host of rules including specific employee training, prescriptive train make-up requirements, accident reporting, prescribed wayside detector type and spacing and even the type of rail fasteners to be used in certain areas. After some litigation they backed off when it was shown that much of this is already covered by FRA regulations and that none of the 33 CPUC-specified locations in the State constitute a "unique local safety hazard."
CPUC recently fined PG&E $17 Million for deficient record-keeping on a handful of plat maps that show property boundaries, pipe test records, etc. The utility underwent a significant management change after the San Bruno pipeline rupture and had self-reported the error. Talk about an incentive to do the right thing!
FRA already has comprehensive requirements for bridge management programs. If CPUC plans to do any more than auditing of railroad records then the State with major budgetary challenges is, once again, over reaching. The PG&E money did go into the general fund, I suppose!
FRA Bridge Management Rule
CPUC has a habit of aggressive regulation. After Cantara Loop the agency attempted to mandate a whole host of rules including specific employee training, prescriptive train make-up requirements, accident reporting, prescribed wayside detector type and spacing and even the type of rail fasteners to be used in certain areas. After some litigation they backed off when it was shown that much of this is already covered by FRA regulations and that none of the 33 CPUC-specified locations in the State constitute a "unique local safety hazard."
CPUC recently fined PG&E $17 Million for deficient record-keeping on a handful of plat maps that show property boundaries, pipe test records, etc. The utility underwent a significant management change after the San Bruno pipeline rupture and had self-reported the error. Talk about an incentive to do the right thing!
FRA already has comprehensive requirements for bridge management programs. If CPUC plans to do any more than auditing of railroad records then the State with major budgetary challenges is, once again, over reaching. The PG&E money did go into the general fund, I suppose!
FRA Bridge Management Rule
