Yes. My point exactly. A safety regulation was stricken by a judge who has no clue as to what removal of that safety regulation means in terms of safety (no other reason mentioned, apparent or implied in the article here), because s/he was only concerned with the cost benefit ratio (which still remains unknown, because the judge considered it faulty). This is regulation by judiciary, those least qualified to do so, and imo, abject stupidity. The regulation should have been left in place at least until a proper cost benefit ratio was determined, at which time it should be reevaluated in terms of cost benefit and the appropriate risk management matrix.
As it is today, Americans appear to be left exposed to what the regulating authority deems is a risky use of this welding practice on high pressure pipelines.
I agree that there may be times when obvious is obvious, but there are cases where obvious is not always obvious. Complex systems often have no obvious effects at all until "emergent behaviors" are discovered. This is one of those emergent behaviors where the frequency of the welding was once thought to have no effects whatsoever, but the subsequent recent data has shown otherwise. At this time it may pay to be conservative and follow these regulations until further evidence is acquired, but the judge says, "No. Do not worry. I don't know shit about welding, but it looks good to me."
I am not comforted.
So, what do we do today? Continue with our risky welding practice, contradicting latest findings? If the pipeline fails, will this judge pay the costs? Who will be liable? How long will it take to resolve this issue. What do we do now? Our own study? Make and follow our own procedure? If it doesn't work, are we liable. If we use the most Conservative approach, then the judge has done nothing, but confuse the issues at hand. The judge is in control. The lawyers make money. We are at risk. Perfect solution.
Defective laws can be a problem. If its a legal issue let the lawyers correct it. If its and engineering or safety defect, let the engineers correct it and amend the law. An independent determination by a judge is not an answer to either question. It only prioritizes political "solutions" rather than those based on other considerations, such as safety and integrity. This example, I think proves that conclusion. "Strike the regulation." Where is the safety in that? Do you feel better about a pipeline crossing your land because it may be cheaper? How did this judge help you? Did this judge make a just decision. I don't know. He didn't even have a good cost benefit analysis to make that decision. Now I don't know if the risk was justifiyingly small to make a cost reduction worth it or not. Not that I was going to save any money either way. Its just arbitrary judicial regulation. How is that better?
TCi4, I have not got it backwards. I think I'm same as you. ASME engineers wrote codes for all this stuff. B31.4 and 8 for pipelines. No problem for me. That's how it should be. Those codes have been mostly adopted into the CFR pipeline regulations word for word. PHMSA tends to make clarifications, rather than new code. The biggest difference is that CFRs are often 20yrs behind the times. Mostly because of recent polarisation, nothing can hardly be accomplished by Congress in the way of writing any new law, or what is written is watered down to nothing. For example, the new regulatory requirements are safety and integrity heavy to correspond to ASME B31.4 and .8 changes that have not yet made it into CFRs, because pretty much the pipeline industry can cut or keep bits they don't like or want out of it even as the procedure is now, and even if those were written by their very own engineers working in cooperation with ASME. And company lawyers are objecting to EVERYTHING they possibly can, regardless of who wrote it. I'm sure you have noticed that "Object to everything. Nothing new. Nothing additional. Take it back 50 yrs." is the new SOP.
I am all for engineers writing codes that get adopted as law. That's the only thing that makes technical sense. What I object to is judges cutting it up however they like based SOLELY on THEIR OWN INTETPRETATIONS. That's judicial regulation. And IMO, far worse then defective clauses that sometimes are the result of the logical process we have had up until now. Those can usually be corrected while temporary guidance is provided by regulating authorities. Not now. All stuff has the potential to be countered by other courts and delayed years and years until SCOTUS blesses us with their final opinions. We see how well that's not working. When it comes down to political vote, let's see how high engineering competency, system integrity and public safety weigh in.
There are no more engineering clarifications. Everything has become subject to "political clarification".
--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."
