|
Post by eb204 on Jun 7, 2008 11:28:08 GMT -5
I've just been told that the person in 204 that knows the most about pipelines is Todd Depaul todd_depaul@ipsd.org - I was invited to contact him directly, but we definitely don't want to inundate him. Should I send the modified arch letter to him? I liked player's idea of having a sit-down conversation with him. I think Arch's letter, even the modified one, might be viewed as an "official" request to have something done. Right now, it is my understanding that we are trying to open up the door for communication. Is there a way to meet with him first and present the ideas verbally?
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 7, 2008 11:34:37 GMT -5
I've just been told that the person in 204 that knows the most about pipelines is Todd Depaul todd_depaul@ipsd.org - I was invited to contact him directly, but we definitely don't want to inundate him. Should I send the modified arch letter to him? I liked player's idea of having a sit-down conversation with him. I think Arch's letter, even the modified one, might be viewed as an "official" request to have something done. Right now, it is my understanding that we are trying to open up the door for communication. Is there a way to meet with him first and present the ideas verbally? That would be my suggestion too. Lets have a sit down conversation with the gentleman. Small crowd - 2/3 people tops. I'll be glad to participate and share what I know. Formal letters force people to respond officially, which taints their receptivity to new ideas. That would force the District to respond with the party line - which is there is no issue to fix. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 8, 2008 9:21:30 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if Kinder Morgan were to agree to replacing the pipelines at this site isn't it opening a can of worms? Is this site more imporatant than any of the other miles of pipelines winding through not only our district but the Chicago area? Of course, it is to US.......it's worth a shot but I don't know how productive it will be. This is a good point, sushi. It seems that the most we can ask of Kinder Morgan is that they rigorously abide by the Code and Standards for the industry, which they would be doing anyhow....its my understanding that its a legal requirement. (obeying the Fire Code, for example is not optional!) And I think I read (previous posts by player and arch, I believe) that the school site changes the classification of this area making Kinder Morgan responsible for more Code requirements for their pipeline, than previously. I wonder what an expert review of natural gas pipe Code would tell us? What does this say about pipe line age and when to replace pipe? What does it say about valve placement? Its seems if we want to go beyond what the Code says to do, we may have to bear the cost. So we would be "buying more safety" than what the Standard Code says is needed. And that is a reasonable thing to consider. Maybe, we could get cooperation from Kinder Morgan to stay just a little bit ahead of the Code. Or maybe there are some things we dont know about that they already are planning, due to some Code requirement. Another step (and maybe player and arch know more) would be to understand what natural gas pipe Code requirements are. I am sure this is not a trivial thing to understand... there are people who spend their careers doing this stuff. But to get back to sushi's original point, we have Code's to do just what you are saying, insure uniform safety for the public.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 8, 2008 9:55:32 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if Kinder Morgan were to agree to replacing the pipelines at this site isn't it opening a can of worms? Is this site more imporatant than any of the other miles of pipelines winding through not only our district but the Chicago area? Of course, it is to US.......it's worth a shot but I don't know how productive it will be. This is a good point, sushi. It seems that the most we can ask of Kinder Morgan is that they rigorously abide by the Code and Standards for the industry, which they would be doing anyhow....its my understanding that its a legal requirement. (obeying the Fire Code, for example is not optional!) And I think I read (previous posts by player and arch, I believe) that the school site changes the classification of this area making Kinder Morgan responsible for more Code requirements for their pipeline, than previously. I wonder what an expert review of natural gas pipe Code would tell us? What does this say about pipe line age and when to replace pipe? What does it say about valve placement? Its seems if we want to go beyond what the Code says to do, we may have to bear the cost. So we would be "buying more safety" than what the Standard Code says is needed. And that is a reasonable thing to consider. Maybe, we could get cooperation from Kinder Morgan to stay just a little bit ahead of the Code. Or maybe there are some things we dont know about that they already are planning, due to some Code requirement. Another step (and maybe player and arch know more) would be to understand what natural gas pipe Code requirements are. I am sure this is not a trivial thing to understand... there are people who spend their careers doing this stuff. But to get back to sushi's original point, we have Code's to do just what you are saying, insure uniform safety for the public. I'll do more research into Code requirements and post what I find. Many gas companies do stay ahead of code, and there are examples of gas companies making changes to make communities more comfortable, so it may not be altogether futile to see what replacement will entail Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 23:23:40 GMT -5
I've heard exactly 0 on this to date. Anyone else hear anything?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 10, 2008 2:26:58 GMT -5
I've heard exactly 0 on this to date. Anyone else hear anything? Bump Still 0
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 10, 2008 10:30:46 GMT -5
I've heard exactly 0 on this to date. Anyone else hear anything? Bump Still 0 Did you request a face to face with dash as was suggested?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 10, 2008 10:42:45 GMT -5
Did you request a face to face with dash as was suggested? My schedule at this point doesn't allow for that time unless he wants to meet some time after 11PM. It would be nice to think this would happen, but there isn't even a response to my emails other than from AT with the canned 'thank you...' message.
|
|