Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonably Foreseeable Earthquakes

Text: 71 Finally, FSW argues that FERC failed to evaluate the consequences of all reasonably foreseeable earthquakes, in part by relying upon an inappropriate standard, the Uniform Building Code, to identify what earthquakes are reasonably foreseeable, which, in turn, led it to fail to provide a meaningful mitigation analysis. 72 The FEIS states as follows concerning the standard used to design the pipeline to withstand earthquakes: GSX-US has designed the pipeline to withstand ground motions associated with an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years ...; equivalent to a recurrence interval of 1 in 475 years. This is common practice for buildings as summarized in the 1997 Uniform Building Codes (International Conference of Building Officials, 1998). FEIS at 3-3, R. Vol. III. FERC responds that GSX correctly designed the pipeline to meet current engineering design standards, as set out in three different building guideline systems, as well as in accordance with the minimum federal standards for the transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline. 49 C.F.R. § 192. 73 FSW's complaint about the UBC is that it provides an inaccurate standard for identifying reasonably foreseeable earthquakes. It argues the UBC uses a standard of a ten percent chance of potential failure over the next fifty years, which, FSW asserts, is far too low a standard and fails to identify larger but still reasonably foreseeable earthquakes. Both the EPA and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) commented on the DEIS, raising a question as to whether FERC was building the pipeline to withstand all reasonably foreseeable earthquakes. 14 FERC responded to the EPA by explaining that the ten percent chance of exceedance over fifty years refers to the chance of an earthquake capable of producing ground motions that would exceed the pipeline design parameters, not the design standards. Engineering design standards typically include a safety factor that accounts for the chance that natural phenomena could exceed the design parameters. FEIS at FA 1-16, R. Vol. III. 74 As we have stated above, FERC was obligated to consider the views of other agencies, and in this case it did so. It was not obligated to defer to that agency's view. We cannot displace the agencies' choice between two conflicting views, even if we would have made a different choice had the matter been before us de novo. Custer County Action Ass'n, 256 F.3d at 1036. We conclude that FERC took a hard look at seismic hazards, and its decision regarding how to address reasonably foreseeable earthquakes was reasonable. We therefore reject FSW's argument that, because the FEIS failed to analyze all reasonably foreseeable earthquakes, its mitigation analysis was inadequate.