Impact Report Is Initial Hurdle for Proposed Oil Pipeline

Builders of a 170-mile oil pipeline that would cut through the heart of Ventura County are anxiously awaiting the release of an environmental report, the first crucial step in determining whether the project will become reality.

Ventura County environmentalists already have raised concerns about the proposed Pacific Pipeline, which would cross the ecologically sensitive Ventura and Santa Clara rivers.

But the biggest question is whether the pipeline’s developer, Pacific Pipeline System, would be able to attract enough customers to justify the $215-million construction cost.

The Ventura developer--and even some environmental activists--say land transport of crude is safer than shipping, and a pipeline that can move oil from pumping plants north of Santa Barbara to refineries in Los Angeles would eliminate the need to deliver it by tanker along Ventura County’s coast.

The Coastal Commission in January gave Chevron permission to transport 2.1 million gallons a day by sea, but stipulated that shipping by tanker must cease by Jan. 1, 1996, or whenever a pipeline is built. It also scheduled other deadlines the oil company must meet or be forced to scale back operations.

The California Public Utilities Commission must approve the draft environmental report, scheduled for release next month, by Sept. 15, or Chevron will be required to halve its oil production. Given the concerns voiced by some environmentalists and citizens, that timeline may be difficult to meet, officials said.

“If significant issues are raised and they have to revise the environmental impact report, that could throw the schedule off,” said Linda Krop, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center in Santa Barbara.

“It is really incumbent on them to do as good a job on the EIR as they can so they can stick to the schedule.”

Pacific Pipeline President Norman Rooney said the company has been carefully doing its homework in order to satisfy the more than 30 agencies that will determine whether a pipeline can be built.

Company representatives have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the safety of the pipeline with environmentalists and citizens who live near its proposed route, Rooney said. The line would follow one of two routes along Southern Pacific rights of way through Ventura County.

The proposed route follows the coast from Gaviota, about 30 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, to Seacliff, where it would join an existing 11-mile pipeline that crosses the Ventura River. The existing 22-inch line could require repair in some spots, but the environmental disruption would be far less than that of building a new line, Rooney said.

From Ventura, the proposed route would take the pipeline northeast along the Santa Clara River and California 126 to Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County. There it would cross the Santa Clara River and head south to Wilmington.

The alternate route would take the line south from Ventura to Oxnard. Then it would head east, passing through Simi Valley and on to Burbank, where it would turn south to Wilmington.

Using the existing Southern Pacific right of way would protect the environment by building in an area that has already been disturbed, Rooney said. In addition, at 225 junctures with public roads, holes will be bored under the pavement so traffic would not be interrupted during construction, he said.

The line will be made of thicker material than most existing pipelines, and will be buried five feet underground. Most are buried three feet, Rooney said.

The plan has drawn preliminary support from the Environmental Defense Center, a powerful environmental lobbying group that strongly opposed the Coastal Commission permit allowing Chevron to ship oil by tanker.

“We want a pipeline built,” said Krop. “There are some environmental concerns about the pipeline . . . but it seems to be the most politically and economically feasible (proposal) at this point.”

Still, Rooney knows the project faces several possible roadblocks. Friends of the Ventura River has already raised concerns about possible damage to wildlife habitat where the pipeline passes through the mouth of the river.

Charles Price, president of the environmental group, said the oil will be heated to 140 degrees, hot enough to kill or damage nearby plant and animal life. The environmentalists are recommending that the pipe be insulated as it passes through the river to avoid such damage.

Price said he also wants to make sure that every safety precaution is taken to prevent a blowout near the river. His group will be looking at the environmental report carefully to see that Pacific Pipeline does all it can to minimize the risk, he said.

“Even if it is underground, it could come to the surface and contaminate the soil for years to come,” Price said.

Another challenge Pacific Pipeline faces is making the pipeline economically attractive to the producers who will use it. The company is proposing to charge Chevron and other oil companies, such as Exxon, $2.25 per barrel to use the pipeline, a tariff that could be undercut by competing pipeline operators, said Chevron spokesman Mike Marcy.

Chevron must commit to using a pipeline, whether it is the Pacific Pipeline or a competitor’s, by Feb. 15, or it must cease all marine oil shipments. Marcy said the company has not yet decided which pipeline it will use, but Pacific Pipeline is currently the favored project.

“It is by far the most attractive pipeline before Chevron right now,” Marcy said. “We believe it is the system which has the best chance of success of being permitted and built within a reasonable time frame.”

None of the other pipelines being considered by Chevron pass through Ventura County, Marcy said.

The biggest hurdle facing the Pacific Pipeline may be securing the more than 100 permits needed from various city, county and state agencies that have a say in it. Five years ago, a similar pipeline project died after drawing opposition from Los Angeles and other cities along the route.

But Rooney said the Pacific Pipeline is different because little of it runs through heavily populated areas. And this plan may fare better politically because more than 75% of its route is owned by Southern Pacific, the parent company of Pacific Pipeline.

As a utility, Southern Pacific can condemn land owned by those who refuse to sell, Rooney said. And most important, the company for more than two years has been laying the groundwork with governments to smooth the permit process, he said.

Although the project already has been delayed a year as the company searched for an environmental consultant, Rooney said the firm is on schedule to begin construction early next year. The pipeline should be completed by May, 1995, he said.

NEXT STEP

A draft report analyzing the environmental impact of the 170-mile-long Pacific Pipeline is scheduled for release April 27. Oral and written comments on the report, prepared by the Aspen Environmental Group in Agoura Hills, will be collected from the public the following 45 days. The California Public Utilities Commission is expected to hold a hearing by Sept. 15 on whether the final report should be certified, signaling that it meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.