Controversy Over Oil Pipeline

Re: “Cardenas Assails Rivals Who Back Oil Pipeline,” March 16, and “Cardenas’ Oil Pipeline Mailer a Little Slippery,” March 22.

There is a bit of confusion on the controversy over the Pacific Pipeline proposal and the disaster that occurred at Wolfskill Street in Mission Hills after the 1994 earthquake which I’d like to clarify.

Thirty-Ninth Assembly District candidate Valerie Salkin stated in a March 16 article that the Arco Four Corners pipeline, which ruptured and ignited at Wolfskill Street, carried gas, not oil. In the March 22 Times, the reporter implies that oil pipelines do not burn; that only natural gas pipelines burn.

Both are incorrect. First of all, the Arco pipeline which exploded in Mission Hills did carry crude oil. Comparing that pipeline to the proposed Pacific Pipeline is not a case of “apples and oranges,” as Salkin stated. The Arco pipeline disaster burned Arturo Rodriguez over 25% of his body, destroyed 17 parked vehicles and five homes. Second, I was at Wolfskill Street on Jan. 17, 1994. I can tell you personally that oil pipelines can indeed burn, and with a fury. I was hundreds of feet from the fire and the heat was intense.

Los Angeles is crisscrossed with thousands of pipelines of all types. Each time an earthquake occurs there is potential for a disaster similar to Wolfskill. Each time we build a new pipeline we increase the chance that the risk might be realized. To support a new oil pipeline through residential communities is to support placing our children at greater risk of injury or death, since the pipeline will be located near schools. We have no choice at this time about trains, trucks and tankers transporting oil, but we do have a chance to stop this ill-conceived project. We don’t need any more oil pipelines.

RICHARD ALARCON

Alarcon is a Los Angeles City Council member, District 7