Proposal Fails to Assess Pipeline’s Effect, Study Says

After a heated clash between supporters and opponents of a proposed oil pipeline that would bisect the city, Los Angeles officials said Monday that the project fails to adequately address many environmental concerns, including a threat to the city’s water supply.

In a report to a council panel, the head of the city’s Environmental Affairs Department said the proposed 132-mile pipeline does not provide enough protection against an oil rupture near the aqueducts and reservoirs in Sylmar that supply 75% of the city’s water.

The report represents the latest salvo in the continuing debate over a plan by a consortium of oil companies to build the $170-million line that would transport 130,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Kern County to refineries in Wilmington.

As proposed, the Pacific Pipeline would travel along the Southern Pacific railroad right of way, parallel to the Golden State Freeway. Along the way, it would cut through the San Fernando Valley, Burbank, Glendale, San Fernando and communities in south Los Angeles.

While the environmental issues were the focus of a hearing before the City Council’s Environmental Quality and Waste Management Committee, the real excitement took place at a news conference outside City Hall.

About 30 supporters and 10 opponents of the project locked horns on the City Hall steps, where supporters repeatedly shouted down Councilmen Richard Alarcon and Mike Hernandez as they tried to voice opposition to the project.

At one point, a flustered Alarcon accused the supporters of being bought off by the oil companies--which prompted angry denials from pipeline supporters.

“This is about money,” he said, as pipeline supporters waved signs and banners behind him. “This is about oil companies paying local people to support something that is harmful to the community.”

Thomas Walker, a spokesman for the consortium that includes Chevron, Unocal and Texaco, acknowledged later that the companies gave many supporters hams and turkeys during the holidays and paid to bus the supporters to and from City Hall. The consortium, he said, also has agreed to build 100 centers for computer training in communities along the pipeline route.

But the supporters of the project said they support the pipeline because of the jobs it would create and not because of the hams, turkeys or computer training.

“We’ve waited all our lives [for jobs]. We can’t wait any longer,” said Alice Harris, a south Los Angeles community activist who supports the pipeline.

Edward Barnes, a representative for the Local 250 of the Pipe Fitters, Welders and Apprentices Union, said the project could create up to 700 jobs, about 250 of which would go to his union.

But Alarcon, whose northeast Valley district would be bisected by the pipeline, said the jobs would be temporary, while potential environmental problems would be permanent.

During the council committee hearing later, Lillian Kawasaki, general manager of the Environmental Affairs Department, agreed that the project creates many unaddressed environmental issues. She said an environmental report for the pipeline is “inadequate” and should be revised to include more alternatives to avoid some of the environmental side effects.

Besides the threat to the city’s water supply, Kawasaki said, her department is concerned because the pipeline cuts through the city’s most densely populated, low-income, minority neighborhoods.

Kawasaki said the report failed to fully consider use of two existing pipelines, which could be modified to accommodate the oil flow.

Pipeline advocates said they did not get a copy of Kawasaki’s report until late Friday and did not have time to prepare a response.

But George Mihlsten, an attorney and lobbyist for the pipeline, said: “This project has received the very highest level of environmental review.”

Mihlsten added that the project would improve the environment by reducing the emissions generated by the trucks, trains and ships that currently carry crude oil to the refineries. He also touted the project, saying it will include high-tech devices to detect leaks and ruptures caused by earthquakes.

Councilman Marvin Braude, head of the council’s Environmental Quality and Waste Management Committee, recommended that the full council review Kawasaki’s report next week.

On Wednesday, the California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to decide whether the environmental report for the pipeline is adequate. If the commission deems the report adequate, the council can sue in an attempt to get the pipeline consortium to revise the report to address the concerns raised by Kawasaki.

The city will also get an opportunity within six months to consider the project again when the council must decide whether to approve franchise agreements with the pipeline consortium to build the pipeline beneath city streets.