Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Rupture Fear Fuels Debate Over Pipeline

Earlier this month, the California Public Utilities Commission gave preliminary approval to a 132-mile pipeline that would pump crude oil across the northeast Valley, Burbank, Glendale and the heart of Los Angeles.

The Pacific Pipeline, a project run by a consortium of oil companies that includes Chevron, Texaco and Unocal, would mainly follow the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way parallel to the Golden State Freeway.

Although the state agency ruled that the pipeline met the environmental requirements to begin construction, Los Angeles city officials vowed to fight the pipeline because of the hazard it poses to communities.

But, supporters say the pipeline would create much-needed jobs.

Should the Pacific Pipeline be built?

Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon:

“I am compelled to be opposed to the oil pipeline because safety should be the priority . . . I personally witnessed a street explosion of crude oil into a ball of fire 30 feet high, the immolation of 17 cars and the burning of two homes to the ground and three others badly damaged . . . I know these things are dangerous. I lived through the ’71 earthquake and the ’94 earthquake. One thing remains a constant: oil pipeline breaks. It’s not a question of if it will break. It’s a question of when it will break.”

Burbank City Councilman Bob Kramer:

“Our perspective from the city has been to make sure that it’s a safe project. Our primary concern is in the event of an earthquake or train derailment, we’re going to have a rupture and an oil leak. When the pipeline was first proposed we had only one block [shut off] valve . . . [a second one has been approved]. But we still feel as a city we need a third block valve that would protect a school a third of a mile from the pipeline. At the present time we’re considering whether to join Los Angeles in a lawsuit or get our own lawsuit . . . Our concern was if we had a rupture and a fire it would be larger than our local Fire Department could handle.”

Thomas Walker, Pacific Pipeline spokesman:

“The first part of the answer is the Pacific Pipeline is already going through Los Angeles, pretty much along the route that is proposed . . . It’s a surface pipeline at present using rail and trucks. We’re proposing a more environmentally friendly and safer means of delivering crude oil than is going on. This is a replacement project for the tankers and trucks.”

Michele Grumet, a member of Coalition Against the Pipeline:

“A pipeline failure could result in a spill contaminating reservoirs providing water for millions of people . . . The lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake were not adequately addressed in the environmental impact report . . . They don’t adequately address the threat of blind faults and liquefaction. The risk that seismic events pose to pipelines are now greater than they previously were thought to be. . . . Underground pipelines each year leak millions more gallons than was spilled by the Exxon Valdez. It’s much worse than the threat posed by tankers and trains.”

On the Issue appears every Tuesday. Please send suggestions for possible topics to On the Issue, Los Angeles Times, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Include your name and daytime phone number.