Exposed Oil Line in River Raises Fears

The massive amounts of water and debris rushing down the Ventura River in recent flood years have scoured the river bottom, dangerously exposing portions of a buried Chevron oil pipeline and raising fears among environmentalists that a split in the pipe during a future flood could devastate the delicate estuary.

Although a Chevron engineer said in an interview that the severity of the situation is “suspect,” the company outlines the potential dangers of leaving the pipe exposed underwater in its application to the city of Ventura to fix the problem.

“The pipeline must be reburied or otherwise protected to prevent further exposure and structural degradation that may lead to catastrophic failure (i.e. oil spill),” the application states.

Chevron engineer Stephen O’Nesky said the company has never sent divers into the river to confirm that the 22-inch-wide pipe, originally buried several feet under the riverbed when laid in the mid-1960s, is indeed exposed.

“We feel like that side of the river is dipping down lower than the other side,” O’Nesky said. “We’re estimating that possibly there could be some exposure at different times of the year.”

But in its more than 100-page application, Chevron is more specific, saying there is a 20-foot section of pipeline that is exposed and including diagrams that show the exposed section, near the western bank of the river.

The pipeline, which carries crude oil from the Rincon to refineries throughout Southern California, is just a few hundred yards from the delicate estuary at the mouth of the Ventura River, home to the endangered tidewater goby and a sensitive riparian habitat that state and local agencies just spent $750,000 to restore. The pipeline’s underwater path parallels that of the Southern Pacific rail trestle.

For those who have witnessed the force of the river during a flood--whole trees sucked down its course, household appliances bobbing down to the ocean, water tearing at the river’s banks--the exposed pipeline seems very vulnerable. The floods of 1995 and 1992 have not been forgotten.

*

“The worst case would be if something hit the pipe and it broke,” Ventura city planner Linda Windsor said. “Big things come down the river in a flood. A motor home could come down that river.”

If the pipe broke, O’Nesky said, Chevron can close valves on either side of the river, stopping the flow within “minutes to seconds.” But there is no way to ensure that no oil escapes.

“There is going to be some spillage before it is turned off,” O’Nesky said.

Early detection would be essential. In a case nearly three years ago, the entire McGrath Lake area near Oxnard State Beach was contaminated when a Berry Petroleum spill was unnoticed for four days, killing wildlife and overflowing into the nearby ocean.

A flood of oil into the Ventura River estuary would have drastic ramifications for the habitat, said Brenda Buxton, a project manager with the Coastal Conservancy, which provided the bulk of the funding for the restoration project on the river.

“It would be terrible,” Buxton said. “It would have horrible environmental impacts. We definitely want the issue addressed.”

She said the three agencies that created the trail system and worked so hard to replant the estuary area with native shrubs, trees and flowers are particularly concerned about the pipeline project. The State Coastal Conservancy worked with the city of Ventura and the California Department of Parks and Recreation on the restoration, which was unveiled just last month.

*

“Since we just sunk all this money into that estuary area, we want to protect that,” she said.

Buxton gives Chevron credit for working hard to find solutions to the problem, but she and others have not been able to come to agreement yet with the company on its approach. The State Coastal Conservancy is one of several groups that will review Chevron’s proposal, including the state parks department, California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal Commission, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Ventura County Flood Control, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Water Resources Control Board. The city of Ventura would issue the final approval after Chevron returns in the next few months with more details on its options.

In its application, Chevron details five methods of covering the pipeline. But the method the company favors--wrapping the pipe in a giant, flexible concrete product called Armorflex--does not appeal to environmentalists. Of the five options, Buxton said she would rather see the pipeline reburied 25 feet under the river bottom.

“From what we can tell, directional drilling would have the least environmental impact,” Buxton said.

The other three options were dismissed by both sides.

According to O’Nesky, drilling into the river bottom to rebury the pipe would take about seven weeks, as opposed to four weeks to install the concrete mat. Chevron would establish a base in the parking lot at Emma Wood State Beach on the west side of the river. Drilling would require removal of the parking lot surface and the restroom, disrupting campers and day-users of the recreational area.

*

He said he believes drilling would create a potential hazard to the river habitat.

“There could be metals or chemicals in the drilling fluid itself that could be purging up and contaminating the water, causing pretty good damage on the surface,” O’Nesky said.

Using the concrete mat method would involve smaller work crews and less intrusion into the habitat, O’Nesky said. The mat would extend 96 feet across the channel, 15 feet upstream and downstream of the pipeline. It would be anchored to the river with a hydraulic pump located onshore. A 175-ton hydrocrane would, however, be needed to lift the concrete mat sections off flatbed trucks to place them in the river.

The product has been used in similar projects for the past 10 years, but some officials say they would like to know more about Armorflex’s durability before committing to using it. Ten years may not be long enough to measure the product’s worth, they said.

“There are some concerns about its longevity and its ability to withstand floods,” said Kate Symonds, a biologist with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Virginia Gardiner Johnson, a resource ecologist with the state parks department, said the concrete mat would be “literally a Band-Aid over the pipeline.”

“The Armorflex has very good credentials,” she said. “But is it going to work in this river? You can’t just plunk down this concrete mat in an environmentally sensitive area.”

The logic of plunking down a pipeline in such a biologically sensitive area may have been flawed, but, as Symonds points out, it was built in a different era.

“I think when the pipeline was installed we may not have had the environmental awareness we have now,” she said.

Planner Windsor said Ventura has not made an official decision but is leaning toward siding with the resource agencies against the Armorflex method.

“The resource agencies say, ‘Why protect the pipeline just in that one spot?’ ” Windsor said. “In another couple of years, isn’t it just going to be exposed again? Is this a good long-term solution?”

O’Nesky said Chevron is happy to continue to explore options that will please all the agencies involved.

“We feel we should go back and review all alternatives to see if there is a win-win alternative,” O’Nesky said.