Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAN DIEGO PIPELINE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT ' San Diego Pipeline Final Environmental ' Impact Report 1 1 1 1 Prepared for The City of Tustin by IeSA Associates, Inc. isa 1 1 I 1 isa r FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 11 SAN DIEGO PIPELINE SCH # 87080511 1 1 11 PREPARED FOR 11 CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 11 i 1 PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 December 9, 1987 I II t II Ls It 1 IITABLE OF CONTENTS I Page 1 .0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1 Ili 2.0 INTRODUCTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 11 2. 1 Project Background 2 2.2 List of Approvals for which the EIR will be used 3 2.2.1 Franchise Agreement • 3 2.2.2 Work Permits 4 1 2.2.3 Environmental Impact Report 4 2.2.4 Responsible Agencies 4 2.3 Project Purpose 5 ' 2.4 Environmental Procedures 6 2.5 Project Location 6 2.6 Pipeline Design, Construction and Operation Specifications 9 2.6. 1 Pipeline Construction 12 2.6.2 Pipeline Operation and Maintenance 18 II3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 20 3. 1 Land Use 20 1 3.2 Biology 28 3.3 Geology, Topography, Soils 31 3.4 Noise 34 3.5 Air Quality 42 3.6 Traffic and Circulation 47 3.7 Public Services and Utilities 58 3.8 System Safety/Risk Management 61 I 3.8.1 Pipeline System Safety and Reliability 61 3.8.2 Potential Risk of a Pipeline Spill , Explosion and/or Fire 66 1 4.0 ABANDONMENT PROGRAM 74 4. 1 Background 74 I 4.2 Location 74 4.3 Proposed Program 75 4.3. 1 Proposed Abandonment Program 75 il 4.3.2 Alternate Pipeline Abandonment Methods 75 I 11 11 lsa ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Page 11 5.0 PROPOSED PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES 79 5. 1 No Project 79 5.2 Alternative Alignment 80 5.3 Truck Transport 80 11 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 83 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 84 8.0 RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 85 9.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 87 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 88 11 .0 PREPARERS OF THE REPORT 89 11 12.0 REFERENCES 90 13.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 91 ' 14.0 APPENDICES 11 A. Initial Study, Notice of Preparation B. Scoping Meeting Notes/Summary C. Correspondence D. Technical Assessment/Risk Assessment Matrices IE. Hypothetical Spill Example 11 I I I I ,1. 1 • lsa . 11 ILIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Page 11 Figure 1 - Regional Map 7 Figure 2 Location Map 8 Figure 3 - Construction Right-of-Way Cross Section 14 II Figure 4 - Land Use - Existing 21 Figure 5 - Land Use - General Plan 23 Figure 6 - Land Use - Sensitive Areas 25 Figure 7 - Noise Measurement Location 38 Figure 8 - Construction Equipment Noise 39 Figure 9 - Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways 48 II Figure 10 - City of Tustin Master Plan of Arterial Highways 49 Figure 11 - Existing Circulation System (1985) 51 IFigure 12 - Alternative Alignment 81 TABLES Page 1 Table A - Sensitive Land Uses 26 Table B Noise Measurement Survey Results 40 Table C - Existing Noise Associated with I-5 Freeway 40 11 Table D - El Toro Air Monitoring Station Air Quality Summary (1980-1985) 44 Table E - Existing ADT Volume/Capacity Ratios 53 11 Table F - Existing Peak Hour ICU Summary 54 Table G - Applicable Standards and Codes for Pipeline Design 63 Table H - Short-term and Long-term Impacts Resulting from the Proposed SDPC Pipeline 86 ii li 1. il I 11 iii .1 11 lsa I 1.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Final Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the San Diego Pipeline project within the City of Tustin, identifies potential effects on 11 the environment and mitigation measures to deal with each effect. These effects are described in this summary under the heading of Impacts. Most impacts are effectively reduced by mitigation measures. The mitigation measures attached to construction, pipeline safety and pipeline operations will substantially reduce the impacts to a level of non-significance, while maximizing pipeline safety. However, a remote chance of potential pipeline rupture will be present, and there remains an unavoidable potential for environmental impact should this event occur. This document and summary are the Final Environmental Impact Report. Minor revisions to the Draft EIR, circulated in October, 1987 have been made. Comments on the Draft EIR and responses to each comment are included in Section 13.0 of this report. Please see the attached summary which describes the impacts, mitigation and resultant levels of significance after mitigation. 11 NI 1/ 1 I 11 I 1 N C W O U c 2 C) O 0 -I- O w ¢ r. C7 C=7 > "-. N X$ W Ce m I OW J LC - L. W J 0 0 C) U 1 Y C m O 0 U Y 4- E C !� , O . 0 4- C) • f- vt C I V••- 3'L C Y ° • m O p co, C •m N a 0 Y C/ O N 3 0 U N C C > 7 r v) 3 L 7 U .- C W 0 y L Y m m C) •L-0 y 0 .c L d U N Y u)a +p+ ° L�--- >� •O •d U V ~ U 0 V ° �Y 0.N Nd+•' U3 rzCDynC^ )nC 3 w dyipi 7LCC) CUY •" of tn CC U .4- 9 ^ u) u) y CL p E , .0 eV . N L Y C >) V U v) A m m o F m y C L y ^•-• Y O d sa C H >� 0 C U 0 C C E V H ^en H N > y 4, ,- • a U U O) y p ut �, ,� O) U m 0 0 0 • ,F L U ^ N p W w L a m Q C y m ; y C Y V W x 0 y m •° N Y L YC L L C ft _ dv)4- u) C 01i m Y C a ULY Y O pL O _Q O d N 4,:,' y = m C) C 7. .^- i 0 0 ° ^ p Cl .N =C-) 7 3 C N Y 3 �'a U V N 7 r.. C d L L 3"0 '--- Y SO L E Q rCC ° i .L‘4 r CO V Q C L Y 7 y _ y^ u) ^ y Y L a y Cr) t�L GC cc N J 3 0 0 m O N C G),_ .o L . C .-o 4°•. ^ N ° C p c L L L O d v1 C Y La C) Y r- 3 ° C v) m-C.,.3 O O O a) m •.'i L V y.- y C) r Y C) +0 U p N 3 C Y •i ut U p C 0 0 i r- 7 r~. O N i > j i d y i H a Y y i C v1 0,� u) m 0.•,- C C _� Y vl O O y v) Y y 0 0 y U O r y O1 ^ �_ +-' d 7 L 7 E ^ Y .^ E y U y Y C) V C Cl S. L • C) L r- C) v)C„ V > C) v7 a )^ ^ H >_ v) U U 0 to E C)CU L U O L d C) C)4- C) C) 0 • y . Y . m U 3 n30.-2 S A n30.2 3 b C 4p.w d d FL- m 9- H d C 3 V L O 3 W y ° y 3 m VI L u) 3 m f/) Y L • • N Cr) L i O, ., yr >, - •-0 •- E C u y m H C C y ' ^ E Y o as 3YYr- 7 C ... L a m 7 y Y V) y -° d ar- u) 7 C) to VI Y r- m 7 r Ol • ^ ^ 0 0 M 6 O C' O. 0 3 p CO m d U r ut L-0 y L U< w p.- C) 7 y cn =0 O p 44-- ii N > U-o i L Y-0 m C H •^ V C L C �w V . m •^- C v) yy) Y O O m ra C N Y p C Y Q d Y^ m 0 0 L C U Q E E m 0 E V m C) C-,—.- E c v7 I-.. S- 0,- 0.d ^ � E ^ L C C) O L Y E , i C > I I- Y C) U > L -w Y 7 ^ 0 Y Y m CI) L L ° m 5- Y L Y L V y 01 O r- C) C) • O C S.- L V 0 d 7 CA 4-�•. L 0 0 0 yr- E W •0 C) i0 CU H U a4- L p H L C v f7• I 1 V L a) • N Y > CO I O 3 a L L ro c CU a) e0 L U C a) n 1 L U ees, C U Y 0 w O aNj C O 4Y ✓ 01 d N 0 N E o v C .^ L ^ O Y J C e0 N 0— .Jr 0 1 N 4- C O O E E 0•r d C O as r o > d•.- O a) E Y fir •^ ce 0 111 d Y O L Q Y Y E I. a) 1 70 1 4- i E L L >> 0 a) N Y m L Y a) I I I >•1 C a) N L al V N N I a) a) Y C C O. O C e0 C O U Y C r C N 0 e0 L L 7 Y L •^L L a)L •^ (0 -0 L C I a) It m O L e0 C Y r a) al 4-L Y t0 0 L e0 Y Y L Y 4- ^ e0 L Y al J Y U 0) L • a) ^ NL Y r 0 7 L Y a) •^ Y 7 CU r- Y 01 r L d C-C,,,, O C Oi d Y tn C G J d d~ L N t0 '•� O)~ a0.) U O ^ C r�f1 ~ > 0=y an i•d N L O V aa) 4_9 0 E C^d L to en r C L C 0 a N w N O C d N C CO Y O o I >i a'1 eY0 0 i T Y U a) O a) L ns cu 10 .^ E e0 Y e1 C C a) .^ 4- 31:1 C = c 3 0 •C -1 Y Y L C L d 0' V > N ^ C d d e0 d^ 0 0 y r N 0 Y • r e0 L •^ U O p 3 E a0).-Y N ell C b E N C X U V Y a L d Y S.- C 0.d/- ^^ J E y Y p L c Y a) e0 L O O E a) • a) 4"1 e0 7 > e0 C U >1 C c . >' L N O O b t0 4- L L Y O C C t0 4- 47 4-) a).0 E a) Q g E y 3 row a)r' '-s =' 0 U a) C - C al Y J N 7 tO C d U b A O b L 0 al L C L L Y L L L Y U d L N Y U C L) I J N Y • tO J Y 4- t0 O1^ ^ E V C Y 40 r X 0 t0 N e� al a) C f1 O C 4O) 0 s E N o i .O Y t0 C d t0 c 3 d e0 O al C a) eL ^ m L O O 4- O'] O L e� L >1 aJ dr O O i ^ J 3 N L .0 V 0 C C d as 4-) Y C N O L C Cl. 0 3 a)L V p 4- . Y r C O O V- N as C dH Y 0 r C 4- Y L a) U '4. 0 d am e0 a) C Y O � C ^^ Cam_ C cu O >t.. H • d L 0 .0 0 C r e0 1 7 r C a) 7 C N t0 N U r a) J 5. 0 O r U Y > N C 4— 0 3 U ev e0 C >r L . N N L Y Y C >>� e0 (n Y L e0 ^ V r O N U a••)L N i C L O L e0 d4- C J a) .- O. N Y N Y•'• N >r J r L •r a) C C C 5 0 0 L L e0 d 0. t0 E w 440 a) � 4C0 V Y N N Q a) U eC0 V i C Y CO U O C a-))Y 0 0 •^ L i O Y C d 0 •^r r 4- C C r L C L >> e0 a) L t0 L a) 0 0 0 a) •^ e0 •^ IIU U Y as dd N N 40 Y d 1 a) al 0..- d.-) a) V r r r Q t0 Y d V .0 4- d C L Q Y E V 3 M) 10 n CO 1 a) O) t0 i I N >T ) 01 I C 03 1 L 4- CU Y . r m > C Y U C 4.)r r C O L). N C b 0 a) N r a) N O C eL •^ C Y 40 •^^ •^ •^ e0 U N - 7 C e0 E # 5 0.. CO U 4-1 Y • Y eb Y vdC N C a) d ^ CO N N N C V Y E O)r \ Q) A L isi�. i X 40 a..) L d ^ 01 J C >) e0 0 7 Y >> L L U S- el3 L a) C C b a) N Y N i L O a) C a) V O cu 0 O Q e0 r a) m a) a .0 C b C u., .0 S- -0 q e0 L C• 3 0 -3 0 I--• u.G C L V Q E O A N V H L Y E .4.4 Y tOC e0 dN E Zy L ' O t0 04- L N Y L TO V C(A C 3 a) L r•- a)al ▪ t0 4-1 0 0 3 L ^ U 0) a) Y 4- E V U i to a) w > 7 L F ... ON }1 > CL d CD 17_ d Y „ Y .Or e0 N O L Or p Y 4..) -0 Y •^ E.L d O CD E L O r E C r0 Y O.N C C J 3 d .^ J i O^ ^• c d O e0 L N O V N O • '^ d E N p C r L ^ O' ^ i N C V-4- ay 3 CD C a-) N 7 N dL.. c C 3 Y a)..= r ^ 0 0 e0 a) _^ O O O O Y ya C 0 L F- Y N Y C C U U C E L d i L e0 e0 w > ^ a"1 t0 Y •^ a) 0 O i L a) O N L y,) O. N Y L ^ Y • V > C • Y J d•^ N L Y a) N al V a) Y b • C Y co N O Y N 0. a) a) O) N N a) ULL C 0.Y t0 0. 0 L N 0. V N JL L r a) a) •O- e0 L C a) e0 e0 E U .0 J L O O a) N O C C ....v > LL • > t0 OrL U e0 V L a) 3 L tO ChQ 3 e0 I I en E en y >> Cl • y y i re N -0 -C N N H 7 Y-0 r0 Y O N V en 1 y U y v Y > n E c ea.0 b 0 Cl.A E l w y 0 1 Cl Y Cl U 4-' L e0O E O V >, re L C y 3 so •rs > re U Y e0L 0 O -'- •.- = 0 s_ 4-' Y )I C °•• c w a H C O er 4; Y y e C Cl n 3 a O n.N c 1 O N Y 4"' VI O Cl +--1 en = 0 c C 4-) L U y 4-) vi G 0. 0 +.j ea L C c E 0' in J•j y ee E y m y 0 .E L ,,,VI as Cl Cl - U y U i e— ^ o �"e 0 L eO Cl E -.- • V y 0 C n t E •3O 7WL itE � e-e 3 C E 0 .+ 0...., •.- t�. >> I Cl I r- en I C.— Y C O'0 O . O C I I y eF• L 4- .W CL'0 ow C C rer Y y H .0 O L V ea-0 O V O -.- Y b •0 O O ••- 7 Y a•+ 0 e e ••- = ' w u a•l en w.0 ^ c r— n 4.1 r en y re Y L 0 H O ♦a y C Cl 7 y , ea.— en C C L in 0=m Y ♦•j C aye L l— L U y C L O y as 0 0> E C u 3 >> O y 7 C e0 0 b • = en ,_- 3 O N Y � en U C Y y L 0>,.. C G 0 0- N 0 L N .0 >> U en y '^ 7 ed r Ol C/r y on c L y e0 c 0 Ol N 7 y E i Y v, C +yj '0 )- C i a.0 N Y Y L ^ y •0 L L D � • q r +•.l Cl N E L en 2 U a+ q Cr r re O. E ea y A H ^• 4.+ O L lL C CO O VI 0 11:, L C g. L N E� W Y U •.- aj Y >> V y LL 'c„ Y r i y L O r Cl re C N y al 4--e U e0.c C 0"Y ' 0 0. y . •3 V Cl S E C 7 .. .3 u O. V r0 Ol C L 'p ej_ O Y 01 -L C 0 0 c E 7 7 y Y O • j. O e0 y Ol 4- Y re C Cl L Z re '� L yj 0 O .0 y i N 's en C _ L > Y N N u 3 C f'- c ' y ,,, ' O O L 3 e0 3.0 L C.+j p c c re c 01 C E 0+ 0 0 0 3 Y Y Y >•, 3 E ' p.• - o . C cu as C 0 0 y C C V en Q N S- o: en • re •C n ♦•l n0 ^0 .j„.., U 7-0 L Cl N y c ^ C _ _ >> e0 • • > u O o. O • •• 0 e0 J O. al S.- U L O.2.-) 01 >> L y > +j ++ ♦.j ee 7 Cl en O- v1 '' L 0- en V V 7� N L r Y• a.+ O c 0- C a y r0 01 L V L E •.- a•r a.j E c E c u > y no C s- ea i Cl y ea 67 L Y y a.j L O w 0 0 0 0 -. 0 r•.- L n 7 0 0 O. E C y Hen L en O w O U Z E 3 V U.•• Y +-+ .ea re re n V 3 • I 0• CS C Cr— C Y >>� e0 C r O V r r C 0..... y 7 y e0 •U 3 -O 3 re `~ L U i 3 E on Y 0 Cl e0 G L C Y y O X O N n by ^ E y Oaj Y •- t U L n y 7 L O Y U O. Cl C A ce co leg .c E °• enov L v1 L "-- E L n c y V WI e0 r , I en +j y e 0 r y j Y r y V N e1 °. 00 en 3 V o > 0w 0 RI U L N^ 0 4- Y C y C I. "n C y > e0 V 0 U V O e0 in r V i q U E 0 d E �,C L '^ en 4- r- C y L C Y e0 y 0l4 N y en C 1.- 117 L +- O H 0. eyil 7 L v ee L 0• y en• V 0 e•e dfl Cl 0 E C y O y S- = 0 ea O/ E L C Cl .r vi al O. Z C L e0 e0 C174-) C = I I I ;1 ,1 I I iV C Cw N L CrOOCUO re-C ••• V V 4-1 4-) ea V • S V y V d i 7 L --- a� L N N co O 41 \ 41 • IC V N N h N i m i 0 N .1-+ O - id3 N O. N L cj I Lid C u O • av •N y a.+ s-r- Cu 4-- d \ > CD ..- 7 O i N N = d . Z N GWO V •.- Cr .0 N O V O N 0. 3 7 0 U C i 0 • .-. ii 1. I i I I 111 I c 1 o O E Y 4-) :-) E C N 01 - Y O U I H O > , n^ Y 0/ W L 1Y Y V C O c 01 01 eV • C U N I_ 7 •� Y 01 C C e0 i Y O CI- = N Y O 01 01 E i H I ^ 7 v1� n Y 01 n 10 V > .E-, E G,- L L O1 Y E N • 01 >1 • >, N U , 0 , , 4- , 01 0) H Y C C1-0. N 0) i V C U C d U L L C L D N d O1 d V • C U O Y Y •1- O. O 10 01 .- L C C U r- C n O Y L O 7 L 0) 01 Y C i 0 S-.- e0 C .) H i •= Y Y •� C i 7 a .- C Y •. N 0 1 •0 1 - O - 01 s 7 N ^d C Y 01 7 C L Y O1 N i Cl. 01L i i • O e0 L Y L 01.- N Y i 10 C d p1 °1 7 003 -c0 y 0 0 O I- L Y Y 7 co H O O n H V1 .0 O. L a O. e0 7 U .,_ 01 >, 0) i E Y 3.0 Y ' w b U H Y OO Y Y O) N O . 7 7 E L O!tb., 'nL Y L >. >1 U 7 L S. 0. C1 O Ices N i 7 N 3 al- .— O1 - 01 Y O y N Y 3 i Y 01 - N i H 01 c i +-+ N L IH C1 HL 10 N i N.0 i dry 0 3a O ^ cu Y C U ¢ G00 V U n > W 0 L Y 01-0 O C E C L O r0 0 N 10 U O1 C L i U T •rOj i ,- E i N 7 +� ^"-C .1-i i ~ O V en Y e-1 i 10 E 01 d d i Ol b ^ C cn C L N 7 0 i Q O q 01 Oil •G•E > (f'f ' i a) E o S- ,-1L Y w N i o. L N Y N ,_ = Y . `^ O/ 3 C N 3 E O O N C y 0 O 0 C i Si- 0 Y o n Y O v1 Y Y 4-2 E i Y O Y L w H O N W Y V i .R E N Y i N V ea i V i C Oc E as U i N^Y o cc i e0 CVO O/ Y e0 C O O en .G L N i n 0/ Y Y -° co E i 3 O E ' C C° ^ 70/ L v w 0) Q G? Y C Y O Y 01 a, 7 a .."1 O n o 0) e>0 i .N N (DU 010 w y 0 en E w aY..1 3 0 0 0 O. C O1 V 1 Y O r C E C fey r y i'C O i i 0 0 U Y ' S. 4' Y .- A 1/7 1 y V E C Y 10 0.0 0 V O • = C-=••-• Y O.•- , 0 O = '-` 0 "-c O M E U e0 7 i d O D U w i i 01 r .- i N 01••• 3 ^ j a Y 0 nL U y y Y '^ G+) ,- i. 0 1n Y Y 1- o. N O C Y O/ N Cr r- O C. d L 0 Y �"1 = (A Y L 7 d v 1 r- Y i .• en en non,— MC c Y N Q eo w o i i v1 v Y Cr, E en C 01 •� e0 C 7 Y 'O O1 U 'O L C n 7 N 7 E L E O1 i 0 ea L O L C •._ O e0 01 U C O)/- 01 L A O = 0 0 r c 7 01 c 0) 7 0 n o 0 N'0 •e O.•r- L 1- U 3 H N H O1 Y 3 Q 3 Y e0 i co E Y N Y en O i 3 co C' i e0 d C V e0 Y I' N eh V r--, .••• O C I i- C O C 7 COD e0•- O V N M Y Y • U V I V N C 01 c 7 Y 7 01 S. en en 1 U Y Q 7 . Cl) 7Y i U.- YY Y i N 7 7 7 d C O e0 i1 p O 7 0/ E _ CO i U i N en ' w G H E > E d H V1 L Y 01 co '^N H o N ti E y =C I O L d . Y Y d N 4„1 d Y Y N U L. C 7 O. n V 7 U O^ ,O 7 CC .0 , N dY ��� O > I N y c C N i Y Al a •^ ., n a1 O E E O w U i N Y en ci- e0 Ol C 4) 01 N U l N E N b 01 G O1 Y 7 n e0 C L 0)E O OO L 7 Q E Y r eYi1 L L X Cr 01 e0 w O. >, d en 01 01 00 Y •- en N I I I I I 1 I O0. C p I Tr O CI I I V V Cr0. Y 03 r C d o o t0 O d.-.0 • d O to n n C C O r O C L N O r 0 N U 0 r i • Y C N O •^ •^ it A ,•rte O Y Y•^ .- 7- .^ b I. U O La 3 0 ^ U 7 7 Y 3 C E i i Y N N VI ^ > O O. O•r U O O O O n N 3 N d t0 Y O r0 0 Y p S. C O O N N 7 ^ O)Y 3 Y Y C E Y E N L O N t0 L O C ^ C i ^ N N .. C T 0 3 y O ^ Y i......• 7 i y) n 7 C O . O Y • N C V E O d X O i rO N V 0) 7 O V 4J N L•^ t0 O t0 i E O Y I F Y O O V O i O T N O Y 7 U N 0 ~ O E Y > Q n y 2 7 L A O vl c �'•)r O O V T I C Y =d a•E U . c V E L pY Q•- N a.).)L.V C E Y c cY0 r0 Y b O i O y O •b L d n i O) b N cl)O n O L 0 Y Y Y 7 Y V U4-1 N O C ^ Y y 7 t� 3 C C E C ci,cp F N Q E > n (0 O O t0 O1 O O r L N O N ^ O = C U J •E a ° n0 > UC O C C C. V 3 3 ro- nYOQ cL 0 2 E E O V b N W Y i O E O O O X C n c N r O V i,r O E C O O N OI 0 0 •^ j r Y Y L as O O O r i Y C Y i r i • O r i V C_ i t0 U T O r0 U V rC it N O.^ N d. Y I-0 O i i N'•^ 7 r V N r N Y O c L Y Y 7 c n 3 O N Y A 3 L O Y i T. d 7 7 O N L O N U N O O Q 7 U L V O ^Y S' C Y O O • U 0) 4••) U t0 (-s o) us- N Y b 7 Y •^ C r C 3 U O N nN >,4-J Y 7 0, 7 - C O•n•^ L L Cr t0 000 Y C O i C CIO C V N t0 L L n r O > X Y O b Y O •^ i 0 0 0 O L T (0 O O 0) O w 0) O r •^ 7 0 , 0) L •^ •^ W N U O N LA- Y QIV)fl n t..) nap N E E i V 0 S- 2 0.0 N Y C L H N Y • ••• •- I I I I . I V I E N Y 0 L Y C C • ' C) U 00 V Y b V 0) i d•r S. Y Y E 4- 0) )v L •r •r > CO- 0 C •r L 01 C)3 V N c •^ O •r O N L Y 4 y 'O N Q1 „ 7 b L C C) )C r a) O L I U U V T^ 4.1 N V N )O U C 7 Y E 0 i U U Y b cn a I C E V ,0 N d 0) u p C L L U E O C) d4- L Y Y 4- u 0 C) N •C 0 L S-L =7 0 H Y 3 V r 0) L C) d a •• •■ 0, V V V L •• C) .0 I V N I • N 4- O V 0) r N 0) I I C) 4- N 4- 01 V D C N L Y C C C) O C L i 00 C C )0 V C O O 0) L C r C C •r C L O N 1 e0 7 C C) C) r 7 C L 4- O Y 7 C b 0) C C! N 1.0 U N 0 r 01 •r r v L U N O )0 E V U 0 e0 r U .a S- V b r ; •.- L •.-4- 7 i i L C r 0) )0 V L C d L Y 4- E N O 1 •^ d C r N Y S- 7 V r >) N a r 2 LYY . . V CL g O i O 7 O Y ^ O r— O OL d 0) 7 y) NV 4- Y O U O Y C ; 4- L ' Y V Y d V L N N O •r •• )0 L ,'^ Y L Cl Y i c 0) N^ tF E C) r-i r L E N b N +"■.0 Y L Y N d ^ Y . 01 •r Y Q)V r 3 L I d u C C s- >> Y r C) L N > L ^ U C) O 'd 3 0) )O ^ N N CO V A •^ N L Y J )0 4_ E R N L Y d p7 U a C O L 3 •^ L Y Y d L O O1 T Y O O d C N V t = ^ O C 0) N L ^^ 0 V d i Y .^ N N r ^ 0) '^ V V •^ y >) y7j ••- CL. co V i N V C Ol V U d O L C YV1^ d y L N )O ^C Y d )p 3 L — , - .0 p N C N N L L 4- O O Y . V y L 0,V c 05 C )0 C N L Y Y r C) U U ra E 0 Q y) )^ 00) .0 a50. 005- .3 0.003 = 0.1 )0 C r r 7. V Z4- c N d L c 0 ^ Y 1 L 4-3 O 4-) 0) r•0)Y d y j 3 c E c• ro 3 0 • V Q 0 ° 0 0 � N 7 >> O C L 0 4- 3 Y C) E C C U C O N V C)r O V- N C Y .r L V E Y 0' • C) .r r 0 N 0 0 N V 0 C Y 0. L d Y r L C 0 Y Y N L C) C E Y d 03 Y C 0)-Y • r C d V C )C C1 Y U V C) l-+ L Y U Y Y 0, i •r U L L N r 0) CO C f- Y Cl C) V •^ Y L U 7 C V •r Cl LL N C 7 N C •r Y U 7 0 -- d Y O )- 0) 7 C •r )0 )0 E 4-r d 0) L CO 7 N - C) L. C V 0) i - 0) O)r Y N L C d U Y d C V C) Y d C) O r Y d C i C L E Y N c E 7 V- Y O 0 0 L • Y U 7 r r N C) U O •r Y n- H r O 0) N 00•r d el— 4- N Y N L••-7 0) b y C C) C) U•� O.4..) L 0) L r N N •• > 0)r H > C C) r >V L N C L U .0 L L V •• L > L )0 d C) V C) 4- d r C 0) N O V )C c 0 0 L C) C C C)4- i 0 10 >> C 7 •r C )0 0) )0 •r r.0 7 C) C L 4- d C) •^ Oar 0) L C)L •-+ E U CO V as C 0. 0 H u 0-0 C) co O - d Y E V Y O N N 4- ca 3 C )0 L 3 0 Y U d d 0)• Ot O CV •--• N N N I V Y • Y d C r N 0. 0 of )C 7 C) 7 7 C) N •r L V U a) (A0) C U S. . L C) • • > 0 V N 4- b r > -0 N d Tel U C C) Y 11 Y C N E C i ^ c 7 - d O E C O V Y •^r 0 4- U U Y4- y) I N � L ^ V V Y O r r0 r N Y 4-2..0 d7 c V 4- 7 E O O )O 4- d - 3 u C >� C L Y V C C) 0 Y •r C E O C •r r b L •r •r Y • 0) Y r U 0)-0 N Y 00 Cl 7 C a^ N 1 r 0. i •r N Q) a Y 7 Y Y N ^ L V d N ^ C) O L C • U N -C •r 4- 0 X U = VI U 0 0 Q) b L I I 1 I I I 1 Ii I I01 >e0.-0 I N r N N i e001 eY C C w Cr a O N •V01 NIC • O) 0) L C U O C U O) eC •r 01 U C C ea•r •r L 4- 0 r 01Y L V) O) C Y 01 0 0) c '0 > .a - C i0 ea Y •• C it e0 0 ea ea •r• C 01 C•0 - C d•r U O. i O) 7 Y N •� r V C N E •p Y 310 O ^Y O/ •� Y C 11 F 0 01a, O C N C y Y CU V L L L 0. V e0 C >e N i d C i O/ a)r C O 0. C i 0 w 7 O 4"1 L Y U e0 = >sp N C N E L O) N v V •j ^ it C 0 O s- L r Y 3 u V C Cl. O) L Y A �-.. O. 0) GC Y r>- CU ea L Y 5- O Y >)r N C O O/ Y C r L Y C Ln C CLI O1r ^Y U . U O G N N O C Z N^L N L Y ^ Y L Y 01 NL N y V Y . Y .0 e0 >1010 o E 3 O � +a c a�i� +-1 eNO aa, d C. 0 U 0.r v ' C N tel~ Y Ol 1 C L Y E e0 C-C 0 LC y L al Y 0 O) L y r O > Y.� O) d 5 L N N3-•. Y Yr C_a y N_ LL f0 0 '0 L 0. V" O Y L Y C U Y • ep U w i O)r H Y ^ N L Y C Y 3 V O . O O e0 C GY L rV L 01 3 N co Nr r yw V > eY0 Q1� L•r 1F O O O lL N r ee C N G ry C L N O Ol '— N 0 3 L.) C O C i Y > e0 Y O �O.l O Y 4_ 0 3 O C >i f1 N L N i L i N Y S- o).0 O t0 V .. y e0 r 0 0) r i 7 r 3 0) 0) CI Y d E i N O C N U L C Y N O i O d U d Y L.n•^ e0 N n e0 U - U r = y I C C U O O_0)r 0 0) •� C O) E Y •� E O -� ea -ea C al E O 0) d N O r O 0) 7 >1 U r r 01 V- e0 0) •r 7 N Y •r i N V i V 'r r >s 0 y E 0/ y C3 7 i. 0 C..) rd i 01r r YY.0 Y U Y E U Y Y N -r O 0) >V Y •r Y -C N.0 -0 �••,� Y•r Y r r Y > N •r Y C e0 •r r N y d Y 'r L C > N Y C O) eU LL e0 L N U ea N L 01 L > C e0 •r•n > C i i r C U n E V Y O O O •r ee 0) V C .0 6 6 U .0 • •r C 0l.0 O •r e0 L e0-0 •r O Y r O U = N O) U O O L 0.0 C r L C V c 7 N O L Y Y N Y V Y U Y E e0 Y E W N e0 U e0 d Y w e0 U O CI.4->H •r G 1— e0 r co ~ NI v 1C) N N N I1 I 1 I I I I I 01 01 a) • O L N 4- N .- a) C I a) C.0 C 4.1 .1-1 a) 0 0 ,- r O C ^ a.1 4-1 10 N O E ++ •_, O c3 y • E -+ c O d a) G1 N aJ N ^ 0 4..1 y N O U N al X 10 V 10 10 N 4-1 N d a1 V p Y a/ d U +n y V C N C 4, +3 ^ y . 10 N N 1d .J a - 0.co ^ .J E-C O 10 C E L 0 01 1-1 a) N o > 0 +-) C0 -0 ,.0,-- C O A S V N I O E a) O. a) C Y c . N Q) s- E N 0 p °C m O p o. ,_,^ c c a L a ea an1 0 , o U I da) N i n1 b N � Ei N Ea)UL a) N1 ) V V o c N 01 C p = 10 y a N y L r1 O N .,_ N p V V 5.... > 0. 0. C ♦.1 .0 N y • V .J N 0 . 4-1 L t4_ a1 10 >>as a) • E a— V L .� >, s_ — N Y • a) a) C as r ^ a! E as V al tO Y 4- a) as C4- ♦J • > .0 CU .0 4- L H 0 O0 W1- 4.1 N a.+ M r- a) 10 N a) a1 a) V 4-1 V Y U4.1i Na1iC al N i 44_ as V Ca) NONLC al a) N a) 10 • LLOi N Y 0 1 I a V L ia.1 C C.0 •- b }1 L a) 7 O a) 41-O N Y •- O Y ra Y J O Y 0 m O L •- i O 3 5- L o FL-• E 3 ^ . d c i O E 0 a1 3 y a V a) 0.-..s C O I O^ 3 a W L 0 y L d W r cal r..+ O Z 7 �..1 r..1 ^ �.+ C V p C a) O >> ^ b E b Y Y• 40,1 ^ N 1 .1C. Jr"' 0) C CO.....7 O N H w 10 V 3 rO 3 'O i N O. 10 0. i �. a a1 C.0 O O > •.- -4-.- b r W �' N N 0 a) N•� �+ 0• G N d N O y aC C Q 7 s- a/ V 7 L1 s_ V NJ C V s_ 0. 0 co aJ al L L a) a ^ CaO L d a/ y ^ C O O d A O. - it 4- N . O d y ~ O L ?L 0 II la, 4-1 aJ N O r■ 44_ r•1 i 0. LJ..1 cs O L.1..3 N 14_ O. U J y a) O y.1 Sa i = ..., CL p CD V 00.cl) � ai.14 i000N 1- C ea iV � CW I U o E L 7 a) 0) C a.1 i^ O V O O y t a0-1 o V- O C p V V- 1-• O W C,-.- d c C . e0 ,- i ypa O 0 a.' O i i.1 — O U 10 *a t y 0 (.) y 4.1^r b .0 W L N L a) 3 0 .C- L V O i 0 J N 10 N C i V 10 3 N as 0) 1n N = p L 0. a C as w 00.,-1 7 t0 C •.a-1- a-1 10 V V d a N I Q C^ VI.0 7 iJ p1--1 •i N o.-2 C q C is 10 Y C ^ C 0 yV1.0 C N i N 7 L O 0 a> a) V aJ Y d or U_ d 10 O 0 ^ a) N 0- C }1 .0 a/ ^ V1 V b O.N 115 L 01 N N O C 4- a/ 0 i W H C r C 0 v= 0 >.0 C O • .c .0 . V O) •.- �L a) .0 a) >•,-, 4- >r +1 W Q +..1 N V 3 N as 1-V 10 0. 0.V aJ 0. 1- 3 V V 4.1 co a)-0 H I - N N m crt N N I 1 I 1 1 I I T •a eG 4- C r • L L rn u Y O 3rr d 0 C •^ I 'C O O B^ Y w • Y C Y ^ Y E V•• C O = C Y N d O C Y y d N L i C C E C T E O • ^ N s_ ^esj > d G l W m > C 0-4.7 > T O d Y CD e0 C N V' L• al a-0• O 5 eG e0 Y QS u r t E O O d - 0 l N L d Y L (L)Gl LL .. d•^ ' ^ i . 3 N O.71. m Y . u O. y l 0 y u N U C L G/L as L Y E n -V O C L G/N + N Y N Gl-NC O ^ O I d Y A LY .O^ O Nb L O r Ii „ . E O .// VI i Y u T Y T N 3 d e0 0 A Y Y i O n3 0 e0 r N L > On r al Y Y L L••r = - a V N i 3 Y 01 O in O CU dL N • O •^ L re Z w > N Y N S. t E N 0..0 1 r I T al Gl N N N C r C V I V w Gl 0. N 01 r G) V L V • L O r O •^LI L O Gl > O -0 C e0 C C Y O W Y •^ eC d Y 7 0 Y O .-•^ = N L O1 U )U Y L 7 e0 N V N C D L > O1 W 'L 7 C E te N C N i y i RI O1 i�' N Y+ Y O N 3 0 ^ O L cu d . C d0 N 0 C 3 C •^4- O p ' Y '0 i 3 E O1 O CU W 4••1 L O d Y C C . e••l U Tr O C C SOI H q r U Gl C Gl 0 N r co i =row i -.c L Y 0 7 Q Gl 3 C L. a N- c.)-c N N >1 G/ iY b C • N O > CC > CU O co-'rr Y 0 U C e17 3 i O C _ O Y .^ r Y 0 O •^ CC U r0 L U• N d 3 = 0 0 V ea Y c d W N •Y r C b V N •L L d}'4. o L Y • u L • O1 d W r L ep q y N d G) C D y Y 3 C L+ U C C d _ N•r- •^ ••- C Q CYO C C 1 G1 p C� O^ Y N tel ea r r L CU d to ep L' N "-- Gl ^ � Y ^ O N N O1 Gl G/ G d d d 3 Y r W N G L^ Gl d O Y d d T N fa W > C C •^ NO C d 0 ep d U Y .. 0.-c I— N O C re r o L ea E V al C d N Y L U L Y Gl G/ i 0 N L L •^r e0 0 O r O Gl G/ G) O O Gl •^ » > •^-' L eG ea T 1 • Or d U la W d U L L d U U h- E d N CO 3 Y Y Gl e0 N • O •-� N• e en '1 f�1 M M • I >, to E L Gl Gl > 0) v O al °' d.,C. N •- N C III d A E y V C L 0 4-) - L Y •^ . ea C 4.) Gl C p r,Gl ▪ L G/ 0 L Y • V o 0 Y r ^ Gl N L L . ^ = U U 1 N Y N N d d O• i E I • I L C 1 Y 0 0 .r• N C Y ' b I O et E N 01 y E C Y C C Cu C C Ol II UY ^ .0 U CU e0 7 4-1 e0 N C d O 01 O U t C N 4-)V O 01 o E "• 4-' I 0) C L U L Y N 0 7 0/cl)E at-+ Y O1 N C V i C E t U 0 I 7 p a ^ 0 0J h V^ L Y Z.O Y 01 4-1 = C 0 N 0) C r 0 L > r N 01 01 O) O^ N L a S- i r V a 7 n e0 E d o 4- V en 01 b 0) >,....1 L i Y as V L I V O) N I V V 4- 0) 0)V L >1 U N 0) 0)4- 1 • S- (0 .0 L 0 CU 0 C .0 C e0 U 0 C Y .--. C C O) Y C C 0 U L C Y Y O. > C L O C .et O i Y N VI Y b L 7•r• 0 Y Cr e0 Y V tel e0 e0 C 7 b • CI r r Y 0) e n . ' 01 r C 7 0 ._ T Y V) L E > 3 i •.- O/ e0 N O W e- O or V- n C c0 O) n c N Y V i 7 N 3 eJ N U CU C L ^ C L O b'� y L ' O m-0 O V > e0 O C O) O N e0 . N y Ol O..- e0 Ql e0 O) n^ NUU7VV 0) CNV7CL OyOV >1Y ^ 3YN YLL— aE ? Ql C O) U •� O L U Y 0) n 0) Y e0 N e0 n C N Si U � Y •r• °1 -, i 0 e0 > L N Y tn..-V N b N i A V s.I 60 E i 0-C I O Y e0 y C ^ O N 3 i 0 045 U 01L O^ L p Y •E i 0 C 7 >1 e0 eeu >1 - O E E -C C O 0. 0 e0 N C 0 0 C o C eis >y^ O C e0 N N L r Y 7 0 0) 0 i H ^ V 3 r e0 G E N 1 0 N L O E a u N U 'E..r r 0 3 N ill Y.� 0 v d 01 L O) . c 03 N ' Y Y 3 0 L - H ep L. >1 O N N Y N e0 Y 4- E - MI^r Y L n O C O U Q O b 0) 4-. 0 +.,1 0) 111 2 d L C O C i i Y Y y > i 0 N L eLi1 y V n^ O. E . 0 en 01 cos- 0 01 e0 0 d N J e 0 +,a 4-• Q ^ n 0 C^ C O O . Y Y Y C y n b L Y > E 01 O•LA Z 0) O L. l C C r L al C U E . G n 01 d G4- y r F- U N s 3 0J n4- O) 01 i G 3 0 Y �•.. V 8 ^ Y 3 Q y G L r N b V V ^ .L 7 E 0v) air V L V 3 O) 7 n-0 N S- V C i b E 0) N 1 Q Y V ^ 'O N N : e0•.� >1 d L • 0 7 01 CU i Y ' r 0 N . CO 0 U U 0) • .0 4- Y N^ Y u O/ co as n 0) U' cc V > U L 0- 0 0 0 Y N Y (0 '0 3 Q 0- 01 Y C •.- N • i >. .0 e 01 O•.- Y 0) > ' 0)r > Y 0) CU i •r•)r i d 01...-0 01 Y C.) C.- ' 7 0 �••1 Y Y "•a U i r N N Si- •0^ Ol r o e0 CU • -C O) 0•.0 L i n )- C V ell n Y L e0.0 Y E N i 0) 0 na ■ d ■ CO E U s- Ol 4- U L 7 7 e0 •• O 3 7 7 C O Y O) O ^ 7 N 7 O) - 0) 0 4- C L n 7 4- N 7 O 7 Y L 0) 0 Y -c •r• e0 Y 1 Q N n U n4-v E 0'N n•.- U Y n n Q 4- L u'1 Y C o •r• n co n 0 Q U Y n 0 N i.— N Y Y Lai O• • of 47 1D• f+1 en M cis r4- O W I eu 0Y N 1 t Y V CU C e0 0 Y 0 >.0 E i )- e0 Y C e0 L r• E .Y o 0 0J U 7 N O V C C N O.-IC O O E L ^ C C pJ 0 0 3 U r N C^V MI et O 1 0 E O co Y Y o 0J Z d yJ 0J V e0 C 4- co i 0) U L c i 3 tr^ y0j V 7 T C e0 Y2 01 U Y e0^ q C 0) V 0 ^ a, b ^ N 5 as 0) 3 Y ' r C n 0J N e0 V o 4-1 u L C C L C - N 0) o L ma) 0^W ep O.Y ^ y E C ,.c O L C 34_ i Cr -)^ N Y e0 Y 01 E 0 0 1 s. ^ U N 3 'C, OJ N a) 0 ^ CO .'' Y = •C 3 e0 N 0 .c .. Y V V n c e0 n U ^V Y L 0 C C .- Y• 0) Y E (0 e0 e0 C Y Y O n-0-0 i A e0 ,' N C G c N N Y 7 3 U 6E L ,) �' N 0) ^L V V 4e-4- O C e0 C 0- • c Y e0 4-4- 0 0 ••-• S- O L '^ 01 '0 01•.- n > 01 O 0 0 C ' 0."0 O^ 7 V C.- 7 0).- V Y 01 d V 0 i.— V C L Ol as E 0) V Y n N 7 L O V 7 01 N C D I- ea 4-1 Yd 05 O/ nV mCY 0) 3 5. it III I I I I 1 1 E I Y L • i r s O I >,-17 •• I Y L I O)r b O) b O C O r C r r C C -0 •L CO O C +.+ t0 I Ol O. O)4- O 'O Old N tO OS i O) U O .O C +., O. C ++ 01 N • N N 1 r CU C N C N Ol e0 ^ N V- •7 i iO p) 0.O L E V C 4_,-0 O) O. O p O) O) N O b O) O: p C O) E N O +•' ++ a L L ., L LNaa1OdLiO Cio +, N >I +a C +> +.) p Ol ^ C C Y C O p O O) ' C N . r . O N L 'OL .1:9-0 U + O O a 0 u E p y a.i O 3 ++ L O) b _ 1 v Y -0 a 0) b y V N C a p 3 0 4.4 = Nb b 0 b Ac a � Eco >, = y L 01L N aN A C O/ C Y A O L-C Y C y L N +•) N .) V C L ^'� b y p 0 L r S +i O N Z i 3 r�O)_ O) b d +l N . 4' V N O i g 7 U aF Cr I m N V O) S- 7 V 0 0) O Q . U r S- C N O) O) N L O/ L ++ N O) 7 V O) 4-1 0) O) O)-0 C ++ u1 1..3 .0 4•' Y N N L O O) V O) iO C i +.> I aNr V •M-• O. +.+ E a u N4- in H N E W 3 • M I I I • I . I I lsa I 2.0 INTRODUCTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND I/ The San Diego Pipeline Company (SDPC) is a public utility, common car- rier, intrastate petroleum products transportation company. SDPC currently owns and operates a pipeline system from Norwalk, California to points of distribution in the City of Orange, the City of San Diego, and at Miramar Naval Air Station. The original system was constructed in 1962 of approx- imately 121 miles of 10 inch pipe. SDPC transports approximately 26 million barrels of refined petroleum products each year through their existing pipe- t line system. These products include all grades of automotive gasoline, diesel fuels, commercial aircraft turbine fuels and military jet fuels. Due to substantial growth in the areas served by SDPC's system, specifi- cally Orange County and San Diego County, it became necessary in 1985 to increase system capacity by replacing certain sections of the original 10 inch line with 16 inch pipe. Expansion in 1985 included seven miles of new ., pipe between Norwalk and Anaheim, 25 miles between Tustin and Camp Pendleton, and 31 miles between Oceanside and Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego. Sections of the 10 inch pipe replaced in 1985 were not abandoned, but were removed from service and maintained for future use, should the need arise. A final 25 mile section of 10 inch pipeline through Camp Pendleton is also scheduled for replacement in 1988. Each segment of the pipeline expansion program is being handled by the SDPC as a separate project, and will be constructed separately. Each segment is separately addressed by each jurisdiction involved. Separate CEQA docu- mentation is required for each project. The City of Tustin, having discre- tion over a franchise agreement and work permits for work in the street rights-of-way owned by the City, considers the pipeline relocation and expan- sion within the City as an independent project. According to CEQA Guide- lines, the City of Tustin is the Lead Agency for this project. The SDPC is proposing pipeline improvements in the City of Tustin con- " current with their replacement/expansion program outlined above. These improvements are the focus of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . SDPC plans to construct a 16 inch and 10 inch pipeline within the public roadway ' right-of-way in the City of Tustin. The proposed 10 inch pipeline will run parallel to the sixteen inch pipe, but will not be activated until additional capacity is needed. The existing 10 inch facility in Tustin is currently ' located within an easement which is a part of the recently abandoned Atchi - son, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The existing ten inch 2 I 1 I pipeline is proposed to be abandoned in place, filled with inert gas and not used again by the SDPC. (For further discussion on the abandonment program, refer to Section 4.0 of this document) . The proposed project will require the construction of approximately 20 miles of 16 inch welded high tensile steel pipeline extending from SDPC's valve site on the railroad right-of-way east of Magnolia Avenue in the City of Anaheim to SDPC's valve site on railroad right-of-way north of Harvard Avenue in the City of Tustin. In addition, the proposed project will include relocation of approximately 4.1 miles of existing 10 inch pipeline in the City of Tustin. These improvements will locate the pipeline away from the ' abandoned railroad right-of-way and areas of recent urban buildup. 2.2 LIST OF APPROVALS FOR WHICH THE EIR WILL BE USED I/ The SDPC has formally requested the City of Tustin to approve an agree- ment to use the City's public street system along the proposed route (see Section 2.3 "Project Location" of this document) for an underground pipeline corridor. The City may allow such a use of its public right-of-way through an approved Franchise Agreement. In addition to the Franchise Agreement, the City may issue conditional street work permits which allow private construc- tion contractors permission to enter the public right-of-way for construction purposes. Because the City has primary authority for the project within the corporate limits and is proposing to place mitigation on the project, the City of Tustin is the Lead Agency according to CEQA Guidelines. Conformance ' to CEQA is a requirement for the approval of the Franchise Agreement and necessary work permits. This EIR intends to fulfill this requirement. 2.2.1 Franchise Agreement The SDPC is negotiating a Franchise Agreement with the City for the private use of the public right-of-way. This is a discretionary action of the City Council . According to State and federal laws, the Council may elect to approve or disapprove the negotiated agreement. State and federal laws limit the City's ability to attach restrictions or conditions to the agree- s ment, beyond certain safety, remedial and operational measures. Neverthe- less, as the Franchise Agreement is a discretionary act, it is considered a "project" according to CEQA Guidelines. 3 1 lsa I 2.2.2 Street Work Permits 11 In the event that the SDPC secures a Franchise Agreement with the City of Tustin, SDPC must obtain street work permits prior to any construction within the public right-of-way. These work permits are issued by the Public Works Department and are conditional . Conditions regarding the type of equipment allowed, construction hours, methods of construction, traffic disruption, emergency vehicle access, safety measures, duration of construc- tion and the time of year in which construction may occur are all controlled through issuance of the Street Work Permit. Because these permits are dis- cretionary acts performed by the Public Works Department, they are subject to 11 the provisions of CEQA. The City, through the Public Works Department, determines the conditions under which the project may proceed. Many of the concerns with traffic and circulation disruptions, safety and effects on the environment resulting from the construction of a proposed pipeline in a public right-of-way are ad- dressed by each Street Work Permit. Many of the mitigation measures required 11 in this FIR are intended to be carried out in this permitting stage. 2.2.3 Environmental Impact Report To satisfy CEQA Guidelines, this report will identify and analyze any potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to generate mitiga- tion measures which shall be consistent with the Franchise Agreement and ' shall be carried out during the permit process, should the City Council approve the proposed project. 11 2.2.4 Responsible Agencies Responsible Agencies according to CEQA Guidelines and information provided by SDPC include: AGENCY REVIEW/PERMITTING 11 Federal : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water crossing permit ' (obtained) 11 4 1 1 1 lsa State: Caltrans Boring permit for I-5 Freeway at Tustin Ranch Road State Fire Marshall Ongoing Operating Author- Division of Hazardous Liquid and ization and Monitoring Pipeline Safety Department of Transportation Highway Crossing Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board Water quality project certification Department of Fish and Game Stream crossing permits County 11 EMA Flood Control Encroachment Permits 2.3 PROJECT PURPOSE The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for the City of 1 Tustin to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the pipeline project as proposed by the San Diego Pipeline Company (SDPC) . This EIR covers the proposed project within the City of Tustin Corporate Boun- daries. • ' The intent of the proposed pipeline project is to improve the existing pipeline system. The proposed improvements entail the relocation and in some instances, the replacement of existing sections of the pipeline in the City of Tustin. The need arose for such improvements as a result of recent urban buildup in areas adjacent to the existing San Diego Pipeline Company's (SDPC) right-of-way. 1 1 I 5 I i lsa 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES • This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmen- tal Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 15000 et seq. ) , and the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. ) . This report also complies with the procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act adopted by the City of Tustin. An Initial Study of the project has been prepared, and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agen- cies, and other interested parties. The objective of distributing the Ini- tial Study and NOP has been to identify and determine the full range and scope of environmental issues of concern so that these issues might be fully examined. Comments received during the NOP process have been addressed, where appropriate, in topical sections of this document. The Initial Study and copies of the NOP, NOP distribution lists, are contained in Appendix A of this document. A Scoping Meeting was conducted by the City of Tustin on August 18, 1987. The purpose of the Scoping Meeting was to receive public input on the proposed pipeline project. Comments received during the Scoping Meeting have been addressed and incorporated into this document. Comment and questions by those in attendance focused on the following areas: Pipeline Safety, Pipe- line Construction/Operation, and Legal issues. A copy of the agenda and comments received during the meeting are found in Appendix B. 1 2.5 PROJECT LOCATION The project area is located within the corporate limits of the City of Tustin in central Orange County (Figure 1) . The full extent of the pipeline is from the City of Norwalk in Los Angeles County to the City of San Diego in San Diego County. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will focus on the construction and placement of the new 16 inch and 10 inch pipelines in the City of Tustin. The location of the existing and proposed pipeline are shown in Figure 2. ' Proposed Pipeline Route The proposed 16 inch and 10 inch pipeline alignment enters the City of ' Tustin north of Newport Avenue. At the intersection of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTCO) railroad right-of-way and Newport Avenue, the 6 I 1 1 1 ' Regional Location lsa ILos Angeles Co. San Bernardino Co. r--- r m ��'9e 111.it 0 Riverside Co. I ss , ore %% Cleveland Proiect IUSMC rL Area �\ National Tustin est.' st AM e4 USMC Forest 0 ® - . •1l Toro . . m Freeway lik I es r a o i 0 Na • _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 noes - O ' Orange County San Diego Co. I I 1 1 2 I Location Map lsa : .s. _ ,i .2 .::: 4 ,. • •. - ,_. ., . .., . ,,,.. , •:__-.. ---, ,.. , $ l..), l _ C.4Y21±.4-- _ ±-- 1-- \ I 7:L 7- -fn IF ft IL 1 5°4- , 1 ':r ? •'-''' ..- .-;• '■,,, . .- ."' t I ......-.... *C.C.!! • • -- —•=" ' -.•,-ItS 1 C.' -----. ,-•- [.•:: > I !;.‘‘ ::. ..441.1 (-so 2 .,,,, :----.. .....t.sx, . -- . -------____---- z ; < .• z ..: -.',..-L 1-- --X--- ,,'• I i: I !."4 ' . 1 1 -- staRentr i i ',-'47. - -- - . 't. '`,' '. -m t. - ,,.1i-,=- -'..;CC ! ,bo - • . • 0-I: •_I : I -..=.. Z II .=-7r7 • " .I As 0 i. : : ,tt Nit, ',..„-- =''. 7. 11'. " 1 Li . ..„:: ,:.=S '. .: 4--4T- [r} 1; [!‘[1 ir ■ - I *-L-1 42-C" - [ [ .1.-=—..--[ ..".---=•[ II Ir—e ), Pi II [ 1 0 ----7-IL--Id ' ' 1 . 41=-it :I it . t-ill t:PH: ? -!--..-r= L!=. ,,-,„ 1 1! , ,.„,_ •;,. . Z i pa, ri .. . -Is ____.,..c. o..er.•=- i "\‘<.." init.--,.:.. -7,- .!`'7-;:t.t;•-.s 11.174 1 CV. I r.- ,-----F.'/0- 11- -,1 i I, Existing Pipeline .. . :-, -L1._.- -•- Li! I Irix ir—ILL; I . .c c (To be abandoned) • 1 . -. ,.....-v--- .--------1 : ----7:. •>..._2t1 ti tt 1:1• 11 tt / 6.-- 1 it 1---7;t-tuft1 p i; !•=1.i '.1. . • • I 111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllii - i ' '1-1-• 1r-, ,,,': Er. :.7_ .. . . . _ • _ ifil ____-- -•- _ rigs,- !;."--------7 ,•=--7( :: , P .Pc11)1 :.lz ‘-'.,-,-;,,,,zscr ---.. 111 ;:rt, Ife ....c.„,,,sr I :L____: 1 1 1,...-N„ .,ini„;..7.if. lig, _ ec. WI.,1 ..., - ----"Cri—, il ; I. #171111.. %al r_..-, na-rig ii. ..71-7.1 II I II .I;Z.. ,N..... *. SkS - I : , ,I=I 1. 1 Sr .4 I: BRYAN AVE ' w ‘,.-t c,-,ANNEL 1;-‘,1 _ --- --- nil> I-64M Wei-. '-------;--- -I ite:•.rif$11111.1fl a-FAL ii s 1, t 47.7•C 7 k Pm.. • ; A; I ' t , "•._ ----• ,J. 1 1.—. L_I re.V • • ,./ \,) it ni ,.. .__ , • Z 1. •••, .,•. El .;.— , , ; • r isi. ___: fr., .._ , II Proposed Pipeline ‘. .). - li 1: ._, 1 II =z d Ilais .....1. ,...-:. • r 7 : ::1—I 1.111 II t p ! .., . I 7/ !.."--•..-• sittir:: :: V•iy" • *• •!• .'0 1 -tet , rr ..o; -- , 1_1)! •--;72,7' 41 - • ' li L 1 - .-:.t.c.73 • I .! -1% t . I ‘r ' 6: - ''.5c:‘ I, c= 'i _:.= - M i:_- ..: . 1 c:nail •-- ?tang 442 -1 -4 il iit.- , . SANTA ANA FWY (I-5/ ;#1-`t% t --?sfL """:tr-I•itTh I I^ t :L":qiinavvrA AN, I ,•.". _.>- _-i,,—\, LI .ii ::::14_ —ii,ii.,-)--fffp.THL, HI .=, I)/ cc ii.r_a..-,,,___-___. I i 7: it go ..,, r. I ;.. i L.111 at 1 i I 'WOOL ni , 0 a 1\ II L.- -,1 '•.::: :., 4- r,ri• • !If t• i•at"- \ z 1 .!•-•\• •',1_ 11-•l' !I ;, : ..12_-'r;•,_ __---: ,t-' rr=_3k •;'11---'71T—Tcf-rmtl•7---. ' - 7.7!TF:-_!•: ;;;P:.•%11-__I - li ll .4 • . ! Cr n\ .:‘'.: I o• •-• •-• - 4 ? ! -•••44ti 111; l! I c`` ' )1:•!!„------4i•.:-.•IT I -11 II ',:•e7- i lk M 4SUit i.a-a zl! 9. .,-‘ 1 F#-.7-•• --- • w- i 1 :-et9s,-'J-I L-—it--'. 11 I! ''' . .--\ ti.1 Z : 1'01 \ • ---,:i 1, 1 , ;71tttcf t 1 p PI . , 7. ./..,1—P, - t• t' .----- -' _.._..tp it 11 v ...„‘“..4- =-ti i t ct,liptte■i) 1 --‘<;,_ - . ----.--7.--t---- \ '' . ii j-H11-1 it ' A- ct:tS. !,0- .-_!• :ALvZr........i...--f.---- 41er— .-- • ''---4---M1-7. : sg:l'i 9 1' —'—'i!i -1:—. .177, '•■ ill I-IL! 1 a -4. _ • N' --&,IL4:.:: ',et'," er,., I; It v-LrEir'ic j II =------t. i ----7,■=-------------\-H-a------97'e'' . . 1:ti \ I- - --IL Ir II 1 L. b !: 01 I t, .•••, „ 7./ 1,0 1 . :■ . .1 : :Izik.9__L..i ( I,imi0= ::.r .'---'I -.ar"."7,,M7 .:I ri i? :II p 1 i• 1 ! P. :! .,,,, •-1,5 •• mp. -:".\,. I :, 1,- • 4 - i II=-IL=f I: I: .11 II LI =;,,3211. 701 ra _ 1.j.. .at..c ...„,<, -I rt <7-1 i • s' I-T.. 11 'saw i ye (,.. ci k. • '______, .1 I: : ! l• tE t -1 ' \ \ •,i. ..1 •,4, _, ... ' ,10.•;.1.! ' ,§..41cI7-4-Fr._.. .,..:._.,.._ _... ..:._,.. .____:„. .__;:.;.,j_ _--:.-_ 72._,:___7_,.,_,_„. L r ,_____L____.— .-1.---- --a...— ...,,.. ,___„_ __. _._- „---.77, I • \IN.j: M<• Ed tile_ ., 1., ,7 e :-e-- qg a. it \ :, : ,. ,. _ , .... --- :- , j .1 lg. .-, - -- ----- -.1ta !..1 .- : I ..• . , s• • , i , 7 . _ _ :-. .k ' ' \\ I • ' .•\ c ' \ 1 IC =4 ,,--'' • - • : '.., _ • • . . ISource: U.S.G.S., 7.5 Quad-Tustin,Ca. r,__\ I Isa 1 proposed route turns southwesterly onto Newport Avenue, continuing south- , westerly and then turning southeasterly into Bryan Avenue. At the intersec- tion of Bryan Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road, the proposed route turns south- SEE westerly along the southeasterly side of Tustin Ranch Road crossing under I-5 and continuing southwesterly across the Santa Fe Railway railroad right-of- RESPONSE way adjacent to Moulton Parkway. The pipeline route then turns southeasterly to run parallel and adjacent to Moulton Parkway (Edinger) , continuing south- TO easterly and re-entering Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way COMMENT to tie into the existing SDPC 16 inch pipeline installed in 1985. Note: Tustin Ranch Road is on the City's General Plan and East Tustin Specific G4 Plan. The Irvine Company owns portions of the right-of-way until it is deeded over to the City as a public street. SDPC must obtain easement rights prior to constructing this portion of the proposed pipeline. 1 Existing Pipeline Route The existing ten inch pipeline enters the City of Tustin north of New- port Avenue. At the intersection of the SPTCO railroad right-of-way (ROW) the route turns southwesterly onto Newport Avenue and turns southeasterly along Packers Circle and a railroad ROW. At the intersection of Browning Avenue, the pipeline turns southwesterly on Browning Avenue until it inter- sects with the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) . The pipeline then turns southeast- erly for a short distance until it intersects with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. The pipeline then turns southwesterly and parallels the railroad ROW, until it reaches Moulton Parkway where it turns southeasterly. 2.6 PIPELINE DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SPECIFICATIONS The pipeline will be designed, constructed, installed and operated in accordance with the requirements set forth in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 195, minimum federal safety standards for liquid pipelines, California Government code, Chapter 5-5, California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, and in accordance with American National Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ANSI/ASME) Code B31 .4, liquid petroleum transportation piping systems. Construction and installation will be per- formed by a qualified independent contractor selected through competitive bidding. Inspections will be performed by the SDPC, the City of Tustin and state certified independent hydrostatic testing agents. ' Pipeline Design The following section describes the design characteristics of the new 16 inch proposed pipeline, as well as the characteristics of the 10 inch pipe- 9 I 1 I • lsa i line to be installed parallel the 16 inch line for additional capacity when necessary. The environmental effects of construction and operation of these parallel lines is similar or equivalent. There is no separate discussion of the effects of each pipeline. ' Pipeline Capacity ' The proposed 16 inch line will provide a maximum operating flow rate capacity of approximately 4,600 barrels per hour (bph) . One barrel is equi - valent to 42 U.S. gallons. However, it should be noted that flow rates will vary slightly, depending on the exact commodity being shipped. ' Pipeline Material ' The proposed welded steel pipeline will be constructed with 16 inch Outside Diameter (O.D. ) 0.312 inch wall thickness American Petroleum In- stitute (API)-5LX Grade 60 pipe. The replaced 10 inch line sections will utilize 10.750 inch O.D. .219 inch wall thickness API 5LX Grade 52 pipe. The pipe will be protected with an external coating consisting of a. resin under- coat and a 40 mil . of polypropylene sheath and will be cathodically protected upon completion. The pipe will be delivered to the right-of-way lengths of ' approximately 70 to 80 feet, and then will be joined together alongside the trench by electric welding. Field welding will be performed in accordance with API Code 1104 and will be 100% radiographically inspected by an indepen- dent contractor hired by SDPC, in accordance with State and federal regula- tions. Pipeline Design Pressure • The pipeline system will be designed for an operating pressure of 1,440 pounds per square inch (psi ) . The actual discharge pressures leaving the Orange Terminal , upstream of Tustin, will vary from 922 psi for gasoline to 957 psi for diesel (the pressure output of the pumps is affected by the specific gravity of a substance being transported) . Within the City of Tustin, the local operating pressure (pressure experienced by the pipe) decreases, and the average operating pressures within the City of Tustin varies from 874 psi for gasoline to 911 psi for diesel . ' Pipeline Block Valves The proposed 16 inch pipeline will have block valves located on the upstream side, near the Tustin city limits, and in the railroad right-of- way, approaching Harvard Avenue, on the downstream side. There is a distance 10 1 lsa of approximately 3.68 miles between these block valves. Valves will be buried with approximately three feet of cover with handwheel and/or motorized operator located above ground. Handwheels will be located to guard against vandalism. In addition, a check valve is also located on the downstream side ' • to protect against accidental backflows from higher elevations east of Tus- tin. ' Pipeline Monitoring Systems SDPC has installed facilities that monitor the pipeline and will trigger the system to shutdown under upset conditions. The system will shut down ' under the following conditions: High Pressure: The pressure in the pipeline is monitored continuously. ' Any time the pressure indicator exceeds a designated pressure, the pumps will shutdown immediately. This system will not allow pressure to build 'up in the pipeline to a point at which it could weaken or burst the pipeline or pipeline components. Low Pressure: Again, since the pressure is being monitored continuou- sly, a significant drop in pressure below a designated level will also ' cause a shutdown of the pumps. For example, if there is a break in the pipeline, the pressure will drop and the system will shut down. The ten inch pipeline which will not be in use will be pressurized with nitrogen and maintained at constant pressure. If there is a leak, the pressure will drop and the monitoring system will signal the reduced pressure. Leak: The volume of product that goes into the pipeline at the input ' station and the volume that comes out at the other end will be con- tinuously monitored, measured, and compared at three locations, one in the input station control room, the second at the receiving facility, and the third at the dispatcher control center. Whenever the measure- ments do not match within preset limits, the leak detection system will cause a shutdown of the pumps. Emergency Shutdown System SEE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES D 7 & F 3 The proposed pipeline system will be equipped with an emergency shutdown system. The system will , in the event of an emergency, notify personnel at the control room which is staffed 24 hours a day, and at the input station to immediately shut down the pumps and dispatch personnel to close all block valves. The pump shutdown sequence is activated by control room personnel and is an automatic sequence which takes less than two minutes. The block 11 1 1 i lsa 1 valves are manually operated and would require that a "line rider" or pipe- line company employee, travel to the affected block valves and close them. For the purpose of this report, it has been assumed that a line rider could be dispatched and close block valves on either side of Tustin within 72 1 minutes of notification. Note that once the pipeline is shutdown, the volume of a potential spill is restricted to the volume remaining in the pipe and which is able to grav- ity flow towards the source of the spill . This report will provide potential volumes of such spills, and also provide probabilities (frequencies) of acci - dents (spills) , based upon past experience. 1 Corrosion Protection 1 SDPC will use pipe that is covered with a protective coating specifi - cally designed to prevent external corrosion. In addition, the pipeline will be equipped with a cathodic protection system. The cathodic protection system is designed to counteract natural corrosive forces between the steel i pipeline, the earth, and foreign structures. The route was engineered to maintain a required twelve inch separation from other metal pipes. If, for some reason, this separation must be violated, special precautions will be 1 taken to prevent corrosion such as additional wrapping of the pipeline, or micarta block shielding of the pipeline. According to federal regulations, the twelve inch separation is considered adequate to prohibit the cathodic protection system from causing corrosion to other pipelines in the area. It 1 will be SDPC's responsibility to contact the pipeline operators and make necessary tests to ensure that the pipeline does not affect other pipelines in the area. If SDPC finds that other pipelines will be affected, then additional engineering and design of additional cathodic protection devices will be taken to protect the pipelines from corrosion. i 2.6.1 Pipeline Construction Installation of the pipeline will be performed under contract with a pipeline contractor. SDPC maintains a select list of contractors qualified 1 for this work and only those will be solicited. SDPC will specify that all work will be done in accordance with 49 CFR 195. SDPC will provide qualified inspectors, independent of the contractor, to ensure the installation is 1 performed in accordance with applicable requirements including, for example, that backfilling is done correctly to prevent settling and that the street or ground is put back to its original conditions. In addition to the SDPC sup- plied inspectors, the cities or County may send their own inspectors to 12 1 1 1 1 verify that all construction activities have been conducted in accordance ' with the applicable codes and regulations. ' Preconstruction Survey ' Since most pipeline accidents are caused by excavation activities during construction, the following measures will be implemented by SDPC to mitigate the possibility of pipeline excavation accidents. ' • Research of Underground Structures: SDPC and/or a qualified pipe- line engineering firm hired by SDPC will research the substructure ' (underground pipes, conduits, etc:) along the proposed routes. All such underground structures, their sizes, locations, depths, commodities carried, and ownership will be identified. Based on this information, the exact route will be selected, including depth, to avoid these structures. As required by 49 CFR 195, a separation of at least 12 inches is maintained from all metal ' pipes. • Underground Service Alert System: In accordance with State and federal Regulations, contractors will be required to call the Underground Service Alert System prior to commencing any excavation on a daily basis or equivalent system. • Potholing: The installation contractor will conduct potholing wherever it is deemed necessary to locate the exact position of underground structures. Potholing consists of preliminary digging ' in an area to locate underground structures. This digging is performed very carefully, with hand digging performed when it is believed that a pipeline is near. ' Construction Equipment/Manpower The pipeline will be constructed within a prescribed right-of-way. The right-of-way allows for widths varying from ten feet to twenty-five feet for construction work space. A right-of-way cross section is shown in Figure 3. ' The construction equipment used on the project will depend solely on the contractor. A typical construction spread will consist of several crews and could contain the following pieces of construction equipment: 1 13 1 3 ' Construction Right-of-Way Cross Section __ I I I ' Temporary Construction Right-of-Way Width 1 . iI it eil flibt� Pipeline _ ' Temporary Construction Ditch Equipment Working Width 1 I Temporary Spoil Storage Width I I 1 Isa ▪ Two pneumatic-tired motor patrols 12 crawler side boom tractors, equivalent of Cat D-7 ▪ Two crawler trenching machines • Five backhoes--tired or crawler • One boom truck ' • 12 truck-mounted welding machines ▪ Four pipe transport trucks • 15 pick-up trucks • One pipe bending machine • Two boring machines. The manpower requirements for the project will be determined by the ' contractor. For a job of this size, it is estimated that a total of 65 people may be involved in the construction effort. ' The number of working shifts per day for the project will be determined at preconstruction meetings. The City may require restricted working hours in some sections and split shifts in other sections. ' Pipeline Construction Pipelines located in public roadways are typically constructed by ' trenching along the road and burial in the roadway. However, where site specific conditions make trenching across intersections infeasible, the crossing will be bored. The majority of the proposed pipeline will be in- stalled by trenching. Traffic control will be maintained to minimize disrup- tions. Trenches across driveways and intersections will be plated to mini - mize disruption to traffic. See Section 3.6 of this document. ' SDPC requires that road crossings or excavation construction activities do not unduly interfere, obstruct, or endanger traffic and that all necessary precautions shall be taken to protect human life and property. The construc- tion contractor is required to follow the restrictions put forth by the City traffic and safety engineers. The construction contractor is also required to give written notice to the proper authorities at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction of a traffic crossing. The locations of construction staging areas (areas where materials stockpile for intermediate assembly, and mobilization) have not yet been determined. Generally, they are located on SDPC property or vacant lots leased by SDPC, specifically for staging purposes. ' Since the staging areas have not been determined, the routes from stag- ing areas to the work sites have not been determined. Generally, all traffic 15 1 1 1 lsa 1 restrictions regarding staging activities are determined by the City. The number of trips associated with each phase of the project is normally one trip to the site in the morning from the staging area and one return trip in the evening to the staging area. ' The necessary precautions will be taken with respect to road crossing construction activities. Such activities will be negotiated with the City prior to issuance of permits for construction. The following precautions may be used: • Staging areas within the City of Tustin will be determined by the ' City's Public Work Department prior to permit issuance. • Appropriate signs, involving illumination, reflectorization, and ' positioning. • Channelization of traffic flow, involving proper cone design. ' • Barricading. • Pavement markings and lane delineators. ' • Lighting, such as floodlights, flashing beacons, steady burning lamps, warning lights, and flashing arrow signs. ' • Control of traffic through work zones, including hand signaling, flaggers, one-way traffic control , flagcarrying cars, and traffic control signals. As construction proceeds along the route, advanced notification will be given to those areas affected by the construction activities. It is unlikely ' that construction activities in any one area will exceed four weeks. Construction Schedule ' SDPC proposes to commence construction immediately upon acquisition of the necessary permits and right-of-way. The estimated duration of the pro- ject through the City of Tustin is four to six (4-6) weeks. The length of time for the different phases of construction are listed below: 16 1 1 1 I • Mobilization - 4 days Trenching - 20 days ▪ Backfilling - 20 days • Stringing - 20 days 11 • Welding - 20 days ▪ Hydrotesting - 3 days • Check-out - 1 day • Clean-up - 20 days • Paving - 20 days. It should be noted that some of the above mentioned activities can occur simultaneously and, therefore, the times are not cumulative. Daily work hours are determined at a preconstruction conference and are subject to change at the direction of the City. Water Crossings The proposed pipeline route crosses two flood control channels: The El Modena-Irvine and the Santa Ana-Santa Fe channel . The El Modena-Irvine channel is crossed by the pipeline in the vicinity of Newport Avenue. It has not yet been determined whether this crossing will require boring of the channel . The pipeline will parallel the El Modena- Irvine Channel along Bryan Avenue between Browning Avenue and Tustin Ranch road. SEE COMMENTS & RESPONSES F5 & 13 The Santa Ana-Santa Fe channel will be crossed by the pipeline at two locations. At southern end of Tustin Ranch Road the channel will be open ' cut. The second crossing of the channel will occur near the eastern end of the project boundary adjacent to Moulton Parkway. At this location the channel will be bored. ' Techniques utilized for water crossings or stream borings are to follow accepted industry priorities and to be approved by the County Environmental Management Agency. Open cutting of channels will not be allowed to occur ' when inclement weather or flood conditions are forecast. In the event that inclement weather or flood conditions occur during open cut construction, contractor will be required to cease operations and take measures to protect ' channel banks and water quality. Such measures would include: sand bagging or installation of rip-rap to protect cut stream banks; removal or regrading of waste piles to minimize water turbidity, and site monitoring. 17 f I lsa Pre-operational Testing 11 Before the pipeline commences operation, it will be hydrostatically tested, using water as a test medium, to a minimum pressure of 1,900 psi . In I addition, the pipeline monitoring system, cathodic protection system, and safety controls will be tested. These tests are to be conducted in accor- dance with the 1981 California Pipeline Safety Act. 2.6.2 Pipeline Operation and Maintenance SEE RESPONSE TO COMMENT F6 SDPC will perform all operational testing and maintenance activities as required by the 1981 California Pipeline Safety Act. In addition, they will prepare and maintain a pipeline testing and maintenance record plan. A copy of such a plan shall be on file with the City prior to the issuance of per- mits. A copy of State required tests shall also be on file with the City on a permanent basis. Some of the specifics of SDPC's testing and maintenance plan are provided below: 11 Maintenance Testing and Inspection SDPC will conduct tests annually on the pipeline system to deter- " mine whether the cathodic protection is adequate. In addition, SDPC will , at intervals not exceeding six months, inspect each main line valve to determine that it is functioning properly. A copy of the test results shall be on file with the City on a permanent basis. Pipeline Hvdrotestinq 1 SDPC will conduct hydrotesting, or approved internal inspection, at intervals not to exceed the limits established in the California Government Code. Excavation Activity Identification 11 After a pipeline is installed and operational , the majority of incidents are caused by other or future excavation or construction activities. The specific mitigation measures that will be imple- mented to avoid such activities are summarized below: 1 . 18 1 f 11 tsa I City/County Excavation Permits: Before any organization is allowed ,' to dig below the ground surface in the City or County, a permit is required. At this time, the City or County reviews the plans and makes available the substructure drawings of the area. ILine Markers: SDPC will install pipeline markers along the pipe- SEE line route, where practical and feasible, to identify the pipeline 11 location. These markers will state that the pipeline is owned by RESPONSE SDPC and transports petroleum products and will also provide a telephone number where SDPC personnel can be reached at all times. TO People will also be advised to call 911 in case of an emergency. I .Line Riders: The proposed pipeline route will be, at a minimum, COMMENT inspected weekly by line riders covering the route by car or plane. D10 - The job of the line rider is to look for any activity in the vicin- ity of the route which should be investigated further. Underground Service Alert: SDPC is a member of Underground Service ' Alert (USA) . USA is a service organization which can be called by any company or individual planning an excavation. The organization or individual calls USA toll free and identifies the location of it the proposed excavation. USA then notifies all member companies with underground lines in the area of the impending excavation. Upon being notified of any planned excavation work, SDPC will contact the person performing the work to ensure that pipeline damage does not occur. I 11 I 1 19 1 II II I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. IIMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 LAND USE I There are four State laws that establish the basic framework for the City of Tustin's land use planning regulations. They are 1) the State of is California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code 65000 et. seq. ) , 2) the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66410 et. seq. ) , 3) the Knox-Nesbit Act (Government Code 54773 et. seq. ) , and 4) the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq. ) . Under these laws, the City of ' Tustin has developed a comprehensive long-term General Plan for the physical development of the City, and has developed procedures for evaluating the land use and environmental effects of projects. II Land in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project has been planned and zoned by the City in accordance with the plans and procedures established by the State laws noted above. Most of the area in the vicinity of the pro- ' ject has been built out according to these plans, with the exception of the area in the vicinity of Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan which is currently pro- grammed for construction. ' 3.1.1 Environmental Setting Land in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project has been zoned II for residential , industrial , and commercial/recreational land uses. The gen- eral pattern of existing land uses surrounding the proposed alignment is shown on Figure 4 and described below. ' The northwesterly portion of the alignment begins along an easement of the Southern Pacific Railroad and continues southerly along Newport Avenue until it intersects with Bryan Avenue. The predominant land uses adjacent to II this section of the alignment are commercial uses. The alignment then pro- ceeds easterly along Bryan Avenue. Predominant land uses adjacent to Bryan Avenue between Newport Avenue (to the west) and Browning Avenue (to the east) ' are primarily single family residential (SF) , multi-family residential (MF) , and public/institutional land uses (PI) . The public/institutional uses consist of Pine Tree Public Park at the intersection of Bryan Avenue and Red ' Hill Avenue, and the C.E. Utt Intermediate School (Public) at the intersec- tion of Bryan Avenue and Browning Avenue. I 20 II I 1 4 Land Use — Existing lsa I IM�I I VJ SF I SF SF AG I( I MF s PR I ; 1 1 AG PI ` ' L 1 •.; V �---Th .24-Ths ' IRVINE BLV C SF AG a �Cl• (111/ 11 11111 //�/ PI SF''// / t1111111I11IIIII111111111 ' FIR T SF l 0 O 1 tit SF J PI _ F2M T PIBRYAN AV ---11 A G � . SF SF MF MF [ PT / > MF PT i k i if 2 SAN JUAN ST. PI \ (, o SF 3 w MF ; L______ z MF al 1 I 1111 LEGEND 0 = ANA FAY II3T— SF Single Family Residential - JZ = 1 MF Multi-Family Residential 3 MH — MF MH Mobile Home MF o I= 1 PR Professional MITCHELL AVE riE tV I Industrial M C Commercial AG Agriculture SF 1 P1 = SF 1 0 Open Space/Graded WALNUT-AVE — PI Public and Institutional I VIII Existing Pipeline SF = o • Proposed Pipeline = Cap a LS__ it SF ? N I SF r ' - MOULTON-PARKWA/ '/ I II I I I I I I I I I I I wank 1 I • i MILITARY 7/10/87:LS Not to Scale �\ I The proposed pipeline alignment continues along Bryan Avenue until it intersects with the proposed Tustin Ranch Road. Predominant land use along Bryan Avenue between Browning Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road currently consists of residential land uses under construction. On the northeast corner of the ' intersection at Browning Avenue and Bryan Avenue is the Bryan Substation operated by the Southern California Edison Company. The proposed route then heads in a southerly direction along Tustin Ranch Road. Along Tustin Ranch ' Road between Bryan Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) , the predominant land uses are residential under construction, agricultural and commercial . The pipeline continues along Tustin Ranch Road where it passes under the I-5 and continues until it intersects with Moulton Parkway. The land uses be- ll tween Bryan Avenue and Moulton Parkway adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road consist of single and multi -family residential (SF and MF) on the west side of the road, and industrial (I) and commercial (C) uses on the eastern side of Tustin Ranch Road. The proposed alignment then heads easterly on Moulton Parkway. The primary uses consist of industrial (I) uses to the north and the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) to the south. The MCAS houses military helicopter opera- tions. Land uses at the MCAS include military operation, military housing, open space and agricultural production. The proposed alignment within the City of Tustin ends where Moulton Parkway intersects the City limits of Tustin. ' The proposed alignment has two segments which parallel existing flood control channels. On Bryan Avenue between Browning Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road, the proposed alignment is adjacent to the El Modena-Irvine Channel (OCEMA Facility, F07) . The El Modena-Irvine Channel drains in a southerly direction and confluences with Peters Canyon Wash just north of Walnut Ave- nue. The second flood control channel is the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Flood Con- trol Channel (OCEMA Facility F10) . This channel occurs north of Moulton Parkway and the AT&SF Railroad. The proposed alignment runs adjacent to the channel along Moulton Parkway until the channel turns southeasterly at its confluence with the Peters Canyon Wash Channel . 11 Planned Land Uses • Proposed land uses in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline alignment are shown in Figure 5. The proposed land uses are designated in the City of Tustin General Plan and the East Tustin Specific Plan. 22 1 I I 5 I Land Use - General Plan lsa I ,MFi JLMF SF SF FI PR SF \� M G I ® U �� IRVINE BLVD r 1 4 R's C 1 SF SF i PI . 111111 1 1111i"�SF C in `� "op._ 1111111111111111111111111 L el I C \y/ « IRSr sr SF SF M (Si I - ta M I� 5s --� BRYAN AVE �a PCH MU I ��P MF r SF PI a `r PI MF k PI a (� I- SAN JUAN ST. - i� Z 'in ' 3 z i z C MF o ly-1 I m 11111— ,-----,_. LEGEND SANTA-'r ANA FWY (1-5) I SF Single Family Residential �� 1= MF Multi-Family Residential MH = MF MH Mobile Home MF— i- �!,,� • I PR Professional Y-ELL AV — `+r I Industrial MF (SF 1! C Commercial J SF IAG Agriculture _ SF 0 Open Space/Graded WALNUT AVE �� PI Public and Institutional IPCR Planned Community Residential SF = PI 1 z e PCC Planned Community Commercial — rc / I EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION PI I L Low Density Residential —� — SF z M Medium High Density SF �* �'I l ID I MU Mixed Use Commercial ��/11111111111111 1� I � ■G Golf Course 11111 Existing Pipeline MOULTON PARKWAY I MI IN Proposed Pipeline MILITARY 7/10/8 7:LS Not to Scale I lsa I Proposed development is planned for the northeasterly portion of the ' project area. This area is currently vacant and is referred to as the East Tustin Specific Plan Area. The southwest boundaries (Bryan Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road) of the East Tustin Specific Plan Area coincide with the proposed alignment of the pipeline. Proposed land uses for this area include low density residential ((L) up to 5 d.u./ac.) , medium density residential ((M) , up to 18 d.u./ac) , public and institutional , ((PI) community park and high school ) and mixed use commercial (MU) . Planned development is also scheduled to occur north of the I-5 freeway between Browning Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road. These areas are designated as ' planned community residential (PCR) and planned community commercial (PCC) in the General Plan. These developments once in place would be directly ad- jacent to the proposed pipeline alignment. ' Sensitive Land Uses Sensitive land uses are identified as any residential areas, schools, ' parks, churches, hospitals, or locations where a large number or people can congregate. The location of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the proposed alignment are shown in Figure 6. Table A lists the sensitive land uses that are directly adjacent to, and within approximately 500 feet of the proposed pipeline. 3.1.2 Impacts II • Short Term Impacts 11 The primary impacts on land uses in the project area are associated with short-term construction activities. During the construction phase of devel - opment, it is anticipated that any segment of the proposed pipeline would be subject to no more than two to four weeks of concentrated construction acti - vity. Construction activity would temporarily limit access and parking for ' commercial , industrial , public, recreational , and residential uses along the proposed route. Construction may include disruption of normal business hours, and temporary time delays for employees, residents, or customers accessing these uses. Temporary impacts may result in increased air pol- lutants, noise levels, traffic congestion and pedestrian safety during the construction phase of the project. (See appropriate sections for further ' discussion of project impacts) . Although the construction phase of the pipeline creates minor nuisances and potential impacts as noted above, it is 24 I ' 6 I Land Use — Sensitive Areas l. 1 1 Churcchh/School cChurch �I �∎P \Fire IRVINE BLVD $ No Station General :' ■■ I )11/M11111111//Church C - Church/School Park ::::::::::::ii:/ :l= s,," /// i tl u• , Shopping /lll I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I : oa:er Center FIRST ST Retirement ■ ■■e■■ "} eneral Plan Convalescent w Home School — Electrical Home = r Substation r- - ,� ;:$:: BRYAN AVE non �c. Park = School ;;;;pd I O _ , `API°••■•i School 9 < ..... ling f 1■■e••• ¢ , Park I CIVIC ■�- ■■�■■■ SAN JUAN ST. Center , I ( �� —t— II , hurch Church w . , : i : ; • ; Q ■■:.■s'al'e; School ;� ■■■.J �` 11111= IONS ANA FWY U-51 c7 = d I z _ i cc Park a p > m - Park a = t:: ' EM e■e■■ MITCHELL AVE ? G O =SUM ■■ — 6 zo. o■G School School ,ice��= ::u■'� z a WALNUT AVE �_ ' Park cr Church .. _ t �Park - f�i.....`'y - z � ■l r co School En= i nn. r 1 _ wave■ /111III11I111I t 1111111 Floe MOULTON PARKWAY 1 Station / Military 7/10/87:LS Not to Scale I Aff� 1 TABLE A SENSITIVE LAND USES SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATION C.E. Utt Intermediate School Southwest corner of Bryan Avenue and Browning Avenue C.C. Lambert Elementary School North side of San Juan between Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue San Juan Elementary School North side of San Juan between Red Hill Avenue and Farmington Drive Larwin Square Shopping Center Intersection of Bryan Avenue and Newport Avenue between Main Street and 1st St. Pine Tree Park Southwest corner of Bryan Avenue and Red Hill Avenue Magnolia Park South of Walnut Avenue on the Southeast corner of Alder Lane and Fig Tree Drive Neighborhood Park South of Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between Raintree Road and Cherrywood Lane Tustin Manor Intermediate Care Facility Convalescent Home South side of Bryan Avenue between Newport 1 Avenue and Main Street Tustin Royale Retirement Home South side of Bryan Avenue between Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue • I 1 . 26 I 1 I lsa I not anticipated that the temporary disruptions to the surrounding land uses would result in any significant impacts to those land uses. Mitigation measures are included in this section to reduce the identified effects of the project, add to project safety and as a general betterment to the project. Long-Term Impacts No significant long-term land use impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed pipeline project. The proposed project maintains consistency with the adjacent land uses and is consistent with use of the public right-of-way as designated by the City of Tustin General Plan. The project does not have any long-term effects on the roadway or on adjacent land uses. The project will have no effect on General Plan policy, zoning or future land used determinations, as far as is foreseeable. Long-term impacts are not anticipated because the pipeline will be subsurface and the public roadway right-of-way will be repaved to its pre- construction condition. Because of these factors, land uses adjacent to the pipeline will remain viable and will not be subject to any long-term impacts. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 11 Based on the preceding analysis of existing and proposed land uses and short and long-term impacts, the following mitigation measures are prescrib- ed. It is recognized that other measures may be necessary once construction of the pipeline commences. These measures address short-term nuisance level and safety impacts associated with pipeline construction activities. 1. The SDPC will provide driveway access and ancillary parking to residences during construction of the pipeline, whenever possible, to the approval and satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Where pedestrian activities are affected during construction, appropriate warning signs will be installed and pedestrians will be diverted. Pedestrian access to residences and businesses will be maintained during construction. Special facilities, such as hand- rails, fences, and walkways, will be provided for the safety or pedestrians. i3. The SPDC will notify residents and businesses along the pipeline MODIFIED route of the construction schedule and of any access problems that PER might occur. This notification will occur two weeks prior to COMMENT construction activities. A second notice shall occur approximately 14 27 I 11 lsa 24 hours in advance of any construction or other activity which might block access to an affected property. 4. See Section 3.4, Noise Mitigation Measures 10 and 11, and Section 3.5, Air Quality Mitigation Measures 12 and 13 as they relate to land use issues. 11 3.1.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation The project will not result in any significant long-term land use im- pacts. 3.2 BIOLOGY 3.2.1 Environmental Setting The proposed Tustin Pipeline route alignment crosses through three types of habitats within the City of Tustin, the degraded wetlands, annual grass- lands and urban landscapes. The majority of the route crosses through urban landscapes, for the most part following existing streets as described in Section 2.3 of this document) . There are no native biological habitats in ' these areas. The vegetation is characterized by cultivated and introduced plant species that provide limited habitat value for native animal species. In general , this "urban habitat" is used by animal species that are extremely 1 tolerant of human activity, such as American crow (Corvus corax) , northern mockingbird (Mimus polvglottos) , mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and house finch (Carpodacus neomexicanus) . Some species, like the European starling (Sturnis vulgaris) , rock dove (Columba livia) , house sparrow (Passer domes- ' ticus) and house mouse (Mus musculus) are non-native introduced species and have actually increased as a result of human encroachment and alteration of native habitats (Garrett, K. et al . , 1981) . ' The pipeline route crosses through annual grasslands on both sides of the Santa Ana Freeway and along the Tustin Ranch Road. The grasslands are former agricultural areas that have been abandoned and allowed to revegetate naturally. These habitats typically support weedy plant species such as wild mustard (Brassica geniculata) , redbrome (Bromus rubens) , soft chess (Bromus mollis) and abu-mashi (Schismus barbatus) . The annual grasslands are common- ' ly used as foraging habitat by native and introduced bird species such as mourning dove, red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis) , house finch and American crow. Mammal activity is generally limited. Large mammals, with the excep- t tion of the coyote (Canis latrans) , generally do not occupy small grasslands adjacent to areas of intensive human activity. Smaller mammals such as the 28 I 1 I 1 ' Beechey ground squirrel (Otospermoohilus beechevi) , deer mouse (Peromvscus maniculatus) and the house mouse are relatively common in these areas. The most common reptile is the side-blotched lizard (Utd stansburiana) , which frequents several habitats and is successful even in relatively disturbed ' areas. The proposed pipeline route crosses the El Modena-Irvine Channel in the 11 vicinity of Newport Avenue. The pipeline also parallels the channel along Bryan Avenue between Browning Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road. The El Modena- Irvine channel is a concrete lined channel and consequently does not provide habitat for any native animal species. Therefore, if boring of the channel ' is required along Newport Avenue, it will not adversely impact any native animal species. The proposed alignment also crosses the Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel at two locations. The first crossing occurs at the southern extent of Tustin Ranch Road, the second near Moulton Parkway (See Section 2.6.1, Water Cros- sing for further discussion) . A field survey conducted on August 25, 1987 revealed the presence of a degraded wetland habitat. The channel contains a number of wetland plant species, including Chufa flatsedge (Cyperus esculen- tus) , bristlegrass (Setaria sohacelata) , common plantain (Plantago major) , Spanish needles (Bidens pilosa) , barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli ) and willoweed (Polygonum lapathafolium) . The channel is used by mallards (Anas platvrhvnchos) and a green-backed heron (Butorides striatus) . The Santa Ana-Santa Fe channel contains potential habitat for the Paci- fic pond turtle (Clemmvs marmorata pallida) , although it is of very poor quality. In certain sections of the channel , sufficient water has collected to provide pools that can be used by the pond turtle, but the vegetation characteristic of pond turtle habitat is not present. Individual turtles may exist in the small pools, but it is unlikely that a viable population could be sustained in the channel . It was not possible to positively confirm the presence or absence of pond turtles in the Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel due to the time of year the site visit was made. A population of turtles was re- corded on the Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel near the Peters Canyon Wash channel in the winter of 1986 (Robert Fisher, pers. comm. ) . This population was effectively destroyed as the result of an oil spill from the adjacent Tustin. Marine Base. The general opinion is that this population is unlikely to ' reestablish itself. Mitigation measures to protect against such an incidence with the proposed pipeline are identified in Section 3.8 of this document. 29 1 I i I ' 3.2.2 Impacts Direct biological impacts of the project are limited to the Santa Ana- Santa Fe Channel . The proposed route crosses the channel at one point and would remove some of the existing vegetation. The amount of habitat removed would be less than one acre, and in fact would result in only a few indivi- dual plants being lost. Most of the plant species found in the channel are invasive wetlands weeds. The plants that are removed would very likely be quickly replaced once the pipeline has been installed. The removal of the existing habitat is not considered to be a significant impact. ' The installation of the pipeline may also result in a temporary disrup- tion of the waterflow in -channels downstream. However, the vegetation in these channels is adapted to intermittent stream flow, and the temporary disruption of the waterflow would mimic the natural conditions. Therefore, the impacts of the pipeline construction to this channel are not considered to be significant. Potential indirect impacts resulting from construction and pipeline use include erosion of spoil material into the El Modena and Santa Fe channels, dumping of excess material into the channels and oil spills resulting from pipe failure. In a worst-case analysis, these impacts would occur during a heavy rainstorm and would result in material being carried down the two channels to the Peters Canyon Wash Channel , from there to the San Diego ' Channel and into Upper Newport Bay. The general result would be siltation of the channels and the upper bay and an increase in petroleum pollutants. This may result in some loss of plant and animal life in these' areas, but the significance of this loss cannot be ascertained. The significance of the ' impact would depend on the. time of year the erosion and/or spill occurred, the amount of the eroded or spilled material , the amount of rainfall occur- ring at the time, the location of a spill and other factors that cannot be determined. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 5. Construction activity shall be controlled to reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion problems, to the approval of the Director of Public Works. A written construction management pro- gram shall be submitted to and approved by the Director prior to issuance of work permits. ' 6. Pipeline Operations Contingency Plan shall be developed to elimin- ate or greatly reduce the effects of oil leaks or spills on the 30 I 1 Lisa biotic habitat present in downstream channels. This plan will include measures for the cleanup of spills that enter into and contaminate the channel downstream, particularly channels with existing populations of Pacific pond turtles. 7. A survey shall be conducted by a qualified expert to ascertain the presence or absence of the Pacific pond turtle in the channel . The ' survey will take place during May or June during the breeding and spawning seasons. The survey is needed because the status of the former population of• Pacific pond turtle is uncertain. It is not known if any individuals remain in the channel . 8. A copy of the Pipeline Operations Contingency Plan shall be main- SEE tained on file with the City. This Plan, consistent with State of RESPONSE California regulations, shall contain safety provisions which TO substantially reduce the likelihood of downstream contamination and COMMENT effects on the biotic habitat and water quality of surface drainage E3 channels. This plan shall contain provisions for total contain- ment, in cooperation with the Regional Water Quality Board - Santa Ana Region. I3.2.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation All biological impacts are reduced to a level of non-significance with the implementation of the above mitigation. 3.3 GEOLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY/SOILS 3.3.1 Environmental Setting Geology The proposed pipeline route is underlain by the Quaternary continental and marine terrace deposits characteristic of the Los Angeles basin. The deposits are marine, fossiliferous, coarse grained sand and gravel , including some silty sand and silt. The Southern California coastal area is seis- mically active and is characterized by numerous northwest trending faults. Nearly all of the major faults in Southern California have been active during ' Cenozoic time, and many are currently considered active; the capability for movement along a fault is a product of its present tectonic environment and cannot be directly determined. There are, however, no known active or poten- tially active faults in the vicinity of the pipeline route within the City of Tustin. 31 • �Sd Topography The proposed pipeline alignment occurs in an area of no significant topographic relief. The project area is nearly level , with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Elevations in the area range from 70 to 100 feet above sea level. Soils ' Major soil units along the proposed pipeline alignment were identified for the project area. This information was compiled from maps prepared by ' the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) for the County of Orange. Five major soil units were identified in the project area. These include: Chino silty clay loam, Metz loam sand, Mocho loam, Sorrento clay loam and Omni clay. These soils were formed in mixed alluvium and alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks. Generally, the existing soils are poorly drained to exces- sively drained, and occur on basins, flood plains, and alluvial fans. 3.3.2 Impacts ' Seismicity and Faulting Southern California is a seismically active region. Earthquakes center- ' ing on any of the region's active faults may be expected in the future. No active or potentially active faults however, have been mapped in the City of Tustin. Therefore, ground rupture along the trace of an active fault is considered extremely unlikely in the project area. Seismic activity in the area has been recorded along the Newport-Inglewood Fault to the southwest and the Whittier-Elsinore, San Andreas, and San Jacinto Faults located to the north and east of the City of Tustin. The following is a summary of distances to these active faults and the seismic effects that may be anticipated from these faults. I Approximate Distance Maximum Credible Fault From Project Site (Miles) Richter Magnitude ' Newport-Inglewood 10 7.5 Whittier-Elsinore 12 7.5 San Andreas 40 8.3 • 32 1 1 i i lsa 1 San Jacinto 35 8.0 Norwalk 10 6.5 Seismic hazards along the proposed alignment can be attributed to the 1 effects of ground shaking resulting from a major earthquake along any of the aforementioned faults. The intensity of ground shaking depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from its source (epicenter) , and the site response characteristics. With regard to seismic activity, pipelines are inherently flexible and can withstand considerable ground movement. Petroleum pipelines are fabri- cated from high tensile carbon steel , and pipe sections are connected by full penetration butt welds and have good flexibility. Possible rupture, severe distortion or displacement of the pipeline would most likely be associated 1 with fault zones. The proposed pipeline will be aligned to avoid large com- pression strains. It will also be designed to withstand substantial fault movement without rupture. There does not appear to be any recorded case of a buried petroleum pipeline ever having ruptured from the effects of ground 1 shaking. Topography ' Topographic changes resulting from construction and installation of the proposed pipeline are expected to be minimal to none and temporary in nature. Impacts which so occur will be the result of minor grading that will be required to facilitate machinery operation. The majority of the proposed pipeline route is located beneath existing or future city streets, no sig- nificant change in topography will occur. iSoils In Tustin, liquefaction of soils is not known to present a problem. The potential for earthquake induced landsliding to impact the pipeline is pri- marily confined to hillside areas. However, hillside areas do not exist within the project vicinity. There are also no known areas of historic or active ground water subsidence within the project vicinity. 1 33 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures 9. The pipeline will adhere to all State and federal regulations regarding pipeline construction and maintenance in order to mini - 1 mize the potential for pipeline damage as a result of strong groundshaking. 1 3.3.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation There are no significant impacts. 1 3.4 NOISE The following information has been compiled from noise assessments 1 prepared for various environmental studies in the vicinity of the project area, including: Environmental Assessment, LSA, 1987; EIR, LSA, 1987; EIR, MBA, 1985. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Relevant Noise Standards Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A-weighted decibel , " abbreviated dBA. A-weighting is a frequency correction that corre- lates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. 1 The "equivalent noise level , " or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be 1 thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level . The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore a sound measured for one hour may be expressed as a 1 one hour Leq of 57 dBA. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use 1 compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) . The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel . Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that 1 occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ) penalizes noises by 1 34 1 . 1 lsa ' 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m. ) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day-night or Ldn scale ' is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. Community Noise Standards ' The City of Tustin has adopted both a Noise Element to the General Plan and a Noise Ordinance. The Noise Element is designed to guide new develop- ment within the City, to establish community noise standards for new develop- ment, and to protect established areas. The Noise Ordinance regulates the level of noise that can be emitted and thus impact adjacent land uses. The primary purpose of the ordinance is to ' protect residential areas from excessive levels of noise generated by ad- jacent commercial industrial uses. The Noise Element established "objectives" with regard to community noise. Specifically a noise level not to exceed 60 CNEL is recommended for residential areas, 65 CNEL for commercial and 70 CNEL for industrial land ' uses. Hospital , convalescent homes, schools, libraries and churches should not be exposed to noise levels greater than those allowed in residential areas. New developments should not be permitted in areas with noise levels exceeding these levels unless the development contains adequate means to ' protect itself from the noise. Although the City of Tustin has the noise "objective" of 60 CNEL for residential land uses, the City generally requires that new residential construction achieve an outdoor noise level of 65 CNEL ' in private outdoor living areas (i .e. , back yards and patio areas) . The 60 CNEL objective is often very difficult to achieve, and precedent for the 65 CNEL design level has been established by many municipalities and the State of California. Major parameters of the existing noise environment include locations of noise sensitive land uses or sensitive receptors; identification of major ' existing noise sources in the vicinity of the pipeline; and estimation of existing ambient noise levels near the pipeline. ' Noise sensitive receptors are locations or land uses that are sensitive to noise levels. These include residential areas, schools, hospitals, parks and churches. These sensitive land use areas are identified in Table A in the Land Use section of this report. ' 35 1 Lisa Existing noise sources which affect ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline include the major roadways transecting the project area, the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) , the railroad lines and helicopter noise from the Marine Corps Air Station located south of the site area. ' The only issue of concern regarding noise is the potential short-term increases in noise levels caused by the construction of the pipeline. ' Noise Measurement Survey The existing noise data used in this section is from the Santa Ana ' Freeway (I-5)/Tustin Ranch Road Interchange Environmental Assessment prepared by LSA (1987) for the City of Tustin. Existing noise levels were determined at noise sensitive land uses located near the proposed pipeline alignment. ' A noise measurement survey was conducted on August 14, 1985, at three locations in the project area. The noise measurements were conducted to determine ambient noise levels. The measurement locations were selected to ' depict the noise environment in the project area. These locations are shown in Figure 7. Site 1 measured outdoor residential noise, while Sites 2 and 3 measured the noise environment in currently undeveloped land which is planned ' for residential development. The noise measurements were conducted between the hours of 3:30 p.m. and ' 5:00 p.m. , which are representative of the p.m. peak traffic time periods. The results of the noise measurement survey are shown in Table B. The quan- tities measured were the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) . The results in Table C represent existing noise levels as a result of traffic on the Santa Ana ' Freeway. Helicopter noise, however, is not expected to contribute signifi- cantly to the noise environment. At measurement locations close to the freeway, the freeway noise dominates. In the existing conditions, none of the measurement locations are exceeding federal LEQ standards. Computer Model ' The noise levels projected were computed using the Highway Noise Model , published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model , " FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978) . Vehicle noise levels were based upon California vehicle noise emission levels ("California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, Caltrans, Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84-13) . 36 1 tal 1 3.4.2 Impacts ' Short Term Impacts ' The potential noise impacts associated with the project are short-term in nature and directly related to construction activities. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise genera- ted by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, con- crete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Noise levels presented in Figure 8 are a measure of noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from the construction equipment. The noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about -6 dBA less and, similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than indicated. Furthermore, intervening struc- tures will act as a noise barriers, and reduce noise levels further. Short-term noise impacts related to construction activities would tem- porarily affect approximately nine sensitive receptors or land uses during the construction phase of the project. The sensitive land uses/receptors are listed in Table A located in Section 3.1 of this report. Although construction noise levels may temporarily exceed acceptable noise limits as established by the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. These impacts, however, are considered temporary and only short-term in nature. ' Construction activities which occur close to residential areas should be limited to daytime weekday hours to minimize the construction noise impacts on adjacent residents. The City of Tustin has adopted limits on the hour of ' construction and excavation work as part of its City Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance limits construction to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during regular working days. Lona-Term Impacts Due to the subsurface nature of the pipeline, it is anticipated that the ' project will not create any long term noise impacts. Current operation of the existing pipeline within Tustin confirms that there are no ongoing long- term effects. 1 37 1 I I I - // r ' Ii 1 � 1 L ; T � — I -= . 1 81 ° - `II . ...... _ . 1 t• ,� 1 i ' I peon gouea ugsnl(, ; ]I'- .!I j \ .1 it \ .. ,. • l `i�- Ir r , ; i I 0 - ' ;'L�J; n al 1r I � , � � r � . ,,:pliii _ mss R ..iii...-1 .u, 1 NIJk `i ^„ .y_ ...,::- tn � Ys" : i i- I - B'h ■ ,`- C r�:i I•:- _ '�:. CD 0 N- Z I I I . • ri o I L N N O cri W O I N 4.)m r� m I ft v - a) I I a d o c it S c I o co H L U CO o >, -\ -ri r- .0 I a 3 _ I •Q .-i • 0 • G Q) U U) O Ul I c 0 Z • � > Z -Iv 4-0 H IC — ..1 o E co 01 vb � o 3.4+ U C V) 0 .4 U a a a u SA b roI-1 i x E m U CP ' '' n E a u ro 0 N 3 U co m c6 w p:1 - 0 0 0 > U1 S O �/1 h m N U a N 0 v1 --I Cp -.i U 0 .i o U 1•i 1, 4) 1., 01 1, G 1-1 0 C 0 0 0 0 ro y 0 v CO N ca Q) ro a r o m �.) C .) a sa . si si o v w s, U 2 ^ ro O a c x U N C) U 0 U C G a O a > Y C) U N E o Oft s, > 7 C C ra ro E G E C) O ri .0 3 ++ O N �rn 4 o ro u 0 0 si 4 G o O G ro --i --1 cc I 0 U [u W F [n G e� U U U U G U U G '7 G- > CO 1 L II C 0 • co U I I . • 1 I TABLE B NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY RESULTS I SITE LAND USE LEO PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCE 1 Multi -family Homes 53.5 Background/MCAS Tustin 1, 2 Open Space Open Space 64.5 Santa Ana Freeway 3 50.9 Santa Ana Freeway I TABLE C EXISTING NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH I-5 FREEWAY 1 SITE LAND USE LEO LI0 L50 L90 PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCE 1 Multi-family Homes 53.5 51 46 42 Background/MCAS Tustin 2 Open Space 64.5 67 63 60 Santa Ana Freeway 3 Open Space 50.9 53 50 48 Santa Ana Freeway I 1 40 1 I 1 I lsa 11 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures IMitigation measures will be required to mitigate short-term construction noise impacts. 10. Compliance with the Tustin Noise Ordinance is required to mitigate impacts associated with construction noise. To comply with the ordinance, construction activities will be limited to daytime hours II on Monday through Fridays, particularly when construction activi- ties are near residential areas. A work program shall be approved by the Director of Public Works instituting such controls prior to issuance of work permits. 11 . Where noise sensitive land uses/receptors are within 100 feet of II construction activities, the use of noise barriers/barricades will be required by the Director of Public Works. 3.4.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation l' Implementation of the above measures will ensure that any short-term noise impacts will be mitigated as much as possible. However, because of the II potential noise created by the construction project, and the proximity of sensitive receptors, there remains potential for adverse impacts. 1 1 1 I I 41 il II I lsa I 3.5 AIR QUALITY The following information and analysis is a summarization of various technical studies on air quality that were prepared for environmental reports r in the vicinity of the project area. These reports are identified in Section 12.0 of this document, and include: EIR, LSA, 1987; EIR, MBA, 1985; En- vironmental Analysis, LSA, 1987. 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Local Climate 11 The climate around the project area, as with all of Southerh California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and humidities, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild with rare extremes above 100° F or below freezing. Daily and seasonal variations about the annual mean tempera- ture of 62° F are small . Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on-shore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction is altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds (less than two miles per hour) is only 14%. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. One other important wind regime occurs when a high pressure center forms over the western United States and creates strong offshore winds. These winds are warmed and dried by adiabatic compression as they drop from the upper desert regions into the basin. These winds are accelerated through local canyons and create hot, dry, gusty Santa Ana winds from the east and northeast across Tustin. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or IF elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inver- sions, are most severe during clear cold early winter mornings. Under condi - tions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major road- ways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological 42 1 I 1 lsa 1 phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict 11 vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion, dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air 1, Basin and is partly responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. ' Baseline Air Quality Existing and probable future levels of air quality in the Tustin area can be estimated from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its El Toro monitoring station. Although the entire spectrum of air pollutants is not monitored at El Toro, the following conclusions can be drawn from these data: • Photochemical smog (ozone) levels continue to exceed standards (State and federal ) by a wide margin. The frequency of first stage smog episodes has ranged from two to ten per year, with a slight trend toward fewer episodes within the last few years. • Annual maximum ozone levels rose in the late 1970s to close to the I/ second stage alert level of 0.35 from 1978 to 1981 and then dropped again in 1982-83. • Limited measurements of carbon monoxide showed extremely low base- line levels for a monitoring station located near two busy arter- ials. As noted above, however, El Toro Carbon Monoxide (CO) data are not necessarily applicable to a freeway site in Tustin. I • Dust levels periodically exceed the State standard, but only one measurement in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in six years. California recently passed a new standard designed to measure only those dust particles that are of the size typically inhaled deep into the human lungs, while the bigger part- icles are filtered out by human breathing passages. There are no known inhalable dust data within the project vicinity, but with low overall Total Suspended Particles (TSP) levels the respirable fraction is assumed to be correspondingly well within human health 11 levels. ▪ Lead levels dramatically demonstrate the effects of controlling vehicular pollution exhaust. Maximum monthly lead concentrations lir have not exceeded the monthly standard after several years of lead concentrations far above allowable levels recorded in the late 1970s. Table D summarizes the last six years of air quality data. 43 I 11 I/ lsa I TABLE D 11 EL TORO AIR MONITORING STATION AIR QUALITY SUMMARY (1980-1985 I (Number of days standards were exceeded, and maximum levels during such Iviolations) . Pollutant/Standard 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Ozone: + 1-HR > 0.10 ppm 65 49 38 54 61 61 1-HR > 0. 12 ppm 25 18 18 24 26 30 il Ji 1-HR > 0.20 ppm 3 5 3 10 3 7 Max. 1-HR Conc. (ppm) 0.34 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.28 Carbon Monoxide: 11 1-HR > 20 ppm _ 0 0 0 0 0 8HR > 9ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-HR Conc. (ppm) - 9.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 ii Max. 8-HR Conc. (ppm) 7.0 5.3 5.7 6. 1 7.7 Total Suspended Particulates: 24-HR > 100 ug/m 21/57 24/57 2/59 5/57 7/61 7/59 II 24-HR > 260 ug/m3 0/57 0/57 1/59 0/57 0/61 0/59 Max. 24 HR (ug/m3) 218. 234. 262. 158. 179. 183. 11 Particulate Sulfate: 24-HR > 25 ug/m 0/57 0/57 0/59 0/57 0/61 0/59 Max. 24-HR (ug/m3) 21 .2 20.0 13.4 21 .2 14.9 21 .2 I Particulate Lead: 1-MO > 1.5 ug/ms 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 Max. 1-MO (ug/m3) 0.69 0.61 0.36 0.74 0.31 0.20 ,, Inhalable Particulates: (PM-10) : 24-HR > 50 ug/m - - - - 2/11 22/59 I Max. 24-HR (ug/m3) - - - - 56. 100. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District II - = no data, or no measurements during that year 44 r 11 1' 11 ,1 Le it II 3.5.2 Impacts Short-Term Impacts II Changes in the location of any collection of automotive sources or changes in the number of vehicles or travel speeds may impact the microscale air quality around any given project site. Such microscale impacts, in addition to any temporary fugitive dust and construction equipment exhaust 1 emissions, comprise the primary air quality concerns for this project. These impacts are temporary in nature, occurring as a result of traffic congestion due to construction in streets and construction equipment. ,, Temporary impacts will result from pipeline construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during trenching procedures. fugitive dust will be generated 11 during the construction phase of the proposed project. Much of the dust generated will be comprised of particles that are readily filtered by human breathtaking passages and rapidly settle out on horizontal surfaces. Thus, it comprises more of a limited nuisance than an adverse air quality impact. 11 Construction activities will also cause combustion emissions to be released from on-site construction equipment and from off-site vehicles haul - --. ing equipment and road bed materials. The mobile nature of these sources is such that no single receptor is exposed for any length of time to the nitrogen oxides (N0x) , carbon monoxide 11 (CO) and combustion soot released by the heavy equipment. Any noticeable local impacts will then be an occasional "whiff" of diesel exhaust, but not in any concentration to threaten clean air standards. As with the dust, such effects are an infrequent minor nuisance, and not a health threatening im- 1 pact. Release of pipeline product contaminates into the air could occur if there is a pipeline rupture and spill of product. Please see Section 3.8, System Safety/Risk Management for a discussion of the potential risk of such an occurrence and the resulting effects. ILong-Term Impacts Due to the subsurface nature of the pipeline, it is anticipated that the 11 project will not create any long-term air quality impacts. 45 II I . 11 I LM 1 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures ilThe following measures will be implemented to mitigate nuisance level impacts related to construction activities and short term effect from project construction activities: 12. Dust suppression measures, such as regular watering or other dust control measures, shall be implemented by the project proponent to SEE II reduce short-term impacts associated with the relocation of the RESPONSE pipeline. Transport of soil shall also be controlled to minimize TO dust by watering or covering of truckbeds. These measures are C O M M ENT li required by SCAQMD Rule 403. These measures shall be monitored by M SDPC and enforced by SDPC, at the direction of the Director of Public Works. 11 13. A regular street sweeping and washing program shall be enacted where project construction activities interact with existing tra- veled roadways, to remove dirt spillage or materials deposited from ,' dirty equipment tires, at the direction of the Director of Public Works. Said program shall be submitted to the Director prior to issuance of work permits. 14. Construction traffic shall be routed to minimize interference with existing traffic patterns and to minimize idling truck queuing near any occupied sensitive receptor locations. A staging and traffic routing plan shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works by SDPC or its contractor(s) , subject to the approval of the Director prior to issuance of work permits. 11 15. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment will be controlled to meet the State of California vehicle emission standards. 16. Following pipeline installation, restoration or the regrowth of vegetated areas by SDPC or its contractor(s) will be required to reduce the potential for dust generation. 11 17. Construction activity shall be properly managed and supervised by SDPC to reduce the unnecessary use of construction equipment. This ._- will reduce equipment usage where practical and reduce exhaust emissions and congestion during construction of the pipeline. This will reduce construction emission of NO2 and SO4. Said management plan shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works, subject to ,I his approval , prior to issuance of work permits. 46 I 11 1 11 LSE1 18. All construction equipment will be properly maintained by SDPC, and its contractor(s) . This will minimize NOx emissions from construc- tion activities. 3.5.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the above measures will ensure that any construction related air quality impacts are mitigated to a level of nonsignificance. 3.6 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The following information was compiled from an ' existing traffic and circulation study prepared for the East Tustin Specific Plan.1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Regional Transportation Issues Transportation and circulation planning in the project vicinity is dictated primarily by the Master Plans of Arterial Highways (MPAHs) for Orange County and the City of Tustin (Figures 9 and 10) . I _ Currently, there are four proposed projects within . the Tustin city limits which will add capacity to the transportation network of this area. 1 These projects include: Jamboree/I-5 Interchange reconstruction which is proposed to be completed in 1989; I-5 widening for which construction will begin in July 1989; the North-South Road (Jamboree Road) which will be com- pleted by August 1988, and the Tustin Ranch Road interchange, anticipated completion in December of 1989. 1 'East Tustin Specific Plan Traffic Analysis, Austin-Foust Associates, December 13, 1985. 47 i I I, 9 Orange County I Master Plan of Arterial Highways lsa I 1 \ i. _ \>, / ° * %`s 4 r I \` in II * ►® 40.•blibat• h,i CC• .t • 0—= ' Ii"IRVINE BLVD ;�� W ¢ 3� In.i O m I in BRYAN AVE.._ _ ` ......... a `��� SANTA ANA FWV (I-5) ���' ! =<.• r P 1•p._-_ MOULTON PKWY ill ti ■-aes. AS ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS ,-^" -; 1P _ I, ESTABLISHED CONCEPTUALLY r P/ AT ALIGNMENT PROPOSED ' 1 MAJOR ■—■ �•• to -- Ie Y T .....,...r I MODIFIED MAJOR --• • v _ _ 1 PRIMARY li • MODIFIED PRIMARY ' SECONDARY • I f f 1 / C f ' COMMUTER • 1 • I I 1 10 City of Tustin ' Master Plan of Arterial Highways lsa i I di No Scale o , 04 I000111 - i e 1 ,, i i : . L.- . J .1 ' .,�� . ROAD t Q Will: -. 4S IOW 411*444 'Pwrr. jS ,N . • 4 1 N.. I - 4, LEGEND 4 Ot 4 Or„ MA-7OR II 441 1 N 4 PRIMARY r` SECONDAP.Y a ', l II I' II ti5E, I Local Circulation IIKey roadways existing in the proposed project alignment include the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) , Bryan Avenue, Irvine Boulevard, Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue, Browning Avenue, Walnut Avenue and Moulton Parkway. Figure 11 I illustrates the existing circulation system in the vicinity of the project, and the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes. II, Regional access in the project area is provided by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) . The project area was undeveloped at the time the I-5 freeway was I constructed, consequently only minimal access facilities exist. At present, there are only two interchanges with the I-5 in the City of Tustin: the Jamboree Road/I-5 undercrossing (formerly Myford Road) , and the Red Hill Avenue undercrossing. Red Hill Avenue is the only complete interchange , within the Tustin city limits and is currently substandard to handle current ' and future traffic volumes. Irvine Boulevard provides the primary east-west access in the vicinity II of the proposed project, and is currently constructed to four of its ultimate six lane section (major arterial ) . Bryan Avenue also provides east-west access and is currently being improved to three lanes within an ultimate Ifour-lane section (primary arterial ) . Tustin Ranch Road and Browning Avenue, a secondary arterial will provide north/south access to the project area. Red Hill Avenue is a major north-south access route within the city, and is currently constructed to four lanes. South of Bryan Avenue, Red Hill Avenue j; is designated for improvement to six lanes (major arterial ) . Existing deficiencies in the local circulation system are largely cen- II tered along what is referred to as the Red Hill Corridor. Inadequate capa- city at the I-5 freeway interchange and four lane rather than six lane opera- tion south of the freeway lead to current peak hour congestion conditions. il Also, freeway avoidance traffic from SR-55 and I-5 add to the deficient peak hour conditions. As a result of this condition, freeway avoidance traffic from I-5 places high through-traffic volumes on Bryan Avenue and Irvine II Boulevard. The daily capacity ,of a roadway is determined by the relationship be- tween the type of arterial (number of lanes) and the designated level of service. The concept of Level Of Service (LOS) establishes five levels, A through F. LOS A indicates free flowing traffic volumes less than or equal to sixty percent (60%) of the available capacity of the roadway, while LOSD II represents traffic flow conditions nearing capacity of the roadway, with continuous unemptied queues forming at intersection approaches. LOS E, 50 II I I 1 11 Existing Circulation System (1985) lsa I (4) (4) �' J (41 •._ / 24 IRVINE BLVD 18 \ • N 9 o.II//�/1IIIIIIIIII//,II - 1111111111111111111111111 i1 cn J N N FIRST ST = - • (4) ¢ ta (4) - (2)I '� \/ 7r\ - (2) 10 BRYAN AVE 8 7 5 5� p`a N II e et • N 0 el "c ISAN JUAN ST a w V (6) 6 ` 11111= (6) 128 SANTA 0 — ANA FWY (I-5) 2 Ia LEGEND o - d m I (x) Number of Lanes = xx ADT Volumes (OOO's) MITCHELL AVE O _ o 11111 Existing Pipeline E 6 cc I M Proposed Pipeline 0 z WALNUT AVE 18 — 2 _- ti I H co gm r S ~ 9 . ■//IIIIIIIIIIII• I I 111 MOULTON—PARK WAY— 71 I7/10/8 7:LSI Not to Scale II II II lsa 11 representing utilization in excess of 90%, is the level at which conditions are considered impacted. LOS F would indicate flow conditions in excess of capacity. The percent utilization of the roadway capacity per level of service is as follows: 11 Volume to Level of Service Capacity Ratio ' A <0.60 B 0.61 to 0.70 ma C 0.71 to 0.80 D 0.81 to 0.90 E 0.91 to 1.00 F >1.00 IITable E lists the existing volume to capacity ratios for nearby roadway segments which are based on representative capacity values for Level of Service E as follows: ISix lane major arterial 54,000 VPD Four lane major arterial 36,000 VPD ;11 Four lane primary arterial 32,000 VPD Four lane secondary arterial 28,000 VPD Two lane major arterial 16,000 VPD Two lane primary/secondary 14,000 VPD 1' Table F lists the peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for key selected intersections in the project vicinity. These volume/ capacity ratios and ICU's indicate that the section of Newport Avenue between Bryan Avenue and I-5 is currently operating at capacity, with a LOS E. Red Hill Avenue in the vicinity of the I-5 is operating at ICU levels at or over 11 capacity, with PM LOS values of D and F for the northbound and southbound ramps respectively. These facilities carry high volumes during peak periods due to "freeway avoidance" traffic from both the SR-55 and I-5 freeways, and II the congestion indicated by the ICUs is not fully reflected in the more generalized ADT capacity comparisons. 3.6.2 Impacts IIImpacts to traffic and circulation would be considered significant to the project area if: L1 . Access for emergency equipment is obstructed. 52 II 11 II II tsa TABLE E IIEXISTING ADT VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS 1 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LOS NEWPORT BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF: Irvine 32,000 23,000 0.47 A Bryan 32,000 32,000 1.00 E IIRED HILL AVENUE, SOUTH OF: Irvine 36,000 15,000 0.47 A Bryan 36,000 21,000 0.58 A INorth of I-5 36,000 27,000 0.75 C IRVINE BOULEVARD, WEST OF: /1 Newport 36,000 24,000 0.67 B Red Hill 36,000 25,000 0.69 B Browning 36,000 21,000 0.58 A 1 BRYAN AVENUE, WEST OF: I Red Hill 28,000 10,000 0.36 A Browning 28,000 8,000 0.29 A I II 1 t 53 II I 1 lsa I TABLE F EXISTING PEAK HOUR ICU SUMMARY 1 INTERSECTION AM 1985 PM Newport and Irvine .72 .70 Red Hill and Irvine .50 .51 Red Hill and Bryan .59 .58 Red Hill and El Camino Real .66 .73 Red Hill and I-5 NB Ramps .77 .83 Red Hill and I-5 SB Ramps .63 1.01 Browning and Irvine .61 .56 Browning and Bryan .23 .42 Browning and El Camino Real .07 .07 • I I I 1 1 54 I I 2. A major roadway or railroad is closed to all through traffic and no alternate route is available. 3. On-street parking is eliminated in any given block for more than four weeks. Short-term Impacts Short-term impacts on traffic and circulation are associated with the construction of the pipeline. Construction impacts on circulation will be similar to the construction of water mains, sewer construction or placement of other underground utilities. Minor impacts will be associated with rou- tine maintenance and repair requirements during the operation of the pipe- line. Construction and maintenance of the pipeline will have only short-term impacts on the arterial street capacity or local circulation of the project area. Pipeline construction activities would include trench digging, pipe installation, backfilling, and roadway repaving. Construction activities would occur at any one street intersection, or cross street at a time. Where a major street is crossed, only a portion of the road would be excavated, with the remaining road being kept open for traffic. Intersections are critical areas due to their influence on circulation both on the street the pipeline is following and on the street being crossed. Pipeline construction would disrupt existing traffic flow in the project area in varying degrees depending upon the existing volume of the surface street being crossed. (See Table E for Existing ADT Volumes.) The most intense construction activity would occur at crossings of highways and rail - roads. In these instances, pipeline construction will be controlled by the City of Tustin so that vehicular and rail traffic could continue to operate and would minimal disruption to the public. Construction activities would also reduce the accessibility to some 1 residences, businesses and public facilities along portions of the route. Vehicular traffic would be impaired as a result of temporary lane closures and congestion resulting from spillover onto adjacent streets. Traffic impacts would vary depending on the width and available travel lanes of the affected roadway. In general , the work area is anticipated to require, 25 feet or less of the roadway while maintaining a two-way through and emergency traffic. Factors that may further contribute to the reduction in traffic capacity include: the amount of construction equipment; unusual 55 p I I detour configurations; uneven or poor roadway surfaces; and inefficient signal timing for construction conditions. In addition to surface roads being impacted by construction activities, ' the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) at the proposed Interchange at Tustin Ranch Road may also be affected, during boring operations of the pipeline. Caltrans permitting, however, will assure cooperative schedules, and minimize poten- tial impacts. Long-Term Impacts No significant long-term impacts on traffic and circulation are anti- cipated to occur as a result of the proposed pipeline project. Traffic and circulation will only be affected during the construction phase of the pro- " ject, therefore no long-term impacts are foreseen along the proposed pipeline route. As dictated by the Franchise Agreement with the City, the public roadway right-of-way will be repaved and returned to its pre-construction condition and, therefore, no long-term impacts are expected to occur. 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures 11 The following mitigation measures are intended to reduce the short-term traffic and circulation impacts associated with the construction of the pipeline along the proposed route. 19. In order to facilitate the safe movement of traffic through con- struction and maintenance areas, these areas will be delineated by signs, flagmen, pavement markings, barricades, and lights, as 1 determined by permit requirements by the City of Tustin. 20. Traffic may be rerouted around construction. A circulation and parking plan shall be prepared by SDPC or its contractor for each phase of construction, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 21 . In areas where on-street curb parking is temporarily eliminated due to construction and maintenance activities, signs directing motor- ists to alternative parking will be provided. Circulation and parking plans shall include location of supplemental parking within �i 600 feet of parking being replaced and all proposed signage. I 56 I lsa 1 22. Where pedestrian activities are affected during construction, appropriate warning signs will be installed and pedestrians will be diverted. Pedestrian access to residences and business will be maintained during construction. Special facilities, such as hand- ' rails, fences, and walkways will be provided for the safety of pedestrians. All such measures shall be included in the circula- tion and parking plan described above. 23. Obstruction of emergency vehicle operations will be partially mitigated by ensuring that providers of emergency services are kept informed of the location, nature, and duration of construction activities so alternative routes can be chosen. It is essential that fire department access is maintained to all buildings adjacent to construction activities. For this reason, a minimum of at least one lane for streets undergoing construction will be kept open at all times, and fire hydrants in construction areas will remain accessible. ' 24. Public transit stops should be temporarily relocated if affected by pipeline construction activities. The SDPC will coordinate with the Orange County Transit District to provide signs directing riders to temporary stop locations. This measure shall be included in the circulation and parking plan required above. 25. The SDPC will notify residents and businesses along the pipeline route of the construction schedule, two weeks in advance. 26. The Director of Public Works shall determine those intersections i along the proposed route which will require SDPC to bore to install the pipeline. These include, but are not limited to, the inter- section of Newport Avenue and Bryan Avenue, and the I-5 Freeway. I. 27. SDPC shall coordinate the construction of roads/utilities with other projects, if possible, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. This would lessen the disruption to traffic and access into the area. 28. Peak period traffic along the pipeline route should not be dis- rupted to a point where LOS is reduced to E or F for more than four hours per day for a period not to exceed two weeks. 1 57 i I 11 i lsa 3.6.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation iThe project may cause significant short-term traffic and circulation impacts due to construction, however no long-term impacts are anticipated. 3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.7.1 Environmental Setting IThe following section briefly describes the public services and utili- ties in the vicinity of the proposed project. Correspondence from service providers are included in Appendix C. Emergency Services. The Tustin Police Department provides traffic law enforcement to the project area. The police department facility is located on Centennial Way in the City Civic Center in Tustin. Response time to the project location varies greatly with traffic conditions. The police depart- ment uses a factor of 1 .44 sworn officers per 1,000 residents to estimate service demands. The County of Orange Sheriff-Coroner Department provides law enforcement service to the portion of the project area within the County of Orange. Service is provided by the Headquarters facility located on North Flower Street in the City of Santa Ana. The County of Orange Fire Department pro- vides fire protection and paramedic services to the project area in the City of Tustin. Response time to the site is expected to vary depending on availability and proximity of patrol units. No plans for expansion of facilities for fire or police services currently exist. The County maintains an emergency evacuation plan for the City of Tus- tin. This plan designates First Street and Fourth Street, crossing the pipeline in the vicinity of Newport Avenue, as the east to west evacuation route. Electricity. The project site is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company for the supply of electrical power. ' The standard consumption rate used by Edison to assess service demands is megawatts per square mile. Bryan Substation, located on Bryan and Browning Avenues in Tustin, is operating at a 50% capacity. 1 58 1 11 r lsa 1 Gas. The Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the project area. The availability of natural gas is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. Water/Wastewater. The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) is respon- sible for providing water distribution and wastewater collection services to the project area. Regional wastewater collection is provided by the Orange County Sanitation District. MODIFIED PER COMMENT I 7A & 178 11 Solid Waste. The County of Orange General Services Agency is respon- sible for solid waste management in the project area. The Santiago Canyon Sanitary Landfill is the facility serving the area and is located at Santiago Canyon Road in the foothills above the City of Orange. The waste management program uses a generation rate of 8.5 pounds per person per day. This land- 11 fill has a life expectancy projected for January of 1990. Hazardous Wastes. In Orange County, two agencies currently have haz- ardous waste management responsibilities: the Orange County Health Care Agency (Division of Environmental Health, and the California State Highway Patrol . However, no county-wide monitoring and enforcement program currently exists. The County Health Care Agency, specifically the County Health Officer, is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations concerning handling, stor- age, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The Orange County Sanitation Dis- tricts regulate the use of their sewage systems in order to control the discharge of pollutants and quality of effluent wastewater. No disposal site facilities (Class I sites) currently accept hazardous waste within Orange County. Handling and transportation of hazardous materials is regulated, in varying degrees, by several State Agencies including: State Department of Health Services (DOHS) , State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) , and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) . 11 According to the State Department of Health, the most commonly used routes at this time for transporting hazardous materials are assumed to be Interstate Highways 5 and 405 (I-5 and I-405) because they provide more direct and easily accessible routes to major out-of-county Class I landfills. Telephone. The project site lies within the service jurisdiction of Pacific Bell . Presently, no facilities occur in the project area, nor is there an immediate requirement to provide service at this time. Pacific Bell 59 1 .1 11 1 t-53 11 anticipates a future network expansion, primarily conduit construction in 11 this area, in order to provide the service required by the East Tustin devel - opment plans. A 26-duct structure is currently located on Irvine Boulevard. ' 3.7.2 Impacts The proposed pipeline will not place an increased demand upon these services and utilities. Construction activities could cause accidental dis- ;1 ruption of utilities; however precautionary measures will be taken to reduce risk of accidental disruption to utilities as described in Section 3.8.4 Mitigation No. 33 of this document. In addition, engineering studies of 11 underground transmission lines indicate that existing services may continue during construction, without realignment. The pipeline may cause a disruption to traffic circulation should a City 11 emergency evacuation be required during pipeline construction (see Section 3.8 for further information) . An evacuation plan for the City of Tustin has been established by the County of Orange and has been approved by the State ' of California. The plan identifies the evacuation routes to be taken in the event of a major emergency (e.g. major earthquake) . 11 The plan identifies the following streets and freeways to be used in the event of an evacuation: 1) 1st Street to the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) , and 2) 4th Street to the Newport Freeway (SR55) . Once on the freeway all evacuation traffic will be directed in an easterly direction. The evacuation plan may be affected by the proposed pipeline project. The 1st Street evacuation route crosses the proposed pipeline alignment at 11 Newport Avenue. The risk associated with having the evacuation route cross the proposed pipeline alignment would depend on the type of emergency, its severity and its location. It should be noted that the existing ten inch line also crosses this evacuation route at approximately the same area as the 1 proposed pipeline. No new impact that is not already present would occur. 3.7.3 Mitigation Measures 29. The City of Tustin shall work with the County of Orange to desig- nate an alternate emergency evacuation route as a contingency II should the pipeline be affected by a catastrophic event, leading to potential blockage of First or Fourth Streets. I . 60 11 11 11 1 1 • tsa 11 3.7.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation iThere remains remote possibilities of adverse impacts to existing utili - ties and services, and to the City's emergency evacuation plan. Every pre- , caution is being taken to limit the risk associated with these possible effects, (please see Sections 3.6 and 3.8) . Because of the mitigation in- cluded in Sections 3.6.4 and 3.8.4 and the small likelihood of possible impacts, the effects described in this section are reduced to a level of non- significance. 3.8 SYSTEM SAFETY/RISK MANAGEMENT SEE RESPONSE TO COMMENT G5 This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed pipeline in terms of whether construction and operation of the project would pose unacceptable risks to natural and human environments. The major areas of concern are the potential for an accidental spill and an explosion and/or fire. These safety and environmental risks have been evaluated in order to answer the following four issues: 11 1 . Do the project design, construction, and operational practices contain sufficient safeguards to minimize the probability of an 1 accidental fuel spill , explosion and/or fire? 2. What is the probability (frequency) of an accidental fuel spill , explosion, and/or fire; and what is the probable magnitude (volume) 1 of an accidental fuel spill? 3. What are the significant environmental and safety effects of an 11 accidental fuel spill , explosion, and/or fire? 4. Are the potential impacts of a fuel spill mitigable? 3.8.1 Pipeline System Safety and Reliability If the following conditions are not complied with, the resulting impacts 11 may be significant and if they were to occur, system safety and reliability would be jeopardized: Non-conformance to National Fire Protection Association standards at any location. Operating policies and procedures concerning design, construction, security, leak detection, spill containment, or fire protection • 61 11 I 1 1 I that do not conform to regulation and generally accepted industry practices. The probability of a spill , explosion, and/or fire from the exist- ing pipeline is substantially greater than a modern, state-of-the- art, refined products pipeline. The following discussion addresses the features of the proposed pipeline project which will minimize the potential of the above impacts occurring and thus system failure. This section will also discuss the potential risks of a pipeline spill , fire and/or explosion and the resulting impacts both to humans and the natural environment. Pipeline Design and Operating Practices The pipeline will be designed to meet current industry standards. Table G lists the principal codes and standards to which the pipeline will be designed and constructed. Additional standards and specifications not listed are incorporated into the listed codes by reference. SDPC has indicated that all applicable codes, standards, and regulations would be followed during pipeline design, construction, and operation. In some cases, normal industry standards or common practice exceed regulatory or code requirements, and the proposed pipeline design includes these standards. Corrosion Design Criteria and Corrosion Control Procedures Protection of the pipeline from corrosion is of critical importance to both the environment and the pipeline operator. Pitting of the pipeline can occur because of a chemical reaction between the soil and the carbon steel pipe if it is not adequately protected. Pitting can eventually reduce the strength of the pipe sufficiently to cause a break and result in a leak. 1 The new pipeline will be protected by physical pipe coatings and by connection to existing cathodic protection systems. The pipe coating will consist of an undercoating, applied to blast-cleaned pipe, and a durable polypropylene copolymer sheath. The coating will be tested before and after installation to ensure quality. Coating is to be applied by a specialty subcontractor, using facilities designed for such work. Field welds will receive localized, field-applied coatings at the time of pipeline installa- tion. Immediately after tie-in welds are completed, the new pipeline will be cathodically protected and monitored, in compliance with the State of Cali - fornia Government Code. Protection will be achieved by electrically bonding 62 I I 1 lsa 1 TABLE G APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CODES FOR PIPELINE DESIGN r Standards and Codes U.S. Department of Transportation 49CFR, Part 195 - Transportation of Haz- ardous Liquids by Pipeline California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, Chapter 5.5 of California Government Code ANSI B31 .4, Liquid Petroleum Transportation Piping Systems ANSI 831 . 1, Sec. 121, Design of Pipe Supporting Elements ANSI 816.5, Steel Pipe Flanges and Flange Fittings ANSI 816.9, Steel Butt Welding Fittings API RP 1102, Recommended Practice for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines Crossing Railroads and Highways API Std 1104, Standard for Welding Pipelines and Related Facilities API RP 1107, Recommended Pipeline Maintenance Welding Practice API RP 1110, Recommended Practice for Pressure Testing of Liquid Petroleum Pipelines API Std 5LX, High Test Line Pipe API 6D, Specification for Pipeline Valves API RP 500C, Recommended Practice for Classification of Areas for Electrical ' Installation at Petroleum and Gas Pipeline Transportation Systems API 650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage I/ API, Manual of Petroleum Measurement - Pipeline Metering System 63 I I Isa TABLE G (Continued) APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CODES FOR PIPELINE DESIGN American Society for Testing and Materials - Applicable Material Standards American Welding Society Standard 0109.9, Standard for Qualification of Welding Procedures and Welders for Pipeline and Tubing NFPA 70, National Electric Code I I I 1 I I/ I 1 64 I I l2 the new pipeline to the existing cathodic protection system which will pro- vide a very small amount of electrical current to the pipe to counteract the naturally occurring current flow between the pipe and earth. Special test stations will allow pipeline operators to continuously monitor the perfor- mance of the cathodic protection system. Quality Control and Inspection Procedures The applicant will employ stringent quality control and inspection procedures to ensure that pipeline construction activities do not compromise system safety. These procedures include non-destructive radiographic testing of all welds, and hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. These quality control and inspection procedures conform to code and meet acceptable industry stan- dards. These and other quality control tests are required by the 1981 Califor- nia Pipeline Safety Act. Examples of required inspection procedures include: - Material inspection of all pipe • Welders are certified • All welds are visually inspected All welds are non-destructively tested ▪ External pipe coating is inspected. Block and Check Valves Block valves afford the means to achieve isolation of a segment of the pipeline. Typically, they are utilized for testing and inspection purposes, however they can also serve to minimize potential spill volumes in the event of a pipeline break. The specific design details of block valves is dis- cussed in Section 2.3. 1 of this document. A check valve has been recently installed on the downstream side of the SEE pipeline, near the City limits, in the railroad right-of-way approaching RESPONSE Jamboree Boulevard. A check valve functions as a one-way valve, permitting TO flow in one direction (from the City of Orange to San Diego) . This valve is COMMENT installed as a safety feature and protects the line from very large reverse F7 pressure surges. Should a leak occur in Tustin, upon line shutdown the check valve will automatically close and prevent back-flow of pipeline fluid. I/ 65 • i 1 1 1 Pipeline Safety Controls and Leak Detection System 1 The pipeline will be continuously monitored at manned dispatch centers located in the City of Norwalk and at the Orange terminal . These facilities 1 monitor the pipeline and cause a shutdown of the system under the following conditions: High Pressure: The pressure in the pipeline is monitored con- tinuously. Any time the pressure indicator exceeds a designated pressure level , the pumps will shutdown automatically. This system will not allow pressure to increase to levels which could weaken or 1 burst the pipeline or associated components. Low Pressure: Again, since the pressure is being monitored con- tinuously, a significant drop in pressure below a designated level will also cause an automatic shutdown of the pumps. Hence, if there is a break in the pipeline, the pressure will drop and the system will shut down. If the pipeline is not in use, it is packed, i .e. , kept full under constant pressure. If there is a leak, the pressure will drop, and the system will produce an alarm to indicate the reduced pressure. 1 Leak: The volume of product that goes into the pipeline at the input station and the volume that comes out the other end will be continuously monitored, measured, and compared at three locations. 1 These three locations include: 1) in the input station control room, 2) at the receiving facility, and 3) at the dispatcher con- trol center in Los Angeles. Whenever the measurements do not match within preset limits, the leak detection system will cause a shut- down of the pumps. A modern, state-of-the-art leak detection computer, produced by Real Time Systems, of Houston, Texas has been proposed for this pipeline. This system models transient and steady state conditions in the pipeline and is accurate from 0.1 to 1.0 percent, depending on transient conditions. The 11 computer will enable leak detection of leaks as small as 40 barrels within two minutes and will also report the location of potential leaks. 3.8.2 Potential Risk of a Pipeline Spill , Explosion, and/or Fire Background information for this section is provided in Appendix D. The Appendix provides detailed calculations used to develop spill frequencies and volumes. 66 1 11 I I 1 Methodology The methodology use to develop this data is based on Mastandrea (1982) . In Mastandreas study, performed for the Environmental Protection Agency, a detailed study of historical pipeline incidents was conducted and specific data regarding spill mechanisms, volume of spills, probability of spills; causes of spills were collected. This data was then adjusted so as to re- flect a "typical ", or "reference" pipeline, which was fairly representative of the bulk of the pipelines studied. For this "reference" pipeline, the probability and magnitude of spills were calculated. To allow for site- specific analysis, a series of correction factors were developed, which allow ' for deviation from the "reference" pipeline case. The correction factors may increase or decrease the probability and/or magnitude of a spill , depending upon the item being considered and the differences between the case-specific pipeline and the reference pipeline. For example, in adjusting for an urban environment relative to the reference pipeline cross-country environment, the correction factor for accidental damage may increase the probability of an accident. On the other hand, the existence of a leak-detection system on the proposed pipeline, not currently used in the "reference" pipeline, may de- crease the expected magnitude of a spill . For pipeline spills, Department of Transportation statistics indicate that most pipeline failures occur from one of the following five major causes, (causes listed in order of expected occurrence) . • Equipment rupturing the line • External corrosion • Internal corrosion • Incorrect operation • Defective pipe. Probable Spill Frequencies Pipeline spill probabilities (frequencies) for the proposed pipeline were derived from historical pipeline spill statistics for a typical pipeline as reported by Mastandrea. These statistics were corrected for specific fea- tures as described in Appendix D. The predicted pipeline spill probability is estimated at 3.93 x 10-4 spills/mile-year. Given the route length of four ' miles, and assuming a project life of 50 years, this converts to a rate of .002 spills/year (one spill in 500 years) or about .081 pipeline spills over the life of the project. Details of the spill frequency calculations are provided in Appendix D. 1 67 I 1 1 The probable pipeline spill volumes are discussed below. As with spill ' frequencies, the historical data on volumes of fluid spilled were adjusted from the typical pipeline to allow for characteristics and features unique to the proposed pipeline. For a description of a "hypothetical spill " and response provisions, please see Appendix E. The mean (arithmetic average) spill size for the proposed pipeline is estimated at about 6,830 barrels/spill . Given the spill frequency reported earlier, this converts to a spill rate of 2.68 barrels/mile-year or about 135 barrels of oil spilled over the 50 year life of the project. The probability of a catastrophic failure of the pipeline is very low, as determined by past experience. However, under exceptional circumstances, a large spill could occur. Larger spill volumes may result should there be a catastrophic failure of the pipeline. Exact spill volumes in a catastrophic failure are a func- tion of many variables, such as location of leak, size of hole in the pipe- line, oil pressure at the leak, elevation of the leak relative to nearby pipe segments, pipeline shutdown response time, and separation of block valves. As such, spill volumes could vary greatly depending on the precise circum- stances of the leak. The area coverage of a potential spill is also a factor of many vari - ables and as such cannot be accurately estimated. Spill coverage is deter- mined largely by spill volume and topographic or other barriers (such as street curbs, storm drains, etc. ) which may dam or channel flow. In addi - tion, prompt initiation of spill containment measures are also effective at limiting the spread of an accidental spill . Fire and Explosion Risks ' An accidental spill poses some potential risk of fire and/or explosion. Temperatures must exceed the flash point for the vapors over the spilled fluid to ignite when exposed to a flame. The presence of a source of heat is the second condition for the vapor to ignite. Should a spill occur, some vapors would evaporate into the atmosphere, posing a threat of explosion. This threat would be determined by the size of the spill and the dilution of gases into the air. Like the flash point, the flammability limit (lower and upper) is a range within which the vapor will burn. The lower flammability limit (LFL) is critical from an ignition stand- point because it represents the largest dilution and dispersion of hydrocar- bons in the air. For a spill to present a fire hazard, hydrocarbons must 68 1 1 evaporate from the spill faster than the wind can disperse them to below the LFL concentrations. If a spill enters a sewer or storm drain system, then vapor concentrations may build up and be accidently ignited. The following table provides representative flash points and flammabil - ity limits for various petroleum fuels (source NEPA 325M-1984) . LOWER UPPER ' FLASH IGNITION FLAMMABILITY FLAMMABILITY POINT TEMP LIMIT LIMIT SUBSTANCE °F °F % VOL % VOL Gasoline -45 536 1.4 7.6 AV Gas -50 880 1 .2 7. 1 Diesel Fuel #2 125 - - - Jet Fuel (JP-5) 140 475 1.3 - (- = NA) ' The most significant impacts of an accidental fire and/or explosion is the risk of death or injury to pipeline workers and the general public, as well as property damage to homes and businesses. As would be expected, this risk is highest at the surface, immediately adjacent to the source of the leak, and along the flow path that the spilled fluid may travel along once reaching the surface. The limits of the hazardous area, or "footprint" ' surrounding such a scene may vary widely in size, depending upon such vari- ables as the exact nature of the leak, the quantity spilled, the terrain, weather, and type/quantity potential ignition sources in the area. As pre- viously discussed, the threat of explosion or fire is in part, determined by the flash point, ignition temperature, and dispersion of vapor to the im- mediate hazardous area. While winds may, and often do, serve to reduce the vapor concentrations to a safe level , and reduce the limits of the hazardous area to a few square feet in size, a lack of ventilation may allow build up of potentially explosive vapors over a hazardous "footprint" area of several hundred square feet. In order for a fire or explosion to occur, an ignition ' source must be present within the limits of the hazardous "footprint" area. Examples of such a source may be an electrical spark generated by electrical equipment, a hot water heater pilot light, a passing automobile's engine, or a carelessly tossed cigarette. Complicating the determination of the hazard- ous area "footprint" are the often unpredictable paths which the spilled fluid may take upon reaching the surface. As the spilled fuel travels along streetside curbs and gutters, it will tend to flow downhill towards storm ' drainage systems unless contained. Attendant risks will be present along 69 i lsa each of these flow paths. Advance modeling of such hazardous footprints is ' difficult, as many variables cannot be known in advance. Both the City of Tustin and County fire departments have been trained in dealing with hazard- ous vapors, and responding to such an event, they would immediately test the ' atmosphere and define the limits of the hazardous_area, take steps to contain the spread of the hazard, eliminate potential sources of ignition, and then treat or otherwise suppress the hazard. National statistics historically show that one fatality occurs for every 137,209 barrels spilled and one ' injury occurs for every 82,326 barrels spilled. These statistics were com- piled from pipeline incident reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for the period 1970 to 1985. ' Spill Impacts in an Urban Environment The impacts of a pipeline spill are expected to be greatest in urban areas. The following discussion describes the type of impacts expected from a pipeline spill in an urban area. Oil or fuel spilled from the pipeline leak would likely migrate to the street, where it would be a hazard to traffic. Depending on the volume of the spill , lane closures or street closures may be required. It is not likely that oil or fuel would overflow the street curbs and affect people's homes of businesses because most streets are designed to handle large fluid volumes of storm runoff. Once in the street, the oil or fuel would probably flow into storm drains and the storm runoff system, unless contained by berms or dikes. For the size and type of spill predicted for the proposed pipeline, oil would be expected to travel along the streets and storm runoff system until it was contained by the spill response team. Travel distance of the spill would be dependent upon how long it takes the response team to reach the spill source, as well ' as the location of natural barriers that might help to retain the spill . ' Unless contained, spilled oil or fuel would eventually reach drain- ages, such as the El Modena Channel . Travel distance in a surface drainage would depend on the amount of water flow at the time of the spill and the time required to place containment devices in the drainage. If ignited, loss of life and/or serious injury to humans could potentially occur, although the likelihood of such an event is extremely small . Limited impacts to wildlife may also be ex- 70 tsa pected. The extent of clean-up would depend upon the exact nature ' of the incident and require case by case assessment. Spill Clean-Up Techniques The applicant must prepare a Pipeline Operation Contingency Plan in accordance with the California Pipeline Safety Act. This plan will outline specific procedures to be used in the containment and clean-up of an acciden- tal spill . The State Fire Marshall 's office monitors these plans. Every pipeline operator shall provide the fire department having jurisdiction a Pipeline Operation Contingency Plan which covers all of the following (Calif- , ornia Government Code-51016) : A. Procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance ac- ' tivities and approval of means to handle abnormal operations and emergencies. B. Liaison procedure with fire, police and other emergency authorities ' for emergency response, including the means of communication and the means of preventing the ignition of vapors released in a pipe- line rupture. C. Pipeline testing and maintenance and repair response plan. D. The operator's personnel training procedures for firefighting and emergency equipment use. E. An identification of the specific actions which will be taken upon discovering a spill or break. F. Any information which the fire department having jurisdiction may ' request. G. Any other information the State Fire Marshal may, by regulation, require. ' The actual oil or fuel spill containment and clean-up procedures that would be employed in the event of an actual spill would depend to a large ' degree on the size and location of the spill . First priority would be given to public safety, followed by appropriate containment and clean-up proce- dures. Containment techniques for a spill on land would involve construction of berms around the spill area to prevent spreading. In areas where the spread follows natural or manmade drainages (e.g. , rivers, canals, streets, 71 I i 1 1 storm drains, etc. ) , other containment techniques would be employed, such as ' booms, blocking dams, underflow dams, diversion dams, overflow berms, and culvert blocking. QOMMENT Response time for Hazardous Materials Unit to any point along pipe SPONSE d o ' line is 10 to 15 minutes (Orange County Fire Department, December 3, 1987) . The Hazardous Materials Unit which would serve the pipeline is from 5 to 6 miles to the south in the City of Irvine, Orange County Station No. 4. Clean-up procedures often require the removal of soils or other mater- ials that have become contaminated. On flat surfaces, graders and scrapers may be used, except where trees or heavy vegetation restrict their use. On uneven terrain, bulldozers and front-end loaders may be used to remove con- taminated soils. Spills into groundwater may also be cleaned using either ' water flooding (flotation) or pumping of oily water to the surface. (Please see the Biology Section (3.2) of this EIR for a discussion of the effects on surface and subsurface biotic. ) 3.8.3 Impacts The applicant's current proposal would not jeopardize system safety and the .reliability criteria previously discussed. The above review of the SDPC proposal has demonstrated that the pipeline design, construction and operat- ing practices are theoretically sound. The proposed pipeline either meets or exceeds any standard or regulation applied to design, construction and opera- ' tion, thus taking advantage of available precautions to ensure system safety and reliability over the life of this project. The pipeline may be consi- dered safe, provided the proposed practices and measures are implemented and , strictly enforced. Although remote, there remains a possibility that the pipeline may rupture and/or leak, causing the adverse effects on the environ- ment as outlined above, and potentially cause loss of life or serious injury in a worst-case scenario. ' 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures ' Pipeline system safety and reliability may be ensured by strict ad- herence to the existing State and federal regulations. To ensure such com- pliance, the following measures are to be utilized: 30. The Pipeline Operator shall provide the City with a Pipeline Opera- tions Contingency Plan in accordance with the California Government Code 51016. 1 72 a • lsa I 31 . Completed drawings, showing the record "as built" information ' regarding pipe location, shall be provided to the City upon con- clusion of construction. ' 32. Copies of all Hydrostatic Testing Reports shall be submitted to the City for record purposes, within four weeks of such testing. 33. Bury plastic tape, imprinted with applicable warnings, above the pipeline, for the length of the pipeline, so as to provide early warning to anyone digging above the pipeline. ' 3.8.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation reduces the opportunity for any break in the pipeline to a very small likelihood. Even if a spill were to occur, containment of the spill and pipeline shutdown assure that there is a very small risk associated with any spill . However, there remains, after mitigation, the potential for significant impacts to surrounding property, biotic habitat and to people. • II 1 73 1 I 1 II ' 4.0 ABANDONMENT PROGRAM 4.1 BACKGROUND MODIFIED FOR FINAL EIR I . As part of their proposal , SDPC plans to abandon most of their existing 10 inch pipeline within the city limits. Most of this pipe is located on an easement which is part of the recently abandoned Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. Over the years, homes have built up along this easement, and in some cases, homeowners have actually obtained individual easements to allow extensions of their backyards over the pipeline easement. SDPC believes that construction of the new 16 inch pipeline in this easement 0 would create disruption for many of the homeowners along the route. Further- more, they believe installation of the proposed 16 inch pipeline and conti- nued operation of the 10 inch pipeline in this easement is not desired for athe following reasons: • Access and surveillance of the "topside" portion of the pipeline route is difficult as homeowners' fences create visual and physical ' vehicle barriers to line riders. In the event of an emergency, or suspected leak, SDPC might, for example, need to remove fences and disrupt homeowners' backyard activities in order to bring emergency equipment to a particular location. • The presence of a pipeline beneath land used for residential pur- poses is a greater risk than a pipeline located beneath City streets. A contractor who digs in City streets is legally bound to notify Underground Service Alert (USA) . In addition, his construc- tion plans are normally reviewed by City inspectors, who will have ' access to City street drawings with recorded substructures shown on them. A homeowner, however, may commence digging around his home without realizing the potential hazards which may exist. 4.2 LOCATION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING MODIFIED FOR FINAL EIR The existing 10 inch line which is proposed to be abandoned is shown in ' Figure 2. It starts at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Packers Circle, moves easterly along Packers Circle, then along the El Modena flood control channel (between Olympus and Mauna Loa Drive) . It continues east 0 along the flood control channel and follows the now abandoned railroad right- of-way located between Bent Twig Lane and Riverford Road. At the intersec- tion with Browning Avenue, the line turns south. At the intersection with ' the 5 Freeway, the line turns south easterly to intersect the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The pipe crosses the freeway on an elevated trestle 74 1 lsa I crossing. On the south side of the freeway, the line continues along in the ' railway and curves into the existing railway located parallel to Moulton Parkway (Irvine Center Drive) . This line continues easterly and intersects the proposed tie-in point of the new 10 inch pipeline, located on the east aside of the as yet not built Tustin Ranch Road. The Department of Transportation is proceeding with a widening program for I-5 through the City of Tustin and other nearby jurisdiction. The widen- ", ing of 1-5 will remove the existing pipeline trestle. Should the pipeline remain in use, the pipeline would have to be relocated and the pipeline placed under the freeway. Should the pipeline be abandoned in place and filled with either mud or nitrogen, as is being proposed by SDPC, the pipe- line would have to be severed and capped on either side of the freeway, as the trestle was being removed. I4.3 ABANDONMENT PROGRAM MODIFIED FOR FINAL EIR 4.3.1 Proposed Abandonment Program The abandoned pipeline is proposed to be drained of all remaining pro- duct, and remaining vapors purged from within the pipe. The line will have ' end caps installed, and then filled with an inert gas. The inert gas is used to reduce the amount of corrosion, which might occur if the line were left filled with air. The gas to be used is nitrogen (nitrogen packing) , which is not poisonous or explosive, and does not pose any health or biological risk. Ownership of the pipeline abandoned in the old railroad right-of-way will revert to the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) Company. ' All property rights and easement rights are owned by the AT&SF Railroad. The line will procedurally be removed from the inventory of pipelines belonging to SDPC, thus eliminating their ability to use such line in the future for transmission of hazardous liquids. The pipeline to be abandoned was constructed in 1962. This pipe is as strong as the intended replacement pipe. The existing pipeline, while e- ll quipped with a high/low pressure switcher and a leak detection circuit, does not have a computerized, dynamic leak detection like that which is proposed for the new pipeline. ' 4.3.1 Alternate Pipeline Abandonment Methods The use of nitrogen pack for line abandonment, as proposed by the SDPC, ' and implemented according to the Abandonment Mitigation Measures, provides 75 1 1 1 1 1 minimal disruption to homeowners living along the pipeline easement, and protects the line against rapid corrosion. It also assures that all pos- sibility of contaminants is cleared by the time SDPC abandons the pipeline, and quit claims the easement. 1 The following is a discussion of other methods of pipeline abandonment that could be used: 1. Drilling Mud. This alternate is similar to the nitrogen pack discussed above, except that drilling mud is pumped into the pipe instead of nitrogen. In areas with very heavily congested and undocumented substruc- 11 tures, a mud-filled line is often easier to identify by construction workers u digging in the vicinity. The mud prohibits any liquid traveling in the line. Potential effects to surrounding soil could occur if contaminants are present I in the mud used. Reuse of the line for any other purpose is made much dif- ficult or impractical if mud is present. 2. Removal . The abandoned pipe may also be removed. Because of the cost associated with this option and the impacts to adjacent residential property, SDPC is not proposing to remove the existing line. This requires, open-cut trenching along the pipeline route. Equipment access to some areas are very poor and disruptions to homeowners with yards abutting or extended over the easement would occur. Removal would also require the cutting up of cross-streets not previously identified for construction activities. These street crossings are as follows: (Refer to Figure 2 - Location Map) Newport Avenue, Red Hill , Browning Avenue, Browning at Bryan Avenue, Browning at San Juan Street, Browning at El Camino Real , and Walnut Avenue west of Nelson School . 3. Selective Removal . The abandoned pipeline may also be selectively removed in areas where future conflicts or environmental effects could occur. n The abandoned pipeline could be removed from selected areas excluding areas U where the pipeline transverses existing residential backyards without any discernable long or short-term environmental effects in undeveloped areas. In addition, so as to avoid future potential effects related to utility or 1 public service expansion and/or maintenance within public rights-of-way, the pipeline could be selectively removed and capped so as to leave the City without any liabilities in these areas. 1 4. Alternate Use of the Pipeline. The pipeline proposed to be aban- doned may have future use in another service. The pipe may serve, for ex- ample, as a conduit for cable TV, telecommunications, or electrical power cable, should a future need arise. Installation of such utilities is greatly 76 1 I 1 tsa II simplified by having the pipe already installed in the ground and available IIfor such purpose. The installation and use of such utilities would have to be reviewed and rj regulated by the applicable authorities having jurisdiction, including the II City of Tustin, for abandoned sections of line located in City streets. 11 4.3.2 Impacts MODIFIED FOR FINAL EIR The proposed nitrogen pack for line abandonment will create minimal temporary impacts. At each end of the line, an access hole will need to be I dug to allow for installation of end caps and nitrogen insertion/venting. On the north end of the pipeline, this will cause some disruption to traffic along Newport Boulevard or to traffic in Packers Circle, depending upon exact II location of abandonment. On the south end of the pipeline, abandonment would occur in the existing railroad right-of-way and impacts would be insignifi- cant. M The pipeline trestle over the I-5 freeway will be removed as part of the freeway widening program. The procedure for cutting a nitrogen pressurized line or a mud filled line, if abandoned in place, would have to be followed. li The line would then have to be re-tested and capped, prior to removal of the trestle and pipeline section over the freeway. This could be disruptive to trestle abandonment and could cause impacts on both sides of the I-5 freeway near the area of pipeline testing, pipeline flushing and capping. IIPipeline abandonment under City street rights-of-way may cause unneces- sary future work delays and conflicts with utility construction, water and I wastewater service expansion or maintenance or street maintenance. In addi- tion, the City would have the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the line within the public right-of-way once it is abandoned. Present or I/ future soil contamination under City right-of-way would be undetected should the pipeline be abandoned in place and only capped at either end of the pipeline within the City. II Potential impacts of selective removal in undeveloped/developing areas and in street rights-of-way are limited to construction related activities and traffic disruption. These effects would be approximately a few weeks in II duration, at most, and be short-term. No significant or long-term impacts are anticipated. I . 77 II I I lsa I 4.3.3 Mitigation Measures MODIFIED FOR FINAL EIR 34. A pipeline abandonment program subject to the approval of the Public Works Director, shall be carried out by SDPC for each sec- tion of pipeline. Any substance used for abandonment purposes (whether nitrogen or drilling mud) shall be certified by a quali - fied representative of the SDPC as not containing any potential contaminants and that it is completely inert. Such certification shall occur prior to City approval of abandonment plans for por- tions within the public right-of-way. 35. As a prudent measure to avoid future impacts associated with re- moval of the trestle over I-5, the SDPC shall cut, cap and test pipeline integrity on the northerly and southerly sides of I-5. The abandonment testing and capping location and procedure shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of street work permits. 36. As a prudent measure to assure current pipeline integrity and to avoid future conflicts with public services under City street SEE rights-of-way, the SDPC shall carry out a selective removal program RESPONSE 11 at pipeline locations where they are in the street right-of-way, as TO part of the abandonment program identified in mitigation measure COMMENT 34. Each section removed and/or otherwise capped, shall be pres- 12 sure tested both upstream and downstream to ensure pipeline in- tegrity. Any leak detected shall be inspected for possible soil contamination. Incremental pipe testing or other acceptable meth- ods shall be used to facilitate identification of any possible 1 leak. Clean up and cure of any leak is required, should contamina- tion be verified at any potential leak site. 37. The City Public Works Director shall coordinate any abandonment program with the State Fire Marshall and Regional Water Quality Board. 4.3.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation Using the nitrogen packing or drilling mud methods outlined above and the selective removal/testing program outlined in #35 and #36, the mitigation 1 measures attached to the abandonment program will reduce the effects to a level of non-significance. r 78 I 1 1 r 5.0 PROPOSED PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES ' Three project alternatives were evaluated prior to the selection of the proposed plan for pipeline expansion. These alternatives included: 1) no project, 2) alternative alignment and 3) truck transport alternative. A brief discussion of each alternative is provided below. 5.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The no project alternative would eliminate the expansion of the San Diego Pipeline as proposed in the public street system within the City of I Tustin. This alternative would imply that the pipeline remain operative at its current location and at its current capacity. Specific risks associated with the existing ten inch line, in its cur- rent corridor, would continue. The objective of the proposed project is to satisfy increased fuel demands in San Diego County resulting from rapid growth in both population and industry. As a result of this alternative, the objectives of the project would not be met. The no project alternative is somewhat misleading, however. This sec- tion of pipeline could be removed and/or replaced with a 16 inch expanded pipeline without City review or permits. The SDPC currently operates the existing line through Tustin mostly within private property. The current pipeline is, in fact, in many peoples backyards in what used to be an AT&SF ' railroad right-of-way. This right-of-way extends along the existing route (see Figure 2, Location Map) from Newport Avenue to Browning Avenue, and within the abandoned AT&SF right-of-way (currently reserved - not incor- porated in any backyards) from the I-5 Freeway south to Walnut Avenue. The potential impacts of such a construction operation on private property, in some cases in private backyards, would contain all of the construction noise, air pollution, construction hazards, biological and some of the traffic impacts included in the analysis in this EIR for the proposed pipeline. The only effects that would be lessened include: circulation problems due to street construction, disruption of traffic along Bryan Avenue and effects on other underground utilities should an accident occur. The no project alternative would possibly lead to this scenario where SDPC would expand their line in the existing corridor. It is clear, from the analysis done in Section 4.0 (Abandonment Program) that the potential risk of upset associated with maintaining the pipeline in the existing corridor or expanding the pipeline in the existing corridor is much greater, and is potentially more dangerous due to access and control problems, than the 79 11 1 11 11 I 1 proposed project. The disruption to private backyards and residential neigh- borhoods associated with expanding the pipeline in this location would cause significant environmental impacts on the neighborhood and its residences. This alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project. 5.2 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT The Alternate Alignment may be seen in Figure 12. At the intersection 11 of Bryan Avenue and Browning Avenue, the Alternative Alignment turns south and follows Browning Ave, crossing the I-5 Freeway. At the intersection of Walnut Avenue, the Alternative Alignment heads east and rejoins the original proposed alignment at the intersection with Tustin Ranch Road. The impacts of this alternative include many of the same construction related impacts as the proposed alternative. This alternative, besides disrupting local neighborhood circulation, would also effect circulation on Walnut Avenue similar to the impacts discussed for the proposed project at Bryan Avenue and Newport Avenue. The most significant area of impact would 11 be on the surrounding land uses. The alternative route traverses several neighborhoods and is directly adjacent to a neighborhood school . As Figure 12 shows, the alternative alignment passes through residential neighborhoods less than 100 feet from existing homes. Similar, and in some cases greater impacts would occur to residences from the following: construction noise, nuisance fugitive dust, disruption of residential street circulation and parking and construction equipment access. 11 Based on the above impacts to the residential district surrounding the alternative pipeline alignment, this alternative is not environmentally 11 superior to the proposed route. 5.3 TRUCK TRANSPORT ALTERNATIVE The truck transport alternative would include continuing the operation of the SDPC's existing ten inch pipeline and transporting the proposed in- crease in fuel delivery by truck. To meet the proposed increased product ' delivery rate of 4,600 bph, eight trucks per hour would be required to trans- port 1,300 bph to supplement the 3,300 bph transported by the existing ten inch pipeline. Concurrently, eight trucks per hour would be on the return I/ trip for pick-up after delivery. As a result of the truck transporting operations, approximately 384 additional trucks would be traveling roadways throughout Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego Counties per day 365 days per year. 80 11 I 1 12 1 Alternative Alignment lsa ---- rt r Lsa e fr-9, -\A-,-- -f-_-3 LL,--, . : i • — I \ - ilisn-!Y4_-='.3_Pa-1, _4-454,1!_a---,--rict\_ diy ,j . 1 U.I inli i rrr 1- i-, -t" 1 -./..so i 11 i\ IR : 1 ii , . ,,, >, -------z •:. 4, ' p LU IL - ---,, I I, , ,-., , ---1 -5 •, ,_„1 , ,....e, _., i ---;,_,, )—, iz,i, ,,,, ---.).,z> 50____4 I 17:■••cC °------■--- - . 1 •-• ' < --or<r:;\ );\ ' I ' ' C\I 1— ‘ a ' ci:Arr _j -7 ^— ‘oh, ,i,.<0•' too 1 : 1-\ , -I - - - 11 -Tr . • j•I, I' \ • .:_ lt .:=11 cl c----i-- 1 I 64 d , ,--,14•II irio --,,_;1_,.. „,, - ,, r .-i 1 ii I A Il It i / \'' ‘ r-g --:. 1.: 41 ci a . .--4-;11 IRVINE BLVD ,1 _ ______ _____: ti•I__::. •::. ... 11, t i.• 1; Existing i ' n I ' '' 1(-- 1 ,-1 '"-e ,--1=01 1 h Exsg Pipeline .. ?• ": Z.I:\. ■• ._jH---II-J",=; . . 4.- 1: 1/4-4r,, ----3 ri ----f, ,z,' ( iro' lErih- (To be abandoned) 1 ., I, li<>1):111111111Y-PLii4111111111r111114111411111 1117' - ' " - " : 1, • - - A TCH/SC Ai: r a bAl A \ 1 , In BRYAN AVE III I' a 7 ii. , ,-,-- '.': ,.. , .), „ . fZef.Y/11.14,,aaaL j 111u.!I linau 7 cH=f=-19. ------1..--- - I tecao , a ,. A Proposed Pipeline ,-, =z s .c,;,, -2, ...?, ; 1 t 1 11,41 . . 1 „ . ilb . 1 I 1 '-,A,--7 ' •• '0' !ytxj * °L.ma 0 ti 'Stet a i 1 N. CI ..I35■;17 r":10 1 eL .-:— .et ,- ,- , ......._ , 0 — i ,.. • t" -'L ‘itallafraS E I!E!Bi 0.4E1 41 it; ' in:=ap I It . i \ e% ...... I I IR tiry lit__,,L.O. r f•Ifft•••2.1 I.... N 7'A At 1 .C40 t •) .• • --,-- ■•••••••■••0 'c‘te.! ". —• - — 0 .1' t z"'SANTA ANA FWY (I:5 '• 'cfr<N•Tr„ • •• HI raTia ' --Scats1/fail nrstr, , iso, / 1 1 ii u • . -, ,,, , :- 4, , Alt ern ativer.,ef-rri= /1( z g•. a _ii __2 , i: id ), _ i 11 _1\: : d., _ ,,,,_=;2,, Alignment-10,•_•-_t ,=......v.° ,\ 6- ' 0.1 0,1 ,-,r. , - 44 rc- ' . -, ' s:,.:17;..;::7;:rj..S■ ' •ii, ; ••• . 1 ,,,,,4_,,..., , i . is Id 1 , i''t-=-:1:..1.,ri 41 76.• ■ i *: K 1 +.111•1 4 1.1 111 , 'A i‘03 n , 1 -,72, • L . X`-- -----,7-. — , —L.-4:- ,--m. . 1 - ---ttesu •s; 'cegr..i 66.3 _ ±2,, 0 _ ,jr :, . 1‘ f0i li . , • ----fist..L-H1149.,. ---:;414#1 . it r.1. ::! , r Iii '1 —I, ,E.: 1 i f i /tag if / ,eit'N I , ,,/, zbi ,u,_ __J_IZ 1 . ::--1 — ,- y.\\ ilik----c- 9 .---7 _ sp ='111 Li 9 i , . „, ..... , " , • III <71 I._; *..ti I... ! i . I- 1 01 _I ril Ay ;.0 1• ,,,,Y ey•J , .1 1, _1, 1,..r.ri, A \- inAUcia A \ ii ; \\.• in - gi 1/ •" - MOULTON PKWY "-P-- - ',,,WA'• # I • ati.. ,01 [ . ml ili •, * \ ' 1 1-M. —" vr,, i v---- zeoS te i .,r_ ,. . I . ro , -. 1 i ,--- 1 • 1 *.- .ct Lc,:. I I 1---"3- 4 .7-- .....2-Al a 1 'I 4 ,-. Source: U.S.G.S., 7.5 Quad-Tustin,Ca. p I r 1 I -1 1 I .1 Statistics compiled from the Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, show that the ratio between the safety of liquid pipeline transportation and its alternative, truck transport, is approx- imately 1000:1 . While moving over 25% of the nation's total intercity freight through a 230,000 mile pipeline network, the liquid pipeline industry has experienced an average of only six fatalities per year during the last four years for which records are available (1976 through 1979) . This fatal - ity rate compares with a total annual average of 53,412 transportation re- f, lated deaths during this same period. The truck transport alternative would not only create a safety concern but would also be of concern environmentally. The increased truck traffic ' would increase noise levels and contribute to traffic congestion and exhaust emissions. Based on California Air Resources Board statistics, approximately I 3,000 tons of pollutants would be released to the atmosphere by the trucking alternative. Large spills due to an accident could contaminate waterways as well as cause property damage. As a concern for public and operational safety and to mitigate the potential impacts to the environment, the truck transport alternative is not considered feasible, nor is it considered en- vironmentally superior to the proposed pipeline program. 1 i I/ 82 1 I 11 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS SDPC's request involves use of existing right-of-way in existing and . proposed streets. There will be no requirement for additional right-of-way to be preserved or otherwise created. No new streets are being created and 1 ' no extension of services or utilities is proposed as a result of this pro- ject. The proposal , in simple terms, expands the capacity of SDPC's existing system pipeline system which terminates in San Diego and also reroutes the pipeline corridor within the City of Tustin. 11 Because the proposed pipeline does not produce any of the conditions which normally lead to further growth in an area, such as new roadways, new housing or permanent job opportunities, or the extension or expansion of utilities to an area not already served, there are no impacts to the project area that induce growth. 1 1 • I i 1 I 83 1 11 tsa 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 1 COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed pipeline corridor is mostly within the public right-of-way 1 of existing streets. Since these streets have already been committed to these uses, there is no commitment of any new land area or land associated resources to this project. 11 The commitment of fossil fuels and construction materials to construc- tion of the pipeline is acknowledged and outlined in the Air Quality, Project Operations and Alternatives sections. The irreversible and irretrievable ' commitment of these resources, given the short duration of construction and minimal operational requirements of the pipeline, are considered insignifi - cant. However, as described in Section 3.9.3, the alternative method of conveyance using truck transport is relatively inefficient and would utilize a significant amount of fossil fuels. Other areas of potential environmental effects of the normal operation 11 of the pipeline have been shown to be minimal or insignificant in the areas of biology, soils, landform, air quality and utilities. There are no dis- cernable commitments of resources, other than during the period of construc- 11 tion, which are irreversible or irretrievable. 11 1 11 1 i 84 11 1 I lsa 1 8.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM ' USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 1 Local short-term is defined as the construction period of the proposed pipeline plus the right-of-way rehabilitation period. Long-term is defined as the remaining life of the project through abandonment and reclamation. Many of the impacts associated with the proposed pipeline would be short-term 1. and would cease to be significant following right-of-way rehabilitation. No significant decreases in the productivity of the project area are expected. A tabulation of short-term and long-term impacts is present in Table H. a I 1 I 1 1 I 85 1 1 I I lsa I TABLE H rSHORT-TERM. AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS (RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED SDPC PIPELINE) 1 ' RESOURCE RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USE OF ENVIRONMENT AND LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY 11 Geology No significant short-term or long-term impacts are anti - cipated. Soils During construction, there would be short-term losses of soil due to erosion; no significant long-term impacts to soils are anticipated. ' System Safety and A major oil spill could potentially occur during pipeline Reliability operation. Effects to sensitive resources downstream could last from a few months to several years. 1, Air Quality The project would not significantly deteriorate existing air quality in the project area. There would be short- term dust emissions during construction that would not be significant. Transportation Short-term obstruction of access to local businesses and 11 residences and elimination of on-street parking would occur during construction. There would be no long-term impacts to transportation. r Noise Short-term noise impacts would occur to nearby residences during pipeline construction. There would be no long- term impacts. 11 Land Use Short-term impacts on land use are anticipated to occur as a result of construction activity adjacent to residen- t tial , commercial and public land uses. Temporary impacts may include disruption to business hours, time delay and access to residential and commercial use. No long-term impacts are anticipated. Biology Short-term impacts such as substrate removal , and in- creased sedimentation, could occur during construction; 1 however no significant long.-term impacts are anticipated. 86 S I 11 I 9.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Those significant impacts that would remain following implementation of the mitigation measures presented under Section 3.0 are described below for the proposed project. System Safety and Reliability • Although unlikely, the possibility of an oil spill remains even with implementation of reasonable precautions to minimize oil spill risks. jTraffic and Transportation 1 - Traffic congestion may be temporarily increased during construction of the proposed pipeline; these impacts would not be greater than those periodically experienced in the City of Tustin area during construction projects. Noise 1 • Increased noise levels associated with construction of the proposed pipeline would not exceed those normally experienced in the City of Tustin area during construction projects. • i 1 1 87 1 I I I i I ' 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department Christine A. Shingleton Jeff Davis Patrizia Materassi Engineering Department Bob Ledendecker Monda Buckley OTHER San Diego Pipeline Company Tom Jensen ! Steve Monn Orange County Flood Control District Joseph Whitelaw Chris Crompton Orange County Water District Nira Yamachika Orange County Fire Department Gene Hutain Herpetologist Robert Fisher Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside Office 1/ I i ! 88 r I I i i lsa ' 11.0 PREPARERS OF THE REPORT LSA Associates, Inc. Robert W. Balen Amy Rudell ' Karen Kirtland Angie Egli Enersource Engineering, Inc. George Ramsay John M. Gray I I p 1 I 1 I I 89 I 11 1 i lsa 1 12.0 REFERENCES City of Tustin, 1984. General Plan. ' ERT, 1987. Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Los Angeles Pipeline Project Draft Report. Prepared for California Department of Transportation and USDA Forest Service. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn, 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, CA. 408 pp. Ingles, Lloyd G. , 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 506 pp. ' LSA Associates, Inc. , 1987. Interchange at Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) Tustin Ranch Road Environmental Assessment. Screencheck Report prepared for City of Tustin, State of California Department of Transportation and U.S. Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. LSA Associates, Inc. , 1987. Environmental Impact Report for the North-South Road. Draft Report prepared for City of Tustin. Mastandrea, John, 1982. Petroleum Pipeline Leak Detection Study, EPA Report #600/2-82-040. ' Michael Brandman Associates, 1985. East Tustin Specific Plan .Environmental Impact Report 85-2. Prepared for the City of Tustin. 1 Munz, P.a. , 1974. A Flora of Southern California, University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Soil survey of Orange County and Western Parts of Riverside County, California. I t 1 90 I I 1 tsa ' 13.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Commentors S • City of Irvine • County of Orange Fire Department • County of Orange Environmental Management Agency State Fire Marshall Office of Planning and Research - State of California ▪ San Diego Pipeline Company • The Irvine Company • Planning Commission Hearing - October 26, 1987 I I I 1 91 I OF Up U ` m rr o= _a n r I 1/4arit: on .;u;,i .� C. r ' NOVa8496#7 October 30, 1987 4 I Ms. Christine A. Shingleton ' City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 IIDear Ms. Shingleton: SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SAN DIEGO II PIPELINE Thank you for giving the City of Irvine the opportunity to A 1 fl comment on the San Diego Pipeline Draft EIR. The EIR adequately addresses our previous comments mentioned in our NOP response letter. The City has no further comments concerning this project. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ISine-rel II ST • ILERLY 11 Prin ipa Planner Environmental Services WK:dma 11 c: John Murphy, Manager of Development Services IIDisk: WK-Shingleton I II II i' -A4.., .. I I0-28 —(zs7 17�-- LARRY O HOF FI I 44h.0 U NTY O F DI RECTOR OF FRE SERVICES AN CUNINCORPORATED PIES OS O O OF ORANGE E COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF 1 s `7/ RANGE IRVINE LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS r ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT PLACENTIA ' 180 SOUTH WATER STREET SEAL BEACH P,O. BOX 86, ORANGE,CALIFORNIA 92666-0086 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO STANTON TUSTIN (714) 744-0400 VILLA PARK YOREA LINDA I II October 23, 1987 City of Tustin 1 300 Centennial Way ,YGV�I1lCr. Tustin, Ca. 92680 gY I_SA I SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL SCH / 87080511 B 1 EIR - SAN DIEGO PIPELINE OCT z 9 1997 1 The Orange County Fire Department has reviewed the DRAFTk.I.R. and we have no additional comments. IISincerely, I . Gene Hutain Fire Protection Planner' GH:rse G10-23H 1 II I 1 1 1 - 1 cnnnVC ncTCri-nOC CA UC I IUCC I RECEIVED "p�ii2i BY LSAp(� ' AL4" 'i O U NTY O FMOV 0 2 1987 ERNDIRECTOR,HNEIDER ROBERT G. FISHER _ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 5 CJ* RAN G1 E - LOCATION: � .' 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA r P.O. BOX 4048 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY I SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 October 23, 1987 TELEPHONE: II (714)834-4643 FILE NCL 7046 ' City of Tustin Ms. Christine Shingleton Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way . II Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT: Draft EIR for San Diego Pipeline SCH# 87080511 IDear Ms. Shingleton: II The San Diego Pipeline Company is proposing to construct a sixteen inch pipeline within the public right-of-way within the Tustin City Limits. The new pipeline is intended to replace an existing ten inch pipeline which is proposed to be abandoned in place and filled with nitrogen. In addition, I a new ten inch pipeline will be constructed parallel with the new sixteen • inch one, however, the smaller pipeline will not be activated. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments: The proposed pipeline is parallel to Bryan Avenue Storm Drain (Facility II F07P23) , and portions of El Modena-Irvine Channel (Facility F07) and Santa C i Ana-Santa Fe Channel (Facility F10) . II ° It should be noted that the pipeline cannot encroach upon flood control right-of-way except where it crosses the channels. ° The environmental document should specify the locations of the pipe C 2 IIcrossings. ° A permit will be required from EMA for any work within flood control district C 3 ,II owned right-of-way. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. We would appreciate II receiving one copy of the Final EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions, please contact Linda Voorhees at 834-6931. Very truly yours, 41 Pt At Michael M. Ruane, Manager II Environmental & Special Projects LV:pa (015) I • 198b'-i :risr.. w A(y. LC_. �S2 1 — - - _. ..-_. I i 1 1".., ' c I .441 Co.) N . ,,.. asar ■ -� � . . `ice �- 2, // / �I / fiT ~t f 1 -. lam, ; I •�• f �^ ` ' - -tar'__ �_1 ..hc.. _ `s : r --- -sj'.o . sv ..�.'. ..5.71` l..R }�s' - ' ,� rZTJT' I 311111 91 b f/ °� '' F �wda7sry, a',;$ .� ` \.,-1.-n :.. a �' . `�f % I ��/ c' y _ _ / Si• . 'U N , ., -� \ M -- + " : ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA—STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor 1 STATE FIRE MARSHAL (916)427 4161 7171 BOWLING DRIVE, SUITE 600 ATSS 466-4161 10 SACRAMENTO, CA 95823 (916) nly) 6 (TDD only) i ilNovember 6, 1987 iChristine Shingleton Director of Community Development Community Development Department ' City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 II II In Director Shingleton: - In response to the San Diego Pipeline (SDPC) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , dated September 28, 1987, the Office of the California State Fire IIMarshal (SFM) wishes to make the following comments . The California State Fire Marshal was granted safety regulatory and enforcement II authority over intrastate pipelines such as the San Diego Pipeline Company by an agreement with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) , Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) , and state legislative action with the enactment of the California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 and its subsequent amendments. Please note that II the SFM is not involved in the granting of permits or approving the location of the pipeline. This is strictly up to the City of Tustin and their permitting I D 1 authority. However , the SFM is nevertheless concerned about the existing II location of the 10-inch pipeline in the backyards of residents of Tustin and for safety reasons has , therefore, recommended that the SDPC replace this pipeline before the end of 1987. (See attached Tustin Pipeline Accident Report II and Recommendations , Recommendation No. 10, dated June 3, 1987 . ) Several copies of this report were furnished to the City of Tustin at a meeting with the Orange County Fire Department and the local municipalities at the Irvine Marriott on June 3, 1987. IBecause the SFM wishes the existing pipeline replaced as soon as possible, we would have desired that the EIR review period of 30 days be maintained in order II that construction be completed before the end of the year. For your information , the SFM engineers have inspected the pipe and its coating scheduled for Tustin. Currently, our field engineers are monitoring D 2 II construction of the 16-inch pipeline now in progress in Anaheim and Orange. As stated on October 26th at the Tustin Planning Commission Public Hearing , we would be happy to take the Commissioners or the Public Works personnel to preview the pipeline construction while it is still in Anaheim. I II II iChristine Shingleton, Director -2- November 6, 1987 The Congressional intent in the Federal Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of ' 1979 was for Federal preemption of all of the hazardous liquid pipeline systems in the country. The SFM is the only California state agency approved as a Federal Agent for carrying out the provisions of the Federal Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act in California. Enclosed for your information is a D 3 letter from L. D. Santman , Director, Materials Transportation Bureau, USDOT, that indicates certain state or local pipeline safety laws may be barred if they conflict with the federal law. (See Mr. L. D. Santman' s attached letter ' to Mr. Robert C. Creighton of the City of Long Beach . ) Several possible conflicts with federal and state law were noted in the SFM review of the EIR, as follows : o Page 5 - The SFM also reviews the design and construction (as well as the ongoing operation authorization and monitoring) . • ' o Page 9 - Under 2.6 of the EIR, the pipeline will be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the requirements set forth in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations , Part 195, Minimum federal safety standards for liquid pipeline and certain specifically referenced industry standards, and the California Government Code, Chapter 5.5, California Pipeline Safety Act of D 4 1981. The reference on the fifth line to the entire ANSI/ASME 831 .4 Code is in conflict with federal law and should therefore be eliminated. (Only those sections that are approved for incorporation by references beginning on Page 641 of the attaches November 1 , 1986 USDOT publication are enforceable under state and federal law.) The last sentence of 2.6 should also be revised to state that, "Inspections will be performed by the SOPC, the SFM and ' independent hydrostatic testing agents approved by the SFM." Mr. Moodie of the SFM stated at the Tustin Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 26th , that an SFM inspector would be D 5 ' available on a full-time basis each day that pipeline construction activities were being conducted in Tustin and would be happy to keep city officials informed of any unusual pipeline ' safety occurrences that need to be resolved. o Page 11 - Pipeline Monitoring Systems - Leak: The last sentence implies that the leak detection system will cause an automatic shutdown of the pumps . Actually, the leak detection system, when D 6 operational immediately following the completion of the 16- inch pipeline through Tustin , will sense five different abnormal 1 I Christine Shingleton, Director -3- November 6, 1987 i . conditions and alarm the round-the-clock pipeline dispatchers ' and operators of the upset condition. They will , in turn, shut down the pumps and valves on the pipeline system. The Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system currently being installed on the San Diego Pipeline is a state- of-the-art computer system that will monitor all points along the pipeline every few seconds and will even identify the approximate ' location of the leak under certain operating conditions. o Page 11 - Emergency Shutdown System: The statement is made in the Draft ' EIR that the block valves are manually operated and would take a line rider 72 minutes to close them. At the recommendation of the SFM, the SDPC has completed their engineering study (see 0 Recommendation No. 3 in our March 19, 1987 letter to SDPC) and will install a remotely controlled motor-operated valve at Warner Avenue just before the Tustin city limits and have installed an automatic check valve at the location of the Moulton ' Parkway valve shown on Figure No. 1 of the SFM accident report. These valves will reduce the hydraulic pressure head both upstream and downstream of the City of Tustin which will be ' capable of being closed within approximately two minutes after the identification of a leak. This special valving safety feature is one of the reasons the SFM believes that the pipeline construction should comnence in Tustin as soon as possible. ' o Page 12 - Pipeline Construction: The last sentence is in conflict with federal law and should therefore be deleted from this paragraph . As stated by DOT (Mr. Santman' s letter to Long Beach) , the cities or county may. not send inspectors to verify that all construction activities have been conducted according to state and federal regulations. Again , this falls within the sole responsibility ' of the SFM acting as enforcement agent for USDOT. The SFM D 8 inspectors inspecting the pipeline daily for violations of the regulations have cooperated fully with all of the other city inspectors in the nearby 75 miles of 16-inch pipeline that the SDPC has installed from 1985 to date. Any possible safety violations observed by city or county inspectors while on their other inspection duties are always fully investigated. • 1 ' Christine Shingleton , Director -4- November 6, 1987 o Page 18 - 2.6.2 Pipeline Operation and Maintenance: The SDPC pipeline ' operation and maintenance (O&M) plans are reviewed at least annually by the SFM engineers. If at any time the City of Tustin requires any pipeline data, we would be happy to supply same. Our office has always cooperated with cities by supplying test data when needed and requested. However, there are no state or D 9 federal regulations requiring cathodic protection records and mainline valve records to be on file with any city, county or state agency as called for under the "Maintenance Testing and Inspection" heading in the Draft EIR. SFM inspectors review all such company records that are required to be maintained by federal and state law at least annually at the pipeline ' company offices . o Page 19 - Line Markers: Federal Regulations prescribe exactly what ' information is to be on line markers. The last sentence from they final EIR, "People will also be advised to call 911 in case of an emergency, is in conflict with federal law and should be deleted. D 10 It is suggested the instruction to call 911 would be appropriate under another heading other than "Line Markers" if the 911 ' operator utilized the SFM "Guide to Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operators" (copy enclosed) . o Page 62 - Pipeline Design and Operating Practices: The proposed pipeline design include the industry standards that the SDPC wishes to use to comply with the "performance standards" ' .of the Federal Regulations and California Government Code. However, the SDPC should be consulted if they have incorporated D 11 "all" industry codes and standards in their design, construction and operations . ' o Page 72 - 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures: As previously mentioned , the Office of the State Fire Marshal has sole enforcement authority ' and will ensure regulation compliance. The SFM does not object to the city obtaining certain necessary records directly from the pipeline company if the pipeline D 12 company does not object, even though such requests are normally made through the SFM. However, please note that the SDPC is not obligated by federal or state regulations to provide this data ' on the timetable called for in the EIR. For example, "as-built" drawings may not be ready "upon conclusion of construction ." ' Christine Shingleton, Director -5- November 6, 1987 Therefore, it is recommended that such timetables be negotiated ' between the city and the SDPC. Likewise, the SFM reviews all hydrostatic testing reports within four weeks of such testing , but many times requires revisions of the pipeline operator or tester. The four-week requirement should be negotiated by the SDPC and the city or the county fire department (which may also have need of certain data not necessarily covered by the Draft EIR) . Incidentally, the correct California ' Government Code under Mitigation Measure No. 30 (Page 72) should be 51016 and specifies that this plan should also be supplied to the Orange County Fire Department. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have concerning the above. Sincerely, WALTER J. HERNANDEZ, Chief Pipeline Safety Division Phone: (916) 427-4500 ' WJH:ADM:et Enclosures: 1. SFM Accident Report Recommendations ' 2. 1986 Edition, Pipeline Safety Regulations 3. L. D. Santman Letter 4. Chapter 5.5, California Government Code 5. Guide to Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operators 1 S..ATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 111 SAOLA CA RECEIVED SACRAMENTO, 9581 : ,-, , 2 H9B7 Patrizia Materassi CO6£d'JNm' cu QpVOiber 20, 1987 City of Tustin 300 Centenial Way NOV 2 1987 Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: San Diego Pipeline EIR 87-2 SCH# 87080511 ' Den' Ms. Materassi : The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact ' Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your ccmment package is complete. If the package is not i- order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight-dig:'.t State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. ' Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583 , Ch. 1514, Stats . 1984.) ' These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If you need more information or clarification , we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. ' Sincerely, 1 . ' David C. enkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance ' cc: Resources Agency Enclosures STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 Memorandum 1 To : Dr. Gordon F. Snow Date :November 6, 1987 The Resources Agency 1 File : I From : CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD — SANTA ANA REGION I 6809 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200, RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92508 Telephone: ATSS 632-4130 (714)782.4130 1 Subject: DEIR: SAN DIEGO PIPELINE, SCR # 87080511 I We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above-referenced project and offer the following comments. These comments reflect the Regional Board' s concerns about E1 1 petroleum pipeline construction and operation in this highly sensitive area ( Newport Bay watershed) and our experiences in addressing the major San Diego Pipeline spill which took place in this area in November, 1986. IWe note that the design, construction and operation of the , pipeline will meet applicable federal, state and trade standards. I Does this represent substantive improvement(s) over the design, construction or operation of the pipeline which ruptured in November, 1986? In view of the magnitude of potential adverse ! E 2 impacts in the event of a spill , we believe that additional I mitigation should be provided. Specifically, we believe that double wall pipe with sensors between the walls should be used for construction of the pipeline. IA copy of the Pipeline Operation Contingency Plan should be- , submitted to the Regional Board for review. This plan should , E 3 I discourage the use of booms, underfiow dams and overflow berms in the event of a spill and emphasize total containment. The proponent should be advised that if the discharge of I hydrostatic test waters and/or construction dewatering , wastewaters to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit may be required. The proponent is encouraged to consult with Michael E 4 I Adackapara of our Regulations Section concerning the conditions , under which such a permit would be required. Processing an NPDES , permit, if required, could take up to 180 days. 1 ��� Joanne E. Schneider, Chief Planning Section F,�-:�'' 81981,° 1 1 Enclosure: State Clearinghouse Form 1-4 10 1 �_ 5T• 1-;Cu-,-2 \:1"3 I o \ .>I ) J ' cc: City of Tustin - Patrizia Materassi San Diego Pipeline - Thomas Jensen JES:jes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I - L/// ryih• \i .at r _armor. is+..a Mai ar du.�i a tm.-w.aau r roe Ia.. \•� II�� am CI aka a smaal®Saam&r odd �C:C /J .` , t. rpr - , ..... iv .. .7..-.iw 12 )-1 :r. a7• ' / it .. I. fag/wan C�ly fr rt`Sf i'Al t. moat t_, i'AI-tZ ' A AtArc 1/,444 11•1 .ra•r, V.,tee_'rcr.i.AC It•Ay a.as ry Al L. a tray r''R_y-'Se ma..r A2d,t0 Y._, I1v- 5z14'hg'; I aal� .. t.,•, .7417A Y.. r aaem�ra, tt;'Joe. a a.•.ar a r rum -. r laid.Mat Y.a rtek r tYe, 1 _ SAI.IrA 44..* Y. .4,.,_ti-•("la W_ 5,414 ri .r. M.'LA cdi' •. art air .at T"y I-S • 'bL 54 • R2 .T (121.1. Sla1• R YOLma I. IMINfl a. • Y.�yol Ica OHM a._InYtsL, rUI--ra a.J as a a 1 a_ C.Jaae a.ti I a 1a am a.__s , a._.,..a tla say a. — y c• Oa a. a a.—a Y a a._. M S._Saga Y W.yv1.L, a.r. i a _- _ — a. Oa. a.__Ana a.�wf a.1a.tlrleta, s _ a ....e a.J a.J t. a Jt u. a a S. a•tae a_ a.Jam n 1 S. —.-! a.1a, a aL_ ■ Lt.la tam S._ra a. IS 1.a aaa Y.1•as Y a._ SO MS/ y^ 1. tat a� Y.y a l�.a u, .s e o/e n e:/ Li .v rIT 1 a Y V // is.s'■•• U.aa•® 0.4~ Li. SI1111-1111111S10100 a. ft..yJ t'•aaa a _. Mater U.1a aa,d C. aJ�d la. O.L aI y u I a kje a+r S. a r•r " -.X., _a a.�a.a I. _y_—I. ._au.wa. a._rte dr-la• a_air r a.yra X._a.e/aaaaa a. am a. U.,rprl•ant L..Tai,r ar:wa a._Cagan— I a.—Am_t Y. �t�rart L. SWISS Se 1-..- II. 1001111 1.--- • I r 71• t• 01.ya 01p.lfa. Garaany is prope•••i : :you. • o l••l • it ref ta.d patetismo ptyalin carreatly laa.t•a ender pr I.at• property and flu/0W refined to H located under 'el•t:•: pat:lc'streets. In oddities. • M 'a. (10•) lab plpella* •111 -.t l.na:.•• with Oa nut amass (II') W 11a, ha.wr, the malls: a.••;IAN will wt ha Y SS tip. I/1 I I . . ' -. JRINGMOUSE COKTl1CT: C V C C in • Y. i' I 0.ESOURCC": •REGL vQCB (1H✓r ) T/J;/1 n 5� . • CALTRANS p 1 • ATE REVIEW BEGH(:/D/6PS 1 • CONSERVATION IIIIP a■laSINISI p / • FISH & GP,: • AERONAUTICS PT. I CI' EV!Di AGEN ://h 3/:�.-.r t / �nwAr - 'Ol IENCr REVIEW TO SCH:J/ /4' 7 r OEPT WTEf. RE SOUF':ES arNIIwaaaal.aaAPIOEY N COMPLIANCE: ///O D ie7 11I1i11111IIaYtYiO •HEALTH SERVICES aaA1olliP dalalobin I aial-lllIt_aaaarCOM1 -PUB UTILS CONK OW 5 awI�ll�•a_I1 . wE1R111IRrMM ES AISR!'ITAKIPtCONN 1 • UlraYal�a AIR RESOURCES BO MIS • 11I JO . . • BO T BO: ✓1Ml flaNNINS N f 1) a1aa1SIMISP- CT v•Se0 1/B?) alall Fl SOPR I • I San Diego Pipeline Company \\,11:12 1 888 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles,California 90017 213/486-7780 October 29 , 1987 J.A.Whitelaw Manager 1 Pipeline Construction ENG 19-0 (L. S . SD-6) ENG 13-1 (87120 - 0239) ' Ms. Patrizia Materassi CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 -, Dear Ms. Materassi: By copy of this letter, San Diego Pipeline Company (SDPC) is submitting to both the City and LSA comments on the Draft EIR. These comments are written in the margins of the enclosed EIR pages. The comments are for the most part, minor and are intended sole for further clarification of our project. 1 SDPC would like to point out the reasons for our suggested changes to Section 2 . 6. 2 on Page 18 . Maintenance testing and inspection records include numerous files covering system wide maintenance and inspection of pressure and other operational safety devices, pumps, quantity control meters, motors, gauges, terminal facilities as well as periodic line locating reports, cathodic protection surveys and valve inspection reports, most of which relate to overall system safety and are required by State and Federal regulations. While these reports are a matter of public record and include records covering the three and one-half mile section of SDPC' s overall system that is installed in the City of Tustin, they are maintained in a manner that will facilitate periodic review by the State Fire Marshal ' s Office of all aspects of SDPC' s operations that could effect the safety of F1 the line. To break these reports apart on a site specific basis and then submit them to the numerous local agencies having jurisdiction over separate sections of the overall system is neither practical nor meaning-ful. For instance, a safety device _ located at SDPC's terminal in San Diego can be just as important to the safe operation of the line in Tustin as periodic testing of a valve located in Tustin. Similarly, a valve located in Tustin valve the safety of adjacent communities. To ensure the safe operation of the line as a system, as well as at any particular location, inspection and record keeping responsiblity must lie with a single agency. State and Federal law delegates this responsibility to the California State Fire Marshal ' s Office. In the over 3 , 000 miles of pipeline operated by SDPC and ' SPPL there is no precedent for periodic maintenance reporting to an individual jurisdictions. 1 A Santa Fe Southern Pacific Company 1 SDPC appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and stands ready to assist the City and LSA in any way possible. Sincerely, ,2/ J.A. Whitelaw Enclosures JAB/rr ' cc: Mr. Robert W. Balen LSA ' 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92714 Mr. Walter Hernandez State Fire Marshal Sacramento, CA 1 Mr. Arnold Moodie State Fire Marshal West Covina, CA C87301JAB I I 1 1 I - 2 of 2 - I 1 1 1 1 2.2.2 Street Work Permits ' In the event that the SDPC secures a Franchise Agreement with the City of Tustin, SDPC must obtain street work permits prior to any construction within the public right-of-way. These work permits are issued by the Public Works Department and are conditional . Conditions regarding the type of equipment allowed, construction hours, methods of construction, traffic disruption, emergency vehicle access, safety measures, duration of construc- tion and the time of year in which construction may occur are all. controlled through issuance of the Street Work Permit. Because these permits are dis- cretionary acts performed by the Public Works Department, they are subject to the provisions of CEQA. The City, through the Public Works Department, determines the conditions under which the project may proceed. Many of the concerns with traffic and circulation disruptions, safety and effects on the environment resulting from the construction of a proposed pipeline in a public right-of-way are ad- dressed by each Street Work Permit. Many of the mitigation measures required ' in this EIR are intended to be carried out in this permitting stage. 2.2.3 Environmental Impact Report To satisfy CEQA Guidelines, this report will identify and analyze any potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to generate mitiga- tion measures which shall be consistent with the Franchise Agreement and shall be carried out during the permit process, should the City Council approve the proposed project. 2.2.4 Responsible Agencies Responsible Agencies according to CEQA Guidelines and information provided by SOPC include: AGENCY REVIEW/PERMITTING 1 Federal : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water crossing permit State: Caltrans Boring permit for Tunt ;ir Ra—,R,, h Road r-s Freeway I F2 4 1 i 1 to protect against accidental backflows from higher elevations east of Tus- tin. Pipeline Monitoring Systems SOPC has installed facilities that monitor the pipeline and will trigger the system to shutdown under upset conditions. The system will shut down under the following conditions: High Pressure: The pressure in the pipeline is monitored continuously. Any time the pressure indicator exceeds a designated pressure, the pumps will shutdown immediately. This system will not allow pressure to build up in the pipeline to a point at which it could weaken or burst the pipeline or pipeline components. Low Pressure: Again, since the pressure is being monitored continuou- sly, a significant drop in pressure below a designated level will also cause a shutdown of the pumps. For example, if there is a break in the ' pipeline, the pressure will drop and the system will shut down. The ten inch pipeline which will not be in use will be pressurized with nitrogen and maintained at constant pressure. If there is a leak, the pressure will drop and the monitoring system will signal the reduced pressure. Leak: The volume of product that goes into the pipeline at the input station and the volume that comes out at the other end will be con- tinuously monitored, measured, and compared at three locations, one in the input station control room, the second at the receiving facility, and the third at the dispatcher control center. Whenever the measure- ' ments do not match within preset limits, the leak detection system will cause a shutdown of the pumps. Emergency Shutdown System ' The proposed pipeline system will be equipped with an emergency shutdown system. The system will , in the event of an emergency, notify personnel at ' the control room which is staffed 24 hours a day, and at the input station to immediately shut down the pumps and dispatch personnel to close all block valves. The pump shutdown sequence is automatic and shutdown is expected to ' take less than two minutes. The block valves are manually operated and would require that a "line rider" or pipeline company employee, travel to the affected block valves and close them. For the purpose of this report, it has been assumed that a line rider could be dispatched and close block valves on either side of Tustin within. 72 minutes of notification. INCt.uDEt #5 4 FART OF Tills PRoJecr IS Tl9 wsralotraw of 4 Remore aoetz4rez, nheTDR GFHed-rz-77 vrILVECMOV7 kr WAZCE)J AVE ION f11E1l 16u Lee_ auifr,li rgie log Chtie /5 PUT &9Q( IA/ SERF/DE, A MOV WILL ALSO 3E IN6rr9LLEP RC W#RRa 4S, "1`1-e56 F 3 VaKUE$ wia 5E Covr7DUw-v nom THE aef9nwc 57w770/) ,4W3 They WALL Be 11 A-gLg se arieD IN ca/DeR ove WiuLn , Fa/Locu/n/G Sfl'LrrpolVA/. 1 trip to the site in the morning from the staging area and one return trip in the evening to the staging area. The necessary precautions will be taken with respect to road crossing construction activities . Such activities will be negotiated with the City prior to issuance of permits for construction. The following precautions may be used: LuaL BC Q4 Staging areas will be determined by the City's Public Work Depart- F 4 U6 A-REAS IAl—ment prior to permit issuance. uE Cr1'l UM I r5 -11151A/ • Appropriate signs, involving illumination, –refl-ectorrzation, and positioning. ▪ Channelization of traffic flow,- involving proper cone design. • Barricading. - Pavement markings and lane delineators. • Lighting, such as floodlights, flashing beacons, steady burning lamps, warning lights, and flashing arrow signs. • Control of traffic through work zones, including hand signaling, flaggers, one-way traffic control , flagcarrying cars, and traffic control signals. As construction proceeds along the route, advanced notification will be given to those areas affected by the construction activities. It is unlikely that construction activities in any one area will exceed four weeks. Construction Schedule SDPC proposes to commence construction immediately upon acquisition of the necessary permits and right-of-way. The estimated duration of the pro- ject through the City of Tustin is four to six (4-6) weeks. The length of time for the different phases of construction are listed below: I .' Mobilization - 4 days Trenching - 20 days ▪ Backfilling - 20 days • Stringing - 20 days ' • Welding - 20 days 16 1 1 . 1 • Hydrotesting - 3 days ' . Check-out - 1 day Clean-up - 20 days • Paving - 20 days. ' It should be noted that some of the above mentioned activities can occur simultaneously and, therefore, the times are not cumulative. Daily work hours are determined at a preconstruction conference and are subject to ' change at the direction of the City. Water Crossings ' The proposed pipeline route crosses two flood control channels: The El Modena-Irvine and the Santa Ana-Santa Fe channel . ' The El Modena-Irvine channel is crossed by the pipeline in the vicinity of Newport Avenue. It has not yet been determined whether this crossing will require boring of the channel . The pipeline will parallel the El Modena- Irvine Channel along Bryan Avenue between Browning Avenue and Tustin Ranch road. The Santa Ana-Santa Fe channel will be crossed by the pipeline at twoa..e,fwr locations. At southern end of Tustin Ranch Road the channel will be . F 5 The second crossing of the channel will occur near the eastern end of the project boundary adjacent to Moulton Parkway. At this location the channel will be . BORED Techniques utilized for water crossings or stream borings are to follow accepted industry priorities and to be approved by the County Environmental Management Agency. Open cutting of channels will not be allowed to occur when inclement weather or flood conditions are forecast. In the event that ' inclement weather or flood conditions occur during open cut construction, contractor will be required to cease operations and take measures to protect channel banks and water quality. • ' Such measures would include: sand bagging or installation of rip-rap to protect cut stream banks; removal or regrading of waste piles to minimize water turbidity, and site monitoring. Pre-operational Testing Before the pipeline commences operation, it will be hydrostatically ' tested, using water as a test medium, to a minimum pressure of 1,900 psi . In 17 r II I i I addition, the pipeline monitoring system, cathodic protection system, and ' safety controls will be tested. These tests are to be conducted in accor- dance with the 1981 California Pipeline Safety Act. 2.6.2 Pipeline Operation and Maintenance IISDPC will perform all operational testing and maintenance activities as required by the 1981 California Pipeline Safety Act. + yn/A/4414'L( t&/wj'yy rr-e*Arl' a 110ifitfa%4'/a hiPil� i ��..CCiAA' a+i� ?P P *%er"lEY ' iinri• A' 9'9W Of Yetl'( t OM %N'a'i l/ 654 i V i'Y R' MO t h e' t 1y th Vac Vs M pw- F 6 [(Ws. N OW' a9 W re'A' ayk% *etc A*J7 ihit,to .6% 917.4 ' %'We LAY .6rY 4' piesrian&1I Ms14. Some of the specifics of SOPC's VeA.tiwg agd- m kt 6At4 plan are provided below: OPF,a.arronIAL P�2 SECnoe slots CE cRuFoAIViA PIL. Maintenance Testing and Inspection literY Act or 1981, Gt= v Racagno 7b SDPC will conduct tests annually on the pipeline system to deter- HEE-rowFILE A1J41 mine whether the cathodic protection is adequate. In addition, RP, MAf5 4-0 SDPC will , at intervals not exceeding six months, inspect each main line valve to determine that it is functioning properly. k a110 0 Intro' PROCEDuRa Dig nitric tit 1)44401 a air fcil& itieti Vit .Ay oti a pirdrxx I a en 39 me Rai tr& W WE MST &2W5 Ac A Pf orl Fits Ar Tile (bawd D/srelcrF 7 ARE AYA/t A&e o a FILE, Pipeline Hydrotestinq roR U/S/Ec71oti ?D 1(Y Arnim A-1) SDPC will conduct hydrotesting, or approved internal inspection, at air OF lime 5mv intervals not to exceed the limits established in the California e MQRSlfg1 . al Government Code. eta-AVOW OF Excavation Activity Identification /'PRO PR/479 After a pipeline is installed and operational , the majority of 'r*7V7741..5, incidents are caused by other or future excavation or construction activities. The specific mitigation measures that will be imple- mented to avoid such activities are summarized below: ' City/County Excavation Permits: Before any organization is allowed to dig below the ground surface in the City or County, a permit is required. At this time, the City or County reviews the- plans and IImakes available the substructure drawings of the area. Line Markers: SDPC will install pipeline markers along the pipe- ' line route, where practical and feasible, to identify the pipeline 18 1 . I • the new pipeline to the existing cathodic protection system which will pro- vide a very small amount of electrical current to the pipe_ to. counteract the ' naturally occurring current flow between the pipe and earth. Special test stations will allow pipeline operators to continuously monitor the perfor- mance of the cathodic protection system. ' Quality Control and Inspection Procedures The applicant will empl.oy._ stringent. quality control and inspection procedures to ensure that pipeline construction activities do. not compromise system safety. These procedures include non-destructive radiographic testing of all welds, and hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. These quality control ' and inspection procedures conform to code and meet acceptable industry stan- dards. These and other quality control tests are required by the 1981 Califor- nia Pipeline Safety Act. Examples of required inspection procedures include: • Material inspection of all pipe ' • Welders are certified • All welds are visually inspected • All welds are non-destructively tested 1 • External pipe coating is inspected. • Block and Check Valves ' Block valves afford the means to achieve isolation of a segment of the pipeline. Typically, they are utilized for testing and inspection purposes, however they can also serve to minimize potential spill volumes in the event ' of a pipeline break. The specific design details of block valves is dis- cussed in Section 2.3. 1 of this document. LIAS RECE1MrLY SEEM ' A check valveAtlikArk installed on the downstream side of the pipeline, F a near the City limits, in the railroad right-of-way approaching Jamboree Boulevard. A check valve functions as a one-way valve, permitting flow in one direction (from the City of Orange to San Diego) . This valve is in- stalled as a safety feature and protects the line from very large reverse pressure surges. Should a leak occur in Tustin, upon line shutdown the check valve will automatically close and prevent back-flow of pipeline fluid. 1 65 pected. The extent of clean-up would depend upon the exact nature ' of the incident and require case by case assessment. Spill Clean-Up Techniques ' The applicant must prepare a Pipeline Operation Contingency Plan in accordance with the California Pipeline Safety Act. This plan will outline specific procedures to be used in the containment and clean-up of an acciden- tal spill . The State Fire Marshall ' s office monitors these plans. Every pipeline operator shall provide the fire department having jurisdiction a Pipeline Operation Contingency Plan which covers all of the following (Calif- , ornia Government Code-51016) : A. Procedures for conductipg normal operations and maintenance ac- tivities and ? 01(00.0 means to handle abnormal operations and ' emergencies. 114 /IPPROVED B. Liaison procedure with fire, police and other emergency authorities ' for emergency response, including the means of communication and F 9 the means of preventing the ignition of vapors released in a pipe- line rupture. iZECDRD ' C. Pipeline testing and maintenance and repair ri.14kAY ' plan. D. The operator's personnel training procedures for firefighting and emergency equipment use. E. An identification of the specific actions which will be taken upon ' discovering a spill or break. F. Any information which the fire department having jurisdiction may request. ' G. Any other information the State Fire Marshal may, by regulation, require. ' The actual oil or fuel spill containment and clean-up procedures that would be employed in the event of an actual spill would depend to a large degree on the size and location of the spill . First priority would be given ' to public safety, followed by appropriate containment and clean-up proce- dures. Containment techniques for a spill on land would involve construction of berms around the spill area to prevent spreading. In areas where the spread follows natural or manmade drainages (e.g. , rivers, canals, streets, 11 1 1 II . II 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED I __-. rLii:OF TUSTIN Planning Department Christine A. Shingleton ' — Jeff Davis Patrizia Materassi Maryann Chamberlin Engineering Department Bob Ledendecker Monda Buckley .__.... aA7Diego Pipeline Company Tom Jensen —� JOseftt -'. r White1 aw Steve Monn Orange County Flood Control District Chris Crompton I ._,,_.Olanvr County Water District Nira Yamachika Orange County Fire Department Gene Hutain Htrpclulogist Robert Fisher 11 Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside Office T • 1 I I I I I _ 87 1 Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. 888 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles,California 90017 213/486-7780 J.A.Whitelaw Manager Pipeline Construction November 13 , 1 9 8 7 ENG . 19-0 (L. S . 6 ) ENG 13- 1 (87120 - 0239 ) ' Ms . C . Shingleton Director of Community Development Community Development Department ' CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin , CA 92680 RE : STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW , CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - SANTA ANA REGION LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 6 , 1987 Dear Ms . Shingleton : In response to comments made by the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region to The Resources Agency , and ' ultimately to the State Clearinghouse , in letter dated November 6 , 1987 , attached , the following responses are provided : ' o The pipeline which ruptured in November , 1986 , installed in 1963 , was manufactured according to American Petroleum Institute (API ) specifications in effect at that time . ' Since then San Diego Pipeline Company ( SDPC) has developed G 1 their own pipeline manufacturing specifications , specifications which are much more stringent than even current API specifications . Therefore , the new pipeline ' will be constructed of pipe manufactured not only according to API specifications but also those developed by SDPC . o SDPC is currently in the process of installing a state-of- the-art dynamic model leak detection system designed to detect leaks during transient and steady-state periods . The ' new system is entitled the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition ( SCADA) system. The previous Waugh Controls input/output pressure and volume comparison system was state-of-the-art up until the development of SCADA. The G 2 ' SCADA system is computer based and is modeled in real time . When the system is fully operational it will report location of a leak to within five percent of the distance between ' stations and the type of product in the line at the leak site . Furthermore , the system will retain all leak data for report generation . A Santa Fe Southern Pacific Company 1 o The 10 - inch pipeline as originally installed . in 1963 had a hand operated gate valve oa the line immediately north of its crossing of Newport Boulevard and a check valve ' ( backflow, preventer) oa the line at its crossing of I-5 . When the 16- inch pipeline was installed in late 1985 , a block valve was installed at the beginning of the 16- inch ' pipeline , north of its intersection with Harvard Avenue . Following the leak in November of 1986 and with Office of State Fire Marshal coordination , SDPC installed a check valve on the new 16- inch pipeline , immediately upstream of ' the block valve installed in late 1985 , and another check valve approximately five miles downstream. When the new 16- G 3 inch pipeline currently proposed is installed , a remote ' motor operated valve will be installed at the northern limit of the City of Tustin in the vicinity of the pipeline ' s crossing of Warner Avenue . Later , prior to the reactivation ' of the 10- inch pipeline , the hand operated gate valve on the 10-inch pipeline north of Newport Boulevard will be , relocated to the same area as the valve to be installed on the 16- inch pipeline at Warner Avenue . In addition , a check ' valve will be installed on the 10-inch line at some point to the south of the City of Tustin boundary. The end result of all these valve installations is that the City of Tustin , specifically , and the entire area in general , is protected by the valves located on both lines at the northern edge of the City and by the check valves , to prevent backflow of product , at the southern edge of the City. These 1 installations represent a substantive improvement in terms of safety and operation of the pipeline . o With regard to the use of double wall pipe , SDPC must design and construct its pipeline in strict accordance with state G 4 and federal standards . There have been no standards developed nor does technology currently exist for the installation of double wall piping systems . o The Pipeline Operation Contingency Plan , currently under ' development for the new 16- inch pipeline , will , as other SDPC plans do , discourage the use of booms , underflow dams G 5 and overflow berms , and emphasize total containment in the event of a spill . 1 2 of 3 1 • 1 1 1 San Diego Pipeline Company feels that these comments properly and ' completely address all concerns as stated in subject letter . If there are any questions with regard to this transmittal , please advise . ' Sincerely , ' "727_ /J .A. Whitelaw ' Enclosures ' SWM/rr/ pl cc : Mr . Robert Balen LSA ' 1 PARK PLAZA , Suite 500 Irvine , CA 92714 ' C87316SWM • • 1 1 3 of 3 vta IRVINE COMMUNfY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NOV 98 r November 20, 1987 ' Chris Shingleton Planning Director City of Tustin ' 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Re: San Diego Pipeline - EIR EIR 87-2/SCH #87080511 Dear Chris: Subject to the below reservations, The Irvine Company ("TIC") wishes to advise the City of TIC's support of San Diego ' Pipeline Company' s (SDPC) proposed relocation of its refined petroleum pipeline within the City of Tustin. Our reservations arise from the following issues which we believe deserve further consideration prior to City' s approval of the project: 1. The abandonment in place of the existing pipeline; 2 . The need for SDPC to quitclaim easements in certain affected areas; and ' 3 . The need for SDPC to request and obtain from TIC certain additional easements over our property (outside of the existing public right of way) in connection with their proposed pipeline relocation. With respect to the first issue, TIC believes that it is inappropriate to abandon the entire existing pipeline in place. ' In particular, the portion of the existing pipeline along Browning Avenue, from Bryan to El Camino, should be removed due Hi to the potential conflict with future development in this area. Requiring the removal of pipeline in this location does not ' appear to be an onerous requirement since this site is easily accessible and the extent of remedial work involved for site restoration would be minimal. In addition, we are concerned ' that abandoning the pipeline in place and relocating the easement between I5 and Moulton Parkway may create a long-term H 2 liability for our Company. We prefer that the pipeline be ' removed in this area or that SDPC enter into a long-term agreement indemnifying us for future liability. ' 500 Newport Center Drive.P.O. Box I, Newport Beach,California 92658-8904 p14 720-2380 A D,viSPOn of The Mme Canoanv Chris Shingleton November 20, 1987 ' Page Two As for the second point, TIC believes that before this project is approved, SDPC should be required to quitclaim to TIC certain easements previously granted by TIC to SDPC. ' Ironically, over the past year TIC has expended thousands of dollars for pipeline relocation costs and granted several easements over private property zoned for development because ' SDPC felt that the City would deny a request to locate their H 3 pipeline facilities in the public right of way. Now that SDPC has reversed its position 180 degrees on the issue of pipeline location, TIC believes it is only fair to require SDPC to quitclaim such previously granted easements back to TIC as part of this relocation. The easements which should be quitclaimed include: along Browning Avenue, between Bryan Avenue and El ' Camino Real, and around the SCE substation at the corner of Bryan and Browning as well as others that may be necessary. Lastly, the draft EIR does not address the fact that not all of the relocated pipeline will fall within existing public right of way. Some of the new pipe locations will be within TIC-owned I H4 property, yet the EIR makes no mention that SDPC will be ' required to obtain appropriate easements from TIC (and other private property owners, if any) as a condition precedent to approval of this project. ' We would appreciate the City of Tustin' s consideration of the above issues prior to approval of the draft EIR for this project. In the meantime, TIC is communicating with SDPC in an ' effort to identify locations on TIC property that are essential to the proposed pipeline alignment. We hope to have our evaluation of the affected areas completed shortly. If you have any questions regarding our position on these matters, please feel free to call me at 720-2833 . Sincerely, ' 7 i�lm.. C Michael C. Ellis Senior Vice President Land Development • 1 Lisa COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 26, 1987, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11 Item 5. San Diego Pipeline - EIR 87-2 SCH #87080511 Applicant: San Diego Pipeline Company Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development I/ Minutes as follows: 1 1 I 1 1 1 r I �� Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1987 Page four liMr. Bill rancher, representing the engineering firm of Tait and Associates, noted II that competition is what our economy is built on. He also indicated his willingness to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Stated that the walk-in refrigerator will hold cold items other than soft drinks for example milk and sandwiches. IIThe public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. • Commissioner Baker asked it Circle K proposed to have a video library. He also asked 1 if the applicant is aware of the off-site liquor ordinance. Staff replied that a Zoning Code Amendment was needed to allow the sale of off-site liquor at this location. I' Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, explained 58 937 and indicated that it would not have any effect on this application. II Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 87-24 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2445 with the following change: on Exhibit A page 2, Item 1.10 f. the word' "developer" should replace the words "The Irvine Company' . Motion carried 5-0. 1 5. SAN DIEGO PIPELINE - EIR 87-2/SCH # 87080511 APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO PIPELINE COMPANY IIPresentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Mr. Rob Balen, City consultant with the firm of LSA explained the pipeline £12 process. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the time frame, about the Franchise Agreement I I 1 giving the City control. He also qualified that the pipeline company must get work permits from the Public Works Department which should' provide some quality control I including keeping the air quality clean by hosing down the construction trucks. He I 12 also asked if there was a potential to reactivate the old pipeline. • Commissioner Puckett was pleased to see precautionary measures against accidental II spills. Commissioner Baker noted that comments could be made until the November 20, 1987'cut ((l off cate. Commissioner Weil asked for clarification that the Flood Control Channelr would not I 1 3 be effected and asked that the homeowners in the construction area be n:- ;fied of upcoming contruction two weeks prior to, and -..gain 24 hours before, construction II 4 begins. IThe public hearing was opened at 8:34 p.m. I I 11 7 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1987 Page five Ms. rirbara Dery, 14611 Hyannis Port Rd, Tustin, stated that she had attended the 11 scoping meeting and that her questions at that time were not addressed in the draft t CIR. 15 Staff offered to go through the draft EIR with her at her convenience. She was also told that the review period on the EIR would remain open until November 20. Mr. Joseph A. Whitelaw, San Diego Pipeline Company, 8888 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, gave a short overview of the project, he noted that he was available to answer any 6 questions the Commission might have. He also stated that there is no chance of reactivating the old pipeline. He indicated that the past accidental spill was due to a manufacturing defect. Commissioner Baker asked about the distance between the 10" and the 16" pipe. 17 A Mr. Thomas F. Jensen, representing the San Diego Pipeline Company, further explained the cathodic protection system used on the pipeline. He also explained that the pipeline is flexible and made to withstand internal and external pressures. . . Commissioner Baker noted his concern for the parking situation for the workers and 18 equipment. during the construction period. t Mr. Richard Vining, 400 W. Main Street, Tustin, asked if there was a leak detection I 19 monitor in the Tustin area and also how a leak is actually detected. Mr.1Jensen,. noted that the pipeline from Los Angeles to San Diego has the most up to date detection system available, but there were •no leak detection monitors planned within the City of Tustin. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a 12" separation between the pipelines. 17 B Mr. Arnold Moodie, 1501, N. Cameron, Suite C-110, Nest Covina, California, representing the California State Fire Marshal, noted that the pipeline meets Federal ' Pipeline Safety requirements. The public hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked what the response time for a Hazardous Materials team would a be. 1 10 Staff noted that there was not a set response time, however, this subject will be addressed in the final EIR. Commissioner Baker moved. Puckett seconded to record the p.:blic testimony taken at this meeting; direct staff to respond as necessary to public testimon: received; and to transmit to the City Council Draft EIR 87-2. Motion carried 5-0. 1 1 11 I 1 lsa RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment A-1 11 Acknowledged. No other response required. Response to Comment B-1 iAcknowledged. No other response required. Response to Comment C-1 Acknowledged and herewith incorporated into the Final EIR. Also see C-2 below. jThe County of Orange has approved a Final Negative Declaration for en- croachment permits authorizing the San Diego Pipeline Company to cross chan- nels at the following locations in Tustin: El Modena/Irvine Channel - between Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. El Modena/Irvine Channel - between 5 Freeway and Bryan Avenue. Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel - at 5 Freeway and Tustin Ranch Road. ' A copy of the Negative Declaration is included in correspondence in Appendix C of the Final EIR. The Negative Declaration, prepared by EMA's Regulation division, contact person Sara Anderson/Bob Sullivan (Encroachment Permits) , includes all river and channel crossings for the project in the County. A finding that the proposed project will not significantly affect the environment was made for all crossings. Also see comment F-5 and page 17 of the FEIR (revised) . Response to Comment C-2 Page 17 documents the locations of the water crossings (channels) which are being requested. Exact locations of each crossing have been submitted to the County's Encroachment division of EMA for permits. Please see Appendix C for County's environmental review and contact person. Response to Comment C-3 Acknowledged. Also see C-1 and C-2 above. 11 11 11 I Response to Comment 0-1. The City of Tustin acknowledges the inherent dangers of the existing pipeline. See Section 4.0, Abandonment Program for a discussion. IIResponse to Comment D-2 II The State Clearinghouse for EIR review made the determination requiring the 45 day review period based on the need for review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ' See correspondence from Office of Planning and Research, Appendix C of the Final EIR. IIResponse to Comment D-3 Acknowledged. III Response to Comment D-4 It is acknowledged that only certain sections apply. Response to Comment 0-5 ' It is the intent of the City to review construction methods on a perio- dic basis, consistent with the City's authority to issue street work permits. Response to Comment D-6 IIThe EIR states that an alarm would sound notifying personnel to initiate an automatic line shutdown that is estimated to take two minutes. The com- I ment clarifies this procedure. No correction to the Final EIR is necessary. The comment, herewith, is incorporated into the Final EIR. IIResponse to Comment D-7 As a project betterment, the addition of remotely controlled block/check 1 valves significantly improves the safety features of the pipeline. A note has been placed on page 11 of the Final EIR referring readers to the SFM's letter and comments. Readers are referred to comment D-7 of the 1 SFM's letters. I II 1 1 1 Response to Comment 0-8 II The last sentence of Section 2.6. 1 reads, "In addition to the SDPC supplied inspectors, the cities or County may send their own inspectors to verify that all construction activities have been conducted in accordance with the applicable codes and regulations". The City of Tustin and County of Orange have the responsibility to issue II encroachment permits and street work permits. The City and County maintain the right to inspect construction related to any permits they may issue. '1 Response to Comment D-9 The City acknowledges the State Fire Marshall 's offer of cooperation by II offering to provide the City with the latest test results. These results shall be kept on file at the City and shall be relied upon by the City prior to issuing any permits. As a point of clarification, the City also intends II to review the data in the reports to determine the condition of the existing pipeline which currently runs under some rights-of-way owned by the City. Response to Comment D-10 1 The City will review the method of marking the line with the SDPC. Any item in violation of federal law will not be carried out. A reference is 1 made in the Final EIR to this response to comment. Also, see mitigation measure 33. This leaves the content of such a warning. Response to Comment D-11 IIAcknowledged. It is the intent that all applicable performance stan- dards be met. IIResponse to Comment D-12 I . The comment is not related to CEQA or EIR content. The City appreciates the advice given in the comment, and will work cooperatively with SDPC to obtain the information the City feels is relevant to the project. 1 Response to Comment E-1 The reader is referred to correspondence from SDPC which responds to 1 each point in the Water Quality Control Board letter (Comments G-1 through G- 5, this section) . The response by SDPC is that the design specifications for the proposed pipeline are higher than the ten inch line currently in opera- * tion in Tustin. In addition, it should be noted that the line that ruptured II 1 1 11 1 tsa 1 is now 24 years old and does not have the sophisticated leak detection sys- tems proposed for the new pipeline. Please see Section 4. 1 Abandonment Program and Section 5.0 Proposed Pipeline Alternatives for a full discussion of the existing pipeline and Section 2.6 Pipeline Design for discussion of the new pipeline and its safety features. Response to Comment E-2 The pipeline, as proposed and with the additional mitigation required, will present a small risk to the nearby environment. The addition of check 1 and block valves and state-of-the-art leak detection devices (please see comments G-1 through G-5, SDPC letter dated November 13, 1987) that will be placed on the pipeline substantially improves operation of the proposed pipeline and reduce risk. No changes to the Draft EIR are necessary. Response to Comment E-3 The City accepts the Water Quality Control Board's offer to assist in review of spill containment procedures. The City and County Fire Department will coordinate with the Board in this review. The comment and response are ' herewith incorporated into the Final EIR. Mitigation measure 8 has been modified, to include reference to the goal of "total containment" and cooper- ation with the Water Quality Control Board. Response to Comment E-4 Acknowledged. The City will pass this information on to the SDPC. No changes to the Draft EIR are necessary. Response to Comment F-1 The City intends to review existing test results and future pipeline test results in cooperation with the State Fire Marshall 's office and SDPC. The City intends to avail itself of the test results in order to determine ' the condition of the existing pipeline and soils around said pipeline prior to abandonment. Further, testing results will be reviewed by the City on an as-needed basis to assure itself of pipeline safety beneath its public streets. These provisions are to be included in the Franchise Agreement. In 1 addition, please see response to comment D-9. Response to Comment F-2 Final EIR corrected to reflect change. I 11 .1 1 Response to Comment F-3 Additional information added to Final EIR. 11 Response to Comment F-4 This statement has been clarified in the Final EIR to include sites within the City, only within the jurisdictional control of the City. f Response to Comment F-5 The corrections have been made to the FEIR. See corrected page 17. Response to Comment F-6 The City intends on reviewing and having on file any text results which it deems essential for assuring public safety. The City will work coopera- 1 tively with SDPC and the State Fire Marshall 's office in reviewing text materials. No correction is necessary to the FEIR. Response to Comment F-7 Correction made to the FEIR. Response to Comment F-8 It is felt that the existing language is clear and that no corrections are necessary. The intent of this section is to simply outline existing procedures. Response to Comment F-9 1 Correction made to FEIR. 1 Response to Comment G-1 Comment noted and herewith included in the FEIR. Please see related comments and responses D-1, D-6, E-1 and E-2. Response to Comment G-2 Comment noted and herewith included in the FEIR. Please see related comments and responses D-6, E-1 and E-2. 11 11 11 1 lsa 11 11 Response to Comment G-3 Comment noted and herewith included in the FEIR. Similar information is ' included in the EIR, Section 3.8 System Safety/Risk Management. A note has been added to the FEIR, page 61 referring readers to Comments/Response to Comments G-1 through G-5. 11 Response to Comment G-4 See response to comment E-2 and responses G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-5. No changes to the FEIR are necessary. Response to Comment G-5 11 See response to comment E-3. Response to Comment H-1 ' The comment is acknowledged and is hereby included in the FEIR. The reader is directed to the general discussion in the Abandonment Section of ' the FEIR and expanded mitigation (Section 4.0) . No environmental impacts are brought up in the comment relative to potential conflicts with new development. The matter appears to be one of site clearance/site preparation, which is a private matter outside the City's jurisdiction. 1 Further, selective removal of the pipeline is encouraged, where appro- priate. The Director of Public Works will review this comment within the context of the selective removal alternatives discussed in the Abandonment Section. Response to Comment H-2 11 Comment is acknowledged. However, no environmental effects related to CEQA are mentioned. Private agreements and indemnification, issues are out- side the City's review of environmental impacts per CEQA Guidelines. Comment is herewith included in the FEIR. No changes to the EIR are necessary. 1 Response to Comment H-3 11 Comment is strictly an issue between two property owners, outside the purview of the City of Tustin and CEQA review. Comment is herewith included in the FEIR. No changes to the FEIR are necessary. I I I l� • Response to Comment H-4 Statement added to FEIR, page 9. 1 Response to Cgr'ent I-1 Mitigation Measure 12 has been changed to include truck transport con- trols to reduce dust. Response to Comment I-2 Please see revised abandonment section (4.0) , particularly abandonment mitigation 34, 35, 36 and 37. This section has been modified to ensure safe abandonment and partial removal of the pipeline, rendering if unuseful for a future purpose. Response to Comment I-3 Please see revised section on water crossings (Section 2.6. 1) of the ' FEIR. Flood control channels will be crossed in the vicinity of Newport Avenue (Irvine-El Modena Channel ) , at future Tustin Ranch Road at Edinger and near the Tustin border (Santa Ana - Santa Fe Channel ) . Response to Comment I-4 Mitigation measure 3 (Section 3. 1.3) has been modified to include two notices, one notice two weeks prior to construction and another notice de- livered approximately 24 hours prior to construction. Response to Comment I-5 Staff offered to meet with Ms. Dery. No written comments were received. General issues brought up in the Scoping Meeting have been addressed in the ' Final EIR. Response to Comment I-6 Comment acknowledged and herein included in the FEIR. Response to Comment I-7A and B The pipeline is required to be buried at least 42 inches below grade. Federal regulations require a separation of at least 12 inches between pipes. I 1 I lsa I 11 Minimum separation between others utilities is also 12 inches (State Fire Marshal ) . Response to Continent I-8 1 Please see Mitigation Measures 14 and 17. Also, please see Pipeline Construction (Section 2.6.1) . All staging areas are controlled by the Direc- t tor of Public Works and are further regulated by the mitigation measures of this EIR. No residual significant environmental effects are anticipated after mitigation. 11 Response to Comment I-9 No above ground apparatus are anticipated. Leak detection and cathodic protection is monitored the entire length of the pipeline. Rectifiers will only be located in Orange and Mission Viejo. Please see Section 3.8. 1 for system safety explanation. Response to Convent I-10 A response time of minutes to any section of the pipeline within the City of Tustin is the County Fire Department's goal . This information has been added to Section 3.8.2 - Potential Risk, and is herewith incorporated in the FEIR. 11 11 11 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 isa 1 14.0 APPENDICES 1 i i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I tsa 1 ' Appendix A Initial Study, Notice of Preparation 1 I I 1 1 1 . I 1 i 1 i 1 i i 1 1 1 Appendix B ' Scoping Meeting Notes/Summary I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 S I 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B 1 SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY AUGUST it 1987 BACKGROUND On Tuesday, August 18, 1987, a Scoping Meeting for the San Diego Pipe- line Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was held at the City of Tustin. Ap- proximately four hundred notices were mailed by the City to residences ad- jacent to the existing and proposed pipeline route. The meeting time was announced in the Tustin News and posted on public buildings. Approximately twenty residents attended the Scoping Meeting. The verbal questions and comments made by the concerned residents have been compiled and are included 11 in this document. Specific issues that were discussed have been categorized in this summary under the following headings: Safety, Pipeline Construc- tion/Operation, and Legal Issues. Comments concerning safety and pipeline construction/operation will be incorporated into the EIR. Legal Issues, however, will not be addressed since they are not within the scope of this EIR. A copy of the agenda for the Scoping Meeting and copies of the written comments are also included in this document. 11 ,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I r lsa The following is a compilation of the verbal questions and comments made by participants at the August 18, 1987, San Diego Pipeline EIR Scoping Meet- ing. • SAFETY ISSUES 11 Mr. Vergote Existing 10 inch pipeline occurs in his backyard. Questioned the safety aspects associated with having the pipeline in the backyards of private residents. This concern was gener- ated by the limited access available in the backyards for emergency equip- ment in case of a pipeline accident. ' Ms. Barbara Dery In reference to Mr. Vergote concerns about emergency access to the exist- ing pipeline, Ms. Dery was concerned whether the proposed alignment within public streets would have better access for emergency equipment in response to a pipeline accident or 1 leak. Mr. Downing Existing pipeline occurs in his backyard. Concerned with the aban- donment alternatives associated with the existing 10 inch pipeline and whether they will create safety problems or disruption to his back- yard. Opposes physical removal of pipeline due to backyards being torn up. Mr. Warren Watson Lives adjacent to Bryan Avenue near the proposed pipeline route. Con- cerned with engineering specifica- tions of the public roadway where the proposed pipeline is to occur, and whether or not any damage to the roadway (e.g. excess weight, auto/ truck accidents) could affect the pipeline. Wanted specific attention ' paid to the effects of vehicle weight on the pipeline. i lsa Mr. Al Baker Concerned about the safety, durabil - ity and flexibility of the material used for the pipeline. Mr. Baker was also concerned about ' the effect of an earthquake on the pipeline. Questioned whether any additional safety measures would be incorporated into the proposed pipeline system to prevent a spill such as the one that ' occurred last year near the Marine Base in Tustin. Ms. June Fons Questioned the safety associated with using nitrogen as a method of aban- doning the 10 inch pipeline (whether or not nitrogen is an explosive gas) . Ms. Fons was also concerned with the long term effects of nitrogen in the pipeline, and the safety implications associated with nitrogen leaks. ' Unidentified Individual Questioned who should be called in case of a pipeline leak or any asso- ciated problems with the pipeline. (911 or the San Diego Pipeline Com- pany) . PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION Ms. June Fons Questioned who would maintain the abandoned pipeline, the City or the San Diego Pipeline Company. In reference to the abandonment of the existing 10 inch pipeline, ques- tioned whether there were any alter- , native methods to packing the pipe with nitrogen (e.g. filling it with mud) which might be safer and poss- ibly prevent future use. 1 I I lsa Ms. Barbara Dery Questioned the hours that construc- tion would take place (a.m. , p.m. ) . She was also concerned about access to her neighborhood/home during construction if streets were blocked. Mr. Warren Watson Questioned why the City has not coor- dinated the construction of utili- ' ties, etc. along Bryan Avenue. Com- mented on the inconvenience of having traffic on Bryan Avenue continually disrupted due to construction ac- tivities. Wanted road construc- tion/utility construction coordi- nated. Linda Downing Questioned the method of abandonment of the existing 10 inch pipeline, and whether once it is abandoned if it ' will or can ever be brought back to service. Unidentified Person Questioned whether the SDPC could I/ reactivate the abandoned pipeline at a later time. He felt that once it is abandoned it should remain that way, and that the City should require permanent form of abandonment. Mr. Al Baker Questioned where the shut-off valves I/ were located in the City, and whether they were manual or automatic. I Had similar concerns as Mr. Watson, above, about coordination of con- struction along Bryan Avenue and the disruption of traffic and access. I LEGAL ISSUES ' Mr. Leroy Katnik Questioned who would be liable in the event of a pipeline accident-the City or the San Diego Pipeline Company. ' Ms. Linda Downing Questioned who would pay for damage to her yard if the existing pipeline is removed. Ms. June Fons Questioned whether homeowners are re- sponsible to tell future homebuyers that the pipeline is adjacent to, or on, their property. ' Mr. Warren Watson Questioned who owns the land once the pipeline is abandoned. In addition, questioned whether the SDPL remuner- ates the City for use of public easements. Stated that City should receive rent or some compensation. • 1 I I 1 lsa Appendix C ' Correspondence 1 1 1 1 I lsa Appendix D Technical Assessment/ Risk Assessment Matrices I 1 1 I 1 1 1 lsa 1 Appendix E 1 Hypothetical Spill Example 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 lsa ' Appendix E Hypothetical Spill Example ' To assist in understanding how a spill might occur and what the resul - tant consequences might be, the following illustrative example is offered. Note that this example is strictly hypothetical , and cannot be construed as an actual forecast of events to occur. ' Based upon historical statistics, the single most likely event to cause a spill would be accidental digging in by a contractor working in the area of ' the pipeline. Ordinarily, any such contractor is required to submit drawings to the City Public Works Department for approval before obtaining an excava- tion permit. The City Public Works Department would have the opportunity to inform the contractor about pipelines in the proposed construction area. In ' addition, the contractor is required, by law, to notify "Underground Service Alert," a private cooperative of pipeline, utility and water companies with underground interests at stake, who would then notify all pipeline and util - ity owners in the area of the proposed construction. Most of the affected utilities would then send surveyors to the excavation site to locate and mark the location of their underground structures or pipelines, so as to minimize the chance of damage to their facilities during excavation. ' In this example, if we assume that a contractor failed to get a permit to excavate, and also failed to notify Underground Service Alert, then a ' possibility remains that the contractor may unknowingly dig into this pipe- line. In accordance with State laws and regulations, the pipeline company ' routinely surveys the route (at least once per week) by air or by car, look- ing for signs of any construction activity which may pose a threat to their underground pipeline. In this example, it will be assumed that the line riders missed this particular construction activity. During pipeline construction, it is normal , standard industry practice to bury a plastic warning tape, imprinted with applicable wording, above the ' pipeline so as to provide early warning to anyone digging down that a pipe- line is buried below. In this example, it will be assumed that the contrac- tor missed or ignored this warning tape. Using a backhoe, the contractor strikes the pipe and accidently punc- tures it. The resultant leak immediately causes the contractor to shut down his equipment and to notify the Fire Department. If we assume the line is 1 1 l51 ' flowing (in use) , both the high/low pressure detection circuits and the leak ' detection system will be on-line and monitoring for just such an occurrence. For this example, the response time of the leak detection circuits • and/or pressure circuits, is assumed to be ten minutes. Simultaneously, the ' local Fire Department, acting in response to the calls originating at the project site, have placed a call into the "wheel", a cooperative telephone notification system in southern California, by which any pipeline incident can be quickly relayed to all pipeline operators; giving each pipeline opera- ' tor the opportunity to check and shut down, if prudent, any pipelines which are located at or near the scene of the accident. Before the line is shut down, product escapes from the line. Volume of spilled fuel may vary from just a few gallons, for a pinhole puncture, to several thousand gallons, for a large rupture. While escaping from the line under pressure, it may spray upwards into the air, and affect or force clos- IIof surface vehicle and pedestrian traffic. After line shutdown, the line will still continue to leak, but a much slower rate. The only pressure remaining upon the fluid will be from pres- sure caused by higher elevations on each side of Tustin. A check valve station, located in the City of Tustin, serves to reduce ' the amount of "backflow" and "back pressure" possible from the higher eleva- tions downstream. ' The Fire Department, immediately upon responding to such an accident, would visually estimate the size of the leak and amount of fuel present, and test air samples in the immediate area so as to define the hazardous limits or "footprint." For this example, a 500-foot radius is established as a ' critical area, and all entry into this area is tightly controlled by the Fire Department. Automobile and pedestrian traffic is diverted an additional 1000 feet away. Containment efforts, such as sandbagging are immediately started so as to limit the spread of fuel . Power, and possibly gas, may be shut off in the area so as to further minimize potential sources of ignition. State authorities, including the State Fire Marshall and the Office of Haz- ardous Liquid Pipeline Safety would be notified. A special foam may be ' applied over pools of collected liquid, to minimize escape of volatile vapors and to reduce spread of fire, should accidental ignition occur. ' Upon receiving notification, and in some cases before, the pipeline company places into operation internal emergency response plans. Steps typically include: immediate release of pressure on the pipeline in the affected area by opening selected valves; closing of local block valves in the immediate area so as to minimize total volume of fuel available to feed 1 . lsa spill ; mobilization of heavy equipment and labor resources to be utilized for ' fuel recovery and site clean-up; and other assistance to the Fire Department as necessary. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix A 1 Initial Study, Notice of Preparation i 1 I 1 1 G 1 1 1 1 1 I I I a i A:' Department of Community Development 1 July 29, 1987 11 SUBJECT: SAN DIEGO PIPELINE EIR NOTICE OF PREPARATION Dear Notice of Preparation Recipient: Attached you will find a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for relocation of the San Diego Pipeline within the City of Tustin. The City is currently reviewing a franchise agreement with the applicant that will authorize construction of a sixteen inch refined petroleum products pipeline within the City of Tustin. Prior to authorization of the franchise agreement for the project, an EIR will be prepared. Please direct your written comments to me .as indicated in the NOP. If you have any ' questions regarding the project or the environmental process, please contact Patrizia Materassi at 544-8890. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /7 • Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development CAS:ts ' attachment 1 300 Centennial Way • Tustin, California 92680 • (714) 544-8890 I NC ICE OF PREPAF,- ATION a, .1' CITY OF TUSTIN • 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA.. 92680 • • 11 Responsible Agency 1. Subject: Sixteen' inch Hazardous Material Pipeline Project Title: San Diego Pipeline Location: City of Tustin City Limits North of Newport Avenue, South with- ! in Newport Avenue, East within Bryan Avenue, South within Tustin Ranch Road-and Proposed Tustin Ranch Road Extension, East on Moulton Parkway to the City Limits West of Jamboree Blvd, Applicant: San Diego Pipeline Company The City of Tustin has completed an Initial Study for the subject project ,, and determined that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. The City will be the Lead Agency for the subject project and will administer the preparation. of the EIR. To assure your concerns are addressed in the Draft EIR, we invite 'your response to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities. Your agency must consider the EIR prepared by the City of Tustin when considering your permit or approval of the project. The project description, location and an analysis indicating the probable environmental effects of the proposed action are attached for your review. Pursuant to Section 15082(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, your response must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days from receipt of this notice dated July 29, 1987 , , ' If any changes in the proposed project occur, we will promptly advise you. If you require additional information, please contact the undersigned at (714) 544-8890, ext. 250. . Submitted by, 1 Christine Shingleton ' Community Development Department • I Iau er so aaatisa;o-. 1100 tiatL amt. I ss 111, aazaaaata, a nca - 116/445-a13 Se Cr tan O!$0 mO1a331 at aP_OOamL®e SARSOMMIL 7701 8® I • ( ' 1i pmi.,x bran Diego Pipeline EIR Notice of Preparation y Lad? ws City of Tustin 3, m„tem peas„ Patrizia Materassi II 3.. mast aa�aat 300 Centennial Way Y atys Tustin x. . Orange . NL sip, 92680 34. Pma, (714) 544-8890 apaa7aain 4. catty. Orange W City/ atty* Tustin Ia. sea is moral a N/A k wets, 1%p. WS Metre ral. Metr sa. aoa BMWs& Helicopter �'tty' _ maw Fwwyyta Ana a MCAS(H) 4 sera Santa Fe RR4 sya Creek pats I �. Mlttaa 1 allot �. F 1-5• 7. .- I. 1 OLACCI > I P. aENCOMIL>$ a 01._..a ral Plan V 01._poiatelalr 0Ma acs Ol..La N.__.100 02._y, Gast M._Offices Pa. R. 02. Orly ma 07. __LC m.-sral Pia, ____ acs 010:7r .I m._Ng Dec s._�0 01. mesa Pla m. .a.snf..ehbarelat, Sq. aa_ a._aft a m. aa.atla Itaa sclsyat aaclsati a._its:ifie Pia a. >ba,srialr !a. Pt_ I m. echoer IIII Qtiat Si 4, 07. miry Pla llQa sp[syaa 1 O . ia..laaet m. _star Pralitia, 1417 E O.Jess 00. ffsia tats s tea Draft m.JKa 13._tea 10.mad 7.L1m 07. llaaoa, w afal (asdlviata Perot J 10. ---Ma 12._A Pace Inca RR, ac.) m. -Past, i1T• well S U.-fa Peat m. _Ste l roetr Wm II13._XS= Masses 12._jests Rwt Pia 10. _CO3 Minted 14. Aral Coast 13. Mai p Prrrw U. t 1 U. CRS U.__Sern 10. 9m. . 11• 12, 3311an016151ffWar 15. _Satin syste a. _nag Oa1ier I 01.sStic Vl al a. --ASV u. -Sr Opacity 14. ---Nam ayply 02.__Psarialtural Led OP. Calaric' aata 17. _awe•• 33. _er1axl/Riperia CO.--Air Oualiti, 10.-_,laa/Baaiaa Balam 15. ___sou Mein 15. __Wildl1fa I a..JKSDaalr.GaIi tea iat 11. -- arms 13. mud Mao 17. __scar :rascal C6.mawal m 31.-as m. �tar/sa*art. 111. ?r ani.:a am 06.`Navas 11.Meals Setts• 11. . 'mfficlaz alacim s. -Mathstiv. =acts 07.bra Board IA. ?mIa 11._Agitation 30. _ear 13. n (46000) Waal I Bran S aural S 14. I a. acaa_aars>_t 'The San Diego Pipeline Company is proposing to construct a sixteen (16") inch pipeline within the public right-of-way along the route described on Figure 1, Location Map. This new pipeline is to replace an existing ten (10") inch pipeline which is proposed to be abandoned in place and filled with Nitrogen. In addition, a new ten(10") inch pipeline will be constructed paralle with the new sixteen (L6") inch one, however, the smaller pipeline will be activated. u. m>oa7e Cr:m PVa 10601110105/6 MUM July 27. 19 8 7 1 =, aaarinao,aa all sign idntitlatia rinse for all ptascta. if • S® amber asap .ass fa • pais= (e.g. fro• Pala of Pnparetia at 'trios draft chose) alas fill it is. JOE sea 4/aa - ca Ole Pas[ 7d15=19:6 a W® 1 Project Description ' The San Diego Pipeline Company is proposing to construct a sixteen (16") inch pipeline within the public right-of-way along the route described on Figure 1, Location Map. This new pipeline is to replace an existing ten (10" ) inch pipeline which is proposed to be abandoned in place and filled with Nitrogen. In addition, a new ten (10") inch pipeline will be constructed parallel with the new sixteen (16") inch one, however, the smaller pipeline will not be activated. i 1 I I r I 1 I Location Map lsa • T• -� Tw v\ ,�Cy� o� N � � a-, -1� � 'k I a Y siEa w it `\ \\ 11 II• 4\ h- 4i -t1 a/ L \ 1 loff _ CC y __s�gi r° ` c _ •� la _ -viN -.. n PC‘sr '�� �� ' a1 "°� � �'d Existing Pipeline �,.` evv �y • s• Lk:, -Fb -� �qf'-� , i �' r•., (To be abandoned) j I al.=•_`'' y1 2r J i \\ ,5' s ,o" ATCH/Sf 1 I ell �L u r.ln M�. 'o� t 127i1� — 1 \ I U d I� f��t.�,llgsr^f�sr�fi Seeck e f c0~ \ n �`0 roo 11 ) C 1 I 'I _�nr. _ _7 CHANNEL_1,2__ j. 1 + e... J/ g rN _ �i ; IIL. i 1 Ii wYE I0 9 . _.1 . . llky �r rll ; I Proplosed Pipeline• a El!n9 - _ - —�-' \ ___ I,o `` Q 21 Iq, 1�1 ._ SANTA ANA AL N o t oil F:h?I \ I` �I 1. I� J - 1 11 ' ll•� ryI Ip1 • P PPC 1 _ 1 I i T i 1 '�..` _ W SJ 'l 1 I j�EYO 7_11 '1, 7 i i ;'I' 1 I , { 1 III 1 I m _ ' 1��(y•y Sr¢ 1I 1 i N'I 1. 71,I..'u__ _-1 I 1� . �/, �, Ji'�\ - O ' ` 1. L .' 110 .1 \\ 1 a /q � - ® C .. t ■7, I •Qt Y _ARAM F/1211:1,- SA fV�A`FT�— _b _ - �∎ • `]r -- ®,P / \\ 6• NAVY,/ Jt hh \WAY_...—_ t ----IS •Jf f?�•d .'.! - I e\" 0d' •I III I <� 1 r -°- 1 1111 .a ;I. C— I ISource: U.S.G.S., 7.5' Quad-Tustin,Ca. liF\ I i NOP DISTRIBUTION LIST 1 San Diego Pipeline Company Regional Water Quality Control Department of Fish 888 South Figueroa Street Board Region 8 and Game ILos Angeles, CA 90017 6809 Indian Avenue, Suite 200 1416 Ninth Street Attn: Steve Monn Riverside, CA 92506 Sacramento, CA 95814 IDepartment of Water Resources City of Irvine City of Orange P.O. Box 6598 Community Development Dept. Community Development I Los Angeles, CA 90055 17200 Jamboree Road Department P.O. Box 19575 300 East Chapman Ave. Irvine, CA 92713 Orange, CA 92666 ' County of Orange City of Santa Ana Tustin Unified School County Administrative Office Planning Department District 1 10 Civic Center Plaza 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 600 S. "C" Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 Tustin, CA 92680 Department of Transportation State of California Public State Clearinghouse OPR II District 7 Utilities Commission 1400 Tenth Street 120 Spring Street 250 McAllister Street Sacramento, CA 95814 II Los Angeles, CA 90012 San Francisco, CA 94102 Attn: Dan Conaty, Rm. 121 Attn: George Hensen Sara Anderson Orange County Fire Department State Fire Marshall IICounty of Orange/EMA 180 S. Water Street 7171 Bawling Drive, 12 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 86 Suite 600 . Santa Ana, CA 92702 Orange, CA 92666-0086 Sacramento, CA 95823 II City of Tustin South Coast Air Ouality 1 Planning Commission, Management District City Council , 9150 E. Flair Drive Community Development Department, El Monte, CA 91731 Public Works Department, IPolice Department, City Attorney, Community Services 300 Centennial Way IITustin, CA 92680 ' HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ,� Tustin Meadows Peppertree Laurelwood Townhouse P.O. Box 491 2342 Salletree P.O. Box 1489 Tustin, CA 92680 Tustin, CA 92680 Tustin, CA 92680 II Laurelwood San Juan Meadows Broadmor Park III 2254 Lichen Lane 1942 San Juan 1101 Packers Circle #6 Tustin, CA 92680 Tustin, CA 92680 Tustin, CA 92680 1 I °'^„es ' e City of Tustin Community Development Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF TUSTIN Notice is hereby given that the City of Tustin, Community Development Department I/ will conduct a scoping meeting to receive public input on a proposed underground pipeline on August 18, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA. The San Diego Pipeline Company is proposing to replace an existing 10" refined petroleum pipeline currently located under private property and abandoned railroad to be located under selected public streets. In addition, a new ten (10") inch pipeline will be installed with the new sixteen (16") inch line, however, the smaller pipeline will not be activated at this time. The subject project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the required Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on July 28, 1987. Comments concerning the project may be presented at the scoping meeting or in writing to the Community Development Department prior to August 28, 1987. Anyone interested in the above information may call the Community Development Department at (714) 544-8890, extension 250. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Publish: Tustin News July 28, 1987 11 1 1 I t 1 300 Centennial Way • Tustin, California 92680 • (714) 544-8890 1 CITY OF TUSTIN 0411.1124\ ICommunity Development Department � h`: � ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM L`S'�` II I. a of Proponent San Diego Pipeline Company I Z Address and Mule Number of proponent 888 South Figueroa' Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 3. Date of Cherlelist 836rd aid July 22, 1987 I ' Requiring checklist City of Tustin, Community Development Department s. Name of proposal, if applicable SDPC Expansion and relocation ' II. Etniranaral I"paats . . (Explanation of all "1e" and "maybe" answers re required an attached sheets) ) I Yes No I I. ErrMI. Will the proposal result ins a. Unstable earth condition or in change in geologic substnretures? X 1 b. Disuptiora, dispiaeernenb, compaction or overcavering of the soil? X I a. Change in topography ar ground surfers X relief factors? __ __ _ d. The destruction, covering or modification I of an unique gestogic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind ar water 'version of I soils, either on or off the site? x f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or I ._ erosion whir may modify the channel of a —_ river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X I I I . IYes Maybe No 4. Platt Life. Will the proposal result in I a. Charge in the divenity of species, or number of arty species of plants (including frees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X 2 b. Reduction of the numbers of arty unique, • rare ar endangered species of plants? X I c. Infrodrttlon of new species of plain into an area, or in a barrier to the normal teplatishrttent of existing species? X U . d. Reduction in acreage of arty agricultural — crop? X I L Animal Life. Will the proposal result ins a. Change in the diversity of species, ar numbers of arty species of animals (birds, I laid animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthie agatnn a ireen x - - b. Reduction of the numbers of arty unique, I rare a endangered species of animals? _ X c. Intrvdtctian of new.species of animals into I an area; ar result in a barter to the migratiat a movement of animals? — X S Deterioration to axistirg fish a wildlife INoise 6. e Win the proal result in ' a. increases in existing raise levels? X b. Esgsasure of people to severe raise levels? X II7. Light and Giese. Will the prapceal produce —new light or glare? X 8. Lad Use. Will the proposal result in a sub. I sternal altercate, of the present or planned — land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources Will the proposal result ins 11 a. Irereoss in the rate of use of arty natural resources? X #I I 1 • II 1. Yes Maybe tap d. Parks er other recreational facilities? X 1 e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X I1 Other governmental services? X IS. Energy. Will the proposal result ins . .% substantial ma a. Use of bstantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ X I b. Substantial increase in dewed .pan exist- . I ing curers of energy, or require the — development of new source of energy? X 16. -Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need I for nee systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities a. Power or natural gas? • _ _ X ' b. Communications systems? -.--- _ x a. Water? — _ x Id. Saver or septic tanks? x e. Storm water drainage? x If. Solid waste and disposal? _ _ X 17. I-brnos Health. Will the proposal result ins I a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X '1 b. Exposure of people to potential health tarts? X 1 18. Aesthetic. Will the proposal result in the abstnsetian of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the cearian of an aesthetically offensive. site °pen Ito public view? X 19. Reaeatia n . Will the proposal result in a •- inexact upon the quality or quantity of existing Irecreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resource. I . a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archoeologicai site? X I I • On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect as the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project emit have a significant effect I—I an the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ease because the mitigation measures described at an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL EE PREARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significatt effect an the ewiron. (=I meat, ad at ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ' Uate July 22. 1987 Signature CHRISTINE SHINGLETON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 1 1 1 1 1 • i 1 i 1 I I 1/ III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed relocation and expansion of the San Diego pipeline may increase the potential risk to public safety related to a possible failure of said pipeline, as occurred last November. (The rupture of a ' 25 year old pipeline joint caused the spillage of approximately 500,000 gallons of premium unleaded gasoline into local flood channels. The accident was contained in a timely manner before any ignition occurred) . It is the determination of the City of Tustin Community Development Department that there is substantial evidence of potential hazard and possible significant environmental effects to warrant further evaluation in an EIR. The following checklist outlines areas of concentration for ' environmental studies as part of the EIR being required for the project. 1. Earth a. The project includes the excavation of a trench 30" wide and 4' deep located within right-of-way easements along public roads which have been altered before for road construction and maintenance. Also, the envi- ronmental assessment (Regional Information) submitted provides no evi - dence of geologic substructures in the area. b. Once the pipe is installed, backfill will be compacted and areas would be returned to prior condition. c. No. See item a. ' d. No. See item a. ' e. No. The proposed project does not include wind and water components. f. No. See item a. g. No. See item a. 2. Air a. Potentially, in case of failure of pipeline. An accident causing rup- ture may cause the release of gasoline or other hazardous fumes into the atmosphere. (Refer to Risk of Upset, item a. ) b. Same as 2a above. 11 I 3. Water 1 a. No. Proposed pipeline is an independent transportation system. Once it is installed, it will run underneath public road easements, not affect- ing water courses. • ' b. No. See item a. I c. No. See item 3a. In case of maintenance and repair of pipeline in proximity to flood plains. Special techniques utilized to avoid flood problems and water contamination at stream crossings and potential problems during installation and maintenance will need to be addressed in the EIR. (Refer to Risk of Upset, item a.) d. No. See item a. e. Yes. Potential impacts to San Diego Creek, El Modina Channel , other surface storm drainage and sub-surface water, should a rupture or slow leak occur. f. No. See item a. g. Yes. See item 3e. h. No. See item a. i . No. See item a. 4. Plant life a. Potential impacts to San Diego Creek should a rupture occur. The extent of such impacts will need to be addressed in detail in the EIR. b. Yes, potentially should a rupture occur. Refer to item a. c. No. Id. No. Installation of pipeline will not cross active agriculture areas. 5. Animal life a. No. Due to the specific route proposed within the street rights-of-way. ' 2 1 I b. Potential impacts may occur. See 4a, above. ic. No. See item a. d. There are no nearby agricultural uses which might be affected. ' 6. Noise ' a. Short-term impacts from construction will need to be addressed in the EIR. ' b. Maybe. See item a. 7. Light and Glare ' a. No. According to the letters and other information submitted, the project consists of an underground pipeline which is not lighted. Terminal stations and control facilities, if proposed, will need to comply with City Code and lighting standards. 8. Land Use a. Maybe. A detailed alignment of the existing 10" pipeline and proposed 16" pipeline, with all adjacent land uses and existing easements, will need to be studied in the EIR to determine whether there are any effects on land uses within the area of potential impact. 9. Natural Resources a. No. Alignment is within existing and proposed street rights-of-way. No natural resources are in this area. b. No. See item a. 10. Risk of Upset a. Yes. The proposal involves a risk of leakage of hazardous substances which may cause contamination of watercourses and stormdrains and the possibility of explosion. Hazardous products such as automotive gaso- line, diesel fuels, commercial aircraft fuels and military jet fuel will be transported in the pipeline. The extent of damage caused by leakage rupture needs to be determined, as well as mitigation measures to address the problems. 3 1 . I I I Pipe leakage which may be caused by internal/external pipe corrosion, third party damage, earthquake or other reasons including manufacturers error, may cause pollution and contamination of streams, such as the El Modena Irvine Channel , which will be crossed by said pipeline. In case of accident, contamination of water may reach San Diego Creek and por- tions of upper Newport Bay, if not properly contained in a timely man- ner. The EIR will need to specifically address the following issues: I) "Hazardous footprints" which would be generated in case of acci- dent; providing consistent and satisfactory mitigation measures. Alternative routes may be considered. 2) Relationship between age of existing pipeline and occurrence of 1 accidents should be discussed. The variable "frequency of testing" may be introduced to indicate the impacts of appropriate main- tenance on the reduction of accidents. An analysis of present • operating conditions of existing pipeline will also be required. 3) Relationship between proposed leak detection devices and perfor- mance of similar existing pipelines which were installed with same devices. Is there substantial evidence of less risk? 4) The use of anti-corrosion cathodic coating. b. Maybe. According to the information submitted regarding construction techniques, subject pipeline will be installed underground. However, design of pipeline route should take into consideration major evacuation routes, to minimize impact on evacuation plan in the event of an earth- quake. Existing material will be reviewed to determine effect. 11. Population a. No. The possible effects on land use are relatively insignificant and are not expected to affect density or any other population factor. (Source: Route Maps Submitted) 12. Housing ' a. No. See item lla. 4 1 1 11 1 13. Transportation/circulation ,' a. No. Being an underground transportation system, the proposed project will not affect surface or air circulation factors. ib. No. See item a. c. Yes, of a temporary nature. EIR will need to address short term impacts ' of construction. These impacts may include delays of working schedule due to accidents with other existing utility pipes in the area, or due to unexpected findings of special soil geologic conditions which require special construction techniques. These issues need to be address in the EIR. d. Yes. See item c. 1 e. No. See item a. f. Possibly during construction. See 13c. 14. Public Services a. Maybe, of a temporary nature. As noted above, other utility pipes may be damaged while construction is taking place. Construction equipment may temporarily obstruct fire lanes. Mitigation should be suggested. 11 b. No. No relationship to police concerns. c. No. Proposal has no relation with school services. (Source: Informa- tion Submitted.) d. No. Proposal has no relation with recreational facilities. (Source: Information Submitted. ) e. No. Not substantial . 1 f. No. No other governmental services to be affected by the proposed project are identified. (Source: Information submitted.) ' 15. Enerav a. No. Marginal amount at pumping stations only. 5 1 1 1 1 1 b. No. Electrical energy will be used at pump station only. 16. Utilities a. No. Proposed project is an independent system of transportation and ' will not interfere with other utility systems. (Source: Information submitted.) b. No. See item a. c. No. See item a. d. No. See item a. e. No. See item a. f. No. See item a. 17. Human Health a. Yes. In case of accident, leakage of hazardous substances and or explo- sion could cause a health hazard. The EIR will need to address the issue of contamination of soils by the existing pipeline and proposed pipeline and its affect on groundwater used for domestic purposes. Mitigation measures will need to be enforced prior to approval of any 1 permits to abandon, relocate or replace such pipeline. b. Yes. See item a. ' 18. Aesthetics a. No. Once installed the pipeline will not be in public view, therefore not affecting environmental aesthetics. (Source: Information submitted regarding construction techniques. ) 19. Recreation ' a. No. Specific project route does not cross major recreation areas. (Source: Route Map Submitted.) 1 6 1 1 1 I 20. Cultural Resources a. No. Proposed pipeline is to be installed on public roads easements which have disrupted the soil several times before. No effect is anti- cipated. (Source: Route Maps Submitted.) b. No. See item a. c. No. See item a. d. No. See item a. e. No. See item a. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Yes. In case of accident, contamination of streams and stormwater systems may occur and affect the habitat of fish or wildlife species. b. No. There are no long-term effects identified. No. There are no short-term goals attached to the project. c. No. Effects of the project, as described in this Initial Study, are single event occurrences or are at construction time only. No cumula- tive effects are identified. d. Potentially, yes. In case of accident (refer to Risk of Upset, item a) , the proposed project presents potential public safety problems, the extent of which need to be evaluated and addressed in the EIR. ' Attachment: Initial Environmental Study, provided by the San Diego Pipeline Company. I 1 7 1 i 1 1 Appendix B Scoping Meeting Notes/Summary 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 II 1 COMMENT SHEET SCOPING MEETING ISAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION 1 AUGUST 18, 1987 7:00 P.M. II ' NAME: ANN4 / / /-R) C J/C'YL)iyini5 ADDRESS: /9,5-02 GENT /C.c// 6; ZIP: 9,7 6G IDo you want to be notified of Public Hearings? IYES NO Issue(s) You Would Like Studied In The EIR II 0l sT/itJ$ roc Ada-Aix-cc ,t '7a- T ii s�tiC Gds �vi�s;L £clA F u /0 ha- 2-cz_r07 era I Concerns About Pipeline `r 4. -s `e 5 12 Vr n •�. e MCJ/7 /,eh4hc_ e As /- o /j !c 1 cu ui/l/ `aa J�O2 h t, w b I G cs ho v e/ 9 v r U�- o ° .7 s re s�`'�� IIOther Comments/General Questi v S fit PS S // i AQ i70 ise 7e1.2 cl 1 e' h © 6,2; . Cori w / // 77 a /5--e Ha u/ n/ctiy I 1 e) l"ly n e h4 r coin it - n 4� a .,,,,-72- J 1 l5 s/fl ///flJ s /7- a kis .e o G o i^t.S C o h', ) �" 5 r ci, I I w'A ere € 12/Pt b c v~rrn/ /s I co/7 IA , G' ld ea 0 -M e f , '4-c, ' c e c se , cro / /-yy UhCIP�`�i �'�illf 7� / 21-)i 1 L.5 ici/Q t 4h e c OryA 1 /AccA 6vcs respYMd( i/c a I leaf- e 7����h cl r/mc A / o a, * f ejo S/`7 e 72h IS Hi o taen /L • cvas b -e 1.) a--19/9/ Lv/>L4 1 ova fh /Gift / we 00 eri is c orr en ire / CI E y 1 Lb g 9o0,5 //o Fs a b e cif e • I . 1 i 1 1 1 1 ' APPENDIX B SCOPING MEETING ' SUMMARY AUGUST 18. 1987 BACKGROUND On Tuesday, August 18, 1987, a Scoping Meeting for the San Diego Pipe- line Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was held at the City of Tustin. Ap- proximately four hundred notices were mailed by the City to residences ad- jacent to the existing and proposed pipeline route. The meeting time was announced in the Tustin News and posted on public buildings. Approximately twenty residents attended the Scoping Meeting. The verbal questions and comments made by the concerned residents have been compiled and are included in this document. Specific issues that were discussed have been categorized in this summary under the following headings: Safety, Pipeline Construc- tion/Operation, and Legal Issues. Comments concerning safety and pipeline construction/operation will be incorporated into the .EIR. Legal Issues, however, will not be addressed since they are not within the scope of this EIR. A copy of the agenda for the Scoping Meeting and copies of the written comments are also included in this document. ' 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 i The following is a compilation of the verbal questions and comments made by participants at the August 18, 1987, San Diego Pipeline EIR Scoping Meet- ing. 1 SAFETY ISSUES Mr. Vergote Existing 10 inch pipeline occurs in his backyard. Questioned the safety 1 aspects associated with having the pipeline in the backyards of private residents. This concern was gener- 1 ated by the limited access available in the backyards for emergency equip- ment in case of a pipeline accident. 1 Ms. Barbara Dery In reference to Mr. Vergote concerns about emergency access to the exist- ing pipeline, Ms. Dery was concerned 1 whether the proposed alignment within public streets would have better access for emergency equipment in response to a pipeline accident or 1 leak. Mr. Downing Existing pipeline occurs in his 1 backyard. Concerned with the aban- donment alternatives associated with the existing 10 inch pipeline and whether they will create safety 1 problems or disruption to his back- yard. Opposes physical removal of pipeline due to backyards being torn up. Mr. Warren Watson Lives adjacent to Bryan Avenue near the proposed pipeline route. Con- 1 cerned with engineering specifica- tions of the public roadway where the proposed pipeline is to occur, and whether or not any damage to the 1 roadway (e.g. excess weight, auto/ truck accidents) could affect the pipeline. Wanted specific attention i 1 I 1 e paid to the effects of vehicle weight on the pipeline. Mr. Al Baker Concerned about the safety, durabil- ity and flexibility of the material used for the pipeline. D Mr. Baker was also concerned about the effect of an earthquake on the pipeline. Questioned whether any additional safety measures would be incorporated into the proposed pipeline system to prevent a spill such as the one that occurred last year near the Marine Base in Tustin. ' Ms. June Fons Questioned the safety associated with using nitrogen as a method of aban- doning the 10 inch pipeline (whether or not nitrogen is an explosive gas) . ' Ms. Fons was also concerned with the long term effects of nitrogen in the pipeline, and the safety implications ' associated with nitrogen leaks. Unidentified Individual Questioned who should be called in case of a pipeline leak or any asso- a ciated problems with the pipeline. (911 or the San Diego Pipeline Com- pany) . ' PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION ' Ms. June Fons Questioned who would maintain the abandoned pipeline, the City or the San Diego Pipeline Company. a In reference to the abandonment of the existing 10 inch pipeline, ques- t tioned whether there were any alter- ' a a • I native methods to packing the pipe with nitrogen (e.g. filling it with mud) which might be safer and poss- ibly prevent future use. ' Ms. Barbara Dery Questioned the hours that construc- tion would take place (a.m. , p.m. ) . a She was also concerned about access to her neighborhood/home during construction if streets were blocked. ' Mr. Warren Watson Questioned why the City has not coor- dinated the construction of utili- ties, etc. along Bryan -Avenue. Com- mented on the inconvenience of having traffic on Bryan Avenue continually disrupted due to construction ac- tivities. Wanted road construc- tion/utility construction coordi- nated. Linda Downing Questioned the method of abandonment of the existing 10 inch pipeline, and whether once it is abandoned if it will or can ever be brought back to service. Unidentified Person Questioned whether the SDPC could ' reactivate the abandoned pipeline at a later time. He felt that once it is abandoned it should remain that way, and that the City should require ' permanent form of abandonment. Mr. Al Baker Questioned where the shut-off valves were located in the City, and whether they were manual or automatic. Had similar concerns as Mr. Watson, a above, about coordination of con- struction along Bryan Avenue and the disruption of traffic and access. 1 1 1 1 1 1 LEGAL ISSUES Mr. Leroy Katnik Questioned who would be liable in the event of a pipeline accident-the City or the San Diego Pipeline Company. Ms. Linda Downing Questioned who would pay for damage 1 to her yard if the existing pipeline is removed. Ms. June Fons Questioned whether homeowners are re- sponsible to tell future homebuyers that the pipeline is adjacent to, or on, their property. 1 Mr. Warren Watson Questioned who owns the land once the pipeline is abandoned. In addition, questioned whether the SDPL remuner- ates the City for use of public easements. Stated that City should receive rent or some compensation. • 1 i II 1 II 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 AGENDA 1 SCOPING MEETING 1 SAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION AUGUST 18, 1987 1 7:00 P.M. ' I. INTRODUCTION: City staff (Patrizia Materassi and 1 Jeff Davis), the Consultants - LSA (Robert Balen, Angie Egli ), Enersource Engineering (George Ramsey). 1 II. WHAT IS A SCOPING MEETING? 1 III . PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 1 IV. POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENT. 1 V. BREAK 1 VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INPUT/QUESTIONS. 1 1 1 1 1 11 II el Project Description The San Diego Pipeline Company is proposing to construct a sixteen (16" ) inch pipeline within the public right-of-way along the route described on Figure 1, Location Map. This new pipeline is to replace an existing ten (10" ) inch pipeline which is proposed to be abandoned in place and filled with Nitrogen. In addition, Q a new ten (10") inch pipeline will be constructed parallel with the new sixteen (16") inch one, however, the smaller pipeline will not be activated. 1 a d a u a a u a D Q .D SIGN-IN SHEET 7 SCOPING MEETING SAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION IIAUGUST 18, 1987 7:00 P.M. ff UNAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 / � �/ 1�1. G/ fee/ic..- fir S n)aii.K. LA 1/3)4n-v Fe, Z . G�. Mich 14691 Alaer 71.<f.h -l'b- /C4(0 ./. cct„..... Ili"- °±IL / WI ,24..,:„....., ,..,74„,61. A dr c -1- --. A.Cfa / 6 S 2 [FAe 73 /- 773 / I ), bay ber— 0e,i-,I 1`(611 NyGNr■S Pc 1 Tt15}-r,, 1": 1.. 0 <- 11 t. f�,/r.fu r /�-a Vz f f✓a ao k v,e �.,ca i (7/ )�d�y. /-13(, '7� 1 4, f(7 a Zt i /39f/ : 5„€....1).4 K6-970 6 / 8 � dU, lis (�,�� 7�, I /1 - v ' - . / 7f / 7-;-0C-j- r3Z —V° // At C/.✓ 15 ..r// t=a"'-K3,7, �' 8 3�• 0 I Q U U 11 11 COMMENT SHEET SCOPING MEETING SAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION 11 AUGUST 18, 1987 7:00 P.M. 11 llNAME: GZi7 �:e— -in,„_ _ OGtJ/1//�vLS-- ADDRESS: /r9/ R!25-4fJ/9/) TZ/Sj/st/ ZIP: 2'cZ6 ?Fr) Do you want to be notified of Public Hearings? .1 ;,,mod - DYES , 3r NO 3( ifIssue(s) You Would Like Studied In The EIR 11 II Concerns About Pipeline 11 Other Comments/General Questions 11 dAje- - n re-AI L -79Z de-- I -- " � i . d u n COMMENT SHEET SCOPING MEETING 11 SAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION a AUGUST 18, 1987 7:00 P.M. NAME: " . ' ■ E. CC 'S llADDRESS: em/ <✓� '� ��` ZIP: DDo you want to be notified of Public Hearings?to ry YES V NO Issue(s) You Would Like Studied In The EIR Concerns About Pipeline a 11 11 Other Comments/General Questions U U 0 • a a U 11 COMMENT SHEET SCOPING MEETING 11 SAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION 11 AUGUST 18, 1987 7:00 P.M. a NAME: JUNE PO Ais ADDRESS: /3142 fE/2/t/,4°0X _D/C' . ZIP: 9a 6 d o U I TWs ri47, C/9-. t Do you want to be notified of Public Hearings? 1 YES X NO IIIssue(s) You Would Like pStudied In The EIR d (, y a b kb R- Rd 4.444 i I Concerns About Pipelin- ds lNQ &ut& - �; II 0 /1/44-011L-pt l! y II e , , — .<J--?-7t-c-0--,,KA,a- ,zaielit7,-0,- A-Getr6,0-7,2.:, 0,;(..mit.) , Ii Other Comments/General Questions LL givitLatimit / Q - _-a-t u Om . /- er77/1/411/42-4--r vav . I I ,/ / / I /4rA/Ed' ' . 61 7114/4t1/11t/ 11 di/ ' I 1 � . --7,27---itottA, a< toil , „-?c-vs, li a 0 COMMENT SHEET SCOPING MEETING aSAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION AUGUST 18, 1987 7:00 P.M. 1 0 NAME: --)04/11 Pit l/1ri M ADDRESS: 1/ f,¢2 L11/ as74.,t1. 6 ZIP: 7c` ; O 0 Do you want to be notified of Public Hearings? DYES t7 NO n Issue(s) You Would Like Studied In The,EIR 5 �� /O Concerns About Pipeline Nef- 2.i0 ai 4 fRo pen Own/ tine"( Pd WPoS4 r�owl" I t 360 _cat crEknowev, rYOnF 1iJ m r 17Prostei p,p . L ;740 _ - 11 Other Comments -n at Questio•s A o / a tea44nud- tohd/Qa -/-4A ' Z s (TKO P`a p w,✓2es? _ '-i`.e� 9s ,sue . D a aCOMMENT SHEET SCOPING MEETING SAM DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION n AUGUST 18, 1987 u 7:00 P.M. a _ NAME: / . r- ADDRESS: �. / �-lc r t ,' J 7 -0 ZIP: Oo Do you want to be notified of Public Hearings? YES \ NO Issue(s) You Would Like Studied In The EIR a ' 11 Concerns About Pipeline a4J is 4/46LE 73' 22000 -ery Qu./L.ca .S ,� Pciattc sAfETy 11 aOther Comments/General Questions aG.J N DNCS Cal,/ to,umeNT- rm41-er ST/Dy 2EsuLTS Cr-0 'Q CFO EC co QNC ) c 7 a a a a a 0 COMMENT SHEET SCOPING MEETING 0 SAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION AUGUST 18, 1987 7:00 P.M. 0 NAME: is,-e h tvct z cJdLs ADDRESS: /4/S16/ g1cLeV141-f iIcS h U zIP: 4zb3O n Do you want to be notified of Public Hearings? R YES NO 0 Issues) You Would Like Studied In The EIR ,. _ ^ wh� w ; Il h aPpe h o(at a oh 4 r�2 �r l ' 1 U Concerns About Pipeline Alta ,q / p�'pe. I,`hP 4C ru .4 �° �G � e8n6�r ucCary Aral 11{ tAzik 0 Z' 7Lt J r•ue , �- �s 1R21i7►-Q Or. �✓ ..�' .ice P 1 Q 1- --ects — £Gee. fl /2 Pil lam" O 44. ` it h; 0 &f himye Other Comments/General Questions , ,,�y� 0 k//va (vie/ ni 1'v‘a-e v45 �e .) o /ri (°:I'2 //h 2- ? �e C - 5. Aau c% 0 caner, `i'" kfrr4 Qb tcc nc U e o pivo4..j a Cake, o , _ et cue a/t-e, eery :, 1 fu c¢.ack .0-e-a4.-� D 0 0 u OCOMMENT SHEET n SCOPING MEETING I/ SAN DIEGO PIPELINE RELOCATION/EXPANSION n AUGUST 18, 1987 U 7:00 P.M. a aNAME: ADDRESS; ti 2 , S ZIP: c[' Z G U Qi LA__ ( act. . /2 6 To Do you want to be notified of Public Hearings? YES y NO ]I Issue(s) You Would Like Studied In The EIR I 1 Concerns About Pipeline / ' Z O IOther Comments/General Questions II U D U II . II a a a Appendix C aCorrespondence D 0 n a I I I I I I i ' LARRY J. HOLMS DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES ' UNTV OF OF ORAN THE UNINCORPORATED UNT ORPO THE CI AREAS OF SERVING VING T E UNINC R O THE D IRSSr sCYPRESS 1 5 `7/1 RANG E . IRVINE AM ITOS LOS ALAMITOS COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LO PALMA PLACENTIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 180 SOUTH WATER STREET SEAL BEACH I P.O. BOX 86,ORANGE,CALIFORNIA 92666-0086 STANTON TUSTIN (714) 744-0400 VILLA PARK YORBA LINDA L. 1\ . L ✓ z . August 19, 1987 ,_ 1N q,UG •. 1 - , i7d 71819:10fI1(191(2(31�. . ccr,,:Iv:rr oe; !o,a; Ivr Christine A. Shingleton, ' Director of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 IISUBJECT: SAN DIEGO PIPELINE E.I .R. NOTICE OF PREPARATION I The Orange County Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical care to the city of Tustin. IIFire stations servicing the project area are: IIStation 21, 1241 Irvine Blvd. , Tustin 2 Engine Companies 7 Paid Personnel II 1 Paramedic Unit 35 Paid Call Volunteers 1 Truck Company Station 37, 14901 Redhill Ave. , Tustin ' 1 Engine Company 3 Paid Personnel , Response time and distance will depend on the location of IIthe emergency. The Orange County Fire Department has the following comments for public . IIsafety while constructing the pipeline, where applicable: 1. Access must be maintained to all buildings for emergency vehicle response. Traffic control may be necessary. II2. Fire hydrant access; water supply and v.isability must be maintained. 11 • II - 1 SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES ! ! Christine A. Shingleton August 19, 1987 -II Page 2 3. The Orange County Fire Department must be notified at least 24 hours in advance if the above items 1 and 2 cannot be maintained. ! Business phone #(714) 744-0457. 4. Compliance with the California Pipeline Safety of 1981, California Government Code Chapter 5.5-51010 is required. Sincerely, e Hutain Fire Protection Planner GH:eb H8-19a pc: ais. `a, ;�. 51CitYost?n; .: 8- 2...54 sr/ . 6c6 Ad-RAA-°6-i'te Lat., AAA-- Le_ etc-et ' v.ut ! LL W it, . ld. � c 01 ! &AA_ }-touot..CL..1-C kiN* ! © you 1 -E-+� ok co udifw tea{ 2 � ! AAA.Cot r-u1/4-CeS CL, - oR. ,�„` O Cam-, . STATE Of CALIFORNIA—ROSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gown DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 1 TDO (213) 6203350 ( 213) 620-5335 August 21, 1987 E D RECEIV City of Tustin NOP r,)vG 2'i 198 San Diego Pipeline 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ms. Patrizia Materassi City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Ms. Materassi: CALTRANS has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego Pipeline in the City of Tustin. Your study should discuss the possible changes in vehicular circulation due to construction. Vehicular circulation patterns and mitigations measures for any significant impacts to Santa Ana Freeway ( Route 5) including off and on-ramps. The effectiveness of any proposed mitigation measures should also be included. Detail plans showing the proposed pipeline crossing the Santa Ana Freeway (Route 5) is needed for our design of the freeway widening project. The proposed freeway widening project is scheduled for construction in the summer of 1989. Detail plans of the proposed pipeline should be submitted to CALTRANS as soon as possible. Contact Doc Wong at (213) 620-3210 for more information. We would anticipate continued coordination between our agencies regarding land use development and their relationships to our transportation system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any future 1 correspondence should be referred to Ronald Kosinski (213) 620-3755. Sincerely, ' W. B. BALLANTIN Chief Environmental Planning Branch II 1 1 RECEIVED fait- �4 F �2 r'!r, 2 . 1987 1. ,�, Command; Devek•:. rn: utr ,.., . . L k V • . ; m COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' � I z' City of Irv!r e. 1720? Jambo•ee Roa3 P O Box 19575. Irvine. California 92713 :714) 66:3600 • August 27, 1987 Ms. Christine A. Shingleton City of Tustin ' 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Ms. Shingleton: Thank you for giving the City of Irvine the opportunity to comment on the San Diego Creek NOP. Due to the hazardous substances that will be transported in the pipeline and the possible effects which could occur as a result of a rupture, the City has the following comments. o The pipeline and its .proposed route should be evaluated for I resistance to earthquakes. • o The EIR should state the purpose of the pipeline construction. o The environmental evaluation should include potential impact to the Orange County Water District ground water basin and surrounding wells if a rupture or leakage occurs; o We concur that the EIR should address the flammable and toxic characteristics of all substances to be transported through the proposed pipeline. o We concur that the impacts resulting from -a rupture could have detrimental effect on San Diego Creek and upper Newport Bay and that these issues be assessed in detail. The City of Irvine looks forward to reviewing the Draft EIR. If you ' have any questions, please contact .Wade Kloos at 660-3836. Sincerely, Q4_ U JENNIFER ITE Senior Planner Environmental Services JW/WK/ss tcc: Manager of Development Services 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix D Technical Assessment/ Risk Assessment Matrices 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 1 1I 1 • 1 APPENDIX A ' RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED SDPC EXPANSION Risk and consequences of a pipeline failure are examined and evaluated in this section. This assessment focuses on the line pipe itself and does not address within-the-fence items related to pump station design or sources of failure. Methodology is based on Reference 1. 1. INCIDENT STATISTICS There are no industry standards for comparing the risks associated with pipelines, and limited information is available on pipeline spill incidents. Reported pipeline incidents, as opposed to other forms of transportation, are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1. Statistics regarding liquid pipeline incidents are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Detailed incident statistics, such as exact condition of pipe, size of leak, depth, etc. , which would be of use in developing a risk assessment model are not widely available and esti- mates were utilized. I 1 I 1 Petroleum Pipeline Leak Detection Study, John Mastandrea, EPA- 600/2-82-040 ' 2 i I . U N z. ., L N �2 ~ a s aT rH. O O M .r.. i u m s ° u C " . “ H ° a � - 5 .. u z o F V 7 G $ v C 1 • • • 0 • U a L • W E L 4+ O 9 C I C ti T u m I r# . a c' m y N 0 9 u u m L J 99 O L al n a S 0 •• a a F 0 Y r C O L 0 O L i i r Ci C H T C V L I M a a O pJ U ' U _, °...I .0• li lie n .. a .°, a •F u E a• < I LO �\ U N V� CO E r w _ L e0 00 Co • 0 6. ° CD 0 . . L 0 y ca 6.4—a U ■ al 6 05 U CV . C ' T N N 3 .. To u IL < q O 6 dE = N H i r a C C H en cn O a Q Co u• V • 0 CTS k h L I I I I g W V' Q 01 10 O Q O in Q 10 O le c/ = Q m 01 Z T 1.4 N N i z v W . + i N T N f s Q N O O ^ 0\ < Q Q 10 >. ✓• N 3 01 01 O et N N 0) 1 z ' N n N N N O Z O1 0% R C '! < P: 1d ri r wi 1u d ■ 3 E E Z c W C co 0 0 0 N 01 0 en in N T W ^ 0 �p V O ^ CO 0 0 in N. 0 T n w 1 Q m o 01 o 1- ■ N N V' r. N E C O O! T N T N < h N D C r 0 T m C a 01 O) `O m ^ ^ C m E m I Y 69 W Z O T ^ N m Q N 10 T ^ co •w• P c O a a • = 0 ' C 1C + Q N N O eV 1� u or, . CC trni ceE V ^ ; ^ ▪ o N O C O co W 0 ■^ N 01 N T N T co T C a.0 d '• E 10 O V Q N O N 1m L Y O 1 = ■• ^ ^ T N ^ ^LO N C Ti w C Y O Y C V • m . > ...?/;: a w _w O O 01 N Cl 0 R N N 0 • co N 1 O to 0 01. O N cri O N O T N H < ^ n Yl^ ^ N H N 1 0N ° c u � O - V - Y t L w C 6j T d jN, w dn3E O y p. — d e 48.a- 02"..= I ��//�� w l OTYO O C u. U/ %D O YI Al O N 01 1� CO T N c O qC m•co M $ 1 O 1f1 N N Y1 m N O ^ ^ Y r • O 2 A w O ~ V/ Q • N • 4 AI . w v m c � a) = N • - 3 . . .= E - . . c• 7.o m p 1 c T u + -0"2 A\ N 9 y Y C_ w N V/ YI O O CO t0 T 01 ^ N CO 10 n F = 2.5g5.20 _ - 0 F ON CO Q 10 01 T N w• ` 5 :=42'-',.52 - m 2 c c V Q a. . < - E 1 f < Q - C c— my rnn Q0O W ): q ^c 11 CeE O O T m N 01 O ■ .0 T T N N N Q C s 0 C Y V j co u O .0-. = V O m '�^ ' N h o ^ a 1p 5vn Er was 1 L ^ n ° i E - z nV' O e Y E E w >_ CZ CD c E �,E' Q „ ; c a 0 0= 6 V C t Y m O iVir Y y 6 N V > 01 a UJ O V.O ••v = A N 0 •� Q • C i O a u O' C n v,5-•'� 0 < ~ 0 0 C C Ol 23.S C Y y 3 .1 C i • m 1 Q W d • n m O m > N > • u w V G m • +..�f ¢ CI v j A m Q m .w .Y'. y�. m u a c G `V 6 O W • N Q O C 7 m o = • n q V n a cu l a }l N ]• • C m O. O 01 V a ,1 - 2.7,t7: 4 - 32 F cot— Z m ca m C .0 m H a z,. a5 ,. 5 ,. a3I-I- = 3 a (— = z w z j CD (t C I— LL f-- , 4 . i ° 1 1 I Table 2 Summary of Liquid Pipeline Incident Reports Received in 1985 lsa I INCIDENT SUMMARY BY CAUSE.. • . . . • No.of ..of -Lost ' Total R• of Cure 7Incidents Total (Bards/. Dana(3). Total Deaths Isjurier Internal Corrosion . . 16 8.74 4,202 83,670 1.63 0 • 1 External Corrosion .38 20.76 26,808 1,089,399 21.22 0 0 I • Defective Weld 0 .00 0 0 .00 0 0 Incorrect Operation - 15 8.20 19,805• 1,619,503 , 31.55 0 I Defective.Pipe • 8 4.31 25,032 316,000 6.16 0 0 Outside Damage 28.42 55,622 .817,573 15.93 1 3• Matt.of Equipment 2 1.09 956 29,730 .57 0 0 Other 52 28.42 39,032 1,177,255 22.94 4 13 ITOTAL . 183. 100.00 168,457 5,132,647 100.00 5 18 ' INCIDENT SUMMARY BY COMMODITY No.of %of Lass Total *of Commodity Incidents Toed (Batt Dente(V Total Deaths Inhaler Alkyate 0 .W 0 0 .00 0 - - 0 Crude Oil 93 50.81 76,132 2,389,915 46.56 I I Gasoline . • 46 • 25.14 23,336 665,638 12.97 3 6 Natural Gas liquid .11 6.01 26,704 50,799 .99 0 0 I Fuel 00 9 4.92 3,286 547,405 10.66 0 1 L.P.G. 9 4.92 29,027 783,930 5.37 0 2 Jet Fuel . 4 2.19 2,218 1,153.150 22.46 . 1 . 7 1 Diesel Fuel S 273 ;712 10.100 2D 0 0• Anhydrous Ammonia Y 1.09 226 SOD .ol 0 1 _Kerosene 2 1.09 1,299 29,010 .57 - 0 0 Turbine Fuel 1 .55 100 . 200 .01 0 0 . Wand Gasoline 0 .00 • 0 • 0 .00 0 0 Condensate . 0 .00 0 0 .00 0 0 • Fast.,Ammn.Nits. 1 .55 1,417 0 .00 0 . 0 I TOTAL . 183 100.00 168,457 5,132.647 100.00 5 18 I I Source: US D.O.T. Research: Special Programs Administration 'Annual Report on Pipline Safety, 1985' 1 I Table 3 Summary of Liquid Pipeline Accidents and ' Casualties from 1975 to 1985 lsa I I I Total Commodity IYear Failures Fatalities Injuries Loss (bbl.) 1975 254 7 17 318,278 I 1976 212 5 4 249,690 1977 237 3 15 224,794 1978 256 3 10 280,794 I 1979 251 4 13 548,669 1980 219 3 12 289,445 1981 239 5 32 214,384 I1982 200 1 6 221,411 1983 161 6 9 384,670 1984 203 0 19 292,126 I1985 183 5 18 168,457 I I I I I Source: US D.O.T. Research: Special Programs Administration 'Annual Report on Pipline Safety, 1985'(REF 3) I I 2. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PIPELINE ' In accordance with the methodology used by Mastandrea, the following steps are used to develop risk assessment figures: Risks of spills are first ' established for a typical section of line known as a reference line. Then correction factors are used to account for significant figures between the reference line and the proposed project pipeline. 2.1 Risks of Reference Line The assumptions for the reference line were carefully selected by Mas- tandrea to allow correlation with industry incident reporting statistics. These assumptions are summarized in Table 4. Causes of failure are identi- fied and fault trees are used to graphically represent the types of fault events and resultant effects. ' Fault items, frequency of occurrence, and resultant spill volumes were carefully selected by analysis of available industry data. The symbology ' used in the creation of these fault trees is listed in Figure 2. The tree(s) are carefully evaluated and assumptions regarding risk and severity can then be made. Sound engineering judgment must accompany the development of fault trees and must especially be used in applying and evaluating correction ' factors other than the reference line. 2.1.1 Frequency of Spills, FST Reference Line ' The expected frequency of spills, FST, is the summation of the frequency of spills for each of the individual causes of failure. The fault tree used to develop FST is shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, the causes of failure are divided into three major categories: line pipe failures, outside forces, and other. It is important to note that the frequency shown for seam and weld defects and corrosion faults can and would be expected to be much lower for newer pipe installed utilizing latest fabrication materials, maintenance ' and inspection programs. 2.1.2 Volume of Spills, VST, Reference Line The expected volume spills, VST, is the summation of the spill volume for each of the individual causes of failures. The fault tree used to devel- op VST is combined with FST in Figure 3. The volumes were derived from ' analysis of industry statistics and match incident data. 7 • 1 Table 4 Assumptions for Typical Section of Line Pipe (Reference Line) lsa 1 I ' Age: 25 years Diameter: 10 inches Length: 1 rile ' Commodity: Crude oil Flow velocity: 7 feet per second Flow rate: 2500 barrels per hour Operating pressure: 1000 psi Material : Steel pipe Construction: Butt weld joints Buried underground at 3 feet depth Line elevation: Horizontal ' Corrosion control: Coated with a cathodic protection s,-stem Ptnp station shutdown time: 2 minutes ' Mainline valve closure time: 72 minutes External environment: Low risk ' - onland - sparsal populated _not near water _ ___ 1 II ' 2 II Symbolism for Fault Trees lsa II 1 II 1 <> ' The rectangle identifies an event that results from the combination The diamond describes a fault event that is considered basic in a given of fault events through the input fault tree. The possible causes of ' logic gate. the event are of insufficient consequence or the necessary information is unavailable. II II 0 0 II The circle describes a basic fault AND gate describes the logical I event that requires no further development. Frequency and mode operation whereby the coexistence of all input events is required to of failure of items so identified produce the output event. II are derived from empirical data. II ' AA • The triangles are used as transfer OR gate defines the situation II symbols. A line from the apex of the triangle indicates a transfer whereby the output event will exist if one or more of the input events in and a line from the side exists. ' denotes a transfer out. 1 ll 1 I I g 0 iP I h - ° ..1 4- - o II L lei i •• 2g Q' (./, o E ! ° b • 1 a :gas: ,o U I -� � CI �g_ 1-1.1"c%! e LL U is lii p co a) 3 I Ur LL 0 _ : • I -0. ��.0 ' V.7 .f: ° e I III 1±Tcs 0 J�O ° -5 •• 2 L I RS CO LL H LIP 50 I I . I 2.1.3 Size of Spills, VNLL, VNLR. VM Reference Line VNLL is defined as the nominal largest spill volume attributed to a leak. VNLR is the nominal largest spill volume attributable to a rupture. VM is the mean spill size. A leak is defined as a spill which occurs as a slow escape of petroleum. This could be caused by a number of line faults with a resultant failure ranging in size from a pinhole leak to a medium sized break. Resultant spill volume would be small to medium (less than 1,000 barrels) . It is expected that the large leak spill size (VNLL) for the reference line that could occur before being notices is estimated at 400 barrels. A rupture type spill is defined as one that occurs as a sudden escape of petroleum. It is caused normally by line pipe faults of catastrophic failures. The nominal largest rupture size (VNLR) for a major pipeline rupture is estimated to have a maximum spill size of 7,500 barrels. This is based on the assumption that a rupture would be detected in about two minutes and about 72 minutes would be required to close a main line block valve. The mean spill size (VM) may be computed as the ratio of VST and FST• For the reference line: VST 1.3 barrels/mile-year 1000 Bbls VM = > FST 1.3 x 10-3 spills/mile/year spill 2.1.4 Relative Measure of Risks (Freauencv and Spill Size). Leak. Rup- ture. Mean. Reference Line) • 11 The relative measure of risks, defined as the product of frequency and spill size for the reference line is shown in Table 5 and in Figure 4. Quantitative values are shown for both oil spill frequency and spill size for leak, rupture, and mean cases. The relative measure of spill risk per year for leaks per year is: 0.98 spills 4000 barrels RMRLT = FLT x VNLL x 0.392 barrels 10-3 mile/year spill The relative measure of spill risk per year for ruptures is: 11 11 I ,I I 0.32 7500 barrels RMRRT FRT x VNLR ' x = 2.4 barrels 10-3 mile/year spill Since the estimate total of all types of spills for a typical section of line is 1.3 x 10 spills/mile-year, the relative measure of spill risk per year for all spills is: 1.3 spills 1000 barrels RMRMT = FST x VM = x = 1.3 barrels 10-3 mile/year spill • I I 1 • I 11 I I12 I I I Table 5 Relative Risk of Oil Spills from a Typical Section of Line Pipe . (se I I ' Nominal Type of Spill Frequency Spill Size Largest Size Risk (Per Year) (Barrels) (Barrels/Year) t Leak 0.35 X 10 3 Small to 400 0.392 (FLT) (tedium (V%L) (RMRLT) ' Rupture 0.32 X10-3 Medium to 7500 2.4 Ii (FRT) Major (MICR) I (RMRRT) Mean 1.3 X 10-3 Medium to 1000 1.3 (FST) Major 1000 (VST).(RMRtiT) Note: VM (Mean spill size) = VST/FST 1 I 1 I 1 I g CZ _ EleFE 1 I 15 E .178111 C , P g5A � 0 y o : 05 44 I CD E _1 a s_ I h. " C tEi a C see .o E : a •a tap CO b 0 4 , 11 .... t.„ of p „. . y ECG I co__ (� o C o °J aC tip °'O 9 ', = 0 c o 25011 II m� < 1 wit r > co Q I I ca 1 * - N yW 6 II < . IP I N N 82 €Sd a) I0 z °o a u Co Cti mU 6 V � d C � x u- Pi p 8 a) 0 2 CD N W C I tea( . . RI u 4 - . - HP 1 :4 wo ie 0 :_ 1 ' e. I ~ `f U • n I L u F- I 1 11 • i I I 2.2 Correction Factors The spill potential for the proposed pipeline is estimated by applying correction factors to the reference line discussed in Section 2. 1. Due to the limited amount of available incident and operating data, several of the factors are qualitative in nature and could experience dramatic changes as additional industry statistics are collected and analyzed. 1, 2.2. 1 CFE Correction Factor, Frequency of Spills is Many factors influence the frequency of spills from line pipe. These include: • Age I . Geometry (diameter, wall thickness) • Use • Length ▪ Depth of Burial • Type of Line • Corrosion Control • Construction • Material • Soil Condition ▪ Operating Pressures • Maintenance and inspection Overpressure Analysis of these factors has shown that the first four items have significant impact on the frequency of spills, while the remainder of the items do not. In addition, the definition of what constitutes a significant spill needs to be defined. For the reference pipeline, a minimum spill size of 50 barrels or more was considered significant. Because the proposed pipeline is to be located in a congested, urbanized area, a correction factor to account for a much smaller minimum spill size has been added. Correction factors for each of the significant considerations is discussed in the fol - lowing paragraphs. The fault tree for CFF correction factor frequency, is shown in Figure 6. 1 1 16 r 1 Fault Tree, CFF, Correction Factors For 1 Frequency of Spills lsa 1 1 1 CFF CORRECTION FACTOR FREQUENCY 1 I ' /Th 7 1 1 \ \ AGE (GEOMETRY /LENGTH / \\ USE SPILL SIZE \CFA) (CF ) (CF GL/ (CF U� \(CF ) /SS 1 t 1 1 11 I 1 2.2. 1.1 CFA Correction Factor, Age Corrections for line pipe age are shown in Figure 7. 11 Corrosion is a time dependent process, and for older lines is a major contributor to line pipe failure. Newer lines, however, utilizing newer materials, corrosion protection systems, and increased operator maintenance/ 11 testing of same are expected to experience significantly increased life. As can be seen from Figure 7, lines less than 25 years of age have a significan- tly smaller correction factor than lines over 25 years of age. The new pipe- line has a design life of 50 years; however, for the above mentioned reason, 1 experience cannot be extrapolated in a strictly quantitative fashion to new pipe. A correction factor of .5 was used for estimating correction factors. 1 2.2.1.2 CFy Correction Factor. Geometry-Diameter and Wall Thickness Correction for geometry diameter is shown in Figure 8. The corrections, based on historical data, indicates that the diameter of line pipe has the second most significant impact on the frequency of spills. For the proposed 16-inch line pipe, CFyis estimated to be .4. 1 2.2. 1.3 CFu Correction Factor. Use Corrections for line pipe use or utilization are shown in Figure 9. As 1 can be seen, a linear relationship exists between percent of use and frequen- cy of spills. According to data provided by the pipeline operator, the line is expected to be in use 89 percent of the time. Thus, CFU is .89. T 1 1 1 18 11 11 I I 7 h 3.5 - I 3.0 - ' U w a 2.5 - O 0 U W - � 2.0 0 H 0 U a w 1.5 - a a 0 U 1.0 - 1 1 0 10 . 20 30 40 50 AGE (YEARS) 1 1 1 1 1 t I • I 1 8 lsa .1 I . I I 1.2 - °i 1.0 V - 1, a F a0.8 - ...-' W '/ 1 i Z O .. 0.6 - �. Ui 41 /i • I - � 0.4 I 0.2 - 0 t I I t I I I I I 1 1 t I. 4 8 12 16 20 .24 28 32 36 40 44 48 GEOMETRY DIAMETER (INCHES) 1 I I I . I I r I 9 lsa 1 1 I 1.00 - II U - 0 .75 5 H U 'w N - U w 50 a I/ .25 - 25 50 75 100 USE (PERCENT) I 1 I 1 1 11 1 2.2. 1.4 CFL Correction Factor. Length 11 Corrections for length are shown in Figure 10. As can be seen, a linear relationship exists between line length and the correction factor. This study is concerned only with the section of pipe located within the city limits of Tustin. This distance is approximately four miles. (Note that exact distance if affected by exact route used and by footage adjustments as 1 the pipeline crosses other easements and County property. None of these adjustments were felt to have significant impact and were not included) . Thus, CFL is 4. 1 2.2.1.5 CFSS Correction Factor. Minimum Spill Size Corrections for minimum significant spill size are shown in Figure 11. 11 Due to the highly urbanized environment, it was determined that even a small spill (one barrel or 42 US gallons) would be of significance. Thus, CFSS is 4. 1 11 1 1 22 11 11 i 1 10 Isa 1 1 i 1 3 U v I c H 2 - rH U W rs: O - U I 1 2 3 LENGTH (MILES) 1 I I 1 I 1 1 11 lsa I I I 1 w to U 6 ° 5 I F _ 4 z ° - 3 1.11 C4 ° U 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50 MINIMUM SIGNIFICANT SPILL SIZE (BARRELS) I I i i I f ' 2.2.2 CFSy Correction Factor. Volume of Spills Many factors influence the volume of spills from line pipe. These include: • Diameter • Length 1 . Use • Pumping station shutdown time ▪ Main line valve closure time • Line elevation A fault tree for these factors is shown in Figure 12. The overall correction factor, CFSy is the product of these individual correction fac- tors. Discussions regarding each of these correction factors is discussed in the following paragraphs. It is assumed that pressure, which would otherwise contribute to volume of spin, would be bled from line as part of the pipeline ' shutdown procedures. Line elevation, of course, will affect line. 2.2.2. 1 CFD Correction Factor. Diameter Correction factors for estimated volume of spills for a given diameter are shown in Figure 13. For the 16-inch line, CFD is 2.4. i I 25 I I 1 12 Fault Tree, CFSV, Correction Factor For the Volume of Spills lsa I 1 FS t CORRECTION FACTOR VOLUME OF SPILLS 1 I n I 1 I 1 PUMPING NLIN LINE DIAMETER LENGTH cUSE STATION VALVE (CFD) (CF ) FU� SHUTDOWN CLOSURE E(EFLEION \ (CFPS) (CFMC) LE) 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 13 le I 8.0 - 7.0 - 1 6.0 - 1 5.0 - 1 O F U ' a 4.0 - w 0 H a W 3.0 a 1 0 U 2.0 - 1 1.0 - 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 LINE PIPE DIAMETER (INCHES) i 1 1 1 I 1 2.2.2.2 CFL Correction Factor, Length Correction factors for the estimated volume of spill for a given length of line are shown in Figure 14. As can be seen, a linear relationship exist between line lengths and the correction factor. This study is concerned only with the section of pipe located within the city limits of Tustin. This distance is approximately four miles. (Note that exact distance is affected ' by exact route used and by footage adjustments as the pipeline crosses other easements and County property. None of these adjustments were felt to have significant impact and were not included) . Thus, CFL is 4. • i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 1 28 1 1 I i 1 14 l� i 1 500 - I 1 400 - I w ' ' U 300 - 0 F U d i w Z 0 H 0 U - 0 200 U i i 100 - 1 0 1 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 ' LENGTH (MILES) i i i 1 1 1 1 1 2.2.2.3 CFU Correction Factor, Use Correction factors for the estimated volume of spill for given operating utilization are shown in Figure 15. As can be observed, a linear relation- ship exists between percent of user and volume of spills. According to data provided by the pipeline company, the line is expected to be in use 89% of the time. Thus, CFU is .89. 1 i i 1 i 1 1 1 30 • 1 ' • 15 (sa 1 1.00 - II 0.75 - II ' O F W y 0.50 - O H H U ' 0 W U 0.25 - II I 0 0 25 50 75 100 USE (PERCENT) 1 . ' 2.2.2.4 CFpS Correction Factor. Pumping Station Shutdown Time Correction factors for the estimated volume of a spill for a given shutdown time are presented in Figure 16. For the proposed pipeline, data shown that the pumps can be shutdown in an emergency in less than two min- utes. It should be noted that this figure represents only the actual shut down time required, not the delays encountered in detecting or transmitting ' the signal to shutdown. Immediate emergency type shutdowns create abnormal stresses with the pipeline system and are generally avoided or sequenced to avoid dramatic pressure surges within the pipeline system, which could damage other components. CFpS is 1.0. i I 1 1 32 16 lsa 1 1 2.0 - ' 1.5 - I w U O 1 F W 1.0 — Z ' O H U Cal 0.' fL 1 S U 0.5 - 1 1 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 • SHUTDOWN TIME (MINUTES) 1 1 1 2.2.2.5 CF1yc Correction Factor. Valve Closure Prompt block valve closure during an emergency can significantly reduce the volume of product which can exit the pipeline during a spill . Results of an industry survey (Reference 4) indicate that an average of 72 minutes is required to reach and close a main line block valve. This is the figure used in the reference line and is determined to be suitable for the proposed project as well . Thus, CFMVC is 1. 2.2.2.6 CFLE Correction Factor. Line Elevation Static head, built-up by elevation, can contribute to the estimated spill volume. Within the City of Tustin, the proposed pipeline is relatively flat, and elevation has minor significance. In event of a line spill , check ' valves to be installed downstream of Tustin serve to protect the city against fuel flowing backwards from higher elevation locations located downstream. CFLE is considered to be 1 . ' 2.2.3 CFUR Correction Factor. Spill Size. Rupture, and Mean A fault tree for correction factors for size of spills, resulting from ruptures or mean spills is shown in Figure 17. The values for CFp, CFps, CFMC and CFLE are the same as developed for correction factors for estimating volume of spill , Section 2.2.2. 1 34 1 17 Tree, CFVR. or CFVM, Correction Factors for Spill Size = Rupture and Mean lsa 1 I ' A CORRECTION FACTOR SPILL SIZE--RUPTURE, MEAN CF VM 1 (Cmping ainline Line Diameter Station Valve (CFd) Shutdown Closure E(CFation (CFPs (CFmo) le) 1 1 1 ' 2.3 Calculations of Freauencv. FSTC and Volume. VSTC for Spill from Pipeline Figure 19 depicts a fault tree which represents the development of VSTC ,and FSTC the spill volume and spill frequency for a given line pipe. 2.3. 1 FSTC Spill Freauencv ' FSTC = FST * CFF and FST = 1.3 * 10-3 spills/year (reference line) and CFF = CFA * CFY * CFL * FFU + CFSS CFF = .5 * .4 * 4 * .89 * 4 CFF = 2.85 ' FSTC ' 1.3 * 10-3 * 2.85 FSTC ' 3.7 * 10-3 spills/year 1 1 1 36 1 1 2.3.2 VSTC Spill Volume * g ' VSTC andSV C sT 1 .3 barrels/year and CFSv = CF * CFL * CFU * CFPS * CFMC * CFLE CFsv 2.4 * 4.89 * 1 *1 * 1 CFcv = 8.54 VSTC ' 1.3 * 8.54 VSTC 11.11 barrels/year 1 1 1 ' 37 1 I I . I I 0g o g r U 1 I K Y J 3 J J y Y yy ZW V j 5 1i 1 J 6 Lp ^.4 C O K n I \as i. J 0 Ia) a) crcr i C _ L • V- 2 Ji I "'CI o.1 O N U I NW i a ow H o t CC > ° fn C G � o . ICD > 1"' > . cn ft N rnLL. 2 Fl 1 1 i ' 2.4 Calculations of The Nominal Largest Size of Ruptures. VNLRC Leaks. VNLLC-, and Mean Vic for Pipe Line ' Figure 21 depicts a. fault tree which represents the development of VN4RC anVNLLund VMC nominal largest size if ruptures, leaks, and mean for line pipe spills. • 1 39 I I g I J j N N - w I "a _ C W y I N I t I -7.1) a) I cii w H J - o 76 co N O ^Z Z g NE W v•/�\ / pi J w (0 J j y I <Z C O O Z N i v m g , din (Sc I � � J > o 3 ( o 3 r4 cc cri ca ii J 111 j 2.4. 1 Volume of Nominal Rupture Largest Rupture from Pipeline VNLRC N L * y and VNLR =7500 barrels and CFyR = CRp * CFp5 * CFMC * CFLE CFyR = 2.4 * 4 * .89 * 1 * 1 * 1 CFyR = 8.54 VNLRC 1500 * 8.54 VNLRC = 64,050 barrels ' 2.4.2 YNLLC Volume of Nominal Largest Spill for Pipeline VNLLC VNLL yL and VNLL = 4uu barrels andCyt' = 1 VNLLC = 400 1 VNLLC = 400 barrels ' 2.4.3 Vpqc_Mean Spill Volume M ' VMC and yMC=U 11000 barrels/spill and CFVM = CFp * CFPS * CFMC * CFLE CFyM = 2.4 * 4 * .89 * 1 * 1 * 1 CFyM = 8.54 VMC = 1000 * 8.54 VMC = 8540 barrels/spill • 2.5 Calculations for Relative Measure of Spill Risks for Rupture RMRR Leaks RMRL and Mean Size RMRM Spills for Pipeline ' Figures 22 and 23 depict a fault tree which represents the development of RMRR, RMRL, and RMRM. ' 2.5.1 RMRR Relative Measure of Rupture Spill Risk RNRR = VMLRC * .25 F T * CFF ' 64,050 * .25 (1.3 * 10-3, * 2.85) = 59.33 41 1 1 i ' 2.5.2 RMRL Relative Measure of Leak Spill Risk RMRL = VNLLr * .75 Fgg1 * CFg ' 400 .75 (1.3 * 10- * 2.85) = 1.11 2.5.3 RMRM Relative MC 1 Measure of Mean Spill Risk 85 RMRM = 40**F T **CFF.3 10 3 2.85 = 31.64 I i I42 I I g 1 W 55 4 6 `u ro 2g C q 1 j , " ..- - . 8- 3 I wo 4 ik a)y) 8 . , 1 � a ° cts a) a) a I- "5 CZ m P_ C— 1 c ' ft J N J 2 cc E w"n cc O " ' 5 CO ° z • i ct 0 c) io 2 �N O 3 -_ J @' jar 8` I cl C_ i N I CD as a 5 °- cd m s E L5 spa N N = N LL CC CL I Fault Tree, RMRM, Relative Measure of Risk (Barrels/Year) of Mean Spills from Line Pipe lsa 1 AMEAN SPILL FROM LINE PIPE BARRELS MEASURE(RELATIVE ASURE OF RISR) L YEAR 1 /1 I MEAN SPILL VOLUl2 SPILL FREQUENCY VMC 1 o T E CORRECTION FACTOR MEAN SPILL SPILL FREQUENCY CORRECTION FACTOR FOR MEAN VOLUME SIZES OF ALL SPILLS FREQUENCY 0P SPILLS PROM REFERENCE LINE / `^\ A FST CFP 1000 BARRELS 1.3 X 10-3 SPILLS/YEAR 1 I I I 3. REDUCTION OF RISK OF SPILLS BY UTILIZATION OF LEAK DETECTION AND INSPEC- TION METHODS Risk of product spills, as developed in Section 2, may be significantly reduced by the use of leak detection and inspection methods. The applicant has proposed (or is required) to utilized the following leak detection and inspection methods: r • Visual inspection (periodic) • Electronic leak detection system (estimated 40.64 BPH (1%) , two minute response time. • SCADA and real time computer modeling system ' • Pressure monitoring (static and operating) • Hydrostatic testing (periodic) • Internal inspection (periodic) • Pigging (periodic) • One call system (periodic) • Cathodic protection system maintenance (periodic) I I 1 45 • I ' Table 7 lsa • • I I - 011 771,11 l.r 4-i I.Wn"_i fr.oA•Cr Halo . .1.11 •. r:.y.l i.lrt•w.-/r Ins Orator rtpn Ire Ain au, UT ULII • I. tlul lit., IM of IImo to ol••or if I I • I I I-- 1>•Yi otl.nl p Hill •�Ml.aut) 7. Mal ..utttlet of Moo U .•r r 600) I 0.0 0.1y 0.10 O.IS. inure•.Inl H tarns It nv:M 7)7 I 0.1.6 0.44 0.70 L10 I LLwctiwl In Inlptyro of H.I1 7. Mal ,.inch•.of Iln tr cvi..f a. Yl•hl 0.0: 0.Y 0.0 O.04 I.:nl .lto Awarder.tyre w c.a..arr mod••. for Wirru.•of 1. St 0.17 0.)1 O.Y 0.15 Bell t. to 0.11 0.6 0.70 ISO t. .IU•IJMt PION-bell ti N IH.I.r *OM •uWnu w 0 I 0.70 0.0 0.50 1.6 . r Ilan ir .411111 f I 0 0.07 031 7.05 IN S. IT..n ill\tiont .IV•.S140M1.I*.Itt,Y'.11.4) .p tMIIW -4 4 M- ..f:r111p twtlr..a 4 4 4 0.17 --- I. fl«Yu \.O..l.tla. Wtiv1 4 4 6 0.10-6)01ratr 1121 16 . ]. HL«tw.mw.ltrr.aai.a IY,uMNI 4 5 . IM 0.n. . 4. .amo.uc.i «34119(to.•:r::N) rwra.l 4 4 0.0 P.I0 1 4. ••• • 0rvn «....(tr:.:ol mot cwtlwst 4 6_ -0: - 0.: 10. r...•.nitUC.•nr •ca0.:.nM1 r. error• 0.r :1. I% - t I. w::•••..i 0.62 0.0 0..1 4.6 --- II.7•x•.01 .•71 RIO promo.[.Art 41t1.0• 4 IC : • :.II n. I.w..•tulle after 1.•latl.r 4 4 Om 0.4 of-son, I 17.sirloin ut'c _. •. I O.Y 0.01 - I. rlte IMlutlw NO IV \I 1\111• 0.•I 0.:7 0.10 5 1. 0.0 0.76 0.10 5 • 34. halm Ulhnn. \. 1 037 0.6 0.6 5 R. 2 0.14 0.Y •t. 4 C. • 0.72 0.0 0.40 r G. 6. Guar r odd it ItIHn in•..owl 7 o.o P.N - 4 J If. Inactlt..f tapir of Hy••••.111 a.u+nl op.l unplc to csoulr I Oa 0.1? 4 4 to I- 17. Lr.y,•I I non:lp rl•••M•tt•C Iii. \. Y.6 7... .0.i\ •. N t, XXt.CI OW,t psinessis a..a I. 1'i 0.10 0.'S I. IS C. 1 0 .1 0.M CS IS U. i.\•d user InnctlN Tr .Wr, Yalu.•r pro tnup1 r•ar r ••••••YOU • O.R 0.8 4 4 arrlrystor Ilmo.pat 0111 Ilmo. 4 0.17 1.14 4 4 • I II. tYn• ,H 17n Or •woos •• n.. Ila War 0.5 0.11 0.11 4 4 •.1111«•• 0.1 IV 1.0 4 4 I I Table 7 I (Continued) lsa I I I -- I 1 MI 1.111 lln 4r41[IIa Irn.n1•I.1 IMNt Ilan t mre•rr It l.. 1m1MLI! 1 Lana Iyl.m I•••• LNI.T liftmen.aedta Leal OtY(tIP MY.W tear IIIJI .LIII 1 Plll �Il 20. Imaltre en1•a for a(na Iwc.t (at. " . ,--_-0.11 -_.0.1.1 _ _ E• IYVna.111 M. plc IIM M ens.nsnl _.. .. Y 0.11 0.K IL MI VIII aY:Yn •Mnn YAM N IP1(IYYL • Ile IS I 0.w Lp •I.1.l lit. .1}t.l.(P tallow. • 110 I11 0.11 w \'. 10(11 w Ma: __- . 0.10 0.11 0.w 0.10 :1. IJlal 444 fe X\ O.Y 0.10 6 4 If. )(t). 11((1 a.N I 0.01 • 0.01 0.1.4 0.11 1 • fl. IMO a..1/(tl 0.10 0.14 2.10 0.]0 7/. 1(li•f1I 0.21) N. Il./.e(.J./ :11. /aria 1 0 0 Iv 0.01 I rl..1 w Me/_..(. 23/41n •k ),-.11 o.u. . 0.0 0.10. 0.1I • I loan: (II M-Mt ail(ca 1.tins rinsed.al connly used M tar as till till 41rn IM. (f) a; •sea IY.talt V.. Ia(I(IYd Ylnt.a 01 lens it-slat. 1tt.ttln• tl(L I n.{tsar (nYI.i 1 is (lured. ( - (a lU• Ii.......t VL .11(..1111. Denim*. nil ....moo latter•1 I 1 nnyr.. (a) Mlnl« .tstsIYt IP. (1) IttY M U.n. ... -_.. I (I) SNw I...Mnl.( IaMUm carried tot tan*IMPS a ran. I I I I 1 . I 3.1 Calculating Spillage Which Potentially May Be Prevented From Table 7, the following risk reduction factors are obtained: ' RRFFL Risk reduction, frequency leaks = .73 RRFFR Risk reduction, frequency ruptures = .60 RRFFL Risk reduction, volume leaks = .80 RRFFR Risk reduction, volume rupture = .20 3.1. 1 Calculation for Reducing the Frequency of Spills Assuming that 75% of spills are leakage type spills and that 25% of spills are rupture type, the following equations may be used to develop corrected annual frequency of spills: FSTC = Total frequency of spills corrected for line pipe FLp = Frequency of leaks provided after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) FRp = Frequency of rupture prevented after installation of leak detec- tion and/or inspection methods Fp = Total frequency of spills prevented after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) RRFFL = Risk reduction factor for frequency of leaks after installation of leak detection and/or inspection methods RRFFR = Risk reduction factor for frequency ruptures after installation of leak detection and/or inspection installed FU = Total frequency of spills undetected after installation of leak detection and inspection methods FLP = (.75 * FSTC * (1 - RKFFL) FRP = (.25 * FSTC * (1 - RRFFR) Fp a, FLP + FRp FU = FLP - FRP + RSTC 47 I I I I FLP = (.75 * 1 .3 * 10-3 * (1 - .73) = 2.63 * 10-4 I FRP = (.25 * 1.3.* 10-3 * (1 - .60) = 1.30 * 10-4 Fp = 2.63 * 10-4 + 1.30 * 10-4 11 = 3.93 * 10-4 FU = 1.43 * 10-3 3.1.2 Calculation for Reducing the Volume of Soills Using Methods Which Reduce Only Spill Size I The value of volume of spills that can be prevented or go undetected can be computed for the methods installed specifically for spill size reduction. This can be done since the oil spill risk for the volume spilled, VSTC and the risk reduction factors, RFVF and RRFVL for the methods are known. Assum- Iing that 90% of the spill volume can be attributed to rupture-type and the remainder to leak-type, the following can be used to estimate the annual I volume of spills: VSTC = Total volume of spills corrected for line pipe I VLp = Volume of leaks prevented after installation of leak detection and/or inspection methods(s) I VRp a Volume of ruptures prevented after installation of leak detec- tion and/or inspection methods RRFVL - Risk reduction factor for volume of leaks after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) RRFVR = Risk reduction factor for volume of rupture after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) Vp = Volume of spills prevented after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) VU . = Volume of spills undetected after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) VLP = .10 * VSTC * (1 - RRFVL) I48 I I 1 1 IVRP = 0.90 VSTC (1 - RRFVR) Vp = VLP + VRP VU ' VLP ' VRP + VSTC VLP a . 10 * 11.11 (1 - .80) VLP = .22 1 VRp . .90 * 11.11 (1 - .20) VRp = 8.00 Vp = .22 + 8.00 Vp = 8.22 IVU = 8.00 + 11.11 = 19.11 3.1.3 Computation of the Reduction of Volume of Spills for Methods that Reduce Size and/or Frequency of Spills The volume of petroleum spillage that can be prevented (or go undetect- I ed) depends upon the capability of reducing both parts of the spill risk, i .e. , preventing spills or reducing the size of each spill . As indicated in the previous section, methods that reduce spill size cause the total spill 1 volume to decrease. Also, methods that reduce spill size often affect some reduction in the frequency of spills. However, methods that reduce the frequency of spills also perform a secondary function: They eliminate the spillage volume that would have occurred if the spill had not been prevented. Generally, a spill prevention and control program would be expected to in- clude combination of methods that result in the reduction of both the fre- quency and volume of spills. IThe following equations can be used to compute the total spillage pre- vented VtP and spillage undetected VtU for one or methods that reduce one or Iboth parts of the oil spill risk: VSMC. ' VSTC/FSTC VTRP VSMC * FSTC (1 - [0.9 * RRFVR] * (RRFFR-0. 1)) ' 49 I I I I I VTLP = VSMC * FSTC (1 - (0.1 * RRFVL) * (RRFFL - 0.9)) VIP = VTRP * VTLP VSMC = VSTC (1 - 0.9 * RRF)/R * RRFFR - 0. 1 RRFVL * RRFFL VTU = VSTC - VTP I where VSMC = Mean spill size corrected for line pipe IVSTC = Total volume of spills corrected for line pipe FSTC = Total frequency of spills corrected for line pipe VTRP Total annual volume of ruptures prevented after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) VTp = Total annual volume of spills prevented after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) VTU = Total annual volume of spills undetected after installation of leak detection and/or inspection method(s) IVSMC = 11 .11/3.7 * 10-3 VSMC 3,002 mean spill size VTp = 11.11 Bbls/Yr + (1 - .9 * .20 * .60 - .1 * .80 * .73) VTp = 11.11 * (1 - .108 - .058) VTP = 9.266 barrels/yr IVTU = 11.11 - 9.2666 = 1.844 Bbls/year I I I50 I I I I jREFERENCE LIST 1) Petroleum Pipeline Leak Detection Study, John Mastandria, EPA Report #600/2-82-040 2) Transportation Safety Information Report, 1985, U.S. Dept. of Transpor- tation, Research & Special Programs Administration 1 3) Annual Report on Pipeline Safety, 1985, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration 4) Platus, D.L. , et al , Rapid Shutdown of Failed Pipeline Systems and Limiting of Pressure to Prevent Pipeline Failure Due to Overpressure. Report PB 241 - 325, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 1974 I 1 t 1 51 1 11 I. Appendix E Hypothetical Spill Example 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I I Appendix E IIHypothetical Spill Example IITo assist in understanding how a spill might occur and what the resul - tant consequences might be, the following illustrative example is offered. I Note that this example is strictly hypothetical , and cannot be construed as an actual forecast of events to occur. Based upon historical statistics, the single most likely event to cause 11 a spill would be accidental digging in by a contractor working in the area of the pipeline. Ordinarily, any such contractor is required to submit drawings to the City Public Works Department for approval before obtaining an excava- tion permit. The City Public Works Department would have the opportunity to inform the contractor about pipelines in the proposed construction area. In . addition, the contractor is required, by law, to notify "Underground Service Alert, " a private cooperative of pipeline, utility and water companies with underground interests at stake, who would then notify all pipeline and util - ity owners in the area of the proposed construction. Most of the affected utilities would then send surveyors to the excavation site to locate and mark I the location of their underground structures or pipelines, so as to minimize the chance of damage to their facilities during excavation. I In this example, if we assume that a contractor failed to get a permit to excavate, and also failed to notify Underground Service Alert, then a possibility remains that the contractor may unknowingly dig into this pipe- line. 11 In accordance with State laws and regulations, the pipeline company routinely surveys the route (at least once per week) by air or by car, look- ! ing for signs of any construction activity which may pose a threat to their underground pipeline. In this example, it will be assumed that the line riders missed this particular construction activity. I During pipeline construction, it is normal , standard industry practice to bury a plastic warning tape, imprinted with applicable wording, above the pipeline so as to provide early warning to anyone digging down that a pipe- I. line is buried below. In this example, it will be assumed that the contrac- tor missed or ignored this warning tape. II Using a backhoe, the contractor strikes the pipe and accidently punc- tures it. The resultant leak immediately causes the contractor to shut down I1 I I I his equipment and to notify the Fire Department. If we assume the line is flowing (in use) , both the high/low pressure detection circuits and the leak detection system will be on-line and monitoring for just such an occurrence. For this example, the response time of the leak detection circuits and/or pressure circuits, is assumed to be ten minutes. Simultaneously, the local Fire Department, acting in response to the calls originating at the 1 project site, have placed a call into the "wheel ", a cooperative telephone notification system in southern California, by which any pipeline incident can be quickly relayed to all pipeline operators; giving each pipeline opera- tor the opportunity to check and shut down, if prudent, any pipelines which are located at or near the scene of the accident. Before the line is shut down, product escapes from the line. Volume of spilled fuel may vary from just a few gallons, for a pinhole puncture, to several thousand gallons, for a large rupture. While escaping from the line under pressure, it may spray upwards into the air, and affect or force clos- ure of surface vehicle and pedestrian traffic. After line shutdown, the line will still continue to leak, but a much slower rate. The only pressure remaining upon the fluid will be from pres- tsure caused by higher elevations on each side of Tustin. A check valve station, located in the City of Tustin, serves to reduce the amount of "backflow" and "back pressure" possible from the higher eleva- tions downstream. The Fire Department, immediately upon responding to such an accident, would visually estimate the size of the leak and amount of fuel present, and _._ test air samples in the immediate area so as to define the hazardous limits or "footprint." For this example, a 500-foot radius is established as a critical area, and all entry into this area is tightly controlled by the Fire Department. Automobile and pedestrian traffic is diverted an additional 1000 feet away. Containment efforts, such as sandbagging are immediately started so as to limit the spread of fuel . Power, and possibly gas, may be shut off in the area so as to further minimize potential sources of ignition. State authorities, including the State Fire Marshall and the Office of Haz- ardous Liquid Pipeline Safety would be notified. A special foam may be applied over pools of collected liquid, to minimize escape of volatile vapors and to reduce spread of fire, should accidental ignition occur. Upon receiving notification, and in some cases before, the pipeline company places into operation internal emergency response plans. Steps I I I 1. I 1 1 typically include: immediate release of pressure on the pipeline in the affected area by opening selected valves; closing of local block valves in the immediate area so as to minimize total volume of fuel available to feed spill ; mobilization of heavy equipment and labor resources to be utilized for fuel recovery and site clean-up; and other assistance to the Fire Department as necessary. I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 i 1