2. SCOPING ISSUES AND CONCERNS
This section identifies issues of concern, alternatives, and suggested mitigation measures that the EIR should address, as identified by parties commenting on the NOP, by verbal comments at Scoping Meetings, and by written comments. Issues and concerns are presented in summary by issue area. They are not organized according to level of importance. Several commentors presented scoping comments in both oral and written forms. In many cases, commentors repeated their written comments orally at the Scoping Meetings. Therefore, repeated comments are only cited once.
2.1 Future Project Notification/Process
Send postcards to all adjacent residences (within 300 feet of the route right-of-way)
Use a more detailed map showing the exact pipeline route
Notify residents prior to construction, include materials, meetings, hotlines and personal visits
Make newspaper advertisements 1/8 page minimum
Include advertisement in Herald-American
Provide notification in Spanish or other languages spoken in impacted areas
Start notification one month in advance of meetings
Will there be more meetings if new alternatives are developed? Or will the new alternatives be presented in the EIR?
Explain role of CPUC as lead agency and legal determination made to select CPUC as lead agency.
Provide project information at Brakensiek Library in Bellflower
Provide Emergency Response plans at local libraries
2.2 Project Description
Describe SFPP’s proposed long-term monitoring plan for pipeline safety
Describe SFPP’s proposed leak prevention and detection system
Will SFPP continue to upgrade technology throughout the life of the project?
Describe the life of the proposed project and how it relates to the life of the currently operating SFPP pipelines
Describe the process used for project abandonment
Have all cities impacted by route been contacted?
What city approvals are required?
Provide more detail of changes required at the Watson Station facilities and project construction that will occur there (relate to need for compliance with existing Conditional Use Permit from City of Carson)
Map all existing pipelines within the area of the proposed project and alternatives including size, age, repair and accident history
Describe the proposed connection at Norwalk station
Describe how the proposed Norwalk Tank Farm abandonment relates to the proposed project
Demonstrate the need for the pipeline based upon market demand
Explain the source(s) of funding for pipeline
Describe the location of shut-off valves
Describe Emergency Response training that SFPP will provide
Describe operational staffing including responsibilities
Describe any proposed night-time construction and required lighting
Provide a complete construction schedule and give contact list for adjacent utilities and jurisdictions covering both day and night contacts
2.3 Air Quality
Describe anticipated construction dust problems
2.4 Biological Resources
None
2.5 Cultural Resources and Paleontology
Evaluate impacts on Rancho Dominguez
Evaluate impacts to Native American heritage
2.6 Environmental Contamination
Discuss Norwalk Station contamination issues and SFPP role in the contamination and clean up
Describe the process for clean up of existing contamination (Who is responsible for oversight and what is the timeframe for clean up?)
Discuss hazards to adjacent residences of pipeline contamination
2.7 Geology and Soils
Evaluate pipeline safety in terms of seismic safety and earthquakes
Describe the proposed San Gabriel River crossing and the geology of the crossing area
Obtain a copy of Libby Report and use it in the EIR
Evaluate impacts of subsidence on the proposed project
Consider provision of geotechnical studies to reduce risk
2.8 Hydrology
Describe possibility of ground water contamination
Reference requirements for NPDES compliance for storm water discharge and dust control activities
2.9 Land Use and Public Recreation
Evaluate sensitive land uses adjacent to the proposed project and alternatives (schools, residential, commercial, hospitals, retirement facilities, hotels, underground water reservoirs)
Document compliance with local policies including local jurisdictions and Southern California Association of Governments
Avoid disturbance to the DeForest Park Nature Trail
Evaluate impacts of the proposed project on property values
Evaluate impacts of the proposed project on residences near the route
Consider alternatives that eliminate impacts to sensitive land uses
Consider impacts to high density residential development
2.10 Noise
Evaluate construction noise
Consider mitigation for noise and vibration during construction
Document/require compliance with local noise ordinances
2.11 Public Services
Consider that South Street needs re-paving
Consider impacts to schools and local bus services
How will disturbed roadways be re-surfaced?
Applicant should pay for cities’ time to evaluate proposal and to update city infrastructure maps
Evaluate impacts to drinking water supply
Require notification of transit and emergency service providers
Identify city specifications for construction and permitting
Divert solid waste generation from construction to appropriate landfills
2.12 Socioeconomic Issues and Public Services
Consider impacts to retirement communities and hospitals along pipeline route
Ensure continuous access to local businesses during construction
Consider the use of temporary signage
Develop a plan for emergency response during construction and operation
Evaluate potential loss of business during construction (economic impact from loss of business to local business and to local cities tax revenue)
Evaluate potential benefits to the local community (jobs, tax revenue)
Evaluate potential residential property damage
Consider that fuel transported by the pipeline is not used by impacted areas
2.13 System Safety
Analyze safety records of alternative transportation modes (pipelines, trucks, trains)
Analyze SFPP leak and safety history throughout existing pipeline including the Norwalk Station
Analyze SFPP’s pressure testing schedule for the pipelines at the Norwalk Station (consider quarterly testing)
Describe SFPP’s proposed leak detection system (define the lower limits of leak detection; evaluate leak of .75% fuel volume)
Evaluate impacts of a spill into San Gabriel River
Ensure coordination with Bellflower’s Standardized Emergency Management System
Address SFPP’s proposed system for emergency response to leaks and spills
Describe pipeline and facility safety inspections (identify agencies which review safety records)
Describe criteria used to determine pipeline integrity during x-ray procedures
Evaluate risk of explosion and oil spill
Describe what would happen in case of a SCADA system failure
Perform a Health Risk Assessment
2.14 Transportation and Traffic
Evaluate impacts to residential access during construction
Describe re-paving process (will the entire street be re-paved or will a stripe be left down the middle?)
Note that South Street and Paramount Blvd. have recently been disrupted with MTA construction
Evaluate business access restrictions during construction and maintenance activities
Explain use of Underground Service Alert markings to identify existing pipelines
Define existing roadway capacities to define construction impacts
Maintain community continuity by not allowing continuous construction along Artesia Blvd.
Consider the potential for creation of traffic jams during project construction
Consider that several major streets crossing Artesia Blvd provide 91 Freeway access and are extremely busy
Consider impacts of reduced parking along Artesia Blvd.
Evaluate impacts on public transit routes
Reduce the width of the proposed 50 ft wide construction right-of-way
Consider that Artesia Blvd. serves as a major alternate route to 91 Freeway; when freeway is closed or jammed, traffic on Artesia is very heavy
Consider Lakewood and Bellflower Blvd. re-routes
Consider possible traffic impacts resulting from commuting of construction workers
Consider project impacts on pedestrian and bicycles
2.15 Visual Resources
Evaluate impacts of night-lighting during construction
2.16 Cumulative and Growth-inducing Impacts
Evaluate existing contamination from Norwalk Station and potential for additional contamination from new pipeline
Evaluate impact of adding a new pipeline to an area where there are many existing pipelines
Evaluate the long-term effects of an oil spill
2.17 Suggested Alternatives
Consider different pressures and sizes of proposed pipeline as alternative
Consider use of SCE transmission corridors
Evaluate existing substructures along proposed and alternative routes
Avoid residential areas
Will there be a tie-in to Edison tank farm or ARCO Hynes station?
Consider a route along South Street to Norwalk Blvd.
Consider a route along the Union Pacific Railroad line to Southern Pacific Railroad to San Gabriel River and then pick up the proposed route
Consider a route using South Street to San Gabriel River to proposed route
Consider a route using South Street to Pioneer Blvd.
Consider a route along South Street to Lakewood Blvd. to Southern Pacific Railroad to San Gabriel River and then pick up proposed route
Consider a route using Paramount along 91 Freeway to Studebaker
Do not use 166th Street for the pipeline route
Consider using railroad right-of-way
Consider a route using South Street to Shoemaker to 16" pipeline to Colton or join 24" pipeline to Colton
Re-route lines around the tank farm to get the pipeline out of residential streets and away from the contamination in the tank farm
Consider use of trucks to transport products
Do not use Excelsior Street
Include alternatives screening justification in the EIR