Parent Raises Concern About Pipeline Safety
 Vol. 6, Issue 17, April 25-May 1, 2008
By Jonathan Volzke
The Capistrano Dispatch
State asks district to determine whether risk-analysis report contains inaccuracies
Capistrano Unified closed the softball and soccer fields at San Juan Hills High School while district officials scrambled to address a parent’s concerns about a high-pressure gas line less than 1,500 feet from the campus.
The 16-inch, high-pressure pipeline carries gasoline and jet fuel from Los Angeles County to San Diego County. State regulations require a special risk analysis when campuses are built within 1,500 feet of the underground pipelines. The California Department of Education signed off on the San Juan Hills plans based on a 2004 assessment by Pasadena-based Wilson Geosciences.
But parent Jim Reardon, who has studied the pipeline, raised concerns about the accuracy of the report on April 17. The report says the valves that could shut down the flow of fuel are automatically controlled, so a leak could be stopped in five minutes. Reardon, however, says the valves are manual. That throws out all of the estimates of how much fuel would drain before it was shut down, Reardon said.
Officials say pipeline accidents are rare, but when they occur it’s often with deadly consequences.
In 1999, a pipeline in a Bellingham, Wash. park leaked gasoline, and vapor from the leak exploded and killed two children and an 18-year-old man. And in 2007, Kinder Morgan, the same company that operates the pipeline in eastern San Juan, was convicted of six felony counts and ordered to pay $15 million in connection with a 2004 pipeline explosion that killed five construction workers. That line was hit by a backhoe. That accident also led to safety upgrades on Kinder Morgan pipelines throughout the Western United States.
Reardon, who spoke at a district facilities subcommittee meeting, said the grading and drainage of the site could also send the fuel into the storm-drain system beneath the high school. A district spokesperson on Friday confirmed the softball field and soccer field—the part of the San Juan Capistrano campus closest to the pipeline—were closed Friday, April 18. She said it was uncertain how long the field would be closed.
“We have a report that was approved by the California Department of Education,” said district spokesperson Beverly De Nicola.
“We want to see what it says, see if it’s accurate and see if there’s concerns. Then we can see how we can proceed.”
Fred Yeager, assistant director for the California Department of Education’s school facility planning division, said he discussed the situation with Shawn Lohman, executive director of facilities planning for Capistrano Unified, on Monday.
“I indicated the department needed that pipeline analysis updated based on the status of the valve,” Yeager said Thursday. “Or we need confirmation that it is automatic. Either way, just resolve the question.”
The pipeline ships about 6,200 barrels of refined product per hour, or about 150,000 barrels per day, at full capacity. Kinder Morgan spokesperson Larry Pierce said Thursday his firm was also working with the school district to address the new concerns. He said officials do not believe they were contacted when the Wilson Geosciences report was done but had been in contact
with entities involved in the construction of the school.
Pierce confirmed the valves closest to the school—one just south of Ortega Highway and the other at the Orange County-San Diego County line—are manually operated, but said the line can be shut down immediately in an emergency. “The pipeline is monitored 24-7, 365 days a year by operators utilizing sophisticated computerized equipment at the Orange and Mission Valley terminals, along with additional oversight from the Orange Control Center,” Pierce said in an e-mail. “The entire pipeline can be shut down immediately if a problem is detected, and personnel will be dispatched to the site.”
The problem, Reardon said, and Yeager agreed, is that fuel in the pipeline could continue to flow to a break near the school.
Interim Principal Shannon Soto on Friday told parents about the closure in an e-mail. “As you know, the safety of our students is always my primary concern. Today, in an excess of caution, I temporarily closed the softball and soccer fields at the northern end of the campus because a citizen expressed concern about the fuel pipeline that, at its closest, lies 1,018 feet from our softball field,” Soto says in the statement.
“A safety study of the pipeline was conducted when the school was planned and the plans were approved by the California Department of Education,” she says. “Nevertheless, our superintendent and district staff members are currently reviewing the concerns to determine if any further actions need to be taken to ensure student safety. I will follow up with you as soon as I have any additional information to share.”
District Trustee Anna Bryson said earlier this month she had grave concerns after hearing the news and has called for the playing field to remain closed until a new study can be done. “I am extremely upset for the children that this was done by a company that had the audacity of putting our children’s safety in harm’s way,” she said of the original report that is now in dispute.
Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter announced Thursday that he had been questioned by the District Attorney’s Office about the pipeline and other issues for more than 60 minutes earlier this month. Farrah Emami, a spokesperson for the District Attorney’s Office, confirmed that investigators are asking questions. “Our office has been making inquiries and doing follow up based on some complaints that we’ve received,” Emami said Thursday. She would not disclose the issues.
The news and pipeline concern comes as Capistrano Unified struggles to cut $28 million from its $422-million budget. The district has notified more than 300 teachers that they face layoffs, and earlier this month trustees voted to eliminate 142 more non-teaching positions.
Click here to see the full risk analysis report
A TROUBLED TIME
• October 2001: Trustees approve conceptual plan for San Juan Hills High School.
• November 2002: San Juan residents reject school and Whispering Hills housing tract in a referendum.
• January 2003: High school property site appraised at $52 million. Trustees vote to use state powers to override voter rejection. Total school costs estimated at $80 million.
• February 2003: Department of Toxic Substance Control approval; trustees authorize acquiring 50-acre site for high school.
• April 2003: Escrow closes on land acquisition.
• January 2004: Wilson Geosciences performs pipeline-risk analysis.
• March 2005: SJC father Kevin Murphy launches a recall targeting all seven trustees, alleging mismanagement in the district.
• May 2005: Construction begins.
• December 2005: The Registrar of Voters rules the recall attempt fails.
• August 2006: Longtime Superintendent James Fleming retires.
• May 2006: Grand Jury indictments against Fleming and Assistant Superintendent Susan McGill are unsealed, alleging they compiled lists of political opponents on district time, among other things. They have pleaded innocent. Trial is set for August 12.
• May 2007: Placentia-Linda Superintendent Dennis Smith decides against taking the Capistrano Unified job, even after his hiring was announced.
• September 2007: Retired Army Colonel Woodrow Carter joins the district as superintendent.
• September 2007: School opens with 640 freshmen students. The school’s costs top $140 million.
• October 2007: The District Attorney says trustees routinely violated state public meeting laws and requires a public acknowledgement.
• February 2008: San Juan Hills Principal Tony Ferruzzo, who joined the district in 2005 to head up the new high school, retires.
• March 2008: Registrar of Voters announces second recall attempt, targeting senior trustees Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper, qualifies for ballot. Trustees set a June 24 recall election.
• April 18, 2008: Interim Principal Shannon Soto closes the soccer and softball fields closest to the pipeline after a parent raises concerns.
When posting comments please be courteous. No bad language, vulgarity or racial slurs.
|
Add A Comment
Interesting information, but I'm more concerned about the brain cells of the CUSD officials who may have endangered my kid at San Juan Hills. It may be bad in Illinois, but it's no excuse for what Draper, her daughter, Doomey, Fleming and others have done right here at home.
I am through with giving our corrupt CUSD leaders a pass based on the low standards and screw-ups of other districts. The CUSD leadership has blown it, pure and simple, and someone should be held accountable so that these sorts of things stop happening. This isn't the first time CUSD has failed, and based on past performance, it won't be the last until we stop making excuses and deal with these issues by cutting through the spin and excuses to a conclusion that includes true accountability.
Dear Unified Taxpayers,
If you think this situation in Unified is bad, just look at the school district near Chicago in Aurora-Naperville. They have three large diameter gas pipelines running directly through the middle of land where they paln to build a school. A district group has been formed to fight it. We should consider ourselves lucky to not have their problems. Yiiikes - are they missing brain cells in Illinois or what?
Here's the link: http://www.nsfoc.org
Dear Mr. Carter,
Where's the transparency you promised? We never expected it from the old guard trustees or staff, but when you arrived, your promises gave us hope. Now, when we need open, honest discussion the most, you close ranks with the old guard. SO much for transparency.
Still waiting,
CUSD Parent
hvydrt doth protest too much...and about all the wrong things.
PS hvy drt...
what is your motivation for trying to discourage investigation in to the pipeline?
Yes, it is something that we all need to be concerned with.
Why is it that it was left to community members on a basically volunteer basis to ask creditable questions about safety concerns at SJHHS? There is a long line of people at CUSD who should have been addressing this issue for a number of years as they were plowing $140+ million into that site. And they should out in front of this issue now. Where are they? The field remains closed but no one has anything to say. What is the motivation there?
Hvy drt, if you are concerned about Reardon's motivations, what about the motivations of those whose lack of oversight (or worse) created the opportunity to raise the issue? If you are concerned about wasting tax dollars (though somethings tells me you really aren't), how about all the money that has been wasted in the SJHHS construction process. We can start with the $52 million CUSD paid Dennis Gage for land at the dump that was of little value without a school and move on from there.
Yeah, hvydrt. While you're spiraling into profane irrelevance in your conniption, some of us will strive to find out what really happened so we can know the truth and advocate responsible corrective actions, if necessary. Nothing wrong with that, and a whole lot more useful.
I've already made it clear that I'm not qualified by profession to make definitive statement about the behavior of a failed pipeline. How about you?
I understand your point that the pipeline < 1500 feet from the school site might not run down to the school, however, the CUSD-generated Risk Analysis says otherwise. In addition, it makes the point that sections beyond 1500 feet also threaten the school because of the canyons.
Your well-constructed picture fails to represent distance properly because of the view and perspective you selected. Try presenting the same picture as viewed from the top of the hill behind the pipeline and looking back toward the high school. It looks very different.
There is no question that if you stand on La Pata at the point of the pipeline crossing (at the yellow sign), the road goes uphill in the direction of the school. In fact, a small rise in the land obscures your view of the school. This is deceiving. The danger is further south on the road, closer to the entrance marked "staff only".
There are two shallow canyons south of La Pata. The one your arrow marks will terminate on Via Limon, a residential street. The one that is closer to the school and dump terminates in a storm drain that runs under La Pata and on and under to the school site.
Since detailed drawings of the site plan, drainage plan, even property lines, are the "ultra secret" at CUSD, so confidential that even the California Department of Education doesn't have them, it is impossible for anyone to be certain how the drainage actually works.
From the perspective of the law, the presence of the pipeline within 1500 feet of the school triggers the requirement for a risk analysis. However, the analysis itself must take into consideration the whole risk to the site, including any risk imposed by sections of the pipeline that are beyond 1500 feet from the site.
Keep in mind that the 1986 accident in Tustin/Irvine produced a plume of unleaded gasoline that ran 2 miles through San Diego Creek -- on relatively level terrain. The Bellingham, WA incident in 1999 produced fire in a creek that was 1.5 miles in extent. The Walnut Creek incident was tragic, but fortunately, it occurred in a confined area.
Are you willing to leave the SJHHS community at risk because of what you perceive to be my motivations?
I still think you are a snake, and are doing this for reasons other than the safety of children. I am sure everyone knows that.
So why exactly did you decide to investigate a pipeline again?
I think it is obvious that IF the pipeline leaks in the area that is less than 1500 feet from the property line, the fuel is going to run down the canyon away from the school.
http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l20/jamicajohnson/?action=view¤t=flow.jpg
Bottom line, it is impossible for the portion that is < 1500' to ever flow under the school.
How about the Walnut Creek explosion Jim. A contractor nailed the line while digging. It was feet away from a school. No one, other than the contractor that was digging where he should not have been, was injured or killed.
Do you have your kids in the car when you fill up your gas tank? I cant believe you would park right on top of underground gas tanks.
Quite wasting our taxes $$$ you snake.
"by closing the fields, CUSD is admitting they have a serious problem that they aren't taking very seriously."
If they didn't close the fields after Jim went fishing for problems, it would give this clown even more reason to bitch and complain about CUSD
Closing the fields at the school is silly.
Either the pipeline is an issue or it isn't. If the is an issue, the school is being operated illegally. If it isn't an issue, why close the fields.
It looks like CUSD won't stand behind the risk analysis they commissioned to certify the safety of the site.
By closing the fields, CUSD is admitting they have a serious problem that they aren't taking very seriously.
HVYDRT,
I'll have to remember that you come out blazing with expletives and then resort to argument. That's one way to do it.
Your drawing is well done. It superficially appears to be accurate. Did you do that freehand, or did you have a source of accurate pipeline data to overlay Google Earth?
Either way, there is no point in arguing about your drawing. It clearly shows that the pipeline is within 1500 feet of the school site, and it nicely illustrates the problems that are raised in CUSD's own Risk Analysis on page 5 through 14. You can read the analysis at http://cusd.googlegroups.com/web/2004-Pipeline-Risk-Analysis-for-SJHHS.pdf
What you can see in the Analysis is that that fuel pools in some of the canyons you mention, and fuel from the south side of La Pata can flow all the way down to the road and through the storm drains that run under the school. This is clearly illustrated.
The problem with the Analysis is that it underestimates the amount of fuel that could be lost in a rupture. The more fuel escapes, the further it can flow.
Back in 1986, the old 10-inch pipeline to San Diego spontaneously ruptured in Tustin and it spilled fuel into San Diego Creek, up near the point where the railroad tracks cross Jamboree. Here's a news story from that time:
"A gasoline spill that forced the evacuation of about 1,500 people from Tustin Marine Corps Helicopter Air Station on Nov. 22 was up to 10 times worse than first reported, environmental experts said. The pipeline company responsible for the accident is under investigation by state and local agencies for possible negligence in causing the spill and tardiness in cleaning it up, an official for a state Water Quality Board said. At the time of the accident a spokesman for San Diego Pipeline Co. placed the amount of unleaded gasoline that spilled from a burst pipeline into a flood channel at 20,000 to 60,000 gallons. But a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game said the actual amount was between 250,000 and 500,000 gallons. Although the spill killed wildlife in a two-mile stretch of channel, a major ecological disaster was averted because dikes kept pollutants from entering the upper Newport Bay state ecological reserve.
-------
The fuel flowed down San Diego Creek as far as Alton Avenue, in Irvine, before it was stopped by the fire department with an improvised earthen dam. Fortunately, it did not ignite.
For the 10-inch pipeline to spill that volume of fuel in an area of level terrain, the pumps continued to operate for more than two hours after the rupture occurred (the pressure drop was ignored). The modern 16-inch pipeline could spill the same volume of fuel in a single hour. CUSD's Risk Analysis assumes that the pumps are shut-off in "5 minutes", and the capacity of the higher elevation areas of the pipeline that run for miles south of the school site are ignored. Fuel in these higher areas will flow backward through the pipeline to the location of a rupture near the school.
Thanks for preparing the drawing. I'll put it on my website for others to see, if you don't object.
www.googlegroups.com/group/cusd
Nice map hvy drt. I am sure you can see that there are points where a rupture would jeopardize the school site. The drainage system emphasizes it and makes this obvious even to me.
The tree hugger argument is a valid one. Now that the school is there, what do the options look like? Why wasn't these concerns considered before SJHHS was built?
I, for one, am distressed to find out about the location of the pipeline. But at least in Mr. Carter, we have someone who appears willing to listen to community concerns. That is a refreshing change.
"The path of the pipeline south of La Pata is hundreds of feet higher than the school site"
Yes, but there is a canyon in between the pipeline and the school site. Image from google earth: http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l20/jamicajohnson/canyon.jpg
"to grade the land adjacent to the pipeline"
I am sure the tree huggers will love that one. I am sure there is some kind of endangered rat or tick that uses that are for breeding.
"If it were my intention to "slander" the current CUSD administration........."
So why now? Why did you all of the sudden decide to go investigate valves on a pipeline. Its clear you were looking for ANYTHING to make the current people in charge look bad.
"Cant the valve be changed to an automatic valve?"
I asked the same question. The answer is two-part. First, yes, the valves can be replaced -- even moved. But the automatic valve is not actually automatic, but instead, it is remote-controlled. This would save the time for a person to be dispatched to the site of a manual valve, but it does nothing to help the pipeline operator detect and then locate a rupture.
A secondary problem is that even with the pumps off and the valves closed, the pipeline could still drain thousands of gallons of fuel (by gravity and siphon effects) through a rupture near the school. The path of the pipeline south of La Pata is hundreds of feet higher than the school site and the nearest valve in that direction is at the San Diego County line.
This problem can be solved in a number of ways. First, the Risk Analysis needs to be done over -- correctly. It probably will indicate that a statistically significant risk exists, but it will also provide information to solve the problem.
Possible fixes are to move the school boundary, to grade the land adjacent to the pipeline so as to protect the school, to redesign the local drainage, to move the pipeline itself, and I'm sure there are many other possible solutions. Unfortunately, whatever is done will come at the expense of CUSD. Facilities staff should have considered that in their original plan, but then, they might have been forced to pick a different site for their high school!
If it were my intention to "slander" the current CUSD administration, I would not have taken my data to the Superintendent almost 3 weeks before taking it to the Facilities Committee and the public. It was the Superintendent who arranged for the closure of the athletic field. It is the Superintendent that will have to provide the leadership to see that the matter is corrected.
If you want to know more about pipeline issues, checkout: http://www.pstrust.org/ - The Pipeline Safety Trust. This is a group that was setup after the Bellingham, WA incident (from a portion of the settlement money). The decision whether to provide a right-of-way is ultimately a personal one, unless you were planning to sell your land to a school district!
"Cant the valve be changed to an automatic valve?"
They don't care about solving the problem. They just want to slander the current the administration. I guarantee you that slime bag (Reardon) wasn't snooping around looking for problems at SJHHS because he is concerned about the kids.
I have some property in Yermo, and a pipeline company wants to install a jet fuel pipeline on my land, as well as others, from Colton to Las Vegas. What will my risk and/or problems be???
Hope someone can help with answers.
Thank You, Julie Wilmoth
"There is no student with the last name Reardon enrolled at SJHHS. However, the safety of students are always essential. Cant the valve be changed to an automatic valve?"
It can not be known whether there is student named Reardon at SJHHS without accessing private educational records from that school. Are you saying you have done this? Be careful what you admit to, this is what got Fleming and McGill indicted.
Safety of students and staff should always be the primary concern. Where was that concern when CUSD build SJHHS? CUSD has spent $150 million of taxpayers money on this school. They filed documents with bad information at CDE, used a faulty risk assessment, have violated the Brown Act a couple of times to do this. These are the things we know about.
You are right about one thing though; whether or not the pipeline is a recall issue, student safety, the district's lack of integrity and financial mismanagement are.
There is no student with the last name Reardon enrolled at SJHHS. However, the safety of students are always essential. Cant the valve be changed to an automatic valve?
Aren't Mr Reardon and Mr Ferruzzo neighbors?
hvydrt is the one who sounds defensive, with his/her emotional potty mouth.
A proper study of the risks because the original study wasn't, doesn't sound duplicative at all. But since I'm not a recall proponent, I guess for some who have posted here, I can't have such an opinion. It's all so black and white for some.
"How are things with that new HS down in Vista? Have you guys got a handle on that mess with Edge?"
Not sure what you are talking about, but I still think you are being absolutely ridiculous.
Dear HVY,
How are things with that new HS down in Vista? Have you guys got a handle on that mess with Edge?
Ray,
Despite your sanctimonious comment about how I "sound", you seem otherwise to have missed the point. I am not a licensed geologist and so everything I've said regarding the pipeline is just one man's opinion.
Still, the pipeline is a fact, its location is a fact, the multiple errors in the Risk Analysis are confirmed by numerous sources, including CUSD, the California Department of Education and the pipeline operator.
You seem to be saying that we should simply overlook this situation under the assumption that it is possible that there is no significant risk to students. This is like boarding an airplane with falsified maintenance records under the presumption that it "might" be able to fly safely. After all, it might!
Perversely, to assume this situation might be safe based on my comments alone is the worst possible decision one could make.
I feel no guilt whatsoever in raising this issue and I won't be fund-raising for a school district that can't be trusted with money.
Mr. Reardon,
Quit stirring the shit pot and wasting our tax dollars on your lame recall crusade. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Sincerely,
HVYDRT
Thanks for your insightful comments Mr. Reardon. You sound very defensive on this issue, and well you should. To complete a re-evaluation of the "possible" risk to students from this well established pipeline will no doubt cost the school district and taxpayers a great deal of money during this period of budget shortfalls. Despite your personal assessment the end result would just as likely become just another expensive "no change report". In these circumstances a fair thing for you and the recall proponents to do now would be to initiate a private fund raising drive among your supporters to reimburse our schools for the costs involved in this duplicative new study. This would also be an excellent way for you to judge the level of concern in the community.
Hi Ray, sorry I missed you at Coffee Chat this morning. I'm taking a course at UCI. Helen brought the pipeline drawings to Metro Java. I hope you had the opportunity to look at them.
Indeed, I did say that the risk of a rupture of the pipeline at or near the high school is no greater than it would be elsewhere along the pipeline where similar conditions exist. The pipeline in question does, for example, run right down Crown Valley Parkway, across the street from Mission Hospital. It also traverses the Ladera Ranch community.
However, this misses the whole point!
The State of California has a regulation (that has the force of law) that is intended to create a setback requirement of 1500 feet for schools. If a school district wants to locate a school site closer than 1500 feet from a pipeline, then a detailed risk analysis is needed. The requirements for this analysis are very specific, and the risk threshold that must be the result of the analysis is also defined.
CUSD did such a risk analysis, but the geologist who did the work apparently relied on bad information (e.g., regarding the valves). In addition, he stated numerous conclusions without support, all of which were designed to drive the risk calculations in his conclusion below the state requirement.
This subject can quickly become very complex, but it is sufficient to focus on the valves in order to discard the original analysis. Wrong facts equals wrong premise. Anything that follows is meaningless and the conclusions are moot.
Today, nobody can say whether the school site is "safe" or "not safe" (as defined in the state regulation), because there is no valid risk analysis. Another analysis will have to be performed by CUSD using correct data on valves, terrain, drainage systems, soil types, etc. If the resulting calculation indicates that the risk is lower than the state requirement, then they are finished and the legality of the site is established.
By my independent calculations, this won't happen. A new analysis will indicate that the risk is above state level. But since I'm not a licensed geologist, you should assume all possible disclaimers apply to this statement.
Once CUSD gets this result, it will be necessary to perform a so-called "Stage 3" analysis, which is an elaborate effort involving site modeling and more calculations. Ultimate, CUSD would have to modify the site in order to reduce the risk below the state requirement. This might involve grading, modification of drainage improvements, moving the pipe itself, or even something extreme like closing the school. Until that study is done, nobody can make a credible statement about the legality of the school site.
Did you notice I said "legality"? That is different from safety. Even if the site is ultimately made legal according to the state definition, it is up to each person to decide whether the risk associated with that pipeline is acceptable.
The state created this regulation and setback requirement for a reason. These pipelines do fail. When they do, the results are disastrous. CUSD has not met the requirement to put the school site inside the 1500 foot setback. This is what got the attention of the Board, CDE and the DA.
Whether it is "safe" or "not safe" in a conventional sense, is a personal decision to be made by each family, if not by CUSD.
Mr. Reardon acknowledged during a public meeting that "the risk" (if any) to students at San Juan Hills High is no greater than the "the risk" at any other point along the pipeline including near hospitals, shopping malls, and residential neighborhoods. This sounds more and more like just another exaggerated claim of the recall extremists who are trying to destroy our school district.
It sounds like there are automatic shut off valves and that there aren't automatic shut off valves.
Parent? Concerned citizen? Don't they both count? And isn't the point information about safety, whether it is discovered by a parent, a concerned citizen or Mickey Mouse?
The Reardons have a son. They are parents.
The Dispatch refers to Jim Reardon as a parent. The principal at San Juan Hills refers to Jim Reardon as a concerned citizen.
Which is it?