HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-98-5950 (MACPHERSON OIL RISK OF HAZARD)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 98-5950
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MEMORIALIZING rrS
FINDINGS REGARDING THE RISK OF HAZARD
ASSOCIATED WITH THE MACPHERSON OIL PROJECT
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. The City and Windward Associates/GLG Energy, L.P. (acting on behalf of Macpherson
Oil Company)("Macpherson") entered into OR and Gas Lease No. 2 on or about January 14,
1992 to allow, subject to approval and issuance of all required permits, for oil exploration and
drilling on a City -owned lot and tidelands under the City's control ("the project").
B. Macpherson subsequently obtained approvals for the project from the City (Conditional
Use Permit No. 93-5632, August 12, 1993), the State Lands Commission (April, 1993,
reaffirmed on March 8, 1994), and the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Development
Permit No. E-96-28, February 4, 1998).
C. In the course of the Coastal Commission's consideration of the above -referenced permit,
issues were raised concerning the safety risks associated with and the adequacy of conditions of
the project pertaining to hydrogen sulfide concentrations in the gas likely to be produced by the
drilling operation, and the thoroughness of the hazard analysis prepared in connection with the
project on behalf of Macpherson by Reese -Chambers System Consultants. The Commission
staff engaged the services of A D. Little to review and comment on the Reese -Chambers hazard
analysis to assist the Commission's consideration of the project.
D. Following the Commission's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. E-96-28,
questions lingered as to the adequacy of the City's conditions of approval pertaining to hydrogen
sulfide levels. In response to those concerns, and in order to be certain that nothing of
-I-
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
significance had been overlooked, the City Council on February 10, 1998, engaged the services
of the Aspen Environmental Group to perform a risk analysis of the project, with an emphasis on
the hydrogen sulfide issue.
E. Aspen produced a report dated April 2, 1998 prepared in large part by its subcontractor,
system safety expert Dr. Frank Bercha ("the Aspen report"). Macpherson and other interested
parties were afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the report. The report was
presented to the City Council on April 14, 1998. It concluded that, while the hydrogen sulfide
risk was mitigable, both the EIR and previous hazard analyses which had been prepared
analyzing the project by Reese -Chambers and A.D. Little were inadequate, finding as follows:
1. "No quantitative analysis or representation of the public risk was conducted." (Aspen
Report, at page 2).
2. "As illustrated on Attachment G of the enclosed risk assessment critique, the risk
assessment conducted for the project included a risk profile that represents all of the
various types of accidents that could occur at the proposed facility. This risk profile falls
within the 'Grey Region.' This classification is considered significant, but acceptable if
mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, preferably to a level of insignificance [ADL
1997]. However, as illustrated on Attachment G, the risk profile has been corrected to
reflect errors in interpretations of event frequencies and number of fatalities. As
presented on Attachment G, the revised risk profile associated with the project
increased, but still falls within the Grey Region. However, as noted above (Results of
Risk Assessment Critique), the risk assessment conducted for the Macpherson Oil
Project understated, neglected, and/or erroneously evaluated some of the various
individual risk factors that collectively result in the risk profile. Until the risk assessment
is corrected, it cannot be concluded if the resultant risk profile 1) falls within the Grey
Region, but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, 2) falls within the Grey Region,
but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, or 3) exceeds the De Manifestis
threshold (this classification is considered unacceptable, and the proposed development
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or activity should not proceed unless mitigation can be instituted that successfiilly
reduces the risk to below this level)." (Aspen report at page 3).
3. "As noted above, until the risk assessment is corrected, it cannot be concluded with
certainty if the resultant risk profile will be considered acceptable with respect to the risk
analysis thresholds utilized for the risk assessment." (Aspen report at page 3).
4. "If the resultant risk profile either exceeds the De Manifestis threshold, but can be
reduced into the Grey Region with mitigation, or falls within the Grey Region, but
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, a determination by the City must be
made if this resultant risk is acceptable." (Aspen report at page 3).
The report recommended "that a thorough concept safety evaluation for the facilities be
conducted utilizing currently accepted risk analysis methodologies in the areas of hazard assessment,
frequency analysis, consequence modeling, risk assessment and that generally accepted risk thresholds in
the form of individual and collective risk measures be applied to assess acceptability of the risks thus
generated." In other words, after reviewing all previous studies of this project (including the EIR),
Aspen concluded that the actual risks posed by the project had been understated and inaccurately
ascertained, and that to truly understand the potential hazards, it was necessary to apply a more detailed
methodology to the most current information available.
///
F. Confronted with this information, and in view of the proximity of the project site to
residences, businesses, public streets and a heavily used linear park (the Valley/Ardmore corridor
greenbelt), the Council on April 14, 1998 authorized Aspen to prepare the recommended safety
evaluation. Macpherson and other interested parties provided written comments on the
proposed scope of work, which were incorporated into the scope. The scope of work included
the following new studies and information, not previously performed and never before available
to the City:
1. Identify and incorporate probabilities of worst case atmospheric conditions,
which would result in the largest hazard zone;
2. Model low level hydrogen sulfide concentrations resulting from process releases;
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Incorporate into consequence modeling the effects of proposed perimeter walls;
4. Quantify risks associated with the existing facility and compare with project
risks;
5. Quantify collective (or societal) risk based on current population;
6. Explain significance of collective risks in terms of risk spectrum thresholds, and
compare with other California jurisdictions; and
7. Calculate integrated individual and collective risks over the 30-year life of the
project.
In addition, the study was to reassess well blowout, process, pipeline and vehicle accident
frequencies.
G. A stakeholders meeting, which included representatives from Macpherson and other
interested parties was conducted on July 8, 1998, at which the parties commented on a
preliminary draft of the report. Additional analysis was conducted in response to those
comments.
H. A final draft of the comprehensive safety evaluation prepared by The Aspen
Environmental Group/Bercha International, Inc. ("the Bercha report") was submitted to the City
on August 28, 1998. The report was forthwith transmitted to Macpherson and other interested
parties, and a properly noticed hearing on the report scheduled for September 17, 1998.
Macpherson responded to the report in writing, in a letter from its attorneys Bright & Brown
dated September 16, 1998. The Bercha report was transmitted to the City Council and
considered at a duly noticed public hearing conducted on September 17, 1998, at which
considerable testimony, both written and oral, was presented to the Council.
SECTION 2. Findings.
Based on the evidence received, both written and oral, including the Aspen report, the Bercha
report, and all correspondence by and on behalf of Macpherson and other interested parties, the City
Council finds as follows:
A. The Bercha report concludes that:
a-
I
PJ
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
X
1. The project falls within the "grey region" meaning that risks associated with the
project are significant and all practical means should be used to reduce or eliminate them.
2. The most serious risk presented by the project would be escape of a methane
gas vapor cloud, which if ignited, would cause a catastrophic conflagration affecting the
entire neighborhood surrounding the project site.
3. Over the thirty year life of the project, two major releases, one rupture and 31
leaks are anticipated; there exists a 4% likelihood of an offsite flash fire with potential for
casualties; a 1 in 7,000 chance exists of one or more off -site fatalities; and a 1 in 700
chance exists that an off -site injury to members of the public will result from the oil
drilling project, given the proximity of the project site to residences, businesses, streets
and the linear park.
4. Though the project, if operated according to industry safety standards, would be
as safe as comparable operations, its setting in a medium density urban, commercial and
residential location poses risks, which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
B. No evidence was submitted to contradict the foregoing findings.
SECTION 3. Conclusions.
A. No quantitative risk analysis of the project had been done prior to the Bercha report,
and no such information had ever before been presented to or considered by the City, nor by the
Coastal Commission. The report contains new information about the risk of hazard to the
community associated with the project.
B. The proximity of the project to sensitive land uses heightens the risk of injury in that an
accident would have catastrophic and potentially fatal results to innocent persons in the
immediate surrounding area.
C. The project presents an unreasonable risk of harm to persons who live, work and
recreate in close proximity to the project site, a risk described by Dr. Bercha in his September
17, 1998 testimony as "substantial." (Transcript, Ex. Bat 13.)
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. Those who live and work in proximity to the project site should not be forced to live in
perpetual fear of occurrence of a catastrophic and potentially fatal event.
PASSED,
PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
this 8th day of December 1998.
Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-6-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
I, Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 98-5950 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular Meeting of
said Council at the regular place thereof on December 8, 1998.
The vote was as follows:
AYES:
Bowler, Oakes, Mayor Benz
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Edgerton, Reviczky
DATED: December 9, 1998