2.1 Proposed Project

SFPP, which is headquartered in the City of Orange, California, provides transportation and terminal services for refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel) in six western states. SFPP is a public utility and a common carrier that operates approximately 3,400 miles of pipeline varying in size from 4 inches to 24 inches. As part of this system, SFPP currently transports approximately 350,000 barrels per day of petroleum products from the Los Angeles refineries to markets in southern California, Nevada, and Arizona.

SFPP proposes to build and operate a new 16-inch petroleum products pipeline extending from SFPP’s existing Watson Station in Carson to the existing SFPP station at Norwalk, California (approximately 13 miles). The proposed pipeline will supplement the capacity of SFPP’s existing two pipelines that currently connect these two stations. The new pipeline will transport unleaded gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. The throughput of the new line will average 190,000 barrels of petroleum products per day; the products shipped will consist of approximately 56% gasoline, 19% jet fuel and 25% diesel. The principal destination of these products is SFPP’s Colton Terminal in Rialto, where the products are then distributed to markets in Nevada, Arizona, and the California Inland Empire.

As shown on Figure ES-1, the 13-mile pipeline would traverse portions of the Cities of Carson, Long Beach, Bellflower, Cerritos and Norwalk, as well as some Los Angeles County land. SFPP also plans to modify existing facilities located in Carson, Norwalk, Industry, and Rialto as a part of the proposed expansion project. The pipeline would cross three waterways along the proposed route: the Los Angeles and the San Gabriel rivers, and Compton Creek. Table ES-1 summarizes the components of the proposed project.

Table ES-1 Summary of Project Components

Component/Location Description

Components of the Proposed Pipeline

• 13 miles long
• 16-inch diameter pipe
• Pipe: API 5LX60, wall thickness 0.312"
• 204,000 Barrels Per Day (BPD) maximum
• 190,000 BPD average
Products Shipped
(approximate breakdown)
• 56% -- Unleaded gasoline
• 19% -- Jet fuel
• 25% -- Diesel fuel
Operating Parameters
• 1,440 psi Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP)
• 72 EF Product temperature (ambient)
Safety/Operating System
• 8 automatic block valves (MOV’s) (2 at each river crossing; 1 each at Carson & Norwalk Stations)
• 2 manual valves at Industry Station
• Computerized pipeline monitoring system (SCADA System)

Station Modifications

Watson Station
(in Carson)
• 2 new electric pumps (2,000 hp each); upgrade existing surge pump to 900 hp
• New metering equipment
• 1 outgoing valve
• Vapor recovery systems will be added to 3 existing tanks
• 1 tank will be converted from diesel to multi-product use
• New scraper-launching facility will be installed
• All changes within the existing station boundaries.
Norwalk Station
• Construct new 16-inch pipeline; connect with existing 16-inch Military Line
• 1 incoming valve at station boundary
Industry Station
• Re-route existing 16-inch pipeline from south to north side of RR tracks (approximately 300 feet of new pipe) to run through station
• Install 2 new electric pumps (1,750 hp each) next to existing pump
Colton Terminal
(in Rialto)
• Piping modifications to allow product from the existing pipelines to ship through to Phoenix-West line

SFPP estimates that the proposed project will cost $22 million to construct. This cost is broken into $8 million for labor and $14 million for supplies and equipment. Approximately 95 personnel would be employed for pipeline construction and 111 for station construction during the peak construction period. It is approximated that construction of the 13-mile pipeline would proceed between 200 and 500 feet per day, therefore taking between 137 days (at 500 feet per day) and 343 days (at 200 feet per day).

8.5x11 map of proposed project & alts

2.2 Alternatives

As a part of the alternatives evaluation process, 18 potential alternative routes or methods of shipping petroleum products were evaluated. Eleven alternatives were eliminated because they did not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed project. Six alternative route segments are fully analyzed in this EIR, as well as the No Project Alternative. Those route segments are described in Table ES-2 below.

Table ES-2 Proposed and Alternative Pipeline Segments

Proposed Route Segment
Alternative Route Segments:
Name & Description
Del Amo (E) - Rancho Way (N) - Laurel Park (N)
Laurel Park (N) - East across MTA tracks (@ Victoria) & Compton Creek to corner of Santa Fe & Victoria
Santa Fe Alternative Segment
East from Rancho Way to Alameda Street, North to Santa Fe Avenue, northeast across Compton Creek to corner of Victoria
Victoria & Santa Fe (E) - Gordon - bore under LA River - DeForest Ave (S) - South Street (E) to Cherry Avenue
South Street (E) from Cherry - Paramount (N) to Artesia
Cherry Alternative Segment
Cherry (N) from South Street; Artesia (E) to Paramount Blvd.
Paramount Alternative Segment
Cherry/Garfield (N) from Artesia; Alondra Blvd. (E) to Lakewood Blvd.
Artesia (E) from Paramount to Studebaker (N) to 166th (E) to Norwalk Blvd. (N) to corner of Norwalk and Alondra
Alondra Alternative Segment
Lakewood Blvd (N) from Artesia; Alondra (E) from Lakewood to corner of Alondra & Norwalk
Bellflower Rail Alternative Segment
Lakewood Blvd (N) from Artesia; railroad ROW (just south of Compton/Somerset) southeast to Artesia Blvd.
Artesia Alternative Segment Artesia (E) from Studebaker - Norwalk Blvd. (N) to corner of Alondra & Norwalk
Norwalk Blvd (N) from Alondra to DFSP entrance; new pipe into DFSP station
Shoemaker Alternative Segment
Alondra Blvd (E) from Norwalk - Shoemaker (N) to corner of Excelsior

These alternatives are considered in this document for full analysis so that they can be compared to the proposed project. Figure ES-1 shows generally where these alternatives are located.

In addition to the route segments described above, the No Project Alternative is evaluated in each environmental issue area. If the proposed project is not constructed, the demand for petroleum products in Arizona, Nevada, and the Inland Empire would still grow and the product would be supplied by other means. Existing pipelines would be used to a greater extent, and trucking of products from Los Angeles refineries to Las Vegas and to the Inland Empire would greatly expand.

Back to Executive - Summary Table of Contents