PC 091510 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA Chair Olson advised that Item 11, Matters for Commission Information, was being moved forward on the agenda. He indicated that Commissioner Blank has some questions regarding gas lines running through Pleasanton and invited the City’s new Fire Chief to speak on the matter. 11. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION Fire Chief James Miguel stated that he was recently appointed Fire Chief for the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD). He indicated that he spent 27 years in fire service in the City of Modesto, the last eight years as Fire Chief. He introduced Deputy Fire Chief Joseph Rodondi, who would present some information as well as diagrams. Chief Miguel thanked Commissioner Blank for the invitation to discuss the issue of gas lines that run through Pleasanton, particularly in the wake of the San Bruno incident. He stated that it is unknown why the incident in San Bruno took place, and it will likely be some time before the autopsy on the pipe is completed. He indicated that one of the things that brought this issue to the forefront in Pleasanton, Livermore, and other areas in Alameda County was a report done by PG&E to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in 2009, when they were trying to justify a rate increase in order to do some capital improvements and replacement on some of their infrastructure. He noted that in that report, there was reference made to pipes as examples of problems PG&E wanted to improve, and one of those pipes, which runs through a portion of Livermore, skirts the City of Pleasanton, heads over into Sunol, and on to Fremont, had been identified as one of those of greatest concern to PG&E, and, therefore, their desire to replace it. Chief Miguel then briefly read the following section of the report entitled, “Pipeline Risk Management Program”: “In 1998, PG&E developed a Pipeline Risk Management Program to assess the risk of every segment of gas transmission pipeline within PG&E’s system. The Chief of the Utilities Safety Branch at the California Public Utilities Commission approved the program on April 20, 2000. Pipeline risk is determined by assessing two factors: (1) probability or likelihood of failure; and (2) local consequence of the failure. The probability of a pipeline failure depends on various physical characteristics such as diameter, wall thickness, operating pressure, year installed, pipeline condition reports, method of construction, type of coating, depth of cover, vulnerability of third-party damage, and environmental factors such as proximity to earthquake faults and potential landslides. Factors used to determine consequences include population density, impact zone of the pipeline, types of structures in proximity to the pipeline, environmental impacts, railroad crossings, magnitude of customer outages, and the magnitude of gas flow should the pipeline segment fail.” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 15, 2010 Page 2 of 23