Catch-22 for Wilmington : Hazardous Facilities Bar Recreation Uses

A Port of Los Angeles plan to move hazardous facilities away from populated areas has come under fire from Wilmington residents, who worry that it will stand in the way of a consultant’s proposal for revitalizing their community.

The consultant, former Los Angeles Planning Director Calvin Hamilton, has proposed giving Wilmington recreational access to the waterfront at the harbor’s Slip No. 5, which is at the foot of Avalon Boulevard. But one of the facilities that stores hazardous cargo, the Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals, is at that site, and the port’s relocation plan does not propose moving it.

Thus the relocation plan puts Wilmington residents in a Catch-22 situation: They cannot get a recreation area at Slip No. 5 unless the terminals are moved. But the plan does not include moving the terminals because there are no recreation sites or populated areas nearby.

At a series of workshops sponsored by the port this week to elicit comments on the proposal, residents charged that it moves hazardous facilities out of San Pedro while ignoring Wilmington, and they demanded that port officials move the terminals. The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce will also ask that the port reevaluate its plan in light of Hamilton’s proposal, according to chamber president Dennis Lord.

The residents also hope to use the debate over the relocation plan to pressure port officials into helping finance an aquarium and sea-technology center proposed in Hamilton’s study.

“We can make this aquarium fit the needs (of what state law permits the port to finance) and we’re going to do it,” declared Ernesto Nevarez, a Wilmington businessman who also runs a local environmental group. “We’ve got the power behind us, we’ve got the facts behind us, and we’ve got the administrative procedures behind us.

“If they think they can move everything out of San Pedro and leave Wilmington with the crap, we can play hardball. . . . I know the study and I’m going to go in there swinging.”

That may not be necessary. Port spokesman Cal Burton said that officials are interested in the aquarium and sea technology center, particularly because financing them would comply with the state law that requires the port to spend its money on commerce, navigation and fisheries.

“I’m not going to go so far as to say we’ll fund it,” Burton said, but “of all the things that are (in the Hamilton study), those are two that are very intriguing to us.”

As for the Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals, Burton said the port would consider moving them if the community came up with an alternate location.

However, Sid Robinson, director of planning and research for the port, said there is no reason for the company to move and added that the port has a long-term lease with the company.

The Hazardous Facilities Relocation Plan, as it is called, is a draft and is subject to change. A final plan is expected in several months, Robinson said.

New Landfill Pier

The plan proposes moving some of the hazardous oil terminals and tank farms to a new 700-acre landfill in the outer harbor, and others to sites elsewhere within the port. The new landfill, to be called Pier 400, will be created with material dredged from the harbor. The dredging is necessary to create deeper channels, which will allow larger ships to reach the new pier.

According to the relocation plan, there are 25 facilities in the port that now handle liquid bulk cargo, such as crude oil, petroleum products and chemicals. However, port officials have determined that only 16 carry hazardous cargo. (Robinson said a 17th company, Pacific Northern Oil, carries hazardous cargo, but that company is phasing out its port operations.)

Eight of the hazardous facilities will be moved, along with a ninth that is not hazardous but that provides services for them. Each hazardous facility has what the port calls a “hazardous footprint”--an area surrounding it that would be affected if an explosion or other disaster occurred. The relocation plan calls for moving any hazardous facilities where the “footprints” include heavily populated areas.

The timetable for the move depends on how quickly the port can build Pier 400. The earliest would be 1995.

Robinson said the characteristics of the two communities, rather than any preference for San Pedro, dictate which facilities are to be moved. Because Wilmington is largely industrial, Robinson said, there is no reason to remove hazardous facilities such as the Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals. In contrast, such facilities pose a risk in certain parts of San Pedro, particularly those near Ports O’ Call Village and the new Cabrillo Marina.

Marketplace Proposed

If the Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals stay, Robinson said, Hamilton’s recommendation--which calls for building a Mexican-style marketplace and park, with cafes and produce stands, at Slip No. 5--would be inconsistent with the port’s risk management plan, adopted in 1983. That plan, like the relocation plan, promotes separating hazardous facilities from heavily populated areas.

HAZARDOUS FACILITIES RELOCATION PLAN Targeted for Removal: 1. GATX, Berths 118-121 2. Western Fuel Oil, Berths 120-121 3. Petrolane, Berth 120 4. Mobil Oil, Terminal Island Tank Farm 5. Mobil Oil, Berths 238-240 6. UNOCAL 22nd Street Tank Farm 7. Navy Fuel Depot, Berths 37-40 8. GATX, Berths 70-71 9. Supertanker Terminal, Berths 45-47 Facilities to Remain: 10. Wilmington Liquid Bulk Terminals, Berths 187-190 11. Golden Eagle Refining, Berths 163-164 12. Champlin Petroleum, Berths 163-164 13. GATX, Berths 171-173 14. Shell Oil, Berths 171-173 15. UNOCAL, Berths 148-151 16. L.A. Terminals, Berths 148-151