L.A. councilwoman seeks review of San Pedro propane, butane tanks

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry, noting last year’s natural gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno, wants to review the safety of a giant propane and butane storage facility in San Pedro that has been controversial for decades.

The 40-year-old facility, which can store about 25 million gallons of liquefied petroleum gas, is one of the largest and oldest facilities of its type in the United States. Its two 80-foot-tall tanks are along North Gaffey Street about 1,000 feet from homes. Playing fields and shopping centers are even closer.

Though the owner, Rancho LPG Holdings, has done a risk analysis, Perry says an independent review is necessary and wants the council’s public safety committee to address concerns raised by residents groups in the harbor area.

The review, which Perry proposed at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, would require the Fire Department, the Emergency Management Department, the building department, and the city attorney’s office to prepare reports on the storage facility. The matter was referred to the public safety committee for consideration.

Although the San Pedro neighborhood is not in Perry’s district, she is running for mayor next year. The area has had no council representative since Janice Hahn was elected to Congress. A special election to fill the seat is scheduled for Nov. 8.

“Perry’s call for an independent analysis is an extremely critical factor in our effort to achieve a comprehensive study of the facility,” said Janet Schaaf-Gunter of San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners United.

Community activists have gathered a trove of historical and regulatory documents showing, among other things, that the city permitted the original owner to build the tanks under an industrial zoning dating to World War II.

Other city records and geological maps show the tanks are very close to the active Palos Verdes fault, in an area known for methane gas and unstable ground.

Much of the controversy has revolved around dramatically different predictions of the damage that a fire or explosion at the facility could cause. The company’s worst-case scenario states that the impact would extend no more than a few tenths of a mile, while other assessments say the damage radius could extend up to 6.8 miles.

dan.weikel@latimes.com