Los Angeles Councilmember Tim McOsker hit the accelerator this week in his ongoing challenge to the Rancho LPG storage tank facility in San Pedro that critics have called “a ticking time bomb — despite city fire officials and the company itself saying the building complies with all safety regulations.
Los Angeles fire officials were among those who testified this week during a meeting of the City Council’s Trade, Travel and Tourism Committee, outlining the inspections the agency has regularly carried out at the San Pedro facility, 2110 N. Gaffey St.
But McOsker, a member of the committee, successfully urged his colleagues to unanimously reject the reports so that it could move more immediately to a hearing before the full City Council.
In April, McOsker introduced a motion calling for a study evaluating the cost and timeline for closing the butane and gas storage facility that has been operating since 1973. It was built by Petrolane Inc. of Long Beach.
The plant “is closing down,” McOsker pledged at one point during the committee meeting.
The Rancho LPG LLC Holdings Facility sits on private property with a long-term lease and has been subject to frequent inspections — all of which have found it in compliance with safety laws. The property includes two above-ground 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks and five above-ground 60,000-gallon horizontal storage tanks.
For more than two decades residents battled the facility, often with support from the area’s elected officials but with little resolution.
“Fifty-two years later it’s still sitting here,” said one of those residents who spoke at the meeting, Janet Schaaf-Gunter, of San Pedro Homeowners United
“This is not right,” she added. “It’s got to go.”
When McOsker, an attorney by profession, took office nearly two years ago, the tanks were among the issues he wanted to pursue.
In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Dec. 4, McOsker reiterated his intentions to see the facility shuttered or moved.
“My goal is to shut down the facility,” he said. “This matter has been the subject of at least a dozen motions in the past 12 years. There’s been a lot of effort put into trying to conform this use to its surrounding uses or to change this use to make it more compatible.
“I don’t want to give the impression this is an easy task,” McOsker added, “but I want to leave no stone unturned and want to look at every reasonable and lawful means to shut this facility down and make that land more compatible with the surrounding (residential) uses.”
But Plains All American Pipeline — Rancho LPG’s parent company — said in a statement that the facility is in compliance with the fire code and other current operating rules.
“Rancho LPG has safely operated for more than 40 years,” the company said, “with continued oversight from the City of Los Angeles, plus state and federal regulators.”
Ongoing Rancho LPG inspections, including emptying the tanks every three years, are conducted, fire officials said at the committee’s Tuesday, Dec. 3, meeting, adding that the facility is in compliance with the 2024 fire code.
McOsker remained skeptical, taking issue with the plant’s age, saying that the 1973 tanks were built with a 25-year lifespan in mind and, in case of an explosion, could take out homes and schools for miles around. The facility is also close to the Port of Los Angeles.
“We keep hearing this complies with the 2024 code,” McOsker said, “but I don’t know how that’s possible.”
“My guess is it’s impossible (to certify current safety) without a complete renovation of that facility,” McOsker also said during the meeting. “I’m not buying this, that they’re compliant with the 2024 fire code.”
L.A. City Fire Inspector Alvin Dong, from the department’s Certified Unified Program Agency program, told the committee there have been violations at the facility “over time,” but most of them were considered minor. Any issues, he added, must be corrected “immediately” or else the facility can be shut down.
The plant is currently in compliance, officials said.
An October 2024 Fire Department report advocated for recruiting “process safety engineers” and supporting legislative measures to enhance compliance enforcement of the facility.
“Inspections are very detailed,” Dong said at the meeting.
McOsker, though, said that separate minor issues could become a bigger cumulative problem that, in turn, could lead to a “catastrophic incident. He noted that hundreds of children plan at nearby soccer fields.
“How do you characterize ‘a very small number’ of violations?” McOsker said. “Where’s the tipping point?”
Related Articles
A small nonprofit in Long Beach wins some battles in the long war on plastics pollution
At all-girl campus in Van Nuys, the classrooms are made of shipping containers
Homeowner group fights proposed In-N-Out project, citing environmental impact
Can the demise of Joshua trees, feared by end of the century, be turned around?
How Los Angeles saved crucial wildlife habitat in the Santa Monica Mountains
McOsker still needs “very clear” details about those violations, the councilmember said Wednesday. McOsker said he hopes to get those details at the City Council level when Fire Department officials and others will be asked to testify.
As for the age of the facility, Dong said it is still in good condition.
“Although this was built 50 years ago, its materials are still almost as good as Day One,” he said. “(We have) housing built 50 years ago that never gets inspected and we still live in these houses. But these facilities, because they have hazardous materials, are inspected regularly and audited and I am confident this facility meets current standards.”
Rancho LPG’s parent company, in its statement, also said the facility has had multiple safety renovations since it took over the site 16 years ago.
“We have made numerous upgrades and safety enhancements since we purchased the site in 2008,” the statement said. “We remain committed to being a part of the community and to continued safe operations of Rancho LPG.”
McOsker, though, also raised questions directed to the Port of Los Angeles about the rail spur used for Rancho products.
He remained unconvinced that the facility, which also sits on an earthquake fault, is safe in its present location.
“It feels to me like we’re bending over backward to see this thing limping along forever,” he told the fire inspectors at the meeting. “I appreciate the discussion, but this thing is closing down.”
While the inspectors offered to bring back to the committee more information and answers to some of McOsker’s specific questions, the councilmember said he wanted “to move with haste” and instead opted to “skip (that) step” and end the committee’s pursuit by rejecting this week’s report and presentation and sending the matter directly on to the full City Council.
No date has been set for that agenda item, which McOsker has now requested. But when it is considered, McOsker said he knows his next steps.
“I’ll make amendments asking for more specific action on the council floor working with colleagues,” he said.