CC SR 20190820 G - Rancho LPGRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/20/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to send a letter to U.S. Rep. Nanette Barragán and
other South Bay and Harbor Area elected officials supporting the relocation of liquid
bulk storage tanks near the public
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Rep. Barragán and other South Bay and Harbor
Area elected officials supporting the relocation of liquid bulk storage tanks near the
public
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. June 18, 2019 Border Issues staff report (page A-1)
B. Draft letter in support of relocating liquid bulk storage tanks (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Over the years, residents of San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have raised
longstanding concerns to the City Council about the potential for a catastrophic
explosion at the Rancho LPG facility on North Gaffey Street, which is less than a mile
from the City’s Eastview neighborhood. The complex in San Pedro consists of two,
12.5-million-gallon refrigerated tanks containing butane, as well as five smaller,
horizontal storage tanks that each hold 60,000 gallons of propane. Plains All American
Pipeline LLC, the facility’s parent company, has defended its safety record and
procedures.
At various times, the City has taken action in response to these concerns, sending
letters in 2011 and 2013 to local, state and federal lawmakers calling for safety
compliance reviews, more accessible public information, and raising questions about
1
jurisdictional authority and the facility’s insurance coverage. These inquiries are detailed
in the June 2019 Border Issues Status Report (Attachment A).
During a discussion of the report on June 18, the City Council considered supporting
H.R. 6489, a bill introduced in Congress in July 2018 by U.S. Rep. Nanette Barragán
(D-San Pedro), which would authorize the use of up to $500 million in federal grant
funding to cover half the cost of relocating LPG storage facilities that are within five
miles of populated areas, homes or schools.
After some discussion, the council decided instead to direct Staff to prepare a letter
more broadly supporting the relocation of Rancho LPG and other liquid bulk storage
tanks that are close to residents, without taking a stance on proposed funding. The
council also restated its opposition to a proposal from the Navy to resume storing
millions of barrels of combustible jet fuel in aboveground tanks at the nearby Defense
Fuel Support Point depot.
Staff has prepared a draft letter (Attachment B) and has reached out to Rep. Barragán’s
office about whether the legislation will be re-introduced in the 116th Congress. Rep.
Barragan’s office indicated staff is working on the effort, but has not said whether the bill
will be re-introduced.
Staff recommends that the council consider sending the letter as drafted or with
revisions.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter in support of relocating liquid bulk
storage tanks that are near the public
2. Take other action as deemed appropriate by the City Council
2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/18/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review the current status of Border Issues
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file the first biannual report on the status of Border Issues for 2019
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Cal Water handout showing traffic control on Crenshaw Boulevard (page
A-1)
B. Notice and City comments on the draft environmental assessment for the
proposed lease at Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (page B-1)
C. Los Angeles Councilman Joe Buscaino’s comments on the draft
environmental assessment for the proposed lease at Defense Fuel
Support Point San Pedro (page C-1)
D. January 2011 and June 2011 letters regarding Rancho LPG (page D-1)
E. June 2013 letters regarding Rancho LPG (page E -1)
F. Text of H.R. 6489 (p. F-1)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This biannual report includes:
An update on the Cal Water pipeline project in Rolling Hills Estates, the
unincorporated Westfield community and Rancho Palos Verdes
An update on the proposed 248-unit Butcher Solana apartment project at
Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Valmonte in Torrance
An update on the proposed leasing of the Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro
for commercial fueling operations
A-1
An update on issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage
facility in San Pedro
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
This is the first biannual report to the City Council on various “Border Issues” potentially
affecting residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for 2019. The full current status report is
available on the City’s website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/781/Border-Issues-Status-Report
Please note that, with the approval of changes to City Council Policy No. 34, the next
Border Issues Status Report is expected to appear on a City Council agenda in
December 2019.
Current Border Issues
Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, Rolling Hills Estates/Los Angeles
County/Rancho Palos Verdes
According to California Water Service, most of the pipeline installation in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project will be complete by the end of 2019, with
some additional work connecting the pipeline to the existing system continuing into
2020. Construction on the new pump station on Crenshaw Boulevard near Silver Spur
Road continues.
The next leg of the project is on Crenshaw Boulevard and is scheduled to begin at the
end of June or in early July in Rancho Palos Verdes. Crews will work in small segments
starting at Crest Road and moving toward the new pump station site north of Silve r Spur
Road, working from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays.
Construction from Crest Road to the pump station location is expected to last
approximately five months, but could change depending on unforeseen circumstances.
Preparatory work includes surveying and equipment staging and is expected to last
approximately two weeks before pipeline installation begins. The estimated duration for
all work on Crenshaw Boulevard (from Crest Road to the South Coast Botanic Garden)
is approximately seven months.
Crews plan to work in the following stages on Crenshaw Boulevard:
• Crest Road to Crestridge Road
• Crestridge Road to Indian Peak Road
• Indian Peak Road to Silver Spur Road
• The intersection of Silver Spur Road and Crenshaw Boulevard
• Silver Spur Road to the new pump station site
A-2
• Pump station site to Chadwick Lane
• Chadwick Lane to the South Coast Botanic Garden (Nightwork from 8 p.m. to 6
a.m.)
At least one lane of traffic will be open in each direction at all times and all lanes will be
open during non-work hours.
• From Crest Road to Silver Spur Road, the southbound lanes of Crenshaw
Boulevard will be shut down in stages and all traffic will be shifted across the
median to the northbound lanes, with one lane open in each direction.
• From Silver Spur Road to the pump station site, the northbound lanes of
Crenshaw Boulevard will be shut down and all traffic will be shifted across the
median to the southbound lanes, with one lane open in each direction.
• From the pump station to about 2,300 feet south of Palos Verdes Drive North, the
northbound lanes will be closed and all traffic will be shifted to the southbound
lanes, with one lane open in each direction.
• From that point to Palos Verdes Drive North, only one southbound lane will be
closed, with all northbound lanes open.
Cal Water has produced a handout showing what traffic control will look like along each
of these stages (see Attachment A).
Drivers are advised to expect traffic delays, drive slowly and with caution, and to take
alternate routes, such as Hawthorne Boulevard, when possible.
Please note that drivers traveling north on Crenshaw Boulevard during working hours
will be able to turn left at either Indian Peak Road or Silver Spur Road to head west,
meaning one of these roads will be accessible when work reaches this area.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports. For
additional information about the Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, visit
http://www.pvpwaterproject.com or call 310-257-1400.
Butcher Solana Residential Development Project (Torrance)
There has been no change in the status of this proposed 248 -unit apartment project at
Hawthorne Blvd. and Via Valmonte reported by the City of Torrance since the project’s
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period ended on September 18, 2017. The
draft EIR is still being prepared and should be released for public review and comment
this summer, according to the City of Torrance.
According to planning staff at the City of Torrance, because the project falls in that city’s
Hillside Overlay Area, the applicant is required to construct silhouettes showing the
structures’ visual impacts. Due to heightened interest, Torrance planning staff said the
silhouettes will be required to go up for a longer-than-usual period of at least 60 days
A-3
before the development’s first hearing at the Planning Commission, and that staff is
encouraging the applicant to construct them as soon as possible.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Additional information about the project is available on the City of Torrance’s website at
https://www.torranceca.gov/our-city/community-development/planning/butcher-solana.
Current Border Issues
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (Los Angeles (San Pedro))
On April 17, 2019, Staff received notice from the Navy of the release of a draft
environmental assessment (EA) of a proposal to renew fueling operations under a
commercial lease at Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro (DFSP), the sprawling,
inactive Navy fuel tank farm on North Gaffey Street (which borders the City on a stretch
of Western Avenue), and an 8-acre marine terminal about five miles southeast in the
Port of Long Beach.
The Navy deactivated DFSP in late 2015, filling its underground tanks with foamcrete
for permanent closure, and began exploring how the site could be used in the future.
The Navy determined DFSP is desirable for fueling needs for the growing Pacific Fleet.
According to the Navy, leasing the property to a commercial operator is optimal
because it would enable the Navy to use the site for fueling operations, but have the
lessee cover the costs of rehabilitation and maintenance of facilities.
The draft EA studied two alternatives: Alternative 1 proposed renewing fueling
operations for a mix of commercial and Navy use on 311 acres at the San Pedro site,
the marine terminal and about 14 miles of underground pipelines; and Alternative 2
proposed renewing operations at the marine terminal and pipelines only. A No Action
Alternative was also studied, but the Navy determined this would not meet its needs.
The analysis assumed a maximum of 30 million barrels of fuel a year being transported
for commercial and Navy use, noting the historical use by the Navy of 4 million to 12
million barrels per year. The assessment found that, with mitigation, there would be no
significant impacts across 13 resource areas. Development would be limited to
previously disturbed areas and biological resources that support sensitive species,
including the Palos Verdes blue butterfly population, would not be disturbed. Three
aboveground storage tanks near Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North could
be reactivated and additional facilities, including new tanks, could be constructed.
On May 16, Staff submitted a comment letter to the Navy raising serious concerns with
the proposal, including the unknowns of potential commercial uses and the construction
of new facilities at the San Pedro site, public safety hazards, increased traffic, and
biological and visual impacts (see Attachment B).
A-4
Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino, who represents the Harbor Area, sent a
letter to the Navy opposing reactivating the San Pedro site, saying multiple existing
liquid bulk facilities in the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are capable of
meeting the Navy’s needs (see Attachment C).
In response to requests from the community, the Navy extended the public comment
deadline for the draft EA from May 20 to June 3.
On May 29, Staff attended a meeting of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood
Council Community Issues Committee, where the panel heard an overview of the
proposal from Gregg Smith, a public affairs officer for Naval Weapons Station Seal
Beach. Smith took questions and clarified that the Navy would not collect rent from the
lessee, saying the arrangement would be for in-kind services (improvements and
maintenance). Smith also said that since announcing plans to potentially reactivate
DFSP, the Navy has been approached by several local oil industries that expressed
interest in the potential outlease.
The committee members raised various public safety concerns about renewing and
significantly increasing fueling operations at the depot site in San Pedro, given its
proximity to homes, populated areas, the nearby Rancho LPG storage tanks and the
Philips 66 oil refinery. Smith said that under Alternative 2, one possibility could be for a
nearby oil refinery with existing pipelines capable of connecting to the marine terminal to
enter an outlease, meaning, the use of the site near homes could be avoided.
The Navy granted the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council an extension to
submit comments on the draft EA after June 3 so they could be discussed at the
council’s next board meeting after the deadline. On June 10, the board voted
unanimously to send a letter opposing Alternative 1 over various environmental and
public safety concerns, expressing strong opposition to the construction of new storage
tanks, and calling for additional alternatives to be studied before making a decision on
Alternative 2.
According to the Navy, a final EA should be released by the end of the year. The Navy
would then put out a request for proposals and make a final decision on its next steps
soon after. Any potential development not studied in the EA would require additional
analysis.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
The Navy’s recent release of the draft EA of the proposed outlease of DFSP has
renewed community discussion about longstanding concerns with the nearby Rancho
LPG facility on North Gaffey Street in San Pedro, where 25 million gallons of butane are
stored in two aboveground tanks, and another five horizontal storage tanks each hold
60,000 gallons of propane.
A-5
In response to public comments, the Navy stated in its draft EA that both the Rancho
LPG facility and the nearby Philips 66 oil refinery were not studied because both are
outside the scope of the project.
At the May 21 City Council meeting, Mayor Duhovic requested a report on the City’s
actions with regard to concerns about Rancho LPG and the potential reactivation of
DFSP. Staff determined that both of these topics could be addressed in this Border
Issues Status Report. Updates on DFSP are detailed in the previous section.
For some background, over the years, residents of San Pedro, the Eastview area of
Rancho Palos Verdes and others have brought concerns to the City Council about
Rancho LPG, including the potential for a catastrophic explosion. Rancho LPG has
defended its safety record and procedures.
In November 2010, amid renewed dialogue about Rancho LPG following a natural gas
pipeline explosion in San Bruno and the release of a risk assessment of Rancho LPG
commissioned by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council, members of the
public asked the City Council to adopt a resolution expressing serious safety concerns
with the facility. Instead, the council opted to send letters to then-Los Angeles City
Councilwoman Janice Hahn, then-Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne Feinstein
calling for close monitoring, enforcement of regulations and the creation of a
clearinghouse for public information on the facility (see Attachment D). Rancho LPG
refuted the risk assessment and prepared its own, which had different findings.
In 2012, Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino introduced several motions and
held a public meeting seeking information from regulators on safety standards at liquid
bulk storage facilities in the Harbor Area.
In October of that year, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council heard a presentation
from Staff about the Rancho LPG site and asked a representative of the facility’s parent
company, Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., for a copy of its insurance coverage in
case of a catastrophic event. Rancho LPG later denied the request, stating the policies
were proprietary information, but that it had an “appropriate level” of insurance
coverage.
In March 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency issued Rancho LPG a Notification
of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act
based on inspections in 2010 and 2011. The City sent letters to Councilman Buscaino,
then-Rep. Janice Hahn and former Rep. Henry Waxman seeking assistance obtaining
information on the alleged violations and other concerns (see Attachment E).
Rancho LPG later reached a settlement agreement with the EPA to pay a $260,000
fine, but disputed the claims.
A-6
Then-Rep. Hahn, former Rep. Waxman and then-State Senator Ted Lieu wrote letters
calling for safety reviews of the Rancho LPG facility at the federal and state levels.
These inquiries were met with responses from regulatory agencies that the facility was
operating in compliance with laws and regulations.
In October 2014, the State Lands Commission (SLC) heard an informational item on
Rancho LPG and its use of a rail spur on Port of Los Angeles property, with staff
concluding that the commission did not have jurisdiction over either the facility or the rail
spur. One week before the meeting, the City Council considered sending a letter to the
SLC on this topic. Mayor Duhovic prepared a draft letter and, after some Council
discussion and revisions, read it into the record of the meeting. It was Staff's
understanding of the City Council motion that the letter read into the record would be
sent to Staff to then be routed to the council members for review, but if any council
member objected to sending the letter as proposed, the letter would not be sent to the
SLC unless it was presented to the council for formal review as an agendized item at a
subsequent, duly-noticed public meeting. An objection to the letter was raised by a
council member, so the letter was not sent.
In January 2016, the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners received a report
from its staff, which reiterated the position that the Port of Los Angeles has little to no
direct authority or jurisdiction over the operations of the Rancho LPG facility. That same
month, the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education passed a resolution
supporting the relocation of the Rancho LPG tanks.
At an SLC meeting in August 2017, the panel moved to formally seek the advice of the
State Attorney General on whether it has jurisdiction to take direct administrative action
over the Rancho LPG site or the rail spur.
At another meeting in February 2018, the SLC decided to make public a letter from the
Attorney General’s Office, which concluded that SLC staff was correct that it does not
have such jurisdiction.
In July 2018, Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-San Pedro) introduced legislation in the House
of Representatives that would authorize the use of up to $500 million in federal grant
funding to cover half the cost of relocating LPG storage facilities that are within five
miles of populated areas, homes or schools (see Attachment F). H.R. 6489 was last
referred to the House Subcommittee on Energy days later, but has not seen activity
since. Staff has reached out to Rep. Barragán’s office for an update on this strategy for
potential relocation.
Staff will continue to monitor this issue in future Border Issues Status Reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
A-7
East
v
a
l
e
R
d
Cart
e
s
i
a
n
C
i
r
Roe
s
s
l
e
r
C
t
Pas
c
a
l
P
l
Westvale RdRousseau Ln
Academy
Dr
Eastvale RdSunnyridge RdSunnyridge RdEastvale RdRainbow Ridge RdEastvale RdCanyon View Ln
Qui
n
l
i
n
D
r
Eastvale RdEastvale RdPal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
Pal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
Crensha
w BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCrenshaw Bl
v
d
Crenshaw BlvdCrenshaw
Bl
v
d
Rolling Hills UnitedMethodist Church
Rolling Hills Country Day School
PumpStation
Quality. Service. Value.
Work hours: 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Work hours: 9 a.m.- 7 p.m.
Work hours: 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Work hours: 8 p.m. - 6 a.m. Work hours: 8 p.m. - 6 a.m.
A-8
PumpStation
In
d
i
a
n
P
e
a
k
R
d
Crestridge Rd
Crensha
w
Bl
v
d
Crensh
a
w
B
l
v
d
Middlecrest Rd
Crestridge Rd
Crest RdCrest Rd
Sil
v
e
r
S
p
u
r
R
d
Quality. Service. Value.
Work hours: 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Work hours: 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Work hours: 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Work hours: 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.Work hours: 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.
A-9
Dear Sir or Madam:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SEAL BEACH
800 SEAL BEACH BOULEY ARD
SEAL BEACH, CA 90740-5000
JNimJ •I.\ JtJo:I'I·:U'n l
5090
Ser N45/0039
17 APR 2019
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR RENEWED FUELING OPERATIONS
AT DEFENSE FUEL SUPPORT POINT SAN PEDRO
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the U.S. Navy
has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential impacts of its
proposal to renew fueling operations for commercial and military purposes at Defense Fuel
Support Point San Pedro.
The Draft EA is available for public review and comment from April 19 , 2019, through May
20, 2019. The Navy is requesting public input on the adequacy and .accuracy of the
environmental analysis presented in the Draft EA. The Navy will be holding an open house
information session on Monday, May 6, 2019 and will be accepting public comments through
May 20,2019. Details are provided below.
Background
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro is comprised of two Special Areas: (1) the San Pedro
Fuel Depot (Main Terminal) and (2) the Long Beach Fuel Complex (Marine Tetminal including
Pier 12), both assigned to Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. Operation of Defense Fuel
Support Point San Pedro is currently the responsibility of the Defense Logistics Agency . As of
May 2014, the Defense Logistics Agency placed all fuel storage tanks at Defense Fuel Support
Point San Pedro in a temporary closure (or non -active) status, so the complex could be re -opened
or permanently closed depending on future mission requirements .
An EA was completed jointly by the Navy and the Defense Logistics Agency in February
2016 to analyze impacts that could potentially result from the complete or partial pennanent
closure of Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro as a Defense Logistics Agency-run facility. A
Finding ofNo Significant Impact was signed in February 2016 in conjunction with the decision
to move f01ward with a partial closure of the facility, and the Defense Logistics Agency began
the process of permanently closing all underground storage tanks on the Main Terminal. At the
same time, the Navy began the process of planning for the long-term utilization of Defense Fuel
Support Point San Pedro.
The Navy determined, based on its mission needs, an evaluation of the facilities, and of
regulatory, resource, and development considerations at Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro,
that potential options existed to allow for a lessee to use Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro
for commercial fueling operations under an outlease. A separate fuel purchase agreement would
be established with a private/commercial entity to support the Navy's fueling requirements at the
installation.
A-10
5090
Ser N45/0039
17 APR 2019
Proposed Action
The purpose of the Proposed Action is the reactivation and sustaimnent of the Defense Fuel
Support Point San Pedro facility to the maximum extent practicable for commercial fueling use,
with allowance for periodic and contingency fueling of Navy ships, in support of 10 United
States Code section 5062.
The need for the Proposed Action is to ensure the fullest possible use and maintenance of the
Navy's assets (e.g., the Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro Main and Marine Terminals and
associated pipelines) through the commercial use of facilities and infrastructure while
maintaining capability to meet periodic and contingency Navy fueling needs.
Environmental Assessment
The Draft EA includes an analysis of the potential enviromnental impacts of the Proposed
Action and alternatives petiaining to renewing fueling operations at Defense Fuel Support Point
San Pedro.
The Navy analyzed the potential enviromnental impacts the Proposed Action and alternatives
may have on the following resource areas: air quality; biological resources; environmental
justice; geological resources; hazardous materials and wastes; infrastructure; land use and coastal
resources; noise: public health and safety; socioeconomics; transportation; visual resources: and
water resources.
From October 10,2018, through November 13,2018, the Navy held a 35-day public seeping
period to receive public input that would help the Navy identify issues and resource areas for
analysis in the Draft EA. The Navy received 11 comment submittals, which were used in
development of the Draft EA.
NEP A Process
A 32-day public comment period will be open fi·om April19, 2019, through May 20,2019.
The Navy is holding an open house infom1ation session to inform the public about the Proposed
Action, answer questions, and receive public comments. Navy representatives will be available
at poster stations to provide information about the project and answer questions. The public may
an·ive at any time during the open house infom1ation session. An-iving by 7:30p.m. is suggested
to allow ample time to visit the poster stations. There will be no formal presentation.
The open house infonnation session will be held on Monday, May 6, 2019 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
at:
Peck Park Community Center
560 N. Western Ave.
San Pedro, CA 90732
2 A-11
5090
Ser N45/0039
17 APR2019
The Navy requests and welcomes your comments. Written comments may be submitted at the
open house information session, by email to nwssbpao@navy.mil, or via postal mail to:
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Attention: Code EV25.TB
937 N. Harbor Drive
Building 1, 3rd Floor (Environmental)
San Diego, CA 92132
Corrm1ents must be postmarked by Monday, May 20, 2019. All comments submitted by the
due date will be considered in preparation of the Final EA.
The Draft EA is available to review online at: www.cnic.navy.mil/SanPedroEA. and at several
libraries: San Pedro Regional, Peninsula Center, Bay Shore Branch, Miraleste Branch, and
Wilmington Branch.
For more information, please visit the project website at www.cnic.navy.mil/SanPedroEA or
contact the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Public Affairs Officer, Mr. Gregg Smith, at 562-
626-7215.
Enclosure: 1. Project Location Map
Sincerely,
;;;t~LKE
Captain, U.S. Navy
Commanding Officer
3 A-12
Enclosure 1: Project Location Map
Proposed Project Area at Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro
,----, Licensed Areas (Not Part of
L....-..1 Proposed Project Area)
Highways
r---, ~ ___ ~ City Boundary
4
Port of
Los Angeles
--Existing Long Beach Fuel Pipelines (JP-5, JP-8)
Existing A-Line
Fuel Pipeline
Existing G-Line
--Fuel Pipeline
Enclosure ( 1)
A-13
May16,2019
Via Email
nwssbpao@navy.mil
C ITY OF
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
ATTN: Code EV25.TB
937 N. Harbor Dr.
Bldg. 1, 3rd Fl. (Environmental)
San Diego, CA 92132
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Outlease of Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) San Pedro for
Commercial Fueling Operations
Dear Sir/Madam:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has reviewed the draft EA for the proposed outlease of
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro and wishes to express serious concerns with the
project, especially the potential for renewing and dramatically increasing fueling operations
at the main terminal.
We appreciate that the public review and comment period for the analysis went beyond 15
days, however, we do not believe one month and a single information session are sufficient
to thoroughly inform the public in the multiple jurisdictions that surround the project area.
After a careful review of the analysis, we have identified numerous areas of concern with
Alternative 1, including the unknowns of potential commercial uses and new facilities at the
main terminal, public safety hazards, increased traffic, biological and visual impacts. We
prefer Alternative 2, as it would keep the transportation of combustible fuels and a host of
potential hazards associated with fueling operations away from the schools, homes, ball
parks, and other populated areas around the main terminal.
The analysis does not offer a thorough explanation of how the Navy reached the conclusion
that commercial fueling operations are needed at the main terminal. It leaves more
questions than answers about what kind of lessee would operate the site, what new
facilities could be constructed, how many, or what they would look like. More specificity is
needed to meaningfully respond.
We question the wisdom of increasing the transport of combustible fuels from a historic high
of 12 million barrels per year to up to 30 million barrels, especialiy with regard to the main
terminal site, which sits on the Palos Verdes Fault Zone and a liquefaction zone. This surge
30940 HAW THORNE BLVD./ RANCHO PALOS VER DES , CA 90275 -539 1 A-14
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
May 16, 2019
Page 2
in activity inherently increases the risk of exposing the surrounding public to potential
hazards and harms, a population that will increase with the future addition of 676 homes in
the adjacent Highpark development. It is imperative that the Navy enforce the lessee's
compliance with all health and safety regulations during construction, rehabilitation and
operations.
Adding dozens of trips a day by 11 ,600-gallon tanker trucks to roadways will not only
worsen traffic and increase carbon emissions, but elevate the potential hazards associated
with transporting combustible fuels. The lessee must ensure the trucks do not make trips
during peak traffic hours and that personnel strictly follow all health and safety regulations .
We remain concerned about the visual impacts of the three above-ground storage tanks
near Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North, and without specifics about the
number and design of potential new facilities, including new storage tanks, we cannot
meaningfully understand their potential visual impacts.
We appreciate the document's attention and consideration to the sensitive biological
resources present on the main terminal site, which support the endangered Palos Verdes
blue butterfly population, however we believe this habitat should be expanded with the
increase in fueling operations.
For these and other reasons, we have serious concerns with Alternative 1 and its potential
impacts on the public, and prefer Alternative 2, which would limit fueling operations to the
Navy's marine terminal in the Port of Long Beach.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project and we hope the final
analysis will provide answers to the unknowns outlined in this letter.
Sincerely,
Doug Willmore
City Manager
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
Adrienne Mohan, Executive Director, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
A-15
May 15, 2019
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Southwest
Attention : Code EV25 .TB
937 N . Harbor Drive
Building 1, 3rd Floor (Environmental)
San Diego , CA 92 132
Dear Mr. Smith,
Joe Buscaino
Councilmember, 15th District
I am writing to express my opposition to the renewed fueling operations at Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) San
Ped ro .
I must side with local residents who attended your community presentation to hear about the draft and provide
feedback as required by NEPA. They have been absolutely clear in their strong opposition to the reopening of this
facility for any future petroleum storage use.
Because of technology advancements and stricter environmental laws , many neighboring petroleum storage and
processing facilities have closed -including this facility. My community celebrated the closure and cessation of
petroleum storage and pumping at this location because of the plausible inherent dangers of stored materials in close
proximity to residenti~l zones .
There are many sensitive receptors in the area including an elementary school 1000 feet from your fence line, a
community day school with 300 high school students 750 feet from your fence line, and several after-school
programs also in close proximity to the facility. This area is also home to the endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly.
Reactivating th is facility would also complicate an already very complex environmental clean up.
I understand the need for strategic access to fuel in time of war or conflict or strategic need to diversify fueling and
storage locations and operations . However, there are four refineries in this region with seven liqu id bulk petroleum
pumping stations in the Port of Los Angeles that can provide fuel to a wide range of military vessels . The Port of
Long Beach also has an additional five liquid bulk docks . The Navy 's Long Beach dock can be connected to any of
these petroleum facilities by a pipe as a contingency without the need to activate the San Pedro facility .
For these reasons , I would like to once again express my opposition to the proposal to renew fueling operations at
the DFSP San Pedro .
Please feel free to contact my Deputy Chief of Staff, Jacob Haik, at Jacob Haik@L ACjty org if you have any questions
or comments .
Sincerely,
JOE BUSCAINO
Councilmember, 15th District
CITY H AL L • 200 N .SP RING 5T REET • R OO M410 • L OS ANGELE S,CA90012 • (213 )473·7015 • L A 15TH .COM A-16
CITY OF
January 6, 2011
Councilwoman Janice Hahn , 151h District
City of Los Angeles
200 N. Spring St., Room 435
Los Angeles , CA 90012
RJ\NCHO PALOS VERDES
SUBJECT: City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Concerns regarding the Rancho LPG
Butane Storage Facility, 2110 North Gaffey Street, San Pedro
Dear Councilwoman Hahn:
As you may be aware, residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been
concerned for many years about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGas) butane storage
facility at North Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive . Recently , these concerns have
returned to the forefront , particularly in the aftermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline
failure in the Bay Area community of San Bruno in September 2010 .
We understand that plans were made several years ago for this facility to be re-located
to Pier 400 in the Port of Los Angeles-away from homes , schools and local business-
plans that (for some reason) have never come to fruition . The facility was approved for
this s ite more than thirty (30 ) years ago , at a time when less-rigorous environmental
review and public participation processes were in effect than is the case today .
Earlier this year, the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC)
commissioned a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG facility . The risk
assessment-released in September 201 a-identified a variety of possible accident
scenarios for the facility. These ranged from a relatively small, on -site mishap with
impacts mainly contained to the site, to a sudden , catastrophic failure of the butane
storage tanks with impacts extending for a 5-to 7-mile radius from the facility.
The facility's operator, Rancho LPG Holdings , LLC , has refuted the conclusions of the
NWSPNC risk assessment, and the assessment's authors have not (to the City's
knowledge) responded publicly to questions about how the risk assessment was
prepared or how its conclusions were reached . Although Rancho LPG has stated that it
intends to prepare its own risk assessment of the facility and to publicly release its
findings, there remain today many unanswered questions about the safety of this facility
for residents living nearby.
30940 HAWT HORNE BLVD I I.(ANCH O PALOS VERDES, CA 90275·5391 A-17
Councilwoman Janice Hahn
January 6, 2011
Page 2
Ideally, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents would like to see this facility
relocated to another site that does not pose such a significant "risk of upset" to
surrounding property and neighborhoods. Failing that, however, we wish to be assured
that the facility is operated as safely as possible, and in complete accordance the
regulations of all local, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over this site and
these types of facilities. To these ends , we respectfully request your assistance in the
fulfilling the following community objectives :
• Regularly monitor the Rancho LPG site and facility, and enforce (to the maximum
extent possible) the City of Los Angeles' land use regulations and the State 's
environmental review processes (i.e ., CEQA) with respect to the on-going
operation of the facility and any possible future proposals for its modification,
renovation and/or expansion; and,
• Provide to the general public a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for
the dissemination of information and the discussion of issues about the Rancho
LPG site and facility.
Our Planning Staff continues to monitor issues related to the Rancho LPG site and
facility, and to report these issues regularly to our City Council. We look forward to
working with you and the facility's owner/operator to ensure the future safety and
tranquility of our respective communities and residents.
Since~ely you~s ,
Thomas D. Long
Mayor
_./;_..----
)
/ / '-• -" -. ~·~
/
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr, City Manager /J~el Rojas, Co.mmunity Development Director ·J K1t Fox, Assoc1ate Planner
M :\Border lssues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility\20101221_Hahn_RanchoLPG .doc
A-18
CITY OF
THOMAS D. LONG, MAYOR
ANTHONY M. MISETICH, MAYOR PROTEM
BRIAN CAMPBELL, COUNCILMAN
DOUGLAS W. STERN, COUNCILMAN
STEFAN WOLOWICZ, COUNCILMAN
June 21, 2011
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SUBJECT: City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Concerns regarding the Rancho LPG
Butane Storage Facility, 2110 North Gaffey Street, San Pedro, California
Dear Senator Feinstein:
Residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been concerned for many years
about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGas) butane storage facility at North Gaffey Street
and Westmont Drive in San Pedro. Within the past year, these concerns returned to the
forefront, particularly in the aftermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline failure in the Bay
Area community of San Bruno in September 2010.
We understand that plans were made several years ago for this facility to be re-located to
the Port of Los Angeles-away from homes, schools and local business-plans that (for
some reason) have never come· to fruition. The facility was approved for its current site
more than thirty (30) years ago, at a time when less-rigorous environmental review and
public participation processes were in effect than is the case today.
In September 2010, the City of Los Angeles' Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
(NWSPNC) released a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG facility, prepared
by Cornerstone Technologies. The Cornerstone report identified a variety of possible
accident scenarios for the facility. These ranged from a relatively small, on-site mishap
with impacts mainly contained to the site, to a sudden, catastrophic failure of the butane
storage tanks with impacts extending for a 5-to 7-mile radius from the facility.
The facility's operator, Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC, immediately refuted the conclusions of
the Cornerstone report, whose authors have not (to the City's knowledge) responded
publicly to questions about how the risk assessment was prepared or how its conclusions
were reached. Rancho LPG subsequently commissioned its own risk assessment of the
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 I (310) 544-5205 I FAX (310) 544-5291 I WWW.PALOSVERDES.COMIRPV
' ~-PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A-19
Senator Dianne Feinstein
June 16, 2011
Page 2
facility, prepared by Quest Consultants. The findings of the Quest report, which were
publicly released in January 2011, concluded that the area potentially affected by the most
catastrophic events that could realistically occur at the Rancho LPG facility would be
several orders of magnitude less than the nearly 7 -mile radius affected under the most-
catastrophic scenario identified in the Cornerstone report. Despite this, there remain today
many unanswered questions about the safety of this facility for residents living nearby.
Ideally, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents would like to see this facility
relocated to another site that does not pose such a significant "risk of upset" to surrounding
property and neighborhoods. Failing that, however, we wish to be assured that the facility
is operated as safely as possible, and in complete accordance the regulations of all local,
State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over this site and these types of facilities.
To these ends, we respectfully request your assistance in the fulfilling the following
community objectives:
• Regularly monitor the Rancho LPG site and facility, and enforce (to the maximum
extent possible) any applicable Federal regulations and environmental review
processes (i.e., NEPA) with respect to the on-going operation of the facility and any
possible future proposals for its modification, renovation and/or expansion; and,
• Provide to the general public a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for the
dissemination of any information and the discussion of issues about the Rancho
LPG site and facility.
Our Planning Staff continues to monitor issues related to the Rancho LPG site and facility,
and to report these issues reguJarly to our City Council. We look forward to working with
you and the facility's owner/operator to ensure the future safety and tranquility of our
respective communities and residents.
Thomas
Mayor
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
Joel Rojas, Community Development Director
Kit Fox, Associate Planner
A-20
CITY OF
THOMAS D. LONG, MAYOR
ANTHONY M. MISETICH, MAYOR PROTEM
BRIAN CAMPBELL, COUNCILMAN
DOUGLAS W. STERN, COUNCILMAN
STEFAN WOLOWICZ, COUNCILMAN
June 21, 2011
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SUBJECT: City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Concerns regarding the Rancho LPG
Butane Storage Facility, 2110 North Gaffey Street, San Pedro,
California
Dear Senator Boxer:
Residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been concerned for many
years about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGas) butane storage facility at North
Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive in San Pedro. Within the past year, these concerns
returned to the forefront, particularly in the aftermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline
failure in the Bay Area community of San Bruno in September 2010.
We understand that plans were made several years ago for this facility to be re-located
to the Port of Los Angeles-away from homes, schools and local business-plans that
(for some reason) have never come to fruition. The facility was approved for its current
site more than thirty (30) years· ago, at a time when less-rigorous environmental review
and public participation processes were in effect than is the case today.
In September 2010, the City of Los Angeles' Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood
Council (NWSPNC) released a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG facility,
prepared by Cornerstone Technologies. The Cornerstone report identified a variety of
possible accident scenarios for the facility. These ranged from a relatively small, on-site
mishap with impacts mainly contained to the site, to a sudden, catastrophic failure of the
butane storage tanks with impacts extending for a 5-to ?-mile radius from the facility.
The facility's operator, Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC, immediately refuted the conclusions
of the Cornerstone report, whose authors have not (to the City's knowledge) responded
publicly to questions about how the risk assessment was prepared or how its
conclusions were reached. Rancho LPG subsequently commissioned its own risk
assessment of the facility, prepared by Quest Consultants. The findings of the Quest
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 I (310) 544-5205 I FAX (310) 544-5291 I WWW.PALOSVERDES.COMIRPV
. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A-21
Senator Barbara Boxer
June 16, 2011
Page2
report, which were publicly released in January 2011, concluded that the area
potentially affected by the most catastrophic events that could realistically occur at the
Rancho LPG facility would be several orders of magnitude less than the nearly 7 -mile
radius affected under the most-catastrophic scenario identified in the Cornerstone
report. Despite this, there remain today many unanswered questions about the safety
of this facility for residents living nearby.
Ideally, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents would like to see this facility
relocated to another site that does not pose such a significant "risk of upset" to
surrounding property and neighborhoods. Failing that, however, we wish to be assured
that the facility is operated as safely as possible, and in complete accordance the
regulations of all local, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over this site and
these types of facilities. To these ends, we respectfully request your assistance in the
fulfilling the following community objectives:
• Regularly monitor the Rancho LPG site and facility, and enforce (to the maximum
extent possible) any applicable Federal regulations and environmental review
processes (i.e., NEPA) with respect to the on-going operation of the facility and
any possible future proposals for its modification, renovation and/or expansion;
and,
• Provide to the general public a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for
the dissemination of any information and the discussion of issues about the
Rancho LPG site and facility.
Our Planning Staff continues to monitor issues related to the Rancho LPG site and
facility, and to report these issues regularly to our City Council. We look forward to
working with you and the facility's owner/operator to ensure the future safety and
tranquility of our respective communities and residents.
Thomas D. Long
Mayor
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
Joel Rojas, Community Development Director
Kit Fox, Associate Planner
A-22
SUSAN BROOKS, MAYOR
JERRY V OUHOVIC. MAYOR PROTEM
BRIAN CAMPBELL, COUNCILMAN
JIM KNIGHT, COUNCILMAN
ANTHONY M. MISETICH, COUNCILMAN
CITY OF
The Honorable Joe Buscaino
City of Los Angeles, 15th Council District
200 N. Spring St., Rm. 425
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
June 18, 2013
SUB .. IECT: Resolution of Issues Related to the Rancho LPG Facility, 2110 North
Gaffey Street, San Pedro, California
Dear Councilman Buscaino:
Since your election to the Los Angeles City Council in 2011, my City Council colleagues
and I have very much appreciated your leadership in addressing community concerns
about the Rancho LPG facility. As you know, the operation of this facility has potential
impacts upon residents in both of our cities. Our City Council receives regular updates
related to the facility from our Staff. However, there are several issues for which we
have sought (unsuccessfully) answers to our questions about the facility, and for which
we now turn to you for assistance.
Rancho LPG Insurance Information
At a public meeting before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in October 2012, a
representative of Rancho LPG expressed willingness to provide our City with
information about the insurance and liability coverage for the Rancho LPG facility.
However, in January 2013, Rancho LPG subsequently refused to provide this
information on the grounds that it was "proprietary information" (see enclosures). We
seek any assistance that you and the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office can provide in
obtaining copies of Rancho LPG's insurance information.
Chief Legislative Analyst's Recommendations
In February 2013, the Chief Legislative Analyst's (CLA) Office of the City of Los Angeles
released its report on "Safety Regulations and Precautions at Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(LPG) Facilities." After summarizing the legislative and regulatory background affecting
the Rancho LPG facility in its report, the CLA made two (2) recommendations:
1. Instruct the Fire Department to develop potential options for a community
outreach effort and preparedness exercise with City departments and
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS CA 90275-5391/ (310) 544-5205/ FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A-23
Councilman Joe Buscaino
June 18, 2013
Page2
stakeholders in the San Pedro area, including the facility operator, local
Neighborhood Councils, homeowner groups, and other community based
organizations.
2. Instruct the Fire Department and Department of Building and Safety, with the
assistance of the Chief Legislative Analyst, to report back with a list of
inspections conducted by non-City agencies at liquid bulk storage facilities that
would benefit City agencies by receiving automatic notification of inspection
deficiencies.
Recently,. we forwarded to your staff information about a possible grant funding
opportunity for emergency preparedness that might help to implement the CLA's
recommendations (see enclosure). We would appreciate an update on the status of the
implementation of the CLA's recommendations regarding the Rancho LPG facility.
Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement Action
In March 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a "Notification
of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of Section 112{r)(7) of the Clean Air Act" to
the Rancho LPG facility (see enclosure). This notice apparently stemmed from site
inspections conducted by the EPA in 2010 and 2011. The allegations against Rancho
LPG include:
• Failing to include the rail storage area of the site in its Risk Management Plan;
• Failing to adequately evaluate seismic impacts upon the facility's emergency
·Hare;
• Failing to address the consequences of a loss of City water for fire suppression
during an earthquake;
• Failing to conduct a timely internal inspection of Tank 1 (i.e., one of the 12%-
million-gallon butane storage tanks);
• Failing to develop an Emergency Response Plan to protect public health and the
environment; and,
• Failing to include a drain pipe and valve in the containment basin in the
Mechanical Integrity Program.
Rancho LPG was given until April15, 2013, to file responses to EPA's allegations. Our
Staff contacted the EPA on May 6, 2013, to inquire into the status of Rancho LPG's
response, but we have received no response to our inquiry from EPA. We seek your
assistance in getting an update from EPA in this matter.
A-24
Councilman Joe Buscaino
June 18, 2013
Page3
Again, I thank you for your continued leadership in addressing this issue affecting all of
our constituents. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact
Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox at (31 0) 544-5226 or kitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely yours,
~~
Susan M. Brooks
Mayor
enclosures
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager
Mayor Margaret Estrada and the Lomita City Council
Michael Rock, Lomita City Manager
Mayor James F. Goodhart and the Palos Verdes Estates City Council
Anton Dahlerbruch, Palos Verdes Estates City Manager
Mayor Frank E. Hill and the Rolling Hills City Council
Steve Burrell, Rolling Hills Interim City Manager
Mayor Frank V. Zerunyan and the Rolling Hills Estates City Council
Doug Prichard, Rolling Hills Estates City Manager
Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst
M:\Border lssues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility\20130618_Buscaino_RanchoLPG.doc
A-25
John H. Kyles
Senior Attorney
January 29, 2013
Carol W. Lynch, Esq.
RANCHO
LPG Holdings LLC
City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
c/o: Richards, Watson & Gershon
355 South Grand Avenue 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
RE: Rancho LPG Holdings LLC
San Pedro Terminal, 2110 North Gaffey, San Pedro, CA
Phone: (713) 993-5136
Fax: (713) 646-4216
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Information Request Response
(Plains File: L6686A)
Dear Ms. Lynch,
You and Mr. Kit Fox have inquired about the insurance coverage that Rancho LPG has in place in
case of a catastrophic event involving the storage tanks at Rancho's facility. After internal review,
Rancho LPG has concluded that the requested information is proprietary. Therefore, Rancho will not
make the insurance policies and their details available to the City.
However, Rancho LPG wants Rancho Palos Verdes City government to know that Rancho works
closely with its underwriters and has been advised that Rancho has an appropriate level of insurance
for a facility of this type.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kit Fox, AICP
Senior Admin Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho, Palos Verdes, CA
90275
Ron Conrow
Western District Manager
Plains LPG Services, LP
Shafter, CA
PAA: LAW_COM: 650204v1
Dan Johansen
San Pedro Terminal
211 0 North Gaffey,
San Pedro, CA 90731
Scott Sill
Managing Director, LPG Operations
1400, 607-8 Avenue SW
Calgary AB T2POA7
Han. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.
1891 N. Gaffey Street
Suite 221
San Pedro, CA 90731
A-26
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 1
FACT SHEET
CalEMA Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant
(HMEP)
Funding
Information
and
Application
Requirements
FAST
FACTS
1
Application
Deadline
Applications
are
due
to
California’s
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committees
(LEPCs)
approximately
July
15,
2013.
Check
with
your
LEPC
chair
to
confirm
their
internal
deadline
date.
LEPCs
contact
information
is
located
at
the
end
of
this
fact
sheet.
LEPCs
are
to
submit
applications
to
Cal
EMA
by
August
15,
2013.
2
Workshops
(if
any)
There
are
no
workshops
scheduled
at
this
time.
3
Eligible
Applicants
State
or
local
agencies
and
federally
recognized
tribal
governments.
Local
governments
are
defined
as,
"A
county,
municipality,
city,
town,
township,
local
public
authority
such
as
school
district,
special
district,
intrastate
district,
council
of
governments...any
other
regional
or
interstate
government
entity,
or
any
agency
or
instrumentality
of
a
local
government.”
4
Purpose
of
Program
For
public
sector
planning
and
training
in
support
of
the
emergency
planning
and
training
efforts
of
States,
Indian
tribes,
and
local
communities
to
deal
with
hazardous
materials
emergencies,
particularly
those
involving
transportation.
5
Success
Rate
Last
Year
2012:
11
applications
were
received
and
nine
were
funded.
Success
rate
was
82
percent.
2011:
15
applications
were
received
and
all
were
funded.
Success
rate
was
100
percent.
6
Authorizing
Resolution
Required?
Not
stated
as
required.
FUNDING
INFORMATION
7
Total
Funds
Available
Anticipated
funding
$738,380.
8
High,
Low,
Average
Grant
Last
Year
High:
$64,000;
Average:
$27,753;
Low:
$10,422
9
Maximum
Funding
Request
There
is
no
stated
maximum.
10
Local
Match
Required
20
percent
of
the
total
cost
of
the
approved
project
with
non-‐
Federal
funds.
11
Funding
Cycle
Annual
PROJECT
INFORMATION
12
Examples
of
Funded
Projects
• Corona
Fire
Department
–
Area
Plan
Update:
a
minimum
of
75%
of
the
HMEP
Planning
grant
allocation
is
made
available
to
the
LEPCs
for
allowable
projects
via
a
sub-‐grant
process
that
requires
the
LEPCs
to
approve
and
prioritize
all
applications
for
A-27
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 2
their
region.
$11,000.
• City
of
Lancaster
–
HazMat
Needs/Hazards
Assessment
and
Response
Exercise:
To
fund
a
Needs/Hazards
Assessment
of
the
existing
HazMat
transportation
conditions
in
the
City,
create
a
database
and
GIS
maps
to
document
existing
facilities
and
thoroughfares
that
use
or
transport
Hazardous
Materials,
and
share
the
data
with
the
existing
EOC
software
programs
and
all
first
responders.
This
data
would
also
be
used
to
design,
conduct,
and
evaluate
a
full-‐scale
exercise
that
evaluates
the
current
readiness
levels
of
the
EOC,
field
response
crews,
and
CERT
volunteers
to
determine
future
needs.
The
scenario
will
involve
a
tanker
truck
accident
and
resulting
spill.
Results
of
the
assessment
and
exercise
lessons
learned
will
directly
relate
to
an
intended
2013-‐14
application
to
fund
the
development
of
a
HazMat
Transportation
Emergency
Area
Plan.
$10,422.
• Trinity
County
-‐
Rural
HazMat
Decon
Team
Revitalization
Project:
Project
is
to
design
and
conduct
a
multi-‐jurisdictional,
multi-‐discipline
full-‐scale
HazMat
exercise
involving
a
transportation
element,
including
the
decontamination
of
ambulatory
and
non-‐ambulatory
victims
and
responders.
An
after-‐action
report
and
corrective
action
plan
will
support
future
updates
to
the
HazMat
Area
Plan.
Supplies
and
equipment
necessary
to
support
this
exercise
–
and
future
training,
exercises,
and
responses
–
include
Level
B
Chemical
Protective
Clothing,
ICS
ID
vests,
and
a
transport
trailer.
The
$10,880
being
requested
is
40%
of
the
identified
Total
Project
Costs
versus
the
allowable
80%.
This
project
will
deliver
long-‐
term
life
safety
benefits
to
responders
by
improving
timeliness
and
effectiveness
of
essential
victim
&
responder
decontamination
and
by
improving
coordination
between
local
and
regional
HazMat
response
resources.
$10,880.
13
Priorities
A
minimum
of
75%
of
the
HMEP
Planning
grant
allocation
is
made
available
to
the
LEPCs
for
allowable
projects
via
a
sub-‐grant
process
that
requires
the
LEPCs
to
approve
and
prioritize
all
applications
for
their
region.
14
Eligible
Project
Types
• Project
MUST
be
HazMat
and
Transportation
related.
• Development,
improvement,
and
implementation
of
emergency
plans
required
under
the
EPCRA.
• Enhancement
of
emergency
plans,
including
hazards
analysis,
and
response
procedures
for
emergencies
involving
transportation
of
hazardous
materials,
including
radioactive
materials.
• An
assessment
to
determine
the
flow
patterns
of
hazardous
materials
within
the
state,
between
states
or
Native
American
lands,
and
development
and
maintenance
of
a
system
to
keep
such
information
current.
• An
assessment
of
the
need
for
regional
hazardous
materials
A-28
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 3
emergency
response
teams.
• An
assessment
of
local
response
capabilities.
• HazMat
emergency
response
drills
and
exercises
to
test
capabilities
and
identify
gaps
in
training.
(Allowable
costs
include
planning
and
design,
participation,
evaluation,
and
after
action
review
costs.)
• Provision
of
technical
staff
to
support
the
planning
effort.
• Additional
activities
appropriate
to
implement
the
scope
of
work
for
the
proposed
project
plan
and
approved
in
the
grant.
(These
activities
must
be
approved
by
Cal
EMA
before
initiated.)
15
Ineligible
Activities
• Costs
incurred
outside
the
performance
period.
• Equipment
purchases
–
Some
equipment
necessary
for
the
completion
of
allowable
project
activities
may
be
approved
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis,
but
will
likely
be
funded
at
less
than
80
percent
of
the
total
cost.
• Overtime
wages
or
Call
Backs/Backfill
• Food
items
• Software
–
with
the
exception
of
CAMEO
• Weapons
of
Mass
Destruction
(WMD)
planning
or
exercise
activities
• All-‐hazards
or
fixed-‐facility
only
planning
or
exercise
activities
• Community
Emergency
Response
Team
(CERT),
Neighborhood
Watch,
and
other
community
planning
organization
activities
16
Project
Readiness
The
grant
performance
period
is
October
1
through
September
30.
HOW
TO
APPLY
17
Application
Requirements
• Application
Form
• Project
Narrative
(limited
to
two
pages)
• Designation
Statement
• Budget
Worksheet
and
Budget
Narrative
• Work
Schedule
and
Deliverables
Form
• Grant
Assurances
18
Submission
Requirements
Eligible
public
agencies
must
submit
their
planning
grant
applications
to
the
LEPCs
for
review,
prioritization,
and
approval.
HOW
APPLICATIONS
WILL
BE
SCORED
19
Evaluation
Criteria
and
Process
• Each
LEPC
is
responsible
for
evaluating,
approving
and
prioritizing
the
HMEP
Planning
sub-‐grant
applications
from
within
their
region.
• Once
Cal
EMA
receives
the
applications,
they
are
evaluated
to
determine
if
they
are
allowable,
reasonable,
and
allocable
to
the
HMEP
grant
program.
• Additionally,
the
project
is
evaluated
against
the
goals,
objectives,
and
planning
priorities
for
that
grant
cycle
and
whether
the
criteria
listed
on
the
application
forms’
instructions
have
been
met.
• Awards
are
expected
September
30,
2013.
A-29
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 4
WHO
TO
CONTACT
20
Agency
Cal
EMA
21
Contact
Name/Phone
Number
Neverley
Shoemake
at:
(916)
845-‐8765
or
neverley.shoemake@calema.ca.gov
22
Web
Site
http://www.calema.ca.gov/HazardousMaterials/Pages/HMEP-‐
Grant.aspx
A-30
LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE (LEPC) CHAIRS
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (CALEMA) STAFF
Planning: Neverley Shoemake (916) 845-8765; CSTI Training: Susan Kocher (805) 549-3534 or Annabelle Dixon (805) 549-3544
E-mail: neverley.shoemake@calema.ca.gov; susan.kocher@calema.ca.gov; Annabelle.dixon@calema.ca.gov
Chair CalEMA Staff
Region I
RANDY ALVA
Los Angeles County Fire Department
18239 W. Soledad Canyon Road
Canyon Country, CA 91351
Phone: (510) 238-7759
E-mail: aalva@fire.lacounty.gov
Region I
JERI SIEGEL
CalEMA, Southern Region
4671 Liberty Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-5158
Phone: (805) 473-3035; Fax. (805) 679-1996
E-mail: jeri.seigel@calema.ca.gov
Region II
DAVE DEARBORN
California Highway Patrol
1551 Benicia Road
Vallejo, CA 94591
Phone: (707) 373-7719
E-mail: ddearborn@chp.ca.gov
Region II
SANDRA MCKENZIE
CalEMA, Coastal Region
1300 Clay Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 286-6748; Fax. (510) 286-0853
E-mail: sandra.mckenzie@calema.ca.gov
Region III
WILLIAM FULLER
Yuba City Fire Department
824 Clark Avenue
Yuba City, CA 95991
Phone: (530) 822-4809; Fax. (530) 822-7561
E-mail: wfuller@yubacity.net
Region III
DEBORAH VERCAMMEN
CalEMA, Inland Region (North)
20645 Gas Point Rd.
Cottonwood, CA 96022
Phone: (530) 347-6494; Fax. (530) 347-6456
E-mail: deborah.vercammen@calema.ca.gov
Region IV
MICHAEL PARISSI
San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department
1868 East Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95205
Phone: (209) 953-6213; Fax: (209) 468-3433
E-mail: dave.johnston@edcgov.us
Region IV
DANA OWENS
CalEMA, Inland Region
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Phone: (916) 845-8482; Fax. (916) 845-8474
E-mail: dana.owens@calema.ca.gov
Region V
CRAIG PERKINS
Bakersfield Fire Department
2101 H Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 326-3684; Fax: (661) 852-2171
E-mail: ctperkins@bakersfieldfire.us
Region V
KEVIN NAGATA
CalEMA, Inland Region (South)
2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 181
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 445-6125; Fax. (559) 445-5987
E-mail: kevin.nagata@calema.ca.gov
Region VI
NICK VENT
County of San Diego
Hazardous Materials Division
P.O. Box 129261
San Diego, CA 92112-9261
Phone: (858) 505-6693; Fax. (858) 694-3705
E-mail: nick.vent@sdcounty.ca.gov
Region VI
JOANNE PHILLIPS
CalEMA, Southern Region
4050 Taylor Street, M5243
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 220-5369; Fax. (619) 278-3793
E-mail: joanne.phillips@calema.ca.gov
Revision date: 5/13/2013
A-31
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
Mr. Tony Puckett
Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC
2110 North Gaffey Street
San Pedro, California 90731
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
MAR 1 4 2013
CERTIFIED MAIL NO.:
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In Reply Refer to:
Rancho San Pedro Terminal, San Pedro, CA
RE: Notification of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the
Clean Air Act
Dear Mr. Puckett:
On April 14, 2010, and January 11, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") conducted inspections at the San Pedro Terminal ('the Facility') owned by Plains LPG
Services and operated by Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC (the "Companies") at 2110 North Gaffey
Street, in San Pedro, California. The purpose of the inspections and subsequent information
requests were to evaluate the Companies' compliance with the requirements under Section 112(r)
of the Clean Air Act ("CAA'').
Based upon the information obtained during our investigation, EPA is prepared to initiate
a civil administrative action against the Compa.nles to ensure compliance with federal law and
assess a penalty pursuant to Section 113 of the CAA, 42 U .S.C. § 7413. The anticipated
allegation includes violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), and its
implementing regulations.
Specifically, the anticipated allegations against the Companies include:
1. The Companies failed to identify and assess its rail storage area as a process
for inclusion in its Risk Management Plan (''RMP"). The rail storage area
should have been included as a covered process where a regulated substance
was present above a threshold quantity when it submitted an RMP. As a result,
the Companies failed to conduct a hazard assessment of that process, in
violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R.
§ 68.12(a) and (b).
A-32
2. The Companies failed to adequately evaluate potential seismic stresses on the
support structure for the emergency flare in accordance with design codes. As
a consequence, the Companies violated Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.P.R.§ 68.65(a) and(d)(2-3), which requires that the
owner or operator ensure that complete process safety information is compiled
on the technology of the process and that the equipment complies with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
3. The Companies did not appropriately address the consequences of a loss of the
city water system for fire suppression in the event of an earthquake. This
omission is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r),
and 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(4), which requires that the owner or operator address
the consequences of the failure of engineering and administrative controls in
the process hazard analysis.
4. The Companies failed to internally inspect Tank 1 according to a timetable set
forth in API Standard 653, in violation of Section 112(rX7) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2), which require that the owner or
operator ensure that inspection and testing procedures follow recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices.
5. The Facility's emergency response plan identified the facility as a responding
facility for which employees will take response action in the event of a release,
per 40 C.F.R. 68.90(a). However, the Facility's emergency response plan
developed under paragraph (a)( 1) of that part was not coordinated with the
community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003.
In addition, the Facility Manager and employees stated to EPA that they are
not emergency responders for the Facility, but are only authorized to take life
safety and evacuation actions. The Companies failed to develop and
implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting
public health and the environment, including at a minimum, procedures for
informing the public and emergency response agencies in the event of a
release. The Facility failed to clearly indicate to their own employees whether
they would be emergency responders or would evacuate. This is in violation of
Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.P.R.
§ 68.95(a)(l)(i), which requires an owner or operator to develop and
implement an emergency response program including a plan that shall be
maintained at the stationary source and contain procedures for informing the
public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases.
6. The Companies failed to ensure that the drain pipe located in the base of the
containment basin and the valve located near Gaffey Street were included in
the mechanical integrity program. This is in violation of Section 112(r)(7) of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d), which requires
inspection and testing procedures to follow recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices.
2 A-33
Before filing a Determination of Violation, Compliance Order and Notice of Right to
Request a Hearing ("Complaint"), EPA is extending to the Companies an opportunity to advise
EPA of any other information that the Companies believes should be considered before the .filing
of such a Complaint. Relevant information may include any evidence of reliance on compliance
assistance, additional compliance tasks performed subsequent to the inspection, or financial
factors bearing on the ability to pay a civil penalty.
Your response to this letter must be made by a letter, signed by a person or persons duly
authorized to represent the Companies. Please send any such response by certified mail, return
receipt requested, addressed to:
Ms. Mary Westing (SFD-9-3)
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Please provide such information by no later than Aprill5, 2013. EPA anticipates filing a
Complaint in this matter on or about ·May 15,2013, unless the Companies first advise EPA, with
supporting information, of substantial reasons not to proceed as planned. Any penalty proposed
for violation ofthe CAA will be calculated pursuant to EPA's "Final Combined Enforcement
Policy for the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(l), the General Duty Clause, and Clean All" Act
Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions," dated June
20, 2012, a copy of which is enclosed (the "Penalty Policy"). Civil penalties may be mitigated.
under the EPA "Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy,"1 which describes the terms under
which a commitment to perform an environmental project may mitigate, in part, a civil penalty.
Even if the Companies are unaware of any mitigating or exculpatory factors, EPA is extending to
the Companies the opportunity to commence settlement discussions concerning the above
described violations.
Additionally, to fully consider application ofthe Penalty Policy, EPA is additionally
requesting responses to specific questions set forth below. EPA makes this request for
information pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a). Failure to comply with the information request in
this letter may result in enforcement action being taken in accordance with Section 113 of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413. This may include civil and administrative penalties of up to $37,500 per
day of noncompliance, pursuant to section 113(b)(2) and 113(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 7413(b )(2) and 7413( d). Instructions regarding the requests also are set forth below.
Ill
1 httu ;//www. epa. f!ov/compl ian ce/resourceslpo liciesl c i vii/ sepslfn lsu p-hermn-mem. pdf. and
htro:// c fuub .epa. gov/com pi iance/ resources/policies/civil! seps/.
3 A-34
lfthere are any questions, please contact Mary Wesling of my staff at (415) 972-3080 or
Wesling.Mary@epa.gov. Please direct any questions or inquiries from legal counsel to Andrew
Helmlinger, EPA Counsel, at (415) 972-3904 or Helmlinger.Andrew@epa.gov.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Enclosures:
Daniel A. Meer, Assistant Director
Superfund Division
Final CAA § 112(r) Combined Enforcement Policy
cc Cw/enclosures):
T. Puckett, Plains LPG Services, LLC, Houston, TX
M. Wesling, U.S. EPA Region IX
A . Helmlinger, U.S. EPA Region IX
4 A-35
ENCLOSURE
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Please provide a separate response to each request, and identify each response by the number
. of the request to which it corresponds. For each document produced, identify the request to
which it is responsive.
2. Knowledge or information that has not been memorialized in any document, but is
nonetheless responsive to a request, must be provided in a narrative form.
3. The scope of this Information Request includes all information and documents obtained or
independently developed by the Companies, their attorneys, consultants or any of their
agents, consultants, or employees.
4. The Companies may not withhold any information from EPA on the grounds that it is
confidential business information. EPA has promulgated regulations, under 40 C.F .R. Part 2,
Subpart B, to protect confidential business information that it receives. The Companies may
assert a business confidentiality claim (in the manner specified in 40 C.F.R. § 2.203(b)) for
all or part of the information requested by EPA. However, business information is entitled to
confidential treatment only if it satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 C .F.R. § 2.208. EPA will
disclose business information entitled to confidential treatment only as authorized by 40
C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information at the
time EPA receives it, EPA may make it available to the public without further notice.
5. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.310(b), that EPA may disclose confidential
information provided by the Companies to EPA's authorized representatives, including its
contractor, Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC"). Confidential
information may be disclosed to EPA's authorized representatives for the following reasons:
to assist with document handling, inventory and indexing; to assist with document review
and analysis for verification of completeness; and to provide expert technical review of the
contents ofthe response. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.310(h), the Companies may submit, along
with its response to this Information Request, any comments regarding EPA's disclosure of
confidential information to its authorized representatives.
6. If information or documents not known or available to the Companies at the time of any
response to this Information Request later become known or available to it, it must
supplement its response to EPA. Moreover, should the Companies find at any time after the
submission of any response that any portion of the submitted information is false or
misrepresents the truth, the Companies must notify EPA as soon as possible and provide
EPA with a corrected response.
7. If information responsive to a request is not in the Companies' possession, custody, or
control, identify the persons or entities from whom such information may be obtained. For
each individual or entity that possesses responsive information, please provide the following:
name, last known or current address, telephone number, and affiliation with the Companies
or the Facility.
5 A-36
8. If you believe that there are grounds for withholding information or documents that are
responsive to this request, e.g., attorney-client privilege, you must identify the information or
documents and state the basis for withholding.
INFORMATION REQUEST
1. Provide cost information for the development and implementation of the Facility's RMP.
Disaggregate the RMP development costs by capital and one-time non-depreciable expenses.
Regarding implementation costs, provide actual or estimated incremental (above the
Facility's previously existing level-of-effort) annually recurring costs (e.g. Operation &
Maintenance).
2. Provide a statement and supporting documentation indicating the Companies' present net
worth.
6 A-37
SUSAN BROOKS, MAYOR
JERRY V. OUHOVIC, MAYOR PROTEM
BRIAN CAMPBELL, COUNCILMAN
JIM KNIGHT, COUNCILMAN
ANTHONY M. MISETICH, COUNCILMAN
CITY OF
The Honorable Janice Hahn
44th Congressional District of California
United States House of Representatives
400 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
June 18, 2013
SUBJECT: Resolution of Issues Related to the Rancho LPG Facility, 2110 North
Gaffey Street, San Pedro, California
Dear Congresswoman Hahn:
During your tenure on the Los Angeles City Council and in your current capacity
representing the 44th Congressional District of California, my City Council colleagues
and I have very much appreciated your leadership in addressing community concerns
about the Rancho LPG facility. As you know, the operation of this facility has potential
impacts upon residents in both the cities of the 44th District and residents on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula in the adjoining 33rd District. Our City Council receives regular
updates related to the facility from our Staff. However, there are several issues for
which we have sought (unsuccessfully) answers to our questions about the facility, and
for which we now turn to you for assistance.
Rancho LPG Insurance Information
At a public meeting before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in October 2012, a
representative of Rancho LPG expressed willingness to provide our City with
information about the insurance and liability coverage for the Rancho LPG facility.
However, in January 2013, Rancho LPG subsequently refused to provide this
information on the grounds that it was "proprietary information" (see enclosures). We
seek any assistance that you can provide in obtaining copies of Rancho LPG's
insurance information.
Chief Legislative Analyst's Recommendations
In February 2013, the Chief Legislative Analyst's (CLA) Office of the City of Los Angeles
released its report on "Safety Regulations and Precautions at Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(LPG) Facilities." The report was prepared in response to several motions by your
successor, 15th District Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino. After summarizing
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD/ RANCHO 11\LOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391/ (310) 544-5205/ FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A-38
Congresswoman Janice Hahn
June 18, 2013
Page2
the legislative and regulatory background affecting the Rancho LPG facility in its report,
the CLA made two (2) recommendations:
1. Instruct the Fire Department to develop potential options for a community
outreach effort and preparedness exercise with City departments and
stakeholders in the San Pedro area, including the facility operator, local
Neighborhood Councils, homeowner groups, and other community based
organizations.
2. Instruct the Fire Department and Department of Building and Safety, with the
assistance of the Chief Legislative Analyst, to report back with a list of
inspections conducted by non-City agencies at liquid bulk storage facilities that
would benefit City agencies by receiving automatic notification of inspection
deficiencies.
Recently, we forwarded to Councilman Buscaino's staff information about a possible
grant funding opportunity for emergency preparedness that might help to implement the
CLA's recommendations (see enclosure). We would appreciate any assistance that you
might offer to the City of Los Angeles in pursuing these grant funds to assist in the
implementation of the CLA's recommendations regarding the Rancho LPG facility.
Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement Action
In March 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a "Notification
of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act" to
the Rancho LPG facility (see enclosure). This notice apparently stemmed from site
inspections conducted by the EPA in 2010 and 2011. The allegations against Rancho
LPG include:
• Failing to include the rail storage area of the site in its Risk Management Plan;
• Failing to adequately evaluate seismic impacts upon the facility's emergency
flare;
• Failing to address the consequences of a loss ·of City water for fire suppression
during an earthquake;
• Failing to conduct a timely internal inspection of Tank 1 (i.e., one of the 12%-
million-gallon butane storage tanks);
• Failing to develop an Emergency Response Plan to protect public health and the
environment; and,
• Failing to include a drain pipe and valve in the containment basin in the
Mechanical Integrity Program.
A-39
Congresswoman Janice Hahn
June 18, 2013
Page 3
Rancho LPG was given until April 15, 2013, to file responses to EPA's allegations. Our
Staff contacted the EPA on May 6, 2013, to inquire into the status of Rancho LPG's
response, but we have received no response to our inquiry from EPA. We seek your
assistance in getting an update from EPA in this matter.
Again, I thank you for your continued leadership in addressing this issue affecting all of
our constituents. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact
Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox at (310) 544-5226 or kitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely yours,
c3~~
Susan M. Brook
Mayor
enclosures
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager
Mayor Margaret Estrada and the Lomita City Council
Michael Rock, Lomita City Manager
Mayor James F. Goodhart and the Palos Verdes Estates City Council
Anton Dahlerbruch, Palos Verdes Estates City Manager
Mayor Frank E. Hill and the Rolling Hills City Council
Steve Burrell, Rolling Hills Interim City Manager
Mayor Frank V. Zerunyan and the Rolling Hills Estates City Council
Doug Prichard, Rolling Hills Estates City Manager
Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst
M:\Border lssues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility\20130618_Hahn_RanchoLPG.doc
A-40
John H. Kyles
Senior Attorney
January 29, 2013
Carol W. Lynch, Esq.
RANCHO
LPG Holdings LLC
City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
c/o: Richards, Watson & Gershon
355 South Grand Avenue 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
RE: Rancho LPG Holdings LLC
San Pedro Terminal, 2110 North Gaffey, San Pedro, CA
Phone: (713) 993-5136
Fax: (713) 646-4216
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Information Request Response
(Plains File: L6686A)
Dear Ms. Lynch,
You and Mr. Kit Fox have inquired about the insurance coverage that Rancho LPG has in place in
case of a catastrophic event involving the storage tanks at Rancho's facility. After internal review,
Rancho LPG has concluded that the requested information is proprietary. Therefore, Rancho will not
make the insurance policies and their details available to the City.
However, Rancho LPG wants Rancho Palos Verdes City government to know that Rancho works
closely with its underwriters and has been advised that Rancho has an appropriate level of insurance
for a facility of this type.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kit Fox, AICP
Senior Admin Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho, Palos Verdes, CA
90275
Ron Conrow
Western District Manager
Plains LPG Services, LP
Shafter, CA
PAA: LAW_COM: 650204v1
Dan Johansen
San Pedro Terminal
211 0 North Gaffey,
San Pedro, CA 90731
Scott Sill
Managing Director, LPG Operations
1400, 607-8 Avenue SW
Calgary AB T2POA7
Han. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.
1891 N. Gaffey Street
Suite 221
San Pedro, CA 90731
A-41
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 1
FACT SHEET
CalEMA Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant
(HMEP)
Funding
Information
and
Application
Requirements
FAST
FACTS
1
Application
Deadline
Applications
are
due
to
California’s
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committees
(LEPCs)
approximately
July
15,
2013.
Check
with
your
LEPC
chair
to
confirm
their
internal
deadline
date.
LEPCs
contact
information
is
located
at
the
end
of
this
fact
sheet.
LEPCs
are
to
submit
applications
to
Cal
EMA
by
August
15,
2013.
2
Workshops
(if
any)
There
are
no
workshops
scheduled
at
this
time.
3
Eligible
Applicants
State
or
local
agencies
and
federally
recognized
tribal
governments.
Local
governments
are
defined
as,
"A
county,
municipality,
city,
town,
township,
local
public
authority
such
as
school
district,
special
district,
intrastate
district,
council
of
governments...any
other
regional
or
interstate
government
entity,
or
any
agency
or
instrumentality
of
a
local
government.”
4
Purpose
of
Program
For
public
sector
planning
and
training
in
support
of
the
emergency
planning
and
training
efforts
of
States,
Indian
tribes,
and
local
communities
to
deal
with
hazardous
materials
emergencies,
particularly
those
involving
transportation.
5
Success
Rate
Last
Year
2012:
11
applications
were
received
and
nine
were
funded.
Success
rate
was
82
percent.
2011:
15
applications
were
received
and
all
were
funded.
Success
rate
was
100
percent.
6
Authorizing
Resolution
Required?
Not
stated
as
required.
FUNDING
INFORMATION
7
Total
Funds
Available
Anticipated
funding
$738,380.
8
High,
Low,
Average
Grant
Last
Year
High:
$64,000;
Average:
$27,753;
Low:
$10,422
9
Maximum
Funding
Request
There
is
no
stated
maximum.
10
Local
Match
Required
20
percent
of
the
total
cost
of
the
approved
project
with
non-‐
Federal
funds.
11
Funding
Cycle
Annual
PROJECT
INFORMATION
12
Examples
of
Funded
Projects
• Corona
Fire
Department
–
Area
Plan
Update:
a
minimum
of
75%
of
the
HMEP
Planning
grant
allocation
is
made
available
to
the
LEPCs
for
allowable
projects
via
a
sub-‐grant
process
that
requires
the
LEPCs
to
approve
and
prioritize
all
applications
for
A-42
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 2
their
region.
$11,000.
• City
of
Lancaster
–
HazMat
Needs/Hazards
Assessment
and
Response
Exercise:
To
fund
a
Needs/Hazards
Assessment
of
the
existing
HazMat
transportation
conditions
in
the
City,
create
a
database
and
GIS
maps
to
document
existing
facilities
and
thoroughfares
that
use
or
transport
Hazardous
Materials,
and
share
the
data
with
the
existing
EOC
software
programs
and
all
first
responders.
This
data
would
also
be
used
to
design,
conduct,
and
evaluate
a
full-‐scale
exercise
that
evaluates
the
current
readiness
levels
of
the
EOC,
field
response
crews,
and
CERT
volunteers
to
determine
future
needs.
The
scenario
will
involve
a
tanker
truck
accident
and
resulting
spill.
Results
of
the
assessment
and
exercise
lessons
learned
will
directly
relate
to
an
intended
2013-‐14
application
to
fund
the
development
of
a
HazMat
Transportation
Emergency
Area
Plan.
$10,422.
• Trinity
County
-‐
Rural
HazMat
Decon
Team
Revitalization
Project:
Project
is
to
design
and
conduct
a
multi-‐jurisdictional,
multi-‐discipline
full-‐scale
HazMat
exercise
involving
a
transportation
element,
including
the
decontamination
of
ambulatory
and
non-‐ambulatory
victims
and
responders.
An
after-‐action
report
and
corrective
action
plan
will
support
future
updates
to
the
HazMat
Area
Plan.
Supplies
and
equipment
necessary
to
support
this
exercise
–
and
future
training,
exercises,
and
responses
–
include
Level
B
Chemical
Protective
Clothing,
ICS
ID
vests,
and
a
transport
trailer.
The
$10,880
being
requested
is
40%
of
the
identified
Total
Project
Costs
versus
the
allowable
80%.
This
project
will
deliver
long-‐
term
life
safety
benefits
to
responders
by
improving
timeliness
and
effectiveness
of
essential
victim
&
responder
decontamination
and
by
improving
coordination
between
local
and
regional
HazMat
response
resources.
$10,880.
13
Priorities
A
minimum
of
75%
of
the
HMEP
Planning
grant
allocation
is
made
available
to
the
LEPCs
for
allowable
projects
via
a
sub-‐grant
process
that
requires
the
LEPCs
to
approve
and
prioritize
all
applications
for
their
region.
14
Eligible
Project
Types
• Project
MUST
be
HazMat
and
Transportation
related.
• Development,
improvement,
and
implementation
of
emergency
plans
required
under
the
EPCRA.
• Enhancement
of
emergency
plans,
including
hazards
analysis,
and
response
procedures
for
emergencies
involving
transportation
of
hazardous
materials,
including
radioactive
materials.
• An
assessment
to
determine
the
flow
patterns
of
hazardous
materials
within
the
state,
between
states
or
Native
American
lands,
and
development
and
maintenance
of
a
system
to
keep
such
information
current.
• An
assessment
of
the
need
for
regional
hazardous
materials
A-43
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 3
emergency
response
teams.
• An
assessment
of
local
response
capabilities.
• HazMat
emergency
response
drills
and
exercises
to
test
capabilities
and
identify
gaps
in
training.
(Allowable
costs
include
planning
and
design,
participation,
evaluation,
and
after
action
review
costs.)
• Provision
of
technical
staff
to
support
the
planning
effort.
• Additional
activities
appropriate
to
implement
the
scope
of
work
for
the
proposed
project
plan
and
approved
in
the
grant.
(These
activities
must
be
approved
by
Cal
EMA
before
initiated.)
15
Ineligible
Activities
• Costs
incurred
outside
the
performance
period.
• Equipment
purchases
–
Some
equipment
necessary
for
the
completion
of
allowable
project
activities
may
be
approved
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis,
but
will
likely
be
funded
at
less
than
80
percent
of
the
total
cost.
• Overtime
wages
or
Call
Backs/Backfill
• Food
items
• Software
–
with
the
exception
of
CAMEO
• Weapons
of
Mass
Destruction
(WMD)
planning
or
exercise
activities
• All-‐hazards
or
fixed-‐facility
only
planning
or
exercise
activities
• Community
Emergency
Response
Team
(CERT),
Neighborhood
Watch,
and
other
community
planning
organization
activities
16
Project
Readiness
The
grant
performance
period
is
October
1
through
September
30.
HOW
TO
APPLY
17
Application
Requirements
• Application
Form
• Project
Narrative
(limited
to
two
pages)
• Designation
Statement
• Budget
Worksheet
and
Budget
Narrative
• Work
Schedule
and
Deliverables
Form
• Grant
Assurances
18
Submission
Requirements
Eligible
public
agencies
must
submit
their
planning
grant
applications
to
the
LEPCs
for
review,
prioritization,
and
approval.
HOW
APPLICATIONS
WILL
BE
SCORED
19
Evaluation
Criteria
and
Process
• Each
LEPC
is
responsible
for
evaluating,
approving
and
prioritizing
the
HMEP
Planning
sub-‐grant
applications
from
within
their
region.
• Once
Cal
EMA
receives
the
applications,
they
are
evaluated
to
determine
if
they
are
allowable,
reasonable,
and
allocable
to
the
HMEP
grant
program.
• Additionally,
the
project
is
evaluated
against
the
goals,
objectives,
and
planning
priorities
for
that
grant
cycle
and
whether
the
criteria
listed
on
the
application
forms’
instructions
have
been
met.
• Awards
are
expected
September
30,
2013.
A-44
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 4
WHO
TO
CONTACT
20
Agency
Cal
EMA
21
Contact
Name/Phone
Number
Neverley
Shoemake
at:
(916)
845-‐8765
or
neverley.shoemake@calema.ca.gov
22
Web
Site
http://www.calema.ca.gov/HazardousMaterials/Pages/HMEP-‐
Grant.aspx
A-45
LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE (LEPC) CHAIRS
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (CALEMA) STAFF
Planning: Neverley Shoemake (916) 845-8765; CSTI Training: Susan Kocher (805) 549-3534 or Annabelle Dixon (805) 549-3544
E-mail: neverley.shoemake@calema.ca.gov; susan.kocher@calema.ca.gov; Annabelle.dixon@calema.ca.gov
Chair CalEMA Staff
Region I
RANDY ALVA
Los Angeles County Fire Department
18239 W. Soledad Canyon Road
Canyon Country, CA 91351
Phone: (510) 238-7759
E-mail: aalva@fire.lacounty.gov
Region I
JERI SIEGEL
CalEMA, Southern Region
4671 Liberty Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-5158
Phone: (805) 473-3035; Fax. (805) 679-1996
E-mail: jeri.seigel@calema.ca.gov
Region II
DAVE DEARBORN
California Highway Patrol
1551 Benicia Road
Vallejo, CA 94591
Phone: (707) 373-7719
E-mail: ddearborn@chp.ca.gov
Region II
SANDRA MCKENZIE
CalEMA, Coastal Region
1300 Clay Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 286-6748; Fax. (510) 286-0853
E-mail: sandra.mckenzie@calema.ca.gov
Region III
WILLIAM FULLER
Yuba City Fire Department
824 Clark Avenue
Yuba City, CA 95991
Phone: (530) 822-4809; Fax. (530) 822-7561
E-mail: wfuller@yubacity.net
Region III
DEBORAH VERCAMMEN
CalEMA, Inland Region (North)
20645 Gas Point Rd.
Cottonwood, CA 96022
Phone: (530) 347-6494; Fax. (530) 347-6456
E-mail: deborah.vercammen@calema.ca.gov
Region IV
MICHAEL PARISSI
San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department
1868 East Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95205
Phone: (209) 953-6213; Fax: (209) 468-3433
E-mail: dave.johnston@edcgov.us
Region IV
DANA OWENS
CalEMA, Inland Region
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Phone: (916) 845-8482; Fax. (916) 845-8474
E-mail: dana.owens@calema.ca.gov
Region V
CRAIG PERKINS
Bakersfield Fire Department
2101 H Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 326-3684; Fax: (661) 852-2171
E-mail: ctperkins@bakersfieldfire.us
Region V
KEVIN NAGATA
CalEMA, Inland Region (South)
2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 181
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 445-6125; Fax. (559) 445-5987
E-mail: kevin.nagata@calema.ca.gov
Region VI
NICK VENT
County of San Diego
Hazardous Materials Division
P.O. Box 129261
San Diego, CA 92112-9261
Phone: (858) 505-6693; Fax. (858) 694-3705
E-mail: nick.vent@sdcounty.ca.gov
Region VI
JOANNE PHILLIPS
CalEMA, Southern Region
4050 Taylor Street, M5243
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 220-5369; Fax. (619) 278-3793
E-mail: joanne.phillips@calema.ca.gov
Revision date: 5/13/2013
A-46
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
Mr. Tony Puckett
Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC
2110 North Gaffey Street
San Pedro, California 90731
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
MAR 1 4 2013
CERTIFIED MAIL NO.:
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In Reply Refer to:
Rancho San Pedro Terminal, San Pedro, CA
RE: Notification of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the
Clean Air Act
Dear Mr. Puckett:
On April 14, 2010, and January 11, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") conducted inspections at the San Pedro Terminal ('the Facility') owned by Plains LPG
Services and operated by Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC (the "Companies") at 2110 North Gaffey
Street, in San Pedro, California. The purpose of the inspections and subsequent information
requests were to evaluate the Companies' compliance with the requirements under Section 112(r)
of the Clean Air Act ("CAA'').
Based upon the information obtained during our investigation, EPA is prepared to initiate
a civil administrative action against the Compa.nles to ensure compliance with federal law and
assess a penalty pursuant to Section 113 of the CAA, 42 U .S.C. § 7413. The anticipated
allegation includes violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), and its
implementing regulations.
Specifically, the anticipated allegations against the Companies include:
1. The Companies failed to identify and assess its rail storage area as a process
for inclusion in its Risk Management Plan (''RMP"). The rail storage area
should have been included as a covered process where a regulated substance
was present above a threshold quantity when it submitted an RMP. As a result,
the Companies failed to conduct a hazard assessment of that process, in
violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R.
§ 68.12(a) and (b).
A-47
2. The Companies failed to adequately evaluate potential seismic stresses on the
support structure for the emergency flare in accordance with design codes. As
a consequence, the Companies violated Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.P.R.§ 68.65(a) and(d)(2-3), which requires that the
owner or operator ensure that complete process safety information is compiled
on the technology of the process and that the equipment complies with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
3. The Companies did not appropriately address the consequences of a loss of the
city water system for fire suppression in the event of an earthquake. This
omission is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r),
and 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(4), which requires that the owner or operator address
the consequences of the failure of engineering and administrative controls in
the process hazard analysis.
4. The Companies failed to internally inspect Tank 1 according to a timetable set
forth in API Standard 653, in violation of Section 112(rX7) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2), which require that the owner or
operator ensure that inspection and testing procedures follow recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices.
5. The Facility's emergency response plan identified the facility as a responding
facility for which employees will take response action in the event of a release,
per 40 C.F.R. 68.90(a). However, the Facility's emergency response plan
developed under paragraph (a)( 1) of that part was not coordinated with the
community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003.
In addition, the Facility Manager and employees stated to EPA that they are
not emergency responders for the Facility, but are only authorized to take life
safety and evacuation actions. The Companies failed to develop and
implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting
public health and the environment, including at a minimum, procedures for
informing the public and emergency response agencies in the event of a
release. The Facility failed to clearly indicate to their own employees whether
they would be emergency responders or would evacuate. This is in violation of
Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.P.R.
§ 68.95(a)(l)(i), which requires an owner or operator to develop and
implement an emergency response program including a plan that shall be
maintained at the stationary source and contain procedures for informing the
public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases.
6. The Companies failed to ensure that the drain pipe located in the base of the
containment basin and the valve located near Gaffey Street were included in
the mechanical integrity program. This is in violation of Section 112(r)(7) of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d), which requires
inspection and testing procedures to follow recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices.
2 A-48
Before filing a Determination of Violation, Compliance Order and Notice of Right to
Request a Hearing ("Complaint"), EPA is extending to the Companies an opportunity to advise
EPA of any other information that the Companies believes should be considered before the .filing
of such a Complaint. Relevant information may include any evidence of reliance on compliance
assistance, additional compliance tasks performed subsequent to the inspection, or financial
factors bearing on the ability to pay a civil penalty.
Your response to this letter must be made by a letter, signed by a person or persons duly
authorized to represent the Companies. Please send any such response by certified mail, return
receipt requested, addressed to:
Ms. Mary Westing (SFD-9-3)
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Please provide such information by no later than Aprill5, 2013. EPA anticipates filing a
Complaint in this matter on or about ·May 15,2013, unless the Companies first advise EPA, with
supporting information, of substantial reasons not to proceed as planned. Any penalty proposed
for violation ofthe CAA will be calculated pursuant to EPA's "Final Combined Enforcement
Policy for the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(l), the General Duty Clause, and Clean All" Act
Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions," dated June
20, 2012, a copy of which is enclosed (the "Penalty Policy"). Civil penalties may be mitigated.
under the EPA "Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy,"1 which describes the terms under
which a commitment to perform an environmental project may mitigate, in part, a civil penalty.
Even if the Companies are unaware of any mitigating or exculpatory factors, EPA is extending to
the Companies the opportunity to commence settlement discussions concerning the above
described violations.
Additionally, to fully consider application ofthe Penalty Policy, EPA is additionally
requesting responses to specific questions set forth below. EPA makes this request for
information pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a). Failure to comply with the information request in
this letter may result in enforcement action being taken in accordance with Section 113 of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413. This may include civil and administrative penalties of up to $37,500 per
day of noncompliance, pursuant to section 113(b)(2) and 113(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 7413(b )(2) and 7413( d). Instructions regarding the requests also are set forth below.
Ill
1 httu ;//www. epa. f!ov/compl ian ce/resourceslpo liciesl c i vii/ sepslfn lsu p-hermn-mem. pdf. and
htro:// c fuub .epa. gov/com pi iance/ resources/policies/civil! seps/.
3 A-49
lfthere are any questions, please contact Mary Wesling of my staff at (415) 972-3080 or
Wesling.Mary@epa.gov. Please direct any questions or inquiries from legal counsel to Andrew
Helmlinger, EPA Counsel, at (415) 972-3904 or Helmlinger.Andrew@epa.gov.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Enclosures:
Daniel A. Meer, Assistant Director
Superfund Division
Final CAA § 112(r) Combined Enforcement Policy
cc Cw/enclosures):
T. Puckett, Plains LPG Services, LLC, Houston, TX
M. Wesling, U.S. EPA Region IX
A . Helmlinger, U.S. EPA Region IX
4 A-50
ENCLOSURE
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Please provide a separate response to each request, and identify each response by the number
. of the request to which it corresponds. For each document produced, identify the request to
which it is responsive.
2. Knowledge or information that has not been memorialized in any document, but is
nonetheless responsive to a request, must be provided in a narrative form.
3. The scope of this Information Request includes all information and documents obtained or
independently developed by the Companies, their attorneys, consultants or any of their
agents, consultants, or employees.
4. The Companies may not withhold any information from EPA on the grounds that it is
confidential business information. EPA has promulgated regulations, under 40 C.F .R. Part 2,
Subpart B, to protect confidential business information that it receives. The Companies may
assert a business confidentiality claim (in the manner specified in 40 C.F.R. § 2.203(b)) for
all or part of the information requested by EPA. However, business information is entitled to
confidential treatment only if it satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 C .F.R. § 2.208. EPA will
disclose business information entitled to confidential treatment only as authorized by 40
C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information at the
time EPA receives it, EPA may make it available to the public without further notice.
5. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.310(b), that EPA may disclose confidential
information provided by the Companies to EPA's authorized representatives, including its
contractor, Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC"). Confidential
information may be disclosed to EPA's authorized representatives for the following reasons:
to assist with document handling, inventory and indexing; to assist with document review
and analysis for verification of completeness; and to provide expert technical review of the
contents ofthe response. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.310(h), the Companies may submit, along
with its response to this Information Request, any comments regarding EPA's disclosure of
confidential information to its authorized representatives.
6. If information or documents not known or available to the Companies at the time of any
response to this Information Request later become known or available to it, it must
supplement its response to EPA. Moreover, should the Companies find at any time after the
submission of any response that any portion of the submitted information is false or
misrepresents the truth, the Companies must notify EPA as soon as possible and provide
EPA with a corrected response.
7. If information responsive to a request is not in the Companies' possession, custody, or
control, identify the persons or entities from whom such information may be obtained. For
each individual or entity that possesses responsive information, please provide the following:
name, last known or current address, telephone number, and affiliation with the Companies
or the Facility.
5 A-51
8. If you believe that there are grounds for withholding information or documents that are
responsive to this request, e.g., attorney-client privilege, you must identify the information or
documents and state the basis for withholding.
INFORMATION REQUEST
1. Provide cost information for the development and implementation of the Facility's RMP.
Disaggregate the RMP development costs by capital and one-time non-depreciable expenses.
Regarding implementation costs, provide actual or estimated incremental (above the
Facility's previously existing level-of-effort) annually recurring costs (e.g. Operation &
Maintenance).
2. Provide a statement and supporting documentation indicating the Companies' present net
worth.
6 A-52
CITY OF
SUSAN BROOI<S, MAYOR
JERRY V. OUHOVIC, MAYOR PROTEM
BRIAN COUNCILMAN
JIM I(NIGHT, COUNCILMAN
ANTHONY M. MISETICH, COUNCILMAN
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
33rd Congressional District of California
United States House of Representatives
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
June 18, 2013
SUBJECT: Resolution of Issues Related to the Rancho LPG Facility, 2110 North
Gaffey Street, San Pedro, California
Dear Congressman Waxman:
My City Council colleagues and I are pleased to welcome you as the U.S.
Congressional Representative for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the other cities
and communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. As you may be aware, an issue of
concern to many residents in this portion of the 33rd District is the Rancho LPG facility in
San Pedro, which stores and handles more than 25 million gallons of butane and
propane in a densely-populated area near the Port of Los Angeles. The operation of
this facility has potential impacts upon residents in both the cities of the 33rd District and
those in the adjoining 44th District. Our City Council receives regular updates related to
the facility from our Staff. However, there are several issues for which we have sought
(unsuccessfully) answers to our questions about the facility, and for which we now turn
to you for assistance.
Rancho LPG Insurance Information
At a public meeting before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in October 2012, a
representative of Rancho LPG expressed willingness to provide our City with
information about the insurance and liability coverage for the Rancho LPG facility.
However, in January 2013, Rancho LPG subsequently refused to provide this
information on the grounds that it was "proprietary information" (see enclosures). We
seek any assistance that you can provide in obtaining copies of Rancho LPG's
insurance information.
Chief Legislative Analyst's Recommendations
In February 2013, the Chief Legislative Analyst's (CLA) Office of the City of Los Angeles
released its report on "Safety Regulations and Precautions at Liquefied Petroleum Gas
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 I (310) 544-5205 I FAX (310) 544-5291/ WWW.PALOSVERDESCOMIRPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A-53
Congressman Henry A. Waxman
June 18, 2013
Page2
(LPG) Facilities." The report was prepared in response to several motions by 15th
District Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino. After summarizing the legislative
and regulatory background affecting the Rancho LPG facility in its report, the CLA made
two (2) recommendations:
1. Instruct the Fire Department to develop potential options for a community
outreach effort and preparedness exercise with City departments and
stakeholders in the San Pedro area, including the facility operator, local
Neighborhood Councils, homeowner groups, and other community based
organizations.
2. Instruct the Fire Department and Department of Building and Safety, with the
assistance of the Chief Legislative Analyst, to report back with a list of
inspections conducted by non-City agencies at liquid bulk storage facilities that
would benefit City agencies by receiving automatic notification of inspection
deficiencies.
Recently, we forwarded to Councilman Buscaino's staff information about a possible
grant funding opportunity for emergency preparedness that might help to implement the
CLA's recommendations (see enclosure). We would appreciate any assistance that you
might offer to the City of Los Angeles in pursuing these grant funds to assist in the
implementation of the CLA's recommendations regarding the Rancho LPG facility.
Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement Action
In March 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a "Notification
of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act" to
the Rancho LPG facility (see enclosure). This notice apparently stemmed from site
inspections conducted by the EPA in 2010 and 2011. The allegations against Rancho
LPG include:
• Failing to include the rail storage area of the site in its Risk Management Plan;
• Failing to adequately evaluate seismic impacts upon the facility's emergency
flare;
• Failing to address the consequences of a loss of City water for fire suppression
during an earthquake;
• Failing to conduct a timely internal inspection of Tank 1 (i.e., one of the 12%-
million-gallon butane storage tanks);
• Failing to develop an Emergency Response Plan to protect public health and the
environment; and,
• Failing to include a drain pipe and valve in the containment basin in the
Mechanical Integrity Program.
A-54
Congressman Henry A. Waxman
June 18, 2013
Page3
Rancho LPG was given until April 15, 2013, to file responses to EPA's allegations. Our
Staff contacted the EPA on May 6, 2013, to inquire into the status of Rancho LPG's
response, but we have received no response to our inquiry from EPA. We seek your
assistance in getting an update from EPA in this matter.
Again, I thank you for your leadership in addressing this issue affecting all of our
constituents. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact
Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox at (31 0) 544-5226 or kitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely yours,
~'/n~
Susan M. Brooks ·
Mayor
enclosures
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager
Mayor Margaret Estrada and the Lomita City Council
Michael Rock, Lomita City Manager
Mayor James F. Goodhart and the Palos Verdes Estates City Council
Anton Dahlerbruch, Palos Verdes Estates City Manager
Mayor Frank E. Hill and the Rolling Hills City Council
Steve Burrell, Rolling Hills Interim City Manager
Mayor Frank V. Zerunyan and the Rolling Hills Estates City Council
Doug Prichard, Rolling Hills Estates City Manager
Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst
M:\Border lssues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facillty\20130618_ Waxman_RanchoLPG.doc
A-55
John H. Kyles
Senior Attorney
January 29, 2013
Carol W. Lynch, Esq.
RANCHO
LPG Holdings LLC
City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
c/o: Richards, Watson & Gershon
355 South Grand Avenue 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
RE: Rancho LPG Holdings LLC
San Pedro Terminal, 2110 North Gaffey, San Pedro, CA
Phone: (713) 993-5136
Fax: (713) 646-4216
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Information Request Response
(Plains File: L6686A)
Dear Ms. Lynch,
You and Mr. Kit Fox have inquired about the insurance coverage that Rancho LPG has in place in
case of a catastrophic event involving the storage tanks at Rancho's facility. After internal review,
Rancho LPG has concluded that the requested information is proprietary. Therefore, Rancho will not
make the insurance policies and their details available to the City.
However, Rancho LPG wants Rancho Palos Verdes City government to know that Rancho works
closely with its underwriters and has been advised that Rancho has an appropriate level of insurance
for a facility of this type.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kit Fox, AICP
Senior Admin Analyst
City Manager's Office
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho, Palos Verdes, CA
90275
Ron Conrow
Western District Manager
Plains LPG Services, LP
Shafter, CA
PAA: LAW_COM: 650204v1
Dan Johansen
San Pedro Terminal
211 0 North Gaffey,
San Pedro, CA 90731
Scott Sill
Managing Director, LPG Operations
1400, 607-8 Avenue SW
Calgary AB T2POA7
Han. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.
1891 N. Gaffey Street
Suite 221
San Pedro, CA 90731
A-56
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 1
FACT SHEET
CalEMA Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant
(HMEP)
Funding
Information
and
Application
Requirements
FAST
FACTS
1
Application
Deadline
Applications
are
due
to
California’s
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committees
(LEPCs)
approximately
July
15,
2013.
Check
with
your
LEPC
chair
to
confirm
their
internal
deadline
date.
LEPCs
contact
information
is
located
at
the
end
of
this
fact
sheet.
LEPCs
are
to
submit
applications
to
Cal
EMA
by
August
15,
2013.
2
Workshops
(if
any)
There
are
no
workshops
scheduled
at
this
time.
3
Eligible
Applicants
State
or
local
agencies
and
federally
recognized
tribal
governments.
Local
governments
are
defined
as,
"A
county,
municipality,
city,
town,
township,
local
public
authority
such
as
school
district,
special
district,
intrastate
district,
council
of
governments...any
other
regional
or
interstate
government
entity,
or
any
agency
or
instrumentality
of
a
local
government.”
4
Purpose
of
Program
For
public
sector
planning
and
training
in
support
of
the
emergency
planning
and
training
efforts
of
States,
Indian
tribes,
and
local
communities
to
deal
with
hazardous
materials
emergencies,
particularly
those
involving
transportation.
5
Success
Rate
Last
Year
2012:
11
applications
were
received
and
nine
were
funded.
Success
rate
was
82
percent.
2011:
15
applications
were
received
and
all
were
funded.
Success
rate
was
100
percent.
6
Authorizing
Resolution
Required?
Not
stated
as
required.
FUNDING
INFORMATION
7
Total
Funds
Available
Anticipated
funding
$738,380.
8
High,
Low,
Average
Grant
Last
Year
High:
$64,000;
Average:
$27,753;
Low:
$10,422
9
Maximum
Funding
Request
There
is
no
stated
maximum.
10
Local
Match
Required
20
percent
of
the
total
cost
of
the
approved
project
with
non-‐
Federal
funds.
11
Funding
Cycle
Annual
PROJECT
INFORMATION
12
Examples
of
Funded
Projects
• Corona
Fire
Department
–
Area
Plan
Update:
a
minimum
of
75%
of
the
HMEP
Planning
grant
allocation
is
made
available
to
the
LEPCs
for
allowable
projects
via
a
sub-‐grant
process
that
requires
the
LEPCs
to
approve
and
prioritize
all
applications
for
A-57
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 2
their
region.
$11,000.
• City
of
Lancaster
–
HazMat
Needs/Hazards
Assessment
and
Response
Exercise:
To
fund
a
Needs/Hazards
Assessment
of
the
existing
HazMat
transportation
conditions
in
the
City,
create
a
database
and
GIS
maps
to
document
existing
facilities
and
thoroughfares
that
use
or
transport
Hazardous
Materials,
and
share
the
data
with
the
existing
EOC
software
programs
and
all
first
responders.
This
data
would
also
be
used
to
design,
conduct,
and
evaluate
a
full-‐scale
exercise
that
evaluates
the
current
readiness
levels
of
the
EOC,
field
response
crews,
and
CERT
volunteers
to
determine
future
needs.
The
scenario
will
involve
a
tanker
truck
accident
and
resulting
spill.
Results
of
the
assessment
and
exercise
lessons
learned
will
directly
relate
to
an
intended
2013-‐14
application
to
fund
the
development
of
a
HazMat
Transportation
Emergency
Area
Plan.
$10,422.
• Trinity
County
-‐
Rural
HazMat
Decon
Team
Revitalization
Project:
Project
is
to
design
and
conduct
a
multi-‐jurisdictional,
multi-‐discipline
full-‐scale
HazMat
exercise
involving
a
transportation
element,
including
the
decontamination
of
ambulatory
and
non-‐ambulatory
victims
and
responders.
An
after-‐action
report
and
corrective
action
plan
will
support
future
updates
to
the
HazMat
Area
Plan.
Supplies
and
equipment
necessary
to
support
this
exercise
–
and
future
training,
exercises,
and
responses
–
include
Level
B
Chemical
Protective
Clothing,
ICS
ID
vests,
and
a
transport
trailer.
The
$10,880
being
requested
is
40%
of
the
identified
Total
Project
Costs
versus
the
allowable
80%.
This
project
will
deliver
long-‐
term
life
safety
benefits
to
responders
by
improving
timeliness
and
effectiveness
of
essential
victim
&
responder
decontamination
and
by
improving
coordination
between
local
and
regional
HazMat
response
resources.
$10,880.
13
Priorities
A
minimum
of
75%
of
the
HMEP
Planning
grant
allocation
is
made
available
to
the
LEPCs
for
allowable
projects
via
a
sub-‐grant
process
that
requires
the
LEPCs
to
approve
and
prioritize
all
applications
for
their
region.
14
Eligible
Project
Types
• Project
MUST
be
HazMat
and
Transportation
related.
• Development,
improvement,
and
implementation
of
emergency
plans
required
under
the
EPCRA.
• Enhancement
of
emergency
plans,
including
hazards
analysis,
and
response
procedures
for
emergencies
involving
transportation
of
hazardous
materials,
including
radioactive
materials.
• An
assessment
to
determine
the
flow
patterns
of
hazardous
materials
within
the
state,
between
states
or
Native
American
lands,
and
development
and
maintenance
of
a
system
to
keep
such
information
current.
• An
assessment
of
the
need
for
regional
hazardous
materials
A-58
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 3
emergency
response
teams.
• An
assessment
of
local
response
capabilities.
• HazMat
emergency
response
drills
and
exercises
to
test
capabilities
and
identify
gaps
in
training.
(Allowable
costs
include
planning
and
design,
participation,
evaluation,
and
after
action
review
costs.)
• Provision
of
technical
staff
to
support
the
planning
effort.
• Additional
activities
appropriate
to
implement
the
scope
of
work
for
the
proposed
project
plan
and
approved
in
the
grant.
(These
activities
must
be
approved
by
Cal
EMA
before
initiated.)
15
Ineligible
Activities
• Costs
incurred
outside
the
performance
period.
• Equipment
purchases
–
Some
equipment
necessary
for
the
completion
of
allowable
project
activities
may
be
approved
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis,
but
will
likely
be
funded
at
less
than
80
percent
of
the
total
cost.
• Overtime
wages
or
Call
Backs/Backfill
• Food
items
• Software
–
with
the
exception
of
CAMEO
• Weapons
of
Mass
Destruction
(WMD)
planning
or
exercise
activities
• All-‐hazards
or
fixed-‐facility
only
planning
or
exercise
activities
• Community
Emergency
Response
Team
(CERT),
Neighborhood
Watch,
and
other
community
planning
organization
activities
16
Project
Readiness
The
grant
performance
period
is
October
1
through
September
30.
HOW
TO
APPLY
17
Application
Requirements
• Application
Form
• Project
Narrative
(limited
to
two
pages)
• Designation
Statement
• Budget
Worksheet
and
Budget
Narrative
• Work
Schedule
and
Deliverables
Form
• Grant
Assurances
18
Submission
Requirements
Eligible
public
agencies
must
submit
their
planning
grant
applications
to
the
LEPCs
for
review,
prioritization,
and
approval.
HOW
APPLICATIONS
WILL
BE
SCORED
19
Evaluation
Criteria
and
Process
• Each
LEPC
is
responsible
for
evaluating,
approving
and
prioritizing
the
HMEP
Planning
sub-‐grant
applications
from
within
their
region.
• Once
Cal
EMA
receives
the
applications,
they
are
evaluated
to
determine
if
they
are
allowable,
reasonable,
and
allocable
to
the
HMEP
grant
program.
• Additionally,
the
project
is
evaluated
against
the
goals,
objectives,
and
planning
priorities
for
that
grant
cycle
and
whether
the
criteria
listed
on
the
application
forms’
instructions
have
been
met.
• Awards
are
expected
September
30,
2013.
A-59
(949) 589-6338 u www.blaisassoc.com Page 4
WHO
TO
CONTACT
20
Agency
Cal
EMA
21
Contact
Name/Phone
Number
Neverley
Shoemake
at:
(916)
845-‐8765
or
neverley.shoemake@calema.ca.gov
22
Web
Site
http://www.calema.ca.gov/HazardousMaterials/Pages/HMEP-‐
Grant.aspx
A-60
LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE (LEPC) CHAIRS
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (CALEMA) STAFF
Planning: Neverley Shoemake (916) 845-8765; CSTI Training: Susan Kocher (805) 549-3534 or Annabelle Dixon (805) 549-3544
E-mail: neverley.shoemake@calema.ca.gov; susan.kocher@calema.ca.gov; Annabelle.dixon@calema.ca.gov
Chair CalEMA Staff
Region I
RANDY ALVA
Los Angeles County Fire Department
18239 W. Soledad Canyon Road
Canyon Country, CA 91351
Phone: (510) 238-7759
E-mail: aalva@fire.lacounty.gov
Region I
JERI SIEGEL
CalEMA, Southern Region
4671 Liberty Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-5158
Phone: (805) 473-3035; Fax. (805) 679-1996
E-mail: jeri.seigel@calema.ca.gov
Region II
DAVE DEARBORN
California Highway Patrol
1551 Benicia Road
Vallejo, CA 94591
Phone: (707) 373-7719
E-mail: ddearborn@chp.ca.gov
Region II
SANDRA MCKENZIE
CalEMA, Coastal Region
1300 Clay Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 286-6748; Fax. (510) 286-0853
E-mail: sandra.mckenzie@calema.ca.gov
Region III
WILLIAM FULLER
Yuba City Fire Department
824 Clark Avenue
Yuba City, CA 95991
Phone: (530) 822-4809; Fax. (530) 822-7561
E-mail: wfuller@yubacity.net
Region III
DEBORAH VERCAMMEN
CalEMA, Inland Region (North)
20645 Gas Point Rd.
Cottonwood, CA 96022
Phone: (530) 347-6494; Fax. (530) 347-6456
E-mail: deborah.vercammen@calema.ca.gov
Region IV
MICHAEL PARISSI
San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department
1868 East Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95205
Phone: (209) 953-6213; Fax: (209) 468-3433
E-mail: dave.johnston@edcgov.us
Region IV
DANA OWENS
CalEMA, Inland Region
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Phone: (916) 845-8482; Fax. (916) 845-8474
E-mail: dana.owens@calema.ca.gov
Region V
CRAIG PERKINS
Bakersfield Fire Department
2101 H Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 326-3684; Fax: (661) 852-2171
E-mail: ctperkins@bakersfieldfire.us
Region V
KEVIN NAGATA
CalEMA, Inland Region (South)
2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 181
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 445-6125; Fax. (559) 445-5987
E-mail: kevin.nagata@calema.ca.gov
Region VI
NICK VENT
County of San Diego
Hazardous Materials Division
P.O. Box 129261
San Diego, CA 92112-9261
Phone: (858) 505-6693; Fax. (858) 694-3705
E-mail: nick.vent@sdcounty.ca.gov
Region VI
JOANNE PHILLIPS
CalEMA, Southern Region
4050 Taylor Street, M5243
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 220-5369; Fax. (619) 278-3793
E-mail: joanne.phillips@calema.ca.gov
Revision date: 5/13/2013
A-61
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
Mr. Tony Puckett
Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC
2110 North Gaffey Street
San Pedro, California 90731
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
MAR 1 4 2013
CERTIFIED MAIL NO.:
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In Reply Refer to:
Rancho San Pedro Terminal, San Pedro, CA
RE: Notification of Potential Enforcement Action for Violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the
Clean Air Act
Dear Mr. Puckett:
On April 14, 2010, and January 11, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") conducted inspections at the San Pedro Terminal ('the Facility') owned by Plains LPG
Services and operated by Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC (the "Companies") at 2110 North Gaffey
Street, in San Pedro, California. The purpose of the inspections and subsequent information
requests were to evaluate the Companies' compliance with the requirements under Section 112(r)
of the Clean Air Act ("CAA'').
Based upon the information obtained during our investigation, EPA is prepared to initiate
a civil administrative action against the Compa.nles to ensure compliance with federal law and
assess a penalty pursuant to Section 113 of the CAA, 42 U .S.C. § 7413. The anticipated
allegation includes violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), and its
implementing regulations.
Specifically, the anticipated allegations against the Companies include:
1. The Companies failed to identify and assess its rail storage area as a process
for inclusion in its Risk Management Plan (''RMP"). The rail storage area
should have been included as a covered process where a regulated substance
was present above a threshold quantity when it submitted an RMP. As a result,
the Companies failed to conduct a hazard assessment of that process, in
violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R.
§ 68.12(a) and (b).
A-62
2. The Companies failed to adequately evaluate potential seismic stresses on the
support structure for the emergency flare in accordance with design codes. As
a consequence, the Companies violated Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.P.R.§ 68.65(a) and(d)(2-3), which requires that the
owner or operator ensure that complete process safety information is compiled
on the technology of the process and that the equipment complies with
recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
3. The Companies did not appropriately address the consequences of a loss of the
city water system for fire suppression in the event of an earthquake. This
omission is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r),
and 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(4), which requires that the owner or operator address
the consequences of the failure of engineering and administrative controls in
the process hazard analysis.
4. The Companies failed to internally inspect Tank 1 according to a timetable set
forth in API Standard 653, in violation of Section 112(rX7) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2), which require that the owner or
operator ensure that inspection and testing procedures follow recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices.
5. The Facility's emergency response plan identified the facility as a responding
facility for which employees will take response action in the event of a release,
per 40 C.F.R. 68.90(a). However, the Facility's emergency response plan
developed under paragraph (a)( 1) of that part was not coordinated with the
community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003.
In addition, the Facility Manager and employees stated to EPA that they are
not emergency responders for the Facility, but are only authorized to take life
safety and evacuation actions. The Companies failed to develop and
implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting
public health and the environment, including at a minimum, procedures for
informing the public and emergency response agencies in the event of a
release. The Facility failed to clearly indicate to their own employees whether
they would be emergency responders or would evacuate. This is in violation of
Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.P.R.
§ 68.95(a)(l)(i), which requires an owner or operator to develop and
implement an emergency response program including a plan that shall be
maintained at the stationary source and contain procedures for informing the
public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases.
6. The Companies failed to ensure that the drain pipe located in the base of the
containment basin and the valve located near Gaffey Street were included in
the mechanical integrity program. This is in violation of Section 112(r)(7) of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d), which requires
inspection and testing procedures to follow recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices.
2 A-63
Before filing a Determination of Violation, Compliance Order and Notice of Right to
Request a Hearing ("Complaint"), EPA is extending to the Companies an opportunity to advise
EPA of any other information that the Companies believes should be considered before the .filing
of such a Complaint. Relevant information may include any evidence of reliance on compliance
assistance, additional compliance tasks performed subsequent to the inspection, or financial
factors bearing on the ability to pay a civil penalty.
Your response to this letter must be made by a letter, signed by a person or persons duly
authorized to represent the Companies. Please send any such response by certified mail, return
receipt requested, addressed to:
Ms. Mary Westing (SFD-9-3)
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Please provide such information by no later than Aprill5, 2013. EPA anticipates filing a
Complaint in this matter on or about ·May 15,2013, unless the Companies first advise EPA, with
supporting information, of substantial reasons not to proceed as planned. Any penalty proposed
for violation ofthe CAA will be calculated pursuant to EPA's "Final Combined Enforcement
Policy for the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(l), the General Duty Clause, and Clean All" Act
Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions," dated June
20, 2012, a copy of which is enclosed (the "Penalty Policy"). Civil penalties may be mitigated.
under the EPA "Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy,"1 which describes the terms under
which a commitment to perform an environmental project may mitigate, in part, a civil penalty.
Even if the Companies are unaware of any mitigating or exculpatory factors, EPA is extending to
the Companies the opportunity to commence settlement discussions concerning the above
described violations.
Additionally, to fully consider application ofthe Penalty Policy, EPA is additionally
requesting responses to specific questions set forth below. EPA makes this request for
information pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a). Failure to comply with the information request in
this letter may result in enforcement action being taken in accordance with Section 113 of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413. This may include civil and administrative penalties of up to $37,500 per
day of noncompliance, pursuant to section 113(b)(2) and 113(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 7413(b )(2) and 7413( d). Instructions regarding the requests also are set forth below.
Ill
1 httu ;//www. epa. f!ov/compl ian ce/resourceslpo liciesl c i vii/ sepslfn lsu p-hermn-mem. pdf. and
htro:// c fuub .epa. gov/com pi iance/ resources/policies/civil! seps/.
3 A-64
lfthere are any questions, please contact Mary Wesling of my staff at (415) 972-3080 or
Wesling.Mary@epa.gov. Please direct any questions or inquiries from legal counsel to Andrew
Helmlinger, EPA Counsel, at (415) 972-3904 or Helmlinger.Andrew@epa.gov.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Enclosures:
Daniel A. Meer, Assistant Director
Superfund Division
Final CAA § 112(r) Combined Enforcement Policy
cc Cw/enclosures):
T. Puckett, Plains LPG Services, LLC, Houston, TX
M. Wesling, U.S. EPA Region IX
A . Helmlinger, U.S. EPA Region IX
4 A-65
ENCLOSURE
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Please provide a separate response to each request, and identify each response by the number
. of the request to which it corresponds. For each document produced, identify the request to
which it is responsive.
2. Knowledge or information that has not been memorialized in any document, but is
nonetheless responsive to a request, must be provided in a narrative form.
3. The scope of this Information Request includes all information and documents obtained or
independently developed by the Companies, their attorneys, consultants or any of their
agents, consultants, or employees.
4. The Companies may not withhold any information from EPA on the grounds that it is
confidential business information. EPA has promulgated regulations, under 40 C.F .R. Part 2,
Subpart B, to protect confidential business information that it receives. The Companies may
assert a business confidentiality claim (in the manner specified in 40 C.F.R. § 2.203(b)) for
all or part of the information requested by EPA. However, business information is entitled to
confidential treatment only if it satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 C .F.R. § 2.208. EPA will
disclose business information entitled to confidential treatment only as authorized by 40
C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information at the
time EPA receives it, EPA may make it available to the public without further notice.
5. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.310(b), that EPA may disclose confidential
information provided by the Companies to EPA's authorized representatives, including its
contractor, Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC"). Confidential
information may be disclosed to EPA's authorized representatives for the following reasons:
to assist with document handling, inventory and indexing; to assist with document review
and analysis for verification of completeness; and to provide expert technical review of the
contents ofthe response. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.310(h), the Companies may submit, along
with its response to this Information Request, any comments regarding EPA's disclosure of
confidential information to its authorized representatives.
6. If information or documents not known or available to the Companies at the time of any
response to this Information Request later become known or available to it, it must
supplement its response to EPA. Moreover, should the Companies find at any time after the
submission of any response that any portion of the submitted information is false or
misrepresents the truth, the Companies must notify EPA as soon as possible and provide
EPA with a corrected response.
7. If information responsive to a request is not in the Companies' possession, custody, or
control, identify the persons or entities from whom such information may be obtained. For
each individual or entity that possesses responsive information, please provide the following:
name, last known or current address, telephone number, and affiliation with the Companies
or the Facility.
5 A-66
8. If you believe that there are grounds for withholding information or documents that are
responsive to this request, e.g., attorney-client privilege, you must identify the information or
documents and state the basis for withholding.
INFORMATION REQUEST
1. Provide cost information for the development and implementation of the Facility's RMP.
Disaggregate the RMP development costs by capital and one-time non-depreciable expenses.
Regarding implementation costs, provide actual or estimated incremental (above the
Facility's previously existing level-of-effort) annually recurring costs (e.g. Operation &
Maintenance).
2. Provide a statement and supporting documentation indicating the Companies' present net
worth.
6 A-67
AllTHI<NTICAT·~ UB. GOVERNMENT
INFORMA.TION
GPO
I
115TH CONGRESS H R 6489 2 D SESSION • •
To direct the S ec retary of Transportation to establis h a grant program
for the r elocation of certain p etroleum storage facilities, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 24, 201 8
Ms. BARRAGAN introduced the foll owing bill; which was r eferred to the Com-
mittee on Trans portation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Com-
mittee on Energy and Commerce , for a period to b e subsequently det er-
mined by the Spe aker, in eac h case for consideration of s uch provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Transportation to es tablish a
grant program for the relocation of certain petroleum
storage facilities, and for other purposes.
1 B e it enacted by the S enate and Hous e of R epresenta-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled)
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ''Safe LPG Storage Act
5 of 2018".
6 SEC. 2. LPG STORAGE FACILITIES RELOCATION PROGRAM.
7 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-Not later than 90 days after
8 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Trans -
A-68
2
1 portation shall establish a program (in this section re-
2 ferred to as the "Program") under which the Secretary
3 may award grants to covered entities for the relocation
4 of qualifying LPG storage facilities.
5 (b) APPLICATIONS.-To be eligible for a grant under
6 the Program, a covered entity shall submit to the Sec-
7 retary an application at such time, in such form, and con-
S taining such information as the Secretary may require.
9 (c) GRANT UsEs.-Grant amounts awarded under
10 the Program may only be used for activities related to the
11 relocation of a qualifying LPG storage facility.
12 (d) CoNSIDERATIONS.-In selecting a covered entity
13 to receive a grant under the Program, the Secretary shall
14 consider the proximity of the applicable qualifying LPG
15 storage facility to-
16 (1) populated areas, homes, and schools; and
17 (2) communities that are disproportionally im-
18 pacted by environmental burdens.
19 (e) FEDERAL SHARE.-The Federal share of the cost
20 of an activity assisted with a grant awarded under the
21 Program may not exceed 50 percent.
22 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is
23 authorized to be appropriated $500,000,000 to carry out
24 the Program.
•HR 6489 IH A-69
3
1 (g) DEFINITIONS.-In this section, the following defi-
2 nitions apply:
3 (1) COVERED ENTITY.-The term "covered en-
4 tity" means-
5 (A) a State, local, or Tribal government
6 (including any political subdivision thereof);
7 (B) a special purpose district or public au-
8 thority, including a port authority;
9 (C) a group of entities described m sub-
10 paragraph (A) or (B); or
11 (D) an owner or operator of a qualifying
12 LPG storage facility.
13 (2) QUALIFYING LPG STORAGE FACILITY.-The
14 term "qualifying LPG storage facility" means a
15 land-based facility for the storage of liquefied petro-
16 leum gas that is located within 5 miles of a popu-
17 lated area, home, or school.
0
•HR 6489 IH A-70
August 20, 2019 Via Email
The Honorable Nanette Barragán
1030 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
SUBJECT: Support for Relocating Liquid Bulk Storage Tanks near the Public
Dear Rep. Barragán:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports efforts to relocate liquid bulk storage tanks
near homes and populated areas in the Harbor Area, including the Rancho LPG facility,
which stores 25 million gallons of butane less than a mile from the City’s Eastview
neighborhood.
Our City’s concerns with the potential hazards that come with storing high volumes of
combustible fuels near the public and a fault zone are well-documented, and they were
only strengthened by the recent magnitude 7.1 and 6.4 earthquakes in Ridgecrest that
rattled the Southland.
In addition to longstanding concerns with Rancho LPG, we are troubled by the Navy’s
proposal to reactivate and significantly increase fueling operations at the nearby
Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro.
It is clear that these types of facilities do not belong so close to communities, and that
local residents are subjected to significant exposure to potential hazards due to their
concentration in the Harbor Area.
We also recognize the challenges posed by jurisdictional limits in addressing these
concerns. That is why our City applauds your efforts to make relocation possible, and it
is our hope that this strategy gains momentum for the benefit of all our communities.
Sincerely,
B-1
Jerry V. Duhovic
Mayor
cc: Ted Lieu, U.S. Representative, 33rd Congressional District
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, California
Kamala Harris, U.S. Senator, California
Steven Bradford, Senator, 35th State Senate District
Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Patrick O’Donnell, Assembly Member, 70th Assembly District
Al Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Janice Hahn, L.A. County Supervisor, 4th District
Joe Buscaino, L.A. City Councilmember, 15th District
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United
B-2