Now a congresswoman is trying to put federal money behind that cause, arguing that “the risk is too great should an accident occur.”
“These tanks don’t belong in our backyards, and we can’t just continue to ignore their existence,” Barragán said in a statement announcing the bill.
Barragán said it was unclear how much it might cost to move the
With so little time left this year on the Congressional calendar, it’s unlikely the bill will gain much traction in the Republican-controlled House. Community activists and attorneys who have pushed to get rid of the
“It’s just a bill,” said
Whatever it costs to move the tanks, Patchett added, “it would be a drop in the bucket in comparison to the multibillion-dollar devastation that could occur.”
Debate has simmered for decades over the risks of the
State and local officials began to question its safety not long after it was built in the 1970s. A report from the
Residents fear that a gas leak triggered by a quake or terror attack could lead to fires and catastrophic explosions. One analysis, conducted eight years ago by a consulting firm hired by a
Rancho LPG Holdings has sharply disputed such predictions. At public hearings and on its website, the company has pointed to other analyses that estimate a disaster would damage a much smaller area, extending half a mile around the site or an even smaller radius of 700 feet.
The facility “has been inspected and audited approximately 71 times by city, state and federal regulatory agencies with outstanding results” since 2010, company representative
In the wake of a deadly pipeline explosion in
Since then, opponents have been stymied in their battle against the facility. A federal board turned down an effort by San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United to challenge its transportation of “hazardous materials” from the facility by rail. A state commission said it had no jurisdiction over the
Schaaf-Gunter said she was grateful that the federal bill was drawing fresh attention to the
Even if the bill is passed, Weiss added, “who’s going to come up with the other half?”
Buscaino said that if the federal government did provide half of the needed funding to move the
“The reality here is that the company is not going to be able to fully fund moving this facility…. Why wouldn’t we invest in trying to provide safety to the community?” Barragán asked.
It is unclear how many facilities across the country might be eligible for such funding, the congresswoman said. Under the proposed bill, the money could be granted to liquefied petroleum gas storage facilities within five miles of a home, school or populated area.
(c)2018 the Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.