MARCH 9, 2015
SANTA MONICA, CALIF., /PRNEWSWIRE-USNEWSWIRE/
Exxon misrepresented its safety record at its Torrance
refinery to lawmakers at a public hearing at Torrance City Hall last week,
suggesting its February 18 explosion and fire was unique, and did not
acknowledge how extensively the blast damaged its ability to supply gasoline,
Consumer Watchdog said today.
"The fact is that ExxonMobil's Torrance facility has
had numerous accidents involving hydrocarbon fumes that ignited," said
Consumer Watchdog advocate Liza Tucker. "The company has paid more than $15
million in fines for violations of state and federal air standards at its Torrance
refinery and terminals since 2005, but these fines are just a cost of doing
business."
At the hearing, Torrance refinery manager Brian Ablett
maintained that, "There hasn't ever been another incident similar to this
at Exxon Mobil." According to media reports, the Torrance facility
had suffered or caused at least five accidents involving hydrocarbon fumes:
In 1979, a driver on Van Ness Avenue ignited refinery vapors
that drifted over and was killed by the fireball.
In 1984, superheated oil from a leaky pipe covered cars,
homes and clothing and 2,500 people filed damage reports.
In 1987 a petroleum gas line explosion tied to equipment
malfunctions touched off a blaze that took 150 firefighters to extinguish.
In 1994, a butane gas explosion touched off by a leak from a
disconnected pipe injured 28 people when safety measures were not followed.
In 1999, a broken pipeline spilled isobutane and modified
hydrogen fluoride, hospitalizing three workers.
"We have OSHA, which levies fines on behalf of
workers," said Tucker. "But refineries are never sanctioned for
endangering or hurting local residents—they always get a free pass. Until
criminal provisions are applied to refineries, and corporations and their
managers are held responsible for knowingly endangering workers and the public,
business as usual will continue."
At the hearing, Ablett maintained that a processing unit
called the Fluid Catalytic Cracker was shut down at the time of the explosion
and that the accident was centered in a filtration system called an Electrostatic
Precipitator, built to air regulators' specifications, that extracts
particulate matter and other byproducts. "It was particularly strange
there was an explosion," he told regulators.
In fact, refinery workers were repairing a damaged
compressor in the Fluid Catalytic Cracker while leaving the cracker partially
running, said Bob van der Valk, Senior Editor of the Bakken Oil Business
Journal. "They should have shut it down instead. They made an economic
decision, and it was the wrong one." Van der Valk said that hydrocarbon
fumes built up in a line leading to the Electrostatic Precipitator, which
caused the explosion.
According to van der Valk, a new problem in the crude unit
has completely shut down the refinery's ability to refine gasoline. "They
are out of the gasoline refining business for four to six months while they
repair the unit," he said.
"This sort of misrepresentation and omission of
information about safety, infrastructure, and the ability to supply gasoline is
why refinery managers should be required testify under oath," said Tucker.