Category: General

Mayor Furey was a noteworthy absentee at the ExxonMobil Town Hall held shortly after the recent explosion. His stated reason for not being there was that he was in Sacramento and could not attend. Turns out, that justification may not hold water.

It can be tense in the anxious atmosphere existing in the aftermath of a significant public emergency like the ExxonMobil incident.  As state Senator Ben Hueso commented at a recent hearing, “People are very afraid, and with very good reason.” It is times like this that more than ever people need honest answers from their government leaders.  Resident Brad Commisso exemplified that need at a recent Council meeting as he stood to express his concern about the toxicity of the soot and ash that snowed upon his property.

In the midst of his remarks, he paused for a moment to inquire how many of the City officials had attended the ExxonMobil Town Hall meeting held a few days after the explosion.  Few raised their hands. As Commisso was expressing his displeasure at this absence of leadership from City Hall he was interrupted by Mayor Furey who explained, “First of all it was not our meeting, it was ExxonMobil’s meeting.” In reference to his own absence, the Mayor then went on to say, “I was in Sacramento that day so I couldn’t be there.“

The one glaring problem with the statement is that it does not appear to be wholly accurate.  Information obtained from the Southbay Workforce Investment Board (SBWIB) reflects that he was not actually in Sacramento at the time of the meeting as he had indicated.

Earlier in that same Council meeting, Mayor Furey had explained that he traveled to Sacramento to attend an executive meeting of the California Workforce Investment Board where a request from the cities of Torrance and Lomita to realign themselves with the local SBWIB was approved. The agenda for that meeting indicates it began at 10 am and was set to conclude by 12 pm.

Flight information obtained through SBWIB reflects that Mayor Furey returned to LAX from Sacramento shortly after the meeting on Southwest Airlines Flight 607. Records for that flight show that it left Sacramento at 1:12 pm (PST) and arrived to LAX at 2:25 pm.  The Town Hall meeting in question did not begin until 6:00 pm. If not in Sacramento as he had indicated, where was the Mayor during the Town Hall meeting? How come he did not attend?  And, much more importantly, why did he mislead the public about his whereabouts?

The lack of forthrightness by Mayor Furey on this issue is troubling as it undermines the faith people are putting in City Hall to provide them with honest answers. It begs the question that if he would mislead the public about his absence at the Town Hall, then how can we trust that he is not being deceptive about other important matters?

Perhaps there is good cause for this apparent discrepancy.  If so, I would welcome it. Barring such, however, it would appear that Furey’s absence at the Town Hall warrants further explanation.

If nothing else, the recent explosion at ExxonMobil offered a stark reminder about the dangers incidents at the local refinery pose to the community.  One of those risks, as reported by the Daily Breeze, is a “worst-case disaster scenario that could release 5,200 pounds of an extremely toxic vapor that could spread 3.2 miles and imperil more than a quarter of a million people.” That same article also reminded us of a 2012 accident at a California refinery in Richmond that sent 15,000 people to the hospital for treatment.

Considering the significant dangers posed, it is imperative that Torrance flawlessly execute emergency response measures put in place to ensure residents are as safe as possible in the event of an incident at the refinery. Unfortunately, if we learned anything from the recent explosion, it is that the emergency response was anything but flawless.  The City itself even acknowledged in a briefing held at the outset of a recent Council meeting that there were aspects of the Torrance Community Warning System “that needed to be modified.”  Those areas needing modification included the mass notification system, and the non-utilization of the refinery warning sirens and Crenshaw Blvd barrier system.

With regard to the mass notification system, several on the Council echoed complaints from the community that the calls did not show up on caller ID as coming from the City, and that the messages left were more akin to telemarketers and scammers than an emergency notification.  Even worse, others complained that they did not receive the calls altogether.  A close examination of key events from the emergency response timeline noted below reveals additional areas for improvement.

0851: Torrance Fire Department (TFD) dispatched to scene

0854: Hazardous Material 2nd Alarm activated (hazardous material alarm triggered when concerns exist with regard to spent catalyst, asbestos, radiological, heavy metals, or modified hydrofluoric acid)

0908: Incident Commander determines Shelter in Place not necessary for the schools

0911: At direction of Fire Chiefs a TFD employee attempts to access notification system but her access is limited to training only.  This results in Police Department having to send out public notifications on behalf of TFD for the duration of the emergency.   

0930: Shelter in Place notice sent to City employees via e-mail.  Message read in part, “There has been a major event at ExxonMobil causing soot and ash to fall.  General Services is shutting down air conditioning to City facilities.”

0952: Request all schools Shelter in Place

1014: Initial Shelter in Place notification sent to residents via phone

Given that a hazardous material alarm was triggered, why did the Incident Commander make the initial determination that a Shelter in Place was not necessary?  How come the individual that TFD relied upon to operate the mass notification system did not have full access to the system resulting in TFD having to solicit the Police Department to send out the notifications?

Why did it take 22 minutes after City employees were told to Shelter in Place to request the schools to do the same?  Why did it then take another twenty minutes after that to send out the first Shelter in Place phone calls to residents – a full 90 minutes after the event?

It is conceivable that in events such as this explosion that the difference between sheltering in place a few minutes after the event and a full 90 minutes later could be the difference between life and death for some. Bearing that in mind, what should be the expectation of the community in an event like this?  Was the emergency response acceptable with only a few minor errors?  Or, was the response so lacking in comparison to what it should have been that someone needs to be held accountable?  If it’s the latter, who can residents count on to hold the right people accountable?  Should we look to City government officials? How about State legislators?

State legislators, for their part, are concerned enough about what happened that they will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Thursday at Torrance City Hall to discuss the emergency response, the refinery’s safety record and the effect of the incident on the community.

Let’s hope they are coming to do more than just talk.  In the aftermath of such a significant event, the community needs more than political grandstanding.  We need answers and leaders that are courageous enough to take action.  We need to be assured that ExxonMobil is operating as safely as possible and that it is not endangering its employees and the surrounding community.  We also need to have our confidence restored that our local government emergency response is adequate, that the proper systems will be utilized to protect us, and that people will be held accountable if they fail in their responsibilities to keep the community safe.  Will we get all that?  I guess we’ll find out more tomorrow night.

According to the Daily Breeze, the City will hold a briefing at the outset of Tuesday’s City Council meeting with regard to the explosion that occurred at the ExxonMobil refinery last Wednesday.  This briefing follows a Town Hall meeting held Friday night by ExxonMobil in which many residents expressed displeasure about the lack of communication from ExxonMobil executives and the City in the immediate aftermath and days following the incident.  Several of the concerns raised at that meeting, and in other forums, need to be addressed Tuesday night.

The Emergency Operations Plan adopted by the City of Torrance outlines Torrance’s local alerting and warning systems.  According to that plan, Torrance has established the Torrance Community Warning System (TCWS) to communicate with affected residents in the case of an emergency.  Several elements comprise the TCWS including a Community Warning Siren System at ExxonMobil, a CityWatch telephone notification system, and a Crenshaw Boulevard Barrier System.

The Emergency Operations Plan states that the Community Warning Siren System “can be activated by either the Torrance Fire Department or refinery officials.”  In this instance, the sirens were not activated at all.  Many in the community are wondering why not.  At the Town Hall meeting, refinery officials claimed the responsibility for activating the system lied with the City of Torrance.

The CityWatch system was utilized to notify impacted residents to “shelter in place.”  The Daily Breeze reported, however, that those automated messages were not received by many until 90 minutes after the incident.   The Breeze also reported that “police closed Del Amo Boulevard along the south edge of the refinery, but did not close barriers installed on Crenshaw Boulevard, the closest road to the fluid catalytic cracking unit that was severely damaged in the Wednesday morning explosion.”

Why weren’t the sirens activated?  How come it took 90 minutes for the CityWatch telephone system to notify residents?  Why wasn’t the Crenshaw Barrier System utilized?  These are just a few of the questions with regard to the TCWS that should be addressed by the City Tuesday night.

Lingering questions also remain about the possible health impacts of the incident.  Representatives from ExxonMobil and the Torrance Fire Department have communicated that the ash-like substance that blanketed the City was non-toxic and posed nothing more than an irritant risk. Yet not many details were shared about how that conclusion was reached.  For example, how many tests were completed of the substance and who conducted the tests?  How were the samples obtained? And how many samples were tested?  What specific elements or chemicals were contained in the samples?  Was an independent test completed?

Other, perhaps more important, concerns also need to be addressed.  What was the root cause of the explosion?  And what corrective actions will the refinery undertake to ensure a similar incident does not occur again?

Thus far, Torrance City officials have been relatively silent on the incident.  The mayor and most of the Council, for example, were noticeably absent from the Town Hall meeting on Friday night.