Torrance City Council – A Town Hall Style Conversation About Local Politics

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.

The Daily Breeze has recently come under fire from City officials in Carson and Lomita. Lomita City administration has apparently issued a “blackout” of the paper while Carson considered a resolution in favor of a city-wide boycott. Recent revelations indicate that Torrance Mayor Furey has also been boycotting the Breeze even though, as far as I’m aware, he has not made public his specific grievances with the local paper.

With regard to some of those complaints, I was just yesterday provided a copy of a letter from the Lomita City Manager to an editor at the Daily Breeze.  I was told the letter revealed “gross negligence” on the part of reporter Nick Green and the DB. That letter, if taken at face-value, does raise significant concerns as it offers seven specific complaints pertaining to the reporting of Nick Green.  A deeper look at the allegations, however, reveals they have very little merit.

1^st Complaint: Daily Breeze “keeps reporting that our bond rating was reduced”

Nick stated in the article in question that, “Since then the city has attempted to blend well water with imported water to improve its quality, its bond rating has taken a hit and residents have received hefty water rate increases to cover the bills.”

According to multiple sources, including this one, that can be easily obtained through a google search Nick’s statement is factually true as Lomita’s bond rating was indeed downgraded.

2^nd Complaint: Nick “keeps using the word bleach in his articles despite many attempts to educate him on the fact that we do not use bleach

Nick did use the word bleach in the article, but it was always in the context of a quote someone had provided to him.  For example, he quoted a resident who complained the water smelled like bleach. He also quoted the Lomita Assistant City Manager Sugano who said, “the issue should subside soon because workers had reverted back to their former method of adding bleach to the treatment plant.”

Whether Nick misquoted the Assistant City Manager is hard to say with absolute certainty, but it’s worth noting that the distinction between bleach and chlorine (which the City does use to treat its water) is a subtle one.  For more information,  I suggest this article.

3^rd Complaint: Nick claims that “residents have received hefty water rate increases to cover the bills”

The letter from the City Manager states, “despite Nick’s assertion that residential water rates have increased dramatically the fact is the blended water has saved the rate payers from steeper rate increases.”

So in essence, the City Manager is not disputing that the water rates have increased dramatically, his complaint is really that Nick isn’t giving the City enough credit for supposedly saving the residents from even steeper increases. So again, Nick’s statement was factually correct.

It should also be noted that according to this article Lomita recently proposed yet another rate increase that would cause water rates to increase 60% over the next several years.  This is on top of the 40% increase they have already had over the past few years.

4^th Complaint: City did not stop flushing the hydrant by Phil Bucy’s house because the Daily Breeze sent the City a YouTube video of Mr. Bucy filming the flushing of a hydrant.

The City Manager here is a referring to an article in which Mr. Bucy claimed that a hydrant was flushing out water into the drainage system daily for 15 minutes at a time. Mr. Bucy thought this was an incredible waste of water given that we are in a drought.

In the article, Nick writes that “City workers removed the device shortly after the Daily Breeze emailed them a copy of the YouTube video Bucy had made showing the gurgling water emanating from the device at the end of the main”.

Nick’s statement does not say the City stopped the flushing because of the YouTube video. He only relates the factual statement that the device causing the flushing was removed after the YouTube video was sent. Again, the City Manager does not dispute the veracity of the actual statement.

5^th Complaint: “Nick also told me that he took information from a Facebook chat room to write this article”

The relevant portion of Nick’s article stated, “Resident Cheryl Slayden Martin, wrote Tuesday on a Facebook page devoted to Lomita that the main areas affected appear to be north of Pacific Coast Highway and south of Sepulveda Boulevard between Western Avenue and Cypress Street.”

Nick clearly identified that the Facebook group was the source of the information so I don’t know how you can fault him for that.

6^th Complaint: Nick wrote that the City began operating the treatment plant four years ago. That is not accurate. He knows full well that the well and treatment system was on-line for only two months in late 2010

Nick’s article stated that, “Operation of the multimillion dollar well and water treatment plant has caused the city repeated water quality and fiscal problems since it began operating in 2010. The city was forced to shut down the plant days after it began operating because of water quality complaints.”

Again, Nick’s statement is accurate. The plant did begin operating in 2010 and Nick even acknowledged that the plant was shut down shortly after it began operating.

7^th Complaint: Nick fails to present both sides

I just don’t see how this is a valid statement given that Nick provided several quotes from the Lomita Assistant City Manager in the article.

The City Manager concludes his letter by stating, “Shame on the Daily Breeze for letting down the community of Lomita and the entire South Bay and for not taking seriously the tremendous responsibility you have to your readers to present information in an unbiased and responsible way so that the community can make informed decisions based on facts and information instead of fear.”

To that I would say, shame on you Lomita City Manager for attacking the Daily Breeze with unsubstantiated claims instead of addressing the underlying facts detailed in the reporting that present very real concerns and challenges that residents in your City are facing.

To all those that would continue to bash the Daily Breeze based on the unproven concerns of local City officials, I would ask that you place yourselves in the shoes of those citizens of Lomita. What if you faced a water bill that was doubling and yet still had discolored water coming through your pipes that smelled and caused your skin to burn while in the shower? What if you went to the local press and they told you, I’m sorry we can’t report on that because we are afraid it might upset the Mayor or the City Manager and we only report on stories that would portray the City governing officials in a positive light? Is that the type of press we want in the South Bay – one that cowers and caters to the powers that be?

Let’s not rush to crucify the local press just because our local leaders tell us to do so.  Are the Daily Breeze and Nick Green perfect?  No. Are they 100% accurate and unbiased? Of course not. But if the Daily Breeze refuses to report on important stories like the water issues in Lomita because they are worried about the backlash from public officials, then who will report on the issues and how would we hear about them?  With no press to hold our government accountable, it will be the public that suffers.