Board Grants Exxon Permission to Restart Refinery, Emit Dangerous Pollutants
(TORRANCE, Calif.) — After a marathon, 12-hour public meeting at the Torrance City Hall on April 2, a special hearing board voted 3–2 to give ExxonMobil permission to release hundreds of pounds of potentially deadly pollutants into the air while restarting its Torrance refinery.
The approved plan, which was agreed to by ExxonMobil lawyers and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, will allow the refinery to violate more than 20 specific rules and regulations when it restarts a crucial part of its gasoline manufacturing process damaged in an explosion last year. ExxonMobil has already agreed to pay a $5 million penalty in part for this expected future air pollution.
The agreement allows ExxonMobil to circumvent pollution controls for six hours during the restart and residents are concerned about the impact of the resulting hundreds of pounds of potentially deadly pollutants. ExxonMobil’s own estimates said they will release half a ton of particulate matter — which one refinery employee said is “basically metal dust.”
ExxonMobil’s own estimates said they will release half a ton of particulate matter — which one refinery employee said is “basically metal dust.”
ExxonMobil representatives said restarting the refinery without the pollution filters is necessary to prevent another explosion, and that they had taken “considerable conditions to minimize environmental impact.” However a presentation by the refinery manager to the AQMD, obtained by a local activist via an open records request, indicates that the Environmental Protection Agency is not convinced that ExxonMobil needs to violate clean air rules when they restart. The EPA finding reads: “We do not have adequate data to refute the assertion that the 30 percent opacity limit…is not achievable during startup and shutdown events.”
A representative for ExxonMobil said in a statement, “our re-start procedures have been thoroughly evaluated by the AQMD […] Safe operation remains our first priority as we work to resume full operations.” The representative declined to comment on operational details or timelines and referred further questions to the AQMD.
Six Hours of “Metal Dust”
The pollutants ExxonMobil expects to release during the six hours of restart without pollution filters include nearly half a ton of particulate matter. The American Lung Association said even short-term exposure to particulate matter can lead to death, increased mortality in infants, hospitalization and severe asthma attacks. “It is so dangerous,” their website reads, “it can shorten your life.”
During the hearing, ExxonMobil agreed to give community members a 48-hour notice before they begin the restart. They also agreed to restart the refinery at night in order to minimize pollution exposure to children. Among the proposals to mitigate the extent of particulate matter exposure, ExxonMobil agreed to “twice daily street sweeping.” That street sweeping is expected to collect about 32 pounds of particulate matter.
“How does your right to make a living allow you to screw over children?” asked Joe Galliani, an organizer with the South Bay 350 Climate Action Group. Galliani, who drives an electric car and recently paid to covert his home to 100 percent solar power, said he finds it “astounding” that the oil industry can pollute with the blessing of the government.
Steve McSweeney, an ExxonMobil employee who works in the area of the refinery that exploded last year, downplayed the pollution impact the restart would have. “I think it is overkill,” McSweeney said. “I don’t think it’s going to be too much. We are just going to emit a little pollution when we start up.”
The Road to Restart
The road to the refinery restart began during routine maintenance on Feb. 18, 2015 when a large explosion ripped through a pollution control device called an electrostatic precipitator. Since then, the refinery has been operating at partial capacity as workers repaired the fluid catalytic cracking unit and the electrostatic precipitator, both of which were damaged in the explosion. The ESP is designed to limit the amount of particulate matter released from the FCCU.
ExxonMobil said the equipment is now repaired and asked the AQMD hearing board for an “order of abatement,” appealing for special permission to break anti-pollution rules when they restart the FCCU.
With the order for abatement, ExxonMobil obtained approval to not use the ESP pollution filtration device for six hours during the FCCU start-up to “ensure the safety of the start-up procedure.” During those six hours, ExxonMobil estimates hundreds of pounds of pollutants will be released into the air.
The hearing board is not authorized, according to the AQMD website, to exempt a business from complying with a rule nor grant a variance that allows a company to threaten public health or property. In this case, an order for abatement was issued in advance of “anticipated violations.”
Much was at stake for ExxonMobil based on the hearing board’s decision. The order for abatement reads, “[ExxonMobil] states that if it is not allowed the re-start the FCCU, it will lose approximately $1–1.5 million per day in gross revenues. In addition, approximately 650 employees and 550 contractors could be laid-off if the FCCU cannot be restarted.”
Paying the Pollution Away
Some activists accused ExxonMobil of paying their way out of the pollution problem. The oil corporation has already agreed to a $5 million penalty fine in part for future air pollution violations as a result of the startup. The AQMD website said “half of the monies will be earmarked for projects to benefit the communities surrounding the Torrance facility.” At a meeting on April 19, city officials suggested the money be used to install solar panels in city parking lots, angering some residents who want air quality monitoring devices installed around the city.
The oil corporation has already agreed to a $5 million penalty fine in part for future air pollution violations as a result of the startup.
Additionally, ExxonMobil estimates 143 pounds of nitrous dioxide will be released during refinery startup. The EPA said the pollutant has adverse respiratory effects including “airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma.” As part of their effort to mitigate nitrous dioxide pollutants, ExxonMobil proposed to “retire” tradable credits for NOx emissions, essentially paying to offset the pollutants they release.
These details frustrated residents like Galliani, who said he felt the hearing board meeting was “all a complete waste of our time. The fix is in.” Local political figures that spoke at the hearing also expressed concern. Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance) called the refinery a “dangerous asset in a crowded urban area.” Fmr. Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) said the situation had led citizens to doubt the regulators in charge of keeping them safe. “We’re asking you to protect our community,” he said.
Additional Concerns
Aside from the pollution expected to occur during the refinery startup, residents and environmentalists have additional concerns about the Torrance refinery. During the explosion last year, the Chemical Safety Board said a large piece of equipment flew toward a tank containing hydrofluoric acid, which is used during the refining process.
Low-level exposure to hydrogen fluoride gas irritates the respiratory tract, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. At high levels, it causes irregular heartbeat and fluid buildup in the lungs, leading to death. A hydrofluoric acid release would have been “catastrophic” to the nearby community according to the Chemical Safety Board. Their report notes that more than 300,000 people live within three miles of the refinery and could be impacted by a hydrofluoric acid release.
Environmental engineer Jim Tarr also raised questions about ExxonMobil’s reporting of their hydrofluoric acid “worst case release” scenarios to the EPA. He said a nearby refinery estimated their worst case scenario at ten times the amount ExxonMobil estimated. “Those refineries essentially operate the same process, the size of the units are very close to each other,” Tarr said. “I don’t think ExxonMobil makes those kinds of mistakes. It’s either they have some magnificent community protection equipment at their refinery — which I doubt. Or they’re distorting the matter.”
Residents are also concerned about recent flaring incidents at the refinery. According to data from the AQMD and information from the EPA, the slew of pollutants released in those incidents can also cause severe respiratory problems. An emergency flaring incident in March forced the Torrance Police Department to close roads around the refinery due to heavy smoke. In a statement, a representative for ExxonMobil said that incident had “no impact” on the community.
“I don’t think ExxonMobil makes those kinds of mistakes. It’s either they have some magnificent community protection equipment at their refinery — which I doubt. Or they’re distorting the matter.”
A media report said after the explosion in 2015, regulators issued 19 citations against ExxonMobil. They alleged that ExxonMobil had been warned about the potential for explosion in the ESP and that the FCCU had not been working properly for as long as nine years before the explosion.
The Chemical Safety Board said that ExxonMobil had not adequately responded to 49 percent of their subpoena requests. Despite this “challenge,” they said they already had found “multiple process safety management deficiencies that helped contribute to the accident.”
ExxonMobil says the Torrance refinery is currently scheduled for restart in early May.
Cole Sullivan is a journalist and a rising junior at the University of Southern California. Follow him on Twitter.
