Earlier this year, I voiced very strong, pointed concerns that illiberal elements within the city were merely determined to shut the plant down, and would seek any reason to do so.
The statements from the Congresswoman's spokesman suggested that closure of the plant could occur in the future.
Here is another statement from Congresswoman Waters:
Statement by Congresswoman Maxine Waters on Proposed AQMD/ExxonMobil agreement.
April 2, 2016
LOS ANGELES, CA – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43) released a statement regarding the proposed agreement between ExxonMobil and the AQMD regarding the Torrance refinery. The statement was released to the Hearing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Congresswoman Waters would have attended the meeting in person but was unable to do so. Her statement follows:
“I have heard from many of my constituents who live in the area surrounding ExxonMobil’s Torrance refinery that they have serious concerns about the reported agreement between ExxonMobil and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), which would allow ExxonMobil to restart the refinery’s fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU).”
|"ExxonMobil can go straight to hell!"|
“While I understand that this agreement has not been officially released to the public, it has nevertheless been reported by the Daily Breeze, and some local residents have obtained a copy.”
“The agreement allows ExxonMobil to significantly exceed pollution limits at the refinery, and it consequently jeopardizes the health and safety of residents of the surrounding community. The agreement’s “Findings of Fact” section states that ExxonMobil’s plans to restart the unit will violate numerous AQMD rules and permit conditions. According to Finding of Fact #30, these violations will result in unmitigated excess emissions in the amounts of 143 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 144 pounds of carbon monoxide, 848 pounds of particulate matter, and 224 pounds of “PM10” particulate matter. I question the wisdom of any agreement that would allow emissions in excess of legal limits.”
How much are we going to allow the federal government to define what pollutes and what does not? The research on the long-term consequences of particulates in the air is more mixed and complex than leading environmental activists would suggest.
“My constituents want to be reassured by the AQMD that the air they breathe and the air their children breathe every day is not going to harm them. I am also concerned that local officials and residents have not had sufficient opportunity to examine this agreement and provide informed comments.”
“I therefore join with residents of the community to urge the Hearing Board of the SCAQMD not to make any decision on this agreement today. Furthermore, I urge the AQMD to require ExxonMobil to comply with all applicable laws and regulations for the good of the community.”
“I understand the concerns about the daily loss of revenues and the possible loss of jobs at ExxonMobil if the company is not able to restart the refinery’s FCCU. However, we must err on the side of safety. The costs of not restarting the FCCU under these proposed conditions pale in comparison to the potential risks to the health and safety of the South Bay.”
Once again, no one wants any plant to endanger the lives of community residents in Torrance, or anyone anywhere in the South Bay.
I still maintain my suspicions about the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, and the hardly-hidden Big Green Agenda.
The TRAA had easy access to Congressman Ted Lieu, himself an environmental extremist more interest in puffing up his progressive credentials instead of actually serving the city of Torrance, the South Bay, or the state of California.
The same holds true for Congresswoman Waters, too. Just reading over the above press release, one gets the feeling that if the opportunity presented itself, she would shout:
"ExxonMobil can go straight to hell!"