What Torrance residents don’t know about the potential dangers posed by ExxonMobil’s oil refinery could kill them, in part because they can’t rely on government agencies to tell them.

Consider the following pair of examples about the facility, which was built before the densely populated suburban area was developed around it:

• A worst-case disaster scenario at the ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery 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, according to a published article that cites closely held government reports.

• The South Coast Air Quality Management District kept inspectors responding to the massive Feb. 18 refinery explosion out of the field after hearing reports from another agency of a possible release of radioactive material from the plant. But the AQMD did not inform the public or the Torrance Fire Department of the precautions it was taking on behalf of its own employees.

“It was a surprise to us,” Torrance Fire Chief William Racowschi said. “We didn’t hear anything about radioactivity until way after the thing was over.”

AQMD spokesman Sam Atwood defended the agency’s action, which delayed monitoring of the ash and spent catalyst dust raining down on the community until after noon, more than three hours after the explosion shook parts of the city with the force of a small earthquake.

“From our point of view we don’t issue any advisories to the public until we are absolutely certain of a concern and, in this case, what was thought to be perhaps a concern was dismissed in fairly short order,” he said. “We have to have the scientific facts to be able to responsibly inform the public. In this case, it didn’t rise to anywhere close to that level.”

Still, the AQMD took precautions residents and other emergency responders were unable to take.

It’s that sort of secrecy before and during refinery emergencies that has critics hoping state legislators take a close look later this week at disaster preparedness plans and responses related to potentially deadly incidents.

The state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and the Environmental Quality Committee will hold a joint hearing at 6 p.m. Thursday at Torrance City Hall to discuss the emergency response, the refinery’s safety record and effect of the incident on the community.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, noted that the recent explosion was the first significant incident at a California refinery since the 2012 Bay Area explosion in Richmond endangered the lives of 19 workers and sent 15,000 residents to hospitals.

Another joint Senate committee hearing is set for late March to discuss how refinery explosions disrupt supplies and help send prices soaring, as has occurred in the wake of the Torrance incident.

“The refinery explosion deeply concerns me about the safety of our neighbors but also our rights as consumers of energy and fuel,” de Leon said Friday. “I am working with my colleagues to protect consumers from the volatility of gas prices and examine what causes them. The upcoming hearings will focus on getting the facts and we hope (the) oil industry will be open and transparent when it comes to answering our questions.”

But openness and transparency are in short supply when it comes to informing residents of the true threat refineries can pose to a community as well as the appropriate response required in the wake of such incidents, critics contend.

ExxonMobil was lambasted by residents at a town hall meeting for its reaction to the explosion, while Torrance City Council members also questioned the emergency response at a subsequent meeting.

The company again on Friday declined to provide substantive comment to the Daily Breeze on its response to the community. ExxonMobil, for instance, declined to say how many local residents have contacted claims representatives for reimbursement for damages to vehicle paint; one Torrance resident who filed for compensation said she was told the company was “flooded” by claims.

“As a matter of practice, we do not comment on proprietary matters,” said ExxonMobil spokeswoman Gesuina Paras, who formerly worked for the city of Torrance. “We continue to process all legitimate claims caused by the incident. … We are working to make sure all key stakeholders are well-informed.”

Kim Nibarger, a former refinery operator who has been a health and safety specialist for the United Steelworkers union based in Pittsburgh, said such responses are typical of oil giants like ExxonMobil because they have good reason to maintain a low profile before and after public relations debacles like the recent explosion.

“They want to have the image that they are a good neighbor,” Nibarger said. “They’re concerned about two things: making money and their public image, and they don’t like either to be disturbed.”

ExxonMobil refinery manager Brian Ablett, on the job just nine months, boasted to reporters before the town hall meeting that the company has a good working relationship with the community, citing in particular its Community Advisory Panel. However, meetings of the largely anonymous group are not publicized or open to the public.

“I’ve been disappointed in the lack of communication from ExxonMobil,” Councilman Tim Goodrich said. “I was very disappointed when they attended the council meeting where we addressed the explosion, but they chose not to address the community. It seems they are more interested in being quiet and hoping not to draw attention to the problem.”

That problem includes the scale of a potentially large-scale disaster uncovered by The Center for Public Integrity in a 2011 article (that was updated again last year) titled “Use of toxic acid puts millions at risk.”

The lengthy expose related the risks of hydrofluoric acid, which is capable of producing a fast-moving, potentially deadly toxic vapor.

Known as an “Offsite Consequences Analysis,” the worst-case scenarios for every refinery in the nation are kept under tight security by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice.

Appointments have to be made to see the documents days in advance. No photocopying is allowed. And they are not officially available on the Internet, although some groups like the Right to Know Network have published the technical documents online.

This is ostensibly for security reasons in the wake of 9/11, but it also has the effect of reducing scrutiny of a potentially dangerous industry, allowing serious risks to fall under the radar, Nibarger said.

“A community has no idea of what kinds of chemicals are in (refineries) and what the consequences of the release of those chemicals can be,” he said.

Torrance officials generally downplay the risks, too.

In an interview with the Daily Breeze last week, Racowschi said the Torrance refinery uses a modified form of hydrofluoric acid that is a safer because it won’t vaporize as rapidly and drift as far.

But Nibarger confirmed that the disaster scenario outlined in the Center for Public Integrity article involved the supposedly modified form of HF, which may not be safer under some circumstances anyway than the original type.

“In a fire scenario, we don’t know what the difference is and we haven’t been able to find out,” Nibarger said.

Just how prepared the city is to respond to a major refinery emergency is a matter of debate, too, with measures such as a new mass notification telephone system a work in progress, city officials acknowledged last Tuesday.

Goodrich, a member of the volunteer Community Emergency Response Team, said the unit has received no specific training in how to respond to a refinery incident.

He also confirmed reports circulating in the community that the group was “in a state of flux” that had seen some volunteers quit because “some things need to be worked out” and changes made.

Municipal officials last week declined substantive comment on the worst-case scenario involving the refinery in the city.

“We need to be careful what’s put out there because I don’t want to start a panic,” Racowschi said.

Goodrich disagreed.

“We have to know what could happen in a worst-case scenario,” he said. “That’s the only way we could be adequately prepared. When we prepare for an earthquake, we don’t prepare for a 3.0 (magnitude), we prepare for a worst-case scenario.”