Congress of the United States Mashington, DE 20515 October 9, 2015 ‘Theresa M. Fariello Vice President, ExxonMobil 2000 K Street, NW Suite 710 Washington, DC 20006 Dear Ms. Fariello: ‘Thank you for your letter dated September 30, 2015, Your letter provides a list of historical actions ExxonMobil has taken, but continues to reaffirm ExxonMobil’s untenable position of refusing to comply with numerous document requests from federal investigators. We have also been informed recently that ExxonMobil is preventing federal investigators from accessing various locations and units at the refinery, and witnesses, that are important to the investigation. We are writing with three specific requests. First, while we appreciate that ExxonMobil has responded to 199 of 231 documents requested from the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), your letter concedes that ExxonMobil has refused to respond to 42 document requests. Moreover, after recently meeting with CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland, we learned that ExxonMobil has in fact submitted only five out of 90 items requested by CSB subpoenas related to both the February 18 and September 6 incidents, We are writing again to request that ExxonMobil stop withholding information and respond to all information requested by investigators in federal subpoenas. We will be incredibly disappointed if ExxonMobil’s failure to respond to these subpoenas forces the CSB to have the Department of Justice intervene. Second, we request that ExxonMobil stop denying CSB investigators access to witnesses, the modified hydrofluoric acid (HF) alkylation unit and related machinery at the refinery. We have been informed by CSB investigators that they have been denied access to investigate such units and denied access to certain witnesses. The alkylation unit, and the modified HF it uses, is critical to the CSB investigation, According to CSB Chair Vanessa Sutherland, "We were really, really lucky” in the February 18 explosion. "I think it is of concern to us, that we have a facility that had a near miss, which T actually feel very lucky about. It could have been much more catastrophic."! The reason the explosion could have been catastrophic is that a piece of Ana Werner, “Federal Review: Cali Refinery Explosion Could Have Been Much Worse,” CAS, September 30,2015.equipment weighing 80,000 pounds “was sent flying” and “landed just a few feet” from a HF tank? ‘More than 200,000 people live within 3 miles of the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance. Documents filed by ExxonMobil with the Environmental Protection Agency show that “ExxonMobil itself estimates in a worst-case scenario release of hydrofluoric acid, all of them within that distance could be injured or even die.”* Given the conditions and circumstances of the February explosion as it related to the modified HF tank, we find it startling that ExxonMobil believes modified HF is not relevant to the CSB investigation. Federal investigators and the public have the right to know the facts, even if they could be detrimental to ExxonMobil. Third, we request that ExxonMobil stop denying federal investigators access to examine the location of the September 6 leak of modified HF. We have been informed by CSB investigators that they were denied access to look at what caused the September 6 leak and the location of the leak, In addition, according to the Daily Breeze, because ExxonMobil failed to follow the reporting protocols, it took “about six hours before the Fire Department was informed of the situation, Modified hydrofluoric acid is considered highly toxic and can turn into a dangerous vapor if leaked, which is among the reasons the Fite Department considered the accident ‘significant.’”"* ExxonMobil’s failure to cooperate fully with federal investigators is not only troubling, it is inconsistent with federal law. Under 42 U.S. Code § 7412, the CSB “shall (i) investigate (or cause to be investigated), determine and report to the public in writing the facts, conditions, and circumstances and the cause or probable cause of any accidental release resulting in a fatality, serious injury or substantial property damages.” The phrase “facts, conditions and circumstances” is very broad. The statute also specifies that, “In no event shall the Board forego an investigation where an accidental release causes a fatality or serious injury among the general public, or had the potential to cause substantial property damage or a number of deaths or injuries among the general public.” ExxonMobil’s overly restrictive rationale that it will only allow CSB to investigate units directly “involved” in the accidental release is untenable and inconsistent with the plain language of the federal statute. Itis also not the province of ExxonMobil to determine, as you assert in the letter, whether any documents “would provide any insight into the cause or probable cause of the incident.” That is the role of the federal investigators. ExxonMobil’s duty under federal law is to comply with federal subpoenas, not pick and choose which documents and witnesses to provide to federal investigators. "a, id * Green, Nick “ExxonMobil Filed to Follow Proper Procedures in Wake of Acid Leak, Torrance Omiials Say,” Daly Brees, 15 Sep. 2018Please respond within two weeks of receipt of this letter and let us know if ExxonMobil intends to comply with all federal subpoenas and let federal investigators do their jobs. We ‘would regret for this issue to be unnecessarily escalated to the Department of Justice. Thank you for your attention to these important matters. Sincerely, = 2 pes BLD) So Ae. hte TED W. LIEU MAXINE WATERS Member of Congress Member of Congress