Mobil Asked to Hold Refinery Open House Someplace Else

The city of Torrance has decided to play party pooper for open house festivities Mobil Oil Corp. hoped would draw 12,000 people to its refinery on Oct. 7.

The oil company--which is being sued by Torrance over hazards at the refinery--was planning to spend up to $200,000 for jugglers, clowns, hot dogs, hamburgers, a Ferris wheel, a carousel, informational booths and bus tours of the refinery.

But in a letter released Friday, the city expressed concern about safety at the plant and suggested that Mobil hold its “public relations” event at a large city park. City officials in interviews Friday stopped short of saying they would flatly ban the party or refuse to issue permits for it.

Mobil officials responded to the city in a short, sharp press release late Friday. Noting that the city reacted after only brief talks with refinery officials, Mobil said “the city’s letter amounts to a blanket rejection of our plans without any consideration of what they might be.”

Constitutional Rights Cited

Mobil declared: “Our plant is safe.” It said the city’s “unlawful and unfair” action would deny the company “its constitutional rights of assembly, free speech, equal protection and due process of law.”

Spokesman Barry Engelberg said company officials had received the city’s letter Friday and had not decided whether to go ahead with plans for the open house or whether Mobil would try to force the city to issue permits for the festivities.

The city and Mobil already are embroiled in legal and political disputes on several fronts. In April, the city sued Mobil, seeking to have the refinery declared a public nuisance subject to city regulation. The oil company countersued, saying the refinery is safe.

In July and August, the city also filed criminal misdemeanor charges against Mobil, several of its officials and subcontractors as a result of accidents that happened in the summer of 1988.

And in March, 1990, Torrance voters will decide a ballot initiative that would effectively eliminate the use of acutely hazardous hydrofluoric acid at the plant. Mobil officials estimate that the measure would cost the refinery from $50 million to $100 million.

The existing disputes played a role in each sides’ actions.

City Atty. Ken Nelson said Friday that the city’s lawsuit might be harmed if the permits for the open house were issued, because the action could be interpreted as indicating that the city considers the refinery safe.

Because the city has limited grounds on which to refuse some permits, such as those needed for erecting a tent or stringing electric lights for entertainment, Nelson said Mobil might be able to force their issuance in court.

“We would just as soon not fight over the fact,” he said.

Might Seek Stipulation

If pressed, Nelson said, Torrance might seek a stipulation from Mobil that approval of the permits in no way addresses the safety issues at the core of the lawsuit.

And Mobil, which has said previously that the reason for the party is to polish the refinery’s image, accused the city of being hypocritical.

The Mobil statement noted that the city has “criticized Mobil for being non-communicative with its neighbors,” but now that there is “a real opportunity . . . to have an informal exchange of ideas with its neighbors, the city has said ‘NO.’ ”

“Our proposal to stage an open house at our facility creates no risk to our neighbors who would attend,” the statement said.

City officials said they learned of the Mobil open house proposal in a July 25 letter from Mobil seeking city assistance for crowd and traffic control.

Letter to Refinery Manager

The city’s response came in a letter dated Wednesday, from Assistant City Manager Albert Ng to Refinery Manager Wyman Robb.

In it, Ng wrote: “It is understandable that Mobil Oil would want to have an event such as this, and it makes sense that the positive public relations would be important to the corporation at this time.

“However, it is the feeling of the city of Torrance that it is inappropriate to have such a large public assembly at the refinery in light of the safety concerns which have been expressed over the past several years. Furthermore, it seems particularly unwise for the city to issue permits for the planned activity based on these concerns.”