Mobil Oil Sets Spending Mark in Torrance Race : Campaign: Mobil says that switching from hydrofluoric acid at its refinery would cost $100 million. So it has poured $362,000 into fighting a ballot measure that would ban that acid.

Mobil Oil Corp. has set a record for campaign spending in Torrance, so far paying more than $360,000 in hope of defeating a March 6 ballot measure that would eliminate acutely hazardous hydrofluoric acid at its Torrance refinery.

Mobil has said a conversion to less volatile sulfuric acid would cost $100 million.

Mobil has far outspent supporters of the measure, who reported $7,600 in expenditures through Feb. 17.

Campaign finance reports filed Thursday show that the oil company contributed $362,672.19 to its campaign arm to buy a barrage of mailers, newspaper advertisements, telephone opinion surveys originating from Detroit and Washington and legal advice from a San Francisco law firm whose senior partners include a former chief of staff for Gov. George Deukmejian.

And company spokesmen say more is likely to come, including television commercials. Mobil Refinery Manager Wyman Robb said earlier this month that most of the oil company’s activity is timed for the last weeks of the campaign. He added that Mobil might spend a total of more than $500,000 but was not likely to spend more than $1 million.

The previous campaign spending record in Torrance was set in 1988 when Councilman Dan Walker spent $46,215.36 in a council race.

The measure’s backers assert that a major release of hydrofluoric acid would pose a deadly threat to as many as 10,000 residents. Mobil says that its refinery is safe.

Walker, sponsor of the ballot measure, said that Mobil officials “are trying to buy the election. That is more than obvious. . . . Mobil is going to find out that they can’t solve safety problems by spending public relations dollars.”

Nevertheless, Walker said he was “obviously concerned about . . . being outspent (more than) 25-to-1. . . . We are just going to work all the harder to win the thing.”

Mobil spokesman Tom Collins said it is “absurd” to accuse the company of trying to buy the election. “We feel there is a lot of confusion. . . . We feel it is necessary to make a very strong positive effort to tell our story, which is that Measure A is a fraud. . . .

“The notion that Dan Walker, who receives free television time every Tuesday night (during council meetings) is at a disadvantage is another absurdity. . . . We have to play catch up.”

Mobil listed $52,672.19 in expenditures “to explore political/legal options to the initiative” in 1989 and 1990 before its campaign committee, which is known officially as the Mobil Oil Corp. Refinery Safety Committee (“No on Measure A”), was formed on Jan. 29.

Among these activities were approaches in Sacramento to area legislators to see if any were interested in sponsoring legislation that would preempt local control over refineries.

During this period, Mobil hired Market Opinion Research, which has offices in Washington, D.C., and Detroit, to conduct surveys.

Between Jan. 1, 1990, and Thursday, the San Francisco law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Hodgeson, Parrinello and Mueller received $3,182 for legal and accounting fees. Steven A. Merksamer, a senior partner in the firm, was chief of staff for Deukmejian during his first term as governor.

The public relations firm of Braun & Co., which has offices on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, is listed in the Mobil reports as an agent for the Mobil committee and paid the bills for $269,325.38 in expenditures. Most of the money went to:

The firm of Below, Tobe & Associates Inc. of Marina del Rey received $81,398.72 for printing and mail services.

The Detroit office of Market Opinion Research received $64,764.69 for survey work. The Benmark Research Group of Sacramento was paid $5,348.01.

Robert Eaton, a videotape consultant, was paid $24,200 for broadcast advertising. The Los Angeles Times received $13,432.13 for newspaper ads and the Daily Breeze got $12,304.65.

All the contributions were from Mobil Oil Corp.

Another group that opposed the measure, Citizens for a Safe Torrance Environment (No on Measure A), reported raising $9,000, including several contributions from Mobil contractors and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 1-547. The committee spent $2,385.36 on mailing labels, envelopes, posters, signs and television ads.

The committee favoring the ban, known officially as “Citizens for Yes on Measure A, Sponsored by Local Citizens, Homeowners, Business Persons and The Dan Walker Election Committee,” received a total of $9,105 in contributions and spent $7,636.32.

The Walker campaign committee contributed $5,000, Walker’s sister contributed $2,000 and Ileen Garcia, a certified public accountant who is treasurer of the committee, gave $1,000.

Contributions of less than $100, which were not itemized by contributor name, amounted to $1,105.

The committee spent $4,600 on postage and mailing permits. B & T Direct Mail, which has Wilshire Boulevard offices in Los Angeles, received $2,036.32 for literature. The political consulting firm of Allen Hoffenblum & Associates of Los Angeles, which also is retained by Assemblyman Gerald Felando (R-San Pedro), was paid $1,000.