Torrance Asks Judge to Get Mobil Review Under Way : Refinery: The city wants a ruling to force Westinghouse, the safety adviser, to prepare its outline for reviewing the plant.

Upset that the adviser selected to oversee safety at the Mobil Oil refinery missed last week’s deadline to prepare a work plan, Torrance officials have asked for an immediate court hearing to kick the program into gear.

In a sharply worded letter to retired Superior Court Judge Harry V. Peetris, who is overseeing the city’s consent decree with Mobil, attorneys for the city complained that the adviser, Westinghouse Electric Corp., has done little since being chosen last May.

Westinghouse was to have submitted on Oct. 1 a detailed outline of how it will conduct the safety audit at the refinery and when each area of the plant will be reviewed. But the firm said Friday that Mobil has failed to turn over documents requested in August, which made meeting the deadline impossible.

The letter to Peetris, dated Oct. 1, said the city “was told yesterday for the first time that Westinghouse has taken no substantive steps to prepare a draft work plan, and has done nothing concerning its duties as safety adviser.”

Westinghouse denied that allegation in an interview Friday.

“We have done several substantive things,” Westinghouse spokesman Michael Stock said. Those include touring the refinery to meet key personnel and to “get an initial idea of what is involved,” setting up an Orange County office for the safety adviser project, and discussing rough plans with the city and Mobil.

Mobil spokesman Barry Engelberg said Mobil has not turned over the documents in question because the city has not signed an agreement to keep the material secret.

“Our documents are boxed and ready to go over to whoever needs to see them,” Engelberg said. “We stand ready and anxious to get the study under way, with the city’s cooperation.”

City Atty. Kenneth L. Nelson, however, said the city offered months ago to use the same confidentiality agreement that covered the city’s 1989 public nuisance lawsuit against Mobil. The consent decree was an outgrowth of that lawsuit.

“Mobil is not correct,” Nelson said. “This is a red herring.”

After a series of accidents at the refinery, Torrance sued Mobil in April, 1989, asking a judge to declare the facility a public nuisance and allow the city to regulate it. One year ago, Torrance halted the suit and signed a consent decree with Mobil in return for, among other things, Mobil’s agreement to cooperate with an outside safety adviser.

After months of debate between Torrance and Mobil, Peetris appointed Westinghouse--Mobil’s choice--as adviser.

The letter to the judge noted that the city finished turning over all documents requested by Westinghouse weeks ago “and has consequently been under the impression during the last three months that Westinghouse was in the process of reviewing Mobil’s documents to formulate a work plan.”

“Already almost one year has expired without any enforcement of the consent decree,” the letter said. “There is no reason to delay commencement of a work plan. . . . Unless Westinghouse is planning to withdraw as safety adviser, there appears to be no reason why it cannot at least commence a draft of the work plan.”

City officials said they have not heard from Peetris on when he might schedule a hearing on the issue.