Canceled Court Hearing on Mobil Frustrates Torrance

One year after Torrance halted its lawsuit against Mobil Oil Corp. concerning operation of the company’s local refinery, legal sparring continues between the two, with the latest round centering on an abruptly canceled court hearing.

Attorneys for the city had hoped to use a hearing scheduled for Wednesday as a chance to speed what they believe is the sluggish progress of safety adviser Westinghouse Electric Corp., appointed last May to monitor activities at the refinery. Torrance had sued Mobil in 1989, asking that the facility be declared a public nuisance.

But retired Superior Court Judge Harry V. Peetris, hired to oversee the city’s consent decree with Mobil, called off Wednesday’s hearing late Tuesday afternoon. And now, city and company officials are arguing over whether the hearing was needed.

Peetris did not respond to requests for comment. His court clerk said she was not authorized to explain the cancellation.

Mobil officials said the hearing was only supposed to take place if there were unresolved issues between the parties. According to Mobil attorneys, there are no disagreements.

“The hearing was called off because it’s moot as far as we’re concerned,” said Max Gillam, an attorney for Mobil. “I don’t know of any outstanding disagreements.”

According to the attorneys for the city, however, several things have been left hanging.

Ralph Nutter, an attorney for Torrance, said the city has never been allowed to see an agreement drawn up between Mobil and Westinghouse discussing what the safety adviser’s duties will be. In addition, he said, the city had hoped to get a detailed explanation of what has been holding up Westinghouse’s progress.

“We thought a hearing was necessary and we still do,” said Nutter. “I’m very upset (about the cancellation) because we think that too much time has elapsed before there has been any enforcement of this decree. There has been absolutely no enforcement to date.”

The city’s push to have the Mobil refinery declared a public nuisance followed a series of accidents at the plant. But on Oct. 18, 1990--one year ago Friday--Torrance announced it had signed a consent decree with Mobil halting the lawsuit in return for, among other things, Mobil’s agreement to cooperate with an outside safety adviser.

Months of debate ensued between Torrance and Mobil about who the safety adviser should be. In May, Peetris appointed Westinghouse--Mobil’s choice--as adviser.

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

Mobil officials said they had not turned over the documents in question because the city had not signed an agreement to keep the material secret.

That agreement was finalized late last week, allowing Westinghouse workers to go to the Mobil refinery on Wednesday to pick up the papers.

“Other than a tour on June 27, (Westinghouse employees) had not set foot in the refinery before today,” said Torrance Fire Battalion Chief Richard Nanney, the city’s hazardous materials director. “(Progress) has been real sluggish thus far. Assuming the legal issues are resolved, the release of the documents (Wednesday) is the first really substantive step toward accomplishing anything.”

Westinghouse has issued a company policy barring local employees from talking to reporters. Spokesmen at the company’s Pittsburgh headquarters did not return several telephone calls seeking comment.