Court Filing by Torrance Shows Strain With Mobil : Industry: Frustrated over the slow pace of Westinghouse’s safety inspection of Mobil’s refinery, city officials seek more formal court supervision.

Torrance’s demand this week for an extension of its safety agreement with Mobil Oil Corp. signals a crack in the cooperative front the city and the company have tried to display over the past year.

Upset that the adviser selected to oversee safety at Mobil’s Torrance refinery has made little substantial progress, city officials want more formal court supervision of the process.

Since halting their public nuisance lawsuit against the oil giant last October, Torrance has tried to maintain informal contact with Mobil and the adviser, Westinghouse Electric Corp., in an attempt to speed Westinghouse’s safety work.

That approach has not worked, attorneys for the city said this week.

“We think the informality has worked against us,” City Atty. Kenneth L. Nelson said. “We need to give the case a little more discipline if we want to get anywhere.”

Torrance sued Mobil in 1989 after a series of explosions and fires raised concern about the refinery. Three weeks before the suit was scheduled to go to trial, the company and the city announced they were entering into a consent decree, requiring Mobil to submit to review by an outside safety adviser.

At the time, both sides hailed the agreement as the start of a new era of cooperation. But in recent months, city officials have become increasingly frustrated by what they view as tardiness by Westinghouse--Mobil’s pick as safety adviser--in performing its tasks. Their frustration culminated in Tuesday’s court filing.

Mobil spokesman Jim Carbonetti said it is “unfortunate” that the city’s attorneys “seem to be still working in their adversarial mode.”

“We’re wasting time and we’re creating psychological barriers that may prevent the court-ordered system from working,” Carbonetti said of the city’s petition. “It’s just unfortunate.”

Torrance attorneys, however, insist Westinghouse, not they, has adopted an adversarial posture.

On Tuesday, Torrance filed a 31-page petition with retired Superior Court Judge Harry V. Peetris, who is overseeing the consent decree, asking him to conduct a Nov. 1 hearing to rule on a number of issues.

Primarily, the city wants the agreement’s expiration extended from 1997 to 1998 to compensate for Westinghouse’s initially sluggish progress. Torrance also wants Peetris to:

* Set and supervise a strict work schedule for Westinghouse;

* Ensure that Torrance gets copies of all correspondence between Mobil and Westinghouse;

* Question Westinghouse about its involvement as a defendant in other environmental lawsuits;

* Make sure that all sides are involved in communications with the judge, and,

* Rule that Westinghouse’s advisory reports should be available to the public.

Mobil officials say delays in Westinghouse’s progress to date have been unavoidable. They note, for instance, that much of what the adviser has done so far has been done without a proper work contract in place.

Many of the holdups have been resolved recently, Mobil said, allowing Westinghouse to begin making real progress. In fact, they point out, Westinghouse and an outside contractor were at the refinery Tuesday and Wednesday to begin detailed study of the facility’s earthquake safety measures.

“It took us a long time to get here . . . but we’re at a point now that we can start working,” said refinery manager Joel Maness, who said an extension of the consent decree is not necessary.

“I just want to see the system work,” Maness said. “I’d like to see the safety adviser go about his job. If the safety adviser isn’t able to show progress, I’m going to be as disappointed as anyone. But we’re at a point now where we’ve got to let him do the job.”

Attorneys for the city say their intent was not to antagonize Mobil, but to hasten the pace of Westinghouse’s work.

“Frankly, I don’t blame (Mobil) for the problem,” said Ralph Nutter, an attorney for the city. “I think it’s Westinghouse that’s dragging its feet.”

Although the agreement halting the lawsuit intended the safety adviser to act as an officer of the court, Westinghouse instead is “looking at this as a private contract with Mobil,” Nutter said.

A spokesman for Westinghouse declined to comment on the specifics of Torrance’s petition, but insisted that the company has taken several significant steps to fulfill its duties as safety adviser.

“Personnel have begun evaluating four of the specific safety items mentioned in the consent decree,” spokesman Mike Stock said. But he added he does not know what those four items are.

In addition, he said, the company has submitted and revised an initial program plan; has set up an electronic mail system among itself, Mobil and the city; has moved a project manager from Pittsburgh to a Westinghouse office in Cypress; has created an office at the Mobil refinery, and has set up an emergency notification procedure so that Westinghouse can respond quickly to accidents or problems.

“We’ve been taking action in our role as safety adviser and I’ll let that speak for itself,” Stock said.

The city’s petition, however, takes issue with Westinghouse’s claim of substantial progress.

A letter from Westinghouse to Peetris detailing its activities was “misleading in several important respects,” the city’s petition says. “Almost all of the activities listed involved merely preliminary matters.”

City officials said Westinghouse representatives have told them that serious work cannot begin until formal work contracts and a liability insurance policy have been signed with both Mobil and Torrance.

“As far as I’m concerned, (Westinghouse is) a nonentity,” Torrance Mayor Katy Geissert said. “They’ve demonstrated a total non-understanding of the consent decree and the importance that the people of Torrance have attached to it.”

Torrance attorneys said they believe the consent decree itself makes work contracts unnecessary and accused Westinghouse of adopting an “adversarial posture” toward the city.

The city “feels there is reason to doubt Westinghouse’s good faith commitment to implement the decree aggressively and independently,” the petition said.

Councilman Timothy Mock said the city filed the motion “to get the judge’s attention (and) to force Westinghouse to act according to the consent agreement.”

Failing that, Mock said, “we should ask the judge to remove Westinghouse completely.”

Noting that Peetris has moved slowly to issue rulings in the case, Mock said the judge may have too many other matters on his calendar.

“If we’re not getting what we agreed to in the consent decree, other legal actions to remove Peetris and Westinghouse” should be considered, he said.