New Setback for Torrance in Quarrel Over Refinery : Safety: Judge denies the city’s request to set a strict work schedule for the overseer hired to monitor the Mobil facility.

In another disappointment for Torrance officials seeking stricter safety controls at Mobil Oil Corp.’s Torrance refinery, a judge on Wednesday refused to set a strict work schedule for the adviser hired to oversee safety at the plant.

The city also had asked retired Superior Court Judge Harry V. Peetris for a one-year extension of its safety agreement with Mobil, arguing that too little has been accomplished since the agreement was reached more than a year ago. However, Peetris rejected that request as well.

“We are asking for an extension and a scheduling order because here we are, over a year later, and frankly nothing practical has been done,” said Ralph Nutter, an attorney for the city.

City officials also warned that they may soon ask Peetris to consider appointing a different safety adviser.

“Our confidence has been shaken in the effectiveness of the settlement agreement,” Mayor Katy Geissert told Peetris.

Torrance sued Mobil in 1989 after a series of explosions and fires raised concerns about the refinery. Three weeks before the lawsuit was scheduled to go to trial, the company and the city announced they were entering into a consent decree, requiring Mobil to submit to ongoing inspections by an outside adviser until 1997.

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

Westinghouse was to have submitted by 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 told Torrance the day before the deadline that Mobil had failed to turn over documents requested in August, making the deadline impossible to meet.

An attorney for the company told city officials and Mobil on Wednesday that Westinghouse had just mailed them a detailed work plan for their review. A city official who saw the document late Wednesday said it was “no more than a very, very, very rough draft of a few selected sections” of a final plan.

In light of the delays, the city wanted the safety agreement extended until 1998.

But on Wednesday, Peetris rejected the city’s argument that Westinghouse should be moving more quickly to administer the program.

“There is no delay here that is not understandable in light of the unique nature of what we’re doing,” Peetris said.

Attorneys for the city also complained Wednesday that they had just received correspondence indicating that Mobil may have given Westinghouse money before the company was appointed safety adviser. The letters were included in documents Mobil released to Torrance officials on Tuesday in response to a city request.

Because Mobil stamped all the letters between it and Westinghouse “confidential” before giving them to the city, however, officials would not reveal exactly whether or how much money changed hands between the companies.

“It raises serious questions about whether Westinghouse should be the safety adviser at all,” Nutter said. “It raises very serious issues about the administration of this decree.”

Attorneys for the city said they will file new legal motions asking Peetris to reconsider his appointment of Westinghouse.

Mobil spokesman Jim Carbonetti said his reading of the letters indicates that Westinghouse has not yet received any money for its services. Under the safety agreement, Westinghouse can be paid no more than $1 million for its services through 1997. Mobil is responsible for those charges.

“They do request reimbursement of expenses prior to becoming the appointed safety adviser and after . . . but what they’re asking is what the procedure would be to begin invoicing,” Carbonetti said. “Nowhere does it say anything about a specific monetary figure . . . and, as far as I know, nothing has been done on this point.”

Westinghouse attorney Terry Burt said he does not believe the city’s allegations “have any merit.”

“I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what it is they’re talking about, because I certainly don’t know,” Burt said.