SOUTH BAY / COVER STORY : Acid Test : Torrance must decide a vexing question: Is it safe for the Mobil oil refinery to continue using a highly toxic chemical?

Jeannie Sanford is a newcomer to north Torrance. She never knew what a refinery explosion felt like--not until a recent afternoon when her Torrance home shook furiously and a loud noise rumbled through her neighborhood, followed by the sound of sirens.

Today, she views the refinery just three blocks away with a new wariness, wondering what goes on inside that castle-like mass of industrial towers and billowing steam.

“It’s got to be safe. You can’t run a business unless it’s safe,” the mother of two tells herself, but she isn’t entirely convinced.

Such gnawing uncertainty is nothing new to many who live in the shadow of the giant Mobil Oil Corp. refinery. And in coming weeks, Torrance officials and residents must come to grips again with a decades-old question: Is the refinery safe enough?

A court-monitored adviser is to decide by Dec. 31 whether the refinery can continue using toxic hydrofluoric acid, which critics say is as dangerous as the deadly gas that has killed 7,000 since a disastrous leak a decade ago at Bhopal, India.

The decision by the adviser could reveal whether years of oil industry research have produced a safe version of hydrofluoric acid, which is used in a refinery unit that boosts the octane of unleaded gasoline.

But this is more than a chemistry experiment.

It is political drama as well, a test of Torrance’s decision five years ago to sue one of the nation’s largest corporations--and then strike a pact with Mobil with the goal of improving refinery safety.

The upcoming decision on the controversial “HF”--coming on the heels of an explosion at Mobil seven weeks ago--is focusing fresh attention on the 750-acre refinery that operates side by side with homes and playgrounds.

Mobil has been gearing up for years for this month’s deadline. While its researchers have worked to make hydrofluoric acid safer, operators at the Torrance refinery have spent millions of dollars installing new equipment and upgrading the company’s image in the community.

Their efforts have won applause from Torrance officials and residents, who report that the refinery’s safety record has improved markedly since a spate of fires and other problems in the 1980s.

“I really think Mobil has responded,” said Hope Witkowsky, a 28-year refinery neighbor and president of the Northwest Torrance Homeowners Assn.. She commends Mobil for working with residents.

After all, seven years passed between major Mobil accidents.

Then, on Oct. 19, a gaseous mix of propane, butylene and butane spewed from a pipeline that apparently had been left unconnected at a flange. That triggered an explosion that injured 28 workers, at least six seriously.

Although hydrofluoric acid was not involved, fire officials report that the explosion occurred only about 50 feet from the refinery’s alkylation unit, where the lethal acid is used.

For Mobil, the timing scarcely could have been worse.

*

Torrance officials grew leery of hydrofluoric acid after 1986 industry tests in Nevada showed that a leak of 1,000 gallons could form a ground-hugging cloud that would potentially be lethal as far as five miles downwind. The chemical’s fumes are dangerously irritating to the eyes and respiratory system, and contact with the skin can cause severe burning, experts say.

Hydrofluoric acid ranks as one of the most toxic chemicals used in the Los Angeles Basin, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Mobil, which keeps about 29,000 gallons of the chemical on site, is the only major Los Angeles-area refinery using the acid. But HF is also used at the Allied-Signal refrigerant plant in El Segundo, the Ultramar refinery in Wilmington and the Powerine refinery in Santa Fe Springs.

Four years ago, Torrance settled its public nuisance lawsuit against Mobil with a pact requiring Mobil to phase out hydrofluoric acid by 1997 unless Mobil could prove by this Dec. 31 that it has devised a safe form of the chemical. Environmental groups hailed the pact as a model example of a local government working to make industry safer.

*

Now some environmentalists are criticizing Torrance officials for what they call a weakening of the guidelines for measuring HF safety.

“It appears that they have severely caved in on this critical issue,” said Denny Larson, who studies refinery issues for Citizens for a Better Environment-California.

Sparking the criticism was a court order this fall, signed by the city and by Mobil, to permits the refinery to continue using HF as long as a study of the newly modified acid shows it is safer than the industry alternative, sulfuric acid.

Torrance and Mobil officials bristle at the notion that the agreement was diluted. On the contrary, they say, calling for a comparison of the merits of the two acids--a technique called quantitative risk assessment--will yield some valuable insight into refinery safety.

“Our feeling was that this actually would give the city more information about what to do,” said Michael Leslie, an attorney for the city.

“What it does is incorporate in the consent decree something that governments are requiring of industry day in and day out,” said Ernest Getto of Latham & Watkins, an attorney representing Mobil.

The new language, included in a Sept. 30 legal agreement, was discussed in private by the City Council because it was considered a matter of litigation.

“Torrance has kicked this all behind closed doors without having a public discussion about it,” said Fred Millar, a Washington-based environmentalist and longtime critic of hydrofluoric acid.

But attorneys say that a public report is due out shortly from a court-supervised safety adviser on whether Mobil should continue using the chemical.

That report may help resolve a pivotal issue: whether Mobil’s years of research have indeed produced a safe form of hydrofluoric acid.

Mobil researchers said Monday that they have found an additive that sharply reduces HF’s tendency to form a vapor.

“I’m extremely optimistic,” said Joel H. Maness, Mobil western region manager, in describing the results of 1993 tests of the modified acid at an Oklahoma research site. “All the results are very, very positive.”

*

The first volleys in the Torrance hydrofluoric battle were fired in the late 1980s, in the wake of a massive explosion at the Mobil refinery involving the toxic acid. The 1987 explosion, in which six people were injured, jolted city officials, in part because it came just weeks after a Texas refinery accident that released a large cloud of the acid.

As concern mounted, Councilman Dan Walker launched an initiative campaign to sharply curtail the amount of HF allowed in the city and thus force Mobil to stop using it.

Walker, a public relations consultant who had gained a pro-development reputation since his 1978 election, seemed an unlikely ally of ecology-minded causes.

“This initiative, with its environmental nature, came from a conservative Republican who has a pro-business history,” he told a reporter in 1989.

The initiative was defeated in 1990 after Mobil spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose it. Walker’s council colleagues decided not to back the measure, saying they saw a city lawsuit as a more effective avenue.

That lawsuit led to the 1990 consent decree that set the schedule for an HF phaseout and created a court-supervised safety adviser. The case has cost the city $1.6 million in outside legal help.

Today, Walker expresses concern that the city may have paid a high price to sue Mobil, only to find Mobil making the same arguments it did five years ago about hydrofluoric acid’s safety compared to sulfuric acid.

“If it was so safe,” he said, “all the refineries would be using it.”

In time, refinery accidents became a less frequent occurrence.

The political landscape changed too. Torrance got a new mayor and a new city attorney. Walker, now 54, left the council to run unsuccessfully for state Assembly and then was reelected to the council in March. Of the seven council members who launched the Mobil suit, only three remain.

Then came the Oct. 19 explosion.

Now, Walker has called on Mobil to make the results of its investigation public--which Mobil says it plans to do.

And in an open letter to the community, Maness wrote: “We intend to thoroughly examine exactly what happened, what caused it and what we can do to assure ourselves that it doesn’t happen again.”

*

Maness’ career in Torrance began as Walker’s campaign initiative wound down. He arrived in town as refinery manager in June, 1990, swiftly becoming a familiar face to Torrance officials and to readers of the community newsletter the company sends to city residents.

His mission, he says in his soft Texas drawl, was “to assure the safe, reliable and environmentally sound operation of our facility.”

Maness, 44, has a resume that reads like a road map of major Mobil sites: Beaumont, Tex.; New York; Fairfax, Va.; Joliet, Ill.

In Torrance, he has adopted a personable approach to community issues. As part of an recent American Red Cross challenge, for example, Mobil collected more blood than the rival Arco Carson refinery, so the losing Arco manager had to spend the day pumping gas at a Mobil station in Torrance. Maness joined him, wearing Mobil coveralls as he worked the pump.

He talks proudly of the twice-a-year open houses that have given an estimated 13,000 people a glimpse of the world inside Mobil’s gates. Those tours allow residents “to see us as exactly who we are,” he says.

Coincidentally, this fall’s open house was scheduled for the two weekends following the explosion, and Mobil decided to go ahead with the event. About 900 people toured the refinery over two days, passing along a drive adorned with banners carrying the slogan, “Team Torrance.”

Maness, dressed in coveralls, talked somberly to a group of visitors about the accident and the 28 injured men.

“I feel like I’ve personally failed 28 members of our team,” he told them. “We’ve come away from this incident with a two-word phrase: ‘Never more.’ ”

*

A flurry of reports about Mobil will be issued in coming weeks.

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, which is investigating the Oct. 19 explosion, expects to issue its report in late December. Mobil’s own findings are due shortly. And a third investigation is being conducted by EQE Engineering International of Irvine, which replaced Westinghouse as safety adviser in September.

This month, EQE will also issue its recommendation on whether Mobil’s modified HF meets the requirements of the consent decree.

“I’m sure we’ll have lots to read between Christmas and New Year’s,” quipped Councilman Don Lee.

The 1990 pact says that Mobil can decide to switch to a modified HF only if it has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the safety adviser that the modified catalyst would not form “an aerosol or dense vapor cloud upon release.”

The amended wording states that Mobil must either meet the 1990 standard for the acid or demonstrate “that the modified HF catalyst (including mitigation) presents no greater risk than a sulfuric acid alkylation plant producing a comparable amount of alkylate.”

Millar criticized using mitigation--such as water sprays--in determining whether HF is safe. “You don’t want to rely on mitigating factors because a lot of time they don’t work,” he said. “A fire or explosion is not kind to water systems or electrical power. They tend to knock them out.”

Mobil officials, however, said they have a sophisticated system of mitigation.

The change in the agreement means that an assessment will be performed, measuring the risks of the two acids.

City Fire Chief R. Scott Adams says he supported adding the assessment. If Mobil researchers have significantly reduced the acid’s cloud-forming tendencies, Adams said, sticking with hydrofluoric could prove safer than a costly switch to sulfuric acid.

And sulfuric acid poses its own risks, such as boosting truck traffic, Adams said. Mobil says that about 630 trucks per month would be required to transport sulfuric acid to the refinery, compared to only two to three trucks per month of hydrofluoric acid today because the process uses larger amounts of sulfuric.

A total of 57 refineries nationwide use hydrofluoric acid, and 45 use sulfuric, according to the American Petroleum Institute.

Environmentalists gave the amended language mixed reviews.

Gail Ruderman Feuer, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Los Angeles, agreed that the original language could have forced a switch to sulfuric acid--even if that proved more risky. She wondered, however, if the new language provides as strong an incentive for Mobil to make hydrofluoric acid as safe as possible.

Lois Epstein of the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington said that environmentalists are historically wary of risk assessments--in part because they require significant expertise on the part of the public and regulators to make sure they are adequate, she said.

Millar was more blunt, dismissing such assessments as “voodoo science.”

*

The entire debate, however, could well be moot if Mobil has found a safe HF.

Torrance officials have signed secrecy agreements not to disclose proprietary information about the research, which is being conducted jointly by Mobil and Phillips Petroleum.

But researchers at Mobil’s research laboratory in Paulsboro, N.J., said Monday that they believe their findings meet both the old and new guidelines for judging the acid.

They described a two-step process involving an additive as well as mitigation systems such as water sprays. The additive, when mixed with HF, reduces its vapor-forming tendencies, with most of the acid “raining out” or landing on the ground within a short distance of a release, they said. About one-third still becomes a vapor that can be knocked down with water sprays, they said.

An expert who helped conduct the 1986 Nevada tests says that he is encouraged by what he knows of the findings.

“It looks like they’ve developed some additives and an approach that works pretty well,” said Ronald P. Koopman of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The American Petroleum Institute reports that other companies are making progress in their own hydrofluoric acid research. Texaco, for instance, began using an additive late this summer at its El Dorado, Kan., refinery that substantially reduces the amount of hydrofluoric acid aerosol that would be formed if a leak occurred, a Texaco spokeswoman said.

Whether Mobil will use a similar additive in Torrance could be decided in a matter of weeks. It is still unclear how much of that decision-making will occur in public. Although Millar has urged Torrance to convene a public hearing, much of the discussion may be conducted privately--again because it is considered a matter of litigation.

Whatever the outcome, Mobil’s neighbors will be waiting.

Although Jeannie Sanford never heard of hydrofluoric acid before last month, she knows that “if it’s not good for us, I don’t want it there.”

And Witkowsky adds simply: “I wish they could come up with something else.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Mobil Refinery: A Chronology Here are some key events in the operation of the Torrance Mobil oil refinery.

December, 1979: A 19-year-old woman’s car stalls near the refinery. When she tries to restart her engine, the spark ignites a cloud of butane gas drifting from the nearby Mobil tank farm, setting off a large fire. The woman and two refinery workers die. There was also an explosion and fire in September.

1986: Industry-sponsored tests in Nevada show that a 1,000-gallon spill of hydrofluoric acid could produce a cloud that could be lethal as far away as five miles downwind.

November, 1987: An explosion rips through the Torrance Mobil refinery, sparking a 17-hour fire, injuring six people and causing $17 million in damage. About 100 pounds of hydrofluoric acid are released, but none of it spreads beyond the refinery grounds. The explosion is blamed on an excess of hydrofluoric acid in a refinery unit.

July, 1988: Chemicals explode in a tank being cleaned, killing one worker and seriously burning two others. Earlier the same day, another explosion injures eight workers.

December, 1988: Torrance Councilman Dan Walker launches an initiative campaign that would end Mobil’s use of hydrofluoric acid.

April, 1989: The city of Torrance files suit against Mobil, seeking to declare the refinery a public nuisance. The suit alleges “severe problems with safety conditions and procedures at the refinery” and warns that a large release of hydrofluoric acid could threaten thousands living in the South Bay.

March, 1990: Torrance voters reject Walker’s initiative by a 3-to-1 margin. Mobil spends at least $640,000 opposing it.

October, 1990: On the eve of trial, the city and Mobil announce an agreement in which the oil company is to phase out its use of hydrofluoric acid by 1997. However, Mobil will be allowed to continue using the acid past 1997 if it develops a safe form by Dec. 31, 1994. A safety adviser will monitor safety at the refinery through 1997, paid for by Mobil. Retired Superior Court Judge Harry V. Peetris is to oversee the pact.

April, 1991: The South Coast Air Quality Management District orders a Los Angeles-area phaseout of large-scale use of hydrofluoric acid by 1999 unless a safe form is developed. The rule is later overturned in court, but AQMD now plans to reinstitute a version of the rule by mid-1995.

May, 1991: After the city and Mobil fail to agree on a safety adviser, the judge picks Mobil’s nominee, Westinghouse Electric Corp., and sets a $1-million limit for the project.

April, 1994: The Mobil refinery wins a National Petroleum Refiners Assn. 1993 gold award for a 34% reduction in on-the-job injuries. The refinery also received awards from the association for 1991 and 1992.

September, 1994: The city and Mobil amend the language under which Mobil would be forced to stop using hydrofluoric acid. They also replace Westinghouse with a new safety adviser, EQE Engineering International of Irvine, after costs top $1.35 million.

October, 1994: An explosion and fire at the refinery injures 28 workers. The cause is still under investigation, but initial reports blame a leak of propane, butane and butylene gases from a pipeline that apparently had been left disconnected.