Some Concerns Are Raised Over Mobil Oil Settlement : Torrance: Phase-out of toxic acid use is welcomed, but many are wary of a provision allowing Mobil to avoid the phase-out if a safer system is developed.

The pretrial settlement of Torrance’s suit against Mobil Oil Corp. announced Thursday may ease political tension between the city and the refinery, but it has stirred a storm of questions among scientists, government officials and neighborhood leaders.

Nearly everyone interviewed Thursday welcomed news that the agreement calls for a phase-out or modification of Mobil’s use of highly toxic hydrofluoric acid at its Torrance plant by Dec. 31, 1997.

But many looked warily on the provision, which also allows Mobil to avoid the phase-out if it can develop a safer hydrofluoric acid system, questioning whether it is chemically possible.

Another provision calling for a court-supervised plant safety adviser drew favorable reaction, but it also prompted concerns about how independent the adviser will be.

Said Paul Papanek, toxics chief for the Los Angeles County Department of Health: “It’s all in the details.”

Most of the questions raised Thursday involved the provision governing Mobil’s use of hydrofluoric acid in a process called alkylation, which boosts octane in unleaded gasoline.

The chemical vaporizes at room temperature when released, forming a potentially fatal ground-hugging cloud.

Less-volatile sulfuric acid--which vaporizes at 518 degrees Fahrenheit--can be used in alkylation units in place of hydrofluoric acid. But Mobil has opposed converting on grounds that hydrofluoric acid is more efficient and that switching would cost $100 million.

Joel H. Maness, manager of the Mobil refinery, said Thursday that his company hopes within four years to develop additives that could make hydrofluoric acid safe by inhibiting its ability to vaporize. Mobil is also researching alternative octane-boosting processes that would make the chemical unnecessary, he said.

“We feel that within four years we can complete our research process,” Maness said. “If at the end of that period we haven’t identified any other processes that we think are viable and feasible, sulfuric acid alkylation will be our only other option.”

Several experts on Thursday questioned whether such systems could realistically be discovered and developed so soon.

“There’s nothing that I’m aware of that will do the job now,” said Ronald Koopman, an energy expert with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who conducted industry-sponsored safety studies of hydrofluoric acid in 1986. “It sounds like they’re going to have to work very hard to invent something.”

Other experts had a harsher appraisal, saying that Mobil appeared to be playing for time.

“They are blowing so much smoke on this,” said an executive with an engineering firm that designs alkylation units, who declined to be quoted by name. “The possibilities of something like that are so remote it’s unbelievable.”

Maness said Mobil’s efforts merit a rollback of a proposal being considered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District that would phase out the bulk use of hydrofluoric acid in Los Angeles County by Dec. 31, 1994. But an AQMD spokesman said Thursday that the agency still intends to hold a scheduled hearing on the proposal in December.

The other feature of the settlement prompting questions Thursday was the provision for a court-supervised safety adviser.

Under the settlement, the adviser would be a consulting firm selected jointly by the city and Mobil, or, if the two sides cannot agree, by retired Superior Court Judge Harry V. Peetris, who is overseeing the settlement.

A key task of the adviser is to determine whether alternative hydrofluoric acid systems developed by Mobil are acceptable from a public safety standpoint.

The adviser must investigate and make recommendations on 12 separate aspects of plant safety at the refinery, ranging from firefighting procedures to traffic control. And the recommendations, the settlement says, must be followed or, if there are objections, ruled on by the judge.

Papanek, the county toxics expert, questioned Thursday whether the adviser will be given sufficient leeway to pursue any and all potential safety problems at the plant.

“I will reserve judgment until I know what areas of the refinery this individual will be able to scrutinize,” Papanek said.

Fred Millar, a toxics expert with the Friends of the Earth environmental group, questioned the wisdom of turning over to a judge the ultimate authority over risk analysis and safety regulation. That, he said, should be performed by government with input from the public.

“This keeps the public out of the decision-making, and that’s not a happy solution,” said Millar, who has followed the hydrofluoric acid issue closely. “We need government to assemble its own ability to assess the hazards of dangerous industries and to regulate those industries. Instead, we’re running to court.”

Meanwhile, Fred Casstevens, president of the Northwest Torrance Homeowners Assn., expressed concern about a provision in the settlement directing that the adviser will be paid indirectly by Mobil.

“If someone is paying you, you’re not going to tell him to put his head in the mud,” said Casstevens, whose group has been active on the Mobil issue.

And, despite the settlement, Mobil faces a separate court challenge relating to its Torrance refinery.

Robert Mars, an attorney representing 610 Torrance homeowners who are suing Mobil over health problems, lost property values and other problems they attribute to the plant, says his group will not withdraw its suit.

Said Mars: “That would be like saying that if I agree to let you run me over with a truck, you will agree to fix your brakes.”