RECEIVED
APR 13 1989
HEDGES, P0WE& CALDWELL

1
Kenneth L.

Nelson

2

City Attorney
City of Torrance

3

3031 Torrance Boulevard

ORIGINAL FHF

Torrance, California 90509-2970
4
5

APR 0 7 1989

213-618-5810

LAW OFFICES OF RALPH H.

NUTTER

COUNTY CLERK

Ralph H. Nutter, Esq.
6

Robin B. Howald, Esq.

7

Los Angeles, California 90071

350 South Figueroa Street, Suite 260
213-624-1316

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff
People of the State of California

10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

12
13

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

14

ex rel Kenneth L. Nelson, City
Attorney of the City of Torrance,

CASE NO

(,,719353

COMPLAINT

FOR

PUBLIC NUISANCE

Plaintiff,

15

16
17

ABATEMENT,
INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF

vs.

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION,

a New York

Corporation, MOBIL OIL REFINING
18
19

CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, WYMAN ROBB, and
DOES 1 through 25,

20

Defendants.

21

The People of the State of California, for its complaint

22
23

against the Mobil Oil Corporation and the Mobil Oil Refining

24

Corporation ("Mobil"), Wyman Robb ("Robb") ,. and Does l through

25

25, inclusive, allege as follows:

26

//

27
28

 INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS

1
2

1.

Plaintiff, the People of the state of California,

3

prosecute this action by and through Kenneth L. Nelson, the

4

City Attorney for the City of Torrance pursuant to the

5

authority conferred on him by California law, including

6

Section 731 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Sections 3479,

7

3480 and 3494 of the Civil Code.

8
9

2.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that defendant Mobil Oil Corporation is and

10

at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and

11

existing under the laws of the State of New York and is

12

authorized to do business and is doing business in

13

California, with its principal places of business in this

14

state, a regional headquarters and a refinery, located in the

15

County of Los Angeles.

16

Corporation is a Delaware Corporation qualified to do business

17

in California which, at all relevant times hereto, was doing

18

business in California.

19

3.

Defendant Mobil Oil Refining

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

20

thereon alleges, that Wyman Robb is, and at all times

21

mentioned herein was, a resident of Los Angeles County and

22

that Robb is the General Manager of Mobil's Torrance Refinery.

23

4.

Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and

24

capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or

25

otherwise, of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 25,

26

inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such

27
28

 1

fictitious names.

2

amend this complaint to alleges the true names and capacities

3

of said fictitiously named defendants when the same have been

4

ascertained.

5.

5

Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

6

thereon alleges, that each of the defendants named herein was

7

the agent, employee, employer, partner, manager or controlled

8

entity of the other defendants, and in so doing the things

9

hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of

10

such agency, employment, partnership, management or control

11

with the full knowledge and consent of the other defendants.

6.

12

Mobil operates an oil refinery ("the Refinery") in

13

the City of Torrance, in the southwestern portion of Los

14

Angeles County, a geologically active and densely populated

15

urban area.

16

750 acres and is located across the street from a residential

17

neighborhood and within a few miles of the Torrance-Wilmington

18

earthquake fault.

19

based thereon alleges, that Mobil employs 800 full-time

20

employees and also employs a variety of contractors, whose

21

presence at the Refinery at times increases the number of

22

workers on-site to as many as 3,000.

23

to process 125,000 barrels per calendar day of crude oil to

24

produce gasoline, motor oil, jet fuel and other products and

25

byproducts, some of which, plaintiff is informed and believes

26

//

27
28

The Refinery occupies an area of approximately

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

The Refinery is designed

 1

and based thereon alleges, are volatile hazardous chemicals,

2

materials and wastes.

3

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based

4

thereon alleges, that the Refinery "handles," as that term is

5

defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25501(h),

6

at least fourteen chemicals classified as both acutely

7

hazardous materials and hazardous substances by the State of

8

California and that at least five of these chemicals —

9

hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, chlorine

10

and ammonia —

11

and safety risks to surrounding communities in the event of

12

an accidental uncontrollable or inadequately contained release

13

of a large amount of any of these chemicals.

14

toxicological properties of these chemicals, the hazardous

15

effects of their release into the atmosphere, the nature of

16

their use at the Refinery and reported incidents at the

17

Refinery involving these chemicals are described below.
8.

18

would pose serious and possibly lethal health

The

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

19

thereon alleges, that, with respect to Mobil's storage, use

20

and handling of hazardous materials, unsafe conditions at the

21

Refinery, inadequate safety mechanisms, poor quality work,

22

carelessness, and poor adherence to Mobil's own safety

23

procedures, all combine with the inherently toxic

24

characteristics of these materials to create an unreasonable

25

risk of danger to the life and health of persons living and

26

//

27
28

 1

working in, traveling through, or otherwise present in areas

2

adjacent to the Refinery.

3

9.

Specifically, plaintiff is informed and believes,

4

and based thereon alleges, that an accidental, uncontrollable

5

or inadequately contained release of such hazardous materials

6

in substantial amounts could cause a disaster of Bhopal-like

7

proportions.

8
9

10.

Plaintiff is also informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that in its refinery operations, Mobil

10

releases toxic chemicals, odors, fumes, gases, vapors,

11

pollutants and other noxious materials into the atmosphere,

12

including, but not limited to, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen

13

sulfide, carbon monoxide, various oxides of nitrogen,

14

hydrocarbons, and particulates, often in excess of the

15

amounts legally permitted by state health and safety laws and

16

the rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality

17

Management District.

18

noticed with an average of 13 violations each year, many of

19

which involved multiple infractions.

20

and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Mobil's routine

21

payments of fines for these violations amounts to the purchase

22

of a license to pollute in excess of state standards set to

23

protect the health of California citizens.

24

11.

Over the past 5 years, Mobil has been

Plaintiff is informed

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

25

thereon alleges, that inhalation of the fumes from these

26

releases has had and continues to have short- and long-range

27
28

 (•&;

rj#*i

1

adverse effects on the mental and physical health of persons

2

residing and present in the off-site areas surrounding the

3

Refinery.

4

12.

Parents, teachers, concerned citizens, employees,

5

and local businesses have expressed their fears and concerns

6

to Torrance city officials regarding both the potential for a

7

catastrophic accidental, uncontrollable or inadequately

8

contained release of hazardous chemicals and fumes and. the

9

health dangers associated with Mobil's frequent emissions of

10
11

toxic pollutants into the atmosphere adjacent to the Refinery.
13.

Plaintiff brings this action to require Mobil to

12

adjust its operations as they pertain to the handling and

13

emissions of hazardous materials, toxic pollutants, and

14

particulates to account for the fact that the Refinery is

15

located in one of the nation's most densely populated

16

metropolitan areas and to recognize that the pecuniary gain

17

derived from its current operating methods does not constitute

18

sufficient justification to subject hundreds of thousands of

19

its neighbors to both known and unknown, and potentially

20

lethal, risks and extensive damage to their health, peace of

21

mind and welfare.

22
23

MOBIL'S QUESTIONABLE SAFETY RECORD

14.

Over the past ten years, approximately 127 safety

24

incidents at the Refinery were reported to the Torrance Fire

25

Department.

26

which are attributable to human error, indicates severe

27
28

The mere frequency of such incidents, many of

 .<#

1

problems with safety conditions and procedures at the

2

Refinery.

3

15.

The following list of major explosions, fires and

4

toxic chemical releases, and the injuries resulting therefrom,

5

indicates that the potential for a massive disaster at the

6

Refinery is far from remote:

7

(a)

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

8

based thereon alleges, that on March 21,

9

1989, three workers were burned when they

10

were hit by a blast of pressurized 300°F

11

oil and steam when a plug failed during a

12

routine maintenance procedure;

13

(b)

On March 8, 1989, eight students and two

14

teachers from Torrance's Magruder Middle

15

School were hospitalized with headaches,

16

nausea and chest pains, as a result of a

17

noxious odor and fumes which plaintiff is

18

informed and believes, and based thereon

19

alleges, were released from the Refinery;

20

other teachers, students, and persons in

21

the area were overcome by headaches,

22

nausea, dizziness and respiratory problems

23

but were not hospitalized;

24

(c)

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

25

based thereon alleges, that on February 9,

26

1989, a gauge fitting failed, causing a

27
28

 fire in the Unsaturated Gas Plant;

1
2

(d)

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

3

based thereon alleges, that on January 20,

4

1989, a failure of instrumentation tubing,

5

and possibly human error, caused a fire in

6

the Hydrocracker Unit;

7

(e)

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

8

based thereon alleges, that on December 8,

9

1988, operator error led to the release of

10

noxious fumes and odors from an over-

11

pressurized tank, and that 89 nearby

12

residents complained to the South Coast

13

Air Quality Management District about

14

these foul odors;

15

(f)

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

16

based thereon alleges, that on September

17

1, 1988, an operator's failure to install

18

a gasket caused a coke drum leak;

19

(g)

Plaintiff is informed and believes and

20

based thereon alleges, that on August 5,

21

1988, three people were injured, one

22

seriously, when a contractor, supervised

23

by a Mobil employee, opened the wrong line

24

while replacing a valve; the subsequent

25

hydrocarbon leak caused a fire in the

26

Crude Unit;

27
8

28

 '•.••:*

1

(h)

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

2

based thereon alleges, that also on August

3

5, 1988, one person died and another was

4

seriously burned as a result of an

5

explosion which occurred during the

6

treatment of "sour water sludge";

7

(i)

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

8

based thereon alleges, that due to human

9

error on July 15, 1988, one person was

10

killed and seven were injured, one

11

seriously, when an inadequately supervised

12

outside contractor ignited highly

13

flammable gas, causing a fire;

14

(j)

On November 24, 1987, four persons were

15

injured as a result of a large explosion

16

and fire at the Refinery; plaintiff is

17

informed and believes, and based thereon

18

alleges, that the accident was caused by

19

human error and non-functioning equipment

20

which caused Mobil employees to introduce

21

too much hydrofluoric acid into a reactor

22

vessel, causing the reactor vessel to

23

explode and catch fire and a subsequent

24

release of hydrofluoric acid, sulfur

25

dioxide and asbestos;

26
27
28

//

 1

(k)

On December 3, 1979, three people were

2

killed as a result of an explosion and

3

fire at the Refinery's tank farm.

4

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

5

based thereon alleges, that due to

6

operator error during the gasoline

7

blending process, a large vapor cloud of

8

butane was released; the butane cloud

9

drifted across a highway and was ignited

10

by a passing motorist, killing the driver

11

and causing a fireball and explosion which

12

flashed back to the Refinery; and

13

(1)

On September 18, 1979, several persons

14

were injured when a ruptured liquified

15

petroleum gas line caused a tremendous

16

explosion and fire; plaintiff is informed

17

and believes, and based thereon alleges,

18

that the rupture was attributable to

19

defective piping.

20

THE GAGE-BABCOCK AND MITTELHAUSER SAFETY AUDIT

21

16.

Because of the increasing frequency of incidents

22

occurring at the Refinery, the City of Torrance requested that

23

Mobil evaluate the safety of its operations as well as the

24

efficacy of the safety equipment, materials, personnel,

25

procedures and training at the Refinery.

26

//

27
10

28

 r--

1

17.

Mobil agreed to pay for a third-party safety audit

2

conducted by the engineering firms of Gage-Babcock and

3

Associates and Mittelhauser Corporation.

4

of the audit was to identify the safety measures in use at the

5

Refinery, to determine if they are adequate and, if not, to

6

recommend specific improvements.

7

18.

The stated purpose

Investigators from the engineering firms spent five

8

months conducting the audit.

They met with various of the

9

Refinery's personnel, as directed by the Refinery's

10

management, and they made numerous visits and inspections of

11

the Refinery and its equipment.

12

19.

The engineering firms' combined December 30, 1988

13

report, entitled "Mobil Torrance Refinery Safety Audit" (the

14

"G-B&M Safety Audit") found that:

15

(a)

16
17

the number of safety incidents occurring
at the Refinery is too high;

(b)

past incidents were caused by poor quality

18

work, carelessness, and failure to follow

19

the Refinery's safety program and

20

procedures;

21

(c)

in the units which handle acutely hazardous

22

chemicals, unsafe conditions exist which could

23

pose an immediate danger to the life and health

24

of persons in the surrounding areas;

25

26

(d)

with respect to the units which handle

acutely hazardous chemicals, the Refinery

27
11

28

 1

does not employ adequate additional safety

2

measures, above and beyond the minimum

3

baseline requirements, to reflect the

4

increased risk posed by an accidental

5

release of these extremely toxic

6

substances;

7

(e)

the Refinery's fire and safety staff is

8

not adequately trained to contain a

9

release of hydrofluoric acid or other

10

acutely hazardous chemicals and would be

11

unable to adequately control a major

12

chemical release; and

13

(f)

in recent years, to save money, the

14

Refinery has reduced the size of its

15

operation and maintenance staff and has

16

become more dependant upon the Torrance

17

Fire Department for protection and safety.

18

20.

In a letter dated February 3, 1989, the City of

19

Torrance asked Mobil specific questions regarding said

20

dangerous conditions and Mobil's intentions regarding the

21

implementation of the safety measures described in the G-B&M

22

Safety Audit.

23

21.

Not only did Mobil publicly repudiate the G-B&M

24

Safety Audit as being untrue and without verification, but it

25

has expressly refused to answer any of the City's questions.

26

//

27
12

28

 1

2

DEFICIENCIES IN MOBIL'S RMPP

22.

Section 25531 of the California Health and Safety

3

Code contains a legislative finding that a significant number

4

of chemical industrial facilities handle hazardous materials

5

and, because of the nature and volume of chemicals handled at

6

these facilities, some of their operations may represent a

7

threat to public health and safety if those chemicals are

8

accidentally released.

9

because the potential for explosions, fires or releases of

The legislature further found that

10

toxic chemicals into the environment also exists, the

11

protection of the public from such releases or explosions of

12

hazardous materials is of statewide concern.

13

23.

The legislature determined that programs and plans

14

designed to protect against such accidents are the most

15

effective way of protecting health, safety and the

16

environment.

17

24.

Pursuant to § 25502 of the Health and Safety Code,

18

the Torrance Fire Department was designated by the city of

19

Torrance to administer implementation and enforcement of the

20

hazardous materials release response plan and inventory laws.

21

25.

In accordance with its statutory mandate, on March

22

17, 1988, the Torrance Fire Department required Mobil to

23

submit a Risk Management Prevention Program ("RMPP")

24

regarding its use and handling of hydrofluoric acid.

25

26

26.

Despite the fact that the necessary elements

required to be addressed in an RMPP are clearly delineated in

27
13

28

 1

§ 25534 of the Health and Safety Code, the RMPP submitted by

2

Mobil after one year of study and preparation contains glaring

3

deficiencies, most notably the complete omission of a "worst-

4

case scenario" analysis of the various off-site consequences,

5

including, but not limited to health hazards, from an

6

accidental or uncontrollable, inadequately contained release

7

of hydrofluoric acid.

8
9

27.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that Mobil has not made adequate emergency

10

plans and does not have the necessary emergency equipment on-

11

site to adequately contain an uncontrollable release of

12

hydrofluoric acid so as to prevent the catastrophic

13

consequences of an off-site release of hydrofluoric acid.

14

28.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

15

thereon alleges, that Mobil's failure to have in place

16

adequate emergency equipment to contain an accidental or

17

uncontrollable release and its refusal to provide the City of

18

Torrance with either an off-site consequences analysis or

19

responses to the City's inquiries regarding Mobil's emergency

20

preparedness in the event of an accidental or uncontrollable

21

release demonstrates that Mobil is both callous and

22

indifferent to the safety of others, in light of:

23

(a)

the extremely toxic properties of

24

hydrofluoric acid and the other hazardous

25

chemicals used and handled at the

26

Refinery;

27
14

28

 1

(b)

2

3

unsafe conditions at Refinery units which
use, and handle hazardous chemicals;

(c)

the Refinery's past incidents which led to

4

the release of certain of these hazardous

5

chemicals, causing damage to the health of

6

persons in the area; and

7

(d)

Mobil's decision, in spite of the huge

8

profits generated by the Refinery, to save

9

money at the expense of safety by

10

reducing the size of its operation and

11

maintenance staff.

12

MOBIL'S USE AND HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

13

AND ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES ARISING THEREFROM

14

15

Hydrofluoric Acid

29.

In the Refinery's Alkylation Unit, hydrofluoric acid

16

is used as a catalyst in the refining process to boost the

17

octane level of gasoline.

18

believes, and based thereon alleges, that Mobil handles well

19

over a 100,000 gallons of hydrofluoric acid per year and, at

20

any one time, thousands of gallons of hydrofluoric acid are

21

stored at the Refinery.

22

30.

Plaintiff is informed and

Hydrofluoric acid is a highly volatile and dangerous

23

chemical.

24

an acutely hazardous material by the State of California.

25

26

31.

It is classified as both a hazardous substance and

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges: (i) that generally, hydrofluoric acid is a

27
15

28

 -\

1

marked irritant to all surfaces of the body and to the

2

respiratory tract; (ii) that exposure to hydrofluoric acid in

3

relatively low concentrations results in lung, eye and skin

4

damage and irritation and can be lethal; and (iii) that

5

chronic exposure to low levels of hydrofluoric acid causes

6

permanent damage and injury to the body.

7

32.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

8

thereon alleges, that recent scientific data now indicates

9

that an accidental or uncontrollable release of 1,000 gallons

10

of hydrofluoric acid could have a devastating effect on

11

persons and property adjacent to the Refinery.

12

wind direction and velocity and other weather conditions, the

13

damage could extend to other areas of Los Angeles County.

14

33.

Depending upon

In 1986, the Amoco Oil Company sponsored a series of

15

toxic cloud dispersion tests, conducted by the Lawrence

16

Livermore National Laboratories at Frenchman's Flats, Nevada.

17

Test results indicated: (i) that under circumstances similar

18

to the test conditions; almost 100% of the released

19

hydrofluoric acid could be borne downwind toward population

20

centers, 80% as an aerosol and 20% as a vapor; (ii) that

21

because the cloud of hydrofluoric acid would be denser than

22

air, it could travel long distances, hugging the contours of

23

the ground; and (iii) that within 2 minutes, a 1,000 gallon

24

release of hydrofluoric acid could possibly be lethal to

25

persons within a 5-mile radius and be immediately dangerous to

26

the life and health of persons within a 7.5-mile radius.

27
16

28

 1

34.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

2

thereon alleges, that a hydrofluoric acid toxic cloud has

3

behavioral characteristics similar to those of the deadly

4

cloud which caused, and continues to cause, the catastrophic

5

loss of life and serious health problems in areas surrounding

6

Bhopal, India.

7

scientific, engineering and technical data, neither Mobil nor

8

various governmental authorities are in a position to advise

9

persons in areas adjacent to the Refinery as to how to protect

Because they currently lack sufficient

10

themselves if hydrofluoric acid fumes and/or a toxic cloud

11

were released from the Refinery.

12

35.

The Refinery is located in a densely populated urban

13

area, with countless numbers of homes, schools, day care

14

centers, hospitals, governmental offices, businesses and

15

freeways located within a 5-mile radius of the Refinery.

16

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,

17

that if there was a substantial release from the Refinery,

18

hundreds of thousands of persons could be killed and double

19

that number could be seriously injured.

20

36.

Mobil contends that the risk of fatalities from an

21

off-site release of hydrofluoric acid is 1.21 deaths per 100

22

years.

23

physical damages to persons in areas adjacent to the Refinery.

24

37.

This assessment ignores the risk of mental and

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

25

thereon alleges, that the risk of fatalities and the risk of

26

mental and physical injuries due to an accidental

27
17

28

 1

uncontrollable, inadequately contained off-site release of

2

hydrofluoric acid is far greater than Mobil admits, and

3

constitutes a clear and present danger to persons in the area

4

surrounding the Refinery, in that:

5

(a)

the G-B&M Safety Audit reported that

6

certain unsafe conditions existed in

7

Refinery units that handle hydrofluoric

8

acid, including that certain KOH Treaters

9

posed a safety hazard, and that Mobil did

10

not employ adequate additional safety

11

measures in those units in consideration

12

of the extremely hazardous nature of

13

hydrofluoric acid;

14

(b)

Mobil failed to provide responses to

15

questions raised by Torrance, with respect

16

to the G-B&M Safety Audit findings, which

17

would have assured the City that unsafe

18

conditions do not exist in these Refinery

19

units and that Mobil employs adequate

20

additional safety measures in these units

21

in deference to hydrofluoric acid's

22

extremely hazardous nature;

23

(c)

Mobil has admitted that hydrofluoric acid

24

is sporadically released into the

25

atmosphere either as a result of flange

26

and valve leaks or leaks occurring when

27
18

28

 1

pipes and hoses handling hydrofluoric acid

2

are disconnected; and

3

(d)

as a result of the November 24, 1987

4

explosion and fire, described in paragraph

5

15(j) above, 100 pounds of hydrofluoric

6

acid were accidentally released.

7

8
9

38.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that the November 24, 1987 accident was
-directly attributable to human error and to equipment which

10

Mobil allowed to deteriorate and/or which Mobil did not

11

properly install, maintain and/or service, despite Mobil's

12

knowledge of the extremely lethal nature of the chemicals

13

involved.

14

39.

While Mobil claims it was able to contain the

15

hydrofluoric acid release to the Refinery facilities,

16

plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,

17

that the Refinery has no adequate monitoring devices which

18

determine whether or the extent to which a released substance.

19

has travelled beyond the Refinery's boundaries.

20

40.

In light of the acutely hazardous nature of

21

hydrofluoric acid, the complexity of the myriad of operations

22

at the Refinery, and the lack of scientific and engineering

23

information regarding reliable methods for the containment of

24

a substantial accidental or uncontrollable release of

25

hydrofluoric acid, a serious question is raised as to whether

26

state-of-the-art technology is adequate to protect a densely

27
19

28

 1

populated area from the catastrophic consequences of a serious

2

accidental and uncontrollable release of hydrofluoric acid.

3

Hvdroaen Sulfide

4

41.

Hydrogen sulfide is formed at various units in the

5

Refinery's processes.

6

based thereon alleges, that the Refinery handles hundreds of

7

thousands of pounds of hydrogen sulfide daily.

8
9

42.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges that short-term exposure to hydrogen sulfide

10

may be lethal and poses an immediate danger to health, causing

11

severe eye and respiratory tract irritation and a loss of

12

one's sense of smell.

13

43.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

14

thereon alleges, that over the past several years, on numerous

15

occasions, the Refinery has released and continues to release,

16

hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere and that the fumes and

17

odors have drifted into and permeated the off-site areas

18

surrounding the Refinery.

19

44.

Hydrogen sulfide fumes have a foul, offensive and

20

noxious odor which causes people in areas surrounding the

21

Refinery to become ill each time a release occurs.

22

45.

Specifically, in addition to the release on March 8,

23

1989, referred to in paragraph 15(b) above, plaintiff is

24

informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in

25

December 1988 and in February 1989, hydrogen sulfide releases

26

//

27
20

28

i

 1

from the Refinery engulfed nearby neighborhoods, causing

2

residents to experience nausea and become ill.

3

46.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

4

thereon alleges, that the hydrogen sulfide releases described

5

in paragraphs 15(b) and 45 were either uncontrollable

6

releases due to human error and/or faulty equipment,

7

intentional and/or negligent releases caused by improperly

8

maintained or inadequate pollution control devices, or

9

periodic types of releases, known in the industry as "fugitive

10
44

11
12

releases" (leaks) and "belches," both of which occur during
.

the normal operations of the Refinery.
47.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon

13

alleges, that individuals in the surrounding community have

14

suffered and will continue to suffer serious short-term and

15

long-term mental and physical health problems, including, but

16

not limited to those described in paragraph 42 above, as a

17

result of the Refinery's releases of this acutely hazardous

18

chemical into the atmosphere.

19

48.

Despite Mobil's knowledge of the acutely hazardous

20

nature of hydrogen sulfide, the G-B&M Safety Audit reported

21

that the Refinery did not employ adequate additional safety

22

measures in the units which handled hydrogen sulfide in

23

consideration of the chemical's toxicity.

24

49.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

25

thereon alleges, that an accidental, uncontrollable or

26

inadequately contained release of hydrogen sulfide would wreak

27
21

28

'

 1

havoc on areas surrounding the Refinery because of the

2

properties of this acutely hazardous chemical, including that

3

hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air, and can therefore travel

4

considerable distances to a source of ignition and flashback

5

and that hydrogen sulfide forms an explosive mixture with air.

6

50.

Mobil has refused to provide responses to Torrance's

7

inquiries, regarding the findings of the G-B&M Safety Audit,

8

which would assure the City that unsafe conditions do not

9

exist in the units handling hydrogen sulfide and that adequate

10

additional safety measures are employed in these units in

11

deference to hydrogen sulfide's highly toxic nature.

12

51.

In light of the acutely hazardous properties of

13

hydrogen sulfide, Mobil's past releases of hydrogen sulfide,

14

and the lack of adequate additional safety measures at the

15

Refinery, the manner in which Mobil currently handles

16

hydrogen sulfide presents a clear and present risk of danger

17

to and causes an apprehension of harm in persons in the areas

18

surrounding the Refinery.

19

Sulfur Dioxide

20

52.

Sulfur dioxide is formed at the Refinery as an

21

intermediate product during the conversion of hydrogen sulfide

22

to elemental sulfur in the Sulfur Recovery Units.

23

is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that

24

Mobil handles thousands of pounds per day of sulfur dioxide

25

and that it routinely releases sulfur dioxide from tall stacks

26

at the Refinery.

27
22

28

Plaintiff

'

 1

53.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

2

thereon alleges that: (i) exposure to sulfur dioxide causes

3

toxic effects including irritation of the nose and throat;

4

(ii) low concentrations of sulfur dioxide cause severe toxic

5

effects after only a one-minute exposure; and (iii) children

6

are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of

7

sulfur dioxide.

8

9

54.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that once released into the atmosphere,

10

sulfur dioxide combines with moisture and hydrocarbons to form

11

a mist of sulfuric acid and that the higher the relative

12

humidity, the more sulfuric acid is formed.

13

55.

Either through accidental or uncontrollable

14

releases, due to human error and/or faulty equipment, periodic

15

releases, or intentional and/or negligent releases, plaintiff

16

is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that

17

Mobil released and continues to release sulfur dioxide in

18

amounts in excess of the South Coast Air Quality Management

19

District's emissions limitations.

20

believes, and based thereon alleges, that in 1987, the

21

Refinery emitted more sulfur dioxide than any other local

Plaintiff is informed and

source.

23

56.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

24

thereon alleges, that individuals in the surrounding community

25

will suffer serious short-term and long-term health problems,

26

including, but not limited to, those described in paragraph 53

27
23

28

 1

above, due to the Refinery's releases of this acutely

2

hazardous chemical into the atmosphere.

3

57.

Despite Mobil's knowledge of the acutely hazardous

4

nature of sulfur dioxide, the G-B&M Safety Audit reported that

5

Mobil did not employ adequate additional safety measures in

6

those units which handle sulfur dioxide in consideration of

7

the chemical's toxicity.

8
9

58.

In the past, Mobil has been unable to contain

accidental releases of sulfur dioxide;

as a result of the

10

November 24, 1987 explosion and fire described in paragraph

11

15(j) above, Mobil reported that 1.5 tons of sulfur dioxide

12

were released into the atmosphere.

13

59.

In light of the acutely hazardous nature of sulfur

14

dioxide, Mobil's past releases of sulfur dioxide, and the lack

15

of adequate additional safety measures reported at the

16

Refinery, the manner in which Mobil currently handles sulfur

17

dioxide presents a clear and present risk of harm to and

18

causes an apprehension of harm in persons in the areas

19

surrounding the Refinery.

20

Ammonia

21

60.

Ammonia is produced as part of the Refinery process

22

and is also used in Refinery operations.

23

informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Mobil

24

handles in excess of one million pounds of ammonia annually.

25

26

61.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges that: (i) after just a few minutes, low level

27
24

28

Plaintiff is

 1

ammonia exposure causes noticeable irritation of the eye and

2

nasal passages; and (ii) increased levels of ammonia exposure

3

cause serious coughing, bronchial spasms, burning and serious

4

edema, strangulation, asphyxia, burning and blistering of

5

skin and may, in less than a 30-minute exposure, be fatal.

6

62.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

7

thereon alleges, that there is substantial risk that an

8

accidental, uncontrollable, inadequately contained release of

9

a large quantity of ammonia would be injurious and likely

10

fatal to the people in the areas surrounding the Refinery

11

because both gaseous and liquid ammonia are lighter than air

12

and water, and a cloud of pure ammonia would rise into the

13

atmosphere and into off-site areas.

14

63.

Despite Mobil's knowledge of the acutely hazardous

15

nature of ammonia, the G-B&M Safety Audit reported that the

16

Refinery units which handle ammonia, including the new ammonia

17

storage system, did not employ adequate additional safety

18

measures, in consideration of the toxic nature of ammonia.

19

64.

In light of the acutely hazardous properties of

20

ammonia and the lack of adequate additional safety measures

21

at the Refinery, Mobil's use, storage and handling of ammonia

22

presents a clear and present risk of danger to persons in the

23

areas surrounding the Refinery.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
25

28

 1

Chlorine

2

65.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

3

thereon alleges, that Mobil handles thousands of pounds of

4

chlorine each year at its Refinery.

5

66.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and based

6

thereon alleges: (i) that chlorine is a highly toxic skin and

7

lung irritant and a one-minute exposure to chlorine can cause

8

toxic effects; (ii) that low concentration chlorine exposure

9

over a 30-minute period poses an immediate danger to life and

10

health; and (iii) after a few deep breaths, higher

11

concentration chlorine exposure is fatal.

12

67.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

13

thereon alleges, that there is a substantial risk that an

14

accidental, uncontrollable, inadequately contained release of

15

a large quantity of chlorine from the Refinery would be

16

injurious and likely fatal to people in the areas surrounding

17

the Refinery because chlorine is denser than air and tends to

18

stay close to the ground when released into the atmosphere.

19

20

MOBIL'S RELEASES OF OTHER TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTANTS

68.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

21

thereon alleges, that either through accidental,

22

uncontrollable, periodic, intentional or negligent releases,

23

Mobil has emitted and continues to emit particulates and

24

various pollutants, including, but not limited to carbon

25

monoxide, various oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons, into

26

the atmosphere.

27
26

28

 1

69.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

2

thereon alleges, that for almost a two-year period, in 1985

3

and 1986, Mobil failed to repair a pollution control device in

4

its Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit ("FCCU"), thereby causing

5

the Refinery to release particulates into the atmosphere in

6

amounts in violation of the South Coast Air Quality Management

7

District's emissions limitations.

8

9

70.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that Mobil cited financial reasons for its

10

failure to repair the pollution control device, stating that

11

closure of the unit for repair was not cost-effective and that»

12

the repair was not budgeted until turnaround.

13

71.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

14

thereon alleges, that individuals in the surrounding community

15

have suffered and will continue to suffer serious short-term

16

and long-term health problems, including but not limited to

17

respiratory disease, heart disease, cancer and genetic damage,

18

due to the Refinery's atmospheric releases of particulates

19

and the pollutants described in paragraph 68 above.

20

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21

ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

22

AGAINST MOBIL. ROBB AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25

23

72.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as

24

though set forth in full, each of the allegations contained in

25

paragraphs 1 to 71, inclusive, hereinabove.

26

//

27
27

28

 1

73.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

2

thereon alleges, that on a frequent basis, and often in

3

violation of state emissions standards, defendants, and each

4

of them, cause to be released numerous toxic chemicals, odors,

5

gases, vapors, fumes, pollutants, particulates and other

6

noxious materials from the Refinery into the atmosphere,

7

including, but not limited to, the releases of the various

8

substances described above.

9

74.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

10

thereon alleges, that defendants' actions and inactions,

11

described hereinabove, constitute a public nuisance, within

12

the meaning of California Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480

13

in that the Refinery's releases and emissions of toxic

14

chemicals, odors, gases, vapors, fumes, pollutants,

15

particulates and other noxious materials are harmful,

16

injurious, and annoying to the physical and mental health of

17

persons living and working in, travelling through or otherwise

18

present in Torrance and surrounding communities.

19

releases have a foul odor which is offensive to the senses and

20

interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property

21

of persons in neighborhoods and communities near the Refinery.

22

Thus, said releases and emissions have been, are, and threaten

23

to be, injurious to the public health of the People of

24

California.

25

26

75.

The residents of Torrance and persons living and

working in, traveling through or otherwise present in the

27
28

28

Some of the

 1

neighborhoods and communities near the Refinery fear a

2

catastrophic result from an accidental, uncontrollable,

3

inadequately contained release of hazardous chemicals from the

4

Refinery. The magnitude and extent of these fears and

5

apprehensions interferes with their comfortable enjoyment of

6

life and/or property.
76.

7
8

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that in light of:

9

(a)

citizens' fears and concerns;

10

(b)

Mobil's poor safety record;

11

(c)

Mobil's past releases of hazardous substances;

12

(d)

reported dangerous conditions and

13

inadequate safety measures in certain

14

Refinery units;
(e)

15

Mobil's failure to produce meaningful

16

emergency plans to adequately contain or

17

to prevent accidental or uncontrollable

18

off-site releases of hazardous chemicals;

(f)

19

the toxicological properties of the

20

acutely hazardous chemicals used and

21

handled at the Refinery; and

(g)

22

uncertainty in the scientific community

23

regarding the proper way to contain and

24

prevent damages from an accidental or an

25

uncontrollable release;

26

//

27
29

28

 1

the manner in which Mobil currently uses, stores and handles

2

acutely hazardous chemicals constitutes a public nuisance

3

pursuant to Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480.

4

77.

Defendants, and each of them, have threatened to and

5

will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to maintain a

6

public nuisance by continuing the acts complained of herein

7

without the consent, against the will, and in violation of

8

the rights of the People of the State of California.

9

78.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

10

thereon alleges, that as a proximate result of defendants'

11

nuisance, and their unwillingness to modify and remedy past

12

practices and problems, individuals in the neighborhoods and

13

communities surrounding the Refinery have suffered and will

14

continue to suffer: (i) short-term and/or long-term mental and

15

physical health injuries and problems;

16

worry that they, their children and other members of their

17

family, or their employees may be inflicted with short-term

18

and/or long-term mental and physical health problems due to

19

exposure to defendants' emissions and/or the threat of an

20

accidental, catastrophic, uncontrollable release of toxic

21

chemicals and fumes; and (iii) annoyance and damages from the

22

foul odors, fumes and noxious materials escaping from the

23

Refinery into their areas of habitation and work.

24

79.

(ii) fear, concern and

For a period in excess of 5 years, Mobil has been

25

given notice of its failure to comply with various provisions

26

of California's health and safety laws and South Coast Air

27
30

28

<

 1

Quality Management District rules and regulations.

2

receiving approximately 70 notices of violation in the last 5

3

years, including 17 in 1988 alone, Mobil has not made a good

4

faith effort to comply with California law, but instead

5

continues the same course of conduct in defiance of the law.

6

80.

Despite

Mobil's history of releases and emissions and its

7

record of repeated violations of the laws, rules and

8

regulations established to protect the health of California

9

residents, makes plaintiff's remedy at law inadequate. .

10

Because Mobil's flagrant disregard of the law threatens the

11

People of California with irreparable injury, Torrance City

12

Attorney Kenneth L. Nelson is specifically authorized to seek

13

abatement of this public nuisance pursuant to Code of Civil

14

Procedure Sections 731 and 3494.

15

81.

Unless defendants,

and each of them, are

16

preliminarily and permanently enjoined from releasing toxic

17

chemicals, odors, fumes, gases, vapors, pollutants,

18

particulates and other noxious materials, into the atmosphere

19

of the surrounding neighborhoods and communities, in violation

20

of the rights of persons in those neighborhoods and

21

communities, and in violation of state law and South Coast Air

22

Quality Management District rules and regulations, persons who

23

live and work in, travel through, or are otherwise present in

24

the areas surrounding the Refinery are threatened with and

25

will suffer irreparable injury.

26

//

27
31

28

 1

82.

Unless defendants, and each of them, are

2

preliminarily and permanently enjoined from using, storing

3

and handling dangerous quantities of acutely hazardous

4

chemicals at the Refinery in a manner which infringes upon the

5

rights of persons in the surrounding communities and

6

neighborhoods, persons who live and work in, travel through,

7

or are otherwise present in the areas surrounding the Refinery

8

are and will be threatened by the involuntary risk of an

9

accidental and/or uncontrolled catastrophic off-site release

10

of these acutely hazardous chemicals.

11

83.

12

nuisance by:

13

(a)

Plaintiff requests that this Court abate the public '

preliminarily and permanently enjoining

14

defendants from permitting toxic

15

chemicals, odors, fumes, gases, vapors,

16

pollutants, particulates and other noxious

17

materials to be released by or to escape

18

from the Refinery in such quantities so

19

that said toxic chemicals, odors, fumes,

20

gases, vapors, pollutants, particulates

21

and other noxious materials are deposited

22

on the persons and/or property of the

23

surrounding communities and

24

neighborhoods, interfering with the rights

25

of persons therein to a comfortable

26

enjoyment of life and property;

27
32

28

 1

(b)

ordering defendants to implement any and

2

all changes or modifications to its

3

facilities and/or operations that are

4

necessary or required to eliminate or

5

fully control the release from the

6

Refinery of toxic chemicals, odors, fumes,

7

gases, vapors, pollutants, particulates

8

and other noxious materials, which damage

9

and harm the health and welfare of persons

10

living and working in, passing through or

11

otherwise present in the areas adjacent

12

to the Refinery, including, but not

13

limited to, the installation and

14

maintenance of monitoring and control

15

equipment;

16

(c)

ordering defendants to comply in good

17

faith with all California health and

18

safety laws, rules and regulations; and

19

(d)

preliminarily and permanently enjoining

20

Mobil from operating the Refinery in any

21

manner which threatens a Bhopal-type

22

catastrophic release of toxic fumes.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
33

28

 1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST MOBIL.

3

4

ROBB

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25

84.

Plaintiff incorporates herein, as though set forth

5

in full, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-83,

6

inclusive, hereinabove.

7

85.

Plaintiff contends that the Refinery's inadequate

8

compliance record with California health and safety laws,

9

rules and regulations demonstrates that defendants, and each

10

of them, will continue to disregard both the rights of persons

11

in off-site areas and applicable California law; that

12

defendants, and each of them, have caused the Refinery to

13

release and will cause the Refinery to continue to release

14

toxic chemicals, odors, fumes, gases, vapors, particulates and

15

other noxious materials into off-site areas adjacent to the

16

Refinery; that defendants have caused and will continue to

17

cause irreparable harm and damages to persons and property in

18

adjacent areas surrounding the Refinery.

19

'86.

Plaintiff contends that defendants, and each of

20

them, by justifying the Refinery's releases, odors, emissions

21

and violations, described above, as an economically prudent

22

course of action, have refused to consider or accept that the

23

Refinery's releases, odors and emissions are off-site threats

24

to the health and safety and a deprivation of the rights and

25

privileges of persons in the surrounding areas.

26

conduct, defendants have created a controversial issue

27
34

28

By their

i

 1

requiring a determination by this Court concerning the off-

2

site consequences and risks to public health and safety caused

3

by the Refinery's continued violations of law and by the

4

releases, emissions and odors from the Refinery.

5

87.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

6

thereon alleges, that there is not sufficient scientific,

7

technical, and engineering information and knowledge for

8

defendants to safely use, store, dispose of and handle

9

hydrofluoric acid and other acutely hazardous chemicals in a

10

densely populated urban area such as Torrance.

11

88.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

12

thereon alleges, that the complex equipment and intricately

13

structured environment of the Refinery increases the

14

possibility of multiple causes of malfunctions and chain

15

reactions from accidents, thereby making the manner in which

16

the Refinery currently uses, stores and handles large

17

quantities of hydrofluoric acid inappropriate.

18

89.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

19

thereon alleges that the fact that acutely hazardous chemicals

20

are used, stored and/or handled in very close proximity to

21

each other increases the dangers associated with an

22

accidental or uncontrollable release due to a fire, explosion,

23

equipment malfunction or a leak because of the possibility

24

that these dangerous chemicals will react with each other to

25

become even more toxic and more dangerous.

26

//

27
35

28

 1

90.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

2

thereon alleges, that Mobil cannot now establish with

3

reasonable certainty and a margin of safety that a fire,

4

explosion, malfunctioning equipment or some other accident or

5

uncontrollable release would not cause an uncontrollable

6

release of acutely hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere

7

causing damage to off-site areas.

8

9

91.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

thereon alleges, that there is a consensus of expert

10

geological opinion that there will be an earthquake of

11

substantial magnitude in the Los Angeles Basin in the near

12

future; and that defendants cannot now predict with reasonable

13

certainty that an earthquake of substantial magnitude would'

14

not cause the Refinery's equipment to malfunction in such a

15

way so as to cause the accidental or uncontrollable release of

16

a substantial amount of acutely hazardous chemicals into the

17

atmosphere which would cause extensive harm and damage to off-

18

site areas.

19

92.

Plaintiff contends that dangerous conditions exist

20

at certain Refinery units which use, store or handle acutely

21

hazardous chemicals; that defendants do not employ adequate

22

safety measures in these units to account for the

23

ultrahazardous nature of the chemicals being used, stored or

24

handled; that past incidents at its Refinery were attributed

25

to human error, carelessness, poor management and a failure to

26

follow prescribed safety procedures; and that defendants have

27
36

28

»

 1

dangerously reduced the size of the Refinery's operation and

2

maintenance staff.

3

93.

Plaintiff contends that even if defendants did not

4

have the serious safety problems at the Refinery described

5

above, and that even if defendants managed the Refinery with

6

the most stringent standards of care, the inevitability of

7

human error mandates against defendants' present manner of

8

using, storing, and handling large quantities of hydrofluoric

9

acid and other acutely hazardous chemicals at the Refinery.

10

94.

Plaintiff contends that the risk of catastrophic

11

consequences following an accidental, uncontrollable,

12

inadequately contained off-site release is too great in the

13

densely populated Torrance area to allow defendants to use,

14

store or handle acutely hazardous chemicals in their current

15

manner because somehow, sometime Refinery equipment will break

16

down, be damaged or malfunction and somehow, sometime Mobil

17

employees or contractors will falter or err.

18

95.

Plaintiff contends that due to scientific

19

uncertainty, defendants cannot now claim that the Refinery is

20

adequately equipped to prevent an uncontrollable or accidental

21

release of a large quantity of hydrofluoric acid and/or other

22

acutely hazardous chemicals and to contain the release within

23

the confines of the Refinery.

24

96.

Plaintiff contends that the Refinery's fire brigade

25

does not have sufficient equipment and knowledge to handle an

26

uncontrollable or accidental release of hydrofluoric acid or

27
37

28

 1

other acutely hazardous chemicals and that defendants have not

2

formulated adequate emergency plans for the protection of

3

persons in off-site areas from the danger of an accidental or

4

uncontrollable release from the Refinery.

5

97.

Plaintiff contends that defendants do not possess

6

adequate scientific data to enable them to advise persons in

7

nearby areas how to best protect themselves and their property

8

or to evacuate so as to avoid injury as a result of an

9

accidental or uncontrollable, inadequately contained release

10

of hydrofluoric acid or other acutely hazardous chemicals from

11

the Refinery.

12

98.

'

Plaintiff contends that in light of the sheer

13

potential for catastrophic damage due to the dangerous

14

behavioral characteristics of hydrofluoric acid and the other

15

acutely hazardous chemicals used, stored or handled at the

16

Refinery and defendants' unsafe conduct of the Refinery's

17

operations, defendants' present handling of these chemicals

18

is unsafe.

19

99.

Plaintiff further contends that a decree of this

20

Court is necessary to protect the rights of the People of the

21

State of California to the full benefit, use, and enjoyment of

22

their persons, homes, property and environment from the

23

failure of defendants to conduct the Refinery's operations in

24

a manner consistent with the reasonable protection of the

25

health and welfare of persons living and working in, traveling

26

//

27
38

28

 1

through, and otherwise present in the neighborhoods and

2

communities adjacent to the Refinery.

3

100.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

4

thereon alleges, that defendants deny each of plaintiff's

5

contentions and allegations contained in paragraphs 85 through

6

99, inclusive, hereinabove.

7

101.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

8

thereon alleges, that defendants contend that the risk of harm

9

to and the apprehension of harm in persons living and working

10

in, traveling through, or otherwise present in the

11

neighborhoods and communities adjacent to the Refinery, from

12

both the Refinery's current releases and emissions and a

13

potential accidental, uncontrollable release of an acutely

14

hazardous chemical, is acceptable and that the Refinery can

15

continue its operations in accordance with its current

16

practices, equipment and procedures.

17

102.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

18

thereon alleges, that defendants admit that there is a

19

possible risk of harm to persons living and working in;

20

traveling through, or otherwise present in the areas adjacent

21

to the Refinery, but that they are willing to unilaterally

22

impose those risks on persons in the surrounding neighborhoods

23

and communities to make a greater profit.

24

103.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon

25

alleges that defendants contend that those persons in the

26

adjacent off-site areas who are unwilling to accept the risks

27
39

28

 1

and the apprehension of the risks must move their residences

2

and businesses away from the neighborhoods and communities

3

surrounding the Refinery.

4

104.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based

5

thereon alleges, that defendants have determined what they

6

believe to be acceptable risks for harmful emissions and/or an

7

accidental, uncontrollable release of acutely hazardous

8

chemicals; plaintiff contends that defendants should not be

9

permitted to unilaterally and involuntarily impose such risks

10

upon persons outside the confines of the Refinery and that

11

persons living and working in, traveling through or otherwise !

12

present in the surrounding areas have the right to live, work,

13

travel and be present in said areas without the fear and

14

apprehension of injury to their health and/or a catastrophic

15

explosion or an uncontrollable release.

16

105.

A dispute currently exists requiring a decree of

17

this Court to determine how and in what manner persons living

18

and working in, traveling through or otherwise present in

19

adjacent ares must accept the risks imposed by defendants.

20

106.

Plaintiff requests a declaration of this Court that

21

the known and unknown health, safety and welfare threats to

22

persons in Torrance and the surrounding communities, from

23

harmful emissions and/or an accidental, uncontrollable,

24

inadequately contained release of acutely hazardous chemicals

25

caused by defendants' operations, are too great; that the

26

Refinery cannot continue its operations under current

27
40

28

 1

conditions and practices; and that a substantial change is

2

required in the manner of defendants' use and handling of

3

dangerous, offensive and hazardous chemicals and wastes to

4

ensure the safety and well being of the residents of Torrance

5

and adjacent communities.

6

7
8
9

10
11

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants as
follows:

1.

An order of abatement and an injunction as requested

in the First Cause of Action;

2.

A declaration of rights as requested in the Second

Cause of Action;

12

3.

For costs of suit; and

13

4.

For such further relief as may be deemed just and

14

equitable.

15

Dated:

April 7, 1989

16

KENNETH

L.

NELSON

CITY ATTORNEY

17

CITY OF TORRANCE

18

LAW OFFICES OF RALPH H.

NUTTER

Ralph H. Nutter
19

Robin B.

Howalc

20

By:

/ 7

&

-iCalph/H. ^NutteCr

21

Attorneys'for Plaintiff

The People of the State of

22

California

23
24
25

26
27
41

28