The ‘Even-Handed’ Judge in Mobil Case : Torrance: Retired Superior Court Judge Harry V. Peetris is praised by legal observers as intelligent and fair.

For more than two years, the city of Torrance and Mobil Oil Corp. have been engaged in a legal wrestling match over the safety of the mammoth Mobil refinery on the city’s north side.

Last week, attention suddenly shifted from the combatants to the match’s referee. On Thursday afternoon, retired Judge Harry V. Peetris issued his long-awaited decision appointing a firm to oversee safety operations at the refinery.

As with many referees’ rulings, Peetris’ decision--to name industry giant Westinghouse Electric Corp. of Pittsburgh--drew sharply contrasting reactions from the two sides in the refinery dispute.

Mobil, which had recommended Westinghouse, praised Peetris’ choice.

Torrance city leaders were stunned and disappointed. The city had hoped that Peetris would instead choose its nominee, a smaller, nonprofit research firm called SRI International of Menlo Park.

Even so, several city officials say their faith in Peetris, who gained the respect of Torrance officials during earlier negotiations, remains unshaken.

City Councilman Dan Walker, who compared Westinghouse’s role as safety adviser to “a fox watching the chicken coop,” says he still has confidence in Peetris: “He had a decision to make between two organizations, and he made it. . . . I wouldn’t question his judgment at all.”

By naming the safety adviser, the decision settles a key aspect of an October, 1990, consent decree between the city and Mobil.

But it also shifts the spotlight to Peetris, an ex-FBI agent and retired Superior Court judge who has assumed a central role in the consent decree and in several other high-profile environmental legal battles in Southern California.

The safety adviser is considered the key element in last fall’s consent decree between the city and Mobil, which was the result of a lawsuit filed by Torrance against the company after a series of explosions and accidents had undermined public confidence in the safety practices at the 750-acre refinery. Under terms of the decree, the safety adviser will analyze and recommend improvements to safety procedures at the refinery and will oversee the modification or phase-out of highly toxic hydrofluoric acid at the plant.

Peetris serves as the final authority in the decree’s implementation. He has the responsibility for deciding “all disputed enforcement matters” between the city and Mobil for the next 6 1/2 years.

In addition, in his Thursday decision, Peetris modified the decree to allow him to hire experts, at Mobil’s expense, to help him resolve any objections to a recommendation from Westinghouse.

Mobil announced Friday that it would accept that and another change made by Peetris, allowing either side to seek an increase in the $1-million spending limit for the safety adviser.

But the city’s attorneys Friday afternoon requested a hearing with Peetris to clarify some points of his ruling. The order was issued just days after City Atty. Kenneth L. Nelson left the country on vacation, and Mayor Katy Geissert said Friday that she doubts that the city will make any major decision on the matter until his return.

Peetris has been a key player in the refinery debate since late last summer, when he was asked to help negotiate a pretrial agreement. He then helped the parties craft the consent decree.

A cum laude law graduate of USC, Peetris served as an FBI special agent from 1941 to 1945 and practiced law before his appointment as a Los Angeles Municipal Court judge in 1962. He became a Superior Court judge in 1964, rising to assistant presiding judge in 1981 and presiding judge in 1982.

He retired in 1984 at age 65 to become a “rent-a-judge,” available to be hired for out-of-court resolution of disputes. Since then, he has gained a reputation for even-handedness and intelligence in dealing with complex environmental cases.

“I think he’s very bright. I think he’s very conscientious,” said Joel Reynolds, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Reynolds has dealt extensively with Peetris in the so-called “Stringfellow case,” a long-running legal battle involving who is responsible for paying cleanup costs at the Stringfellow acid pits in Riverside County, which has been called California’s most notorious toxic waste site. Peetris was named a special master--or court-appointed arbiter--in the case in 1985.

Donald Robinson, a state deputy attorney general working on the Stringfellow case, said of Peetris: “His rulings have been fairly even in Stringfellow. The government has won significant issues, and the corporate defendants have won significant issues.”

Senior U.S. District Judge A. Andrew Hauk in March appointed Peetris as special master in another complicated environmental case, in which the federal government is suing eight companies, including Westinghouse, for allegedly polluting ocean waters with toxic chemicals. In his March order, Hauk wrote that Peetris “is renowned for his experience and expertise in complex and lengthy litigation involving many counsel.”

Torrance filed its own lawsuit against Mobil in April, 1989.

Peetris won the trust of city officials when he helped them mold the consent decree for that lawsuit last fall. He worked to keep settlement talks “on track when they hit potholes,” said Michael Leslie, one of the attorneys representing the city.

Mayor Katy Geissert recalls being impressed by Peetris during a 10-hour series of negotiations in mid-October in which she took part. Peetris made clear that he was in charge of negotiations, Geissert said. “He’s a very intelligent man, and very fair. Non-judgmental.”

Now, despite their unhappiness with the selection of Westinghouse as safety adviser, city officials are looking ahead. City fire officials will probably be meeting soon with Westinghouse, said City Manager LeRoy J. Jackson. A Fire Department staff member will monitor the safety adviser’s work.

“We’re going to be looking very closely over the shoulder of Westinghouse,” Geissert said.

And Jackson added: “We can challenge the safety adviser . . . to the judge at any time.”