Texaco Under State Investigation on Spill : Ventura: Fish and Game warden alleges that employees waited to report the 370,000-gallon leak. Office raid dismays company.

Texaco employees discovered one of the county’s largest oil-related spills long before they reported it to authorities last year and then tried to pass the blame to neighboring oil companies, state investigators allege.

In a search warrant affidavit, a state Department of Fish and Game warden alleges that Texaco officials waited to report the 370,000-gallon leak of a gasoline-like liquid until they could no longer conceal it and kept quiet about a repaired pipeline to avoid responsibility.

“Upon discovery (of the leak), I believe that Texaco knew the product was from the leak of the repaired pipeline,” states Warden Holly Etheridge in the affidavit.

But investigators did not discover that the broken Texaco pipeline was close to the spill until they found it eight months after Texaco’s January, 1993, report, according to a Fish and Game spokesman who read the affidavit to The Times.

So much of the toxic liquid leaked that a slick 25 feet thick was eventually discovered atop an underground water basin beneath the spill. Officials estimate it will take years to pump all of the toxic liquid out of the ground and clean up the site.

Texaco officials insist that the source of the spill is unknown. Spokeswoman Faye Cox said the company has cooperated fully in trying to clean up the site.

She said Texaco is dismayed that state and local investigators raided the company’s oil field offices Tuesday night and continued its search for incriminating documents through Thursday.

“We notified Fish and Game and the proper authorities immediately,” Cox said. “We have worked with Fish and Game throughout this whole process. That’s why we’re shocked by the actions taken.”

Meanwhile, north Ventura residents who live along School Canyon Creek said they are outraged that neither Texaco nor the state notified them about the contamination. Heavy rains last year apparently forced some of the toxic liquid to the surface where it flowed down School Canyon to the creek.

Many neighborhood children play in the creek and could have been exposed to highly toxic chemicals, several mothers said.

“A year later we find out,” June Teran said. “A whole year after the kids have been back there. It isn’t fair.”

*

Cox said Texaco would have notified residents if state investigators would have recommended such a move. “We had no reason to believe the public was in danger,” she said.

State investigators say they think Texaco suspected the toxic liquid might flow a mile down the creek past the residential neighborhood.

“Texaco probably knew that the material would not remain in one spot, that it would travel underground down the canyon and to the open creek and eventually to the Ventura River,” said Fish and Game spokesman Bob Schlicting, paraphrasing the affidavit.

The basis for possible felony charges would be that Texaco knowingly discharged a toxic substance onto private property and into state waters, since some of the leaked substance was flushed by rain into the nearby creek and the Ventura River, prosecutors said.

If such charges are eventually filed and proved, Texaco could face fines of $50,000 for each day it failed to report the spill and company officials could be fined $10,000 and imprisoned for up to three years.

But prosecutors said Thursday that they have just begun to examine evidence gathered over the past year by state Fish and Game, the lead investigative agency.

“We’re still in the process of collecting evidence,” Assistant Dist. Atty. Colleen Toy White said. “But this is a serious case. Any release of this kind of substance has the potential for very significant impacts.”

The spill is far larger than the Jan. 17 leak of 214,000 gallons of crude oil into the Santa Clara River and a spill of 84,000 gallons of crude into a lake at McGrath State Beach in December.

The environmental cost of the School Canyon spill is still unknown. No dead or injured wildlife have been found in the area, authorities said.

But the potential for problems is high, said Reed Smith, a pollution response coordinator for Fish and Game. “This stuff is really hot,” he said. “It’s an extremely toxic material.”

Two of the four components of the liquid are known or suspected of causing cancer. And both benzene and toluene also cause nervous system disorders. Ethyl benzene is a nervous system depressant and xylene may produce breathing problems.

State investigators said they do not know how much of the 370,000 gallons of lightweight, colorless natural gas condensate--which is refined into gasoline and propane--leaked into School Canyon Creek, nor what its effect has been downstream.

They said they think that much of the liquid may still be contained within a small area, in soil saturated to a depth of 50 feet and floating in an underground water basin below.

The toxic liquid apparently remained in the spill area until last year’s rains elevated the water table, pushing some of the liquid to the surface and down the canyon, Smith of Fish and Game said.

But he said there is no evidence the liquid has migrated underground far enough to be detected in test wells drilled down the hill from the site.

*

The sandy soil in the area could allow relatively rapid subterranean movement of up to one foot a day, county hydrologists said.

Nor are there any known drinking water wells nearby that could have been contaminated by the spill, local water officials said.

Nearly all north Ventura residents receive city water and none of it is drawn from the oil field area, said Ventura water production supervisor Mike Oakley.

“There’s a possibility that some of the farmers in that area may have some wells, but I don’t think they’re used for potable water. I think they’re used for irrigation.”

Nearby residents, however, said they they are nervous about the effects of the spill and angry they had not been told about it earlier.

“I think when something happens in your back yard, they should let you know,” said Helen Loucado, 44, whose home backs up to School Canyon Creek. “You know how kids are. They like to get their hands in the dirt and stomp around.”

Residents said more than a dozen young birds have been found dead in recent months near the creek. And one resident said the spill has raised questions about recurring headaches and stomachaches her children have experienced.

“In one quarter last year, my daughter had to miss 22 days of school,” said Sarah Murillo, 29. “It makes you wonder.”

Beyond health considerations, investigators are weighing the legal implications of Texaco’s response to the spill. Fish and Game’s sworn affidavit lays out a series of events that allegedly show Texaco concealed information about the leak, Schlicting said.

The affidavit states that Texaco first notified Fish and Game Warden Etheridge about a small leak on Jan. 25, 1993, though the state Office of Emergency Services said it received a call from Texaco on Jan. 12. The OES is a clearinghouse where reports of toxic spills are disseminated to appropriate agencies.

Frank MacCioli, the regulatory compliance officer for Texaco, told Etheridge that the spill was detected on Jan. 12 after heavy rains brought the toxic liquid to the surface. MacCioli said Texaco pressure-tested all its lines and found no leaks.

MacCioli said the most likely source was abandoned lines or lines operated by Shell Oil or owned by Southern California Gas.

On March 4, both Texaco and Shell Oil agreed to have their natural gas condensate sampled and “fingerprinted” to determine whose plant was the source of the spill. But after Texaco failed to submit a sample promptly, the warden drew her own sample.

On May 25, Fish and Game tests confirmed that the spill came from Texaco, and a month later notified the company, according to the affidavit.

In August, a Texaco consulting firm discovered four small pipelines running across School Canyon near the spill site, where extensive contamination had been confirmed in the spring. The soil beneath the lines was wet with the toxic liquid.

*

After finding that one of the pipelines had been repaired, state investigators were told by a Texaco field supervisor that the lines were not used under pressure and only carried gas vapors away from a natural gas plant. Under further questioning, the supervisor acknowledged that the pipelines had carried pressurized condensate until February, 1993, the month after Texaco reported the spill.

“Texaco denied previous knowledge of a spill or seep throughout the yearlong investigation . . . “ said Schlicting, reading from the affidavit. “Texaco denied knowledge of repairs or records of repairs to that pipeline.”

Texaco’s Cox said questions about the affidavit had been referred to the company’s attorneys, who she said refused comment to reporters.

Kelley is a Times staff writer and Hadly is a Times correspondent. Times correspondent Julie Fields contributed to this article.

Volatile Compounds Found Gas condensate is a liquid byproduct from the processing of natural gas. The liquid smells and looks much like gasoline. Further processing converts the gas condensate to propane and gasoline. Four volatile compounds were discovered in the samples taken at the spill site.

Benzene: Found in gasoline, it is a known human carcinogen and highly toxic. Exposure may result in fatigue, anorexia and other central nervous system disorders.

Ethylbenzene: A depressant to the central nervous system and a skin hazard.

Toluene: Found in gasoline, it is a central nervous system depressant and skin hazard. Chronic exposure can result in anemia or leukemia.

Xylene: It is toxic, ignitable and may produce pulmonary edema.

Oil Spill Site At least 370,000 gallons-or 8,800 barrels-of a petroleum byproduct spilled, state officials said, when a pipeline ruptured at a Texaco production plant in north Ventura. Cleanup of the underground spill could take three years.