D. A. Files Suit Against Unocal Over 5 Oil Spills in 2 Years

The district attorney’s office filed a lawsuit Friday against Unocal Corp., charging the oil company with misconduct in a series of spills that allowed oil and contaminated water to flow into Ventura County waterways.

The Superior Court lawsuit targets five spills in the Santa Paula area--one barely two weeks ago--and says Unocal was at fault for placing petroleum in an area where it could flow into state waters.

Unocal spokesmen said they were disappointed that the lawsuit was filed because the company has been cooperating with government agencies in trying to resolve problems in the Adams Barranca area near Santa Paula.

“I know we’ve been trying to work with them--I guess they’re not happy with that,” said Harold Zahner, Unocal’s deputy general counsel.

The lawsuit charges that Unocal allowed oil and contaminated water to spill into waterways twice a year ago, and again Jan. 13 and Feb. 19. The suit also alleges that after one of the March, 1994, incidents, as well as following a spill on Feb. 23, 1993, Unocal did not immediately report the mishaps as required by law.

The lawsuit seeks damages of as much as $27,500 for a single incident, plus a court order prohibiting future violations of the law, Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Harman said.

The biggest spill listed in the lawsuit occurred March 6, 1994, when close to 30,000 gallons of crude oil and contaminated water spilled into Adams Barranca and subsequently flowed through the Santa Clara River and into the ocean.

Company officials said at the time that seismic activity prompted a surge in the oil that seeps into a storage tank from century-old tunnels in Adams Canyon, causing the tank to overflow. Crews spent eight days scrubbing the barranca in an effort to remove the oil, but rains swept some of the contamination downstream before the cleanup was completed, officials said.

Barry Lane, a Unocal spokesman, said the spill actually occurred March 12, the day the company reported it to government authorities, and not March 6 as the lawsuit claims. Consequently, Lane said, the company is not guilty of making a late report of the spill.

Harman said the date dispute will have to be resolved in court.

A tank overflow also is blamed for a Jan. 13 spill that dumped between 15 and 40 barrels of oil and contaminated water into the Adams Barranca. Again, Lane said, heavy rains caused the mishap.

The lawsuit says a valve failure caused the March 25, 1994, release of 1,500 gallons of oil and water, some of which reached a dry creek that leads to the Santa Clara River.

The most recent spill listed in the lawsuit occurred when a pipeline burst Feb. 19 and spilled an unknown amount of oil and water into an unnamed creek that flows into Adams Barranca.

Lane said the pipe was probably broken by a cow or other animal in the area.

Lane said that the tunnels, dug into mountainsides more than 100 years ago to capture the natural seepage of oil in the area, are a continuing problem, and that Unocal officials have worked with government agencies to try to solve the difficulty. The setup is not designed to handle heavy rain, he said, and that was the problem this year and last.

“The storm waters just literally overwhelmed the systems, pure and simple,” he said.

But Harman said the spills should have been prevented.

“These spills are not caused by natural seepage,” Harman said. “These deal with oil they were producing.”