SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report: March 24, 1994
UNOCAL CORPORATION
--------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1-8483 95-3825062
--------- -------- ----------
(State or other jurisdiction of (Commission (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) File Number) Identification No.)
1201 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles, California 90017
---------------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (213) 977-7600
<PAGE1>
ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS
On March 23, 1994, Unocal issued the following news release concerning the
filing of a civil lawsuit regarding the Guadalupe oil field. A copy of the
actual lawsuit is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Los Angeles, March 23 -- Unocal Corporation said that it hopes
ultimately to reach a fair and appropriate settlement of a lawsuit filed
today by the California Attorney General over petroleum leaks at the
company's Guadalupe oil field.
"At some point, we expect to pay civil penalties that will amount to
only a small fraction of the total penalties sought by the Attorney
General," said John F. Imle, Jr., Unocal executive vice president. "The
penalties itemized in the complaint grossly overstate what we believe will
be the final dollar amount of the settlement."
The company said it does not expect that this matter will have a
material effect on the financial condition of the company. In the first
quarter the company expects to take a charge to earnings of approximately
$25 million after-tax for the write-down of facilities, estimated
abandonment costs and immediate remediation expense.
"Unocal has already pledged to clean up the problem at the field, and
we're equally dedicated to protecting our shareholders by vigorously
pursuing this case to a just conclusion, regardless of how long that might
take," Imle said.
He pointed out that diluent (a diesel-like oil-thinning agent) was
used for more than 40 years at the Guadalupe oil field, and in all
likelihood, much of the diluent loss occurred before many laws or
regulations providing for civil penalties in such cases became effective.
"It is not right to be penalized for events that occurred before the
laws existed," Imle said. He emphasized that while the company had
expected this civil lawsuit, today's filing has no impact on its full
commitment to remediating the field.
"What occurred at the Guadalupe field should never have happened,"
Imle said, "and our cleanup program will do what's needed to set things
right to the satisfaction of
the Central Coast community and its public agencies."
The Guadalupe oil field is located some 20 miles south of San Luis
Obispo, California. Unocal, which has operated the field since 1953,
stopped using diluent in 1990. Prior to that, diluent was used to aid the
flow of the extremely heavy crude oil produced at the field.
<PAGE2>
ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS
(c) Exhibits
1. Text of the complaint as referenced in Item 5 to this
report.
<PAGE3>
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirement of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
UNOCAL CORPORATION
------------------
(Registrant)
by: CHARLES S. MCDOWELL
-------------------------
(Charles S. McDowell,
Vice President and Comptroller)
Dated: March 24, 1994
EXHIBIT 1
---------
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General; of the State of California;
WALTER E. WUNDERLICH; Acting Assistant Attorney General; MARY E. HACKENBRACHT;
Deputy Attorney General; 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor; Oakland,
California 94612 3049; Telephone: (510) 464 1356;
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of
California; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ; EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA;
Request No.DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General
of the State of California
WALTER E. WUNDERLICH, State Bar No. 34054
THEODORA BERGER, State Bar No. 50108
Assistant Attorneys General
CRAIG THOMPSON, State Bar No. 67805
EDWARD G. WEIL, State Bar No. 88302
MARY E. HACKENBRACHT, State Bar No. 68289 Deputy Attorneys General
2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Oakland, California 94612-3049 Telephone:
(510) 286-1356
Attorneys for Plaintiffs People of the State of California, ex rel.
California Department of Fish and Game, the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region, California Department
of Toxic Substances Control, and Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) No.
CALIFORNIA, ex rel. )
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL
FISH AND GAME, CALIFORNIA ) PENALTIES, CIVIL MONETARY
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ) REMEDIES, NATURAL
CONTROL BOARD FOR THE ) RESOURCES DAMAGES, COSTS,
CENTRAL COAST REGION, ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, )
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL )
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
UNION OIL COMPANY OF )
CALIFORNIA dba UNOCAL, a )
Delaware Corporation, and )
DOES I-X, )
)
Defendants. )
Plaintiffs People of the State of California ex rel. California
Department of Fish and Game, California Regional Water Quality Control
Board for the Central Coast Region, California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, and Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren, hereby allege
as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil action brought under California law for injunctive
relief, civil penalties, natural resources damages, costs and other relief
in connection with numerous discharges of diluent into the land,
environment and waters of the state at the oil fields known as "the
Guadalupe Oil Field" located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
PLAINTIFFS
2. Plaintiff California Department of Fish and Game ("Department of
Fish and Game") is an agency of the State of California and has the duty
and responsibility to protect and manage the state's natural resources and
their habitat and to prevent and remediate the discharge of oil and
petroleum products.
3. Plaintiff California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the
Central Coast Region ("Regional Board") is an agency of the State of
California and has the duty and responsibility to protect the quality of
the waters of the state.
4. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("Toxic
Substances Control") is a department in the California Environmental
Protection Agency. Toxic Substances Control is the state agency
responsible for the administration of the Hazardous Waste Control Act
("HWCA"), chapter 6.5 of division 20 of the Health and Safety Code,
sections 25100 et seq. Pursuant to section 25182 of the California Health
and Safety Code, Toxic Substances Control is required to bring all actions
for civil penalties and injunctive relief under the HWCA in the name of the
People of the State of California.
5. Plaintiff Daniel E. Lungren is the Attorney General of California.
Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(c) of Proposition 65 provides that
actions to enforce the statute may be brought by the Attorney General in
the name of the People of the State of California. Business and
Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. provides that actions to enforce
the statute may be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the
People of the State of California. Government Code section 12607
authorizes the Attorney General to bring actions for the protection of the
natural resources of the state.
6. On September 10, 1993, the Regional Board, after a duly noticed
public hearing at its regular meeting, requested the Attorney General bring
this action in accordance with the provisions of Water Code section
13350(h).
DEFENDANTS
7. Defendant Union Oil Company of California dba Unocal ("Unocal") is
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware and is qualified to do and is engaged in business in California.
8. Defendant Unocal operates an oil production field at Guadalupe Oil
Fields in San Luis Obispo County.
9. The true names or capacities of defendants Does I through X
inclusive are unknown to plaintiffs, who therefore sue such defendants by
such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show their
true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and
believe and on that basis allege that each of the defendants named as a Doe
is responsible in some manner for events and occurrences about which this
complaint is filed and therefore is liable for the relief sought herein.
10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that
at all times mentioned herein, each of the defendants was the agent and/or
employee of each of the other defendants, and all directors, officers,
agents, employees or representatives of each defendant, in doing all of the
acts mentioned herein, were acting within the course and scope of their
authority and employment as such agents and/or employees and with the
permission and consent and as agents of each of the other defendants.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such
information and belief, allege that Unocal has used diluent, a petroleum
product, in the process of extracting oil from the Guadalupe Oil Field from
on or about 1954 through on or about May 1990. At all relevant times, the
diluent was delivered to the oil wells by a network of pressurized
pipelines (hereinafter "pipelines").
12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based upon such
information and belief, allege that on numerous occasions since Unocal
began using diluent at the Guadalupe Oil Field, diluent has leaked from the
pipelines at numerous locations into the waters of the state, including
groundwater, surface water and marine water, directly and indirectly.
Diluent continues to pass into the waters of the state at numerous
locations. Most recently, in January, 1994, diluent passed into the Santa
Maria River and estuary and the Pacific Ocean.
13. Plaintiffs did not discover the leaks of diluent from the
pipelines at numerous locations in the Field other than the wells known as
Leroy 5X and C-12 (the area of the Field other than the wells known as
Leroy 5X and C-12 will be referred to hereinafter as "the upland area")
until July 16, 1992, when plaintiffs received copies of documents seized
from the offices of defendant Unocal at Orcutt pursuant to a search
warrant. Plaintiffs did not learn of the groundwater contamination in the
upland area of the Guadalupe Oil Field until on or about May 1993.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based upon such information and
belief, allege that defendants knew about numerous leaks from the pipelines
at numerous locations in the upland area prior to July 16, 1992, but did
not notify plaintiffs of the leaks. Plaintiffs could not have learned of
the leaks to the upland area earlier than July 16, 1992, because defendants
did not notify plaintiffs of the leaks in the upland area of the Guadalupe
Oil Field as required by statute and plaintiffs had no reason to believe
leaks were occurring there.
14. The diluent used by Unocal contains benzene and toluene.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and
belief allege that defendants know, and at all times that they have used
this diluent have known, that the diluent contains benzene and toluene.
15. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.8, benzene was
placed on the Governor's list of chemicals known to the State of California
to cause cancer on February 27, 1987.
16. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.8, toluene was
placed on the Governor's list of chemicals known to the State of California
to cause reproductive toxicity on January 1, 1991.
17. The groundwater beneath the Guadalupe Oil Field has been
designated by the Regional Board in its water quality control plan as
suitable for domestic or municipal uses.
18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such
information and belief allege that diluent containing benzene and toluene
has leaked to the land at the Guadalupe Oil Field at various times after
October 27, 1988, and the benzene and toluene passed and continue to pass
to the groundwater below the Oil Field. Plaintiffs are further informed
and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that
defendants have known these facts since at least October 27, 1988.
19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such
information and belief, allege that diluent containing benzene and toluene,
which leaked into the land at the Guadalupe Oil Field prior to October 27,
1988, has discharged and is discharging from the land to the groundwater.
Since at least October 27, 1988, defendants have known that diluent in the
land has discharged or will discharge to the groundwater.
20. Diluent containing benzene and toluene is present on the surface
of the ground at the Guadalupe Oil Field, and has migrated to the surface
of the adjacent beaches, and into the water at the beach. This results in
exposures to benzene and toluene to persons present and working at the Oil
Field, as well as to persons using adjacent beaches.
21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based on such information
and belief, allege that Defendants have known since at least February 27,
1988 that persons were being exposed to benzene and toluene at the Oil
Field and on the beach.
22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based on such information
and belief, allege that the exposures of persons on the beach and at the
Oil Field to benzene and toluene are the result of the deliberate,
volitional and intentional acts of defendants, including, but not limited
to the continuing operation of the system for using diluent with knowledge
that it resulted in leaks that would cause human exposure to benzene and
toluene, and the failure to take action to prevent the migration of diluent
from the Oil Field into the groundwater with the knowledge that this
failure would result in human exposure to chemicals contained in the
diluent.
23. Defendants have not provided warnings of exposure to these
chemicals either to persons on the beach or persons present at the Oil
Field.
24. Defendants have at all times since February 27, 1987, had more
than ten employees.
25. The actions of defendant alleged above have caused the disposal
of hazardous waste, specifically diluent, at points that are not
authorized, occurring at least until February 1, 1990, and remaining
deposited as of today.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Water Code Section 13350(a)(2)
Plaintiff: People, by and through Regional Board
Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
27. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
intentionally or negligently discharged diluent to the waters of the state
or, caused or permitted diluent to be deposited where it discharged to the
waters of the state and created a condition of pollution or nuisance, in
violation of Water Code section 13350(a)(2).
28. Diluent is a waste within the meaning of Water Code section
13350(a)(2).
29. Defendants and each of them acted in violation of prohibitions and
orders issued, reissued, or amended by the Regional Board within the
meaning of Water Code section 13350(a)(2).
30. Defendants and each of them are liable under Water Code section
13350(e) in an amount not to exceed twenty dollars ($20.00) per gallon
of diluent discharged.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Water Code subsection 13350(a)(3)
Plaintiff: People, by and through Regional Board
Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
31. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
32. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
caused or permitted diluent to be deposited in or on the waters of the
state in violation of Water Code subsection 13350(a)(3).
33. The diluent deposited by defendants and each of them was oil or a
residuary product of petroleum within the meaning of Water Code subsection
13350(a)(3).
34. The deposit of diluent was not and is not now permitted by waste
discharge requirements adopted by the Regional Board or by the provisions
of Division 7 of the Water Code.
35. Defendants and each of them are liable under Water Code section
13350(e) in an amount not to exceed twenty dollars ($20.00) per gallon of
diluent discharged.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Fish and Game Code sections 5650 and 5650.1
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and
Game Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
37. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
deposited diluent in, permitted diluent to pass into, or placed diluent
where it could pass into, the waters of the state within the meaning of
Fish and Game Code section 5650.
38. Diluent is a residuary product of petroleum or carbonaceous
material or substance or a substance or material deleterious to fish, plant
life or bird life, within the meaning of Fish and Game Code section 5650.
39. Defendants and each of them are liable under Fish and Game Code
sections 5650 and 5650.1 in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000) for each violation.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Government Code section 8670.25.5
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and
Game Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
40. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
41. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
are responsible for the discharge or threatened discharge of diluent to
marine waters within the meaning of Government Code section 8670.25.5.
42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on based upon such
information and belief, allege that defendants and each of them
intentionally or negligently failed to report the discharge or threatened
discharge of diluent to the Office of Emergency Services.
43. Diluent is an oil within the meaning of Government Code subsection
8670.3(j).
44. Defendants and each of them are liable under Government Code
section 8670.66(b) in an amount not to exceed two hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($250,000) for each violation or for each day the violation
continues.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Government Code section 8670.66(a)(4)
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and
Game Defendant: Unocal
45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
46. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
caused or permitted diluent to be discharged in or on marine waters within
the meaning of Government Code section 8670.25.
47. Defendants and each of them intentionally or negligently failed
to immediately contain, cleanup and remove the diluent in the most
effective manner, within the meaning of Government Code section
8670.66(a)(4).
48. Diluent is an oil within the meaning of Government Code subsection
8670.3(j).
49. Defendants and each of them are liable under Government Code
section 8670.66(a)(4) in an amount not to exceed five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000) for each violation.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Government Code section 8670.66(a)(3)
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and
Game Defendant: Unocal
50. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
51. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
intentionally or negligently discharged or spilled diluent into marine
waters within the meaning of Government code section 8670.66(a)(3).
52. Diluent is an oil within the meaning of Government Code subsection
8670.3(j).
53. Defendants and each of them are liable under Government Code
section 8670.66(a)(3) in an amount not to exceed five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000) for each violation.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Government Code section 8670.56.5
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and
Game Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
55. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
have caused the discharge or leak of oil into or onto marine waters within
the meaning of Government Code section 8670.56.5.
56. The discharge or leak of oil into or onto marine waters has caused
or given rise to damages, including but not limited to injury to natural
resources and costs of response, containment, cleanup, removal, and
treatment within the meaning of Government Code section 8670.56.5(g).
57. Defendants and each of them are absolutely liable under Government
Code section 8670.56.6 for all damages caused by or arising from the
discharge or leaking of oil into or onto marine waters.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fish and Game Code section 12015
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and
Game Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
59. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
are responsible for polluting, contaminating, or obstructing waters of the
state or depositing or discharging diluent threatening to pollute,
contaminate or obstruct the waters of the state to the detriment of fish,
plant, bird, or animal life.
60. Defendants and each of them are responsible for removing the
diluent placed in the waters of the state and removing the diluent
threatening to pollute, contaminate or obstruct the waters of the state or
to pay the costs of removal by the Department of Fish and Game.
61. The Department of Fish and Game has incurred costs of removal of
the diluent.
62. Defendants and each of them are liable under Fish and Game Code
section 12016 to the Department of Fish and Game for its costs of removal
of diluent.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fish and Game Code section 12016
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and
Game Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
64. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
discharged or deposited diluent into the waters of the state or threatened
to enter the waters of the state.
65. Diluent is a substance or material deleterious to fish, plant,
bird, or animal life or their habitat within the meaning of Fish and Game
Code section 12016(a).
66. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on such information and
belief allege that the diluent for which defendants and each of them is
responsible has caused damage to fish, plant, bird, or animal life and
their habitat.
67. Defendants and each of them are liable under Fish and Game Code
section 12016 to the Department of Fish and Game for all actual damages to
fish, plant, bird, or animal life or their habitat.
68. Defendants and each of them are liable under Fish and Game Code
section 12016 to the Department of Fish and Game for all reasonable costs
incurred in cleaning up the diluent or abating its effects.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fish and Game Code section 2014
Plaintiff: People, by and through the Department of Fish and Game
Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
70. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on such information and
belief allege that the diluent discharged by defendants and each of them
has caused and will continue to cause the taking and destruction of birds,
mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia protected by the laws of the State of
California, within the meaning of Fish and Game Code section 2014.
71. Defendant's discharge of diluent is unlawful in that:
(A) The diluent is a waste which was discharged or deposited where it
was discharged into the waters of the state and created a condition of
pollution or nuisance in violation of Water Code section 13350(a)(3), which
violation is continuing.
(B) The diluent is a substance or material deleterious to fish, plant
life, or bird life and is deposited in, permitted to pass into, or placed
where it could pass into a water of the state, a violation of Fish and Game
Code section 5650.
72. By virtue of the acts alleged above, plaintiffs are informed and
believe and on such information and belief allege that defendants and each
of them's unlawful and negligent discharge of diluent proximately caused,
and will continue to cause, the taking or destruction of birds, mammals,
fish, reptiles, or amphibia protected by the laws of the State of
California.
73. Defendants and each of them are jointly and severally liable under
Fish and Game Code section 2014 for all detriment proximately caused by the
taking or destruction of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia
protected by the laws of the State of California.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Harbors and Navigation Code section 151
Plaintiff: All plaintiffs
Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 25.
75. By virtue of the acts alleged above, defendants and each of them
intentionally or negligently caused or permitted diluent to be deposited in
the waters of the state.
76. Diluent is an oil within the meaning of Harbors and Navigation
Code section 151.
77. Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Board have incurred
and continue to incur costs for the cleanup or abatement of the diluent
deposited in the waters of the state.
78. Defendants and each of them are liable under Harbors and
Navigation Code section 151 to the Department of Fish and Game and the
Regional Board 1) for all reasonable costs incurred in cleaning up or
abating the diluent, 2) for actual damages, and for an amount not to exceed
six thousand dollars ($6,000) for each violation.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Proposition 65: Discharge to Drinking Water
(Health & Safety Code 25249.5)
Plaintiff: People, by and through Attorney General Lungren Defendant:
Unocal, Does I-X
79. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are realleged as if fully set forth
herein.
80. The discharge prohibition of Proposition 65 is contained in
Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, which provides:
"No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or
release a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or
probably will pass into any source of drinking water."
Under the statute, "source of drinking water means either a present source
of drinking water or water which is identified or designated in a water
quality control plan adopted by a regional board as being suitable for
domestic or municipal uses." (Id, 25249.11(d).)
81. Any person "violating or threatening to violate" the statute may
be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. Health & Safety Code,
25249.7. To "threaten to violate" is defined to mean "to create a
condition in which there is a substantial probability that a violation will
occur." Id., 25249.11(e). In addition, violators are liable for civil
penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation, recoverable in a
civil action. Id., 25249.7(b). Actions to enforce the law "may be
brought by the Attorney General in the name of the People of the State of
California or by any district attorney". Id., 25249.7(c).
82. By committing the acts alleged above, each defendant has, in the
course of doing business, knowingly discharged or released a chemical known
to the state to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity into water or into
land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of
drinking water.
83. Said violations render each defendant liable to plaintiffs for
civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Competition Act Based on
Violation of Health & Safety Code 25249.5)
Plaintiff: People, by and through Attorney General Lungren
Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
84. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are realleged as if fully set forth
herein.
85. California Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides
that "unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business practice." Section 17203 of the Business and
Professions Code provides that "(a)ny person performing or proposing to
perform an act of unfair competition within this state may be enjoined in
any court of competent jurisdiction."
86. Section 17206(a) provides that any person violating Section 17200
"shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation, which shall be assessed and
recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State
of California by the Attorney General or by any district attorney." Under
section 17205, these penalties are "cumulative to each other and to the
remedies or penalties available under all other laws of this state."
87. By committing the acts alleged above in violation of Health and
Safety Code section 25249.5, each defendant has engaged in unlawful
business practices which constitute unfair competition within the meaning
of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
88. Said violations render each defendant liable to plaintiffs for
civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Proposition 65: Failure to Warn
(Health & Safety Code 25249.6)
Plaintiff: People, by and through Attorney General Lungren Defendant:
Unocal, Does I-X
89. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are realleged as if fully set forth
herein.
90. The warning requirement of Proposition 65 is contained in Health
and Safety Code section 25249.6, which provides:
"No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and
intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to
cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and
reasonable warning to such individual, except as provided in Section
25249.25."
91. By committing the acts alleged above, each defendant has, in the
course of doing business, knowingly and intentionally exposed individuals
to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and
reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to
such individuals, within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section
25249.6.
92. Said violations render each defendant liable to plaintiffs for
civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation.
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Competition Act Based on Violation of Health & Safety Code
25249.6)
Plaintiff: People, by and through Attorney General Lungren
Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
93. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are realleged as if fully set forth
herein.
94. By committing the acts alleged above in violation of Health and
Safety Code section 25249.6, each defendant has engaged in unlawful
business practices which constitute unfair competition within the meaning
of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
95. Said violations render each defendant liable to plaintiffs for
civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Equitable relief;
California Government Code 12607)
Plaintiffs: People, by and through Attorney General Lungren
Defendants: Unocal, Does I-X
96. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 25
as though fully set forth herein.
97. The Government Code provides that the Attorney General may
maintain an action for equitable relief in the name of the People against
any person for the protection of the natural resources of the state from
pollution, impairment, or destruction.
98. The actions of defendant as alleged above have polluted, impaired
and destroyed, and continue to pollute, impair and destroy, the natural
resources of the state.
99. Plaintiffs are entitled to an order requiring defendant to take
all measures necessary to prevent the continued pollution, impairment and
destruction of the natural resources of the state, and to take all measures
necessary to fully restore the natural resources of the state damaged by
defendant's actions to their prior condition.
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance;
California Civil Code 3479 and 3480)
Plaintiffs: People, by and through Attorney General Lungren
Defendants: Unocal, Does I-X
100. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1
through 25 as though fully set forth herein.
101. The release and discharge of diluent as alleged above was
injurious to health and offensive to the senses, and an obstruction to the
free use of property. It further interfered with the general public's use
and enjoyment of public lands, waters and natural resources.
102. The actions alleged above created a public nuisance within the
meaning of Civil Code 3279 and 3280.
103. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 731, plaintiffs are
entitled to an order abating the nuisance and to damages resulting from the
harm to the natural resources of the People caused by defendants and each
of them.
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Common Law Natural Resource Damages)
Plaintiff: People, by and through Attorney General Lungren and
Department of Fish and Game
Defendants: Unocal, Does I-X
104. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through
25 as though fully set forth herein.
105. According to the common law of the state, the State of
California is the owner of, and/or trustee for, all natural resources of
the state, including but not limited to certain lands, waters of the state,
and plants, animals, fish and wildlife and their habitats within the state.
In addition, the state has a duty to protect the environment of the state,
including but not limited to all the air, land, and water within the state.
106. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on such information
and belief, allege that defendant's actions caused, and continue to cause,
damage to the natural resources and environment of the state.
107. Pursuant to the common law of the state, defendant is liable
to the state for the full and total value of all damages caused by the
diluent to the natural resources and environment of the state.
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
Plaintiffs: People, by and through Attorney General, Department of Fish
and Game, Water Board, Toxic Substances Control
Defendants: Unocal, Does I-X
108. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1
through 25 as though fully set forth herein.
109. Defendants and each of them improperly and negligently operated
their system for distributing diluent, failing to assure that diluent would
not leak to the ground at the Guadalupe Oil Field
110. By such acts or omissions, defendants and each of them
breached their legal duty to plaintiffs, which breach proximately caused
the discharge of diluent and resulted in the damages described above,
including the costs of response to the discharge.
111. Accordingly, defendants and each of them are liable to
plaintiffs for all response costs, damages to natural resources, costs of
assessment and other damages sustained by plaintiffs.
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unauthorized Disposal of Hazardous Waste)
(Health & Safety Code 25189.2(c).) Plaintiff: Toxic Substances Control
Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
112. Section 25189.2(c) of the Health and Safety Code provides that
"any person who disposes, or causes the disposal of, any hazardous or
extremely hazardous waste at a point which is not authorized ... shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each violation(.)"
It further provides that "each day on which the deposit remains and the
person had knowledge thereof is a separate additional violation, unless the
person immediately files a report of the deposit with the department and is
complying with any order concerning the deposit issued by the
department(.)"
113. The actions of defendant alleged above have caused the disposal
of hazardous wastes, specifically diluent, at points that are not
authorized, occurring at least until February 1, 1990, and remaining
deposited as of today.
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Unauthorized Disposal of Hazardous Waste)
(Health & Safety Code 25189(d).)
Plaintiff: Toxic Substances Control
Defendant: Unocal
114. Section 25189(d) of the Health and Safety Code provides that
"any person who negligently disposes, or causes the disposal of any
hazardous or extremely hazardous waste at a point which is not authorized
... shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each
violation(.)" It further provides that "each day on which the deposit
remains and the person had knowledge thereof is a separate additional
violation, unless the person immediately files a report of the deposit with
the department and is complying with any order concerning the deposit
issued by the department(.)"
115. The actions of defendants and each of them alleged above have
negligently caused the disposal of hazardous wastes, specifically diluent,
at points that are not authorized, occurring at least until February 1,
1990, and remaining deposited as of today.
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Hazardous Waste Marking and Labeling Requirements)
(Health & Safety Code 25189(b).)
Plaintiff: Toxic Substances Control Defendant: Unocal, Does I-X
116. Section 25189(b) of the Health and Safety Code provides that
"any person who intentionally or negligently violates any provision of this
chapter or any permit, rule, regulation, standard, or requirement issued or
promulgated pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of
not more than $25,000 for each violation of a separate provision or, for
continuing violations, for each day that violation continues." Section
25289.2(b) provides that a person who violates a provision of that chapter,
or a rule or requirement issued pursuant to it, without negligence or
intent, is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each
violation, without any showing of negligence or intent. Section 25189.2(d)
provides that a person may not be penalized under both section 25189 and
section 25189.2 for the same act or failure to act.
117. Regulations promulgated pursuant to the chapter, specifically
Title 22 Code of California Regulations section 66262.34, provide that
hazardous waste must be labeled, placarded and marked in a specified
matter. Section 25143.9 of the Health and Safety Code exempts certain
recyclable materials from classification as a "waste" if they are marked
and labeled in accordance with provisions set forth in that section.
118. Defendants failed to mark, label and placard a Baker tank, three
5,000 gallon tanks, and a 10,000 gallon tank, all of which contained
diluent, either in accordance with requirements for "recyclable materials"
under section 25143.9 or other applicable regulations for "wastes."
119. Said actions constitute a violation of the chapter and
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, rendering defendants and each of
them liable to plaintiffs for a civil penalty as described in section
25189(b) or 25289.2(b).
TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Recyclable Material Reporting Requirements) (Health & Safety
Code 25143.10.)
Plaintiff: Toxic Substances Control
Defendant: Unocal
120. Section 25143.10 of the Health and Safety Code provides that
"any person who recycles more than 100 kilograms per month of recyclable
material under a claim that the material qualifies for exclusion or
exemption pursuant to Section 25243.2 shall, on or before July 1, 1992, and
every two years thereafter, provide to the local health officer" certain
documentation concerning the material as set forth in that section.
121. Defendants recycle more than 100 kilograms per month of diluent,
under claim that it qualifies for exclusion or exemption pursuant to
Section 25243.2, and has failed to provide the information set forth in
section 25243.10.
122. Said actions constitute a violation of the chapter and
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, rendering defendant liable to
plaintiffs for a civil penalty as described in section 25189(b) or
25289.2(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
123. On the First Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for civil monetary remedies in a sum not to
exceed $20.00 for each gallon of diluent discharged and order defendants to
pay such civil monetary remedy, together with prejudgment and postjudgment
interest;
124. On the Second Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly
and severally liable to plaintiffs for civil monetary remedies in a sum not
to exceed $20.00 for each gallon of diluent discharged and order defendants
to pay such civil monetary remedy, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest;
125. On the Third Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for civil penalties in a sum not to exceed
$25,000 for each violation of Fish and Game Code section 5650 and order
defendants to pay such civil penalty, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest;
126. On the Fourth Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly
and severally liable to plaintiffs for civil penalties in a sum not to
exceed $250,000 for each violation of or for each day the violation
continues of Government Code section 8670.25.5 and order defendants to pay
such civil penalty, together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest;
127. On the Fifth Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for civil penalties in a sum not to exceed
$500,000 for each violation of Government Code section 8670.66(a)(3) and
order defendants to pay such civil penalty, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest;
128. On the Sixth Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for civil penalties in a sum not to exceed
$500,000 for each violation of Government Code section 8670.66(a)(4) and
order defendants to pay such civil penalty, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest;
129. On the Seventh Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly
and severally liable to plaintiffs for all damages caused by or arising
from the discharge or leaking of oil into or onto marine waters and order
defendants to pay the monetary value of such damages, together with
prejudgment and postjudgment interest;
130. On the Eighth Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly
and severally liable to plaintiffs for costs of removal of diluent and
order defendants to pay such costs, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest;
131. On the Ninth Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for all actual damages to fish, plant, bird,
or animal life or their habitat and for all reasonable costs incurred in
cleaning up the diluent or abating its effects and order defendants to pay
the monetary value of such damages, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest;
132. On the Tenth Cause of Action, find the defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for all the detriment proximately caused by
the destruction the natural resources of the state, including enforcement
costs, and order the defendants to pay for such detriment together with
prejudgment and postjudgment interest;
133. On the Eleventh Cause of Action, find defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for all reasonable costs incurred in
cleaning up or abating the diluent, for actual damages, and for an amount
not to exceed six thousand dollars ($6,000) for each violation and order
defendants to pay for such costs, damages, and amounts together with
prejudgment and postjudgment interest;
134. On the Twelfth and Thirteenth Causes of Action, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code section 25249.7 and Business and Professions Code
section 17203, enter such temporary restraining orders, preliminary
injunctions, permanent injunctions, or other orders prohibiting defendants
from discharging or releasing chemicals known to the State of California to
cause reproductive toxicity into land or water where such chemicals pass or
probably will pass into a source of drinking water and award penalties
according to proof;
135. On the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Causes of Action, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code section 25249.7 and Business and Professions Code
section 17203, enter such temporary restraining orders, preliminary
injunctions, permanent injunctions, or other orders prohibiting defendants
from exposing persons within the State of California to benzene and toluene
without providing clear and reasonable warnings, as plaintiffs shall
specify in further application to the court, and award penalties according
to proof;
136. On the Sixteenth Cause of Action, enter such temporary
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions or other
orders requiring defendant to take all measures necessary to prevent the
continued pollution, impairment and destruction of the natural resources of
the state, and to take all measures necessary to fully restore the natural
resources of the state damaged by defendant's actions to their prior
condition;
137. On the Seventeenth Cause of Action, enter such temporary
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions or other
orders requiring defendant to abate the nuisance and damages resulting from
the harm to the natural resources of the People caused by defendants and
each of them;
138. On the Eighteenth Cause of Action, find defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for all damages caused by the diluent to the
natural resources and environment of the state and to order defendants to
pay for the full value of all such damages, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest;
139. On the Nineteenth Cause of Action, find defendants jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs for all response costs, damages to natural
resources, costs of assessment and other damages sustained by plaintiffs
and to order defendants to pay for the full value of such costs and damages
together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest;
140. On the Twentieth and Twenty-first Causes of Action, enter
such temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent
injunctions, as are necessary to remedy the unlawful disposals of hazardous
waste, and award penalties according to proof;
141. On the Twenty-second Cause of Action, enter such temporary
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, as are
necessary to remedy the failure to comply with marking, labeling and
placarding requirements, and award penalties according to proof;
142. On the Twenty-third Cause of Action, enter such temporary
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, as are
necessary to remedy the failure to comply with reporting requirements, and
award penalties according to proof;
143. For costs and reasonable attorney fees; and
144. For such other relief as the Court deems necessary.
DATED: March 23, 1994
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General
of the State of California
WALTER E. WUNDERLICH
THEODORA BERGER
Assistant Attorneys General
CRAIG THOMPSON
EDWARD G. WEIL
Deputy Attorneys General
MARY E. HACKENBRACHT
---------------------
MARY E. HACKENBRACHT Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiffs People of
the State of California ex rel of
the California Department of
Fish and Game, the California
Regional Water Quality Control
Board for the Central Coast Region,
California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, and Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren
