SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

5. Can June 6, 1995,we again communicated with EHD as directed. A copy oft at letter is attached as Exhibit"D 6 In a Jure 26, 1995 phone conversation,EHD told us that it would not respond t our Jure 5, 1995 letter and told us that discussion of legal issues was a vete of time. We then requested that a legal representative of the State contact us to discuss our concerns. We were assured that such contact would be forthcoming; 7. On June 26, 1995 we sent a confirming letter to EHD. A copy of that later is attache as Exhibit"E" No representative of the State ever contacted .is; and 8. On August 29, 1995 EHD contacted a previously uninvolved Spanos executive. The nature of that contact was to characterize the Spanos attorney as an argumentative troublemaker and to attempt to persuade management to ignore the advice of its legal counsel. The executive was advised by EHD to immediately get Petitioner involved in the investigation and clean-up procedure or face "enforcement proceedings" if it did not.. follow-up letter was seat to the Spanos executive on August 29, 1995. A caps=of that letter is attached as Exhibit"I'". When the executive expressed Petitioner's continuing hope for an opportunity to dispute its liability;we were, for the first time,informed that someone in Sacramento could entertain a petition. We were given the name of Mike I-larper. We contacted r. Harper on August 30, 1995. While he could not Delp us,he . FuEy referred us to Ms. Dori Cas as. She suggested filing this petition. On August 1, 1 9 we received,from Ms Casias,the excerpt from Resolution No. 88-23 concerning U;i by this Board of action or failure to act by local agencies. 9. All epi bits referred to in this paragraph and elsewhere in this Petition are incorporated by this reference. B. 1F ST FOR REYNZ Petitioner requests that the Eoar d review the action ofthc Local A encu in designating;Petitioner a Responsible Party with respect to Site 1845 and its inaction : i t o n��ard �Ily respond to P'etitioner's requests for further action and consideration. Specifically: The Local Agency has attempted to designate Petitioner as a esppnsible Party when, in fact, Petitioner is no responsible under applicable law. This action occurred with the ori�ouial communication.received by Petitioner on or about March 28, 1995, and continues to the date of this Petition, The Local A enc failed to properly notice Petitioner as a Responsible Pa4a.... .... within the time set by applicable statutes of limitation. This action and inaction occurred with the expiration cif the statute elther 4 or 5 years after discovery of the containinatiou and continues to the,date,of this Petition;