SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

1 cost estimated by Levine Fricke to be at least $6,500 per J 2 quarter) until "four clean quarters" of samples were obtained.. 3 Finally, the Health Department's representative acknowledged 4 that, in her view, the economic feasibility of the Order and the 5 practicality of further clean-up of the extremely minor levels of 6 contaminates detected at the Site were of no consequence in the 7 Health Department's evaluation of the Petitioner's repeated 8 requests for case closure. Clausing Decl. at p. 2. 9 Such stated Health Department policy objectives, as well as to the order issued to Petitioner in this case, conflict with the 11 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Manual. The LUFT Manual clearly 12 acknowledges that clean-up of all dissolved petroleum products in 13 groundwater is not always required. Moreover, the Health 14 Department's policy flies in the face of one of the primary 15 objectives of the local oversight program (from, which the Health 16 Department derives its power) -- the objective of uniform V 17 statewide regulation of` leaking petroleum USTs. Gov't 18, Institutes, Inc. , California Environmental Law Handbook (6th Ed. , 19 1992) 3 .2. 1(j) . 20 Further, even though a law may be fair on its face and 21 impartial in appearance, if it is administered by a public agency 22 with an unequal hand, so as to discriminate between persons in 23 similar circumstances, the agency has denied such persons of 24 equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the U.S. and 25 26 2 This objective may never be obtained. The Health Department prominently displays in its office a large map showing several 27 regional plumes of petroleum contamination affecting large areas of San Joaquin County. These plumes apparently result from the 28 many years of agricultural operations and the large number of underground petroleum storage tanks associated with such uses. -11- N\VNC\C0L0RSPT\APPEAL.PL4(5P2)