Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br /> related to the 1998 diesel spill and a manifest was found showing that the material was cleaned <br /> up and disposed of by Laidlaw of San Jose. Their file also indicated that the spill was abated. <br /> This incident was never brought up again until recently,by the letter indicated above. <br /> 5. VPPS was not named as a responsible party for the 2008 spill in which the <br /> Discharger/Responsible party was named as Allege Trucking. My clients were never made <br /> aware of this incident until recently, in the letter indicated above. <br /> 6. On March 3, 2011, Technical Reporting Order No. R5-2011-0800 ("Order") was <br /> issued by Pamela C. Creedon, Executive Officer of the California Regional Water Quality <br /> Control Board, Central Valley Region("Regional Board"). <br /> 7. This Order appears to have been prompted only after a request by Chevron to contact <br /> VPPS and evaluate the possibility that VPPS could be partly responsible for the condition of the <br /> wells at Chevron's site. <br /> 8. VPPS disputes the Order's allegations and hereby files this Petition for Review of <br /> Action and Request for Stay and Hearing by the State Water Resources Control Board <br /> ("SWRCB")pursuant to the Water Code section 13320,Title 23, California Code of Regulations <br /> (CCR) sections 2050-2068. Petitioner request a stay and evidentiary hearing pending review of <br /> the merits of the Petition in order that Petitioner and/or counsel, and other designated parties, can <br /> participate in a hearing and given the opportunity to present evidence and testimony based on the <br /> following: <br /> A. There will be substantial harm to the Petitioner if a stay is not granted. <br /> Requiring VPPS to proceed with the investigation and technical report requested in the Order <br /> will subject VPPS to ongoing and unreasonable expenses, when the Board has not provided <br /> sufficient evidence as to how VPPS may be related to the groundwater contamination observed. <br /> B. There will be no substantial harm to other interested persons and/or to the <br /> public interest, if a stay is granted because Chevron is presently undergoing an investigation and <br /> remediation of similar contamination adjacent to and surrounding this property and it appears the <br /> situation is stabilized. <br /> C. There are substantial questions to fact or law regarding the disputed action. <br /> There are several factual and evidentiary inaccuracies in the Board's Order with respect to the <br /> 2008 spill of approximately 15-20 gallons, and thel998 spill of approximately 40 gallons. <br /> I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of 4e S of California,that the <br /> foregoing is true and correct. Executed this�day of 2011, at Stockton, <br /> California. <br /> PATRICK 6— <br /> Attorney for VPPS <br />