ARCHIVED REPORTS_PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ACTION; REQUEST FOR STAY HEARING

Home Browse Search

aggrieved in that the reports requested do not bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of obtaining the information or any benefits to be obtained by the report as required by State Water Code Section 13267. Further, staff has not met their burden under Section 13267 of explaining the need for these reports in light of the fact that the spills were minor, and completely abated, and the files closed by the San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health. Lastly, with respect to the 2008 spill, the Petitioner is neither a property owner nor a discharger and is completely unrelated to that matter. 6. Petitioner's Requested Action by the State Board: Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board determine that the Regional Board's action in issuing the Order was inappropriate and improper, and that it dismiss the Order in accordance with this Petition. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7. Statement of Points and Authorities: In requiring technical reports under Water Code 13267,the Board shall provide an explanation with regard to the need for the reports and shall identify evidence that supports requiring the person to provide such reports. The Board has not met its burden of providing sufficient evidence for requiring the technical report as requesting in the Order. The Order was prompted by a desire of Chevron to apportion blame for the contamination at their site (see attached letter to Chevron, incorporated herein by reference as EXHIBIT 11). With regard to the 1998 spill, Petitioner did assume responsibility. However,this minor, seven-to-eight gallon, spill, was cleaned up to the satisfaction of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health and the Board has not provided sufficient evidence of how that spill is capable of having caused or contributed to the contamination observed in the monitoring wells associated with the Chevron property. The ubiquitous nature of the diesel contamination beneath the adjacent Chevron property, along with documented groundwater flow conditions, placing the Petitioner's site periodically downgradient of Chevron, strongly suggests that any groundwater investigation on Petitioner's site would encounter contaminated groundwater originating with Chevron. Contaminated groundwater was documented in Chevron wells near the property line prior to the construction of the Petitioner's cardlock(MW-9) and prior to the 1998 spill (MW-20). Further, Water Code 13267 specifically gives the Board jurisdiction over the discharger, or one who is suspected of discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within its region. Specifically with regards to the 2008 incident,the Board has not provided adequate evidence of Petition for Review/Request for Hearing -6-