SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

r • Ms. Lori Casias January 9, 1998 Page 2 that if it does not provide and undertake a workplan meeting all the requests in the December 10 190 19letter which is the subject of the Petition for Review,the San Joaquin District Attomey's Office is likely to file an enforcement action against Unocal despite the pendency of the Petition for Review. This will put Unocal in the position of either complying with the requests of PHS/EHD, and being denied the benefit of the Petition for Review, or risking penalties in an enforcement action brought by the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office. This would constitute an irreparable harm which could not be alleviated by the Board granting Unocal's appeal at a later date. 2. There is no substantial harm to other interested persons if the stay is granted. As pointed out in the Petition for Review, PHS/EHD, as recently as June 25, 1997 has stated: "However, since there is not a drinking water well on the site, nor are there any known vapor migration pathways, it is unlikely that the site poses an immediate significant human health risk". As set forth in the Petition for Review, the tanks that were the source of the hydrocarbon release were removed from the site in 1967, and the groundwater conditions are being monitored by series of nine groundwater monitoring wells. The level of contamination in these wells had been declining, except for one observation of separate phase hydrocarbon in UV-1 on November 3, 1997. Based on this data, it does not appear that there will be any harm to any other interested persons if the stay is granted. Unocal will continue to monitor the existing wells pending the Petition for Review. 3. There are substantial questions of fact regarding the action of the local agency. Based on the request set forth in PHS/EHD's December 10, 1997 letter, there are important differences between in the opinion of Unocal's environmental consultants, GeoStrategies and PEG, on one hand, and PHS/EHD, on the other hand, over the most appropriate course of action with respect to remaining petroleum hydrocarbons at the site. Substantial sums of money are at stake based on this difference. The Petition for Review would not be necessary but for the substantial differences between PHS/EHD and Unocal's consultants over the most appropriate course of action for the site. The foregoing allegations are supported by the attached affidavits of Peter J. Niemiec, Robert Boust and Joseph Muzzio, which are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. For the foregoing reasons, Unocal requests that the Board issue an order staying any action based on PHS/EHD's December 10, 1997 letter, which is the subject of the Petition for Review. Unocal respectfully requests a hearing on this Petition for a Stay Order. Should you have any questions regarding this petition, please call me at the number listed above. cry trul yours, ter . iemiec