Laserfiche WebLink
ik <br /> ,n <br /> STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BtTARD <br /> WORKSHOP SESSION- DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS <br /> November 3, 1999 <br /> ITEM <br /> SUBJECT <br /> PETITION OF UNOCAL CORPORATION FOR REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND <br /> STORAGE TANK SITE CLOSURE AT 1665 PACIFIC AVENUE, STOCKTON;CALIFORNIA <br /> LOCATION <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> Health and Safety Code section 25299.39.2,subdivision(b)provides that a petroleum underground storage tank , <br /> (UST)owner or operator who believes that the corrective action plan for'the owner's or operator's site has been <br /> satisfactorily implemented may petition the manager of the UST Cleanup Fund(Fund).for review of the owner's or <br /> operator's case. Health and Safety Code section 25297.1,subdivision(d)provides that responsible parties may seek, <br /> review of a local oversight agency decision. UNOCAL Corporation(Petitioner)filed petitions pursuant to these <br /> provisions for review of the decision of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Division(County)not to ' <br /> close this case. <br /> . ,. Petitioner contends that its case should be closed because the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons at its site do <br /> not pose a threat to human health and safety,or the environment. <br /> The Fund manager has reviewed petitioner's case and has concluded the,petitioner's contention has merit. <br /> Accordingly,the proposed order concludes that the detectable concentrations of residual petroleum at petitioner's <br /> site do not pose a threat to human health and safety,or the environment,and do not affect,or threaten to affect, <br /> current or probable future beneficial uses of water. However,because both the County and the Central Valley <br /> Regional Water Quality Control Board do-not concur with the Fund-manager's conclusions,the proposed order <br /> requires petitioner to monitor conditions at the site for one year and directs the County'not to require any additional <br /> work at the site until the results of the year's monitoring have been evaluated. The order provides that at the end of <br /> the one-year monitoring period,the State Water Resources Control Board may reconsider closure of the case. <br /> POLICY ISSUE <br /> Should the State Water Resources Control Board adopt the proposed order? <br /> RWQCB IMPACT <br /> Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> FISCAL IMPACT <br /> None <br /> STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> That the State Water Resources Control Board adopt the proposed order. <br /> Policy Review <br /> Legal Review <br /> Fiscal Review <br />