|
• 4
<br /> THE KIRK LAW FIRM
<br /> Ms. Lori Casias
<br /> Associate Government Program Analyst
<br /> State of California
<br /> Water Resources Control Board
<br /> Division of Clean Water Programs
<br /> June 3, 1999
<br /> Page 5
<br /> Chief, Division of Clean Water Programs, from Dennis Parfitt, Associate Engineering Geologist,
<br /> Division of Clean Water Programs, dated March 22, 1999.]
<br /> The District Attorney again insisted that Unocal withdraw the petition for closure.
<br /> On March 30, 1999, Unocal's attorney informed the District Attorney again that Unocal believed
<br /> his request to be inappropriate and asked that he reconsider the request. [Exhibit 12 - Letter to
<br /> David J. Irey, Deputy District Attorney, Environmental Prosecutions Unit, from Sherri M. Kirk,
<br /> dated March 30, 1999.1
<br /> Thereafter, at the urging of PHS/EHD and apparently without consideration of the
<br /> data and information contained in the report of the supplemental site characterization work or the
<br /> Division of Clean Water Programs' responses.to its earlier comments on the proposed order, on
<br /> April 16, 1999, the Regional Board repeated is objection to closure of the Site. [Exhibit 13 -
<br /> Regional Board memorandum to Ed Anton, Chief, DCWP, SWRCB, from Gary M. Carlton,
<br /> Executive Officer, dated April 16, 1999.]
<br /> On April 27, 1999, Deputy District Attorney David Irey informed Unocal that he
<br /> understood that the State Board would adopt the Division of Clean Water Programs'
<br /> recommendation to close the Site, that he disagreed with the recommendation, and unless Unocal
<br /> withdrew the petition for closure, the District Attorney would file suit against it in the San
<br /> Joaquin County Superior Court. See Declaration of Sherri M. Kirk.
<br /> Despite the fact that Unocal believes that the District Attorney's insistence that it
<br /> withdraw its petition is inappropriate, in an effort to avoid litigation and settle all service station
<br /> enforcement matters pending against it in San Joaquin County, on April 16, 1999,Unocal offered
<br /> to withdraw the petition and to perform additional work at the Site pursuant to a workplan to be
<br /> agreed upon with PHS/EHD, provided PHS/EHD agreed to close the Site immediately upon
<br /> Unocal's completion of the workplan. [Exhibit 14 — Letter to David Irey from Sherri M. Kirk,
<br /> dated April 29, 1999; Declaration of Sherri M. Kirk] As of the date of this petition, Unocal has
<br /> received no response to its April 16, 1999 offer.
<br /> Then, on May 4, 1999, presumably in response to Unocal's refusal to withdraw
<br /> the petition for closure, PHS/EHD issued the directive requiring Unocal to submit, by July 1,
<br /> 1999, a workplan to define the lateral and vertical extent of off site, downgradient soil and
<br /> groundwater contamination and to install wells onsite for feasibility tests at the Site. PHS/EHD
<br />
|