SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

r THE KIRK LAW FIRM Ms. Lori Casias Associate Government Program Analyst State of California Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs June 3, 1999 Page 6 issued the May 4, 1999 directive with the knowledge that the Site is currently before the State Board on a petition for review and closure submitted by Unocal on June 13, 1997, and with the knowledge that the Division of Clean Water Programs intends to recommend closure of the Site to the State Board. This action on the part of PHS/EHD was clearly intended to interfere with the State Board appeals process. On May 18, 1999, Unocal wrote to PHS/EHD requesting that it extend the July 1, 1999 deadline for compliance with its May 4, 1999 directive until after the State Board issues a decision on the June 1997 petition for closure. [Exhibit 15 — Letter to Margaret Lagorio from Robert Boust, dated May 18, 1999.1 As of the date of this petition, Unocal has not received a response to its request for extension of the July 1, 1999 deadline. See Declaration of Robert A. Boust. Unocal is currently awaiting a decision on its petition for closure. It is therefore inappropriate and an abuse of its discretion for PHS/EHD, as a Local Oversight Agency, to ignore an integral part of the program that it has contracted with the State Board to help implement by insisting that Unocal undertake new and additional work at the Site while the State Board is reviewing PHS/EHD's refusal to close the Site. The inappropriateness of PHS/EHD's action is magnified by the District Attorney's insistence that Unocal dismiss its petition to the State Board for closure because he, and PHS/EHD, disagree with the recommendation of the Division of Clean Water Programs that the State Board close the Site. If PHS/EHD truly believed that its opposition to closure of the Site was meritorious, the appropriate course of action would have been for it to make its views known to the State Board by submitting them in writing and asking the State Board to rule on the petition for closure. Instead, it chose to interfere with the process, to the detriment of both the process and to Unocal. (5) Manner in Which Unocal is Aggrieved The actions taken by PHS/EHD after Unocal filed the Petition for closure have caused Unocal to incur the costs of supplemental investigation work at the Site, to incur legal fees in attempting to negotiate a settlement of enforcement actions threatened by the District Attorney, and to incur expenses associated with this Petition for Review. Unless the State Board reviews PHS/EHD's actions and issues an order staying further action by PHS/EHD, Unocal will be denied the right to review granted it by SB 562 and will continue to face the threat of an enforcement action in San Joaquin County for attempting to exercise that right.