SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

I State Board") for an order closing the Site, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 2 25299.39.2(b). I am also informed and believe that shortly thereafter San Joaquin County Public 3 Health Services, Environmental Health Division ("PHS/EHD") referred the Site to the San Joaquin 4 County District Attorney's Office (the "District Attorney") for enforcement action. I am further 5 informed and believe and based upon such information and belief state that prior to this time, 6 neither Unocal nor I was aware of any issues of non-compliance or underground storage tank 7 violations associated with the Site. 8 4. For a period of almost two (2) years, commencing on July 7, 1997, I engaged 9 in a number of face-to-face and telephone conferences with San Joaquin County Deputy District 10 Attorney David J. Irey in an effort to settle the alleged underground storage tank violations 11 associated with this and the two other former Unocal service station sites in Stockton. In spite of 12 ; my repeated requests that Mr. Irey set forth the alleged violations in writing, he has refused to do 13 so. 14 5. On February 17, 1999, Unocal and the District Attorney agreed to a settlement f 15 "in principle" whereby Unocal, without admitting liability, agreed to settle all existing San Joaquin 16 County service station enforcement matters by paying agreed-to penalties. During my 17 February 17, 1999 telephone conference with Mr. Irey, he raised the issue of Unocal's June 1997 18 petition for closure of the Site that is pending before the State Board. Mr. Irey insisted that as one 19 of the conditions of the settlement, Unocal withdraw the petition. He also requested that the 20 penalty be allocated one-half to underground storage tank violations and one-half to unfair 21 business practices. I told him that I would convey his requests to Unocal, but that I did not believe 22 that Unocal would agree to withdraw its petition for closure. Attached to the accompanying 23 Petition for Review and Request for Stay as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of my 24 February 17, 1999 letter to Mr. Irey confirming the settlement "in principle." 25 6. During a follow-up telephone conference on March 1, 1999, I told Mr. Irey that 26 ' although Unocal did not believe that it had engaged in any conduct that constituted unfair business 27p I ractices the District Attorney could allocate the agreed-to penalty as proposed. However, I also i 28 told him that Unocal would not withdraw its petition for closure and explained why Unocal -2-