SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

I thought that his request that it do so was inappropriate. I also told Mr. prey that Unocal believed 2 that its petition should be allowed to take its course and that Unocal would abide by the State 3 Board's decision whatever it may be, i.e., if the State Board does not issue an order closing the 4 Site, Unocal will undertake the additional corrective action necessary to close the Site and if the 5 State Board orders the Site closed, Unocal will also consider the matter closed and concentrate its 6 efforts on closing its remaining former service station sites in San Joaquin County. Attached to the 7 Petition for Review and for Stay as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of my March 2, 1999 letter 8 to Mr. Irey confirming our March 1, 1999 telephone conference. 9 7. During a subsequent telephone conference on March 24, 1999, Mr. Irey 10 continued to insist that Unocal withdraw the petition. I again explained to Mr. Irey why his 11 request was inappropriate, repeated that Unocal would not withdraw the petition for closure, and 12 requested that he reconsider his request. Attached to the Petition for Review and Stay as Exhibit 13 I 12 is a true and correct copy of my March 30, 1999 letter to Mr. Trey confirming our March 24, 14 1999 telephone conference. 15 8. During a telephone conference on April 27, 1999, Mr. Irey told me that he 16 understood that the State Board would adopt the Division of Clean Water Programs' 17 ' recommendation to close the Site, that he disagreed with the recommendation, and unless Unocal 18 withdrew the petition, he would file suit against Unocal in San Joaquin County Superior Court. .19 After consultation with Unocal, and with its authorization, 1 wrote to Mr. Irey on April 29, 1999 20 and informed him that although Unocal still believed that his insistence that it withdraw its petition 21 for closure was inappropriate, to avoid litigation, it would withdraw the petition and perforin � i 22 additional corrective action at the Site pursuant to a workplan agreed upon with PHS/EHD, j ; 23 provided PHS/EHD agreed to close the Site upon Unocal's implementation of the workplan. 24 Attached to the Petition for Review and Request for Stay as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy 25 of my April 29, 1999 letter to Mr. Irey. 26 9. While waiting for Mr. Irey's response to my April 29, 1999 letter, I was 27 informed by Unocal that PHS/EHD had written to Unocal on May 4, 1999, directing it to submit a 28 workplan "to define the lateral and vertical extent of off site, downgradient soil and groundwater -3-