COMPLIANCE INFO 1999-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. PAGE TWO • ORDER THAT ONE SELECT A DISPOSAL FACILITY, ONE MUST OBTAIN AN ACCEPTANCE FROM THE FACILITY WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONTAMINATED MATERIALS. THAT CANNOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL ONE SUBMITS THE LABORATORY DATA TO THE DISPOSAL FACILITY AND ASKS THAT THEY RECEIVE PERMISSION TO BRING THE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL TO THAT FACILITY. THE FACILITY MUST KNOW WHAT THE CONTAMINANTS ARE AND THEY MUST BE LICENSED TO ACCEPT THE CONTAMINANTS AT THOSE LEVELS. HOWiTHEN, CAN ONE ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE HAULER AND THE DISPOSAL FACILITY WHEN ONE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE CONTAMINANTS ARE AND WHAT THE LEVELS ARE. FURTHER, IT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE WAY OF BUSINESS TO NAME A HAULER WITHOUT KNOWING THE QUANTITY OF MATERIAL AND PUTTING THE HAULING CONTRACT OUT TO BID. PERHAPS THE CONTAMINATED SOIL WILL NOT BE HAULED OFF SITE. SOMEBODY WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE HAS DESIGNED A TYPICAL BUREAUCRATIC FORM THAT IS LUDICROUS AND MAKES NO SENSE, DOES NOT HELP RATHER HINDERS A PROPERTY OWNER AND IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. FURTHER, DO YOU PEOPLE READ YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS? LOOK AT PAGE TWO (2) T III SITE MITIGATION, 1. WHEREIN IT STATES: IN THE EVENT CONTAMINATION IS OBSERVED, CONFIRMED OR SUSPECTED AS A RESULT OF A LEAKING UST SYSTEM IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO SUBMIT A WORKPLAN TO PHS-EHD SITE MITIGATION UNIT AND HAVE IT APPROVED PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ASSESSMENT OR REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES. ADDRESS ONE COPY OF THE WORK PLAN TO THE SITE MITIGATION UNIT FOR REVIEW. IF THE SITE IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE LOCAL OVERSIGHT PROGRAM, A BILLING FORM AND A $ 261 (GET MORE FEES,OF COURSE) MINIMUM FEE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE WORK PLAN. FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE, CONTACT THE SITE MITIGATION UNIT AT (209) 468 3450. NOW, MRS BRIGGS, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN PERMIT CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE TANK REMOVAL APPLICATION, "...SUBMIT A WORK PLAN TO PHS-EHD SITE MITIGATION UNIT AND HAVE IT APPROVED PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ASSESSMENT OR REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES." THE INFORMATION YOU ASK FOR IS NOT ONLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVIDE, REDUNDANT, POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO THE PROPERTY OWNER BUT, IT IS CONTRARY TO YOUR OWN RULES. YOU ARE PERFECTLY AWARE OF THE INNOCENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER MR. SINGH AND HIS DESIRE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. SO I IMPLORE YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AS A PUBLIC SERVANT AND REMEMBER WHO YOU WORK FOR. I NOW DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO YOUR UST PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT WHEREIN YOU HAVE ALMOST CAUSED MR. SINGH TO HAVE EITHER A HEART ATTACK OR NERVOUS BREAKDOWN. THIS IS REALLY A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS. AS YOU ARE FURTHER VERY AWARE, I SENT YOU A COPY OF THE CLOSING ESCROW STATEMENT AS WELL AS APPLICABLE PAGES OF A PHASE I AND PHASE II REPORT PERFORMED BY ENVIROSEARCH ON 08 MARCH, 1994 (SITE VISIT). MR. SINGH PURCHASED THE SUBJECT SITE ON 26 NOVEMBER, 1998 AND RELIED THEREON THE CONCLUSIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ENVIROSEARCH. MR. SINGH PURCHASED THE SUBJECT SITE FROM THE GEWEKE AUTOMOBILE DEALER LAND MARKETING GROUP. MR. SINGH DID NOT ILLEGALLY ABANDON THE TANK AT THIS SITE PURSUANT TO HSC 25298 (A). FURTHER, MR. SINGH IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF HSC 25298 (C) AS YOU STATE AS THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS OF 25298 (C) 1-4. MR. SINGH HAS APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FOR CLOSURE WHICH YOU HAVE UNREASONABLY REFUSED TO ISSUE. AGAIN, WE ASK THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY ISSUE THE PERMIT FOR PROPER CLOSURE AS YOUR INACTIONS ARE POTENTIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND ARE BRINGING IRREPARABLE HARM TO MR. SINGH. REGARDS,