SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

urces ControBoard . State Water.:Reso _ _ 1c-,1>1174i''7 0�-t' Cl'-7 I ii ` Division of Clean Water Programs 10011 Street•Sacramento,California 95814 Winston H.Hickox P.O.Box 944212-.Sacramento,California•94244-2 , � -p gg{ !f1: 5 1 Gray Davis Secretaryfor (916)341-5681 +,FAX(916)341-5806 • www.swrcb.ca.govl home ust 't4 F, t1 s a > s: Environmental Governor MProtection The energy challenge facing California is real: Every Cblifornian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumptiar� For n list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs,see our website at vvwwswrcb.ca.gov. _ fes" i Charlie's Day&Nite,Inc. ' ,. SEP 01 12 2 Charles Skobrak 706 El Dorado St N Stockton, CA 95202 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND (FUND), CLAIM NUMBER 016601; FOR SITE ADDRESS: 706 EL DORADO ST N, STOCKTON I received most of the documentation requested to determine your eligibility for placement on the Priority, List. Unless you can document that you decommissioned all USTs pursuant to the direction of the Stockton Fire Department prior to January 1, 1984,you must request the permit waiver. Correspondence from your consultant, Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc. dated July 3, 2001, states: "According to Mr. Charles Skobrak, the site was purchased in 1978 and no permitting requirements for`the San Joaquin County Public Health Services=Environmental Health'Division(PHS-EHD) were established. However, in approximately 1982,the Stockton=Fire Department(SFD)was contacted regarding abandonment of the USTs::According to Skobrak, Charlie's Day&Nite.was instructed by the SFD to remove all fuel from the USTs and fill,with water.for abandonment. Requirements for a'permit was not . indicated.' Mr Skobrak'was unaware that USTs wouldhave to be removed until notified by the PHS- ED in 1997 i.;fire :H The Fund's initial-program regulations allowed the claimant'to have complied,with the permit _4. requirements by January 1`, 1990 instead of January�1, 1984 as reduired bylaw. It was felt,that the January 1 1990 date allowed a reasonable time after the requirement became effective to have obtained the necessary permits or to have submitted an application to the local agency. Even with the siy,-year grace period,many claimants to theFund had their claims denied for failure to - have permitted their tanks. In response to this problem,Assembly Bill 1061 in 1993 amended the statutes to allow the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)to waive the requirement as a condition for eligibility to the Fund-for claims-filed ori or after January 1, 1994. In order to waive the requirement, the "'` SWRCB must find-there Was no intent to'intentionally avoid the permit requirement. The changed,"statute also required that where the waiver was given, the level of financial responsibility is twice the amount otherwise required. The double deductible is applicable"regardless of the reason or reasons that the permit was not obtained or applied for." This specific language was placed in Section 25299.57(d)(3)(B)l specifically so that the SWRCB would not have'to make case-by-case decisions on waiving the statutory permit requirement. UST owners and'operators leave an obligation to be.aware of the laws tliat apply to their business. Permit compliance ought not-be excused because the claimant was not specifically notified of the'p;e mit` requirement by appropriate governmental agencies. SB 1061 addressed the problerri and allows the claimants into the Fund who were unaware of the permit requirement but who took reasonable actions upon becoming aware.;To distinguish between the UST owner that complied with the law and the owner c .r M,eft"; r ., that did not,the double`deductible was-a partof the compromise. California En viro�meutal Protection Agency �a Recycledpaper x