Laserfiche WebLink
y. <br /> September 22,1997 ; <br /> TO. Annabel /. <br /> ?It0M:. Rnn lkrlarklc <br /> SL7HJEC'T:. Glairrt`;Na....i?4R9{T�Irrt�s# <br /> review of <br /> M: the.alaua file raised the following <br /> y g;quesfions. ; <br /> Permit npliattce issue-'th pennit subnt`ed with the claim application is dated 1`99°7 and imued � <br /> to;;.Joseph.zl" lry as 6.W of th tanks: C*the review checklist,you cointnentcd the tanl were <br /> 2ttstalled h 1993. 1 assttttte that you determined that the tanks were installed in 1993 and that tbere were no ,. <br /> taks nat the site prior to 140d(ttew statton'f). if that is the case,the claimant:thould have bean rtgnized to l <br /> demonstcata that they boli tlttained or applied for the permit when the tanks were*statltci(1993). <br /> Proormn...regulations allow fora waiver of permit compliance waiver where the:tanks were:installyd` l; <br /> prior to 1t1J911 and the claiettant failed to, rmit the tanks by the l/l/90 clam;. 46WO r,:therc is no..wfuver <br /> rebore the.tatiksiwere installed,after 111190(see Section 2911(b)(2), t <br /> 2.. Prttitity ii-Th priority of the claim takes on the priority of the lowest tat th8 C1ailrtattt,any `}} <br /> ,joA# elalmants,the tank owiterloperator at the time of discovery of the contamination,orthe tank awwl E <br /> +opaotor at the time of claim application. 'Fhe application shows that the claimant was the:operator at-the. <br /> bine of discovery of the release and both the owner and operatorat the time of application, A Joseph <br /> 7Acckery was apparently the property owner and the tank owner at the time of discovery:and.up until the l <br /> site was reportedly sold in.Tune 1996. l <br /> The priority of the Claim should have beets based on the lowest priority of Zackery or Dhaot: The claimant <br /> failed to complete page S of the application and did not identify the priority class being claimed. if <br /> 7ackorywas the tank owner and exceeded a gross revenue of$3 million(real estate)the claim should have <br /> been prioritized to a"C" <br /> t <br /> 3 13ouble payment issue-Anytime a claimant acquires real property on which tanks are located <br /> during recent years and especially where there was an earlier release reported,there is a question as to <br /> whether the claimant acquired the site at a discount dub to the contamination. We routinely ask for a copy t <br /> of the purchase contract and escrow papers to verify the temis of the purchase. k° <br /> most of the tune,everything is aboveboard and OK. Occasionally the claimant will have acquired the 1 <br /> property at a substantial discount specifically due to she known contamination. 1n suchcases we have <br /> taken the position that to reimburse the claimant when they received a discount would be a double benefit, <br /> No one as yet appealed our position so don't know what will happen. I]relieve that have copied you an <br /> letters an this subject. If not,let me know and I will provide you some-documentation., ( <br /> t <br /> I noticed that the 1997 permit is stili being issued to Zackery. If the claimant acquired the property and <br /> tanks in June 1996,they were required to notify the County of the change in tank ownership right away as <br /> the permitarenot:trnnsfierable. finis does not mean anything but when added to the the facts,is a flag that , <br /> makes on question if the property/tanks were bought in lune 1996 and under what terms. <br /> After reviewing the above cotntnents,lets discuss;and decidL whet whether we should proceed with.issuing <br /> the LOC-without further review or whether we should request matt more dccumentationi <br /> r <br /> T <br /> ,. <br /> X04 699'ON cwd dl1Nt3n Ah ;sj; L6/.V2i6O. <br />