SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Mr. and Mrs. Victor Hernandez - 3 - Claim 3 - Claim No. 18239 the following reasons: it has been filled with an inert solid, its fill pipes have been sealed, and its piping has been removed. In your case, none of the three instances listed above has occurred. Thus, UST permits were required for the USTs at your site. In your request, you contend the USTs were not disclosed when you acquired the property in 1983. While I understand the USTs may not have been disclosed to you, discussions with the SJEHD confirmed that physical evidence typical of a former gasoline station was apparent such as a cement pad, dispenser island, fill ports, and vent pipes. The SJEHD "Notice to Abate" dated May 28, 1998, notes the type of establishment as "old service station/used car lot". Your letter states you believed the USTs had been decommissioned and further states the existence of aboveground evidence does not in itself indicate that a UST or USTs are not decommissioned. I agree, but in your case, the SJEHD observed that the USTs were not decommissioned when removed in September 1998. The USTs were not filled with an inert solid, the piping had not been sealed, and the piping had not been removed. These are the conditions required of a decommissioned UST. None of these conditions were evident. The absence or removal of dispensers alone does not meet the requirements of a decommissioned UST. The SJEHD charged back permit fees and penalties because the USTs sat idle and had not been properly decommissioned. Once you were notified of the permit requirements in May 1998, you complied. However, it was incumbent on you as the property and UST owner to ensure that all laws and requirements pertaining to your property had been met. Had the USTs been reported to the SJEHD earlier, they would have required the USTs be removed or brought into compliance. Your request does not challenge eligibility for a permit waiver. But, as mentioned in the FMD, the permit waiver may be used to excuse permit noncompliance for permits required before January 1 , 1990, and may not be used to excuse permit non- compliance after January 1, 1990. Your claim remains ineligible for a permit waiver. The Fund is a statutorily mandated program with limited resources. Although I sympathize with your situation, I cannot ignore the eligibility requirements, which must be satisfied for participation in the Fund. Appeal Process This represents an FDD. If you disagree with this decision, you may file a petition for review with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). The petition must be received by the State Water Board within 30 days from the date of this FDD, as provided in Title 23, Chapter 18, Article 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Your petition must be sent to Ms. Tam Doduc, Board Chair of the State Water Board, with copies to Mr. Michael A. M. Lauffer, Chief Counsel, and Ms. Barbara L. Evoy, Deputy Director of the Division of Financial Assistance, at the following address: Cal.Iorwh,-Ell vironme.71a1ProlecM9w flgency C5/Tech c%dPoper