Laserfiche WebLink
� Bos 2094686694 11/01/06 11:19am P. 004 <br /> October 14, 2006 <br /> USTCF Claim No. 01 8239 <br /> Page 2 <br /> remediated. <br /> 3. The Fund's letter states that "above ground evidence indicating UST's were evident and <br /> existing at your site(i.e. vent pipe,fill pipes,dispenser island)".The existence of this"above <br /> ground" evidence does not in itself indicate that a tank or tanks are not decommissioned.; <br /> there are many sites throughout theState where tanks were removed or decommissioned and <br /> surface evidence is very prominent, It is not uncomJnon to see an old dispenser island or <br /> vent pipes at a site. <br /> The Fund letter also states that the S.if i,--D notified me of the permit requirement in May <br /> 1998 and i complied by paying the permit fees, back permit fees (5 years as directed by the <br /> SJCEH.D)and removing the USTs in September 1998. If additional permit fees(for another <br /> 3 years) were necessary fir compliance with Fund. regulations, why did time S.E14D not <br /> require; them? Wily was I not notiGcd of the requirement by the SJLED? The permitting <br /> requirement was never intentionally avoided.. <br /> The Fund letter also states that the"S.if F1 I'D cottfirtned there was no documentation in their <br /> files indicating any part.of.'the US'r system, was decommissioned except for removal of the <br /> dispensers". If the US•'I's were; dectimm.issioned prior t:o1.983, how would the SJEHD have <br /> records, since they were not the oversight agency until sometime after 1 purchased the <br /> property? At the time 1 had the I_JS"f's removed there was no positive indication Haat they <br /> could. have had any inputs or withdrawals; the I.1STs were not connected to the dispense]- <br /> island <br /> ispenserisland nor were any pumps located in th.e USTs. j <br /> We believe tlm.e FMD is improper based upon the following-. 1.)The USTs were unknown to � <br /> me at the time o fpurebase;2)The USTs were believed to have:been"decommissioned"prior <br /> to nay purchase—evidence and records from the 9.1RID to the contrary is unclear at best ; <br /> 3)The USTs were permitted and rernove:d once the SJL;I-ID made the determination that they i <br /> had to be removed. Since decommissioning doCU]laelatat.iOn is unclear,and decommissioning <br /> likely occurred in the 1970s,we believe evidence is lacking to deny our eligibility;any"en" <br /> should be on the side of the propcoy owner. <br /> If you have any que ions or require hji.ther information, please contact me imtttcdiately. <br /> Sincer l.y, <br /> L12 <br /> M.r. Vi�cto Ile a.amde <br /> 430113ouldcr 'rce.k'Stockton, CA 9521 . <br /> cc: Slate Senator Michael Machado, 31 Bast Channel Street, 4440, Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> State Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian,4.5,57 Quail Lakes Dr.,Suite C-3,Stockton,CA.9.5207 <br />