Laserfiche WebLink
6. OWNER 1 OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGEMEN <br />have reviewed the results of the designated U <br />description of the action(s) taken or to be taker <br />Name of UST Owner /Operator (print) <br />� UST Owner/Operator Sigr1at'u� <br />The fact that both the digital signature and date are printed onto the DO report proves that we do not leave <br />DO reports onsite with a "prefilled" date for the site to sign on a future date. <br />After learning about the "prefilled" date topic in the June 2024 CalEPA newsletter, we took steps to avoid any <br />confusion. We've since moved away from the built-in signature pad on our program and have the sites sign <br />and date the DO inspection by hand, but the same process of getting a digital signature at the time of the DO <br />inspection remains the same. <br />6. OWNER 1 OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGEMEN <br />I have reviewed the results of the designated U <br />description of the action(s) taken or to be taker <br />Name of UST Owner I Operator (print) r <br />on -I <br />UST Owner/Operator Sig rtore r <br />We've received a similar violation in the past from an inspector from San Joaquin County. After reviewing our <br />process, the inspector rescinded the violation and issued an updated UST inspection report. The inspector also <br />confirmed that electronically printed signatures and dates are acceptable, whereas a "wet" signature with an <br />electronically printed date is not. <br />Based on the information provided, I respectfully request that this violation be rescinded. Please let me know <br />if you require any further documentation or clarification to assist in your review. <br />Thank you for your time and consideration. <br />2 <br />