SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Arthur G. Baggett, Jr. • • December 23, 2002 Page 3 of 7 The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department has named the Trust as a responsible party and is requiring the Trust to clean up the contaminated property. The County attempted to notify Ms. Marler, the person that pulled the tanks, that she was responsible for clean up of this property. The County mailed a number of letters to Ms. Marler with return receipt requested. When notice was not effectuated, the County then named the Trust as the responsible party. This office conducted a diligent and comprehensive search for Theresa Marler and failed to locate Ms. Marler. In fact, this office performed a comprehensive search for all past owners and operators, all to no avail. Claimant previously provided to the Division Chief a chart showing the log of attempts to reach past owners and operators of the USTs. Upon being informed that the tanks may have been located on the adjoining land, the Trust hired land surveyors to determine where the property lines are and where the tanks were located. It was learned that 35 feet of the adjoining lot was used as part of the gas stations. When comparing the lot line and tank location using measurements provided, it is very possible that part of the piping for the tanks were located on the adjoining land. The County when presented with this information, refused to name the neighboring landowner as a possible responsible party. The maps indicating the lot line and tank locations were also provided to the Division Chief. CLAIMANT'S GRIEVANCE The Fund Manager determined that the Claimant is not eligible for reimbursement from the Fund because it did not meet the definition of"owner or operator" contained in Fund regulations. The Division Chief agreed with this determination and cited the federal Lender Liability Rules as support for her decision. The Division Chief argued that since the Lender Liability Rules specifically exclude "holders" of property as a result of lender foreclosure from the definition of"owner or operator"for the purposes of the federal UST regulations, that same exclusion applied to qualification for participation in California's UST Cleanup Fund. See Division Chief Letter of November 26, 2002 at page 2- 3. Claimant believes that the Division Chiefs decision was erroneous because (1) the State Water Resource Control Board's decision"In the Matter of the Petition of Quaker State Corporation" is controlling in this case, (2) the Division Chiefs improperly applied the definitions contained in the federal Lender Liability regulations to limit the universe of applicants that can be eligible to participate in California's UST Cleanup Fund; and (3) application of the Lender Liability Rules to this situation creates an inequitable result that does not support the purpose of California's UST Cleanup Fund. \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\1818-001\JLS\27036.doc