SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

r + Ms Kama E. Harrigfeld _2 _ NOV 2 6 2002 September 14,1994, at which time contamination was discovered. Shortly after the discovery of contamination, Ms. Marler abandoned the site and since then cannot be located. The Trust foreclosed on the deed of trust and legal title was vested in the Trust in 1998. Discussion Although your letter contains much discussion on the background and use of the property,what actions were taken to locate potential responsible parties, and the intent of the Fund,the issue, in this case, is whether the Trust was an owner of the USTs as required for access to the Fund. You contend that the Trust was an equitable owner of the property and the USTs at the relevant time and should be eligible to file a claim against the Fund. You compare this case with a previous State Board Decision "In the Matter of the Petition of Quaker State Corporation",in which Quaker State was considered an equitable UST owner. You state "there is no significant difference that would make one parry [Quaker State] eligible and the other [the Trust] not." I do not agree that these two cases are similar. As a brief background, Quaker State had entered into a written agreement to purchase property, unaware that a UST existed on the site. Sometime between the execution of the purchase agreement and the close of escrow, a UST was discovered. The previous owner(Fullerton) removed the UST and the parties amended the original purchase agreement requiring, as a condition of escrow, Fullerton to remediate and dispose of the contaminated soil surrounding the former UST to the satisfaction of the regulatory agency. Several years after the site was remediated and escrow closed, Quaker State discovered residual contamination from the original petroleum release. The Board Decision states: "Although Fullerton removed the UST before legal title to the subject site transferred to petitioner[Quaker State]at the close of escrow, Fund staff determined that the petitioner became an equitable UST owner eligible to apply to the Fund when the petitioner entered into the purchase agreement and equitable title to the site passed to petitioner. " In this case the Trust was not in the process of purchasing the property and never intended on purchasing the property. The only"ownership interest", which the Trust had in the property, during Ms. Marler's tenure, was to protect its security interest, same as a bank, or other financial institution. One of the conditions of eligibility in order to access the Fund is compliance with the federal financial responsibility requirements contained in title 40 Code of Federal Regulations,part 280, subpart H (commencing with section 280.90). The issue of lender liability is discussed in the Lender Liability Rule, and is contained in the Federal Regulations. The Lender Liability Rule California Environmental Protection Agency a„p�Recvcled Paper