Laserfiche WebLink
Pete Giambanco, Sr. MAY 2 Q 1995 <br /> Claim No . 830 <br /> Final Division Decision <br /> Page 6 <br /> parties fight over who the contamination "belongs" to. This is <br /> not considered a valid excuse to postpone or prolong cleanup. <br /> Section 25299 . 7 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes local <br /> agencies to issue directives for the purpose of cleanup, <br /> including naming a responsible party who must comply with those <br /> directives . If the responsible party does not comply with <br /> directives, they are in violation of state law. Before his <br /> death, Giambanco had many opportunities to correct the <br /> deficiencies but instead chose to ignore the directives and <br /> violate state law. We believe that legislative intent was to <br /> provide support to those individuals who complied with state <br /> laws, to the extent they were able, in meeting the permit and <br /> corrective action requirements . <br /> In cases of passive acquisition, we have allowed the recipient to <br /> acquire the eligibility of the deceased. In this case, however, <br /> it is the ineligibility. You assert that the "estate" of <br /> Giambanco has proceeded with the cleanup since his death. For <br /> purposes of eligibility, we consider the person and his estate to <br /> be one and the same . To do otherwise would cause the estate to <br /> be considered a separate claimant and the estate would have to <br /> file a separate claim. Even if we did not have this policy, the <br /> estate would be ineligible because the former owner (Giambanco) <br /> is ineligible, and likewise Giambanco is ineligible because of <br /> Shaughnessy. <br /> Because both Shaughnessy and Giambanco were out of compliance <br /> with permit requirements and Giambanco was out of compliance with <br /> corrective action directives, I must uphold the final staff <br /> decision to reject the claim. <br /> It should be pointed out that if Giambanco is successful in his <br /> efforts to rescind the purchase agreement, he will not have owned <br /> the tanks, and therefore would not be an eligible claimant . <br /> If you are not in agreement with this final Division decision, <br /> you may file a petition for review by the State Water Resources <br /> Control Board within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of <br /> receipt of this letter as provided for in Article 5 of the <br /> Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Regulations, <br /> Title 23 , Division 3 , Chapter 18 of the California Code of <br /> Regulations dated December 2 , 3991 . <br />