Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Infurna [E I <br /> From: Wilson, Michelle-Environmental [mlwilson@CircleK.com] <br /> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:39 AM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: San Joaquin County sites <br /> In <br /> All other states California-CFR List <br /> insurance(Cl... 1-19-04.... <br /> The land owner will stay the same (as previously noted on the Form <br /> A) . <br /> Circle K Stores Inc. is the UST owner and operator. This should not be a <br /> change from prior submittals - the sites of concern have always been owned <br /> and operated by Circle K Stores Inc. Attached is the Certificate of <br /> Financial Responsibility. Hopefully this clarifies things. If not, I will <br /> be out of the office the until Monday the 9th, but can be reached via cell <br /> phone at 909-538-3746. Thanks. <br /> <<All other states insurance (CIF) .pdf>> <<California - CFR List <br /> 1-19-04.xls>> <br /> Michelle Wilson <br /> Circle K Stores Inc. <br /> West Coast Environmenental Compliance Manager <br /> 495 East Rincon, Ste. 150 <br /> Corona, CA 92879 <br /> Ph. (909) 270-5193 <br /> Fax (909)270-5121 <br /> Cell (909) 538-3746 <br /> > -----Original Message----- <br /> • From: Mike Infurna [EH] [SMTP:MInfurna@sjcehd.com] <br /> > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4 :58 PM <br /> > To: Wilson, Michelle-Environmental <br /> > Subject: San Joaquin County sites <br /> > I think I may have confused you with the phone message. Let me see if I <br /> > can be more clear here. <br /> > As for cleanup of the existing releases at either/both of the San Joaquin <br /> > County sites, I'll assume some legal aggreement has been reached. That's <br /> > NOT my concern here. <br /> > My concern is if there has been a change in the corp/party/individual <br /> > qualifying as a "Responsible Party" as per Calif UST Regs. <br /> > I'm under the impression that the January 5, 2004 notice you sent us <br /> > regarding the acquisition of the Circle K Corp by Alimentation Couche-Tard <br /> > Inc (ACTI) indicates that now ACTI is the owner/operator of the site and <br /> > or USTs? <br /> > As a courtesy, I was trying to verify this ahead of time so ACTI would <br /> > understand the certified mailing from my office including them as <br /> > "responsible party" (additional) for both of the contaminated sites in <br /> > question. <br /> > As either a landowner, UST owner, or UST operator, ACTI would qualify as a <br /> > RP and as such would be added to the SWRCB list as such. Best Gas, TOSCO, <br /> > BP would NOT be removed by this action. <br /> > If the landownership has truly changed, could you please provide a deed <br /> 1 <br />