Laserfiche WebLink
August 24 , 1990 <br /> Mr. Val F. Siebal <br /> Mr. Ronald L. Valinoti <br /> Page 2 <br /> 1984 (SARA) , respondent is an innocent third party under Section <br /> 107 (B) (3) and that he exercised due care with respect to the <br /> hazardous substance concerned, taking into consideration the <br /> characteristics of such hazardous substances, in light of all <br /> relevant facts and circumstances and he took precautions against <br /> foreseeable acts or omissions and the consequences that could <br /> foreseeably result from such acts or omissions. <br /> (2) At the time respondent acquired the site in question, <br /> respondent did not know, nor with the exercise of reasonable <br /> inquiry could have known, nor had reason to know that any <br /> hazardous substance which is alleged to have been released or <br /> threatened release was disposed of on, in or at the site and <br /> undertook all appropriate inquiry into previous ownership and <br /> uses of the airport property. Further the presence of hazardous <br /> substances present, if any, were not obvious. <br /> (a) Respondent acquired the subject site subsequent <br /> to the making illegal the use of certain toxic substances and <br /> which substances are claimed present in excessive levels on the <br /> site, and respondent has not brought or suffered others to bring <br /> such substances on, in or around the site. <br /> (3) An unnamed responsible party, to wit, the San Joaquin <br /> County Mosquito Abatement District is a governmental entity whose <br /> responsibility for placing hazardous insecticides and pesticides <br /> on, in or about the site and such action was or is under <br /> authority of law and not within the authority of respondent to <br /> prevent. <br /> (4) Prior owners and/or operators of the site, or <br /> portions thereof, known to complainant, whose contribution to <br /> hazardous material claimed released, or threatened release, was <br /> active and not merely passive, have not been formally notified of <br /> apportioned liability as a responsible party by complainant, and <br /> such failure to involve such active other, past and/or present <br /> RP' s, renders the action against respondent as discriminatory <br /> selective enforcement and equitably impermissible under State and <br /> Federal law. <br /> (5) Enforcement action as set forth in the RAO is <br /> contrary to public policy as placing an unreasonable burden upon <br /> subsequent land owners such as respondent and constitutes defacto <br /> condemnation of private property without fair compensation <br /> prohibited by .State and Federal constitutions. <br /> (6) The jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy <br /> Court to shape appropriate relief of predecessor interest holders <br />