SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

s _ AV-) Mr. Timothy Kong April 17, 2007 Page 3 of 4 13304 of the California Water Code. In re San Diego Port District(Cal. State Water Resources Control Bd. 1990), 1990 WL 272135 at p. 3. You admitted that you have this liability. In fact, the Regional Board noted that in 2005 you (a) signed a contract with the County promising that you would proceed with. the clean up, and.(b) sampled and tested the groundwater in November 2005. But, in 2006 you broke your promises to the County, and you refused to proceed with the clean UP. The costs of the investigation and clean up are your primary responsibility, as the current owner of the property. The courts will impose liability on you according to the principles of strict liability. Our client was entitled to rely on the fact that you had agreed with the County to proceed with the investigation and cleanup. She did her duty during the time she owned the property. You must do yours. But, because you have not proceeded with what the Regional Board is demanding, our client has incurred significant expenses and costs. Our client has done what is necessary to respond to the Regional Board, so that she can minimize the risk for enforcement against you and against her. She has: i • Filed a claim on her own behalf in the Interstate bankruptcy. • Applied to the Orphan Site Cleanup Account of the Underground Storage Tank Fund for a grant to assess the environmental condition of the property. (She cannot apply for a grant to.clean up the property because only you have legal access-to the property.) • Obtained from Interstate's attorneys a:copy of a "Conceptual Site Model" which Interstate had its consultants prepare to persuade the County to close the site. • Submitted the"Conceptual Site Model" document to the Regional Board and asked the Regional Board to close the site. • Filed a claim on behalf of the State in the Interstate bankruptcy. • Retained legal counsel to pursue all.remedies she may have. i