Laserfiche WebLink
2 - <br /> James L.L. Barton. P.G. <br /> April 13, 2007 <br /> Page 3 of 14 <br /> December 26. 2006 letter. Nor has Interstate Brands Corporation. Nor has the other <br /> interim owner. Temple of Deliverance Church in Christ. Only my client has spent the <br /> money and the time to provide the Regional Board with what it needs to close this site <br /> and relieve my client from any responsibility for it. <br /> The Site Conceptual Model was prepared by Interstate Brands. It is what the <br /> Board should review to support closure of this site. The Model apparently was the <br /> result of Interstate's investigation and remedial activities from 1997 to 2004. It is <br /> accompanied by a letter addressed to Mr. Nuel Henderson at the San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Division. submitting the report to the County. I understand <br /> that the County cannot find this letter. but there is a legal presumption that if it was <br /> mailed, it was received. "A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is <br /> presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail." Evid. Code §641. <br /> As you know. Interstate Brands Corporation: <br /> 1. Caused the contamination by operating a leaky underground fuel tank <br /> 2. Discovered the contamination when it removed the tank before my client <br /> inherited the property. <br /> 3. Conducted seven (7) years of investigation and remedial activities, and <br /> 4. Has the most complete knowledge of the contamination. and <br /> 5. Submitted a request for closing the site almost three years ago (with the <br /> Site Conceptual Plan) <br /> In your letter of September 26. 2006 to Interstate. Kong, the Temple of <br /> Deliverance Church. and my client you advised that the County had required <br /> Interstate Brands and Kong to(i)submit by September 19. 2005 a workplan to <br /> delineate the vertical and lateral extent of 1. 2-DCA suspected of being in the <br /> groundwater, and (ii) to resume groundwater monitoring. You then went on to state <br /> that you agreed with the County's directives and that each of these four parties were <br /> to comply with them. <br /> But the County's directives had never been to my client. In fact, the County <br /> removed her as a responsible party in 2001 because she no longer owned the property <br /> and had not been an owner when the release occurred. My client has no idea what the <br /> County had required of Interstate Brands and Mr. Kong. She never received any <br /> reports or other information from them. <br />