Laserfiche WebLink
James L.L. Barton. P.G. <br /> Apri l 13. 2007 <br /> Page 4 of 14 <br /> The County had directed Interstate to conduct response actions beginning in <br /> 1996—eight (8) years after Interstate removed the tank and found the contamination <br /> in soils. It was only Interstate that had conducted investigation and remedial <br /> activities from 1996 until late in 2004— five(5)years after my client had sold the <br /> property. <br /> My client was never provided with copies by Interstate or the County of any <br /> work plans, proposals, reports, letters, directives, notes. or other documentation as to: <br /> (a)The perceived problems with groundwater contamination at the property. <br /> and <br /> (b) the efforts being made by Interstate over many years to address the <br /> contamination. <br /> In addition to the fact that my client had no way of complying with directives <br /> she never received. the County removed my client as a responsible party for the site <br /> in 2001. Likewise. the County removed a tenant, Earth Grains Company, as a <br /> responsible party in 1996 because it had only begun leasing the property in 1991. and <br /> Interstate had removed the UST in 1988. The County never added Earth Grains back <br /> in as a "responsible party." It did add back in my client in 2005 solely because of a <br /> "new opinion" from legal counsel for the State and the County that my client is a <br /> responsible party" due to the fact of her ownership. <br /> To the extent that the Regional Board believes that it is not equitably barred <br /> from requiring my client to undertake an investigation of a property that she sold <br /> eight(8)years ago, the Regional Board should review the Site Conceptual Plan as my <br /> client's contribution to the new requirement of the Board that my client submit a <br /> workplan for investigation of the property. And as for resuming groundwater <br /> monitoring. the Regional Board surely does not believe it can require my client to <br /> enter on property which is currently owned by a complete stranger to my client—a <br /> purchaser in 2003 from the entity to whom illy client sold the property in 1999. <br /> Instead. the Regional Board should remove my client from the list of so- <br /> called "responsible parties." The reasons why the Regional Board should do so are <br /> compelling. <br /> First, my client did not buy the property,she inherited it from her mother in <br /> 1989—after the contamination had occurred, and after it had been found by Interstate <br /> i <br /> E <br />