Laserfiche WebLink
> have Mom as the only responsible party to come up to the plate within <br /> > a program for which neither the Act nor regulations provide for <br /> > assuring all responsible parties participate. There is nothing the <br /> > county or the state can do anything about this, I know. The purpose <br /> > of the letter would be just to have it in the record and perhaps even <br /> > serve as a basis for amendments to the Act or regulations. I would <br /> > guess that Mom is not the only such case where there is no equity. <br /> > Thanks again. <br /> > Judie Kindle <br /> > On 4/22/09, judie kindle <tomballodi®gmail.com> wrote: <br /> >> Thanks. I've left a me sage for Barton. Tried to call you but your <br /> >> line has been busy for some time. If I don't reach you, can you call <br /> >> me? 916-971-9227. <br /> >> I wouldn't want copies f your directives, work plans, etc. I think <br /> >> Mom has all of those in a box. Appeal information, notices of <br /> >> responsibiliy, etc. , is what I 'm after to put together a timetime and <br /> >> understand it all. Some called LCR(?) Labor leased from my folks but <br /> >> I'll have to check to see if this was before or after the tank was <br /> >> removed. There is a coinpanycalled R. Gould and Sons which leased the <br /> >> site from Turnpike. Do your records show when the tank was installed? <br /> >> Judie <br /> >> On 4/22/09, Margaret La orio [EH] <MLagorio@sjcehd.com> wrote: <br /> >>> Judie, <br /> >>> The Regional Water Quality Control Board normally issues a cleanup <br /> >>> and abatement order (C and A) for sites that we refer to them as <br /> >>> non-compliant. This ig my understanding of a C and A. It contains <br /> >>> directives with dates Eor compliance. If directives are not <br /> >>> complied <br /> > II <br /> >>> with they have fines apd penalties that can be administered. <br /> >>> Non-responsive people ndividually are not referred,the site is <br /> >>> referred. As long as there is action there is no referral. The <br /> >>> Regional Board names responsible parties according to the Water Code <br /> >>> and they name them all equally as we do and if there is no action <br /> >>> they pursue all partie . It's a long, complicated process and I <br /> >>> don't have details. oar contact at the Regional Board is Jim Barton <br /> >>> (916) 464-4615 and he an explain the process. I don't think this <br /> >>> site would qualify as an Orphan Fund site. Jim knows more about <br /> >>> that <br /> >>> fund as well. I think it would be a recalcitrant site and go into <br /> >>> the Emergency, Abandoned, Recalcitrant (EAR) fund. This is also a <br /> >>> long process that resu is in the lead agency, Regional Board, <br /> >>> contracting out the corrective action, the clean-up fund paying for <br /> >>> the work and the responsible parties pursued for reimbursement by <br /> >>> the <br /> >>> State Controllers Offi�e. We have referred sites to the Regional <br /> >>> Board, one had expende all there cleanup fund money, so they are in <br /> > the EAR fund. <br /> >>> I don't think there are any operators of the former underground <br /> >>> storage tank (UST)who leased the site from your parents. That was <br /> >>> the whole basis of naming Turnpike Associate partnership and the <br /> >>> individual partners. The statements from your parents and sister <br /> >>> were that the UST was not used during their ownership of the <br /> > property. <br /> >>> <br /> >>> The correspondence is 11611 the appeal information and our directives <br /> >>> to install wells, approve work plans, etc. <br /> 2 <br />