SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

it • > responsibiliy, etc. , is what I'm after to put together a timetime and > understand it all. Some called LCR(?) Labor leased from my folks but > I'll have to check to see if this was before or after the tank was > removed. There is a com anycalled R. Gould and Sons which leased the > site from Turnpike. Do your records show when the tank was installed? > Judie > On 4/22/09, Margaret Lag rio [EH] <MLagorioQsjcehd.com> wrote: >> Judie, >> The Regional Water Quality Control Board normally issues a cleanup >> and abatement order (C and A) for sites that we refer to them as >> non-compliant. This is my understanding of a C and A. It contains >> directives with dates for compliance. If directives are not complied >> with they have fines and penalties that can be administered. >> Non-responsive people individually are not referred,the site is >> referred. As long as there is action there is no referral. The >> Regional Board names re ponsible parties according to the Water Code >> and they name them all qually as we do and if there is no action >> they pursue all parties It' s a long, complicated process and I >> don't have details. Ou contact at the Regional Board is Jim Barton (916) 464-4615 and he cin explain the process. I don't think this >> site would qualify as al Orphan Fund site. Jim knows more about that >> fund as well. I think t would be a recalcitrant site and go into >> the Emergency, Abandone , Recalcitrant (EAR) fund. This is also a >> long process that resul s in the lead agency, Regional Board, >> contracting out the cor ective action, the clean-up fund paying for >> the work and the respon ible parties pursued for reimbursement by the >> State Controllers Offic . We have referred sites to the Regional >> Board, one had expended all there cleanup fund money, so they are in the EAR fund. >> I don't think there are any operators of the former underground >> storage tank (UST)who 1 ased the site from your parents. That was >> the whole basis of nami g Turnpike Associate partnership and the >> individual partners. T e statements from your parents and sister >> were that the UST was not used during their ownership of the property. >> The correspondence is a 1 the appeal information and our directives >> to install wells, approve work plans, etc. >> Margaret >> -----Original Message-- -- >> From: judie kindle [mai to:tomballodi®gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21 2009 6:00 PM >> To: Margaret Lagorio [EI] >> Cc: Vicki McCartney [EH >> Subject: Re: 1601 Turnp'ke, Stockton >> Thanks. This is all co ing back to me now--I think most of this >> information was providei to us when first we met. Do you have any >> idea what the Regional Water Quality Board does when they get referrals? >> Take legal action? Turn over to the Orphan Fund? Other. >> Have you ever referred people who are non-responsive if you do have >> one who is (as in this ase) ? As I recall, the "penalty" for being >> out of compliance is forfeiture of the Barry Keane reimbursement. >> There is another company which might be a responsible party as well >> as they were operators who leased the site from our folks. >> Seems like you had said at our first meeting that if anyone would >> pursue the other respon ible parties, it would have to be us. Has >> the policy changed on t at? Do you have a contact at the Water >> Quality Board I might call. >> I hope it is clear that we continue to be responsive but as all drags 2