My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO_FILE 1 2003-2007
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FITE
>
4704
>
2200 - Hazardous Waste Program
>
PR0522168
>
COMPLIANCE INFO_FILE 1 2003-2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2020 6:24:55 PM
Creation date
6/3/2020 9:20:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2200 - Hazardous Waste Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
FileName_PostFix
FILE 1 2003-2007
RECORD_ID
PR0522168
PE
2226
FACILITY_ID
FA0014693
FACILITY_NAME
MARTIN-BROWER CO
STREET_NUMBER
4704
STREET_NAME
FITE
STREET_TYPE
CT
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95215
APN
18111013
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
4704 FITE CT
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\HW\HW_2226_PR0522168_4704 FITE_FILE 1 2003-2007.tif
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
284
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
/1�B m��rin-Is�O[uE/3=" <br /> R Reyes Holdings Company <br /> Martin-Brower,LLC 209.460.3393 Main <br /> 4704 Fite Court <br /> Stockton,California 95215 <br /> Date: October 10, 2007 <br /> To: Mr. Ray Von Flue <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department <br /> RE: Hazardous Waste Inspection on 9/12/07 <br /> With regard to item#64, we dispute that there is a violation. The reasons that we dispute it are <br /> outlined below: <br /> 1. On July 21, 2006, I sent a letter disputing this item. In the letter I outlined and claimed <br /> legitimate exemptions that are available under the regulations, citing the specific <br /> regulations and reasons for the exemptions. You found this letter in your file during your <br /> visit. Your office failed to respond to these claims for exemption for over a year. We <br /> believe that constitutes acceptance of the claims we asserted and that we are therefore <br /> exempt from the requirements. Further, your agency's failure to act on the item in a <br /> reasonable amount of constitutes failure to prosecute and precludes further escalation as it <br /> violated our Due Process rights. <br /> 2. Your agency had knowledge of the existence of the tank in question, as evidenced by <br /> annual inspections of our facility. By your own admission, this provision had not been <br /> enforced. This represents a de facto exemption. Efforts to require it now are ex post <br /> facto, and prohibited under applicable law. <br /> 3. The tank was placed in its current location approximately march of 2002. The regulatory <br /> requirements are for an assessment upon installation Since it was installed more than 3 <br /> years prior, it is outside of the enforcement window of your agency. <br /> 4. The tank has been in its current location for more than 5 years. Under the regulations, <br /> any assessment that would have been required expires after 5 years, and, due to the type <br /> of tank, recertification is not required. Therefore, we are not required to have a tank <br /> certification on file. The issue is mute under the regulation. <br /> Please note that each item is a separate and independent reason for dispute. In offering them <br /> here, we do not waive our right to claim any of them individually, or collectively, or to assert <br /> other valid reasons that we may have for disputing the item. However, it is our desire and intent <br /> to work with you amicably to resolve this dispute as much as possible. <br /> Please contact me at (209) 946-3708 to discuss this matter further.2 Sinc ySinc y <br /> ald A. Sonnefeld, MS, CDS <br /> Division Safety Manager. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.