Laserfiche WebLink
E> 3 <br /> will continue to drop as time goes by and nature takes its course. Therefore, Mr. Guinta's <br /> position is that monitoring the four out of limit wells outlined above is prudent along with three <br /> or four other random testing of the off site wells within the circled area of ASA's <br /> Isoconcentration Contour Map. Random sampling of those off-site water wells within the above <br /> reference circle of influence would insure that the concentrations are stable and dimishing as <br /> expected. Of course, for the safety of the public the filtration of the wells that showed in <br /> the latest report, above levels should be continued which insure the public safety. The 2003 <br /> CAO should be modified to reflect the above reductions of monitoring based upon your own <br /> engineers <br /> findings, not to mention Mr. Guinta's approved engineers as well. I also attach, for your <br /> information, a letter from ASE to James Barton dated November 5, 2004 which states on page <br /> two (2), among other things,that (d) "...the MTBE concentrations detected off-site are too low to <br /> allow for effective remediableness". Additionally, a letter dated September 1, 2004 from your <br /> agency states the that MTBE groundwater plume is declining is attached hereto as well. <br /> The submissions are as follows as to current CAO and request for modification <br /> thereof The Board should deny the proposed Remediation Plan: <br /> b) Cooperation with your agency from Mr. Guinta has been a long standing. As <br /> late as your letter of November 16, 2004, where you indicated progress was made, and as early <br /> as the beginning of Mr. Guinta's ownership of the property in 1996 where Mr. Guinta voluntarily <br /> began the clean up of the premises,Mr. Guinta has continued to work in a cooperative nature <br /> trying to solve this issue with the best of demeanor. In fact, the entire file concerning this matter, <br /> which is extensive, outlines a continued effort on Mr. Guinta's behalf to cooperate and expend <br /> any and all his resources available to him to solve this safety issue and or safety concerns of all <br /> parties hereto. <br /> Paramount to Mr. Guinta has been, and is,the public safety of his neighbors and friends, <br /> not to mention to his community and his continued belief in law and moral code. Mr. Guinta <br /> takes pride in his values to his country, its citizens, his family, and takes the responsibility of this <br /> matter personally. Mr. Guinta has never intentionally failed to obey any order or request from <br /> your agency if it was in his power to comply. The uncooperative allegations of present were <br /> commenced after Mr. Guinta ran out of money to expend on the subject project, somewhere in <br /> latter 2004. In 2005 and in 2006, Mr. Guinta wrote two letters to your agency outlining the fact <br /> that he was out of funds to continue although he regretted that fact. I attach the letters of January <br /> 31, 2005 and January 25, 2006 to your agency showing Mr. Guinta expressed in writing to your <br /> agency that he was out of funds and could do no more. Purposefully not cooperating with your <br /> agency is simply not founded, has no merit, and should be declared by your agency as not an <br /> issue. Lack of money to continue should not be held against Mr. Guinta, but in fact, be a <br /> consideration of yours as to ceasing any further threats of civil penalties and thereby work with <br /> Mr. Guinta to finalize this matter through the EAR account; which, as you know, will be paid <br /> when the property is totally cleared and can be sold to Mr. Kim who holds the contract to buy it <br /> when the cleanup is completed. Mr. Guinta also has attached invoices from ASE in the amount <br /> 3 <br />