Laserfiche WebLink
6. OWNER / OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGEMEN <br /> I have reviewed the results of the designated U <br /> description of the action(s) taken or to be taker <br /> Name of UST Owner / Operator (print) <br /> UST Owner/Operator Sig ur <br /> The fact that both the digital signature and date are printed onto the DO report proves that we do not leave <br /> DO reports onsite with a "prefilled" date for the site to sign on a future date. <br /> After learning about the "prefilled" date topic in the June 2024 CalEPA newsletter, we took steps to avoid any <br /> confusion. We've since moved away from the built-in signature pad on our program and have the sites sign <br /> and date the DO inspection by hand, but the same process of getting a digital signature at the time of the DO <br /> inspection remains the same. <br /> 6. OWNER / OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGEMEN <br /> I have reviewed the results of the designated U <br /> description of the action(s) taken or to be taker <br /> Name of UST Owner / Operator (print) r <br /> on -I <br /> UST Owner/Operator Sig rLure r <br /> We've received a similar violation in the past from an inspector from San Joaquin County. After reviewing our <br /> process, the inspector rescinded the violation and issued an updated UST inspection report. The inspector also <br /> confirmed that electronically printed signatures and dates are acceptable, whereas a "wet" signature with an <br /> electronically printed date is not. <br /> Based on the information provided, I respectfully request that this violation be rescinded. Please let me know <br /> if you require any further documentation or clarification to assist in your review. <br /> Thank you for your time and consideration. <br /> 2 <br />