7
the site. Petitioner would be liable for all direct and indirect
costs associated with DHS cleaning up the site itself.
In 1988, petitioner and DHS engaged in an exchange of
letters in which petitioner sought administrative relief which,
ultimately, was denied. DHS subsequently found petitioner’s
efforts at compliance to be unsatisfactory. On June 28, 1988,
DHS informed petitioner that he was not in compliance with the
RAO, and that DHS would be instituting cleanup procedures of the
property. On December 26, 1989, DHS informed petitioner that a
contractor would be commencing inventory activities of "hazardous
substances" at the work site on January 15, 1990. Actual
inventory was performed sometime in the summer of 1990.
Petitioner was informed in a letter dated July 11, 1990, that the
inventory was complete. Petitioner was further informed that
hazardous substances in allegedly deteriorated containers would
be packaged and disposed of. On August 15, 1990, DHS obtained a
court order to enter the property and commence cleanup
operations. Sometime after that date, DHS’s contractor seized
the allegedly hazardous materials located in petitioner’s work
area.
In 1990, petitioner spent approximately 6 months addressing
issues raised by DHS. He intended to mitigate damage to his
activities, preserve his assets, and ultimately resume work
without interference from DHS. Petitioner spent the first 2
months of the year filling out an inventory of the materials
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011