Laserfiche WebLink
State `1�'�ater Resources Control Board <br /> Alm C.LbY4 r�i.n. _ e Office <br /> Executiv <br /> Agency Secretary Arid stiff er <br /> Arthur G.Baggett Jr,Chair Governor <br /> 1001 I Street•Sacramento,California 95814•(916)341-5615 <br /> Mailing.Address:P.O.Box 100•Sacramento,Califorpia•95812-0100 <br /> Fax(916)341-5621 •http://www.waterboards.ca.gov <br /> ""HWED <br /> JAN 14 2005 <br /> CERTIFIED MAIL ENVIRONMENT HEALTH <br /> Kriston D. Qualls, Esq. PERMIT/SERVICES <br /> USA Petroleum <br /> 30101 Agoura Court, Suite 200 <br /> Agoura Hills, CA 91301 <br /> Dear Mr. Qualls: <br /> PETITION OF USA PETROLEUM REQUESTING REVIEW OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY <br /> DESIGNATION: DISMISSAL <br /> SWRCB/DWQ FILE P03-215 <br /> After careful consideration, it is concluded that the petition in this matter fails to raise substantial <br /> issues that are appropriate for review by the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB or <br /> Board). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as of this date. (See SWRCB Resolution No. 88- <br /> 23; See also People v.Barry(1987) 194 Ca1.App.3d 158 [239 Cal.Rptr. 349].) <br /> The petition arises from the SWRCB's underground storage tank(UST) Local Oversight <br /> Program(LOP). It seeks SWRCB review of a decision by the San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department(County)to name Palisades Gas and Wash, Inc.' (petitioner) <br /> as a responsible party for corrective action associated with a UST release site in Stockton, <br /> California. <br /> Petitioner recognizes that as the current owner of property on which a release has occurred, it <br /> may be named a responsible party. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 2720(3).) However, <br /> petitioner contends that the release occurred during Exxon's prior ownership of the property and <br /> that there has been no subsequent release during its term of ownership. Therefore, petitioner <br /> argues, the County acted inappropriately in requiring it to incur expenses to investigate the <br /> Exxon release. In essence,petitioner contends it should only be held secondarily responsible for <br /> the release at the site.' <br /> Now USA Petroleum <br /> 2 A parry should only be named secondarily responsible if. (a)the primary responsible party is performing <br /> corrective action;and(b)it is clear that the party seeking secondary status did not in any way initiate or contribute to <br /> the discharge.(See e.g., Vallco Park, SWRCB Order WQ 86-18,Prudential Ins. Co, SWRCB Order WQ 87-6,and <br /> Spitzer, SWRCB Order WQ 89-8.) <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> Qt Regd d Paper <br /> rte: <br />