Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Laurie Casias <br /> September 3, 1993 <br /> Page 6 <br /> states that because the LOP is federally funded, it has a <br /> responsibility to identify and list only those individuals or <br /> entities who fall under the federal and state underground storage <br /> tank law definitions of a responsible party, as interpreted by <br /> the State Board. While we disagree with this narrow <br /> interpretation, for purposes of this site, the Adjacent <br /> Landowners would clearly fit within even the limited definition <br /> of PHS/EHD responsible parties. <br /> In conclusion, PHS/EHD indicates that it has not been <br /> "determined" that the groundwater contamination is originating <br /> from an off-site source. In truth, there is substantial evidence <br /> to support the conclusion that groundwater contamination is <br /> originating from an off-site source, and in fact it has not been <br /> "determined" that the groundwater contamination is originating <br /> from an on-site source. <br /> Please see the legal authority of PHS/EHD to name Adjacent <br /> Landowners under Section 7 -- Points and Authorities (Attachment <br /> 1 ) . <br /> (B) GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION. <br /> PHS/EHD denied our request to implement a workplan for <br /> investigating and confirming the relationship between the soil <br /> and groundwater contamination at the Site. PHS/EHD cites to two <br /> letters in which PHS/EHD requested that workplans be submitted. <br /> PHS/EHD states that they never received a workplan and therefore <br /> are "confused" by our request, and they will respond to any <br /> workplan submitted. <br /> This response is less than straightforward, as a summary of <br /> the background of this issue will illustrate. On December 10, <br /> 1992, Petitioners made a presentation to PHS/EHD of the evidence <br /> establishing that soil contamination at 102 South Wilson Way did <br /> not cause the groundwater contamination which has been documented <br /> at the Site. At that meeting, Petitioners requested concurrence <br /> from PHS/EHD or, direction as to what type of additional work <br /> could be undertaken to reach this conclusion. PHS/EHD indicated <br /> that they would consult with the Regional Board, and provide a <br /> response. <br /> The response received from PHS/EHD was that they had <br /> consulted with the Regional Board and that no type of <br /> investigation would convince them that there was no connection <br /> between the soil and groundwater contamination. In addition, <br /> PHS/EHD conveyed the Regional Board's position that it was <br /> immaterial whether or not there was a connection because <br /> F:\TRN\17093\D\ROEE3.EEH <br /> 75376-17093/®/09/03/93/4 <br />