Laserfiche WebLink
. • i <br /> Ms. Laurie Casias <br /> September 3, 1993 <br /> Page 9 <br /> approximately 30 years. Pepsi-Cola San Joaquin Bottling Company <br /> was the entity that removed the underground storage tanks from <br /> the Site. These two responsible parties are, at a minimum, those <br /> that may be charged as the "active" primary responsible parties. <br /> Because these responsible parties have been identified, <br /> Petitioner, the innocent owner, should be designated as <br /> secondarily liable and be responsible for investigation and <br /> remediation only if the active responsible parties fail to comply <br /> with a schedule of compliance for primary responsible parties. <br /> Please see Section 7 -- Points and Authority for legal <br /> authority to designate primary and secondarily liable responsible <br /> parties (Attachment 1) . <br /> (5) MANNER IN WHICH PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED• <br /> To date, Petitioner has expended in excess of One Hundred <br /> and Twenty-Six Thousand Dollars ($126, 000.00) for soil and/or <br /> groundwater investigation and remediation. As discussed <br /> previously, in 1985 when Petitioner purchased the Site, <br /> Petitioner had no knowledge of underground storage tanks, nor <br /> knowledge of the operation of a former service station. <br /> Petitioner purchased the property prior to any statutorily <br /> created "due diligence" obligations for investigating potential <br /> real estate acquisitions and therefore did not conduct a <br /> Preliminary Site Assessment. <br /> Furthermore, while Petitioner is cognizant of the public <br /> policy rationale behind the environmental laws, it must not go <br /> unnoticed that those parties that are truly responsible and that <br /> benefitted from the use of the underground storage tanks are, and <br /> have been identified here, not being forced to assume their legal <br /> obligation to investigate and cleanup the contamination. <br /> Until now, Petitioner has borne the entire burden of the <br /> corrective action required by PHS/EHD. Petitioner has acted <br /> responsibly by responding to the contamination on the Site. The <br /> other responsible parties, who derived a financial benefit from <br /> owning and operating underground storage tanks, must be the <br /> parties placed in charge of the corrective action. It is unjust <br /> and inequitable to require the only non-culpable party, the <br /> Petitioner, to bear the burden of the chargeable parties, who <br /> derived all the benefit from the use of the underground storage <br /> tanks, to go unnoticed. <br /> ( 6 ) SPECIFIC ACTION PETITIONER REQUESTS• <br /> Petitioner requests the State Board to order PHS/EHD to do <br /> F:\TM\17093\D\ROEA3.AEE <br /> 75376-17093/®/09/03/93/4 <br />