Laserfiche WebLink
necessary, to abate or correct the actual or potential effect of <br /> an unauthorized release. " (Emphasis added. ) <br /> Further, responsible parties are required to "conduct a <br /> feasibility study to evaluate alternatives for remedying or <br /> mitigating the actual or potential adverse effects of the <br /> unauthorized release. " (Section 2725(f) ) (Emphasis added. ) <br /> Finally, "the Corrective Action Plan Implementation Phase <br /> consists of carrying out the cost-effective alternative selected <br /> during the soil and water investigative phase for remediation or <br /> mitigation of the actual or potential adverse effects of the <br /> unauthorized release. " (Section 2726 (a) ) (Emphasis added. ) <br /> Clearly, the extent of the obligation of the responsible <br /> party under state underground storage tank law extends to the <br /> actual effect of the unauthorized release on soil and <br /> groundwater. Consequently, if Petitioner establishes that the <br /> unauthorized release from the Site did not affect the <br /> groundwater, there should be no obligation upon Petitioner to <br /> undertake corrective action as to the groundwater under <br /> underground storage tank laws . <br /> While, it may be legally permissible to impose liability <br /> upon Petitioner to remediate the contaminated groundwater even if <br /> an unauthorized release from the Site did not cause the <br /> contamination, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control <br /> Act, to our knowledge the State Board has never imposed such <br /> liability. In addition, PHS/EHD has indicated that it is not <br /> proceeding pursuant to the Water Code for LOP sites, and in fact <br /> has refused to proceed in that manner when requested. <br /> Consequently, there is no basis for its posture that the <br /> Petitioner is responsible for groundwater contamination at the <br /> Site, under the tank law regardless of its source. Such a <br /> position is incongruous and wholly untenable. <br /> Therefore, we believe that the State Board should order <br /> PHS/EHD to authorize implementation of a workplan to confirm the <br /> relationship between the soil and groundwater contamination, and <br /> direct PHS/EHD to refrain from requesting Petitioner to conduct <br /> further groundwater investigation and remediation upon the <br /> establishment of a lack of connection between the soil and <br /> groundwater contamination. <br /> Ff\T \17093\D\ROEA3.RHH <br /> 3 75376-17093/./09/03/93/4 <br />