Laserfiche WebLink
(C) PHS/EHD HAS BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO <br /> ENFORCE THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LAWS AND <br /> THEREFORE MAY DESIGNATE PETITIONER AS <br /> SECONDARILY LIABLE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND <br /> REMEDIATION OF THE CONTAMINATION AT THE SITE <br /> Through the Memorandum of Understanding between the State <br /> Board and San Joaquin County, the State Board has delegated the <br /> authority to enforce the underground storage tanks laws to <br /> PHS/EHD in San Joaquin County. As such, the State Board's power <br /> to designate primary and secondarily responsible parties has also <br /> been entrusted to PHS/EHD. <br /> The longstanding tradition for the State Board to delineate <br /> between those that are primarily liable and those that are merely <br /> secondarily liable is illustrated by the following State Water <br /> Resources Control Board Water Quality Decisions. <br /> 1. WQ 86-18 . In the matter of Petition of Vallco <br /> Park Ltd. The State Board sustained a cleanup order which <br /> included current and past tenants as well as the landowner. The <br /> State Board recognized the significance of including the lessees <br /> who caused the release as well as the landowner, " . . .Regional <br /> Board should continue to look to lessees regarding clean up and <br /> only involve the landowner if the lessees fail to comply with the <br /> order. " <br /> 2 . WQ 87-5. In the matter of Petition of U.S. Forest <br /> Services. The State Board agreed that while it is proper to <br /> include landowner, enforcement action should first be taken <br /> against lessee and only as a last resort should the action be <br /> taken against the landowner. <br /> 3. WQ 87-6. In the matter of Petition of Prudential <br /> Insurance of America. The State Board recognized the importance <br /> of pursuing lessees. In this matter they agreed that lessees <br /> should be primarily liable and landowners secondarily liable. <br /> Landowner was entitled to a different compliance schedule than <br /> lessees. <br /> Thus, the law authorizes Petitioner to be named as a <br /> potential responsible party secondarily. Because Petitioner is <br /> an innocent owner and not an active responsible party, Petitioner <br /> should be named as a responsible party secondarily. <br /> F:\TRH\17093\D\R0EK3.KEH <br /> 4 75376-17093/./09/03/93/4 <br />