Laserfiche WebLink
0 9 <br /> Ms. Linda Turkatte, R.E.H. S. <br /> June 16, 1993 <br /> Page 5 <br /> position. Again, we are informed that the rationale of PHS/EHD <br /> and the Regional Board is that it is irrelevant whether or not <br /> the groundwater contamination stemmed from the Site, that the <br /> Roek's would still be the responsible party. <br /> We find this position somewhat confusing. It is our under- <br /> standing that, pursuant to the LOP, PHS/EHD only has authority to <br /> pursue responsible parties for corrective action pursuant to <br /> federal and state underground storage tank law (See Ekholm <br /> letter) . While PHS/EHD does have authority under the Health and <br /> Safety Code to issue orders pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water <br /> Quality Act, it does not do so because PHS/EHD has indicated that <br /> for LOP sites it is proceeding under Federal and State Federal <br /> and State UST laws. The scope of corrective actions required <br /> must be in accordance with those laws. <br /> Corrective action is defined by 23 CCR 2720 as "any <br /> activity necessary to investigate and analyze the effects of an <br /> unauthorized release. . . " (emphasis added) . Section 2722 (b) <br /> further defines the scope of corrective action: "the responsible <br /> party shall take or contract for interim remedial actions as <br /> 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 unau- <br /> thorized release. " (Section 2725(f) ) (Emphasis added. ) Finally, <br /> "the corrective Action Plan Implementation Phase consists of <br /> carrying out the cost-effective alternative selected during the <br /> soil and water investigative phase for remediation or mitigation <br /> of the actual or potential adverse effects of the unauthorized <br /> release. " (Section 2726 (a) ) (Emphasis added. ) <br /> Clearly, the extent of the obligation of the responsi- <br /> ble party under State UST law extends to the actual effect of the <br /> unauthorized release on soil and groundwater. Consequently, if <br /> Roek can establish that the unauthorized release from the Site <br /> did not affect the groundwater, there should be no obligation to <br /> undertake corrective action as to the groundwater under UST laws. <br /> It may be legally possible to impose liability upon <br /> Roek to remediate the contaminated groundwater even if an unau- <br /> thorized release from the Site did not cause the contamination - <br /> under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. However, <br /> PHS/EHD has indicated that it is not proceeding pursuant to the <br /> Water Code for LOP sites. Consequently, there is no basis for <br /> its position here that the Roeks are responsible for groundwater <br /> F:\TRN\17093\C\ROEK.JMZ <br /> 75376/JMZ/06/16/93/2 <br />