Laserfiche WebLink
0 • <br /> Ms. Linda Turkatte, R. E.H.S. <br /> June 16, 1993 <br /> Page 6 <br /> contamination at the Site regardless of its source. Such a <br /> position is untenable. <br /> PHS/EHD cannot refuse to exercise the authority <br /> granted by the Health and Safety Code to proceed with enforcement <br /> pursuant to the Water Code when it comes to identifying addition- <br /> al responsible parties, and yet choose to exercise such authority <br /> by enforcing corrective actions against one responsible party. <br /> D. Roek Bros. is Secondarily Liable. Lastly, we note that <br /> Roek Bros. should be officially designated as secondarily, not <br /> primarily, liable for the contamination at 102 South Wilson Way, <br /> Stockton, California. Roek Bros. has never owned or operated the <br /> tanks which caused the contamination at the Site service station <br /> on the Site. In fact, the Roeks did not purchase the property <br /> for seven years after the tanks, and thus the source of contami- <br /> nation, were removed. This fact alone disqualified Roek Bros. <br /> for S.B. 2004 funds. <br /> As you probably know, many decisions of the Board have <br /> approved this concept of secondary liability for innocent owners <br /> when the active responsible parties have been identified. <br /> 1. WQ 86-18 . In the matter of Petition of Vallco <br /> Park Ltd. The State Board sustained a clean-up 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 that 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 permits Roek Bros. to be named as a <br /> potential responsible party secondarily. <br /> F:\TRN\17093\C\ROEK.JM2 <br /> 75376/JM2/06/16/93/2 <br />