Laserfiche WebLink
05-04-1995 09:23AM FRO�M''+�ALAMO T❑ <br /> t 1 T <br /> remediation was xecommended or undertakeXI. In 1985, after <br /> W rawest bought the property and built the restaurant, strong <br /> hydrocarbon odors Frere found in the women's restroom. An <br /> i vestigation by a different consultant was inconclusive and no <br /> action was. taken- A subsequent and more extensive investigation <br /> by the second consultant began about three years later. By 1990 <br /> they had found strong evidence of gasoline contamination. Levels <br /> as high as 210,000 ppb total petroleum hydrocarbons were found in <br /> g ound water. Those findings are the bas18 of the order RWQCB' a <br /> order we now review. <br /> 11. coN'1VNTIONS AND FINDINGS <br /> .Contentiorii Each petitioner makes the same basic claim <br /> that the RWQCB should have left them off thn order or that they <br /> should have been treated as:.secondarily responsible for the. <br /> c eanup.l <br /> Findingst The RwQCn properly included Phillips <br /> P troleum as a fully responsible party. Wendy' s international <br /> s ould not 'have been included as a discharger in the cleanup and <br /> abatement order. wenwest and Susan Rose are properly included in <br /> the order but should be treated as secondarily responsible for <br /> he tasks in the order-2 <br /> 2 All contodriovs not discussed in this andel" are denied for f-ViIure CO raise <br /> ubstanria2 issues appropriate for review. Title 23. California Code of <br /> egulations. ,Section 2052(a)(1). pems v_ Bares (1987) 194 Cal.App.3.1 155, <br /> 39 Cal.Rptr. 349, <br /> At thetime the RwQcB issued .its order. work wag not r*gresring on the <br /> ` eanup. <br /> This led the RhfQCB to decid+4 that the primary/ Y <br /> acion <br /> S inapplicable. This was not azz unreasonable Conclusion far the KWQCB to <br /> each, we now rake netice that work is progressing satisfactorily and will <br /> ddress the case as it sit$nds before us. <br /> a. <br />