Laserfiche WebLink
05-04-1995 09:28AM FROM ALAMO Eu 1407�t4b1J0 r.n-f <br /> 1 . Philli s Petroleum <br /> Although the Phillips name was not associated with <br /> the service station during its years of operation, the entity <br /> wliich owned the property from 1560 until 1980 was a subsidiary o-f <br /> vinat has since become Phillips petroleum. The question before us <br /> i whether Phillips' predecessor acted in such a way as to <br /> obligate Phillips to participate in the cleanup. Under precedent <br /> e tablishsd by this Board (see Petition of John Stuart, Order <br /> N )- WQ 86»15) , we apply a three-part test to former o-%rmers: (1 ) <br /> d'd they have a significant ownership interest in the property at <br /> tie time of the discharge?; (2) did they have knowledge of the <br /> a tivities which resulted in the discharge? ; and (3) did they <br /> h ve the legal ability to prevent the discharge? The ansoer to <br /> a 1 three questions is affirmative as regards Phillips' <br /> predecessor. <br /> While the only documented discharge of gasoline <br /> o carred in 1983, the record shows clearly that discharges took <br /> place much earlier. Phillips has offered no evidence to rehut <br /> the reports made by Wendy's and Wenwest' s consultant that, <br /> c nsiderina: the 'soil in the area 'and the distance the gasoline <br /> has travelled to reach the neighbor's well, discharges took place <br /> at least 12 years before it was detected by the neighbor. That <br /> laces the time of discharge well within the ownership of the <br /> property by Phillips' predecessor. Phillips' argument that the <br /> 1983 leak somehow caused the pollution of the well that same year <br /> flies in the face of common sense and the laws of nature. <br /> 4 . <br />