Laserfiche WebLink
05-04-1495 09:29AM FRDMALAMO Iu lce�+nvr�iori r.rr <br /> 6 J E 1 <br /> That Phillips` liability arises because of I <br /> di charges which took place before 1980 is of no legal <br /> significance, The discharge of hydrocarbons into the State' s <br /> ground water was 'a 'viclation of the law long before 1960. <br /> 2. Wendy's International <br /> we have issued -many orders addressing the question <br /> of who is responsible for ground mater cleanups. No order issued <br /> by this Board has held responsible for a cleanup a former <br /> landowner who had no part in the activity which resulted in the <br /> discharge of thn waste and whose own6rship interest did not cover <br /> the time during which that activity was taking place. <br /> Co nsidering those facts and the existence of other fully <br /> responsible parties, we see no reason to establish that precedent <br /> in this case. We have applied to current 1Andowners the <br /> o ligation to prevent an ongoing discharge caused by the movement <br /> of the pollutants on their property, even if they had nothing <br /> w atever to do with putting it there. (See Petition of spitzer, <br /> p dor No- WQ 89-8r Petition of LogsdOA, prder 'No. WQ 84-6; and <br /> o hers. ) The same policy and 'Iegal arguments do not necessarily <br /> a ply to former landowners. <br /> in this case, the gasoline was already in the <br /> g ound water and the tanks had been closed prior to the brief <br /> t .me Wendy's caned the site. They were told about the pollution <br /> problem by their consultant and perhaps by Redding. They took no <br /> 'Aeps to remedy the situation. on the other hand, they did <br /> nothing to make the situation any worse. Had a cleanup been <br /> a cfered Wh.i�.e WL-ndy's owned the site, it would have been <br /> 5 . <br />