Laserfiche WebLink
05-04-1995 09:29AM FROM ALAMO lu <br /> n <br /> Proper to name them as a discharger. Under the facts as <br /> presented in this case, it is not . <br /> 1n short, we conclude that it is inapPrapriate to <br /> include Wendy's as a discharger based on a number of <br /> c nsiderations • Among the {attars unique to this case axe: <br /> Wendy' s purchased the site specifically for the <br /> p rpose of conveying it to a franchisee. <br /> Wendy's owned the site for a very brief time. <br /> The franchisee who boaght the property £rQTR Wendy' s <br /> is named in the order. <br /> e Wendy' s had nothing to do with the activity that <br /> caused the leaks . (in previous erdera in which we have upheld <br /> naming prior Owners, they have been involved in the activity <br /> w ich created the pollution problem. (see Logsdon petition, Op- <br /> cit. , petition of Stinnes-Westerns order No. Wo 86-16, and <br /> tition of The BOC Group, Order No- WQ 89-13 - 1 ) <br /> Wendy's never engaged in any cleanup Or other <br /> activity on the site which may have exacerbated the ,problem. <br /> e While Wendy' s had some knowledge of a pollution <br /> zoblem at the Zite, the focus 4t the time was Ori a single spill, <br /> at an on-going leak. <br /> 0 Wendy's purchased the site in 1984 at a time when <br /> Baking underground tanks were just being recognized as a general <br /> rob3.em and before most of the underground tank legislation was <br /> nacted. <br /> 6 . <br />