Laserfiche WebLink
� v e <br /> Public Health Services, San. Joaquin County <br /> Mr. Steven Sasson, Senior REHS <br /> August 23, 1995 <br /> Page 2 . <br /> "neutral" document containing what have become the customary <br /> provisions for insurance protection and indemnity against <br /> accidents on Pep Boys' property. I ican provide a copy to you or <br /> to the neighboring owner at your request. <br /> I also respectfully disagree with any action placing Pep <br /> Boys property on your Local Oversight Program list and any <br /> attempt to levy oversight costs on Pep Boys. I request that if <br /> such action has been taken, that (i) you immediately "delist" the <br /> property and (ii) that you rescind all orders in connection with <br /> the site which are applicable to Pep Boys. California law is <br /> clear that those properties at which a release occurred are the <br /> properties liable for environmental damage -- not the down- <br /> gradient properties such as the Pep Boys location which has been <br /> victimized by migrating contamination. Please refer to Health & <br /> Safety Code ("HSC") §25297. 1, which authorizes a local agency to <br /> impose fees on the "responsible parties"; it is clear from that <br /> chapter of the statutes that responsible parties are "owners" and <br /> "operators" of underground tanks, but the term does not include <br /> neighbors. Please also note the language of Section 2720 of <br /> Title 23 of the California Administrhtive Code, the area of <br /> regulations cited in your letter, wherein a neighboring owner <br /> such as Pep Boys is not within the regulatory definition of <br /> "responsible party" . To further underscore this issue, if <br /> further authority is necessary, please note that the actual <br /> language in RCRA §699lb(h) (6) , the provision cited in the May 25 <br /> "Notice of Requirement To Reimburse"I provides authority to <br /> impose costs and other liabilities on "owners and operators" , not <br /> neighboring owners. <br /> Since under relevant law Pep Boys is not a responsible <br /> party, it is not required to submit a workplan nor is it required <br /> to incur costs because of a neighbor's contamination. I agree <br /> that your agency does have the authority to gain access to the <br /> site pursuant to HSC §25289, but Pep Boys ' willingness to <br /> negotiate the access agreement with the neighboring owner should <br /> avoid that inconvenience to you. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> P. J a d Walsh <br /> PJW/ecd <br /> \26000\26888LO1.A <br />