Laserfiche WebLink
NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE <br /> A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION•ATTORNEYS&COUNSELORS ESTABLISHED 1903 <br /> STOCKTON OFFICE: 58953-21778 <br /> 509 W.WEBER AVE. <br /> STOCKTON,CA <br /> 95203-3166 <br /> (209)948-8200 <br /> (209)948-4910 FA.x <br /> February 21 , 1995 <br /> NAILING ADDRESS: <br /> P.O.Box 20 <br /> STOCKTON,CA <br /> 95201-3020 <br /> MODESTO <br /> (209)577-8200 Ms . Wend W els <br /> (209)577-4910 FAx Y y <br /> Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> Central Valley Region <br /> 3443 Routier Road, Suite A <br /> Sacramento, California 95827-3098 <br /> Re: Koppel Stockton Terminal <br /> 2025 West Hazelton Stockton, California <br /> Dear Ms . Wyels : <br /> I am in receipt of you letter dated February 6 , 1995 , <br /> requesting that the Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> ( "RWQCB" ) be permitted entry onto the above referenced site <br /> for the purposes of testing the soil, and perhaps even the <br /> groundwater, for evidences of nitrate concentrations . After <br /> reviewing the documentation you sent, we have the following <br /> comments : <br /> First and foremost, the underlying evidence for <br /> requesting a site investigation and/or cleanup originates <br /> from three NOVs issued over 13 years ago and long before <br /> MUNCO owned the property. Your letter states , "there is <br /> substantial legal precedent for naming the current property <br /> owner as a 'Discharger' and requiring him to conduct a site <br /> investigation and/or cleanup. " While this may be the <br /> practice, it is contrary to State Water Resources Control <br /> Board ( "State Board" ) policy. On numerous occasions the <br /> State Board has reiterated its policy of holding truly <br /> responsible parties (the owner and operator at the time of <br /> the discharge) primarily liable and subsequent or "innocent" <br /> landowners as secondarily liable. <br /> MUNCO purchased the property in 1986 . No evidence <br /> exists to show that MUNCO's activities may have caused a <br /> discharge. In fact, the only evidence (the 1992 NOV) was <br /> not even issued to MUNCO. Therefore, in accordance with the <br /> State Board' s policy of holding truly responsible parties <br /> 28722-1 <br />