Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. John Caffrey <br /> September 27, 1995 <br /> Page 2 <br /> . . .dispute resolution process established <br /> through LOP contract. Most LOP actions <br /> appealable to State Board, or RP may establish a <br /> review process with the local agency or the <br /> review board. Regional Board actions have <br /> always been subject to State Board review. Each <br /> Regional Board and State Board have an omnibus <br /> person available. This process will be <br /> clarified in the upcoming issue of the UST <br /> program newsletter. <br /> This office determined to utilize this alternative as <br /> a cost-effective measure to resolve a dispute between our <br /> client (the responsible party, RP) and the local oversite <br /> program agency (LOP) . I requested information regarding <br /> this "informal information and dispute resolution <br /> process, " at the staff level in Region V with its San <br /> Joaquin County representative, Elizabeth Thayer. She <br /> informed me on September 25, 1995, that she had been <br /> directed to limit her comments on any LOP actions. She <br /> stated specifically that the Regional Board staff 's <br /> authority was limited to that of a "technical advisor" to <br /> the LOP; the LOP was the lead and the only viable solution <br /> for my client would be to conduct a formal appeal to the <br /> State Water Resource Control Board. <br /> In essence, I was informed that 'ah RP has no <br /> opportunity to request an informal information and dispute <br /> resolution process. The only party entitled to request <br /> technical advice was the LOP itself. Because the LOP had <br /> not asked for Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> overview, she could not provide corm-nents to us . No <br /> omnibus person is available to the RP. <br /> Our client is being placed out of compliance with the <br /> Underground Storage Tank Clean Up Fund requirements and <br /> there is no informal administrative remedy available, <br /> despite the written statements of your staff to the <br /> contrary in their recent comments to the status of <br /> compliance with the recommendations of the External <br /> Program Review Committee. <br /> I point this out to you to request that either you <br /> rectify this situation by requiring the regional boards to <br /> develop this informal process or publicly recognize that <br /> it is not a viable solution as promised, and that a new <br /> 43369-1 <br />