Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Patrick D. Riddle -4 - NOV 16 2009 <br /> Petitioner therefore would not be the owner or operator of a UST, and none of the cleanup costs <br /> at the site would be eligible for reimbursement from the Fund. It is not necessary to reach this <br /> conclusion, however, because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the <br /> conclusion that the PCE originated from an off-site source. <br /> Petitioner's other contentions are without merit. <br /> Petitioner's request for a hearing is denied. The State Water Board has the discretion to hold a <br /> hearing before taking action. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 2814.4, subd. (b).) The State Water <br /> Board declines to hold a hearing because Petitioner has not raised any issues that are <br /> appropriate for review. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> The Division's conclusion that the PCE contamination at Petitioner's site was released from an <br /> off-site source is supported by the record. I agree with the Division's reasons for disallowing <br /> Fund reimbursement of PCE cleanup costs as explained in the Revised FDD which is enclosed <br /> for your convenience. Petitioner is in receipt of an overpayment in the amount of$35,636.87. <br /> Petitioner must return $35,636.87 to the Fund. <br /> These petitions fail to raise substantial issues that are appropriate for State Water Board review. <br /> Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. This dismissal constitutes final agency action. <br /> (§ 25299.56, subd. (d).) <br /> If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Therese Barakatt, Senior Staff <br /> Counsel, in the State Water Board's Office of Chief Counsel, at (916) 341-5186. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Dorothy Ric <br /> Executive Director <br /> Enclosure <br /> cc: See next page <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> Ru.arind <br /> P-- <br />