|
State Water Resources Control Board
<br /> Division of Financial Assistance
<br /> 1001 1 Street•Sacramento,California 95814
<br /> P.O.Box 944212•Sacramento,California•94244-2120 Arnold Schwarzenegger
<br /> Alan C.Lloyd,Ph.D. (916)341-5353 FAX(916)341-5806 • www.wat,,rboaTds.ca.gov/cwphctm c£ Governor
<br /> Agency Secretary � �1r ��E �
<br /> AUG 2 2 2005
<br /> CERTIFIED MAIL: 7001 0320 0000 7546 4843 AIG _ 2005
<br /> Ms. Helen Higgins ENVIRONMENT 1-EALTil
<br /> 5815 Morgan Place, #16 f PM101TISERVICES
<br /> Stockton, CA 95457
<br /> Dear Ms. Higgins:
<br /> ,.—UNDERGR�JLTND-STORAGE-TANK-(UST)=CLEANUP_FUND_(FL-3�_II ) FI�VAL:DNISION -
<br /> ss DECISION (FDD): CLAIM NO. 11775; SITE ADDRES :*2315 NORTH CALIFORNIA STREET,
<br /> STOCKTON, CA `
<br /> This is in response to a June 24, 2005, letter from Mr. Mi hael Vlach, P.E., of Foothill Engineering,
<br /> requesting a FDD regarding corrective action costs determined to be ineligible by the Fund.
<br /> Specifically, the Fund Manager Decision(FMD) dated May,5, 2005, denied payment of$3,224.00 in
<br /> costs associated with Reimbursement Request(RR)No. W. Subsequently,Fund staff determined an
<br /> additional $2,124.00 in costs to be ineligible in RR No. 11. In both cases, the costs in question were
<br /> for the laboratory analysis of groundwater samples for chl ninated solvents using Environmental
<br /> Protection Agency(EPA) Method 601. In addition, Mr. lack also requested that I review the
<br /> decision by the Fund Manager to only reimburse for 15 p cent of future sampling labor costs.
<br /> A meeting on this issue was held at our offices onAugust 18, 2005, with Mr. Vlach, Mr. Allan Patton,
<br /> of my staff, and yourself in attendance. Mr. Patton has briefed me on the meeting, and I understand
<br /> that you reiterated that the dry cleaning operations at your site used Stoddard solvent exclusively.
<br /> Mr. Vlach also repeated his arguments as to why he belie es the 1,2 DCA in this case is associated
<br /> with the leaded gasoline stored at the site, as opposed to b ing a breakdown product of chlorinated dry
<br /> cleaning solvents. He also explained that the principal reason for testing for chlorinated solvents is that
<br /> because the site was operated as a dry cleaner business, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
<br /> Control 136afd (Ceiitral Valley Regional Water Board) will require chlorinated solvent information
<br /> before considering whether to.concur'with any future clos ire decision. I also understand that
<br /> Mr. Patton explained that the Fund can only reimburse fo petroleum investigation and cleanup, which
<br /> may include testing for petroleum additives, but that reimbursement for non-petroleum products, such
<br /> as chlorinated dry cleaning solvents, is not allowed under authorizing statutes. I wish to add that the
<br /> Central Valley Regional Water Board has broad authority to require water quality data,beyond the
<br /> i
<br /> petroleum limitations imposed on the Cleanup Fund..
<br /> Following my review of the letter from Mr. Vlach,_the-E , and other documents in the claim fide,
<br /> and the August 18, 2005, meeting briefing, I find 1 agree_ 'ith the_F.und Manager-that-the-costs for the
<br /> laboratory analysis of groundwater samples for chlorinate solvents.by,EPA.Method 601 are ineligible a
<br /> for reimbursement by the Fund when the analysis is perfo ed solely to evaluate the presence of
<br /> chlorinated solvents other than 1,2-DCA. However, with regard to the $3,224.00 in cost that was
<br /> determined ineligible in RR-No._1G notc_that_this analy-s s was.the•only-analysis-performed-that,.
<br /> would detect 1,2-DCA. Therefore, I find that in this instance the $3,224.00_ in costs for EPA Method
<br /> Califor a l�viranruental P atection Agency
<br /> Recycled Pap r
<br /> 1
<br />
|