Laserfiche WebLink
F <br /> Helen Higgins -2- 'v AUG 2 2 2005 'v <br /> Claim No. 11775 <br /> 641 analysis is eligible for reimbursement.-My review of RR No. 11 found,however, that EPA <br /> Method_601 was pErf6_r_r;i_eJ�1naddi_ti`on to a separate analysis for five oxygenates, 1,2-DCA, and EDB. <br /> I conclude that in this instance, the analysis using EPA M thod 601 was performed solely to evaluate <br /> the presence of chlorinated solvents other than 1,2-DCA a d;consequently, the associated $2,124.00 in <br /> cost remains ineligible. In the future, I recommend that your consultant not perform both analyses to <br /> avoid incurring ineligible costs, or that you understand that these costs will not be reimbursed. <br /> It is my understanding that Fund staff believe that the pres nce of 1,2-DCA in the.groundwater at your <br /> site is most likely either the result of the degradation of the other chlorinated solvents present in the <br /> groundwater beneath your site or is representative of a reg anal 1,2-DCA problem in the Stockton area. <br /> This was why the FMD limited future reimbursement for E ampling labor costs to 15 percent._ <br /> Following my review_of-yourrclaim`file;I"find that there"is niTufficien Eta io s�port the con lu ion <br /> that the-1,2-DCA is not the e result of an unauthorized relea e from-the-former gasoline UST—_�W-ith,that <br /> understanding, l find that 100 percent of reasonable future sampling labor costs will be eligible for, <br /> reimbursement. However;the Fund reserves floe right to r `visit tl%i5issue in the future if additional <br /> information becomes available that would warrant reexamination of the facts. <br /> Finally during my review of your file, I noted that there aur currently no monitoring wells located <br /> upgradient from the former gasoline UST. I recommend that your consultant consider requesting <br /> regulatory agency approval to install shallow and deep monitoring wells in the northwest corner of <br /> your site and upgradient of the former gasoline UST to evaluate if there are chlorinated solvents <br /> migrating on to your property from some off-site source. <br /> This represents a FDD. If you disagree with this decision you may file a petition for review by the <br /> State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board).- The petition must be received by the State <br /> Water Board within 30 days from the date of the FDD, as provided in Title 23, Chapter 18, Article 5 of <br /> the California Code of Regulations. Your petition must be sent to Mr. Arthur G. Baggett, Jr., <br /> Chairman of the State Water Board,with copies to Mr. C aig M. Wilson, Chief Counsel, and . <br /> Ms. Barbara L. Evoy, Chief of the Division of Financial ssistance, at the following address: <br /> State Water Resources Control Board _-- <br /> P.O. Box 100 <br /> Sacramento, CA 95812-01 C 0 <br /> A petition to the State Water Board must include, at a minimum: (1) the name and address of the <br /> petitioner; (2) a copy of the FDD at the State Water Boar is requested to review; (3) an explanation <br /> why the petitioner believes the FDD is erroneous, inappr nate, or improper, (4) a statement <br /> describing how the petitioner is damaged by the FDD; an (5) a description of the remedy or outcome <br /> desired. <br /> If the State Water Board does not receive a petition for re,-iew within 30 days from the date of this <br /> letter, this FDD is final and conclusive. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> ro <br /> fir} Recycled Pape <br />