Laserfiche WebLink
p JUL-26-2004 09:02 „JQCB-CV 916 255 3052 P.04/05 <br /> Peter Wallace 3- <br /> Claim No. 1714 <br /> Decision <br /> Based on the fact that the Stoddard solvent plume is commingled with the ineligible chlorinated <br /> solvent plume,I find it fair to evenly split all past reasonable and necessary corrective action <br /> costs incurred after December 6, 1996, between the eligible Stoddard solvent and the ineligible <br /> chlorinated solvent contamination. This is the date when SJCEMD directed you to begin <br /> analyzing the environmental samples collected at your site for chlorinated solvents,which led <br /> soon after to the discovery of a significant plume of non-petroleum solvents. Similarly, I find it <br /> would be fair to divide the near-future investigative costs equally between the two types of <br /> solvents. However if the near-term investigation shows the extent of chlorinated solvent <br /> contamination to be well beyond the delineated extent of the Stoddard solvent contamination, <br /> then the costs for any additional investigative work would not be reimbursable. <br /> The eligible corrective action costs, if any, for future phases of work will be determined later <br /> when it becomes known what corrective action may be required and the applicability of the ' <br /> corrective action to the Stoddard solvent contamination at your site. Please be aware that any p <br /> cost to remediate the soil and/or groundwater beyond the cleanup goals set by the Regional <br /> Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the Stoddard solvent contamination will not be <br />� is <br /> reimbursed from the Fund. { <br /> The total amount that the Fund has reimbursed to date is $134,913.19. Based on this Final <br /> Division Decision, the Fund has overpaid.a total of$37,576.47. This amount will be applied , <br /> toward future eligible costs, and no additional eligible costs will be paid until this amount has <br /> been offset. i <br /> F <br /> ' V <br /> This represents a Final Division Decision. If you disagree with this decision, you may file a <br /> petition for review by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The petition must be h <br /> received by the SWRCB within thirty(30)days from the date of the Final Division Decision, as <br /> provided in Title 23, Chapter 18,,Article 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Your petition <br /> must be sent to Mr. Arthur G. Baggett, Jr., Chairman of the SWRCB, with copies to p <br /> Mr. Craig M. Wilson, Chief Counsel, and Ms.Barbara L. Evoy, Chief of the Division of <br /> Financial Assistance, at the following address: i <br /> State Water Resources Control.Board <br /> P.O. Box 100 <br /> Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 <br /> C <br /> A petition to the SWRCB must include, at a minimum: (1) the name and address of the I <br /> petitioner; (2) a copy of the Final Division Decision that the SWRCB is requested to review; I <br /> (3) an explanation why the petitioner believes the Final Division Decision is erroneous, <br /> inappropriate, or improper; (4) a statement describing how the petitioner is damaged by the Final <br /> Division Decision; and(5) a description of the remedy or outcome desired. If the SWRCB does <br /> not receive a petition for review within thirty(30) days from the date of this letter, this Final . <br /> Division Decision is final and conclusive. <br /> California EnvironraentalProtecdan Agency, <br /> D„a Recycled Frper <br />