Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 05/19/2004 08:22 20946713PAGE 62/0 I <br /> AGE STOCKTON <br /> State Water Resources Control Board <br /> Division o£Financial Assistance <br /> TerryTaryfor 10011 stm•SO"MCM California 95614 <br /> 0 <br /> SWmmneva P.O.Box 944212•Sac ent°,Caafomla•942442120 Arnold Schwarzenegger <br /> raivnen1ai 916-341-5661 PAX(916)341-5806 • wwwswrcb.ca.gov/cwphome/ustef Go, mr <br /> protacNan <br /> MAY 11 2004 <br /> Mr. Peter Wallace, Sr, Tnistee RECEIVED <br /> 7455 Pasaro Drive East MAY 4 7.003 <br /> Scottsdale,AZ 85262 <br /> Dear Mr. Wallace: <br /> UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK(UST) CLEANUP FUND (FUND); FUND MANAGER <br /> DECISION CONERNING INELIGIBLE COSTS: CLAIM NUMBER 1714; FOR SITE <br /> ADDRESS: 348 WEST LARDING WAY,STOCKTON,CA <br /> This letter is in response to a letter from Mr. William Little of Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. <br /> (AGE)dated September 22,2003,requesting reconsideration of costs that were determined to be <br /> ineligible by Fund staff in Reimbursement Request No.10. Mr. Little requested reconsideration <br /> of$28,740.23 in costs determined by Fund staff to be related to the ongoing investigation of the <br /> off-site extent of chlorinated solvent pollution identified at your site, Costs associated with <br /> corrective action to investigate and remediate chlorinated solvent contamination are not eligible <br /> for reimbursement from the Fund. <br /> Based on my review of your letter and supporting information contained in your claim file,I find <br /> that I must uphold the staff decision. The basis of my decision is as follows: <br /> Your claim was originally admitted into the Fund in 1993 based on a statement in your <br /> application that all USTs at your site contained stoddard solvents. Stoddard solvent is an eligible <br /> petroleum product,and costs associated with corrective action to investigate and remediate <br /> stoddard solvent contamination is eligible for reimbursement from the Fund. The initial ` <br /> investigation of the extent of contamination at your site focused solely on the Stoddard solvent. 4 <br /> 1 <br /> In a letter dated December 6, 199.6,the San Joaquin County'Enviromnental Health Department <br /> (EHD) directed you to begin analyzing the environmental samples collected at your site for l <br /> chlorinated solvents, because of consistent interference in the laboratory methods used to analyze <br /> for Stoddard solvents and the historic use of other dry cleaner solvents at your site. Significant <br /> concentrations of chlorinated solvents were subsequently identified in the ` <br /> site. @round water at your t <br /> }Y <br /> With the exception of the cost requested in your September 22,2003, letter,the Fund has ` <br /> reimbursed 100 percent of the costs submitted on your claim because,until recently,the focus of <br /> the investigation has been to evaluate the presence and extent of the stoddard solvents at your <br /> site. The total amount reirribursed to date is$134; 913.19. However, based on my review of <br /> your claim, it appears that the extent and relative concentrations of chlorinated solvents at your , <br /> site is greater than that of the stoddard solvent and that theZhiorinated solvents have become the <br /> driving cbemicals of concern at your site' It is my opinion that that the ongoing monitoring, <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> +Z, aeeydtdPaper <br />