My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HARDING
>
348
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0518922
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2019 2:16:29 PM
Creation date
5/17/2019 1:57:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0518922
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0014223
FACILITY_NAME
HESS DUBOIS
STREET_NUMBER
348
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
HARDING
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
348 W HARDING WAY
P_LOCATION
01
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
AMeuangkhoth
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
t <br /> Mr. Peter Wallace - 6 - AUC 2 T' ? <br /> delineation of the stoddard solvent plume, it also contributed to the delineation of the extent of <br /> the chlorinated solvents plume. Therefore, it is appropriate to split these costs evenly between <br /> the stoddard solvent and chlorinated solvents. <br /> Investigation at this site is ongoing. As noted in the FDD, the cost of the near-term investigation <br /> and monitoring activities are attributable to both the stoddard solvent and chlorinated solvents. <br /> Therefore, it is appropriate to continue to split investigation costs evenly between stoddard <br /> solvent and chlorinated solvents in the future, unless, and until, the investigation shows that the <br /> extent of the chlorinated solvents plume goes well beyond the stoddard solvent plume. These <br /> eligible costs will be applied to offset the identified overpayment. <br /> The Proper Distribution of Costs Between the Eligible Stoddard Solvent all the Ineligible <br /> Chlorinated Solvents During Future Phases of the Corrective Action Cannot be Determined at <br /> This Time <br /> The Division deferred any final decision as to the eligibility of costs associated with future <br /> phases of the corrective action. Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss petitioner's contention <br /> that natural attenuation of the chlorinated solvents plume is ongoing and that a different cleanup <br /> technology will be necessary to remediate the stoddard solvent contamination. As noted in the <br /> FDD, however, the Fund will not reimburse any costs beyond what is reasonable and necessary <br /> to reach the cleanup goals set by the Central Valley Water Board for the stoddard solvent <br /> contamination. <br /> Conclusion <br /> Petitioner previously submitted and the Fund reimbursed petitioner for all costs associated with <br /> both eligible stoddard solvent and ineligible chlorinated solvent contamination. As a result, the <br /> Fund overpaid a total of$42,043.34 in past costs attributable to the ineligible chlorinated <br /> solvents contamination. Future investigatory costs will be split evenly between the eligible <br /> stoddard solvent and the ineligible chlorinated solvents, unless, and until, it becomes apparent <br /> that the extent of the chlorinated solvent goes well beyond that of the stoddard solvent plume. <br /> The Fund will not reimburse any future costs until the overpayment is offset. This dismissal <br /> does not express any opinion as to the eligibility of costs for future phases of this corrective <br /> action. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> ZO Recycled Paper <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.