|
` Peter Wallace -2-
<br /> Claim No. 1714
<br /> Starting in July 1992, this site was under the regulatory oversight of San Joaquin County
<br /> Environmental Health Department(SJCEHD). After reviewing the Quarterly Monitoring Report for
<br /> the Third Quarter-1996 and discussing the site with the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board
<br /> (Central Valley Regional Water Board), SJCEHD sent a letter to claimant dated December 6, 1996. In
<br /> this letter, SJCEHD directed the claimant to include halogenated solvents (EPA Method 601) in the
<br /> next quarterly sampling event.' The letter cites the site's history, consistent interference in the
<br /> laboratory methods, and historically used dry cleaning solvents as reasons for requiring EPA Method
<br /> 601 to be used.
<br /> Prior Fund Decisions
<br /> The May 11, 2004,Fund Manager Decision (FMD) found $28,740.23 in past costs to be ineligible for
<br /> reimbursement. The FMD also found that no future corrective action costs for this case would be
<br /> eligible for reimbursement from the Fund,because future work would be aimed exclusively at
<br /> investigating and cleaning up the chlorinated solvents at the site.
<br /> In the FDD dated July 19, 2004, I found that any corrective action costs incurred after December 6,
<br /> 1996, should be split evenly between the eligible petroleum and ineligible chlorinated solvents. I
<br /> further determined that future investigatory costs should also be split evenly unless, and until,it is
<br /> shown that the extent of the chlorinated solvents plume goes well beyond the stoddard solvent plume.
<br /> Additionally, I deferred any final decision as to the proper distribution of costs between the eligible
<br /> stoddard solvent and ineligible chlorinated solvents during future phases of the corrective action.
<br /> Discussion
<br /> The Correct Amount of the Overpayment is $42,043.34
<br /> During the review of your petition, it was determined that the $37,576.47 referenced in the FDD as the
<br /> amount of overpayment had been miscalculated. The correct amount of overpayment is $42,043.34.
<br /> A breakdown of eligible costs and overpayment are presented in the following table. As you can see,
<br /> since December 6, 1996, costs have been split evenly between the eligible stoddard solvent and the
<br /> ineligible chlorinated solvent contamination.
<br /> Reimbursement No. Amount Paid 100% 50%Eligible Overpayment
<br /> Eli 'ble
<br /> 1 17,247.73 17,247.73
<br /> 2 6,227.33 6,227.33
<br /> 3 17,990.50 17,990.50
<br /> 4a (before 12/06/96) 9,360.94 9,360.94
<br /> 4b(after 12/06/96) 3,933.75 1,966.88 1,966.88
<br /> 5 7,215.25 3,607.62 3,607.62
<br /> 6 17,715.85 8,857.93 8,857.93
<br /> 7 26,651.82 13,325.91 13,325.91
<br /> 8 15,181.17 7,590.58 7,590.58
<br /> 9 11,598.14 5,799.07 5,799.07
<br /> 10 1,790.71 1 895.36 895.35
<br /> Totals 134,913.19 50.826.50 42,043.35 42,043.34
<br /> Total Eligible Payment 92,869.85
<br /> Total Overpayment 42,043.34
<br /> At this site EPA Methods 601 and 8010 were used to test for halogenated solvents,which include chlorinated solvents.
<br /> California Environmental Protection Agency
<br /> A
<br /> �.a Recycled Paper
<br />
|