SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

AUG � 9 200 N�A��F� 02 August 2004 EN��R 1��SERti��GES USTCF Claim No. 01714 PERM Mr. Arthur G. Baggett, Jr. Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board -'�- P. O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-100 Subject: Petition of the Final Division Decision - Claim No. a 714 Estate of Peter J. Wallace, Sr. Former Hess-Dubois Cleaners 348 West Harding Way, Stockton, California Dear Mr. Baggett, Jr.: In accordance with a letter from the State Water Resources Control Board- Division of Financial Assistance (Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund), dated 19 July 2004, the Estate of Peter J. Wallace, Sr. (The Estate) is formally sending a petition to review the decision of ineligibility determination for Claim No. 1714 for the site located at 348 West Harding Way, Stockton, California. The Estate property owner hereby appeals the SWRCB Final Division Decision which found their USTCF claim reimbursement had been overpaid an amount of$37,576.47,which would be applied against towards any future cost reimbursements as an off-set and finally,that future costs of on-site contamination cleanup would not likely be reimbursed. The Final Division Decision petition is based on the following: 1. The decision stating that the use of EPA method 8260 was extraordinary and unnecessary for the site assessment is wrong.Consultants typically have utilized multiple methods to analyze ground water for contamination and the decision of the method chosen is at the discretion of the licenced author of the report which contains the data; however, the Hess DuBois investigation utilized EPA method 8260 to analyze for total petroleum hydrocarbons as stoddard and BTEX compounds simultaneously only after the start of the year 2000,when the local oversight and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region directed use of the method in order to search for and confirm the presence of fuel oxygenating additives (MTBE). Currently, all sites have to analyze for 1,2-DCA and EDB regularly, in addition to fuel oxygenates, requiring the use of EPA method 8260. The site investigation has utilized method EPA 8010,which reasonably would not be reimbursable. I,with aide from my consultant Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc.(AGE),have determined that an estimated 44 ground water samples were analyzed by EPA method 8010, then submitted for fund reimbursement and received reimbursement,at a total cost of$3,036.00. The maj ority of the ground water samples analyzed from the site utilized either EPA methods 8015 with 602, 8020 or EPA 8260 as a sole analysis for TPH and BTEX at the site. Any