SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

JAN-05-1996 08:38 P.03/07 Mr. Andrew Smith • -2- • Groundwater samples collected from monitoring well MW-4, located immediately downgradient from the former USTs, have consistently contained MTBE concentrations ranging from ND to 11 µ/I,, which is well below the target cleanup levels for this pollutant. Supplemental investigations performed at the site have consistently shown that there are very high concentrations of MTBE in the soil and groundwater adjacent to and downgradient from the current ASTs, and no significant MTBE concentrations adjacent to and downgradient from the former USTs. In a letter dated June 3,2003,the Fund Manager notified the claimant that the Fund had tentatively concluded that the MTBE found in the soil and groundwater at the site had not originated from the USTs removed in 1991. The distribution of the MTBE suggested that it had originated from the ASTs currently located at the site. At that time,the Fund Manager said he would wait until the results of a pending investigation were submitted before making a final decision. The Fund Manager also informed the claimant that if his final determination found that the MTBE was from the current ASTs, future funding would be significantly reduced. The ensuing investigation was conducted by AGE in November 2003, but a report was not provided to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) until April 2004. The Fund did not receive a copy of the report until it was submitted with Reimbursement Request(RR)No. 12 in August 2004. In addition,the copy of the report submitted to the Fund did not contain 18 of the 19 figures referenced in the table of contents. These figures contained relevant information, including the locations of the soil borings, geologic cross sections, and iso-contours depicting the location, extent, and source of the contamination at the site. My further review of the file found that all of the workplans, quarterly monitoring reports, and various other reports prepared by AGE in 2003 were also submitted to the Fund without these important figures. Between June 3,2003,the date of the Fund Manager's letter, and the submitting of the results of the November 2000 investigation,the Fund had reimbursed$257,983 in RR Nos. 10, 11, and 12. The FMD stated that the Fund considered this amount to be an overpayment, which must be returned to the Fund. Discussion of Points Raised in Appeal I wish to respond to the primary points raised in your and AGE's letters. Points Raised by Mr. Andrew Smith I. The FMD statement that the concentration of MTBE of 14,000 mg/kg detected in a soil sample from soil boring GP-4 was incorrect. The actual concentration of MTBE was 1.4 mg/kg. Response: I agree that the stated MTBE concentration was incorrect, but this doesn't change the conclusions regarding the case. Fund staff relies on the information provided by the claimant. The only data that had been provided at the time of the FMD was the data California Environments1 ProtectroR Ageucr ro ��}Recycled Paper