ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0009987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for decision to reimburse "Pending" clean up costs. Wright prepared a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) dated March 27, 2003, (Exhibit 2) that evaluated possible cleanup methods and provided preliminary cost estimates based upon the limitations expressed therein for each of the three clean up methods evaluated for the site The CAP was then submitted to the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Division (EHD), the lead agency charged with oversight for this site and a copy was provided to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 5 case officer, Mr James Barton who directed Wright to do so Comments by a State Fund, Technical Reviewer who is unknown to Wright indicated that the CAP showed Dual Phase Extraction "to be the more cost effective" method in comparison to Excavation This interpretation of the CAP apparently led the reviewer to make a tentative determination to not reimburse for remediation by excavation and removal of source contaminants, and to identify $276,731 75 of those actual remediation costs incurred by Claimant as "Pending" until further information was provided to evaluate if the method used for clean up was "acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agency' thus making them eligible for reimbursement as provided for in section 2812 2(b) of the Fund reimbursement guidelines Claimant calls to your attention the following facts that substantially prove all costs incurred to date were for "corrective action work acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agency" San Joaquin County, EHD CAP did not "show it" Dual Phase (Option 2), to be the more cost effective method However, the CAP did propose that Dual Phase was a possible method and such a system, along the lines specified in the CAP when operated for an 18-month period after obtaining all the approvals identified in pages 12 through 15 of the CAP, may well be the "second most cost effective" of the three evaluated clean up methods ® Wright initially recommended to Regulators and Claimant that an "in-situ" biologic degradation and enhanced bio-cleanup (Option 3) appeared to be the "Most cost effective method" However, later Mr Barton, the RWQCB reviewer indicated to the EHD that pilot studies and testimonial of use in the area and a Report of Waste Discharge in part were required before any injection of any biologics would be approved, thereby, adding additional costs and an undetermined amount of time to further study Option 3, prior to implementation of any clean up effort Upon learning of this feed back after discussions with EHD it became apparent that clean up by excavation was in fact the most cost effective method and the method most acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agency and as a direct result, altered prior beliefs by Wright of the cost effectiveness of Option 3 in the CAP • Page 2 of 7