ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0009987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m Wright submitted as directed by EHD in their letter dated May 01, 2003 (Exhibit-3) a work plan dated October 10, 2003 (Exhibit-4) that supplemented the previous CAP, modified recommendations found therein and reconsidered which clean up method was at that time considered the most cost effective The revised CAP and work plan also moved the implementation of clean up efforts to the forefront as directed by EHD The revised CAP was the result of RWQCB and EHD conversations and letters that resulted in Claimant implementing excavation of contaminated soil and the limited treatment of encountered ground water as provided for in the work plan that was approved by EHD in their letter dated March 17, 2003 (Exhibit-5) that contained certain conditions of approval Based upon the above noted facts and documents offered in support, it is the Claimants request that you do all of the following find that the work directed by the EHD fell within the State Fund Guidelines for reimbursable costs and that aI! $276,731 75 of those actual remediation costs incurred by Claimant and previously determined as "Pending" will be reimbursed upon resubmission of a claim for reimbursement Request to reconsider and to reimburse costs deemed "ineligible": The site had when the UST System Leak occurred and continues to have on the ground surface (low income modular trailer living units) and subsurface (public utilities and irrigation district pipeline) constraints that were considered in the March 27, 2003 CAP and the October 10, 2003 supplement These constraints did have certain direct affects and costs that were associated with clean up methodologies and technologies evaluated and the method implemented For instance, relocation of certain tenants and infant children was for their health and safety, thus preventing their harm from nuisance vapors released during removal of contaminated soil Claimant incurred direct costs to protect the health and safety of residents living in the area of the remedial efforts These direct costs were not "ineligible consequential costs" as provided for in section 2812 2(e) (15), instead the costs were directly related to clean up and, while admittedly unique in comparison to many sites, they are no less a direct cost than are the direct costs associated with placing traffic control around a driller working in the street, the wearing of a respirator to protect workers from inhaling harmful vapors, and treating emissions from a vapor extraction system to eliminate harmful vapors from be reintroduced to the environment and affecting receptors downwind Thus, Wright and the Claimant assert the $17,984 65 in mitigation of hazards to receptors at the site are "direct costs" eligible for reimbursement as provided for in 2812 2 (a) through (d) and further asserts those costs are far less than possible costs deemed eligible in 2812 2, (f), (1) through (4) • Page 3 of 7