Laserfiche WebLink
Gene Gabbard, Inc. • -2- • <br /> Claim No. 13324 <br /> site had been defined by December 2000, after the installation of eight soil borings and <br /> monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-4. Laboratory analyses of samples collected from <br /> these borings and wells showed that the petroleum contamination associated with the <br /> waste oil UST was limited to the immediate vicinity of the UST and that the only well <br /> MW-3, installed in the center of the former UST excavation, had any detectable <br /> petroleum contamination. The latest groundwater analytical data for MW-3 identified <br /> only very low concentrations of hydrocarbon constituents. Conversely, ineligible <br /> chlorinated solvent contamination was identified by groundwater samples collected from <br /> all of the monitoring wells at the site. Based on these facts, it appears that the purpose <br /> of the installation of three additional monitoring wells at your site as well as the ongoing <br /> quarterly monitoring of six out of the seven wells correctly installed at your site was to <br /> further define and monitor the solvent contamination in the groundwater beneath your <br /> site. <br /> I also do not believe that the installation of the automatic belt skimmer is reasonable or <br /> necessary. A total thickness of free product of 0.03 foot was measured one month prior <br /> to installation of the skimmer. It is highly unusual to install an automatic skimmer for <br /> this thickness of product. General industry practice would be to place hydrophobic, <br /> petroleum-absorbent material in this well and change it out periodically. <br /> Based on a discussion between Fund staff and Mr. John Lane of Ground Zero Analysis, <br /> Inc., I am also concerned that the installation of the automatic skimmer was potentially <br /> driven by the speculation that the source of the ineligible chlorinated solvents could be <br /> from solvents mixed with the waste oil. Please be aware that if it is found that <br /> chlorinated solvents have been mixed with the waste oil, the former UST is considered <br /> to be a hazardous waste UST, which will invalidate your claim with the Fund. <br /> Summary <br /> The total amount reimbursed on this claim by the Fund to date is $155,191.20. It is my <br /> opinion that that the ongoing monitoring, additional investigation of the extent of <br /> contamination, and, ultimately, the remediation of the contamination at your site is and <br /> will be focused on the chlorinated solvents. Consequently, I find that a reasonable cost <br /> for investigation and remediation of the petroleum contamination has already been <br /> reimbursed by the Fund. On this basis, I find that $12,002.94 in costs requested in <br /> Reimbursement Request No. 13 is not eligible for reimbursement and no future costs <br /> associated with the investigation and remediation of contamination at your site will be <br /> eligible for reimbursement from the Fund. <br /> Appeal Process <br /> This represents an FMD. If you are not in agreement with the above decision, you may <br /> request a Final Division Decision (FDD)within 60 days of the date of this letter. If you <br /> California Eawvflmeotalfrolection 4gency <br /> A <br /> p.,r�Reo,cledPnper <br />