Laserfiche WebLink
State Rater Resources Control Board <br /> Division of Financial Assistance <br /> Linda S.Adams 1001 1 Street•Sacramento,California 95814 h <br /> cwaaene <br /> Arnold Ser <br /> P.O.Box 944212•Sacramento,California•94244-2120 gg <br /> Secretaryfor (916)341-5684♦FAX(916)341-5806 ♦ www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/ustef/ Governor <br /> Environmental Protection <br /> 'JUL 842008 <br /> CERTIFIED MAIL: 7003 1680 0000 6167 1211 00� � <br /> Return Receipt Requested ° ° �F �f`�#1ESEfl) <br /> Mr. Patrick Riddle JUL 2 €, 2008 <br /> 1811 Grand Canal Boulevard, Suite 2 ENViR0WI'.1EN-1 HEALTii <br /> Stockton, CA 95207 PER IT!SER\IICES <br /> Dear Mr. Riddle: <br /> UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) CLEANUP FUND (FUND); REVISED FINAL <br /> DIVISION DECISION (RFDD); CLAIM NO. 13324, FOR SITE ADDRESS: <br /> 640 NORTH EL DORADO STREET, STOCKTON, CA <br /> This RFDD concerns reimbursement of corrective action costs that I previously <br /> determined to be an overpayment from the Fund. In an FDD dated October 3, 2006, 1 <br /> determined that only $76,694.28 of the total $160,191.20 reimbursed for this site was <br /> associated with the investigation and remediation of petroleum contamination.' The <br /> remaining costs were associated with investigation and remediation of chlorinated <br /> solvents. I found that the claimant, Gene Gabbard, Inc., had received an overpayment <br /> of $83,497.46, and directed the claimant to repay that amount to the Fund. The State <br /> Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) received a petition for review of <br /> the FDD on November 1, 2006. A supplement to the petition was received on <br /> December 19, 2006. <br /> Revised Decision <br /> This RFDD supersedes in part the prior FDD dated October 3, 2006. The part of the <br /> FDD that is superseded concerns the determination of the amount of the overpayment. <br /> After reviewing contentions in the petition, I find that costs in the amount of$124,554.33 <br /> were associated with the investigation and remediation of petroleum contamination at <br /> the site. This amount includes eligible costs itemized on Reimbursement Request (RR) <br /> No. 13 that have not been reimbursed to the claimant. The remaining costs incurred by <br /> the claimant were associated with the investigation and cleanup of the chlorinated <br /> solvent tetrachloroethene (PCE), and are ineligible for reimbursement. Including costs <br /> reimbursable under RR No. 13, the claimant is in receipt of an overpayment in the <br /> amount of $35,636.87 [$160,191.20 — $124,554.33 = $35,636.871. The claimant must <br /> return $35,636.87 to the Fund. <br /> The State Water Board will continue to review your petition, taking into account the <br /> revised determination made in this letter. <br /> Actual reimbursement for this claim was $155,191 ($160,191 less the $5,000 deductible). <br /> California Elivironmenlal-P oleclionAgency <br /> A <br /> Did /7eryc1edPaper <br />