SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

b.Llt3/y6 11:.i.i UST CLEANUP FUND 912094640138 N0.910 Doo George Lockwood State Water Resources Control Beard January 26, 1996 Page 7 While a final remediation work plan and feasibility study is contemplated by the LOA, it has not yet been prepared because the LOA required "interim" excavation first. OTHER CONCERNS NOT EXPRESSED IN THE PAYMENT SUMMARY. it is difficult to address and resolve contentions not actually asserted. 'Che issues addressed in this section are not raised in any correspondence from the USTCP, but arise from your conversation with Michael Normoyle. 1 address them here in efforts to expedite the processing of the Langstone claim. I understand from your comments to Mr. Nortnoyle you do not believe the excavation work may be characterized as "interim" in nature unless sonic type of emergency can be said to have existed at the Langston properly. 1 believe your position to he that unless there was an "emergency," a full feasibility study was required before excavation could be chosen as the proper remedy. Be clear on one thing,the LOA considered this project an emergency, Mr. infuma. repeatedly threatened to cause the withdrawal of fund eligibility unless excavation pursuant to the interim work plan was commenced immediately. In fact, it was pressure from the LOA which greatly motivated the Langston litigation to settle prior to trial. See the statements of William Fox and his employees in Exhibit "13", If you believe the work was improperly authorized, your quarrel is with the LOA, specifically Mr. infi.una and Ms. Hinson, not the Langstons. The USTCF might have had grounds to complain and to reject all or pail.of the Langston.' Reitribumernotrt Requests had the Langston not followed the instructions of the LOA, but such is not the case. The LOA authorized and directed every action taken by the Unptotm Further, your office was notified in writing by letter from the Langstons on December 24, 1994 that excavation was intended. In that letter, previously referenced and located at Tab 3 of Volume I of the second Reimbursement Request and attached hereto as Exhibit "A",the Langstons requested an expanded letter of commitment for the excavation work before it began. When they received no response to this request,Jan Henricksen,the Langstons' daughter, phoned and spore with your office. She was told that the Langston should proceed with the work, that a second letter of commitment, if required, would be appropriate at the time of the submission of a Reimbursement Request. The USTCF may have undergone a change in policy recently regarding the cleanup of underground contamination,but it may not repudiate the representations it and the LOA has trade to the Langstons.