SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

03/18/96 11:34 UST CLEANUP FUND 912094640138 N0.910 909 George Lockwood State Water Resources Control Board January 26, 1996 Page 8 The LOA made the determination to authorize the Langstons' excavatiott of the contamination at their property,and the USTCF is obliged to honor the commitment of the LOA. The USTCF may desire to seize control of the approval process from the lead agency, and it appears from the demands stated in your Payment Summary that it has done so, but it cannot retroactively deny the authority of the LOA to approve and direct contamination cleanup efforts. You reportedly commented to Mr. Norrnoyle that other alternatives, such as vapor extraction, were never considered prior to excavation. I do not know where this observation leads,in light of the foregoing. As explained by WHF in Exhibit "W,however,vapor extraction was carefully considered but,determined not to be an option at the Langston' property because of groundwater eontatrrination which threatened to migrate offsite unless abated, and because of a large mass of silty/clay soil which acted as a "secondary source" cif contamination. Vuortr extraction cannot economic"U or effectively he nedhrmed under water or on siltylclay_ Perhaps the most problematic of all the issues raised by your office is the attempt to draw a distinction between the verbs "approve," "require" and "direct," as I understand you did with Mr. Notmoyle. More specifically, I understand you have opined that them was a difference between the LOA "approving" or "concurring" that contaminationbe excavated as opposed to "requiring" or"directing" that it be done. This inquiry is no mora fruitful or relevant than asking whose idea it was first. The LOA said to excavate. There is no legal basis for requiring the Langston to make sure that.the LOA "really really" wanted theta to excavate and that the LOA use the correct verbs. if you know of any such authority, please share it immediately. For your information and file, a copy of"Work Plan Phase .11 Lateral & Vertical Extent of Second Groundwater Aquifer, Revised" submitted by WHF to the LOA on January 11, 1996, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". I hope I have understood and addre%ed all of the areas over which you have expressed concerns. If i have left anything unaddressed, i hope that you will bring them to my attention immediately. 1 hope we can put aside some of the red herrings and concentrate on actual areas of concern. Please call with any questions or comments. Very truly yours, REIN & ABBOTT Attorneys at Law l By: MICHAEL L. ABBOTT