SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2

Home Browse Search

Ms. Terry hSeell �"✓ July 15, 2003 Page 6 concentrations by themselves are sufficient to indicate undetected releases from Palisades' UST system and, alone, support the SJCEHD's naming of Palisades as an RP. Further, as explained in detail below,based on the April 2003 Tracer testing, Palisades' UST system has potentially significant vapor leaks. Third, Palisades suggests that an alleged poorly maintained well surface seal may have acted as a vertical conduit for the migration of gasoline surface Bingham McCufchen LLP spills to groundwater in VEW3. If gasoline surface spills, which necessarily bingham.com would have occurred during Palisades' ownership and operation of the Site, were the source of increased concentrations of MtBE and TBA in VEW3, concentrations of BTEX should initially also be relatively higher. However, as indicated by groundwater samples collected from VEW3 in March of 2002, this was not the case as the BTEX levels were 12.0 ug/L and the MtBE level was 30,300 ug/L. See Moise Decl., Ex. 2. Accordingly, Palisades' surface seal argument does not support the levels of MTBE or TBA detected in groundwater samples taken from VEW3. Finally, Palisades claims that if releases from its USTs were the source of elevated MtBE concentrations in VEW3, downgradient wells should similarly detect elevated constituent levels. Palisades' argument ignores the elevated MTBE concentrations in MW4, a well located in the assumed downgradient direction from Palisades' UST system and well VEW3.9 Based on March and December of 2002 groundwater sampling at MW4, MtBE was detected at 123 ug/L and 429 ug/L,respectively. Accordingly, Palisades so-called "downgradient theory" as a basis to avoid being named as an RP lacks merit, and the SWRCB should disregard it.'0 (Footnote continued from Previous Page.) leakage and retest the UST system using ELD until the system is no longer leaking liquid or vapor). 9 Palisades incorrectly concludes that MW5, MW6 and MW 10 are downgradient of VEW3. 10 Palisades also off-handedly suggests an offsite source as the cause for increased concentrations in VEW3. Palisades' designation as an RP is at issue here,not identifying other potential RPs for the Site. Hence, this argument is irrelevant. Nonetheless, Palisades acknowledges that the wells adjacent to the (Footnote Continued on Next Page.)