SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

Ms . Laurie Casias September 3, 1993 Page 7 Petitioner would still be responsible for groundwater contamination under its Site. In essence, Petitioner was told to give up and simply do the required investigation because PHS/EHD would not be willing to respond to any attempt to demonstrate that there is no connection between the groundwater and soil contamination. We requested a meeting with the Regional Board, and were told by PHS/EHD that it is the decision making body. PHS/EHD's statement in its denial letter that they will respond to any workplan submitted is disingenuous. PHS/EHD has already indicated that establishment of a lack of connection between soil and groundwater would not alter its demand for a full groundwater investigation. Consequently it would be futile for Petitioner to submit a workplan which PHS/EHD has indicated is irrelevant. PHS/EHD denial of our request to implement a workplan to determine whether there is a connection between the soil and groundwater contamination was improper because Petitioner has the right to establish that releases from the Site have not contaminated the groundwater. First, as discussed above, the current factual data which has been generated from investigations at the Site supports the theory that the groundwater contamination was not caused from releases at the Site. Rather, the evidence supports the theory that groundwater contamination stems for an up-gradient source. (See items A. 1-5 above. ) In specific, the portion of the Site that registered the highest levels of soil contamination had levels of contamination between the depths of 15 and 20 feet below the surface. The highest historical groundwater level in that area measured 38 feet, therefore approximately 18 feet of unsaturated soil exists above the highest groundwater level. Moreover, two chemicals, dichloroethane and dichloropropane were not found in soil samples, but were found in the groundwater which indicates that there is another source producing those organic contaminants in the groundwater. Secondly, we have been informed that PHS/EHD will not consider any evidence from the Petitioner attempting to confirm the lack of connection between soil and groundwater contamination at the Site. We are also informed that the staff of the Regional Board supports or has advised PHS/EHD to hold this position. The rationale of PHS/EHD and the Regional Board that it is irrelevant whether or not the groundwater contamination stemmed from the Site, and that the Petitioner would still be the responsible F:\TRN\17093\D\ROS 3.R H 75376-17093/./09/03/93/4