USVI Public Records

Document text

FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP LETTER TO DPNR AND EPA RE GERAGHTY & MILLER DRAFT PHASE II Rl TUT O06 O662 MS. CAROLINE KIVAN USEPA - REGION 11 *64645* 64645 COf-f- oo LAW OFFICES OF JOHN K. DEMA, RC.- JOHN K.. DEMA CAREY-ANNE MOODY 1 November 1994 x Roy Adams, Commissioner 2: Department of Planning and Natural Resources • United States Virgin Islands 2 Nisky Center A Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas 00801 f-r^ § Andrew Praschak, Esquire 7" Assistant Regional Counsel g USEPA- Caribbean Field Office § 1413 Fernandez Juncos Avenue | Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909 ^ Ms. Caroline Kwan ~l Project Manager 5 USEPA-Region H g 26 Federal Plaza, Room 737 £ New York, New York 10278 Q j-j Re: Tutu Water Wells Site Investigation | St. Thomas. United States Virgin Islands CO cc Dear Commissioner Adams, Attorney Praschak and Ms. Kwan: o o The purpose of the Phase II RI field investigation is to identify and characterize the uj potential sources, the horizontal and vertical extent, the rate and direction of trans- 5 port, and the potential migration pathways for petroleum hydrocarbon constituents " and chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil and groundwater at m the Tutu Wells Site. CC CO Q There are, however, technical, procedural and analytical errors and omissions in the < Draft Phase II RI which greatly affect the results and conclusions of the study. Since fc these conclusions will be the basis for the design and implementation of any remedi- ation activities, it is our concern that the conclusions of the Phase II RI will only serve to negatively impact the groundwater resources and residents of the United States Virgin Islands. TUT Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan We do believe, however, that the current Draft Phase n RI document is a vastly su- perior document than would have resulted had Geraghty & Miller been allowed to proceed with their original Technical Memorandum n issued during the summer of 1993. The Technical Group, comprised of the technical representatives of the PRPs, worked together to pool their collective knowledge about the site and recommended additional investigations that were implemented during the last few months. Unfortunately, the existence of data does not, by itself, appear to eliminate the appli- cation of illogical and inconsistent analysis and conclusions driven primarily by con- siderations other than the scientific data pertinent to the site. This letter will summarize certain data which has been excluded, overlooked or oth- erwise distorted in an attempt by Geraghty & Miller to exclude Esso from its respon- sibility for releasing chlorinated hydrocarbons into the Turpentine Run Aquifer. We further offer opinions and data advanced by our experts, including Dr. David Keith Todd, which stands in direct opposition to the conclusions reached by Geraghty & Miller. Dr. David Keith Todd has published numerous works, including the text book, Groundwater Hydrology. His recent publication is as co-editor for Geraghty & Miller's The Water Encyclopedia. which is advertised as "The Flagship Publication of the New Geraghty & Miller Book Series." In his study of groundwater contamination in the Tutu area, Dr. Todd concludes: Recently obtained data from a study of soil contamination, shown in Table 7 (H=GCL, 1993b), along with subsequent sampling of the groundwater in November 1993 (Table 4) at the Tutu Esso property, have allowed for confirmation of this gas station as a source for petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in the aquifer. See Appendix n, page 15. A. Disregard of Other Published Data in the Study Design EPA's directive for the study originated from the discovery of contaminated groundwater in production wells in the Tutu area. Groundwater contamination and subsequent soil gas studies indicated major areas of hydrocarbon and VG*C contami- nation (hot spots) at and in the vicinity of Esso, Texaco and O'Henry Dry Cleaners. Due to the results of these findings, TEIC was formed to conduct a scientific study and evaluation of the contamination sources, fate and transport. Historic data, soil gas studies, etc. should have been and should be included in the evaluation and rec- ommendations for future investigative activities. TUT O06 0664 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan To date, three soil gas surveys have been performed in the vicinity of the Esso Tutu station. The first survey was conducted in the fall of 1987 by Geoscience Consultants, Ltd. for Texaco. As reported by Scott Graber of CDM FPC in a November 1987 letter to Caroline Kwan: . . . The ECD analysis confirmed the results of the FID, that a late peak- ing chlorinated hydrocarbon (PCE) is present in the areas of the Tillet Well, the Esso Station, and the Public Education Facility (formerly, the Lagging (sic) Clothe Factory, which reportedly used PCE). See Exhibit "A". In April of 1988, Esso contracted Belgodere and Associates, Inc. (BAI) to conduct a soil gas survey. Although this study was plagued by mismanagement and poor planning, the results have not been entirely dismissed by CDM FPC. In another let- ter from Scott Graber to Caroline Kwan dated June 29,1988, Mr. Graber reports the following: "The following observations and subsequent conclusions can be made based on the information obtained during the Tutu Esso Soil Gas Survey. Total BTEX soil gas values were reported in excess of 1000 ppm in the southern portion of the Esso property adjacent to the petroleum under- ground storage tanks. This area of high BTEX soil gas contamination ex- tends to the southwest of the Esso property into the Four Winds parking lot. (figure 1). The concentration of total BTEX is reduced from above 1000 ppm to below 1 ppm with increased distance from the southern por- tion of the Esso property, upgradient as well as down gradient. Unfortunately, the full extent of the soil gas contamination (i. e. values equal or below the agreed upon background level) around the Esso sta- tion was not determined due to the relatively high detection limit of 1 ppm. However, based on the soil gas survey results and plotting the plume of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, it seems apparent that Esso is responsible for a product release and the contamination of soil gas in at least the immediate vicinity of its service station. (Emphasis added). See Exhibit "B". Additionally, Carole Petersen, Chief of the U.S. EPA's New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, in her April 4,1991 comments to Ana Gloria Ramos on the Tutu Service Station Investigation Work Plan, dated January 1991, referenced the results of the Belgodere Shady in "Specific Comment #11" "Page 6, Paragraph 2. Per EPA request, Esso also analyzed for several chlorinated hydrocarbons during its soil gas survey. Elevated levels of PCE and TCE were detected in soil gas in the northwest and southwest corners of the ESSO service station." See Exhibit "C". TUT OO6 O665 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan The above comment by EPA was a subject of conversation among TEIC and Geraghty & Miller as documented from the Geraghty & Miller "Telephone Conversation Record" dated April 23,1991 from Ana Gloria Ramos and Jose Agrelot to Tom Danahy (G&M Bates Stamp A08862 - A08863): Item 11. EPA has continually referred to TCE/PCE contemn in NW & SW corners of ESSO. Agrelot: NW corner yes, but SW corner no! Soil gas points SW of ESSO are beyond property line of ESSO parcel. Important for CERCLA issue. See Exhibit "D". While it is true that the area southwest of the ESSO station referred to by EPA is not located on Esso property, it is, in fact, the terminus for Esso's illegal discharge pipe originating at the south oil/water separator and running to the storm drain in Four Winds' parking lot. In fact, Esso's practice of disposing of their contaminants onto adjoining property and then hiding and denying the practice will be discussed nu- merous times in the pages that follow. The third soil gas survey was conducted in January of 1992 by Target Environmental Services for Four Winds Plaza and PID/Harthman. In their report dated February 1992, Target states the following conclusions based on their soil gas survey: "Map patterns and chromatographic data indicate that petroleum hydro- carbons have entered the subsurface at the Tutu Esso and have subse- quently migrated northward beyond the pump islands. Xylene map pat- terns suggest that the source for the occurrence is clearly associated with the Esso facility. There is no evidence that contaminants from a reported release on the Texaco property northeast of the Four Winds Plaza have impacted the survey area. GC/ECD analysis indicates that significant concentrations of PCE, c-1,2- DCE and TCE and lessor occurrences of t-l,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1- DCE are present in the northern portion of the Tutu Esso and beneath the Four Winds Plaza parking lot. The PCE occurrence extends throughout most of the survey area, while c-l,2-DCE and TCE were detectable only on the northern portion of the Tutu Esso and beneath the adjacent Four Winds Plaza parking lot. The DCE and TCA were likely minor compo- nents of original PCE or TCE solvent mixtures or they may be break- down products formed when original compound(s) underwent chemical transformation in the subsurface. While no specific source point is evident, the contour patterns do not support a source outside the immediate area of oc- currence." (Emphasis added). See Exhibit "E". TUT OO6 0666 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan Although Esso apparently disputes the Belgodere results, it is not possible to ignore the results since they have been substantially verified by two other studies. B. Incomplete Investigation of Study Area: MW-9. MW-9S, and The Mystery Hole In Geraghty & Miller's section entitled "BTEX and Petroleum-Related Compounds in Groundwater," the following observations are reported:1 Floating product has been observed in Monitoring Wells MW-9, MW-9S and SW-7 at the Esso Tutu Service Station; Visual observation indicated the presence of liquid phase hydrocarbon product in shallow Monitoring Wells MW-9 and MW-9S between September and November 1992; Floating product was observed once in Monitoring Wells MW-5 (0.01 foot) and MW-9 (sheen); In Monitoring Well MW-9S, product was measured on four occasions, with thickness ranging from a sheen on September 17, October 28, and November 16,1992 to 0.11 foot on September 28,1992; The product in Monitoring Well MW-9S appeared to be a petroleum hydro- carbon that had weathered to a dark-colored, viscous oily liquid. [Emphasis added]. During the comprehensive groundwater sampling event in May and June 1994, product sheen or petroleum odors were once again reported in Monitoring Well MW-9S; The product detected in MW-9S and SW-7 is not related to dissolved BTEX concentrations, but rather appears to e derived from waste oil and heav- ier petroleum hydrocarbons that do not have a significant BTEX content. [Emphasis added]. All three of the these Monitoring Wells (MW-9, MW-9S and SW-7) have been re- ported to have floating product that is described by Geraghty & Miller as appearing to have been derived from waste oil. All three of these Monitoring Wells are within a very few yards of the north oil/water separator. All three of these Monitoring Wells are within a very few yards of SS-8 (7.0') where PCE was detected by BBL below the break in the effluent pipe in a dark colored viscous oily liquid at concentrations of 1 Geraghty & Miller, Draft Phase II Remedial Investigation. Tutu Wells Site. St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands. October 1994, § 5.2.1.1, Pages 5-33 through 5-34. TUT OO6 O667 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Pag6 6 Ms. Caroline Kwan 1,500 ppb. All three of these wells are less than 60 feet from the Splash and Dash Car Wash where a weathered black petroleum hydrocarbon was observed and docu- mented to be flowing into the cistern excavation of the car wash in February 1991. Yet, Geraghty & Miller has not made public the analytical results of the product sampling of MW-9S that occurred at 5:10 PM on November 16,1992 as reported in the Geraghty & Miller Log Book #4C as prepared by Ruben Ponciano. An analysis of the events surrounding the MW-9 series of monitoring wells at the rear of ETSS is instructive. The chronology of events excerpted from copies of Geraghty & Miller Log Books produced during discovery in August of 1993 are set forth in Appendix I attached hereto. This chronology of events of the installation and sampling of the three MW-9 series monitoring wells raises a number of disconcerting questions: 1. What caused the cavity containing hydrocarbon product at the location of the first attempt to install MW-9S? Was it a result of the original terminus of the discharge pipe from the north oil/water separator? With its close proximity to the north oil/water separator and the observation of appar- ent black weathered petroleum hydrocarbon in the immediate vicinity, why was it simply filled and forgotten? 2. Where are the analytical results from sampling of the nearly 1.5" of float- ing product from the second MW-9S measured on September 28,1992? 3. Where are the analytical results from the sampling that occurred on November 16,1992? C Black Petroleum Hydrocarbon Seepage into Splash & Dash Cistern Excavation Indications of discharges from the Esso Tutu station onto Four Winds property are evidenced by the petroleum-like substance draining to the car wash cistern excava- tion during its construction. The reason for heightened concern with these dis- charges is the fact that VOCs were disposed of by mixing them with the used oil in the north oil/water separator.2 There is numerous testimony regarding this inci- dent. According to the deposition testimony of Lisa Bonanno, owner operator of the car wash: Q How deep was the pit when you walked over there with Mr. Mosa? A: I don't know exactly how deep it was at the time when we discovered it, and I don't know exactly how deep it is right now, but we could ask George Mosa. Q: No estimation? A: Seven feet. 2 See Exhibit "M". Deposition testimony of Thomas Gutshall at p. 30,1. 4 through p. 31,1. 21. TUT CO6 O668 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan Q: And where on this seven feet-feet drop were you seeing something you perceived as oil? A: If you cut the wall of the cistern, the cistern wall is 28 feet long. If you cut it in half it would be on the half closer to the street as opposed to Four Winds Plaza. Q: Over the entire plan of it, 14 feet of it? A: Yes Q: Can you describe for me what the dirty burnt oil looked like? A: Yes, it was dark, and it was thick, and it smelled, and it was seeping out the wall. It started seeping out not high, it was lower, deeper, I should say, and it was seeping out, and — at first it didn't seem like a problem at all. It just looked like it was — it was late in the afternoon when they finished the pit, and it didn't seem like much of a problem. George Mosa said what do we do, and I said we build a car wash. So he put plywood up, just leaned it up against the wall just so. Deposition Transcript of Lisa Bonanno, 3/18/91. Page 164, line 20 through Page 165, line 23. See E x h i b i t "K". Q: At that point did you notify anyone else about the problem or the potential problem? A: No, because I didn't think it was a problem on that day. That night it apparently rained, and the next morning at 7:30 in the morning when I reached there, I got there at exactly 7:30 and the guys must have come on the job earlier. We start at 7:30, and one of my em- ployees was taking a plastic cup, and filling it up, skimming the oil off the bottom of the cistern. There was a little bit of water because, as I said, it rained, skimming off the oil and pouring it into a five gallon jug. I was surprised and I said what is this guy doing. I thought it was a joke, and Mosa told me. Q: Let me stop you for a minute. How much of this alleged oil did your friend or employee scoop up that morning? A: The best thing to do would be to speak directly with George Mosa. It was several five gal- lon barrels. Deposition Transcript of Lisa Bonanno, 3/18/91. Page 167, lines 3-22. See Exhibit "K". From the deposition of George Mosa, Contractor for the construction of the car wash: A: During the course of digging about five feet below the pavement we experienced oil mixtures or petroleum mixtures with the soil. And the deeper we went, the worse it be- came. Q: Would you describe what this substance looked like? A: I'd say at one point it was very dark liquid, oily, coming out from — cutting, when they were cutting with the blade in the bulldozer it was exactly from the size of where the gas station wall started oozing some kind of oil liquid, which really — Q: How, did any of this liquid substances accumulate in the bottom of the excavation? A: Yes, when we came to the dimension I needed, the depth, and I stopped there, this was all surfacing on the bottom. Q: Did you notify anyone from Esso? A: Well every morning as worked progressed, one of my help was supposed to skim it and dump it in the Esso pit. Q: And do you know — do you personally know if in fact he took this liquid and gave it back to Esso? A: Yes, that is what my instruction was, not to throw it in there — to throw it in the pit. TUT GO6 O669 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan Q: You mean the pit in Esso? A: Yes, Esso. A: We did. The manager there and Lisa Bonanno. Q: And what did you do with the liquid accumulation on the bottom of the excavation? Deposition Transcript of George Mosa, 6/13/91, Page 6, line 10 through Page 7, line 9. See Exhibit "L". Further testimony regarding the black viscous substance emanating from the car wash excavation was made by Thomas Gutshall: Q. Let me tell you that an excavation was made for the placement of that building and there was testimony, sworn testimony, to the fact that a dark ooze substance described this morning as goop. A. Makes sense. »»*»*•»** BY MR. DEMA: Q. This is the Deposition Exhibit from the earlier deposition, and some 55 gallon drums were filled with a substance which Mr. Morris described as goop, a dark goopie liquid coming from areas one, two, three, four, five and six? A. Yes. Q. Based on you're familiarity with what was being placed into the catch basin, the only wa- ter separator and the waste oil pit up until the time you left the station, could you describe for me the visual characteristic of the liquids that would be visible in those areas? A. In other words, the question is, what we were putting in the oil pits could possibly be what he found was mixed with water? Yes, quite easily. Q. Was it dark in characteristic as opposed to light like gasoline? A. It would be dark brown because the dirt was being mixed with it also. MS. TURNER: I'm sorry, you said it was dirt being mixed? THE WITNESS: Once (sic) mixes with the dirt and starts collecting the dirt and finally gets to a point that it's been sitting, by that time it's going to be a very dark brown, maybe even possibly black in some instances. Oil does that Deposition of Thomas Gutshall, 6/13/91, Page 70, line 5 to page 72, line 11. See Exhibit "M". Nelson Rosado, a civil engineer with Essorico, witnessed the incident. Q. Yes. Mr. Rosado, upon your inspection, did you see a black, brownish liquid coming from the excavation wall by the service station? A. Yeah. Q. Having seen that, sir, when you went out of the pit and told the Country Manager for Esso of your findings, what did you tell him? A. Okay. As soon as I got out from the excavation, I told Mr. Jenson what I saw in the excava- tion, that I saw product, a black substance down there. TUT OO6 OA/0 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan Q. I'm sorry. Did you say that you saw a problem? A. Not a problem, a product. Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Jenson as to what to do about it? A. Yes. I told him that I'm going to report that to Esso Puerto Rico, and they have to decide what they're going to do. That's all what I have to do with that excavation. I only check it out and report. Q. And it's your testimony that you went back and made that report to Mr. Augusto Munoz? A. Yeah, I told my supervisor what I saw. Q. Did Mr. Munoz say "Did you bring back a sample, Engineer Rosado? A. I don't remember if he asked about that. Q. Could you tell me as exactly as you remember what you told him was coming out of the Esso wall? A. Well, like I say before, it was — between dark brown and black. Q. Did he say "Do you think it was oil? A. I don't know. I can't— Q. You don't know or you don't remember? A .No I can't' say it was oil. I don't know. Q. I'm asking you what Mr. Munoz asked you. I'm trying to understand. You are the retail engineer in the field, and you go back to Mr. Augusto Munoz, who is head of Essorico re- tail engineering, and you say there is this black, brownish liquid substance coming from the excavation wall by Esso, and what does Mr. Munoz say? A. Well, I don't remember what he say. Q. Did he ask you whether you thought this was coming from the Esso station? A. Yeah, he asked me. Q. And what did you tell him? A. Well, I told him, that I saw the— that substance from that—that is below the area of the service station. Q. Did he ask whether you thought it was coming from the service station? MR. ROMERO: Did Mr. Munoz ask him that? MR. DEMA: Yes. A: I don't remember if he asked. I report to him what I saw. Q. (Mr. Dema:) Do you know what—anything else that ever happened? A. From that point? Q. From that point. A. No, I don't know, because I make a report, and they were with environmental problem. Q. Do you know whether they ever did anything about this environmental problem? A. No. I had nothing more to do with environmental section. Deposition of Nelson Rosado, 10/14/92. Page 73, line 21 to page 76, line 8. See Exhibit "N". Analysis from the contaminated zone in the wall of the open excavation revealed to- tal BTEX greater than 300 ppb, Methylnapthalene 793 mg/kg, Phenanthrene 460 mg/kg. Detection limits for EPA analysis 8010/8020 was 60 ppb. Detection limits for EPA analysis 8270,380-1800 mg/kg. See Exhibit "O". Prior to the backfilling of the car wash excavation, a PVC sump was installed (Waste Oil Well/TA-CR-MWl) and screened at the depth of the oil saturated zone. Analysis TUT 006 0671 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan of liquid from this well revealed contaminants including Benzene 730 ppb, MTBE 27,000 ppb, Oil and Grease 6.2 ppb and Heavy Oil 100,000 mg/kg. Due to free prod- uct and/or extremely high concentrations of gasoline components, dilution rates for VOC analysis were as high as 100. D. 2.000 Gallon North Oil/Water Separator The 2,000 gallon north oil/water separator has been a focus of investigation since the EPA was notified of the Tutu contamination in July of 1987. A focus by nearly ev- eryone but Geraghty & Miller. In his deposition of August 10,1983, held in the of- fices of Geraghty & Miller in Rochelle Park, New Jersey, Tom Danahy, Geraghty & Miller's Senior Scientist/Project Manager, admitted complete ignorance to the exis- tence and/or location of the north oil/water separator. Q: Do you have any written document depicting an oil water sprayer (sic)in the area which you have marked, well, between the area marked oil water sprayer(sic) and the area marked office? A: I am familiar with the area. There's grading on either side, and upon visual inspec- tion, there was some metal plates or some, that part of the area has been used for storage, and I'm not really sure what is in the subsurface underneath that area. I do recall some additional information that was provided by Esso in the depositions that were given which I received recently, and we're still developing information on the former units or operations at the Esso station. Deposition Transcript on Thomas V. Danahy, August 10, 1993, Page 29, line 14 through Page 30, Line 5. See Exhibit "P". Since it was obvious that Geraghty & Miller had a demonstrated lack of interest in conducting a detailed physical and scientific investigation which matched that of its client, ESSO, the U.S. Federal District Court was required to order an investigation of the north oil/water separator. The facts of the concerted efforts to hide the extent of ESSO's acts of contamination have just recently come to light through the efforts of the hearings in U.S. District Court. It is now apparent that Esso, Soil Tech and certain of ESSO's lawyers were apparently acting in concert to conceal analytical results from sampling done at the Esso station in December 1989 indicating that chlorinated hydrocarbon contamina- tion had occurred at the site. E. Presence of VOCs in the North Oil/Water Separator Water samples were taken from the tanks, storm drains and sumps at the Esso Tutu by the Region n Technical Assistance Team (TAT) on August 17,1987. The results of TUT 006 O672 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan those samples were analyzed by Arnaldo Martinez and Douglas Henner of Weston Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Division, who noted in their January 27, 1998 report: "Samples one through eleven were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) and numbers twelve through twenty-two were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Split samples were provided for Tutu Texaco and Tutu Esso. Some samples show very high levels of VOCs typical for sample collected from gasoline stations and auto body shops." See Exhibit "Q". Scott Graber of the CDM Federal Programs Corporation analyzed samples taken the Esso Tutu holding tank and oil/water separator and found toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene in all three samples as well as a number of benzene-containing volatile and extractable compounds. Sample eE-64 from the oil/water separator also con- tained detectable levels of methylene chloride, 2-butonone, 1,1/1 trichlorethane, tetra- chloroethene and benzene. See Exhibit "R". In the "Final CLP Sample Analysis Data Summary Of Soils And Waters Sampled in 1989", and submitted to U.S. EPA by CDM Federal Programs Corporation on May 5, 1990, reports on the analysis of oil samples from the Esso Tutu collected on June 8, 1989. "Two oil samples and one duplicate were collected. BTEX compounds were prevalent, but all three samples also contained chlorinated hydro- carbons (tetrachlorethene and 1,1,1-trichlorethane)." See Exhibit "S". In December of 1989, Soil Tech performed a site investigation at Esso Tutu appar- ently at the request of Esso's attorneys, Francis Torres and Jose Cepada. These re- sults, which where not disclosed for almost three years on orders of Esso's attorneys, indicate the presence of 477,330 ppb of the chlorinated hydrocarbon PCE. See Exhibit tfpn Soil Tech had been designated as the "On-Site Coordinator" for all TEIC field inves- tigations including the investigations for the Remedial Investigation. See Exhibit "U". According to EPA's Administrative Order dated March 22,1990, an EPA contractor collected oil samples from the ETSS UST located below the tire service area. Although the holding time was exceeded, the analysis revealed 30 ppm of tetra- chloroethane and 25 ppm of 1,1,1 trichloroethane. In addition, oil samples were col- lected from the ETSS holding tank. Although the holding time was exceeded, this analysis revealed 63 ppm of TCE and 43 ppm of 1,1,1 trichloroethane. Thomas Gutshall described how VOCs entered the waste oil pit: TUT OOA Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan and: Q. Up until the catch basin and the oil/water separators were installed, would you describe for me the mechanical methods of cleaning various auto parts in your full service shop? A. Name me an auto part. Q. How about — you had mentioned in your testimony that you did engine breakdowns? A. Yes. Q. Did it ever come to pass when you were doing engine breakdowns that you had to de- grease the engine parts? A. Yes. Q. How would you go about that? A. If the engine was out it would be disassembled. I had a machine. I can't recall the name of the machine. It was full of liquid to pull out parts, had a pump, circulated, placed that part in it, you could leave it or you could hand clean it, remove it, wash it off and you have a clean part. Q. I'll show you page 37 of a Selig catalog? A. Yes, that is a parts washer. Q. So just to keep the record straight, we'll mark this Exhibit 7. [EXHIBIT 7 WAS MARKED] Q. Do you know whether in fact chemicals were purchased from Selig Chemical of Puerto Rico during the time we're talking about? A. The company name against? Q. Selig, S-E-L-I-G? A. I don't recall. Q. The device described in your earlier testimony and then depicted on page 37, is that simi- lar to the devise you described? A. Described — is similar. Q. And in this particular picture there is a gentleman degreasing an auto part, supposedly? A. Yes. Q. And there is a 55 gallon drum? A. Yes. Q. Which contains the recirculated liquid? A. Yes. Q. In that similar to the operation you guys had? A. Yes. Q. This is the period of time prior to the installation of oil/water separator and the catch basins? A. Yes. Q. Where was the disposal of the used chemicals? A. Dumped in the HCA holding container of the oil after it was nonusable. Q. Which the rest of us referred to collectively as the waste oil pit? A. Right. Deposition of Thomas Gutshall, 6/13/91, page 29, line 14 to page 31, line 21. See Exhibit "M". Q. Now, did you also use — well, let's go for parts. Cleaning carburetors, did you clean car- buretors with the parts cleaning device? TUT OOA O674 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan A. Yes. Q. The parts washer, shall we call it? A. Yes. Q. How about brake drums? A. No. Q. Were there any times that you used spray degreaser? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what the product names of the spray degreasers were? A. No. Q. Do you remember whether or nor you ever used Gunk products? A. Gunk, yes. Q. Mr. Berry had testified earlier today that they used a product called Brakleen. B-R-A-K-L- E-E-N? A. Yes. That is true, bought it at Western Auto. Q. And the Gunk degreaser for carburetors, carburetor cleaner? A. Yes. STP Carburetor Cleaner. Q. Did you use a Gunk brake cleaner? A. That is a possibility. Q. Did you do grease jobs? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember whether you used white lithium grease? A. On door hinges. Q. Do you remember whether you used gasket cement? A. Gasket sealer? Q. Right. A. Yes, yes. Q. Did you clean radiators? A. What do you mean by clean radiators? Q. You drive in, you pour some type of— A. Flush the radiators. Q. Flush something in the radiators, run the car for a while? A. Not usually, try not to. Q. Does that happen occasionally? A. Yes. Q. What did you do with the flush material from the radiator? A. Went on the ground. Deposition of Thomas Gutshall, 6/13/91, page 33, line 12 to page 35, line 13. See Exhibit "M". Sample invoices showing Esso Tutu purchases of such products as Superkleen and the Material Safety Data Sheet for Superkleen which contains cresylis acid, methy- lene chloride, sodium dichromate and 1.1.1 trichloroethane are set forth in Exhibit "V" attached hereto. F. Excavation of the North Oil/Water Separator's Discharge Pipe On January 21,1993, during a site investigation conducted by BBL, the egress pipe from the north oil/water separator located below the former tire service area was TUT 006 0675 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan found to contain a thick dark liquid phase hydrocarbon product. At this point, Esso unilaterally ceased the site inspection. Esso refused any further attempts to investi- gate this outfall until November of 1993, when threatened with sanctions for con- tempt of court, BBL excavated the outfall pipe. On November 11,1993, the site inspection resumed at the effluent pipe of the North oil/water separator. BBL excavated the length of the effluent pipe from the separator to the pipe terminus at the retaining wall on the west side of the service station. The 6-inch cast iron effluent pipe was broken near its connection to the oil/water separa- tor. Since no support block was found around the connection, apparently the soils settled causing the pipe to separate from the connection. Dark stained, liquid phase hydrocarbon product saturated soils surrounded the effluent pipe break. Upon in- spection of the broken pipe, it was determined that the break was quite old as the break surfaces were old, coated with oil and dull. The extent of the soil contamina- tion suggested that the leak was not recent; soils were heavily stained and oozed liquid phase hydrocarbon product into the trench. The effluent pipe terminated approximately two feet from the retaining wall. The pipe appeared to have been broken and no evidence of pipe elbows or joints were discovered. Although the original terminus of the effluent pipe is not known, appar- ently the pipe was constructed to extend directly west of Esso Tutu into what is now the Four Winds parking lot. At the time of the construction of Four Winds Plaza, ap- proximately nine years after the opening of Esso Tutu, the effluent pipe may have been cut to allow for the construction of the retaining wall. This outfall of the efflu- ent pipe and the effluent pipe break may very well explain the liquid phase hydro- carbon product flowing into the Splash and Dash excavation, as well as the liquid phase hydrocarbon product found in MW-9, MW-9S and SW-7. At a minimum, it deserved more than a fleeting mention by Geraghty & Miller. G. Discharge from the South Oil/Water Separator It has been determined that discharges from the Esso Tutu station were directed onto Four Winds property. Thomas Gutshall, Service Manager at Esso Tutu 1985 to 1987 and 1988 to 1990, testified that the pipe from a catch basin discharged liquid into the storm drain located at Four Winds and also onto the ground at Four Winds. Q-. So what was suppose to go into the catch basin? A: Water. Q: When you watched (sic) the stalls. Q: So that was specifically designed to catch the water from the wash? A: It was mixed with the water. Q: Now, after this was installed, was that ever used as a method of, as receptacle for the parts washer liquid? A: No, not to my knowledge. Q: Was that ever used as a receptacle for the radiator cleaner? TUT CO6 O676 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwart A: Yes. Q: Any used waste oil ever go in there? A: No Q: Now, would you describe for me the pipe that goes through the retaining wall to the south, where did that empty into? I think we have brief-previously looked at that on Exhibit No. 4. A: That was originally hooked up to the storm drain belonging to the Virgin Islands gov- ernment? [EXHIBIT 9 WAS MARKED] Q: Looking at Exhibit 9,1 show you a recent picture, because I see Splash and Dash building back here, off the west side of the Esso Station and a storm drain that actually shows the same sign as in Exhibit No. 4 on the west wall, and ask if that was the storm drain to which the pump (sic) coining through the retaining wall was connected? A: Yes. Q: Who effected that connection, who made the connection? A; Esso Q: And how long did that connection last, to your knowledge? A: I think about 10 days. Q: Then what happened? A: The Department of Public Works cut the pipe and capped it. Q: Did it stay capped? A: No. Q: Why did it not stay capped? A: The cap came off, to the best of my knowledge. Q: Did it fall off? A: I had seen the cap gone. That is the best I can tell you. I just happened to look and the cap was gone. Q: Mr. Berry testified this morning that at some point in time the liquid flowed freely from the oil/water separator on to the ground immediately outside the retaining wall? A: Is that a question? Q: That is a statement. Would you agree with that statement? A: Yes, I would agree with that statement. Deposition of Thomas Gutshall, 6/13/91, page 38, line 7 through page 40, line 18. Exhibit "M". and: Q. The outflow from the oil/water separator after it was capped, how long a period of time went by before it fell off or before it lost it's cap? A. Maybe an hour after it was put on. Deposition of Thomas Gutshall, 6/13/91, Page 42, line 12 through line IS. Exhibit "M". TUT OO6 0677 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan H. Leakage from the Oil/Water Separator Thomas Gutshall testified that he witnessed evidence of leakage from the catch basin tanks: Q. Have you personally ever checked those tanks and seen a particular level of liquid present in any of those vessels and then gone back and looked at that level and see it diminish? A. Yes. Q. And would you detail it for me when that was and the vessel in which you saw it? A. I cannot tell you the dates. Q. Could you tell me the period of employment? A. The second period of employment after Safety Kleen emptied our pit, oil pit in the back, I think then in turn it started to, I don't want to say monitor, and to physically have some- one open it, will you look in and see what is going on. The pit in time filled up. I in him informed Esso and the discussion started with who was going to pay for it and when are we going to do it, when are we going to have normal conversation back and forth be- tween dealer and wholesaler. I kept looking fat the pit and noted that the pit had in fact lost some of its liquid, a good two feet. Q. Over what period of time? A. Oh, a period of about five days. Q. Had you given anyone authority to remove any liquid from that pit? A. No, you couldn't get to the pit or not without my key or going through the front door and office and the parts room. and: Deposition of Thomas Gutshall, 6/13/91, Page 73, line 8 through page 74, line 14. Exhibit "M". Q. Did you ever bring it to anyones attention that the liquid in the pit had diminished a good two feet upon inspection? A. Yes. Q. To whose attention did you bring it? A. Mr. Bayard. Q. And? A. And Mr, Gerbow, Agusto Gerbow, the V.I. Manager. Q. First what did Mr. Bayard say or do about it? A. Mr. Bayard, I don't know. I informed him of it. I felt that was something that he should — you now, I just informed him about it. Q. And what did Mr. Gerbow say or do about it? A. Okay. Q. Quote, unquote? A. That was about as best I can recall. Okay, we'll look into it, check on it. Deposition of Thomas Gutshall, 6/13/91, Page 73, line 8 through page 74, line 14. Exhibit "M". TUT OO6 0678 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Page 1? Ms. Caroline Kwan I. Past Disposal Practices At The Esso Tutu Service Station When the amount of waste oil generated exceeded the ability of the north oil/water separator to leach contaminants into the environment, innovative techniques were employed for the illegal disposal of this waste product. What is even more interest- ing is the fact that these practices were conducted with the full knowledge of Ana Gloria Ramos, TEIC's Designated Coordinator. In the now infamous January 23, 1990 Soil Tech Memorandum to Goldman & Antonetti, Jose Agrelot, TEIC's On-Site Coordinator, reported the Esso Tutu practice of disposing of the contents from the north oil/water separator by pumping them into the sanitary sewer. "It was reported, by the service station Manager, that the oil and grease separator has no discharge connections. The liquid in the oil and grease trap is pumped to a holding tank located in the rear of the office building (see Figure No. 1). Periodically, the holding tank is emptied by pumping the liquid into the bathroom toilet." See Exhibit "T". On December 9,1993, in the Federal District Court in St. Thomas, Ana Gloria Ramos, Environmental and Safety Engineer for Esso and the Designated Coordinator for TEIC, testified that on more than one occasion she saw the contents of the north oil/water separator being pumped into the bathroom toilet. Q Item number five in the memorandum refers to a report received by Mr. Agrelot from the station manager about the oil grease separator, and a method by which it was being pumped out. Do you see that, ma'am? A (Reading Document) Q I'm not asking you to read it. I'm asking you if you have — do have any knowl- edge personally what that paragraph is talking about? A Yes, I saw the employees of Mr. Bayard were discharging from the oil and water separator into the toilet and I talked to him about that. Q What did you have to say to him? A I just told him that, I think. Daniel Bayard. I said, Danny, this is your business, you run this, but I think you're doing something which is not appropriate, that's not — you're not suppose to do something like that. And then, once again, I went to the site and he was doing it because I saw him more than one time. And I went back again, and I said, Danny, you're doing things that are not right, The first time I mentioned that, he said. Ana Gloria try to help me with Esso to do the job for you. Q I'm not trying to stop you from talking. A To slow down. Q Did you tell Mr. Bayard and his employees to stop the practice of emptying the oil/water separator into the toilet? A I talked to Mr. Bayard, not to his employees. Q And did you tell Mr. Bayard to stop doing it? TUT OO6 0679 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan A I told him that was not suppose to be done. [Testimony of Ana Gloria Ramos, 12/9/93, Page 69, line 12 through page 70, line 14.]. See Exhibit "W". J. Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Fate and Transport from the Esso Tutu Service Station ("ETSS")___________________________________ Soil analysis done in 1993 by Basland and Bouck for Esso/Exxon at a point approxi- mately nine feet below surface near the north oil/water separator revealed diminish- ing contamination levels. In 1992, Geraghty & Miller performed an investigation and monitoring well installation (MW-9, MW-9S). The investigation discovered a petroleum hydrocarbon product floating in the monitoring well. Product was re- moved but apparently not sampled. Groundwater samples from some of the shallow wells around the station typically have high levels of BTEX and/or petroleum hy- drocarbons (up to 10,000 ppb). Non-detects at elevated detection limits of up to 1,000 ppb should not be used to determine if a contaminated site has or has not con- tributed to groundwater contamination. An entry of "0" is not a logical or responsi- ble conclusion when quantifying the contribution by ETSS of chlorinated hydrocar- bons to groundwater. As reported by Dr. Paul Fahrenthold, former Chief of Organic Chemicals Branch of the U.S. EPA, states that "[t]he analysis of transport by Geraghty & Miller is incorrect based on mathematical relations of the VOCs in air, soil and water. Current groundwater monitoring data is compatible with concentrations of PCE in oil of approximately 400 ppm." See Exhibit "X". K. Pre and Post Groundwater Pumping Conditions Pumping conditions prior to 1987 as they relate to source, fate and transport of con- taminants can be estimated and were known, but appear not to have been considered in the Draft Phase IIRI. This was discussed over the years during technical meetings with personnel from Geraghty & Miller and was researched by others through in- terviews with well owners and government officials. The estimates are good approx- imations of pumping rates and average water use. Although the 1987 USGS map of the Tutu area was produced shortly after the 1987 stop-pumping order, groundwater levels still showed the effects of reversing gradi- ents that occur from pumping of the major wells at the volumes described above. The effect of pumping on groundwater gradients was reconfirmed by the recent TEIC pump test at the Eglin III Well. Long-term pumping of major wells did result in groundwater gradient reversal and flow of contaminants toward the wells. For example, the fact that the pumping of the Tillet well had a major effect on groundwater flow and contaminant transport is clear TUT OO6 O68O Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan from groundwater sampling and analysis, and modeling. Geraghty & Miller's own interpretation of the extent of the petroleum hydrocarbon plume near Texaco and Tillet in 1994 indicates the effects of the Tillet pumping seven years after the well stopped pumping (Fig. 5-17). A large portion of the BTEX and VOC plume was cap- tured by pumping. Prior to 1987 up-gradient flow toward Tillet also occurred. This to be expected and is discussed in numerous reports. See Exhibit "Y". The concentration of contaminants in soil gas for BTEX, total FID Volatiles and VOCs all show the effects of the Four Winds wells pumping prior to 1987. The contami- nants were pulled upgradient toward the wells, thereby reducing the downgradient flow. It must be remembered that the interpretation by Geraghty & Miller of contam- inant plumes and sources of contamination are based primarily on May and Tune 1994 soil/water quality data and water levels. On page 5-36 and 5-37 of the Draft Phase H RI, Geraghty & Miller states that: "The overall configuration of the area impacted by VOC's is apparently controlled by the groundwater flow directions (see Figures 4-9 through 4- 12) ... The northern chlorinated VOC plume mapped in 1994 is elon- gated in the direction of shallow groundwater flow." Although it ignored the Harthman Wells, the Eglin HI pump test indicates the wide area of influence and gradient changes caused by pumping in the Tutu area. The pumping of many wells at the same time would further lower the groundwater table and increase gradients toward pumping wells. If the overall configuration of the area impacted by VOCs is controlled by groundwa- ter flow directions, how can pre-1987 pumping conditions be ignored? Flow of groundwater and contaminants was dramatically different prior to 1987 than it is to- day. There would be less "smear" downgradient of Tillet from Laga and Texaco. Contaminants from ESSO/EXXON would also have been pulled toward Four Winds, Tillet and other pumping wells. This is apparent from soil gas, groundwater analysis, the USGS maps, and other pump tests. Geraghty & Miller's mapping and interpretation of the "Northern" VOC plume do not reflect all the previous facts stated above and the results of data collected and sci- entific opinion from the other PRPs. (See comments to Draft RI, Sept 1994). An eval- uation of pumping histories, current and past groundwater flow patterns, historic use and disposal of contaminants, evaluation of all groundwater quality and soil gas data indicate a decrease in concentration of contaminants with distance from a source. This decrease in concentration was one of the criterion used by Geraghty & Miller to show the existence of the "two" plumes emanating from Laga and O'Henry. TUT OO6 O681 Roy Adams, Commissioner 1 November 1994 Andrew Praschak, Esquire Ms. Caroline Kwan Geraghty & Miller states on pg. 5-37: "However, the northern plume is still separate from the southern plume in 1994, as it was in 1992 (Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 1993a, 1993b), as evi- denced by the low or non-detectable levels of chlorinated VOCs in moni- toring wells MW-11D, SW-4 and SW-5..." (Emphasis added). Caribbean Hydrotech's groundwater quality data as of late 1993 and Geraghty & Miller's data from the May-June 1994 sampling of deep wells, shows a decrease in VOC (PCE, TCE, DCE) levels with increasing distance from the Esso Tutu Service Station. A decrease in VOC levels in the wells south of the Four Winds Shopping Center was used to justify the southern limits of the "Northern Plume". A similar decrease was ignored at the northern limit of the Four Winds parking lot. This demonstrates a distinct separation of the VOC plumes emanating from Laga and ETSS. In late 1992, both Caribbean Hydrotech and Geraghty & Miller measured VOC levels at FW-1 and reported 293 ppb, declining to 55 ppb at MW-6D. VOC levels began to increase at CHT 6D and rose to 842 ppd near the former Laga building. In Geraghty & Miller's May-June sampling, deep wells show a similar pattern. VOC levels near the ETSS ranged from 126-172 ppb at MW-8 and MW-10D. To the north in the Four Winds parking lot, CHT-6D reported 66 ppb and MW-5 showed 23 ppb. Wells northeast of Four Winds show significantly lower VOC contamination levels. VOC levels begin increasing in the area of the Texaco Station and continue to in- crease approaching the Laga building. This confirms the continued existence of sep- arate plumes within the Geraghty & Miller "Northern Plume". In addition, the use of 10, 100 and 1000 ppb concentration lines mask the existence of two distinct VOC plumes, and their sources, within the "Northern Plume". In summary, all data, previous activities, and soil/aquifer characteristics provide indisputable evidence that Esso Tutu Service Station contributed chlorinated VOCs to the groundwater. Ignoring its contribution is a serious omission and error. Very t: K. Dema, Esquire JKD/s Attachments cc: Four Winds Plaza Partnership TUT OO6 0682 APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS "I I IT 006 O6B-:> APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS 24 July 1992 (from Log Book #4A, Ruben Ponciano) 7:00 AM Drillers are moving CME-55 to MW-9 drilling area. 8:00 AM Soil Sampling begins 8:50 AM GC sample (2-41). Hnu=25ppm. VGA sample for lab analysis were collected from (2-4'). 9:15 AM Drillers are setting 4" PVC casing. 9:45 AM Drillers finished setting PVC casing. Cleaning up area. Top ofbedrock approx. 5.2' bbl. 28 July 1992 (from Log Book 4A, Ruben Ponciano) 7:05 AM Drilling crew moving to MW-9 drilling area. 8:45 AM The F-600 is here. Drillers are assembling. [Note: Next Two Pages (124 and 125) of the Log are Missing. Log resumes with page 126] 9:25 AM Run #2(10-15') First foot begins. 9:54 AM Run #3 (15-20') First foot begins. 9:59 AM Hnu=10ppm inside hole, Oppm breathing zone. 12:05PM Go to Lunch 2:45 PM Drillers finished pulling rods out of borehole. Cleaning up area. 30 July 1992 (from Log Book 3A, Wanda Morales) 8:05 Start reaming at MW-9 at 3.7 ft. Downhole pressure 600psi. 8:18 Borehole at 26 ft. gray cuttings, gasoline odors from cuttings. 8:53 Borehole at 31. ft. Gray cuttings, gas odors from cuttings 9:37 Borehole at 37.Oft. Gray dry cuttings. TUT GO 6 G684 APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS 11:50 Tools out of hole. Borehole depth 34.3 ft. Water level 27.7 ft. (bis). 12:00 Set up geophysical equipment. 13:06 Start logging with caliper. Up to surface notice that caliper arms are not open. Clean up probe. Try again. There is some oil in the water. 13:30 Caliper arms do not open at bottom of borehole. The arms open at the surface, but not inside the hole. Check electrical con- nection and put some tape around it. Clean caliper probe and send it down. Contact C. Moffett and explain the situation. 13:48 Caliper arms do not open again. Take out probe and clean it out. Oily film and mud cover the probe. Try again after clean out probe. 14:43 Caliper arms open above the water surface in the borehole. Lowered the probe until borehole bottom depth. Arms do not open again. Take probe out of borehole and clean it. 15:03 Try again. Seems that caliper arms get sticky on the [oily crossed out] muddy water and could not open. C. Moffett call: go ahead w/ monitoring well installation and do not run geo- physical logging according to T. Danahy. 15:45 (from Log Book #4A, Ruben Ponciano) Wanda told me that there is physical evidence of product in MW-9. 9 September 1992 (from Log Book #5, Derrick) 7:37 Drilling of MW-9S begins using air hammer B-90 rig. 8:18 At approx. 12 feet there is a slight smell of product. 10:15 Drilling is stopped. Air pressure is not enough to blow cut- tings from hole. 1:45 Air compressor company called but it will not be fixed today. MW-9S is sealed with a c-ply sand sack and bentonite pellets around TW bore hole opening near land surface to prevent rain or runoff water from entering the hole. TUT OO<b 0&85 APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS 10 September 1992 (from Log Book #4B, Ruben Ponciano) 2:30 Go to MW-9S location. The air compressor has been temporar- ily fixed. Cuttings are not coming out of borehole. 3:07 Drilling resumes. 3:43 Drill rigs stops. Cuttings not coming out. Reportedly, drill rig is receiving enough pressure. Possibly there is a cavity in the unconsolidated later or its fractured because air bubbles are forming on wet asphalt pavement. Drillers will try to push a deconed 6" casing down borehole then place the 4" stainless steel casing inside the 6" casing, then raise 6" casing. 6:12 Cuttings are coming out of borehole. Trace of product is ob- served on cuttings. 7:30 Still drilling 10:00 It seems that the 6" stainless steel casing top has separated it- self at 10' and 20' bis. Borehole would be grouted and another borehole will be initiated. 10:15 Drilling is suspended for the day. 11 September 1992 (from Log Book #5, Derrick) 8:25 Returned to MW-9S. Drill rig pulled casing last night. Problem existed when they were placing 6" casing. Decided to grout up MW-9S. 8:30 It appears that there is a cavity 2' below land surface at MW-9S approx. 1' wide. An attempt was made to sound borehole but stopped for fear of getting steel tape stuck. 9:00 Tom Danahy arrives. He was briefed on car wash and MW-9S. He suggests to thicken grout so that it doesn't interfere with MW-9. 4 bags of 94 pound cement was mixed with each grout preparation after Tom Danahy's suggestion. The usual is 3 bags/batch. And less water. 10:05 Grout is 4'3" from land surface in MW-9S. There appeared to be a cavity pulling the grout in a southwest direction. Drillers went to buy more cement. 10:21 Grouting continued. 10:25 Grouting stopped to buy more cement. TUT OO£> 0<b86 APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS 11:06 Started grouting again using 3 bags of cement/mix and less water. Next hole for MW-9S will be on the yellow line north of the previous MW-9S attempt and 7' west of Esso wall. 11:33 Grouting stopped. MW-9S was grouted up to 28" then 1 empty bag of cement was placed in the hole opening and wet cement was poured over the bag and around the hole. 14 September 1992 (from Log Book #4B, Ruben Ponciano) 7:15 PM Police car was moved from drilling area MW-9S. Drillers get- ting ready for drilling and installation of MW-9S. The total depth of MW-9S will be 21 ft. bis. It will have a 10 ft. screen 8:00 PM Drilling of MW-9S begins 9:00 PM We reach 20'bis. Drillers pull out rods. 9:30 PM Drillers are placing stainless steel pipe. The borehole col- lapsed. Bottom of screen is at 18.67 ft. bis. Top of screen is at 8.76 ft. bis. 12:00 AM Leave site. 15 September 1992 (from Log Book #4B, Ruben Ponciano) 2:20 PM Getting ready for well development of MW-9S. MW-9SDTW= 13.34 ft. There is product in the well(trace). Hnu = 22 ppm 4:23 PM Pumping of water inside MW-9S begins. 4:30 PM GC sample is collected (GW). 4:35 PM Purging is suspended. Well went dry. Water is light brown. Approx. 20 gal. of water removed. 4:45 PM Go to field office to deliver the GC sample. 16 September 1992 (from Log Book #4B, Ruben Ponciano) 8:30 Arrive at field office. Ana Gloria and Jose Agrelot are waiting for us. 8:55 USEPA representatives Laura Scalise and Suzanne Trealmontara arrive at field office. 9:20 Discuss today's ground water sampling activity. fljT 006 0687 APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS 10:10 Go to take water level measurements. 11:15 Go to field office for meeting about the ground water sampling procedure. 2:20 Alberto Barere told me that we are not going to sample today. 2:55 There is product in MW-9S approx. 0.11' of product. DTW =13.11 5 October 1992 (from Log Book #4B, Ruben Ponciano) 2:35 Go to remove product from MW-9S. 2:45 Setting vacuum pump into MW-9S. DTW =13.02' DTP =12.98' PT = 0.04' 3:00 After product removal DTW = 13.09. We check the DTP and DTW with an interface probe. 3:15 There is a trace of product inside well. 4:20 Go to measure product thickness at MW-9S. 4:35 There is no product detection on interface probe. 6 October 1992 (from Log Book #4B, Ruben Ponciano) 9:49 Go to measure product thickness at MW-9S DTW= 12.90 DTP= 12.90 Trace of product is observed within well 10:00 DTW =12.52 7 October 1992 (from Log Book #4B, Ruben Ponciano) 8:35 Go to MW-9 area. 8:50 Go to check product thickness at MW-9S DTW =12.76 DTP= 12.76 PT = 0.0 9:05 Pumping begins at MW-9 9:12 PID = less than 2,000 ppm 9:19 PID = 800 ppm TUT OO6 O688 APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS 9:30 PID = 780 9:40 Setting pump at MW-9S 9:47 PID = 600 9:51 PID = 696 Trace of product was observed in this well (MW-9S) 9:56 PID = 520 10:59 Field parameter after sampling for MW-9 PID = 680 12:00 Field parameter for MW-9S PID= 1,200 16 November 1992 (from Log Book #4C, Ruben Ponciano) 8:00 Days activities include sampling product in MW-9S 12:06 MW-9, DTW = 10.95 12:11 MW-9S, DTW =10.45 2:15 Go to get ready for small pump test at MW-9S. 4:20 Setting pump on MW-9S 4:25 MW-9S static level, DTW = 10.65 4:29 MW-9S static level, DTW = 11.00 4:43 Pumping Begins 4:45 DTW = 11.2'. Strong odor 4:47 DTW = 11.37 4:49 MW-9S, DTW = 11.02 4:50 MW-9S discharge = 0.75 gpm. no product observed/sheen observed. 4:51 MW-9S: DTW = 11.90 4:54 MW-9S: DTW = 12.11 4:58 Pump shut off. DTW = 12.30 TUT OCA 0689 APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS EXCERPTED FROM GERAGHTY & MILLER LOG BOOKS 5:10 Groundwater sampling at MW-9S. Sheen observed in ground water samples. 17 November 1992 (from Log Book #4C, Ruben Ponciano) 1:30 Caroline Kwan from EPA, Ana Gloria Ramos, Cardova, [illegible] and Tom Danahy arrive at site. APPENDIX H GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION OCTOBER 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD TUT 006 0691 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION TUTU AREA, ANNA'S RETREAT ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS October 1994 David Keith Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California J TUT 006 O692 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION TUTU AREA, ANNA'S RETREAT ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS October 1994 David Keith Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California TUT OO6 O693 Table of Contents Page Summary iv 1. Introduction 1 Background 1 Scope of Investigation 1 2. Physical Setting 2 Location of Study Area 2 Geologic Setting 2 3. Water Use 4 St. Thomas Water Supply 4 Harthman Wells 5 4. Hydrogeology 7 Principal Aquifer 7 Aquifer Tests 7 Water Table Configuration 8 5. Water Quality 10 Occurrence of Contamination 10 Sources of Contamination 14 6. Contaminant Migration 17 Previous Modeling Efforts 17 Analytical Modeling of Capture Zones 18 Model Input 19 Model Results 20 7. Conclusions 24 References 25 TUT OO6 0694 Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. List of Figures Turpentine Run Basin Tutu Area Base Map Groundwater Surface Elevation Contours (Shallow Zone) Extent of Groundwater Contamination 5. Modeling Scenario 1 6. Modeling Scenario 2 7. Modeling Scenario 3 8. Modeling Scenario 4 9. Modeling Scenario 5 10. Modeling Scenario 6 11. Modeling Scenario 7 12. Modeling Scenario 8 13. Modeling Scenario 9 14. Modeling Scenario 10 15. Modeling Scenario 11 16. Modeling Scenario 12 17. Modeling Scenario 13 18. Modeling Scenario 14 Following 5 8 10 20 21. 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 TUT CO6 O695 List of Tables Table Page 1. Water Usage Estimates 4 2. Estimated Pumping Rates of Harthman Wells 5 3. 1992 Water Quality Sampling 11 4. 1993 Water Quality Sampling 12 5. Water Quality Sampling of Harthman Wells 13 6. Potential Responsible Parties and Types of Contaminants Contributed 14 7. 1993 Tutu Esso Soil Sampling 16 in TUT OO6 0696 Summary This study is an evaluation of groundwater contamination and transport in the Tutu area of Anna's Retreat, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. The purpose of this study is to determine the sources of contaminants that have been detected in the Harthman wells and to determine the likelihood of future contamination should these wells resume operation. This study stems from availability of recently obtained soil and water quality data confirming the presence of the Tutu Esso gas station as a source of subsurface contamination in the area, refined water supply well pumping rates, along with recently collected water level data measured in the Harthman wells and other wells throughout the Tutu area. The evaluation was based on a review and analysis of all available reports of investigations, employee and expert depositions, and data from subsurface modeling exercises generated for this report. The physical setting of the Tutu area includes location and geologic setting. Island water use is summarized, along with operation of water supply wells by the Harthman family. The hydrogeology of the Tutu aquifer describes the main aquifer, hydraulic properties, and water table configuration. Analysis of water quality includes the occurrence and sources of contamination. Contaminant migration analysis consists of detailed review of previous analytical and numerical groundwater modeling efforts in the Tutu area, along with the construction of an analytical model specifically for this report. Conclusions document sources of existing contamination and the potential for future contamination of the Harthman wells due to migrating groundwater from several sources in the Tutu area. IV T U T ' CO 6 OS 9 7 1. Introduction Background This study was prepared in order to develop factual information regarding groundwater contamination and transport for the PID/Harthman litigation. Specifically, data were required on the occurrence and migratory routes of contaminants. Scope of Investigation The investigation consisted of review and analysis of the following sources of data: (1) All available reports and data concerning subsurface contamination investigations conducted in the Tutu area. (2) Depositions of Tutu Esso Service Station employees. (3) Depositions and professional opinions of various consultants. (4) Analytical modeling effort conducted by Hydrologic Associates U.S.A. Inc. (1993). (5) All input and output data for the numerical groundwater flow and pathline analysis model constructed by Gartner and Lee (1993). (6) Additional modeling conducted specifically for this report. This report represents a compilation of selected factual information from the above sources of data. In instances where conflicting information occurred, an effort was made to provide an interpretation that was most probably correct. LJT OO6 O698 2. Physical Setting Location of Study Area The study area consists of the Tutu section of Anna's Retreat, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. The Tutu area is located in the east-central part of St. Thomas, within the surface drainage basin of the upper Turpentine Run (Figure 1). This area is drained by three narrow, intermittent streams (locally referred to as "guts") which join to form the main channel of Turpentine Run at Mt. Zion. Geologic Setting The island of St. Thomas is composed primarily of volcanic rocks of Cretaceous age. Two volcanic formations, the Water Island Formation and the younger Louisenhoj Formation, are present in the upper Turpentine Run basin. The Water Island Formation contains the oldest rocks on the island, consisting primarily of lava flows and breccias with some intrusive dikes and plugs. This formation is overlain by the Louisenhoj Formation, which consists of pyroclastic to epiclastic augite andesite. Subsurface drilling in the Tutu area has indicated the presence at shallow depths of fill material and reworked native sediments. These sediments are underlain by alluvial and colluvial deposits varying from zero to 2 feet in thickness. Alluvial and colluvial deposits may be as thick as 10 to 20 feet in isolated valley areas. These deposits are further underlain by a weathered, fractured volcaniclastic rock unit characterized as a gray to greenish-gray volcanic sandstone and breccia with a fine-grained matrix. TUT 006 0699 TURPENTINE RUN AQUIFER BASIN LEGEND ...—-.— Turpentine Run — — — — Basin Boundary I N 0_______.5______1 Approximate Scale in KM Source: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4131 Figure 1 Turpentine Run Basin St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California o r--o i-Zii- The rock unit is highly fractured based on field inspection of outcrops and evidenced by the fracture trace analyses which have identified numerous fracture trends. The principal fracture traces include a northeast-southwest fracture trace that passes northwest of the VIHA and former LAGA buildings, and a north-south trace that intersects at north of the Four Winds Plaza and extends along Route 38 and the axis of the Turpentine Run, to the south end of the Four Winds Plaza. The presence of dikes in the Tutu area does not appear to obstruct ground water flow. TUT OO6 O7O1 3. Water Use St. Thomas Water Supply The principal source of water supply on St. Thomas is rain water falling on sloping metal roofs; the water drains into gutters and then into underground cisterns for storage and subsequent use. Seawater desalination plants also supply an approximate 1.8 million gallons per day (MGD) of water to hotels and commercial areas of St. Thomas; however, much of the island, including the central and eastern portions, is not served by this public water system. Groundwater from an estimated 350 public and private wells scattered over the island further supplements the municipal supply by means of water truck deliveries to houses short of water. In 1983, water permits for wells in the Turpentine Run basin were estimated at 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd). Table 1 depicts 1987 water usage estimates for several wells other than the Harthman wells in the Tutu area. Table 1. 1987 Water Usage Estimates for Non-Harthman Wells Well Eglin (I, II, and III) Four Winds (I and II) Harvey Ramsay Rodriguez Tillet VIHA fl, II, and III) Estimated Pumping Rate (n>A) 34,500 32,100 27,600 14,000 30,000 530 200 200 to 600 12,000 to 15,000 50,000 20,000 Comments 1980 1981 1982 post 1988 - variable -- 1962 to 1985 post 1985 - gpd = gallons per day variable = variable pumping period Sources: Geraghty & Miller (1992) Hydrologic Associates U.S.A. Inc. (1993) Bruce K. Green TUT 006 07O2 Contamination of groundwater due to commercial activities in the Tutu area has caused the closing of most of the water supply wells. Contamination in the form of petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons was originally cited in the Tillet well in 1987, leading to the shut down of most of the water supply wells in the area. Harthman Wells The Harthman family owns ten wells in the Tutu area (see Figure 2). The Batiste well lies in a separate sub-basin and was accordingly not included in this study. The Harthman wells have been used to supply water for agricultural and domestic needs, in addition to the commercial sale of water. Water has been sold to various consumers including the Virgin Islands Housing Authority communities in Tutu. Wells were also leased to businesses such as the Virgin Island Telephone Company and Creagar Motors. The Harthman wells ranged in depth from 60 to 325 feet, with historical permitted water withdrawals ranging from 75,000 to 150,000 gpd up until 1987. Table 2 contains available estimated pumping rates of the Harthman wells prior to their shutdown. Table 2. Well Depths and Estimated Pumping Rates of Harthman Wells Harthman Well Race Track Crusher Wilfred Cow Pen Filter 69 Bakery Mango Garden Estate Well Depth {ft) 180 210 60 ^ Pumping Rate (gpm) ] 20 • 20 to 40 6 97 | 8 120 125 325 325 130 6 8 20 6 20 * = pumped periodically N/A = data not available gpm = gallons per minute Sources: Hydrologic Associates U.S.A. Inc (1993) Bruce K. Green 5 TUT GO6 O703 MWKXXMROEN i> • MW-B LEGEND Shallow Monitoring Well Location Deep Monitoring Well Location .$. FOUR WINDS i Existing Supply Wed Location Monitoring Well Installed by e CMT-I Caribbean Hydro-Tech. Inc. (Locations Approximate) Extent of Groundwater Contamination I N 0 200 400 S^=ZE5!53 Scale in Feet Figure 2 Tutu Area Base Map October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California The presence of contaminants in the Harthman wells was detected in July 1987. Accordingly, the Harthman wells were not allowed to be used for the purpose of commercial potable water sales. Minor withdrawals (500 to 1000 gpd) from two of the Harthman wells (Crusher and Race Track) were permitted for construction purposes after 1992. The Mango Tree well has also continued operation at an approximate rate of 200 gpd. Most of the wells have been shut down indefinitely, due to threat of contaminant migration and smearing of the contaminant plume. TUT OO6 O705 4. Hvdrogeologv Principal Aquifer Groundwater in the Turpentine Run basin occurs under water table conditions. The principal water-bearing zone is fractured and weathered portions of the Louisenhoj and Water Island Formations. Subsurface investigations have indicated that the shallow zone of the main water-bearing unit is more permeable than the deeper zone. The alluvium forms a second water- bearing unit in the lower part of the Turpentine Run basin, which is outside the Tutu study area. Depending on local topography and pumping conditions, depth to groundwater ranges between 10 to 90 feet below ground surface. Recharge to the aquifer is primarily due to occasional heavy rainfall events. Due to the high evapotranspiration rate and surface runoff, rainfall high in frequency and volume is necessary for recharge to occur. Groundwater recharge to the upper Turpentine Run basin due to rainfall has been estimated at 130 million gallons per year. Aquifer Tests Previous investigations in the Tutu area have included aquifer tests conducted on several Harthman wells and other water supply wells in the area. Analysis of these data had not accounted for effects of casing storage on the early time pumping test data. In many instances, early data reflect the removal of water stored in the well casing, as opposed to the formation, yielding an erroneously low transmissivity value. Accordingly, all available pumping test data were reanalyzed accounting for casing storage, resulting in aquifer transmissivities ranging from a low of 24 fWday in the Race Track well to a high of 5,500 ftVday in the Four Winds #3 well. TUT O06 07O6 Pumping test results further indicate that drawdowns have been observed in observation wells located as far as 450 feet away from pumping wells, suggesting that the degree of fracture connectivity is substantial. The discrepancy in the range of aquifer transmissivity values obtained from pumping tests describes the heterogeneous nature of the aquifer. The observed trends of increasing drawdown rates with increasing pumping time observed during several tests further suggest that transmissivity values are likely to decrease with increasing distance from the pumping wells. Therefore, transmissivity values obtained from pumping tests only characterize the transmissive nature of the aquifer within the cone of depression produced as a result of well pumpage. Drawdown test data also indicate the anisotropic nature of the aquifer, evidenced by variable transmissivity values obtained from pumping and observation well pairs. Since the heterogenous and anisotropic nature of the Tutu aquifer is not everywhere defined, any estimation of contaminant transport should incorporate a range of values for aquifer transmissivity. Water Table Configuration Since the 1987 shutdown of production wells, groundwater levels which had declined due to pumpage have recovered. Water level elevations measured in 1994 are depicted in Figure 3 for shallow wells (Caribbean Hydrotech and Geraghty & Miller, 1994). Since several wells were reportedly operating, the water table configuration does not represent non-pumping conditions. As indicated by the water level elevation contours in Figure 3, groundwater flow in the shallow zone is toward the south. The buried channel of Turpentine Run and the fracture 8 TUT OO6 O7O7 IMNGOOinOEN c H - co LEGEND Shallow Monitoring Well Location Deep Monitoring Well Location .$. FOUB WINDS i Existing Supply Well Location Monitoring Well Installed by e CHT.I Caribbean Hydro-Tech, Inc. (Locations Approximate) Extent of Groundwater Contamination I N 0 200 400 ~ — Scale in Feet Figure 3 Groundwater Surface Elevation Contours Shallow Zone - 1994 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California trace along Route 38 appear to serve as a highly permeable discharge point, represented by converging water level contours. Review of water level data from deep wells (Geraghty & Miller, 1993) indicates that groundwater flow in the deep zone mimics that of the shallow zone. Water level measurements in shallow and deep well pairs have indicated the presence of vertical gradients ranging from strongly downward near the former LAGA building and slightly downward south of Tutu Esso and southwest of Tutu Texaco, to slightly upward in the northern part of the Four Winds Plaza. TUT OO6 O7O9 5. Water Quality Occurrence of Contamination Occurrence of groundwater contamination in the Tutu area has been investigated since the detection of petroleum products in the Tillet supply well in 1987. Figure 4 depicts the approximate areal extent of groundwater contamination in the Tutu area. Installation and sampling of numerous monitor wells and soil borings, together with several soil gas studies, have indicated the consistent subsurface presence of petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons as far north as the Curriculum building (former LAG A building), as far south as the Rodriguez Esso Service Station, and as far west as several of the Harthman supply wells. Figure 2 shows the location of various groundwater monitor points in the Tutu area. Table 3 summarizes the results of a 1992 comprehensive groundwater monitoring study conducted in the Tutu area (Geraghty & Miller, 1993a). This study did not include sampling of wells on the Tutu Esso property. The results of a more recent study on groundwater quality at the Tutu Esso gas station and adjacent areas are depicted in Table 4 (Archer & Greiner, 1994). As the water quality data indicate, petroleum hydrocarbon compounds are present in the Tutu area at levels as high as 110,000 ppb (MTBE), while chlorinated hydrocarbon products have been recently detected at levels as high as 600 ppb (1,2-DCE). Table 5 summarizes groundwater chemistry at the Harthman wells (Blasland, Brouk & Lee, 1993a). These data indicate the presence of similar contaminants as those detected in monitor wells, with the detection of petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds in 1987, and residual detections in subsequent samples. 10 TUT 006 0710 FOUnWMDSII •$• Founwwosi CHM B J&9 CHTl « uw-a -H 0> LEGEND Shallow Monitoring Well Location Deep Monitoring Well Location -$• foun WINDS i Existing Supply Well Location Monitoring Well Installed by e CMT-I Caribbean Hydro-Tech, Inc. (Locations Approximate) Extent of Groundwater Contamination 0 200 400 iii^S=? Scale in Feet Figure 4 Approximate Extent of Groundwater Contamination October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Table 3. 1992 Water Quality Sampling WELL I DATE MW-1 MW-1D MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-4D MW-5 MW-5FR MW-6D MW-6R MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-9FR MW-9S MW-10 MW-10D MW-11D MW-12D MW-13D MW-14 CHT-1 CHT-2 CHT-3 CHT-4 CHT-6D CHT-7D 10/6/92 107/92 9/30/92 9/30/92 9/30/92 10/7/92 10/1/92 10/1/92 9/30/92 9/29/92 10/5/92 9/29/92 10/7/92 10/7/92 10/7/92 10/6/92 10/6/92 10/2/92 10/5/92 10/6/92 10/1/92 2/27/92 2/29/92 5/27/92 2/27/92 5/27/92 2/27/92 2/27/92 D 12/16/92 12/16/92 12/16/92 12/16/92 5/13/92 12/18/92 Benzene BR/L 1 <50 rej <10 <25 <10 <10 1000 950 <10 <10 <10 <10 26 28 16 <33 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 ND <50 NA 26000 NA ND ND 11 13 2.3 1.7 Z9 14 Toluene BR/L <50 rej . <10 <25 <10 <10 180 J 170 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 2J <33 <50 <10 1J 1J <10 ND <50 NA 38000 NA ND ND ND 0.75 3.2 0.85 ND ND Elbylbenzcne UR/L <50 Xylenes OR/L <50 rej i rej <10 <25 <10 <10 930 890 <10 <10 <10 <10 19 24 5J <33 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 120 NA 2400 NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.8 <10 <25 <10 <10 1600 1500 <10 <10 <10 <10 2J 3J 2J <33 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 ND <50 NA 38000 NA 5.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.7 MlHb •R/L <50 re] <10 r 24 j 1.2 J <10 6200 6200 <10 <10 5.8 J 51 2700 D 2900 D 2200 D 660 780 <10 11 <10 <10 55 NA NA 62000 NA <10 ND 120 NA NA NA NA NA PCE BR/L 590 190 J 15 58 25 44 <500 <500 <10 13 110 38 <10 <10 <10 25 J 40J <10 <10 7J U 69 <50 ND <1000 ND 73 110J 55 3.2 33 1.6 43 83 TCE oc/L 190 52 J 3J 19 J 8J 11 <500 <500 <10 3J 29 14 <10 <10 <10 29 J 18 J <10 <10 <10 <10 14 <50 ND <1000 ND 18 22 19 0.54 0.64 0.52 13 14 1.Z-UCE 1IR/L 100 600J 26 530 E 86 150 <500 <500 <10 39 170 140 <10 <10 2J 130 180 <10 2J <10 44 170 <50 ND <1000 ND 210 97 J 130 31 32 29 113.2 140 Source: Geraghty & Miller (1993a) Notes: FR = Field Replicate ND = Not Detected HA = Hydrologic Associates, Inc. rej = Result rejected NA = Not Analyzed CHT = Caribbean HydroTech, Inc. < = Result was not detected at the corresponding analytical detection limit. J = Result was detected, but below the analytical detection limit. D = Analyte is identified at a secondary dilution level. E = Result is detected in exceedance of calibration range. 11 TUT OO6 O71.2 Table 4. 1993 Water Quality Sampling Analytical Parameter ][ Units SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5 SW-6 SW-7 r>w i I1W t Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene o-Xylenes m&p-Xylenes Methyl Tcrt Butyl Ether TCE PCE 1.2-DCE (total) Vinyl Chloride ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Analytical Parameter || Units 3700 1800 2000 2300 5800 42000 <250 <250 <250 <500 CUT-2 1400 1800 1000 2900 1100 52000 <250 <250 <250 <500 CUT- 3 12000 3400 2200 3400 6900 110000 <250 <250 <250 <500 CMT-4 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 10 <5 18 46 <10 CMT-7D <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5 5 <10 MW-8 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 <5 <5 <5 <10 MW-9 160 16 110 120 51 1600 <5 <5 <5 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 19 15 62 130 <10 MW-10 (duplicate) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 21 <5 14 33 <10 IV! »» ~" 1UJL/ IV! TV —— 1 f,lj Volatile Organic Compounds Hcnr.cnc Toluene Ethyl benzene o— Xylcnes m&p-Xylcncs Methyl Tert Butyl Ether TCE PCE 1.2- DCE (total) VinyJ Chloride ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L uc/L 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 870 5 5 6 <10 1900 <50 1500 53 1100 15000 50 50 50 <100* <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 16 50 15 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 14 14 50 140 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 10 9 32 89 <10 11 <.5 39 <5 <5 450 <5 <5 <5 < I O <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 420 14 22 57 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 430 12 19 51 16 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 130 11 39 100 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 39 <5 <5 <5 <10 Source: Archer A Grcincr (1994) Notes: All samples collected in November 1993, reported in April 1994 Summary of Ground-Water Analytical Results: EssoTutu Service Station and Adjacent Areas, attached to letter dated June 21, 1994 from R.T. Lehman to S.S. Brotman. * Elevated chlorinated organic detection limit as a result of aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations. 12 Table S. Water Qvalit; Stapling of Harthnian Welli ll Bcaicac WELL HARTHMAN I (Bakery/ Gasscll) HARTHMAN 11 (Crusher) HARTHMAN III (Ettate) ! HARTHMAN ! Batiste HARTHMAN ; Wilfred HARTHMAN Zero Filter i HARTHMAN : Race Track DATE 11 »*/L 7/87 8/87 9/87 10/87 10/87 11/87 12/87 1/88 2/88 5/88 8/88 11/88 1/14/88 2/5/91 6/«/91 10/1/91 2/4/92 2/4/92 FR 2/26/92 5/27/92 9/15/92 4/1/93 7/87 8/87 9/87 10/87 10/87 11/87 12/87 1/88 2/88 5/88 8/88 9/26/90 2/5/91 6/4/91 10/1/91 2/3/92 2/3/92 FR 2/26/92 9/16/92 8/87 9/87 10/87 10/87 12/87 1/88 2/88 5/88 8/88 11/14/88 9/26/90 2/5/91 6/4/91 10/1/91 2/3/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 2/26/92 ND ND ND <1 ND ND ND ND ND <1 ND ND ND ND ND ND .06 J .07 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND <1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Tolccne •K/L 6.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 33 4 ND ND 44 D ND ND ND ND ND ND ND .064 J 5.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 38 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Elkylbozeae •t/L NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Xjrloei • */L NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND PCE •«/L 2.9 3 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND <1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND <1 ND ND ND 102 26 14 29.5 6.2 5 ND 4 3 130 10 7 J 9 7 J 3.1 1.2 5.3 9.5 10 1 ND 2.5 ND ND ND ND 2 ND 7 J TCE • t/L ND ND <1 <1 0.5 <1 ND ND <1 5 <1 <1 ND 1 ND .11 J .09 J ND <1 .06 J ND ND 7 3 1 ND ND 7 ND 1 2 46 1 1 J 2 1 J 0.77 0.8 J 0.95 ND 2.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND 7 J 1 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 9 7 J 3.1 1.2 <1 <1 <1 1.3 1.2-DCE •)tA- ND 1 ND <1 ND ND ND NA ND NA NA NA ND ND ND ND .11J ND <1 ND ND ND ND 12 <1 4 ND ND ND NA <1 NA NA 5J 5J 6J 4.7 1.9 J 4.2 5 11 ND ND ND ND ND NA ND NA NA 5J 5J 2 ! 5J 1 J 6J 0.77 0 8 J <1 <1 <1 <1 4.7 1 9 J <1 <1 <1 <1 MTBE «R/L NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA <10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA <10 <10 <10 <10 ' Source: Notes: BluhDd. Bouck ft Lee (1991») FR - Field Replicate KD - Nol Detected rcj - Result rejected NA * Not Analyzed < « Result *a. not detected at the corresponding flnahnicftl detection bmii. J * Result «ai detected, but belo* the to*Mien) detection limit D » An*Me U identified at * secondary dUutioo level. 1 Q E * Result is detected in exceed*.nee of calibration range. TUT OO6 0714 Sources of Contamination Detailed analysis of contaminant sources has been conducted in the Tutu area. Table 6 reveals the potential responsible parties identified and the types of contaminants contributed. Table 6. Potential Responsible Parties and Types of Contaminants Contributed VI Housing Authority LAGA Building Ramsey Motors Gasset Auto Parts Tutu Texaco Western Auto Tutu Esso Rodriguez Esso O'Henry Dry Cleaners Tillet BTEX" X X X X X X Oil/Grease X X X X X X Chlorinated Hydrocarbons * X X X X BNA ** X X X X X BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene * Chlorinated Hydrocarbons include tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), cis/trans- 1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), and 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) ** BNA = Base/Neutral & Acid extractables Source: Hydrologic Associates U.S.A., Inc. (1993) 14 TUT 0<J06 0715 Recently obtained data from a study of soil contamination, shown in Table 7 (H+GCL, 1993b), along with subsequent sampling of groundwater in November 1993 (Table 4) at the Tutu Esso property, have allowed for confirmation of this gas station as a source for petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in the aquifer. Soil samples collected at Tutu Esso contained total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations as high as 73,000 ppm, total BTEX concentrations as high as 83,300 ppb, MTBE concentrations as high as 1300 ppb, and numerous chlorinated solvents including tetrachloroethene (PCE) concentrations as high as 3,000 ppb. H+GCL (1993) concluded that given the presence in soil of elevated levels of petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds at depths of 7.5 feet below ground surface, together with the presence of the water table at 15 feet below ground surface, it is likely that contaminants from Tutu Esso have contaminated underlying groundwater. This conclusion is corroborated by groundwater samples collected from wells immediately downgradient of the soil contaminated areas within Tutu Esso, which contained total BTEX concentrations as high as 21,000 ppb, MTBE concentrations as high as 110,000 ppb and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations as high as 310 ppm. Because of elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons at Tutu Esso, detection limits for chlorinated hydrocarbons in samples from several wells were raised as high as 500 ppb. Therefore, samples containing less than 500 ppb of these contaminants could not be detected. However, samples from other monitor wells located immediately downgradient of the Tutu Esso, where the concentrations of petroleum compounds were not as elevated, contained chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCE at levels as high as 39 ppb, DCE at levels as high as 100 ppb, and TCE at levels as high as 14 ppb. 15 TUT OO6 O71.6 T«b)e 7. 1991 Tin Emo So3 Sampling SupU LD. D^lk (") S O/Wiep. 0 EX-B EX-B EX-C EX-D EX-E EX-E EX-E SB-1 SB-1 SW-1 SW-2 0 0 7 7 3.5 73 9 10-12 12-14 8-10 7J Autju Fo«Dd MTBE MTBE Acetone 1.1-DCA 2— Bu OB one 1.1.1-TCA 4-m«lhy1-2-pennflaje Benzene Toluene Etbylbenzene Xytenes Mclhyfene diloride 1.1-DCA 1.1.1-TCA 4-melnyl-2-penanone ?CE Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene X^enes None TTH MTBE Aooeione 1.1-DCA cii/lransl.l-DCE 2— Butanone 1.1.1-TCA TCE 4-methv(-2-pencmciie PCE Benzene Toluene ElhiH benzene Xytenet TPU Lend MTBE Aooeione 1.1-DCA dj/ffaotU-DCE 2-Bubnone 1.1.1-TCA TCE 4— methyl— 2— pen tan one fCE Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xytenei TPH Lend Results Pending MTBE Acetone Benzene Eth>4 benzene Xvlencs TTH MTBE Ace lone Elhv) benzene TTH MTBE Acetone Coaonnbo* 1 (**fU) I 1JJ 99u 1.800u 50 u 120 u 32 ul ITOOu 120u 950 u 38uJ 270 u 10»(m|A|;) 2.4«J(ni|rt« 9^«(»|/k|;) 5.9 uJ (»«*«) 8J»(m|An) 13.(lD|rtR) 2MuD(m|A|0 47u(B|1*« 270 ll (mufti.) - oodimrtt^ UO 9.200 D U 3.400 D 67 3.1 J 35 870 E 3.000 D 150 150 ll.OOOD 72.000 D 73.000 (a&!.) 0.20 (m«1) 330 u 1.600UE HOu 120 u 260 u 39 u 4Su 2,000 uE 190 u 2Mu 25.000 ii D 6JOO«D 43.000 uD 56.000 (ni|/k|i) 0.063 (Bin/k^ - 510 u 120 u 4«u 280 u 63 u 3.000 (mulen) IJOOuE 72 u 19uJ 120(mtAa 76 6.5 J Acetone 12 |{ Source: H + GCL (1993b) Samples collected io November 1993. reported by December 21.1993 memorandum on ESAO Ovemi^t Trip Summary, provided to oouncel by letter dnied January 23.1994. Notes: D- Compound qiuuitinted usin? Kcondnry diluiton E- Concentration exceeds odibrxiion ran^r J— Result detected below the reportinfc limit or is Roejttmaied concentration u- Reporting limits raised due lohiph level* of arpi aonlyus 16 TUT GO 6 G71.7 6. Contaminant Migration Previous Modeling Efforts The rate and direction of groundwater flow during non-pumping conditions is largely controlled by aquifer hydraulic conductivity and water table gradient, together with the occurrence, extent, orientation, and degree of connectivity of fractures. During pumping conditions, groundwater flow directions are additionally impacted by the resultant lowering of the static water level. The areal extent of groundwater flow to a pumping well is determined through delineation of the capture zone (also referred to as the zone of contribution) of that well. A capture zone represents the surface and subsurface area around a well which contributes groundwater to that well. Since compounds in solution migrate with groundwater, the capture by supply wells of contaminants depends on the zone of groundwater contribution to each pumping well. An attempt to delineate capture zones of supply wells in the Tutu area is documented by Hydrologic Associates U.S.A., Inc. (HA) (1993). The results of this approach indicate that prior to their shutdown in 1987, the Harthman wells were capturing contaminated groundwater emanating from Tutu Esso, Rodriguez Esso, O'Henry Dry Cleaners, and Western Auto. This study further concluded that renewal of pumpage from the Harthman wells would result in the capture of contaminants migrating from sources such as Tutu Esso, Rodriguez Esso, O'Henry Dry Cleaners, Tutu Texaco, and the former LAGA building. A second approach (Gartner Lee, 1993) to capture zone delineation consisted of construction of a numerical computer model using the MODFLOW and MODPATH codes (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988; Pollock, 1989). The computer model was constructed to 17 0718 simulate groundwater flow, delineate capture zones of wells, and track flow paths of particles representing contaminants. The results of this study indicate that had Harthman wells, Crusher and Wilfred, not been shut down in 1987, they would have extracted contaminated groundwater emanating from the former LAGA building, Ramsay motors, Gassett Auto Parts, Tutu Texaco, Tutu Esso gas station, O'Henry Dry Cleaners, and Rodriguez Esso gas station. Analytical Modeling of Capture Zones A new analytical model was constructed as part of this investigation to delineate more representative capture zones for the Harthman wells. This modeling effort was based on 1) refined water supply well pumping rates; 2) re-analyzed values of aquifer transmissivity; and 3) confirmation of Tutu Esso gas station as a source of groundwater contamination in the Tutu area. Model results were used to determine the source of contaminants migrating to the Harthman wells prior to their shutdown in 1987, and due to their potential future pumpage. The model chosen is one adopted by the USEPA (USEPA, 1991) as their standard tool for delineating the capture zones of water supply wells. By accepting well-specific data characterizing subsurface conditions and pumping rates at each well, and by accounting for a regional non-pumping hydraulic gradient and potential interference between pumping wells, this model uses an analytical solution to calculate a zone of groundwater contribution to each well. The selection of this model was based on review of required input data and resultant output data generated by previous modeling efforts, and subsequent comparison with the quantity 18 TUT OO6 071< and quality of available site-specific data. The sophistication and capabilities of the selected code are highly consistent with the nature and amount of data currently available in the study area. Of additional importance is the understanding that the precision of numerical models (i.e. MODFLOW/MODPATH) is limited by the precision of the input parameters, and that analytical methods are the most efficient alternative when data necessary for identification of the system are sparse and uncertain (Javandel et. ah, 1984). • Model Input Input into the model consisted of aquifer parameters including transmissivity, initial saturated thickness, and porosity. Also required by the model were location and pumping rates of wells, size of well casings, radius of the cone of depression, regional non-pumping hydraulic gradient, and recharge to the aquifer. In determining these parameters, all available reports including previous modeling efforts (Hydrologic Associates, 1993 and Gartner Lee, 1993) were reviewed. In addition, newly analyzed pumping test data were incorporated, as were updated well pumpage history data. Output from the model is in the form of calculated groundwater flowpaths to each pumping well, describing the areal contribution of groundwater to each well. 19 TUT OO6 O720 Model Results Pre-1987 Operation of Wells Since the historical operation schedule of water supply wells in the Tutu area is not well documented, in order to determine the source of contaminants detected in the Harthman wells prior to their shutdown in 1987, several pumping scenarios were considered. It is understood that at any given time prior to 1987, a single well, a combination of various wells, or all wells may have been pumping. The first scenario simulated involves simultaneous pumpage by all supply wells capable of potentially affecting the capture zones of the Harthman wells. Well pumping rates used in the modeling are depicted in Tables 1 and 2. Given the variability in the pumping test results, all transmissivity values obtained at or in the vicinity of the pumping wells were considered. The first scenario used a transmissivity of 563 ft2/day, representing the geometric mean of values obtained from the aquifer tests. The capture zones of all pumping wells under this scenario along with their proximity to various sources of contamination are depicted on Figure 5. As the figure indicates, when all wells pump at the same time, contaminated groundwater emanating from Tutu Esso gas station and O'Henry Dry Cleaners is captured by the Crusher well, while groundwater from Rodriguez Esso migrates to the Harthman Bakery and Rodriguez supply wells. This is corroborated by water quality data which indicate the presence at the Harthman Crusher and Bakery wells of similar constituents to those released at Tutu Esso, O'Henry Dry Cleaners, and Esso Rodriguez. The second scenario simulated involved the same pumping pattern, using a transmissivity value of 678 ftVday. This value was obtained from the analysis of a pumping test conducted at 20 TUT OO6 0721 Tutu Area Supply Wells FT> 3000 2400 — 1800 — 1200 — see — Cr- LEGEND O VIHAII 0 VIHAI 0 RAMSAY O TILLET 0 FOUR WINDS II 0 FOUR WINDS I O ELGIN I 0 ELGIN II 0 ELGIN III © HARVEY <D CRUSHER © ESTATE © RACETRACK <D WILFRED © BAKERY © 69 © ZERO FILTER © COWPEN © MANGO TREE © RODRIGUEZ •jfc- TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS T = 563 ft2/d -see 100 700 I30e 1980 2500 Figure 5 Scenario 1 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California the Crusher well. Figure 6 depicts the capture zones of wells under Scenario 2. Under this scenario, capture zones of wells were slightly modified; the Crusher and Harvey wells capture groundwater emanating from Tutu Esso gas station and O'Henry Dry Cleaners, while the Bakery and Rodnguez wells continue to induce groundwater flow from the Rodriguez gas station. A transmissivity value of 600 tf/day obtained from a Four Winds well was used under the same pumping conditions for Scenario 3. The results, as shown on Figure 7, indicate that Tutu Esso gas station and O'Henry Dry Cleaners fall within the capture zone of the Crusher well, while groundwater underlying Rodriguez Esso gas station migrates toward the Bakery and Rodriguez wells. Scenario 4 also involves simultaneous pumpage of all wells, but under an average transmissivity value of 300 ftrVday, obtained from the Elgin II well. Figure 8 depicts the results of this scenario, indicating that groundwater emanating from Rodriguez Esso is captured by the Bakery well, while groundwater underlying Tutu Esso gas station migrates toward the Crusher well, along with Four Winds wells I and II. O'Henry Dry Cleaners also lies within the capture zone of the Crusher well. Scenarios 1 through 4 indicate that given the available data characterizing hydrogeologic conditions in the vicinity of the Harthman wells and other nearby supply wells, and assuming all wells are operating at their maximum reported rates, the Harthman wells are subject to contamination by groundwater emanating from Tutu Esso gas station, Rodriguez Esso gas station, and O'Henry Dry Cleaners. The capture of contaminants by these wells is corroborated by water quality data (Table 5). Scenario 5 (Figure 9) simulates the simultaneous operation of the Harthman wells without 21 TUT OO6 07'Z FT> Tutu Area Supply Wells 3000 2400 — 1800 — 1200 — 600 !> LEGEND O VIHAII 0 VIHAI 0 RAMSAY O TILLET 0 FOUR WINDS II 0 FOUR WINDS I O ELGIN I O ELGIN II 0 ELGIN III <E> HARVEY 0) CRUSHER <B ESTATE ® RACETRACK <D WILFRED ® BAKERY <B 69 ® ZERO FILTER (D COWPEN <D MANGO TREE © RODRIGUEZ -J^- TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS T = 678 f t2/d -500 100 700 1300 Feet 1900 2500 Figure 6 Scenario 2 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Tutu Area Supply Wells 3000 2400 — isee vV U. 1200 BOB LEGEND O VIHAII 0 VIHAI 0 RAMSAY O TILLET 0 FOUR WINDS II 0 FOUR WINDS I O ELGIN I 0 ELGIN II 0 ELGIN III © HARVEY © CRUSHER © ESTATE © RACETRACK © WILFRED © BAKERY © 69 © ZERO FILTER <D COWPEN © MANGO TREE © RODRIGUEZ •jfc- TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS T = 600 ft 2/d -500 100 700 1300 1900 2500 Feet Figure 7 Scenario 3 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Tutu Area Supply Wells 3000 2--J00 — 1800 — 1200 — 600 — LEGEND O VIHAII 0 VIHAI O RAMSAY O TILLET 0 FOUR WINDS II 0 FOUR WINDS I O ELGIN I O ELGIN II O ELGIN III <E> HARVEY <D CRUSHER <B ESTATE <E> RACETRACK <D WILFRED ® BAKERY (D 69 ® ZERO FILTER (D COWPEN (E) MANGO TREE © RODRIGUEZ •j|£ TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS T = 300 ft2/d -500 100 700 1300 Feet 1900 2500 Figure 8 Scenario 4 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California < F T > Harthman Wells 2500 2000 — see O LEGEND ESTATE CRUSHER RACE TRACK WILFRED BAKERY 69 ZERO FILTER COWPEN MANGO TREE TUTO ESSO GAS STATION RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS T = 563 ft2/d -see see isee zeee Feet Figure 9 Scenario 5 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California interference from other wells. This model run was made using the geometric mean of transmissivity values (563 ft2/day). The results indicate that Tutu Esso and O'Henry Dry Cleaners fall within the capture zone of the Crusher well, while Rodriguez Esso gas station falls within the capture zone of the Bakery well. Future Operation of Harthman Wells To test the potential of each Harthman well operating separately to capture contaminants under potential future pumpage, Scenarios 6 through 14 were analyzed. Future pumping rates were assumed to equal pre-1987 rates. When delineating a capture zone for each well, the geometric mean transmissivity value of 563 ftVday was used, unless a value was available from a test conducted on the particular well. Scenario 6 (Figure 10) simulates the capture zone of the Crusher well, indicating future lone operation of this well can result in the capture of contaminants emanating from both Tutu Esso and O'Henry Dry Cleaners; groundwater flow from Rodriguez Esso does not appear to reach the Crusher well. Figure 11 (Scenario 7) depicts the capture zone of the Race Track well. A pumping test conducted on this well resulted in a low transmissivity value of 24 ftVday. This in turn results in a large zone of groundwater contribution to the well. As Figure 11 suggests, operation of the Race Track well can result in the capture of contaminants emanating from various sources including Tutu Esso, Rodriguez Esso, and O'Henry Dry cleaners. This well was rarely operated in the past, but its pumpage has resulted in the capture of contaminants, evidenced by a single round of water quality sampling (Table 5). Figures 12 through 14 (Scenarios 8 through 10) depict capture zones for the Bakery, 22 TUT 006 0728 Crusher Well 4880 3200 — 2480 — & 1608 — BOO LEGEND •)|fr TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS Q = 30 gpm T = 678 ft2/d -see tee 788 1300 laee 2588 Feet Figure 10 Scenario 6 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Race Track Well teeae 6008 2000 -2000 -B008 -leeee LEGEND •^ TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS Q = 20 gpm T = 24 ft*/d -leeee -eeee -2008 28B8 Feet eeee leeee Figure 11 Scenario 7 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Bakery Well 4000 3200 2400 K V U. 1600 see LEGEND O BAKERY 0 CRUSHER O RACETRACK l£ TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS LT- -see tee ?ee taee Feet isee 2see Q = 20 gpm T=1242ft2/d Figure 12 Scenario 8 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Estate Well 32B0 z<iee 1BBO see 1 I T1 I I I I I I -see lee 7BB 130B Feet 1900 2SOO LEGEND O ESTATE 0 CRUSHER 0 RACETRACK •^ TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS Q = 20 gpm T = 563 ft2/d Figure 13 Scenario 9 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Wilfred Well 4000 3200 2400 01 U, 1600 800 i_H O I -500 1O0 70O 1300 1900 2500 Feet LEGEND O WILFRED 0 CRUSHER O RACETRACK -^ TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS Q = 6gpm T = 563 ft2/d Figure 14 Scenario 10 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Estate, and Wilfred wells, respectively. The capture zones of these three wells do not intercept any of the identified sources of contaminants; however, they do intercept areas which are subject to contamination during pumpage of the Race Track well. Although the absence of pumpage in the last seven years should have allowed contaminants to migrate away from these areas via natural groundwater flow, residual amounts may still persist. In addition, the release in the Tutu area of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL's) is suspected, resulting in the continuous presence of residual contaminants. Accordingly, pumpage of Bakery, Estate, and Wilfred wells may also result in future contamination. Figures 15 through 18 (Scenarios 11 through 14) depict the capture zones of Zero Filter, 69, Mango Tree, and Cowpen wells. Review of these figures indicates that the capture zones of these wells do not intercept any source areas, nor do they intercept areas subject to contamination during pumpage of other wells. 23 ,'UT O06 O734 Zero Filter Well 4000 3200 — 2400 1600 0 800 -i -500 100 700 1300 1900 2500 Feet LEGEND O ZERO FILTER 0 CRUSHER O BAKERY •)(• TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS Q = 6gpm T = 563 ft2/d Figure 15 Scenario 11 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California 69 Well 4000 3200 2400 1600 800 C —i D i 1 1 i LEGEND O 69 Q CRUSHER 0 BAKERY •)|£ TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS -500 100 700 1300 Feet 1900 2500 0- Q = 8gpm T = 563 ft2/d Figure 16 Scenario 12 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Mango Tree Well 4000 3200 2400 1600 see H I I I LEGEND O MANGO TREE 0 CRUSHER O RACETRACK TUTO ESSO GAS STATION RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS Q = 6gpm T = 563 ft2/d -50e tee xi -4 700 1300 Feet 1900 2500 Figure 17 Scenario 13 October 1994 DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California Hc w 03 3200 2480 V U. 1600 8BB 8 \ \ Cowpen Well * i 1 0 A — >^tx ! i i i i i i LEGEND O COWPEN 0 CRUSHER 0 RACETRACK •jfc- TUTO ESSO GAS STATION • RODRIGUEZ ESSO GAS STATION A O'HENRY DRY CLEANERS Q = 8gpm T = 563 ft2/d _ Figure 18 Scenario 14 October 1994 -500 100 708 1388 1908 2500 Feet DAVID KEITH TODD Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkeley, California 7. Conclusions Petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds have been detected in the Harthman wells since the beginning of sampling in 1987. Review of recently obtained soil and groundwater quality data collected at the Tutu Esso gas station confirms that this station is a source of these same compounds detected in underlying soil and groundwater. Given the proximity of the Tutu Esso gas station to the Harthman wells, together with the availability of additional recently obtained subsurface data, an analytic modeling exercise was conducted, indicating that several Harthman wells have captured groundwater emanating from Tutu Esso gas station, O'Henry Dry Cleaners, and Rodriguez Esso gas station. Additionally, modeling results indicate that future operation of the Harthman wells will result in the capture of groundwater emanating from Tutu Esso gas station, O'Henry Dry Cleaners, and Rodriguez Esso gas station. 24 TUT OO6 O739 References Archer & Greiner. 1994. Letter from R.T. Lehman to S.S. Brotman, June 21. (contains Summary of Ground-Water Analytical Results: Tutu Esso Service Station and Adjacent Areas, collected in November 1993) Arthur D. Little. 1993. Groundwater Contamination Occurrence & Sources in the Tutu Area. USVI. November. Belgodere & Associates. 1988. Soil Gas Vapor Screening Survey Report. June. Blasland, Bouck & Lee. 1993a. Hydrogeologic Assessment/Source Identification. Upper Tutu Aquifer. October. Blasland, Bouck & Lee. 1993b. Preliminary Sample Analyses Tutu Wells Contamination Investigation. Bonifide Bilingual. 1993. Telephonic Depo of Jose Carlos Agrelot Pena. Tutu Water Well Contamination. October. Caribbean Hydro-Tech. 1993. Water Supply. Demand & Growth Potential on St. Thomas USVI. October. Caribbean Scribes. 1993. Sworn Statement of Carlos Miguel Belgodere Pamiez. taken in San Juan. Puerto Rico. Delta Associates. 1993. Market Value Appraisal as of 9/92. Four Winds Shopping Center. Vols. I-II, August. Environ Corporation. 1993. Expert Report on Groundwater Contamination & Remediation of the Tutu Aquifer. Exxon. 1993. Summary Interpretation of Available Hydrogeologic & Water Quality Data for the Tutu Wells. Gartner Lee. 1993. Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Upper Turpentine Run Basin. October. Geraghty & Miller. 1983. Report on Current Groundwater Conditions in the USVI. April. Geraghty & Miller. 1992. Seventh Sampling Report. Tutu Well Site. USVI. December. Geraghty & Miller. 1992. Technical Memorandum I. Tutu Service Station Investigation. April. 25 TUT OO6 074O Geraghty & Miller. 1993a. Technical Memorandum II. Results of the Field Program. Tutu Service Station. February. Geraghty & Miller. 1993b. Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan Tutu Wells Site. USVI. Geraghty & Miller. 1994. Phase II Remedial Investieation Tutu Wells Site. USVI. H+GCL. 1993a. Technical Opinions regarding the Texaco Tutu Service Station. November. H+GCL. 1993b. Preliminary Report. Esso Overnight Trip Summary. November 9 through November 19. 1993. December 21. (contains soil samples collected in November 1993, provided to counsel by letter dated January 25, 1994) Hydrologic Associates Inc. 1993. Sources & Migratory Routes of Constituents in the Tutu Aquifer. October. Hydrologic Associates Inc. 1993. Geohydrologic Analysis and Water Quality Data in the Upper Tutu Aquifer. October. Javandel, I., C. Doughty, and C.F. Tsang. 1984. Groundwater Transport. American Geophysical Union. NUS Corporation. 1989. Final Draft Preliminary Assessment. Gassett Motors. St. Thomas. USVI. March. Soil Tech Corporation. 1989. Laboratory Analyses of Soil at Tutu Esso Car Care Center. USVI. January. Soil Tech Corporation. 1990. Memorandum, Esso Tutu Car Care Center Soil Sampling. January. Target Environmental Services. 1992. Soil Gas Survey. UST Areas. Four Winds Shopping Center. February. Target Environmental Services. 1992. Soil Gas Survey. UST Areas. Four Winds Shopping Center. September. USEPA. 1991. WHPA-A Modular Semi-Analvtical Model for the Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. USEPA Office of Groundwater Protection, Washington, D.C. 26 TUT 006 O74.1 David Keith Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc. Professional Record of David Keith Todd, Consulting Engineer Background: David Keith Todd has served as an independent consulting engineer on a pan-time basis in the field of water resources planning, development, and management since 1950. In 1978 he formed his own consulting firm—David Keith Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc.—in Berkeley, California, staffed with engineers and geologists. The company specializes in the planning, development, management, and protection of groundwatcr. Dr. Todd also holds the position of Professor of Civil Engineering, Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. In recent years he taught all of the hydrology courses and was in charge of the graduate program in Water Resources Engineering. As a result of his extensive experience in teaching, research, and consulting, he has been associated with wide variety of water projects and issues. His numerous publications in the water field have earned him a national as well as an international reputation, particularly relating to underground water. Address: Office: David Keith Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2914 Domingo Avenue Berkeley, California 94705 Telephone: (510) 841-2091 Facsimile: (510) 841-8717 Education: B.S., Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1948 M.S., Meteorology, New York University, 1949 Ph.D. Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1953 Professional Registration: California - Registered Civil Engineer, Certificate No. 12000 Indiana - Registered Civil Engineer, Certificate No. 8560 Delaware - Registered Professional Engineer, Certificate No. 9695 TUT OO6 0742 Df*dttuk ToeU Consulting Engineers. Inc. Professional Affiliation: Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers Fellow, American Geophysical Union Member, American Water Works Association Fellow, American Meteorological Association Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science Member, National Water Well Association and the Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers Member, American Institute of Hydrology, Certified Hydrologist-Ground Water, No. 630 Professional Recognition: Member, Tau Beta Pi Member, Chi Epsilon Member, Sigma Xi Postdoctoral Fellow, National Science Foundation, 1957-1958 Research Prize, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1960 American Men of Science, 10th edition, 1962 Who's Who in Engineering, 9th edition, 1964 Distinguished Alumnus, Purdue University, 1964 Senior Postdoctoral Fellow, National Science Foundation, 1964-1965 Centennial Professor, American University of Beirut, Lebanon, 1967 Visiting Professor, Universidad de Oriente, Puerta la Cruz, Venezuela, 1969-1972 Who's Who in America, 38th edition, 1974 Professional Experience: 1978-date: President, David Keith Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1950-date: Instructor, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, and Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. 1950-1970: Research Engineer (part-time), Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley. 1954-1956: Hydraulic Engineer (part-time), U.S. Geological Survey, Berkeley, California. 1948-1950: Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. TUT OO6 07'4.3 Davtd Keith Todd Consulting Engineers. Inc. Foreign Consulting Experience in Water Resources: Europe-Studies of groundwater resources, development, and problems in Switzerland, England, France, Germany, Sweden, and Netherlands, 1957-1958 and 1964-1965. Thailand, Philippines, and Japan-Consultant for lectures and study tour on development of groundwater resources, UNESCO, 1962. India—Consultant on preparation of groundwater project proposal from the Government of India to the Special Fund, United Nations, 1963; organizer of Seminar on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater for the United Nations, Ahmedabad, India, 1984-19&5. Pakistan-Member of White House-Interior Scientific Team to review and recommend program for improvement of agriculture in the Indus River Plain, West Pakistan; primary emphasis was on feasibility of new wells to pump groundwater for lowering of the water table, leaching of salt from the soil, and increasing irrigation water supply, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1961-1963; Consultant on new well field for water supply of the City of Faisalabad, Engineering- Science, Arcadia, California, 1983. Saudi Arabia-Consultant on planning and investigation o; feroundwater resources in Northern Saudi Arabia, Ralph M. Parsons Co., Los Angeles, 1965-1967. Lebanon-Consultant on development of groundwater resources for water supply for the City of Beirut and on utilization of submarine springs discharging groundwater from limestone aquifers into the sea, Special Fund, United Nations, 1967. Cyprus-Consultant on management of groundwater resources and control of seawater intrusion, Special Fund, United Nations, 1967. Algeria-Consultant on groundwater resources development and utilization for economic development by irrigation and industry of three major areas in Algeria, General Electric Company, Santa Barbara, California, 1965-1970. Libya—Consultant on groundwater resources development for irrigation, Joufrah Project near Hon, Philipp Holsmann AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1975-1977. Nicaragua-Consultant on protection of the water supply system for the City of Managua against groundwater pollution, Empresa de Aguadora, Managua, Nicaragua, 1976-1978. TUT OO6 O744 David Kttih Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc. Foreign Consulting Experience in Water Resources: Barbados—Consultant on development plans for supplemental water suppb'es for irrigation and municipal uses, and on prevention of seawater intrusion, Stanley Associated Engineering, Ltd., Edmonton, Canada, 1977-1978. Jamaica-Consultant on plans for village water supplies throughout the island from wells and springs, Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd., Edmonton, Canada, 1978. Turks and Caicos Islands-Consultant on groundwater development for water supplies on small coral limestone islands, Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd., Edmonton, Canada, 1980. Peru—Consultant on groundwater development to augment water supply for City of Lima, Peru, Engineering-Science, Arcadia, California, 1980-1982. Sri Lanka-Consultant on groundwater development in the Jaffna Area, Engineering- Science, Arcadia, California, 1982. Chile-Consultant on groundwater development in the Atacama Desert, BHP Utah International, San Francisco, California, 1983-1994. Australia-Invited lecturer on groundwater resources to provincial water agencies in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth, 1986. TUT OO& O745 David KM* todd CnwM*g Engineers, Inc. Consulting Clients In the United States on Water Resources: 1_ Aba Corporation, Palo Alto, CA 2. Arid Tech, Inc., Manhattan Beach, CA 3. Becfatel Corporation, San Francisco, CA 4. BHP-Utah International, San Francisco, CA 5. BKK Corporation, City of Industry, CA 6. Bodega Bay Public Utility District, Bodega Bay, CA 7. Brelje & Race, Santa Rosa, CA 8. Browning-Ferns Industries, Houston, TX 9. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA 1ft. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 11. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., San Jose, CA 12. Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA 13. City and County of Honolulu, HI 14. City of Ceres, CA 15. City of Emeryvffle, CA 16. City of Healdsburg, CA IT. City of Uvermore, CA 18. City of Los Angeles, CA 19. City of Mendocino, CA 20. City of Oakland, CA 21. City of San Bruno, CA 22. City of Santa Barbara, CA 23. City of Seattle, WA 24. Creegan and D'Angelo, San Jose, CA 25. Dames & Moore, San Francisco, CA 26. Dow Chemical Co., Pittsburg, CA 27. East Valley Water District, San Bernardino, CA 28. Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, CA 29. FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA 30. Fox and Carskadon, San Mateo, CA 31. General Electric Company, Santa Barbara, CA 32. Geoconsultants, Inc., San Jose, CA 35. Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Plainview, NY 34. Goleta Water District, Goleta, CA 35. Granite Construction Co<, Watsonville, CA 36. Great Oaks Water Co., San Jose, CA 37. Harding-Lawson Associates, Novato, CA 38. Harstad Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA 39. High Plains Underground Water Conservation District, Lubbock, TX 40. Mbnterey County Water Conservation District, Salinas, CA TUT 006 O746 DmU Ktlth foil Consulting Engineers, Inc. CHeats fat tbe United States on Water Resources: 41. Peter Kaldveer & Associates, Oakland, CA 42. KenBedy/Jenks/Chilton Engineers, San Francisco, CA 45. Kern County Water Agency, Bakersfield, CA 44. Kilter Chapman & Associates, San Francisco, CA 45. Lawrence Lhrermore Laboratory, Uvermore, CA 46. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, New York, NY 47. Lowry & Associates, Pleasanton, CA 48. McKesson Corporation, Dublin, CA 49. Miami Conservancy District, Dayton, OH 50. Northrop Corporation, Hawthorne, CA 51. Occidental Chemical Company, Lathrop, CA 52. Oceanic California, Inc., The Sea Ranch, CA 53. Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 54. Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Portland, OR 55. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA 56. San Francisco Bridge Company, San Francisco, CA 57. Santa Ctera Valley Water District, San Jose, CA 58. Scotts Valley Water District, Scotts Valley, CA 59. Shoshone & Arapahoe Tribes, Fort Washakie, WY 60. Solvent Service, Inc., San Jose, CA 61. Steffen, Robertson & Kirsten, Lakewood, CO 62. Terra California, Walnut Creek, CA 63. Time Oil Co., Tacoma, WA 6*. URS CoiporatJon, San Bemardino, CA 65. United Nations, NY 66. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA 67. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 69. University of California, Berkeley, CA 70. Weigmann &, Rose International Corp., Richmond, CA 71. Winzler & Kelly, Santa Rosa, CA 72. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, Oakland, CA 73. Yucaipa Valley Water District, Yucaipa, CA TUT O06 O747 David Kffch Todd Consulting Engineers, Inc. Publications Author of more than 115 technical publications in the field of hydrology and water resources, with particular emphasis on groundwater resources (complete list of publications available upon request). Included are seven books: (1) Annotated Bibliography on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater through 1954, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1477, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 115 pp., 1959. (2) Groundwater Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY 336 pp., 1959, 2nd edition, 535 pp., 1980. This book has been used as a textbook by some 52 American universities, published in several international editions, and translated into Hindi, Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish. (3) The Water Encyclopedia (Editor), Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, NY, 559 pp., 1970. Named an outstanding reference book of 1971 by Library Journal and an outstanding academic book of 1971 by Choice Magazine. (4) Water Publications of State Agencies (Edited -ith G.J. Giefer), Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, !•., 350 pp., 1972; First Supplement, 189 pp., 1976. (5) Polluted Groundwater (with D.E.O. McNulty), Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, NY, 179 pp., 1976. (6) Ground-Water Resources of the United States (Compiler), Premier Press, Berkeley, CA, 749 pp., 1983. (7) The Water Encyclopedia (Edited with F. van der Leeden and F.L. Troise), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 808 pp., 1990. TUT GO6 0748 EXHIBIT LIST TO LETTER OF NOVEMBER 1,1994 FROM FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP TO DPNR AND EPA 'TUT 006 0749 TUTU WELL CONTAMINATION ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS EXHIBIT LIST TO LETTER OF NOVEMBER I, 1994 A) LETTER from COM Regional Manager, Scott Graber, to the EPA dated November 25, 1987 regarding Overview of Texaco Soil Gas Survey. B) LETTER from COM Regional Manager, Scott Graber, to the EPA dated June 29, 1988 regard- ing Overview of Esso Soil Gas Survey. C) LETTER from EPA Regional II, Carole Petersen, to Ana Gloria Ramos dated April 4, 1991 regarding Comments on the Tutu Service Station Investigation Work Plan dated January 1991. D) TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD of phone call from Ana Gloria Ramos and Jose Agrelot to Tom Danahy of Geraghty & Miller dated April 23, 1991 regarding EPA comments on Draft Work Plan. E) REPORT, "Soil Gas Survey, Four Winds Shopping Center and Environs, Tutu Area, Anna's Retreat, U.S. Virgin Islands", prepared by Target Environmental Services, dated February 1992. F) LOGBOOK #4A, excerpts from Geraghty & Miller Logbook #4A. G) LOGBOOK #3A, excerpts from Geraghty & Miller Logbook #3A. H) LOGBOOK #5, excerpts from Geraghty & Miller Logbook #5. I) LOGBOOK #4B, excerpts from Geraghty & Miller Logbook #4B. J) LOGBOOK #4C, excerpts from Geraghty & Miller Logbook #4C. K) DEPOSITION EXCERPTS of Lisa Bonanno, March 18, 1991, Owner and Operator of the Splash and Dash Car Wash. See pp. 162-173 for her description of the oil-like substance collecting in the car wash excavation L) DEPOSITION of George Mosa, Contractor for the construction of Splash and Dash Car Wash. See entire transcript for his description of an oil like substance "oozing" into the excavation from beneath the Tutu Esso station during late February of 1991 M) DEPOSITION EXCERPTS of Thomas Gutshall, former service manager Esso Tutu. See pp. 30-31 - Chemicals from part washer were dumped into the waste oil pit. Deposition Exhibit 7 attached. See pp. 37-42 - Description of oil/water separator and discharge pipe. Deposition Exhibits 4 and 8 attached. See pp. 60-62 - Discussion of pipe line replacement. TUT 006 O75O TUTU WELL CONTAMINATION, ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS EXHIBIT LIST TO LETTER OF NOVEMBER 1, 1994 N) DEPOSITION EXCERPTS of Nelson Rosado, October 14,1992, Engineer of Essorico. See p. 66, line 20 through p. 75 - Rosado climbed down into the excavation and observed a black, brownish liquid coming from the wall by the Esso station. O) COVER LETTER dated August 20, 1991 from Richard Smith to the EPA (Chester) with lab results of soil sample taken from car wash excavation by Marcella Jennings of Caribbean Safe Water Lab. P) DEPOSITION EXCERPTS of Thomas Danahy, August 10, 1993, Senior Scientist, Project Manager, Geraghty & Miller. See p. 29, line 14 through p. 30, line 5 - Danahy not really sure what is in the subsur- face underneath that area. Q) REPORT of Weston Sper dated January 27, 1988- results of VOC testing in the waste oil storage tanks at Esso Tutu. R) LETTER from COM Regional Manager, Scott Graber, to the EPA dated March 6, 1989 re- garding test samples taken from the oil/water separator and holding tank at Esso Tutu. S) FINAL REPORT, "Final CLP Sample Analysis Data Summary of Soils and Waters Sampled in 1989 of Tutu Wellfield, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands", from CDM FPC U.S. EPA dated May 31, 1990. T) MEMORANDUM, from Engr. Jose C. Agrelot of Soil Tech to Lie. Jose L. Cepeda regarding Soil Sampling at the Esso Tutu Car Care Center, dated January 23,1990. U) PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, Tutu Wellfield Investigation, from Geraghty & Miller with Bates Stamp No. A03970 V) INVOICE from Selig Chemical Industries dated 7/21/83 showing purchase of Superkleen by Esso Tutu with MSDS sheets attached. W) TRANSCRIPT excerpt from December 9, 1993 Hearing before The Honorable Stanley S. Brotman, regarding testimony of Ana Gloria Ramos. See p. 69, line 12 through page 70, line 14 - Ramos saw employees discharging oil from the oil water separator. X) REPORT of Dr. Paul Fahrenthold will be provided at a later date. TUT OO6 O751 EXHIBIT 'A' TUT 006 0752 rcucral rrograms v^orporanon !987 Ma. Caroline Kwan D.S. Environmental Protection 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York. I0r:78 Contract No.: 68-01-7331 Subject: C-vervi <•:-.- of Texr.cn Soil Cas Survey of the Tutu Wellfield Stte Dear Ms. Kwan: The purpoa- of this letter ia to provide you with our comments on the Texaco Soli Gas Survey of tin* vicinity of the Tutu Texaco service station, St. Thomas, Virjrtn Islands, The purpose of the surv*" was Co assess Texaco 'a role in the contamination of area groundwater, The survey w'll Aid ir the location of groundvater aonitorlu£ wells, be in-.taH-M a f t e r :he removal of leaking underground storage t.inkfi at f. •• '•••-• -.'a'.ion. It is essential that soil gaa be analyzed prior to any •-..-«- -i:'.r. inn Involving soil disturbance. Texaco ha & contracted Geoarl ?nct Consultant, Ltd. (GCL) to perform the work. CCL hon , fn t u r n , -.v.iu >-.ir;r.«o Tracer Research Corporation (TRC) to do the actual B«uplin£ snd ar.alyaic of the soil gaa using an on-site gaa chromat'?;"raph ICC). Due to the detection of benzene, toluene, trichloro^rhvl.vne ^TCE), t er.rachloroe thyleoe (PCE), and other contaminanta in groundv-;-it?r f-ojn nearby -...•.> IV- ~'-;^co has -^reed to analyze for benzene, toluene, e c h y ' ^ :nzere , and xy!t*ne (BTEX) and total hydrocarbons, as well aa chlorinate-' ' 'roo&rbons v?h :•:'«! are ncc normally associated with gasoline. s jrasolii. (FID), thft ch!> detector t>:c:r?). r.on.oouer. s caing flame ionization detector At the close of . r> ; -.•> j c v. •.. service station) p-obv-d ;>of. hydrocarbons (Figure 1)» ' • erve aa background v.ilu^« : •easured daily for d r i f t . chlorinated hydr^c.-u-bons vi ranging from approximately by concrete or asphalt, an through the soil. Although reached, it was generally i possible, shallow and Jeep not differ greatly. ir:,-= l .nr; o- . to pipe .7:.-ss -lyzcd using an electron capture r, .L.. end 46 off-site (i.e. off the been analyzed for BTEX and total cr,, 2 r/rf-aite points were analyzed to r.rea behind the fire station was wern probed and analyzed for Pipes were hand-driven to depths feet below the surface. In areas covered hand drill was used initially to brealc were driven until rock or bedrock was bl? tc g«t deeper than 5 or 6 feet. Where >; •,•<•: i'ft analyzed, although most values did ECD. TUT OO6 O753 rograms Corporation Hi; Total hydrocarbon values have been uoed to preliminarily define the plune(«) of contamination (Figure 2). According to TRC'a on-eite chemist the chromatogramfl of aoil gas samples from the vicinity of the underground tankn arc. character isc l.c of gasoline, Although It was impossible to break out Individual benzene, toluene, echylbenzene • and xylene peaks from thet total hydrocarbon peaks. At one on-site location (B2), Texaco used an OB101 column (a "stickler" colunm) In an attempt to spread out the chromatograms. Using a standard concentration of 2000 ug/1, it was barely possible to detect benzene and toluene peaks. However, at a higher total hydrocarbon sample point (B2), 6700 ug/1 benzene and 78,000 ug/1 total hydrocarbons vere found. Toluene was lower than the detection limit of 55 ug/1. In the area of Til let'a well, a late hydrocarbon peak distinguishes the aoil gas samples in this area from those near the tanks. According to TRC, the chromatograme from these samples near Tiller's well are not. - characteristic of gasoline. Chromatograaa of samples from the vicinity of the Esso service station show a mixture of the typical gasoline peaks and the late peak. Texacors consultants have suggested chat this late peak may be PCE. It appears that bedrock is closer Co the surface below the Tillet property than the rest of che study ar<*3. The Tillet property lies to the south of the Texaco station and 1« elevated approximately 10-15 feet relative to the station and the Four Winds Shopping Center and parking lot to the west. Outcrops can be observed behind the VZTELCO building, which ia adjacent to the paint store building. The points driven Into the Tillet property have generally been not deeper than 5 or 6 feet, although cm- point (T19) was driven Co 9 feet 10 inches. These samples Indicated aroBK"-ic hydrocarbon values similar to background. There are, however, significant amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbon* in the Soil gas near the Tlllet well. This particular hydrocarbon peak was not observed on the chrooatgrams from samples taken at the Texaco station. It should be noted that benzene and other contaminants (aromatic hydrocarbons)have been detected In ground water from the Tillet well, despite the fact that the aromatic hydrocarbon values In the soil gas samples are low. The level sampled benenth the TiHet property is at leaet a few feet above strait l^vel, and approximately 10 feet above the level sa«plr- ? at Texaco and The Four Winds Parking Lot. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are more volatile in soil r.han the aromatic hydrocarbons. If the water table is never reached or close when sampling, the BTEX values will normally be low relative to rh»? chlorinated hydrocarbons unless you sample a pocket of high concenr rr.t (o.i 0 -v;nd -vater occurs at approximately 20 feet b.:.ow r.he rn'.r'.i.: -f-. o' r ~h • '' •.'. ; ; c>rr, n.-r'. y. DPlCGoj (SOI/29) TUT OO6 0754 reuerai rrugranis v_-orporation Ha. Kwan Three Bedrock In the area consists of fractured volcanics. The fracture pattern has an effect on hydraulic conductivity and aquifer contamination. It is likely that thn fractured bedrock high of the Tillet are* was recharged by the contaminated alluvium. One sample of ground water from the Tillet well was run through the GC. While toluene was below the detection limit of 5 ppb, benzene was valued at npprox iraa tely 800 ppb. The ECD analyses confirmed the results of the FID, that a late peaking chlorinated hydrocarbon (PCE) is present in the areas of the TllleC Well, the ESBO Station, and the Public Education Facility (formerly, the Lagging Clothe Factory, which reportedly used PCE). Based on the results of the soil gas survey, it seems apparent Chat Texaco has contaminated the soil gas in the area of the tanks. The contamination appears to extend into the area underlying Rte. 38 and 384 close Co the station. The values from the northern section of The Four Winds Parking Lot are orders of magnitude lower than the values closer to the station and similar to background. In the southern section of the parking lot, however, higher values suggest Chat Esao ie at least partially responsible for hydrocarbon contamination. It appears that £330 is down-gradient from Tillet's well, and this should be considered during the evaluation. It ahould be noted that the Tillet veil is located centrally to Texao.o and Esso, and was reportedly pumping 60 gallons per minuto (gpm) prior to being closed to operation due to ~ contamination. There arc also 2 wells on the Four Winds property just north of the Eseo station, which may > • - • • » , in effect, reversed any regional gradient during heavy pumping. In conclusion, It is ' •> Texnco honeut in refins of s« ...jO .' ng , to ths complexity of r.'nir- arc ind thickness of alluvium jrnj soil gas is dependent). Sincerely, beet, interest to remain open-minded and y 3 1 j , and interpretation of the data, due .?. Mioited knowledge about the character ter r-levac ions , a factor upon which CDM^Federal Program Cor Ion kt TES I: Work SG:kw cc: J. Fc ' NYC }'. . ,t Manage (SGl/29) TUT OO6 0755 O O •J? O 'r-Di- o u.o of u luo: 3 t- 01 5 i? •< ex rf V) 5 0X^-7.'-.';.' iros N-m N. -JD 0 5 '£ CT CT- Co CL DC o :\ ''"•jMi^ • *' •' -v."-^*.-vo.w -7 f . - S&& ' ''^~- ~. .~;&?. : i-'.j ^" o o .•a: i- CDM Federal Programs Corporation Ha. Kwan Page Three Bedrock in the Area consists of fractured volcanic*. The fracture pattern has an effect on hydraulic conductivity and aquifer contamination. It is likely that the fractured bedrock high of the Tillet area was recharged by the contaminated alluvium. One sample of ground water from the Tillet well was run through the CC. While toluene was below the detection limit of 5 ppb, benzene was valued at approximately 800 ppb. The BCD analyses confirmed the results of the FID, that a late peaking chlorinated hydrocarbon (PCE) is present in the areas of the Tillet Well, the Esso Station, and the Public Education Facility (formerly, the Lagging Clothe Factory, which reportedly used PCE). Based on the results of the soil gas survey, it seems apparent that Texaco has contaminated the soil gas in the area of the tanks. The contamination appears to extend into the area underlying Rts. 38 and 384 close to the station. The values from the northern section of The Four Winds* Parking Lot are orders of magnitude lower than the values closer to the station and similar to background. In the southern section of the parking lot, however, higher values suggest that ESBO is at least partially responsible for hydrocarbon contamination. It appears that Esao is down-gradient from Tillet 'e well, and this should be considered during the evaluation. It should be noted that the 'fillet well is located centrally to Texaco and Esso, and was reportedly pumping 60 gallons per minute (gpm) prior to being closed to operation due to contamination. There are also 2 wells on the Four Winds propert" just north of the Esso station, which may have, in effect, reversed .;ny regional gradient during heavy pumping. In conclusion, it is in Texaco 's best interest to remain open-minded and honest in terms of sampling, analysis, and interpretation of the data, due to the complexity of this area (i.e. limited knowledge about the character and thickness of alluvium and groundwater elevations, a factor upon which soil gas is dependent). Sincerely, CDM^Federal Programs Corporation Scttt TES III Work Assignment Manager SG:kw cc: J. Font NYC File DPiOOooU (SCI/29) TUT 006 0759 EXHIBIT 'B' TUT OO6 076O i cuerai Programs Corporation June 29, 1988 Ms. Caroline Kwan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Contract No: 68-01-7331 Document No: T648-C02-LK-CDEM-1 Subject: Overview of Esso Soil Gas Survey Conducted on April 5, 1988 through April 23, 1988 in Tutu, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; Work Assignment 648 Dear Ms. Kwan The purpose of the survey was to assess Esso's role in the contamination of area groundwater. The survey will aid in defining the location and extent of subsurface petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, eind define the potential source of the contamination. Esso Standard Oil SA LTD. has contracted Belgedere and Associates Inc. (BAI) to conduct the soil gas survey. Due to the detection of groundwater contamination in the Tutu vicinity, Esso had agreed to analyze onsight for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) as well as trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and dichlorethylene (chlorinated hydrocarbons). Two HNu 301 series Gas Chroma tographs (GC) were used for the field analyses of the soil gas samples. One GC was equipped with a photo ionization detector (PID) and a flame ionization detector (FID) and a 10% TCEP, Chromosorb PAW 8' x 1/8" ss pack column. This GC was set up for BTEX detection. The other GC, which was set up for chlorinated hydrocarbon detection was equipped with a FID and a 3% SE 30 Chromosorb WAW 6' x 1/8" ss pack column. Although the BAJ chemists often verbally reported the presence of chlorinated hydrocarbon peaks during sample analysis, . chlorinated hydrocarbon values from only 8 sample locations were reported in the preliminary reduced data. This was insufficient for us to make any conclusions about the extent of chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in the area. The first phase of the soil gas survey was done on a grid pattern with 29 sample points and 50 foot centers within and immediately surrounding the service station. The grid was extended based on field judgement to define the extent of contamination. A total of 44 locations were sampled by driving 5/8 inch probes to depths ranging between 2 and 8 feet. Shallow «') and deep (6-8') samples were analyzed where possible. Soil gas was evacuated from the probe using a battery operated vacuum pump. The soil gas samples were then extracted from the probe at the septum using gas tight syringes. The lithology as well as man-made obstacles, such as storm drains and building slabs, made it impossible to follow the exact grid as proposed by BAI . For example, several proposed points across Road Number 38 were not tested due to the closeness of the bedrock to the surface. JC2/49 1COJS 212 191 96M TUT 006 O761 COM Feder.il Pro^nmxs C-orjxmition A review of the preliminary soil gas data from the Esso Tutu Site was undertaken to establish its validity and applicability. The major analytical problem encountered during data acquisition was signal noise. The noise could have been from any number of sources including unstable power supply, dirty injector and/or detector, short in cable or grounding problem, column degradation or contamination, and electronic failure within the instrument. The major consequences of the noise are baseline instability, extraneous peaks which may confound peak identification and quantitation, and poor sensitivity. While generally applicable, the utmost care must be taken in drawing specific conclusions from the data in their preliminary form because: o There were several days during which two sets of data were generated on separate instruments for each sample. According to Louis Maldenado (Belgodere & Associates), all of the data are still being evaluated and some preliminary results may be substituted with results from the alternate data set. The changes could significantly affect data interpretation. o The work plan stipulates that results will be based on multiple calibration gas analyses from which an average response factor will be calculated for each component. Preliminary data IB based on response from a single calibration run. Assuming that representative calibrations were used, use of average response factors should not yield significantly different results. However, given the numerous analytical problems encountered, this assumption may not be correct. o For several of the days during which data were collected, the instrument was calibrated and programmed to automatically generate the final calculated result (i.e. identify the chroroatographic peak by its presence within a retention time window and apply calibration response factor to the measured peak area). The preliminary data was taken directly from this printout apparently without checking the validity of peak identifications. Peak mis-identification by the instrument can occur even under ideal analytical conditions and is much more likely when the baseline is noisy. One such mis-identification was found during this review (resulting in a value for ethyl benzene + M,P-xylene of 0.001 instead of 0.054 ppm) and others are likely to be found and corrected during generation of the final data. o Each sample was analyzed at least twice and up to four times in an effort to generate reproducible results. In many cases, one of the four analyses yielded a significant "hit" while the other three showed no evidence of the compound. This strongly suggests the possibility of false negatives, which could drastically alter the interpretation of the overall data set {specifically, the drawing of plumes). It is not clear whether the potential for false negatives is inherent in the method or is a consequence of the analytical problems cited. It may hf? a combination of the two. JC1/49 TUT 006 0762 ^bb/ CDM hederal Programs Corporation The following should be considered when interpreting the final data set: o Due to analytical problems, two GCs, three different detectors (one PID, two FID) and at least three different columns were used. As long as each was properly calibrated, there should be reasonable continuity in the results as a whole. However, there are at least two populations of data because a switch was made to a different type of column (due to lack of backup) with different chromatographic characteristics. The result, at a minimum, is discontinuity in the ethyl benzene and xylene data. o The "Total Hydrocarbon" values reported were generated by applying an average response factor of the calibration gas constituents to the total (combined) peak area from each chromatogram. These values are grossly affected when extraneous peaks are detected due to signal noise. Depending on what this value is to be used for, it might be better to simply sum the individual compound values. o There may be aspects of the methodology itself that yield questionable results (such as false negatives discussed above). One possible aspect is the condition under which the sample gas is drawn into the syringe. If the pressure of the volume being sampled is significantly below one atmosphere, the sample could be diluted by an unknown amount, thus yielding erroneously low results. Dilution would occur as air leaked into the sampling system across the pressure gradient. If the system is leaked-tight, air would rush into the syringe needle once it was removed from the sampling system until the pressure of the sample gas in the syringe was one atmosphere. At the start of the Esso soil gas survey,it was agreed to use the same background value that was used for the Texaco soil gas survey (< 1 ppb). The low end standards (ppb range) were not available for the GC calibration, but it was thought possible by Esso that by diluting the standards they could calibrate the GCs such that they get order of magnatude readings down to 2 ppb. Due to the numerous analytical problems encountered as the project progressed, and the time factors involved, it was decided by Esso, BAI, EPA, DPNR, and CDM FPC that a detection limit of 1 ppm was adequate to define the extent of contamination for the purpose of the soil gas phase of the project. It has been determined that the data recieved from BAI is generally applicable to the stated purpose of establishing the order of magnatude of BTEX present in the soil gas to the detection limit of about Ippm by volume. The total BTEX values were used to define the extent of contamination (Figure 1). It must be stressed that the conclusions have been made based on data in its preliminary form. All of the data will be evaluated and changes by Esso could significantly affect data interpretation. ..'C1/.19 TUT OO6 0763 COM Federal Programs Corporation The following observations and subsequent conclusions can be made based on the information obtained during the Tutu Esso Soil Gas Survey. Total BTEX soil gas values were reported in excess of 1000 ppm in the southern portion of the Esso property adjacent to the petroleum underground storage tanks. This area of high BTEX soil gas contamination extends to the southwest of the Esso property into the Four Winds Plaza parking lot (figure 1). The concentration of total BTEX is reduced from above 1000 ppm to below 1 ppn\ with increased distance from the southern portion of the Esso property, upgradient as well as down gradient. Unfortunately, the full extent of the soil gas contamination (i.e. values equal or below the agreed upon background level) around the Esso station was not determined due to the relatively high detection limit of 1 ppm. However, based on the soil gas survey results and plotting the plume of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, it seems apparent that Esso is responsible for a product release and the contamination of soil gas in at least the immediate vicinity of its service station. The results of Tutu Texaco Soil Gas Survey indicate that Texaco is also responsible for a product release and contamination of soil gas in at least the immediate vicinity of its service station. If Esso is planning an excavation of their underground storage tanks as part of their service station maintenance program, it is our recommendation that soil samples be collected and analyzed as part of this excavation. After the tank excavation and sampling, CDM FPC recommends a joint investigation between Esso and Texaco to further define the nature and extent of the contamination in the Tutu Wellfield Area. The joint investigation will make all subsequent activities more cost efficient for all involved parties. The first phase of the investigation should consist of a subsurface investigation involving the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, split spoon soil boring and analyses, and groundwater collection and analyses. EPA at this point should consider a time schedule to implement the PRP committee and commence with the next phase. Sincerely, CDM Federal Programs Corporation Scott Grabe/r TES III Work Assignment Manager cc: Jose Fonte, EPA Caribbean Division Greg Rhymer, DPNR Colleen Connor, ORC NYC File JC1/49 TUT OO6 O764 IML bull, -S SURVEY AT THE TUTU AREA FIGURE 1 TUT OO6 0765 EXHIBIT 'Cf TUT 006 0766 -1991 14:00 FROM TO 12159697539 ='.CI APR 04 1991 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION II JACOB K. JAVrTS FEDERAL BUIUDINO NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10176 MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Ms. Anna Gloria Ramos/ P.E. Project Coordinator Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee G.P.O. BOX 4269 San Juan, Puerto Rioo 00936-4269 Re • QT> Tutu S Investigation Work Plan dated January 1991 Dear Ms. Ramos: Th* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed a review of the above -referenced document. Sncloeed please find general and specific comments on the work plan. Please re submit the work plan for our review by April 29, 1991. Please call M*. Caroline Kwan if you have any questions. Sincerely yours/ Carole PetersenToffSf New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch ZZ ENCLOSURES: TUT 006 0767 A 0 3 7 1 6 fipR-11-1991 l<j:ee FROM TO 12159S8V538 P. 23 GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The hydrogeological investigation, and groundwater sampling plan presented in the draft workplan go a long way towards addressing the aquifer contamination problem. The proposed list of analytes (limited to TCL VOAs) is sufficient to characterize areas of fuel and/or chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination. However, EPA believes that the number and locations of samples proposed are not adequate to characterize the site. As was stated in the February 21 meeting, EPA regards the Tutu Wellfield area as a single site. It will be much more difficult to obtain cohesive investigation results if the various respondents address the site in a piecemeal fashion. The study should be comprehensive enough to investigate any contamination at all three PRP facilities, as well as provide information to determine whether other possible PRPS exist. Addditional sampling points are proposed on the attached map. These would further clarify the extent and origin of contamination around the Laga Building, Tillett Gardens, and the O1Henry facility, among others. Monitoring wells have been added to provide upgradient reference data. Also, to further define contaminant sources, wells have been inserted between PRP properties and existing production wells where VOC contamination has been reported. The additional suggested wells, in conjunction with data from existing wells, will give a clearer picture of groundwater flow and the extent of contamination. Deeper wells are also necessary at sampling locations to fully define the lateral and vertical extent of groundwater contamination. The, same analvtas fttetroleua and chlorinated volatiles) must fro analysed at all campling points to provide a reliably assessment .pf ^h« nature and extent of yroundwflfcer contamination v 2. Additional data will need to be collected to meet the data quality objectives of the baseline risk assessment to be performed by EPA. It will be most cost effective to collect this data during the current investigation. To assess health-based risks from fugitive dust inhalation and ingestion of surface soils, full TCL data must be provided from surface soil samples collected from any visibly contaminated, unpaved areas as wall as from background locations, if groundwater dischargee to surface water anywhere in the study area, water samples should be analyzed A A77 1 -7 ftPR-11-1991 14:01 FROM TO 12159587S38 from the discharge points. 3. This work plan does not address the site feasibility study. The feasibility study must be performed in aooordance with the Order. SPECIFIC CQXXEHTS 1. Page I, Paragraph 3. The work plan must be amended here and elsewhere to include the investigation of chlorinated hydrocarbons at the site. It would be better just to refer to Volatile organic Compounds (VOCs). 2. Page 1, Paragraph 4. The Geraghty and Miller Sampling Analysis Monitoring Plan (SAMP) has been identified a* a guideline for monitoring of the well water supply in the area of concern. Since the work plan should be a stand- alone document, the SAMP should be incorporated into this work plan. 3. Page 2, Paragraph 2, Reference to Figure 2. The site should be better delineated on the map of existing wells. 4. Page 3, Paragraph 2, Reference to Figure 3. The locations of existing wells need to be superimposed onto this map. 5. Page 4, Paragraph 2. A list of the closed wells should be included in the work plan and these welle should be designated as closed on the naps. 6. Page 4, Previous work. This cootion should reference studies which determined the direction of groundwater flow. A generalized map of groundwater flow direction in the valley and Turpentine Run Baein should be included. 7. Page 4, Paragraph 4. This paragraph should be deleted. 8. Page 3, Paragraph 1. The VIHA-1 well should be referenced once specific comment 14 is incorporated. 9. Page 5, Paragraph 2. Summary maps showing the results of the soil gas surveys at both Texaco and Esso should be included in this section. o:: N,. 10. Page 6, Paragraph 1. The limited number (9) of soil gas ° sampling points should be specified and this paragraph should reference a figure showing survey results. o 11. Page 6, Paragraph 2. Per EPA request, Esso also analyzed for several chlorinated hydrocarbons during its soil gas b survey* Elevated levels of PCE and TCE were detected in H A03718 OPR-11-1991 14:02 FROM TO 121596e753£ soil gas in the northwest and southwest corners of the ESSO service station. 12. Page 7, Paragraph 3, second bullet. Previous site investigations by EPA should be reviewed as well. 13. Page 8, last paragraph, last sentence. See the attached map of additional proposed boring and veil locations. 14. Page 9, Paragraph 1. See comment 1. 15. Page 9, Paragraph 2, second sentence. As stated on page 15, the portable gas chromatograph (GC) should be calibrated to scan for select chlorinated hydrocarbons as well (PCE, TCE, DCE). 16. Page. 9, Paragraph 3. Additional surface soil samples will be necessary to assess risks from fugitive dust inhalation and soil ingestion pathways. See General comment #3. 17. Page 10, Groundwater investigation. Due to the complexity of determining groundwater hydraulics in fractured bedrock such as underlies the Tutu site, all available information on structural geology must be used to locate the monitoring wells along fracture rones wherever possible. Fracture- trace analysis of air photos is a critical first step. Beyond that, core and borehole geophysical information should be obtained from each bedrock well. Geophysical logs such as caliper and sonic logs can provide information about fracture zones in opan holes. Final well locations must be determined, with EPA/DPNR approval, based on all available field information. IS. Page 10, Paragraph 4, Depth of monitoring wells. Local production and private wells where volatile organic contamination has been detected are screened at depths ranging from 100 to greater than 300 feet below the ground surface. At least half of the new monitoring wells should be installed deep enough to monitor the same horizons tapped by the drinking water wells. A thorough inventory of existing well construction data is needed to determine the appropriate elevations for the new veil scr««ns. 19. Page 10, Paragraph 4, line 5. Where organic contamination ie a concern, as at the Tutu cite, current EPA protocol is that monitoring well screens and casing should be constructed of stainless steel, pvc nay react with volatile organic compounds, especially chlorinated solvents. This should be corrected here and throughout the document. 20. Page il. Paragraph 2. See comment 15. Contamination has been detected at depths greater than 100 feet. Deep wells jljT OO6 O7/0 OPR-11-1991 14:03 FROK TO 1215SG57538 P. 06 must bo deep enough to monitor that horizon. 21. Page 11, Paragraph 4. The pumping schedules of any existing walls must be taken into account during the water level measurements and pump test*. DPNR should close any pumping wells prior to and during these events. 22. Page 11, Paragraph 5. It ia not sufficient to take continuous water-level measurements in only one observation well during the pump test. As many observation wells as possible (a minimum of 3) must be continuously monitorad. Furthermore, two pump tests are recommended to more accurately determine aquifer characteristics like hydraulic conductivity and flow boundaries. Disposal of pump test water should be sent to an air stripper and discharged accordingly. 23. Pa?e 12' Paragraph 1, line three, wells should sit a minimum of two weeks following development before sampling. 24. Page 12, Free Product Investigation. The cut off level of three inches is arbitrary. There is no such cut off in 40 CFR 280.65. Moreover, 40 CFR 280.64 states that free product must be removed to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the implementing agency. Zn addition, there is no reason to stop sampling of wells during this time period. 25. Page 13, Paragraph 1, Una 1. This sentence should read "The exact locations of additional monitoring wells to be drilled aa part of the frea product investigation will be selected with EPA/DPNR approval...." 26. Page 14, Paragraph 4, well-scrawi specification-. As noted in comment 16, vail screens should ba stainless steel construction, not schedule 40 PVC. EPA's "compendium of Suparfund Field Operational Methods" notes that "manufacturers do not recommend tha use of threaded schedule 40 PVC well casing because of potential mechanical failure." Also, 0.20-inch alot i« too large. Tha unoonsolidatad sediments in the area contain a high proportion of clay and •ilt sited particlas which would pass through a 0.20-inch slot. Screen size ahould ba determined baaed on local grain sire. 27. Page 16, Paragraph 2. If a aheen is detected in any of tha wells, tha wall must be sampled. 28. Paga 21, Paragraph 1, Line 5. The sentence ahould read ... if frea product occurs in the vicinity of tha former atorage tank location* or elsewhere,,.." A03720 APR-11-1991 14:03 FROrt TO 12159687535 29. Page 22, Paragraph 1, The investigation report must also include interpretation and Siscussion of the results of the field investigation. 30. Page 22, Paragraph 1, line 4. Typo "minimum." 31. Page 22, Paragraph i, line 5. A structure sap of the elevation of the bedrock surface should be prepared based en all available data. However, this reference to a structure map appears to refer to a topographic contour map of the ground surface. 32. Page 22, Paragraph 2. The raw chemical analytical data (Form l sheets) must be submitted in report appendices. Other raw field data such as water level measurements, pump test data, boring logs, etc. should also be included in appendices. 33. Table 1. The work plan proposes a trip blank for each day soil samples ars collected. Current data validation QA/QC protocol requires trip blanks for aqueous samples, but not for soils. 34. Table 2t number 10. Typo. Should be 1,2-Diohloroethene (total). 35. Table 4. Maximum holding times are from validated time of sample receipt (VTSR) by the lab. 1PPEKPIT % 36. Page A-5, Section s.o. Following decontamination, equipment should be wrapped in aluminum foil, shiny side out. 37. Page A-6, Section 7.9. Typo second line - "of*1 should be "or." APPENDIX D 38. Page D-3. Core depth should be recorded inside and outside each core box, and if possible on the core itself. IN 39. Page E-l, Section 2.0. Stainless Steel screen and casing .c should be installed. Screen-slot sice and filter-pack size 2 should be proposed with the right to change them based on actual field conditions. A03721 APR-11-1991 14:04 FROM TO 12155697539 P.08 APPENDIX IP 40. EPA recommends borehole geophysical loggina (oaliper and Bonio) of the bedrock portion of well* to identify fracture rones . 41. Page F-2, Section 1.8. Stainlau steel, not PVC. o 42. Page G-l. It should be noted that well* should sit a minimum of 2 weeks after development prior to purging and eampling. A03722 EXHIBIT 'Df TUT 006 0774 '& MILLER, INC. nvironmenial Services TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: FROM: COMPANY: TELE N0: RE: TO: X COMPANY:, TELE NO: .*.«» /er 4-0 <eves So,-( O^ ~pe^<'s / o *• s 6^ 5o So/ -To ; u : / , So; u; F--. ?v '?" H p & MILLER, INC. Environmental Services TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: FROM: TIME " ? 5 TO. PROJECT 0 / COMPANY:. COMPANY: TELE NO: RE: / u TELE NO: i^ - Al boyj~ t/lo SUJ £> ^o p_ev X ") / I S .f _ ^ y / A 0 8 8 6 3 TUT OO6 O776 G4M Fom, 1 Somhpnn. 89-1013 EXHffilT 'E' TUT OO6 O777 SOIL GAS SURVEY FOUR WINDS SHOPPING CENTER AND ENVIRONS TUTU AREA, ANNA'S RETREAT U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS PREPARED FOR LAW OFFICE OF JOHN K. DEMA, P.C. 1236 STRAND STREET, SUITE 103 CHRISTIANSTED, ST. CROIX, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00820-5008 PREPARED BY TARGET ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC, 9180 RUMSEY ROAD COLUMBIA, MARYLAND 21045 (410) 992-6622 FEBRUARY 1992 TUT OOA 0778 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 7 through 13, 1991, TARGET Environmental Services, Inc. (TARGET) conducted a soil gas survey at Four Winds Shopping Center and Environs/ Tutu Area, Anna's Retreat, U.S. Virgin Islands, where petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons have been detected in water supply wells. The samples were analyzed by GC/FID and GC/ECD for petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons. The highest levels of Total FID Volatiles were present on the Rodriguez Esso and this occurrence apparently extends some distance to the southeast. The highest hydrocarbon levels in the Four Winds Plaza area occurred at Tutu Esso. This occurrence appeared to have migrated northward beyond the pump islands into the shopping center parking lot. The FID chromatogram signatures of the samples with the highest levels of Total FID Volatiles from both Esso stations reveal a complex petroleum hydrocarbon fuel mixture. There was no evidence that contaminants from a reported occurrence on the Texaco property to the northeast have impacted the Four Winds Plaza property. The water supply wells at Four Winds Plaza are within the area of contamination associated with Tutu Esso. The water supply well on the Harthman property nearest location 166, appears to be at greatest risk of being impacted by the occurrence on the Rodriguez Esso. GC/ECD analysis revealed significant concentrations of tetra- chloroethene (PCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (c-l,2-DCE) and tri- chloroethene (TCE) in the northern portion of the Tutu Esso and beneath the Four Winds Plaza parking lot. No significant chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected on the Harthman and Rodriguez Esso properties. i JUT (-}O6 0779 Introduction The Law Office of John K. Dema, representing Four Winds Plaza, contracted TARGET Environmental Services, Inc. (TARGET) to perform a soil gas survey on a portion of the Four Winds Plaza property and on adjacent properties in the Tutu area, Anna's Retreat, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. The purpose of the soil gas survey was to help determine the source (s) of the hydrocarbons in the shopping center's water supply wells and to determine if water supply wells on the adjacent Harthman property were at similar risk. In 1983 and 1987, halogenated and non-halogenated hydrocarbons were discovered in water supply wells in the area. Subsequent soil gas surveys and water samples from the supply wells detected petroleum and halogenated hydrocarbons in the ground water at nearby Esso and Texaco service stations and beneath the shopping center parking lot. As a result, the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources ordered that the supply wells be shut down. Site soils were reported to be permeable stratified sands, gravels and clays up to 20 feet thick over fractured bedrock. The ground water level fluctuates from a rainy season high of about 20 feet to a dry season low of about 90 feet. Regional flow is southward. The field phase of the soil gas survey was conducted on January 7 through 13, 1992. TUT' OO6 O78O Detectability The soil gas survey data presented in this report are the result of precise sampling and measurement of contaminant concen- trations in the vadose zone. Analyte detection at a particular location is representative of vapor, dissolved, and/or liquid phase contamination at that location. The presence of detectable levels of target analytes in the vadose zone is dependent upon several factors, including the presence of vapor-phase hydrocarbons or dissolved or liquid concentrations adequate to facilitate volatil- ization into the unsaturated zone. TUT O06 O781 Terminology In order to prevent misunderstanding of certain terms used in this report, the following clarifications are offered: The term "feature" is used in reference to a discernible pattern in the contoured data. It denotes a contour form rather than a definite or separate chemical occurrence. The term "occurrence" is used to indicate an area where chemical compounds are present in sufficient concentrations to be detected by the analysis of soil vapors. The term is not indica- tive of any specific mode of occurrence (vapor, dissolved, etc.), and does not necessarily indicate or suggest the presence of "free product" or "phase-separated hydrocarbons." The term "anomaly" refers to an area where hydrocarbons were measured in excess of what would normally be considered "natural" or "background" levels. The term "analyte" refers to any of the hydrocarbons standard- ized for quantification in the chromatographic analysis. The term "vadose zone" represents the unsaturated zone between the ground water table and the ground surface. The term "indicates" is used when evidence dictates a unique conclusion. The term "suggests" is used when several explanations of certain evidence are possible, but one in particular seems more likely. As a result, "indicates" carries a higher degree of confidence in a conclusion than does "suggests." The terms "elevated" and "significant" are used to describe concentrations of analytes which indicate the existence of a potential problem in the soil or ground water. TUT OO6 O782 The terms "low", "moderate" and "high", when applied to Total FID Volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, are relative and subjective terms based on TARGET'S analysis of thousands of soil gas samples from hundreds of sites. Because site conditions and sampling techniques vary, specific action levels cannot be set for soil gas. Decisions regarding the necessity for further actions should be based upon comparisons of samples of soil or ground water with the regulatory action levels set for these media. TUT 006 0783 Field Procedures Soil gas samples were collected at a total of 169 locations at the site, as shown in Figure 1A and IB. Three proposed samples (Sample 24 from near the southeast corner of Western Auto, Sample 47 from southeast of the car wash, and Sample 168 from south of Gasset Auto) could not be collected due to the presence of very shallow ground water. Several samples were collected shallower than the proposed 4 feet due to probe refusal (see Table 1) . Sample 172 was collected from a monitoring well located between the building on the Tutu Esso and the adjacent car wash. To collect the samples a 1/2 inch hole was produced to a depth of approximately 4 feet by using a drive rod. Where pavement or concrete was present, a rotary hammer was employed for penetration prior to using the drive rod. The entire sampling system was purged with ambient air drawn through an organic vapor filter cartridge, and a stainless steel probe was inserted to the full depth of the hole and sealed off from the atmosphere. A sample of in-situ soil gas was then withdrawn through the probe and used to purge atmospheric air from the sampling system. A second sample of soil gas was withdrawn through the probe and encapsulated in a pre-evacuated glass vial at two atmospheres of pressure (15 psig). The self-sealing vial was detached from the sampling system, packaged, labeled, and stored for laboratory analysis. Prior to the day's field activities all sampling equipment, slide hammer rods and probes were decontaminated by washing with soapy water and rinsing thoroughly. Internal surfaces were flushed OO& O784 dry using pre-purified nitrogen or filtered ambient air, and external surfaces were wiped clean using clean paper towels. Field control samples were collected at the beginning and end of each day's field activities and after every twentieth soil gas sample. These QA/QC samples were obtained by filtering ambient air through a dust and organic vapor filter cartridge and collecting in the same manner as described above. The volatile petroleum hydrocarbons reported in Field Control Samples 210 and 213 are the result of carryover in the sampling equipment following the collection of Samples 106 and 146, respectively, which contained high levels of volatile hydrocarbons. The very low levels of volatile hydrocarbons reported in Field Control Samples 214, 215 and 216 are most likely the result of minor carryover, but the levels are insufficient to have influenced the survey results. A very low level of tetrachloroethene (PCE) was present in Field Control Sample 202. This sample was collected following Sample 20, which contained a moderate amount of PCE. Field Control Sample 202 was the last blank of the day and the blank collected as the first sample the next morning did not contain detectable levels of PCE. TUT OO6 O78b Laboratory Procedures All of the samples collected during the field phase of the survey were subjected to dual analyses. One analysis was conducted according to EPA Method 601 (modified) on a gas chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector (ECD), but using direct injection instead of purge and trap. Specific analytes standardized for this analysis were: 1,1-dichloroethene (11DCE) methylene chloride (CH2C12) trans-1,2-dichloroethene (t!2DCE) 1,1-dichloroethane (11DCA) cis-1,2-dichloroethene (c!2DCE) chloroform (CHC13) 1.1.1-trichloroethane (111TCA) carbon tetrachloride (CC14) trichloroethene (TCE) 1.1.2-trichloroethane (112TCA) tetrachloroethene (PCE) The chlorinated hydrocarbons in this suite were chosen because of their common usage in industrial solvents, and/or their degrada- tional relationship to commonly used compounds. The second analysis was conducted according to EPA Method 602 (modified) on a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID), but using direct injection instead of purge and trap. The analytes selected for standardization in this analysis were: methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) benzene toluene ethylbenzene meta- and para- xylene ortho-xylene These compounds were chosen because of their utility in evaluating the presence of fuel products, or petroleum based solvents. TUT OO6 0786 The analytical equipment was calibrated using an instrument- response curve and injection of known concentrations of the above standards. Retention times of the standards were used to identify the peaks in the chromatograms of the field samples and their response factors were used to calculate the analyte concentrations. The Total FID Volatiles values were generated by summing the areas of all chromatogram peaks and calculated using the instrument response factor for toluene. Injection peaks, which also contain the light hydrocarbon methane, were excluded to avoid the skewing of the Total FID Volatiles values due to injection disturbances and biogenic methane. For samples with low hydrocarbon concentrations, the calculated Total FID Volatiles concentration is occasionally lower than the sum of the individual analytes. This is because the response factor used for the Total FID Volatiles calculation is a constant, whereas the individual analyte response factors vary with concentration. It is important to understand that the Total FID Volatiles levels reported are relative, not absolute, values. The tabulated results of the laboratory analyses of the soil gas samples are reported in micrograms per liter (^ig/1) in Tables 2 and 3. Although "micrograms per liter" is equivalent to "parts per billion (v/v)" in water analyses, they are not equivalent in gas analyses, due to the difference in the mass of equal volumes of water and gas matrices. Because pentane and MTBE co-elute, they are listed together in the table. The xylenes concentrations reported in Table 2 are the sum of the m- and p-xylene and o-xylene concentrations for each sample. TUT 006 0787 For QA/QC purposes, a duplicate analysis was performed on every tenth field sample. Laboratory blanks of nitrogen gas (99.999%) were also analyzed after every tenth field sample. TUT CO6 O78S Discussion and Interpretation of Results In order to provide graphic presentation of the results, selected individual data sets in Tables 2 and 3 have been mapped and contoured to produce Figures 2 through 12. The contour lines show areas where concentrations are of similar magnitude. The limits of the soil gas survey do not necessarily outline the exact edges of a potential ground water or soil plume which acts as a source of the vapors. However, areas of highest concentration and relative highs and lows are clearly exhibited in the soil gas data and the data will reflect conditions in the subsurface at each sample point. Dashed contours are used where patterns are extra- polated into areas of less complete data, or as auxiliary contours. Map sample points with no data shown indicate that the analyte concentrations in the sample were below the detection limit. The survey area was divided into two parts: the first part is the area including and surrounding the parking lot of the Four Winds Plaza and Tutu Esso. The second part includes the Harthman Property, Rodriguez Esso and vicinity. Four Winds Plaza and Tutu Esso Area Observations The highest levels of Total FID Volatiles from the Tutu Esso and adjacent areas (Figure 2) occurred between the building and the tank area on the Esso site (Stations 105 and 106). Significantly elevated levels are also present north of the pump islands (Stations 95 and 97) . Low levels extend northward into the Four Winds Plaza parking lot and are present south of the car wash. 10 TUT 006 O789 Isolated very low levels typical of background concentrations were evident at a few other scattered locations. Map patterns for MTBE/pentane (Figure 3) are similar to, but less extensive than, those of Total FID Volatiles. Benzene (Figure 4) was detected only on the Esso site. The toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes occurrences, as exemplified by the xylenes map (Figure 5), are similar. These analytes are at their highest concentrations in Sample 105, and the occurrences extend northward beyond the pump islands. The FID chromatogram signatures of the samples from the TuTu Esso reveal a complex petroleum hydrocarbon fuel mixture, as exemplified by Chromatogram 1, Sample 105. Isolated peaks representing the FID response to chlorinated compounds are present in the signatures of several samples from the parking lot, shown by Chromatogram 2, Sample 18. i - , CHROMATOGRAM 1. GC/FID SIGNATURE OF SAMPLE 105 CHROMATOGRAM 2. GC/FID SIGNATURE OF SAMPLE 18 The xylenes are less volatile and less soluble than the other analytes, adsorb more readily to the soil particles, and tend to remain nearer to the source. As a result, the xylenes are usually 11 TUT 006 0790 good indicators of source locations. The xylene map patterns suggest that the hydrocarbons entered the subsurface near the center of the Esso site. The occurrence south of the car wash (Stations 51-53) may have originally been continuous with the occurrence on the Esso station. Soil venting during excavation activities which took place when the car wash was built is probably responsible for the absence of volatile hydrocarbons in samples at and immediately south of the car wash. GC/ECD analysis of the samples from the Tutu Esso/Four Winds Plaza area revealed tetrachloroethene (PCE, Figure 6) to be the most widespread halogen. The highest level was present near the northern boundary of the Tutu Esso (Station 35) and comparable levels extend northward into the parking lot. Lower levels were present throughout most of the remainder of the surveyed area. Slight increases in concentration were observed northwest of the paint store (Station 61) and in the northern portion of the parking lot (Station 10). Elevated levels of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (c-l,2-DCE, Figure 7) and trichloroethene (TCE, Figure 8) were present in the same area with the highest levels of PCE. TCE was highest north of the pump islands on the Esso site (Station 97), but its overall extent was much more limited than the PCE. Relatively low levels of trans-1,2-dichloroethene (t-l,2-DCE) were present in the northern portion of the Esso site and in a small area of the parking lot to the north. An isolated low level of 1,1-dichloro- ethene (1,1-DCE, not mapped) was present in one sample north of the pump islands and very low levels of 1,1, 1-trichloroethane (1,1,1- 12 TUT O06 0791 TCA, not mapped) were present in a few samples adjacent to the building on the Esso site. Conclusions Map patterns and chromatographic data indicate that petroleum hydrocarbons have entered the subsurface at the Tutu Esso and have subsequently migrated northward beyond the pump islands. Xylene map patterns suggest that the source for the occurrence is clearly associated with the Esso facility. There is no evidence that contaminants from a reported release on the Texaco property northeast of the Four Winds Plaza have impacted the survey area. GC/ECD analysis indicates that significant concentrations of PCE, c-l,2-DCE and TCE and lesser occurrences of t-l,2-DCE, 1,1,1- TCA and 1,1-DCE are present in the northern portion of the Tutu Esso and beneath the Four Winds Plaza parking lot. The PCE occurrence extends throughout most of the survey area, while c-l,2-DCE and TCE were detectable only on the northern portion of the Tutu Esso and beneath the adjacent Four Winds Plaza parking lot. The DCE and TCA were likely minor components of original PCE or TCE solvent mixtures or they may be breakdown products formed when the original compound(s) underwent chemical transformation in the subsurface. While no specific source point is evident, the contour patterns do not support a source outside the immediate area of occurrence. 13 TUT OO6 O792 EXHIBIT 'F TUT 006 079: o o co n^. f-'-i, 'r*l!*.*4<*A JIIT OO6 O794 I •^\ V xs/ x_. f ^ •oV v. JN. r^ oo CE UJ CO CO LJ LJ Z o ~~~ ° 1 z ^ 5I?I s E £?i|| .H^y S — ^--5 /'/I in *" ^ " *" /' r ,,, -a ^ 3 3 — a*/ f " 5 - y' / I Jr = ;- - A s " -— •; 3 f 2 ° W Z = 5 / a M H! i§/ IM °jT S - > * vf^ o ? /^ </> ? h •*' ' Ml «rt A ^ _° ^ tf L^* 5 * <<7J It JO CT> ^ - - - «•> CNI ~ O JO J nj C/5 -o ~3 O C/l 0 <3J O 0 V c re O "3 o ——— r^^r.coa,o_~2Z-~-228™SK5E£KS£S^SSSESP;SS!i ~~~^^«2::":2:£::^s£?3£8£S£?isE£8§^S5SSSs£sK£s;s;£ CNI f-«* CNI p-» CNI t^. CNI r*» CNI r-» CN» f"** CNI p«- CNI r*. CNI r-«- o-j P"» CNI r»- CNI r**. CNt P-» CNI P*» CNI r»- CNI p^> CNI r^ CNI r^ CNI r-^. cvj p^ CNI 2S52S55S5;5S5SSS5SS5§2522252S35SS2Srt5S55S S^"^"S"-"5""»o"^™2"SS~"S"2™2""""5S"^~2"SS • — • —— ^^ -« •"" ^— CNI CNJ fNI CNI CNI CNI CNI PO <"O PO PO PO CO CO ^ ^ ^ ^ ^- ^ i/^ lO Ift un tO *O Irt CD oS^°2SSSS°^°So^°SS"5o°^°S«^°^°^SS§^°SS^SS poooroooroooPOoopoaorooopooopocDPooornoopooorocarncoPOoorooopooopoooPOcOPOC^cnooro — -• — • — • • — • • — • — •— « CNJ CNI CNJ CNI CNI CNI po ro ro ^o PO ro PO ^ ^T ^y ^ ^ ^ ^- \j~i tn 1/1 1/"> i^ 1/1 co CNJ r*~, (Nj ^^. cs* r-~ CNI P^. CNI rv. CNJ r^ CNI r-- CNJ r^. CNI r>* CNJ r^. OJ ^* CNJ r^. CNJ r«« CNI r*. CNI ^* CNI r^. CNI r^. CNI r**. CNI r-«- CNI r-^. fsj §235SSSSSS5SSS5S3SSS|2SS§SSS553S5S5S|5SS| o_cv,^^^a>r^ooo>S-^ = s^^^»mo-cv!mSjnjor;.cog;o-p;jo;»Lo.or;.ooo;o TUT GOA 0795 . ———V-H^ ----- fcr^r— TUT 006 0796 j __22__i.:.... .'T : . _._._ :JL———- —- - -X- -T v --Sr=4-^——^f '•" $^"^—7Z±J ! ^ ^-^—q/—^r~^ TUT OO6 O798 &asj TUT 006 0799 TUT OO6 O8OO r ^ - 9 - - - - ^ C ^ ...i^r (i - -i: A._i2s w^_. -V -c>i5*L _i_£_ £l£5-^ ^ v^' ^j~3 r ~T w^^zS V———•*———-^-——r t - Si*^.»J T-^^^VT |^ TUT 006 0801 :»—-•- — - TUT 006 0802 &SjL*L^<zz ~rHJ~? ?^J^ TUT OO6 O8O3 :r::: --..»• ^u ^i^^^4^-^4: V 57^ ^ V v>Si -4, _g Oj %/ ^ i__^^ ' Or-—_"»——•— •i'^e^^SC^'V ^V ^i)—T ~ ~'~-e . - ...... . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . ^ ... _ ..._,,.._...___ . a —'- - ^—------ .- K :fcr:—^ -• -j:\:. ^fc... ^t^^Ste-?^ TUT 006 0806 EXHIBIT 'G' TUT 006 0807 TUT 006 0808 Y1 to tu cT W £ IL> Q H -^ J: *- -J ^- o H X VIa 0 T v o ^ _ 3 _S n ^ o -o oo-j; " o CJ cc UJ c/l .C S O T3 UJ x**l t I- 0^*- = a> x -^ CL v vi S a<= s- .u" g = .c >» t: <u UJ UJ «/> •> _..2=« "» — ^'S Q ut £ » s^-- -.y « ^ S£°2 V a r - s » s 55 jo jnj O^csjrr>*ru^cor-»coo^o~-rvim*Ti/}cor^coCT>O-— rsjm'^'cncor-'OOCT>^^-fsim^ijnijor-^ooo^^ Jrn ir^c^jr^e^ i — «Nj^-uSr*-^obo«— 'r i - i ' ' CD — •* CD ^— CO •— • CD •"-• CD ~~ CD r~~ lO — • CD ^^ CD •"-• CD — ' CO «~* CD —— **G — CD ^^ CD — « CO "— CD ^— CD ^- CD ^— CO •— CO Csirnu^cbobo^---rsj^Tu^r^ooo-«i^^TCDp^oSo*^cnir>cbooo^-^<N(^Lrir^o6o-- • ro^rcor— -o^ - - ' i ' do^--Csi^ '*>^r^^^-^^^-ir>toiriu^Lr»i/iu^co j TUT 006 0809 IT -tr! 'nrf'ft tnr tu> tbi <=r ! ) <^ c. ^/ A < = _j< r «* --, 5< i ) ! i ) -s I L C ~ \ T K. t \ U »- ;• t u a I i -! ; i ! f J 1 t *) J -U - ?Ji 1 "^ * <t !i _T7 } / — , I ) — } ' ) 3 . f '( C —• •^ *-< 3 — ~- /? I ! C r ? 5 . >j •? J "x: >• ^ " ^ -/•/* S-" r^ i r i c «c <5 * -^ C5 V -> t ~ -r ( • -T: ^ /r: X >1 * f r y -< • - %^_ ^— *s- i 1 r^ f c ) JO V, ^5 K <L i- < C? ^ «3 ( i» - •^ i -^ -« 4 ) -z> i t~*t t •> i ^ ! —— , f. J -T ^** ^L* \ '\ =*• ^ '1 4 :[ -V ^J t ]' r\ - f-« p : £ 7 i ii ^j ? * - i A ., -f' c J -- 1 J- •« s- ^ s: r_* 1 ^ •r* •e U s. >^ vs J r * ilC ^» - 41 ^~ *£ •3. ^ 1 x U j^ y "~ ^ i i-i ^ *^^ u «= ^ ^( -4. > i-- ^ 7 d '•c J ) 7 D TJ s s 3> 7 — V 2 J - f! n C !-| -^ { <. \ ~ •*-*• ^~ cr r** - ± 3 c - " r \ — k< ! ; * :3 Dr - LJ " / 4>\ i i i i i i ) i - 1 -^ - - • •• " _^^ — — ——— (3 —— H . —— ^ y 1 ; : -f----^—• - ? --- --TT -CL &> -if-//)-^^ -.-43?=in-:t::- TUT 006 0811. TUT OO6 OS12 jp^-'-... —J__^- - — -__— •-•iO-.*--3——- V -—'9 •i,/ r _t_c rm 3 r 1 .d 4 ^' 3« J J0 O fi TUT OO6 OS13 TUT OO6 O814 EXHIBIT 'H' Tl ,T 006 0815 I £ !-* 0" s—•:«•I r v ICTIONINO lopot 1V4 to 1. der "Cut or Fill" nci out from the 11 undir "Cot or dlltintl oot from OSS-SI SIdo Slo iti 7 tinde hi dilUnc pposltl 11 '. '"• dll *%, oti thi d oppo '* '. STAKIS Roadway of In tni fiiuri ind under .1 (idi ttiki it """ •"* """ !"• «Mi 'I*1 ROM STANC MIJ IIIJ . >csiroir)^o<t)O><«cNJWuSr^adc><«tTS^(O^<Tio ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^ - 1 f<cKc3CNJ<nuSwodai*«<NJ9ir>i^ rsi<N4rororocnc^rnrr)^>^>^r'«'^-^>ir)iAU^u^4r)iriui)«o op en op en op <n op «n op en op «n op m op m op m op « op <:»> op«n op en op <n op <n op m op «n op <n op ro op t, j i** «>j r*. esi r*. ca r*. «sj i** cj r*» r«j r*> rsi f*. ry ^'^ jc\if^(eNirsiCNi<sicsicsjc^«r>rn<*)(nro<*>»n«n«n«»>'r TUT O06 OEJ17 i Us ^ --[•• r ± Mh^ ^ ^ ^*. '-r ; { ' ' """ ' "^ V 5 1 : ; - } -f ^ ' ( '^ "^ \/ "^ -^ ^ "^^ i *1 -v —— ^ —————— ^ ——— .-_ —————— V-H ———— j —— . —————— Jt^ —— rpr ————— ^5 ——— ————————————————————— 3^ — ^ ——————— ——— — J____! T*- r- f >>" V !: * J | -^r ^ > ^ i . -?• ]ii J ^*- / \>. ^ A A X J ^Jr .? : , ' > u ^ i __£} : -&l i 1 i T- O I • ' i TUT 006 0821 as f^- -i-iu- \ j <r:fcn \f -- -- ^^ ^__ .L._r j-^i ^—•.. ... .:._ v (5° i " • -A ( 7-1——^r->——rr--^- ^—- _j— f\ r j -— _i_._.__. _XZ5ttZL.i.!_._.._ 1^± Z4ET A zjt ^rr -^-J^ -j— rn -' ^L^-^^v-^S— ,tt -d——-r i i J ? : ^ l y : si ' =^~ -A-4 Zfe v ^ ^ —— i —— ^ — ^. c*^, ^ ^ : .^ T <S ^ ' f ! V . 1 "^ *"' nt: i ; ! - i i '• ^j —————— I ——————— = ————————————————— i { : ^ 'V \ < • ~> *' ^ i ! a > 4 , • r ! . IN. ^ -. \ - r e ^ 3 A T^T 'ii ^ ei - ;^: - ^.r: tr C J_ v-?t ^ ^ xn 2 ' . ~ ' ^ j£ ,.. . ".^^ ^ i i ^- 7 <S~x "^ ^ ^> ^>X VJ ' : .jv \ r- r^ . : f* •~^^ . i i : ; ! i ; : VJ i i . ~ ^ ; i : ; i I ' • ! : ^i '^ ^ | -. -| (N, ( ^^_ i "»* : — * _ —1i i o CO M .-M -..i - 1 ' i i ! I ! ' I . I I I I I ' I I I - I ' •' IT? EXHIBIT 'I JI..I | OO6 O824 t- ( (C C *»«>($) DISTANCES FROM ./ AilrcefrSx^^ i- * A / The paper in this book has been treated by an exclusive chemical waterproofing process. Wet or dry, even the hardest pencil will produce a clean, sharp mark. KEUFFEL & ESSER CO. UJ NJ TUT O06 0827 %^ - * J eo ; ' I ^ ** &..A. . _: *• \»: _ ' i l TUT OO6 0828 ^*=K^& ^ iv, $%r\ ML *O>- f I TUT 006 0829 , 006 0830 "(*> T7/^ '/ ('(>f &•$,- i j ::: mm ,v 3 ?° M ^M^f% KiMiil <t • . »-. : TUT OO6 O834 TUT OO6 O835 iliL-kL J i i VA i i i TUT 006 0836 F37~®^rp _ / —^-——--^rv Q L___._^J^ ^ -\——5Sc-^ ^..^^o—i&sr— -——- -•0,--- ^ >v —- -—r; 2L %J ^ ^^? r^L. H S *i 4 '^a ! V^ ™*^ 3i J:^ ^ M: ^ t *tl d • ^ .7 ) cy Jl V r1 >U Q ^; ^ *S^ I »• « i j: ^>- 3&. -\ ^~~ HI gg, 3 c£^- j ^ 1 ^ ^ jl ;l! J Q \O:-^ " .^ -i 4 :1 •^ , 3 : •^ ^ . . ; ; • : i ! -J- _____ _._ SC ' . • : Y • : : VX-N TUT 00t> 0838 TUT O06 0840 ' ; ' i i -i V 4 . r i i i i 1 7t < — ^-^ 1 t r /n — - i ...-^ ; : 1 ] < j ) 1 ! ; '; II y 7 > .; j, i : i t >- ~t 9 / i ^ If •> '/ >• -^ iv • i r^ _«*• ^-x <r ^ ^ i i l /' > X •7 t / ^ ?- 1 i *** 1 ^ }? v> i ' / 7 n i i i > r V IS F/ £ \ : ! / ^ >-y ^ y <_ --^/ i ; / j ^ i ^ Jr >-> /•t •f \ / y i / D ^ "3 •U / j P ^ ! : J TSl \^i - — i ''i ) K/ b r 1 ^ / ^ V jj V ^ i y <- ,> ^ / 'P 7- 7 / * < - ^ 5? <. , U , / •~ - \ - ' ^t ~>1 r\\ &c ^ 14 c/ i / ill rK ^ ^c — n\ L V > "^ V '. I 1 \ . J • ' 1 1 ! - _ /i'*7 *~>Y *P^\ ^ ?3 ^ H ^ <-» - ^ c:7 J !?r7^ ^ry|^ / /— k_ - — rt ' r X ^T / / / : i i - -- ^^^ (3 ^ ; s ) J?»--£ v' T i n i - <^ "?: I1 ? n" ^ |j ?r/^ < F — ^ / > ^ 1 6 / 'H /!7 ^ fTTsa • TUT OO6 0842 07"- - ; J in i - ( gis } f^f '( 7£ ^ - 9 V x— r- 0 ~ ^ Z v ^ < ^~ -^ ^ ^ -" 7" Y ^ <I ^" ^ ^< jr ^ ri '*i / \ f •*-s ll 9 5 p ^ 7 y y> 1( •y •*. TT 5 ^^ I *1 ' -3" 1 > ( ^* *». J. r? 'f i '1 \i -* c - - ; / ^ ?L $ jj 0 C ^ -._ / 7 - ? -- — _ -- ^ 'i 71 -03 .<-- ——-^H^-V\- I ^^j^ ! Cv !\ ! ^2 $ *1 ^-^ • Itn ! i I I TUT ; i 006 ( EXHIBIT 'J' TUT 006 0848 CD 'his booK is published on a line 50% cotton-content ledger paper, "•J, pecially treated lor maximum archival service, and protected by a " water resistant surface sizing DT-0659 Publishing Co., Inc. Meredith, N.H. 03253 •«•••• N PI Projects (continued) t. ' O OT 1020 t II b, H nn^ *L 1'* [^JaJtjLA- / ?'6f p- j -!h £980 9OO -7* vy /; v < > '9 'v v-v7 sv no? I _ w t o^(f ) VVi i \^ \ •> \i N> •s..^ •?* r ° " Ji ^Vr-xi —8 TUT EXHIBIT 'Kf TUT 006 0856 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FILE COPY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN )•'. I . D . , INC. , Plaintiff, ) CIVIL NO. 89/220 vs . TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD || OILS, S.A., LTD, DANIEL BAYARD, Defendants. FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP, j Plaintiff, ! TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARRIBBEAN, INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, Defendants. DEPOSITION OF: LISA BONANNO 1JATE: March 18, 1991 ) CIVIL NO. 89/224 JULEE NORMAN, C.S.R. Reported by: RITA SHEPARD, C.S.R P.O. Box 9968 St. Thomas, USVI O0801 TUT OO6 O857 FOU1- ,/INDS v TEXACO et al LIS 3ONANNO • ' P R O C E E D I N G S [3] LISA BONANNO, • a witness, having been first duly sworn, was • examined and testified as follows: [6] DIRECT EXAMINATION [7] BY MR. COLE: [8] Q: Ms. Bonanno, for the record could you please • give your full name and your residence address? [10J A: My name a Lisa Marie Bonanno Bertrand, • B-E-R-T-R-A-N-D. I live at 2C-A and 2C-B Estate • Bakkeroe in St. Thomas. [13] Q: And what is your date of birth? [14] A: It is 4/8/61. [15] Q: How long have you been a resident of St. • Thomas? [17] A: For two years. Well, I moved down • permanently August of'89, but I've been basically • traveling back and forth for four or five years. [20] Q: Where was your residence prior to August of • 89? [22] A: 311 Roseland Avenue Essex Fells, New Jersey. [23] Q: Essex?________________ [1] A: Fells. E-S-S-E-X, and then F-E-L-L-S. [2] Q: What is your educational background, Ms. • Bonanno? [4] A: I got a bachelor's degree at Syracuse • University with a concentrate in French at the Sorbonne • and I got a master's at Harvard. [7] Q: What year did you obtain your degree from • Syracuse? [9] A: I graduated in '83. [10] Q: What was your major? [11] A: It was in education. [12] Q: And you say you studied at the Sorbonne? [13] A: Yes, I did. [14] Q: For how long? [15] A: For one year. [16] Q: And obtained a degree? [17] A: A concentration in French. [18] Q: And when was that9 [19| A: In 1982. |201 Q: So you spent one year of your undergraduate • career overseas then? [22] A: Exactly. [23| Q: And then a master's degree from Harvard? [I] A: Yes. [21 Q: When did you obtain that degree? [3] A: I graduated in '84. [4] Q: What sort of degree? [5j A: In reading and language for education. [6] Q: What did you do after you graduated from • Harvard? [8] A: I taught in New Jersey in North Bergen, New • Jersey. [10] Q: For what school? [II] A: It was school Horns Man, was the name of • school. [13] Q: Was that a private school? [14] A: No, it wasn't, it was a public school. [15] Q: What did you teach? [16] A: Taught first grade and helped in teaching • other teachers a reading and writing program that I • developed at Harvard. [19] Q: And that was starting in 1985? How long did • you do that? [21] A: I only taught for one year. [22] Q: Until 1986? [23] A: That's correct. [I] Q: Do you recall what month? [2] A: The end of the first school year, so June. [3] Q: What did you do after that? [4] A: I worked for Gardner Road Construction • Company. [6] Q: Gardner Road9 [7] A: Gardner Road Construction Company. [8] Q: How do you spell that? [9] A: G-A-R-D-N-E-R, and then road, R-O-A-D, • Construction Company. [II] Q: In what capacity? [12] A: I was the assistant to my father. cc My older • sister left for a year, E- supposedly for a year, and 1 • was cc filling in her position. i [15] Q: What position did your father * have in that • company? [17] A: He was the owner of the company. [18] Q: What kind of business was it in? [19] A: Constructing multi-tenant buildings and • residential units. [21] Q: What were your duties within the company? [22] A: My duties were basically to coordinate the • different departments and make sure that everyone was doing what they are supposed to do, and bring the • information back to my Page 5 to Page 9 r FOUL /INDSv TEXACO etal LIS iONANNO cc en •-0 [19] Q: Are there any other shareholders? [20] A: No, there is not. [21] Q: It's a corporation? [22] A: It's a corporation. [23] Q: The permits for construction are all under Spash and Dash's corporate status? [2] A: No, the permits for construction are under • Four Winds Plaza because Four Winds Plaza was building • the car wash and submitted the application for the • permit. [6] Q: And you somehow took assignment of those? [7] A: That's correct. [8] Q: From what I understood, you have financing • for your building, the building; is that correct? [10] A: Yes, that's correct, Four Winds Plaza has • nothing to do with it as of now. [12] Q: And ground broke in February? [13] A: Twenty-fifth. [14] Q: And you started telling us this morning a • little bit about a problem that you encountered. [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: When did you first learn of that problem? [18] A: I don't know the exact date. It may have • been on the 25th. Actually it was on the 25th. George • Mosa came to my office and said I think you should come • and see what is going on. I went there. [22] Q: Who is George Mosa? [23] A: He's my construction manager, he's in charge ofit. [2] Q: Does he work for anyone other than himself? [3] A: He works for himself. [4] Q: Mosa? [5] A: M-O-S-A [6] Q: Now, I take it your office for the video • store is located right in Four Winds Pla/.a9 [8] A: That's correct. [9] Q: And he knew to come to your office there? [10] A: That's correct. [11] Q: Describe to me what happened when he came to • your office? [13] A: He said I think you better come and take a • look, and I had just been there about 15 minutes before • that when they started digging, and so I was surprised. • And we came out of my office, and on the way walking • there he said that they were digging the cistern wall, • there was seepage of some substance coming out of the • wall, and I asked him what he thought the substance was • and he said that it was oil. He called it dirty oil, • that was his words, burnt oil, dirty burnt oil he said. [22] Q: Referring to Exhibit 1, can you mark an X • with Mr. Dema's pen where you're referring to when you say you were digging for the cistern wall? Where is • the wall located? [3] A: That would be where the cistern is in the • dark, the black pen. This is the wall of the Esso and • this is the wall of the car wash and this is the • cistern. This is where the oil was leaking out of, and • it was leaking out of the wall, it was seeping out the • wall and going down into the pit of the bottom of the • cistern. [10] Q: At that point when you walked over with Mr. • Mosa, how deep was the pit? [12] A: Excuse me, to clarify for the the record -- • I'm sorry, it's here. I apologize. • [15] MR. DEMA: Okay, we've changed the • diagram to reflect that you've marked on the blue block • No. 2; correct. [18] THE WITNESS: That's correct, and it's • correct now. [20] Q: How deep was the pit when you walked over • there with Mr. Mosa. [22] A: I don't know exactly how deep it was at the • time when we discovered it, and I don't know exactly how deep it is right now, but we could ask George Mosa. [2] Q: No estimation? [3] A: Seven feet. [4] Q: And where on this seven-feet drop were you • seeing something you perceived as oil? [6] A: If you cut the wall of the cistern, the • cistern wall is 28 feet long. If you cut it in half it • would be on the half closer to the street as opposed to • Four Winds Plaza. [10] Q: Over an entire plan ofit, 14 feet of Page 161 to Page 165 FOU1 .INDSv TEXACO et al LI! JONANNO 0- it? [11] A: Yes. [12] Q: Can you describe for me what the dirty burnt • oil looked like? [14] A: Yes, it was dark, and it was thick, and it • smelled, and it was seeping out, of the wall. It • started seeping out not high, it was lower, deeper, I • should say, and it was seeping out, and -- at first it • didn't seem like a problem at all. It just looked like • it was -- it was late in the afternoon when they • finished the pit, and it didn't seem like much of a • problem. George Mosa said what do we do, and I said we • build a car wash. So he put plywood up, just leaned it • up against the wall just so. [1] Q: So what? [2] A: Just to see if it would contain it. [3] Q: This is Mr. Mosa's idea? [4] A: Yes, it wasn't my idea because actually I • didn't know it until the next morning when I came. [6] Q: Let me stop you. I still want to stick with • you that first night. On the dig that was made, and • where you put the plywood up to see what happened in • the morning -- [10] A: That is not true. He put the plywood up • after. He showed it to me and he said do you think • that this is a problem, what should we do. I said I • did not feel it was a problem because it was a known • fact that there were some problems from Esso and that • everyone knew about it. I almost anticipated that, you • know, I would see some kind of something because that • is what everyone has been talking about, and I at the • time at all I didn't think anything of it. I said -- • we didn't really discuss whether to stop or continue. • He just wanted to bring it to my attention, and 1 said • I was aware of it, that there was problems in that • area. [231 Q: When you think back, was this all done the very first, day you started construction? L2j A: Yes, the first clay at seven o'clock. [3] Q: At that point did you notify anyone else • about the problem or the potential problem? [5] A: No, because I didn't think it was a problem • on that day. That night it apparently rained, and the • next morning at 7:30 in the morning when I reached • there, I got there exactly at 7:30 and the guys must • have come on the job earlier. We start at 7:30, and • one of my employees was taking a plastic cup, filling • it up, skimming the oil off the bottom of the cistern. • There was a little bit of water because, as I said, it • rained, skimming off the oil and pouring it into a five • gallon jug. I was surprised and I said what is this • guy doing. I thought it was a joke, and George Mosa • told me. [17] Q: Let me stop you for a minute. How much of • this alleged oil did your friend or employee scoop up • that morning? [20] A: The best thing to do would be to speak • directly with George Mosa. It was several five gallon [23]Q: Several? barrels. [1] A: That is what I was told, but I didn't see • that with my own eyes. [3J Q: You then went, around to where7 [4J A: To Esso. [5] Q: Who at Esso7 [6] A: I spoke with the new manager. His first name • is Don. I don't remember his last name, but, 1 do have • a card probably in my office. [9] Q: What did you tell him? [10J A: I told him please come and look at what I was • seeing, and I told him that there could be a serious • problem here. I said is this what is existing or do • you have a leak right now and he said that we have -- I • said do you have any oil pits along this wall, and he • said yes. And I said are they used. He said they are • back there. I said you need to get them pumped out, • and you have to get them pumped out today, I don't want • anything to stop my car wash. He said they'll be • pumped out today. I went to George and I assumed that • they would be pumped out. The next day I came -- [21] Q: We were talking about the 26th if • construction was the 25th? [23] A: Right._________________ [1] Q: Now you're talking about the 27th? [2] A: Right. [3] Q: What happened on the 27th? [4] A: I don't have an exact recollection of what • happened every single day, but I do know that when it • rained it was Page 165 to Page 169 FOUL LNDS v TEXACO et al LIS. ,ONANNO o- 03cr- v-* more apparent. When it didn't rain it • was only a little bit to scoop off. We were getting • ready for my inspection for the slab of the cistern, • and every - like every time -- George would come back • and forth to my office, and I would go back and forth • to the construction site, and every time I spoke with • him I asked him if Esso came and pumped out the tanks, • and he would inform me of the status. [14J Q: Were they pumping out the tanks? [15] A: No, they did not. [16] Q: So I went back to Don and I told him you • don't understand the seriousness of this. I said that • I have an inspector coming out to inspect my • construction for the slab, and I need to pour the next • day, and if he noticed, there may be or may not be a • problem. Because at that point I thought maybe it • wasn't the normal problem that everyone was talking • about, that there was still oil there and it was leaking out. He said it would be taken care of, and so • I said great, and then the inspector came and didn't • say anything, you know, so we assumed that, you know, • there was nothing wrong and everything was fine and we • continued. [6] Q: This was the Virgin Islands construction • inspector? [8] A: This is Planning and Natural Resources • inspector. His name is Mr. Peters. [10] MR. ROMERO: Are we on the 27th? [11] THE WITNESS: I don't know the exact • date. I'm sure he has a record of when he came. [13] BY MR. MEYERS: 114| Q: This is Mr. Peters of DPNR that was • inspecting the slab for the cistern7 [16] A: That's right. And he inspected it, he • approved it, we poured and we started framing up the • walls. There is oil stains on the sheet rock that we • used to put, to frame the walls, and it didn't seem • like it was going away. So at that point it was • obvious that there was a leak, that it. wasn't just • seepage in the ground. So 1 went to Don and I said, • listen, you don't understand the seriousness of this. [1] Q: Who is Jim Jensen? [2] A: He is the guy who is the main person in • charge of Esso down in St. Thomas. And the way that I • knew his name was because when I was speaking to Daniel • Bayard about leasing space from them, he in the final • thing admitted that, well, he said that he talked to • Jim Jensen and Jim Jensen said that no, he had plans to • develop it to a convenience store, and there wasn't • room for a car wash. So I knew that he was ahead of it • from that. • So Don confirmed that Jim Jensen was the guy • in charge. I said call him now. I said let's take a • chance. He called and the guy was not in. He left a • massage to call me. I asked him for his number so I • could call him directly, and his fax number, and I went • back to my office and I called him and he was not • available. I called several times during that day. I • was there at seven in the morning, so this all happened • early in morning when 1 kept calling and calling. [20J Q: Do you know the date this was? [21] A: No, I don't know exactly right now, but it • was about two weeks ago, not more than three, and not • last week. He called me back, and I said that we have a serious situation fie re. He admitted that he was • aware of the situation, and I said, good, what are you • going to do about it. He said we're planning on • pumping them out. I said that is not good enough, it • has to be pumped out today, I have an inspection • tomorrow and if anything stops my car wash, there is • going to be a problem. [8] MR. ROMERO: When was your inspection • going to be? [10] A: As I said, I don't know the exact dates, but • Peter will tell you. What they did first is inspect • the slab of the cistern. Then they build forms for a • wall of the cistern and you tile all the steel in them, • and then they have to inspect the steel and the frames • before you pour. So it was after the slab inspection, • after the pouring of the slab, after making all the • forms and putting shoes on and all the steel, but • before the pouring of the walls. • The exact date I'm sure George Mosa • knows them, and so does Peters. I didn't happen to • write it down. He said that he would have them pumped • Page 169 to Page 172 FOUK .iNDSv TEXACO etal LIS. .ONANNO Q cr- CD Cr out that day. And I left the office to take my • daughter to the doctor. When I got back there was no evidence of • trucks. My construction guys were gone. I called • George Mosa and he said yes, there was construction • there and it looked like they were pumping out the • tanks. Then the day after they started taking out the • lift and they took out lifts and they filled in • concrete. But apparently there is one more tank. [8J Q: Wait, wait, wait. You're going too fast for • me. I'm just a slow country lawyer from Iowa. They • took out lifts, as in like a car lift? [11J A: Yes. [12] MR. ROMRRO: They're still out there? [13] A: They said that they were shipping them to St. • Croix. Sec, I guess what made me so upset was I didn't • know what to do with the oil, so we gave it back to • Esso and they poured it in the pit. [17J MR. ROMERO: Which pit? [18] A: Back in the pit that was leaking. They were • employees. [20] Q: You said they were taking out in addition to • the lifts something else? [22] A: No, they took out the lifts and they topped • off the pits with concrete. [1] MR. ROMERO: She said they pumped out • the tanks too. [3] A: Yes they pumped out the tanks too, but not • all of them. There is one more tank they didn't pump • out yet. [6] Q: How is it you know that? [7] A: Because I asked the guys yesterday. I said • are all the tanks pumped out and they said no. [9] Q: Who is they':' [10J A: The employee of Esso that work there. 1 said • which one is it, and they showed me, and Attorney Dema • and I said when is it being pumped out. He said • they're planning on pumping it out, it's not finished, • it's not done. That is what, they said. [15| Q: When you got your construction permits from • the DPNR, was there any kind of qualifications or • requirements placed on you regarding the testing of any * kind of soil sample or anything of that nature? [19] A: None. [20] Q: Were you required to notify anyone from DPNR • other than the building inspectors for the cistern • about starting the construction? [23] A: No, my only requirement is to post a sign that gives my permit numbers. [2] Q: Other than notifying Esso, did you notify any • other governmental agencies regarding what you saw? [4] A: No, to be completely honest, I didn't. [5] Q: You have been completely honest throughout • this deposition haven't you? [7] A: I have. I had no idea it was a problem or a • potential problem until I told this guy and he informed • me that it had to be brought out today. Even when he • started draining it, to me I didn't understand really • why because my assumption was everyone knows about the • situation, they knew about it before. I went in for my • permits, they knew about it while I had my permits in • review, they knew after I got my permits, they knew • about it when I dug ground and Peters already • inspected. • If there was going to be a problem they would • have said it right now. And to go back about scooping • out the oil, we didn't necessarily scoop out the oil to • hide it from anyone. We scooped it out because I • didn't want oil in my pit when I poured any concrete. • If I was going to hide it, I wouldn't give it to Esso » and watch them pour it back into the pit. So that is what happened. • [3] MR. MEYERS: It's five o'clock. I've • got some more regarding those dates. • [6] MR. DEMA: I'd love to give you a few • more minutes. The consent judgement against Rite Way • was entered on December 26, 1989. [9] THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, September 26, • 1989? • [12] MR. MEYERS: December or September? • [14] MR. DEMA: December, day after • Christmas. A call for them to surrender and vacate the • premises known as Department Store by 16 January 1990. • That is according to Judge Henry Feuerzeig. • [19] MR. MEYERS: And the cease and Page 172 to Page 176 EXHIBIT 'L' OO6 O863 FILE COPY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, vs. TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, Defendants. i P.I.D, INC., 12 ij 13 [I T4 h I. j! 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff, vs. TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, Defendants. DEPOSITION OF GEORGE MOSA DATED: June 13, 1991 CIVIL NO. 1989/224 ACTION FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDE JULEE NORMAN, C.S.R. RITA SHEPARD, C.S.R. P.O. Box 9968 St. Thomas, USVI 00801 TUT 006 0864 FOURV DSv TEXACO etal r GEO7 i MOSA 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 2 DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 3 FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP, ) 4 Plaintiff, ) CIVIL NO. 1989/224 5 vs. ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 6 TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, ) INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD ) 7 OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, ) 1 8 Defendants. ) 9p7.b~~iNar)——————————— ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ) 11 vs. ) ) 12 TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, ) INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD ) 13 OIL. S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, > ) 14 Defendants. ) _____________ _ i 15 16 DEPOSITION OF: 17 GEORGE MOSA IB 13 20 21 DATED: June 14, 1991 22 23 JULEE NORMAN, C.S.R. Pagel 1 RITA SHEPARD, C.S.R 2 P.O. Box 9968 3 St. Thomas, USVI 00801 4 5 1 APPEARANCES: 2 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN K. DEMA 3 JOHN K. DEMA.ESQ. 42-43 Strand Street 4 Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI 00820 Attorney for Four Winds; 5 LAW OFFICES OF BRIGGS, KNOEPFEL & RONCA 6 RICHARD R. KNOEPFEL, ESQ. 30 Dronnigens Gade 7 St. Thomas, USVI 00804 Attorney for P.I.D.; 8 LAW OFFICES OF HUNTER, COLE, COLIANNI & TURNER y J U U l l l l 1UK1NC.K, fcSl^. Pentheny Building 10 Christiansted, St. Croix, USVi 00820 Attorney for Esso; 11 LAW OFFICES OF ANDERSON, MOSS, PARKS & RUSSO, P.A. 12 MARY HOERBER, ESQ. 100 Biscayne Boulevard 13 Miami, Florida 33132 Attorney for Texaco. 14 15 16 The following is a transcript of the 17 deposition of GEORGE MOSA before RITA SHEPARD, C.S.R, 18 within and for the Territory of the United States 19 Virgin Islands, on the 14th day of June, 1991, at the 20 Law Offices of Brio's, Knoepfel & Ronca, 30 Dronnigcns 21 Gade. St. Thomas. USVI OOH04. 22 23 ..... 1 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY: Mr. Dema 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: Mr. Knoepfel 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY: Ms. Turner 7 • • • P R O C E E D I N G S [4] GEORGE MOSA, • a witness, having been first duly sworn, was • examined and testified as follows: [7] DIRECT EXAMINATION [8] BY MR. DEMA: [9] Q: Have you ever had your taken deposition • before? [11] A: Here, no. [12] Q: Okay. This is part of a court proceeding, • and we're going to ask you some factual questions about • what you saw or did with relation to an excavation in • February and March of 1991 this year. • If there is a question that any of us ask • that you don't understand, ask us to rephrase it or • repeat it and we'll be happy to do so. [19] A: Okay. [20] Q: The first main rule is you have to speak • audibly so this young lady can hear you and be able to • make a transcript. • Would you state your name and address for the • record? [25| A: My name is George Mosa, M-O-S-A,'l-41 Bakkcro____________ • • • Estate, St. Thomas. [4] Q: And what is your trade or profession, sir? [5] A: I'm a general contractor. Now I'm in the • management of construction. [7] Q: And in approximately February of this year • were you involved in any construction in the area of • Estate Tutu in St. Thomas? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: Would you describe for us what the • construction project was? [13] A: I was commissioned by Lisa Bonanno and her • husband Georgio to help them build a car wash, which • they call Splash and Dash Car Wash. [16] Q: I show you a picture of what has been marked • Tom Gutshall No. 9 and ask if that was the approximate • area which was to the south of the Esso Tutu station • where this car wash is being built? [20] A: Yes. H COHI Xu CD CT Page 3 to Page 5 FOURV .JSv TEXACO etal CEO! d MOSA [21] Q: Now, would you describe what you did in terms • of starting the construction? [23] A: We have heavy equipment hired from D&C and we • start digging the cistern in the foundation area. [25] Q: And did anything out of the ordinary happen • • • during the course of your digging? [4] A: During the course of digging about five feet • below the pavement we experienced oil mixtures or • petroleum mixtures with the soil. And the deeper we • went, the worse it become. [8] Q: Would you describe what this substance looked • like? [10] A: I'd say at one point it was very dark liquid, • oilily, coming out from -- cutting, when they were • cutting with the blade in the bulldozer it was exactly • from the size of from where the gas station wall • started oozing some kind of oil liquid, which really -- [15] Q: Now, did any of this liquid substances • accumulate in the bottom of the excavation? [17] A: Yes, when we came to the dimension I needed, • the depth, and I stopped there, this was all of the • surfacing in the bottom. [20] Q: Did you notify anybody from Esso? [21] A: We did. The manager there and Lisa Bonanno. [22] Q: And what did you do with the liquid • accumulation on the bottom of the excavation? [24] A: Well every morning as worked progressed, one • of my help was supposed to skim it and dump it in the Page? • • • Esso pit? [4] Q: And do you know -- do you personally know if • in fact he took this liquid and gave it back to Esso? [6] A: Yes, that is what my instruction was, not to • throw it in there -- to throw it in the pit. [8] Q: You mean the waste oil pit in Esso? [9] A: Yes, Esso. [10| Q: And what type of pipe or vessel did he use to • take it? [12| A: Well we use five-gallon paint buckets. I • still have the buckets on the premises. This is the • type of buckets I use on the premises and stuff, • five-gallon buckets. [16] Q: And did this happen one day or more than one • day? [18] A: It happened almost every day until I poored • the slab of the cistern and then the liquids was • forming around the slab on the bottom of it. [21] Q: And how many buckets of this liquid over the • course of these days? [23] A: I can't recall, but a lot of it. [24] Q: A lot of it? [25] A: Yes.___________________ PageS • • [3] Q: I have no further questions. • Anyone else? [5] DIRECT EXAMINATION [6] BY MR. KNOEPFEL: [7] Q: Who gave you the instructions to pour it into • the Esso waste oil pit? [9] A: The manager there. [10] Q: The manager there? [11] A: Yes. [12] Q: Do you know his name? [13] A: I think his name Danny. I don't know the • last name. [15] Q: You didn't know how many buckets were • actually -- [17] A: Not really, quite a few. [18] Q: Was it quite a few every clay? [19] A: I'd say a few. I don't know how many because • I wasn't all the time there. [21] Q: Did anyone other than Dan from Esso ever talk • to you about it? [23] A: No, not to me. [24] Q: Thank you, Mr. Mosa? [25] REDIRECT EXAMINATION • • [3] BY MR. DEMA: [4] Q: Mr. Mosa, there is one other question. When • you were doing the excavation, there has been some • statement that the wall of the Esso building to the • south side was moving up and down. • Could you comment on that? [9] A: I can't. No, I never seen it move. And if • that moved this would be broken by now. [11] Q: So you inspected that wall to see whether • there were any cracks or movement in that wall? [13] A: Yes, I was paying attention to that. [14] Q: Did you find any? [15] A: No. 03o- Page 5 to Page 9 FOURtt xJSv TEXACO etal GEOI i MOSA [16J Q: Thank you. No other questions. [17] CROSS EXAMINATION [18] BY MR. TURNER: [19] Q: I just have a few questions, Mr. Mosa. My • name is Judy Turner, and I represent Esso. • You've testified that you saw a substance • coming from the side of the gas station wall. Did you • personally see it as it was oozing? [24] A: Yes, we tried to stop it with all kinds of • means to come under the forms. I put plywood forms • • • against it this way not to disturb us, and it was • really coming out after that from the side of the form. [5] Q: Was it coming in a stream are you saying? [6] A: It's not a stream, it's really like oozing • like, you know, like flow, a very slow flow I would • say. Can't explain how. Not gushing. [9] Q: How many days did you see this? [10] A: This was the first few days. The first few • days and then subsided in different locations. [12] Q: Are you saying it collected in the bottom of • the pit for each of these days? [14] A: Yes. It just ran on the wall itself because • we went deeper than the part where oil was coming out, • which I believe it was four feet deeper than that • position. ^18] Q: And how much collected every day in the • bottom? ^20] A: I have no idea. But we did collect a few • buckets a day, a few. ^22] Q: Did you keep a sample of any of the substance • that you collected? [24] A: No. [25] Q: Did you notify any Virgin Islands government • • • authority? [4] A: I notified Lisa Bonanno and the gentlemen • from Esso. That is the only thing I did. And I was • told to continue the work. [7] Q: Did you think it was your obligation to • notify any Virgin Islands government authority? [9] A: Not really. I was the manager and I managed • the site for the Bonannos. [11] Q: Do you know if the Bonannos ever notified any • governmental agency? [13] A: I have no idea. [14] Q: Did the Bonannos ever mention to you they're • afraid their permits would be pulled if anyone from the • Virgin Islands government knew of it? [17] A: No, it was not, mentioned to me. It was just • the nature of, let's do the permits. And she wants the • car wash open as soon as possible, not to delay work. [20] Q: Did you personally pour any of the substance • that you said was collected from the bottom of the pit • into any container at the Esso Station? [23] A: Specifically myself, no. But my help. [24] Q: What are the names of these workers? [25] A: Poly Karpcartny, P-0-L-Y-K-A-R-P-C-A-R-T-N-Y._____ [3] Q: Who were the other help -- does he still work • for you? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: Who were the other helpers? [7] A: Talmoth Titer, T-A-L-M-0-T-H-T-I-T-E-R, I • think. [9] Q: Does he still work for you? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: The names of any others? [12| A: All my help is still there. If you need any • names, I can supply you with all of them. Everyone is • still working on the project. [15] Q: And you've testified you never spoke to • anyone at Esso other than the Esso gas station manager • about this problem? [18] A: Yes. I noticed that people came from Esso • management. But I never spoke to anyone other than • that other man Dan. [21] Q: When did you first speak to Dan; on the first • clay after you saw it? [23] A: Maybe after the first or second day I saw the • oil. [25] Q: That you saw the substance in the pit?________________________ • • [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: Did did there come a time when Esso • representatives came to look at the pit? [6] A: I don't remember myself. I don't know the • people if they are Esso or some other people came in. • I do not know if Esso came when I was there or I wasn't • there. CO'f •-4 Page 9 to Page 13 FOURW JSv TEXACO etal GEOI ^ MOSA [10J Q: Let's go back. How many hours a day did you • spend on that site? Did you spend all day there? [12] A: Most of the day. But also I buy material, I • run for organizing the project. So I almost not there • eight hours a day. I can be in the office if I'm • buying water and ice? [16] Q: But were you there most of each day? [17] A: Most of each day, yes. [18] Q: Now, you mentioned that you notified Dan of • this problem on what you think is the first day? [20.1 A: I don't remember if it was the first or the • second day. [22] Q: Did you ever see anyone from Esso come over • to the pit and look at the pit and the substance? [24] A: I don't remember. I don't know if they are • from Esso or somebody else. • • [3] Q: But you saw a gentleman come over and look at • the pit? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: What date was that? [7] A: I don't know dates. If you want dates I have • to look at the bills of D&C Company that I remember all • the dates they were digging there. [10] Q: What do you have to show me what those are? [11] A: The dates of the machinery when they were • rented. [13] Q: Could you provide us with that? [14] A: Yes, I can. [15] Q: Do you have any written documentation that • reflects your noticing the substance in the pit? [17] A: No, no. [18] Q: Do you have any notes regarding • conversations? [20] A: No. [21] Q: Do you have any notes reflecting concerns you • had either with Dan Morris or Lisa Bonanno or her • husband regarding what you saw in the pit? [24] A: No. [25] Q: Did cither of the Bonannos every ask you to • • • stop excavation until a solution had been found • regarding the substance in the pit? [5] A: No. [6J Q: Did Dan Morris ever come over and look at the • substance in the pit? [8] A: Yes. [91 Q: Do you know what clay he did that? [10] A: No. [11] Q: Did the Bonannos ever request that you take a • sample from the pit? [13] A: No. [14] Q: And how can this -- how did this substance • final stop oozing, when was it no longer there? [16] A: Well, I was told by Dan that they going to • pump it, Esso going to pump oil. And I have no idea • when it was pumped or not. And as, you know, time • passed by this oil came out from the wall. The longer • we work on the job, the less oil came out. • And the end of the project when I start • covering, only the traces of oil was there because • bailing it out. And I don't know what else I can tell • you. [25] Q: Other than your own personal opinion, did • • • anyone ever make any test, to your knowledge to • determine what you say is oil, where it came from? [5] A: To my knowledge I don't know if it was done • or anyone did tests. [7] Q: Do you have any information to actually • determine where this substance came from? [9] A: The only -- no. From conversations that they * did have a pit for used oil that was adjoined to the • wall there. There was a pit, and it's cracked, and • this is all, you know. [13] Q: Is this all supposition on your part? [14] A: Conversation with -- you know, around the gas • station. I cannot really pinpoint names. I can't • remember. [17] Q: But you yourself or your company never made • any tests? [19] A: No. [20] Q: What company were you from? [21] A: I'm self-employed. [22] Q: And what is your phone number? [23] A: 774-1886. [24] Q: Do you have a foreman or are you the foreman? [25] A: I'm the foreman/manager. • • [3] Q: What stage is this Splash and Dash operation • at now? [5] A: Almost in final stage. 03 CT 03 Page 13 to Page 17 FOUR \\ ,i3S v TEXACO et al GEOI i MOSA [6] Q: It's almost done. Have you run into any • other problems during your building of the Splash and • Dash? [9] A: Not really, just rocks. [10] Q: Do you have any documents at all in your • company relating to the substance you found in the pit? [12J A: No. [13] Q: Did you ask the Bonannos, either of the • Bonannos to come look at the pit when you saw this • substance in the bottom? [161 A: Yes, I did. [171 Q: And who came? [18] A: Lisa and Georgio. [19] Q: When did they come? [20] A: The same as I notified them, the same day. [21J Q: What was their reaction? [22| A: They're going to talk to Esso people. [23] Q: Do you know if they ever actually talked to • Esso people? [25] A: I have no idea. But I was told they did • • • talk. [4] Q: Do you know if the Bonannos made any tests on • the substance or took any samples of the substance? [6] A: I don't recall actually. • Excuse me, when you ask of Bonannos did they • take samples. Themselves, they didn't. But it was in • the course of their investigation and some other people • came. [11] Q: And who were the other people? [12] A: His firm or somebody else. His other firm • came. [14] Q: Did a representative from Mr. Dema's office • come? [16] A: There were representatives there. [17] MR. KNOEPFEL: Mr. Romero, Mr. Cole? [18] Q: What day did they come? [19] A: I don't know about the dates. They should • have the dates. I didn't - [21] Q: Do you know if anyone else besides the • lawyers' representatives on the clay that you're • referring to came and took samples.' [24] A: To tell you the truth, I don't know all of • them who are they. It be Lisa or Esso. So they go • • • take samples. • There is also a pipe there on the site that • we put all the way down to the location. [6] Q: And was this the day that you discovered the • substance? [8] A: The day after I built the cistern. [9J Q: So it was a long time after? [10] A: I wouldn't say long. [11] Q: How long, just so I know? [12] A: I wasn't moving very fast. I was building • very fast. I would say within a week? [14] Q: Can you provide us with the documents you • referred to about those when you were using the heavy • equipment? [17] A: Yes, I can. I can give you the dates. [18] MR. DEMA: You can give them to me, Mr. • Mosa. I'll make them immediately available to Ms. • Turner. [21] A: No problem. [22] BY MS. TURNER: [23] Q: Other than what you've testified to about • your helpers using five gallon buckets to skim the • substance that was in the pit, and you said that they • • • were supposed to dump it in the Esso waste oil pit, do • you know if that substance was ever placed any place • else7 [6] A: Yes, it was never placed any place. [7J Q: I'm sorry? [8] A: I know that it was not placed any place else • but the thing. [10| Q: You're saying that that was the only • receptacle that you know of? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: I have no further questions. [14] MS. HOERBER: I have no questions? [15] MR.DEMA:: Thank you, Mr. Mosa, • appreciate your time. [17] [WHEREUPON THE DEPOSITION WAS CONCLUDED.] CD0- Page 17 to Page 20 EXHIBIT 'M' TUT 006 0870 FILE COPY 5 6 i 7 j 8 9 10 1 1 1 1 I 12 i! ,3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP, ) Plaintiff, ) CIVIL NO. 1989/224 vs. ' ACTION FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDE: TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, ) INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD ) OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, ) Defendants. P.I.D, INC., vs. Plaintiff, ) TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, ) INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD ) OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, ) Defendants. ) DEPOSITION OF: THOMAS GUTSHALL DATED: June 13, 1991 JULEE NORMAN, C.S.R. RITA SHEPARD, C.S.R. P.O. Box 9968 St. Thomas, USVI 00801 TUT OO6 OS'71 FOUR .NDS v TEXACO et al .iHOMAS JTSHALL r- if- q '--4 r-J 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 2 DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 3 FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP, ) 4 Plaintiff,) CIVIL NO. 1989/224 5 vs. ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 6 TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, ) INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD ) 7 OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, ) 8 Defendants. ) 9p7.b~~iNC.~~j ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ) 11 vs.) ) 12 TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, ) INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD ) in OIL. S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, ) ) 14 Defendants. ) ____________ ____________) 15 1C DEPOSITION OF: 17 THOMAS GUTSHALL 18 19 DATED: June 13, 1991 20 21 22 23 JULEE NORMAN, C.S.R. RITA SHEPARD, C.S.R. Pagel 1 P.O. Box 9968 2 St. Thomas, USVI 00801 3 4 5 6 7 1 APPEARANCES: 2 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN K. DEMA 3 JOHN K. DEMA, ESQ. 42-43 Strand Street 4 Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI 00820 Attorney for Four Winds Plaza; 5 LAW OFFICES OF BRIGGS, KNOEPFEL & RONCA 6 RICHARD R. KNOEPFEL, ESQ. 30 Dronnigens Gade 7 St. Thomas, USVI 00804 Attorney for P.I.D.; 8 LAW OFFICES OF HUNTER, COLE, COLIANNI & 9 JUDITH TURNER, ESQ. Penthcny Building 10 Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI 00820 Attorney for Esso; 11 LAW OFFICES OF ANDERSON, MOSS, PARKS & RUSSO, P.A. 12 MARY HOERBER, ESQ. 100 Biscaync Boulevard 13 Miami, Florida 33132 Attorney for Tcxnco. 14 15 16 The following is a transcript of the 17 deposition of THOMAS GUTSHALL, before RITA SHEPARD, 18 C.S.R, within and for the Territory of the United 19 States Virgin Islands, on the Kith day of June, 1991. 20 at the Law Offices of Briggs, Knoepfel £ Roncn, ,'iO 21 Dronnigens Cade, St. Thomas, USVI 00804. 22 23 . * ... 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY: Mr. Dema 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: Mr. Knoepfcl E X H I B I T S 7 MARKED 8 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 9 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 10 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 11 EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBITS 12 EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT 10 13 EXHIBIT 11 14 PageS • • • P R O C E E D I N G S [4] THOMAS GUTSHALL, • a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined • and testified as follows: [7] DIRECT EXAMINATION [8] BY MR. DEMA: [9] Q: Would you state your name, residence and • business address for the record, please? [11] A: Thomas Gutshall 100-13 Estate Contant, home. • Smith Bay Texaco, business. [13] Q: How do you spell your name? [14] A: G-U-T-S-H-A-L-L. [15] Q: What is your main trade or profession, sir? [16] A: Gasoline automotive. [17] Q: And what do you do with that trade or • profession? [19] A: Retail fuel. [20] Q: Where did you learn the trade? [21] A: Amaco Standard Oil of Indiana. [22] Q: When did you first come to the Virgin • Islands? [24] A: In '71. Pardon me, 1980. [25] Q: We're going to be asking you some questions PageS • • • today, Mr. Gutshall, about your experiences in the • Virgin Islands with regard to a certain employment at • Estate Tutu. • Have you ever had your deposition taken • before? • The first rule of a deposition is that -- [9] A: Don't shake your head. [10] Q: She's got to hear it. That is the principal • thing. • Second, and no less important really, is that • you understand what I ask or any of the other attorneys • ask. And sometimes we botch the question, so if there • is something that is not clear to you, please ask us to • repeat it or rephrase it and we will. Or if you don't • hear it or for Page 3 to Page 5 FOUR, .SHDSvTEXACOetal THOMAS TSHALL -i any reason ask us, tell us and we'll try • to rephrase it. [19] A: Okay. [20] Q: Briefly, I represent Four Winds Plaza. My • name is Jack Dema, in a suit which presently is again • various Texaco and Esso affiliates. Mrs. Judith Turner • represents Esso, Esso Standard Oil, Ltd., and Mr. • Knoepfel represents the Harthmans and P.I.D., which is • a development entity, concentrating in the Tutu area. • • [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: And mist Mary Hoerber represents Texaco • affiliates, TCI, Texaco Caribbean, Inc. • When we refer to Texaco and Esso, and I will • try, and everyone does try to refer to, for example, [8] TCI being Texaco Caribbean, Inc., and depending on what • years you tell us about, it will either be ESSOSA, • which is a short term for Esso Standard Oil Limited or • Esso Virgin Islands, which is Esso Virgin Islands, Inc. • Can you tell us, to the best of your memory, • your dates of employment at Esso Tutu? [14] A: There were two occasions. The first occasion • would be '85 to '87. The second occasion would be from • 88 to '90. [17] Q: Now would you briefly recite your experience • in the Virgin Islands between 1980 and 1985? [19] A: I worked for Caribbean AMCG. I was the • general manager and also for Autowise. It's a chain • out of the states. [22] Q: And what came to pass that you started • working for Esso Tutu in '85? [24] A: When I worked for Autowise that is where I • met the owner of Tutu Esso. He was looking for a Page? • • • service manager, so we negotiated and I took the job. [4] Q: Now, being lawyers we have to draw a slightly • finer distinction. Did you meet a gentleman by the • name of Danny Bayard? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: And based on other documents in this case I • think we could all stipulate for the record that Danny • Bayard was the lessee of Esso Tutu? [11] A: He owned it. He owned the business. [12] Q: Business that was operating there? [13] A: Right. [14] Q: And what position were you hired for? [15] A: Service manager. [16] Q: Could you briefly detail for us your job • responsibilities in that position? [18] A: Scheduled the shop with its repairs, oversee • those said repairs, collect the money on those repairs, • coordinate the parts to the mechanics, coordinate the • information to the customer in reference to their car. [22] Q: And did you go on a period of training or did • you just jump on and start? [24] A: What do you mean by a period of training? • With Danny Bayard? PageS • • [3] Q: With Danny Bayard. [4] A: No, I had already had enough experience in • that field. [6] Q: Now, with regard to the station itself, could • you tell us what was explained to you with regard to • the original equipment that you found at the station • when you got there in 19857 In particular with regard • to the area of the service bays and the underground • tanks? [12] A: What underground tanks'.'1 Are you speaking of • gas tanks9 [14] Q: Let's forget about the underground tanks • first. If you first detail for me the equipment that • was present in the service bays when you first got • there? [18] A: Are you talking stationary equipment or are • you talking equipment that you could move around to • work on vehicles? [21] Q: Stationary equipment, hoists, underground • pipes, catch basins? [23] A: There were no catch basins. There were three • hoists, which were operated underground, hydraulic air, • and one alignment machine, which was operated on top of • • • the ground, hydraulic and electrical, and one above • ground electric hoist, and one flat stall. [5] Q: One flat stall? ) Page 5 to Page 9 FOUR . xNDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS ^ JTSHALL wo o. OD •vi [4] Q: Was Mr. Griffith aware that you were running » a repair operation out of the station? [6] A: Yes. [7] Q: Was Mr. Griffith aware during the period 1985 • to the point that the oil/water separator was being put • in that you were changing oil? [10] A: I don't know. I can only assume, and I don't • want to • assume. [13] Q: If you do ever assume throughout the course • of this deposition, sir, just tell us you're making an • assumption. If you're talking a guess, tell us you're • guessing? [17] A: I would assume Mr. Griffith came on the • property, I don't know how he would not know that oil • was being changed in a full service shop. But I can't • sit here and say he actually saw one of us changing oil • in a car. But I would assume any amount of • intelligence would tell you that. [23] Q: And you indeed were purchasing a fair amount • of oil from ESSOSA? [25] A: I never purchased it, so I wouldn't know how • • • much was being purchased. [4] Q: Who was in charge of purchasing? [5] A: Mr. Bayard in the first timeframe of my • employment. [7] Q: Since we have it handy, looking at Exhibit 6, • it details a purchase of a product called a floor • degreaser. Are you familiar with that product? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: You had referred earlier in your testimony to • an Amway concrete floor cleaner? [13] A: Same thing. [14] Q: Up until the catch basin and the oil/water • separators were installed, would you describe for me • the mechanical methods of cleaning various auto parts • in your full service shop? [18] A: Name me an auto part. [19] Q: How about -- you had mentioned in your • testimony that you did engine breakdowns'.'* [21J A: Yes. [22.1 Q: Did it ever come to pass when you were doing • engine breakdowns that you had to degrease the engine • parts? [25] A: Yes.__________________ • • [3] Q: How would you go about that? [4] A: If the engine was out it would be • disassembled. I had a machine. I can't recall the • name of a machine. It was full of liquid to pull out • parts, had a pump, circulated, placed that part in it, • you could leave it or you could hand clean it, remove • it, -- wash it off and you have a clean part. [10] Q: I'll show you page 37 of a Selig catalog? [11] A: Yes, that is a parts washer. [12] Q; So just to keep the record straight, we'll • mark this Exhibit 7. [14] [EXHIBIT 7 WAS MARKED.] • Do you know whether in fact chemicals were • purchased from Selig Chemical of Puerto Rico during the • time we're talking about? [18] A: The company name again? [19] Q: Selig, S-E-L-I-G? [20] A: I don't recall. [21] Q: The device described in your earlier • testimony and then depicted on page 37, is that similar • to the device you described? [24] A: Described -- is similar. [25] Q: And in this particular picture there is a • • • gentlemen degreasing an auto part, supposedly? [4] A: Yes. [5] Q: And there is a 55 gallon drum? [6] A: Yes. [7] Q: Which contains the recirculated liquid? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: Is that similar to the operation you guys • had? [11] A: Yes. [12] Q: This is the period of time prior to the • installation of oil/water separator and the catch • basins? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: Where was the disposal of the used chemicals? [17] A: Dumped in the HCA holding container for the • oil after it was nonusable. [19] Q: Which the rest of us refer to collectively as • the waste oil pit? [21] A: Right. [22] Q: Do you have any memory as to where the • cleaner product for this degreasing operation was • obtained? [25] A: Number One Automotive Consolidated. Page 28 to Page 32 FOUR V> v TEXACO et al THOMAS U yrSHALL [3] Q: Number One Automotive Consolidated? [4] A: Number one was Consolidated Auto Parts owned • by Dough Smith and numerous others. [6] Q: Do you remember the product? [7] A: No. [8] Q: Do you remember the brand name? [9] A: No. [10] Q: Did it come in 55 gallon drums? [11] A: Or five gallon pales. We always bought it in • the five gallons. It was easier to store. [13] Q: With what frequency did you change? [14] A: Basically on the request of the technician, • when he felt it was too dirty. [16] Q: So that went into the HCA, waste oil pit - • pit and the used oil went into the waste oil pit? [18] A: Yes. [19] Q: Did there ever come a point in time between • 1985 and 1987 when your period of employ was • interrupted that the waste oil pit was cleaned up? [22] A: Well -- while I wasn't there? [23] Q: While you were there? r24] A: It was cleaned out, yes. Q: And how was it cleaned out? • • .3] A: We sold it to WAPA. I don't recall :he name • of the company or the gentlemen who would do it. He'd • :ome in with a tanker truck, drop his hose, pump it • out, take it to WAPA and sell it to them. [7] Q: With what frequency was that? [8] A: As needed. [9] Q: Do you have any idea about how many times a • year that was? [11] A: No. [12] Q: Now, did you also use -- well, let's go for • parts. Cleaning carburetors, did you clean carburetors • with the parts cleaning device9 [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: The parts washer, shall we call it? [17] A: Yes. [18] Q: How about brake drums? [19] A: No. [20] Q: Were there any times that you used spray • degreaser? [22] A: Yes. [23] Q: Do you remember what the product names of the • spray degreasers were? [25] A: No.____________________ • • [3] Q: Do you remember whether or not you ever used • Gunk products? [5] A: Gunk, yes. [6] Q: Mr. Berry had testified earlier today that • they used a product called Brakleen, B-R-A-K-L-E-E-N? [8] A: Yes. That is true, bought it at Western • Auto. [10] Q: And the Gunk degreaser for carburetors, • carburetor cleaner? [12] A: Yes STP Carburetor Cleaner. [13] Q: Did you use a Gunk brake cleaner? [14] A: That is a possibility. [15] Q: Did you do grease jobs? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Do you remember whether you used white • lithium grease? [19] A: On door hinges. [20] Q: Do you remember whether you used gasket • cement. ? [22] A: Gasket sealer? [23] Q: Right7 [24] A: Yes, yes. [25] Q: Did you clean radiators? # * [3J A: What do you mean by clean radiators? [4] Q: You drive in, you pour some type of~ [5] A: Flush the radiators. [6] Q: Flush something in the radiators, run the car • for a while? [8] A: Not usually, try not to. [9] Q: Does that occasionally happen? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: What did you do with the flush material from • the radiator? [13] A: Went on the ground. [14] Q: Did you ever use products called Mac's, Mac's • Brake and Motor Cleaner? [16] A: I don't recognize the name. [17] Q: Ever recognize the name Heavy Duty Brake • Cleaner? [19] A: No, I don't recall. [20] Q: Do you recall the product name for the • radiator flush? [22] A: No, I can't recall the name. I can identify • it if I saw the product. But I could not give you the • name. [25] Q: Now after you had this Page 32 to Page 35 FOUR \ ^VDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS TSHALL conversation with the CO • • • gentlemen from ESSOSA or witnessed the conversation, • what happened with regard to the installation or lack • of installation of an oil/water separator? [6] A: We installed it. [7J Q: Can you tell us everything you remember about • that process? [9] A: Yes, it upset me that I had to close down • half of my shop at the time because they had to run • lines from -- in the vicinity of stall No. 3 and to dig • a pit there and went over and dug a pit on the west • wall, which I've already identified where the drain • comes out, Exhibit 4, and they dug it out and made an • oil separator and a drain on the south side. I believe • it was in stall 3 actually, I think. It's hard to • remember exactly where, but it was designed to catch • the water and whatever from these stalls into here, • over to here, automatically flow. These two here had • to drain -- [21] Q: Before you go on, because when we look at • this later and you say these two, since we don't yet • have you on video tape, we have to be a little more • careful about the record. Could you, using a dark pen -- [25] MR. KNOEPFEL: Jack, for clarification • • • we put it on a separate sheet. [4] [EXHIBIT 8 WAS MARKED.] [5] Q: What we'll identified as Exhibit No. 8, Mr. • Gutshall, would you be so kind as to depict for us the • changes that occurred once the catch basins. Drains • and oil/water separators were installed? [9] A: Drained here -- drain here. Do you want the • piping also? [11] Q: Yes, please. [12] A: It went across. This was your actual • separator and this -- which side do you want to call • this? [15JQ: West. [16] A: West, south. The drain for stalls 1, 3 and • 4, which is on the south wall and connected to the oil • separator, which is stalls 5 and 6 on the west wall, • then the exit drain was put through the wall. [20] Q: Now, if we could label 0 slash W as an • oil/water separator. And the box you made is the catch • basins and the double lines type? [23] A: Yes, that is the drain pipe. [24] Q: Sorry go ahead. [25] A: You had three compartments in your separator. • * [3] Q: One, two, three, labeling them as sduch on • the diagram? The catch basin on the south side, was • that connected to any of the traps in the hoists? [6] A: Not to my knowledge. [7] Q: So what was supposed to go into the catch • basin? [9] A: Water. [10] Q: Where did the water come from? [11] A: When you watched the stalls. [12] Q: So that was specifically designed to catch • the water from the wash? [14] A: It was mixed with the water. [15] Q: Now, after this was installed, was that ever • used as a method of, as receptacle for the parts washer • liquid? [18] A: No, not to my knowledge. [19] Q: Was that ever used as a receptacle for the • radiator cleaner9 [21] A: Yes. [22] Q: Any used waste oil ever go in there? [23] A: No. [24] Q: Now, would you describe for me the pipe that • goes through the retaining wall to the south, where did • • • that empty into? I think we have brief-- previously • looked at that on Exhibit No. 4. [5] A: That was originally hooked up to the storm • drain belonging to the Virgin Islands government? [7] [EXHIBIT 9 WAS MARKED.) [8] Q: Looking at Exhibit No. 9, I show you a recent • picture, because I see Splash and Dash building back • here, off the west side of the Esso Station and a storm • drain that actually shows the same sign as in Exhibit • No. 4 on the west wall, and ask if that was the storm • drain to which the pump coming through the retaining • wall was connected? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: Who effected that connection, who made the • connection? [18] A: Esso. [19] Q: And how long did that connection Page 35 to Page 39 FOUR \N ~>TDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS L , TSHALL last, to • your knowledge? [21] A: I think about ten days. [22] Q: Then what happened? [23] A: The Department of Public Works cut the pipe • and capped it. [25] Q: Did it stay capped?__________ • • [3] A: No. [4] Q: Why did it not stay capped? [5] A: The cap came off, to the best of my • knowledge. [7] Q: Did the cap fall off? [8] A: I had seen the cap gone. That is the best I • can tell you. I just happened to look and the cap was • gone. [11] Q: Mr. Berry testified this morning that at some • point in time the liquid flowed freely from the • oil/water separator on to the ground immediately • outside the retaining wall? [15] A: Is that a question? [16] Q: That was a statement. Would you agree with • that statement? [18] A: Yes, I would agree with that statement. [19] Q: Now, Mr. Berry also testified that various • types of liquids, clues -- including water, radiator • vents and the like were placed into the catch basin? [22] A: Yes. [23] Q: You -- he testified to that during the -- his • stay, the oil/water separator, except for one period of • flooding, never overflowed. Could you tell me how that • • • was physically possible? [4] A: What physically possible? [5] Q: What is -- what is your question? [6] Q: Seemingly a continuing stream of liquids of • various types went into a recepticle with a limited • quantity? [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: That receptacle never seemed to overflow. • And miracle could you explain physically why that was? [12] A: That was taken out by hand by buckets and • clumped into our oil pit on a need be basis. [14] Q: And how was that need expressed? [15] A: What do you mean? [16] Q: How often did that happen? [17] A: That could have happened once a week. [18] Q: And did anyone ever attempt to measure the • levels in that particular containment area? [20] A: You're talking about the oil separator? [21] Q: Yes. [22] A: When you say measure, what do you mean? [23] Q: In other words -- [24] A: We would open the top to see if it's full or • how much longer we would do that like that. • • [3] Q: Was the quantity of liquid that went in ever • measured? [5] A: No. [6] Q: Was there any way of determination whether it • ever had a leak? [8] A: The oil separator? [9] Q: Yes? [10] A: No, there is no way of determination whether • it had a leak or not. [12] Q: The outflow from the oil/water separator, • after it was capped, how long a period of time went by • before it fell off or before it lost it's cap? [15] A: Maybe an hour after it was put on. [16] Q: Now, with regard to the waste oil pit, was • any attempt ever made to measure that on a regular • basis? [19J A: No, it would be inspected Lo sec how much oil • was in it so you could judge when to call somebody to • empty it. [22] Q: And on what basis was that inspected and by • whom? [24] A: I never inspected it personally, per se, went • to look to see how much oil was in there. I would send • • • one of the shop runners to check the pit and see how • full it is and let me know, and maybe at that time walk • back and look myself. But there was no set schedule to • inspect it. [7] Q: Was an examination ever made by anybody in • your employ or by yourself with regard to -- any • containment vessel which showed the possibility that a • leak might exist? [11] A: Repeat that? I'm sorry. [12] Q: With regard to any containment for any of • these waste -- any containment vessels or any of these waste products? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: Was any inspections made by Page 39 to FOUR \. _<JDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS. TSHALL H f— H 00vi CD memory serves, we used this. [7] Q: Esso took all the forms exampled by Exhibit 3 • in Oriel's deposition? [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: So we can keep this straight, I guess I ought • to run a couple copies of this. [12] [BRIEF RECESS.] [13] [EXHIBITS 10 and 11 WERE MARKED.] [14] BY MR. DEMA: [15] Q: So for the record, we've marked as Exhibit 10 • the exhibit marked Deposition Exhibit 3 and Hans • Oriel's deposition as Exhibit 11, the exhibit marked 4 • in Hans Oriel's deposition? [19] MS. TURNER: Could you tell me who Hans • Oriol is so I'll know? [21] MR. DEMA: He is a gentleman. [22] MS. HOERBER: He's Bayard's partner. [23] MS. TURNER: No one did apparently • except when we took the deposition. [25] THE WITNESS: She said it was Bayard's • • • partner. [4] MS.HOERBER: According to Mr. Oriol. [5] BY MR.DEMA: [6] A: What dates? [7] Q: From 1982? [8] A: And still to this day? [9] MS.HOERBER: No. [10] MR. KNOEPFEL: No. [11] BY MR. DEMA: [12] Q: To 1988. [13] A:,0kay, yes. Very good. [14] Q: Now, referring to our deposition No. 10? • Exhibit No. 10, was it your testimony that you had seen • that during your first round of employment? [17] A: Yes. [18] Q: And it was being used during your first round • of employment? [20] A: To the best of my knowledge. [21] Q: Do you have any personal knowledge as to how • frequently the reconciliations were made during your • first round of employment? [24] A: No. [25] Q: Did you ever see any reconciliation sheets at • • • that time that showed weekly or monthly • reconciliations? [5] A: No. [6] Q: Prior to July 1987 from the point you started • in 1985, were there any repairs of any type made to • your knowledge to the underground storage tanks or the • tank piping system? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: Could you detail what you know of those • repairs? [13] A: There was a leak discovered going through the • set of pumps closest to the building, which would be, • let's go over here. [16] Q: Referring to Exhibit No. 1? [17] A: Yes, gas island closest to the building. How • do you want to do it? [19] MS. TURNER: I'm sorry you said there • was a leak where? [21] THE WITNESS: On the island closest to • the building. [23] BY MR. DEMA: [24] Q: Were pressure tests ever conducted of that • pipe? • • [3] A: I don't know. [4] Q: How do you know that there was a leak? [5] A: I was told by Mr. Bayard. [6] Q: Was there ever any repairs made to the pipe? [7] A: Oh, yes, it was replaced. [8] Q: Do you know who conducted the row pairs? [9] A: Eugenio. [10] Q: Approximately what period of time was this? [11] A: I have no idea. [12] Q: Prior to your, to the summer of '87, I take • it? [14] A: It would be my first employment. [15] Q: Prior to the problem with the underground • storage tanks? • Yes, oh, yes. [18] Q: Did Mr. Bayard mention to you his estimate of • the amount of product that had been replaced? [20] A: No. [21] Q: Was it ever mentioned to you whether it was a • small quantity or a large quantity? [23] A: It was enough that it reflected a loss of • money when you balanced out everything. It doesn't • quite make it. At first there was suspect of some type • • • of theft or something like that. [4] Q: Was that ever eliminated as a possibility? Page 58 to Page 62 FOUR . iNDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS JTSHALL [5] A: Well, when they found out it was leaking, • yes, the theft was gone. When it was dug up, this was • evidence that the leaking pipe had rusted through. [8j Q: Did you ever see that? [9] A: Yes, I saw it. [10] Q: So you personally observed the rusted through • pipe between the gas station island and the underground • storage tank. • Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. • Bayard as to how he kept his records at that point? [15] A: No. [16] Q: Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. • Bayard as to inventory records around the time that • there was a suspected leak in the underground storage • tank? [20] A: No. [21] Q: Did you ever have a discussion with anyone • with regard to whether a conclusion was made as to • whether theirs was a leak in the underground storage • tank? [25] A: Repeat the question. • • [3] Q: Did you ever have any discussion with anyone • with regard to whether a conclusion was formed as to • the presence of a leak in the underground storage tank? [6] A: No. [7] Q: Did you ever know of any facts which would • indicate to you that there was a leak in the • underground storage tank? [10] A; Prior to it actually being taken out, no. [11] Q: After it was removed did you ever have • occasion to see it? [13] A: Yes. [14] Q: When you looked at it was there anything • which gave you reason to believe that there might have • been a leak? [17] A: The only thing that I can say I saw on the • tank, and that would be closest the way the tank was • sitting towards the south end of tank as it was sitting • in there towards the south wall, was a wet area with • material stuck Lo it when the tank came out. That is • the only thing I ever saw. • I was not present for the pressure test. I • guess I wasn't invited. It was done after normal • working hours. » * [3J Q: With a select cast7 [4] A: Very select, invitation only. [5] Q: Were you present when the tank was physically • removed from the pit? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: Did you have occasion to go into the pit? [9] A: No, not into the pit. [10] Q: Did you see any evidence of product in the • pit? [12] A: No. [13] Q: Did you detect any smell of the product when • the tank was uncovered? [15] A: You could smell product before the tank was • uncovered. With the gas there it's impossible to not • smell gasoline. I mean while it's even sealed, • covered, capped, your going to smell gasoline. [19] Q: Did you ever have any discussions with anyone • else besides Mr. Bayard about the integrity of the tank • after it was removed? [22] A: Repeat that, I'm sorry. [23] Q: Did you ever have discussions with anyone • other than Mr. Bayard about the integrity of the tank • after the tank was removed? • • [3| A: Agusto Gerbow and I talked briefly. He was • the manager. [5| Q: Would you tell me everything that you said to • Mr. Gerbow and Mr. Gerbow said to you relative to the • integrity of the tank? [8] A: The only thing I ever said, do you think • there was a leak. And Mr. Gerbow said I really don't • think there was, but we won't know until they do a • pressure check on it. He told me that would be done • the next day. And when the next day the new tanks were • in the ground when I arrived for work at eight o'clock • in the morning. The oil -- old tank was still sitting • there. I was told by Mr. Bayard that the old tank did • in fact have an pinhole leak, but it could have • happened caused by the pressure check itself. • He said to me that they could not confirm • that that had been leaking. [20] Q: Did you ever have occasion to speak with Mr. • Gerbow again? [22] A: No, not about that at all. I kind of took • the hint. Page 62 to Page 65 FOUR \. -NDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS GUTSHL 6/13/91 —; -- the car wash. [23] Q: Somewhere we have a picture here which I'd • like to show you. If you look at Exhibit No. 9, you • see a concrete structure immediately adjacent to the • • • south wall of the Esso Station? [4] A: Yes. [5] Q: Let me tell you that an excavation was made • for the placement of that building and there was • testimony, sworn testimony to the fact that a dark • oozie substance described this morning as goop. [9J A: Makes sense. [10] Q: Emanated from the south wall excavation of • the Esso Station? [12] MS. TURNER: The testimony this morning • was not that it emanated from the south wall. • I'm objecting to the characterization of • Mr. Morris' testimony. [16] MR. DEMA: There was testimony from the • same witness and earlier from Mr. Jenson of Esso that • there was a similar goop-like substance that Esso • contractors came in and then emptied from the catch • basin? [21] MR.DEMA: Just to clarify the record, • Mr. Morris called the liquid that, that was in the • bottom of the excavation bit. He didn't it call that • either. He said it was liquid and dark in color and • that he doubted if it was gasoline all right. OD CO [3] MS. TURNER: Seriously, what Mr. Morris • described as, quote, goop was the substance that the • contractors took out of various places of the Esso • Stations and put into the drums.. [7] MR. DEMA: Fair enough. [8] BY MR. DEMA: [9] Q: This is the Deposition Exhibit from the • earlier deposition, and some 55 gallon drums were • filled with a substance which Mr. Morris described as • goop, a dark goopie liquid coming from areas one, two, • three, four, five and six9 [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: Based on you're familiarity with what was * being placed into the catch basin, the only water • separator and the waste oil pit up until the time you • left the station, could you describe for me the visual • characteristics of the liquids that would be visible in • those areas? [21] A: In other words, the question is, is what we • were putting in the oil pits could possibly be what he • found was mixed with water? Yes, quite easily. [24] Q: Was it dark in characteristic as opposed to • light like gasoline? • • [3] A: It would be the dark brown because the dirt • was being mixed with it also. [5] MS. TURNER: I'm sorry, you said it was • dirt being mixed? [7] THE WITNESS: Once mixes with the dirt • and starts collecting the dirt and finally gets to a • point that it's been sitting, by that time it's going • to be a very dark brown, maybe even possibly black in • some instances. Oil does that. [12] BY MR. DEMA: [13] Q: Now, throughout the time you -- that you were • in either stage of employment, did you have any reason • to suspect that there might be an escape into the • environment of the dark liquid that was being collected » in any of those places? [18] A: No, it never even crossed my mind. You just • don't -- it's the Virgin Islands. There is every shade * tree mechanic clumping oil right now on the ground. I • couldn't tell you how many times I have watched people • change oil in the parking lot right there. • Well, I'll leave it at that. [24] Q: With regard to these particular tanks, • though, sir, which particular tanks? * • [3] A: Any of the tanks we referred to as -- or that • Esso refers to as holding on a cement area, which are • number rated in this picture as one, two, three, four, • five and six. And in your diagram as catch basin, and • one, two, three 7L oil/water separator and HHAq (J^ TB] Q: Have you personally ever checked those tanks • and seen a particular level of liquid present in any of • those vessels and then gone back and looked at that • level and see it deminish? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: And would you detail it for me when that was • and the vessel in which you saw it? Page 69 to Page 73 FOUR \, ^>TDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS GUTSIL^ ,L 6/13/91 [15] A: I cannot tell you the dates. [16] Q: Could you tell me the period of employment? [17] A: The second period of employment after • Safety-Kleen emptied our pit, oil pit in the back, I • think then in turn it started to, I don't want to say • monitor, and to physically have someone open it, will • you look in and see what is going on. The pit in turn • filled up. • I in turn informed Esso and the discussion • started with who was going to pay for it and when are • we going to do it, when are we going to next have • • • normal conversation back and forth between dealer and • wholesaler. • I kept looking at the pit and noted that the • pit had in fact lost some of its liquid, a good two • feet. [8] Q: Over what period of time? [9] A: Oh, a period of about five days. [10] Q: Had you given anyone authority to remove any • liquid from that pit? [12] A: No, you couldn't get to the pit or not • without my key or going through the front door and • office and the parts r o o i r K _ _ _ _ _ ^ __________ [15] Q: During your first period of emploYmantl^* believe you testified that product was so/Td to W/£PA? n [19] Q: ArVd I believe fterval somec whether | testified that at would check 1 was high UJ CO some • the pit t enough [22] A: Yes. [23] Q: AYas there ever a tirhe during the up? first period • of employment when you looked at the level of the pit • trying to estimate when VVAPA would come and prekj_tup • • • and notice that? [4] A: VVAPA did notjcome and pick it up. It was • sold to iVAPA and independent truckei/who had an oil • tanker. I don't knc/w who it was, where he is at. He • wa/put out of business when VVAPA refused to buy the • oil that was re moved f/orn his truck and take it to [9] VVAPA. Af he was paid, I don't know if Danny v/as paid. • I don't know. I know it w/as sold to WAPA. [11] Q: Diet there come a time that an observations/as • made of that oil pit and the clecreaSrogJevel was seen? [13] A: Not to my knowied^e. [14] Q: And have you no idea who that trucker was? __[15J A: None whatsoever, none, -^..^—— [16] Q: Did you ever bring it to anyone's attention • that the liquid in the pit had diminished a good two • feet upon inspection? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: To whose attention did you bring it? [21] A: Mr. Bayard. [22] Q: And? [23] A: And Mr. Gerbow, Agusto Gerbow, the V.I. • manager. [25] Q: First what did Mr. Bayard say or do about it? [3] A: Mr. Bayard, I don't know. I informed him of • it. I felt that that was something that he should -- • you know, I just informed him about it. [6] Q: And what did Mr. Gerbow say or do about it? [7J A: Okay. (81 Q: Quote, unquote9 [9] A: That was about as best 1 can recall. Okay, • we'll look into it, check on it. ______£______________ [111 Q: Are you personally aware oT whether anyone • from Esso checked into it? [13] A: Safety-Kleen came back and emptied the tank • again and we were asked not to use the tank -- or the • pit. I should not say tank. [16] Q: And this was up until the 1990 period? [17] A: It kind of worked out well because we had • opened up the Long- Bay facility. We closed the shop in • February, there was no reason to use the oil pit • anymore, it was a dead issue. So it just kind of -- it • was stopped right there. [22] Q: February of what year? [23] A: Ninety. [24] Q: February '90? [25] A: Yes.__________________ • • [3] Q: Can you tell me why in March of 1991 when the • contractors came they were able to take many barrels, • 55 gallon drums of liquid out of those areas as • described in Mr. Morris' Exhibit 1? Page 73 to Page 77 FOUR aVDS v TEXACO et al THOMAS GUTSH 6/13/91 CO CO M [7] A: No. [8] Q: Fair enough. Thank you, sir, for your • patients. I will turn you over to the next • questioning. [11] DIRECT EXAMINATION [12] BY MR. KNOEPFEL: [13] Q: Mr. Gutshall, could you describe for me this • waste oil pit? [15] A: Basically like a cistern, same thing, • concreted. I never saw the bottom actually. The only • thing I ever saw on the bottom would be I saw some, • looked as if it was cans, oil filters, junk. I never • physically saw the bottom of the pit, I saw the walls • which were concrete. [21] Q: Can you tell us the dimensions of that pit? [22] A: No, I can't. It was oblong. But I'm not - • it was covered. Whenever I looked in the pit only half • of the top would open up, so you never really opened up • the hole pit. There is a steel cover over the whole • • • thing. [4] Q: The part that you could see cuts the • approximate dimensions of what you could see? [6] A: Five by five maybe, five foot by five foot. [7] Q: And you think that was -- is that half of • what -- [9] A: That would be the half that I could see. I • never really saw even when they emptied it out, • Safety-Kleen or previous to that it was never really • opened up. I took a flahslight once and lookedjn it. • And I said that is -- you know, I was done with that. [14] Q: To your knowledge, from what you could see • this five by five was that approximately one half of • the entire pit? [17] A: I would say. [18] Q: So it could be ten feet? [19] A: It was a big pit. [20] Q: Do you have any idea how deep it was? [21] A: Fifteen feet. [22] Q: Fifteen feet9 [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: You said you could see things on the bottom? [25] A: I took a flashlight and looked down in there. • • [3] Q: And you would say it's as deep as 15 feet9 [4] A: I would say 15 feet, yes. [5] Q: This cover was the steel cover covering the • entire top of this? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: Was that in one piece or two pieces? [9] A: Two pieces, I believe. [10] Q: Was it hinged? [11] A: Yes, it was hinged, made of steel. Danny • made it, had it made. [13] Q: So to open up -- to get access to the pit • you'd have to somehow open this steel cover? [15] A: Right, I would never do it. It was too • heavy. [17] Q: Was the opening when you opened up the steel • cover five by five approximately? [19] A: No, less than that, maybe three, three. [20] Q: And when it was pumped out, how was it pumped • out? [22] A: Which? [23] Q: Which way? [24] A: Several. [25] Q: Describe those9__________ • * [3] A: First occasion that I was there the gentlemen • just drop the hose in and with a lawn mower engine on • his truck would pump it into his tanker. Safety-Kleen • had very elaborate measuring devices in between their • pump, their suction pump and would measure their tank • after they were done where the other gentlemen never • did that, they were just pumped out and let's go. [10] Q: Can you tell me the approximate dimensions of • the oil/water separator? [12] A: Approximately four feet deep with three • compartments. And I would say the compartments are • approximately three by two on each compartment. [15] Q: Were these compartments connected? [16] A: The only way they were connected would be at • the top so the water could flow through the hole, • separate from the oil and it would flow over. [19] Q: Concrete walls dividing each of these three • compartments? [21] A: Right. I would say maybe they're four inches • thick. Page 77 to Page 80 KLEENAPART THE DELUXE WINNER PARTS WASHER SWIPE 37 TUT OO6 O883 —I H CO CO ^cV cP u H cr 03 CO EXHIBIT 'Nf TUT OO6 O886 FILE COPY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS - ST. JOHN IN RE: TUTU WATER WELLS CONTAMINATION LITIGATION ) MASTER DOCKET FILE ) NO. 1989-107 RHODA J. HARTHMAN, CHARLOTTE A. LABARRE, ALBERT E. HARTHMAN, ARTHUR E. HARTHMAN, AUSTIN E. HARTHMAN, EDGAR A. HARTHMAN, SAMMY E. HARTHMAN and P.I.D., INC., WATER SERVICES, LIMITED and TUTU SERVICES, LIMITED, Plaintiffs, VS. TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, INC., VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, EXXON CORPORATION, ESSO VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC., ESSO STANDARD OIL COMPANY (PUERTO RICO), THE DUPLAN CORPORATION, LAGA INDUSTRIES, LTD., PANEX INDUSTRIES, INC., PANEX CO., PAUL LAZARE and ANDREAS GAL, Defendants. ESSO STANDARD OIL, S.A., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, VS. LAGA INDUSTRIES, LTD., DUPLAN CORPORATION, PANEX COMPANY, PAUL LAZARE and ANDREAS GAL, L'HENRI, INC., RAMSAY MOTORS, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS. CASE NO. 1989-220 ORAL DEPOSITION OF NELSON ROSADO TUT OO6 0887 FOUR WINDS PLAZA PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, VS. CASE NO. 1989-224 )) TEXACO, INC., TEXACO CARIBBEAN, ) INC. , VERNON MORGAN, ESSO STANDARD ) OIL, S.A., LTD., DANIEL BAYARD, ) EXXON CORPORATION, ESSO VIRGIN ) ISLANDS, INC., THE DUPLAN ) CORPORATION, LAGA INDUSTRIES, LTD.,) PANEX INDUSTRIES, INC., PANEX CO., ) PAUL LAZARE and ANDREAS GAL, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ESSO STANDARD OIL, S.A., ) ) Defendant and ) Third-Party ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ) LAGA INDUSTRIES, LTD., DUPLAN ) CORPORATION, PANEX COMPANY, PAUL ) LAZARE and ANDREAS GAL, L'HENRI, ) INC., RAMSAY MOTORS, INC., ) ) Third-Party ) Defendants. ) VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF NELSON ROSADO, taken on the 14th day of October, 1992, at the Law Offices of Goldman, Antonetti, Ferraiuoli & Axtmayer, American International Plaza, 14th Floor, 250 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918, between the hours of 9:40 a.m. and 1:07 p.m., pursuant to notice and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. REPORTED BY: Angela L. Klein Registered Professional Reporter Caribbean Scribes, Inc. 2132 Company Street, Suite 3 Christiansted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00820 (809) 773-8161 TUT CO6 O888 WINDS v TEXACO et al NELSON KO&.-YDO 10/11/92 CO -0 [1] (0000) THE VIDEO OPERATOR: We are now on record. • The time is 9:40 on October 14th, 1992. We are at the • Offices of Goldman, Antonette, Ferraiuoli & Axtmayer in Hato • Rev, Puerto Rico in the American International Plaza • Building. • My name is Henry E. Tonnemacher, Video Seven • Seas, Ltd. We are here to receive deposition from Mr. • Nelson Rosado concerning the Tutu Water Wells Contamination • Litigation, Civil Number 1969/220 and Civil Number 19 - I • believe that should have been -- pardon me - 1989/220 and • 1989/224, Master Docket File No. 1989/107. • Present are myself, the video operator, and • also present are the following. If everyone would just • introduce themselves. [15] MR. ZEBEDEE: John A. Zebedee with the Law • Offices of James L. Hymes, and we represent the Defendant • Vernon Morgan. [18] MR. ROMERO: Eugenic Romcro with the Law • Office of Goldman, Antonette, Ferraiuoli & Axtmayer, and we • represent the ESSO Defendants in this case. [21] MR. DEMA: Jack Dema, I represent Four Winds. [22] MR. KNOEPFEL: My name is Richard Knoepfel. • I'm with the Firm of Briggs, Knoepfel & Ronca, and we • represent the Plaintiffs Harthman and P.I.D. 125J MR. DALEY: Richard Daley from the Firm of Pattie & Daley in Christiansted, St. Croix for the Defendant • Exxon Corporation. [3] MR. DEMA: And if the court reporter will • swear the witness. [5] MR. MEYERS: Addison Meyers representing- • Texaco Caribbean from the Law Firm Anderson, Moss, Parks, Movers, S h e i • o L i s c. [8J MR. DEMA: Sorry, Sonny. [9] (0174) NELSON ROSADO, • called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, testified • as follows: [12J DIRECT EXAMINATION [13.] BY MR. DEMA: [14] Q: Would you state your name and residence address for • the record, please? [16| A: My name is Nelson Rosado. I live in Puerto Rico. [17] Q: And would you state your street residence address? [18] A: Okay. My address is Via La Doca, BA-26 Bosque Del • Lago, Toa Alta, Puerto Rico. [20] Q: And where are you presently employed, sir? [21] A: I work for ESSO Standard Oil Company, Puerto Rico. [22] Q: And how long have you been in that employment? [23] A: About 15 years. [24] Q: In that same capacity? [25] A: Yes. Like a - I'm a civil engineer, engineering PageS field. [2] Q: And where did you graduate -- where did you got. • your engineering degree? [4] A: Okay. From Mayaguez Compos -- that's Colegio De • Agncultura y Art.es Mechanicas De Mayaguez. [6| Q: And in what field is your degree in engineering 9 [7] A: Civil engineering. [8] Q: And after you graduated with the engineering • degree, what job did you go into? [10] A: Well, 1 start working with a private company in • construction. Then I work for Government one year, and then • I start working for ESSO. [13] Q: And after your initial engineering training, have • you received any further training particularly with regards • to any environmental matters, for example? [16] A: Yes. We in ESSO, we take some seminars, and we • take with different companies they show us about the • environmental equipment and environmental law. [19] Q: And where do you take these seminars? [20] A: Well, we check with a different company like • Solares, C.I.V. [22] Q: Are all the seminars you've attended been given • here on Puerto Rico? [24] A: Yeah, in Puerto Rico. [25] Q: So would it be correct that you have worked, you Page 5 to Page 9 WINDS v TEXACO et al NELSON RO^vDO 10/14/92 CO •-0 said, 15 years for ESSORICO? [2] A: Uh-huh. [3j Q: Does that bring us approximately to 1977 is when • you started? [5] A: Yeah, 1977. July 1977. [6] Q: And did you start in the retail engineering • department? [8] A: No. I start in the operation department. [9J Q: And what were your responsibilities in the • operation department 9 [11] A: Well, 1 work in the plants and terminals, like • maintenance engineer. [13JQ: How long? [14] A: Going to say about three to five years, more or • less. [16] Q: And when you worked in plants and terminals, did • that have anything to do with the remodeling or new • construction of service stations in the Virgin Islands? [19] A: I work in the construction, new service station, • remodeling service stations St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. [21] Q: During this first period of three to five years • during your employ? [23] A: My first period in operation department I only work • like with maintenance, no big projects in the retail • department. [1] Q: Okay. So when you were in operations, is it • correct that you had nothing to do with engineering projects • in the Virgin Islands? [4] A: Well, I work in the Virgin Islands in maintenance • for the St. Thomas plant and also St. Croix plant, the • terminal that we have over there. [7] Q: So those -- [8] MR. ROMERC): Are you referring to the first • three to five years still? [10 [11 Yes. MR. DEM A: A: Yeah. [12| Q: (Mr. Dcnia:) So during your first three: to five • years, you did come to the Virgin Islands and worked at the • plants both in St. Croix and St. Thomas? [151 A: Yeah, that's correct. 116| Q: And what type of work did you perform? [17] A: Well, like 1 say, maintenance. We come to change • valve, we come to replace pipes, we have to fix any problem • with any tanks in the U.S. Virgin Islands. [20] Q: And during that period of three to five years, did • you have any problems with any tanks in the Virgin Islands? [22] A: No, I don't remember if we have a big problem. • Only we can say to replace a valve, to replace a vent, or • checking the tanks. [25] Q: Now during your first three to five years when you were in operations doing maintenance in the Virgin Islands, • could you tell us whether there was an ongoing tank • replacement program in the Virgin Islands? [4] A: For the service station? [5] Q: For the service station, for the replacement of • underground service tanks. [7] A: Well, in those years, I don't be involved in the • retail department. I can't say if they change tanks or • something like that. [10] Q: Okay. After your stay in the operations • department, what was your next job assignment? [12] A: Well, as soon as I finish with the operation • department, they transfer me to the retail department. [14] Q: And where in the retail department did you work'.' [15] A: I work with the sales department in charge of • maintenance in tin- service station and the remodeling and • construction of new service stations. [18] Q: And is this in what is referred to as retail • engineering9 [20] A: Yeah. [21] Q: So do you have an approximate date or year when you • started with retail engineering? [23] A: No. I don't have the exact date. [24] Q: So it's some time between 19 -- if you started in » July of 1977 and worked approximately three to five years, we could then say it is some time between 1980 and 1982; is • that correct9 [3] A: Yeah, more or less. [4] Q: And from that point you have been in charge of both • remodeling and new construction and maintenance? [6] A: From that point I start working with the • maintenance of the service station and some minor in the • service station. [9] Q: Now specifically in reference to St. Page 9 to Page 11 FOUi, >VINDS v TEXACO et al f NELSON RC vDO 10/1-1/92 o-- co-0 remember we discuss * about this, because this is a very old construction. [14] MR. ROMERO: A very what9 [15] THE WITNESS: A very old construction. [16] MR. ROMERO: Old. [17] A: It's very old, this grease trap. After the new • one, I don't know about this. After I went to clean the new • grease trap, that's when I saw that. [20] Q: (Mr. Dema:) You were, in fact, in charge of • cleaning it, were you9 [22] A: Yes, I sent to clean the grease trap. [23] Q: Were you there when it was cleaned? [24] A: Yeah. [25] Q: How long did it take9_______ [I] A: It don't take too long. [2] Q: It don't take too long9 [3] A: No. To clean the grease trap, it don't take too • long. [5] Q: How did you do it? [6] A: Well, they pick up the water and the oil, and they • put it in drums. [8] Q: Who's they9 [9] A: Devira Corporation. [10] Q: Sir? [II] A: Devira. That's De Arce's company. [12] Q: So Mr. De Arce again? [13] A: Yeah. [14] Q: And what did he do with it? [15] A: Well, they put the oil and the water in drums, and • they let the drums in the service station. [17] Q: What happened to the drums? [18] A: I can't answer that. [19] Q: What else did they do? [20] A: That's all, that we clean the grease trap, and we • left the drums. [22] Q: Did you wash it9 [23] A: What area9 [24J Q: This tank we're referring to. [25] A: They cleaned those tanks. [1] Q: Well, Exhibit No. 8 shows me climbing clown into • that tank. I'll show you Exhibit No. 9, which shows me in • the bottom of the tank. [4] MR. MEYERS: Rather ungracefully, I might • add. [6] MR. DEMA: 1 try my best, Sonny. [7| Q: (Mr. Dema:) And as you can see in the picture, • which we will hold up for the camera, there is neither oil • nor water nor residue of cither in the bottom of that tank. • Could you tell me why that is'.' [1 IJ A: Well, because we cleaned the tank. We cleaned it. [12] Q: With what9 [13| A: We take out all the grease and the oil. [14] Q: Right. Then what? [15] A: And then we -- we cleaned the walls to take out any • grease that we have in that tank. [17] Q: And how did you do that? [18] A: Well, they do it with some piece of cloth. They • clean the walls. [20] Q: With a piece of cloth? [21] A: Yeah. [22] Q: What else did you do after you cleaned the walls • with a piece of cloth? [24] A: Well, that's it. [25] (4596) [1] Q: Well, I'll show you Exhibits 10 and 11, sir, which • we'll hold up for the camera to look at, which are pictures • showing the interior of the tank and the floor of the tank. • And I would ask you whether you did anything else besides • rub the walls with a cloth9 [6] A: Okay. Well, they use a like -- like you paint a • wall, they use water with some -- they mix water with • concrete, and they paint the wall to keep it clean. [9] Q: Su they mixed water with concrete and applied that • to the walls and floor; is that your testimony9 [111 A: Yeah. Just like you paint a wall. [12] Q: Do you know what this product was that is a mixture • of water and concrete? [14] A: Yeah, it's water and concrete. [15] Q: So that's what they did, they -- [16] A: Yeah. [17] Q: mixed up water and concrete and put it on? [18] A: Yeah. [19] Q: A fresh coat? [20] A: Yeah, it's just like you paint a wall, that's it, • with a brush. [22] Q: Anything else they did? [23] A: No. [24] Q: As an engineer for ESSORICO, did you ever ask where • the pipes shown in Exhibit 12 went? [1] A: No, I didn't check with all those pipes. [2] Q: At any point from 1982 until today, have you ever • identified where those -- Page 55 to Page 59 FOU. WINDS v TEXACO et al NELSON ROoADO 10/14/92 CO -0 have you ever seen any document, • any drawing, any as-built plan that shows where those pipes • go? [6] A: No. I don't see anything. [7] Q: Are you at all curious? [8] A: No. [9J Q: Thank you, Mr. Rosado. • Could you tell me within ESSORICO engineering • did you ever have meetings with your supervisor or other • engineers regarding how the service stations in the Virgin • Islands are being maintained? [14J A: Well, sometimes we discuss our major work that we • have to do in the service station that we have to put new * identification, that we have to put new tanks, and we have • to replace pumps. That's when we meet to discuss about, the • service station. [19J Q: Well, with reference to the Virgin Islands, did you • ever attend any meetings at retail engineering which • discussed an underground storage tank replacement program • for the Virgin Islands? [23] A: Well, the underground storage tank, replacement • storage tank was handled by the other engineers in the ESSO • section.________________ [1] Q: Was there an underground storage tank replacement • program? [3] A: Yes, it's underway. [4] Q: When did it start? [5] A: I think we start three or four years ago, more or • less. [7] Q: And when you say the other engineers in the ESSO • section are doing it, what section? [9] A: That's in the retail department, in the section • that I am in. [11J Q: So would you identify it by name for me, sir, the • other engineers that are involved in the underground storage • tank replacement program? [14] A: Well, Carlos Fuentes, Angel Roman, and Samuel Cruz. [15| Q: Are they all there still? [16| A: No, only Samuel Cruz and Carlos Fuent.es. [17J Q: Where is Mr. Roman? [181 A: Roman is -- right now he's a contractor. [19J Q: Does he work for ESSO? [20J A: Yeah, sometimes he work for ESSO. [21J Q: One big happy family. • Did you ever -- were you ever involved in • doing micro assessments of the Virgin Islands service • stations? [25J A: No____________________ [1J Q: Do you know whether anyone ever did9 [2] A: No. [3J Q: So then you were not involved with this underground • storage tank replacement program at all? [5] A: Not in Tutu. [6] Q: Anywhere in the Virgin Islands? [7] A: Yeah, we change tanks in Hans Oriol Service • Station. [9] Q: In Hans Oriel's Service Station? [10] A: Yeah. [11] Q: As part of the underground storage tank replacement • program? [13] A: That's correct. [14] Q: What did you do in preparation for that? [15] A: Well, we get permits from the government to start • working with replacement of the tanks. [17] Q: Did you ever conduct a coarsivity analysis of the • soil? [19J A: No. [20] Q: Did you ever do a pH of the soil 0 [21] A: No. [22] Q: Did anyone ever show you a micro assessment of Mr. • Oriel's service station9 [24] A: No. [25] Q: Do you know what a micro assessment is relative to the underground storage tank replacement program9 [2] A: No, I'm not very clear about that, because that's • the environmental field. ESSO has a section that deal with • environmental. I only work in replacement of the tank. If • we have any environmental problem, we refer the problem to • that section. [7] Q: Please tell me who's in charge of that section. [8] A: Well, in ESSO we have Hernon Flores to work with • environmental. [10] Q: He just was hired not too long ago, right? [11] A: Yeah, that's right. [12] Q: So besides Mr. Flores, who is a recent hire, who • else is there? [14] A: Ana Gloria Ramos is the other engineer who handle • environmental. [16] Q: Anyone else other than Ana Gloria? Page 59 to Page 62 c WINDS v TEXACO et al NELSON UG^ADO 1 ()/14/9'J H [17] A: No. Well, right now they hire a new engineer. I • don't remember the name. [19] Q: Okay. When you do these repairs, for example, or • installations, do you ever make written reports? [21] A: Well, if we have any problem, I go to my supervisor • that if we have any problem, if we have any contamination. • Also, we have a company Soil Tech. Any time that, we make a • replacement of tanks, they go -- they go to the area, and • they pick up some sample of the soil. We have any problem, they make a report to the Environmental Quality Board and to • the ESSO Company. [3] Q: And do you ever make any reports to Mr. Munoz9 [4] A: About what? [5] Q: Well, you spent -- you supervised $9,200 worth of • construction of Mr. De Arce putting in the oil water • separator. Did you ever make a report to Mr. Munoz about • it? [9] A: In that case, in that kind of project, yes, we talk • to him, we finish the project, whatever, how is the project • running. [12] MR. ROMERO: He wants to know if you prepared • a written report. [14] A: No. A written report, no. [15] Q: (Mr. Dema:) When Mr. Munoz told you to empty the • oil water separator and to empty the 2,000-gallon oil water • separator, did you make a written report after you finished • that work? [191 A: No. No, we didn't make a written report. [20J Q: Well, tell me what Mr. Munoz referred to, this tank • that we're looking at in Exhibits 8 through 12, when he said • to empty it and clean it and flash it with new concrete, • what did he -- what did he call it? [24] (--1920) MR. ROMERO: Objection to the • characterization of what Mr. Augusio Munoz's testimony may have been. * You want to quote his express testimony? [31 Q: (Mr. Dema:) What did Mr. Munoz call that9 [4] A: What, to clean the -- [51 Q: Well, he had to say, Mr. Rosado, would you clean -- [6J A: Yeah. [7] Q: something. [8] A: Yeah. [9] Q: What did he call it? [10J A: He told me to clean the grease trap and the pit and • this tank, also. That's it. [12] Q: So he called that a tank? [13] A: Well, 1 don't remember if he called it a tank or • slop oil tank or whatever. I have instructions to go over • the grease trap and other one. [16] Q: Did you ever go and report back to Mr. Munoz and • said, "Mr. Munoz, we cleaned the tank, and there are these • pipes that lead in and out of the tank, and we don't know • where they go"? [20] A: We cleaned the -- I cleaned the area, but I don't • pay attention to where those lines run. [22] Q: So when you were cleaning that tank, did you clean • on the inside of that pipe a few inches? [24] A: We clean the tank, and we cleaned -- yes, maybe • they cleaned a few inches from the pipe. But the main thing is to clean the tank. [2] Q: And did you see whether there was any residue • inside those pipes'.' [4J A: No. [5] Q: Did you ever look inside the pipe 9 [61 A: No, I didn't look inside the pipe. [7J (Respite). [8] (5000) [9] Q: I'll show you what we will mark as Deposition • Exhibit No. 14, bears Bates Stamp 90601513. It's an invoice. • First showing it to counsel. [12] (Respite). [13] Q: When you've had a chance to look at that, sir, • would you let us know9 [15] A: Uh-huh. [16] (Respite). [17] A: Okay. [18] Q: Is that your signature in the middle of the page on • the stamp9 [20] A: Yeah. [21] Q: And could you tell us what this work was for? [22] A: First, I don't know, which service station it is. I • don't remember the -- I know service contract for '87, but I • don't know which one is the service station. [25] Q: These documents were produced by Mr. De Arce for Page 62 to Page 6T; FOUi. vVINDS v TEXACO et al NELSON ROb, aX) 10/14/92 -t a-- CO -0 worked performed at ESSO Tutu. [2] A: Is that for ESSO Tutu? [3J Q: Could you tell us, based on what is being charged • and what you signed off, the work that was done? [5j A: Well, this invoice is for replacement of some • fiberglass line. [7] Q: And what is the nota9 [8J A: It says emergency work. [9J Q: Do you remember what nature that work was9 [10J A: No, I don't remember right now. [11] (5165) [12J Q: I'll show you what we'll mark as Exhibit No. 15, • showing it to your counsel. I'll also mark the other • invoices. For the record, 15 bears Bates Stamp 906016B. • Exhibit marked 16 bears Bates Stamp 906034B. Exhibit 17 • bears Bates Stamp 90610 IB. [17] MR. ROMERO: You want this exhibit to be two • pages? [19] MR. DEMA: No. [20] Q: (Mr. Dema:) While they're looking at that, sir, I • would direct your attention to approximately February of • 1991, and ask if you remember being in St. Thomas and • getting a call to join one Mr. Jenson, Country Manager for [24] ESSO V.I., at the ESSO Tutu station to look at an excavation • site immediately next to it? [1] A: Yeah. [2] Q: And did you go to that excavation site? [3] A: Yes, I went to the excavation site. [4] Q: And who was there? [5) A: Well, on the excavation site was Mr. Jim Jenson, • Eugenic De Arce, Ramos, one of his employees, Nestor Ram os. [7J Q: And who is Nestor Ramos? [8J A: That's one of De Arce's employees. [9] Q: And once you arrived there, could you tell us what. • you did9 [1 I] A: Well, as soon as I get to the service station, 1 • went to the excavation, I check the excavation. [13| Q: Who went into the excavation? [14] A: I went with Nestor Ramos. [151 Q: Did Mr. De Arce accompany you into the excavation? [16] A: I think that De Arce was outside the excavation. I • don't remember if he go down to the excavation. [18] Q: Before you went down into the excavation pit, what • were you told was the problem9 [201 A: Well, they told me that they have some leak from • the ESSO Service Station to the excavation. [22] Q: Who told you that? [23] A: Mr. Jenson. [24] Q: Did you discuss this leak with Mr. Jenson? [25] A: Well, as soon as I saw the problem at the service station, I told to him what I saw. [2] Q: Well, before you went into the pit, Mr. Jenson told • you they had a leak from the service station, did you have • any other discussion with him about it? [5] (5329) MR. ROMERO: Objection. That's not what he • said. His testimony is not that Mr. Jenson said that there • was a leak from the service station. [8] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Do you remember the question, sir? [9] A: Yeah. Can you repeat it? [10] Q: Before you climbed down into the excavation pit, • did you have any other discussion with Mr. Jenson or with • Mr. De Arce or anyone present, Mr. Ramos, about the nature • of the problem? [14] A: No. [15] Q: Then could you tell us your findings when you • climbed down into the pit next to the ESSO station9 [17] A: Okay. I went down to the excavation, I saw a black • between a black and brown product. [19| Q: I'm sorry, I missed the last word. [20] A: Product. [21] Q: Product9 [22] A: Yeah, product. [23] Q: As in petroleum product9 [24] A: I can't say that's a petroleum product. [25] Q: Would you describe for me what you mean by the word product"? [2] A: Okay. You can say that I see a substance. [3] Q: A substance? [4] A: Yeah. I can't identify like any petroleum product, • because I'm not an expert in that area. [6] Q: So it was a black or brown substance. Could you • describe for us the physical characteristics of this • Page 65 to Page 69 FOL.v WINDS v TEXACO et ul NELSON ROtwDO 10/14/92 oo substance? [9] A: Yeah, it was between black and brown, dark brown, • black more or less. [11] Q: Was it solid or liquid? [12] A: It was liquid. [13] Q: Did you take any sample of it9 [14] A: Well, Nestor, he take a small sample. [15J Q: What did Nestor do with the sample9 [16] A: I don't remember. It was a small one in a cone, • and then I think that we throw the glass -- the cone. [18] Q: A cone9 [19] A: Yeah. [20] Q: What type of cone9 [21] A: It's like a -- like a triangle one. One you use to • drink water. [23] MR. ROMERO: A paper cup? [24] THE WITNESS: Paper cup, yeah. [25] Q: (Mr. Dema:) A paper cup? [1] A: Yeah, paper cup. [2] Q: So he took this liquid -- this black, brownish • liquid into a paper cup? [4] A: Yeah. [5] Q: And did he take it out of the pit with him? [6] A: I don't remember we take out from the pit. I think • that we show that to Mr. Jenson. [8] Q: And what did Mr. Jenson say to do with the sample • that you took of this liquid? [10] A: I don't remember. I don't remember. I think that • we dispose of it. [12] Q: You disposed of it? [13] A: Yeah. I don't think that we take out the sample • with us. [15] Q: Was it of any concern to you as the ESSORICO • engineer on site as to what that brownish, blackish liquid • on the side of the excavation wall next to ESSO might be9 [18] A: Yes. I told to Mr. Jenson what I saw, and as soon • as I get here in Puerto Rico, I told to Engineer Munoz what • I saw. [21] Q: What did you tell him you thought, it was9 [22] A: I saw a liquid substance below the area, and that's • what I saw. [24] Q: And what did Mr. Munoz say when you told him that0 [25J A: Well, my part in that situation was just to check it out and report what I saw, then the -- the people that • work in the environmental area, they handle the -- [3] Q: They did something? [4] A: I don't know. I can't answer that. I only do what • I have to do. That's to check it out what I saw over there. [6] Q: Did Mr. Munoz ever say does that stuff belong to • us? [8] A: No, I don't remember, because I report to him, and • then he discuss that with the environmental people. I don't • know what they do. [11] Q: Did Mr. Jenson ever say, "Engineer Rosado, do we • have a problem"? [13] A: I don't remember if he asked about that. [14] Q: If he had asked that question, sir, "Engineer • Rosado, do we have a problem," what would have been your • response? [17] (5490) MR. ROMERO: Objection to the speculative • nature of the question. [19] MR. DEMA: You're quite correct, sir. [20] Q: (Mr. Dema:) We took Mr. Jenson's deposition on • April l l t h , 1991, and on Page 65, on Line 14 we asked him • this question, "Did you think it important to conduct an • integrity test of the pipeline between the catch basin and • the oil water separator9" And his answer was, "I had • concern because of the proximity of the excavation to my structure, and I was relying on Mr. Rosado's opinion as to • whether or not I was going to have a problem as a result. • He indicated he did not believe so. And I rely on my • support staff to provide the expertise that does not -- is • not within my organization." • Do you remember that conversation? [7] A: I don't remember that conversation, but he say that • we don't have any problem, referring to what? To excavation • or to what? [10] Q: Apparently, Mr. Jenson sent you down into this • excavation pit to look at this dark, blackish, brown liquid • that was staining the wall next to the ESSO station and • said, Mr. Rosado, -- "Engineer Rosado, do we have a • problem"? [15] MR. ROMERO: No. You care to Page 69 to Page 72 _ WINDS v TEXACO et al NELSON RG. .DO 10/11/92 -i er- -o read back to • Mr. Rosado, and he's asked you to do so, to understand what • Mr. Jenson was referring to when you quoted his answer? [18] MR. DEMA: I will be delighted to read back • to him. [20J Q: (Mr. Dema:). Answer, "I had concern because of the • proximity of the excavation to my structure, and I was • relying on Mr. Rosado's opinion as to whether or not I was • going to have a problem as a result. He indicated he did • not believe so. I rely on my support staff to provide the • expertise that does not -- is not within my organization." [1J Q: Does that help your recollection of the • conversation that you and Mr. Jenson had when you came out • of the pit9 [4] A: Well, what Mr. Jenson doesn't say there, what I • want to know, what I'm not clear about is his referring • about the excavation, proximity of the excavation to the • service station, or he's referring to the -- to the • substance that was over there. [9] Q: Well, Mr. -- Engineer Rosado, we would like to know • the same thing, and you were there. So do you know -- can • you tell us what the conversation was between you and Mr. • Jenson when you came out of the pit and said after • collecting this sample in a water cup, there is this black, • brownish liquid coming from the wall by the ESSO Station? [15] (5636) MR. ROMERO: Objection. Mr. Rosado has not • testified that that was his testimony. L17 | Q: (Mr. Dc'ina:) Mr. Rosado, was there a black, • brownish liquid coming from the excavation wall by the ESSO • Service Station? [20| A: Can you rephrase it again? [21J Q: Yes. Mr. Rosado, upon your inspection, did you see • a black, brownish l i q u i d coming from the e x c a v a t i o n w a l l by • the service station 9 [24 A- Yeah. [25 Q: Having seen that, sir, when you went up out of the pit and told the Country Manager for ESSO of your findings, • what did you tell him'.' [o| A: Okay. As soon as 1 get out from the excavation, I • told to Mr. Jenson what I saw in the excavation, that I saw • a product, a black substance down there. [6j Q: I'm sorry. Did you say that you saw a problem? [7J A: Not a problem, a product. [8] Q: A product? [9] A: Yeah, a product. [10J Q: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Jenson as to • what to do about it? [12] A: Yes. I told to him that I'm going to report that • to ESSO Puerto Rico, and they have to decide what they're • going to do. That's all what I have to do with that • excavation. I only check it out and report. [16] Q: And it's your testimony that you went back and made • that report to Mr. Augusto Munoz? [18] A: Yeah, I told to my supervisor what I saw. [19] Q: Did Mr. Muno/ say, "Did you bring back a sample, • Engineer Rosado"? [21] A: I don't remember if he asked about that. [22] Q: Could you tell me as exactly as you remember what • you told him was coming out of the ESSO wall? [24J A: Well, like 1 say before, it was a -- between dark • brown and black. [I] Q: Did he say, 'Do you think it was oil"? [2] A: I don't know. [ can't -- [31 Q: You don't know or you don't remember 9 [4] A: No, I can't say it was oil. I don't know. [5] Q: I'm asking you what Mr. Munoz asked you. • I'm trying to understand. You are the retail • engineer in the field, and you go back to Mr. Augusto Munoz, • who is head of ESSORICO retail engineering, and you say • there is this black, brownish liquid substance coming from • the excavation wall by ESSO, and what does Mr. Munoz say? [II] A: Well, I don't remember what he say. [12] Q: Did he ask you whether you thought this was coming • from the ESSO Station? [14] A: Yeah, he asked me. [15] Q: And what did you tell him? [16] A: Well, I told him, that I saw the - that substance • from that -- that is below the area of the service station. [18] Q: Did he ask you whether you Page 72 to Page 75 FOUiv »VINDS v TEXACO et al NELSON ROL JO 10/11/92 thought it was coming • from the service station? [20] MR. ROMERO: Did Mr. Munoz ask him that? [21] MR. DEMA: Yes. [22] A: I don't remember if he asked. I report to him what • I saw. [24] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Do you know what -- anything else that • ever happened'.' [I] A: From that point9 [2] Q: From that point. [3] A: No, I don't know, because I make a report, and they • and they were with environmental problem. [5] Q: Do you know whether they ever did anything about • this environmental problem9 [7] A: No. I had nothing more to do with environmental • section. [9] MR. DEMA: We have to take a brief recess • with regard to changing a tape. [II] (5766) THE VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: It is now 11:39. We • are going off record to change videotapes in the deposition • of Mr. Rosado of 10-14-92. [14] (Short recess taken). [15] (0000) THE VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: This is the • beginning of Tape No. 2. It is 12:01, October 14th, '92, • continuation of the deposition of Mr. Nelson Rosado. 1 [18] (0041) ~* [19] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Mr. Rosado, I will show you what's • been marked >; Deposition Exhibit No. 15, which is a bill from • Mr. De Arce, from 18 September 1985, and see if you are • familiar with that billing. [23] (Respite). [24] A: Okay. [25] Q: And are you familiar with it, sir? [1| A: Well, I don't remember it. [2] Q: What is the project it describes9 |3| A It describes the replacement nbersj;i» l i n t - , to • put. a new fiberglass [51 Q: And is this type of work for $4,869 something that • would come under your purview as the maintenance engineer • for ESSORICO9 [8] A: Well, that can be handled by me or that can be * handled by other engineer. I don't remember. [101 Q: Do you have a record as to what fiberglass line was * replaced9 [12| A: No. [13] Q: How do you know? [14] MR. ROMERO: He's telling you. [15] A: Because what I written here, I know that they're • replacing -- this is for replacing two lines of fiberglass, • but 1 don't remember which line. [18] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Are there any documents that would • tell us which lines were replaced? [20] A: I don't know, but [21] Q: Well, Mr. Rosado, if there are a certain number of • lines, some of which are steel and some of which are • fiberglass at a service station, are you telling me that • engineering does not keep any record of when a particular • line was replaced? CD •-G [1] MR. ROMERO: He has not told you anything as • to what kind of records are kept by engineering, Mr. Dema. • Would you care to make a specific question? [4] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Do you remember the question? [5] A: No. [6| MR. DFMA Would you read the question back • to him'.' [8| (Following read by reporter: • W e l l , Mr. Rosado, if there are a certain • number of lines, some of which are steel and some of which • are fiberglass at a service station, are you telling me that • engineering does not keep any record of when a particular • line was replaced?"). [141(0317) MR. ROMERO: I ' l l make the objection for the • record. [16] A: Well, when we replace lines, if this is not a major • project, this is a minor project, just go and replace maybe • 20 feet of line, 100 feet of line, this is not a big • project, and we send to replace the line, and we paid the • invoice, and that's it. • When we keep record is when we make a big • project. A complete new service station, something like • that, we make a file with the service station, but for minor • problems like this —- [25] Q: (Mr. Dema:) So when ESSORICO made this service station in 1969, I take it then there's a big file? [2] A: Yeah. [3] Q: Have you looked for that file? Page 75 to Page 79 FOUA .VINDSv TEXACO etal NELSON ROL JO 10/11/92 [4] A: I go to Catano area to try to find something about • the service station, but I couldn't find nothing about the • service station, the construction of the service station. [7] Q: How does this come to the attention of ESSORICO • Engineering, this type of line replacement for $4,800? [9] A: Well, they -- it can be the dealer have any • problem. [11] Q: Well, how do we know why the line was replaced? [12] A: Well, ESSO replace a line in case -- first, we • make -- [14] MR. ROMERO: He wants to know how you find • out. How you find out. [16] A: Okay. If we have, suspect that we have any • problems in service station, we make a pressure test to the • line. [19] MR. ROMERO: How do you fine! out what was • done there? Why? [21] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Exhibit No. 15, why did ESSO change • those lines? [23] MR. ROMERO: Do you know? [24] A: Well, if we change the lines, they're supposed to • maybe we have -- [1] MR. ROMERO: I'm sorry, Mr. Rosado, I'm going • to ask you not to speculate. You either know or you don't • know. [4] THE WITNESS: Okay. [5] MR. DEMA: You stopped him just in time, Mr. • Romero, congratulations. • Mr. Romero, -- I wish I could ask you • questions. [9] MR. ROMERO: I gladly would answer. cc -0 CO [10] Q: (Mr. Dcnia;) Engineer Rosado, could you tell me the • reasons why lines would be replaced at the ESSO Tutu Service • Station? [18] A: Well, they can be replaced because they are old • lines, and because there is a problem in the line. [15| Q: Two reasons; they're old or there is a problem in • the line9 [17] A: That's right. [18] Q: Would you tell me all the engineering • considerations that go into replacing old lines? [20J A: Old lines, for -- by the age, they are very old * lines, we replace the line to avoid any problem. [22] Q: Okay. Now based on Exhibit No. 15, were these old • lines that you were replacing 9 [24j A: U h - h u h . [25 J MR. ROM FRO: Are you asking him if the age of the lines can be -- is reflected? [2] Q: (Mr. Dema:) I'm asking - referring to the lines • that were changed out, shown in Exhibit No. 15, and we are • looking at the receipt, were they old lines? [5] A: I don't know if it was old lines. [6] Q: What was replaced? [7] A: From what I see here, these lines, gasoline lines, • they change for fiberglass. [9] Q: Were they -- the lines that were replaced, were • they fiberglass or were they metal? [11] A: I don't know if they were metal or fiberglass. [12] Q: Does ESSORICO have a maintenance program where they • keep track of the age of the pipelines and replace them on a • preset basis9 [15] A: Well, right now we have a program, and we have all • the ages of the tanks from the installation of each service • station here; in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we • have all the ages. The basis of that we are replacing • tanks. [20] Q: I understand you have a program now. [21] A: Yeah. [22] Q: I'm asking in September of 1985, sir, did you at [23] ESSORICO keep track of how old those lines were9 [24] A: No. [25] Q: So then how would you know t h a t you were going to replace the line by reason of age? [2] MR. ROMERO: Are you referring to Mr. Rosado • personally keeping record of the age of the lines at the • stations or ESSORICO in general or retail engineering • department? • Is that clear to Mr. Rosado, -- [7] THE WITNESS: No. [8] MR. ROMERO: -- which of the three you are • talking about? [10] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Mr. Rosado, let me start again. [11] MR. ZEBEDEE: He did answer the question. [12] MR. ROMERO: Does he know which one he was • referring to? [14] Q: (Mr. Dema:) One of the reasons Page 79 to Page 82 FOUR rvTNDS v TEXACO et al NELSON ROS, n 10/M/92 00 •-0 -0 you gave us to • replace lines was age. Does ESSORICO, to your knowledge, • keep track of the age of the lines at ESSO Tutu? [17J A: Well, ESSO has a file for putting the installation • of the old equipment that we have, and they can know the age • of the lines on the tanks. [20] Q: Very good. And we have been trying to locate that • file for almost two years. So could you tell us where it, • is'.' [23J A: I don't know. I don't know where the file. [24J Q: So then how can you say with such certainty that [25J ESSORICO has a file where they keep track of the age of their equipment? [2] A: The file -- they have the age more or less the • installation of those service stations, the tanks, lines, • pumps, because when we install any equipment, that's capital • money, and that goes to a -- to the capital equipment, and • you can look in that -- in that record, and you can see the • age of when the -- the equipment was installed. [8] Q: We have a record of new construction, and there's a • 500-gallon slop oil tank which Mr. Munoz testified was a • steel tank. Where do I go to find out where that tank is • and what its age is? [12] A: Well, we can check in the -- in the -- it's a • record that we call P98. [14] Q: P98? [15] A: Yeah. [16] Q: In preparation for your deposition today, did you • check the P98 records? [18] A: No. [19JQ: Why not'? [20] A: I didn't think about that. [21J Q: What are the P98 records? [22J MR. ROMERO: Would you remind Mr. Rosado the • topics as to which he was noticed to that he would be • examined upon'.' [25| Q- ' M r . I . ) o m ; i : > Where are the P98 records kepi? Page 8-1 [II A: That's in ESSO office. [2] Q: Where is that ESSO office located9 [31 A: Here in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. [4J Q: Is that the San Patricio office? [5] A: San Patricio office, that's right. [6J Q: And what department are they located in? 17] A: '['hat's in the accounting department. [8] Q: And does the accounting department also have the • records for all the repairs that were done at that service • station? [11] A: Not for the repairs. Just only for, like I say • before, capital project. [13] Q: Who has the records for the repairs? [14] A: Well, like I say before, minor maintenance repair • was done directly with the people in the U.S. Virgin • Islands. We have a major repair, it's done by ESSO Puerto • Rico. [18] Q: Where are the documents for the major repairs kept? [19] A: Well, when I make a project like a new service • station, I open a file for every invoice, for any item that • 1 put in the service station to handle the construction. I • keep a file, and then that file is -- as soon as we finish, • we keep that file, and we send to the Catano area. [24] Q: What about remodeling9 [25] A: Remodeling, yes, we open file for remodeling. [1| Q: And who keeps the file'.' [2j A: The engineering shop open a f i l e : for the project. * As soon as we finish the project, we send the file to • Catano. [5] Q: Where are the -- the amount of $4,800 that's shown • in Exhibit 15. where would that record be kept, the receipt? [7| MR. ROMERO: Referring to Exhibit. [8j MR. DEMA: 15. [9] MR. ROMERO: Would you show it, to him? [10] MR. DEMA: I did. [11] A: Would you ask it again 9 din you rephrase it? [12] Q: (Mr. Dema:) Where are the records of the receipts • for this type of expenditure kept? [14] A: When we make any repair, that repair is expense, • it's -- we make the job, and we pay -- we prepare a purchase • order for the contractor, we pay the contractor for the job, • and those -- those records we keep in the -- in the • accounting department they have file, and they keep those • files for I don't know how many years, and then they send • Catano area. They have a lot of Page 82 to Page 85 FOUi ,INDSv TEXACO etal NELSON ROS. JO 10/14792 '—' !> files over there. [21] Q: And 1 take it you did not check with accounting to • see any documents they may have with regard to repairs at [23] ESSO Tutu? [24] A: No. No. [25](1183)___________________ [1] Q: I show you Exhibit 16, Bates Stamp 906034B. Could • you tell us what, that job was? [3] A: This is for -- make a connection between two tanks. [4] Q: And why was that done? [5] A: Well, maybe -- we change product in the U.S. Virgin * Islands. Before we have leaded and unleaded product, then • we change for unleaded only, and then we have premium and • regular, and we have -- like example, we have three tanks or • four tanks. Then we have -- you have three tanks with • premium, with leaded, one tank with unleaded. Then they • switch, they connect two tanks just for the capacity to have • more capacity in the service station. [13] Q: And how do you know that that describes the invoice • shown on Deposition Exhibit 16? [15] A: I can't answer you on that - that question. • That's what we do when we have problem with capacity in • tanks in the service station. [18] Q: So your answer was just speculation? [19] A: Yes, sir. [20] (1315) [21] Q: I'll show you Exhibit 17, marked 9 November 1981, • and it says call by something Ivosado. [231 A: U l i - h u h 124JQ: Is that you? [25J A: Yeah. ' [1] Q: So then we could at least with some: certainty say * that on November 9th, 1981 you had already started • ovc-i'secing m a i n t e n a n c e in the Virgin Islands; is that • correct? [51 A: That's right. [6.|(1,"OS; [7j Q: I'll show you what is marked -• what we'll mark as • Exhibit 18, Bates Stamp 906020B, Purchase Order 131, and • after showing it to counsel, we'll ask you to look at il. [ 10 f( Respite). [ I l l Q: What was done with regard to that service call? [12| A: I don't understand what it's saying right here. • It's not clear. [14] Q: Okay. [15] A: I can't read that. [16] Q: Where would I find Purchase Order 131? [17] A: Well, 1986, you can try to find it in the ESSO • Catano area. This is a very old one, '86. [19] Q: Sir, looking back at Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15, is • there any way to tell which pipelines were replaced? [21] A: Can you ask the question again? [22] Q: Is there any records that we could look at to tell • to locate -- physically locate the location of the • pipelines that were replaced? [25] A: To find records, if we have any record of that, it's in the Catano area. That's the only place that we • find, because these invoices are very old. [3] Q: You said that there were two reasons to replace • pipelines; one is age, and the second is a problem. [5] A: Uh-huh. 16] Q: If there is a problem, Cor example, a hole in the • line, do you keep any separate records with regard to that • fact? [9j A: No. They only replace the line, and that's it. [10] Q: Is there anything in engineering where back in '85, • 86. '87 you were making notifications of a release of • product in these situations, if, in fact. there was a • release of product? [14] A: No, I don't have nothing about that. [15] Q: With reference to ESSO Rodriguez, sir, are you • familiar with that station? [17] A: Yes, I know that is a service station. [18] Q: From your maintenance visits to the Virgin Islands, • have you ever had occasion to have anything to do with the [20] ESSO Rodriguez station? [21] A: No. Only one time we replace the pumps for new • ones. [23] Q: And when was that? [24] A: I think that was last year. [25] Q: Was that the incident where you received a stop work order? Page 85 to Page 89 EXHIBIT 'O' JUT OOA O9O-1 r-i f-i R — 3 I ~ G D 1 1 : <* e B - K . R . V gio § CD < CO8 X O o: O o p 1 ' \ OHCB Or- JOHh K. DGflrl. P C 20 August 1991 Amy Chester, Esquire Assistant Regional Counsel United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II 26 Federal Plaza, Room 400 New YorK New Yor* 10278 Re: Essp Tutu. St. Thomas. U.S.V.I. Dear Attorney Chester: Enclosed are copies of some deposition transcripts of former employees of the lisso Tutu Car Care Center. Attorney Dema thought you might bo interested in reading their comments regarding waste oil I have also enclosed a copy of the lab report from an analysis of a soil sample taken from the bottom of the cistern excavation immediately adjacent to the Esso Tutu properly. We also took a liquid sample but, unfortunately, the sam- ple was destroyed in transit to the lab in New York I hope everything is going well with you and I want to thank you again (o; meet- ing with me when I was in New York earlier this spring II you have any ques- tions, please do not hesitate to call. Richard W. Smith Research Assistant RWS/s -. Enclosures C-VUTDTT n TUT OO6 O902 £O6O 9OO ifll. put -> J» o 'g J° ss*[un sF.ep a .> J c/ y f f ff r r Jno iUJff »r rp oq f f r * t a frfa> J V 7 ^ ^ ^ ^ ou u; -Ki s r y 7 u r uo t ? p M J O r u • J J c- J r^ J <7 C,' 0 J O </ J 6 u ^ > 0 tt 09;(JH 0 V > 0 U t-fj I i"./; J tf u5 I O 9 -> U W • C o j j ., - * u * n Y o 2 w a d ? u ^ 1 >.• ( J r .1 / u r- _• 'J . ' «r \ -i *• J o (J p U u 0<J ".' i-' J - u -f 6 o > I 6 / f Z / t 0 6 / L' 2 /1 0 7 /OS 1 J J y .••<y ^,'.y TTT>; M i) ^ 'JO p^ U j I i J I .1 J 5 3 (J ij i £> i .> $ . j ) i i J a d r /- j> -r ' 0 ' J o ^ / o c o 5 / v t u n s poly-j^nf ' / ' / I ' 6 9 ^ >. 6 u r u u a r -tr 0 •' (77 J'Jc/l/VS ;i - a ^ t- : i t a 3 M t- 6. - i e - *J •=• L-' Q o- i— CJ 4^> LD e=» tzs ^-» c^> f GJ •£* o «•• O ••• •-» f102$? 'b 468)80 ( 6O7 ) ID 2 7 t. 3 6 j b h c a r> 5 £ T c> !•' .* t ? r L s b X a r c e 1 If. J o n n J n ^ > P.O. Bo i 7 6 * 9 r . o . « Client 5j t o 0 r j :; / n P p > r i i ;j f ; o 11 5 J n f / o rJ on ) f P r «• c e ; <•• ^ i'f 0.? / 2 / / 9 1 0 3 / 2 1 / ^ .' /LLLLili Knoc ivo \ S o l i d i 41 £1113 Illi p(/n/5i O V I I / 9 J /P IO?IO ;n A p p r o v *nd .*bj } it^ . ,/n ^0 et/t-p.' 5 f r v i c e f . Your s snp i ? s <-• ; 11 b i t r /> r d e d a f ( e r / 4 d <> \j s u n 1 cc 1 i (j C j 0 i) 5 { TUT 006 0905 9O60 900 Da nabv 1 2 IV THE DJSTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 3 DIVISION OP ST. THOMAS-ST. JOHN MASTER DOCKET FILE NO 1<J«9-!07 4 CASE NO. 1989-224 5 _________________ 6 IN RE 7 TUTU WATER WELLS CONTAMINATION LITIGATION. 8 POUR WINDS PLAZA 9 PARTNERSHIP. 10 Plaintiff. 11 vs. DEPOSITION OF: 12 THOMAS V. DANAH V TEXACO, INC..« al.. 13 Defendant. 15" 16 TRANSCRIPT of the stenographic octet, of 17 the ptoceedioet in the above-entitled raitici. ts IS titen by aad before DIANA SPiEGEL, a Certified 19 Shortbuitf Reporter and Nouiy PaWic of tlw 20 State of New Jersey. h*M at the office of 21 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.. 201 W. FajsaJc Street 22 3rd Hoot, Rochellc Park. New Jersey, on Tuesday, 2i August 10. 1993. comnencing at 9:00 il> the 24 moraine. 23 2 1 2 3APPEARANCES: D JOHN K. DEMA. ESQ Attorney for Plaintiff vMERLING & BURNS. ESQS. 7 BY: JOHN R. COON. ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant, Western Auto ROSEMMAN & COLIN, ESQS. S BY: DAYff) A. SLOSSBEAG, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants. Log! 10 ARCHfiR & GREINER. ESQ&. 11 BY: DEBRA S. ROSEN. ESQ. Attorneys for DrfcndanU. E«o 12 O'CONNOR & LEMOS, P.A 13 BY: MARY e. HOERBER. ESQ Altorneyx for Defendant. Texacc 14 15 15 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 2* 25 3 I 21N D E X 3 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 4 THOMAS V DANAHY 5 BY MR. DEMA 4,45 6 BY MR. COON 35 7 BY MR. SLOSSBERG 3? 8 ' 9EXH1BITS 10 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE ' I P-l Curriculum Vittt 5 14 15 16 17 18is 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 P-3Flpjrc430 (i) i ( 2 ] T H O M A S v. D A N A H Y. 201 West Pasiaic [3] Street, 3rd Floor. Rochelle Park, New Jersey, [4] having been duly sworn, testified as follows: [5J DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DEMA: [6] Q: State your full name and address for [7] the record. [8] A: Thomas V. Danahy, 340 Germonds Road, [9J West Nyack, New York. [10] Q: And your place of employment? [1 i] A: I'm employed at Geraghty and Miller, [12] Incorporated in Rochelk Park. New Jersey. [13] Q: And your employment capacity? [14] A: I'm a senior scientist project manager. [15] Q: I show you a three-page document that [16] is a listing of your credentials, i believe, if [17] you would look at that and teU me whether or not, [18] in fact, it is? [19] A: Yes, it's my resume. [20] Q: And is that resume up to current dale? [21] A: Yes, more or less, more project [22] experience I could put on there, but that's fairly [23] complete [24] Q: Are there any publications other than [25] the three listed here which you've written which [ 1 ] Danahy - direct [2] an not included? [3} A: No, there art not. [4] MR. DEMA: I would like this marked [5] Exhibit 1 to the deposition. [6] (Curriculum vitae is marked P-l for [7] identification.) [8] Q; ni show you a notice of deposition, [9] have you seen a copy of that document? [10] A: Yes, I have. [ 11J Q: And won Id you read ic through? [12) A: Yes. I've read all that. (13JMR.DEMA: I'd like that marked Exhibit [14] 2 to the deposition. [15] (Nobce is marked P-2 for [16] _________________8/10/93 identiQcation.} [17] Q: I believe Mr. Coon is looking at [18] Exhibit-2. [19] Can all parties present starting with [20] myself, state who they are representing today? I'm (21] Jack Dcma, I represent Four Winds. [22) MR. COON: John Coon, Western Auto. {23] MR. SLOSSBERG. David SJossberg, Laga. [24] MS. ROSEN: Debra Roscn, Esso [25] defendant? [1] Danahy - direct [2J MS. HOERBER: Mary Hoerber, Texaco [3] Carribean. [4] Q: No*-, there are a number of documents in [5] the room, Mr. Danahy. Aie they organized in any [rj] particular format? [7] A: Yes, they are. And there's a couple [B] different things I should point out to you. First [9] thing is what are known as project files or red [10] files. f 11] MS. ROSEN: We're looking at the boxes. [12] A: The center box says project file on it. [13] That filing system is maintained by the [14] secretarial staff, and it is intended to have all [15] outgoing and incoming correspondence filed in it [I6J for this project There are a couple different [17] project numbers related to this, and our filing (18] system is based upon those project numbers. [19] For the Tutu Wells site investigation, [20] there are two main project numbers: first one, [21] which U PR008.01, is the project that is related [22] to the eight sampling events that had been [23] performed « the water supply wells in the Tutu [24] area. That includes the sampling analysis [25] monitoring plan which was originally approved by [1) Danahy - direct [2] the U.S E.P.A.. and that was the September 1990 [3] version, and due to a laboratory change, there was [4] a revision to that sampling analysis monitoring [5] plan in September 1991, and the main documents [6] thai were produced under that project number are [7] the eight sampling reports. [8] The second main project number for the [9] Tutu site is related to the remedial [10] investigation, which the project number for that [ll]isPR0013.01. Page 3 to Page 7 TUT OO6 O9O7 Daoahy___________________ [20] Q: Yes, with regards to the placement of (21J monitoring wells, would you describe whether there [22) were discussions or written comments with the 23] client prior to the actual production of - a written [24] description of where they would be? [25] A: I don't believe there's any written [1J Danahy - direct [2] comment from the clients regarding sampling [3] locations, whether they be borings or monitoring [4] wells. The only verbal communication that might [5] have affected actual well locations would have [6] included site visits and review of the site for [7] access for drilling locations. And that was done [8] in the latter part of 1991, and really it was (9] Finalized in Tech Memo 1 based upon the initial [10] Field work thai we did and the site [11] reconnaissance, and. again, the main discussions [12] there that were performed, along with Department 113] of Natural Resources personnel, was site access [14] and ability; to get into some boring locations. [15] We tried certain boring locations or [16] had planked boring locations, but there was also [17] ihe third-party landowners who might have nlaced [18] some limitations on where we it our drilling [19] rig. In tact, I think ' you arc aware there were [20] some monitoring welU put in some locations where [21] we might have preferred putting our monitoring [22] well, in particular, in front of the car wash, so [23] it really was, the realization of the monicoring [24] wells and soil boring locations was not something (25] (hat was really subject to client comments, and it f 1 ] Dsnahy - direct [2] was more based on technical discussions with the [3] U.S.E.P.A.. and then the final field location [4] based on site access. [5] Q: Did you ever get any written comments [6] or verbal comments from any scientist that were in [7] the employ of the client as opposed to in-house [8] people for Gerajhty & Miller? [9] A: As the investigation progressed, there [10] was some information that was produced by Esso [11] regarding a discharge pipe at the rear of the Laga [12] building, a former discharge pipe. And I believe [13] •hai was icformation that was developed by a [14] previous deposition. I'm not sure exactly how Esso [15] became familiar with it. but it was something that [16] was brought to our attention, and it was mentioned [17] as a likely source of potential waste water that [18] was discharged from the rear of the Laga. [191 building. And mere was a foundation that was [20] being constructed in the vicinity of that former [21 ] pipe, and the committee believed it was imperative [22] (hat we investigate that area before the [23] foundation was installed and the area disturbed. [24} So there were three additional soil [25] borings, borings 14,15 and 16, that were [1] Danahy - direct [2] recommended based upon the information provided by [3] Esso regarding that former discharge pipe, so [4] there was some map showing, sketch map showing the [S] discharge pipe, and I had my field people who were [6] working down there at the rime take a look at it, [7] and we recommended to the U.S.E.P.A. we take [8) samples there because it was something that should [9] have been done in a timely manner because of the [10] pending construction, so we prepared a letter to [11] the U.S.E.P.A. regarding that, and the E.P.A. [12] agreed that we should perform those borings and we [ 13] installed those borings. [14] Q; Is there any written documents as to [ 15] what information was provided by Esso in that (16] regard? 117] A: There's only a sketch msp of the [18] discharge pipe, and the recommendation from Esso [19] is that we should do some borings there, and we [20] opted to put in three soil borings. [21] Q: And those documents arc where? [22] A: 1 believe they are in the project [23] files, and there's a map that Qeraghty & Miller [24} prepared, based upon that sketch map, the sketch [25] map was very crude and just, you know, showed a [1) Danahy - direct [2] back of a building and a pipe out there and that's (3) about it. [4] Q: Did Esso provide any documents with [5] regard to a configuration of pipes and underground [6] vessels, tanks at its service station? (7] /v We've performed a sile reconnaissance [8] of the site and prepared ___________________8/10/93 our own sketch maps of [9] the Esso and Texaco stations. 1 don't recall any [ 10] detailed plans from cither Esso or Texaco. I [11] don't know if they have any of those documents. [12] Q: Is there any documents in there [13] requesting them from Esso or Texaco? ;i4] A: No. there art not. [15] Q: The site reconnaissance that you did. [16] was that reduced to maps, sketches, drawings? [17] A: Yes, it was. [18] Q: In your sue reconnaissance, did you [19] learn the overall location of a 2.000-gallon oil [20] water sprayer in the northwest section of the Esso (21 ] Tutu Service Station? [22] A: The only oil water sprayer I'm familiar [23] with is in the west central portion of the Esso [24] station. [25] Q: What does Geraghty & Miller have on its ——————————— [1] Danahy - direct [2] documents indicating the 2.000 gallon vessel that [3] is in the northwest section of the siau'on? [4] A: I don't know if we have anything on a [5] map that indicates there is a vessel in the [6] northwest comer of Esso. [7] Q; Perhaps Im using the wrong direction. [8] There is one effluent pipe that goes through the [9] retaining wall directly opposite the police [10] station. are you familiar with that one? (11J A: Yes. [12J Q: What do you call that one in your [13] working papers? [14] A: That's an oil water sprayer. J15] Q: And the one that is within a metal [16J caged area, arc you familiar with ihat one? [17] A: No, I'm not. [18] Q: Could you pick out a site [19] reconnaissance map for me from the documents we [20] have here? [21 ] A: I guess the best reference might be [22] Tech Memo 1. which has several site maps in it. [23] (A discussion takes place off the [24] record.) [25] Q: Mr. Danahy, we were asking you about a ___ [1] Danahy - direct [2} site map and we're now looking at Figure 4. which (3] is part of what publication1 —————————page 23 to Page 29- TUT 006 0903 Danahy ___ _____ [4) A: Technical Memorandum One. Tulu Service [5] Station investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin [6] Islands, which is dated April 10,1992. [7] Q: I noted you left the room and came back (8] with this. From whence did you retrieve it? {9] A: From my office. [10] Q: I was under the impression all the [11J documents we subpoenaed are within this room, [12] would you correct my impression of this room? [13] A: 1 believe the files are now complete. [14] Q: Do you have any other written document [15] depicting an oil water sprayer in the area which [16] you have marked, well, between the area marked [17] oil water sprayer" and the area marked as [18] office"? [19] A: I am familiar with that area. There's [20] grading on either side, and upon visual [21] inspection, there was some metal plates or some, [22] that pan of the area has been used for storage, [23] and I'm not really sure what is in the subsurface [24] underneath that area. [25] I do recall some additional information {I] Danahy - direct [2] that was provided by Esso in [he depositions that [3] were given which I received recently, and we're [4] still developing information on the former units [5] or operations ac the Esso station. [6] MR. COON: Can we make Figure 4 an [7] exhibit? 18] MR. DEMA: Figure 4 will be marked as 19} Exhibit No. 3. [!0] (Figure 4 is received and marked P-3 [11] far identification.) [12] Q: Do you have any documents which show [13) the former lift areas which arc seemingly not (14] depicted on Figure 4, Exhibit No. 3? [15] A: It is my understanding that the area on [161 the southern portion of the Esso station was used [17] as the maintenance basis, and I'm not sure if {18} lifts were operated in that area or not [19) Q- Well, when was the dati of the [20] reconnaissance on Figure 4, Exhibit 3? [21] A: That reconnaissance was done in. over a [22] couple site visits, mostly during April of '90 - [23] no, it would have been June of '91 and November of [24] 9) [25] Qr So you were employed by Geraghty <& [1] Danaby - direct [2] Miller at that point? [3] A: I didn t say I was. (4] Q: And did you assist in the preparation fS] of Figure 4. Exhibit 3? [6] A: Yes, I did. [7J Q: Is ihis a document that has been [8] retained by you in ihe normal course of business? (9] A: Yes. it has. [10J Q: This is a document Gciaghty & Miller [U] relics upon in its normal practice of business*? [12JA: Yes. [ 13] Q: With regard to all the documents that [14] have been produced in this room today, six, are [J5] they business documents of Geraghty & Miller? [16] A: Yes, they are business documents, field [17] notes, I suppose they are ail considered business [18] products. Some of (hem are correspondence between [ 19] Esso's attorneys and Texaco's attorneys. [20] Q: Does Geraghty Miller keep these [21] documents in the normal course of its business? [22] A: Yes, we do. [23] Q: And ai prqjec: manager, are you [24] familiar with the continuation Tutu Water Wells? [25] At the meeting in Puerto Rico to discuss the [I] Danahy - direct [2] comments to Tech Memo 1, would you state the name [3] of everybody present at that meeting? [4) A: The people who were attending that [5 ] meeting were Ana Gloria Ramos, Jose Agretot, [6] Francis Torres, Scott McKay, aad if Jose Agrclot [7] was not present, then for Soil Tech, Jose Cardona. [8] Q: You say that Esso has started to [9] provide you certain deposition transcripts, are [10] they contained within this room? [II] A: I believe they arc. I don't know if [12] you are informed or not, but given the short [i3] notice of our request to provide these documents [14] today, I was on vacation over the past week and 115] just returned this morning and only had an hour or [16] so to review all the documents here. To my [17) knowledge, they are complete. [18] MS ROSEN: In fairness to you. I [19] didn'c see any depositions, and I know ____________________8/10/93 you didn't [20] have an opportunity to go through all the boxes {21 ] like I did yesterday. [22] A: There might be one more bound document [23] which has a lot of information that was provided [24] by yourself on behalf of Four Winds Plaza, [25] supplemental information provided to the U.S. __ ——————————— [15 Danahy -direct [2] E.P.A.. included in that package was sent to me by [3] Goldman-Antonetti, included in thai was [4] depositions from various people including former [5] Esso employees [6) Q: Prior to your receipt of the document [7] prepared by my office, commenting on Tech Memo 2, [8] did Esso provide you with any documentation. as to [9] the previous uses of Esso Tutu Service Station [10] with regard to engine and parts degreasing? [I I] A: No, I dont recall any information of [ 12] that nature I was provided [13] Q: Did Esso provide YOU any documentation [14] with regard to the disposal of degreasing fluids [15] into any on-site storage receptacles of the Esso (16) Tutu Service Station? [17] A: No, I don't recall any information of [181 that nature. [19] Q: Did Esso ever provide you with any [20] documentation with regard to repairs to pipe lines [21] at the Esso Tutu Service Station? [22] A: There is some information I was [23] provided regarding the historical leak testing of [24] one of the tanks at Esso, and the decision or [25) discussion of chose results and the correspondence [I] Danaby - cross [2] to the U.S.E.P.A. I believe that we reviewed, and [3] I don't recall any other information regarding the [4] leak testing or piping replacement [5] Q: With regard to the copying of the [6] documents that you have brought here today, once J7] we get into an inspection of them, does Geragbcy & [8] Miller use any outside copying service or has [9] there been any discussion as to the process of [10] copying? [II] A: 1 guess Til leave that up to Mary V/e (12) discussed it briefly this morning thai K really (13] would be up to you to determine how you would like [14] to Page 29 to Page 34 TUT OO6 0909 EXHIBIT 'Q' TUT OO6 O9.1.0 Suite 201, 1090 King Gcorgti POM Ro*d, Edison, NJ 08837 • (201) 225-6116 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE REMOVAL AND PREVENTION EPA CONTRACT 6&-01-7J67 TAT-02-F-0* 398 TO : MEMORANDUM C a r l o s O'Neill U.S EPA Caribbean Field Office FROM : SUBJECT DATE : A r n a l d o Mart r, TAT II D o u g l a s Henne4t/TAT II QC v v St. Thomas, Tutu HSL + 40 S a n p l i n g Results Ja nua ry 27, 1988 The f o l l o w i n g l e t t e r report is p r o v i d e d in a c c o r d a n c e with TDD /02-8709-29. The c o m p l e t e d a n a l y i i s r e p o r t of the HSL+40 s a n p l i n g of the Tutu well s i t e was r e c e i v e d on January 18, 1988. A copy of the l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t was d e l i v e r e d to the EPA PM on January 20 , 1988. T a b l e '1 shows the e a c h well. The aaj t r a n s d i c h l o r o e t h y l e t e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T B M E w a s n o t d e t e c t c o a p o u n d s found in t r i c h l o r o e t h a n e ; be p h e n o l ; 2 - b u t o x y e t h 1 - h e x a n o l ; N-2-dime p e n t a c h 1 o r p h e n o 1 , • c o n c e n t rat or contaai ne (DCE), (PCE) *nd ed d u r i n g low or tra n r o i c acid yl phospha thyl -1- p e t h y l e n e c ion of c o n t a m i n a n t s found in nants found are 1,2- trichloroethylene (TCE),/ t e r t b u t y l methyl «therUTBHE) . ) previous samplings. 01 rr*-r__-^~"^^ ce concentration are: 1 , 1 , 1 - ; 4-methoxy-1 , 1-dimethyl ethyl te; 1 , 2-dichlorobenzene; 2-ethyl- ropaneamine; chloroform; toluene; hloride and 2-methyl naphtalene. A h i g h c o n c e n t r a t i o n (120,000 ug/1) of aethylene chloride was f o u n d in the H a r v e y ' s Well. Toluene was d e t e c t e d in low or t r a c e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in two wells (Byran's and Leonard's). D n l l k e p r e v i o u s s a m p l i n g s , benzene was not d e t e c t e d in any of the s a m p l e d wells. D c „. EXHIBIT M Roy F. Weston, Inc. SPILL PREVENTION & EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION EP000062 TUT OO6 0911 T h e f o l l o w i n g w e l l s s h o w n o d e t e c t a b l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f a n y o f t h e o r g a n i c c o m p o u n d s t e s t e d : R o d r l g u e z A u t o , D e v c o n / I , D e v c o n f 3 , D e n c h , a n d R a r t h a a n E s t a t e . T a b l e / 2 s h o w s t h e c o n p o u n d s a n d « e t a l s t h a t a r e r e g u l a t e d u n d e r C E R C L A , t h e i r r e p o r t a b l e q u a n t i t i e s ( R Q ) a n d t h e i r D r i n k i n g W a t e r S t a n d a r d s M a x i m u m C o n t a n i n a n t L e v e l ( M C L ) , I f B ny . O f t h e a e t a l * t e s t e d , a r s e n i c , s e l e n i u a a n d zinc were found In g r e a t e r t h a n t r a c e concentrations. Arsenic was found only In the H a r t h e a n Crusher Well. Zinc concentrations ranged f r o m n o n d e t e c t a b 1 e In Devcon tl to 460 ug/1 in S « i t h Well. Other «Vtals found In d e t e c t a b l e but not q u a n t i f i a b l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a r e c h r o m i u m , c o p p e r , t h a l l i u m a n d antiaony. T h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of m e t a l s found In each well is l i s t e d In Table f\. C y a n i d e was found In five wells. The c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ranged f r o m d e t e c t a b l e but not q u a n t i f i a b l e (trace), to 58 ug/1 in E g l l n t\ well-. The c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c y a n i d e found in e a c h we 11 is l i s t e d in T a b l e t\ . The HSL+40 s a a p l i n g r e s u l t s c o n f i r m t h a t the aajor p o l l u t a n t s In the Tutu well s i t e are DCE, TCE and PCE. Seven wells show c o n c e n t r a t i o n s g r e a t e r or equal to 100 ppb of one or aore of t h e s e c o n p o u n d s . A n e v major c o n t a c t n a n t was found In this sanpling. Six w e l l s show a c o n c e n t r a t i o n g r e a t e r or equal to 100 ppb of t e r t b u t y l m e t h y l e t h e r . B e n z e n e was not d e t e c t e d In any of the s a m p l e s t a k e n for t h i s a n a l y s i s . P r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s w i t h t h e p h o t o v a c p o r t a b l e c h r o m a t o g r a p h and CCMS c o n f i r a a t i o n s a m p l e * had shown c o n c e n t r a t i o n s g r e a t e r t h a n 1000 ppb in the T i l l e t Well. This wai also f o u n d in the p h o t o v a c s a m p l e s for the »onth of Novenber. S a m p l e s for p h o t o v a c a n a l y i s taken concurrently with the HSL s a m p l e s show a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 46 ppb of bentene in the T i l l e t Well. The cause of t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y is unknown at p r e s e n t , TAT w i l l r e v i e w previous d a t a to Identify potential causes for this o c c r r e n c e as well as discuss the a n a l y s i s with the p r e s e n t l y c o n t r a c t e d l a b o r a t o r y . -2- EP000063 TUT 006 0912 OCT.1987 TABLE 1 C O N T A M I N A N T C O N C E N T R A T I O N S (ug/1) POUND IN TUTU WELL SITE October 1987 B r y a n ' s W e l l T o l u e n e Zinc Tl 1 let ' • Veil 1 , 2 - t r a n a d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c f l l o r o e t h y l e n e Te r t bu t y 1 BC t hy 1 e t h e r 1 , 2 - d i c h l o r o b e n z e n e T r l c h l o r o b e n r e n e 2-nethyl n a p h t a l e n e Ch r omi un Co p pe r Four W i n d s P l a z a /I 1 , 2 - t r a n » d l c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Te r t bu t y 1 DC t hy 1 e t h e r C h r om i urn C o p p e r Zi nc Elgin 13 1 , 2-t r a n s d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Te r t bu t y 1 «e t hy 1 e t h e r C h r o m i u m C o p p e r T h a l l i u m Zinc Eglln (2 1 , 2 - t r a n s d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Te r t bu t y 1 ae t hy 1 e t h e r C o p p e r Zinc Trace Trace 600 2 5 140 470 Trace Trace Trace Trace T r a c e 280 18 140 470 Trace Trace 5 1 78 8. 4 40 270 Trace Trace Trace 98 57 7. 5 21 390 Trace 200 e i t l c a t e d • i t i B a t e d EP000064 TUT 006 0913 TABLE 1 C O N T A M I N A N T CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FOUND IN TUTU WELL SITE ( C o n t i n u e d ) E g l i n H 1 , 2 - t r a n « d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e r C b u t y 1 B C t h y 1 e t h e r C o p p e r Zinc Cyanide" Francois Well 1 , 2 - t r a n i d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e r t b u t y 1 n e t h y 1 e t h e r Ch r o«1 utn Zinc Cyanide V I H A II 1 , 2 - t r a n s d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e 1 , 1 , 1 - t r i c h l o r o e t h a n e T r l c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y e l n e B e n r o i c A c i d Copper Zi nc C y a n i d e VIHA 13 M e t h y l e n e c h l o r i d e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Benzole acid A - n e t h o x y - 1 , 1 - d 1 o e t h y 1 e t h y l phenol 2-butoxy ethyl p h o s p h a t e Copper Selenium Zinc Cya n i d e 56 10 100 270 eitiiated Trace 82 58 100 1 5 1 30 180 e s t i m a t e d Trace Trace Trace 4. 9 Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace 23 6.9 Trace - >- ,~- Trace 2.1 e s t i m a t e d 3.1 est !••ted Trace Trace Trace Trace -2- EP000065 TUT O06 O914 TABLE 1 CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FOUND IN TUTU WELL SITE (Continued) D g m l t ri ' a V e l I T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e C o p p e r S e l e n i u m Zinc Harthm^n E s t a t e Well Selenium Zinc Rodrlguez Auto Veil C o p p e r Zinc Ramscy Motors V e i l 1 , 2 - t r a n s d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r l c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e A n t i m o n y Zl nc C y a n i d e Steele ' a Veil 1 , 2 - t r a n « d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Tet r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e r t b u t y l t i e t h y 1 e t h e r 1 , 2 - d i c h l o r o b e n z e n e Ch r o o1un C o p p e r A n t I n o n y Zinc Harvey ' i Veil He t hylene chlorde 1 , 2 - t r a n s d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Ch romi urn C o p p e r Zinc Trace 20 e s t i m a t e d Trace 40 e s t i m a t e d Trace Trace Trace Trace 6. 3 Trace 22 Trace Trace Trace 47 1 5 320 37 Trace Trac e Trace Trace Trace 120,000 49 23 2 ,000 T r a c e T r a c e 3 4 0 -3- EPOOOOG6 TUT OO6 O91.5 T A B L E 1 C O N T A M I N A N T C O N C E N T R A T I O N S (ug/1) FOUND IN TUTU WELL SITE ( C o n t i n u e d ) Ma t h i a s T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e 2-e t hy1 - 1-h ex a no 1 N , 2 - d i m e t h y l - l - p r o p « n e a n i i n e Cop p e r S e l e n i u m Zinc Smith's V e i l 1 , 2 - t r * n « d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e C h l o r o f o r m T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e - T e r t b u t y l m e t h y l e t h e r C o p p e r S e l e n i u m Zinc Devcon t\ V e i l None d e t e c t e d D e v c o n /3 W e l l Ch r om i urn S e l e n i u m Zi nc A l p h a L e o n a r d Veil T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Toluene S e l e n i u m DeDe Veil Trace 3.6 4. 7 32 Trace 5.6 Trice 100 Trace 21 1 50 34 7 3 460 e s t i m a t e d e s t i u a t e d e a t l a a t e d Trace 7. 1 Trace Trace 22 8. 5 P e n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l C o p p e r ZI nc Trace Trace T r a c e EPOOOOG7 TUT 006 O916 TABLE 1 C O N T A M I N A N T C O N C E N T R A T I O N S (ug/1) FOUND IN TUTU WELL SITE (Cont inued) H a r t h n a n C r u s h e r W e l l 1 , 2 - 1 r a n s d 1 c h 1 o r o e t h y 1 e n e Trace T r i c h i o r o e t h j 1 e n e Trace .Je t r a ch 1 o r o e t h y 1 e n e 6.2 A r s e n i c 1 5 Zinc Trace Dench Veil Copper Trace A n t i m o n y Trace Thai li urn 12 Zinc 68 H a r t h a a n B a k e r y W e l l 1 , 2 - t r a n s d i c h 1 o r o e t h y 1 e n e Trace T r i c h 1 o r o e t h y 1 ene Trace B e n z o l e a c i d Trace A n t i m o n y Trace Zinc Trace NOTE: T h e s e r e s u l t a have b e e n c o r r e c t e d f o r c o n t a n i n a n t s f o u n d i n t h e f i e l d b l a n k s a n d l a b o r a t o r y b l a n k s . -5- EPOOOOG8 TUT OO6 O9.1.7 TABLE 2 R E G U L A T E D COMPOUNDS COMPOUND NAME 1 , 2 - t r a n « d i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T r i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e T e t r a c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Te r t bu t y 1 »e t hy 1 e t h e r 1 , 1 , l - t r l c h l o r o e t h a n e Benzole acid Methyle^ne c h l o r i d e 4-«e toxy- 1 , 1 -d i »e t hy 1 e t h y l phenol J' 2-butoxy e t h y l p h o s p h a t e 1 ,2-dlchlorobenrene 2 , e t hyl - 1 - h exano 1 N, 2-d i m e t h y l - 1 - p r o p a n e a a i n e Chloroforn CERCLA REG. X X X X X X X X RQ MCL RMCL (Pd§) (ug/1 (uK/1 1 ,000 1 ,000 1 1,000 200 5,000 1 ,000 100 5,000 100 (total Tolue n e P e n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l 2-»ethyl n a p h t a l e n e Ch ro» i u r n C o p p e r Z i n c C y a n i d e T h a l l i u m S e l e n i u r n A n t i » o n y A r s e n i c X X X X X X X X X X 1 , 0 0 0 10 t r i h a 1 o »e t h a n e ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( d u s t s ) ( d u s t s ) ( d u s t s ) ( d u s t s ) ( du 8 t s ) ( d u s t s ) ( d u s t s ) ( d u s t s ) 50 1 0 50 1 ,000 EP000069 TUT O06 0918 7/28/^7 /V /QC 4 be o-re TPCT fWuls-l- 3, \^J h(K Cr (.L^A ivutv{i 04 So TUT OO6 09.1.9 900 ini V o lit- Q4Q\yV^\ \ ' \ 0 OT c. S U M M A R Y O F L A B O R A T O R Y RESULTS F O R O I L A N D W A T E R S A M P L E S C O L L E C T E D F R O M T A N K S , STORM D R A I N S A N D S U M P S A T G A S O L I N E S T A T I O N S AN'D AUTO BODY SHOPS IN TUTU, ST. THOMAS, U.S. V I R G I N ISLASDS O N A U G U S T 1 7 , 1987 P e r s o n n e l f r o o t h e R e g i o n I I T e c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n c e Team (TAT) a n d t h e S t . Thomas D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s (DPNR) c o l l e c t e d e l e v e n o i l a n d w a t e r s a m p l e s o n A u g u s t 1 7 , 1987, from v a r i o u s s t o r a g e t a n k s , s t o r m d r a i n s a n d sumps a t g a s o l i n e s t a t i o n s and a u t o body shops in Tutu, St. Thomis, as d i r e c t e d by TDD Numbers 02-8708-16 and 02-8708-32. Table I p r o v i d e s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f a l l s a m p l e s . T h e T u t u o i l s a m p l e s were t a k e n from w a s t e o i l s t o r a g e t a n k s , s u n p s a n d s t o r m d r a i n s . S a m p l e n u m b e r s o n e t h r o u g h e l e v e n w e r e a n a l y z e d for p o 1 y c h 1 o r i n a t e d b i p h e n y l s (PCBs) and n u m b e r s t w e l v e t h r o u g h t w e n t y - t w o were a n a l y z e d f o r v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c c o m p o u n d s (VOCs). S p l i t s a m p l e s were p r o v i d e d f o r Tutu Texaco a n d T u t u Esso. V O C a n a l y s i s w a s p e r f o r m e d i n a n a t t e m p t t o B a t c h t h e VOCs f o u n d I n t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d Tutu W e l l s w i t h t h o s e f o u n d I n C h e ? e s a m p l e s . V o t e t h a t s a m p l e n u m b e r s one t h r o u g h e l e v e n c o r r e s p o n d t o s a m p l e n u m b e r s t w e l v e t h r o u g h t w e n t y - t w o . The s a n p l e s w e r e s h i p p e d on A u g u s t 26, 1987 to S-Cubed L a b o r a t o r i e s in San D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a . The s a m p l e s were d e t a i n e d In c u s t o m s a n d n o t r e c e i v e d b y t h e l a b o r a t o r y u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 15, 1987. T h e s a m p l e a n a l y s i s v a t c o n d u c t e d t h r o u g h t h e C o n t r a c t Laboratory Program (CLP). The CLP d e s i g n a t e d h o l d i n g t i m e s for VOCs were e x c e e d e d , and the s a m p l e s were warn upon a r r i v a l at the laboratory-.^- The PCB s a m p l e s , h o w e v e r , do not r e q u i r e p r e s e r v a t i o n and did n o t e x c e e d t h e i r d e s i g n a t e d h o l d i n g t i m e s . T h e P C B d a t a n e e t s the EPA q u a l i t y as•urance/qua 1ity control (QA/QC) r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d i f a c c e p t a b l e . T h e r e s u l t s I n d i c a t e t h a t all s a m p l e s a n a l y z e d f o r PCBs we're b e l o w t h e m e t h o d d e t e c t i o n l i m i t s of 80 and 160 ug/kg. T a b l e I I I l l u s t r a t e s t h e v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c compounds (VOCi) i d e n t i f i e d I n t h e s a m p l e s . Some s a m p l e s show very h i g h l e v e l s o f VOCs t y p i c a l f o r s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d from g a s o l i n e s t a t i o n s a n d a u t o body shops. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e c o m p o u n d s f o u n d i n T a b l e I I , s e v e r a l unknowns w e r e d e t e c t e d a s t e n t a t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d c o m p o u n d s . *"•"""""• EP00007 L TUT OO6 O92.1 T A 3 L Z I S a 2 D i e N u m b e r D e s c r i p t i o n 3239S-1... ...... ....... .Bay I 1 s u m p , Tutu Texaco 32393-2 ................. Bay f2 sunp, Tutu Texaco 3 2 3 9 B - 3 . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . B a y f 3 luop, Tutu Texaco 3239B-i........-........Oil a n d w a t e r s e p a r a t o r , T u t u T e x a c o 3239B-5............ .....Waste oil t a n k , Tutu T e x a c o 3239B-6.................Storm d r a i n , Tutu Texaco 32393-7.. ........ .......Gutter, C o n s o l i d a t e d A u t o P a r t s 32393-8. .............. ..Storm d r a i n , C o n s o l i d a t e d A u t o P a r t s 32393-9........ .........Waste oil storage tank, Raojey M o t o r 32393-10. ...............Virgin Islands Housing A u t h o r i t y (VIHA) *•— .................waste oil Underground S t o r a g e Tank (UST) _3 2 3 9 B-I 1........ ....... .Oil and w a t e r s e p a r a t o r , Tutu Esso ^3 2 3 9 Sf^n ................Bay M s u m p , Tutu Texaco 3 2 3 9 3 - 1 3 . ....... ........Bay t2 sunp, Tutu T e x a c o 32393-!< !<................3ay $3 s u m p , Tutu T e x a c o 3 2 3 9 3 - 1 5 . . . . . .......... .Oil and w a t e r s e p a r a t o r , Tutu T e x a c o 3 2 3 9 3 - 1 6 ............... .Waste oil tank, Tutu T e x a c o _J_2_3_9_3_ILl_L^i_!_L• • J L—————^_~Storta d r a i n , Tutu Texaco 32393-18.. ............. . G u t t e r , C o n s o l i d a t e d A u t o P a r t s 32393-19..... ........ ...Storm d r a i n C o n s o l i d a t e d A u c o Parts 32393-20. ............. ..Waste oil s t o r a g e tank, Raasey Motor 3 2 3 9 B - 2 1 ............... .VIHA w a s t e oil UST 3 2 3 Q 3 - 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 i l a n d w a t e r s e p a r a t o r , T u t u Esso TUT OO6 O 9 £260 VOO mi CDh. rederal Programs Cor rx^ at ion March 6, 1989 Ms. Caroline Kvan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Project: EPA Contract No. 68-01-7331 Document No: T648-C02-EP-CZUU-1 Subject: CLP Sample Analysis Data Summary Case No. 3900 I Ser 25 Tutu Vellfield Area Work Assignment 648 Dear Ms. Kvan: Enclosed please find the summary CLP analyses results for samples taken in the Tutu Vellfield Area, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands on September 12 and 15, 1988. The samples vere analyzed by Cenref Labi, Brighton, Colorado. The identification and location of the three samples are given belov: Sample E Sample Location eT-62 1'utu Texaco Service Station - oil/water separator eE-63 Tutu Esso Service Station - holding tank eE-64 Tutu Esso Service S t a t i o n - oil/vater separator Ve have taken the liberty to limit the list of compounds to include benzenes, substituted benzenes, dichloroethane, dichloroethene, trichloroethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethene compounds, toluene, xylene and any other compounds found above detection limits. These compounds (BTEX and chlorinated hydrocarbons) vere identified as groundvater contaminants in past EPA sampling events conducted in the Tutu Vellfield Area. Alkanes and related compounds vere not included. It can be seen from the results that toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene vere found in all three samples. A number of benzene-containing volatile and extractable compounds vere tentatively identified in all three samples. Sample eE-6A from the Esso oil/vater separator also contained detectable levels of methylene chloride, 2-butanone, 1 , 1 , 1 trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene and benzene. Copies of the laboratory analysis data sheets for the three samples are attached. TUT OO6 O924 EXHIBIT O Kxk-rai Pugrains Ms. C. Kvan Page Two All three of these sampling locations vill be resampled later t h i s month due to a break in the chain-of-custody during the original sample shipment. Should you have any questions regarding these data, please do not hesitate to call me at (212) 393-9634. Sincerely, COM Federal Programs Corporation Sik/tl Graber TES III Regional Manager SG/rv At tachment cc: P. Fischet t i J. Claypoole NYC File Document Control (VP8/47)NY-GMO TUT OO6 O925 LAB ANALYSIS DATA SHEETS CENREF LABS SAS No. 39001, Set 25 TUT CO6 O92& VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (rag/kg Compound: methylene chloride 1,1-dichloroethene 1.1-dichlorethane 1.2-dichloroethene (total) 1,2-dichloroethane 2-butanone 1.1.1-trichloroethane trichloroethene 1.1.2-trichloroethane tetrachloroethene 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane benzene toluene ethylbenzene xylene (total) eT-62 eE-63 eT-64 25u 25u 25u 2Bu 25u 50u 25u 25u 25u 25u 25u 25u 140 400 160 250u 250u 250u 250u 250u 500u 250u 250u 25Du 250u 250u 250u 1800 230 1600 57 ' 25u 25u 25u 25u 62 * 100 - 2Su 25u 65 25u 29 2900* 4500* 1900* Tentatively identified compounds: propyl benzene ethyl methyl benzene 860J C3 substituted benzene C3 substituted benzene trirnethyl benzene 370J ethyl methyl benzene trimethyl benzene 1300J trimethyl benzene 390J methyl propyl benzene 470J methyl methyl ethyl benzene 550J C4 substituted benzene 280J C4 substituted benzene C4 substituted benezene ethyl dimethyl benzene 440J tetramethyl benzene ethyl methyl benzene tetramethyl benzene 400J 1200J 6000J 2200J 1800J 8000J 1700J 1400J 2000J 1200J 950J 890J 1600J 1000J 940J 1900J 1000J 1000J 1100J 760J 680J 940J u - below the detection limit J - estimated value * - value from analysis of a diluted aliquot of this sample PM/52 TUT 006 O9:?7 DCTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mg/kg; Tentatively identified confounds: eT-62 eE-63 eT-64 C4 substituted benzene 220J 930J 1400J C4 substituted benzene - 620J ethyl dimethyl benzene - 690J 780J l-methyl-3-(l-methyl ethyl)-benzene - 720J 1600J tetramethyl benzene - 540J 360J tetramethyl benzene - 710J 410J methyl-propyl benzene - - 720J dihydro-methyl benzene 260J dimethyl-(methyl ethyl)-benzene 260J methyl naphthalene - 990J substituted methyl naphthalene 390J - 290J dimethyl naphthalene 250J dihydro-methyl-indene - 690J 490J dihydro—dimethyl-indene - - 270J J - estimated concentration TUT OO6 O928 EXHIBIT'S' TUT O06 O929 FINAL REPORT FINAL CLP SAMPLE ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY OF SOILS AND WATERS SAMPLED IN 1989 TUTU VELLFIELD ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Prepared for U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA Work Assignment No. EPA Region Site No. Contract No. CDM Federal Programs Corporation Document No. Prepared By Work Assignment- Piirject 'Manager' Telephone Number —~~ ~ Primary Contact Telephone Number Date Prepared (TV 25/41) (Master 11) C02048 II 2P1D 68-W9-0002 TES5-C02048-FR-BQYF CDM Federal Programs Corporation 'Scott GrTTtreT" ("2127 393-963X Caroline Kvan (212) 264-0151 May 31, 1990 •'8 TUT 006 O93O May 31, 1990 Ms. Caroline Kvan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza Nev York, Nev York 10278 Project: EPA Contract No: 68-V9-0002 Vork Assignment: C020A8 - Tutu Veil Field Document No: TES5-C020A8-EP-BQTV Subject: Final CLP Sample Analysis Data Summary of Soils and Waters Sampled in 1989 from the Tutu Texaco Soil Pile, Tutu Esso Excavation Pit and Soil Pile, and 104(e) Letter Response Sites (Second Round), Tutu Veil Field, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Dear Ms. Kvan, This letter is to inform you that final data validation of samples collected from the Tutu Veil Field, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, in June 1989 has been completed by EPA'S Monitoring and Management Branch (MME MMB requested several changes in our validation of data sets 12058 (org :cs) and 4512B (TPH). FPC has addressed those problems and the changes have been incorporated into the enclosed tables, vhich constitute the "official" data analyses from the site. Only one of the validation changes affects a numeric value: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in sample ESP-02 (CLP #45128-74) from the Esso Soil Pile changed from 139 ug/g to 213 ug/g. The tables included with this report contain all 1989 data for the Tutu Veil Field site, including volatile compound analyses from oils (case 4512b) from 104(e) Letter Response sites, which vere summarized in a letter report dated January 29, 1990. The conclusions presented in FPC's preliminary summary of "unvalidated" analyses (Letter Report of April 27, 1990) are unchanged. For your convenience, relevant parts of the April 27 report are reproduced belov. Ve have omitted discussion of the Supercat Area and copies of 1988 Data Analysis Summary Reports to EPA. A report addressing the Supercat Area vill be sent you under a separate document number. : f The samples analyzed vere collected the week of June 5-10, 1989, and consist of: ~' » _ __^Case 12058 - soils and aqueous samples - volatile organics (VOAs), -1- TUT OO6 0931 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATK ; extractables (semi-VOAs - base/neutral/acids, pesticides, and pcbs) Case 4512b - soils and aqueous samples - total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) Case 4512b - oils - Volatile organics (VOAs) Case 4658b - soils and aqueous samples - EP toxicity Splits of PRP samples vere accepted by FPC during the folloving oversight activities: Texaco soil pile sampling (folloving soil pile ventilation) Esso tank excavation (from pit folloving tank removal activities) Esso soil pile sampling (prior to ventilation). The 104(e) Letter Response site sampling represents a second investigation. These, and additional sites, vere originally sampled in the summer of 1988. In 1969, FPC collected 10A(e) Letter Response site samples from: Texaco Tutu Station Esso Tutu Car Care Station 0'Henry Dry Cleaners Department of Education Building (formerly LAGA) Ramsay Motor Company Consolidated Auto Farts (nov Gassett Motors) A master table of locations of split samples accepted by FPC during field oversight activities is included vith the data tables. It lists the PRP field number, FPC field numbers, CLP sample numbers and analyses performed. The data tables list only analytes found above detection limits. Ve have included data qualified as estimated (J), tentatively identified (NJ), e. mated and found in blanks (BJ). Analytes qualified as belov d ;ction limits (U) or estimated belov detection limits (UJ) vere not included. Values that vere rejected during the validation process due to problems vith laboratory instrument calibration are listed as rejected (R) vith no value. Analyses from field blanks and trip blanks are presented vith the data from each site to indicate vhich analytes may have been introduced by sampling or laboratory contamination. Brief summaries of the analytical results from each site are presented belov. Texaco Soil Pile - Splits from the ventilated soils availing disposal at the Texaco site are relatively clean. VOAs vere collected from the top, middle and bottom of the pile at each location. All other analyses vere performed on homogenized (top/middle/bottom) samples. The main VOA found vas methylene chloride, vhich vas also found in a lab blank. Sample SP2-022 from the middle of Texaco's location SP-3 contained chlorinated hydrocarbons and xylenes. Tentatively identified hydrocarbons vere also found in semivolatile analyses from this location. No pesticides or PCBs vere detected. TPB at the three locations split vith FPC ranged from <10 ug/g (ppn) to 91 ug/g. The only metals detected by EP Toxicity analysis vere cadmium and lead. Cadmium ranged from .35 to 2.8 ug/1; lead ranged from 1.8 to 31 ug/1. -2- TUT O06 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATK Esso Excavation Pit - FPC accepted spli ts^/from 7 of the 13 locations sampled by E s s o . O f the VOAs detected, xylene and ethylbenrene were the nost common, being present in all but one sample. Benzene vas detected in four samples, toluene in tvo. The highest concentrations - 311,000 ug/kg (ppb) - of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) vere found in sample TE-X-03. Various benzenes were tentatively identified in most samples. No chlorinated hydrocarbons were identified ejccept 8 ug/kg (ppb) chlorobenzene in sample TE-X-05. Semivolatiles detected included naphthaline, methylnapthalenes, fluorene, phenathrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and benzene isomers, most of vhich vere found in five of the samples. No pesticides or PCBs were detected. TPB in the pit soils ranged from <10 to 69 ug/g (ppm) in all but location TE-X-03, which contained 2550 ug/g. Barium, cadmium and lead vere detected in almost all the camples. Esso Soil Pile - FPC accepted splits from 3 of 7 locations. VOAs were collected from the top, Diddle and bottom of the pile at each location. All other analyses vere performed on homogenized (top/middle/bottom) samples. Contaminants found vere similar to those found in the excavation pit. High values for xylenes and ethylbenzene vere found in all but one sample. Toluene vas detected in tvo samples. Tentatively Identified compounds in all samples include abundant hydrocarbons and benzenes. Semivolatiles detected in all samples include naphthalene, Bethylnaphthalenes, fluorene, phenathrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthlate, and benzene isomers. No pesticides or PCBs vere detected. TPB ranged from 48 to 139 ug/g (ppm). Barium, cadmium, and lead vere detected in all samples and arsenic vas detected in one. O'Henry Dry Cleaners - Three samples vere collected at the site. Ch -mated hydrocarbons vere the prinipal VOAs found. Sample e02-02 cc lined the highest values (20 ug/kg [ppb] 1,2-dichloroethene, 75 ug/kg tr.-.iloroethene and 180,000 ug/kg tetrachloroethene). Semivolatiles detected include phenol, heptadecane and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. No pesticides or PCBs vere found. TPB ranged from 38 ug/g (ppm) to 302 ug/g. Cadmium vas the only metal detected; it vas present in amounts less than 1 ug/1. Department of Education (LAGA) - Five (4 toil and 1 vater) camples vere collected.Toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes vtre detected in cample eL-02-01S. Xylenes vere also detected in eL-02-02S. Heptanes vere tentatively identified in the vater sample. Most of the sesivolatiles found were also in sample eL-02-01S. They include phenol, vethylphenols, naphthalene, nethylnaphthalenes and other hydrocarbons. The only pesticide detected vas Endosulfan I, also in sample eL-02-01S. TPB ranged from 544 to 3470 ug/g (ppm). Cadmium and lead vere detected in all samples. Ramsay Motor Company - One soil sample vas collected. Meythyl«ne chloride, xylenes and tentatively identified benzenes vere detected in the VOA analysis. 'Semivolatiles detected included naphthalene, xethylnaphthalene, fluorene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and benzofluoranthenes. No pesticides or PCBs were found. TPH vas 23,400 ug/g (ppm). Cadmium and lead vere detected at 6.1 and 15 ug/1, respectively. -3- TUT 006 0933 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION One oil sample was collected at Ramsay. BTZX compounds vere identified as vas 2-hexanone. Propylbenzene, 2-nethylbut.ane, 2,3-dimethylbutane, and •ethyl-cyclopentane vere tentatively identified. Consolidated Auto Parts - One oil sample vas collected. The lab mistakenly analyzed the sample as a vater and consequently, most of the values vere rejected . Texaco Station - Seven oil samples vere collected from the oil/vater separator, the middle bay colletion pit, and various storage drums. One sample (eT-02-03a) vas mistakenly analyzed as vater and consequently most values for it vere rejected. BTEX compounds vere the main oil constituents in the remaining samples. Chlorinated hydrocarbons (3900 ppb 1,1,1- trichloroethane) vere found in one oil from a storage drum. Esso Station - Tvo oil samples and one duplicate vere collected. BTEX compounds vere prevalent, but all three samples also contained chlorinated hydrocarbons (tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane) . Trimethylbenzenes, 3-methylpentane, and 2-cethoxy-2-propane vere tentatively identified in sample eE-02-Ola. FPC has nov received validated data for all Tutu samples collected to date. This report completes our data summary requirements for 1989 sampling activities for the Tutu Well Field site. If you have any comments or questions regarding this data, please contact Sally Odland or me at (212) 393-9634. Sincerely, CDK Federal Programs Corporation Scott B. Graber TES V Regional Manager SG/sko TLJT OO6 O934 EXHIBIT T' TUT OO6 0935 SOIL TECH SUBSOIL EXPLORATION • ENVIRONMENTAL • CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL'S LABORATORY MEMORANDUM PRIVILEDGED AND CONFIDENTIAL TO : Goldman & Antonetti Lie. Jos6 L. Cepeda FROM : Engr. Jos6 C. Agrelot Soil Tech PROJECT DATE Esso Tutu Car Care Center Soil Sampling (Job No. B957-9) <-"_ .-•-. January 23, 1990 Enclosed is a summary of the preliminary chemical results received to this date, through the Fax, from ETC Laboratory. Figure No. 1 shows the location of the boreholes conducted at site. Boreholes were numbered from B-101 through B-109. Depth of investigation range from ground surface to 12.0 feet deep. The chemical results indicated the presence of BTEX concentrations (not total BTEX) at the following boreholes: Table "A" BTEX Summary Borehole No. -Sample 101-3 -4 102-2 -3 -4 103-4 Holding Tank Depth (feet) 8 10 4 8 10 7 - 10 - 12 - 6 - 10 - 12 - 7.5 NA Concentration range (PPB) 25 300 50 400 500 5 45,000 110 1,300 60 1,200 1,100 30 - 250,000 P.O. BOX 1704, HATO REY STATION 00919 • TEL. (809) 792-8900 AMUR SJREET CORNER DUINA. REPARTO LANDRAU. RIO PIEDRAS, P.R. 00927 TUT OO6 0936 SOIL TECH Goldman & Antonetti -2- January 23, 1990 The only samples disclosing the presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons (PCE) were the following: Table "B" PCE Summary Borehole Depth Concentration No. (feet) (PPB) 103-1 0-1 394.3 103-2 2 - 2.5 85.1 109-3 8 - 9.5 10.46 Holding Tank NA 477,330 NA = not available Based on the above results, the following summary of finding is presented: 1. BTEX concentrations, found in the soil samples, range from 5 to 1,300 PPB which are not considered significantly high for a service station. EPA has accepted for soil excavated from this site, a total soil BTEX limit of 10 PPM or 10,000 PPB. 2. Soil samples corresponding to borehole B-103 show PCE concentrations (80 - 400 PPB) in the uppermost 2.5 feet. This borehole was drilled adjacent to the oil/grease separator. 3. The soil sample, collected in borehole B-109 at a depth of 8 - 9.5 feet measured from existing grade, indicated very low PCE concentrations (10.5 PPB). This sample was obtained very close to the water table. TUT O06 0937 SOIL TECH Goldman & Antonetti -3- January 23, 1990 4. The liquid sample collected from the holding tank, disclosed very high concentrations of PCE (greater than 400 PPM) and BTEX (45 - 250 PPM) . 5. It was reported, by the service station Manager, that the oil and grease separator has no discharge connections. The liquid in the oil and grease trap is pumped to a holding tank located in the rear of the office building (see Figure No. 1) . Periodically, the holding tank is emptied by pumping the liquid into the bathroom toilet. The final report with on-site QA/QC procedures and field sampling description will be submitted as soon as ETC final reports are received. We expect to receive these reports by next week. If any other information is necessary, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Truly yours, Jos£ C. Agrelot, MSCE, P.E, Consulting Engineer JCA/lvl/89579B TUT OO6 0938 SOIL TECH Table No. 1 Chemical Results Summary ( Sample Depth No. 101-1 -2 -3 -4 102-1 -2 -3 -4 103-1 -2 -3 -4 0 4 8 10 0 4 8 10 0 2 4.5 7 (feet) - 1.5 - 4.75 - 10 - 12 - 1.5 - 6 - 10 - 12 - 1 - 2.5 - 5.0 - 7.5 Bzn. PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 625 ND ND ND 5.5 Tol PPB ND ND 27.8 548.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Job No. 89579 E. Bzn. M Xyl. PPB ND ND ND 303.5 ND 58.2 1,116.9 1,037 ND ND ND 25.9 PPB ND ND 59.6 1,008.5 ND ND 425.6 575 ND ND ND ND ug/Kg) OP Xyl PPB ND ND 108.3 1,286.4 ND ND 714.9 NA ND ND ND 6.1 DCE PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND TCE PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCE PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 394.3 85.1 ND ND 104 Not drilled a thick concrete slab found. 105-1 0 - 1.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 106-1 -2 -3 107-1 -2 108-1 -2 -3 109-1 -2 -3 0.5 2.5 4 0 4 0 4 7.5 0 4 8 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 1 - 5 - 1 - 6 - 8 - 2 - 6 - 9 .0 .0 .25 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10.46 TUT OO6 O939 SOIL TECH Table No. 1 Chemical Results Summary (ug/Kg) Job No. 89579 -2- Sample No. FB-1 TB W-l FB-2 W-2 TB W-3 FB-3 HI TB TB Depth Bzn. Tol (feet) PPB PPB 0-1.5 ND ND GA-5311 2.23 2.39 Results not ND ND ND 0.752 GA-5312 0.72 ND ND 0.86 ND ND ND 245,090 GA-5314 ND ND GA-5308 ND ND FB = Field Blank TB = Trip Blank W = Water Sample HT = Holding Tank ND = Non- Detectable NA = Not Available E. Bzn. PPB ND ND received. ND ND ND ND ND 45,310 ND ND M Xyl. PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 181,280 ND ND OP Xyl PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND DCE PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND TCE PCE PPB PPB ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 477,330 ND ND TUT 006 0940 SOIL TECH MEMORANDUM PRIVILEDGED AND CONFIDENTIAL JOB NO. 89579 Esso Tutu Car Care Center Soil Sampling GOLDMAN & ANTONETTI TUT 006 0941 - 10 FIGURE ND.l JOB tt 89579 FOUR WIND SHOPPING - HOLDING \ TANK NDRTH • B-103 V DIL/WEASEl" H 1 1 SEPARATOR |_ J B-106 B-101 • B-109 • B-104 orncc MJK: ••-108 1 ———— 1 1 p . — — — —\ 1 *- — ~ "~ J 1 CXUTINC 1 C — ~~j TANK PIT LL---JJ r — — ~ f CISTERN son. PILE 1 • B-108 • B-105 B-107 • BORING SYMBOL HIGHWAY ND.38 SAMPLING POINTS *?Z7/mFXSDILTECH EXHIBIT 'U' TUT 006 0943 o CD r DESIGNATED CDORI ESSO ANA GLORIA R/ PROJECT COORDINATOR GERAGHTY-MILLER DANIEL HEALTH/SATETY OFFICER GERAGHTY-MILLER BARBRA DOLCE NACHHAN 1 OA - DrnCER GERAGHTY-MILLER 1 DRILLING CDNTRACTOI SOIL-TECH SOIL TECH HYDRDGEOLDGY HYDROCARBON INVEST1GATOF GERAGHTY-MILLER GERAGHTY-MILLER DANIEL NACHMAN JACK LUNDBERG HNATDR tMDS 1 DN-SITE COORDINATOR SOIL-TECH JOSE C. AGRELOT R PORTABLE LABORATORY SOIL-TECH LUIS OUINONES (CHEMIST) CAMBRIDGE LABORATORY GEKAGHTY-MILLER EDWARD LAVLER DATA VALIDATQR ,. >L SOIL-TECH <> ALBERTO BARRtftA 1 SURVEYOR SD1L-TECH LUIS NEGRON u CIVIL/ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT SOIL-TECH GERAGHTY-MILLER JOSE C, AGRELOT FRANK JONES PHD PROJECT DRGANIZATIDNAL CHART TUT OO6 O944 EXHIBIT 'V TUT' OO6 O945 SHIP TO: DILL TO: SAME AS SHIP TO UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED [TUTU ESSO ESTATE TUTU BOX 7^1 ST. THOMAS, V.I. 00801 THE ^SELIG:;( IfcMICAL INDUSTRIES /ISKDN OF NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. MANUFACTURERS OF INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MAINTENANCE AND PROCESS CHEMICALS CSTADLISHED 1896 OFFICE - PLANTS IN PRINCIPAL CITIES • ( 106240 jkUPPERS NUMB TUT 006 0946 Tt.L_EF 3HONL NUMDEM ROUTING VIA SALESMAN NAME onDEn"r|Ao' DOLPHIN BENJAMIN PRODUCT NUMBER ATLANTA INVOICE NO. °NT" Q U A N T I T Y onotinr.D 5 3 1 1 QU A N 1 I TV GIUFTTD 5 1 1 U N I T or' i s a u t SO// U."G ISO// 001. ? 6-GAL . CAN EACH rmoE OK 1 1 16 ORDERED BY L SALESMAN 600 F.O.B. PP S H I P P E R ' S M U M 8 E R DATE SHIPPED CUSTOMER ORDER NUMBER —5ATE5MIN— ORDER DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION A P ABSORBENT WASHKLEEN XXXX SUPER KLEENAKARB 7-GAL. DIPPING BASKET CREDIT OK T E R M S RICE PER M E A S l H H CQ H XXw PACKING SLlf 5 CUSTOMER COPY r> THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES SA DIVISION OF NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. ORDER NUMBER D PO BOX 43106. ATLANTA. GEORGIA 303/8 D PO BOX 4 7 2 2 1 . DALLAS T E X A S 7 5 2 4 7 D P.O. BOX 1 5 1 6 1 . HOUSTON. T E X A S 77020 D P.O 58265. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90058 D 270D McCONE AVE., HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 9'1! O P 0 BOX 1 01 6. LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY 40201 n P 0. BOX 97. HIALEAH, FLORIDA 3301 1 a P 0. BOX 29149. NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA 701 29 D P 0, BOX 1882. CAROLINA, PUERTO RICO 00630 THIS ORDER IS PAYABLE UPON flNAL A C C E P T A N C E B» THC GEUG CMl'.'i'.M i«JDUS'»iCS AND REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEHE :0 RETURNS ALLOWED ONLY UPONNWHTE/ AUTHORIZATION BY SELIG CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES SUBSEQUENT INVOiCfVlpORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE SELIG MICAL INDUSTRIES _^ VISION OF NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET DATE O j 3 ; 7 / 8 ^ SUPEP ^i.PE^At-AP:, SUPERSEDES •?.{•• •-•''/88 3E r ; 3 A , r j EEL 13 CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LOCAL POJ33:- 3ONTRDL CENTER TELEPHONE u r ; T 3 ' . - W AAf3_Av:-.--. GA 303"- TK - ' ^ HP T AT I ON ENE P (- 3:-- •; : TELE-HOME f 4O4 > 6r- i - - .:2C CHENTREC. TOLL-FREE 1 -8OO- 4r~-.'. - "3OO ALL. 3ETU-;EEN 3! CCA "• - f OC^ ;- DISTRICT ~:"-' ~OLUMBIA c;]G2 > ^53- -7 - i 6 ALL • EA1- ": ;3 ;--- r :•:-•: E .:•::' :- • • • - • - : / . - ••5 i CREE.-'AlC •v.ji: •? 2 METHYLENP CH^OK ! ; ',-• C. I: • F N • ..; V^^-K- yr : L- 3-iLr-: ,CAi_b , IS^Lr UNDER SA;- .•••• v -•;..! M ON 3:3 ^ 3- ^E- T :G;-J i : ; - r i- v s i •' - L D A T , PRESSL'RE :r-.|-iHG ^ TV ( A j P - l : SEC- ; 3 Pn. ;r-j i - - p ; (METHOP '33ED • NONE L^.r" Ll ;-i!Ttf. LEL v;L!- U13H] r-j.- r-^EC ; A NA rrPE'T ! .'-L r* 1 ^- -• ; ,~f — j-t.j^ •;.- . A^- UNk FEF3EN7 VOLATILE ir- r.-;-:;;. .- ; cr y r r c ; VE: •--( •:• ' . . - O W N CC - A ;-j ' FI i' ?-• 3 3 - I r: r-j p A • •: NA P.:.- ;-nr--:ENTRATE) -'^'/3f- DILUTION OF I.. P 3:3i--:ASE LI3UJL, 33 5E' ~ I O N '-; •£:K i ;, H - ,v 7 A P I- ;-• A T A POEivt :n SKIN "•••••-; ~ - "•'- -.' " ' '..•:• r- cry.- - ^ • - • • - ' A _ A - . - A . _ . , ' ; 3 r . .. ; X 3 1 :- ;- 33 .--Ur-l:."- '-:-i. - . - . - - A - 3 . -•--• •' :: ;. • _. - .•: r; r ) - F O . KE'3UL TUT 006 0948 A ; r; i :i-ii->_ "- ^ f7 ' •••A-'-' : ;•• :'V_.: : Ai p..". I .' T T :..• .- - : . '- r)iv ;..:.:-. " ' - • - A . AJ: "A : '. !-'Mr: • : . - . : : : . . •-.:/.- r:-i/ ;-lr.i- i A SELIG MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VISION OF ,ONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES DATE ; i M C O r - i F A T J E I L I T V : . : . , : • ; IV; C - T ] O N ] C I'lA^-.; 0. VMEf? I 7 AT I ON WILL NC" U".'.'.-' D E C O M P O S I T I O N MAY YIELD PHO^L'NL. CHLORIDE- HlL -'-Ni CO ;E- " ' ":- '• • : - E. L : , ,. A t- D .-.-. ; - ; .- E A ,-. •- •- j L;| STEF5 ' U BE T A S r K ; IN , -^v-T Oi j Aiv ABSC';v7-:AN7 EL'CH AS SELI--'- .' /-' LM": ."UP DISPiJSAL. OPEN DOORS AND W j N T O W S TO IMPKOVL Yv Ar- :L •- i-'L';.'' /C 'f '•'• -• IE:;. -;j r5 PKOFL->"; D --. " 0 I:E A P E O - L ' . !. /; : '^Ef : 1 ,'J i ;.";•:. 5E r :•:..-.' .'1 i : - E ^ J ^ A T Q P -• :i AT ; OiJ -ROT. •; T I ,'H EV-~ :- l n ON p P n : • -- CHEMICAL C A P ^ P I i ^ E LOCAL-FEE" RJ5BER OR r-JEO- ^ L !-E GLOVES F P E " A i-- -;-;^;-; ^r ;; ; , - ; n- ' ,'• D •'"'' • ' • /. • • A IV !-- TUT 006 0949 EXHIBIT 'Wf TUT OO6 O95O 1 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS-ST . JOHN 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN RE: TUTU WATER WELLS CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CIVIL NO: 89-107 BEFORE: FACT FINDING CONFERENCE [December 9 & 10, 1993J December 9, 1993 THE HONORABLE STANLEY S. BROTMAN Sitting by Designation, Presiding APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: Attorneys for PID-Harthmans Richard R. Knoepfel, Esq. Briggs, Knoepfel & Ronca P.O. Box 6286 Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00804 Thomas H. Hart, III, Esq. Alkon, Rhea & Hart 2115 Queen Street Christiansted , St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00820 Attorneys for Four Winds Plaza Partnership John K. Dema, Esq. Carey-Anne Mood, Esq. Law Offices of John K. Dema, P.C. 1236 Strand Street, Suite 103 Christiansted , St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 0820-5008 DOLORES S. RIVAS, RPR Official Court Reporter |JT 006 0951 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i 2 4 25 And he said, wait a second, let rue t h i n k about it. We d i d n ' t c h e c k . Arid he went , later he came back and he- --c. id, ht y , I ;.. -.,*.•. something in the G o l d m a n , A n t o n e t t i , w h i c h , is t pc-i iod conducted at Tutu Esso. So, I have asked him to b r i n g that to the o f f i c e - and when he come, and he came with a file with this memo was included. That was the way it was. It came out. Q Item number five, I believe -- may I approach the witness Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. BY MR. LEHMAN: Q Item number five in the memorandum refers to a report received by Mr. Agrelot from the station manager about the oil grease separator, and a method by which it was being pumped out. Do you see that, ma'am? A (Reading document) 0 I'm not asking you to read it. I'm asking you if you have -- do you have any knowledge personally what that ^-avagraph is talking about? A Yes, I saw the employees of Mr. Bayard were d i s c h a i g i n g from the oil and water separator into the toilet and 1 talked to him about that. Q What did you have to say to him? A I just told him that, I think. Daniel Bayard. I s^id, Danny, this is your business, you run this, but I t h i n k ,-ou ' i e TUT 006 O952 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 doing s.omet hi ng which is not. I he appropriate, that's not -• you're not supposed to do something l i k e that. And then, once a g a i n , I went to the sitt- oiid ;•,-_• i-.,v<_ doing it because I saw him rnos'c than one- time. And I went ba^_ k again, and I said, Danny, you'ie doing things thot .-.-. r t- not ; i ^ht . The first time I mentioned that, he said, Dona Gloria try to help me with Esso to do the job tor you. 0 I'm not trying to stop > ou from you talking. A To si ow down . 0 Did you tell Mr. Bayard and his employees to stop the practice of emptying the oil/water separator into the toilet"! A I talked to Mr . Bayard, not to his employees. Q And did you tell Mr. Bayard to stop doing it? A I told him that that was not supposed to be done. MR. LEHMAN: That's ail I have, Judge. Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Holt, then Mr. Lelc-.nd. MR. ZEBEDEE : I have a couple, Your Honor. THE COURT: All r i g h t , but let's do it q u i c k l y . CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HOtT: 0 Ms. Ramos , maybe I didn't understand /our last testimon.- . Are you saying the first time that you heaici that Agrelot did testing, other than for TEIC and removal of t hf tanks, WHS recently, when Mr. G r i f f i t h asked you about this?' A Ulhat? 1 2 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 u Ml 01 A Q A Q A Q A Q A pr es w i do Q Mr 25 0 Let me ask you this. Did you know that Mr . Agreiot 's ' 11 ;-. was out testing the soil in Tutu in December of 1^89, wr,cs t hit- was taking P 1 ci c 6 ? A Sir, I didn't have any recollection of that. Let me show you what I w i l l mark as P l a i n t i f f ' s E x h i b i t Number 17. Showing you Exhibit Number 17, can you t e l l me t. ho date of that document? On top it says December 12 or 13. Of 1989? Yes . Is. your signature on that document? Yes . It's written in Spanish? Yes . l-Jhat is the purpose of this document? It's a justification for the deviation for accounting procedures doing the job, and was about whatever it was established to prove that later on when the auditors come they w i l l see that the job was done- and wc have the justification f c - i doing it that way. You were asking whoever is above to approve a payment !or Agreiot to do soil testing in T u t u in December ol 1989. wit hi out going through normal bidding procedures, because- thv. <_ was an emergency, didn't you? TUT 006 O954 TUT OO6 O955 FAHREIMTHOLD &_________________(Tel) SIO-933-4849; (Fax) 510-933-4234 ASSOCIATES, INC.————————————————„„ ... . „ n c . „ 2855 Mitchell Dr., Suite 230 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 PAUL FAHRENTHOLD hazardous waste treatment remedial program design process engineering EDUCATION Florida State University: Postdoctoral Fellow, 1966 University of Houston: Ph.D., Chemistry, 1966 Rice University: M.S., Chemical Engineering, 1962 University of Texas: B.S., Chemical Engineering, 1960 REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer: Mississippi PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Fahrenthold & Associates, Inc., 1988 to Present ENTRIX, Inc, Vice President, Waste Management/Water Resources Group, 1986 to 1988 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Senior Consultant, 1982-1986 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chief of Organic Chemicals Branch, 1972-1982 Calumet Petrochemicals, Vice President, 1967-1972 Calumet Industries, Technical Assistant to the President, 1967-1972 Texas Eastman Company, Research Chemist, 1966-1967 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE In past positions I have supported and directed program activities in a variety of engineering and scientific areas for a large number of projects and have developed specific expertise in the areas of design of data-gathering programs for evaluating the extent of contaminant migration; selecting and evaluating the applicability of soil, waste, and groundwater treatment processes; coordinating technical information for multidisciplinary projects; and selecting, screening and evaluating corrective action programs for groundwater and other hazardous wastes. Consulting projects in support of RCRA or CERCLA have been completed which focused on the elimination of hazardous wastes through treatment and subsequent reclassification for disposal as non-hazardous or recycling for agricultural use. With the TUT OO6 0956 EPA many studies were made to evaluate the potential for recycle of in-plant streams, treatment of wastes for product recovery and segregation of wastes for detoxification. Other specific projects have focused on providing services for achieving compliance with the Clean Water Act. Those services included review of current wastewater handling practices, management of the waste streams, and the current treatment technology. Specific wastewater management experience includes: California, National chemical manufacturing company. Prepared a survey of the existing treatment system and recommended additional treatment steps to achieve BATEA level of technology. The recommended steps included extensive on-site treatment and recycle of wastewater. Washington, Wood preserving company. Reviewed the storm water treatment system for the facility and recommended course of action to comply with EPA discharge regulations. Specific superfund project experience includes: Houston, Texas, apportionment study: Designed study to identify, by the nature of the chemicals manufactured in their facilities, parties contributing wastes to the site. With other committee members, reviewed data obtained to ensure appropriate allocation of quantities of waste. Soil and groundwater cleanup, Salinas, CA: Project Manager, with responsibility for design and construction of the entire remedial program. The program included many investigations and subsequent remedial actions such as asbestos removal, groundwater extraction and treatment, soil excavation and soil vapor extraction. Feasibility study for Monsanto Co., Houston: Coordinator and Project Chemist. Identified and classified all materials on-site (e.g. PCBs, solvents, etc.),, selected appropriate remedial options, and evaluated the alternatives in terms of cost, effectiveness, etc. South Valley (New Mexico Superfund site): Completed a sampling and analytical data-gathering program with rigorous QA/QC which confirmed the origin of contaminants present in both groundwater aquifers. Pt. Quendall (Washington): Completed a data gathering program to define the extent of contamination due to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons using indicator pollutant analysis and correlation of the indicator with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Bio-Ecology (Texas Superfund site): Designed the bench-scale program for soil stabilization of wastes with flue dust, fly ash and proprietary adsorbents (Radecca). The program included the evaluation of leachate from the stabilized wastes. FAHRENTHOLD A ASSOCIATES, INC. TUT OO6 O957 Metals Processing Facility: Designed the program for the evaluation and design of a treatment process for impounded wastes containing nickle and cyanide. Electronics Plating Firm: Designed the experimental program for evaluating the optimum chemical treatment system for copper and nickel plating wastes; designed the full-scale system. East Bay Regional Park District: Designed the experimental program for successful evaluation of treatment options for an impoundment containing degalvanizing wastes (zinc). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Directed the evaluation and design of an activated carbon adsorption system for the treatment of photographic rinse waste water; directed the design and construction of the full-scale system. FAHRENTHOLD A ASSOCIATES, INC.' TUT O06 O958 1960-1962 Union Carbide Corp. My duties with Union Carbide (as an employee of Union Carbide International Co.) focused on the design and construction of plants manufacturing commodity organic chemicals. Specific assignments covered the design and construction of plants to manufacture ethyleneamines, oxo alcohols and basic hydrocarbons, i.e. ethylene, propylene, butenes, etc. As a design engineer I was responsible for the design of acetylene recovery facilities which were a part of the ethylene manufacturing complex. Other duties addressed the design of distillation columns for separation and recovery of ethylene and methane and refrigeration cycles necessary for the separation. The assignments for projects were made out of the Houston, Texas office and were both domestic and foreign. The ethyleneamine facility and oxo alcohol facilities were in Italy (Sicily), with the ethylene plant assignments being mainly design work primarily in the Houston office. The technical job skills required were the ability to prepare material balances for the process streams and convert them to process and instrument flow diagrams. Also, the tasks required the preparation of mechanical equipment specifications for the major and minor items required to contain and process the process chemicals. Much of the materials of construction were special alloys and plastics. Since the Italian designers spoke no English, I became fluent in Italian in order to facilitate the progress of the design. This special ability to communicate was required in dealing with people to accomplish most, if not all, of the technical tasks associated with the Italian projects. At the end of my assignment in Italy (11 months) I returned to the USA and enrolled in graduate school. FAHRENTHOLD « ASSOCIATES, INC. TUT O06 O959 1966-1967 Texas Eastman Co. As a research chemist with the Texas Eastman Co. I surveyed the existing process operations for the plant (reviewing the production processes for synthetic ethanol, acetaldehyde, oxo alcohols and ethylene oxide) to identify the potential for process improvement through catalyst modification. The results of the survey indicated that the synthetic alcohol process was a candidate for additional review and experimentation. I undertook a laboratory program to try various modifications to the existing catalyst (phosphoric acid) in an attempt to gain a longer lived system. After 18 months I left Eastman to pursue a career with a greater engineering component than life in the chemical research laboratory. FAHRENTHOLD A ASSOCIATES. INC." TUT OO6 O960 1967-1972 Calumet Industries Upon joining Calumet Industries I was made the Technical Assistant to the President of the company. In that role I assisted in the planning and licensing of a new venture, Calumet Petrochemicals. In 1968, as a Vice President and Director of Calumet Petrochemicals, I designed and constructed a petroleum sulfonate plant in Natchez, Miss. Many of my functions were directed toward the manufacture of oil soluble sulfonates of all types, i.e. emulsion breaking salts such as magnesium, calcium, and barium sulfonates and emulsion forming salts such as sodium, potassium, and ethanolamine sulfonates. Much work was done on the development of continuous processing of the sulfonates to make the neutral salt and the high base number products (e.g. 300AV calcium sulfonate). During the construction of the plant I supervised an average of six piping and mechanical designers, and numerous consultants for special technical tasks such as electrical design, foundation and piling design, etc. The scope of the construction included the process area, tank farm, and loading dock at the Mississippi River. Occasionally, I would assist Calumet Refining Company in solving processing problems at their facility in Princeton, La. Examples of the type of assistance would be the selection of a cooling tower, selection of process control valves, etc. Assignments at Calumet required the management of other technical staff and the construction crafts, on occasion. The venture had numerous financial problems associated with the lack of a stable market, and a number of technical problems derived from the advanced nature of the plant. As a result, I left to join EPA in 1972. FAHRENTHOUD A ASSOCIATES, INC." TUT OO6 O96.1 1972-1982 United States EPA From 1972 until 1977 I was an enforcement technical support person in the Dallas regional office (Region VI). In this initial role I was responsible for the preparation of NPDES discharge permits for facilities that made organic chemicals, primarily in Louisiana and Texas. Preparation of the permits required a knowledge of the production processes to understand the nature of the raw waste load to be treated, and a knowledge of the types of treatment processes that might be suitable for reducing pollutants in those discharges. In my capacity of permit writer I prepared and issued 10 or 12 permits in three years. In the latter half of my tenure in Dallas (beginning in 1975) I was the leader of the technical support section of the stationary source air enforcement group. In that role I provided the technical work-up for Notices of Violation issued as the result of a field investigation. I also prepared testimony for enforcement conferences and was charged with the planning and scheduling of the field inspections. In both roles as air and water enforcer I participated in a number of public hearings, provided testimony for litigation, was deposed and assisted in the preparation of interrogatories and depositions, and assisted other programs in the interpretation of chemical or plant process data. In 1977 I accepted a transfer to Washington, D.C. as a national expert in the Organic Chemicals Industry to assist in the preparation of regulations for the control of the 129 Priority Pollutants. In the role of project officer for the Organic Chemicals Industry study I organized a task force of contractors to study in detail the processes and treatment technologies used in the industry. The effort addressed the need for technical data on the treatment of chemicals, economic data on the cost of treatment of priority pollutants discharged by the industry, and environmental data on the quantities of pollutants entering the environment at locations throughout the nation. Pioneering efforts were required in a number of areas: new analytical methods were required to identify and quantify the presence of priority pollutants in effluents, new concepts were invented to study the economic impacts of various levels of pollutant regulation, novel ways were found to categorize the industry to determine which processes could be expected to discharge the largest quantities of toxic pollutants (and which ones would not), and information was solicited and shared with the industry to foster a better understanding of the mission. In 1979 I was made the Chief of the Organic Chemicals Branch extending my responsibility to establishing regulations for the pesticide, pharmaceutical, and plastics and synthetic fibers industries. My duties in this position were similar to those previously described with the addition of making input to policy and regulatory strategy, assisting other programs such as RCRA and CERCLA, and enforcement cases in both air and water pollution. FAHRENTHOLD A ASSOCIATES, INC. TUT OO6 0962 In 1982 the original studies of the industries under my direction were completed and I left the agency to enter the private sector. FAHRENTHOL.D A ASSOCIATES, INC.* TUT 006 O963