ROSENMAN & COLIN
575 
MADISON A V E N U E . NEW YORK, NY I O O 2 2 - 2 5 8 5
T E L E P H O N E 
f 2 I 2 ) 9 4 O • 8 8 O 0
C A B L E 
R O C O K A Y 
N E W Y O B K
T E L E C O P I E R 
( 2 1 2 ) 9 4 0 - 8 7 7 6
(212) 935-0679
T E L E X 427571 H O S C O L ( I T T )
971520 
R C F L C 
N Y K I w 
U . I
November 15, 1994
S A M U E L ! ROSENMAN 
( i 8 9 6 i » 7 3 <
RALPH F COLIN 
M 9 O O - I 9 8 5 I
WASHINGTON OFFICE
I 3 O O 
1 9 T " 
S T R E E T . N 
W
W A S H I N G T O N . 
D 
C 
2 0 0 3 6
T E L E P H O N E { 2 O 2 ) 
4 6 3 - 7 1 7 7
RICHARD G. LELAND
(212) S.4O-87OO
Via Telecopier and Airborne Express
Ms. Carolyn Kwan
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
New York-Caribbean Superfund Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York
Re: Tutu Wells Site
Dear Ms. Kwan:
As you know, we are counsel to Paul Lazare and Andreas Gal,
who were named as Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs") in a
letter dated July, 1993. As requested at the meeting of November
2 and 3, 1994, this letter constitutes a "distilled" version of
comments on behalf of our clients to the Draft Remedial
Investigation Report ("RI") submitted by the Tutu Environmental
Investigation Committee ("TEIC").
As a preliminary matter, the administrative record should
reflect that the RI was prepared by consultants engaged by Esso
and Texaco and operated under their direction and control.
Although the consultants afforded other PRPs an opportunity to
give comments and suggestions to TEIC, it was made clear to the
other PRPs that the RI was TEIC's document and that final
determinations as to its content were made by TEIC only. Lazare
and Gal believe that this fact is relevant to the proper analysis
of the RI, as it indicates that determinations that the Esso and
Texaco facilities are not contributors to VOC contamination at
the site are suspect due to the manner in which the investigation
may have been steered.
Conclusions Regarding the Curriculum Center Site
Several references are made to a "disposal" or "waste" pit
at the Curriculum Center (e.g., p. 5-8, p. 6-13). Even though
the term "alleged" is sometimes used, there is no substantiation
that any such pit ever existed. The only ground for the
assertion that such a pit ever existed is hearsay testimony in a
TUT
006 O570
-i?
*64623*
64623
Ms. Carolyn Kwan
November 15, 1994
Page 2
deposition, which is clearly anecdotal and not an appropriate
basis for scientific inquiry. Those references give rise to an
inference that the VOC plum "originates" at the Curriculum Center
(see p. 5-37). That inference is incorrect and ignores evidence
of releases from the UST at VIHA (see 1 4 of comments of Arthur
D. Little, Inc, submitted herewith as Exhibit A).
It is also noteworthy that no attempt was made to
fingerprint the compounds found in the soils and groundwater at
the Curriculum Center. Without such analysis, it cannot be
determined that the source of VOCs was operations by the former
Laga operations (which ceased in 1978) or the documented later
uses of solvents and storage of substances containing VOCs by the
Department of Education. Nor can it be determined whether data
indicating the presence of VOCs other than PCE such as 1,2
dichloroethene (cis/trans) and Vinyl chloride (which are found at
concentrations significantly higher than PCE at, for example, MW-
16) show that these other compounds are so-called "daughter
products" of PCE or are the result of continued storing and
disposal of other solvents.
This unsubstantiated characterization of other VOCs as
"daughter" products of PCE (and thus presumably attributable to
the use of PCE by the former Laga operations) is inconsistent
with data regarding wells MW-1 and MW-1D, located at the border
of the Curriculum Center and the Fire Department property, where
concentrations of VOCs other than PCE are the predominant
contaminants. There is not even a claim, let alone any evidence
in any record that any activities relating to the disposal of PCE
wastes over occurred at that section of the premises1. Yet, the
RI continues to express conclusions by Geraghty & Miller these
concentrations are the result of degradation of PCE used in Laga
operations. In short, these conclusions were made "backwards"
and are thus, not an appropriate basis for conclusions as to what
activities gave rise to alleged contamination. These conclusions
skew the analysis of remedial alternatives, particularly the
apparent "belief" expressed that the VOCs emanating from the
Curriculum Center site create a DNAPL problem at the Tutu Wells
1While we recognize that it is not the purpose of these comments
to address questions relating to the liability of any particular
PRP, it should be noted for the record that there is no competent
^ 
or credible evidence in the RI, in proceedings before Judge
Brotman in Matter of Tutu Wells or in any of the documents
delivered to TEIC which indicates that there was ever a release
of PCE from the dry cleaning operations at the former Laga plant.
3018735.01
TUT 
OO6 
O571
Ms. Carolyn Kwan
November 15, 1994
Page 3
Site.
The Texaco Tutu Service Center Site
By determining not to use the presence of contaminants in
soils as an indication that this site was a contributor of VOCs
to either the soil or the groundwater, Geraghty & Miller
effectively shielded Texaco from responsibility for the presence
of VOCs at the Tutu site. As noted in the accompanying comment
letter from Arthur D. Little (the "ADL Letter"), the presence of
VOCs in a soil pile is indicative of the use of VOCs and their
discharge to soils as part of their operations. Summarily
dismissing such indicia of VOC contamination is, in our and ADL's
view, incorrect.
The Ramsay Motors Site
Despite the presence of total VOCs at a concentration of
1903 ppb in Well MW-15 (see, e.g., Figure 5-18), and evidence of
~" 
(a) the use of solvents and degreasers, and (b) a UST which
contained, among other things, waste oils (see, e.g., pp. 9-10
ADL October, 1993 Report, copies of which are submitted as
Exhibit B), the RI does not include Ramsay Motors as a source of
VOCs in groundwater. This is contrary to the selection criteria
set forth in the RI.
The Esso Tutu Service Station
As stated on several occasions during the course of the
November 3 and 4 meetings, and as will no doubt be expressed by
other PRPs, the determination by Geraghty & Miller that the Esso
Tutu Service Station is not a source of VOC groundwater
contamination is so incredible as to cast doubts on the
analytical basis of the entire RI. Specific findings by Soil
Tech (which were the subject of hearings before Judge Brotman in
the Matter of Tutu Wells litigation) indicated the presence of
PCE in liquids stored on site at levels in excess of 400,000 ppb.
That same report reflected, and several witnesses testified
before Judge Brotman, that it was the regular course of business
at the Esso Tutu Service Station to dispose of those liquids by
flushing them down the toilet before the Esso Tutu Service
Station was connected to the public sewer system. Copies of this
testimony are is submitted herewith as Exhibit C.
-^ 
Despite this data, and data indicating the presence of VOCs
in soils at the site (see, e.g, Figure 5-10 and results from SS-
4), Geraghty & Miller determined that the Esso Tutu Service
3018735.01
TUT 
O06 
O572
Ms. Carolyn Kwan
November 15, 1994
Page 4
Station was not a source of groundwater contamination. We
submit, as have other PRPs, that because of the damaging
information in the Soil Tech report was suppressed until October,
1993, groundwater monitoring wells were not located so as to
follow the movement of those high levels of PCE to the
groundwater, particularly as that movement would have been
affected by pumping at the Splash N1 Dash Car Wash on the
adjacent Four Winds property. We believe that the data presented
by Geraghty & Miller relating to this release of concentrations
of more than 400,000 ppb of PCE is, at best, incomplete. Before
removing the Esso Tutu Service Station from the list of VOC
sources, further analysis is clearly warranted.
The Western Auto Site
See 1 12 of the accompanying ADL Letter.
In conclusion, we submit that despite the time and expense
that has gone into the RI, it is a flawed document which makes
inconsistent conclusions about the contamination at the Tutu
Wells Site. As such, it should not be accepted by EPA as a basis
for naming some PRP sites are sources of contaminants and
eliminating others. To do so would flaw attempts at an
appropriate and efficient remediation and to create an
inconsistent record for liability purposes.
Veryotruly yours,
/^^/S^
Richard G. Leiand
RGL/
cc: PRP Group
Mr. Andreas Gal
Mr. Paul Lazare
3018735.01
TUT O06 0573