SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1

Home Browse Search

HflflSOfl Rory J.Campbell B R I D GEN Attomey at Law Direct Dial: 415-995-5029 fl fl C U S ircambycllCa),harlaQnbrid%Lett com ulflflos March 20, 1998` fl U D Y l l P William Sawyer, Esq. VIA REGULAR MAIL AND Del Monte Foods FACSIMILE- (415) 247-3263 One Market P.O. Box 193576 San Francisco, CA 94119-3575 Re: Parmaceast Site; 110 N. Filbert Street, Stockton, CA Dear Bill: I This is in response to our exchange of voice mails recently, and is to provide you with our view of our status. Over a month ago I discussed with you the presence of oxygenates on the property and that this was clearly indicative of post 1976 fueling activity on the site. You indicated that your technical people were reviewing this issue and would get back to me, and that in the meantime, we should be prepared to rely on the representations offered in the settlement agreement. I have not heard from you on this j issue, and the offer to rely on the representations is hard to do when this evidence suggests that the it representations are suspect. I have asked for your help in getting us past this problem through a t technical analysis. I am still asking for it. I would prefer to avoid raising this issue with the authorities, but, quite frankly, it suggests to us that our client has no liability and should not be a responsible party in this matter at all. �i Separately, Del Monte's conduct at the meeting with the county raised a host of serious problems for us,as detailed in my letter to you and Ms. Flieder dated February 13, 1998. These included the continued advocacy on behalf of Del Monte-at our client's expense- of the view that Del Monte is an innocent and should not be saddled with these costs and liabilities, since all of the releases must have occurred before it bought the property. (This is a particularly inappropriate claim in light of the 9 years that Del Monte owned the tanks, the botched tank removal process, and the presence of oxygenates which indicate post 1976 fueling activities.) Furthermore, although we had all agreed to stay away from this, Del Monte had an entire agenda for the meeting that was focused on rearguing F of the merits of the intrinsic bio-remediation process, rather than responding to the cross-sectional analysis the county wanted to discuss, and focusing on the next steps in the investigation. Del Monte and its consultant rounded out this disastrous approach by questioning the good faith of the county staff in spelling out its requirements. In my letter of February 13, I tried to make it very plain just how inappropriate this entire performance was, and how it was bound to antagonize the i, regulatory staff. .AW OFFICES fly 607838.1