Laserfiche WebLink
NMI, N.1 <br /> Mr. Dick Mathews <br /> CONOCO PHILLIPS <br /> March 10, 2005 <br /> Page Three <br /> SCEHD. She explains that should contamination be found subsequent <br /> to such a letter being issued, investigation and/or remediation efforts <br /> would resume. So too would the naming of RP's, potentially to include <br /> the same or new entities depending on the nature of the contaminants <br /> found that require the investigation and/or remediation of them. _ <br /> 7. You correctly advise that the Landlord under the Lease has no <br /> obligation to enter into a Lease with the current operator, Huyenthanh <br /> Thi Phan (Dealer) at this location. This despite your advising of the <br /> Federal law (presume this is the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 <br /> U.S.C. section 2801 et seq., referenced in your letter to Dealer of <br /> February 9, 2005 identified as "Offer to Assign Underlying Lease) <br /> mandating COP to extend the offer to purchase the personal property <br /> assets of COP to Dealer. <br /> 8. You indicate that should Landlord and Dealer elect to enter into a <br /> Lease for this location, the quarterly report prepared by URS for the <br /> period October-December, 2005 will be used as the "base line" for <br /> establishing between COP and Dealer the levels of groundwater <br /> contaminants for the purpose of defining responsibility between COP <br /> and Dealer concerning remediation. You also indicate that <br /> contamination found subsequent to the "base line" would be Dealer's <br /> responsibility. We are interested to know who would be maintaining <br /> the "due diligence" responsibilities concerning quarterly testing and <br /> reporting to SCEHD. Would BP Oil (URS) still be required to do so? <br /> 9. You advise that should Landlord elect not to enter into a Lease with <br /> Dealer for this location, COP will immediately remove its buildings, all <br /> other personal property, including but not limited to underground tanks, <br /> "scraping of the site" and perform soils and other testing required by <br /> SCEHD and any other agency having jurisdiction, and will also perform <br /> any and all remediation required as a result. We hope you agree that <br /> the ultimate best outcome would be a "No further action" letter (with <br /> caveat understood) from SCEHD. <br /> if any of the above enumerated items are incorrect as stated, we ask for <br /> clarification from you, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Knoll and Ms. Lagorio accordingly. <br />