Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Mei Ehrlich <br />March 8, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />Paragraph XII specifically provides that Ultramar will only be responsible for and <br />indemnify the Kirsches from contamination "which occurs as the result of their operation on <br />the premise". Since the additional work required by the County involves past contamination <br />and the Amendment is written in the present tense, the above quoted section is inapplicable <br />and it is still my position that Ultramar is not solely responsible for compliance with the <br />County's directions. <br />Ultimately, we must recognize that the present disagreement between your clients <br />and Ultramar over the issue of responsibility for the contamination in question is simply a <br />continuation of the perplexing question as to when the contamination occurred. In the past, <br />we resolved our disagreement by entering into a Participation Agreement pertaining to the <br />County's required well installation and quarterly monitoring. Ultramar believes that the <br />further extension of the cooperation and joint participation which defined the parties' <br />previous dealings, should be adopted as the present strategy in order to meet the County's <br />present requirements. <br />To the extent that your client promptly remits the $55,000 that is undisputedly owed <br />to Ultramar, Ultramar is willing to entertain compromise suggestions or proposals which <br />would allow your client and Ultramar to avoid costly litigation and would meet the more <br />immediate problem of satisfying the County's recent demands. When analyzing whether to <br />accept Ultramar's offer to try and resolve the historical contamination issue which has <br />plagued our clients for over two years, please be reminded that groundwater has not been <br />impacted on the property and there is a strong likelihood that the County will eventually <br />adopt a no further action position without significant additional work being required, if our <br />clients, as responsible parties, jointly cooperate with the County in meeting present and <br />future directives. Please note that during the tank work, Ultramar expended $70,000 for soil <br />disposal and sampling of soil for which it does not believe it is responsible. Ultramar <br />would potentially be willing to forgo any aiiempt to seek reimbursement of any portion of <br />this money from your client, in the event that a compromise can be reached with respect to <br />any future work required by the County. <br />�WP51\F-NVRNMNWW5w.LTR <br />