Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Ms. Mary Meays <br />August 6, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />It appears from your letter that the County is now requiring further monitoring and <br />assessment, and possible corrective action ("Work") on the Property. It is our <br />understanding that any further Work that is being required is: a result of the trace levels <br />of gasoline constituents found within the groundwater beneath the site. It is our opinion <br />that any contamination of the subsurface groundwater and soil is the result of the 1986 <br />tank test failure and/or previous operations on the Property ;prior to our tenancy. Any <br />further Work that is being required is simply an extension of Work that has already been <br />required and for which we are not, and were not, resp6nsible. <br />We believe that we have been wrongfully identified .asa party responsible for the <br />condition of the Property and it is inequitable to require Ultramar to comply with the <br />County's request that further Work be performed at th!e site.,, It is our position that the <br />County should turn to the owners of the Property, ori any 'other party who owned or <br />operated on the Property prior to our tenancy, for any Work which the County is <br />requesting be performed. I <br />If you have any questions regarding our position,,please feel free to contact me. <br />ARW:ss <br />cc: G. Dembroff <br />IWP511ENVRNMNT10010W.LTR <br />07.05.09 <br />Sincerely, <br />I <br />4 <br />v � <br />II <br />Alan R. Waskin <br />Corporate Counsel <br />,z <br />