SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

Richard M. Archbold, Esq. Re: Roek (Knowles) June 28, 1994 Page 2 Our second area of concern is your underlying theme that the Knowles should somehow step forward and voluntarily assume responsibility for everything that has ever happened at the site. There is no proof whatsoever that any contamination occurred during the Knowles' ownership of the site. While you are correct that the Knowles owned the property and operated a service station there for a lengthy period of time, the assertion that these facts alone can somehow exonerate your clients from all liability is simply incorrect. As you well know, the primary focus of most environmental law is not on liability, but on allocation. If there was ever any avenue by which your clients could be completely absolved of responsibility in this matter, we assume you would have discovered and pursued that course of action long ago. We also have a problem with your voluntary assumption of responsibility theme based upon insurance coverage considerations. During our August, 1993 meeting, wherein I allegedly told you ("blithely") that the Knowles would have to be sued to respond to your demands, the message was, perhaps not as clearly stated as it should have been, that the Knowles had never been the subject of a demand, from your clients or any other party, which would constitute a basis for tendering a claim to a liability carrier. Given that a basis for tendering a claim to a carrier did not appear to be forthcoming, and that the Knowles could not participate in this matter at any level without a third-party funding mechanism, we applied to the Tank Fund on behalf of our clients, and notified your office of our application on several occasions, commencing with our correspondence dated September 10, 1993. Our concern over the direction this matter is heading escalated dramatically upon receipt of your RCRA notification. Our experience has been that elevating what should be a relatively routine UST site to the federal level, even for posturing purposes, is an extremely dangerous endeavor for all parties. For this reason, and based upon the consequences which would flow from the threatened Cleanup and Abatement Order resulting from your consultant's inability to submit an acceptable workplan to San Joaquin County, we have and will continue to compress as much work as possible into a small window of time.