SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2

Home Browse Search

Ron Rowe Registered Environmental Specialist February 2, 2000 Page 12 Del Monte's phenomenal delay in contacting the Prior Owners should not be overlooked in reviewing the merits of this application. Del Monte lacked neither the resources nor the expertise in understanding the recourse it would have against Parmaceast if the facts warranted a claim for liability and recourse when it "discovered" a problem in 1985. Del Monte's 9-year delay in contacting the Prior Owners suggests that Del Monte was responsible for the spills on the Property. Such a lengthy delay serves as an admission that Del Monte understood at the inception of the problem that it was the sole responsible party and that its current claims and arguments could not have withstood the closer scrutiny that early notice would have allowed. By waiting for a total of over 18 years after buying the Property to notify the Prior Owners of the problem, this multinational corporation insured that the Prior Owners would be severely prejudiced in marshalling the people, documents and facts which would set the facts straight. In that respect, Del Monte has succeeded. CONCLUSION As detailed above, Parmaceast did not operate or control the USTs or the gas station during the period it owned the Property. It sold the gas station improvements along with the other improvements on the Property in operating condition, and as an asset that could be operated in the future. Del Monte kept these facilities intact until 1985, and thus the gas station was not intended by either Parmaceast or Del Monte to be "discontinued" as of the date of sale. Finally, new physical evidence from the Property reveals that there are elevated levels of TBA in the groundwater at concentrations that can only be reconciled with a release of asoline that was formulated after 1976. There is neither an evidentiary nor a practical basis for continuing to have the Prior Owners named as responsible parties. Based on the above information, Parmaceast respectfully requests that the County reconsider its decision to name Parmaceast as a responsible party and withdraw the designation. 13 Del Monte has all of the required resources to address and effect the remediation of the Property, and clearly is not inclined to entertain recommendations from the Prior Owners about changing its approach to the regulatory relationship and the remediation(as previously advocated by the Prior Owners and reflected in Exhibit "B"). While the Prior Owners attended many meetings with the County and Dei Monte, and hired competent environmental consultants to assist it in its efforts to respond to County directives, and offered comments and undertook various actions in an effort to move the remediation of the Property forward, Del Monte's conduct has effectively prevented the Prior Owners from accomplishing the County's objectives. 761778.3