SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2

Home Browse Search

William Sawyer, Esq. Susan Flieder, Esq. February 13, 1998 Page 2 These oxygenates are either breakdown products of MTBE or are additives. Under either of these scenarios, the oxygenated fuels involved would have had to be imported onto the property after 1976. In short, there is either an off-site intrusion,which appears unlikely, or it reflects a release of oxygenated fuel products used on the site after the site was sold to Calpak/Del Monte. Apparently Del Monte and its consultant reviewed the possibility of MTBE on the site as early as September, 1996. I suggest a further round of sampling of oxygenates to better pin down this issue. We will want to take split samples during such follow-up sampling. If the presence of oxygenates is j confirmed, it is inconsistent with the theory that the gasoline release on the site predates 1976. Management of the Remedial Work Del Monte has proposed that our client step back and let it take over the management of the remedial work that is being directed by the County. We met in your offices on February 3 to go over this proposal. Before meeting there,I had already discussed with you our concern that(i) costs for future work had to qualify for the UST Fund; (ii) far too much money had been spent on the field work and there were serious cost control problems; (iii) Del Monte has failed to develop a good working relationship with the regulatory staff; and continues to argue and challenge the work requested; and (iv) that we needed to do a better job at communicating a united front in our approach to the remediation directives issued by the County. I also voiced the concern that Del Monte persists in defending its past mistakes, instead of focusing on quickly and effectively bringing the site to closure. I understood that our meeting on February 3 was meant to deal with these problems. During our February 3 meeting,we specifically discussed my concern that Ron Rowe did not want further argument that ITB should be the remedial alternative, he wanted the data to support that position. I even added the observation that Del Monte's actions could so poison the relationship with the County that the enforcement process would be turned over to the district attorney. Steve Ronzone reassured me that Del Monte had significant experience in dealing with remediation, that the past mistakes and lack of effectiveness would not be repeated in the future, and that Del Monte could be trusted to properly administer relations with the regulatory staff to quickly and effectively achieve closure. I was repeatedly assured that Del Monte would know how to foster a healthy relationship with the County. The assurances I was given on February 3, 1998 were belied by Del Monte's actions during this meeting with County staff a week later. First, the meeting was called to review the cross sectional data, identify a program for locating receptor sources, and to identify where to position additional wells. As shown by the written agenda prepared by Del Monte (which was not discussed or revealed to us), Del Monte intended to reargue the entire remedial approach. It confirmed this agenda by its arguments in the meeting, where Liz Dodge challenged the County's staff request for the current data by saying Del Monte did not want to do things just to satisfy the"curiosity" of Ron Rowe. Steve Ronzone followed this up with a categorical declaration that Del Monte will not under any circumstances go on to the property of others to get data. To this, County staff responded that it would have to get the district attorney involved. Despite Del Monte's assurances that it would = antagonize the County by challenging its pending request for data, Del Monte did exactly that. For good measure, it insulted the work of County staff 602800.1