Laserfiche WebLink
William Sawyer, Esq. <br /> Susan Flieder, Esq. <br /> February 13, 1998 <br /> Page 3 <br /> by suggesting that idle "curiosity" was the only reason for pushing forward with the work directive. <br /> Furthermore, I understand that Mr. Ronzone faulted the County for having had Del Monte spend <br /> $800,000 on technical work which was unsuitable, to which the County responded that it was not Del <br /> Monte's consultant and it had made innumerable efforts to change the technical approach, yet Del <br /> Monte had not paid attention. <br /> Finally, in the meeting, Mr.Ronzone, on a number of occasions, argued that Del Monte was <br /> innocent, that the releases related to our client's operations. Thus, a simple technical meeting to <br /> discuss the implications of the cross-sectional analysis became a platform for argument and <br /> advocacy. It resulted in antagonizing the regulators to the point where they threatened to use the <br /> district attorney's office to push this matter forward. Where was the profit in adopting this posture at <br /> the meeting with the County? Del Monte's only"accomplishment" (other than antagonizing staff) <br /> was to delay the implementation of various phases of the required work, although this delayed work <br /> will eventually have to be done. This means that there will be multiple starts and stops and the <br /> process will drag on as it has in the past, with all of the attendant costs involved. <br /> I cannot fathom the thinking behind this conduct. Is it not clear that there will be no early closure of <br /> this site on the basis of ITB unless Ron Rowe is willing to argue its merits? Is it not clear that <br /> antagonizing your prospective advocate for ITB, and belittling his request for data as abstract <br /> curiosity, is not good management? Is it not clear that this is a continuation of the same old <br /> mismanagement we all condemned on February 3? Is it not clear that every month of useless <br /> fighting with the regulators is another month of attorneys fees, equipment fees, consultant fees and <br /> lack of progress towards closure? Is it not clear that the real world problem is not being addressed? <br /> Suffice it to say, that our clients will not be writing checks in support of this approach to managing <br /> the remediation of this site. <br /> I am confounded by the failure to adhere to the assurances given to me in our February 3 meeting. I <br /> can't understand how we are to tum over management of the remediation to Del Monte when its <br /> interactions with the regulators is punctuated by arguments and intransigence, to the point where <br /> enforcement by the district attorney is threatened. I also consider it an act of bad faith to declare one <br /> intention on February 3 and implement another a week later. <br /> Setting aside the new issues raised by the presence of oxygenates, our clients will not agree to the <br /> protocol you propose for having Del Monte manage the remediation in light of its actions; it will <br /> insist on active participation. Indeed, I wonder how to forge any form of agreement with Del Monte <br /> in light of our experiences. I am fresh out of ideas. <br /> Very tru q y rs, <br /> Rory J. ampbelP <br /> RJC:b in <br /> cc: Warren L. Simmons <br /> 602800.1 <br />