SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2

Home Browse Search

j William Sawyer, Esq. March 20, 1998 Page 2 I can only assume that the matters raised in my letter or February 13 were discussed with the consultants and Del Monte staff. Yet on February 16, CH2MHi11 generated draft minutes of the meeting with the county and used these, essentially, to reiterate its posture during the meeting, including selectively editing the content of these minutes to favor Del Monte's viewpoint. This included the claim that Del Monte was innocent, that it would not install certain wells, as well as a thinly veiled criticism of the county's lack of"efficiency" in administering its own requirements. The latter point was used to emphasize that Del Monte had spent a great deal of money and yet it was . still being asked to gather data. (It is my understanding that in the meeting, the county bluntly told Del Monte that it had mismanaged its technical approach and had only itself to blame for wasting a great deal of money. This insight is not reflected in the minutes.) Putting the matter plainly, Bill, the minutes were Del Monte's efforts to memorialize selective portions of a meeting to favor its agenda. I just found out from your call last week that these minutes were apparently sent out to the county on or just after February 16. They were not sent to us in advance to review and comment on them, even though our concerns about how this entire interaction with the county was being handled were obvious. I don't know if this is mismanagement, indifference to our concerns, or an orchestrated effort to score points regardless of our interests. In any event, it does not suggest any form of cooperation is taking place. Fundamentally, I think Del j Monte is underestimating the intelligence of the regulatory staff in thinking that this maneuver— pinning the staff down by artfully worded "minutes" —is not a transparent manipulation of, and an affront to staff. It cannot do anything but further compromise the county's respect for Del Monte's good faith. On February 17, when we reviewed my February 13 letter, I did not know that these minutes of February 16 had been prepared, nor was this revealed by you. However, I strenuously urged Del Monte to signal to the county that it would cooperate and that it wanted to move forward in accordance with Ron Rowe's wish list, in order to deflect the damage done at the February 11 meeting. I thought you had agreed that this was appropriate. I have not seen or heard anything in furtherance of that goal, and sending out your consultant's memo did precisely the opposite of what was agreed upon: it will only serve to antagonize the regulatory staff. I am particularly concerned that the opportunity to work cooperatively with the county has been permanently damaged and, with it, the chance to propose intrinsic bio-remediation as a closure option. This will dramatically increase the costs or remediation. I now expect the county to harden up in its enforcement efforts, including a potential referral to the district attorney or the Regional Board for enforcement. If this happens, fines and/or penalties are likely to follow and disqualification from the UST Fund is also likely. What is also certain is that the remedial options will no longer take place in an atmosphere of cooperation with the regulators; there will simply be a series of directives for a remedial option dictated by the regulators that will be conservative and extremely expensive. I also expect that it will be accompanied by public pronouncements of just how much of a threat this site poses to public health, and public relations will be added to the damage control effort. 607838.1