SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael Infurna. May 22, 1996 Page 7 other oil companies which operated the gas station on the property. In short, she obtained a significant discount of the purchase price of this property because the seller would not provide the desired indemnification, and she now seeks to use the County's regulatory process as leverage to obtain the same indemnification from the prior operators of the site. The obligation of the PHS-EHD in this matter is to protect human health and the environment,not the private business interests of a property investor. The County's decision with respect to conditional closure, therefore, must turn on the site assessment information which has been developed at great expense with respect to this property. The only information that matters in determining whether conditional closure is appropriate is the type and extent of contamination,the depth to the contamination, and the actual and potential impact of that contamination on human health and the environment. Both you and Diane Hinsonhad that information at hand in January, and it was upon that information that Ms. Hinson based her decision that conditional closure is appropriate. Ms. Staudenraus'private, investment-based desires have no bearing on that decision. Nevertheless, it is clear from my meeting with Ms. Hinson and my discussion with you last week that the PHS-EHD was and is concerned about the rights of the current owner. Please be assured that Ms. Staudenraus' rights will be fully protected if conditional closure is granted. As in most cases involving contaminated property,private rights are best exercised directly with prior owners and operators of the site, and not indirectly through the inappropriate manipulation of regulatory agencies who lack the resources with which to allocate responsibility and liability. As you can see from the enclosed Purchase and Sale Agreement, Ms. Staudenraus was informed of the property contamination,the FDIC agreed to take certain steps with respect to that contamination, and the Agreement gives Ms. Staudenraus;remedies which she can pursue against the FDIC if she believes the FDIC has failed to satisfy its contractual obligations. Clearly she would have liked a more comprehensive indemnity,but she elected to take advantage of a reduced purchase price instead. Ms. Staudenraus is certainly free to bring a private claim against the FDIC or any of the prior owners or operators of this property if she feels such a claim is warranted. It is inappropriate, however,to hold conditional closure hostage to such claims. On behalf of the settling parties in the FDIC litigation, and pursuant to the Order issued by Judge Holloway, Texaco hereby requests that the County grant conditional closure with respect to this property. In that regard, we would be pleased to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss any questions or concerns you may have,whether they