My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-1996
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
0
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506203
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2020 3:10:16 PM
Creation date
3/31/2020 2:30:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1993-1996
RECORD_ID
PR0506203
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0007271
FACILITY_NAME
LINCOLN CNTR ENV REMEDIATION TRUST
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95207
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I appropriate means for a non-party to the Permanent Injunction or the Consent Decree to obtain <br /> 2 discovery as to separate claims. To the extent such invoices become relevant in the course of <br /> 3 subsequent litigation, those documents will be readily available to them in the normal course of <br /> 4 discovery. <br /> 5 Finally, the Commenters' purported request that the Court order sanctions for <br /> 6 failing to forward invoices to the non-party Equipment Manufacturers is not properly the subject <br /> 7 for a public comment and is both inappropriate and without foundation in the law. Should the <br /> 8 Equipment Manufacturers wish to make such a motion,the Equipment Manufacturers should <br /> 9 present the motion to the Federal Court in accord with the relevant rules of federal civil procedure <br /> 10 and the local rules of court. <br /> 11 Comment#14: <br /> 12 Section Addressed: Section VII, Site Technical Coordinators <br /> 13 Page 10, Lines 5-16 <br /> 14 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 15 The Commenters,the Equipment Manufacturers, assert that the minimum limits of <br /> 16 liability insurance to be maintained by the Site Project Manager as required in Section VII on <br /> 17 page 10, lines 5-16 of the Consent Decree are excessive and will result in unnecessarily high <br /> 18 premiums. The Commenter requests that the specific premiums that the Site Project Manager <br /> 19 will be required to pay be fully disclosed. The Commenter proposes that, if the minimum liability <br /> 20 limits are deemed necessary,the Site Project Manager should be required to self insure to <br /> 21 1 minimize costs. <br /> 22 Settling Parties' Response: <br /> 23 The Settling Parties respond that the negotiations regarding the minimum limits of <br /> 24 liability to be maintained by the Site Project Manager were extensively and hotly contested with <br /> 25 the respective Settling Parties adopting widely divergent views as to appropriate levels of <br /> 26 insurance protection. The ultimate compromise that is contained in the Consent Decree reflects <br /> 27 the consensus reached by the Settling Parties after heated debate and a recognition that, in a site of <br /> 28 this size and geotechnical complexity, actions taken by the Site Project Manager could <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -21- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 @ 10:43 AM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.