Laserfiche WebLink
1 owner of the property,nor a party adjudged liable for or actually performing the Work. <br /> 2 Accordingly, the Equipment Manufacturers do not have any insurable interest. In any event, the <br /> 3 insurance coverage required will indirectly inure to the benefit of the Equipment Manufacturers <br /> 4 should they ultimately be held liable in contribution for some or all of the costs at this Site to the <br /> 5 extent that it reduces further inadvertent risks and costs at the Site. <br /> 6 Finally,the Settling Parties disagree with the assertion that premiums associated <br /> 7 with acquiring the minimum limits of liability should be excluded as costs incurred by the Site <br /> 8 Project Manager. The limits of liability and their associated premiums are a routine overhead <br /> 9 necessary to safely and responsibly carrying out the remediation efforts required at the Site. <br /> 10 Comment#16: <br /> 11 Section Addressed: Section IX, Lead Public Agency <br /> 12 Page 1, Line 24 to Page 12, Line 5 <br /> 13 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 14 The Commenters, Equipment Manufacturers, assert that by designating the <br /> 15 California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region("RWQCB') as the <br /> 16 Lead Agency with respect to overseeing and reviewing all aspects of the Work required to be <br /> 17 performed by the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants, Section IX of the Consent Decree treats the <br /> 18 RWQCB as an On-Site Coordinator("OSC')as provided by the NCP and attempts to delegate the <br /> 19 regulatorily mandated powers of an OSC under federal law to a state entity. The Commenters <br /> 20 further assert that neither the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants nor the Court has the authority to <br /> 21 permit such a delegation of authority. The Commenters observe that the RWQCB is neither a <br /> 22 party to this action, nor a signatory to this Consent Decree and is not, therefore, within the <br /> 23 jurisdiction of the Court. <br /> 24 Settling Parties' Response: <br /> 25 The Settling Parties respond that no delegation of mandated powers of Federal <br /> 26 officials has been undertaken by the Consent Decree or by the Court. Delegation of the authority <br /> 27 held by an OSC under the NCP could only be done, if at all, by the appropriate officers of the U.S. <br /> 28 Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has no presence at, <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -23- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 l@ 10:43 AM <br />