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 Comment#19: <br /> 2 Section Addressed: Section XIII, Oversight, Compliance Review and Comment <br /> 3 Page 22, Line 3 to Page 23, Line 10 <br /> 4 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 5 The Commenters, the Equipment Manufacturers, note that Section XIII of the <br /> 6 Consent Decree allows plaintiff LPL to conduct oversight, monitoring and review of the <br /> 7 performance of the Work. The Commenters further note that Paragraph D of Section XIII <br /> 8 provides that the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants must reimburse plaintiff LPL for all <br /> 9 reasonable costs incurred while conducting the oversight, monitoring, observing or inspection of <br /> 10 the Work at the Site. The Commenters assert that this Consent Decree should be amended to <br /> 11 carefully delineate the respective roles of plaintiff LPL's legal and technical consultants to avoid <br /> 12 the possibility of overlap and duplicative, unnecessary billing. <br /> 13 Settling Parties' Response: <br /> 14 The Settling Parties respond that these provisions regarding the nature and extent <br /> 15 of plaintiff LPL's rights to oversee,monitor, observe and inspect the Work at the Site were among <br /> 16 the most vigorously debated portions of the Consent Decree. These provisions provide only for <br /> 17 the payment of reasonable costs incurred. To the extent that the Settling Parties disagree as to the <br /> 18 reasonableness of these costs, the Consent Decree provides for both informal and formal dispute <br /> 19 resolution procedures. The Settling Parties assert that by limiting plaintiff LPL to recovering <br /> 20 reasonable costs, the Settling Parties have selected the most appropriate means of preventing <br /> 21 unnecessary oversight, rather than attempting to artificially circumscribe the efforts undertaken by <br /> 22 plaintiff LPL to ensure full, competent and timely completion of the Work. Ultimately, the <br /> 23 Federal Court or its Special Master is the final arbiter as to the reasonableness of the costs incurred. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 <br /> 26 <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -26- <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.