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
Furthermore, the Equipment Manufacturers maintain that <br /> according to the express terms of the Consent Decree, there is no <br /> incentive for the Settling Parties, particularly Plaintiff LPL, <br /> to monitor costs aggressively, make cost-effective choices <br /> regarding the cleanup of the Site, or have any concern whatsoever <br /> for limiting the Equipment Manufacturers' potential liability. <br /> The Consent Decree is, in effect, a blank check written in favor <br /> of Plaintiff LPL that also gives Plaintiff LPL the right to <br /> attempt to recover costs in the future from Equipment <br /> Manufacturers, without giving them meaningful input into the <br /> process that will generate those multi-million dollar costs. <br /> For these reasons, and in particular the proposed Finding by <br /> this Court that all costs spent implementing the Consent Decree <br /> are a priori "consistent with the National Contingency Plan" , the <br /> Equipment Manufacturers maintain that the Consent Decree, in its <br /> present form, cannot constitute a good faith settlement and <br /> should not be entered by the this Court. <br /> The following paragraphs will set forth the Equipment <br /> Manufacturers ' comments. The order in which comments appear <br /> corresponds to the order in which sections appear in the Consent <br /> Decree. <br /> U\16207\031\5000MDCG.002 <br /> -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.