Laserfiche WebLink
include technical, legal, and internal administrative costs <br /> directly related to such oversight, monitoring, commenting, or <br /> participation in the remedy selection process. <br /> Under Section VII-B, the Plaintiff has chosen Dr. Anne <br /> Farr and Kennedy-Jenks Consultants as technical advisors. The <br /> law firm of Hopkins & Carley has likewise been retained to <br /> provide the advice to Plaintiff LPL. However, the Consent Decree <br /> fails to delineate the respective roles of legal counsel on the <br /> one hand, and technical advisor on the other. As a result, the <br /> Equipment Manufacturers are concerned about the possibility of <br /> overlap and duplicative, unnecessary billing in the absence of <br /> such delineation which could be sought to be recovered from them <br /> in the future. <br /> For example, without an explicit delineation of <br /> responsibility, there is nothing to prevent legal counsel from <br /> physically "monitoring" all aspects of technical work at the Site <br /> (and billing for this effort) , including routine drilling and <br /> sampling which would more appropriately be monitored solely by <br /> Plaintiff LPL's technical consultant. This provision is <br /> particularly troublesome in view of the requirement of Section <br /> XVI that all costs incurred pursuant to this Decree are <br /> "automatically" deemed "consistent with the NCP" without any <br /> further review. <br /> The Equipment Manufacturers must also point out the <br /> apparent conflict between the terms of this Consent Decree and <br /> LA\16207\031\5000MDCG.002 <br /> -9- <br />