Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): program” were eventually incorporated into the final remedial plan for the site in September 1991. Id. at 806-07. A CERCLA cost recovery suit for contribution was filed in September 1997. Id. at 807. The court considered whether the initial installation of the wells constituted a remedial action which would trigger CERCLA’s six-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff argued that no remedial action could take place until a final remedial plan had been officially approved. Id. at 811. The court rejected that bright-line test in favor of an analysis of the proximity of the action to the “disclosure of the final remedial design, which may occur prior to approval of the final remedial plan.” Id. at 812; see also State of California v. Hyampom Lumber Co., 903 F.Supp. 1389, 1393 (E.D.Cal.1995) (<HOLDING>); Geraghty and Miller, 234 F.3d at 927 (actions 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a draft rap constituted a final remedial design (B) holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct (C) holding that director of taxation may select remedial option (D) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (E) holding that exemption 7c categorically applies when a third party requestor seeks fbi rap sheets
Output (English): holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error