Opinion ID: 6927857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The National Contingency Plan

Text: As the majority has stated, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) guides federal and state response activities by specifically identifying methods for investigating the environmental and health problems resulting from a release or threatened release of hazardous substances, and establishing criteria for determining the appropriate extent of response activities. The 1986 NCP was the operative one in this case. According to the 1986 NCP: The purpose of the ... (NCP or Plan) ... is to effectuate the response powers and responsibilities created by (CERCLA) and the authorities established by section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended.    #   § 300.3 Scope (a) The Plan applies to all Federal agencies and this plan is in effect for: >;« sj: # (2) Releases or substantial threats of releases of hazardous substances into the environment, and releases or substantial threats of releases or pollutants or contaminants which may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare. (b) The Plan provides for efficient, coordinated, and effective response to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants in accordance with the authorities of CERC-LA and the CWA. It provides for: (1) Division and specification of responsibilities among the Federal, State, and local governments in response actions, and appropriate roles for private entities. NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.3 (1986) (emphasis added). In this case, the EPA worked with the Texas Water Commission (TWC), and a private environmental research, or investigatory firm — IT Corporation. Consistent with CERCLA, the 1986 NCP required that drinking water supplies meet the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards for chromium — -a statutorily defined, “hazardous substance.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.-68(i), Appendix V(2). And the NCP defined a “drinking water supply” as “any raw or finished water source that is or may be used by a public water system (as defined by the Safe Drinking Act) or as drinking water by one or more individuals.” NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.6 (Definitions) (1986) (emphasis added). The 1986 NCP also listed, as an appropriate response “to the threat of direct contact with hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants,” the provision of an alternate water supply “where it will reduce the likelihood of exposure of humans or animals to contaminated water.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.-65(e)(8) (emphasis added). In short, contrary to the majority opinion, the EPA has not been statutorily or administratively handicapped to act only in an “all or nothing” manner relative to threats of hazardous substance exposure; quite the contrary.