Opinion ID: 779057
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The National Contingency Plan (NCP) Standard

Text: 87 The Insurers next argue that the portions of MERLO dealing with the cleanup standard set forth in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) conflict with CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) and HSAA § 25356, both of which address the NCP. See MERLO §§ 8.24.030-040. 88 Under CERCLA, the cleanup of listed hazardous waste sites must be consistent with the NCP, which is a plan promulgated by the EPA that specifies the roles of the federal, state, and local governments in responding to hazardous waste sites, and establishes the procedures for making cleanup decisions. United States v. City of Denver, 100 F.3d 1509, 1511 (10th Cir. 1996). Only costs incurred in accordance with the NCP may be recovered under CERCLA. The burden of establishing that the cleanup process is consistent with the NCP depends on whether the plaintiff in a CERCLA action is the government or any other person: While the United States government, or a [S]tate or Indian tribe, can obtain `all costs of removal or remedial action ... not inconsistent with the [NCP],' any other person can obtain `other necessary costs of response ... consistent with the [NCP].' Wash. State Dept. of Transp. v. Wash. Natural Gas Co., 59 F.3d 793, 799 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2), (a)(4)(A)-(B)) (emphasis added). Thus, where the United States government, a [S]tate, or an Indian tribe is seeking recovery of response costs, consistency with the NCP is presumed,  and the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption of consistency by establishing that the plaintiff's response action was arbitrary and capricious. Id. (emphasis added). In contrast, any `other person' seeking response costs under [CERCLA] must prove that its actions are consistent with the NCP.  Id. (emphasis added). 89 HSAA incorporates the NCP standard by reference. Under HSAA, [a]ny response action taken or approved pursuant to this chapter shall be based upon, and be no less stringent than ... [t]he requirements established under federal regulation pursuant to [the NCP]. Cal. H & S Code § 25356.1.5(a)(1). 90 The Insurers argue that the provisions of MERLO addressing the NCP are preempted for two reasons. First, the Insurers argue that MERLO conflicts with CERCLA because it permits Lodi to recover from PRPs any necessary costs of response incurred by the city that are  not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter.  MERLO § 8.24.040(A)(9)(b) (emphasis added). Thus, MERLO provides for the City a presumption of consistency with cleanup standards. The Insurers allege that even though this provision of MERLO does not specifically reference the NCP, 19 it was crafted to provide Lodi the identical presumption of consistency with the NCP that CERCLA ... reserve[s] for the United States, States, and Indian Tribes. 91 We have previously distinguished between local governmental units, such as municipalities, and States as defined by CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). See Wash. State Dept. of Transp., 59 F.3d at 800-01; United States ex rel. Norton Sound Health Corp. v. Bering Strait School Dist., 138 F.3d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 1998). Whether a municipality standing on its own is entitled to a presumption of consistency with the NCP in the context of cost recovery conducted pursuant to CERCLA is undecided in this circuit. 20 We need not decide this issue today. In this case the Cooperative Agreement between Lodi and the DTSC prominently declares in several places that the cleanup of the Lodi Groundwater Site shall be conducted in a manner not inconsistent with the NCP. In the Cooperative Agreement, DTSC has assumed an oversight role 21 and designated the City of Lodi as the lead enforcement entity. DTSC and Lodi's joint responsibilities under the Agreement include ensuring cost-effective performance of the Work. In essence, the Cooperative Agreement makes the DTSC responsible for ensuring an efficient, reasonable, and cost-effective cleanup. Lodi, acting with DTSC oversight, is therefore entitled to the presumption of consistency under CERCLA afforded to state agencies such as DTSC. See Wash. State Dept. of Transp., 59 F.3d at 800-01 (holding that a state agency is entitled to presumption of consistency under CERCLA § 9607(a)(4)(A)). 92 Contrary to the Insurers' contentions, this presumption of consistency would not allow Lodi to escape any responsibility it should rightly bear if the district court finds that Lodi is a PRP. Rather, it encourages a more expeditious cleanup by affording Lodi, acting in close cooperation, coordination and communication with DTSC, the presumption that the cost of selected cleanup mechanisms are recoverable from other PRPs to the extent that other PRPs are adjudged to be responsible parties. This arrangement should direct energy and resources toward cleaning up the site, rather than toward paying lawyers to build a case for the recoverability of costs. We hold, therefore, that even if Lodi proves to be a PRP, it is entitled to the presumption of consistency with the NCP afforded by the Cooperative Agreement with respect to matters addressed in the Agreement. 93 Next, the Insurers argue that MERLO is preempted to the extent that it permits Lodi to order remediation that is either more or less stringent than the NCP. Specifically, under MERLO Lodi may order additional or more stringent requirements than those that would or might apply under the NCP. Similarly, MERLO § 8.24.030(A)(6) states that the City  may order less stringent requirements  for abatement than those that would or might apply under the NCP. See MERLO § 8.24.030(A)(5) (emphasis added). Finally, MERLO states that at any site within the city which is [a listed site under HSAA], the enforcing officer must, at a minimum, comply with [HSAA]. MERLO § 8.24.030(A)(7). 94 To the extent that MERLO § 8.24.030(A)(5) permits Lodi to order abatement that is more stringent than the NCP, we find that it is preempted for the same reasons that MERLO's burden of proof is preempted. 95 As to the claim that MERLO allows abatement less stringent than the NCP, MERLO in fact does not permit Lodi to order abatement less stringent than the NCP with respect to the Lodi Groundwater Site. DTSC listed the Lodi Groundwater Site beginning in fiscal year 1993-94. MERLO requires that listed sites comply with HSAA, which in turn requires that response actions be based upon and be no less stringent than the NCP. 22 Therefore, as it applies to the Lodi Groundwater Site, MERLO itself requires that response actions be no less stringent than the NCP, hence MERLO does not come into conflict with CERCLA or HSAA on this point. 23 96 With respect to application of MERLO beyond the Lodi Groundwater Site, we see no reason why California cities may not enact municipal environmental response ordinances keying cleanup to standards other than the NCP. Cleanups conducted pursuant to CERCLA and HSAA require use of the NCP. However, we have held that CERCLA and HSAA do not preempt the field of hazardous waste cleanup. So long as a local ordinance does not come into conflict with CERCLA or HSAA, as we have explained MERLO would in some instances, a city may borrow or adapt the NCP as it sees fit — or use some other procedure for making cleanup decisions. An agreement with or authorization from the state is not a prerequisite to local environmental legislation. 24 Local environmental legislation may be particularly useful to California cities in dealing with smaller, marginally contaminated sites that do not attract state or federal involvement, and for which the extensive procedural requirements of the NCP may unnecessarily prolong cleanup and raise its cost. A city may compel a recalcitrant landowner to clean up such a site using standards that make sense under the circumstances. 25 We hold, therefore, that MERLO's provisions dealing with cleanup procedures are preempted by CERCLA only to the extent that they permit Lodi to order use of procedures more stringent than the NCP. 26 97