Opinion ID: 3035706
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: National Contingency Plan Compliance

Text: [1] CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., was enacted in 1980 “to provide for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.” Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980). CERCLA contains a provision, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), which allows private parties who incur cleanup costs to recover those costs from “various types of persons who contributed to the dumping of hazardous waste at a site.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 1989). To establish a prima facie case under § 9607(a), the plaintiff must show that (1) the property at issue is a “facility” as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9); (2) a “release” or “threatened release” of a “hazardous substance” has occurred; (3) the “release” or “threatened release” has caused the plaintiff to incur response costs that were “necessary” and “consistent with the national contingency plan”; and (4) the defendants are in one of four classes of persons subject to liability under § 9607(a). Ascon Properties, 866 F.2d at 1152. Private parties have the burden of proving that cleanup costs associated with remedial actions are consistent with the National Contingency Plan to recover those cleanup costs under CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B); Washington State Dep’t of Transp. v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 59 F.3d 793, 800 (9th Cir. 1995). CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. UNOCAL CORP. 517 [2] The National Contingency Plan is promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. § 9605. See generally 40 C.F.R. Part 300. The National Contingency Plan outlines specific steps parties must take in choosing a remedial action plan and cleaning up hazardous waste. It is “designed to make the party seeking response costs choose a cost-effective course of action to protect public health and the environment.” Washington State, 59 F.3d at 802. Private party remedial action is “consistent with the [National Contingency Plan] if the action, when evaluated as a whole, is in substantial compliance with . . . [certain procedural requirements], and results in a CERCLA-quality cleanup.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.700(c)(3)(i) (emphasis added). Relevant to this appeal, the National Contingency Plan requires that the party seeking recovery provide an opportunity for public comment and participation, conduct a remedial site investigation, and prepare a feasibility study. 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.700(c)(5)(vii)-(viii), (c)(6).
The public participation requirement has two main components. First, in developing a remedial action plan, prior to actual field work beginning, the party conducting the cleanup “shall . . . to the extent practicable” interview local officials, community residents, or other interested or affected parties to learn their concerns. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(c)(2)(i). Additionally, a formal community relations plan must be prepared to ensure an opportunity for public involvement, and at least one local “information repository” must be established to make information available to the public about the site remediation. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(c)(2)(ii). Second, after a remediation plan has been chosen, the party conducting the cleanup shall publish notice of the plan in a local newspaper, provide an opportunity for submission of comments on the proposed plan, provide an opportunity for a public meeting, make a transcript of the meeting available to the public, and prepare 518 CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. UNOCAL CORP. a written summary of significant comments and responses to those comments. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(3). [3] Carson Harbor did not itself comply with the public participation requirement of the National Contingency Plan during its remedial action.5 Rather, it argues that the public participation requirement is satisfied because of the “substantial involvement” of the overseeing governmental unit, the RWQCB. Several other courts, and the district court below, have held that “participation by a public agency is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the [National Contingency Plan] public comment requirement.” Carson Harbor II, 287 F.Supp.2d at 1162 (citing Bedford Affiliates v. Sills, 156 F.3d 416, 428 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Gee Co., 158 F.Supp.2d 878, 883 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Am. Color & Chem. Corp. v. Tenneco Polymers, Inc., 918 F.Supp. 945, 957 (D.S.C. 1995). Our circuit has not decided if significant agency involvement can satisfy the National Contingency Plan’s public participation requirement, and we need not decide that issue of first impression to resolve this case. Even if significant agency involvement were enough to satisfy the National Contingency Plan’s public participation requirement, 5 The district court correctly noted that there is no evidence in the record that Carson Harbor prepared a community relations plan, that the public was given notice of the remedial action, that the remediation plan was published or otherwise made available to the public, that any public meeting was held, or that any other opportunity for public comment was given. There is evidence in the record that Carson Harbor notified local officials and other interested parties, including Unocal. Additionally, meetings were held with representatives from Carson Harbor, Unocal, the RWQCB, and state Senator Dills’s office to discuss the Property and remediation efforts. However, this alone does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Carson Harbor substantially complied with the public participation requirement of the National Contingency Plan because there was never an opportunity for the public at large to comment on the plan. The best evidence of this is that local residents had to go to their state senator, Dills, to raise their concerns about the pollution at the Property and its remediation. CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. UNOCAL CORP. 519 the involvement of the RWQCB in this case is insufficient to do so. In Bedford Affiliates, the Second Circuit held that “extensive involvement of a government agency charged with the protection of the public environmental interest is an effective substitute for public comment.” 156 F.3d at 428. In that case, the agency had been “actively involved” in the cleanup for four years and had negotiated a consent order with Bedford. Id. at 428. Additionally, the agency in Bedford Affiliates was present to “investigate the implementation of the preliminary site assessment and the interim remedial measure.” Id. The agency also negotiated a second consent order with Bedford in 1995, and the cleanup was conducted “[u]nder the supervision of the [agency].” Id. at 422. Under those facts, the Second Circuit held that “[w]here a state agency responsible for overseeing remediation of hazardous wastes gives comprehensive input, and the private parties involved act pursuant to those instructions, the state participation may fulfill the public participation requirement.” Id. at 428. The facts before us in this case do not constitute active participation by the RWQCB which could fulfill the public comment requirement of the National Contingency Plan. In this case, the RWQCB was involved in a very limited fashion. It was not present when Carson Harbor did a preliminary investigation of the pollutants at the Property, as was the agency in Bedford Affiliates. Furthermore, the RWQCB was not actively involved in the remedial action at the Property. While representatives from the RWQCB did visit the Property and participate in meetings concerning the pollution at the Property, it did not take a lead role like the agency in Bedford Affiliates which negotiated two consent decrees. The RWQCB merely approved McLaren-Hart’s proposed remedial action plan, with very minor modifications. Additionally, the RWQCB did not oversee the cleanup like the agency in Bedford Affiliates did, but merely inspected the Property after cleanup was complete to verify that McLaren-Hart had complied with the 520 CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. UNOCAL CORP. remedial action plan. Even if we adopted the rule in Bedford Affiliates that significant government agency involvement fulfills the public participation requirement of the National Contingency Plan, the minor and ministerial involvement by the RWQCB in this case would not suffice to be an effective substitute for public participation.6
Requirements The purpose of the remedial investigation is to “collect data necessary to adequately characterize the site for the purpose of developing and evaluating effective remedial alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(d)(1). The remedial investigation determines the nature and extent of the problem at the site. 40 C.F.R. § 300.5. The data collected during the remedial investigation is used during the feasibility study to develop and evaluate options for a remedial plan. Id. The purpose of the feasibility study is to “ensure that appropriate remedial alternatives are developed and evaluated such that relevant information concerning the remedial action options can be presented to a decision-maker and an appropriate remedy selected.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(1). The remedial investigation requires the party conducting the cleanup to assess threats to human health or the environment, consider the physical characteristics of the site, the type of pollution involved, the extent to which the source of the pollution can be identified, potential pathways for exposure to the pollution, and various other factors potentially relevant to the analysis of remedial measures. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(d)(1)- (4). The feasibility study is prepared using data collected dur- 6 Carson Harbor’s argument that the public participation requirement can be satisfied if the exhibits to the excluded Casparian Declaration are admitted is unavailing. Those exhibits are simply letters between various involved parties, see supra note 3, and do nothing to establish that the RWQCB was significantly involved in the cleanup at the Property. CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. UNOCAL CORP. 521 ing the remedial investigation. In developing a remedial plan, both the purpose of the plan and the potential methods for achieving that objective must be considered. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(2)-(6). Each potential plan must be assessed for effectiveness in achieving the stated objective, ease of implementation, and cost. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(7). Finally, the feasibility study must include “a detailed analysis . . . on the limited number of alternatives that represent viable approaches to remedial action after evaluation in the screening stage.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9). [4] As recognized by the court below, Carson Harbor arguably conducted a remedial investigation that substantially complied with the National Contingency Plan. McLaren-Hart analyzed the physical characteristics of the Property, determined the level and kind of pollutants present, and to some extent, determined the potential source of the pollutants. Even though no public health assessment was conducted, only substantial compliance is required to satisfy the National Contingency Plan, and Carson Harbor meets that standard as to the remedial investigation. [5] As to the feasibility study, however, Carson Harbor has not demonstrated substantial compliance with the National Contingency Plan. In arguing that it has complied with the feasibility study requirement, Carson Harbor relies almost solely on its remedial action plan and on Dr. Amini’s declaration submitted in opposition to Unocal’s summary judgment motion. The remedial action plan submitted to the RWQCB has a full analysis of only one alternative: removal. The remedial action plan discusses the remediation goals, the process for removal, and the pollutant levels required after remediation to be safe for human health and the environment. However, discussing a single remediation alternative does not establish substantial compliance with the feasibility study requirements of the National Contingency Plan. One of the hallmarks of the feasibility study requirement is assessing a variety of possible alternatives and providing analysis of the 522 CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. UNOCAL CORP. costs, implementability, and effectiveness of each, and choosing the best alternative for the site at issue. In this case, Carson Harbor failed to consider any option other than removal of the tar-like and slag materials. [6] The only evidence Carson Harbor puts forth to show that it considered other options is the declaration of its consultant, Dr. Amini, stating that “[a]t the time, [McLaren-Hart] considered various alternatives for remediating the tar and slag material from the wetlands, including the alternative of leaving the material in place.” This statement alone, with no records or other evidence whatsoever to support it, is not sufficient to show that Carson Harbor substantially complied with the feasibility study requirement of the National Contingency Plan. [7] Carson Harbor also argues that removal was the only viable remediation alternative and that it was therefore not required to consider other alternatives. We have previously rejected this argument in a factually similar case, Washington State, 59 F.3d 793. In Washington State, we held insufficient for National Contingency Plan compliance “summary analysis [which] states that disposal of the tar at Arlington is the only ‘feasible option’ and does not indicate that other alternatives were even considered.” 59 F.3d at 804. The facts in this case are nearly identical to those in Washington State. Here, Carson Harbor’s remedial action plan only discusses removal of the tar-like and slag material, and does not address any other alternatives. Additionally, as in Washington State, there is no assessment of the chosen removal alternative in the remedial action plan in terms of effectiveness, cost, or ease of implementation. Carson Harbor has not shown that there are genuine issues of material fact remaining on the issue of whether it substantially complied with the feasibility study requirement of the National Contingency Plan. Therefore, the district court correctly held that Unocal is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on this issue. CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. UNOCAL CORP. 523