42 U.S.C. §§ 9606(b)(2)(C)-(D). Given that thousands of PRPs have complied with UAOs, reimbursement proceedings would appear to be the most fertile ground for finding EPA error. But GE concedes that “there has only been one Section 106(b) case that has resulted in a final judgment adverse to EPA requiring reimbursement from the government.” GE SUF at ¶ 154. At the summary judgment stage, the paucity of evidence of error from reimbursement proceedings is telling. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In sum, when all four categories of evidence proffered by GE are carefully scrutinized, GE has pointed to just five instances of error — four examples from specific sites described in GE’s declarations and one examp iv. A.No. 05-56467, 2008 WL 4791868 at *20 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2008) (<HOLDING>); Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493, 505, 512 (7th
holding that a 746 percent error rate is unacceptably high holding the erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel constitutes per se reversible error holding that where the proper rate of interest was eight percent but the court ordered six percent movant had waived right to higher rate by not raising the issue earlier in its petition for review holding that a 50 percent error rate would constitute a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute