that the IEPA's approval and involvement satisfied the NCP”). 232 . In other cases approving the concept that the involvement of a state environmental agency can fulfill the NCP’s public participation requirement, it appears there was substantial public input irrespective of the state agency's participation. See Sherwin-Williams, supra, 125 F.Supp.2d at 753 ("[A]s to the remedial actions taken ... it appears that [plaintiff], with the continuous involvement of [the state agency], assessed and investigated these areas, proposed alternative remedies, and provided opportunities for public comment through notices published in the Baltimore Sun (a local general circulation newspaper) prior to the initiation of the remedial actions”); American Color & Chemical, supra, 918 F.Supp. at 953-54 (<HOLDING>). 233 . The Eighth Circuit recently addressed
holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial based on a comment that the defendant was in prison where the comment provided the jury with little detail holding that public meetings held after implementation of final remedial action were not meaningful and that the only public meetings held before remedial action were not meaningful because they did not discuss selection of remedy holding that public participation requirement was satisfied in part because the ncp policy is  to allow potentially responsible parties an opportunity to comment before costs are incurred and no prps were denied an opportunity to comment holding that meetings with representatives of various affected parties were insufficient to meet public participation requirement because there was never an opportunity for the public at large to comment on the plan without explaining why such opportunity was necessary holding that there was a reasonable opportunity for meaningful public comment where the state agency involved issued a press release the remediation effort was reported in several articles plaintiff spoke informally to at least fifty residents concerning the initial investigation and report the remedial alternatives under consideration and the proposed remediation and residents removal preferences were taken into consideration in selecting the remediation method