148. At the Palmerton Zinc Pile site, Horsehead Industries, another PRP, was issued a UAO to clean up a site that Horsehead had never owned or operated. Krablin Decl. ¶¶ 18-21. Horse-head was able to obtain review because of a parallel cost recovery action. Id. ¶ 29. The court eventually issued a consent order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the UAO against Horsehead. Id. ¶ 31. GE’s evidence from reimbursement proceedings is revealing but does not advance GE’s position. Under section 106(b)(2), PRPs may seek reimbursement upon completion of the cleanup if they believe that they have been issued a UAO in error. If EPA refuses to reimburse the PRP, then the PRP may file suit in a federal district court, where the PRP can challenge both liability and remedy selection. S ir.2005) (<HOLDING>). And given the size of the record after
holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute holding that a 746 percent error rate is unacceptably high 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 district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at the colorado statutory rate of 8 percent holding that a 50 percent error rate would constitute a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation