who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the facility, and to transporters of hazardous wastes to the facility. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3)-(4). 8 . The RAP for the site prepared by Neville also supplies indisputable evidence of the presence of hazardous substances at the Ne-ville facility. See Jeche Deck, Ex. A at 35-49. 9 . Neville also attempts to raise DTSC’s alleged arbitrary and capricious conduct as a defense to liability. However, this is a misapplication of the' arbitrary and capricious conduct standard, which is employed to measure the consistency of particular cleanup actions with the NCP, and therefore goes to the question of what costs the government is entitled to recover as damages rather than to the question of liability. See WSDOT, 59 F.3d at 798 (<HOLDING>). 10 . The evidence presented by the parties in
holding that wsdot was not entitled to recover response costs under cercla where its actions in connection with an environmental cleanup were inconsistent with the ncp to such a high degree as to be arbitrary and capricious but also stating that failure to comply with the ncp is not a defense to liability but rather a factual issue affecting damages holding that plaintiffs failure to substantially comply with public participation requirement rendered cleanup inconsistent with ncp holding the director of the united states environmental protection agency in contempt for failure to comply with court order holding that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages not only for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment but also for expenses of his defense holding that a common law breach of contract action will lie for the insurers failure to comply with its obligation to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of the insured in its failure to settle with a third party