task of resolving “how much” adherence to NCP regulations is “enough.” The court must instead find a more principled method for deciding whether a party has substantially complied with the public participation requirement. The cases do not always express such a principle. Sometimes, in finding that a party has failed to substantially comply with the public participation requirement, courts have simply emphasized what the party did not do, without explaining why the omitted conduct was necessary. See Reg’l Airport Auth., 460 F.3d at 707 (although acknowledging that compliance with certain NCP provision was only “ ‘potentially’ required,” holding — without explanation — that such compliance was required “under the facts of this case”); Carson Harbor Village, 433 F.3d at 1266 n. 5 (<HOLDING>). Other courts, in finding that a party did
recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public 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 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 public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice holding five day public comment period on a portion of an ea insufficient remanding for further public comment