Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Master, supra, 748 F.Supp. at 392 (“The court notes that there is no statutory language in the CERCLA statute which supports such an argument”). Certain of the courts that have held governmental agency involvement can satisfy the NCP’s public comment requirement appear to have relied on the fact that the agency’s process itself involved opportunities for public input and involvement. See Estes v. Scotsman Group, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 988, 991 (C.D.Ill.1998) (“Cases allowing public agency involvement to be substituted for public comment have only allowed such a substitution if the public is provided an ample opportunity for comment and there is substantial involvement throughout the cleanup by a state agency”); Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 779 F.Supp. 1519, 1537 (N.D.Ind.1991) , rev’d. in part on other grounds, 2 F.3d 746
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public
B. holding that the ncp public participation requirement was fulfilled because the indiana department of environmental management gave public notice and received public comments before issuing an npdes permit for the cleanup even if it did not hold a public hearing
C. holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice
D. holding that significant involvement of government agency charged with protecting public environmental interest satisfies public participation requirement in certain circumstances
E. holding that significant state involvement satisfies public participation requirement because it serves the identical purpose that the public notice provision seeks to effectuate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.