Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evaluated as a whole, [it] is in substantial compliance with the applicable requirements [of the NCP] and results in a CERCLA-quality cleanup.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.700(c)(3)(i). See 40 C.F.R. § 300.700(c)(4) (a party that “substantially complies” with the requirements of the NCP may pursue a cost-recovery action); Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. East Bay Regional Park District, 135 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1100 (N.D.Cal.2001) (stating that the EPA shifted to this flexible “case-by-case” standard “to avoid discouraging private parties from cleaning up hazardous wastes for fear that recovery of their costs would later be precluded by less than perfect compliance with the NCP,” citing 55 Fed.Reg. 8792-94). See also Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc., 24 F.3d 1565, 1576 (9th Cir.1994) . Actions are not consid ered inconsistent with
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute
B. holding that strict compliance is not required
C. holding that waiver of federal tort claims act sovereign immunity is conditioned upon strict compliance with exhaustion requirement
D. recognizing that strict compliance with  1557 is required
E. holding that strict compliance with the 30180day time limit set forth in krs 4392651 is required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.