We continue with our recent discussion of the Aiken v. General Electric Co. case, No. 505023, __N.Y.S.2d__ (3d Dep’t Dec. 4, 2008), discussed in a recent post.   There is not much precedent for the Aiken case, as SVI issues are relatively new to the environmental law landscape and have not been litigated much yet. (more…)

An intermediate state appeals court, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, Third Department (upstate) recently allowed a suit to go forward against GE for injury caused by soil vapor intrusion (SVI) where the contamination that was the source of the SVI was discovered 25 years ago. (more…)

The latest installment in the Brownfields Cleanup Program (BCP) eligibility saga involves a recent October 2008 case from the Supreme Court in New York County, East River Realty Company, LLC v. NYSDEC,  __ N.Y.S.2d ___, 2008 WL 4694535 (Sup.Ct. New York Cty. 2008), holding that DEC cannot use a “but-for” test when determining whether (more…)

In following our previous post concerning judicial review of DEC decisions to deny proposed developments entry into the Brownfield Cleanup Program, we discuss the New York County Supreme Court decision of (more…)

As noted in our previous post, in passing the recent Brownfield Cleanup Program Reform Legislation, the legislature did not amend the program’s eligibility requirements. As previously discussed, NYSDEC has narrowly construed the Act’s eligibility provisions and New York courts have been loath to overrule a NYSDEC decision of non-eligibility. (See our prior post, dated April 26, 2008: “New York Brownfields Law Update: Denial of Eligibility Decisions Mostly Upheld”). (more…)

In our most recent post, we discussed the change in the credits allowed to brownfield developers under the new statute.  We now turn our attention to monitoring requirements and the reporting thereof, and other aspects of the new law. (more…)

On July 23, 2008, Governor David Paterson signed Brownfield Reform Legislation to amend New York State’s taxation and environmental conservation laws. These amendments seek to remedy previous problems with the State’s law concerning the redevelopment tax credits allowed under the program, and to create oversight programs to monitor the program where none existed before. (more…)

Asbestos is a ubiquitous element of office building materials.  The name is given to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals mined for their useful properties such as acoustic insulation, thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength.  Asbestos was commonly used (more…)

So, who is responsible for mitigating this soil vapor intrusion?  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) describes the conditions under which the state will conduct the vapor intrusion evaluations and the order in which the sites will be assessed.   If exposures represent a concern due to indoor sources, then the state will provide guidance to the property owner and/or tenant on ways to reduce their exposure.  If exposures represent a concern due to outdoor sources, (more…)

Today we continue our discussion on soil vapor intrusion.  Some states like New York have developed detailed vapor intrusion guidance of their own.  New York’s guidance explicitly raises concerns about reliance on modeling and exterior soil vapor screening and encourages indoor and sub-slab sampling where there is a reason to believe that vapor intrusion may occur.  (more…)