Air Pollution – Soil Vapor Intrusion (6)
Brownfields Cleanup (13)
Environmental Contamination & General Liability in New York (7)
Environmental Law Video (1)
Environmental Permits (3)
Environmental Risk & Insurance (5)
Federal Environmental Law (36)
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) (13)
Lawyer & Attorney Referrals (2)
Media Appearances (1)
New York Navigation Law (15)
New York State Environmental Law (35)
NY Environmental Statutes, Codes, Regulations (19)
NY Oil Spill Act (14)
NY State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (7)
Oil Spill Cases (8)
Press Releases (4)
Real Estate Transactions & Environmental Law (29)
Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) (5)
Superfund (CERCLA & State Superfund) (26)
Toxic Substance Control Act – TSCA (1)
Matthew Jokajtys | April 8, 2013
Beginning in the winter of 2006-2007, bees began to die in – or simply disappear from – commercial hives around the US. Increasing numbers of beekeepers since then reported similar disappearances of bees, and the phenomenon became known as Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD. While the exact causes of CCD are unknown, beekeepers and environmental [...]
Matthew Jokajtys | December 12, 2012
A federal court in New York recently decided that the migration of subterranean contamination onto a neighboring property was not, by itself, a sufficient basis to hold a neighboring landowner jointly liable for remediation costs under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).
Matthew Jokajtys | December 4, 2012
Congress enacted the Superfund Act, whose formal name is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, in 1980 to promote the clean up (remediation) of properties, typically abandoned landfills or other sites, that had been contaminated by the disposal of hazardous materials. To further this goal, Congress cast a wide net and [...]
James J. Periconi, Esq. | April 26, 2012
On April 13, 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed a draft New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) regulation under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that will cover carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new sources in the category defined as new “electric utility generating units,” or EGUs.
James J. Periconi, Esq. | March 26, 2012
The Supreme Court of the United States has just unanimously ruled that administrative orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under section 319 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) are “final agency actions” subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Sackett v. United States EPA, 566 U.S. ____ (2012).
James J. Periconi, Esq. | December 6, 2011
So far in our blog series on “Fracking NY,” we’ve presented a general background of the issues, a summary of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC”) Draft Revised SGEIS on fracking, and a summary of the DEC’s proposed regulations for fracking. We now turn to discuss the federal regulation – or lack thereof – of [...]
James J. Periconi, Esq. | October 18, 2011
Urban agriculture is exploding in cities – large and small – throughout the nation. In many cities, local land use laws and zoning ordinances are being amended or drafted to support this new-found passion. But with precious “green” space in cities (and rooftops in limited supply), many urban farmers may be forced to turn to [...]
James J. Periconi, Esq. | September 20, 2011
On June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States ended a decade of litigation when it denied a writ of certiorari (i.e., refused to review) a 2010 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal which affirmed the trial court’s decision deny General Electric’s (“GE”) attack on the constitutionality of the U.S. Environmental [...]
James J. Periconi, Esq. | June 28, 2010
Our last post discussed the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron, 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. Feb 24, 2010). We left off when the District Court was about to review its prior decision in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services (“Aviall”). The Aviall Court held that [...]
James J. Periconi, Esq. | December 9, 2009
Following our posts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (“BNSF”), this post will discuss implications of this decision on apportionment in Superfund cases as various commentators (including this one) see it.
Extension of New York State Fracking Moratorium Passes State Assembly, But its Ultimate Fate is Unclear Destruction of Oil Spill Investigation Data Ruled Not Sufficiently Prejudicial to Warrant the Dismissal of a Cost Recovery Action Under Navigation Law § 12 EPA to Defend its “Proposed Plan” for Remediating the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site During Public Meetings on January 23 and 24, 2013 DEC “Incidental Take” Permit Regulations Survive Challenge “Fracking NY” Blog Series: Update – Federal Regulations 11th Circuit Decision Follows that of Niagara v. Mohawk: Under CERCLA, Parties Who Enter Into Consent Decree with Government Are Limited to a § 113(f) Contribution Claim 