U.S. at 831, 105 S.Ct. 1649. As a result, “the agency must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action ... best fits the agency’s overall policies, and, indeed, whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action at all.” Id. Further, “[a]n agency generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing.” Id. The Second Circuit has likewise stated that “decisions regarding enforcement discretion ... must reflect limited agency resources, enforcement priorities and other administrative constraints.” B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192, 1205 (2d Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in the context of the DEC’S decision to
holding that potentially liable party could avoid all liability by proving its released hazardous substances did not contribute to response costs recognizing that the epa may selectively prosecute only the major contributors to a hazardous response site holding that parties liable for at least a portion of the costs of remediating a hazardous site are limited to the contribution scheme under section 9613f of cercla holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted holding that certain dual purpose documents created in response to the epa information request and consent order were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as they were created because of potential litigation with the epa