expense of improvement to someone else”). As such, Valbruna cannot recover the funds it spent to demolish the melt shop. Vapor Bernier Once Valbruna demolished the old melt shop, it constructed a new building where the melt shop had stood. As part of that process, Valbruna installed a “spray-on membrane” between the new building and volatile organic chemicals in groundwater beneath it. [DE 169 at 134-36]; [DE 170 at 44]. This'acted as a protective barrier, which prevented chemical vapors from wafting'up into the building “at concentrations that might be above, a health protective indoor air concentration.” [DE 169 at 136]. Joslyn rightly disputes the com-pensability of this expense. Ensuring safe working conditions is not within the -scope of CERCLA. G.J. Leasing, 854 F.Supp. at 562 (<HOLDING>). To be compensable, expenses must address a
holding that apportionment of cercla liability is  a matter of federal common law holding that employee exposure to asbestos is not the sort of threat redressable under cercla but rather is an osha concern holding that an award of prejudgment interest under  113f of cercla is mandatory holding that the phrase file any complaint requires a plaintiff employee to submit some sort of writing holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute