Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Brian C. Freeman

Senior Associate
bfreeman@rc.com
Portrait of Brian C. Freeman
Portrait of Brian C. Freeman

Brian C. Freeman

Senior Associate

bfreeman@rc.com
Hartford, CT — 860.275.8310

Brian C. Freeman focuses his practice on environmental compliance counseling, permitting, site remediation, and related litigation regarding federal and state regulatory programs. Areas of particular focus include air quality, climate change, petroleum management, and waste management/recycling. Brian has worked with a variety of clients, ranging from Fortune 100 conglomerates to individual entrepreneurs, and across a broad spectrum of industries, including aerospace, specialty chemicals, petroleum, electricity generation, composting and organics management.

Air Quality

Brian has experience across the breadth of federal and state air programs in varied contexts, including permitting, day-to-day and strategic compliance counseling, facility purchase/sale, private-party claims, and civil and criminal enforcement. Specific areas of experience include: major and minor New Source Review pre-construction permitting; Title V operating permits; federal and state hazardous air pollutant programs; federal emission standards for nonroad engines; Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act §112(r); Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for facilities and consumer products; New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); and management of refrigerants and other Ozone-Depleting Substances. His air experience also includes less conventional issues such as odor, noise, and open burning.

As an active member of the State Implementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee (SIPRAC), Brian has worked with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to develop, implement, and amend numerous air programs in that state. From 2009 to 2015, and from 2022 to the present, he has served as Co-Chair of the Air Task Force of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association's Energy and Environment Council.  Since 2017, he has also served on the Board of Directors of the Air & Waste Association’s New England Section.

Climate Change

Brian has long worked with clients in navigating the emerging and uncertain world of climate change. His experience includes assessing the impact of state, federal, and international climate change policy and programs, developing related strategy, advocacy, and compliance programs. through pre-existing programs as well as development of new approaches among industry, non-governmental organizations, and regulators.

Environmental Remediation

Brian has extensive experience in representing clients facing Superfund and other liability claims, including complex contaminated sediment sites in urbanized tidal estuaries and rivers. He also has long counseled a client on an extensive RCRA, TSCA and state remediation effort, natural resources restoration and site redevelopment at a large riverfront property following a century of intensive manufacturing use. He has particular experience with releases at petroleum bulk storage facilities and dispensing sites, including emergency response, investigation and remediation efforts, regulatory enforcement actions, and negotiation and lawsuits with adjacent property owners and operators, both commercial and residential.

Waste Management/Recycling

Brian has worked with numerous composting and other organics waste management facilities in achieving permitting, compliance and transaction objectives. He also has served as outside counsel to the U.S. Composting Council (USCC), where he was instrumental in developing the certification programs underlying the “compostable” logo found on many consumer plastic products today, and the “Seal of Testing Assurance” (STA) logo for compost products. In 2021-22, he played a lead role in the USCC’s task force in developing a model zoning ordinance for composting facilities.

Brian is a regular contributor to the firm’s Environmental Law+ blog, and frequently publishes and presents in a variety of venues on environmental law topics.  Since 2010, he has been a guest lecturer regarding the federal Clean Air Act in undergraduate and graduate environmental law and policy courses at Wesleyan University and Tufts University.

Before joining the firm, he clerked for Judge Albert J. Engel, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

  • University of Virginia School of Law (Juris Doctor)
    • Virginia Law Review
    • Virginia Environmental Law Journal
  • Georgetown University (Bachelors, summa cum laude)
    • B.A., Government

  • State of Connecticut
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area(s) of Environmental Law since 2006 and Litigation-Environmental since 2011

Connecticut Business & Industry Association
Energy & Environment Council, Steering Committee (2009-2015, 2022 - Present)
Co-Chair, Air Task Force (2009-2015, 2022-Present)
Air Task Force (1990 - Present)

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
State Implementation Plan Regulatory Advisory Committee (SIPRAC) (1993 - Present)

Connecticut Bar Association
Environmental Law Section (1990 - Present)

Air and Waste Management Association - New England Section
Board of Directors (2017 - Present)

US Composting Council (1995 - Present)
Model Zoning Ordinance Task Force (2020 - 2021)
Co-chair of Government Committee (1997 - 1999)

Environmental Business Council of New England
Climate Change and Air Committee; Solid Waste Management Committee (2017 - Present)

Experience

Air Quality: Compliance Strategies + Assurance Systems

Regularly assist manufacturing clients in developing and implementing compliance strategies and assurance systems concerning state and federal air quality requirements relative to existing operations, and in assessing, reporting and resolving compliance issues. 

Read More

Air Quality: "Potential to Emit" Analyses

Represent a specialized medical products manufacturer in responding to enforcement action by state agency regarding issues under New Source Review, Title V, and VOC RACT (Reasonable Available Control Technologies for Volatile Organic Compounds). Worked closely with client's in-house and outside experts in developing "potential to emit" analyses reflective of the complex and variable chemistries employed in production, successfully demonstrating to the agency's satisfaction that the operation was not subject to Title V, and preparing and working with the agency in review of an application for a minor New Source Review permit. Through deep-dive research of various VOC RACT standards, successfully demonstrated to the agency that none were applicable to the client's operations.

Read More

Air Quality: US EPA Request for Information

Advised and assisted the owner and operator of two hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) in responding to a US EPA request for information under the Clean Air Act and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), follow-up EPA inspections and testing order; defending against a related EPA enforcement action alleging numerous CAA and RCRA violations; and in negotiating resolution of the enforcement action at a substantial discount from the original penalty demand.

Read More

Publications

Vol. 10.1

New UST Requirements (and Potential "Buried Hazards") in Connecticut Revised Underground Storage Tank Regulations

CEMA Aegis
June 8, 2023

Breaking the Mold – Best Practices by Educational Institutions to Limit Mold Exposure and Loss

American School & University

Mold is one of the oldest life forms on the planet, and it continues to be a hot topic among health experts – as well as those operating and maintaining education facilities. Most types of mold grow in high-moisture areas. Mold plays an important part in our ecosystem and can have various beneficial uses, but prolonged exposure to elevated levels of certain mold types can cause allergic reactions and respiratory problems, which may be severe. Complaints about mold at education institutions may arise from students, employees or visitors. Unlike many contaminants, however, there may be few clear regulatory or health-based limits to define acceptable versus unacceptable levels for mold. Given that, plus the different types of mold and different levels of personal sensitivity, determining the risk from mold exposure can be complicated. Often, the initial response made following a mold complaint is immediate testing; however, the process, scope, and type of testing may raise more issues that must be addressed. To Test or Not Test Before a decision is made to test, several issues should be considered in consultation with technical and legal resources that are experienced in dealing with mold issues. Those issues include: Determining which test method(s) to use, and how best to carry out tests in a specific setting Ensuring that the selected test method(s) are carried out properly Interpreting test results Determining “action levels” (i.e., results that warrant follow-up action), and what such action should be Confirming that the institution is prepared to promptly commit the resources necessary for such action Testing for mold may be more complex than expected. Unlike most contaminants, mold is ubiquitous in nature as well as in built environments. The many different types of mold further complicate the picture. Some molds always produce toxins, other molds produce toxins only in certain environments and some molds do not produce toxins in any environment. Contributing to the problem, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend routine sampling for mold because there are no established standards for determining what constitutes a “normal” level. If a decision is made to proceed with testing for mold, the uncertainties potentially associated with such testing make it necessary to consider how to appropriately manage information and discussions resulting from such testing. Depending on the context, it also may be appropriate to consider whether and to what degree confidentiality or attorney-client privilege protections are warranted. Prevent, Detect and Abate The time and costs required for testing and the potential value of test results should be weighed against the value of prevention, detection and abatement strategies. These strategies include: Periodically checking for possible moisture sources that could create mold issues in interior spaces Conducting visual or odor checks for mold, and using enhanced cleaning regimens in potential problem areas For moisture sources, mold experts assess not only for potential sources of liquid water (e.g., plumbing leaks), but also for water vapor (e.g., hot, humid exterior air entering air-conditioned interiors, leading to condensation). Vapor is a particular challenge on college campuses at the beginning and end of the academic year when students or visitors prop doors open to facilitate move-in or move-out. When an institution identifies a mold problem or becomes aware of a mold complaint, it is important to promptly locate and abate moisture source(s) at the specific location as well as any surrounding areas that may also be affected. The immediate response should take into account how it will affect students or employees who report having allergies or other respiratory problems. Such persons should be relocated immediately until mold removal professionals can clean the affected areas. One prevention method schools should consider is educating students on the instrumental role they play in causing or preventing the growth of mold. Encouraging best practices for student spaces and common areas can help institutions lower the risk of significant mold growth. These best practices include preventing mold growth by: Hanging wet towels or sweaty clothes to dry Using exhaust fans when showering Mopping up spills immediately, whether on floors, on countertops, inside cabinets, or elsewhere Ensuring any rugs or carpets that receive spills or tracked-in rain, snow, or ice do not stay wet Immediately reporting any wet rugs or carpets that cannot be easily dried Immediately reporting any odors Another important prevention method is diligent building maintenance. One of the many dangers of deferred maintenance, particularly in older buildings, is the growth of mold. Delays in tasks like repairing window or roof leaks or insulating piping can lead to mold infestations. Although deferring seemingly minor repairs might save costs in the short term, it can necessitate future mold remediation that may be urgent and far costlier and could expose the institution to bad publicity or legal liability. For example, a 2019 class action lawsuit against Indiana University Bloomington cited widespread mold infestation in university residence halls because of chronically leaking pipes, condensate leaks from heating and cooling systems, roof leaks, and many other unaddressed maintenance deficiencies. The university’s response included installing air filtration systems, but those led to noise complaints and an expansion of the lawsuit. The university was ultimately successful on appeal, but not before compensating 2,458 students a total of $7.7 million and enduring high-profile negative publicity. Before significant mold problems occur, institutions can employ prevention methods such as: Performing regular building and HVAC inspections that include scrutiny of potential mold sources or hot spots Routing vents outdoors for all moisture-generating appliances Avoiding putting carpeting in high-humidity spaces such as basements Assessing and if necessary, controlling humidity levels in all interior spaces Although mold is ubiquitous, serious mold infestations and resulting class-action lawsuits do not have to be. With planning and preventive action, education institutions can limit mold-related exposure and loss.

Legal Update: Ozone Nonattainment “Bump-up” in Connecticut:Is your facility about to get bumped into more stringent air regulations? teaser
October 27, 2022

Legal Update: Ozone Nonattainment “Bump-up” in Connecticut:Is your facility about to get bumped into more stringent air regulations?

Vol. 10.1

New UST Requirements (and Potential "Buried Hazards") in Connecticut Revised Underground Storage Tank Regulations

CEMA Aegis
June 8, 2023

Breaking the Mold – Best Practices by Educational Institutions to Limit Mold Exposure and Loss

American School & University

Mold is one of the oldest life forms on the planet, and it continues to be a hot topic among health experts – as well as those operating and maintaining education facilities. Most types of mold grow in high-moisture areas. Mold plays an important part in our ecosystem and can have various beneficial uses, but prolonged exposure to elevated levels of certain mold types can cause allergic reactions and respiratory problems, which may be severe. Complaints about mold at education institutions may arise from students, employees or visitors. Unlike many contaminants, however, there may be few clear regulatory or health-based limits to define acceptable versus unacceptable levels for mold. Given that, plus the different types of mold and different levels of personal sensitivity, determining the risk from mold exposure can be complicated. Often, the initial response made following a mold complaint is immediate testing; however, the process, scope, and type of testing may raise more issues that must be addressed. To Test or Not Test Before a decision is made to test, several issues should be considered in consultation with technical and legal resources that are experienced in dealing with mold issues. Those issues include: Determining which test method(s) to use, and how best to carry out tests in a specific setting Ensuring that the selected test method(s) are carried out properly Interpreting test results Determining “action levels” (i.e., results that warrant follow-up action), and what such action should be Confirming that the institution is prepared to promptly commit the resources necessary for such action Testing for mold may be more complex than expected. Unlike most contaminants, mold is ubiquitous in nature as well as in built environments. The many different types of mold further complicate the picture. Some molds always produce toxins, other molds produce toxins only in certain environments and some molds do not produce toxins in any environment. Contributing to the problem, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend routine sampling for mold because there are no established standards for determining what constitutes a “normal” level. If a decision is made to proceed with testing for mold, the uncertainties potentially associated with such testing make it necessary to consider how to appropriately manage information and discussions resulting from such testing. Depending on the context, it also may be appropriate to consider whether and to what degree confidentiality or attorney-client privilege protections are warranted. Prevent, Detect and Abate The time and costs required for testing and the potential value of test results should be weighed against the value of prevention, detection and abatement strategies. These strategies include: Periodically checking for possible moisture sources that could create mold issues in interior spaces Conducting visual or odor checks for mold, and using enhanced cleaning regimens in potential problem areas For moisture sources, mold experts assess not only for potential sources of liquid water (e.g., plumbing leaks), but also for water vapor (e.g., hot, humid exterior air entering air-conditioned interiors, leading to condensation). Vapor is a particular challenge on college campuses at the beginning and end of the academic year when students or visitors prop doors open to facilitate move-in or move-out. When an institution identifies a mold problem or becomes aware of a mold complaint, it is important to promptly locate and abate moisture source(s) at the specific location as well as any surrounding areas that may also be affected. The immediate response should take into account how it will affect students or employees who report having allergies or other respiratory problems. Such persons should be relocated immediately until mold removal professionals can clean the affected areas. One prevention method schools should consider is educating students on the instrumental role they play in causing or preventing the growth of mold. Encouraging best practices for student spaces and common areas can help institutions lower the risk of significant mold growth. These best practices include preventing mold growth by: Hanging wet towels or sweaty clothes to dry Using exhaust fans when showering Mopping up spills immediately, whether on floors, on countertops, inside cabinets, or elsewhere Ensuring any rugs or carpets that receive spills or tracked-in rain, snow, or ice do not stay wet Immediately reporting any wet rugs or carpets that cannot be easily dried Immediately reporting any odors Another important prevention method is diligent building maintenance. One of the many dangers of deferred maintenance, particularly in older buildings, is the growth of mold. Delays in tasks like repairing window or roof leaks or insulating piping can lead to mold infestations. Although deferring seemingly minor repairs might save costs in the short term, it can necessitate future mold remediation that may be urgent and far costlier and could expose the institution to bad publicity or legal liability. For example, a 2019 class action lawsuit against Indiana University Bloomington cited widespread mold infestation in university residence halls because of chronically leaking pipes, condensate leaks from heating and cooling systems, roof leaks, and many other unaddressed maintenance deficiencies. The university’s response included installing air filtration systems, but those led to noise complaints and an expansion of the lawsuit. The university was ultimately successful on appeal, but not before compensating 2,458 students a total of $7.7 million and enduring high-profile negative publicity. Before significant mold problems occur, institutions can employ prevention methods such as: Performing regular building and HVAC inspections that include scrutiny of potential mold sources or hot spots Routing vents outdoors for all moisture-generating appliances Avoiding putting carpeting in high-humidity spaces such as basements Assessing and if necessary, controlling humidity levels in all interior spaces Although mold is ubiquitous, serious mold infestations and resulting class-action lawsuits do not have to be. With planning and preventive action, education institutions can limit mold-related exposure and loss.

Legal Update: Ozone Nonattainment “Bump-up” in Connecticut:Is your facility about to get bumped into more stringent air regulations? teaser
October 27, 2022

Legal Update: Ozone Nonattainment “Bump-up” in Connecticut:Is your facility about to get bumped into more stringent air regulations?

Spring 2022

New Release Reporting Regulations in Connecticut: 10 Takeaways for Petroleum Marketers

CEMA Aegis, the magazine of the CT Energy Marketers Association
December 28, 2021

More Than a New Year’s Resolution: Connecticut Organics Recycling Mandate Expands in 2022

Environmental Compliance and Permitting

Published as an Environmental Law blog post.

June 18, 2021

Auto Shredder Regulators Attentive to Emissions and Environmental Justice

Recycling Today

While the intersection of shredder operations, related air emissions and environmental justice (EJ) regulations is not new, Brian, Earl and Jon acknowledge that the issue is “receiving significant new scrutiny from federal, state and local environmental regulators, as well as from neighborhood activists and environmental groups.” The article highlights recent EJ initiatives, covers some of the air permitting and EJ basics and offers some questions to consider regarding emissions and EJ. “Air permitting always has been a complicated and cumbersome process that can bring lengthy permitting battles or significant enforcement actions. With an increased focus on EJ, air permitting for recycling facilities in general, and especially those with shredders, will only become a more important process for which a facility must prepare and handle appropriately from the outset.” View the article.

Legal Update: EPA Tosses Out the “Once In, Always In” Policy For Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants teaser
February 1, 2018

Legal Update: EPA Tosses Out the “Once In, Always In” Policy For Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants

July 2017

Time to Toss it Out? The ‘Once In, Always In’ Policy for ‘Major Source’ Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards

Environmental Law Reporter

Brian discusses how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent call for regulatory reform suggestions provides an opportunity to end EPA’s policy for defining a major source of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Under the policy, if a facility’s potential to emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) ever exceeded “major source” thresholds after the first compliance date of any substantive requirements of an applicable “major source” HAP standard, the facility must comply with regulations for “major sources” permanently, even if the facility later reduces its potential emissions below trigger levels. The article questions the legal and practical soundness of this approach, and discusses how ending the policy would avoid compliance burdens and unwarranted penalties, and incentivize emission reductions. View the article.

October 2016

EPA Turns Up the Heat on Refrigerant Regulation

Robinson & Cole Legal Update

Overview of expanded and tightened EPA regulations for refrigerants and other ozone-depleting substances (ODS)

Spring 2022

New Release Reporting Regulations in Connecticut: 10 Takeaways for Petroleum Marketers

CEMA Aegis, the magazine of the CT Energy Marketers Association
December 28, 2021

More Than a New Year’s Resolution: Connecticut Organics Recycling Mandate Expands in 2022

Environmental Compliance and Permitting

Published as an Environmental Law blog post.

June 18, 2021

Auto Shredder Regulators Attentive to Emissions and Environmental Justice

Recycling Today

While the intersection of shredder operations, related air emissions and environmental justice (EJ) regulations is not new, Brian, Earl and Jon acknowledge that the issue is “receiving significant new scrutiny from federal, state and local environmental regulators, as well as from neighborhood activists and environmental groups.” The article highlights recent EJ initiatives, covers some of the air permitting and EJ basics and offers some questions to consider regarding emissions and EJ. “Air permitting always has been a complicated and cumbersome process that can bring lengthy permitting battles or significant enforcement actions. With an increased focus on EJ, air permitting for recycling facilities in general, and especially those with shredders, will only become a more important process for which a facility must prepare and handle appropriately from the outset.” View the article.

Legal Update: EPA Tosses Out the “Once In, Always In” Policy For Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants teaser
February 1, 2018

Legal Update: EPA Tosses Out the “Once In, Always In” Policy For Major Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants

July 2017

Time to Toss it Out? The ‘Once In, Always In’ Policy for ‘Major Source’ Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards

Environmental Law Reporter

Brian discusses how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent call for regulatory reform suggestions provides an opportunity to end EPA’s policy for defining a major source of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Under the policy, if a facility’s potential to emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) ever exceeded “major source” thresholds after the first compliance date of any substantive requirements of an applicable “major source” HAP standard, the facility must comply with regulations for “major sources” permanently, even if the facility later reduces its potential emissions below trigger levels. The article questions the legal and practical soundness of this approach, and discusses how ending the policy would avoid compliance burdens and unwarranted penalties, and incentivize emission reductions. View the article.

October 2016

EPA Turns Up the Heat on Refrigerant Regulation

Robinson & Cole Legal Update

Overview of expanded and tightened EPA regulations for refrigerants and other ozone-depleting substances (ODS)

News

August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

The Best Lawyers in America© has named 78 Robinson+Cole lawyers across the firm’s practice groups and offices for inclusion in and recognition in its 2026 edition. The firm had 57 lawyers resident in its Connecticut offices named to the list and continues to have the highest number of recognized lawyers in the state. Robinson+Cole also has the highest number of listed lawyers in Connecticut in the areas of environmental law, health care law, and insurance law. Additionally, eight lawyers were named Best Lawyers® 2026 “Lawyer of the Year.” A Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year” designation is awarded to one lawyer in each of various high-profile specialties in large legal communities. These lawyers received the highest ratings among their peers for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity. They include: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® 2026 “Lawyer of the Year” Christine E. Bromberg – Tax Law Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Law Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Law Joey Lee Miranda – Energy Law John B. Lynch, Jr. – Corporate Law John H. Mutchler – Copyright Law Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Providence, RI – Best Lawyers® 2026 “Lawyer of the Year” Roger A. Peters, II – Real Estate Law The sixth edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America was also released, which includes 14 Robinson+Cole lawyers. The “Ones to Watch” recognition is given to lawyers early in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. The firm has the highest number of lawyers to receive this designation in Hartford, Connecticut. Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America is determined through a comprehensive peer-review survey. The 2026 awards were created by analyzing over 3.4 million evaluations, assessing over 130,000 vetted nominees. Additional information regarding the Best Lawyers selection methodology can be read here. Congratulations to the following Robinson+Cole lawyers: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® Wystan M. Ackerman – Litigation -Insurance Kenneth C. Baldwin – Energy Law Bruce B. Barth – Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law Garry C. Berman – Real Estate Law Patrick M. Birney – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Lisa M. Boyle – Health Care Law Dan A. Brody – Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar Christine E. Bromberg – Nonprofit / Charities Law; Tax Law Dennis C. Cavanaugh – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Stephen O. Clancy – Commercial Litigation; Litigation - Insurance Thomas P. Cody – Real Estate Law Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson – Employment Law - Individuals; Employment Law - Management John L. Cordani – Litigation - Intellectual Property; Trade Secrets Law; Trademark Law Kevin P. Daly – Commercial Litigation Raymond T. DeMeo – Insurance Law Natale V. DiNatale – Employment Law - Management; Labor Law - Management Conor O. Duffy – Health Care Law Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation - Bankruptcy Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Brian C. Freeman – Environmental Law; Litigation - Environmental Stephen E. Goldman – Insurance Law Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. – Corporate Law Edward J. Heath – Commercial Litigation Frederick E. Hedberg – Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Christopher J. Hug – Litigation - Construction Rachel V. Kushel – Employment Law - Management; Labor Law - Management John B. Lynch Jr. – Corporate Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law Michael F. Maglio – Banking and Finance Law; Commercial Finance Law; Equipment Finance Law; Securitization and Structured Finance Law Virginia E. McGarrity – Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law Robert S. Melvin – Environmental Law; Litigation - Environmental Joey Lee Miranda – Energy Law; Energy Regulatory Law; Environmental Law Linda L. Morkan – Appellate Practice John H. Mutchler – Copyright Law; Patent Law; Trademark Law Megan R. Naughton – Immigration Law Martin A. Onorato – Construction Law; Litigation - Construction David M. Panico – Public Finance Law Earl W. Phillips, Jr. – Environmental Law James P. Ray – Environmental Law; Litigation - Environmental Edward J. Samorajczyk, Jr. – Corporate Law; Securities / Capital Markets Law Jacqueline Pennino Scheib – Copyright Law; Trademark Law Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Law Jonathan E. Small – Insurance Law Brian R. Smith – Land Use and Zoning Law Rhonda J. Tobin – Insurance Law Theodore J. Tucci – Health Care Law; Insurance Law Abby M. Warren – Employment Law - Management Jeffrey J. White – Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants William S. Wilson II – Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Hartford, CT - Ones to Watch Christopher A. Costain – Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jason H. DePatie – Insurance Law Scott T. Garosshen – Appellate Practice Abigail L. Preissler – Banking and Finance Law; Corporate Law Stamford, CT – Best Lawyers®  Patrick W. Begos – Litigation - Insurance Gregory J. Bennici – Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Thomas J. Donlon – Appellate Practice Steven L. Elbaum – Real Estate Law John H. Kane – Insurance Law Eric M. Kogan – Corporate Law Charles F. Martin III – Real Estate Law John F.X. Peloso Jr. – Litigation - Real Estate Patricia D. Weitzman – Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care Stamford, CT - Ones to Watch Emily C. Deans – Energy Law Austin G. Provost – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Best Lawyers® Joseph A. Barra – Construction Law Kendra L. Berardi – Real Estate Law Amanda S. Eckhoff – Real Estate Law Michael S. Giaimo – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law E. Christopher Kehoe – Real Estate Law Matthew J. Lawlor – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law Seth B. Orkand – Criminal Defense: General Practice, Criminal Defense: White-Collar Kathleen M. Porter – Information Technology Law Deirdre M. Robinson – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Ones to Watch Jessica D. Bardi – Environmental Law; Land Use and Zoning Law; Litigation - Environmental Jonathan L. Cabot – Corporate Law; Public Finance Law Julianna M. Charpentier – Commercial Litigation; Litigation - Real Estate Jeffrey R. Gribouski – Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law; Litigation – Construction; Litigation – Environmental; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants New York, NY - Best Lawyers® Ian T. Clarke-Fisher – Litigation - Labor and Employment E. Evans Wohlforth, Jr. – Commercial Litigation New York, NY - Ones to Watch Janet (Zhanna) Kljyan – Commercial Litigation Albany, NY - Best Lawyers® Danielle H. Tangorre – Administrative / Regulatory Law; Elder Law; Health Care Law Philadelphia, PA - Best Lawyers® Laurie A. Krepto – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Philadelphia, PA - Ones to Watch Katherine M. Fix – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Wilmington, DE - Best Lawyers® Natalie D. Ramsey – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation - Bankruptcy Providence, RI - Best Lawyers® William M. Daley – Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Linn F. Freedman – Artificial Intelligence Law; Commercial Litigation; Privacy and Data Security Law Dana M. Horton – Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia J. Igoe – Commercial Finance Law Roger A. Peters II – Real Estate Law Daniel F. Sullivan – Insurance Law George W. Watson III – Energy Regulatory Law Miami, FL -  Ones to Watch Audrey E. Goldman – Insurance Law Washington, DC - Ones to Watch Kyle G. Hepner – Intellectual Property Law; Litigation - Intellectual Property

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
August 17, 2023

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024

Best Lawyers in America
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024 teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

The Best Lawyers in America© has named 78 Robinson+Cole lawyers across the firm’s practice groups and offices for inclusion in and recognition in its 2026 edition. The firm had 57 lawyers resident in its Connecticut offices named to the list and continues to have the highest number of recognized lawyers in the state. Robinson+Cole also has the highest number of listed lawyers in Connecticut in the areas of environmental law, health care law, and insurance law. Additionally, eight lawyers were named Best Lawyers® 2026 “Lawyer of the Year.” A Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year” designation is awarded to one lawyer in each of various high-profile specialties in large legal communities. These lawyers received the highest ratings among their peers for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity. They include: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® 2026 “Lawyer of the Year” Christine E. Bromberg – Tax Law Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Law Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Law Joey Lee Miranda – Energy Law John B. Lynch, Jr. – Corporate Law John H. Mutchler – Copyright Law Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Providence, RI – Best Lawyers® 2026 “Lawyer of the Year” Roger A. Peters, II – Real Estate Law The sixth edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America was also released, which includes 14 Robinson+Cole lawyers. The “Ones to Watch” recognition is given to lawyers early in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. The firm has the highest number of lawyers to receive this designation in Hartford, Connecticut. Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America is determined through a comprehensive peer-review survey. The 2026 awards were created by analyzing over 3.4 million evaluations, assessing over 130,000 vetted nominees. Additional information regarding the Best Lawyers selection methodology can be read here. Congratulations to the following Robinson+Cole lawyers: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® Wystan M. Ackerman – Litigation -Insurance Kenneth C. Baldwin – Energy Law Bruce B. Barth – Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law Garry C. Berman – Real Estate Law Patrick M. Birney – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Lisa M. Boyle – Health Care Law Dan A. Brody – Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar Christine E. Bromberg – Nonprofit / Charities Law; Tax Law Dennis C. Cavanaugh – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Stephen O. Clancy – Commercial Litigation; Litigation - Insurance Thomas P. Cody – Real Estate Law Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson – Employment Law - Individuals; Employment Law - Management John L. Cordani – Litigation - Intellectual Property; Trade Secrets Law; Trademark Law Kevin P. Daly – Commercial Litigation Raymond T. DeMeo – Insurance Law Natale V. DiNatale – Employment Law - Management; Labor Law - Management Conor O. Duffy – Health Care Law Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation - Bankruptcy Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Brian C. Freeman – Environmental Law; Litigation - Environmental Stephen E. Goldman – Insurance Law Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. – Corporate Law Edward J. Heath – Commercial Litigation Frederick E. Hedberg – Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Christopher J. Hug – Litigation - Construction Rachel V. Kushel – Employment Law - Management; Labor Law - Management John B. Lynch Jr. – Corporate Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law Michael F. Maglio – Banking and Finance Law; Commercial Finance Law; Equipment Finance Law; Securitization and Structured Finance Law Virginia E. McGarrity – Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law Robert S. Melvin – Environmental Law; Litigation - Environmental Joey Lee Miranda – Energy Law; Energy Regulatory Law; Environmental Law Linda L. Morkan – Appellate Practice John H. Mutchler – Copyright Law; Patent Law; Trademark Law Megan R. Naughton – Immigration Law Martin A. Onorato – Construction Law; Litigation - Construction David M. Panico – Public Finance Law Earl W. Phillips, Jr. – Environmental Law James P. Ray – Environmental Law; Litigation - Environmental Edward J. Samorajczyk, Jr. – Corporate Law; Securities / Capital Markets Law Jacqueline Pennino Scheib – Copyright Law; Trademark Law Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Law Jonathan E. Small – Insurance Law Brian R. Smith – Land Use and Zoning Law Rhonda J. Tobin – Insurance Law Theodore J. Tucci – Health Care Law; Insurance Law Abby M. Warren – Employment Law - Management Jeffrey J. White – Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants William S. Wilson II – Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Hartford, CT - Ones to Watch Christopher A. Costain – Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jason H. DePatie – Insurance Law Scott T. Garosshen – Appellate Practice Abigail L. Preissler – Banking and Finance Law; Corporate Law Stamford, CT – Best Lawyers®  Patrick W. Begos – Litigation - Insurance Gregory J. Bennici – Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Thomas J. Donlon – Appellate Practice Steven L. Elbaum – Real Estate Law John H. Kane – Insurance Law Eric M. Kogan – Corporate Law Charles F. Martin III – Real Estate Law John F.X. Peloso Jr. – Litigation - Real Estate Patricia D. Weitzman – Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care Stamford, CT - Ones to Watch Emily C. Deans – Energy Law Austin G. Provost – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Best Lawyers® Joseph A. Barra – Construction Law Kendra L. Berardi – Real Estate Law Amanda S. Eckhoff – Real Estate Law Michael S. Giaimo – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law E. Christopher Kehoe – Real Estate Law Matthew J. Lawlor – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law Seth B. Orkand – Criminal Defense: General Practice, Criminal Defense: White-Collar Kathleen M. Porter – Information Technology Law Deirdre M. Robinson – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Ones to Watch Jessica D. Bardi – Environmental Law; Land Use and Zoning Law; Litigation - Environmental Jonathan L. Cabot – Corporate Law; Public Finance Law Julianna M. Charpentier – Commercial Litigation; Litigation - Real Estate Jeffrey R. Gribouski – Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law; Litigation – Construction; Litigation – Environmental; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants New York, NY - Best Lawyers® Ian T. Clarke-Fisher – Litigation - Labor and Employment E. Evans Wohlforth, Jr. – Commercial Litigation New York, NY - Ones to Watch Janet (Zhanna) Kljyan – Commercial Litigation Albany, NY - Best Lawyers® Danielle H. Tangorre – Administrative / Regulatory Law; Elder Law; Health Care Law Philadelphia, PA - Best Lawyers® Laurie A. Krepto – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Philadelphia, PA - Ones to Watch Katherine M. Fix – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Wilmington, DE - Best Lawyers® Natalie D. Ramsey – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation - Bankruptcy Providence, RI - Best Lawyers® William M. Daley – Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Linn F. Freedman – Artificial Intelligence Law; Commercial Litigation; Privacy and Data Security Law Dana M. Horton – Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia J. Igoe – Commercial Finance Law Roger A. Peters II – Real Estate Law Daniel F. Sullivan – Insurance Law George W. Watson III – Energy Regulatory Law Miami, FL -  Ones to Watch Audrey E. Goldman – Insurance Law Washington, DC - Ones to Watch Kyle G. Hepner – Intellectual Property Law; Litigation - Intellectual Property

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
August 17, 2023

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024

Best Lawyers in America
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024 teaser
June 19, 2023

Kate Dion, Brian Freeman and Mallori Thompson Discuss Strategies for Dealing with Mold in Dormitories in American School & University Article

American School & University
August 18, 2022

74 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2023

The Best Lawyers in America
August 19, 2021

65 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2022

July 20, 2021

Brian Freeman, Earl Phillips and Jon Schaefer Author Recycling Today Article on Auto Shredder Operations Related to Emissions and Environmental Justice

Recycling Today
October 14, 2020

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
August 20, 2020

61 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2021

June 19, 2023

Kate Dion, Brian Freeman and Mallori Thompson Discuss Strategies for Dealing with Mold in Dormitories in American School & University Article

American School & University
August 18, 2022

74 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2023

The Best Lawyers in America
August 19, 2021

65 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2022

July 20, 2021

Brian Freeman, Earl Phillips and Jon Schaefer Author Recycling Today Article on Auto Shredder Operations Related to Emissions and Environmental Justice

Recycling Today
October 14, 2020

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
August 20, 2020

61 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2021

Events

Past

Complying with Connecticut’s New UST Regulations: Key Points for Petroleum Marketers

Jun 10 2026
Connecticut Energy Marketers Association Webinar
Past

Further Bumpy Road Ahead? Outlook for Ozone Non-attainment Designations in Connecticut

Apr 1 2026
Connecticut Environmental Forum Meeting
Past

Complying with Connecticut’s New UST Regulations: Key Points for Petroleum Marketers

Jun 10 2026
Connecticut Energy Marketers Association Webinar
Past

Further Bumpy Road Ahead? Outlook for Ozone Non-attainment Designations in Connecticut

Apr 1 2026
Connecticut Environmental Forum Meeting
Past

Underground Storage Tanks: Buried Hazards in Connecticut’s Revised UST Regulations

Feb 18 2026
Environmental Business Council of New England (EBC) Webinar
Past

Selling Your Business or Buying Another’s: Top 4 Issues That Delay Closings

Apr 30 2024
National Energy & Fuels Institute's "Visions 2024" Conference
Past

Suing Government

Aug 15 2023
Energy Marketers of America 2023 State Executives Annual Meeting
Past

New air permitting and other requirements for Middlesex County, New Haven County, and Shelton, CT – Who, What, When

Jul 27 2023
Webinar
Past

Underground Storage Tanks: Buried Hazards in Connecticut’s Revised UST Regulations

Feb 18 2026
Environmental Business Council of New England (EBC) Webinar
Past

Selling Your Business or Buying Another’s: Top 4 Issues That Delay Closings

Apr 30 2024
National Energy & Fuels Institute's "Visions 2024" Conference
Past

Suing Government

Aug 15 2023
Energy Marketers of America 2023 State Executives Annual Meeting
Past

New air permitting and other requirements for Middlesex County, New Haven County, and Shelton, CT – Who, What, When

Jul 27 2023
Webinar

Environmental Law +

Below is an excerpt of Environmental Law + blog posts authored by Brian.

“Once In, Always In” for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Back to the Grave

After a few decades of uncertainty and “it’s-alive-it’s-dead-it’s-alive” swings, EPA’s “once in, always in” (OI/AI) policy is once again dead. And this time, it seems very dead. On June 20, 2025, President Trump signed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that rejects a September 2024 rule adopted by the Biden EPA that had revived a narrowed version of OI/AI.   Given its long and controversial life and its little-heralded demise, it seems fitting to give OI/AI a eulogy. OI/AI began life as an internal EPA policy memo in 1995. The policy provided a complex interpretation of “emits or has the potential to emit” as used in the definition of a “major source” of federally-designated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): if a facility’s potential to emit HAPs ever exceeded “major source” thresholds after the first compliance date of any substantive requirements of a “major source” HAP standard applicable to that facility, the facility must comply “permanently” with such standard and other requirements for HAP “major sources,” even if the facility later were to reduce its potential emissions below the thresholds. In other words: once in, always in. For more background, see our prior articles here and here. Over the years, the policy met increasing criticism. While the policy had the well-intentioned goal of reducing HAP emissions, the basis for it in the Clean Air Act (CAA) was not apparent. In essence, the policy was an extremely expansive interpretation of “emits or has the potential to emit” in the CAA’s definition of “major source” of HAP in CAA § 112(a)(1), with little to no support from the statutory text. This interpretation was a far cry from a plain-English reading of simple present-tense verbs. It was also at odds with the EPA’s plain-English reading of similar language used to define a “major source” for other CAA programs.   Further imperiling its longevity, the OI/AI policy was based solely on an internal EPA memo, without Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment rulemaking. The result, undoubtedly not intended, was a classic “trap for the unwary” that added further complexity to the CAA and introduced unpleasant surprises in regulatory compliance inspections and transactional due diligence. The surge of regulated party discontent eventually led to a regulatory tug-of-war. The Bush II EPA made initial moves to undo the OI/AI policy, but these stalled. In 2018, however, the Trump I EPA withdrew the policy as not supported by the CAA, and then revised CAA regulations to expressly allow a facility to shed “major source of HAP” status by reducing its potential emissions. But OI/AI wasn’t dead yet. In September 2024, the Biden EPA adopted a final rule containing a more qualified version of “once in, always in” for facilities that emit certain higher-risk HAPs. That regulation has now been deep-six’ed by the June 2025 CRA resolution. Per the CRA, future efforts to revive a similar OI/AI regulation would require Congressional approval. A revival also would likely face hostile judicial terrain, particularly in a post-Chevron/Loper Bright world (as many are aware, the Loper Bright decision overruled Chevron’s holding that where a statute is ambiguous, courts should give significant deference to the implementing agency’s interpretation). Even under Chevron, it’s not clear that the OI/AI policy would have survived: it’s not at all certain that the CAA language “emits or has the potential to emit” is ambiguous, so EPA’s interpretation seems unlikely to have received judicial deference under Chevron. A revived version of OI/AI would also need to run a gauntlet of the Supreme Court’s now-dominant textualism and skepticism regarding expansive statutory interpretations by agencies that substantially broaden their power.  Never say never – but this time, OI/AI for major sources of HAP seems dead and buried.

Visit Blog

EPA Turns Up the Pressure on Chemical Release Prevention and Preparation

On May 10, 2024, extensive revisions recently adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations (40 CFR Part 68) will take effect. The revisions, dubbed by EPA as the “Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Rule,” reinstate certain Obama-era provisions previously rolled back under the Trump administration. However, the revisions also enlarge some of these provisions and add significant new requirements, including some that reflect the current administration’s focus on climate change and environmental justice. The revisions require owners and operators of subject facilities to achieve compliance with most of the substantive requirements within three years (i.e., by May 10, 2027). RMP plans must be updated to reflect new applicable requirements and resubmitted to EPA within four years (i.e., by May 10, 2028). For certain other requirements (regarding emergency response field exercises), the compliance deadline is potentially shorter or longer than these three- and four-year periods, depending on the date of the facility’s most recent field exercise. Once the rule takes effect, court challenges by both business interests and environmental groups are expected. However, given the unknown outcome of such challenges and the breadth and potential costs of the new requirements, potentially impacted facilities should begin assessing the applicability of the revisions now. Background The RMP regulations implement Section 112(r) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)), which direct EPA to develop regulations to improve the prevention of chemical accidents at stationary facilities or activities (for brevity, referred to here simply as “facilities”) that use or store “regulated substances” that EPA has identified as presenting the greatest risk of harm from accidental releases. In particular, the owner and operator of a facility with one or more “processes” that manufactures, uses, stores, or handles such a regulated substance in excess of substance-specific threshold quantities must develop and implement a risk management program for all such processes, and document that program in a risk management plan submitted to EPA. RMP requirements are generally similar to, and in some respects will overlap with, requirements under the Process Safety Management (PSM) program administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). However, while OSHA’s PSM regulations focus on workplace safety, the RMP regulations focus primarily on minimizing the public impacts of accidental releases through prevention and emergency response. Notable New or Changed RMP Requirements Release Prevention Expanded Hazard Evaluation: In pursuit of EPA’s goal of mitigating climate change impacts, the hazard evaluation required by the RMP regulations will now be required to identify “natural hazards” (defined to include, among others, hazards due to climate change) that could cause or exacerbate an accidental release. The revisions also now spell out the “facility siting” issues that must be considered in the hazard evaluation as including not just “the placement of processes, equipment, and buildings with the facility,” but also any hazards “posed by proximate stationary sources, and accidental release consequences posed by proximity to the public and public receptors” (40 CFR §68.67 as revised). When recommendations from the hazard evaluation regarding natural hazards or facility siting are not adopted, the facility’s Risk Management Plan would be required to include a justification. Back-Up/Standby Power will now be required for monitoring equipment for release prevention and detection. Also, the revisions require the hazard evaluation to consider the appropriateness of back-up power for a process. Where a facility decides not to implement backup power, the facility’s Risk Management Plan must include a justification. Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA), Inherently Safer Technologies and Designs (IST/ISD): In some of the most contentious new components of the revisions, STAA evaluations must now be performed for RMP-subject processes in petroleum and coal products manufacturing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 324) and chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325). The revisions also will require Inherently Safer Technologies and Designs (IST/ISD) assessments for several facility categories: a NAICS code 324 or 325 facility located within one mile of another NAICS code 324 or 325 facility; a petroleum refinery with hydrofluoric acid alkylation processes; and a NAICS code 324 or 325 facility that, since the facility’s most recent process hazard analysis, have had an accident for which the RMP requires reporting. Further, a facility subject to the IST/ISD requirement will now be required to implement at least one “practicable” passive measure or similarly protective active or procedural measure(s) after each STAA. Root Cause Analysis: A formal root cause analysis incident investigation is required when a facility has had an RMP-reportable accident.    Third-Party Compliance Audits: When a facility has an RMP-reportable accident, the next scheduled compliance audit must be performed by a third-party that meets certain criteria for competence and independence. And as a new element, a justification is required in the RMP when a third-party compliance audit recommendation is not adopted. Employee Participation: The revisions mandate that facility owners and operator provide their employees not only with training in the risk management plan and broad access to related materials but also with participation in risk assessment and management planning. In particular, employee participation and consultation are required in resolving process hazard analyses, compliance audits, and incident investigation recommendations and findings. The revisions will also require employees to be able to stop work under certain circumstances. Employees must also be provided opportunities to report unaddressed hazards, unreported accidents, or RMP non-compliance to the facility owner, operator, and/or to EPA. Emergency Response Community Notification: Owners or operators will be required to provide release notification data to local first responders. Owners or operators are also required to partner with local response agencies to ensure a community notification system is in place for notification of RMP-reportable accidents and to document the collaboration. Emergency Response Exercises: Field exercises are required every 10 years unless local responders indicate that frequency is infeasible. The revisions also set standards for owners and operators to report upcoming emergency response exercises and prepare post-exercise evaluations. Information Availability Enhanced Information Availability: A facility must provide chemical hazard information upon request to the public living, working, or spending significant time within 6 miles of the facility, as determined by certain factors specified in the revisions. The information must be provided in at least the two most common languages in the community. EPA has also said that it intends to update its online tool to provide public access to risk management plans “to allow visualization of climate change hazards.” Technical Clarifications The revisions also make technical clarifications to the RMP, including, but not limited to, retention of hot work permits for three years and ensuring the use of “recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices” review in process hazard analyses to determine gaps in safety. Compliance Dates For most substantive new requirements – (including STAA, incident investigation root-cause analysis, third-party compliance audits, employee participation, emergency response public notification, exercise evaluation reports, and public availability of information): within three years after the effective date of the final rule (i.e., by May 10, 2027) Increased frequency for emergency response field exercises: by March 15, 2027, or within 10 years of the date of an emergency response field exercise conducted between March 15, 2017, and August 31, 2022. Update and resubmit risk management plans with new and revised data elements: within four years after the effective date of the final rule (i.e., by May 10, 2028). While the future of the RMP revisions remains subject to likely legal challenges, what is clear is that the RMP revisions package makes an already complex program that much more so. Although the outcome of expected legal challenges is unknown, subject facilities would be well-advised to review the final regulations now and begin assessing potential impacts on their operations and activities. 

Visit Blog

Connecticut’s Amended Environmental Justice Statute: Where Does It Stand?

Earlier this year, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) released a “Connecticut Environmental Justice Public Participation Guidance Document” (‘the Guidance”) concerning the 2023 amendments to Connecticut’s environmental justice (EJ) statute regarding permitting or other approvals for certain facilities. Although helpful in indicating DEEP’s interpretation of the amended statute (which is not a model of legislative clarity), the Guidance leaves open many questions and raises some new ones. Beyond the Guidance, however, DEEP recently announced a general schedule for developing regulations to implement the most significant part of the amendments: cumulative impact assessments. Background Since its adoption in 2009, Connecticut’s EJ statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-20a) has applied to “affecting facilities” that are located in or proposed to be located in an “environmental justice community” (both terms defined by the statute) and that apply to DEEP for a new or expanded permit, or to the Connecticut Siting Council for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need. For such facilities, the statute has required applicants to develop and implement a “meaningful public participation plan” and potentially enter into a “community environmental benefit agreement” (CEBA) between the applicant and the host municipality to mitigate potential environmental impacts of the affecting facility. The 2023 amendments (Public Act 23-202) became effective on October 1, 2023. The amendments primarily do two things: (1) further enlarge applicant obligations concerning public participation, and most significantly, (2) make an assessment of the cumulative impact of “environmental and public health stressors” a new element in reviewing – and potentially denying – “affecting facility” applications. However, the amendments state that the cumulative impact assessment features shall not take effect until DEEP has adopted implementing regulations. The statute also requires DEEP to consult with stakeholders in this effort. Public Participation Guidance The recent Guidance addresses only the enhanced public participation features of the 2023 amendments and expressly does not address the cumulative impact assessments. It simply states that the development of the cumulative impact regulations will “take time.” The 2023 amendments also call for DEEP to adopt implementing regulations for the enhanced public participation features. However, the Guidance does not address such regulations or provide a timeline for their implementation. The Guidance does highlight new requirements regarding public participation and presents DEEP’s integrated understanding of such requirements.  Much of this understanding is straightforward. For example, “affecting facility” applicants must now not only prepare and receive DEEP approval for a “meaningful public participation plan” before filing the application in question but must also prepare and receive DEEP approval for a report regarding the results of such public outreach in order for the application to be deemed sufficient.  Beyond that, Goal 8 of DEEP’s recently announced “20BY26” plan includes several steps that DEEP plans to take regarding the enhanced public participation under the 2023 amendments, including: Making all EJ public participation plans and CEBAs publicly available, including those that DEEP has previously received. “Produc[ing] other tools ... [to] facilitate efficiency and engagement,” such as more guidance to clarify how DEEP permitting and other programs interact with EJ communities, and to highlight opportunities for public participation in DEEP programs.  While much of the Guidance is a relatively straightforward reflection of the 2023 amendments, at times the Guidance appears to provide DEEP’s interpretation of certain provisions in the amendments. Certain statements also may be susceptible to misinterpretation.  For example, in discussing applicability of the amended statute where an existing “affected facility” adds a new emissions unit or modifies an existing emissions unit, the Guidance references certain emissions rates (15 tons per year (TPY) for any individual air pollutant, and 10 TPY and 25 TPY for individual and aggregate hazardous air pollutants, respectively). DEEP has informally indicated that these figures are intended to mirror the applicability thresholds in the state’s air permitting regulations (RCSA 22a-174-3a(a)(1)).  This suggests that DEEP does not see the amended EJ statute as triggered by changes at an existing affected facility with relatively limited impact on air emissions.  However, while the Guidance appears to say that these emission rates refer to actual emissions or increased actual emissions, in the air permitting regulations these figures refer exclusively to “potential emissions.”  This is a very conservative metric incorporating various worst-case and often very unrealistic assumptions, with the result that it is much easier to exceed a 15 TPY “potential emissions” threshold.  It would seem unlikely that the Guidance does not likewise intend to refer to “potential emissions.” The Guidance may also be susceptible to misinterpretation regarding modifications to existing affected facilities.  The Guidance appropriately notes that the EJ statute exempts “minor modifications,” but elsewhere states without qualification that the statute applies to an alteration of a facility that “may result in the discharge of any new water, substance or material.” (Emphasis added).  These examples underline that (as it itself notes) the Guidance is not a substitute for the statute itself. Lastly, the Guidance does not address what DEEP envisions as a “reasonable fee” that the statute authorizes DEEP to charge “affecting facility” applicants to cover the cost of implementing the amended program. Ultimately, while the Guidance is useful to some degree, the full impact of Public Act 23-202 will not be known until DEEP develops implementing regulations for the enhanced public participation requirements and particularly for cumulative impact assessments.  Development of Cumulative Impact Regulations In early March, DEEP announced an overall scheme and schedule for adopting cumulative impact regulations as Goal 7 in DEEP’s “20BY26” plan: Hold “listening sessions” in EJ communities and with regulated parties (throughout 2024). Release a Request for Proposals to develop “the ‘cumulative impacts tool’ that ultimately will give businesses the information that they can rely on to design, from the start, successful permit applications” (early 2024). Propose “a strong but flexible set of rules” for public comment (late 2025).  Interested parties would be well-advised to watch for opportunities for stakeholder involvement in these efforts as DEEP continues to implement the 2023 amendments. Those who are particularly interested can also sign up to receive DEEP’s Equity and Environmental Justice Newsletter, which includes timely updates on upcoming opportunities and events from DEEP’s Office of Equity and Environmental Justice.

Visit Blog

EPA Lowers the Fine Particulate NAAQS: A Closer Look at Implementation and Potential Impacts

On February 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Final Rule lowering the primary annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) from the current level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 9 μg/m3.  Once published, the Final Rule is certain to be challenged in court. With that caveat, we summarize below the planned implementation and potential impacts of the new standard on sources of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursor emissions. For more background, see our prior post about EPA’s 2023 proposal to lower the NAAQS and sources of PM 2.5. Implementation The Final Rule will take effect 60 days after notice of the Final Rule is published in the Federal Register. As of the date of this post, publication has not yet occurred. To implement the new PM 2.5 NAAQS, the first step is for each state to develop recommended designations of areas in the state as attainment or nonattainment with respect to the new standard. According to the anticipated timeline in a February 7, 2024 memo from EPA Air chief Joseph Goffman, states would have until February 7, 2025 to submit these recommended designations to EPA. Following EPA review, public comment, and any necessary revisions, designations would be finalized in February 2026. The memo also notes that based on certain Clean Air Act provisions, EPA will initially classify all PM 2.5 nonattainment areas as “Moderate.” Thereafter, any such areas must achieve attainment by the end of the sixth calendar year after the effective date of the designation. EPA expects that 2032 is likely the earliest possible attainment deadline. Based on 2016-2020 air quality data, and incorporating expected emission reductions from various programs (existing and planned) across the country, EPA projects that more than 99% of counties will attain the tightened annual PM 2.5 standard by 2032. As shown below, the most impacted state per EPA’s 2032 nonattainment projections is California, particularly the Central Valley and southern California. Remaining projected nonattainment areas are highly scattered across the lower 48 states, and include several major urban areas. Source:  https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-02/2024-pm-naaqs-final-2032-projections-map.pdf However, projections using more recent data – on which EPA has said it expects states to base their attainment designation recommendations – suggest that the 9.0 μg/m3 standard could present much more widespread challenges. According to a recent report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), average annual PM 2.5 emissions increased significantly from 2019 to 2023 across most of the eastern United States, and most of the country saw significant increases in ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 (as much as 2 to 3 μg/m3) in 2023 due to widespread wildfires. Using data from 2021-2023, the Chamber considered how counties across the contiguous United States might fare under a 9.0 μg/m3 standard. Counties shown in red on the map below are those which would not meet the new standard, and therefore are vulnerable to a nonattainment designation, even if projected to reach attainment by 2032.  Because of the wildfire-related PM 2.5 spike in many areas of the country in 2023, it is expected that many states will ask EPA to apply its “exceptional events” policy to reduce their attributed PM 2.5 levels and avoid nonattainment designations. Counties shown in green on the map below are those projected by the Chamber to attain 9.0 μg/m3 with “headroom” to spare (≥3 μg/m3, even before from any downward adjustment under EPA’s “exceptional events” policy). The remainder of the country, shown in light red, is projected by the Chamber to fall 1 to 3 μg/m3 below the new standard, and would presumably be designated as attainment.  But being designated attainment is one thing; maintaining attainment is another. Absent downward adjustment from EPA’s “exceptional events” policy, PSD permitting authorities will likely be more wary of permitting additional emissions of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors that consume a significant share of the headroom remaining under 9.0 μg/m3 and, in the aggregate, could lead to a violation of the new NAAQS. Source: https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/Chamber PM2.5 Report _ 11.8.23 Final Draft.pdf Further Potential Impacts In addition to the potential impacts discussed above, the new NAAQS, once effective, will have an immediate impact on certain pending permit applications for PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in areas currently designated as attainment under the 12 μg/m3 NAAQS and prior PM 2.5 NAAQS. In such areas, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting for construction of a new major stationary source or a major modification of an existing stationary source (as defined in EPA and state PSD regulations) under those NAAQS will continue to apply. However, once the Final Rule takes effect, pending, as well as future, PSD permit applicants for a PM 2.5 or a PM 2.5 precursor source will need to incorporate the new standard into their air quality impact analyses. More specifically, applicants will need to demonstrate that their source will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the 9 μg/m3 NAAQS, as well as the 12 μg/m3 NAAQS and prior standards. In areas ultimately designated as nonattainment under the new NAAQS, the permitting impacts would be more severe. Under the Clean Air Act, construction of a new major stationary source of PM 2.5 or a PM 2.5 precursor or a major modification of an existing major stationary source would be subject to Nonattainment New Source Review permitting, which requires stringent emission controls and offsetting emission reductions elsewhere at the source or at other sources.  Existing major sources that do not undergo a major modification would be subject to Reasonably Available Control Measures, including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT).  Other Features of the Final Rule As in the proposed rule, the Final Rule retains all other existing particulate matter NAAQS (the primary 24-hour PM 2.5 standard and the identical secondary standard; the secondary annual PM 2.5 standard; and the primary 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM 10) standard and its identical secondary standard). Although EPA solicited comments regarding reducing the 24-hour PM 2.5 primary and secondary standards from the current 35 μg/m3 to as low as 25 μg/m3, the agency determined that the existing standards already provide “appropriate supplemental protection against elevated peak concentrations of fine particles.” In justifying this decision, EPA emphasized its holistic evaluation of the public health protections offered by the full suite of PM standards. The Final Rule also provides for adjustments to the nationwide PM 2.5 monitoring network, with  an environmental justice focus: when siting monitors, monitoring agencies must consider the proximity of sensitive communities to PM 2.5 emission sources of potential concern. *          *          *          *          * This summary highlights some of the many unknowns regarding the new NAAQS at this early stage.  Subject to the outcome of expected legal challenges to the standard, the next few years should clarify its impact on permitting and other regulation of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor sources.  

Visit Blog

EPA to Increase Air Monitoring at Marine Ports

In a recent report, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) describes steps the EPA should take to increase air monitoring at marine ports and neighboring communities. While not agreeing to adopt all of the OIG’s recommendations, EPA has agreed to assess the air-monitoring network around ports and in near-port communities and to create a plan to enhance the monitoring network to address any gaps that might be identified. The OIG report follows an unprecedented increase in cargo handled by U.S. ports, which has resulted in a decrease in air quality at several ports. The primary sources of emissions from port operations include ocean-going vessels (OGVs), cargo-handling equipment, and trucks. The OIG initiated an evaluation in 2022 to determine what steps, if any, EPA was taking to address the increase in air pollution. EPA is authorized by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate emissions from mobile sources, such as OGVs and trucks. The CAA also requires EPA to establish, update, and oversee attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain air pollutants, some of which are commonly present in ambient air at marine ports and in surrounding communities. To reduce emissions from ports, EPA to date has largely relied on voluntary programs to encourage shipping companies, port authorities, and community organizations to adopt cleaner practices. Since 2008, EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grant program has been the primary means of replacing and retrofitting older, dirtier diesel engines such as those found in various port equipment and associated vehicles. Going forward, EPA also will be distributing $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in grant funding to address air quality at ports. While tools are in place to improve air quality at ports and in neighboring communities, OIG has identified a need for EPA to enhance its air quality monitoring. Among other things, OIG has recommended that EPA develop guidance for using “citizen science” (monitoring data generated by community groups). In addition, OIG has recommended that EPA set quantifiable performance measures for its Ports Initiative, including a plan for establishing emissions baselines. OIG’s push for increased air monitoring and performance measures is time-sensitive as EPA prepares to award IRA funding for planning, procurement, and installation of zero-emissions technology at ports. A summary of OIG’s findings and recommendations are included in its September 21, 2023 report, The EPA Needs to Address Increasing Air Pollution at Ports.  In response to the OIG report, EPA has identified corrective actions it will take to evaluate its current air-monitoring network, although EPA has noted that monitoring should not be the sole focus of efforts to evaluate emissions and related air quality and has referred to other tools such as emissions inventories and air quality modeling. OIG has accepted EPA’s response with respect to OIG’s recommendations concerning monitoring, but not with respect to OIG’s recommendations concerning the establishment of performance standards. EPA will continue to work on resolving these issues. With the coming influx of new IRA grant funding designed to reduce OGV, vehicle, and other marine port emissions and to improve air quality, ports can anticipate heightened focus on their vehicle operations and other emission sources.

Visit Blog

Back From the Grave? “Once In, Always In” for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions

In the Byzantine complexity of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA’s “once in, always in” policy regarding hazardous air pollutants (HAP) has been particularly confounding.  And now it’s back in play, through regulatory revisions proposed by EPA in late September.   EPA’s proposal would prohibit a source from reducing its potential emissions of HAP to below “major source” thresholds (and thus avoiding more stringent regulation) unless the source’s post-reduction emissions of HAP are limited to the level that would have been allowed if the source had remained subject to the “major source” regulation.  In other words, a source may not reduce its potential HAP emissions enough to avoid “major source” controls, and then increase its actual emissions to a level higher than could be emitted with such controls.  In addition, the proposal would require the post-reduction emissions limit to be federally enforceable – that is, enforceable by EPA and by citizen groups under the Clean Air Act’s citizen suit provisions.  The proposed rule would also apply retroactively, back to January 25, 2018 (more on this date below), thus potentially pulling a previously-reclassified source back into “major source” status unless it obtains such a federally enforceable limit.  Some background:  Under the CAA, a “major source” of HAP is defined as having the potential to emit at least (A) ten tons per year of any substance that the CAA or derivative EPA regulations identify as a HAP; (B) twenty-five tons per year of all HAP in total; or (C) any lower threshold that EPA decides is appropriate for a particular HAP.  A major source of HAP is subject to emission standards that require Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).  By contrast, a non-major source of HAP is subject to standards that EPA to date has typically chosen to make less stringent than MACT (and for some source categories, has not yet adopted). In effect, EPA’s proposed revisions would partially restore a much-criticized policy – known as “once in, always in” – that EPA announced in 1995 but withdrew in 2018.  The policy stated that if a source ever had the potential to emit HAP above the major source threshold after the first substantive compliance date of an applicable MACT standard, the source is “permanently subject” to the standard, even if the source later reduced its potential to emit HAP to below major source levels.  In other words:  once in, always in.  EPA claimed this policy was compelled by the “language and structure” of the CAA, and an underlying Congressional intent to limit or eliminate HAP emissions generally.  On January 25, 2018, EPA withdrew the “once in, always in” policy after concluding from further review that it was not consistent with the CAA’s HAP provisions and exceeded EPA’s CAA authority.  Following the withdrawal, EPA promulgated regulations in 2020 (known as the “Major MACT to Area” or “MM2A” rule) to confirm that a source could indeed reclassify itself at any time to non-major HAP status (and for most source categories, thereby avoid MACT) if the source reduced its potential emissions of HAP to below the “major source” levels.  The pending proposed revisions would add conditions to any such re-classification, by requiring a federally enforceable limit to prevent any subsequent emissions of HAP beyond previously-applicable MACT levels.  As in the original “once in, always in” policy, the preamble to the proposed revisions claims a basis in Congressional intent to limit or eliminate HAP emissions. Also as in the “once in, always in” policy, however, the preamble does not seem to address how the proposed conditions for MM2A reclassification square with the lack of any such conditions in the CAA’s definition of a “major source” of HAP, or with EPA’s available, but unused, CAA authority to adopt or tighten standards for non-major HAP sources if EPA thinks appropriate.  EPA is taking public comments on the proposed revisions through November 13, 2023. 

Visit Blog

EPA’s Proposal to Tighten the Fine Particulate NAAQS: What’s Proposed, Who’s Potentially Impacted

On January 6, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication copy of a Proposed Rule, which will lower the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). PM2.5 refers to PM with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, which is about 3-5 percent of the width of a human hair.  Source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/pm2.5_scale_graphic-color_2.jpg Sources of PM2.5 Sources of PM2.5 are varied and complex. Some fine particulate is emitted directly, such as from fuel combustion by vehicles or power plants, or from certain industrial and agricultural activity. But a significant amount of fine particulate is also created when gasses emitted by such or other sources react in the atmosphere. The picture is further complicated by significant sources outside familiar regulatory targets, particularly forest fires, as well as contributions from wind erosion of soils and minerals and international transport. Revised PM2.5 Standards:  Process and Proposal Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to periodically review all NAAQSs and revise them as necessary to protect public health (primary standards) and welfare (secondary standards), based on available scientific evidence and technical information. As a practical matter, EPA has adopted two PM2.5 NAAQSs: one for short-term exposure (24 hours), and another for annual exposure. The current standards for PM2.5 were established in 2012 and affirmed in 2020. Thereafter, several parties petitioned EPA to reconsider the 2020 decision, and in June 2021 EPA commenced the re-evaluation process. In evaluating whether to lower the annual standard for fine particulate matter, EPA relied heavily on certain technical studies: the December 2019 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, its May 2022 Supplement, and policy assessments prepared by EPA staff, as well as advice from EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). According to the Integrated Science Assessment, fine particulate matter exposure at concentrations allowed by the current annual standard may lead to statistically significant adverse health effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular issues. The CASAC agreed with EPA staff policy assessments that this evidence calls into question the adequacy of the primary annual standard for fine particulate matter and recommended that the standard should be reduced accordingly. The Proposed Rule would lower the primary annual standard for PM2.5 from its current level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (12 μg/m3) to a level between 9 and 10 μg/m3. However, in the Proposed Rule EPA also requests public comment regarding levels from 8 to 11 μg/m3. The Proposed Rule would retain all other existing particulate matter standards (the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard and the identical secondary standard; the secondary annual PM2.5 standard; and the primary 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10) standard and its identical secondary standard). However, although no changes are proposed to the 24-hour PM2.5 primary and secondary standards, EPA will take comment on reducing them from the current 35 μg/m3 to as low as 25 μg/m3. Concurrent with the proposed NAAQS changes, EPA also proposes to revise its Air Quality Index, which provides information about daily ambient levels for PM and other pollutants, to improve public communications about the risks from fine particulate matter exposure. EPA further proposes to modify the nationwide PM2.5 monitoring network to enhance protection of air quality in communities overburdened by air pollution. Notably, in presenting the Proposed Rule, EPA emphasizes the “environmental justice” (EJ) aspects in terms of communities potentially harmed by current levels of PM2.5.  Anticipated impact EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis document accompanying the Proposed Rule projects where air quality would not attain the proposed tightened annual PM2.5 standard, with the extent of impact depending on whether the standard is lowered to 10 μg/m3, 9 μg/m3, or 8 μg/m3. Under any of these scenarios, the most impacted state is California, particularly the Central Valley and southern California. Beyond that, impacts are highly scattered across the lower 48 states, and include several major urban areas.  Source:  https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/naaqs-pm_ria_proposed_2022-12.pdf Outlook for final revised standards Following publication of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register, EPA will accept public comment for 60 days. According to its January 6 press release, the agency plans to finalize the new standards later this year. Regardless of where the final standard lands, it is certain to be challenged in court.

Visit Blog

Ozone Nonattainment “Bump-up” in Connecticut: Is your facility about to get bumped into more stringent air regulations?

For air emission sources in New Haven County, Middlesex County, and Shelton, Connecticut, the regulatory landscape will change on November 7, 2022.  Per a regulation published on October 7, 2022, the EPA is reclassifying the extent to which air quality in these parts of the state has failed to attain a certain federal air quality standard adopted in 2008 for ground-level ozone (aka smog).  Effective November 7, 2022, these two counties and this one town, currently classified as in “serious” nonattainment, will now be reclassified as in “severe” nonattainment.  The reclassification (aka “bump-up”) will immediately change the regulatory landscape — and potentially, applicable regulatory requirements — for facilities in those counties that emit or have the potential to emit volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), each of which is an ozone precursor.  VOC are found in a wide variety of operations, including coating, solvent degreasing, and printing.  NOx is typically a byproduct of burning fuel or other combustion. What does this mean for a VOC or NOx emission source in New Haven County, Middlesex County, and Shelton?  Reclassification to “severe” will cut in half the emissions-based threshold for certain categories – “major stationary source” and “major modification to a major stationary source” – that trigger regulatory requirements.  The threshold for each under the current “serious” classification is 50 tons per year of actual or potential emissions (more on potential emissions below) of VOC, or of NOx.  As of November 7, 2022, the threshold under the “severe” classification will be 25 tons per year.  As a result, a VOC or NOx emission source in the affected areas with actual or potential emissions between 25 and 50 tons per year or more may become subject, in some cases immediately, to several significant regulatory programs.  These programs include: More stringent pre-construction permitting requirements for a proposed new source or modification under the Nonattainment New Source Review program. A requirement for an existing source to apply for and obtain an operating permit (aka Title V permit), which aggregates all applicable requirements into one “umbrella” permit along with requirements for detailed annual compliance certifications and other periodic reports. Expanded or more stringent requirements (known as Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT)) for VOC and/or NOx emissions from an existing source. What to know about “potential emissions” The term “potential emissions” is generally defined as the emissions that would result from continuous operation at maximum rated capacity, subject only to inherent physical constraints and any “practicably enforceable” limits.  For certain types of operations (e.g., paint guns that see limited use), potential emissions may far exceed actual emissions.  Overlooking or improperly calculating the potential emissions of a source has long been one of the most common pitfalls in the air regulatory world.  This will likely continue to be true in dealing with the “bump-up.” Take-Away The owner or operator of a VOC or NOx emission source in New Haven or Middlesex Counties or in Shelton would be well-advised to assess whether and how the impending bump-up might impact the regulatory status and requirements for the source, and to consider potential mitigation or avoidance strategies.  Such strategies could include securing practicably enforceable limits (or additional such limits) on potential emissions.  In some cases, prompt action may be necessary to avoid non-compliance with newly-applicable requirements.  The final bump-up rule can be viewed here.  Also helpful may be an FAQ sheet developed by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

Visit Blog

More Than a New Year’s Resolution: Connecticut Organics Recycling Mandate Expands in 2022

Perhaps not as glamorous as the Times Square crystal ball, but something else drops at the start of the New Year: The threshold for mandated food waste separation and recycling by certain industrial and commercial facilities in Connecticut. Legislation passed this year cut in half the annual tonnage of organic waste generation – from 52 tons/year to 26 tons/year – that will trigger the state’s organics recycling mandate under certain conditions. In particular, as of January 1, 2022, certain facilities – industrial food manufacturers and processors, commercial food wholesalers and distributors, supermarkets, resorts, and conference centers – must source-separate organic materials from other solid waste and ensure that such source-separated organic materials are recycled at an authorized composting facility. This requirement is triggered if the following conditions are met: The facility must generate an average projected volume of at least 26 tons/year of source-separate organic materials; The facility does not compost its source-separated organics material on-site, or treat it via on-site organic treatment equipment permitted under state or federal law; and The facility is located 20 miles or less from an authorized composting facility that has available capacity and will accept the source-separated material. While Connecticut’s statute does not provide details about how to calculate a facility’s average projected volume against the 26 tons/year threshold, the internet provides some tools that may be useful for this purpose (caveat emptor). For example, there is a calculator developed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection-funded Recycling Works in connection with that state’s similar organics recycling mandate. To determine if an authorized composting facility is within the 20-mile limit of your facility, a good place to start is the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s food waste composting webpage. This page includes a relatively recent, but not necessarily definitive, list of such composting facilities. Unlike some of the other jurisdictions in the country with similar organics recycling mandates, Connecticut’s program does not cover institutional cafeterias, such as those at large corporate offices, hospitals, schools or universities.

Visit Blog

Firm Highlights

News
Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
News
Erica Kerstein Brings Credibility and Business Perspective to New Role as Practice Group Chair

Insurance + Reinsurance group chair Erica J. Kerstein was featured in a Law.com column titled, “How I Made Practice Group Chair,” published on April 15, 2026. In the article, Erica discusses her new role as a practice group chair and how it has expanded her insight into not only the firm’s strategic vision and goals, but the reality of running a business and ensuring that current planning aligns with future goals. “The role provides a window into how individual practices fit into the firm’s overall strategy,” said Erica. “You’re thinking not just about today’s matters, but about where clients are headed, how the industry is changing, and how the firm positions itself to meet those needs.” In addition, Erica also identified “…strengthening client relationships, investing in our people, and staying ahead of emerging issues—particularly around technology and artificial intelligence in the insurance space…” as key priorities for the practice. Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Expands Philadelphia Office at Landmark Liberty Place
News
Robinson+Cole Remains A “Best Place to Work in Connecticut”
News
Robinson+Cole’s People-First Culture Recognized in Vault’s 2027 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Expands National Platform with Four Lateral Partners

Robinson+Cole announced the addition of four lateral partners—J. Zachary Balasko, Eric Del Pozo, Brya M. Keilson and Victor R. Salgado, accelerating the firm’s continued investment in the growth of its national bankruptcy and business litigation capabilities. Balasko and Keilson join the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group in Washington, DC, and Wilmington, DE, respectively, while Del Pozo and Salgado join the Business Litigation group in Hartford, CT, and Washington, DC. These strategic hires enhance the firm’s ability to serve clients navigating complex, high‑stakes bankruptcy, restructuring, government enforcement, and related litigation matters nationwide and expand the firm’s depth and reach across key markets. “These additions meaningfully reinforce the depth and versatility of our business litigation and restructuring platform and reflect a deliberate approach to strengthening these areas in ways that directly benefit our clients,” said J. Michael Wirvin, the firm’s Managing Partner. “Eric, Zak, Brya, and Victor each bring sophisticated experience and sound judgment that enhance our ability to advise clients through some of their most critical and challenging matters. Their arrival reflects our continued focus on building cohesive, multi-disciplinary teams with capabilities that extend across multiple markets.” J. Zachary Balasko joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner based in Washington, DC. His practice focuses on complex Chapter 11 cases and bankruptcy‑related litigation across the country, representing debtors, secured creditors, creditors’ committees, and governmental entities. Balasko brings substantial experience from both private practice and prior service with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he handled major insolvency matters involving federal interests. Eric Del Pozo joins Robinson+Cole’s Hartford, CT office as a Business Litigation partner focusing on complex commercial litigation and appellate matters, representing businesses and public entities in regulated industries in high-stakes and sophisticated disputes. Del Pozo brings experience from senior roles in government and private practice, where he has represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Brya Keilson joins Robinson+Cole as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner in the firm’s Wilmington, DE office, one of the nation’s leading venues for complex bankruptcy proceeding . She represents debtors, creditors, committees, trustees, and other parties in interest in sophisticated Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 cases. Keilson is widely experienced in contested bankruptcy matters and frequently advises clients on both strategic and practical considerations throughout the restructuring process. Victor Salgado joins Robinson+Cole as a Business Litigation partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He brings significant experience from both government and private practice, including eight years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, where he handled high‑profile and complex cases focusing on public corruption as well as crimes involving financial institutions. Salgado will also work closely with the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group on contested matters arising in complex restructurings and related litigation. In addition, Destiney Parker-Thompson joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations associate in the Wilmington office. Parker‑Thompson focuses her practice on bankruptcy, restructuring, and related litigation matters, drawing on experience representing debtors, creditors, and financial institutions in complex Chapter 11 cases. She previously served as a judicial law clerk to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, bringing valuable insight to sophisticated restructuring matters. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group has recently been recognized for its role in several of the most complex and precedent‑setting restructuring matters in the country, earning multiple national honors for its work in high‑profile Chapter 11 cases and related litigation. The group has guided stakeholders through landmark proceedings—including award‑recognized reorganizations, a first‑of‑its‑kind bankruptcy confirmed with a Section 524(g) injunction, and other transformative restructurings—reflecting the team’s ability to deliver strategic, results‑driven counsel in matters with significant legal and financial implications.

News
Robinson+Cole Integrates Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research into Newcode.ai Platform to Advance Secure, Verifiable Legal Research

Robinson+Cole has expanded its firmwide artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities by integrating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, the agentic AI platform implemented last year by the firm to support legal workflows across practices. With this integration, Robinson+Cole is one of only two law firms with direct access to the Deep Research API—and the only firm deploying it through Newcode.ai. Building on its 2025 partnership with Newcode.ai —making Robinson+Cole the first Am Law 200 firm to adopt the platform—the firm has continued to expand its AI capabilities as part of a broader strategy focused on secure deployment, ethical use, and seamless integration into daily legal work. The integration enables Robinson+Cole attorneys to conduct complex, multi‑step legal research and receive verifiable, citation‑backed responses grounded in trusted Thomson Reuters content. By embedding Deep Research into Newcode.ai, Robinson+Cole continues to build on its deliberate, governance‑first approach to AI adoption while delivering meaningful, practice‑ready innovation for its lawyers and clients. “Innovation at Robinson+Cole is grounded in client service, security, and practicality,” said J. Michael Wirvin, Managing Partner of Robinson+Cole. “By incorporating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, we are providing our lawyers with advanced research capabilities in a secure environment fully controlled by the firm that aligns with our standards for data governance, accuracy, and responsible AI use. This integration reflects our continued focus on adopting technology thoughtfully to support our attorneys and deliver value to our clients.” The addition of Deep Research allows attorneys to: Perform sophisticated legal research using agentic workflows that mirror real‑world legal reasoning Receive structured, verifiable responses grounded in Thomson Reuters data Streamline research processes while maintaining rigorous quality and accuracy standards Work entirely within Robinson+Cole’s firm‑controlled AI environment  “Our integration of the Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research API with Newcode represents a defining moment in our AI strategy,” said Chief Data Officer Jim Merrifield. "We are incredibly proud to be the first firm to bring this capability to life—unlocking the power of trusted legal data directly within the workflows our lawyers and business professionals rely on every day. This is exactly how we maximize our technology investments: by connecting best-in-class data sources through APIs into a unified platform, so the technology meets our people where they work, enhances their judgment, and accelerates better outcomes for our clients.” Robinson+Cole’s AI program is guided by firmwide policies, mandatory training, and ongoing oversight to ensure responsible use of emerging technologies. The firm’s approach emphasizes measured adoption, strong information governance, and alignment with client expectations, rather than one‑off experimentation. This latest enhancement underscores Robinson+Cole’s commitment to remaining forward‑thinking in its use of technology, while ensuring that innovation serves the firm’s clients, lawyers, and long‑term strategic goals.

News
Kate Dion and Natale DiNatale Examine the Legal Questions Raised By Sorsby Injunction

Education industry team chair Kathleen Dion and Labor Relations group chair Natale DiNatale discussed the potential ramifications on the NCAA and college athletes in the article, “NCAA to appeal Brendan Sorsby injunction. What it means and how it can win,” published in USA Today, June 8, 2026. Kate pointed out that the injunction is a temporary measure. “This decision is only a preliminary ruling and is subject to appeal. Unless it is overturned, the injunction preserves Sorsby’s opportunity to compete this fall while the underlying case proceeds and allows him to continue preparing for a potential NFL career. For the NCAA, the ruling raises questions about the extent to which courts may review and potentially limit the enforcement of eligibility and competitive-integrity rules in individual cases.”  She continued, “It is also important to recognize that this is one state trial court decision, not a final decision on the merits, and thus its precedential value may be limited. While the court found that Sorsby demonstrated a probable right to the relief that he seeks on his breach of contract and other claims, which is a necessary element for obtaining a temporary injunction — the order does not appear to provide a detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning on that issue. As a result, many of the legal questions raised by the case are likely to remain the subject of further litigation and possible appellate review.” Discussing the foundation of the claim, Natale said, “The underlying dispute looks like a claim that the NCAA failed to accommodate a disability (e.g. an ADA claim based on a gambling addiction). But, it was brought as a breach of contract claim. A contract claim can be brought and maybe kept, in state court, which is likely a friendlier forum for this athlete.” Read the article.

News
Julianna Charpentier Recognized as an “Up & Coming Lawyer”
News
Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
News
Erica Kerstein Brings Credibility and Business Perspective to New Role as Practice Group Chair

Insurance + Reinsurance group chair Erica J. Kerstein was featured in a Law.com column titled, “How I Made Practice Group Chair,” published on April 15, 2026. In the article, Erica discusses her new role as a practice group chair and how it has expanded her insight into not only the firm’s strategic vision and goals, but the reality of running a business and ensuring that current planning aligns with future goals. “The role provides a window into how individual practices fit into the firm’s overall strategy,” said Erica. “You’re thinking not just about today’s matters, but about where clients are headed, how the industry is changing, and how the firm positions itself to meet those needs.” In addition, Erica also identified “…strengthening client relationships, investing in our people, and staying ahead of emerging issues—particularly around technology and artificial intelligence in the insurance space…” as key priorities for the practice. Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Expands Philadelphia Office at Landmark Liberty Place
News
Robinson+Cole Remains A “Best Place to Work in Connecticut”
News
Robinson+Cole’s People-First Culture Recognized in Vault’s 2027 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Expands National Platform with Four Lateral Partners

Robinson+Cole announced the addition of four lateral partners—J. Zachary Balasko, Eric Del Pozo, Brya M. Keilson and Victor R. Salgado, accelerating the firm’s continued investment in the growth of its national bankruptcy and business litigation capabilities. Balasko and Keilson join the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group in Washington, DC, and Wilmington, DE, respectively, while Del Pozo and Salgado join the Business Litigation group in Hartford, CT, and Washington, DC. These strategic hires enhance the firm’s ability to serve clients navigating complex, high‑stakes bankruptcy, restructuring, government enforcement, and related litigation matters nationwide and expand the firm’s depth and reach across key markets. “These additions meaningfully reinforce the depth and versatility of our business litigation and restructuring platform and reflect a deliberate approach to strengthening these areas in ways that directly benefit our clients,” said J. Michael Wirvin, the firm’s Managing Partner. “Eric, Zak, Brya, and Victor each bring sophisticated experience and sound judgment that enhance our ability to advise clients through some of their most critical and challenging matters. Their arrival reflects our continued focus on building cohesive, multi-disciplinary teams with capabilities that extend across multiple markets.” J. Zachary Balasko joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner based in Washington, DC. His practice focuses on complex Chapter 11 cases and bankruptcy‑related litigation across the country, representing debtors, secured creditors, creditors’ committees, and governmental entities. Balasko brings substantial experience from both private practice and prior service with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he handled major insolvency matters involving federal interests. Eric Del Pozo joins Robinson+Cole’s Hartford, CT office as a Business Litigation partner focusing on complex commercial litigation and appellate matters, representing businesses and public entities in regulated industries in high-stakes and sophisticated disputes. Del Pozo brings experience from senior roles in government and private practice, where he has represented clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Brya Keilson joins Robinson+Cole as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations partner in the firm’s Wilmington, DE office, one of the nation’s leading venues for complex bankruptcy proceeding . She represents debtors, creditors, committees, trustees, and other parties in interest in sophisticated Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 cases. Keilson is widely experienced in contested bankruptcy matters and frequently advises clients on both strategic and practical considerations throughout the restructuring process. Victor Salgado joins Robinson+Cole as a Business Litigation partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He brings significant experience from both government and private practice, including eight years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC, where he handled high‑profile and complex cases focusing on public corruption as well as crimes involving financial institutions. Salgado will also work closely with the firm’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group on contested matters arising in complex restructurings and related litigation. In addition, Destiney Parker-Thompson joins the firm as a Bankruptcy + Reorganizations associate in the Wilmington office. Parker‑Thompson focuses her practice on bankruptcy, restructuring, and related litigation matters, drawing on experience representing debtors, creditors, and financial institutions in complex Chapter 11 cases. She previously served as a judicial law clerk to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, bringing valuable insight to sophisticated restructuring matters. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group has recently been recognized for its role in several of the most complex and precedent‑setting restructuring matters in the country, earning multiple national honors for its work in high‑profile Chapter 11 cases and related litigation. The group has guided stakeholders through landmark proceedings—including award‑recognized reorganizations, a first‑of‑its‑kind bankruptcy confirmed with a Section 524(g) injunction, and other transformative restructurings—reflecting the team’s ability to deliver strategic, results‑driven counsel in matters with significant legal and financial implications.

News
Robinson+Cole Integrates Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research into Newcode.ai Platform to Advance Secure, Verifiable Legal Research

Robinson+Cole has expanded its firmwide artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities by integrating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, the agentic AI platform implemented last year by the firm to support legal workflows across practices. With this integration, Robinson+Cole is one of only two law firms with direct access to the Deep Research API—and the only firm deploying it through Newcode.ai. Building on its 2025 partnership with Newcode.ai —making Robinson+Cole the first Am Law 200 firm to adopt the platform—the firm has continued to expand its AI capabilities as part of a broader strategy focused on secure deployment, ethical use, and seamless integration into daily legal work. The integration enables Robinson+Cole attorneys to conduct complex, multi‑step legal research and receive verifiable, citation‑backed responses grounded in trusted Thomson Reuters content. By embedding Deep Research into Newcode.ai, Robinson+Cole continues to build on its deliberate, governance‑first approach to AI adoption while delivering meaningful, practice‑ready innovation for its lawyers and clients. “Innovation at Robinson+Cole is grounded in client service, security, and practicality,” said J. Michael Wirvin, Managing Partner of Robinson+Cole. “By incorporating Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research directly into Newcode.ai, we are providing our lawyers with advanced research capabilities in a secure environment fully controlled by the firm that aligns with our standards for data governance, accuracy, and responsible AI use. This integration reflects our continued focus on adopting technology thoughtfully to support our attorneys and deliver value to our clients.” The addition of Deep Research allows attorneys to: Perform sophisticated legal research using agentic workflows that mirror real‑world legal reasoning Receive structured, verifiable responses grounded in Thomson Reuters data Streamline research processes while maintaining rigorous quality and accuracy standards Work entirely within Robinson+Cole’s firm‑controlled AI environment  “Our integration of the Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research API with Newcode represents a defining moment in our AI strategy,” said Chief Data Officer Jim Merrifield. "We are incredibly proud to be the first firm to bring this capability to life—unlocking the power of trusted legal data directly within the workflows our lawyers and business professionals rely on every day. This is exactly how we maximize our technology investments: by connecting best-in-class data sources through APIs into a unified platform, so the technology meets our people where they work, enhances their judgment, and accelerates better outcomes for our clients.” Robinson+Cole’s AI program is guided by firmwide policies, mandatory training, and ongoing oversight to ensure responsible use of emerging technologies. The firm’s approach emphasizes measured adoption, strong information governance, and alignment with client expectations, rather than one‑off experimentation. This latest enhancement underscores Robinson+Cole’s commitment to remaining forward‑thinking in its use of technology, while ensuring that innovation serves the firm’s clients, lawyers, and long‑term strategic goals.

News
Kate Dion and Natale DiNatale Examine the Legal Questions Raised By Sorsby Injunction

Education industry team chair Kathleen Dion and Labor Relations group chair Natale DiNatale discussed the potential ramifications on the NCAA and college athletes in the article, “NCAA to appeal Brendan Sorsby injunction. What it means and how it can win,” published in USA Today, June 8, 2026. Kate pointed out that the injunction is a temporary measure. “This decision is only a preliminary ruling and is subject to appeal. Unless it is overturned, the injunction preserves Sorsby’s opportunity to compete this fall while the underlying case proceeds and allows him to continue preparing for a potential NFL career. For the NCAA, the ruling raises questions about the extent to which courts may review and potentially limit the enforcement of eligibility and competitive-integrity rules in individual cases.”  She continued, “It is also important to recognize that this is one state trial court decision, not a final decision on the merits, and thus its precedential value may be limited. While the court found that Sorsby demonstrated a probable right to the relief that he seeks on his breach of contract and other claims, which is a necessary element for obtaining a temporary injunction — the order does not appear to provide a detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning on that issue. As a result, many of the legal questions raised by the case are likely to remain the subject of further litigation and possible appellate review.” Discussing the foundation of the claim, Natale said, “The underlying dispute looks like a claim that the NCAA failed to accommodate a disability (e.g. an ADA claim based on a gambling addiction). But, it was brought as a breach of contract claim. A contract claim can be brought and maybe kept, in state court, which is likely a friendlier forum for this athlete.” Read the article.

News
Julianna Charpentier Recognized as an “Up & Coming Lawyer”
News
Robinson+Cole Recognized at 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
News
Erica Kerstein Brings Credibility and Business Perspective to New Role as Practice Group Chair

Insurance + Reinsurance group chair Erica J. Kerstein was featured in a Law.com column titled, “How I Made Practice Group Chair,” published on April 15, 2026. In the article, Erica discusses her new role as a practice group chair and how it has expanded her insight into not only the firm’s strategic vision and goals, but the reality of running a business and ensuring that current planning aligns with future goals. “The role provides a window into how individual practices fit into the firm’s overall strategy,” said Erica. “You’re thinking not just about today’s matters, but about where clients are headed, how the industry is changing, and how the firm positions itself to meet those needs.” In addition, Erica also identified “…strengthening client relationships, investing in our people, and staying ahead of emerging issues—particularly around technology and artificial intelligence in the insurance space…” as key priorities for the practice. Read the article.

News
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings
News
Robinson+Cole Expands Philadelphia Office at Landmark Liberty Place
News
Robinson+Cole Remains A “Best Place to Work in Connecticut”
News
Robinson+Cole’s People-First Culture Recognized in Vault’s 2027 Rankings