Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Diana E. Neeves focuses her practice on environmental and land use litigation and regulatory compliance. Her litigation experience includes disputes related to chemical contamination and clean-up, federal and state environmental enforcement actions, and local zoning appeals. She works with clients on the clean-up of contaminated properties and helps clients evaluate, manage, and limit environmental risk associated with business and property transactions. She also provides guidance to clients seeking local land use and other administrative approvals.

Litigation

Diana handles litigation related to environmental, land use, and telecommunications matters. Her environmental litigation experience involves federal and state environmental enforcement actions and lawsuits between private parties. She also represents clients in disputes brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and many other federal and state environmental statutes. She is a regular contributor to our firm's Environmental Law + blog.

Diana also handles land use and telecommunications matters that result in litigation, including appeals of decisions of local land use boards and the Connecticut Siting Council to Connecticut's Superior, Appellate, and Supreme Courts. She has helped defend municipalities nationwide in cases involving the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) , and contributed to another one of our firm's blogs, RLUIPA Defense.

Environment + Energy

Diana regularly works with clients on the clean-up of contaminated properties, including Superfund sites. She assists clients with federal and state administrative compliance, including environmental remediation. She also helps clients evaluate, manage, and limit environmental risk associated with business and property transactions.

Diana is part of our firm's Energy group, which serves utility and energy clients on regulatory and environmental matters. She provides a range of transactional and compliance services. She helps clients navigate all local, state, and federal permitting requirements, and works to ensure they are in compliance with all regulations. She has worked with clients on energy and conservation matters before the New York State Public Service Commission, the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the Connecticut Siting Council, and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

Land Use

Diana provides guidance to clients seeking local zoning approvals. She counsels them on meeting requirements for land development and securing necessary municipal and state permits to do so.

Pro Bono

Diana was one of several Robinson+Cole attorneys involved in pro bono projects to combat poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking in Africa and Southeast Asia. During law school, as part of the New York State Pro Bono Scholars Program, Diana was a Pro Bono Scholar in the Criminal Law Special Litigation Unit of the Legal Aid Society.

Prior to joining Robinson+Cole, Diana was a judicial honors extern for a United States District Judge in the Southern District of New York. She also worked as a legal intern for an organization focused on water quality and related issues. She received a fellowship grant to provide nonprofit environmental legal services.
 

  • Pace University School of Law (Juris Doctor, magna cum laude)
    • Certificate in Environmental Law
    • Pace Environmental Law Review (Research and Writing Editor, Associate Editor)
  • Emory University (Bachelors)
    • B.A., Psychology and Sustainability

  • State of Connecticut
  • State of New York
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Selected as a Rising Star to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2019 to 2025

American Bar Association
Section of Environment, Energy and Resources
(2016 - Present)

Section of Litigation, Environmental & Energy Litigation
(2024 – Present)

Pace University School of Law
Member, Alumni Association Board of Directors
(2019 - Present)

New York City Environmental Law Leadership Institute 
(2018 — Present)
 

Experience


Toxic Tort + Environmental Litigation: Fugitive Dust Emissions

Defending owner of mining operation and aggregate production facility in two lawsuits – one a putative class action and another an enforcement action brought by the State of New York. Both lawsuits involve allegations of fugitive dust emissions from the facility migrating off-site in violation of state statutes and regulations and purportedly injurious to human life and causing nuisance conditions on neighboring properties.  The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, penalties, damages, and medical monitoring.

Read More

Toxic Tort + Environmental Litigation: Groundwater Contamination + Vapor Intrusion

Assisting in defense of aerospace manufacturer against personal injury and property damage claims asserted by nearly 30 plaintiffs associated with groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion. Part of team that successfully defended client in first trial involving a wrongful death claim in which plaintiffs alleged that exposure to TCE from client’s former manufacturing facility caused a rare kidney disease. The jury returned a defense verdict following a three-week trial. The team is now preparing for a second trial involving claims of drinking water and vapor exposure to TCE causing lupus, heart disease, and lung issues.

Read More

Toxic Tort + Environmental Litigation: Passaic River Superfund Site

Representing multiple parties defending contribution claims at the Passaic River Superfund Site.



Publications


March 9, 2018

Local Government Regulation of Religious Land Uses Under RLUIPA

Practical Law

The practice note provides an overview of regulating religious land uses under RLUIPA for local government attorneys and discusses different ways local governments can regulate religious uses, the types of claims that can be brought, and strategies for training staff and handling applications under RLUIPA. To read the practice note in full, click here.

July 2017

American attorneys partner to save endangered African wildlife

ABA Journal

Robinson+Cole's international pro bono project is featured in the article. Megan E. Baroni, Kelsey A. Cross, Emily C. Deans, Byron D. Flagg, Peter R. Knight, Diana E. Neeves, Sorell E. Negro, and Alec Rubenstein  have all contributed to this project. The purpose of their work is to assist the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC) in Namibia by reviewing the country's legislative framework and providing recommendations for strengthening its wildlife crimes legislation and enforcement. View the article.

May 25, 2017

Take-Home Toxins' Expand Duty of Care

American Bar Association Section of Litigation, Environmental & Energy Litigation Committee’s Spring 2017 Newsletter

The article discusses the recent Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp. decision issued by the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. The court held that a ceramics manufacturer, Accuratus Corporation, could be liable under New Jersey law for chemical exposure injuries to a woman who was both the girlfriend of one of its employees and the roommate of another employee. The woman allegedly suffers from chronic beryllium disease, which she believes was caused by exposure to beryllium brought to her home on her boyfriend and roommate’s clothing and shoes. According to the article, the case represents an expansion of an employer’s duty for secondhand exposure beyond a traditionally defined household, effectively opening the door to a new class of plaintiffs. 

March 9, 2018

Local Government Regulation of Religious Land Uses Under RLUIPA

Practical Law

The practice note provides an overview of regulating religious land uses under RLUIPA for local government attorneys and discusses different ways local governments can regulate religious uses, the types of claims that can be brought, and strategies for training staff and handling applications under RLUIPA. To read the practice note in full, click here.

July 2017

American attorneys partner to save endangered African wildlife

ABA Journal

Robinson+Cole's international pro bono project is featured in the article. Megan E. Baroni, Kelsey A. Cross, Emily C. Deans, Byron D. Flagg, Peter R. Knight, Diana E. Neeves, Sorell E. Negro, and Alec Rubenstein  have all contributed to this project. The purpose of their work is to assist the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC) in Namibia by reviewing the country's legislative framework and providing recommendations for strengthening its wildlife crimes legislation and enforcement. View the article.

May 25, 2017

Take-Home Toxins' Expand Duty of Care

American Bar Association Section of Litigation, Environmental & Energy Litigation Committee’s Spring 2017 Newsletter

The article discusses the recent Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp. decision issued by the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. The court held that a ceramics manufacturer, Accuratus Corporation, could be liable under New Jersey law for chemical exposure injuries to a woman who was both the girlfriend of one of its employees and the roommate of another employee. The woman allegedly suffers from chronic beryllium disease, which she believes was caused by exposure to beryllium brought to her home on her boyfriend and roommate’s clothing and shoes. According to the article, the case represents an expansion of an employer’s duty for secondhand exposure beyond a traditionally defined household, effectively opening the door to a new class of plaintiffs. 


News


November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Robinson+Cole announced a total of 35 attorneys were named to Thomson Reuters’ Super Lawyers® lists and 27 lawyers were recognized on its “Rising Stars” lists in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island for 2025. In addition, Robinson+Cole Labor, Employment, Benefits, Immigration + Tax group chair Rachel V. Kushel, Appellate group chair Linda L. Morkan, and Manufacturing Law Industry team chair Jeffrey J. White were named to the Top 50: 2025 Connecticut Super Lawyers list. Rachel and Linda also appear on the Top 25: 2025 Women Connecticut Super Lawyers list. In addition, Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group co-chair, Natalie D. Ramsey was named to the Top 50: 2005 Women Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. The Super Lawyers designation is based on regional balloting by attorneys, third-party research, and a peer review process encompassing myriad practice areas. An explanation of the Super Lawyers methodology can be found here. Recognized attorneys and their areas of practice include the following: Hartford, CT - Super Lawyers® Wystan M. Ackerman – Class Action Stephen W. Aronson – Employment Lit: Defense Bradford S. Babbitt – Business Litigation Bruce B. Barth – Employee Benefits Garry C. Berman – Real Estate Patrick M. Birney – Bankruptcy: Business Dennis C. Cavanaugh – Construction Litigation Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson – Employment & Labor Kathleen Dion – Schools & Education Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy: Business Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Litigation Edward J. Heath – Business Litigation Frederick E. Hedberg – Construction Litigation Rachel V. Kushel – Employment & Labor Michael F. Maglio – Banking Virginia E. McGarrity – Employee Benefits Joey Lee Miranda – Energy & Resources Linda L. Morkan – Appellate Martin A. Onorato – Construction Litigation James P. Ray – Environmental Litigation Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Rhonda J. Tobin – Insurance Coverage Theodore J. Tucci – Health Care Abby M. Warren – Employment & Labor Jeffrey J. White – Aviation and Aerospace Hartford, CT - Rising Stars Dan A. Brody – Criminal Defense: White Collar Kayla D. O’Leary Daly – Intellectual Property Jason H. DePatie – Insurance Coverage Scott T. Garosshen – Appellate Larry E. Grijalva – Construction Litigation Ryan Hoyler – Land Use/Zoning Kathryn N. Mullin – Real Estate Abigail L. Preissler – Securities & Corp Fin Jonathan H. Schaefer – Environmental Jennifer L. Shanley – Immigration: Business Taylor A. Shea – Business/Corp. Mallori D. Thompson – Business Litigation Taylor A. Vann – Civil Litigation: Defense Stamford, CT – Super Lawyers®  Steven L. Elbaum – Real Estate Brian J. Wheelin – Business Litigation Stamford, CT - Rising Stars Raymond J. Carta – Civil Litigation: Defense Emily C. Deans – Environmental Diana E. Neeves – Environmental Austin G. Provost – Real Estate Massachusetts - Super Lawyers® Kendra L. Berardi – Civil Litigation: Defense Danielle Andrews Long – Civil Litigation: Defense Seth B. Orkand – Criminal Defense: White Collar         Massachusetts - Rising Stars Jessica D. Bardi – Land Use/Zoning Jeffrey R. Gribouski – General Litigation Taz Islam – Business Litigation Rita E. Nerney – Employee Benefits New York Metro - Super Lawyers® John F. McCarrick – Insurance Coverage David D. Rodrigues – Intellectual Property Anna Jinhua Wang – Securities & Corporate Finance Evans E. Wohlforth Jr. – Health Care New York Metro - Rising Stars Joshua A. Dachs – Civil Litigation Sabrina M. Galli – Business Litigation New York Upstate - Rising Stars Danielle H. Tangorre – Health Care Wilmington, DE - Super Lawyers® and Pennsylvania - Super Lawyers® Natalie D. Ramsey – Bankruptcy: Business Pennsylvania - Rising Stars Katherine M. Fix – Bankruptcy: Business Rhode Island - Rising Stars William M. Daley – Business Litigation Kathryn M. Rattigan – Business Litigation

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
January 13, 2025

Robinson+Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel for 2025

October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Robinson+Cole announced a total of 35 attorneys were named to Thomson Reuters’ Super Lawyers® lists and 27 lawyers were recognized on its “Rising Stars” lists in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island for 2025. In addition, Robinson+Cole Labor, Employment, Benefits, Immigration + Tax group chair Rachel V. Kushel, Appellate group chair Linda L. Morkan, and Manufacturing Law Industry team chair Jeffrey J. White were named to the Top 50: 2025 Connecticut Super Lawyers list. Rachel and Linda also appear on the Top 25: 2025 Women Connecticut Super Lawyers list. In addition, Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group co-chair, Natalie D. Ramsey was named to the Top 50: 2005 Women Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. The Super Lawyers designation is based on regional balloting by attorneys, third-party research, and a peer review process encompassing myriad practice areas. An explanation of the Super Lawyers methodology can be found here. Recognized attorneys and their areas of practice include the following: Hartford, CT - Super Lawyers® Wystan M. Ackerman – Class Action Stephen W. Aronson – Employment Lit: Defense Bradford S. Babbitt – Business Litigation Bruce B. Barth – Employee Benefits Garry C. Berman – Real Estate Patrick M. Birney – Bankruptcy: Business Dennis C. Cavanaugh – Construction Litigation Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson – Employment & Labor Kathleen Dion – Schools & Education Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy: Business Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Litigation Edward J. Heath – Business Litigation Frederick E. Hedberg – Construction Litigation Rachel V. Kushel – Employment & Labor Michael F. Maglio – Banking Virginia E. McGarrity – Employee Benefits Joey Lee Miranda – Energy & Resources Linda L. Morkan – Appellate Martin A. Onorato – Construction Litigation James P. Ray – Environmental Litigation Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Rhonda J. Tobin – Insurance Coverage Theodore J. Tucci – Health Care Abby M. Warren – Employment & Labor Jeffrey J. White – Aviation and Aerospace Hartford, CT - Rising Stars Dan A. Brody – Criminal Defense: White Collar Kayla D. O’Leary Daly – Intellectual Property Jason H. DePatie – Insurance Coverage Scott T. Garosshen – Appellate Larry E. Grijalva – Construction Litigation Ryan Hoyler – Land Use/Zoning Kathryn N. Mullin – Real Estate Abigail L. Preissler – Securities & Corp Fin Jonathan H. Schaefer – Environmental Jennifer L. Shanley – Immigration: Business Taylor A. Shea – Business/Corp. Mallori D. Thompson – Business Litigation Taylor A. Vann – Civil Litigation: Defense Stamford, CT – Super Lawyers®  Steven L. Elbaum – Real Estate Brian J. Wheelin – Business Litigation Stamford, CT - Rising Stars Raymond J. Carta – Civil Litigation: Defense Emily C. Deans – Environmental Diana E. Neeves – Environmental Austin G. Provost – Real Estate Massachusetts - Super Lawyers® Kendra L. Berardi – Civil Litigation: Defense Danielle Andrews Long – Civil Litigation: Defense Seth B. Orkand – Criminal Defense: White Collar         Massachusetts - Rising Stars Jessica D. Bardi – Land Use/Zoning Jeffrey R. Gribouski – General Litigation Taz Islam – Business Litigation Rita E. Nerney – Employee Benefits New York Metro - Super Lawyers® John F. McCarrick – Insurance Coverage David D. Rodrigues – Intellectual Property Anna Jinhua Wang – Securities & Corporate Finance Evans E. Wohlforth Jr. – Health Care New York Metro - Rising Stars Joshua A. Dachs – Civil Litigation Sabrina M. Galli – Business Litigation New York Upstate - Rising Stars Danielle H. Tangorre – Health Care Wilmington, DE - Super Lawyers® and Pennsylvania - Super Lawyers® Natalie D. Ramsey – Bankruptcy: Business Pennsylvania - Rising Stars Katherine M. Fix – Bankruptcy: Business Rhode Island - Rising Stars William M. Daley – Business Litigation Kathryn M. Rattigan – Business Litigation

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
January 13, 2025

Robinson+Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel for 2025

October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 8, 2024

The Connecticut Siting Council and Robinson+Cole Prevail before the Connecticut Supreme Court

Woodbridge Newton Neighborhood Environmental Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
October 11, 2022

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2022 Super Lawyers®

October 12, 2021

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

October 14, 2020

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
October 17, 2019

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®


August 8, 2024

The Connecticut Siting Council and Robinson+Cole Prevail before the Connecticut Supreme Court

Woodbridge Newton Neighborhood Environmental Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
October 11, 2022

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2022 Super Lawyers®

October 12, 2021

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

October 14, 2020

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
October 17, 2019

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®


Events


Past

Trends in Managing and Minimizing Solid and Hazardous Waste from Cradle to Grave

Oct 22 2021
R+C-hosted event
Past

Environmental Decisions of Interest

Nov 19 2020
Past

Trends in Managing and Minimizing Solid and Hazardous Waste from Cradle to Grave

Oct 22 2021
R+C-hosted event
Past

Environmental Decisions of Interest

Nov 19 2020
Past

Ten Easy Lessons: How Local Governments Can Successfully Defend against RLUIPA Claims

Dec 11 2017
International Municipal Lawyers Association
Past

Cultural and Religious Bias in Land Use Practice in New Jersey

Nov 3 2017
New York City Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association’s “Hindsight 2017: Urban Planning Through the Equity Lens” event
Past

Ten Easy Lessons: How Local Governments Can Successfully Defend against RLUIPA Claims

Dec 11 2017
International Municipal Lawyers Association
Past

Cultural and Religious Bias in Land Use Practice in New Jersey

Nov 3 2017
New York City Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association’s “Hindsight 2017: Urban Planning Through the Equity Lens” event

Environmental Law +


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

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’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

Lawsuit Seeks to Designate PVC Plastic as Hazardous Waste

Recently, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming that polyvinyl chloride – more commonly known as PVC or vinyl – should be regulated as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The complaint comes seven years after the Center formally petitioned EPA to regulate discarded PVC under both RCRA and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA denied the Center’s petition with respect to TSCA, it never formally responded with respect to RCRA. The Center now seeks an order compelling EPA to act on the 2014 petition. PVC is one of the world’s most common plastic polymers, and can be found virtually everywhere: building materials, packaging, medical tubing, household products, and electronics, to name a few. According to the complaint, PVC products contain vinyl chloride, a human carcinogen, as well as significant concentrations of chemical additives, such as phthalate plasticizers, known to have toxic, carcinogenic, and mutagenic effects on humans and other life forms. Exposure to these chemicals, the Center claims, “is associated with a broad array of developmental and behavioral abnormalities in humans, fish, and wildlife.” Designation of PVC as hazardous waste would require revisions to EPA’s solid waste management guidelines and could have major implications for manufacturers and consumers alike.

Visit Blog