Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Jonathan H. Schaefer provides experienced and reasoned advice to a wide range of regional, national, and international clients on environmental, health and safety, and energy matters.

He focuses his practice on environmental compliance counseling, permitting, transactions, site remediation, occupational health and safety, energy regulatory compliance and siting, and regulatory enforcement related to federal and state regulatory programs. Jon’s experiences working on complex matters for over a decade enable him to work effectively with experts and in-house legal counsel to assist clients in minimizing risk and effectively and efficiently resolving compliance, enforcement, transactional, and regulatory matters.

Jon is also the editor of the Environmental Law+ blog, which presents clients and readers across a wide range of industries and businesses with a timely and thoughtful forum for discussion on environmental, health and safety, and energy topics.

Environmental Counseling

Jon consistently counsels clients in connection with their compliance efforts under a multitude of federal, state, and local environmental programs. He advises clients on site cleanup efforts and the costs and obligations related to such efforts. He has served on a Superfund site steering committee and provided counsel on brownfield clean-up efforts. He works closely with his clients, experts, and other lawyers to creatively solve his clients’ risk management challenges. Jon helps clients comply with all state and federal environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; the Connecticut Transfer Act; and most other federal and state environmental statutes.

Health + Safety (OSHA)

Jon regularly counsels business clients on a multitude of health and safety issues that arise from their operations. He helps with the review of health and safety procedures, assists with EH+S audits, and works with clients to develop health and safety plans. He represents clients before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, including evaluating alleged violations and defending clients against citations.

Environmental Transactions

Jon regularly advises a wide variety of corporate and individual clients on environmental risk and liability associated with transactions. Jon brings a reasoned and detailed approach to the management and allocation of risk and liability from his experiences representing both sellers and purchasers on transactions with complex environmental histories and futures. Jon’s focus in a transaction is to reach a closing where the client achieves the right balance of deal success and environmental risk.

Environmental - Dispute Resolution

When environmental disputes arise, Jon helps clients resolve problems through alternative dispute resolution. He also represents clients subject to environmental enforcement throughout the United States. Jon has experience representing clients in disputes involving federal and state environmental laws. This experience enables him to assist his clients with an appropriate strategy to position the client to pursue a favorable settlement or other resolution. He has assisted his clients in reaching favorable settlements with private parties and governmental agencies in several environmental and energy matters.

Energy Regulatory + Siting

Jon appears before state utility regulatory and siting authorities in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire on energy, siting, and utility matters. He counsels renewable and alternative energy clients on regulatory compliance and appears regularly before the Connecticut Siting Council and Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.

Pro Bono

Jon regularly does pro bono work. He assists the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center, by providing legal assistance to veterans who are facing eviction and representing veterans as they navigate through their benefit appeals.

Prior to joining Robinson+Cole, Jon interned with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and with the U.S. Attorney's Office. 

  • University of Connecticut School of Law (Juris Doctor, with honors)
  • The George Washington University (Bachelors)
    • B.A., Political Science

  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts
  • State of Connecticut
  • State of Vermont
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
  • U.S. Veterans Administration

Ranked in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business in the State of Connecticut in the area of Environment for 2026

Presented with the 2021 Environmental Business Council of New England, Inc. (EBC) Ascending Leader Award

Recognized as a New Leader in the Law by the Connecticut Law Tribune, 2020

Selected as a Rising Star to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2013 to 2025

Selected by his peers for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in the areas of Energy Law and Environmental Law from 2021 to 2025

Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, "First 100," 2013

Environmental Business Council of New England
Chair, Connecticut Chapter (2025 - present)
Working Group Leadership Team (2022 - present)
Member, Offshore Wind Working Group (2021 - present)
Site Remediation and Redevelopment Committee (2019 - present)

American Bar Association
Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (2012 - present)
Vice-Chair of Waste and Resource Recovery Committee, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (2015 - 2019)

Connecticut Bar Association
Vice Chair, Environmental Law Section (2025 - present)
Member, Environmental Law Section (2012 - 2025)
Treasurer, Environmental Law Section (2021 - present)
Member, Energy, Public Utility, and Communications Law Section (2012 - present)
Young Lawyers Section

Federal Bar Council (2015 - 2019)

Hartford Young Professionals and Entrepreneurs (2012 - present)

Oliver Ellsworth American Inn of Court
Pupil (2012 - 2013)

Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut, Inc.
Member, Board of Directors (2020 - present)

Bushnell Park Foundation
Board of Directors (2013 - 2020)
Chair of Governance Committee (2015 - 2019)

Foodshare
Former Walk Against Hunger Team Member

Junior Achievement
Former Volunteer 

The United Way
Former Volunteer Reader 

Experience


Successful Defense Against OSHA Citations for Specialty Manufacturer

Successfully represented a manufacturer of specialty springs and wires in connection with nearly two dozen OSHA citations, including more than a dozen Serious and a half-dozen Other-than-Serious citations, a substantial penalty, and significant and expensive injunctive relief. Secured a favorable settlement agreement for the client that did not admit liability, vacated 4 citations, reduced 6 Serious citations to Other-than-Serious, and reduced the penalty by more than 60%.

Read More

Financial Assurance Obligations for Hazardous Waste

Counsel large multinational manufacturing company with regard to financial assurance obligations for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, underground storage tanks, remediation requirements under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Comprehensive Environmental Recovery and Liability Act orders and permits, and similar state programs.

Read More

Plastics Manufacturer Counsel in Multi-Facility Self-Audit

Counseled plastics manufacturer in connection with multi-facility multi-state self-audit and voluntary disclosures concerning the Clean Air Act and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act  to the EPA and state agency, which included negotiations with Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection regarding applicability of CAA permitting.

Read More


Publications


Vol. 10.1

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

CEMA Aegis
August 31, 2023

As the Temperature Rises, Employer Obligations Rise Too

EHS Today

The article examines OSHA’s new focus on the enforcement of heat-safety violations occurring in indoor work environments, such as manufacturing and warehouse facilities. While OSHA has yet to issue a national standard for workplace heat-safety rules, just yesterday on August 30, they released a “Regulatory Framework” meant to outline potential options for the elements of a future OSHA standard. The authors suggest that after a thorough review of OSHA’s Regulatory Framework, employers could draft and implement a written heat stress prevention program or heat illness prevention plan for their worksite or facility. In addition to OSHA guidelines and standards, employers should also be aware of their obligations to address safety concerns under other existing legislation including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the National Labor Relations Act. Read the article.

April 12, 2023

Change Coming? OSHA Inspections at Non-Union Facilities

Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA)

The article focuses on OSHA’s likely revival of a policy that would require employers to permit union officials to take part in agency inspections even if the union does not represent employees at the facility being inspected. OSHA had previously maintained such a policy between 2013 and 2017 before the interpretation underpinning it faced legal challenges. Employees may now designate a non-employee with proper credentials as eligible to be present. “As we await OSHA’s next move and a possible new rule on this topic,” Natale and Jon note, “it remains important to be prepared to handle and OSHA inspection, regardless of the other parties involved.” Read the article.

Vol. 10.1

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

CEMA Aegis
August 31, 2023

As the Temperature Rises, Employer Obligations Rise Too

EHS Today

The article examines OSHA’s new focus on the enforcement of heat-safety violations occurring in indoor work environments, such as manufacturing and warehouse facilities. While OSHA has yet to issue a national standard for workplace heat-safety rules, just yesterday on August 30, they released a “Regulatory Framework” meant to outline potential options for the elements of a future OSHA standard. The authors suggest that after a thorough review of OSHA’s Regulatory Framework, employers could draft and implement a written heat stress prevention program or heat illness prevention plan for their worksite or facility. In addition to OSHA guidelines and standards, employers should also be aware of their obligations to address safety concerns under other existing legislation including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the National Labor Relations Act. Read the article.

April 12, 2023

Change Coming? OSHA Inspections at Non-Union Facilities

Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA)

The article focuses on OSHA’s likely revival of a policy that would require employers to permit union officials to take part in agency inspections even if the union does not represent employees at the facility being inspected. OSHA had previously maintained such a policy between 2013 and 2017 before the interpretation underpinning it faced legal challenges. Employees may now designate a non-employee with proper credentials as eligible to be present. “As we await OSHA’s next move and a possible new rule on this topic,” Natale and Jon note, “it remains important to be prepared to handle and OSHA inspection, regardless of the other parties involved.” Read the article.

July 8, 2022

EPA Power Plant Ruling Could Have Broader Effects for Industry

IndustryWeek

The article focuses on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, where the Supreme Court held that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act in its attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. While the immediate impact of the decision is fairly limited, the Supreme Court’s rationale has the potential to impact federal agency authority across a broad range of sectors. The larger outcome of West Virginia v. EPA could be an expansion of cases that seek to invalidate agency actions based on the major questions doctrine. Read the article.

June 28, 2022

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy Continues to Ensnare the Construction Industry

Construction Executive’s “CE This Week” newsletter

The article focuses on OSHA’s approach to jobsites where more than one employer could be cited for the same hazardous condition that violates an OSHA standard. Read the article.

February 16, 2022

Who’s calling the shots? A look at the current status of COVID-19 vaccine mandates

ISHN (Industrial Safety & Hygiene News)

The article points out that since the COVID-19 vaccination was made available to the public in late 2020, the topic of vaccination has been widely discussed across the country, in daily news media, by governments and agencies, in the courts, in communities, and in the workplace. This led to various legal challenges, court decisions and rulings, opposition, publicity, and the implementation of various state laws prohibiting or restricting businesses’ and employers’ ability to mandate vaccination. Heading into 2022, companies have been left to face the challenge of implementing policies that are legally-compliant under the patchwork of laws, guidance and rules regarding vaccination and also practical. The authors remind employers “to ensure that they are up-to-date at the local, state, and federal level; understand changes that may be on the horizon with regard to applicable laws in their industry; and remain flexible in terms of their policies and procedures.” Read the full article here.

January 6, 2022

A look at OSHA enforcement in 2021 under the Biden administration

ISHN (Industrial Safety & Hygiene News)

The article points out the criticism aimed at the Trump administration for what many considered a too-lax approach to OSHA enforcement actions, stating that the “number of inspections and citations between 2016 and 2019 were lower than previous years, and OSHA was not always as vocal about its enforcement efforts.” By contrast, the article notes that the Biden administration has fulfilled campaign promises to focus greater attention on, and support for, OSHA efforts, particularly with regard to COVID-19, but in other areas as well, including “increasing the number of OSHA investigators, possibly by as much as 100%.” Based on the administration’s directives and efforts in 2021, the article predicts an increase in enforcement actions over the next three years and encourages employers to “review your workplace’s compliance with applicable OSHA regulations, including anti-retaliation policies as well as preparing the workplace and your employees for an OSHA inspection.” Read the full article here.

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
January 4, 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
January 4, 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About



July 8, 2022

EPA Power Plant Ruling Could Have Broader Effects for Industry

IndustryWeek

The article focuses on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, where the Supreme Court held that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act in its attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. While the immediate impact of the decision is fairly limited, the Supreme Court’s rationale has the potential to impact federal agency authority across a broad range of sectors. The larger outcome of West Virginia v. EPA could be an expansion of cases that seek to invalidate agency actions based on the major questions doctrine. Read the article.

June 28, 2022

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy Continues to Ensnare the Construction Industry

Construction Executive’s “CE This Week” newsletter

The article focuses on OSHA’s approach to jobsites where more than one employer could be cited for the same hazardous condition that violates an OSHA standard. Read the article.

February 16, 2022

Who’s calling the shots? A look at the current status of COVID-19 vaccine mandates

ISHN (Industrial Safety & Hygiene News)

The article points out that since the COVID-19 vaccination was made available to the public in late 2020, the topic of vaccination has been widely discussed across the country, in daily news media, by governments and agencies, in the courts, in communities, and in the workplace. This led to various legal challenges, court decisions and rulings, opposition, publicity, and the implementation of various state laws prohibiting or restricting businesses’ and employers’ ability to mandate vaccination. Heading into 2022, companies have been left to face the challenge of implementing policies that are legally-compliant under the patchwork of laws, guidance and rules regarding vaccination and also practical. The authors remind employers “to ensure that they are up-to-date at the local, state, and federal level; understand changes that may be on the horizon with regard to applicable laws in their industry; and remain flexible in terms of their policies and procedures.” Read the full article here.

January 6, 2022

A look at OSHA enforcement in 2021 under the Biden administration

ISHN (Industrial Safety & Hygiene News)

The article points out the criticism aimed at the Trump administration for what many considered a too-lax approach to OSHA enforcement actions, stating that the “number of inspections and citations between 2016 and 2019 were lower than previous years, and OSHA was not always as vocal about its enforcement efforts.” By contrast, the article notes that the Biden administration has fulfilled campaign promises to focus greater attention on, and support for, OSHA efforts, particularly with regard to COVID-19, but in other areas as well, including “increasing the number of OSHA investigators, possibly by as much as 100%.” Based on the administration’s directives and efforts in 2021, the article predicts an increase in enforcement actions over the next three years and encourages employers to “review your workplace’s compliance with applicable OSHA regulations, including anti-retaliation policies as well as preparing the workplace and your employees for an OSHA inspection.” Read the full article here.

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
January 4, 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
January 4, 2022

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About


News


June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
November 6, 2025

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

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
June 27, 2025

Jon Schaefer Appointed Chair of Environment Business Council of New England’s Connecticut Chapter

Environmental Business Council of New England Connecticut Chapter
June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
November 6, 2025

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

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
June 27, 2025

Jon Schaefer Appointed Chair of Environment Business Council of New England’s Connecticut Chapter

Environmental Business Council of New England Connecticut Chapter
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 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
February 9, 2024

Jon Schaefer Appointed to Serve as Secretary of Statewide Legal Services Board of Directors

Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
September 1, 2023

Jon Schaefer and Abby Warren Examine OSHA Focus on Enforcement of Heat-Safety Violations in EHS Today

EHS Today
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

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 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
February 9, 2024

Jon Schaefer Appointed to Serve as Secretary of Statewide Legal Services Board of Directors

Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
September 1, 2023

Jon Schaefer and Abby Warren Examine OSHA Focus on Enforcement of Heat-Safety Violations in EHS Today

EHS Today
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

Events


Past

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

Jun 10 2026
Connecticut Energy Marketers Association 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

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

Jun 10 2026
Connecticut Energy Marketers Association 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

Connecticut Released-Based Cleanup Regulations: Beginning to Consider the Possibilities

Nov 6 2025
An EBC Connecticut Webinar
Past

Release-Based Clean-Up Regulations: Implementations & Compliance

Jun 11 2025
Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) 2025 Energy & Environment Conference
Past

Sunsetting the Transfer Act: When, What, Where, and How

May 13 2025
An EBC Connecticut Webinar
Past

“Hot Topics” with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) – An EBC Leadership Program

Apr 11 2025
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.
Past

Connecticut Released-Based Cleanup Regulations: Beginning to Consider the Possibilities

Nov 6 2025
An EBC Connecticut Webinar
Past

Release-Based Clean-Up Regulations: Implementations & Compliance

Jun 11 2025
Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) 2025 Energy & Environment Conference
Past

Sunsetting the Transfer Act: When, What, Where, and How

May 13 2025
An EBC Connecticut Webinar
Past

“Hot Topics” with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) – An EBC Leadership Program

Apr 11 2025
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.

Environmental Law +


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

EPA Issues “Compliance First” Memo: Key Takeaways for Regulated Entities

On December 5, 2025, Craig J. Pritzlaff, Acting Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), issued an internal memorandum instituting a “Compliance First” approach, immediately effective for all civil enforcement and compliance activities. This memo claims to introduce a policy shift: prioritizing timely and effective compliance over punitive enforcement and expansive regulatory interpretations. EPA’s goal is clear, swift, and efficient compliance, achieved by the “clearest, most defensible interpretations of our statutory and regulatory mandates.” Key Elements of the “Compliance First” Policy Compliance Assistance ToolkitEnforcement is not the only tool. Proactive outreach, technical assistance, voluntary audits, and self-reporting are highlighted as means to encourage regulated entities to “find and fix” issues before enforcement becomes necessary. State and Tribal CoordinationThe EPA is committed to deferential, collaborative engagement with authorized states and tribes. Civil enforcement activities will avoid duplication and promote consistency by coordinating closely with local agencies, providing them with technical support, and ensuring states lead where they have primary jurisdiction. Transparent Communication and “No Surprises”Open, transparent dialogue is mandated throughout inspections and enforcement. The EPA pledges a “no surprises” approach and wants regulated entities to proactively identify and address potential compliance issues, building trust, and avoiding unexpected enforcement escalation. Clarity and Legal Precision in FindingsFindings of violation must be “clear and unambiguous” and based on the “best reading” of statutes and regulations. Expansive or creative interpretations that create uncertainty or deviate from precedent are expressly rejected, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. Material legal ambiguities must be elevated to national EPA leadership for resolution, ensuring consistent application across regions. Timely and Efficient ComplianceEPA staff are directed to focus on rapid resolution of violations, with compliance – not punishment – as the North Star. Prolonged or punitive strategies are deemphasized to avoid delaying environmental protection and economic operations. Formal enforcement and injunctive relief (such as administrative or judicial action) will be used only when informal or compliance assistance measures are insufficient or in emergencies. Remedies must be narrowly tailored, directly tied to specific violations, and based on clear legal requirements. EPA’s April 26, 2021 memorandum (Using All Appropriate Injunctive Relief Tools in Civil Enforcement Settlements), which focused on expansive injunctive measures and supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), is also rescinded, pending new guidance. OECA Assistant Administrator approval is required for non-standard remedies like third-party audits. Reasoned, Transparent Decisions Using LEAPSThe memo introduces the LEAPS framework for enforcement decisions: Law: Use the clearest statutory/regulatory interpretation; Evidence: Rely on solid, unequivocal facts; Analysis: Apply logic and connect facts with law; Programmatic Impact: Consider effects on EPA programs; and Stakeholder Impact: Assess how actions affect states, tribes, and regulated entities The memo states that EPA is aiming for transparent, reasoned decisions anchored in LEAPS to make enforcement predictable and defensible. Practical Implications for the Regulated Community Potential for more opportunities for rapid, voluntary compliance and proactive technical assistance. Legal disputes over novel or ambiguous regulatory interpretations should be elevated to national leadership, potentially providing regulated entities with a new escalation pathway. Formal remedies such as SEPs and wide-ranging monitoring should be restricted, and enforcement actions should now be both more predictable and tied tightly to statutory requirements. EPA will soon issue a single guidance document to harmonize enforcement practices agency-wide, offering more clarity and consistency for regulated parties. Final Thoughts While this “new” policy shares similarities with prior EPA enforcement guidance and does not create legally binding rights, the intent appears to portray a shift in EPA enforcement philosophy to prioritizing clarity, efficiency, and cooperation over adversarial posturing or creative statutory interpretations. While it is too early to know what practical implications this will have for enforcement actions, EPA’s memo is a helpful reminder for regulated entities to review their compliance programs, prepare for inspections, and document legal positions carefully to align with the “best reading” standard now embedded in EPA practice.

Visit Blog

Navigating OSHA’s Updated Inspection Strategy

In May 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) released an updated Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Inspection Program directive. The SST Inspection Program is OSHA’s main site-specific programmed inspection initiative for non-construction workplaces that have 20 or more employees. The SST Inspection Program uses employer-submitted injury and illness information (i.e., Form 300A data) to determine workplaces that will receive comprehensive (e.g., site-wide) inspections. The updated SST Inspection Program now utilizes Form 300A data for calendar years (CY) 2021, 2022, and 2023. The main focus of the revised program is establishments with high injury and illness rates reported between 2021 and 2023, especially those with inconsistent record-keeping or injury rates exceeding twice the national private sector average. For example, sectors like trucking, warehousing, and nursing facilities tend to have higher Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rates, which OSHA uses to assess injury severity. This update signals a heightened focus on workplaces in sectors like warehousing, transportation, and healthcare. Employers in these industries should be prepared for increased on-site inspections. Notably, on-site inspections will not just be limited to workplaces with high rates of injuries. Workplaces with lower injury rates are also at risk of being randomly selected to verify the reliability of submitted data. Other significant updates to the program include: For high-rate establishments, individual establishments will be selected for inspection based on CY 2023 Form 300A data, instead of 2021 data. For upward trending establishments, individual establishments will be selected for inspection based on CY 2021-2023 Form 300A data, instead of CY 2019-2021 data. The low-rate establishments list will be generated using CY 2023 Form 300A data, instead of CY 2021 data. The non-responders list will be generated using CY 2023 data, instead of CY 2021 data. This update only reconfirms OSHA’s trend towards an increasingly data-driven approach, aiming to target workplaces with the greatest potential hazards. Employers are advised to scrutinize their injury logs and ensure accurate documentation, especially if their data indicates rising or elevated injury rates. It is also important to keep in mind that while OSHA may begin an on-site inspection for one reason (e.g., injury rates), these inspections often result in citations for unrelated violations observed during the inspection. That being said, with anticipated workforce reductions within OSHA and other budget cuts, OSHA’s ability to maintain a robust number of on-site inspections is uncertain. Nevertheless, employers should proactively review their injury data, address hazards, and ensure compliance to avoid surprises during inspections.

Visit Blog

EPA Delays PFAS Reporting Deadlines, Again: Implications for Manufacturers and Importers

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an amendment delaying the data submission period for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule, which will now begin on April 13, 2026, and end on October 13, 2026. Small manufacturers who report solely as article importers will have until April 13, 2027, to complete their submissions. The EPA stated that this delay is necessary to allow additional time for the development of the reporting software. While no other changes are currently planned, the agency is considering reopening certain aspects of the rule for public comment to accommodate potential modifications before the new deadlines. The interim final rule, published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2025, became effective immediately but remains open for public comment for 30 days. This is the second delay in the reporting timeline. The original requirement was established in September 2023, mandating manufacturers and importers of PFAS from 2011 to 2022 to submit reports. Initially, the reporting period was scheduled to begin on July 11, 2025, but was postponed to accommodate ongoing preparations. The initial rule aimed to impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements on entities involved in the manufacture or import of PFAS, including those in “articles,” as that term is defined by TSCA, for the years between 2011 and 2022. The EPA explained that delays are primarily due to the need for more time to develop necessary data collection tools and that the agency is considering future rule modifications influenced by efforts to deregulate, such as Executive Order 14219. The agency is also responding to petitions from chemical companies seeking to narrow the scope of the current rule and obtain exemptions consistent with standard TSCA 8(a) reporting provisions.

Visit Blog

Administrators May Change, But PFAS Is Forever: EPA Announces PFAS Plan

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has unveiled its anticipated strategy for addressing the pervasive issue of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals.” While the announcement provides a broad framework, specific details (particularly regarding potential changes to previous rulemakings under CERCLA and the Safe Drinking Water Act) remain unclear. The EPA’s strategy is built upon three core pillars: strengthening the underlying science; fulfilling statutory obligations and improving communication; and actively building partnerships with stakeholders. However, Administrator Zeldin’s approach largely echoes the core principles outlined in the EPA’s 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap, indicating a degree of continuity in the federal government’s focus on these persistent chemicals. Under the “Strengthening the Science” pillar, the EPA plans to appoint a dedicated lead for PFAS efforts, implement a comprehensive testing strategy under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to seek scientific information informed by hazard characteristics and exposure pathways, and increase efforts to collect air related PFAS data and improve measurement techniques. The agency will also work to identify and address information gaps and provide more frequent, annual updates to the PFAS Destruction and Disposal Guidance. The “Fulfilling Statutory Obligations and Enhancing Communication” pillar outlines the EPA’s commitment to developing effluent limitations guidelines for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers, addressing challenges with national primary drinking water regulations, and leveraging RCRA authorities to tackle releases from manufacturing operations. The EPA will also add PFAS to the Toxic Release Inventory (an existing direction from Congress), enforce existing Clean Water Act and TSCA limitations, and utilize Safe Drinking Water Act authority to address immediate endangerment. Prioritizing risk-based review of chemicals and implementing TSCA Section 8(a)(7) to collect information “efficiently” are also key aspects. Finally, Zeldin intends to work with Congress and industry to establish a “polluter pays” liability framework, with a reference to protecting “passive receivers.” Finally, the “Building Partnerships” pillar emphasizes collaboration to advance remediation and cleanup efforts, working with states on risk assessment and tool development, and reviewing comments and determining the path forward regarding PFAS in biosolids risk assessment. The EPA will also aid states and tribes on enforcement, review state air petitions, and support investigations to hold violators accountable. Although substantially reflective of some Biden-era initiatives, Zeldin’s plan introduces differences, such as an increased emphasis on air emissions and a single agency-wide PFAS lead instead of a council. The reference to TSCA Section 8(a)(7) also suggests potential amendments to the PFAS reporting rule. This initial announcement is presented as the first step, with further actions expected, highlighting Zeldin’s stated commitment to addressing PFAS.

Visit Blog

Cuts, Closures, and Confusion: A Quick Update on U.S. EPA

It has been 50 days since the Trump administration took office, and there remains a tsunami of activity surrounding executive actions and announcements across the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not been spared from deep cuts, office and grant program closures, and a fair amount of confusion. On March 11, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin directed the agency to eliminate all offices focusing on environmental justice. The move comes in the wake of executive orders signed on inauguration day declaring the end to the “whole of government” approach and the “Justice40” initiative and directed all federal agencies to terminate all environmental justice offices and positions. The recent action ends over 30 years of environmental justice work at the EPA by closing the national environmental justice office, along with each of the ten regional environmental justice offices. For the foreseeable future, the environmental justice considerations in environmental permitting and regulations will be starkly absent at the federal level. Meanwhile, as a result of the February 19, 2025, executive order, the EPA has until April 20, 2025, to review all of their regulations and identify regulations that, among other criteria, are unconstitutional, impose significant costs that outweigh public benefit, or harm the national interest. This comprehensive regulatory review will likely have broad implications for nearly all environmental regulatory programs. For example, just yesterday, Administrator Zeldin announced the EPA’s plan to eliminate 31 separate major environmental regulations. Among the regulations on the chopping block are the greenhouse gas emissions endangerment finding,  the “Good Neighbor Plan,” and several other climate-related standards. As for enforcement priorities, the same executive order instructed all federal agencies to “preserve their limited enforcement resources by generally deprioritizing” enforcement where such enforcement is not based on the “best reading of a statute,” or it goes “beyond the powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution.” As for staffing, in February, the EPA had to correct a comment from the President that the EPA would be cutting 65% of its workforce; instead, it clarified that the figure was referencing spending cuts. Undoubtedly, much of those cuts will come from reductions to, or wholesale terminations, of many of the EPA’s traditionally successful and highly lauded grant programs. Just earlier this week the EPA announced its fourth round of cuts, including the cancellation of over 400 grants across nine programs. Then, the next day, the EPA announced it was canceling $20 billion in grants for climate and clean energy programs that had already been frozen. These broad cuts, which came with little or no notice, have left loan and grant applicants and recipients confused and concerned. While not tallied yet, there are sure to be thousands of potential brownfield, resiliency, and energy projects put on hold or terminated. It is anticipated that these cuts will also significantly impact on state and local government funding. It is too early to know whether and how much those gaps will be filled on a state or local level. There is no sign that the pace of change will be slowing down anytime soon. With these changes, regulatory uncertainty will continue. More so than ever, keeping abreast of these developments and how they may impact operations, projects, or transactions is vitally important to businesses.

Visit Blog

New EPA Administrator, Same Freeze on EPA Activity

On January 29, 2025, Lee Zeldin was confirmed as the 17th Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator. After a week on the job, Zeldin continued to maintain several policies that had been put in place immediately after the Trump administration took office. Some of these policies are summarized below. While these actions are generally expected when a new administration begins, there is a sense that additional, significant changes are around the corner. Freeze on External Actions On January 24, 2025, the then acting EPA Administrator ordered a temporary halt on all environmental lawsuits to review and possibly change the agency’s stance on these issues. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources Division, which enforces environmental protection laws, has also been ordered to freeze all activities. This included stopping pending court filings and delaying new complaints, with pending Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act negotiations also on hold for an undetermined time. This was followed by an internal memorandum instructing EPA staff to halt external communications (e.g., press releases, blog updates, and social media posts), except for discussions with state and federal agencies not related to enforcement, necessary communications regarding imports, and as related to the carrying out of inspections. The EPA also announced (here and here) delays for several finalized environmental rules from the prior administration. These include rules regarding air pollution, hazardous waste generator improvements, and the regulation of PFAS and trichloroethylene (TCE). The duration of each of these “freezes” is not clear at this time, but it seems aimed at helping the new administration evaluate what can be changed and likely beginning that change. Staffing As federal agencies implement a presidential order to limit telework and remote work, EPA employees must return to the office full-time next month. The EPA stated that regular telework and remote work agreements will be canceled to follow the recent Executive Order on the subject. EPA staff are expected to be in the office daily by February 24, unless they have a disability, medical condition, or other significant reasons certified by their supervisor. It was also recently reported that the EPA is expected to cut over 1,000 employees who joined the agency within the past year, with a focus on those working on climate change, air pollution, and environmental regulation programs. Additionally, several senior civil service managers in the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resource Division have reportedly been reassigned to focus on immigration matters rather than environmental issues.

Visit Blog

New Wave of Executive Orders Seek to Redirect EPA’s Focus

Within hours of taking office, President Trump issued a flurry of Executive Orders (EO), including several that will undoubtedly affect a wide range of environmental policies nationwide. While the full implications of these EOs, as well as potential additional actions, are far from clear at this early stage, there are several takeaways for those who are in the environmental-regulated community to consider. While reviewing the summary below of a limited sampling of recent EOs touching on environmental policy, it is important to remember that a significant portion of environmental policy, regulation, and enforcement occurs at the state level and impacts from federal policies and approaches can take many years to be felt, if at all. In fact, in some instances, the policies and strategies at the federal level can produce the opposite approach at the state level. Therefore, it is crucial for any regulated entity to have a strong comprehension of the federal and state landscape as it may apply or interact with its operations, permits, and compliance. Environmental Justice With just one EO—Initial Recission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions—nearly 80 EOs from the prior administration were revoked. The list included several EOs related to environmental justice, such as the “whole of government” approach and the “Justice40” initiative. Environmental justice was also singled out in “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which ordered federal agencies to terminate all environmental justice offices and positions. Greenhouse Gases and Energy Resources An EO entitled “Unleashing American Energy” directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies to review actions “that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy.” The apparent purpose here is to reverse course on greenhouse gas and other federal rules on various energy sources. Furthermore, EPA has been directed, within 30 days, to provide recommendations on the “legality and continuing applicability” of EPA’s 2009 GHG risk finding, which is the underpinning of EPA’s climate rules. Similarly, this EO does away with the “social cost of carbon” metric that was intended to monetize the benefits of policies that curb emissions. Hiring Freeze and Return to Office While not EOs, two executive memoranda will surely influence EPA through workforce impacts, resources, and management of priorities. The first, entitled “Return to In-Person Work,” directs all federal agencies, including the EPA, to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in person on a full-time basis. The second, entitled “Hiring Freeze,” freezes federal civilian employee hiring, including EPA staff. The Office of Management and Budget is tasked with delivering a plan within 90 days to further shrink the federal workforce “through efficiency improvements and attrition.” It is very likely that staffing levels at the EPA will be reduced significantly, which could impact the EPA’s capacity to keep up with permitting and enforcement matters.

Visit Blog

OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

On December 11, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it finalized a revision to the personal protective equipment (PPE) standard for the construction industry. The final rule adds specific language to the existing standard requiring employers to provide properly fitting PPE for construction industry workers. This change aligns the construction industry with the standards in place for the general industry. According to OSHA, many types of PPE must properly fit workers. Improperly sized PPE can ineffectively protect workers, creating new hazards for them, such as oversized gloves or protective clothing being caught in machinery and discouraging use because of discomfort or poor fit. OSHA stated that the longstanding issue with improperly fitting PPE particularly impacted women, as well as physically smaller or larger workers.  Starting in January, construction employers will need to give their workers well-fitting safety gear. Among other equipment, this includes gloves, high-visibility vests, goggles, fall protection harnesses, and helmets that “properly fit” the workers. However, the final rule does not provide clear guidance on how employers or workers determine if PPE properly fits. OSHA only provided a limited number of examples of ill-fitting gear, such as long pants legs that could lead to the employee tripping and welding gloves too large for the employee to pick up items. Publishing this final rule coincides with a post-election push by federal agencies to finalize major agenda items before January. However, the PPE final rule will still be subject to the Congressional Review Act and thus subject to being overturned by the next administration. That being said, the rule has enjoyed support from both industry and labor.

Visit Blog

EPA Notice of Violation Letters Phishing Scam

On July 30, 2024, the U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General issued a fraud alert to bring attention to an increasing number of companies reporting that they have received fraudulent EPA Notice of Violation letters demanding payment. Businesses have received these fraudulent letters through email and U.S. Postal Service mail. The letters allege that the target business violated an environmental regulation, such as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. The contact information provided – invoice@epa.services – is not associated with the EPA. Official U.S. government organizations only use the “.gov” domain name. If you have received a Notice of Violation and are concerned about its validity or have other questions or concerns, consider consulting experienced legal counsel. You can also contact the U.S. EPA’s enforcement office at OECA_Communications@epa.gov with any concerns regarding potentially fraudulent letters. The U.S. EPA’s Office of Inspector General’s Hotline ((888) 546-8740 or OIG.Hotline@epa.gov) is always available if you believe you have been the victim of fraud or have knowledge of potential waste, fraud, or abuse involving EPA operations and programs.

Visit Blog

OSHA Releases Proposed Extreme Heat Rule

On July 2, 2024, OSHA released the long-awaited Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings proposed rule. If finalized, the rule would require millions of employers to take steps to protect their workers from extreme heat. However, the proposed rule would not apply to “sedentary” or remote workers, emergency-response workers, or employees at indoor job sites where temperatures are kept below 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Under the proposed rule, employers would be required to identify heat hazards, develop emergency response plans related to heat illness, and provide training to employees and supervisors on the signs and symptoms of such illnesses. Employers would also have to establish appropriate rest breaks, provide shade and water, and heat acclimatization for new employees and those employees that have been away from the worksite for more than 14 days. The final regulation will almost certainly face lawsuits from a variety of entities. Several major industries and trade groups, including many in the construction and manufacturing space, had previously raised concerns about the implement ability of several concepts included in the proposed rule. Such legal challenges are likely to be boosted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week eliminating the deference that courts owe to agency rulemaking. However, before the proposed rule can become a final regulation, it must undergo a public notice and comment period. OSHA encourages the submission of written comments on the rule once it is published in the Federal Register. OSHA also has plans to hold a public hearing after the close of the written comment period. More information will be available on how and where to submit comments when the proposed rule is officially published in the Federal Register. While we wait for the rule to become final, OSHA has made clear that it will continue to hold employers accountable for violations of the General Duty Clause and other regulations implicated by heat-related injuries and illnesses. This includes the continuation of heat-related inspections under OSHA’s National Emphasis Program – Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards, which began in 2022. Employers of all sizes and industries would be impacted from a final regulation on extreme heat. While the proposed rule is not yet binding on employers, it can be helpful to review the rule and evaluate whether your workplace is safe, healthy, and free from recognized hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm – such as exposure to extreme or excessive heat.

Visit Blog