Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Megan E. Baroni has extensive experience counseling clients on a wide variety of environmental, health, and safety issues. Her deep knowledge of the environmental regulatory landscape combined with her command of scientific issues involved allows Megan to develop creative and comprehensive strategies for compliance, and management of risk and liability.   

Environmental, Health + Safety Compliance 

Megan is a trusted advisor on complex environmental issues for a wide variety of clients, including manufacturers, energy companies, real estate developers, and diversified holding companies. Megan frequently handles the investigation, remediation, and redevelopment of contaminated properties; chemical and waste management associated with business operations; issues related to emerging contaminants; ESG-related issues; management of contaminated building materials; health and safety compliance; and risk management in crisis situations. She has extensive experience helping clients navigate compliance with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, OSHA, and Department of Health regulations, as well as a variety of state and local counterparts. Megan takes a practical approach to complicated regulatory issues to address compliance in the context of her client’s business operations and objectives.

Litigation + Dispute Resolution

When disputes arise, Megan is a zealous advocate, working hand-in-hand with our clients to effectively manage and ultimately resolve them. Megan regularly litigates environmental and toxic tort cases in federal and state courts throughout the country, many of which involve allegations of environmental contamination and chemical exposure. She regularly handles cases brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and a variety of state and common laws. She knows the nuances of the law, the dynamics of the courtroom, and her deep understanding of the science at work in environmental cases allows her to develop effective strategies at the outset of a case and in real time.

Transactions 

In her transactional practice, Megan helps clients evaluate, manage, and limit environmental risk associated with business and property transactions. She manages due diligence, working with environmental consultants to identify known risks as well as design a plan to manage the unknown. She is also well-versed in transaction-triggered compliance obligations, helping to identify and navigate these requirements before and after closing. Megan is a keen negotiator, and with an understanding of her client’s objectives, she negotiates the allocation of environmental liability with an eye toward finding solutions to close the deal.  

  • Pace University School of Law (Juris Doctor, summa cum laude)
    • Certificate in Environmental Law
    • Pace Law Review
  • Yale University (Masters)
    • School of the Environment
    • Master of Environmental Management
  • Syracuse University (Bachelors, magna cum laude)
    • B.A., S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications

  • State of Connecticut
  • State of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Named a Thomson Reuters Stand-out Lawyer for 2025 and 2024

Robinson+Cole Mentor of the Year Award, 2024

Ranked in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business in the State of Connecticut in the area of Environment since 2020

Among the “100 Women Who Inspire Us” recognized by the American Bar Association Section of Litigation during the 2019 Women in Litigation Joint CLE Conference

Fairfield County Business Journal, 2015 "40 Under 40" Inductee

Connecticut Law Tribune, recognized in 2013 New Leaders in the Law Yearbook

Selected to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2019 to 2022

Selected as a Rising Star to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2009 to 2012 and 2014 to 2018

Selected as Outstanding Subcommittee Chair for the 2013-2014 bar year by the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation for her work as co-chair of the Environmental Litigation Committee's Water Subcommittee and for her role in co-chairing the 2014 ABA Section of Litigation Joint CLE Seminar

Selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area of Environmental Law for 2022 and 2023

Robinson+Cole Pro Bono Award, 2022

American Bar Association
Section of Litigation, Environmental & Energy Litigation Committee
Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources

New Canaan Nature Center
Board of Trustees (2022)

Experience


Global Leader Advocacy

Advocate on behalf of global leader in renewable energy technology and solutions regarding the development of markets for long duration energy storage and hydrogen in Connecticut and New York.

Diligence Review

Represent lenders in diligence review regarding Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island real estate, energy regulatory, permitting and environmental matters for financing of offshore wind projects.

Toxic Tort + Environmental Litigation: Groundwater Contamination + Vapor Intrusion

Assisting in defense of manufacturer against personal injury and property damage claims asserted by nearly 30 plaintiffs associated with groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion. Part of trial 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


Publications


Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

January 8, 2024

PFAS will be increasing concern for manufacturers in year ahead

Hartford Business Journal

Published as part of the Hartford Business Journal's 2024 Economic Forecast issue, the article highlights the increased scrutiny heaved on perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); improved efforts by manufacturers to engage in training, coaching, hosting town halls, and increasing dialogue on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives; and corporate compliance efforts that manufacturers are pursuing to become more proficient. To read the article, click here.

March 31, 2023

OSHA to Expand the Use of Instance-by-Instance Penalties

EHS Today

In the article, Megan discusses OSHA’s new policy expanding penalties for instance-by-instance (IBI) citations. Reinforcing OSHA’s stated commitment to increased enforcement in the years ahead, these new penalties have the potential to significantly increase the monetary penalty amounts associated with certain violations. Under the new policy, which went into effect on March 27, the IBI policy will now apply to high-gravity serious violations in areas including falls, respiratory protection, and permit required confined space. The new IBI policy will also apply to other-than-serious recordkeeping violations. Employers with certain types of recordkeeping violations could find themselves subject to significant penalties for failures to record or inaccuracies in the records. View the article.

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

January 8, 2024

PFAS will be increasing concern for manufacturers in year ahead

Hartford Business Journal

Published as part of the Hartford Business Journal's 2024 Economic Forecast issue, the article highlights the increased scrutiny heaved on perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); improved efforts by manufacturers to engage in training, coaching, hosting town halls, and increasing dialogue on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives; and corporate compliance efforts that manufacturers are pursuing to become more proficient. To read the article, click here.

March 31, 2023

OSHA to Expand the Use of Instance-by-Instance Penalties

EHS Today

In the article, Megan discusses OSHA’s new policy expanding penalties for instance-by-instance (IBI) citations. Reinforcing OSHA’s stated commitment to increased enforcement in the years ahead, these new penalties have the potential to significantly increase the monetary penalty amounts associated with certain violations. Under the new policy, which went into effect on March 27, the IBI policy will now apply to high-gravity serious violations in areas including falls, respiratory protection, and permit required confined space. The new IBI policy will also apply to other-than-serious recordkeeping violations. Employers with certain types of recordkeeping violations could find themselves subject to significant penalties for failures to record or inaccuracies in the records. View the article.

March 30, 2023

Environmental Laws and Regulations for Emerging Microplastics Concerns Series: Episode 8 - Litigation and Future Predictions

The American Bar Association podcast series, Environmental Law Explored

Megan Baroni appeared on the American Bar Association podcast series, Environmental Law Explored to discuss environmental laws and regulations for emerging microplastic concerns.  Environmental Laws and Regulations for Emerging Microplastics Concerns Series: Episode 8 - Litigation and Future Predictions, Megan and additional podcast guest Sarah Morath, Associate Professor at Wake Forest Law, take a deep dive into future litigation trends in the microplastics realm. Listen to the podcast.

September 15, 2022

Microplastics: Liability and Public Uncertainty

The American Bar Association Litigation Section’s Environmental & Energy Litigation Committee newsletter

The article notes that “(s)cientific studies have established that all of us are exposed to microplastics in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. But the potential human health effects remain uncertain.” It offers an overview of the production and proliferation of plastics since the 1950s and the resultant microplastics when the original plastic products break down or are directly released in the environment; exposure to microplastics and the effects both known and unknown on human health; the impending regulation of microplastics, and with it the likelihood in the rise of litigation, including a closer look at specific cases and lawsuits; and what in the general public can do to help address this environmental threat as regulatory bodies look for “ways to stop microplastics from being released into the environment, as well as to clean up those that are already there.” 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.

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022 teaser
February 2022

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022

January 20, 2022

Microplastics Are in the News, and Manufacturers Are Seeing Lawsuits

IndustryWeek

Megan co-authored the article with colleagues Rachel Henke and Catie Boston of environmental consulting and management firm Roux. The article points out that litigation is on the rise as microplastics are being found increasingly throughout the environment. Microplastics, either manufactured directly or formed as plastics wear through use or breakdown in landfills, can enter the environment in a variety of ways. Cases being filed under federal environmental law, state consumer protection laws, as well as common law are having real impacts on industries that produce and use plastics. In addition, California is leading the way in developing microplastics regulations that may ultimately impact producers and users of plastics. Read the full article here.



March 30, 2023

Environmental Laws and Regulations for Emerging Microplastics Concerns Series: Episode 8 - Litigation and Future Predictions

The American Bar Association podcast series, Environmental Law Explored

Megan Baroni appeared on the American Bar Association podcast series, Environmental Law Explored to discuss environmental laws and regulations for emerging microplastic concerns.  Environmental Laws and Regulations for Emerging Microplastics Concerns Series: Episode 8 - Litigation and Future Predictions, Megan and additional podcast guest Sarah Morath, Associate Professor at Wake Forest Law, take a deep dive into future litigation trends in the microplastics realm. Listen to the podcast.

September 15, 2022

Microplastics: Liability and Public Uncertainty

The American Bar Association Litigation Section’s Environmental & Energy Litigation Committee newsletter

The article notes that “(s)cientific studies have established that all of us are exposed to microplastics in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. But the potential human health effects remain uncertain.” It offers an overview of the production and proliferation of plastics since the 1950s and the resultant microplastics when the original plastic products break down or are directly released in the environment; exposure to microplastics and the effects both known and unknown on human health; the impending regulation of microplastics, and with it the likelihood in the rise of litigation, including a closer look at specific cases and lawsuits; and what in the general public can do to help address this environmental threat as regulatory bodies look for “ways to stop microplastics from being released into the environment, as well as to clean up those that are already there.” 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.

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022 teaser
February 2022

Manufacturing Industry Group Outlook: 2022

January 20, 2022

Microplastics Are in the News, and Manufacturers Are Seeing Lawsuits

IndustryWeek

Megan co-authored the article with colleagues Rachel Henke and Catie Boston of environmental consulting and management firm Roux. The article points out that litigation is on the rise as microplastics are being found increasingly throughout the environment. Microplastics, either manufactured directly or formed as plastics wear through use or breakdown in landfills, can enter the environment in a variety of ways. Cases being filed under federal environmental law, state consumer protection laws, as well as common law are having real impacts on industries that produce and use plastics. In addition, California is leading the way in developing microplastics regulations that may ultimately impact producers and users of plastics. Read the full article here.


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
February 27, 2026

Megan Baroni Recognized as 2026 Nicholas A. Robinson Awardee

Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
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
February 27, 2026

Megan Baroni Recognized as 2026 Nicholas A. Robinson Awardee

Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
May 7, 2025

Six Robinson+Cole Attorneys Named 2025 Stand-out Lawyers

Thomson Reuters
October 9, 2024

Megan Baroni Quoted in Bloomberg Law Discussing New California Law Banning PFAS from Menstrual Products

Bloomberg Law
August 1, 2024

Robinson+Cole Presents 2024 Awards

June 6, 2024

2024 Chambers USA Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
2024 <i>Chambers USA</i> Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas teaser
March 15, 2024

Five Robinson+Cole Attorneys Named Thomson Reuters Stand-out Lawyers

Thomson Reuters
March 6, 2024

Megan Baroni Quoted in Lexology Article on Scaled Down Scope 3 Disclosures and Climate Reporting Rules

Lexology

May 7, 2025

Six Robinson+Cole Attorneys Named 2025 Stand-out Lawyers

Thomson Reuters
October 9, 2024

Megan Baroni Quoted in Bloomberg Law Discussing New California Law Banning PFAS from Menstrual Products

Bloomberg Law
August 1, 2024

Robinson+Cole Presents 2024 Awards

June 6, 2024

2024 Chambers USA Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
2024 <i>Chambers USA</i> Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas teaser
March 15, 2024

Five Robinson+Cole Attorneys Named Thomson Reuters Stand-out Lawyers

Thomson Reuters
March 6, 2024

Megan Baroni Quoted in Lexology Article on Scaled Down Scope 3 Disclosures and Climate Reporting Rules

Lexology

Events


Past

From the Fields to the Courtroom: The Growing Battle Over PFAS in Organics

Feb 4 2026
COMPOST2026
Past

The Connecticut Transfer Act Is Sunsetting on March 1, 2026 — Are You Ready?

Sep 17 2025
Robinson+Cole
Past

From the Fields to the Courtroom: The Growing Battle Over PFAS in Organics

Feb 4 2026
COMPOST2026
Past

The Connecticut Transfer Act Is Sunsetting on March 1, 2026 — Are You Ready?

Sep 17 2025
Robinson+Cole
Past

Leading Through Change: Navigating Today’s Business Risks

Jul 22 2025
National Association for Environmental Management Webinar
Past

It’s the Little Things: Big Questions in Regulating Emerging Contaminants

Apr 4 2024
American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources 53rd Spring Conference on Environmental Law
Past

Beyond GHG, EJ, ESG – OMG, (2023): To – PFAS (2024): More About Protecting Your Assets

Feb 6 2024
International Liquid Terminals Association Environment, Health, Safety & Security Committee Spring Meeting
Past

Microplastic Claims: Litigation Under the Clean Water Act and RCRA, Claims Brought in Derivative Lawsuits

May 3 2022
Strafford
Past

Leading Through Change: Navigating Today’s Business Risks

Jul 22 2025
National Association for Environmental Management Webinar
Past

It’s the Little Things: Big Questions in Regulating Emerging Contaminants

Apr 4 2024
American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources 53rd Spring Conference on Environmental Law
Past

Beyond GHG, EJ, ESG – OMG, (2023): To – PFAS (2024): More About Protecting Your Assets

Feb 6 2024
International Liquid Terminals Association Environment, Health, Safety & Security Committee Spring Meeting
Past

Microplastic Claims: Litigation Under the Clean Water Act and RCRA, Claims Brought in Derivative Lawsuits

May 3 2022
Strafford

Manufacturing Law Blog


Below is an excerpt of Manufacturing Law Blog posts authored by Linn.

Environmental Developments Manufacturers Should Monitor in 2026

Welcome to the last of our three posts with our look ahead to 2026—the environmental edition. If you follow this blog, you have probably sensed a trend: environmental regulation rarely moves in a straight line. This coming year will be no different. Below is a more detailed look at three areas we will be watching this year. 1. PFAS Reporting and Liability Manufacturers will be spending more time thinking about PFAS in 2026. We have been talking about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule for years, and it is expected to become final early in 2026. As we previously reported, this rule will require manufacturers to report certain information on PFAS-containing articles going back as far as 2011. The EPA proposed some important changes to the rule at the end of 2025, including exemptions for de minimis concentrations, imported articles and chemicals used in research and development. Once the TSCA rule is finalized, it will require manufacturers to report extensive information about PFAS uses, production volumes, byproducts, exposures, and disposal. In addition to the federal reporting requirement, states are getting in on the action. If your products travel into Minnesota, Minnesota’s sweeping PFAS‑in‑products statute (Amara’s Law) will require you to report products with intentionally added PFAS. By July 1, 2026, manufacturers will be required to disclose product‑specific PFAS details, including the type and amount of the PFAS in the product as well as its purpose or function. These federal and state reporting obligations create challenges for manufacturers to dive deep into their supply chains in an attempt to gather the required information. For sectors using PFAS indirectly—such as coatings, plastics, electronics, and molded components—the data‑gathering burden may be significant. In addition to reporting obligations, investigation and remedial obligations related to PFAS are on the rise. The EPA plans to maintain CERCLA hazardous‑substance designations for PFOA and PFOS, signaling continued expansion of PFAS‑related cost recovery and cleanup obligations. That means manufacturers with current or historical PFAS use—or who acquired property with legacy PFAS contamination—will likely face increased risk of enforcement actions or third‑party claims. 2. Water Law Uncertainty: WOTUS and NPDES Permitting Changes Water regulation remains a challenge for many manufacturers, and 2026 won’t offer much relief. As my colleagues have previously explained, the continued regulatory back‑and‑forth regarding the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act has left manufacturers guessing as to the activities that will trigger Clean Water Act jurisdiction. This matters because facility expansions, stormwater projects, and wetlands issues all hinge on these key jurisdictional determinations. At the same time, both EPA and states are tightening oversight of NPDES permitting for indirect discharges. Manufacturers whose wastewater enters complex conveyance systems, such as municipal treatment systems, may face additional pretreatment, sampling, monitoring, and recordkeeping obligations as regulators try to close gaps in indirect discharge oversight. Spoiler alert—PFAS are emerging in this context, too. 3. The Patchwork of State Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Laws For manufacturers selling their products into multiple states, the growing patchwork of packaging EPR laws is quickly becoming a compliance challenge. A number of states, including Colorado, California, and Minnesota, now have packaging EPR programs, each with different definitions of producer, different covered packaging materials, and different registration and reporting deadlines. And many states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are poised to follow. The variability in these laws makes it difficult for manufacturers looking to develop a one-size-fits-all approach. Manufacturers should stay on top of these laws and their requirements in an attempt to develop as streamlined a strategy as possible for compliance.

Visit Blog

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

This post was co-authored by Environmental, Energy + Telecommunications group partners Jonathan Schaefer and Emilee Mooney Scott and is being shared on our Environmental Law + blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on developments affecting environmental regulation, we invite you to subscribe to the blog. 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

Environmental, Health, and Safety Outlook for 2025

In putting together our thoughts on this post, it was hard not to think about the elephant in the room (see what I did there?). The change in administration has already brought significant changes in our nation’s environmental priorities. While time will show us all of the specific ways this will play out in 2025, we are already seeing some trends and can expect others to guide manufacturers as to what the Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) landscape might look like over the year. Rollback of Federal Environmental Regulation and Enforcement As my partner, Jon Schaefer, reported earlier this month, even before Lee Zeldin was confirmed as the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, the EPA had temporarily frozen its lawsuits, certain communications, and some final and pending regulations. Several freezes impact per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulations. For example, the EPA instituted a 60-day delay for certain imminent Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) PFAS reporting requirements “for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” The EPA noted that it may further delay the effective date beyond 60 days. The EPA also put a stop to Clean Water Act rulemaking to develop effluent limitations for PFAS for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers point source category. Whether this trend will carry through to the many other rules, both adopted and contemplated, related to PFAS remains to be seen. In the saga of the on-again, off-again Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Climate Disclosure Rule, the SEC recently requested that the Eighth Circuit delay oral arguments in its case defending the rule. As we previously reported, this rule would require companies to report various climate-related information to the SEC. When it became final last year, it was immediately challenged, and the rule’s fate was placed in the hands of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. While it was once moving forward to defend the rule, the SEC is now requesting additional time “to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases.” This could be the first step in the ultimate demise of the rule, at least under the current administration. We will continue to track developments at the federal level. Given the administration’s overall priorities, we expect to see further enforcement and regulation rollbacks on several EHS issues. Uptick in State Action Many states are poised to pick up the slack in the face of decreasing federal action. With regard to climate disclosure laws, California has already passed several requiring climate-related disclosures for entities doing business in the state, with reporting requirements approaching next year. Other states are joining in, with New York and Colorado considering their own climate disclosure laws. And as many of us have already experienced, decision-making related to PFAS is dominated by state law. As the federal government steps back from regulation and enforcement, we can expect many states take up the mantle on various issues. The patchwork of state laws could create a compliance challenge for manufacturers operating in multiple locations around the country. It will be important for manufacturers to remain up-to-date on proposed and final state actions so they can be prepared for new requirements that could pop up in various jurisdictions. Citizen Suit Action In addition to increased state activity, we expect an increase in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws in 2025. Many federal environmental statutes have provisions allowing for citizen enforcement when the federal government fails to do so. These laws also allow citizens to pursue the government for failed enforcement and oversight. Under the first Trump administration, we saw an uptick in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws, and we expect to see the same during Trump 2.0. These lawsuits could hit manufacturers on various topics, including enforcement related to clean water, clean air, and hazardous waste. Citizens may also target the federal government, which could ultimately cause the federal government to take action of its own, even when it was not planning to do so. We expect 2025 to be a busy year in the EHS world. We will continue to track these updates and changes here on the blog.

Visit Blog

EPA Releases PFAS Strategic Roadmap Third Annual Report

As the Biden-Harris administration draws to a close, EPA has issued its third annual report touting the progress made under the PFAS Strategic Roadmap. In the report, EPA notes the major legal, technical, and policy developments it has enacted since the PFAS Strategic Roadmap was adopted in 2021. Those developments include the following: Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances. This final rule will allow EPA and others to pursue potentially responsible parties under CERCLA for PFAS contamination. According to EPA, this designation will ensure that polluters, and not taxpayers, will pay for PFAS cleanups. Creation of Drinking Water Standards for Certain PFAS. This final rule established enforceable drinking water standards for 5 individual PFAS and mixtures of any 2 or more of 4 individual PFAS. These drinking water standards are as low as 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS. Chemical and Product Regulation. EPA has enacted or proposed a number of regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to eliminate and reduce PFAS in commerce. It also is requiring manufacturers and importers of PFAS (including PFAS-containing items) to report PFAS-related information to EPA by (in most cases) January 11, 2026. Issuance of PFAS Enforcement Strategy. EPA issued a PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA, detailing its priorities and plans when it comes to PFAS enforcement. In the policy, EPA makes it clear that it intends to pursue enforcement against manufacturing and industrial entities, and not public entities that operate water and wastewater systems, airports, or fire stations. PFAS-Related Investments. The Biden-Harris administration committed to investing significant funds to address PFAS contamination, including $10 billion to assist communities and water systems impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. Advancing the Science on PFAS. EPA has engaged in a number of initiatives to gather more data about the presence of PFAS in the environment and in products, analyze appropriate test methods, and study potential human health risks associated with a variety of PFAS compounds. EPA also announced future priorities, which include developing effluent limitations guidelines for the PFAS manufacturing sector. If adopted, these guidelines would restrict PFAS in discharges from potentially a number of industrial entities, including metal finishers and landfills. EPA also continues to invest in collecting data from a variety of sources, including wastewater treatment facilities, to further understand where PFAS are being found so it can develop effective ways to address them. Of course, with the impending change in administrations could come a change in EPA’s priorities related to PFAS. The change could also impact initiatives and regulations that are already in place or in the works. We will continue to monitor PFAS developments as we head into 2025.

Visit Blog

PFOA and PFOS Are CERCLA Hazardous Substances – Now What?

EPA recently issued its long-awaited rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Along with the rule, EPA issued PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA. This policy document provides the regulated community with some insight as to how EPA may roll out this rule in practice. According to the policy document, EPA intends to focus its PFOA/PFOS CERCLA enforcement efforts on “responsible entities who significantly contributed to the release of PFAS into the environment, including parties that manufactured PFAS or used PFAS in the manufacturing process, federal facilities, and other industrial parties.” EPA does not intend to use its CERCLA authority to pursue certain public and other entities, such as: Community water systems Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) Publicly owned/operated municipal solid waste landfills Publicly owned airports Local fire departments Based upon how PFAS are being investigated and discovered in the environment, the above entities are often on the front lines of identifying PFAS in the environment. They are also providing important public services. Because of this, EPA intends to focus its enforcement efforts elsewhere. In considering whether to pursue other parties under CERCLA, EPA will consider a number of factors: Does the entity manufacture PFAS or used PFAS as part of an industrial process? Is the entity is actively involved in the use, storage, treatment, transport, or disposal of PFAS? Does the entity perform a public service role? Is the entity a state, local, or tribal government? Based on the above factors, it seems clear that EPA intends to focus its PFAS CERCLA enforcement efforts on the manufacturing and industrial sectors. That enforcement activity could very well arise out of contamination discovered in water systems, POTWs, landfills, etc., but it appears EPA will focus on the manufacturing and industrial entities that may have contributed PFAS to the environment. EPA will also seek to protect the public entities listed above in pursuing CERCLA settlements. For example, when EPA enters into a settlement with a PFAS manufacturer, it may look to secure a waiver of rights to prevent that manufacturer from seeking contribution from certain non-settling parties. EPA may also enter into favorable settlements with the public entities listed above to shield them from lawsuits from other potentially responsible parties. EPA makes it clear that this enforcement policy applies to CERCLA only. EPA further reserves the right to change this policy as the scientific and legal landscapes evolve. That said, for now, it appears that the manufacturing and industrial communities may find themselves in the crosshairs of CERCLA enforcement.

Visit Blog

2024 Environmental, Health, and Safety Outlook for Manufacturers

This week’s post includes an excerpt from our co-authored article “PFAS will be increasing concern for manufacturers in year ahead,” published in the Hartford Business Journal’s Economic Forecast issue on January 8, 2024. PFAS — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — have been on the scene for years now, but we expect to see exponential growth in all things PFAS in 2024. Governmental and private party PFAS investigations have significantly increased and, as they say, when you look for PFAS, you find them. PFAS have been detected in a significant number of public drinking water systems, wastewater treatment facilities, private wells, surface water bodies, fish tissues and elsewhere, both in Connecticut and nationally. Federal and state governments are also increasingly requiring manufacturers and distributors to report whether there are any PFAS in the products they make, use or distribute. All of this investigation and reporting will lead to increased governmental and regulatory knowledge and awareness of the presence of PFAS in the environment and in a wide variety of products. With this increased knowledge comes increased regulatory, scientific and legal action. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made addressing PFAS exposure a federal enforcement priority for 2024-2027. In addition, EPA plans to list two PFAS compounds, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. This will significantly increase the EPA’s ability to require PFAS investigations across the country. And when PFAS are found, remediation typically must occur to minimize public exposure. Increased knowledge of the presence and potential harms associated with PFAS has increased litigation around the country. This litigation trend will continue to grow as we become more and more aware of the ubiquity of these compounds.

Visit Blog

EPA Seeks Public Comment on Environmental Justice Guidance

The EPA is seeking comments on a newly released, revised guidance document regarding the consideration of environmental justice (EJ) concerns in the rulemaking process. The guidance document updates a 2016 version and incorporates new scientific developments, other EPA guidance, and new priorities and policies. The guidance document sets forth both analytical expectations for an EJ analysis, as well as technical methods and approaches that can be used to evaluate EJ concerns for a particular action. Under the guidance document, an EJ analysis should seek to answer the following: Baseline: are there existing EJ concerns that are affected by the action for groups of concern? Regulatory options: are these EJ concerns impacted by the regulatory action? Mitigation or exacerbation of impacts: will EJ concerns be exacerbated, mitigated, or unchanged by the regulatory action compared to the baseline? In analyzing these three questions, the guidance proposes consideration of a variety of methods and approaches, including both quantitative and qualitative data. EPA will consider the impacts of things like exposure to multiple stressors, cumulative exposures, and the susceptibility of a particular population to an adverse health effect (including potential lack of access to healthcare). While the guidance is directed at EPA and considerations it must undertake when going through rulemaking, it will impact the manufacturing community in a variety of ways. First, a more detailed EJ analysis could delay implementation of a variety of environmental regulations or actions that will impact manufacturers. Second, it may result in the need for manufacturers to provide or generate information to support EPA in its analysis. Further, the continued focus on EJ, and this guidance in particular, will likely result in increased public access to the quantitative and qualitative data that is considered during an EJ analysis. EPA will be hosting two webinars in December on the revised guidance. Any comments must be received by EPA on or before January 15, 2024.

Visit Blog

Delta Hit With Greenwashing Lawsuit Over Carbon Neutral Claims

Earlier this week, a class action lawsuit was filed against Delta Air Lines alleging that the company is misleading the flying public with its claims of carbon neutrality. The complaint is the latest in the growing trend of greenwashing lawsuits filed against companies of all kinds alleging that their environmental and sustainability claims do not actually match with reality. In the case, the plaintiff, Mayanna Berrin, alleges that Delta’s claim that it has been carbon-neutral since March 2020 is false and misleading. Berrin acknowledges that Delta has been clear that, at least at present, it achieves carbon neutrality largely by purchasing offsets (after all, that language appears right on the in-flight napkin). And she does not allege that Delta is purchasing an insufficient amount of carbon offsets, at least on paper, to account for Delta’s global emissions. Instead, Berrin criticizes the accuracy and reliability of the offsets issued by voluntary carbon offset market and alleges that these carbon offsets often “overpromise and underdeliver” on their total carbon impact. According to Berrin, these market deficiencies particularly apply to Delta’s offsets, making its claims of carbon neutrality false and misleading. The allegations in Berrin’s complaint are largely based on media reports on deficiencies in carbon offsets generally, as opposed to deficiencies specifically identified in the offsets Delta has purchased. For example, Berrin generally criticizes the offset market for: Unreliable accounting and inaccurate projections, Double and triple counting of projects, The use of non-additional offsets based on reductions that would have occurred regardless of carbon market involvement, Failure to provide immediate offsetting, and Relying on projects that are impermanent (such as creating of forests that are ultimately destroyed by natural disaster). Berrin then alleges that Delta’s own offsets fall victim to these deficiencies. Among other things, the complaint cites to Delta CEO Ed Bastian’s February 14, 2020 announcement that the airline was going carbon neutral by March 2020. The complaint states that, in announcing Delta’s commitment, Bastian noted that carbon offsets are “not the solution.” However, the complaint fails to mention that Bastian also said that Delta would continue to use jet fuel “for as far as the eye can see.” On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Berrin seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and an order from the court to stop Delta from making any claims determined to be false or misleading.

Visit Blog

OSHA to Expand the Use of Instance-by-Instance Penalties

At the end of March, a new OSHA policy will go into effect expanding penalties for instance-by-instance (IBI) citations. The move signals OSHA’s stated commitment to increased enforcement in 2023 and beyond. IBI citations are those for which OSHA could issue multiple citations, with corresponding penalties, for each instance of alleged non-compliance—separate penalties for each machine, each location, each entry, each employee. Under OSHA’s prior policy, which has been in place since 1990, OSHA would only apply IBI penalties for willful citations. Under the new policy, which goes into effect on March 27, the IBI policy will now apply to high-gravity serious violations for the following areas: Falls Machine guarding Respiratory protection Lockout tagout Permit required confined space Trenching Other-than-serious violations specific to recordkeeping In deciding whether to apply the new IBI policy, OSHA will consider certain factors, such as: Whether the employer has received a willful, repeat, or failure to abate violation within the past five years; Whether the employer has failed to report a fatality, inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye; Whether the proposed citations are related to a fatality/catastrophe; and Whether the proposed recordkeeping citations are related to injury or illness(es) that occurred as a result of a serious hazard. OSHA intends to use the new IBI policy to deter employees from maintaining or failing to fully abate certain violations and hopes that it will encourage employers to be proactive in preventing workplace fatalities and injuries.

Visit Blog

2023 Environmental, Health, and Safety Outlook for Manufacturers

This week, we wrap up our forecast of annual trends with a focus on environmental, health, and safety issues that we expect many manufacturers may face this year. 1.  ESG Developments Last year, we reported on the SEC’s Proposed Rule on Climate-Related Disclosures. The SEC is expected to finalize this rule in 2023, perhaps as early as March. The proposed rule is based in part on existing (but not mandatory) frameworks for climate-related disclosures, such as the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures, which some manufacturers might be familiar with – but not all. The proposed rule would require disclosures related to: Governance of climate-related risks and relevant risk management processes; How any climate-related risks identified by the registrant have had or are likely to have a material impact on its business and consolidated financial statements ( in the short, medium, and long term); How any identified climate-related risks have affected or are likely to affect the registrant’s strategy, business model, and outlook; and The impact of climate-related events and transition activities on the line items of a registrant’s consolidated financial statements. Most notably, however, covered companies will be required to report greenhouse gas emissions metrics, both those generated by their own company and, for some, those generated from upstream and downstream activities in their value chain. If this requirement remains in the final rule, it will impose significant data gathering obligations that some companies are already grappling with despite the proposed nature of the rule.  Meanwhile, the SEC has stepped up scrutiny of climate-related and environmental disclosures under its existing rules and guidance. The SEC has issued letters to registrants asking for more information on filings and has even filed lawsuits against registrants based on alleged ESG deficiencies. All signs point to increased activity in 2023. As has consistently been the case, the European Union seems to be a few steps ahead of the United States in requiring ESG-related disclosures. As an example, in late 2022, the EU passed the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which will require covered companies to report on a variety of ESG topics, such as pollution and climate change. The CSRD will apply not only to companies in the EU, but also to non-EU companies with a significant presence there (annual generation of $150 million or more). And, while companies may use foreign sustainability reporting standards as a stand-in for the CSRD standards, the reporting requirements in the SEC proposed rule will not likely suffice. In the midst of all of these reporting obligations, government agencies and the public alike will continue to scrutinize corporate greenwashing claims. Many companies have found themselves in the crosshairs – and the courtroom – when they can’t back up their environmental or sustainability claims. Greenwashing claims are having real consequences on companies in the form of reputation, litigation, and reporting risk. And while all of these new reporting standards are aimed, at least in part, to curtail greenwashing, with ever-increasing stakeholder awareness of ESG issues, greenwashing issues are likely to remain on the minds of manufacturers for the foreseeable future. 2.  Increased OSHA Enforcement Manufacturers can expect OSHA to increase inspections and enforcement in 2023. One noteworthy change that took place at the end of 2022 was an expansion of OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP). Under this program, OSHA prioritizes – and publicizes – certain employers for inspections and enforcement based on criteria regarding the severity of their safety record. In late 2022, OSHA expanded the SVEP to cover even more employers. Now, an employer may find itself on the severe violators list if it meets at least one of the following criteria:  A fatality or catastrophe inspection where OSHA finds at least one willful or repeated violation or issues a failure-to-abate notice if directly related to an employee death or three or more hospitalizations; An inspection where OSHA finds at least two willful or repeated violations or issues failure-to-abate notice based on a high gravity serious violation; or Egregious situations (e.g., extensive violation history, bad faith, intentional disregard for health and safety). Employers that find themselves in the SVEP will be subject to follow-up inspections at the facility in question. OSHA will also conduct inspections at related worksites if it has reason to believe that there could be a broader pattern of non-compliance. Once an employer is part of the SVEP, it will remain on the list for at least three years. However, if an employer will agree to an enhanced settlement that includes, among other things, implementation of a safety and health management system, it may be able to exit the SVEP after two years. Expansion of the SVEP is just one way we can expect to see increased OSHA activity in 2023. Companies that find themselves outside the SVEP may also see increased inspection and more aggressive enforcement as we move through the year, and beyond. 3.  PFAS Are you sick of hearing about per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) yet? I hope not. The theme for PFAS in 2023 is more everything – more science, more investigation, more regulation, more litigation. More from the federal government, the states, the courts, the community, and your counterparts in a transaction. A couple of noteworthy highlights – first, EPA proposes to designate PFAS as a national enforcement initiative for fiscal years 2024-2027. This addition signifies that there will be increased focus on holding polluters responsible for investigating and remediating PFAS contamination, as well as preventing future releases. As part of the designation, EPA would develop a policy regarding enforcement and settlement of PFAS matters under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. Speaking of CERCLA, EPA has proposed to designate two PFAS compounds –perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), –  as hazardous substances. 2023 is the year this rule will likely become final. This designation will have broad impacts across the regulated community. First, as CERCLA hazardous substances, the government and private parties alike will have a clear pathway towards cost recovery and other actions related to PFAS contamination. Most manufacturers know from experience that Superfund sites typically implicate a wide variety of parties, some of whom may have had a very minimal contribution to the contamination at issue. This wide net will be of particular concern for sites with PFOA and PFOS contamination, given their ubiquitous use, presence in the environment, and ability to detect at miniscule concentrations. The designation may also result in the reopening of investigations at Superfund sites where PFOA and PFOS could be an issue but has not yet been addressed.

Visit Blog

Environmental Law +


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