Echoing recent rulings from the District Court for the District of Columbia, on January 16, 2026, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Dominion Energy’s request for a preliminary injunction, lifting the Trump administration’s suspension of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project. Earlier that same week, two other judges in same district  granted similar requests made by Equinor for its Empire Wind project and Ørsted for its Revolution Wind project. Work on the three projects has resumed and, in the case of Revolution Wind, construction is nearing completion.

The three developers successfully argued that the work stoppages would result in imminent and irreparable harm. Justice Department officials countered by claiming that the national security concerns that putatively justified the December 2025 stop work orders outweighed the developers’ economic interests. Thus far, reviewing courts have held that those security concerns, which allege a generalized risk of interference with radar systems, have not been sufficiently articulated. 

While the preliminary injunctions allow the projects to continue, the cases will continue to be litigated on their merits. Concerning the remaining two projects subject to the stop work order, Vineyard Wind is challenging the stop work order in Massachusetts federal court and Sunrise Wind filed for an injunction in the District of Columbia. 

In response to the Trump administration’s latest suspension of offshore wind development, three of the five affected developers have filed lawsuits in federal court seeking to overturn the stop work orders: Dominion Energy on behalf of its Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project; Ørsted on behalf of its Revolution Wind project; and Equinor on behalf of its Empire Wind project. All three projects are under construction, with Revolution Wind nearly 90% complete and Empire Wind over 60% complete. Consistent with prior legal actions opposing the administration’s efforts to halt offshore wind development, the complaints allege that the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) order of December 22, 2025 (which the plaintiffs claim is costing them millions of dollars for each day the projects are on hold), is illegal and that the DOI’s alleged national security justification for the orders is baseless and pretextual. The developers are backed by the Attorneys General of Connecticut and Rhode Island, who filed their own actions to block the shutdowns. Those cases are now consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

To date, federal courts have been receptive to arguments raised by both developers and the states that are relying on offshore generation. Ørsted successfully brought suit in the District of Columbia challenging the DOI’s prior efforts to block Revolution Wind, and on December 8, 2025, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the administration’s blanket ban on permit application review of wind projects was illegal. Ørsted’s prior action in the District of Columbia was heard by Judge Royce Lamberth, who will preside over the newly consolidated cases.  An initial hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 12, 2026.

This is the ninth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

The final task in the remediation process is documenting that remediation is complete, and no further action is required. This post discusses the documentation requirements under the RBCRs, and how they differ from documentation requirements under the Transfer Act.

Verification Under the Transfer Act

First, a review of current procedures under the Connecticut Transfer Act will set the stage. The Transfer Act requires a site-wide investigation and remediation effort. Through this process, all “areas of concern” where a release occurred or may have occurred are investigated and, if needed, remediated. When that is done, a Licensed Environmental Professional, or LEP, prepares a document called a Verification. Typically, the Verification attests that the entire parcel has been investigated in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines, and that the establishment has been remediated in accordance with the remediation standards. When work is complete at a specific geographic portion of the site (but remains underway at other portions) an LEP can prepare a Verification for just the completed portion of the site and save the remainder of the site for later Verifications. Ultimately, efforts at all portions of the Transfer Act establishment parcel must be closed through Verification reports.

After the Verification is submitted, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) may initiate an audit of the Verification within one year after it is submitted. If there is no audit, or if DEEP is satisfied after the audit, then the Verification stands and the Transfer Act process is complete. 

Release Remediation Closure Reports

In contrast to the Transfer Act, the RBCRs do not require a site-wide effort. Instead, the RBCRs require that releases be investigated and remediated as they are discovered (see our prior post on Discovery of an Existing Release). Consequently, documentation will be developed and submitted on a release-by-release basis. 

Under the RBCRs, documentation that a release has been remediated to the extent required will be provided in a “release remediation closure report.” The RBCRs provide a list of the information the release remediation closure report must include, and further detail is provided in the companion blog post. Release remediation closure reports may be prepared by either a LEP or, for less-impactful releases, a Permitted Environmental Professional or PEP. We discussed PEPs in a prior blog post on Immediate Actions.

Release remediation closure reports, and other records (like the tier checklist form discussed in a prior post on Oversight Tiers), will be subject to audit by DEEP, as Verifications are now. The audit process will look a little different under the RBCRs, however. Under the Transfer Act, DEEP audits the final Verification report submitted at the end of the remediation process. DEEP does not audit interim documents like Completion of Investigation reports, although the audit of the final Verification may bring to light issues with those interim documents. By contrast, under the RBCRs, DEEP can audit the release remediation closure report and any other reports required to be signed off by an LEP or certified by a PEP. In other words, interim documents like tier checklists can be audited.

In another change from the Transfer Act, the RBCRs set forth different levels of DEEP review and audit.

  • A screening audit is an administrative review by DEEP performed within 180 days after a release record (like a release remediation closure report, tier checklist, or other document) is submitted. This screening audit may commence and be conducted without notice to the LEP, PEP, or other responsible party.  DEEP may reject a release record after a screening audit and notify the LEP, PEP, or other responsible party that a new release record is required.
  • A focused audit is the review of a single release record and may address the entire record or focus on specific areas.  These may be selected at random or identified through screening audits. Notice is provided, which must include identification of additional information necessary for DEEP to determine compliance. A focused audit may result in acceptance of the release record, the order for a more detailed full audit, or outright rejection of the release record.
  • A full audit is a review of several or all of the release records associated with a release. This also involves notice and identification of additional information needed. Such a full audit can result in DEEP rejecting one or more of the release records and requiring resubmission.

Transfer Act Sites After March 1, 2026

For sites that are enrolled in the Transfer Act before March 1, 2026, the site-wide investigation and remediation process discussed above will still be required after March 1. As noted above, Transfer Act Verifications typically apply to the entire parcel, but Verifications may be filed for a portion of the parcel if that portion has been fully investigated and remediated. A statutory change in the 2025 legislative session broadens this “portion verification” concept to permit remediation of a Transfer Act site to be documented in a release-by-release manner.

Public Act 25-54 provides that any Certifying Party (i.e., the person responsible for completing work on a Transfer Act site) may complete site-wide investigation as required under the Transfer Act and submit to DEEP a report that catalogues each release identified by such site-wide investigation. Once all releases at a site have been catalogued, they can be closed one by one through submission of release remediation closure reports. After all releases have been closed, the Certifying Party may then request from DEEP a letter confirming that all releases have been closed and that Transfer Act work is complete. While this pathway may not be of interest to all Certifying Parties, it might be useful at sites with multiple Certifying Parties who want to more clearly define which party is working on which release areas.

On December 22, citing security concerns, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced that it was pausing leases for all offshore wind projects currently under construction. The stop-work order blocks further construction of Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind 1. All five projects had obtained leases during the Biden administration. Vineyard Wind 1 is already partially operational, with nearly half of the project’s 62 turbines generating electricity. Both Empire Wind and Revolution Wind were the subject of prior stop-work orders, but following negotiations with the Trump administration in the case of Empire Wind and litigation in the case of Revolution Wind, both projects had resumed construction. Currently, only two small wind farms in U.S. coastal waters are fully operational – Block Island Wind off the coast of Rhode Island with five turbines and South Fork Wind off the coast of New York with twelve turbines.

In announcing the work stoppage, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum claimed that “recently completed classified reports” by the Department of Defense (DOD) identified possible radar interference as a potential security risk. Project proponents have noted that the project permitting process included review and approval by the DOD.

This latest stop work order will likely be challenged. Earlier this month, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the administration’s ban on the review of offshore wind permits, a policy announced when President Trump took office, was illegal. There, the court determined that in the absence of a clearly articulated rationale beyond the President’s personal contempt for wind turbines, the offshore ban was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While the DOI’s new stop work order cites emerging national security concerns, a federal court may ultimately need to determine whether it, too, violates the APA. In the meantime, approximately $25 billion worth of projects and an estimated 10,000 jobs face an uncertain future.

This is the eighth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

As remediation projects are planned and performed, the big question is: “How clean is clean enough?” This post discusses remediation standards under the RBCRs, and how those standards will change from the standards in use today.

Sites being remediated under the Transfer Act must achieve compliance with the Remediation Standard Regulations or RSRs set forth at R.C.S.A. § 22a-133k-1 et seq. The RSRs set forth the concentrations of various substances that are permitted to be present in soil and groundwater. 

These standards vary depending on context. For example, at a site that is limited to industrial or commercial use, soil contamination is permitted at higher levels than would be the case for a site that might be in residential use. This is because soil standards are set based on exposure assumptions, and a child playing in the yard would have greater exposure to soil than an adult at work. Similarly, when a site has groundwater that is used or may be used as drinking water, the standards are more stringent than when the groundwater has already been deemed not suitable for drinking.

The RSRs also provide a number of pathways to compliance that serve as alternatives to achieving the numerical standards set forth in the regulations. For example, soil that is contaminated above the numerical criteria is permitted to remain in place, subject to a restriction recorded on the land records called an environmental use restriction (or EUR), when it is under a building and therefore protected from human exposure and movement caused by rain.

These familiar features of the RSRs will remain in place after March 1, 2026. In fact, substantially all of the text of the RSRs will be moved from where it currently resides in R.C.S.A. § 22a-133k-1 et seq. to the new RBCRs at R.C.S.A. § 22a-133tt-1 et seq. The existing RSR sections will be replaced with a cross-reference to the new location in the RBCRs where substantially the same text will reside.  In other words, sites being remediated under the Transfer Act, and releases being remediated under the RBCRs, will be working toward the same set of standards.

Changes to Remediation Standards and Approaches

There are a few changes being made to the remediation standards as we transition from the RSRs to the RBCRs. In addition to the familiar residential and commercial/industrial categories, the RBCRs provide numerical soil standards for two new land use categories:

  • Managed Multifamily: The managed multifamily criteria will be available for parcels with 4 or more dwelling units, provided such dwelling units are managed by an association or a professional property management company. The idea is that such a professional management company can provide rules (like no vegetable gardening for example), intended to keep people safe from residual soil contamination.
  • Passive Recreation: The passive recreation criteria apply to sites subject to an environmental use restriction or conservation easement prohibiting any residential use except passive recreation. Currently, recreation is considered to be a residential activity. Therefore, a property traversed by a bike trail would not be eligible for industrial/commercial standards, because the bike trail would be said to constitute a residential use. Passive recreation is recreation that uses trails or roads for activities such as running, hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Use of specific areas for a sustained period of time, like sports fields and beaches, are not considered passive recreation. Once again, the idea is that these sorts of low-touch activities are less risky than true residential use of property. 

The RBCRs also provide a streamlined process for allowing certain impacted soil to remain in place if it is inaccessible under a building, or a concrete or asphalt surface. If specified criteria are met, such soil can remain in place provided the property owner maintains the covering in good condition, regularly inspects it, provides reports on its maintenance, and properly manages soil that might be exposed during a maintenance activity. An affidavit explaining the situation must be recorded on the land records, but this is expected to be a simpler process than the process required to secure an environmental use restriction. A similar streamlined pathway is available to allow on-site management of historically impacted material, i.e., soil that has been historically intermixed with coal ash, wood ash, coal fragments, coal slag, coal clinkers, or asphalt paving fragments.

With that context, we can clear up a common source of confusion. Many have wondered if the RBCRs are applicable to Transfer Act sites. While certain provisions of the RBCRs are not applicable to Transfer Act sites (like reporting and tiering), the remediation standards of the RBCRs, including the new provisions, are applicable to Transfer Act sites.

In our next posts, we will discuss closure documentation.

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

  1. Compliance Assistance Toolkit
    Enforcement 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.
  2. State and Tribal Coordination
    The 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Clarity and Legal Precision in Findings
    Findings 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.
  5. Timely and Efficient Compliance
    EPA 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.
  6. Reasoned, Transparent Decisions Using LEAPS
    The 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.

On December 8, 2025, a Massachusetts federal court ruled that the Trump administration’s ban on permit application review for offshore and onshore wind projects was illegal.  While the ruling will not necessarily result in the issuance of new permits, it lifts the moratorium on review and processing of applications. In May 2025, a coalition of 17 states, the District of Columbia, and the Alliance for Clean Energy filed suit in federal court to overturn an executive order announced in the early days of the administration that placed all federal permitting of wind projects on hold. In granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Patti Saris agreed that the executive order was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 

The administration had argued both that the executive order was a lawful action within the President’s authority to set energy policy and the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The court was not persuaded.  Defendants overcame the administration’s standing challenge by providing adequate evidence of ongoing or imminent injuries due to the moratorium, including project delays and the states’ inability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With a “scant” administrative record to review, Judge Saris then determined that because “the sole factor the defendants considered in deciding to stop issuing permits was the president’s direction to do so,” the Government had not reasonably considered all relevant issues or reasonably explained its decision, as required by the APA. The administration may appeal the decision.

Even if the ruling withstands a challenge, it will not result in fast tracking or green-lighting new permit applications. While the administration can no longer decline to consider wind projects pursuant to the executive order, nothing compels federal agencies to approve them.

This is the seventh in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

Under the Transfer Act, the majority of site remediation efforts are led by licensed environmental professionals (LEPs).  For a minority of sites with especially serious contamination, remediation efforts are subject to direct oversight by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).  This same basic framework continues under the RBCRs, with the majority of release remediation efforts led by LEPs. This post discusses how different releases are assigned to different “tiers” of oversight, and the impact of such tier assignment.

Some releases discovered and addressed under the RBCRs will be resolved in less than one year. For certain new releases and especially serious existing releases (called “significant existing releases” in the RBCRs) immediate actions are required as discussed in a prior post, and these immediate actions may be enough to completely resolve the release. Other releases will be closed within a year, even if not required, thanks to a straightforward remedial approach. 

If a release has not been closed within one year after occurrence or discovery, the RBCRs provide that it must be assigned to an oversight “tier” based on the risks posed by the release. This applies to both existing releases and new releases. As discussed below, the tier to which a release is assigned controls the oversight, deadlines, and fees associated with a release.

Tiers

In order to assign a release to a tier, an LEP must complete the Tier Checklist Form provided in the appendix to the RBCRs. This Tier Checklist Form must be completed within one year after the occurrence or discovery of the release. Tiers are assigned as follows:

  • Tier 1A: Releases that pose the highest risk and/or are poorly understood. If tier characterization (discussed in the last post) has not been completed, or if required immediate actions have not been completed, then the release is assigned to Tier 1A. Releases are also assigned to Tier 1A if receptors are not known and documented through completion of a scoping level ecological risk assessment, a drinking water receptor survey, and a vapor intrusion survey.
  • Tier 1B: Releases that are better understood than Tier 1A but still higher risk than other releases. These include releases that involve a groundwater plume migrating off the source parcel, releases for which a vapor intrusion pathway is present, and releases for which a drinking water receptor pathway is present. Even if none of the above conditions is true, a release is categorized as Tier 1B until a remedial action plan has been prepared.
  • Tier 2: Releases that pose a lower degree of risk than Tiers 1A and 1B but for which additional remediation is required. For example, Tier 2 releases are those that do not fall within Tiers 1A and 1B but still require soil remediation or the elimination of exposure pathways.
  • Tier 3: Releases for which groundwater is being addressed through monitored natural attenuation and no additional active work is required.

Impact of Tier Assignment

Releases assigned to Tiers 1B through 3 will be managed by an LEP much the way the majority of Transfer Act remediation projects are managed now. Tier 1A releases will be subject to direct oversight by DEEP, like a relatively small proportion of Transfer Act sites today require DEEP to approve the remediation.

Different tiers of releases are subject to differing fees.

 Initial fee (due on tier assignment)Annual fee (due one year after tier assignment and annually thereafter)
Tier 1A$3000$3000 + ($300 x number of years since tier assignment)
Tier 1B$1500$1500 + ($150 x number of years since tier assignment)
Tier 2$1000$1000 + ($100 x number of years since tier assignment)
Tier 3$500$50 + ($5 x number of years since tier assignment)

As set forth in the RBCRs, the annual fee increases by 10% of the base fee amount for every year that has passed since initial tier assignment (i.e., when the Tier Checklist Form is submitted for the first time). In other words, a Tier 3 release would be subject to an annual fee of $70 four years after tier assignment.

Different tiers are also subject to different deadlines:

  • Tier 1A: Within one year after initial tier assignment, Tier 1A releases must either be closed or assigned to a lower-risk tier (i.e., Tiers 1B, 2 or 3).
  • Tier 1B: Within two years after initial tier assignment, Tier 1B releases must either be closed or assigned to a lower-risk tier.
  • Tier 2: Within four years after initial tier assignment, Tier 2 releases must either be closed or assigned to Tier 3.
  • Tier 3: Must be closed within five years after initial tier assignment.

The RBCRs provide that single one-year extensions may be requested for releases in Tiers 1A, 1B and 2. For Tier 3 releases, five-year extensions may be requested and approved as long as the groundwater plume remains in a diminishing state that is naturally attenuating consistent with the conceptual site model.

In our next posts, we will discuss remediation standards and closure documentation.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has been busy reissuing its suite of general permits (GPs) for wastewater and stormwater discharges. In October, DEEP reissued the Commercial Stormwater General Permit, Industrial Stormwater General Permit, and Pretreatment General Permits for Significant Industrial Users and Non-Significant Industrial Users. Below are highlights of significant changes to each reissued GP, as well as important compliance deadlines and considerations for regulated entities.

1. The Commercial Stormwater General Permit (CSGP) covers commercial sites with 5 or more acres of contiguous impervious surface, including shopping centers, business parks, schools, retail complexes, car dealerships, and financial and health services with large campuses. The reissued CSGP includes the following notable changes:

    • Expanded Industry Coverage: The new CSGP uses an updated definition of “Commercial Activities” referencing Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and capturing a broader range of commercial activities than the previous permit. Businesses should review Appendix A of the CSGP to determine if their SIC/NAICS code is listed.
    • New Registration Requirements: Online registration through a yet-to-be-announced platform; $625 fee.
    • Stormwater Management Plan: Required for all registrants, with expanded control measures and annual analytical plus quarterly visual monitoring.
    • Other Updates: Updated control measure requirements including new measures on deicing practices, spill prevention and cleanup, and lawn and garden center Best Management Practices. New quarterly visual monitoring and annual analytical monitoring of 19 parameters to better assess water quality impacts.
    • Deadlines: Registration opens December 1, 2025. Existing permittees must register by April 1, 2026. Existing sites without permit coverage (not previously registered) must register by December 1, 2026. New sites must apply at least 60 days before beginning discharge.
    • Potential Compliance Traps: Many facilities not previously regulated (e.g., large retail, educational campuses) may now be required to register. Failure to review the new SIC/NAICS applicability could result in unintentional noncompliance.

    2. The Industrial Stormwater General Permit(IGP) covers industrial facilities, as defined by SIC/NAICS codes in Appendix A to the IGP, that discharge stormwater to waters of the state. Industrial facilities should check their SIC/NAICS code against Appendix A to the IGP. The reissued IGP includes the following notable changes:

    • Alignment with EPA’s 2021 MSGP: Incorporates new “Resilience Measure” requirements in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) tracking the federal government’s Multi Sector General Permit.
    • Corrective Actions Framework: New requirements for documenting and implementing corrective actions.
    • Annual Reports: Now required each April for the prior calendar year.
    • Electronic Reporting: Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) must be submitted via NetDMR; online noncompliance reporting is now mandatory.
    • Registration Fees: $1,250 for larger companies; $625 for smaller companies, federal, state and municipal-operated industrial activities
    • Signage: Facilities must post a sign indicating permit coverage.
    • Deadlines: Registration opens November 1, 2025. Existing permittees must register by April 1, 2026. New sites must register at least 90 days before discharge.
    • Potential Compliance Traps: If stormwater contacts industrial materials, activities, or operations, it is likely that the facility needs coverage. If all industrial facilities are fully sheltered and qualify under related DEEP rules, such facilities may qualify for a No Exposure Certification. In addition, the expanded monitoring, reporting, and corrective action requirements are more rigorous. Facilities must update SWPPPs and ensure timely electronic submissions to avoid enforcement.

    3. DEEP also reissued two Pretreatment General Permits for Significant Industrial Users (SIU GP) and Non-Significant Industrial Users (Non-SIU GP). The SIU GP covers indirect discharges from significant industrial users (SIUs), including metal finishing, process, and non-process wastewaters, as well as dewatering and remediation wastewaters to sanitary sewers. The Non-SIU GP covers non-significant industrial users (Non-SIUs) not subject to federal categorical standards. DEEP issued a Pretreatment Permit Decision Chart to aid entities in determining which pretreatment permit may be applicable. The reissued Pretreatment GPs include the following notable changes:

    • Updated Definitions: Flow thresholds now based on average monthly flow (≥25,000 gpd of all process wastewater for SIUs).
    • Expanded Coverage: Dewatering and remediation discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are now included in the SIU GP.
    • Application Fees: For SIU GP, between $1,000 and $6,250 depending on the discharge type. For the Non-SIU GP, there is no DEEP fee but the POTWs reserve the right to collect fees associated with initial submission of a Notification Form.
    • Effluent Limits: New limits for mercury, PFAS, pH, temperature, and PCBs. Facilities may need to invest in new treatment or monitoring technologies to meet these limits.
    • Streamlined Process: Certification of No Change is a registration option for existing permittees; Non-SIU GP registration is notification-only.
    • Deadlines: Registration opens December 1, 2025. Existing SIUs and Non-SIUs must register by March 1, 2026. New SIUs must register at least 180 days prior to discharge. New Non-SIUs must submit a Notification Form at least 60 days prior to discharge.
    • Potential Compliance Trap: The removal of Qualified Professional Engineer (QPE) and Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) certification requirements is intended to streamline the process, but new effluent limits (especially for PFAS and mercury) may require operational changes.

    Important Considerations and Practical Tips

    The reissued GPs bring significant changes and expanded coverage to stormwater and pretreatment permit requirements. Regulated entities should carefully review the reissued GPs to determine if their activities are subject to permitting registration and compliance requirements, including electronic registration, updated reporting requirements, application fees, and expanded monitoring, BMPs, and corrective action requirements. Facilities should review and update their plans (e.g., SWPPP, SMP, SPCP) and train staff accordingly. Existing permittees must pay close attention to registration deadlines to maintain interim coverage.

    DEEP has also made it abundantly clear that, in an effort to increase permit processing timelines, incomplete applications will be rejected and a new application, with a new fee, will need to be submitted. DEEP has shared that the most common reasons for incomplete applications in the past were missing or improperly signed Registrant Certification and missing or incomplete sampling data.

    Robinson+Cole’s Environmental group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates concerning DEEP’s general permit and other discharge permitting requirements for stormwater and wastewaters.

    On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army published their proposed rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Following more than a decade of litigation and WOTUS “repeal and replace” rulemaking, the current administration promotes this proposal as fully implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the “significant nexus” test that extended WOTUS status to wetlands and other features if they were found by the agencies or courts to significantly affect the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of traditional navigable waters.

    The proposed rule would establish a narrower scope of federal CWA jurisdiction through several revisions.

    • Actually Navigable and “Relatively Permanent” Water Bodies: Beyond traditionally navigable waters like rivers, lakes, and oceans, WOTUS jurisdiction would only extend to other tributaries, lakes, and ponds if they are standing or continuously flowing surface waters year-round or at least during a wet season.
    • Adjacent Wetlands: WOTUS wetlands would be limited to those abutting (touching) such jurisdictional waters and having continuous surface connections at least during their wet seasons.
    • Interstate Waters: Water features that simply cross state lines would no longer automatically qualify as WOTUS.
    • Clarify Exclusions: The definitions of excluded items such as ditches, prior converted cropland, and waste treatment systems would be clarified. Groundwater would be added to the expressly excluded features.
    • New Definitions: Other important terms like “tributary,” “continuous surface connection,” and “relatively permanent” would be newly defined.

    Recent Guidance and Historical Context

    This proposal follows a series of regulatory and judicial developments, including:

    • March 2025 Guidance: The EPA and the Army Corps issued field guidance on implementing the “continuous surface connection” standard post-Sackett.
    • 2023 Conforming Rule: After Sackett, the agencies amended the January 2023 WOTUS rule to remove the “significant nexus” test and align with the Court’s interpretation.
    • Prior Swings: The WOTUS definition has shifted over the course of multiple administrations – from the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Water Rule, to the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule issued during President Trump’s first term, and finally to the Biden-era revisions adopted in 2023.

    Why It Matters

    The definition of WOTUS determines which waters are subject to federal permitting and enforcement under the CWA, including:

    • Section 402 “NPDES” permits required for the point source discharge of pollutants, including certain stormwater discharges;
    • Section 404 “dredge and fill” permits required for construction and other activities disturbing wetlands; and
    • Section 311 oil spill prevention and response requirements.

    What’s Next

    Expect robust public engagement and continued litigation as this rule moves forward. While EPA and the Army Corps now have the Supreme Court’s direction thanks to Sackett, technical and legal disputes will inevitably arise. The agencies acknowledge that this proposed WOTUS definition would result in significant reductions to the WOTUS features subject to CWA permitting, though they have declined to quantify those ecological and regulatory impacts at this time.

    The focus of the interpretive debate will likely shift to the revised rule’s new standard, “at least during the wet season,” serving as the temporal test that would be required for “relatively permanent” standing or continuously flowing surface water. Though undefined, the agencies indicate that they intend this season to include each extended period when a geographic feature has predictable, continuous surface hydrology, year after year, except for any periods of extreme drought.

    Stakeholders should review the EPA’s proposed rule and fact sheets, take advantage of the agencies’ virtual meetings and other public outreach efforts, and consider submitting comments during the open period ending January 5, 2026. Robinson+Cole’s Environmental Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates concerning these and other CWA programs.