In May 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) released an updated Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Inspection Program directive. The SST Inspection Program is OSHA’s main site-specific programmed inspection initiative for non-construction workplaces that have 20 or more employees. The SST Inspection Program uses employer-submitted injury and illness information (i.e., Form 300A data) to determine workplaces that will receive comprehensive (e.g., site-wide) inspections. The updated SST Inspection Program now utilizes Form 300A data for calendar years (CY) 2021, 2022, and 2023.

The main focus of the revised program is establishments with high injury and illness rates reported between 2021 and 2023, especially those with inconsistent record-keeping or injury rates exceeding twice the national private sector average. For example, sectors like trucking, warehousing, and nursing facilities tend to have higher Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rates, which OSHA uses to assess injury severity.

This update signals a heightened focus on workplaces in sectors like warehousing, transportation, and healthcare. Employers in these industries should be prepared for increased on-site inspections. Notably, on-site inspections will not just be limited to workplaces with high rates of injuries. Workplaces with lower injury rates are also at risk of being randomly selected to verify the reliability of submitted data.

Other significant updates to the program include:

  • For high-rate establishments, individual establishments will be selected for inspection based on CY 2023 Form 300A data, instead of 2021 data.
  • For upward trending establishments, individual establishments will be selected for inspection based on CY 2021-2023 Form 300A data, instead of CY 2019-2021 data.
  • The low-rate establishments list will be generated using CY 2023 Form 300A data, instead of CY 2021 data.
  • The non-responders list will be generated using CY 2023 data, instead of CY 2021 data.

This update only reconfirms OSHA’s trend towards an increasingly data-driven approach, aiming to target workplaces with the greatest potential hazards. Employers are advised to scrutinize their injury logs and ensure accurate documentation, especially if their data indicates rising or elevated injury rates.

It is also important to keep in mind that while OSHA may begin an on-site inspection for one reason (e.g., injury rates), these inspections often result in citations for unrelated violations observed during the inspection. That being said, with anticipated workforce reductions within OSHA and other budget cuts, OSHA’s ability to maintain a robust number of on-site inspections is uncertain. Nevertheless, employers should proactively review their injury data, address hazards, and ensure compliance to avoid surprises during inspections.

This post was co-authored by Summer Associate Alexandra Prendergast. Alexandra is not admitted to practice law.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 8-0 ruling limited the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the national environmental law that mandates federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions before making decisions. In the May 29, 2025, decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Supreme Court found that substantial judicial deference should be afforded to agencies under NEPA, and that NEPA does not require agencies to consider the environmental effects of projects that are separate in time or place from the project at hand.

The case concerned construction of an 88-mile railroad line connecting Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network to facilitate the transportation of crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. As part of its project review, the Surface Transportation Board (Board) prepared a 3,600-page environmental impact statement (EIS) that addressed significant environmental effects of the project and identified feasible alternatives, as required under NEPA. The Board concluded that the project’s transportation and economic benefits outweighed its environmental impacts and approved the railroad line. Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental organizations challenged the Board’s EIS and final approval order in federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ultimately vacated the Board’s EIS and final approval order, holding that the Board’s analysis of environmental effects should have included reasonably foreseeable impacts from upstream oil drilling and downstream oil refining projects.

The Supreme Court characterized the D.C. Circuit’s decision as belonging to a line of NEPA cases guided by an overly aggressive judicial approach. According to the Court, NEPA is a purely procedural statute that requires an agency to prepare an EIS, but does not require an agency to weigh environmental consequences in any particular way. The Court further emphasized that NEPA is a “procedural cross-check” to inform agency decision-making, not a “substantive roadblock.” It further criticized the use of NEPA by project opponents as a “blunt and haphazard tool” to stop or slow new infrastructure and construction projects. 

When determining whether an agency’s EIS is compliant with NEPA, the Court affirmed that courts should afford “substantial deference” to the agency. The essential determination is “not whether an EIS in and of itself is inadequate, but whether the agency’s final decision was reasonable and reasonably explained.” Thus, courts must defer to agencies so long as they are operating within this “broad zone of reasonableness.”

The Court distinguished Seven County from its recent landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which applied de novo judicial review in cases when an agency interprets a statute. In cases in which an agency exercises discretion granted by statute, judicial review is conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard, under which a court asks whether the agency action was reasonable.

This judicial deference in NEPA cases extends to factual determinations made by agencies about what details are relevant in an EIS. The Court affirmed that an EIS must address the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the project at hand. However, the Court also noted that courts should defer to agencies about the scope of analysis, including decisions about how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place from the project at hand.

Seven County’s limitations on the required scope of agency analysis under NEPA to the direct and indirect environmental effects of the project at hand may streamline agency review of infrastructure, construction, and energy projects. However, uncertainty remains as agencies determine the extent of analysis required during project review, which may differ by agency or types of projects or may change with administrations. The ruling may also cause environmental groups to reconsider when and how to mount challenges to projects under NEPA. 

As recently reported, on May 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior reversed the stop work order it issued on April 16, 2025, thereby allowing the $5 billion, 2 GW, Empire Wind project to proceed. On June 3, 2025, a coalition of Empire Wind opponents sued the Trump administration in federal court in New Jersey, claiming the reversal of the stop work order was unjustified. The plaintiffs assert that the bases for the original stop work order were clearly articulated in the administration’s January 20, 2025, executive order, which halted all offshore wind development pending an investigation and review of all related federal permits by the Secretary of the Interior. The plaintiffs claim that the May 19 reinstatement order, allowing Empire Wind to proceed, was issued without explanation or factual basis, in contravention of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Specifically, they allege that the reinstatement order makes no reference to the results of the “investigation” required by the original stop work order.

In light of the administration’s sudden reversal of a stated policy position, it comes as no surprise that proponents of the original policy are aggrieved. When the reversal comes with no justification or reasoned basis, as plaintiffs allege, the court will need to decide whether it runs afoul of procedures mandated by the APA.

On May 23, 2025, President Trump signed four new executive orders (the Orders) to “usher in a nuclear energy renaissance.” In an article, the White House explained that the Orders provide “a path forward for nuclear innovation” as they “allow for reactor design testing at [Department of Energy (DOE)] labs, clear the way for construction on federal lands to protect national and economic security, and remove regulatory barriers by requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [(NRC)] to issue timely licensing decisions.” Characterizing the Orders as “the most significant nuclear regulatory reform actions taken in decades,” the White House declared that it is “restoring a strong American nuclear industrial base, rebuilding a secure and sovereign domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, and leading the world towards a future fueled by American nuclear energy.” Below is a summary of some of the significant aspects of the Orders.

Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy

  • Finds that the design, construction, and operation of certain DOE-controlled advanced reactors fall within DOE’s jurisdiction.
  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to take actions to reform and streamline National Laboratory processes for reactor testing at DOE, including but not limited to, revising regulations to expedite the approval of reactors under DOE’s jurisdiction to enable test reactors to be safely operational within 2 years following submission of a substantially complete application.
  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to create a pilot program for reactor construction and operation outside the National Laboratories, and to approve at least three reactors under this program with the goal of achieving criticality in each of the three reactors by July 4, 2026.
  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to eliminate or expedite internal environmental reviews for authorizations, permits, approvals, and other activities related to reactor testing.

Deploying Nuclear Reactors for National Security

  • Directs the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Secretary of the Army, to create a program for building and deploying a nuclear reactor at a domestic military installation by September 30, 2028.
  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to take actions to deploy a privately funded advanced reactor to power artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and meet other national security objectives at a DOE site within 30 months.
  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to designate certain AI data centers that are located at or operated in coordination with DOE facilities as critical defense facilities, where appropriate, and the electrical infrastructure that power them as defense critical electric infrastructure.
  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to make available at least 20 metric tons of high-assay low-enriched uranium for private sector nuclear projects powering AI infrastructure at DOE sites.
  • Directs the Secretaries of Energy and Defense to enable the construction and operation of privately funded nuclear fuel facilities at DOE and/or Department of Defense (DOD) controlled sites for use in national security reactors, commercial power reactors, and non-power research reactors.
  • Directs the Secretary of State to take certain actions to promote the U.S. nuclear industry in the development of commercial civil nuclear projects globally.

Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  • Establishes a goal of quadrupling American nuclear energy capacity from 100 gigawatts (GW) to 400 GW by 2050.
  • Directs the reorganization of the NRC and a reduction in force in consultation with the Department of Government Efficiency.
  • Directs the NRC to undertake a wholesale review and revision of its regulations and guidance within 18 months, including but not limited to, establishing:
    • Fixed deadlines to evaluate and approve new reactor license applications within 18 months and applications for the continued operation of existing reactors within one year;
    • Science-based radiation limits, instead of relying on the linear no-threshold model for radiation exposure;
    • An expedited approval process for reactor designs that have been safely tested by the DOD or DOE; and
    • A process for high-volume licensing of microreactors and modular reactors.

Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base

  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to recommend a national policy regarding management of spent nuclear fuel and the development and deployment of advanced fuel cycle capabilities, evaluate policies concerning commercial recycling and reprocessing of nuclear fuels, and make recommendations for the efficient use of nuclear waste materials.
  • Directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to expand domestic uranium processing and enrichment capabilities to meet projected civilian and defense reactor needs.
  • Halts the surplus plutonium disposition program, with certain exceptions, and directs the Secretary of Energy to process and make surplus plutonium available for advanced reactor fuel fabrication.
  • Leverages the authority in the Defense Production Act to seek voluntary agreements with domestic nuclear energy companies for the cooperative procurement of enriched uranium and for consultation regarding the management of spent nuclear fuel.
  • Directs DOE to prioritize the facilitation of 5 GW of power uprates to existing reactors and construction of 10 new large reactors by 2030.
  • Directs DOE’s Loan Programs Office and U.S. Small Business Administration to prioritize funding to support the nuclear energy industry.
  • Seeks to expand the American nuclear workforce by directing the Secretaries of Labor and Education to increase participation in nuclear energy-related training and apprenticeship programs and ordering the Secretary of Energy to increase access to DOE’s National Laboratories for nuclear engineering students.

Overall, the Orders signal a renewed commitment to revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy industry and build upon a well-established bipartisan consensus in favor of nuclear innovation, accelerating nuclear deployment, and strengthening domestic uranium supply chains. Nonetheless, efforts to reduce federal staffing and weaken NRC’s regulatory independence could compromise the viability of the Trump administration’s goal to “unleash nuclear energy in the U.S.,” placing greater importance on sound regulatory execution and legally durable policymaking.

On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior reversed its April 16 stop work order and allowed the $5 billion, 2 GW, Empire Wind project 12 miles south of Long Island to proceed. The move follows an intensive lobbying effort by the project’s developer, Equinor ASA, who coordinated with federal, state, and city officials to get Empire Wind back on track. Unlike other projects affected by the Trump administration’s ban on offshore wind development, Empire Wind had received the necessary federal approvals and was under construction with ships at sea and others on standby when Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to halt construction. Despite the disruption and a costly month’s delay, Equinor still aims for the project to be operational in 2027.

In a statement, Equinor’s president and CEO thanked President Trump directly for allowing the project to continue. It remains to be seen whether the administration, which has demonstrated a transactional approach and willingness to work with commercial and governmental parties caught up in its larger policy pronouncements, will be receptive to the entreaties of other offshore projects impacted by the permitting ban.

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an amendment delaying the data submission period for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule, which will now begin on April 13, 2026, and end on October 13, 2026. Small manufacturers who report solely as article importers will have until April 13, 2027, to complete their submissions. The EPA stated that this delay is necessary to allow additional time for the development of the reporting software. While no other changes are currently planned, the agency is considering reopening certain aspects of the rule for public comment to accommodate potential modifications before the new deadlines.

The interim final rule, published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2025, became effective immediately but remains open for public comment for 30 days. This is the second delay in the reporting timeline. The original requirement was established in September 2023, mandating manufacturers and importers of PFAS from 2011 to 2022 to submit reports. Initially, the reporting period was scheduled to begin on July 11, 2025, but was postponed to accommodate ongoing preparations.

The initial rule aimed to impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements on entities involved in the manufacture or import of PFAS, including those in “articles,” as that term is defined by TSCA, for the years between 2011 and 2022. The EPA explained that delays are primarily due to the need for more time to develop necessary data collection tools and that the agency is considering future rule modifications influenced by efforts to deregulate, such as Executive Order 14219. The agency is also responding to petitions from chemical companies seeking to narrow the scope of the current rule and obtain exemptions consistent with standard TSCA 8(a) reporting provisions.

On the heels of an action by states challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to block federal permits for offshore wind development a lawsuit filed by 15 states on May 9, 2025, claims that the administration misapplied the National Emergencies Act in declaring a national energy emergency.  The emergency declaration, announced in a January 20, 2025, executive order, compels federal agencies to accelerate permit approvals for specified energy projects.  The order excludes solar and wind production from its definition of “energy” and as a result those renewable projects are not subject to expedited permitting.  The plaintiff states, led by Washington and including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, allege the emergency order is unlawful and will cause federal agencies to bypass or shorten critical environmental reviews.  In light of the nation’s strong domestic energy production outlook, the states are claiming that the emergency order is a ruse to implement the administration’s policies that favor oil and gas production and undermine renewable and clean energy development.  The complaint alleges that fast-tracking permit approvals for fossil fuel projects favored by the administration poses an imminent harm to critical habitats and will damage precious resources in affected states. 

While a host of energy projects are covered by the order, no federal agency has yet invoked that authority to issue a permit on an accelerated basis. As a result, the lawsuit may be susceptible to challenges based on principles of ripeness and standing. The states also face an uphill battle in disputing emergency declarations under the National Emergencies Act, which, like other executive actions, are afforded a high degree of judicial deference. 

In this rapidly evolving dispute over the treatment of renewable energy development under the Trump administration, on May 12, 2025, proposed plaintiff-intervenor the Alliance for Clean Energy New York filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the offshore wind development case pending in federal court in Massachusetts. The Alliance seeks to restrain the Trump administration from imposing an effective ban on wind energy development.

Robinson & Cole’s Environmental, Energy + Telecommunications group will continue to track the battle lines being drawn between the administration and those states that have invested in renewable and clean energy, and how those legal disputes may impact project permitting and development.

On Monday, May 4, 2025, a coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia filed suit in Massachusetts District Court over the Trump administration’s efforts to block federal permits for all offshore wind development. The administration’s policy was announced in a January 20, 2025 executive order placing federal permitting of wind projects on hold while the Interior Department reviews applications for offshore leases. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the executive order unlawful and to prevent federal agencies from taking any measures to block or delay wind projects, claiming the it is baseless and unjustified. Several offshore wind projects are under development, having advanced through the long list of environmental reviews required by federal law, while others are in the regulatory pipeline. The plaintiffs note that the executive order contradicts the administration’s simultaneous declaration of a “national energy emergency,” and undermines efforts by the affected plaintiffs to comply with their renewable energy requirements. 

Notwithstanding the executive order, the offshore wind industry has faced economic headwinds in recent years that have resulted in delays, additional costs, and, in some cases, project cancelations. As a result of economic uncertainty and political hostility, the status of offshore wind projects varies widely – Atlantic Shores (1.5GW) off the coast of New Jersey recently had its air pollution permit invalidated by the EPA; Empire Wind (810MW) off the coast of New York is under a stop order issued by the Interior Department; Beacon Wind (2.5GW) off the coast of New York withdrew a key permit application, citing the need to reevaluate the project design; Vineyard Wind 1 (800MW) off the coast of Massachusetts is on track to complete construction in 2025; New England Wind 1 and 2 (2.6GW) off the coast of Massachusetts is fending off lawsuits to reopen its Clean Air Act permits; Southcoast Wind (2.4GW) off the coast of Massachusetts has announced a construction delay; and Revolution Wind (704MW) off the coast of Rhode Island is progressing.

The jurisdictions involved in the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

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.

For the last 40 years, the Connecticut Transfer Act has primarily driven the remediation of contaminated property in Connecticut—this will change early next year.

Currently, the Connecticut Transfer Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134 et seq.) requires site-wide investigation, and potential remediation, upon the “transfer” of an “establishment” as defined by the Transfer Act. Establishments include specifically identified types of businesses (e.g., dry cleaners, vehicle body repair shops, furniture strippers) and sites or businesses that generated 100 kg of hazardous waste in any one month since November 1980. In other words, the Transfer Act applies to commercial and industrial properties and is triggered by real estate or business transfers rather than actual environmental conditions or ongoing operations. While the Transfer Act has spurred remediation over the years, it has also killed deals. With burdensome requirements triggered by the transfer of an establishment, transfers that would have otherwise occurred were not worth pursuing.

All of that is set to change. In 2020, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Public Act 20-09, which sets up a pivot away from the Transfer Act and toward release-based cleanup regulations (RBCRs). For the last four years, a working group co-convened by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and the Department of Economic Community Development has been working through regulatory concepts and advising DEEP on regulatory text. Early this year, DEEP announced its decision to proceed with the regulatory adoption process and sent the regulatory text to the Legislative Regulation Review Committee for approval. On April 22, 2025, following its second round of review, the Committee approved the regulatory text with minor changes.   

Under the RBCRs, a release must be reported, investigated, and remediated, as needed, once it is discovered, regardless of whether or not the property is an “establishment” and independent of any transfer. The RBCRs will apply to all property in the state (subject to exemptions in certain circumstances) rather than a specific subset of commercial and industrial properties. In an important contrast to the Transfer Act, the RBCRs will track individual releases and will not require site-wide investigations. Once the RBCRs are in effect, new transfers will not trigger the Transfer Act; however, sites already subject to the Transfer Act must still achieve a “verification” (i.e., completion of site-wide investigation and remediation) under its purview.

The RBCRs will become effective on March 1, 2026. While that date feels far in the future, DEEP and stakeholders each need the time to prepare. DEEP will need to prepare forms and guidance so it will be ready to receive release reports beginning on March 1. Parties negotiating business and real estate deals will need to understand the new program and decide whether deals slated for this year (and therefore subject to the Transfer Act) can or should wait for next year. Property owners in Connecticut, particularly those with operations that handle hazardous materials, will need to understand how the new regulations interact with the existing spill reporting regulations to require a more robust remediation of new releases. We will provide more detailed discussions of these topics as the effective date approaches. 

Meanwhile, the Connecticut General Assembly is about to enter the final month of the legislative session. DEEP had announced its intention to pursue statutory tweaks (for example, providing an optional site-wide investigation incentive compatible with the RBCRs) at the beginning of the session. While no relevant bills have been passed yet, there is still time for statutory changes before the program is implemented.