Leland P. Frost

Prior to joining KMCL, Leland practiced environmental law at Alston & Bird LLP in Atlanta and Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington, D.C., and before that, Leland was the associate general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers.

Leland received a B.A. in economics, cum laude, from Furman University. He received a J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School, where he was a Dean’s Scholar and served as editor in chief of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law and as an editor on the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review.

During law school, Leland clerked for the Alabama Attorney General’s Office and worked for the Honorable Sharon L. Blackburn and the Honorable John E. Ott at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, Enforcement and Litigation Committee, co-chair

Environmental Law Institute

Speaker, “Clean Water Act Update: Legal and Regulatory Implications of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund,” Alabama State Bar 32nd Annual Environmental Law & Regulation Conference. Miramar Beach, Florida (June 21, 2024).

“Environment, Energy, and Resources Law: The Year in Review 2023,” Chapter E, Enforcement and Litigation, American Bar Association (2024).

Speaker, “New PFAS Reporting Under TSCA,” Georgia Association of Manufacturers Environmental Quality Council (December 14, 2023).

Speaker, “Analyzing the EPA’s Proposal to List PFAS Chemicals as Hazardous Substances,” Environmental Law Institute (January 30, 2023).

“Environment, Energy, and Resources Law: The Year in Review 2022,” Chapter F, Environmental Litigation and Toxic Torts, American Bar Association (2023).

Moderator, “Environmental Laws and Regulations for Emerging Microplastics Concerns,” Environmental Law Explored: A Podcast Series, American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (2022–2023).

“Enviro Assessment Rule May Help Lower Buyers’ PFAS Risks,” Law360 (April 29, 2022).

“Environment, Energy, and Resources Law: The Year in Review 2020,” Chapter F, Environmental Litigation and Toxic Torts, American Bar Association (2021).

“Dueling Navigable Waters Protection Rule Decisions Leave Uncertainty in Their Wake,” Trends, Vol. 52, No. 2, American Bar Association (November/December 2020).

Speaker, “Effectiveness of the Revised National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),” webinar (September 14, 2020).

Speaker, “Legal Trends Impacting Manufacturing,” Montana Chamber of Commerce Business & the Law Conference. Helena, Montana (March 14, 2018).

Speaker, “Regulatory Compliance and Risk Management,” Boating Industry Risk Management Council, The International Boatbuilders’ Exhibition & Conference. Tampa, Florida. (September 20, 2017).

Speaker, “Updates on Risk Management Program Rule Amendments,” American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. Washington, D.C. (April 7, 2017).

Defended a major medical products sterilization company in hundreds of cases against claims arising from alleged exposure to ethylene oxide emissions.

Represented clients in connection with sediment contamination at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site in Oregon.

Advised one of the world’s largest medical waste service providers on medical/infectious waste disposal and hazardous waste management.

Advised major oil and gas company on national environmental financial assurance projects.

Developed regulatory strategies for an industry-leading medical waste disposal company operating autoclaving and incineration facilities across the country, including PFAS incineration and Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction requirements.

Advised clients on PFAS legislation and rulemakings across the country, as well as PFAS supply chain and transaction issues.

Advised an international transportation and logistics company on various environmental matters across the country, including enforcement, transactions, underground storage tanks (USTs), and RCRA and PHSMA compliance.

Led environmental due diligence and risk evaluation for more than 40 mergers and acquisitions, including Fortune 500 clients and industrial and manufacturing companies.

Challenged agency due process and Presidential authority for withdrawal of tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The Court of International Trade found that importers would likely be irreparably harmed by the government's action.

Intervened in a challenge to the EPA’s authority under the CAA for the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule promulgation and 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) Repeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the ACE rule.

Challenged the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule jurisdictional issue with a 9 to 0 win in the U.S. Supreme Court. This win cleared the path for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to ultimately invalidate the rule and remand it to the EPA.

Intervened in support of the TSCA Inventory Reset rule litigation regarding certain confidential information about chemicals used by industry. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit broadly upheld the confidentiality aspects of the rule.

Intervened in litigation as a defendant on behalf of EPA regarding streamlined CAA permit requirements under the New Source Review (NSR) program. The environmental plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case.

Petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking an administrative stay of OSHA’s new rule regulating beryllium. OSHA agreed to undertake a new rulemaking to propose and implement needed changes to the regulation for companies that manufacture and use beryllium.

Challenged the Risk Management Programs rule for chemical facilities and oil refineries under the CAA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the litigation after the EPA delayed enforcement of the rule and proposed a substantive replacement.

Challenged the EPA’s CPP rule regulating carbon dioxide emissions under the CAA. Before the rule became effective, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule pending the resolution of the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held the litigation in abeyance while the EPA proposed a replacement rule—the ACE rule.

Challenged the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases from electric utilities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held the rule in abeyance pending reconsideration by the EPA.