Previous Events & CLE Programs
June 22, 2009
Committee Meeting
Monday, June 22, 2009 - 12:30p
Topic: The Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern v. United States
Click here for more information
May 18, 2009
Committee Meeting
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 12:30p
Topic: EPA Compliance and Enforcement Update
Click here for more information
April 7, 2009
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 12:30p
Topic: Recent Wetlands Decisions of the Massachusetts Appeals Court: Pollard, Conroy and Conte
Click here for more information
January 12, 2009
Committee Meeting
Monday, January 12, 2009 - 12:30p
Topic: Entergy Corp. V. EPA: The Supreme Court and the Role of Cost- Benefit Analysis under § 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
Click here for more information
December 4, 2008
Committee Meeting
One Year Later: The Streamlined Wetlands Appeal Program
Sponsors
Environmental Litigation Committee
Wetlands, Waterways & Water Quality Committee
Update on the Streamlined Wetlands Appeal Program at the one-year anniversary. Margaret R. Stolfa and Salvatore Giorlandino of MassDEP, and Jeffrey Roelofs, Law Offices of Jeffrey Roelofs, will present. The General Counsel and the Chief Presiding Officer of the Office of Appeals at MassDEP will present their views on how the appeal program is working after one year of experience with the program. Jeffrey Roelofs will present his views as a private practitioner who has litigated administrative cases in the new system. A general discussion and question and answer period will follow.
October 2, 2008
Committee Meeting
Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co: Who will benefit from the SJC’s revised view of 12(b)(6) in Wetlands Litigation at DEP, in the Land Court and in Superior Court?
Sponsors
Environmental Litigation Committee
Wetlands, Waterways & Water Quality Committee
Leading practitioners in wetlands litigation, Richard A. Nylen, Jr., Lynch, DeSimone & Nylen, LLP, and Douglas H. Wilkins, Anderson & Kreiger, LLP, will analyze the recent SJC decision in Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008),and discuss its implications for practice changes in both administrative and court litigation contexts. The decision abandoned a long-standing Massachusetts standard, which had made it virtually impossible for a respondent or defendant to obtain a favorable ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion. The SJC has now adopted the more lenient federal standard for dismissal of complaints for failure to state a claim.
September 4, 2008
Committee Meeting
Bank v. Thermo-Elemental, Inc.: The Most Recent SJC Decision on Chapter 21E
Sponsors
Environmental Litigation Committee
Hazardous & Solid Waste Committee
Lisa Goodheart, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., and Jonathan Sablone, Nixon Peabody LLP, counsel for the parties in Bank, will discuss the case and its implications for practitioners. In Bank, the SJC resolved the long-pondered question whether a party who does not strictly comply with the MCP in performing a cleanup may nonetheless recover its cleanup costs under Chapter 21E. In so doing, the Court also confirmed that attorneys’ fees incurred in the course of implementing the cleanup are recoverable as response costs under Chapter 21E and established a new rule that a party seeking to recover attorneys fees under section 4A of Chapter 21E must affirmatively plead the claim.
June 5, 2008
Committee Meeting
Recent Massachusetts Wetlands Bylaw Court Decisions: Oyster Creek and Tremont Development cases
Sponsors
Environmental Litigation Committee
Wetlands, Waterways & Water Quality Committee
Please join Mary Giorgio, Kopelman & Paige P.C., James Quirk, James H. Quirk, Jr., P.C., and Donald Pinto, Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster as they discuss their experiences as involved counsel in several recent Superior Court decisions, specifically:
- Oyster Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Harwich Conservation Commission and
- Tremont Development Corp. v. Westwood Conservation Commission.
These cases have addressed important procedural issues and scope of review/preemption aspects of project review under local wetlands bylaws. Speakers will focus on the interesting lessons to be learned in this type of project review, permitting and litigation.
May 1, 2008
Committee Meeting
Fallout from New Jersey v. EPA Decision: What's Next for Mercury Regulation?
Sponsors
Environmental Litigation Committee
Air Quality & Climate Change Committee
Join Ann Weeks, Clean Air Task Force, Richard Sugarman, WolfBlock, and Barbara Kwetz, Director of Bureau of Waste Prevention's Division of Planning & Evaluation, as they offer three distinct perspectives on the DC Circuit's recent decision in the NJ v. EPA case.
The decision vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule and EPA's delisting rules regarding mercury, the interesting procedural maneuverings after the decision was rendered, and issues facing DEP in the aftermath of the decision.
April 3, 2008
Committee Meeting
DEP Enforcement Update
Sponsors
Environmental Litigation Committee
Environmental Law Section
Laurie Burt, Commissioner, Margaret Stolfa, General Counsel, and Pamela Talbot, Head of the Office of Enforcement, at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection will provide an update of enforcement successes, initiatives, and priorities.
February 28, 2008
Committee Meeting
USDOT/PHMSA: Federal Hazardous Materials RegulationsApplicability and Enforcement
Sponsors
Hazardous & Solid Waste Committee
Environmental Litigation Committee
Mike Hilder and Margaret Carson, U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ("PHMSA"), will present an introduction on the applicability of Federal regulations to the transportation of all types of hazardous materials by air, rail, highway, and water, and the measures of Federal, State, and local officials to promote compliance with those regulations.
Mr. Hilder, an attorney with PHMSA’s Office of Chief Counsel, will summarize the Federal statutory and regulatory scheme and the relationship of DOT’s authority with that of OSHA, EPA, and the U.S. Postal Service. He will also explain PHMSA’s procedures for conducting civil penalty enforcement cases when investigators discover noncompliance. Ms. Carson, an investigator with PHMSA’s Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement, will discuss PHMSA’s procedures for conducting inspections and observations to investigate whether shipments are being made in compliance with the Federal regulations. They hope to provide insight into measures you can take to help clients achieve compliance and deal with PHMSA in the event that noncompliance is discovered.
February 7, 2008
Committee Meeting
Detoxifying Toxic Tort Claims
Join us as Jan R. Schlichtmann discusses the new creative model he has developed for putting together classes of plaintiffs to pursue toxic tort and environmental damages claims through a trust vehicle. Mr. Schlichtmann will explain his trust model and how he is putting it into action in cases such as the Danvers Explosion. He will also talk about a legislative proposal he is working on to codify the trust form.
Mr. Schlichtmann is a plaintiff's attorneys specializing in the area of consumer, environmental, product, toxic, and mass tort litigation. He has most notably received recognition for his work in the 1980's case against W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods for the contamination of the Woburn City water supply, subject of the national bestseller and movie "A Civil Action."
MEPA Re-invention 2007
The Patrick administration will be implementing significant enhancements to the MEPA program. There are three significant initiatives that will be implemented or started this year:
(1) e-MEPA will allow for electronic filing and record retrieval;
(2) MEPA will coordinate state agency participation in MEPA review of certain projects to incorporate agency permit reviews within the MEPA framework; and
(3) Greenhouse Gas impacts will now have to be documented and offset.
Deerin Babb-Brott, the Director of MEPA, and Ken Kimmel, General Counsel of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs will present this brand new era of an electronic, permit review and carbon offset MEPA program.;R.J. Lyman, of Goodwin Procter LLP and a former Director of MEPA, will discuss how the new MEPA reforms would impact a large development, using the Assembly Square project as an example.
November 14, 2007
Committee Meeting
MEPA Re-invention 2007
The Patrick administration will be implementing significant enhancements to the MEPA program. There are three significant initiatives that will be implemented or started this year:
(1) e-MEPA will allow for electronic filing and record retrieval;
(2) MEPA will coordinate state agency participation in MEPA review of certain projects to incorporate agency permit reviews within the MEPA framework; and
(3) Greenhouse Gas impacts will now have to be documented and offset.
Deerin Babb-Brott, the Director of MEPA, and Ken Kimmel, General Counsel of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs will present this brand new era of an electronic, permit review and carbon offset MEPA program.;R.J. Lyman, of Goodwin Procter LLP and a former Director of MEPA, will discuss how the new MEPA reforms would impact a large development, using the Assembly Square project as an example.
October 4, 2007
Committee Meeting
State Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Automobiles Impact of Vermont Court Ruling in Green Mountain
Sponsors
Environmental Litigation Committee
Air Quality & Climate Change Committee
Join us as Kevin Leske, Assistant Attorney General and counsel for the State of Vermont, and Matthew Pawa, counsel for various NGO intervenors/amici discuss the landmark, first-in-the-nation ruling in which a federal district court judge recognized the right of Vermont to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Mr. Leske and Mr. Pawa will discuss the court's decision in the Green Mountain case, where it leaves the legal controversy over state and federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and what future rulings may be on the horizon.
In the case, brought by the auto industry, the judge wrote that the auto industry had failed to demonstrate either that federal law pre-empted the states from setting the regulations or that such standards were not achievable. Vermont is one of 11 states have adopted California’s “Pavely” standards, and similar cases remain pending in federal courts in California and Rhode Island. In addition, EPA still needs to rule on whether to grant California's request for a waiver that will allow the state regulations to take effect.
|
