FirstName LastName Company Address City State Zip Phone PhoneExtension MobilePhone Email CLE Qualifications Experience PastTopics Topics Preparation Attachment Attachment2 Attachment3 Attachment4 Attachment5 Attachment6 Created
FirstName LastName Company Address City State Zip Phone PhoneExtension MobilePhone Email CLE Qualifications Experience PastTopics Topics Preparation Attachment Attachment2 Attachment3 Attachment4 Attachment5 Attachment6 Created
Mark Behrens Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP 1800 K Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20006 (202) 639-5621 (202) 236-6555 mbehrens@shb.com VA, 31493 I have spoken at yearly FETTI events going back to 2003 and have 30 years of relevant legal experience. Mary Margaret Gay and I are frequent lecturers. We both served on a FETTI panel last year discussing asbestos bankruptcy developments and impacts on civil tort litigation. Yes In addition to speaking at many prior FETTI conferences, I have spoken at DRI and many other conferences. Asbestos Lawsuit Reform: Bankruptcy Trust Transparency and Over-Naming Reform Updates and Practical Pointers. Through 2020, 16 states passed asbestos bankruptcy trust claim transparency laws. In 2020, Iowa passed first-of-its-kind legislation to address over-naming of asbestos defendants. More states are considering both issues. The panel will provide an update on state and federal asbestos legislation and give practical pointers to defense and in-house counsel as to how they can utilize these new state laws. I plan to co-present with Mary Margaret Gay of Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. Mary Margaret Gay Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC PO Box 22803 Jackson, MS 39225-2803 (601) 974-8719 (Direct) MMGay@maronmarvel.com www.maronmarvel.com Yes 2021/03/Behrensshortpersonal.pdf Mar-03-2021 15:43:18
Steven Hoch Clark Hill PLC 1055 W 7th Street Los Angeles CA 90017 310 739 9003 310 739 9003 shoch@clarkhill.com 59505 CA Steven Hoch has over 40 years of experience with both federal and state environmental laws and regulations in the context of permitting, regulatory proceedings, litigation, enforcement actions, water supply, public policy formation, and advice. He also has significant experience in claims of toxic exposures and various consumer, public interest legal issues under both state and federal law. Steven often takes primary roles in many trials and has served as liaison counsel for groups or parties at the request of fellow counsel in a broad variety of cases. He has been involved in several landmark cases, including acting as PG&E's counsel in the case made famous by the movie Erin Brockovich. Steven's goal in his practice is to assist clients, be they governmental or private, to find cost-effective solutions to their issues by using a common sense approach to explore possible resolution of matters and provide economically sensible results. When that is not possible, Steven is well prepared to take the actions necessary to protect his clients’ interests. He has published many articles on a wide variety of subjects and is a sought after speaker at professional conferences on hazardous waste, environmental regulation, groundwater modeling, products liability, toxic torts, and other environmental matters. Yes •Speaker, "Groundwater and the Clean Water Act," American Ground Water Association | American Ground Water Trust Conference, February 20, 2020 •Presenter, "POU/POE SWRCB's Policy — Why, How and Headaches," Metropolitan Water District, January 11, 2018 • Speaker, "Possible Product Liability of Point of Use Devises", Metropolitan Water District, January 11, 2018 March 2018 •Presenter, "The Pitfalls of Water Quality as it Effects Sustainability", California Groundwater Law Conference, May 18, 2017 •Guest Speaker, "What's the Future of the EPA and Its Regulations?, EHS on Tap: The Podcast for EHS Professionals, March 3, 2017 •Others before 2017 Liability for groundwater contamination is an expensive and often litigious issue to grapple with. One of the greatest area of disagreement between the various parties is the source and extent of the contamination. The Supreme Court has just made resolving these issues far more difficult by their ruling last year in the case of County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) (“Maui”). In this case Tthe County of Maui operates four wells at the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility on the island of Maui, Hawaii. The facility functions by gathering sewage from the surrounding area, treating it, and under a permit Injecting approximately 3 to 5 million gallons of wastewater per day directly into groundwater. A test to determine if this wastewater entered the ocean showed that after 80+ days the wastewater traveled roughly half a mile to the Pacific Ocean. The case resolved various federal courts divided on the question of whether a “discharge of a pollutant” is subject to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) occurs when a pollutant is released from a point source and subsequently moves through groundwater before reaching a “water of the United States” which then would require a CWA Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The Maui decision outlines seven non-exclusive factors for the regulated community and permitting authorities to consider when evaluating whether a discharge of a pollutant from a point source that travels through groundwater to a water of the United States is the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge from a point source to a water of the United States. Going through this process is going to be expensive and legally challenging endeavor. How one approaches this is going to be critical. We will explain both the scientific an legal issues impacting a policy of insurance. The factors commented on by the Court are: (1) transit time, (2) distance traveled, (3) the nature of the material through which the pollutant travels, (4) the extent to which the pollutant is diluted or chemically changed as it travels, (5) the amount of pollutant entering the navigable waters relative to the amount of the pollutant that leaves the point source, (6) the manner by or area in which the pollutant enters the navigable waters, and (7) the degree to which the pollution (at that point) has maintained its specific identity. Id. at 1476-77. However, the Court explained that the “functional equivalent” analysis can be further refined through court decisions in individual cases—the traditional common-law method—and through EPA administrative actions or guidance. Id. at 1477. The EPA has issued a draft guidance document concerning Maui. A guidance document does not have the force and effect of law and it does not bind the public in any way, rather it is only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Agency policies. In the draft guidance document EPA says it has identified an additional factor that may prove relevant and thus should be considered when performing a “functional equivalent” analysis: the design and performance of the system or facility from which the pollutant is released. The CWA, EPA’s regulations, and relevant court decisions provide certain threshold conditions that must be satisfied before the legal obligation to have an NPDES permit is triggered. First, there must be (or will be) an actual discharge of a pollutant to a water of the United States. Second, such a discharge must be from a point source. The Maui decision did not modify these two threshold conditions for triggering NPDES permit applicability. Instead, Maui clarified that an NPDES permit is required for only a subset of discharges of pollutants that reach a water of the United States through groundwater—those that are the “functional equivalent” of direct discharges to jurisdictional waters. Maui, 140 S. Ct. at 1468, 1477. Yes 2021/03/StevenHochhasover40yearsofexperiencewithbothfederalandstateenvironmentallawsand.docx 2021/03/LiabilityforContaminatedGroundwaterAffectingaWateroftheUnitedStatesUndertheCleanWaterAct.docx Mar-03-2021 15:38:52