Docstoc

Print Doc - Crowell _ Moring

Document Sample
Print Doc - Crowell _ Moring Powered By Docstoc
					                      Richard E. Schwartz




                                                       Practice Areas
              Richard E. Schwartz                       Administrative &
                                                         Regulatory
              Partner
                                                        Environment & Natural
              rschwartz@crowell.com                      Resources
                                                        Litigation
              Washington                                Environmental & Toxic
              1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.             Tort Litigation
              Washington, DC 20004-2595                 Trade Associations
              Phone: 202.624.2905
              Fax: 202.628.5116



Richard E. Schwartz has specialized in environmental law since 1973,
primarily working with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Superfund Act. He focuses on
environmental and toxic tort litigation and has extensive experience dealing
with a wide range of scientific and technical issues in a litigation context.

He was selected by his peers to be included in The Best Lawyers In America
as a "Best Lawyer" in the practice area of environmental law from 2007 to
2010. He was also selected as a "Best Lawyer" for natural resources law in
2009 and 2010. In addition, Richard was selected for inclusion in The
International Who's Who of Environment Lawyers 2007, 2008 and 2010. He
was named in the Chambers USA 2004 "The Client's Guide" as one of
America's leading water quality litigators. In 2008 and 2010, Chambers USA
ranked him among the best environmental lawyers in the District of Columbia,
noting in 2008 that "Commentators identify him as 'a talented and articulate
lawyer.'"

Some of his most important matters are listed below:

In 2010, Richard successfully argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit that the Clean Water Act does not authorize EPA to compel an
animal feeding operation to obtain a permit because it “proposes” to
discharge. The Fifth Circuit also agreed that the Clean Water Act does not
empower EPA to impose penalties on any facility simply for not having a
permit. The Fifth Circuit vacated the EPA regulations that provided otherwise.
National Pork Producers Council v. EPA (No. 08-6193; decided March 15,
2011).

Rich was selected as the lead negotiator for a joint defense group of four of
the nation‟s largest home builders in a comprehensive federal Clean Water
Act enforcement action over storm water discharges from construction sites.




                             Page 1 of 7
                     Richard E. Schwartz


The negotiations successfully avoided litigation and in 2008 culminated in a
common national consent decree used by all four companies.

On January 31, 2005, EPA published in the Federal Register an "Animal
Feeding Operations Consent Agreement and Final Order" that Richard
negotiated with EPA on behalf of a livestock and poultry industry coalition.
This unprecedented consent agreement, which took several years to
negotiate, allows animal feeding operations in the hog, egg, and (if they meet
certain requirements) poultry and dairy industries to obtain temporary
protection from enforcement of the Clean Air Act and CERCLA and EPCRA in
exchange for funding a monitoring study of their emissions. Representing
intervenors, Richard helped successfully defend that agreement in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Association of Irritated
Residents v. EPA (D.C. Cir., decided July 17, 2007).

In December 2004, Richard argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit that the Clean Water Act does not empower EPA to require an
NPDES permit for a facility unless it is actually discharging. He appeared on
behalf of industry petitioners challenging EPA regulations for concentrated
animal feeding operations. In February 2005, the court adopted his analysis
and invalidated EPA's "duty to apply" provisions on precisely this ground.
Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, (2d Cir., decided 2/28/05). This analysis places
important limits on EPA's permitting and enforcement authorities under the
Clean Water Act.

In 2003, in Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. v. Browner, he obtained an order
from Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson invalidating EPA's "toxic release
inventory" program requirement that mining companies report their
movement of rocks (to expose ore) as "releases" of "hazardous substances."
That requirement had made the mining industry appear to be the most
polluting industry in America.

In 2001, he represented LAC Minerals at the hearing where the New Mexico
Water Quality Commission granted the first (and insofar as we know, still the
only) variances to ground water remediation standards ever granted in the
State of New Mexico.

His cases have also involved broader issues of administrative law. On behalf
of the steel industry, he developed and argued the successful industry
position in AFL-CIO v. OSHA, the 1992 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
that vacated 428 OSHA standards. In 1999, he negotiated a unique
"Compliance Audit Program" enforcement agreement with U.S. EPA for hog
farms nationwide. In 2000, he persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit to unanimously reverse the district court and allow
judicial review of EPA preambles, guidance documents and a letter that EPA
used to implement its "toxic release inventory" program. This decision,




                            Page 2 of 7
                     Richard E. Schwartz


Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. v. Browner, established a precedent that should
help companies seeking judicial review of informal agency action.

Richard has defended companies in numerous "citizen suits" by environmental
groups, including the following:

In 1997, he obtained the outright dismissal of a Clean Water Act citizen suit
against a mining company. The case, Amigos Bravos v. Molycorp, Inc., was
dismissed on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction lay in the U.S. Court of
Appeals, barring the citizen suit. The dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit.

In 1995, he developed defenses to a citizen suit in New Mexico under the
Clean Water Act and RCRA that resulted in the outright dismissal of four of
the counts of the complaint on summary judgment. The fifth count was
severely limited, and the companies settled the remainder of the case on
favorable terms. The case, Friends of Santa Fe County v. Lac Minerals et al.,
created unusually favorable legal precedent for industry in a difficult area.

In 1992 he obtained an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit requiring EPA to remove a newly-listed dump site from the
Superfund "National Priorities List."

Since 1980, Richard has routinely advised industrial clients on the federal and
state hazardous waste laws. He has also advised clients regarding the
Superfund Act, and defended them in Superfund litigation. In the
Conservation Chemical Company Superfund case in Kansas City, he spoke for
the approximately 160 third-party defendants in oral argument before the
court on a number of occasions. He also represented that group in settlement
negotiations and helped devise their internal liability allocation agreement.

For the leather tanning industry, Richard won its first Clean Water Act effluent
limitations guidelines lawsuit in 1975; convinced EPA to abandon proposed
Clean Water Act pretreatment standards in 1979; obtained delisting under
RCRA of its solid wastes in 1980; and obtained a favorable settlement in its
second effluent discharge limitations case in 1983.

He represented the steel industry in three lawsuits challenging EPA's effluent
discharge limitations for that industry. A successful 1983 settlement of one of
these suits was praised by the Washington Post as a "creative solution" to a
difficult dispute.

In 1974, Richard represented the steel industry in the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) first toxic pollutant hearings under the Clean
Water Act. From 1974 to 1984, he argued industry's position on numerous
occasions during the many stages of the ensuing litigation.



                            Page 3 of 7
                     Richard E. Schwartz


Richard has handled litigation throughout his legal career. Many of his cases
(involving a variety of environmental laws) have been in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, but Richard has also tried or argued cases
in the Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York; in federal
district courts in Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas; and in state courts in
New York, New Jersey, and Tennessee. He has argued before the First,
Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eleventh, and the District of Columbia Circuits. The
Molycorp case (discussed above) was affirmed on the briefs in the Tenth
Circuit.

Education

      Yale College, B.A. (1970)
      University of Michigan Law School, J.D. (1973) cum laude

Affiliations

Admitted to practice: District of Columbia

Publications

      "Fallout From TVA v. Whitman: When Do EPA Orders Deny Due
       Process?," ABA Environmental Enforcement and Crimes Committee
       Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 2 (February 2007). Co-Authors: Richard E.
       Schwartz and Kirsten Nathanson.
      "Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA: A View From The Farm Groups‟
       Perspective," Water Quality and Wetlands Committee Newsletter, Vol.
       6, No. 2 (August 2005). Co-Authors: Ellen Steen, Richard E. Schwartz
       and Kirsten Nathanson.
      "An Uncertain Outlook for General Permitting Under the Clean Water
       Act NPDES Program," Crowell & Moring Mining Law Monitor, Vol. 22,
       Issue 1 (Spring 2005). Co-Authors: Rich E. Schwartz, Ellen Steen and
       Kirsten Nathanson.
      "A Clean Water Act Primer For the Mining Industry, in Water Quality
       and Wetlands," Mineral Law Series, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
       Foundation (2002). Course Paper Co-Authors: Richard E. Schwartz and
       Ellen Steen.
      "RCRA Hazardous Wastes Handbook," Government Institutes, 12th Ed.
       (2001). Co-Authors: Ridgway M. Hall, Jr., Robert C. Davis, Jr., Richard
       E. Schwartz, Nancy S. Bryson and R. Timothy McCrum.
      "Navigating the New Contours of the Clean Water Act," Rocky
       Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Symposium (Fall 2000). Co-Authors:
       Richard E. Schwartz, Ellen Steen and Mark Koehn.




                            Page 4 of 7
                 Richard E. Schwartz


   "Final Agency Action" and "Ripe For Judicial Review," D.C. Circuit
    Holds, EPA Guidance Documents For The TRI Program (August 2000).
    Co-Authors: Richard Schwartz, Tim Means and Kirsten L. Nathanson.
   "EPA Guidance Documents for the TRI Program Are "Final Agency
    Action" and Ripe for Judicial Review, D.C. Circuit Holds," C&M Mining
    Law Monitor, (August 2000). Co-Authors: Tim Means, Richard
    Schwartz and Kirsten Nathanson.
   "Aggressive Self-Auditing Earns Industry An Enforcement Break,"
    Crowell & Moring Mining Law Monitor (July 1999). Co-Authors: Richard
    E. Schwartz and Ellen Steen.
   "Encouraging Self-Auditing Within the Pork Industry: The Nationwide
    Clean Water Act Enforcement Agreement for Agriculture's First
    Industry-Wide Environmental Auditing Program," 29 ENVIRONMENTAL
    LAW REPORTER 10395 (1999). Co-Authors: Richard E. Schwartz, Steven
    P. Quarles and Ellen Steen.
   "The Superfund Manual," Government Institutes, 6th Ed. (1997). Co-
    Authors: Ridgway M. Hall Jr., Richard E. Schwartz, Robert C. Davis,
    Jr., Nancy S. Bryson and R. Timothy McCrum.
   "Citizen Suits Against Private Industry Under the Clean Water Act,"
    The Environmental Law Manual, American Bar Association (1992).
    Author: Richard E. Schwartz.
   "Getting Specific With OSHA," Legal Times (September 14, 1992).
    Author: Richard E. Schwartz.
   "Navigating EPS's Informational Sea," Natural Resources &
    Environment, Vol. 4, No. 3, American Bar Association (Winter 1990).
    Author: Richard E. Schwartz.
   "The Federal-State „Partnership‟ in Superfund Cleanups: Whose Dump
    Is This, Anyway?," Environmental Hazards: The Superfund, RCRA and
    Toxic Tort Law Advisor, (September 1989). Co-Authors: William L.
    Anderson and Richard E. Schwartz.
   "Structured Settlement Financing For Superfund Site Cleanups,"
    Environmental Hazards, Vol. 1, No. 1 (July 1989). Author: Richard E.
    Schwartz.
   "Citizens Suits Against Private Industry Under the Clean Water Act,"
    Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. XVII, No. 3 (1984). Author: Richard E.
    Schwartz.
   "New Water Quality Standards Regulations." American Bar
    Association," National Resources Law Newsletter, Vol. 16, No. 2
    (1984). Author: Richard E. Schwartz.
   "Attorneys' Fee Awards: When Is 'Whenever Appropriate'
    Appropriate?," Federal Bar News & Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2 (February
    1984). Author: Richard E. Schwartz.




                       Page 5 of 7
                     Richard E. Schwartz


Alerts & Newsletters

      "Supreme Court Reverses the Ninth Circuit and Restores Order to
       Clean Water Act Permitting, Rejecting Reallocation of Permitting
       Authority Over Discharges of "Fill Material" from Corps of Engineers to
       EPA," Environment & Natural Resources Law Alert (Jun.22.2009).
       Contacts: Richard E. Schwartz, Kirsten L. Nathanson, Luke van
       Houwelingen.
      "U.S. Supreme Court Issues Significant Reversal in Key CERCLA Case,
       Narrowing Scope of "Arranger" Liability and Upholding Apportionment
       Principles," Environment & Natural Resources Law Alert
       (May.04.2009). Contacts: Richard E. Schwartz, Kirsten L. Nathanson,
       Daniel W. Wolff.
      "DC Circuit Upholds EPA Consent Agreements With America‟s Farms,"
       Environment & Natural Resources Law Alert (Dec.04.2007). Contacts:
       Richard E. Schwartz, Kirsten L. Nathanson, John Thorne.
      "Eleventh Circuit Holds Justice Kennedy's "Significant Nexus" Test To
       Be Governing Rule Of Rapanos," Environment & Natural Resources Law
       Alert (Oct.25.2007). Contacts: Richard E. Schwartz, Kirsten L.
       Nathanson.
      "D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenges to CAFO Air Consent Agreements,"
       CAFO Update (Jul.17.2007). Contacts: Richard E. Schwartz, Kirsten L.
       Nathanson, John Thorne.
      "EPA Proposes Revised Clean Water Act Regulations for CAFOs in
       Response to Waterkeeper Decision," CAFO Update (Jun.30.2006).
       Contacts: Richard E. Schwartz, Kirsten L. Nathanson.
      "EPA Issues Notice of Intent to Conduct an EIS for the Proposed
       Reissuance of CAFO General Permits for Oklahoma and New Mexico,"
       CAFO Update (May.18.2006). Contacts: Richard E. Schwartz, John
       Thorne.
      "Crowell & Moring Convinces Second Circuit to Hold EPA Regulatory
       Scheme Unlawful ," CAFO Update (May.01.2006). Contact: Richard E.
       Schwartz.
      "EPA Issues New Deadlines for CAFO NPDES Permits and NMPs," CAFO
       Update (Feb.10.2006). Contacts: Kirsten L. Nathanson, Richard E.
       Schwartz.
      "Environmental Appeals Board Ratifies First Group of Air Consent
       Agreements ," CAFO Update (Jan.27.2006). Contacts: Richard E.
       Schwartz, Kirsten L. Nathanson.
      "CAFO Rulemaking Litigation Enters the Briefing Stage," CAFO Update
       (Nov.01.2003). Contacts: Richard E. Schwartz, Kirsten L. Nathanson.




                           Page 6 of 7
                   Richard E. Schwartz


Speaking Engagements

     "Navigating the New Contours of the Clean Water Act," Proceedings of
      the 46th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute (2000). Author:
      Richard E. Schwartz.




                         Page 7 of 7

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:8/28/2011
language:English
pages:7