Ohio State and Ohio University partner to address climate change policies and their impact on Ohio.

The institutions received ARRA funding to help prepare the State for any future climate change legislation.

Ohio approves Clean Ohio grants to communities for brownfield redevelopment

The grants, totaling almost $800,000, were awarded to Massillon, Columbus, and the Stark County Park District.

Ohio EPA comments on US EPA’s proposal to strengthen its ozone standard.

Ohio EPA focused on the accomplishments it has already made and the difficulty of meeting a more stringent standard.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sends a special inspection team to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant.

The team will investigate recent cracks in control rod drive mechanism nozzles discovered at the site.

American Municipal Power and Ohio DNR announce a carbon offsetting program at Shawnee State Forest.

The program will reforest approximately 25 acres.

Ohio EPA issues Covenant Not to Sue to Steelyard Commons.

Suzanne Fisher and Dave Nash of McMahon DeGulis represented Steelyard Commons through the VAP process.

EPA approves Ohio Surface Coal Mine.

EPA approved a Clean Water Act permit for the mine to be located in Tuscarawas County.

Ohio Department of Development announces new Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund.

Local governments and nonprofits may apply for grants of up to $200,000. Applications are due by April 9, 2010.

EPA awards Cincinnati $500,000 to reduce GHGs.

The City will use the funds to promote GHG reduction to people and businesses in the Cincinnati area.

Ohio EPA issues comments on the GHG Tailoring Rule.

While Ohio EPA supports limiting GHGs, the comments indicate that it would prefer legislation on the matter rather than regulating GHGs through the Clean Air Act.

In light of Sierra Club v. Korleski, Ohio EPA issues new guidance regarding the 10/year exemption for BAT.

Until the exemption is approved as part of Ohio’s SIP, Ohio EPA intends to evaluate new and modified sources on a case-by-case basis.

Ohio EPA issues a new solid waste management plan.

The new plan aims to encourage additional recycling and GHG reductions.

Bill introduced in Ohio House to address electronic waste.

The bill creates obligations for the manufacturers of computers to institute a “take-back” program and reporting requirements for recyclers.

Ohio EPA accepting comments on rule changes regarding the implementation of water quality standards and NPDES permits.

As part of its changes, Ohio EPA would remove the definition for “non-point source” and would allow thermal mixing zones in state lakes and waters designated as Exceptional Warmwater Habitat and Coldwater Habitat. Comments due April 26, 2010.

Sierra Club v. Jones, No. 255633 (ERAC March 17, 2010).

In order to determine whether a permit to install has expired, ERAC sought to determine whether a continuing program to install had started. For such a program to exist, the company seeking a continuation of the PTI must bring forth more than just contracts associated with the physical construction of a facility.

Salem v. Korleski, No. 09AP-620 (Ohio App. Dist. 10 March 23, 2010).

On appeal from ERAC, the Court held that for the issuance of an NPDES permit the rule regarding total dissolved solids does not require data from a 30-day period but rather concomitant evidence.

Ohio Power Siting Board approves first large wind farms in Ohio.

McMahon DeGulis Attorney Dave Nash represented JW Great Lakes Wind Farm before the Power Siting Board. The farm received its approval on March 22, 2010. Located in Hardin County, the farm will span over 3,400 acres and will include between 19 and 27 wind turbines with a total capacity of 50MW.

Kentucky Oil and Refining v. W.E.L., No. 7:09-148 (E.D. Ky March 8, 2010).

The Court granted a preliminary injunction ordering Kentucky Oil to clean up waste on its property, holding that W.E.L. had a substantial likelihood of success on its RCRA claim. As part of its evaluation, the Court stated that W.E.L. need not demonstrate that the waste in question originated with Kentucky Oil, but rather, that the waste was now on Kentucky Oil’s property and presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.

Grizzly Processing v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance, No. 7:08-266-KKC (E.D. KY March 11, 2010).

The effect of a pollution exclusion policy must be based on the specific policy in question. If the policy does not including language limiting “pollution” to that which was expected or intended by the insured, then the court should not read such a limitation into the policy. Furthermore, a federal court need not decline jurisdiction in an insurance case where the claims triggering the insurance policy arise out of state law so long as the facts supporting a state law action are already developed.