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.