Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 29 Aug 2016
The U.S. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") program is the cornerstone of Congressional efforts to reduce water…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 24 Aug 2016
In Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2016), the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed class certification in a case…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 23 Jun 2016
On June 3, a federal court in California entered a summary judgment ruling finding that two insurers had a duty to defend their insured against…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 9 Mar 2016
To recover cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) from a former owner of…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 20 Nov 2015
NCR Corporation's long-running battle over the divisibility of harm caused by PCB contamination in the Lower Fox River took a strange twist on Monday…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 9 Mar 2015
Hoosier land owners sleep well at night knowing that they are insured against liability for environmental contamination because Indiana does not…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 25 Sep 2014
In Frey v. EPA, 751 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Frey III"), the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in a…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 13 Feb 2012
A federal district court was recently presented several government standards to use in determining whether indoor air contamination from vapor intrusion created an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment to support a citizen suit claim asserted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 49 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B).
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 14 Nov 2011
Ohio EPA has issued a draft general NPDES Permit to cover temporary discharges to waters of the state resulting from clean-up operations or other activities intended to protect human health and the environment.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 8 Nov 2011
In the case entitled In the Matter of Crompton Colors Inc., N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., Case No. A-0778-09T1 (decided Oct. 27, 2011), a property owner was faced with the challenge of having to respond to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s decision to revoke its no further action status for a site cleanup.