845 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2017), 16-1024, Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition v. Fola Coal Co., LLC

Docket Nº:16-1024
Citation:845 F.3d 133
Opinion Judge:DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:
Party Name:OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION; WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY; and SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. FOLA COAL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant - Appellant. AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFAC
Attorney:Michael Shane Harvey, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph Mark Lovett, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Amici The State ...
Judge Panel:Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and Gerald Bruce LEE, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Diaz and Judge Lee joined.
Case Date:January 04, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
SUMMARY

Plaintiffs, several environmental groups, filed suit against the Fola Coal Company alleging that it had violated the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251, and seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that the company discharged ions and sulfates in sufficient quantities to cause increased conductivity in the Stillhouse Branch tributary and waterway, which resulted in a violation of water... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 133

845 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2017)

OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION; WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY; and SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

FOLA COAL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant - Appellant.

AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION; UTILITY WATER ACT GROUP, Amici Supporting Appellant

No. 16-1024

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

January 4, 2017

Argued: October 27, 2016

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-05006).

AFFIRMED.

ARGUED:

Michael Shane Harvey, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Joseph Mark Lovett, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Amici The State of West Virginia and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.

ON BRIEF:

Robert G. McLusky, Jennifer L. Hughes, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

J. Michael Becher, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, Lewisburg, West Virginia; James M. Hecker, PUBLIC JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Karen C. Bennett, Samuel L. Brown, Brian R. Levey, Kristy Bulleit, HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jan A. Poling, AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C.; Amanda Waters, Erica Spitzig, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES, Washington, D.C.; Linda E. Kelly, Quentin Riegel, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Washington, D.C.; Peter Tolsdorf, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C.; Tom Ward, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Washington, D.C., for Amici American Forest & Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Mining Association and Utility Water Act Group.

John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, David S. Gualtieri, Jennifer Neumann, Environment and Natural Resources Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, Erica N. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; Kristin Boggs, General Counsel, Thomas L. Clarke, Senior Policy Advisor and Counsel, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Charleston, West Virginia, for Amici The State of West Virginia and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.

Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and Gerald Bruce LEE, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Diaz and Judge Lee joined.

OPINION

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:

Several environmental groups brought this action against a coal company, alleging that the company had violated the Clean Water Act and seeking appropriate injunctive relief. After a bench trial, the district court found that the company had indeed violated the Act and ordered it to take corrective measures. The company appeals, principally asserting that its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (" NPDES" ) permit shields it from liability. Because the company did not comply with the conditions of its permit, the permit does not shield it from liability under the Clean Water Act, and the district court properly ordered appropriate remedial measures. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

A.

The Clean Water Act forbids all discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States, unless the discharger holds a permit. 33 U.S.C. § § 1311(a), 1342, 1362 (2012). The Act shields NPDES permit holders from liability if their discharges comply with their permits. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k). A typical NPDES permit lists numerical limitations on specific types of effluents and includes other conditions required for compliance with state and federal law. The Act requires that effluent limits reflect applicable water quality standards. See 33 U.S.C. § 1312(a). These water quality standards may be numerical or narrative, 40 C.F.R. § 131.3(b) (2016), and may, but need not be, contained in a permit.

Under the Act, if a state receives approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA" ), it can administer its own NPDES permitting program. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). EPA reviews and must approve any substantive changes to a state's permit program. See id. In 1981, West Virginia received EPA approval to administer its own permit program and has done so ever since.

West Virginia has promulgated a number of regulations necessary to comply with the national NPDES program. All West Virginia NPDES permits incorporate (either expressly or by reference) numerous provisions of the West Virginia Code of State Rules. These include a series of regulations governing NPDES permits in general, as well as a separate series of regulations governing NPDES permits for coal mining. Compare W.Va. Code R. § 47-10 (2016) (general NPDES regulations), with W.Va. Code R. § 47-30 (coal mine NPDES regulations).

In 1996, Fola Coal Company, LLC obtained a West Virginia NPDES coal mine permit to discharge into Stillhouse Branch, a tributary of Twentymile Creek and a waterway adjacent to Fola's surface mining facility in central West Virginia. Fola applied for and received a renewed NPDES permit in 2009. The provisions of that permit lie at the heart of this case.

B.

On March 13, 2013, three environmental groups -- Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and Sierra Club (collectively " the Coalition" ) -- filed this action under the Clean Water Act's citizen suit provision, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. The Coalition alleged that Fola violated 5.1.f, a West Virginia regulation incorporated in Fola's permit. At the time Fola's renewal permit was issued in 2009, 5.1.f provided: The discharge or discharges covered by a WV/NPDES permit are to be of such quality so as not to cause violation of applicable water quality standards adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection, Title 47, Series 2.

W.Va. Code R. § 47-30-5.1.f (2009). The Coalition alleged that Fola violated 5.1.f by discharging ions and sulfates in sufficient quantities to cause increased conductivity in Stillhouse Branch, which resulted in a violation of water quality standards. Specifically, the Coalition asserted that Fola's discharges violated two narrative water quality standards contained in Fola's permit. See id. § § 47-2-3.2.e, -3.2.i (2016); see infra n.8.

In response to the Coalition's allegations, Fola pointed out that it disclosed the nature of its discharges when it applied for the 2009 renewal permit. At that time, Fola had stated that its discharges would include ions and therefore be highly conductive. Despite this disclosure, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (" WVDEP" ) set no specific limitations on conductivity in Fola's permit. By declining to do so, Fola asserted, WVDEP made an affirmative choice not to impose any limit on conductivity. According to Fola, it followed that 5.1.f did not obligate Fola to limit the conductivity of its discharges even if that conductivity resulted in a violation of water quality standards. Fola reasoned that, because it complied with the effluent limits expressly set out in its permit, the permit shielded it from all liability under the Act.

To gain support for its view that 5.1.f imposed no obligation on it, in 2013 Fola sought clarification from WVDEP regarding a new West Virginia law enacted a year earlier, involving the permit shield. The new law provided that " Notwithstanding any rule or permit condition to the contrary, . . . compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this article shall be deemed compliance for purposes of" the Clean Water Act's permit shield. 2012 W.Va. SB 615 (formerly codified at W.Va. Code § 22-11-6(2) (2013)). WVDEP responded that, in its view, this legislation did not substantively change existing law but simply clarified West Virginia's consistent interpretation of the permit shield. Under this assertedly consistent view, a permit holder need only disclose its discharges of effluents to WVDEP and comply with the effluent limits in the permit. If the permit holder did this, according to WVDEP, the permit would shield the permit holder from all liability under the Clean Water Act.

In 2015, WVDEP attempted...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP