Alaska Cmty. Action On Toxics v. Aurora Energy Servs., LLC
| Decision Date | 03 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–35709.,13–35709. |
| Parties | ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS; Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. AURORA ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; Alaska Railroad Corporation, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Brian Litmans (argued), Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage, AK; Aaron Isherwood and Peter M. Morgan, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
John C. Martin (argued), Susan M. Mathiascheck, and Joshua Kaplowitz, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C., for Defendant–Appellee Aurora Energy Services, LLC.
Denise Ashbaugh, Jeffrey Marc Feldman, and Ralph Howard Palumbo, Summit Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant–Appellee Alaska Railroad Corp.
David S. Gualtieri (argued), Robert G. Dreher, and Aaron P. Avila, United States Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae United States of America.
John A. Treptow, Senior Assistant Attorney General, State of Alaska Office of the Attorney General, Anchorage, AK, for Amicus Curiae State of Alaska.
Jay Christopher Johnson and Kathryn Kusske Floyd, Venable LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Association of American Railroads and National Mining Association.
Karma B. Brown and Karen C. Bennett, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, CropLife America, National Association of Home Builders, Utility Water Act Group.
Ellen Steen and Danielle D. Quist, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American Farm Bureau Federation.
Peter Tolsdorf, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American Petroleum Institute.
Rachel Lattimore and Kristin Landis, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae CropLife America.
Kristy A.N. Bulleit and James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Utility Water Act Group.
Jan Poling, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American Forest & Paper Association.
Rachel L. Brand and Sheldon Gilbert, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Tom Ward, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae National Association of Home Builders.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:09–cv–00255–TMB.
Before: JEROME FARRIS, DOROTHY W. NELSON, and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Alaska Community Action on Toxics and Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants Aurora Energy Services, LLC, and Alaska Railroad Corp. The district court ruled that defendants' non-stormwater discharges of coal into Resurrection Bay, Alaska, complied with the Multi–Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity—a general permit under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—and thus defendants were shielded from liability under the Clean Water Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and hold that the General Permit prohibits defendants' non-stormwater coal discharges. We reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
“Section 301(a) of the [Clean Water Act] prohibits the ‘discharge of any pollutant’ from any ‘point source’ into ‘navigable waters' unless the discharge complies with certain other sections of the CWA.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Cnty. of L.A., 725 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.2013) (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)). “One of those sections is section 402, which provides for the issuance of NPDES permits.” Id. (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1342). “In nearly all cases, an NPDES permit is required before anyone may lawfully discharge a pollutant from a point source into the navigable waters of the United States.” Id. If a discharger is covered by a NPDES permit and complies with that permit, the permit “shields” it from liability under the CWA, even if EPA promulgates more stringent limitations over the life of the permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k); Natural Res. Def. Council, 725 F.3d at 1204. However, any violation of the permit's terms constitutes a violation of the CWA. See40 C.F.R. § 122.41(a); Natural Res. Def. Council, 725 F.3d at 1204.
There are two types of NPDES permit: individual and general. Natural Res. Def. Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 279 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir.2002). “An individual permit authorizes a specific entity to discharge a pollutant in a specific place and is issued after an informal agency adjudication process.” Id. (citing 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.21, 124.1–124.21, 124.51–124.66). A general permit, by contrast, is issued for an entire class of hypothetical dischargers in a given geographical region and is issued pursuant to administrative rulemaking procedures. See id.§ 122.28. Once a general permit has been issued, an entity seeking coverage generally must submit a “notice of intent” to discharge pursuant to the permit. Id.§ 122.28(b)(2). The date on which coverage commences depends on the terms of the particular general permit, such as, inter alia, upon receipt of the notice of intent or after a specified waiting period. Id.§ 122.28(b)(2)(iv). Additionally, the permit issuer may require a potential discharger to apply for an individual permit. Id.§ 122.28(b)(3).
An NPDES permit is required for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p); 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1); Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 344 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir.2003). Under EPA regulations, “stormwater” is defined as “storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(13). “Storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” is defined as “the discharge from any conveyance that is used for collecting and conveying storm water and that is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrialplant.” Id. § 122.26(b)(14). At issue here is the Multi–Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity, first issued in 1995 and since reissued in 2000 and 2008. SeeE.P.A., EPA's Multi–Sector General Permit (MSGP), http:// water. epa. gov/ polwaste/ npdes/ stormwater/ EPA– Multi– Sector– General– Permit– MSGP. cfm (last visited August 13, 2014).
The Seward Coal Loading Facility, owned by defendant Alaska Railroad Corp. and operated by defendant Aurora Energy Services, is located in Seward, Alaska, on the northwest shore of Resurrection Bay. The Seward Facility receives coal by railcar and transfers it onto ships through a conveyor system. Allegedly, this system spills coal into the bay—a non-stormwater discharge. However, the Seward Facility has been covered under the Multi–Sector General Permit since 2001, and defendants argue that any such discharge is authorized by the General Permit.
Plaintiffs disagree, and filed a citizen suit in district court on December 28, 2009. On March 28, 2013, the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the bulk of plaintiffs' claims, reasoning that defendants' non-stormwater coal discharges were covered by the General Permit. After plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the surviving claim, the court entered judgment for defendants.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 694 (9th Cir.2014). In particular, we review de novo “[t]he district court's interpretation of unambiguous terms of [an] NPDES permit.” Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir.1998).
The sole issue on appeal is whether defendants' alleged non-stormwater discharge of coal from the Seward Facility's conveyor system and ship loading area into Resurrection Bay is covered by the General Permit. We interpret general permits as we would a regulation. See Natural Res. Def. Council, 279 F.3d at 1183 (); E.P.A., General Permit Program Guidance 21 (1988), available at http:// www. epa. gov/ npdes/ pubs/ owm 0381. pdf (“[G]eneral permits are considered to be rulemakings....”). “A regulation should be construed to give effect to the natural and plain meaning of its words.” Bayview Hunters Point Cmty. Advocates v. Metro. Transp. Comm'n, 366 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Crown Pacific v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 197 F.3d 1036, 1038 (9th Cir.1999)).
The plain terms of the General Permit prohibit defendants' non-stormwater discharge of coal. In Part 2.1.2.10, the General Permit states: The referenced section (which is actually Part 1. 1.3) lists eleven categories of non-stormwater discharge which are “the non-stormwater discharges authorized under this permit.” None of these categories cover defendants' coal discharge.
Defendants point to other sections of the General Permit to argue that the list in Part 1.1.3 was not intended to circumscribe the universe of authorized non-stormwater discharges. First, they note that Part 8.A.2.2 authorizes certain non-stormwater discharges by timber products facilities beyond those listed in Part 1.1.3. However, although this shows that Part 1.1.3 does not provide an exclusive list of permissible non-stormwater discharges by timber products facilities, it does not disturb our conclusion with regard to the Seward Facility. An examination of the permit's structure shows why.
After establishing general requirements for all covered facilities, the General Permit sets out, in Part 8,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Water Res. Control Bd. v. Baldwin & Sons, Inc.
...a given geographical region and is issued pursuant to administrative rulemaking procedures." (Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. Aurora Energy Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2014) 765 F.3d 1169, 1171.)10 "BMPs are scheduling of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and o......
-
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Schneider Dock & Intermodal Facility, Inc.
...in a given geographical region and is issued pursuant to administrative rulemaking procedures." Alaska Cmty. Action on Toxics v. Aurora Energy Servs., LLC , 765 F.3d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).Recognizing that "[s]tormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources o......
-
Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC
...that were provided in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. Aurora Energy Services, LLC, 940 F.Supp.2d 1005 (D.Alaska 2013), rev'd, 765 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2014). But the Alaska Community Action disclosures are beside the point. Under the first prong of the Piney Run test, the key is that the......
-
Coastkeeper v. Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking
...[Defendants'] NSWDs and unpermitted discharges.” (Opp'n at 20.) Plaintiffs, however, overstate the applicability of the holding in Aurora Energy Services, LLC to the issue before Court. In that case, the Ninth Circuit found that the defendant's discharges were not “shielded from [CWA] liabi......
-
Our Corrosive Oceans: Exploring Regulatory Responses and a Possible Role for Tribes
...Energy Servs., LLC, 940 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1022 (D. Alaska 2013). 134. 940 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (D. Alaska 2013), rev'd on other grounds, 765 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2014). 135. Id. at 1022. 136. In fact, the court clarified that the coal dust pile would indeed be subject to regulation under the NPD......