Ohio Vally Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. Fola Coal Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-3750
| Decision Date | 19 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-3750 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | OHIO VALLY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOLA COAL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. |
Pending before the Court is a motion by Defendant Fola Coal Company, LLC, for summary judgment. ECF No. 32. Also pending is a motion by Plaintiffs Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc., and Sierra Club ("Plaintiffs") for partial summary judgment and for declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties. ECF No. 34. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32). Also, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 34). Specifically, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and for declaratory relief as to liability for all six Counts, but holds in ABEYANCE Plaintiffs' claims as to the number of violations and for injunctive relief and civil penalties.
Plaintiffs filed this case pursuant to the citizen suit provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("Clean Water Act" or "CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., and the SurfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act ("SMCRA"), 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated these statutes by discharging excessive amounts of selenium into the waters of West Virginia. Before proceeding to the parties' arguments, the Court will first discuss the relevant regulatory framework and then the factual background of this case.
One primary goal of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). To further this goal, the Act prohibits the "discharge of any pollutant by any person" unless a statutory exception applies; the primary exception is the procurement of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342. Under the NPDES, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") or an authorized state agency can issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, provided that the discharge complies with the conditions of the CWA. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. A state may receive approval to administer a state-run NPDES program pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). West Virginia received such approval of its state-run NPDES program in 1982. 47 Fed. Reg. 22363-01 (May 24, 1982). The State's NPDES program is currently administered through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP").
All West Virginia NPDES permits incorporate by reference W. Va. Code R. § 47-30-5.1.f, which states in part that "discharges covered by a WV/NPDES permit are to be of such quality so as not to cause violation of applicable water quality standards promulgated by [W. Va. Code R. § 47-2]."1 States are required to adopt water quality standards in order to "protect thepublic health or welfare, [and] enhance the quality of water," and such water quality standards "shall be established taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation." 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). Each standard "shall consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses." Id.
In addition to being subject to the CWA, coal mines are also subject to regulation under the SMCRA, which prohibits any person from engaging in or carrying out surface coal mining operations without first obtaining a permit from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ("OSMRE") or an authorized state agency. 30 U.S.C. §§ 1211, 1256, 1257. A state may receive approval to administer a state-run surface mining permit program pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 1253. West Virginia received conditional approval of its state-run program in 1981. 46 Fed. Reg. 5915-01 (Jan. 21, 1981). The State's surface mining permit program is administered through the WVDEP pursuant to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act ("WVSCMRA"). W. Va. Code § 22-3-1 et seq. Regulations passed pursuant to the WVSCMRA require permittees to comply with the terms and conditions of their permits and all applicable performance standards. W. Va. Code R. § 38-2-3.33.c. One of these performance standards requires that "[d]ischarge from areas disturbed by surface mining shall not violate effluentlimitations or cause a violation of applicable water quality standards." Id. § 38-2-14.5.b. Another performance standard mandates that "[a]dequate facilities shall be installed, operated and maintained using the best technology currently available . . . to treat any water discharged from the permit area so that it complies with the requirements of subdivision 14.5.b of this subsection." Id. § 38-2-14.5.c.
This lawsuit involves four outfalls operated by Defendant as part of its mining activities in Clay County, West Virginia. Defendant holds WV/NPDES Permit WV1013815, which covers three of Defendant's mining areas: Surface Mine No. 4A (also subject to WVSCMRA Permit S200502), Cannel Coal Point Removal (also subject to WVSCMRA Permit S200605), and Cannel Coal Surface Mine (also subject to WVSCMRA Permit S200307). WV/NPDES Permit 1013815, ECF No. 34-1. Three outfalls discharge material from these operations: Outfall 022 (which discharges into Right Fork of Leatherwood Creek), Outfall 023 (which discharges into Rocklick Fork of Leatherwood Creek), and Outfall 027 (which discharges into Cannel Coal Hollow of Right Fork of Leatherwood Creek). Leatherwood Creek, in turn, empties into the Elk River.
Defendant also holds WV/NPDES Permit WV1017934, which regulates activities at Bullpen Fork Surface Mine. WV/NPDES Permit WV1017934, ECF No. 34-2. This mine is additionally subject to WVSCMRA Permit S200798. Outlet 009 discharges materials from this activity into Bullpen Fork, which in turn empties into Right Fork of Leatherwood Creek.
Both of these WV/NPDES permits require Defendant to monitor and limit the contents and characteristics of its discharges. For example, Defendant must monitor and report the pH ofits effluent. The permits set explicit effluent limits for certain pollutants, namely iron, manganese, and aluminum. Neither permit on its face identifies selenium as a pollutant whose presence must be monitored or limited. Both permits, however, incorporate by reference the WV/NPDES Rules for Coal Mining and Facilities found in Title 47, Series 30, including § 47-30-5.1.f: "The discharge or discharges charges covered by a WV/NPDES permit are to be of such quality so as not to cause violation of applicable water quality standards promulgated by [W. Va. Code R. § 47-2]. . . ." WV/NPDES Permit WV1013815 § C (); WV/NPDES Permit WV1017934 § C (same). This incorporation by reference is in accordance with state rules, which require that the water quality standards rule— among other rules —"be incorporated into the WV/NPDES permits either expressly or by reference." W. Va. Code R. § 47-30-5.
West Virginia's water quality standards promulgated for the protection of aquatic life impose limitations on selenium. Specifically, selenium cannot exceed an acute limitation of 20 µg/l. or a chronic limitation of 5 µg/l. W. Va. Code R. § 47-2, app. E, tbl.2, div. 8.27. The acute limitation is defined as a "[o]ne hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average." Id. § 47-2-9 n.1. The chronic limitation is a "[f]our-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average." Id. n.2.
Plaintiffs filed the pending Complaint against Defendant asserting six causes of action based on Defendant's alleged discharge of selenium from the four outfalls noted above and seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is inviolation of the CWA and Defendant's two WV/NPDES permits. Compl. Count I (as to WV/NPDES Permit WV1013815) & Count IV (as to WV/NPDES Permit WV1017934), ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs base these allegations on the assertion that § 47-30-5.1.f—which prohibits discharges that violate applicable water quality standards—is an enforceable "effluent standard or limitation" for purposes of the citizen suit provisions of the CWA. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(1) (), 1365(f) ().2 Therefore, Plaintiffs argue, Defendant's discharge of selenium in excess of West Virginia's water quality standards is actionable under the CWA.
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant is in violation of the SMCRA, the WVSCMRA, and its WVSCMRA permits. Compl. Count II (as to WVSCMRA permits S200502, S200605, and S200307) & Count V (as to WVSCMRA Permit S200798). These allegations are based on the allegation that the selenium water quality standard is an enforceable performance standard, and therefore, discharges in violation of the selenium water quality standard are actionable.
Lastly, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is in violation of the SMCRA, the WVSCMRA, and its WVSCMRA permits based on its failure to install, operate, and maintain adequate treatment facilities as necessary to prevent discharges that violate state or federal law, namelyunlawful discharges of selenium. Compl. Count III (as to WVSCMRA Permits S200502, S200605, and S200307) & Count VI (as to WVSCMRA Permit S200798).
Each party has filed a motion for summary judgment in part or in full, and those motions have become ripe for resolution. The Court heard oral argument...
To continue reading
Request your trial