Posts Tagged ‘Clean Water Act’

WV Coal Lab Penalty Upheld

Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 - posted by Dac Collins

The West Virginia Environmental Quality Board upheld a decision by the state Department of Environmental Protection to revoke the certification of Appalachian Laboratories Inc., where employees routinely conspired to violate the federal Clean Water Act.

The Beckley-based water-testing lab had previously appealed the revocation of its state certificate to conduct water testing services for coal companies and other industrial customers, arguing the actions of one employee should not disrupt its entire business. But during the Feb. 25 sentencing hearing of lab employee John Shelton — who will spend 21 months in prison for falsifying water samples — a U.S. judge said, “essentially everyone at the company… participated in some way in this conspiracy.”

Going to Court for Clean Water

Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 - posted by Dac Collins

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Frasure Creek

In mid-March, Appalachian Voices and our partners in Kentucky sued Frasure Creek Mining in federal court for more than 20,000 violations of the Clean Water Act, which could lead to nearly $700 million in fines.

In 2014, Frasure Creek Mining submitted more than 100 reports to the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet that contained false water monitoring data. These reports are supposed to be used to make sure companies are meeting the water pollution limits in their permits, but when companies turn in false reports, that task becomes impossible.

In the first quarter of 2014, nearly half of Frasure Creek’s water monitoring reports were false — they contained data copied from previous reports. In a few cases, violations were removed from reports when they were duplicated.

A few years ago, Frasure Creek was the top producer of coal from mountaintop removal mines in Kentucky. Although Frasure Creek has stopped mining coal for the time being, its mines continue to produce toxic pollution and the company continues to rack up numerous violations from the state for failing to properly reclaim the mines.

If you think all of this sounds familiar, you would be right. We first uncovered similar false reports from Frasure Creek and two other coal companies almost five years ago. The subsequent legal actions are still ongoing. Late last year, inadequate settlements between Frasure Creek and the Cabinet were thrown out by a Kentucky judge, and that decision is now being appealed. We are also attempting to intervene in the state’s enforcement action for these 2014 violations.

Appalachian Voices is joined in these efforts by Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Kentucky Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club and the Waterkeeper Alliance. The citizens’ groups are represented by Mary Cromer of Appalachian Citizens Law Center, attorney Lauren Waterworth, and the Pace Law School Environmental Litigation Clinic.

Going to court for clean water

Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 - posted by eric
A satellite image on Google Earth, taken October 2013, of a mine in Breathitt County, Kentucky, owned by Frasure Creek Mining.

A satellite image on Google Earth, taken October 2013, of a mine in Breathitt County, Kentucky, owned by Frasure Creek Mining.

Last week, Appalachian Voices and our partners in Kentucky sued Frasure Creek Mining in federal court for more than 20,000 violations of the Clean Water Act, amounting to nearly $700 million in potential fines. (Read the press release.)

In 2013 and 2014, Frasure Creek Mining submitted more than 100 reports to the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet that contained false water monitoring data. These reports are supposed to be used to make sure companies are meeting the water pollution limits in their permits, but when companies turn in false reports, that task becomes impossible.

In the first quarter of 2014, nearly half of Frasure Creek’s water monitoring reports were false. Most contained data copied from previous reports.

But what if Frasure Creek copied a report that contained violations of their pollution limits? In a few cases where the first report contained violations, the entire report is copied except for the violations.

A few years ago, Frasure Creek was the top producer of coal from mountaintop removal mines in Kentucky. It recently emerged from bankruptcy and in 2014, the company didn’t produce any coal from its 60 Kentucky mines, a fact that doesn’t seem to have affected Frasure Creek’s parent company Essar, or its billionaire owners, Shashi and Ravi Ruia. Although Frasure Creek has stopped producing coal for the time being, its mines continue to produce toxic pollution and continue to wrack up numerous violations from the state for failing to properly reclaim the mines.

Friday’s lawsuit is the next step in what has been a long fight for clean water and proper oversight in Kentucky. We first uncovered similar false reports from Frasure Creek and two other coal companies 2010, and took legal action. Frasure Creek’s earlier violations have yet to be resolved. Late last year, inadequate settlements between Frasure Creek and the Cabinet were thrown out by a Kentucky judge, and that decision is now being appealed.

Appalachian Voices is joined in these efforts by Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Kentucky Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club and the Waterkeeper Alliance. The citizens’ groups are represented by Mary Cromer of Appalachian Citizens Law Center, attorney Lauren Waterworth, and the Pace Law School Environmental Litigation Clinic.

Read past posts about our clean water lawsuits in Kentucky.

Groups Sue Kentucky Mining Company

Friday, March 13th, 2015 - posted by cat

Contacts:
Eric Chance, Appalachian Voices, 828-262-1500, eric@appvoices.org
Ted Withrow, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, 606-782-0998, tfwithrow@windstream.net
Pat Banks, Kentucky Riverkeeper, 859-200-7442, kyriverkeeper@eku.edu
Pete Harrison, Waterkeeper Alliance, 828-582-0422, pharrison@waterkeeper.org
Adam Beitman, Sierra Club, 202-675-2385, adam.beitman@sierraclub.org

Pikeville, Ky. – A coalition of citizens groups today filed a federal lawsuit against Frasure Creek Mining, LLC, for submitting to the state more than 100 false water pollution monitoring reports from its Kentucky coal mines. The false reports amount to nearly 20,000 violations of the federal Clean Water Act and carry a total maximum penalty of more than $700 million.

>> The lawsuit is available here.(pdf)

The violations occurred at Frasure Creek’s mountaintop removal coal mines in Floyd, Magoffin, Pike and Knott counties in Eastern Kentucky. Frasure Creek, formerly the state’s top producer of coal from mountain top removal mining, is a subsidiary of Essar Group, a multi-billion dollar international corporation based in India. In November, the groups sent Frasure Creek a “notice of intent” to sue after at least 60 day, as required by the Clean Water Act.

“By all indications, this case looks like the biggest criminal conspiracy to violate the federal Clean Water Act in the history of that law,” said Waterkeeper Alliance attorney Pete Harrison.

The pollution discharge monitoring reports are supposed to be used by state regulators to ensure companies stay within the permitted limits for pollutants. The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, however, failed for years to take action on Frasure Creek’s mounting violations.

The mining company has a history of similar false reporting. Almost five years ago, citizens’ groups uncovered falsified pollution reports, which led to two cases against Frasure Creek that have yet to be resolved. In both cases, the cabinet reached slap-on-the-wrist settlements with the company, preempting citizen involvement. In December, a Kentucky judge threw out those settlements. The cabinet is now appealing that ruling.

In January, 59 days after the groups revealed the company’s latest violations, the cabinet took administrative action against the company. The groups have filed to intervene in that action to try to ensure the state appropriately enforces the law.

“Frasure Creek is using false reports to mask serious pollution problems,” said Eric Chance, Water Quality Specialist for Appalachian Voices. “And the cabinet is failing in its duty to enforce the law and protect the people of Eastern Kentucky from dangerous pollution, which is why citizens’ groups have had to step up and do the job through lawsuits like this one.”

“Our state officials have turned a blind eye to what is obviously serious problem,” said Ted Withrow, a member of Kentuckians For The Commonwealth and retired Big Sandy River basin coordinator for the Kentucky Division of Water. “False reporting is widespread within the coal industry, but state regulators have little incentive to identify problems like these when there are false reports that make everything look great.”

“Coal jobs may be leaving the state, but the industry’s legacy of environmental damage is here to stay,” said Pat Banks, Kentucky Riverkeeper. “With declining coal production, we need to be more diligent than ever to make sure companies can’t cut corners at the expense of local residents and the environment. We need healthy people and a healthy environment for Eastern Kentucky to be able to flourish.”

“Self-reported data is the backbone of Clean Water Act enforcement,” said Alice Howell, of the Sierra Club’s Cumberland (Kentucky) Chapter. “When companies like Frasure Creek submit false data it completely undermines all the protections we have in place to make sure our water is safe.”

The citizens groups — Appalachian Voices, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Kentucky Riverkeeper, Sierra Club and Waterkeeper Alliance – are represented by Mary Cromer of Appalachian Citizens Law Center, attorney Lauren Waterworth, and the Pace Law School Environmental Litigation Clinic.

Permits and Payments: Will Duke Energy ever stop polluting?

Friday, March 13th, 2015 - posted by sarah
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources announced a record-high $25 million fine for pollution at Duke Energy's Sutton plant. The agency also updated coal ash permits to at other sites to protect the company. Photo from Duke Energy Flickr.

The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources announced a record-high $25 million fine for pollution at Duke Energy’s Sutton plant (above). The agency also updated coal ash permits at other sites to monitor pollution — and protect the company. Photo from Duke Energy Flickr.

This week, Duke Energy and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources added a new chapter to the coal ash saga.

On the heels of recent news that Duke Energy agreed to pay $102 million to resolve the federal charges for the company’s criminally negligent handling of coal ash at four out of 14 of its coal plants in North Carolina, DENR announced Tuesday that it is charging Duke Energy $25.1 million for coal ash pollution at the Sutton power plant near Wilmington.

$25.1 million is the largest fine DENR has ever issued, and though the fine is substantial, it’s long overdue and does nothing to remedy the pollution problems that persist at the Sutton site (not to mention Duke’s 13 other sites). For a company that made $1.9 billion in profits last year, $25 million isn’t breaking the bank, but it is making a statement. Which raises the question, is it just a statement, or is it a precursor to Duke finally cleaning up its coal ash across North Carolina?

A few days prior to DENR’s announcement of the fine, the agency released updated permit drafts, proposed to “better protect water quality near coal ash ponds until closure plans are approved.” Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, that’s the best part about the permit rewrites, they sound good.

Unpermitted leaks and seeps at Duke’s coal ash ponds that led to the criminal charges filed last month, will now be permitted as legal discharges. Though permitting the pollution will force monitoring, it does nothing to stop or even stymie the toxic discharges.

North Carolina, like the rest of the country, has very few limits on the amount of pollution power plants can discharge directly into our waterways. In fact, the federal rules regulating direct discharges from power plants have not been updated in 32 years, and those rules allow unlimited discharges of many of the toxic constituents in coal ash pollution, including mercury, arsenic, lead, and selenium. By rewriting Duke’s permits, DENR is resolving violations of the Clean Water Act, not by stopping the illegal discharges, but by issuing permits for them.

Accompanying the new permits and record-high payments are vague promises from both DENR and Duke Energy that the coal ash will be cleaned up eventually. Though the state’s coal ash law requires closure plans for all sites by the end of 2016, if a site is categorized as low priority, Duke will be allowed to simply “cap-in-place” its coal ash. “Cap-in-place” is a questionable practice that comes with the risk of continued contamination from ponds near waterways or sitting in groundwater. For the 10 communities that have yet to be categorized as low, medium, or high priority, this is a huge concern.

It appears that Duke Energy is working hard to clean up its image and settle the numerous lawsuits it faces. On Tuesday, the company announced that it would pay $146 million to settle a lawsuit related to the company’s 2012 merger with Progress Energy. Once again, the sum is substantial in comparison to similar settlement agreements, indicating that Duke Energy’s deceit was substantial in this case as well.

Both DENR and Duke Energy want North Carolinians to believe they are doing the right thing. Only time will tell if the company will uphold its vague promises and stop polluting North Carolina communities and their drinking water with coal ash.

Apologies for the Dan River spill, guilt for coal ash crimes

Thursday, February 26th, 2015 - posted by brian
Facing federal criminal charges stemming from the Dan River spill and pollution at other sites across North Carolina, Duke will pay for its coal ash crimes.

Facing federal criminal charges stemming from the Dan River spill and pollution at other sites across North Carolina, Duke will pay for its coal ash crimes.

Duke Energy likes to use a tagline that goes something like “For more than 100 years we’ve been providing customers with reliable, affordable electricity at the flip of a switch.”

It’s boilerplate, but it works. So I doubt the company will amend that punchy bit of self-praise to include “and we were recently found criminally negligent for polluting North Carolina rivers with coal ash.”

Even so, a year after the Dan River spill, Duke seems to understand that coal ash pollution has its own chapter in the company’s corporate story. Now, Duke will pay for its crimes.

The bombshell news came in two pieces around the same time last Friday; the U.S. Department of Justice announced the charges and Duke announced it struck a deal with prosecutors. A few days before the big reveal, Duke told shareholders in an earnings report that it set aside $100 million to resolve the federal investigation that began after the Dan River spill.

The company faces nine misdemeanor charges for violating the federal Clean Water Act at multiple coal ash sites across the state. On Friday, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western, Middle and Eastern Districts of North Carolina each filed charges in their respective federal courts, related to violations that occurred at coal ash ponds owned by Duke in their respective districts.

According to DOJ, Duke was criminally negligent in discharging coal ash and coal ash wastewater from storage ponds its Dan River, Asheville, Lee, and Riverbend plants into North Carolina rivers. Violations related to equipment upkeep were found at the Cape Fear Steam Station, where Duke was cited by the state for illegally pumping 61 million gallons of toxic water from a coal ash pit into the Cape Fear River last year.

The DOJ’s press release makes clear that the filing of charges is not a finding of guilt, and most prominent news outlets left any indication that Duke is guilty of its coal ash crimes out of their coverage. We decided to use the word “guilty” in our press release largely because a proposed plea agreement including millions in fines had been reached.

Read one of the three criminal "bills of information" detailing charges against Duke Energy (PDF).

Read one of the three criminal “bills of information” detailing charges against Duke Energy (PDF).

Also, in a consent to transfer the plea and sentencing proceedings to the Eastern District court, an attorney for Duke wrote: “… the Defendants wish to plead guilty to the offenses charged.”

Of course, Duke steered clear from the words “guilty” or “plea” in its own announcement. But, as the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Frank Holleman told the Charlotte Observer, “When anyone pays $100 million to resolve a grand jury investigation, that indicates something serious happened.”

There’s still a lot of specifics we don’t know about the agreement between prosecutors and Duke. Prosecutors say they won’t comment until after court proceedings where the agreement must be approved by a federal judge.

It’s important to note, though, that this is a plea bargain to resolve a criminal investigation, not a settlement to avoid a civil trial. The proposed agreement includes $68.2 million in fines and restitution and $34 million for community service and mitigation. The fines cannot be passed on to customers, meaning Duke’s shareholders will take the hit.

Importantly, the agreement would also put Duke on probation for five years, during which a court-appointed monitor would ensure compliance with provisions related to training, audits and reporting. According to Duke, the full agreement will be made public if it is accepted by the court.

“We are sorry for the Dan River spill, and remain grateful to our friends and neighbors for your support,” Duke CEO Lynn Good said in a statement. “We are committed to moving forward in a safe and responsible way.”

For a year Duke has been saying sorry to its customers and communities along the Dan River — basically demanding that it be held to a higher standard. So even though the company is no longer in crisis mode, it’s still watching its back as it tries to repair its reputation and move beyond the spill.

The problem of coal ash pollution in North Carolina is far from resolved. According to Duke’s own assessment, 200 seeps at its power plants leak nearly 3 million gallons of polluted water into streams and rivers every year. Just yesterday, Duke was cited for contaminating groundwater at its Asheville Plant.

In addition to investigating Duke Energy, federal prosecutors subpoenaed current and former employees of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the North Carolina Utilities Commission, which used to regulate coal ash ponds. But none of the charges against Duke allege any improper, or illegal, dealings between the company and state regulators.

Without clarification from the U.S. Attorney’s office, it’s unclear whether the grand jury has finished its work, only finding Duke in the wrong, or if an investigation into actions of DENR is ongoing.

“While prosecutors aren’t legally obliged to explain charges they don’t file, in this case the public needs more substantial disclosures,” the Fayetteville Observer wrote in an editorial. “The Justice Department needs to let us know whether a cloud of suspicion remains over DENR.”

Subscribe to the Front Porch Blog to receive regular updates. 

Groups Seek to Ensure Ky. Enforces Clean Water Law

Monday, February 23rd, 2015 - posted by cat

Contacts:

  • Eric Chance, Appalachian Voices, 828-262-1500, eric@appvoices.org
  • Ted Withrow, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, 606-782-0998 (c), tfwithrow@windstream.net
  • Pat Banks, Kentucky Riverkeeper, 859-200-7442, kyriverkeeper@eku.edu
  • Pete Harrison, Waterkeeper Alliance, 828-582-0422, pharrison@waterkeeper.org
  • Adam Beitman, Sierra Club, 202-675-2385, adam.beitman@sierraclub.org

Frankfort – A coalition of citizens groups today filed a motion to intervene in a state enforcement action against Frasure Creek Mining for violating the Clean Water Act at its coal mining operations in eastern Kentucky. Last November, the groups identified thousands of instances where Frasure Creek had falsified water pollution discharge monitoring reports and sent the company a notice of their intent to sue. In response, the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet filed a complaint against Frasure Creek for these violations in the agency’s administrative court.

The groups are seeking to intervene in the state’s enforcement action to ensure that Frasure Creek is held fully accountable for the violations, and that the state secures sufficient corrective action, which is particularly important because of the company’s past violations. In 2010, citizens’ groups had uncovered similarly falsified discharge monitoring reports by Frasure Creek, and sent the company a notice of intent to sue to enforce the Clean Water Act. The state stepped in, pre-empting the lawsuit, and reached a settlement with Frasure Creek that amounted to a slap on the wrist. The settlement was thrown out by Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd in December, but the state has appealed.

“The cabinet’s previous enforcement actions were clearly too weak, because Frasure Creek has returned to its practice of covering up pollution violations by re-using old data,” said Eric Chance, Water Quality Specialist for Appalachian Voices. “We want to make sure enforcement is adequate this time.”

“The people of Kentucky deserve clean water, and companies need to know that they can’t hide behind an agency that accepts false reports,” said Ted Withrow, a former cabinet employee, now a volunteer for Kentuckians For The Commonwealth.

“Frasure Creek is not the only company turning in false reports to the state, and the cabinet needs to make an example out of them,” said Kentucky Riverkeeper Pat Banks. “Without accurate information, how can we expect to have real enforcement, or know if our water is safe?”

Today’s motion to intervene was sent by Appalachian Voices, Kentucky Riverkeeper, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Waterkeeper Alliance and the Sierra Club. The groups are represented by Mary Cromer of Appalachian Citizens Law Center, attorney Lauren Waterworth, and the Pace Law School Environmental Litigation Clinic.

###

Déjà vu in Kentucky clean water cases

Monday, February 23rd, 2015 - posted by eric

frasure_creek

Appalachian Voices and our partners have filed a motion to intervene in a case between the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet and Frasure Creek Mining to ensure clean water laws are being enforced in Kentucky.

Late last year we filed a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue against Frasure Creek after we uncovered thousands of false water monitoring reports the company turned into the state.

The Kentucky cabinet was unaware of these false submissions and responded by filing an administrative complaint against Frasure Creek covering all of the false data we found, a common tactic for state agencies to prevent citizen involvement in this type of case. Now, we are filing a motion to become parties to the cabinet’s enforcement action.

To anyone following our lawsuits against Frasure Creek, these recent developments will sound familiar. This isn’t the first time we’ve caught the company turning in false water monitoring reports. Frasure Creek was one of three Kentucky coal companies we filed legal actions against in 2010 and 2011 for submitting falsified pollution reports that were concealing water quality violations.

In all of those cases the cabinet stepped in with slap-on-the-wrist settlements, compelling us to intervene in cases where we had brought the violations to light. The only difference in this case is that Frasure Creek and the cabinet have yet to reach a settlement, so we haven’t seen how lax the enforcement will be this time around.

Both of the cabinet’s previous settlements with Frasure Creek were thrown out by Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd last December. In a scathing opinion, Shepherd stated that when “one company so systematically subverts the requirements of law, it not only jeopardizes environmental protection on the affected permits, it creates a regulatory climate in which the Cabinet sends the message that cheating pays.”

Judge Shepherd’s rulings are being appealed by the cabinet (think about that, the state agency, not Frasure Creek, is asking for an appeal). But we are hoping that this time around the cabinet will take us seriously, and won’t reach a weak settlement or resort to legal run-arounds to prevent citizen involvement. After all aren’t our state agencies supposed to be accountable to the people, not to the corporations they are supposed to regulate?

Appalachian Voices is joined in these efforts by Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Kentucky Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club and the Waterkeeper Alliance. The citizens’ groups are represented by Mary Cromer of Appalachian Citizens Law Center, attorney Lauren Waterworth, and the Pace Law School Environmental Litigation Clinic.

Read past posts about our clean water lawsuits in Kentucky. Subscribe to the Front Porch Blog to receive regular updates.

Criminal charges filed against Duke Energy

Friday, February 20th, 2015 - posted by brian
Duke Energy entered a plea agreement with federal prosecutors to resolve a federal criminal investigation into its handling of coal ash in North Carolina.

Duke Energy entered a proposed plea agreement with prosecutors to resolve federal criminal charges related to its handling of coal ash in North Carolina.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against Duke Energy for violating the federal Clean Water Act at coal ash sites across North Carolina. The company announced today it has reached a proposed plea agreement with federal prosecutors to resolve the charges.

According to a Duke Energy press release, the plea agreement includes $68.2 million in fines and restitution and $34 million for community service and mitigation.

The charges include multiple misdemeanor violations of the Clean Water Act in connection with last year’s coal ash spill in the Dan River as well as unauthorized discharges at other Duke coal plants in North Carolina. The agreement is subject to review and approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Related stories

Coal Ash Management: Long-awaited, still debatedAppalachian Voice reporter Kimber Ray sums up the state of coal ash management at the federal and state levels.

The agreement does not affect state lawsuits against Duke Energy, in which Appalachian Voices and our partners have intervened. It’s unclear whether the grand jury has finished its work, only finding Duke in the wrong, or if an investigation into actions of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources is ongoing.

The federal grand jury investigation began last year after 39,000 tons of coal ash spilled from a retired Duke Energy coal plant into the Dan River.

A statement from Amy Adams, North Carolina Campaign Coordinator for Appalachian Voices, and former supervisor with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources:

It’s good to see that federal enforcers have taken this issue seriously by diligently pursuing criminal charges and levying a substantial fine against Duke, and it’s good to see Duke acknowledge its culpability. However, we have yet to see that culpability turn into real action. There are still leaking coal ash ponds at 10 of Duke’s sites, leaving 10 communities in limbo and a lot of ash that must be permanently and safely disposed.

Important questions remain, like exactly how the money will be spent and whether any individuals will be named. But most troubling is the unanswered question of whether DENR was aware of negligence and failed to act, or was unable to recognize the magnitude of the situation in the first place.

Learn more about our work to clean up coal ash pollution. Subscribe to the Front Porch Blog to receive regular updates. 

To protect or prosecute polluters?

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 - posted by eric
Water flowing from one of the discharge points in eastern Kentucky where Frasure Creek Mining was turning in false water monitoring reports.

Water flowing from one of the discharge points in eastern Kentucky where Frasure Creek Mining was turning in false water monitoring reports.

Last week the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet filed an administrative complaint against Frasure Creek Mining for hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act at its mines in eastern Kentucky.

The filing comes just days before the end of the 60-day waiting period following an intent to sue letter sent by Appalachian Voices and our partners to Frasure Creek and the cabinet last November. Our notice letter described our discovery that the coal company had falsified pollution records over the course of 2013 and 2014, racking up almost 28,000 violations that state regulators failed to notice.

The cabinet’s filing includes all of the violations identified by Appalachian Voices and our partners. Under the Clean Water Act, the state’s action essentially preempts our ability to pursue a federal lawsuit.

Four years ago, when we first revealed that Frasure Creek had been falsifying records, the cabinet preempted our lawsuit by reaching a settlement with the company without our knowledge or participation. Later we were allowed to intervene in the settlement between the cabinet and Frasure Creek, a right which was upheld by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Because the cabinet only filed a complaint and not a settlement in the latest case, we do not know how vigorous its enforcement will be. But if past enforcement is any guide, then one could expect it will not be very strong. The cabinet’s earlier enforcement actions against Frasure Creek were so paltry that they were thrown out in a recent court ruling, and were clearly not strong enough to ensure that Frasure Creek was in compliance since the company returned to submitting false water monitoring reports.

We will have to wait and see if the cabinet is going to take its responsibility to protect the people and water of Kentucky from dangerous pollution seriously. In the meantime, Appalachian Voices and our partners will continue to do whatever we can to ensure that Frasure Creek and other polluters are held accountable for their actions.

Appalachian Voices is joined in these efforts by Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Kentucky Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club and the Waterkeeper Alliance. The citizens’ groups are represented by Mary Cromer of Appalachian Citizens Law Center, attorney Lauren Waterworth, and the Pace Law School Environmental Litigation Clinic.