Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35709/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35709-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON

TOXICS; ALASKA CHAPTER OF THE

SIERRA CLUB,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

AURORA ENERGY SERVICES, LLC;

ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-35709

D.C. No.

3:09-cv-00255-

TMB

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

August 13, 2014—Anchorage, Alaska

Filed September 3, 2014

Before: Jerome Farris, Dorothy W. Nelson,

and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Farris

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 1 of 11
2 ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA

SUMMARY*

Clean Water Act

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment

entered in favor of Aurora Energy Services, LLC and Alaska

Railroad Corporation in a citizen suit that challenged,

pursuant to the Clean Water Act, defendants’ non-stormwater

discharges of coal into Resurrection Bay, Alaska.

The panel held that the district court erred in concluding

that the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater

Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity - a general

permit under the Environmental Protection Agency’s

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - shielded

the defendants from liability under the Clean Water Act for

their non-stormwater coal discharges. The panel remanded

for further proceedings.

COUNSEL

Brian Litmans (argued), Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage,

Alaska; Aaron Isherwood and Peter M. Morgan, Sierra Club

Environmental Law Program, San Francisco, California, 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.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 2 of 11
ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA 3

Denise Ashbaugh, JeffreyMarc Feldman, and Ralph Howard

Palumbo, Summit Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington,

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, Alaska,

for Amicus Curiae State of Alaska.

JayChristopher 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.

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 3 of 11
4 ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA

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.

OPINION

FARRIS, Circuit Judge:

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 PollutantDischargeElimination

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.

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 4 of 11
ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA 5

I.

“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. See 40 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

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 5 of 11
6 ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA

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 industrial plant.” 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. See E.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).

II.

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

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 6 of 11
ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA 7

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.

III.

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). 

IV.

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 (noting that general permits “are

issued pursuant to administrative rulemaking procedures”);

E.P.A., General Permit Program Guidance 21 (1988),

available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0381.pdf

(“[G]eneral permits are considered to be rulemakings . . . .”). 

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 7 of 11
8 ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA

“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: “You must eliminate nonstormwater discharges not authorized by an NPDES permit. 

See Part 1.2.3 for a list of non-stormwater discharges

authorized by this permit.” 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, additional

provisions pertaining to specific industrial sectors. The

section cited by defendants, for instance, governs Sector A,

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 8 of 11
ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA 9

pertaining to timber products facilities. The Seward Facility

is classified under Sector AD. This sector does not pertain to

any particular industry, but rather is a catchall category for

“facilities designated by the Director as needing a stormwater

permit, and any discharges of stormwater associated with

industrial activity that do not meet the description of an

industrial activity covered by Sectors A-AC.” Unlike

sections governing other sectors, the section governingSector

AD does not specify additional categories of non-stormwater

discharge that are authorized or prohibited. With the possible

exception of additional monitoring or reporting requirements

that may be imposed, Sector AD facilities are governed only

by the permit’s general provisions.

The authorization in Part 8.A.2.2 is simply one part of the

General Permit’s customization of its requirements for

particular industrial sectors. The list in Part 1.1.3 states the

non-stormwater discharges authorized bythe permit’s general

regulatory scheme, and Part 8.A.2.2 supplements this scheme

for timber products facilities. For facilities in Sector AD,

however, non-stormwater discharges are regulated only by

the permit’s general scheme, and for those purposes the list

in Part 1.1.3 is exclusive.

Defendants also point out that several sector-specific

sections (applicable to sectors other than Sector AD)

explicitly prohibit various categories of non-stormwater

discharge, yet these sections would be surplusage if Part

2.1.2.10 alreadyprohibited all non-stormwater discharges not

listed in Part 1.1.3. However, although we generally seek to

avoid constructions of a general permit that render certain of

its provisions superfluous, see Hart v. McLucas, 535 F.2d

516, 519 (9th Cir. 1976), our analysis here is controlled by

the plain text of Part 2.1.2.10, which prohibits defendants’

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 9 of 11
10 ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA

discharges. See Bayview, 366 F.3d at 698. If the provision

had simply stated, “You must eliminate non-stormwater

discharges not authorized by an NPDES permit,” one might

have been able to argue that it was ambiguous, leaving

unanswered the question of which discharges the permit

authorizes. However, the provision answers that question in

the next sentence: “See Part 1.[1].3 for a list of nonstormwater discharges authorized by this permit.” Rather

than leaving permittees to guess which discharges are

excepted from the general prohibition, EPA explicitly refers

them to the list in Part 1.1.3. Defendants’ non-stormwater

coal discharges are not on this list, thus they are plainly

prohibited.

We would have reached the same result had we employed

the permit shield analysis that has been applied to individual

permits in decisions such as Piney Run Preservation

Association v. County Commissioners of Carroll County,

Maryland, 268 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001). Under that analysis,

a permittee is shielded from liability under the CWA if it

(1) complies with the permit’s express terms, and

(2) discharges pollutants that were disclosed to and within the

reasonable contemplation of the permitting authority during

the permitting process. Id. at 259. Here, the express terms of

the General Permit prohibit defendants’ non-stormwater coal

discharges, thus defendants would not be shielded from

liability. As our outcome would be the same regardless of

whether Piney Run’s analysis applies to general permits, we

need not decide whether it does.

V.

The district court erred in concluding that the General

Permit shielded defendants from liability for their non-

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 10 of 11
ALASKA CMTY. ACTION V. AURORA 11

stormwater coal discharges. We reverse the grant of

summary judgment to defendants and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

 Case: 13-35709, 09/03/2014, ID: 9226405, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 11 of 11