JimJusticeWV.jpg

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.)

CHARLESTON – The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has sued Bluestone Coal Corporation seeking to recover almost $3 million in unpaid penalties and to force the Jim Justice-owned coal operator to stop violating state mining and water pollution laws.

In a complaint filed August 7 in Kanawha Circuit Court, the DEP alleges Bluestone has racked up more than $2.9 million in civil and administrative penalties tied to violations at multiple surface mining operations and has failed to comply with state orders meant to bring the company back into compliance.

Bluestone, which maintains its principal office in Roanoke, Va., operates “various surface-mining operations” in West Virginia under permits issued by the DEP’s Division of Mining and Reclamation, according to the filing. The company also holds West Virginia National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits governing discharges from its mining sites.

The complaint asserts Bluestone has violated provisions of the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act and the Water Pollution Control Act, along with the associated legislative rules, permit conditions and DEP orders.

DEP says those violations have produced two categories of unpaid penalties:

  • About $1,643,492.40 in outstanding civil penalties assessed under the Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act at the time of filing, documented in an 11‑page “OMR Civil Penalties Blocklist Report.”

  • Another $1,288,000 in penalties and stipulated penalties associated with two administrative penalty orders, M-19-283 and M-19-297, issued under the Water Pollution Control Act. Those orders cover a long list of Bluestone permits, including M‑19‑283 and M‑19‑297 and more than two dozen NPDES permit numbers.

“The civil penalties may, and likely will, increase during the pendency of this action,” the DEP states in the complaint.

Under state law, the DEP can issue notices of violation and assess penalties when an operator fails to comply with mining permit conditions, water-pollution limits or agency orders. The statutes also authorize the DEP, the attorney general or county prosecutors to go to circuit court to recover unpaid penalties and seek injunctions to compel compliance.

The DEP says Bluestone has accumulated “numerous violations” across its permits, prompting a series of notices of violation and penalty assessments. An attached exhibit lists dozens of entries for Bluestone, many marked “Printed, Delinquent Letter” with balances that range from a few hundred dollars to $73,380 and repeated $22,500 penalty amounts, reflecting assessments that have gone unpaid over several years.

Exhibit B shows Bluestone owing $115,000 in base penalties and $708,000 in stipulated penalties under order M‑19‑283, and an additional $465,000 in stipulated penalties under order M‑19‑297, for a total of $1,288,000 associated with those two water-pollution orders.

Under the Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act, the DEP asks the court to enter judgment for the full $1,643,492.40 in civil penalties already assessed, plus any additional amounts that accrue while the case is pending, along with pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and to order Bluestone to pay. The DEP also seeks an injunction barring the company from further violations of the mining law, its rules, permit terms and DEP orders.

Under the Water Pollution Control Act, the DEP asks the court to enter judgment for the $1,288,000 owed on the M‑19‑283 and M‑19‑297 administrative penalty orders, plus accrued amounts and interest, and to enjoin Bluestone from violating that statute, associated rules, effluent limitations and permit conditions. As an alternative, the agency notes it may seek civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, per violation, to be set by the court.

In its request for relief, the DEP asks the court to order Bluestone to pay a combined $2,931,492.40 in penalties, remediate conditions caused by its violations and “otherwise comply” with the mining and water‑pollution statutes, and to permanently enjoin the company from further violations.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 26-C-938

More News