CHARLESTON – A federal judge has ordered Chemours to stop discharging forever chemicals from its Wood County facility into the Ohio River.
U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin issued his memorandum opinion and order August 7 in the lawsuit filed in December by West Virginia Rivers Coalition and Little Hocking Water Association Inc. against The Chemours Company FC LLC regarding discharges from its Washington Works plant near Parkersburg.
“This case is simple and all too familiar,” Goodwin wrote in his 42-page order. “For years, defendant Chemours Company has discharged pollutants into the Ohio River. The level of discharge far exceeds the legal limits that bind Chemours, Those pollutants endanger the environment, aquatic life and human health. Today, that unlawful, unpermitted discharge stops.”
A Chemours spokesperson said the company was “disappointed” and “strongly disagree(d)” with the ruling and plans to appeal. The West Virginia Rivers Coalition hailed Goodwin’s order.
“This is a victory for public health and the Ohio River,” WVRC Deputy Director Autumn Crowe said. “The court recognized what communities have known for years: Chemours has been polluting our water and ignoring its legal obligations.”
The federal government regulates PFAS, HFPO-DA and other forever chemicals as well as setting limits on how much pollutants a facility can discharge.
In his order, Goodwin said Chemours “has treated its permit as full permission to act without constraint.”
“Chemours boldly violates its permit and admitted as much at the preliminary injunction hearing,” Goodwin wrote. “Chemours represents that – even with all reasonable efforts – it will take more than two years to achieve regular and consistent compliance with the permit.”
Goodwin said people who live on or engage with the Ohio River currently either have to abstain from using or drinking the water or subject themselves to adverse health effects.
“This choice violates the law,” Goodwin wrote. “When defendants like Chemours fail to abide by their own permits and when the government fails to intervene on behalf of the public, the Clean Water Act empowers citizens to bring an action to force compliance.”
The judge says he is “particularly concerned” about the nature of the injury in this case.
“Injury to the environment, and those living in the affected environment, is often incremental, cumulative and not always immediately visible,” Goodwin wrote. “That does not, however, render it speculative or abstract. … A defendant who violates a permit is not ‘probably’ harming the public – it is harming the public as a matter of law.”
One of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs agreed.
“The court’s decision is an especially strong endorsement of the value of citizen suits in enforcing the Clean Water Act,” said Jim Hecker, Senior Environmental Enforcement Attorney at Public Justice. “The court’s opinion emphasized that Congress gave citizens that enforcement power ‘precisely for cases like this one,’ where a polluter violates its permit for years and the government fails to enforce the law.”
Goodwin said there is no ambiguity in this case.
“Chemours has discharged unpermitted levels of toxic pollutants into the Ohio River,” he wrote. “Defendant knows that it has been violating the permit, and it is likely to continue. As a direct result, the public is exposed to real and ongoing harm.
“The Clean Water Act prohibits this. The public need not bear the burden or cost of defendant’s inaction. Instead, Congress has vested citizens with the power to enforce environmental protections in the face of governmental indifference. That enforcement power exists precisely for cases like this one.
“Defendant’s permit is not a suggestion; rather, its permit protects public health and environmental life while balancing the needs of manufacturing. But I cannot weigh the scales of that balance to inflict further harm on the communities that rely on clean water for life and livelihood.
“The Clean Water Act protects the public, and I will enforce it.”
Goodwin ordered Chemours to stop discharging the pollutants in excess of levels set in its permit and to “take any measures necessary to achieve and maintain compliance, including but not limited to production changes, process modifications, off-site treatment, or temporary cessation of operations.”
“Defendant could shut down its plant, modify its manufacturing processes, reduce production or send process wastewater off-site to achieve compliance,” Goodwin wrote. “Compliance may be expensive and burdensome, but it is possible.”
The trial in the case is scheduled for September 16.
The executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition said the organization is hoping the trial will “resolve remaining issues, namely civil penalties, and to a full and fair process that reflects the public’s interest in clean, safe water.”
“The court made clear that Chemours has many ways to come into compliance, and thus protect the public, while continuing to operate,” Jennie Smith said. “Our intent has never been to cause layoffs but rather has always been straightforward: to ensure compliance with environmental safeguards to protect the health and well-being of the public.”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 2:24-cv-701
