Courtland Lawyers File For Temporary Restraining Order Against Carbide Over Filmont Dump Site

Courtland Corp. wants the courts to halt the “unpermitted and illegal discharges of pollutants and storm waters” from what is known as the Filmont Dump along Davis Creek in South Charleston.

Michael Callaghan

/

The temporary restraining order request comes a day after Courtland filed a lawsuit alleging the dump is violating the federal Clean Water Act.

“The main goal is to get a judge to order Union Carbide to stop polluting the people of South Charleston, and polluting my client’s property,” attorney Mike Callaghan said. He represents Courtland in the suit.

Actions requested in the order include:

• Within seven days submit a complete inventory of every outfall from the Filmont Waste Disposal Site from which pollutants are being discharged;
• Within 14 days, submit a comprehensive list of all organic and non-organic pollutants that are currently being discharged;
• Within 14 days submit an administratively complete application for a West Virginia/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for every outfall.
• Submit a complete application for a Stormwater Discharge permit according to applicable West Virginia Regulations.
• Appoint a Special Master to oversee this court order.

In a written statement Union Carbide said: “Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) is aware of the complaints by Courtland Company and the recently filed application for temporary restraining order. Prior to the filing of the application for temporary restraining order, UCC has been and will continue to cooperate and work with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Production (DEP) in investigating the factual allegations on this matter and the filing of the application for temporary restraining order will not diminish UCC’s efforts in this regard. UCC denies all claims asserted against it by Courtland, including those asserted in the application for temporary restraining order. UCC does intend to oppose the application for temporary restraining order and will continue to vigorously defend itself. As this is ongoing litigation, UCC will not comment further at this time.