Document daRY4rxZxmwd8MEwKkvMZgq55

Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Aspatore, Amanda [AAspatore@nma.org] 9/5/2017 8:17:49 PM Greenwalt, Sarah [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=6cl3775b8f424e90802669b87bl35024-Greenwalt,] Conductivity Information 2008 Pond Passmore Study_opt.pdf; 2009 Pond Passmore Study_opt.pdf; National Mining Association Cover Letter Conductivity Comments_opt.pdf; National Mining Association Conductivity Comments_opt.pdf; Gina McCarthy Conductivity TMDL Brief.pdf; Lower Court Conductivity TMDL Decision_opt.pdf; NACWA, NCBA, NMA 4th CirTMDL Amicus Brief.pdf; WVA Coal Association 4th Circuit Conductivity TMDL Amicus.pdf; OVEC v Fola District Court Decision.pdf; State of WV Brief 4th Circuit OVEC v. Fola.pdf; OVEC v. Fola 4th Circuit Decision.pdf Hi Sarah - Attached please find some information on conductivity that I thought might be helpful. Included are the following: Technical Conductivity Documents: 1) 2008 Pond Passmore Study - The original study by Gregory Pond, Margaret Passmore etc. from which EPA's Appalachian conductivity "benchmark" was derived, and which serves as the basis for all of EPA's current conductivity initiatives, including the proposed draft conductivity field-based methodology. 2) 2009 Pond Passmore Study - A later study by Pond and Passmore that reached very different conclusions from those in the original study, including that sites with conductivity > 500 pS/cm were not impaired, that ion makeups vary, and that stressors other than conductivity cause additional degradation (highlighted in the document, starting pg. 13). 3) NMA's comments (with cover letter) on the proposed draft conductivity methodology. Conductivity Litigation Documents: 1) OVEC v. McCarthy - Federal district court utilizing conductivity "benchmark" (which serves as the basis for the current draft conductivity methodology) over objection of both EPA and State in the context of TMDL development: a. Obama Administration brief supporting West Virginia's decision to delay development of conductivity TMDLs due to complexity of the science. b. Adverse district court holding that EPA had to approve or deny State's "constructive submission" of no conductivity TMDLs, in part based on the "extensive" existing scientific record on conductivity (i.e., EPA's Appalachian "benchmark"). c. Industry amicus briefs in EPA's appeal to 4thCircuit addressing conductivity (4thCircuit decision pending). 2) OVEC v. Fola - Federal district court utilizing EPA's "benchmark" to impose post-hoc numeric conductivity limit directly onto permittee over objection of State: a. District court decision setting post-hoc NPDES permit limit based on benchmark. b. State brief to 4th Circuit explaining that State expressly rejected standards applied by district court and asking 4th Circuit to overturn (NMA and others also amici in case). c. 4th Circuit decision upholding lower court decision despite State's brief. Thank you so much - I know how busy you all are, and I really appreciate your taking the time to look at this issue! I will also be passing along some information on selenium and groundwater permitting shortly. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like any additional information. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 2 ED 002061 00106916-00001 Sincerely, Amanda Amanda E. Aspaiora Vice President, Water Law & Policy National Mining Association 101 Constitution Avs. NVV: Suita 500 East Wasi'unaton. O C. 20001 A 063-2600 Personal Matters! ! - ; ' ; ! n : W ^ m ' m T ' ' Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 2 ED 002061 00106916-00002