ShareThis Page

FirstEnergy, Beaver County residents reach agreement in Little Blue Run lawsuit

| Monday, Feb. 9, 2015, 5:12 p.m.

A group of Beaver County residents reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit that claimed the Little Blue Run coal waste dump damaged their properties and will continue to for decades, according to federal court records.

A similar lawsuit in West Virginia is scheduled for trial in January.

In the Pittsburgh lawsuit, U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on Monday entered an order halting the case based on lawyers for both sides reporting they've reached an agreement.

Little Blue Run, a holding pond, accepts coal slurry piped seven miles from the Bruce Mansfield power plant in Shippingport.

FirstEnergy Corp. of Akron, Ohio, owns the facilities.

Lawyers in the Alabama firm representing the residents couldn't be reached for comment. FirstEnergy disputes the claims made in the two lawsuits but has reached an agreement with the Beaver County residents, FirstEnergy spokeswoman Stephanie Walton said.

She said terms of the agreement are not finalized.

FirstEnergy settled a Department of Environmental Protection lawsuit in 2012 by agreeing to stop using the unlined holding pond by Dec. 31, 2016. The company's closure plan includes letting liquid waste harden, then covering it with layers of high-density plastic, cloth and soil.

The lawsuits in Beaver County and West Virginia claim that water leaching through the coal waste carries arsenic, sulfates and other contaminates to surrounding properties.

In the West Virginia case, a status report filed by both sides says the company has reached an agreement on all 16 claims from Pennsylvania and one from West Virginia, but 38 claims in West Virginia are pending.

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 412-325-4301 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me