Energy Report

Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining in West Virginia

Date: August 10, 2016

No Comments

Two mines proposed, one denied, another faces pollution lawsuit

By Eliza Laubach and Willie Dodson

Alpha Natural Resources, a coal company in the process of emerging from bankruptcy, has applied for two new mountaintop removal mine permits on Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. If permitted, the two mines would destroy 1,589 acres above the Rock Creek and Arnett communities.

Coal River Mountain Watch, a local advocacy organization, is petitioning the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to deny one of the permits due to the community’s concerns about pollution and the effect on the local economy, roads and ecology. The other permit is not yet advertised for comment, according to the group’s website.

In the two years since the WVDEP approved a mountaintop removal permit for Keystone Industries’ KD No. 2 surface mine, the agency has issued 40 enforcement actions on the mine. In March, the agency brought a lawsuit against the Florida-based company over a series of Clean Water Act violations at the controversial mine. The 413-acre mountaintop removal mine in southern Kanawha County, W.Va., was met with opposition by local residents and others concerned about the project’s impacts on nearby communities and on Kanawha State Forest, which borders the mine.

These actions were prompted by citizen oversight led by the Kanawha Forest Coalition, a grassroots watchdog group, which has conducted water monitoring at the site since shortly after the mine began operating. The company’s quarterly pollution reports support the claim that mine runoff violated the permit granted to Keystone Industries under the Clean Water Act.

A 15-year long permit battle over the Spruce No. 1 mine, a proposed 2,000-acre mountaintop removal site in Logan County, W.Va, saw decisive action in July. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2011 decision to block the mine’s permit due to the “unacceptable adverse effect” it would have on the environment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*