Coal River Mtn: Current Status

Overview

Alpha Natural Resource's subsidiary, Marfork Coal Company, has three approved surface mining permits (Bee Tree, Eagle 2 and Collins Fork) and one pending permit (Leather Leaf) on Coal River Mountain. These permits were approved by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. In total, the permits cover nearly 5400 acres of the mountain. 


Map courtesy of Journey Up Coal River

In order to carry out the full mining plan, Marfork will need to obtain valley fill permits in order to dump the earth removed in mountaintop removal into adjacent valleys. These permits are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but Marfork has not yet applied for valley fill permits for Coal River Mountain.

Update

As of June 2012, there is no surface mining occurring on Coal River Mountain:

  • Mining on the Bee Tree permit was idled in May 2012, due to a drop in international demand. Before mining stopped, Marfork had destroyed about 75 acres of the 1,090-acre permit.  Miners are still working on the permit preforming reclamation activities and, if coal market conditions improve, mining could resume at any time.
  • The 250-acre Collins Fork Permit has been approved but mining has not yet started.  Coal River Mountain Watch appealed the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)'s decision to approve this permit to the state Surface Mine Board.  We argued that the DEP failed to properly evaluate the cumulative effects of strip mining in the watershed of the Clear Fork of the Coal River, including the impact on human health.  DEP also refused to grant CRMW an inspection of the permit prior to the permit hearing and the agency also blatantly disregarded a statute requiring the permit hearing to be held within 3 weeks of the public comment period; instead the hearing was held 3 years later.  The Surface Mine Board issued its decision in May 2012.  Despite agreeing that the DEP "flagrantly" violated the law regarding public input and comment on the permit, the Board did not reverse the DEP's approval of the permit.  We are considering appealing the case to the state Supreme Court.
  • The 2,000-acre Eagle II permit should be null and void according to federal law, which requires mining to commence within three years of the permit being granted unless an extension is obtained.  Marfork failed to begin mining or apply for an extension for the Eagle II permit within two years, but the DEP retroactively granted them an extension.  In June 2012, the federal Office of Surface Mining responded to a citizen complaint from Coal River Mountain Watch and agreed that the DEP's actions were “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”  We are waiting to see if the DEP appeals this decision.
  • The Leather Leaf permit application was terminated this spring and we are awaiting to see if it will be resubmitted in a different form. We suspect it will be resubmitted with a reduction in size.
Our current analysis of the majority of proposed mining on Coal River Mountain is that the coal mined will primarily be sold as metallurgical coal (used for steel production), rather than thermal coal for electricity generation.

Brushy Fork Impoundment

Past mining operations, and the potential for future mining, have raised concerns about the stability of the Brushy Fork Impoundment.  A slurry impoundment is a huge pond, held back by an earthen dam, containing the toxic residue left over from the process of washing coal before it is burned in a power plant. All of the chemicals (some of which are carcinogenic) used in the washing process, as well as the heavy metals and other minerals removed from the coal are part of the slurry. At the current stage the dam is impounding about 5.5 billion gallons of coal slurry with a capacity of about 7.5 billion gallons. 

The Bee Tree permit is adjacent to the Brushy Fork Impoundment, and there are serious concerns that future blasting on this permit may increase the risk of dam failure or impoundment basin failure by cracking the less than 200 feet of inter-burden between the toxic coal slurry in the impoundment and unstable underground mines below.  A dam failure would be similar to that of the Buffalo Creek disaster in 1977 which killed over 100 people.  A basin failure would be similar in nature to that of the Martin County Kentucky coal slurry disaster in 2001 where slurry leaked into abandoned underground mines and burst out the side of the mountain.  The Brushy Fork impoundment is impounding over 10 times more slurry than both Martin County and Buffalo Creek. According to the Emergency Evacuation Plan prepared by Marfork, a failure of the dam would send a wall of slurry down the Coal River for more than 25 miles. (More information on the Brushy Fork Impoundment and the Emergency Evacuation Plan).

Coalfield residents know how powerful surface mine blasting is, as they feel in their homes even when it is miles away.  Portions of the dam and pond are sitting just 150 feet above abandoned underground mines.  Marfork Coal Company, Marfork’s Consultants, the WV Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) assured the public that proper engineering review considerations have been made to address stability issues in the mine complex beneath the impoundment. 

During a series of reports from 1999 to 2004 it was discovered by Marfork consultants that several pillars failed achieve the desired long-term safety criteria.  Marfork consultants and the DEP determined that given the abnormally dry conditions in the coal seam beneath the dam, weathering and deterioration of pillar strengths was not likely to occur.  The last known site visit by the WV DEP to inspect the pillars was in 1999 and Marfork likely preformed underground inspections as late as 2001. Due to conflicting reports it is hard to tell whether conditions in the coal seam under the impoundment currently are dry or wet (wet conditions would be more likely to lead to pillar failure and breakthrough). 

Marfork has a current application to raise the crest of the dam to its next stage; however, this plan has not yet been approved by MSHA due to stability concerns.  MSHA claims the dam is safe but has concerns about the stability of the dam if wet material in a portion of the dam is used as a foundation for making the dam larger.