Crowd at Ansted DEP meeting opposes permit

By Steve Keenan

In their ongoing quest to protect Gauley Mountain and the surrounding communities, many interested individuals and groups participated in an informal conference by the state Department of Environmental Protection Thursday in Ansted.

Last fall, Powellton Coal Co., a Consol subsidiary located in Bickmore, filed a request seeking renewal of a surface mining permit for 463.8 acres of land whose tributaries flow into Bridge Fork of Rich Creek of the Gauley River in the Jodie/Ansted area. People from both inside and outside Fayette County have expressed a variety of worries, including the potential for environmental damage as well as a potential negative impact on the region’s tourism industry.

Derek Teaney, a lawyer with the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment in Lewisburg, represents the Sierra Club and the Ansted Historic Preservation Council in their opposition to further mining of the area in question. On Jan. 20, Teaney submitted a letter to the DEP’s regional office in Oak Hill outlining concerns with renewal of the permit. In the letter, Teaney alleged Powellton Coal had violated its current permit for the project and shouldn’t be allowed to proceed.

He wrote that, according to discharge monitoring reports through last September, the company “routinely violates” minimum effluent levels allowed in relation to the “quantity of suspended solids, iron, manganese and aluminum, among other pollutants, that Powellton may discharge from its Bridge Fork West Surface Mine into unnamed tributaries.” Teaney said DMRs reveal more than 2,000 days of violations of the permit since August 2006. Although there haven’t been 2,000 calendar days in that time frame, Teaney explained that days can be calculated multiple times due to surpassing limits at different outfalls at the mine site.

Teaney further alleges that Powellton Coal officials falsely stated the project is in compliance with applicable environmental protection standards of the West Virginia Surface Mining Rule, and he said the company hasn’t met terms and conditions of a preplan.

Teaney is also involved with a federal Clean Water Act and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act enforcement action in U.S. District Court, which the Sierra Club and the AHPC lodged against Powellton Coal in regards to the same operation.

Teaney estimated Friday that about 170 people attended Thursday’s conference, including AHPC members, members of Coal River Mountain Watch and other environmental groups, and local individuals.

“Not a single one was in favor of the permit,” he said.

He applauded the DEP for having a question-and-answer session prior to allowing public comment.

“There were a lot of good questions asked,” he said. “I hope we persuaded the DEP ... this company shouldn’t be rewarded for its previous violations of the law.”

In December, the DEP published a legal notice describing Powellton Coal’s permit renewal request. The public comment period ended Jan. 24. A call to a DEP permit supervisor to determine the deadline for a department decision on renewing the permit wasn’t returned Friday.

In a January article in The Fayette Tribune, industry numbers pegged the Powellton Coal employee roster at 55 people, with a 2008 production figure of 300,000 tons. In that article, Ansted Mayor Pete Hobbs shared concerns the mining operation would damage the region’s natural beauty, particularly if the permitted acreage for mining purposes is allowed to expand in future years.

In that same article, Consol spokesman Joe Cerenzia said Powellton was operating within legal guidelines of its permits. He added he felt mining and the tourist trade could co-exist.

Two phone numbers associated with Powellton Coal have been disconnected. A message left at a third number was not returned Friday.

— E-mail: skeenan@register-herald.com