By Jessica Nelson and Jeniffer Graham
Read the first three parts of the series HERE.
Contaminants in the water pouring into Raccoon Creek outside Newburg from a discharge borehole connected to the Whitetail mine are within federal and state regulations. However, environmentalists are concerned that may change, and the state hasn’t taken additional factors into consideration.
According to Paul Baker, a chemist with Save the Tygart Watershed Association, Lexington Coal Co., owner of the Whitetail Kittanning Mine, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection are using a model to predict the type and amount of pollution that will discharge from the borehole along Raccoon Creek.
The Whitetail discharge isn’t especially acidic and the levels of dissolved heavy metals — such as iron, manganese and aluminum — are low. But the mine water is high in sulphates. As water drains from the underground pool and is replaced with air, sulphuric acid will form and may dissolve higher levels of heavy metals in the coal seam.
The model is based on mines elsewhere in the state that also access the Kittanning coal seam, such as the Sentinel mine near Philippi, and those mines don’t put out a lot of acid water, according to Baker.
When Whitetail first opened, it mined in the Kittanning seam, but as time went on, operations expanded to a higher stratum of coal — the Freeport seam.
“It appears water from the Upper Freeport mine is somehow seeping or finding entry into the Kittanning seam,” Baker said. “And the Freeport seam and the Kittanning seam have different chemistry, so the potential impact could be different [from the model] … so we could see a whole bunch of different things happen there.”
The model implies that sulphuric acid and other heavy metals aren’t common in the Kittanning seam. The Freeport seam, Baker said, is a different story. It has a higher potential for sulphuric acid and, therefore, for higher levels of iron, manganese and aluminum.
Baker concedes it is not currently understood just how much the mine water from the two seams interacts, but when the borehole was drilled on the Kittanning end of Whitetail — which sits at a lower elevation than the Freeport seam — the water levels in the Freeport mine also began dropping.
“There’s an indication that there’s an interconnection between those two mines,” Baker said.
According to Baker, the model used by Lexington and the DEP doesn’t account for the possible intermingling of the water from the Kittanning and Freeport seams. “They’re drawing an equivalency between [Sentinel and Whitetail] and we don’t think that equivalency is valid.”
Baker and Stan Jennings, president of Save the Tygart, are concerned about underestimating the amount of pollution flowing into Raccoon Creek and how that can affect connected waterways.
Two permits
Save the Tygart contends the discharge point along Raccoon Creek was completed on Oct. 10, 2019, without proper permitting. Though there is some documentation that indicates the permits may have been applied for, it is unclear if they had been secured at the time of drilling.
According to the DEP website, on Sept. 24, 2019, Lexington applied for an Incidental Boundary Revision, which would be the access to the land for the borehole — which is officially named IBR No. 11.
Then, on Sept. 29, 2019, Lexington sent a draft to the Environmental Protection Agency for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit modification.
However, both permits must undergo a six-month process before they can be issued. Permits applied for in September 2019 would not be officially issued by October 2019, when the borehole was drilled, which means the borehole has been pouring mine water without the permit that determines the pollutant parameters for a discharge source.
After two weeks of repeated contact, the DEP did not provide verification regarding the Incidental Boundary Revision or the NPDES in time for this report.
Preston’s representatives
Sen. David Sypolt (R-Preston) has a vague recollection of hearing or reading something about the mine seepage and contaminated wells last fall or winter.
However, the first time delegates Buck Jennings (R-Preston, representing the 53rd District, where Newburg falls) and Terri Sypolt (R-Preston, representing the 52nd District, of which Newburg falls just outside) heard about the water problems in Newburg was when reporters reached out for comment in early spring.
“I didn’t hear anything,” Jennings said, “so I started calling around and went up to the mayor of Newburg and asked him. He told me what was going on.”
Jennings was told the borehole eased pressure in the mine enough that seeps like the one in Scott Rankin’s yard had begun to dry up. He thinks it would be a good idea to treat the borehole water, but right now his priority is the four families who lost their drinking wells.
“I called the people who are close to the governor,” Jennings said, “and they told me they were going to see to it that these people were taken care of.”
Jennings followed up with his contacts after the DEP reissued its order to Lexington to submit plans for a permanent water solution for the affected homes after a year of inaction.
“The only thing was it was going to take some time because, legally, they have to give [Lexington] this time…”
Lexington has 30 days from the time it receives the DEP’s letter, dated April 24, to “begin activities to establish a permanent water supply or submit a proposal to the Secretary outlining the measures and timetables used in establishing a permanent supply of water to the citizens of Newburg.”
“It has got to be cheaper to just go ahead and give them the water than to fight … to prepare all these briefs,” Jennings said.
“Although many laws exist which protect surface owners from adverse effects,” Terri Sypolt said, “too often companies find and try to use loopholes to relieve them from these liabilities.”
“That’s where a lot of these loopholes come in — when someone starts going through something with a fine-tooth comb and says, ‘Hey, this is not how we interpret it.’ Then they take it on to courts and appeals and it becomes prolonged and prolonged.”
Ultimately, said Jennings, it would be up to the DEP to enforce any consequences for Lexington’s failure to comply the first time and to ensure the company follows through this time.
“My guess,” Sen. Sypolt said, “is the Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for seeing that the provisions of their mining permit are adhered to, and if not, they have the authority to take them to court and force that resolution.”
On the matter of dissolved solids, Terri Sypolt said she’s not sure it’s something that’s ever been brought to the Legislature’s attention.
“I myself have not seen that research, but if it’s something that should have research done and it is possible [to regulate dissolved solids], then yes, we would work on getting something passed to address that issue,” Sypolt said.
“Normally,” Sen. Syplot added, “it’s the DEP which would lead on changes in the water quality standards or the discharge standards …. I’m sure if there is going to be any change in the environmental standards for discharged water that the DEP will have it in their bundle of rules that will come through rule-making, and the Legislature will take a look at them this year.
“I think the company would have to be responsible for the treatment and containment of those pollutants. That’s part of the NPDES permitting system.”
Jennings isn’t sure about dissolved solids being a problem in Raccoon Creek, but he said dissolved solids are showing up in Newburg wells. Jennings said he plans to stay on top of the situation and will keep fighting for the families who lost their water.
“It’s been over such a long period of time, a lot of people have just quit worrying about it. But finally, I think, we’ve hit the right note and maybe something’s going to happen.”
Tweet @DominionPostWV
