Better late than never, I guess … the state Department of Environmental Protection just now released copies of its long-awaited study on underground injection of coal slurry.
The study itself is available here., and a press release here.
I just got this material and need to get something done for our print edition pretty quickly to meet out deadlines. But this appears to be the thrust of DEP’s announcement:
While the study found no evidence that coal slurry injection, by itself, affects surface water quality, Huffman is issuing a moratorium on the approval of coal slurry injection into mine voids in which it has not previously been approved.
“None of the sites chosen for the hydrologic assessment showed water quality impacts to surface waters caused by coal slurry injection alone,†Huffman said. “However, the study did point out areas where improvements can be made in the Underground Injection Program. While the Department of Health and Human Resources conducts its portion of the study, we will be making changes to our permitting program and gathering more information from the operators.â€
Read previous posts on this topic here, here, here and here.
I’d be very interested in thoughts from readers who have followed this issue closely.
UPDATED:
After reading the study, I’m finding it very unsatisfying, especially given DEP’s delays in getting it done. That’s because, for the most part, DEP officials simply said they don’t have enough information to really answer the main questions posed to them.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
In my haste, i’ve not thoroughly read the study yet, but you’ve quoted Director Huffman as saying “None of the sites chosen for the hydrologic assessment showed water quality impacts to surface waters caused by coal slurry injection alone,†… and the official release goes on to say:
“The study found that mine pools that receive injection show constituents in the pool that migrate from the slurry into the water in the pool, but none of those constituents were found in the surface water tested.
The study also points out that because slurry has many of the same properties as coal, it is nearly impossible to tell whether the compounds found in some mine pool water were caused by slurry or previous mining related disturbances.
However, it was found that finished consumable water from two public water systems that draw water from a mine that receives slurry injection met the Environmental Protection Agency’s Primary Drinking Water Standards.”
So much for any absolute conclusions about surface waters and 2 (two) public water systems……… What about the raw water going into those public water systems ….. and even more importantly, WHAT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL WATER WELLS? …….
Sorry to respond in such superficial great haste,… i’ll go back and read in more detail……
Need to have a study of the studies to really understand what needs to be understood before a real study can be done. Besides, what’s the hurry — not like anything is going to change anytime soon — and we really are working on it this time. Next up: more lawsuits, rulings and appeals. Plus, all the news articles. How long has this been going on?
Ken, why did DEP not look at well water, especially over at Prenter:
http://www.prenterwaterfund.org/community-impact/what-we-know-about-well-contamination
Beth,
I’ve been reading more of the study and some wells were sampled and talked about briefly in Apendix I….. but those were only in the 4 main areas that were studied in depth.
Maria Lambert is right is saying much more needs to be done….. and areas such as Prenter were not part of the study…. and UIC permits “previously approved under the modern era program” are not subject to the moratorium…….
Most telling are the comments by the agency folks involved who repeat over and over again that there isn’t enough information, that more extensive sampling is needed, that one time sampling event only provides a snapshot, etc., etc.
The old “out of sight, out of mind” , “flush it away where we no longer have to deal with it” mentality has come home to roost once again.
PS ….. Appendix I (333 pages) is highly interesting for anyone who wants to explore the whole underground world of hydrology and mine voids through the eyes of the various personnel doing the reviews.
Ken,
Karma, I guess. Tony Oppegard called yesterday to chat and told me about your blog. Interesting stuff. FYI, and it’s got so much hair on it now that it’s of no benefit and you probably knew about it anyway, but long before the 2000 Martin Co. sludge spill, Massey spent two years (1982-84) pumping slurry to a hilltop injection spot above the mined-out section of the Coalburg seam involved in the spill. So the old mineworks were already full of poorly sealed slurry when the impoundment broke through the hillside barrier (estimated variously at between 4 feet and 100 feet by state and fed investigators) into the mineworks and — pow. Anyway, I don’t believe I ever saw the injected slurry listed as a contributing factor in the 306-million gallon spill, but this info came from an MSHA inspector while mine maps were on public display in the old courtroom of the Martin Co. Courthouse after the spill. Carry on….
Lee
[...] This just in from the Charleston Gazette (story by Ken Ward Jr.): [...]
Ken, can you repost the links to the studies? They appear to be broken.
Edd443,
WVDEP has moved the study, and I’ve updated that link. There doesn’t appear to be a live link to their press release anymore. Ken.