Southern West Virginia Citizen groups have been after the state Department of Environmental Protection for a long time to address concerns they have about Massey Energy’s Brushy Fork impoundment in Raleigh County.
So, it certainly got my attention when a WVDEP news release showed up in my Inbox just a little bit ago with the headline, “WVDEP Issues Notice of Violation to Massey Energy’s Marfork Coal Subsidiary.” The release announced:
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has issued a notice of violation to Massey Energy’s Marfork Coal subsidiary for failure of an upstream expansion of its Brushy Fork Impoundment to meet the engineering factor of safety of 1.5 required for coal dams.
And, it assured the public:
The violation is limited to the area of the upstream expansion on the pool side of the dam. The existing structure at Brushy Fork, including the downstream face of the dam, complies with the required factor of safety. There is no risk to the community downstream of the impoundment.
But the most interesting part to me (so far, that is, I’m still looking into this story and will probably have more to report later) was this:
The DEP received a 10-day notice from the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, which notified the agency that it was aware of the safety factor issue and will take action against Massey if the DEP does not take its own action.
Does this means that WVDEP discovered this violation only after federal OSMRE inspectors brought it to their attention?
Remember that the Obama administration is trying to gear up OSMRE’s oversight of state agencies, including starting federal inspections that are not announced to state regulators. Coal state political leaders and the mining industry, of course, are opposing these reforms.
On the Brushy Fork situation, the WVDEP news release says:
A factor of safety is the measure by which the strength of a structure’s design exceeds the maximum stresses it will endure. A 1.5 factor of safety requires a structure be capable of withstanding 50 percent more force than the maximum force that is expected to be placed on it. The safety factor of the recent upstream expansion of the impoundment has been calculated to be 1.32, meaning it is capable of withstanding about 1/3 more force than is expected to be exerted on it.
DEP engineers and inspectors trained in impoundment inspection closely monitor the Brushy Fork and other impoundments throughout the state. Marfork has submitted an application to WVDEP for a permit revision that is intended to remedy the situation. The notice of violation will require the company to continue to pursue corrective action to achieve the required safety factor. Massey has the right to appeal the notice of violation.
“While the upstream expansion of the dam is at a factor of safety of 1.32 and it is capable of withstanding forces well in excess of those that are expected to be placed on it, I directed the staff to issue a violation out of caution and because we are sensitive to the concerns of the communities nearby the impoundment,” said Tom Clarke, director of the Division of Mining and Reclamation for the DEP.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Another question. Was the safety factor reduced due to an increase in the expected force to be placed on the upstream portion of the dam, as in, from blasting the nearby ridge? Does the safety factor change for each incidental boundary revision (IBR) Massey applies for on the Bee Tree permit?
In other words, is the safety factor impacted if Massey applies for and receives an IBR for the creation of a new box cut upstream of the boxcut that was approved in the initial IBR? Does the approval of new blasting and mining areas nearer to any portion of the dam affect the safety factor for that portion of the dam?
And by extension, will that safety factor change in the future as new IBR’s are approved? And if so, shouldn’t Massey have to include a plan for ensuring a safety factor of 1.5 with each new IBR they apply for, before that IBR is approved?
And if the answer to the question of whether an IBR for one permit (Bee Tree) can impact a safety factor for an adjacent sludge dam (Brushy) is yes, then shouldn’t the DEP be automatically requiring Massey to address the Brushy dam safety factors when they apply for IBR’s to the adjacent Bee Tree mine?
[...] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » After OSMRE probe, WVDEP cites Massey dam blogs.wvgazette.com – view page – cached A photo of the Brushy Fork impoundment, by Vivian Stockman, with flight services provided by SouthWings. [...]
Ken, was that the entirety of the press release from DEP? I don’t see it posted yet on their website, but it might be there somewhere, just harder to navigate on their new website.
Vernon,
That was the entire press release … I quoted it slightly out of order. But it’s all there.
And here’s a short statement I received a while ago from Jeff Gillenwater, a spokesman for Massey:
“We agree with the WV DEP that there is no safety concern and in fact note that the safety factor is already back at 1.5.”
Ken.
Very curious as to how they’ve increased the safety factor. Removed sludge or revised permit to hold less sludge than originally? I’m interpreting the “upstream expansion” area to be the end of the “pond” farthest from the dam. I don’t know how they could strengthen this area. Build up more pillars in the mines beneath it? The inspection took 30 minutes, plus 15 minute permit review. How does the inspector determine safety factor in 30 minutes? The inspection reason was “inspection of notice of violation.” The month before, it was in “full compliance.”
Over eight years ago OVEC hired a hydrogeologist to look at all the relevant documents regarding the Brushy Fork impoundment. We wanted this info because at that time Massey was applying for an expansion permit for that impoundment.
After we received the report, we worked together with Coal River Mountain Watch folks to inform area residents about the concerns documented in the report, and many local people came out to the public hearing to express their opposition to the permit expansion.
Of course the expansion permit was granted.
But what still haunts me about the hydrogeologist’s report was the info showing that some of the pillars that held up the underground mine roof had less-than-optimal safety factors.
The impoundment sits over this underground mine, and as I understand it, the poor safety factors for some of those pillars only applied to the ability of those pillars to hold up the roof of the underground mine, not to also hold a huge sludge impoundment.
I don’t know whether any agency has looked closely at this issue. IF not, I hope OSM will do that. I’m sure they have access to that report, but we can resend it if they don’t have it handy.
Don’t you just love how the people who don’t live below this quivering mass of mine spoils tell the people who do that there’s nothing to worry about? And if it ever does give way, well, that’ll be another Act of God.
[...] to add: More inspection hijinks? Explore posts in the same categories: Industry [...]
In case anyone wants to look at the report I mentioned in comment 6 (above) here’s the link:
http://www.sludgesafety.org/what_me_worry/BrushyFork.pdf
This was not intended to produce new data, just to gather together the existing information available to regulators regarding Massey’s Brushy Fork impoundment (as of 2000), and to add some opinions / reflection on the available info. Not peer reviewed etc.
[...] by the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (See previous posts on that here and [...]