Comments on: After OSMRE probe, WVDEP cites Massey dam

By: Brushy Fork protest: Activists occupy Massey offices « Coal Tattoo

Brushy Fork protest: Activists occupy Massey offices « Coal Tattoo — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:12:43 +0000

[...] by the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (See previous posts on that here and [...]

By: dianne bady

dianne bady — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:02:05 +0000

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 Not peer reviewed etc.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: MSHA approves government employees calling for lynching environmentalists, Cross burning next? « Tennessee Valley Authoritarian

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:30:04 +0000

[...] to add: More inspection hijinks? Explore posts in the same categories: Industry [...]

By: Monty

Monty — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:47:03 +0000

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.

By: dianne bady

dianne bady — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:01:05 +0000

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.

By: Vernon

Vernon — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:20:25 +0000

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.”

By: Ken Ward Jr.

Ken Ward Jr. — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:12:47 +0000

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.

By: Vernon

Vernon — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:56:30 +0000

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.

By: Twitter Trackbacks for Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette - » After OSMRE probe, WVDEP cites Massey dam [wvgazette.com] on Topsy.com

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:32:28 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: A-Mouse

A-Mouse — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:27:57 +0000

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?