Photo of the Brushy Fork impoundment, by Vivian Stockman, with flight services provided by SouthWings.
We’ve got more in today’s Gazette about the recent violation cited by WVDEP at Massey Energy’s Brushy Fork coal-slurry impoundment.
After writing yesterday’s brief post, based entirely on the WVDEP news release, I was able to get a copy of an Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement report on the problem and talk with Tom Clarke, director of WVDEP’s Division of Mining and Reclamation.
I’ve posted a copy of the OSMRE report here and the WVDEP Notice of Violation here.
The situation yesterday struck me as a little odd … Here you had WVDEP issuing a press release about a violation, but at the same time downplaying the violation — insisting it wasn’t serious at all and nothing for folks who live downstream from Bushy Fork to worry about.
Now, WVDEP issues hundreds — maybe thousands — of NOVs to the coal industry every year. And not very many of those NOVs get their own news releases. Typically, WVDEP news releases are more along the lines of, “Make It Shine Applications Now Available” or “Capitol Market Hosting Christmas Tree Recycling.”
Now, I’m not putting down those programs. And I certainly appreciate the efforts that the WVDEP’s communications staff make to get information to me, answer my questions and put up with my complaining that I haven’t gotten all of the answers I want.
But the fact that WVDEP put out a news release about this thing with Brushy Fork tells me they understand that any sort of problem with that impoundment — any coal-slurry impoundment, really — is something the public wants to know about. We’ve learned very painfully in West Virginia what can happen when a slurry impoundment fails.
So what was going on at WVDEP that the agency did not take any enforcement action at Brushy Fork until it received a Ten-Day Notice that required it to either do something or watch OSMRE inspectors cite Massey themselves?
A little bit of background is necessary:
Currently, Massey is working to expand the disposal capacity of the Brushy Fork site, which involves increasing the height of the impoundment’s existing dam. To do this, Massey is dumping more coal refuse on the upstream side of the dam to widen the dam to hold the increased height. The changes would raise the crest elevation from 2,090 feet to 2,150 feet. It would increase the storage capacity of the dam from 27 million cubic yards to 36.7 million cubic yards.
As my print story explained:
Clarke said Monday that DEP staffers learned in late December or early January that tests on the new construction showed the material was too moist, leading it to not meet state requirements for structural stability. But, Clarke said, his staff was not sure if this should be counted as a violation, because the new construction had not been given a chance to dry out and meet the stability requirements.
Clarke said the worst that could have happened is that the new construction could have sloughed, sending some coal waste from the dam into the impoundment’s pool. Clarke said his staff did not think this would threaten the existing dam’s stability, but had not studied the potential in any great detail.
“From this, there is not risk to the people downstream,” Clarke said. “That’s the kind of thing I’d like to think I’m going to take very seriously.”
So, the story seems to be that folks who work for Clarke didn’t think this was serious enough to cite. But when OSMRE issued its enforcement notice and Clarke learned about that, Clarke told his staff to issue an NOV — and then WVDEP thought it was a big enough deal that they issued a news release.
WVDEP could have told OSMRE it didn’t think enforcement action was warranted. OSMRE might have backed down, or federal officials might have issued their own violation.
And then, there’s this interesting language from the WVDEP news release issued yesterday:
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.
Huh? When did this all happen? And how is it that Massey was able to issue a statement within the hour of the WVDEP news release saying that the problem had already been fixed?
I’m not sure this was WVDEP’s finest hour … Agency officials probably wish they had just issued an NOV when the problem came up. But to their credit, WVDEP wasn’t hiding the fact that it acted only after OSMRE raised the issue. It was right their in their news release:
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.
On the other hand, coalfield residents might sleep a little bit better if WVDEP didn’t bend over backwards to include statements like this in their news releases:
There is no risk to the community downstream of the impoundment.
That struck me the same way it does whenever Kanawha Valley chemical plant managers insist after a leak that there was never any threat to the public’s health or safety. In both situations, the first step toward dealing with a risk is to admit it exists.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
I’m not an engineer, but dumping coal waste on a roadbed while its wet and driving trucks over it is not the same as building a dam. This is nothing but a pile of gravel, like the Kingston impoundment in Tennessee that failed. And it failed due to poor construction and water saturating it. I don’t know how anyone could consider it safe now, and the plan is for its final height to be over 900 feet, making it one of the highest dams in the country.
Before the arm chair engineers get too wound up over the fill material being placed was too wet, let’s come back to reality and not conjour up images of slop and mud being dumped and calling it dam construction.
The testing of the compaction of the fill material passing or failing is all based on maximum density (pounds/cubic foot) and optium moisture (%) numbers which are determined by lab testing. Lets say the refuse material (which contrary to any previous posts is not a “pile of gravel” has a dry density of 110 pounds/cubic foot. Of course we know water has a density of 62.4 pounds /cubic foot. The optimum moisture content of the fill material is calculated in the lab, that is simply the % of water that can be in the fill material that allow the material to be cohesive, yet not so much moisture that the amout of water ( 62.4 pcf) pulls down the density of the fill material (110 pcf).
If the material placed and tested did not have an acceptable density, the simple solution is to wait till the material dries, re compact it and test again. Not against any acceptable engineering practice as long as the material that failed the testing is not covered by subsequent lifts and becomes part of the dams structure.
Ken, let’s understand what we are looking at before you start using the Buffalo Creek comparison.
“But, Clarke said, his staff was not sure if this should be counted as a violation, because the new construction had not been given a chance to dry out and meet the stability requirements.”
Ummmm, let’s see, we’re in West Virginia, it’s February, so this new construction should be dry enough to maybe meet the stability requirements in say … April? May? Toss around any numbers you want, the bottom line is, our own DEP did nothing until the federal OSM forced their hand. And I’m sure that makes the people who live below this monstrosity feel all warm and safe at night.
Also no one said the new construction was part of the dam’s structure. If the inadequately compacted material was indeed part pof the structural component of the dam, the violation was justified, if not the violation should be thrown out.
Ken, MSHA has the overall authority for this structure, does anyone know where they stand?
concerned miner,
if you read the print story I linked to, you’ll see that this new construction is enlarging — both broadening and making more tall — the existing structure. In preparation for increasing the height, they are broadening the existing dam on the upstream side.
Also, it is incorrect to say that MSHA has “overall authority” over the dam. MSHA has authority under one law, and OSM and WVDEP have separate authority under two other laws.
I have asked for copies of recent MSHA citations. I’ll let you know what I find out.
Ken.
Ken you are correct, “upstream ” construction means increasing the dam size, but if the decant,and pool levels are such that the expansion is not yet functional it doesn’t matter, as I have stated, as long as the material that didn’t pass compaction testing is not covered by another lift, and it is not yet part of the impounding capacity of the dam, no violation exists.
concerned miner,
Please point me to the specific section of the State Code or Regulations that supports this statement:
s long as the material that didn’t pass compaction testing is not covered by another lift, and it is not yet part of the impounding capacity of the dam, no violation exists.
Ken.
Ken, this is not a state code or regulation issue, this is first year of college civil engineering and compaction theory. Take a look at the OSM inspection forms for the “existing” structure, everything is within spec. It appears the upstream construction has not yet been certified, therefore it is not in use. The pool and decant elevation are acceptable. Had the non conforming material been placed and certified as part of the dam’s structure, and all that was written by OSM was a 10 day notice all should have been fired and any with engineering licenses should have them revoked.
concerned miner,
All coal-mining impoundments are required to comply with the state code and regulations — not the “first year of college civil engineering and compaction theory.” Though, obviously, a knowledge of engineering and compaction theory is useful to those who design and build these things and to those who enforce the code and regs.
The DEP Notice of Violation spells out a section of code and the rules that DEP says were violated, and neither includes the language you mention
The language in the code and the rule is what spells out whether a violation exists.
Ken.
I’ll wait on the MSHA opinion, as far as impounding structures, their regs and specs are what the WVDEP and OSM regs are based on. When MSHA experts see it as a violation I will as well, but I don’t see that happening. A state or federal vehicle, a reg book and a few years experience doesn’t qualify anyone to inspect one of these structures. If the situation was indeed serious enough for a violation to be written, you should be able to produce one from MSHA. Do that and I will be on your bandwagon.
Concerned miner,
I’m sure this isn’t what you mean … but it could easily be misunderstood to make someone (me, for example) believe the rules on the books from OSM and WVDEP should just be ignored.
Whether you believe they’re qualified or not, state WVDEP inspectors and OSMRE inspectors are charged by law with policing these impoundments. Until Massey successfully challenges this violation, it is a violation under the law — whether you agree or disagree, and all bandwagons aside.
Ken.
It was interesting to note that the seismographs on the face of the dam had detected no vibration. I would assume this should make people feel better as I have often heard blasting near the dam cited as a concern.
Whose seismographs? I’m aware of at least one instance where a seismograph installed in a resident’s yard by DEP’s top explosives and blasting experts failed to work–condensation inside, not properly sealed–and the OSM caught it. If DEP won’t take action until they’ve got federal inspectors looking over their shoulders, what’s the point of paying them good tax dollars to overlook violations?
Nothing the DEP says makes me feel any safer.
You don’t need a seismograph to know that the blasting above the dam cause vibrations. You can feel them all the way to Rock Creek most every day. No one has denied that this “dam” is a pile of gravel. Its not a structure. I have had people who worked on it over the years tell me that it is a common practice to place wet material on the dam. Now we know.
Thank God we have an agency higher up the food chain to protect us from the WVDEP. This is just another example of the WVDEP not doing it’s job until it is forced to. The WVDEP is a disgrace to WV and should be abolished.
Ken
As far as your comment above stating that ” All coal-mining impoundments are required to comply with the state code and regulations — not the “first year of college civil engineering and compaction theory.”
If the state code and regulations were actually based on sound engineering practices not the misguided thoughts of radical tree sitting enviros or the “we provide jobs”coal lobby, these problems wouldn’t exists….come to think of it neither would your little blog.
concerned miner,
Normally, I would delete your post for name-calling (“radical tree-sitting enviros” is not necessary) … but I think I’ll leave it up there … because you’ve shown how uninterested you are in actually having discussion with others you might disagree with, and with the personal tone of your “neither would your little blog” comment.
Thanks, Ken.
Thanks for putting the 10-day notice on here. It’s pretty technical, but I noticed that what Matt said is in that notice and that is written by the OSM, not the DEP. So, Vernon should feel a little better about the validity of the readings, since it’s the federal government who read them. The report also says that the structure is sound Now, shouldn’t that be news that is shared with the people who live there, too?
Ken, I give you credit for expanding on this because it sounds like OSM and DEP both may have knee jerked here. And who wouldn’t when there is so much noise being made about this impoundment?
I feel sorry for the people who live near surface mines and these impoundments. Not only is the scenery ugly, but so is the way people use them to make points about both sides of the issue.
[...] This comes after the WVDEP issued a safety violation directed at the impoundment, following a warning notice issued to the state by the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (See previous posts on that here and here). [...]