Legislative Update - Feb. 5, 2010

Legislative Update - Nov. 15, 2009

SSP will attend the November Legislative Interim Session

Tuesday, Nov. 17 & Thursday, Nov. 19

Meet at 11 a.m. in the Capitol Cafeteria (basement of the Capitol)

Please let us know if you plan to come either day - or if you can come for both days!

Contact:

We need your help! We need your voice at these meetings! And we need your participation to show legislators the extent of support there is in WV for sludge safety! They won't know if you don't tell them... remember, democracy is not a spectator sport.

Legislative Update - Sept. 10, 2009

Dear SSPers,

Hello! As you all know, SSP experienced a transition this summer, with long-time organizer Patricia Feeney moving to Tennessee to pursue her goal of going to med school. I'm Stephanie Tyree, a native of Charleston, and have moved back to WV after being gone for 9 years to work as OVEC's SSP Organizer in Mingo Co. I'm completely thrilled to be back in WV working with SSP and really looking forward to meeting all of you in person someday soon.

Even with the summer transition, SSP has been steaming ahead and is now gearing up for another season of lobbying for a sludge safety bill. Between now and the start of the 2010 session, one of our major goals will be to shore up supporters in the Legislature who will stand with SSP and sludge safety legislation.

We're continuing toward that goal this month by meeting with legislators during the September interim session, making sure that sludge safety is still on the legislative radar and that friendly legislators become strong advocates for SSP. The SSP Committee is setting up meetings with a number of legislators for Monday, September 14 and Tuesday September 15.

If you'd like to participate in meetings with legislators this month, please contact me by Friday Sept. 11 - we are always looking for as many SSP advocates as possible!

Best,

Stephanie
stephanie@sludgesafety.org

Legislative Update - July 30, 2009

SSP's Response to the DEP's SCR 15 Study
DEP’s Study Inadequately Answers the Questions Mandated in SCR-15:

 ·         The study is based on one time sampling resulting in a “snapshot” determination of the water quality at the sample sites. The study does not account for any seasonal variation.

 ·         Independent scientists were not allowed to collect their own samples. The DEP did split a small number of samples with Dr. Ben Stout; however, the DEP's results and Dr. Stout's results are so wildly different that it raises questions about either the process of sample collection or the accuracy of the testing methods.

 ·         All study sites reflect alkaline mine pool chemistry; none of the sites evaluated for this study were injecting coal slurry into abandoned underground workings with acidic mine pools. Acidic mine seams will react differently with slurry injections. It is likely that the acidity would force the metals back into solution, therefore creating a very different scenario. 

·         The study did not complete extensive testing of communities’ drinking water supplies surrounding study sites.

·         The studies for each site lacked any standardization of presentation, making it extremely difficult to compare the different case studies, spot trends and draw broader conclusions between the sites.

·         All sites selected were below or partially below drainage; therefore, slurry transfer was less likely. Only one community where residents have raised concerns about water quality and health problems was selected for the study.

·         The study reveled that Panther Prep plant has been using filter press since 1995; therefore, the site is not representative of typical coal slurry injections. Overall, the study did not look at a large enough population to make representative conclusions.

·         By the DEP's own admission, the study could draw no strong conclusions about migration of slurry into surface and/or ground water as mandated in SCR-15.

The Study Demonstrates the Dangers of Coal Slurry:

·         The slurry liquids exceeded safe drinking water standards for aluminum, antimony, iron, lead, manganese, sodium, sulfates, and total dissolved solids for at least one site in the study. 

·         The study found degraded water quality in mine pools that were injected into, particular downgradient of the injection point. In some cases, organic compounds from the preparation process were detected in mine pools

·         The study found degraded water quality downstream of surface impoundments and refuse disposal areas.  

The Study Demonstrates DEP's Failure to Successfully Oversee Slurry Injections:

·         Every single site studied had at least one major slurry spill over the course of operation. Southern Minerals had 6.

·         Three of the four sites showed repeated violations of contaminant limits in the slurry. Petroleum compounds, arsenic, aluminum, beryllium, chromium, lead, selenium and nickel were found in excess of permitted limits on at least one sites. Injection sites were often in violation for the better part of year before being corrected. One site had a violation for petroleum compounds that exceed the limit by over 400 times. In the case of Loadout, LLC, the study says that the violations were so bad the author question whether the permit could be renewed. Why was it not revoked?

·         At the Panther site, the study admits “in effect, there are no ground water monitoring sites for the ... permits. There is no way to determine if any impacts to the groundwater have, or will occur from any past slurry injection activities in the Wet Branch- Cabin Creek watershed.”   Why is this mine still allowed to inject slurry?

·         The study admits that many of the sites were found to be using chemicals in the preparation process that were not included on their permits. The recommendation that DEP inspectors be trained to recognize and check the chemicals used at the plant is troubling as it suggest that the DEP did not do this prior to this study.   

Recommendations from the Sludge Safety Project:

·         Current injections must be halted until the companies holding the permits can complete the more rigorous application process recommended by the DEP in SCR-15. If the old application process is not sufficient to protect the public for new permits, why should we think that it is sufficient for existing ones?

·         The current moratorium on slurry injections must be made permanent and extended to slurry impoundments. Coal slurry injections and impoundments are not necessary. Alternative dry methods exist and are prevalent in other parts of the country and world.  

·         All wet wash preparation plants operating in West Virginia should be required to install filter presses immediately and all new preparation plants should be required to utilize fully dry coal processing technologies.

More Information:
SSP's Citizen's Report on Underground Coal Slurry Injections

DEP's report on Underground Coal Slurry Injections