This article originally provided by The Register-Herald

August 16, 2006

Massey loses bid for silo

Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter

For the second time, a Massey Energy subsidiary has failed to gain approval to erect a second silo near Marsh Fork Elementary School, while the first one remains a source of intense debate among folks living in the community.

That first one is exempt since it was put up before the 1977 Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act became law. [OVEC note: the coal company may have been doing something on the site in the 70's, but the silo was built in 2003, so the silo was definitely not in place before 1977]

But in a letter to Goals Coal, a Massey subsidiary, the state Department of Environmental Protection said an exception cannot be extended to a proposed second silo, a 168-foot structure, since it would be located 260 feet from the school.

The 1977 law forbids any mining operations within 300 feet of a school, thus eliminating a second silo in the region.

Even so, citizens insist the first silo poses a threat to the health and safety of school children, said Vernon Haltom, a spokesman for Coal River Mountain Watch.

“We are still finding out more details from the DEP,” he said. “We want to interpret it correctly before we make any decision as regarding the first silo.”

Massey initially landed approval for the second installation, but DEP then rescinded its decision, prompting the nation’s fourth-largest coal producer to appeal. The Surface Mine Board then upheld the DEP’s ruling.

There was no immediate action from Massey on a possible appeal. A silo of identical height was built in 2003 and is used to store powdered coal and load rail cars about 150 feet from the school grounds.

“We’re not sure if Massey will appeal this or not,” Haltom said.

“But for the meantime, we’re glad that DEP has done their job and applied the law.”

Coal River Mountain Watch produced a letter Randy Huffman, director of the Division of Mining Reclamation, sent to the coal producer, citing federal law that doesn’t permit any “substantial changes” in operations or to undertake any major expansions.

“The existing operation exception does not allow Goals to construct the silo it proposes,” Huffman said.

In an Aug. 11 letter, the DEP said corrected maps and boundary markers accurately depict the western boundary near the Marsh Fork school.

“However, the maps fail to accurately depict the permit boundary in the area of the bridge over Marsh Fork,” Huffman wrote.

Goals was asked to resubmit maps that provided a true picture of all locations in the original permit.

Huffman cited Goals Coal’s contention that the existing operation of one silo afforded it “a blanket exemption” from the 300-foot buffer zone, but DEP disagreed.

“The proposed silo is an expansion of coal preparation facilities which will encroach within the 300-foot protected zone around the school,” he wrote.

Haltom’s wife, Sarah, expressed relief at the DEP letter to Goals Coal.

“I am glad that the DEP stepped up to the plate and finally acknowledged and enforced the law that was intended to protect children,” she said.

“But the silos are not the only problem, and if Massey’s engineers cannot even get a map right, how can we expect them to maintain a 2.8-billion-gallon sludge dam above the school? These children still deserve a new school in their own community away from all of the threats that hover over them from the Massey sites there.”

In a side matter, Coal River Watch says Ed Wiley, a grandparent of a recent Marsh Fork graduate, has notched 180 miles of his intended 455-mile walk to the nation’s capital in a “Pennies of Promise” effort to raise money for a new school and dramatize the plight of Marsh Fork residents.

— E-mail:

mannix@register-herald.com