[Coach_Owens87]

On Feb. 26, 1972 the Buffalo Creek Impoundment gave way and I believe over 100 people died in that disaster. Largely due to this disaster new laws were enacted in 1977 to keep this from happening again, which it has, then on Oct. 11, 2001 another disaster happened when the Martin County Impoundment breeched into an abandoned underground mine, since then more laws have been enacted to help ensure that this does not happen again. As I've said before mining is like every other industry, it's not perfect, but improves each and every year.

Coach, here's a report by The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on the Martin Sounty Slurry Spill which has some interesting conclusions, here's a few of them

• Private wells in the area do contain naturally occuring heavy metals, such as arsenic, iron, manganese, barium, and cadmiun, but not at levels that would be wxpected to cause any adverse health effects in residents who drink water from those wells.
  
• No adverse health effects areexpected to occur as a result of residents ingesting vegetables grown in residential soil potentially contaminated by the slurry spill.
  
• Black water events may continue to occur, but the concentrations of metals currently found during these events are not expected to cause adverse health effects.

After reviewing this report, I could not find anything about most of the toxic chemicals remaining.

Some Impoundments may not be active, but I assure you they are inspected by MSHA, the State and the companies that are responsible for those impoundments. I couldn't imagine that MSHA or the State would not inspect each and every impoundment especially with the way the mining industry is under a microscope as it is today.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/MartinC...080706.pdf

What kind of statement is this "just because people don't complain doesn't mean there isn't a problem". Come on Coach????

One last thing, Would you care to share your defination of reclaimation with us? I mean since replacing the highwalls and following the approved drainage and post mining land use plans are not acceptable to you.

So the report doesnt mention the chemicals left after the "cleanup", to me it's all a cover up.

According to a tesitomony from a engineer with massey energy. the site only had 15 feet of dirt and rock between the slurry pond and the underground mine (MSHA recommends 150). So they knew about the undergound mine site, but still built the impoundment. If they lied about what cuased the incident, and then only let a few investigations into the incident occur, why should I believe the reports. Martin County coal had a 100 million gallon spill in 1994 and knew another spill was inevitable, but the MSHA allowed them to continue thier work with the impoundment, that just dont seem right. After the spill they fined Martin county coal and it's owner Massey energy for $110,000, and the mine operator appealed the fines, doesnt sound like he was to concerned about the environmental devastation he caused. They're are an esitmated 200 impoundments built over existing mines, how am I to trust that these wont break when the MSHA done nothing to prevent the 2001 spill.

So just becuase someting is supposedly monitored by the MSHA doesnt mean things are going well. I have very little faith in trusting the MSHA.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_200..._spill.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_Sludge_Spill

http://www.msha.gov/MEDIA/PRESS/2002/NR020425.HTM

My comment that you criticized is just my opinion. It's really just a simple way of thinking, just becuase people dont speak about a problem doesnt mean it dont exist. A lot of people wouldnt know where to start with a complaint, or they wouldnt want to cause trouble, which is very common. And just becuase they file a complaint doesnt assure that the problem will be fixed, so a lot of people just stay quiet.

You ask what my idea of "reclamation" would be to actually reclaim a site, not just control erosion and plant grass. The current plans for reclamation arent accepatable, and they arent to most people with an envioronmental point of view. The whole system needs an overhaul, the fines, permits, and post mining reclamation laws are a joke. The corps of egineers hands out mining permits like candy.
I believe that if a site isnt going to be used for deveolopmental purposes, which 95% arent, they should be required to be reforested with a suitable mixture of tree and plant species that where on the site before mining occured. It's estimated that you could find over 100 species of trees withing 1 acre of appalachian forest, so the current reclaimation process of planting non native grass is a joke. I believe an outside agency besides the MSHA or the office of the interior should also oversee reclamation. Which brings me to the topic of this post, i dont think the mining industry needs more flexibility in the way they can mine. The definition of "fill material" has been changed to not include pollutants.