Sunny Day Breach
Posted on October 29, 2009 | By Denny Tyler | 6 Comments
With mountaintop removal starting on Coal River Mountain, which means blasting is going to be occurring uncomfortably close to the Brushy Fork slurry impoundment, I thought this would be a good time to talk about the emergency warning plan for the Brushy Fork dam. All calculations in the plan are based on a sunny day breach. Sunny day breach obviously means no contributing adverse weather conditions just some type of failure with the dam itself.
Two different scenarios are possible with a failure to this particular impoundment. The first is a breach of the main dam which is primarily what the warning plan focuses on. The second failure would be into abandoned underlying mine works known as the Brushy Eagle mine which would be as devastating.
The following excerpts are from this document –
The data outlined in the first few excerpts below were outlined by me just to help you understand the data.
Using Pettus as an example (click images for a larger view) -
At mile 3.64 is the distance from the dam to Pettus. Gage zero = 847.00 feet is ground level. Max elevation reached by flood wave = 919.52 feet is pretty self explanatory. 72.52 feet is the difference between ground level and max elevation of the flood wave. When added with the following time schedule, also from the plan, what it means is that if the dam were to have a major breach, an estimated 12 minutes after the breach a wave of toxic sludge over 72 feet tall would hit the small community of Pettus.
The document contains the calculations for all of the communities on the list above. I’ve decided to list all of them here.
I found it frightening that at Peytona, the community furthest from the dam included in the plan, at over 26 miles, would still be hit by a wave nearly 40 feet tall in the event of a sunny day breach.
I have seen the number 998 used quite a bit in relation to expected casualties from a major breach of the brushy fork dam but I really believe that number is a lot smaller than what would actually occur. For instance, in the town of Whitesville alone there were 520 residents listed for the 2000 census. Whitesville would be hit by a wave just over 51 feet tall an estimated 18 minutes after the dam breached. I can’t imagine how any of those folks could get out in time and for those that were lucky enough it would take a run for their lives. There are only two ways out of town. One way would take you straight into the flood and in the other direction one would be trying to outrun the flood and if you are in a vehicle, you would be hoping like hell you didn’t hit the inevitable panic laden traffic jam because literally every second would count. One figure I didn’t highlight, probably should have, was max flow. As far as Whitesville is concerned the wave would be moving at a volume of 406092 cubic feet per second, that translates into 3,037,779 gallons per second. One cubic foot per second is equal to a volume of one cubic foot flowing every second. 1 cubic foot per second = 7.4805 gallons per second.
I have seen no documents from studies that should be conducted stating that it is safe to use explosives in the vicinity of the dam. I live just over 7 miles in a straight line from the nearest MTR site. I hear the explosion every time they set one off and in most cases I can feel it as well. Imagine the concussion that would ripple through the impoundment area just a couple hundred feet from the blasting. I actually think there would be more of a chance of the impoundment failing into the old Brushy Eagle mine works. Which as I stated at the beginning of this post would be just as devastating as a main dam breach. You would still have about 8 billion gallons of coal slurry on its way downstream after exiting from two suspected Brushy Eagle mine portals.
Stopping the mountaintop removal operation on Coal River Mountain would not only preserve the mountain for a more sustainable future such as the Coal River Wind project but stopping the blasting just may save lives. How far are we willing to go, how much are we willing to destroy, what are we willing to risk for coal, a non-renewable resource?
BTW – considering the plan was drawn up under sunny day conditions I would have to assume that would leave God open to take the blame should a failure occur during adverse weather conditions.
Visit iLoveMountains.org and Get Involved!!
For more info and an interactive map visit Journey Up Coal River.
Our remnants of wilderness will yield bigger values to the nation’s character and health than they will to its pocketbook, and to destroy them will be to admit that the latter are the only values that interest us. – Aldo Leopold
Comments
6 Responses to “Sunny Day Breach”
Leave a Reply
Search This Site
Archives
You Can Help…
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Featured Posts
Popular Posts
Endmtr.com Forum
- Mountaintop removal in Tennessee December 18, 2011
- Michigan coal-fired plants to close; wind and air to step up December 17, 2011
- Energy Company Abandons Plan For Georgia Coal Plant December 17, 2011
- GOP’s Coal Poison Pill Risks White House Veto Of Payroll Tax Cut Bill December 17, 2011
- New study documents cumulative impact of mountaintop mining December 12, 2011
The Latest Google News – MTR & Climate Change
- INFLUENCE GAME: Big donors and what they want - Fox News - 03 Feb 12
- If We Can Stop the Keystone Pipeline, We Can Stop Mountaintop Removal. Right? - Huffington Post - 02 Feb 12
- Asheville Green Drinks initiative promotes sustainability, green movement - The Blue Banner - 01 Feb 12
- Top Climate Scientist on Need for Clean Energy Action - CleanTechnica - 30 Jan 12
- Environmental groups ask Kentucky lawmakers to consider coal's health impact - Sacramento Bee - 25 Jan 12
Information / Hotline
Contributing Authors – Past & Present
Gallery
EPA
Admin
Visitors Online
- 06 visitor(s) online
- powered by WassUp
October 29th, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Thank you for posting this. The people that live in this valley had better wake up. I don’t know what is scarier, these dangerous coal waste dams or the fact that the local residents are turning their heads as to what can happen to their children, grand children and loved ones.
For shame on the coal companies, the agencies and the elected officials.
October 30th, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
great post Denny! Pray it doesn’t happen! These thugs don’t care about anything but the bottom line.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 11:01 am
I have the greatest respect for the people in Southern WV that are doing their best to point out the devastation of MTR and the problems that exist with slurry ponds. The future of that area is questionable and all because of the mining techniques.
I understand that Massey “says” they will now do contour mining on Coal River Mt. and that the people of that area can speak to “them” concerning future wind power, since they say they will leave the top. All well and good, BUT the study of the output of wind velocity was conducted when the mountain was intact. Uplift of wind would surely be affected, even with contour mining and therefore Massey’s recent “thoughtfulness” towards the future possibility of a Wind Farm is highly doubtful.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Sara since first reading your comment I’ve been curious. Your comment is the first I have heard of contour mining instead of MTR on Coal River Mtn. I actually waited a couple of days to respond to see if any news articles would come out stating what you have said. So far I haven’t seen anything and after speaking with some folks closer to the wind project it would appear to be untrue. If you have a link you could point me at that would be really cool.
If it were true as it relates to the Brushy Fork dam then the danger outlined in this post would still remain because explosives are used for both types, contour and MTR.
As far as their “thoughtfulness”… probably if Coal River Wind were to get approval for a wind farm and a commitment from the state to see it through then CRW could immediately start looking for someone willing to invest in and build the wind farm. If contour mining were to take place then CRW would be in limbo because they would have to wait for the mining to finish all the way through reclamation and then they would have to get another study done because the topography would be different. From there the fate of the wind farm would be anybodies guess.
The only type of mining feasible would be underground mining. Explosives are not used in underground mining and I think common sense would dictate you probably can’t build a windmill on the same mountain where explosives are going off which is what would put the wind farm in limbo if contour mining started on the mountain.
But as I said it appears to be untrue, MTR continues. If I do hear anything though I will definitely write a post about it. Thanx for your comment and support.
April 8th, 2010 @ 9:01 am
Thanks for posting this Denny – especially for highlighting parts of the evacuation plan and making it easily readable and understandable.
This is an old post but I wandered this way through a link from Jeff Bigger’s article on Brushy Fork this morning (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/tip-of-iceberg-of-masseys_b_529846.html)
Is there more info in the evacuation plan about what would happen should the break come through the Brushy Eagle mine? Where are the openings in the mine? Would it be a slower flow that way – meaning there would be more time to evacuate? Would the level of the breach be lower too?
If there isn’t info in the evacuation plan on it, I wonder if we could figure it out comparing the devastation of Buffalo Creek vs. the devastation of the Martin County spill – the first being a dam face break and the second being an underground break. What do you think?
Thanks for all you do!!
April 9th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
As far as I can tell the plan just covers a breach of the dam face. It does mention two portals from the old Brushy Eagle works where a breach into those mines would likely be the exit points but it doesn’t say where those portals are.
Like I said in this post I believe a breach into the underground works would be just as devastating as a dam face breach as far as the environmental consequences. I don’t think you would see the high flood wave because of the restricted flow from a mine portal.
Either way… I hope we don’t find out the hard way.