Published: March 05, 2009 11:25 pm      

Residents voice concern over Marfork plant to DEP

The state Department of Environmental Protection held a continuation hearing in Pettus Thursday night for individuals who claim they may be adversely affected by the reissuance of a Marfork Coal Co. preparation plant permit.

Marfork, a Massey Energy subsidiary, is required to have its permit renewed every five years. Any time an individual requests a public hearing regarding a permits renewal, the DEP is required to listen to public comments prior to reissuance.

The DEP held an informal hearing last Wednesday at Liberty High School, and after some complained that the location was too far for them to travel, the DEP scheduled a second hearing.

The hearing was rescheduled to ensure that all parties were able to make their concerns known, a DEP spokesman said after last week’s informal hearing — where nobody showed up to.

Last night, around 90 people, predominantly coal miners, gathered at the Raleigh-Boone Technology Center to address the DEP regarding the Marfork preparation plant, located 2 miles from Whitesville.

“This prep plant has had 72 violations over the past six years,” Naoma resident Bo Webb said.

“They’ve had five station orders — that’s where the DEP actually shut them down. And one of those occurred about three years ago while 10,000 gallons of water from a pumping station at that prep plant came down the stream at Coal River.”

Webb said the citizens living in the area weren’t made aware of the contaminated water in the river in apt time.

“I think you’re really gambling with people’s lives,” he said.

Webb says Marfork should consider other ways of processing coal.

“I’m not going to say shut the processing plant down right now. But give them a time limit to switch to a dry process,” he said.

“It costs the coal company $1 more per ton to process in a dry method. It’s there ... It seems that Massey’s CEO is more concerned about the bottom line profit for Massey and Wall Street investors than he is about his concerned about the safety of his workers and the communities where he operates his coal mines.”

Judy Bonds of Marsh Fork said the permit shouldn’t be renewed because of the “unsafe drinking water” which precipitates from the discharge at the preparation plant.

Vernon Haltom said that in 2005 the coal processing facility released toxic slurry into Coal River, which serves as a primary source of drinking water for thousands.

“The toxic coal slurry from this plant piles up behind the tallest dam in the hemisphere,” he said.

“Both the impoundment and the containing ridges also sit dangerously above a honey comb of underground mines. Massey now plans to blast on top of these ridges.”

A spokesman for Marfork spoke in favor of the permit, and more than 80 coal miners were in attendance to show their support for the reissuance of the permit.

“We’re here because this affects our jobs,” a Marfork coal employee said.

The preparation plant employs 71 people and the coal that is processed at the facility is processed in deep mines that employ nearly 800. Its permit was originally granted in 1994.

The DEP will announce whether the permit will be renewed within 30 days.

— E-mail: jayres

@register-herald.com