The James M. Gavin Power Plant in southeast Ohio is one of the largest coal-fired electricity plants in the country. It’s also one of the nation’s top emitters of greenhouse gases, according to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Last year, the plant’s owners sued the EPA, arguing the federal government was unfairly applying new rules to one of its waste storage facilities.
This month, a judge dismissed that lawsuit.
Reporter David Forster with WOUB Public Media in Athens joined the Ohio Newsroom to discuss the ramifications of the decision.
This conversation has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
On the history of the Gavin Power Plant in southeast Ohio
“The Gavin Power Plant is a coal-fired power plant. It burns coal to create electricity, and it's located in a tiny village in Gallia County called Cheshire. Gavin has an interesting history in Cheshire. The plant was putting out so many pollutants through its smokestack, which were drifting over the community and causing concerns about cancer and other environmental contamination, that the company essentially offered to buy out all the homes and businesses in Cheshire. Many of the homeowners there did sell out to the company. Some folks still remain there. Some businesses remain there. But it was an interesting situation.”
On coal ash and why the EPA regulates it
“Coal ash is simply a byproduct of burning coal. So after you burn coal, there's still some residual stuff left over, and that's called coal ash. And coal ash is full of all sorts of toxic chemicals, including arsenic. As a result, coal ash gets hauled away and is usually stored in some kind of pond or reservoir, and it just gets spread out. That went on for decades with very little regulation in terms of how it should be properly stored.
“In 2015, the EPA finally developed some rules governing the proper disposal of coal ash and also how to properly close these storage facilities. One of the reasons [they did this] is because there's concern that groundwater and liquid could migrate into a reservoir, mix with the coal ash and leach out toxic chemicals that could then end up seeping down into the groundwater or running off into streams and reservoirs. So the EPA developed these rules in 2015 and Gavin, under these rules, closed one of its big coal ash storage units.”
On the lawsuit
“Under the rules the EPA developed in 2015, they say when you close one of these storage units, you're supposed to put a cover on it, you're supposed to seal it off and you're supposed to minimize, to the extent feasible, the migration of liquids into and out of the storage unit. You don't want liquids coming in and mixing with the coal ash and then leaching out and causing contamination. What the EPA determines is that the storage unit Gavin closed is filled with groundwater. In fact, 40% of the coal ash is saturated with groundwater. And so the EPA is saying, ‘Hey, you violated the rules.’
“Gavin filed a lawsuit against the EPA and said, ‘No, we didn't violate the rules because under the rules that you developed in 2015, the word liquid does not include groundwater.’ So this is what's before the judge: Does liquid include groundwater? And what the judge decides is yes, liquid does include groundwater. And the judge bases his decision on the fact that when the EPA developed those rules in the first place, it said its primary objective was to protect water, to protect groundwater.”
On ramifications for the future
“Gavin can still appeal the judge's decision to an appellate court. The judge also left the door open a bit for Gavin to come back to his court and make some additional arguments. We'll see what happens there.
“It will be interesting to see what the EPA does, because now [that the judge has ruled], it seems the EPA would now be able to go in and say, ‘You're going to have to fix the leaks in this closure. It is not properly sealed and too much groundwater is getting in and mixing with the coal ash, and that poses a serious environmental and health problem. So you need to reseal that storage unit.’ It seems that the EPA certainly now could step in and try to enforce that, but again, that remains to be seen.”
