By Joe Brehm and Amy Nordrum
____________________________
Coal mining in Meigs County predates the county borders. Not until April Fools Day of 1819, four years after the first coal company started mining this land, were the lines of the county drawn. Coal has had a steady presence in this corner of southeastern Ohio ever since.
While coal remains a large part of life in America and Meigs County, issues regarding human health and that of the land complicate this relationship. Some local residents and environmental groups have begun to weigh the costs and benefits of living so closely with coal. These considerations, coupled with an increasing national appetite for coal, make for a complex debate about the role that coal should play in a community like Meigs County.
This debate is not a hypothetical one. American Municipal Power (AMP-OH) is preparing to build a coal-fired power plant within this county’s borders.
Meigs County
A satellite map of Meigs County shows a blanket of green forest dissected by tan banks of creeks and streams that drain into the Ohio River, a dark blue ribbon that frames the county in the east and makes up half of its southern border. Straight lines and sharp corners, obviously drawn by humans, mark the county to the west and north.
Facing a steadily climbing unemployment rate of 15.2%, most citizens find jobs with local government, farms, or retail. Almost a fifth live in poverty, well above the national average of 12%. The median income for families, households, and single males hovers around $30,000 but for females it’s $10,000 less. A stark drop in residents between the ages of 18 and 24 (8.4% compared to 23.9% under 18) might illustrate the tendency to leave in search of jobs that many parents claim is so widespread among their teenager’s generation.
A quick glance at Meigs County’s population data indicates a close correlation with coal. The number of inhabitants spiked at just over 32,000 in the late 1800s when coal mining in Ohio was at its peak and has since decreased to around 20,000. Immigrants from nearby states as well as Europe poured into Meigs County during its heyday of coal wealth.
Only one functioning mine remains in Meigs County. A switch to burning rather than digging has reincarnated coal’s place in the region as the industry operates four coal-fired power plants well within sight of Meigs’ borders. Two of these plants are in Cheshire, Ohio including the 2600-MW James M. Gavin Power Plant owned by American Electric Power (AEP) and Kyger Creek Power Plant, operated by Ohio Valley Electric Corporation. The other two plants, known as Philip Sporn and Mountaineer, are owned by AEP and lie on the banks of West Virginia just across the river from the small village of Racine. Collectively, these plants rest within an 11.5 mile radius of one another.
AMP-Ohio
American Municipal Power-Ohio (AMP-Ohio) plans to start building a coal-fired power plant to join these ranks in the fall of 2009. The plant will stand in the small township of Letart Falls on the southern tip of the county. This area was a good fit for AMP-Ohio because regional coal mines offer cheap transportation costs and the company can use the river as a source of the abundant water needed to generate electricity from coal. At the last census, 641 people lived in Letart Falls and 746 lived in the nearby village of Racine.
In 1971, a group composed of mostly Ohio municipalities used their collective purchasing power to bargain for lower prices from utility companies. This was the founding of AMP-Ohio. Member communities learned the true meaning of scarce energy when the company they had long purchased power from decided not to renew its contract. Realizing that this energy insecurity could become a recurring problem, some of the communities decided to invest in building their own source of power. The cities continue to oversee the company as an odd sort of collaborative, analogous in form and principle to communes and cooperatives.
Plans for Expansion
The proposed plant, known as the American Municipal Power Generating Station (AMPGS), will be capable of generating 1,000 MW of electricity (four times the size of the 60-year-old plant AMP-Ohio currently operates) at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion. AMPGS will only be the second coal plant AMP-Ohio has ever owned or operated.
The company has ambitious plans for AMPGS. In addition to supplying 47% of current base load needs (the minimum amount of electricity used by customers at any given point), AMP-Ohio plans to install new scrubber technology to decrease the percentage of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and particulate matter emitted to surrounding air. The scrubber system, made by Powerspan, includes a variety of technologies that target certain emissions. For example, the Powerspan ECO-SO2 filter replaces traditional limestone used to remove sulfur dioxide with ammonia. AMP-Ohio hopes to sell the byproduct of ammonia filtering as a fertilizer rather than sending it to a landfill, as is usually done with waste from limestone scrubbers. Other emission-specific features of the Powerspan system include low-NOx burners, over-fire air, and a selective catalytic reduction unit for NOx, and a wet electrostatic precipitator and fabric filer bag house for fly ash particulates.
AMP-Ohio doesn’t have the final word in these decisions. There are five permits required by the Ohio EPA for the construction of a new coal-fired power plant including an air quality permit, water quality permit, landfill permit, National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NEPDS) permit for waste and storm water management, and a siting permit that considers the location and public need. AMP-Ohio started the lengthy permitting process in 2006 and has been stalled by a coalition of environmental groups and local activists who have filed motions to intervene and demanded appeals. AMP-Ohio has been granted each permit but is still working through the appeals process for the air and NPDES permits. AMP-Ohio is allowed to move forward with construction while these permits are contested. Activist groups expect the company to break ground in fall of 2009.
Local, state, and company officials argue that the most significant impact of AMPGS will be to the economy, not the environment. AMP-Ohio has promised an annual contribution of $20 million to Meigs County in the form of wages and local purchases by the plant and its workers. Local officials were eager for the estimated 800-1,000 construction and 166 permanent full-time jobs and the Ohio Department of Development was quick to encourage with early promises of grants to improve county roads and train workers.
But all agree that AMPGS’ impact won’t quite be limited to money and megawatts. As part of its application for various permits, AMP-Ohio has spelled out the anticipated environmental impacts of building a new plant. The site will cover 1600 acres and include a 135-acre landfill, mostly for fly ash and bottom ash that can’t be turned into fertilizer. In their application to the Ohio Power Siting Board, AMP-Ohio outlined plans to fill in wetlands and over 10,000 feet of headwater streams to build this landfill. Other expected impacts include clearing vegetation (including 95 acres of trees), dredging the Ohio river, possibly further impacting already endangered species like the eastern spadefoot toad, and significant water use from both the Ohio river and the city water system, from which AMPGS is expected to draw 10,000 gallons of water a day. The siting permit estimates that 434 acres of actively-farmed land will be impacted by AMPGS, though the nature and severity of this impact is not clear.
Coal’s unique lifecycle means that part of its impact is felt at the place the coal is mined rather than the plant at which it’s burnt. AMP-Ohio plans to mix relatively high-sulfur (more highly polluting) coal mined in Ohio with low-sulfur coal from West Virginia and other states. AMP-Ohio has not decided exactly where this coal will come from. A major concern shared by many groups is that some of the plant’s coal may come from mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky. This consists of blowing off the tops of mountains, extracting the coal seam, and filling in streams and valleys with the biproducts. leaking sludge ponds are adding fuel to the flame for some opponents.
Energy Trends
Generating electricity by burning pulverized coal has been the standard of the energy industry for years and AMP-Ohio considers this likely to continue, partly because of the ambiguity surrounding renewables and partly because of the inevitable slow transition to any options that do seem viable.
These assertions are based on some degree of expertise, as AMP-Ohio owns and operates the largest wind farm in Ohio (generating 7.2 MW annually) and has three hydroelectric plants under construction along the same river that will flow past AMPGS. Three more hydroelectric plants are proposed for the near future. AMP-Ohio also runs a landfill gas plant that creates energy by burning the methane emitted as trash breaks down in the sealed anaerobic environment, and is investigating 100 MW of additional landfill gas, biomass, and municipal solid waste energy projects.
In the short term, AMP-Ohio considers the use of “clean coal” technology a stepping stone to more sustainable solutions. AMP-Ohio communities are concerned with their short-term energy security and argue it’s better to stabilize their own energy prices by investing in a coal plant rather than rely on an ever-changing market while they build new technologies.
Elisa Young, a local activist who lives in Racine, points to the inherent insecurity of coal power, whether AMP-Ohio owns the facility that generates it or not. A recent 13% residential rate increase requested by AEP indicates unpredictable price fluctuations, says Young. “What certainty are [AMP-Ohio communities] buying into? Definitely not the cost.” She thinks it would be more strategic to tolerate market price swings in the next few years while investing in renewables that would help carry AMP-Ohio communities off coal and into the true energy security they so fervently seek.
The Clean Coal Continuum
Even if AMP-Ohio chooses to burn coal, there are types of coal burning plants considered more “clean” than AMPGS However, AMP-Ohio said these technologies will not be installed. For example, an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant converts coal into gas before burning it to remove harmful compounds and improve efficiency. There are only two IGCC plants currently in operation and both were heavily subsidized by the government. The only privately funded IGCC plant is currently being built by American Electric Power. David Bayless of the Ohio Coal Research Center, explains that IGCC technology can cost $1000 more per kilowatt than pulverized coal. For a 1000 MW plant, these expenses add up to $1 billion and AMP-Ohio was unwilling to take the high risk of introducing such an expensive new technology on a commercial scale.
AMP-Ohio’s conclusions about the necessary place of pulverized coal in the near future are also reflected in the statements of at least one outside expert. Joseph Hirschi form the Illinois Clean Coal Institute, a government initiative focused on ensuring the continued use of Illinois coal reserves, comments, “I think clean coal is a stepping stone to more renewable technologies, but it will be around for awhile.” Hirschi also points out that there is a “new technology hurdle” that must be passed for the first time before technologies such as IGCC can be a realistic investment for companies.
One reason AMP-Ohio chose to use Powerspan technology in their plant is that it can be expanded to offer future carbon sequestration if tests go as planned. Powerspan is currently testing carbon sequstration technology that could be added to AMPGS if the federal or state government imposes carbon dioxide regulations. Meigs County lies just across the river from a carbon sequestration site approved in early May of 2009 for AEP’s Mountaineer Power Plant. AEP can inject up to 165,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year for four to five years to test this new technology. The company plans to begin injections in September. The greatest threats to citizens in this form of “clean coal” technology are potential leaks of carbon dioxide into the air or ground water. The gas from such a leak would stay close to the ground and could suffocate local residents. A leak into groundwater would create Carbonic acid and water would be undrinkable and unusable for agriculture. Since this technology is new, no one knows just how far this threat extends and whether carbon dioxide would cross the river to Meigs County.
Outright opponents of “clean coal” technology argue that the phrase is a misnomer and that coal as a fuel is inherently destructive and polluting. The evidence rests in Meigs County, where a long history of coal extraction has caused acid mine drainage in one of two main watersheds. Large slurry ponds at each coal plant, like that which breached in Tennessee in late December of 2008 and Kentucky in 2000, contain vast amounts of waste collected from both the bottom of the boiler and the tops of smokestacks. This sludge contains heavy metals like arsenic, which has been linked to cancer and can damage blood vessels. These parts of the coal process have few if any viable alternatives and cast doubt on the merits of coal even if burning coal could become more “clean.”
A Long-Winded Debate
Perhaps the greatest contention lies in the viability not of “clean coal,” but investing in renewables as an alternative to AMPGS. Wind, solar, and hydro power would reduce the emissions that harm the climate and human health, while eliminating the need to locate highly-polluting industries next to homes and schools. This statement is agreed upon by environmentalists, AMP-Ohio, and the Ohio EPA. The challenge lies in AMP-Ohio’s immediate need for a more secure energy supply, and their statements that coal is still, quite simply, the only way to create significant amounts of around-the-clock power for distant communities.
Information from the National Resource Defense Council’s website features reports that Ohio could generate at least 415 MW of wind energy, meeting 20% of its energy needs by 2020 while creating 3,100 full-time jobs and boosting the state GDP by $8.2 billion as the need to import energy decreased. The NRDC proposes biomass as another viable alternative with the potential to generate 7.5% of energy used by Ohio from yard waste, pallets, and other wood waste within the next ten years, according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
AMP-Ohio’s feasibility studies, however, paint a different picture. Studies submitted in a permit hearing cited evidence that renewable fuel sources are not practical alternatives to AMPGS, even when the energy generated from all potential renewables are combined. According to public documents from AMP-Ohio’s website, wind farms in Ohio could only generate 50 MW of power, with hydroplants providing a potential 340 MW and energy efficiency reducing generation needs by 64 MW. Together, this adds up to only 454 MW of energy to replace a plant intended to generate at least 960 MW at all times.
Still, environmentalists push for bolder steps toward alternatives. Mattie Reitman, Coordinator of the Ohio Student Environmental Coalision (OSEC), which has organized letter-writing campaigns and direct action to oppose AMPGS, suggests combined heat and power as an energy option not considered by AMP-Ohio. Combined heat and power is a way of recycling energy used in large facilities. Reitman says much of the energy used in Ohio’s profitable manufacturing industry is lost to inefficiency and waste heat. He suggests there are ways of capturing and using this heat as electricity. He calls this, “Working smart, not hard,” and OSEC is currently putting together a more in-depth feasibility study of combined heat and power.
Environmental (In)Justice
Most of the communities that have signed 50-year commitments to purchase power from AMPGS are in northern Ohio- no town in Meigs County plans to sign a contract with AMP-Ohio for the electricity generated so close to home.
Activists working for environmental justice fight projects like AMPGS that seem to unfairly impact a community made particularly vulnerable by race or economic class. Environmental justice advocates like Young and organizers at Ohio Citizens Action point to the high rate of asthma and lung cancer in Meigs County as a classic injustice borne by an impoverished Appalachian community, and imposed by an industry generating electricity for wealthier communities much farther north who will never have to deal with the increased risks of lung cancer.
“That was the first injustice that hit me and has stuck with me when I started looking at the map- that the communities being targeted to buy the electricity are nowhere near the area that would suffer premature deaths from particulate and pollution exposure,” Young says.
Local residents are, in the words of Young, already desensitized to the threat of poor air quality because they’ve been surrounded by a slew of power plants for as long as they can remember. Young returned to Meigs County in the ‘90s as caretaker of her deceased grandmother’s farm and is the seventh generation of her family to live in Meigs County. She grows organic produce and raises hens but is concerned about the health of her community. Young has been actively campaigning against AMPGS from the early stages of the process, filing a legal motion to intervene in the siting permit and founding a local citizens action group. She is joined by a variety of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Ohio Citizens Action, and the National Resource Defense Council, who have filed legal appeals in addition to organizing direct action and public information campaigns.
Policy
The legal process itself has posed obstacles for these activists who grow frustrated with public hearings and lack of legal representation. The EPA holds a public hearing before issuing each permit to receive comments and judge public sentiment of a project. Though noble in theory, these hearings are filled with vocal proponents from both sides who can create a passionate but intimidating atmosphere. At a June 2nd hearing for revisions to the air quality permit, tensions were high between supporters and opponents of the plant.
Work and school also interfere with democracy if residents can’t attend the hearings or have little free time to decipher hefty pages of legal jargon. Young has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her against AMP-Ohio so has resorted to doing this legal work on her own. Her faith in this process has wavered, saying, “I have a lot of confidence in the legal system. There’s all the justice that money can buy.”
Even so, Young and the environmental groups hope to make some strides in protecting human health through the legal system because it is, quite frankly, all they have to work with. Details about the permitted level of pollution and its cumulative effects rest at the heart of their case against AMPGS.
AMP-Ohio and the EPA agree that a certain amount of emissions are unavoidable and should be accepted for the sake of generating electricity, as long as these emissions do not exceed a predetermined “safe” level. Young argues that levels of safety are determined on a case-by-case basis and do not consider the cumulative effect of, say, five coal-fired power plants emitting sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds within a 12-mile radius. Even though a single power plant, particularly one equipped with the latest scrubber technology like AMPGS, might emit relatively few emissions in an area, this does not mean that five such plants, when taken together, are safe.
Questions about Health
Young has been diagnosed with cancer and is frustrated with the link she sees between the seemingly high rate of cancer in her neighbors and the prevalence of power plants. She once discussed chelation therapy (a routine part of cancer treatment that removes heavy metals built up in a patient’s body) with a physician who recommended cilantro as a natural form of this therapy. Young grows and eats cilantro grown on her farm but the physician said the cilantro was actually sequestering heavy metals from the air and probably adding to the build-up inside her body, since she lives just five miles from the closest power plant.
“I don’t have words for how that made me feel. Violated for the most part, but after seeing so many [neighbors] die- outraged, angry, and determined to do something about it,” Young wrote in an email.
According to the Environmental Defense Fund’s head physician, particulate pollution from coal burning power plants causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. Also, while emissions have not been shown to cause asthma, they have been shown to make cases of asthma worse.
A study conducted in 2009 explored the potential effects of leachate from coal fly ash on humans. This leachate is the same substance that burst through a dam in Tennessee in December of 2008. Leachate was shown to be genotoxic to humans. This means that it is damaging to DNA molecules in genes, causing mutations and potentially cancerous tumors.
Thinking Forward or Stepping Backward?
AMPGS will be the first coal-fired power plant to be built in Ohio in three decades. In some sense, its construction and operation will be a relic of the past, representative of an energy history that many think is undergoing a fundamental transformation. For now, AMPGS’ “clean coal” technology is an iconic example of the slow and painful steps to a more sustainable future, with plenty of disagreement about whether this step is necessary or too little, too late.
Entangled in the coal debate is the story of a rural county long inundated with the coal industry and serious questions about the health effects and injustices of living in such close quarters with coal. At the core of this energy debate lies the question: is this the best we can do? Is there a better way to create electricity- one that will feed an energy-hungry nation without destroying large tracts of forest and exposing people to toxics? The murky grounds of feasibility is where energy is most hotly debated, while the residents of Meigs County make their living surrounded by coal plants and hope for the best.
