While there are some in the community who don’t support the Trump Administration’s order to keep open Consumers Energy’s  J.H. Campbell coal plant, most agree that allowing the company to inject waste into the ground is problematic. Also found to be problematic, are the disposal practices CE uses today and has used in the past.

Currently, waste from the coal plant goes into a lined landfill, which is a step up from when it used to go into an unlined landfill. The waste is then diluted with cooling water from the plant and dumped into Lake Michigan. Though classified as “non-hazardous,” coal wastewater has been shown to contain heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic, and cannon, and toxic substances including selenium and moron, as well as compounds of bromide and chloride.

If the emergency orders keeping the plant open cease, CE intends to close the Campbell as intended. With the plant no longer in operation, no cooling water would be produced—meaning a new disposal mechanism would be needed to span the years it would take for  the plant to decommission. Thus, CE is requesting permits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) to install two injection wells which would send the waste underground once the plant closes.

Community members may never have learned CE’s current method for disposing of the coal wastewater if CE hadn’t sought the injection well permits, which prompted an information meeting and a public hearing for the public.

One would think any option would be better than putting diluted, heavy-metal-containing wastewater into Lake Michigan. Think again.

An injection well would take the extracted groundwater from existing coal combustion residual (CCR) and wastewater from dewatering activities and other contact waters and send them down a few thousand feet to where porous rock would catche and absorb the fluid. Solid rock and about three thousand feet would separate the groundwater from the waste being spilled out. The explanation given by CE is that the wastewater would be trapped in the depths, well separated from ever touching the groundwater—if such a thing can be guaranteed.

Residents Speak Against the Wells

After learned of Consumer Energy’s intent at the initial informational meeting, the second meeting—a public hearing—was held for residents to respond to what was learned at the first meeting. The hearing gave residents the opportunity to tell EPA whether they believe the proposed injection well permits are consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA's underground injection control regulations, and whether the facts—as determined by EPA—are accurate. In response to all significant comments, EPA will prepare a written response.

At the beginning of the public hearing, there was first a call to federal elected official or representatives who would like to speak and then a call to state elected officials or representatives. No federal or state officials were in attendance to speak for constituents on whether this would be a good decision for the health of our environment. As one resident would later suggest, CE is one of the largest donors to politicians in the state, and it would be wise to pay attention to voting records on protecting our environment and the consequences of that.

Just as the hearing hadn’t drawn input from state or federal officials, there wasn't much of a showing from residents whom this would most effect. Only a few dozen community members dotted the chairs of Holland’s Midtown Center on Thursday, July 23. Many of the concerns focused on the fluids, saying that whether diluted in lake Michigan or injected 5000 to 6000 feet down into rock formations, the pollutants will remain in the environment and not be able to be recovered.

People questioned why the injection wells were labeled “non-hazardous” when the fluid contains varying amounts of heavy metals. Some questioned the wells themselves speaking of the possibility of mechanical degradation over time from chemical stress, pressure, and temperatures that can affect the casings that store the waste.

Several residents insisted on requiring CE to provide consistent monitoring of the wells years into the future. Others suggested alternatives, such as selling more of the CCR to create useful products, wanting the problem resolved rather than shoved into the ground. Some thought it was CE’s responsibility to “get creative” and one suggested the company should invest in above ground wastewater purification rather than “taking the cheap way our and pumping toxic waste directly beneath our properties,” which some called an “an acceptable risk to our homes and families.”

One resident spoke of CE lately not keeping up with the requirement to water mounds to inhibit the coal dust. Nearby homes and cars have been filled with dust. He pointed out that since the company isn’t being a good steward now, what makes the community think it will be a good steward and provide consistent monitoring in the future. Trust level of CE is at a low.

Some focused on how vulnerable the water already is already, and that Consumers energy has a documented history of groundwater contamination from its previous unlined ash pits.  The was concern was over the risk of high-pressure waste mitigation or a case failure permanently ruining the aquifers.

A realtor spoke of how injection wells penalize local homeowners since the wells are designed to store waste for at least 50 years, turning the community into a permanent, industrial waste sink long after the power plant is demolished. The wells will lower property values, create a massive stigma for future home buyers, and threaten the local community.

By the end of the hearing, it was evident that those in attendance are not in favor of the injection wells which CE would like to use upon closing the Campbell. But will the Campbell close?

Ever since May of 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued back-to-back emergency orders keeping it open in order to support the power grid. President Trump has called coal beautiful and clean and even signed an Executive Order last February to “celebrate the coal industry’s revival,” saying it will support workers, deliver affordable and dependable energy to Americans, and enhance national security through American energy dominance.

Backing that revival, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced $175 million to modernize six projects, “keeping dependable energy sources online, strengthening grid reliability, and helping keep electricity costs low for American families and businesses.” The modernizations will be in addition to DOE’s $525 million effort to expand and reinvigorate America’s coal supply through “targeted upgrades that increase efficiency, extend plant life, and add dependable capacity using infrastructure that is already built and connected to the grid.”

“For years, previous administrations targeted America’s coal industry and the workers who power our country, forcing the premature closure of reliable plants, and driving up electricity costs,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “President Trump has ended the war on American coal and is restoring common-sense energy policy. These investments will keep America’s coal plants operating, keep costs low for Americans, and ensure we have the reliable power needed to keep the lights on and power our future.”

But what about the harm to the environment?

As modernizing coal plants decrease the impact to the environment, so do the upgrades being made with the ways the resulting waste is handled through recycling or processing efforts.

Injection wells are not the only option for coal leachate, which is what currently resides in Campbell’s landfills and is defined as liquid that percolates through a landfill and picks up dissolved or suspended contaminants from waste.

As one public commenter at the hearing implored, let’s look for a real resolution and not just shove this waste into the ground where it can never be recovered. Just as CE is working to remove the dry coal ash from neighboring properties, there should be just as much effort put into “leaving no trace” with the liquid contaminant.

One alternative, as the EPA suggests, is dewatering the coal leachate and leaving the coal combustion residuals (CCR) in place with safeguards and monitoring. EPA claims this method “may achieve the necessary environmental protections and in fact offer a significantly lower environmental footprint and cost than removal and disposal off site.”

Additionally, leaving the waste in place may help with CCR consolidation, monitoring, and cleanup obligations.

Dober is a company specializing in dewatering using the coagulation–flocculation process, which is hailed for its simplicity and effectiveness. The company’s water treatment chemistries are 100% biodegradable, derived from all-natural, plant-based materials, and have been proven to “successfully sequester coal ash solids from the water that accumulates at the top of coal ash ponds and from the wet sludge at the bottom.”

Another option was explained by a resident who shared in Arizona and Virginia use municipal wastewater for cooling data centers. While the Campbell wastewater would require more treatment, it might be an option to explore.

In addition to there being options for leachate, which seem more environmentally friendly than injection wells, there also continue to be more and more opportunities for recycled coal ash. Given enough time and creativity, the disposal issue might become a concern of the past.

Thinking back to the Max Gen 2 event that happened in January and the heat wave that hit this July, our region has much to be thankful for with the uninterrupted, crucial energy the Campbell provided—which gave local families the energy security and stability to handle the extremes.

If the Campbell is to continue operations and if the current trend continues to make not only the use but the disposal of coal “clean and beautiful” through upgrades and more efficient processes, it seems it could be a win win for both the environment and our bank accounts.

‍