HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRITTEN TESTIMONY OF RUTH WALKER WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF RUTH WALKER
Cedar Falls, Iowa
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED
ANNEXATION AND REZONING APPLICATION
The annexation should be denied because the sole purpose is to facilitate a merchant coal-
fired energy plant that does not protect the health, welfare and safety of citizens of
Waterloo.
I am going to present seven reasons why this annexation should be denied because it is
not in the public interest.
I. We cannot count on the EPA to take care of us because
A. Their standards are going to change—being challenged by states all over.
The court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants to under the Clean
Air Act.
Currently, climate programs are voluntary, but President Bush has directed the
EPA to correct that by the end of 2008.
[See Attachment 1]
B. They don't require the most efficient technology to be used even though the
Clear Air Act said they had to do so. Although the law says new plants are
required to use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) the EPA does not
require the most efficient method to be used because the best available technology
has a different design!
On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's rule removing
power plants from the Clean Air Act list of sources of hazardous air
pollutants. Duke Energy's air permit in North Carolina is already being
challenged because of this ruling.
[See Attachment 2]
C. Coal is a problem even when in compliance with regulations.
[See Attachment 31
II. Even though LS Power says that this plant will be cleaner than plants of the
past, there is no clean coal!
.[See Attachment 41
A. Coal ash naturally contains dangerous elements such as arsenic and mercury
and if they leach into groundwater they can contaminate drinking supplies; there
are gaps in state regulation; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
doesn't classify coal ash as hazardous waste. As the air gets cleaner, the
concentration of these elements increases in the coal combustion waste. There are
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 1
documented problems of water contamination with the expected lawsuits. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory says the radioactivity in coal combustion waste has the
potential for more energy than is gained by burning the coal.
[See Attachment 5]
B. Some of the confusion about new and old technology was explained in an
article this year from the American Chemical Society.
[See Attachment 6]
While the plant proposed here is much cleaner per kilowatt-hour produced than
plants built last century, it is not the cleanest possible.
C. Health care professionals have researched the impacts of coal-fired power
plant emissions on health. Particulate matter is absorbed more deeply by women
and children as they absorb it into the lung tissue. They also emphasize that there
are no zero-emission plants.
[See Attachment 7 at p. 12, 13]
III. Waterloo did no studies to predict social and environmental impacts of the
plant, but used a study commissioned to look at only the economic benefit. Its author
stressed, "It's not the criteria for making a decision. It's only one piece of information."
.[See Attachments 8 & 9]
IV. We wonder what will happen to this huge building if the environmental
standards change and the plant is no longer operational.
Several folks asked who would demolish and clean up if the plant is not
competitive after carbon dioxide emission laws are passed, but the question wasn't
answered.
[See Attachment 7 at p. 11; Attachment 10]
It should have been answered. The Waterloo Courier reported recently that
Waterloo's City Planner said that it is still difficult to get businesses to thrive in
the old Rath Packing Plant vicinity because property values went down and that
part of town has problems because of the old ugly plant building.
fSee Attachment 11]
The EPA is still monitoring REALLY old and non-operational coal plants in
Fairfield and Mason City. Those plants have been closed since the 1950's and
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 2
Mason City's was demolished in 1952. These present environmental hazards-
even in 1985, ground water was contaminated.
[See Attachment 121
V. If EPA standards change,will LS Power meet those new standards?
Mr. Milburn responded that in the past with the older coal plants, Congress and
the EPA required those old plants to update, so he is sure this plant would have to
do that too.
'See Attachment 7 at p. 18]
However, those old plants were not required to update for decades! Many times
companies have been fined and required to fix the problems, but in the meantime
they illegally polluted!
[See Attachments 13, 14 & 151
For example, in August 2007 in the Chicago area it was reported that EPA
ACCUSED MIDWEST GENERATION OF EXTENDING THE LIFE OF ITS
AGING POWER PLANTS including 5 in Chicago suburbs without installing
pollution controls required under the Clean Air Act. Older plants were exempted
for years from pollution laws.
[See Attachments 16 & 17]
VI. We are concerned that LS Power is rushing to build this plant with old
technology in order to avoid new and stringent regulations.
Mr. Milburn contradicted himself when he stated, "the new coal plants are
different from the old plants, and there are different regulations for old plants than
new plants."
f See Attachment 7 at p. 151
Mr. Milburn's company, LS Power, has proposed an even larger plant to be built
in Nevada.
[See Attachment 18]
VII. Some of our most important fears stem from all the misinformation we and the
City of Waterloo have been getting from LS Power. It is hard to trust their analysis
when they have contradicted themselves, told untruths, and failed to correct any of
this in the revised plan.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 3
For example, at the hearing on May 7`", 2007, Mr. Milburn said at one time that in
the past the old plants had different regulations from new plants. At another time
he said that Congress and the EPA required the old plants to update. This is clear
when one reads the minutes of the meeting. We are not sure what to believe.
ISee Attachment 7 at p. 15, 18j
Another example, Mr. Milburn has implied that the newer IGCC (integrated
gasification combined cycle) system is not practical,
[See Attachment 7 at p. 11; Attachments 19 & 201
but a proposed ethanol plant in New Hampton plans to use it.
f See Attachment 21
Besides coal gasification plants that produce both electricity and chemicals, at
least four IGCC projects are moving forward. British Columbia has decided to
require it, and Texans are fighting to get it in their new plants. The mayor of
Missoula, Montana, pulled the plug on a similar plant last month. Mr. Milburn
either does not know what is going on, or he is trying to pull the wool over our
eyes.
[See Attachment 22, 23, 24 & 251
These are the reasons more than 4,000 of us signed petitions against the plant.
Iowans are proud of our leadership role in renewable energy.
For the reasons of the public good, this annexation should be denied.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1, 2008 Page 4
Attachment 1: Statement of Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, to U.S. House Committee (June
8, 2007)
Full text available at: http://www.epa.gov/ocirpage/hearings/testimony/110_2007_2008/2007_0608 slj.pdf
At p. 1:
The President has consistently acknowledged a human contribution to climate change. The
President has requested, and Congress has provided,substantial funding for climate change
science,technology, observations, international assistance, and incentive programs—
approximately $37 billion since 2001. Across the federal government, programs are helping to
further reduce scientific uncertainties associated with the causes and effects of climate change;
promoting the advancement and deployment of cleaner, more energy efficient, lower carbon
technologies;encouraging greater use of renewable and alternative fuels; accelerating turnover of
older, less efficient technology through an array of tax incentives; and establishing numerous
international climate partnerships with some of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters.
Through a comprehensive suite of mandates, incentives,and partnerships,the President's climate
change policies are contributing to meaningful progress in reducing the growth rate of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions,even as our population grows and our economy continues to expand.
Atp. 3:
In its recent decision in Massachusetts v. EPA,the Supreme Court made several findings
regarding EPA's denial of a petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor
vehicles under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. First,the Court found that greenhouse gas
emissions are indeed pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Second,the Court ordered EPA to
reconsider its denial of a petition from the State of Massachusetts and several other groups
seeking regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and engines. One of the
most significant things the Court instructed EPA to determine is whether greenhouse gas
emissions endanger public health or welfare based on the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Third,the Court's decision explicitly left open the issue of whether EPA can consider policy
considerations when writing regulations in the event EPA were to make an endangerment finding.
At p. 5:
Because the President realizes that it is important to move forward,he has directed us to complete
this regulatory process by the end of 2008. This is an aggressive timeframe,but one that I am
confident that my staff, working with our federal partners—the Departments of Transportation,
federal government that should be integrated into this rulemaking.
At p. 8:
EPA climate programs include a wide array of partnerships,which rely on voluntary measures to
reduce greenhouse gas intensity, spur new investments, and remove barriers to the introduction of
cleaner technologies. Many of these partnership programs provide near-term solutions that focus
on reducing emissions. These programs complement the work of other federal agencies investing
in research and development programs, such as the Department of Energy's FutureGen and fuel
cell development programs. EPA is also one of many federal agencies participating in the multi-
agency Climate Change Technology Program.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1, 2008 Page 5
At p. 13:
Geologic Sequestration. Coal is an important fuel to achieve energy security and increase
economic prosperity in the United States. Currently, about 50 percent of electricity in the United
States is generated from coal, and according to DOE, at current rates of consumption, coal could
meet U.S. needs for more than 250 years. To achieve our goal of energy security, coal must
continue to play a major role in the generation of electricity in this country. Carbon dioxide
capture and storage can potentially make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from coal-fired electricity generation, while allowing continued use of our ample coal
reserves. EPA's role is to ensure that carbon capture and storage is developed and deployed in a
manner that safeguards the environment. We are focusing our efforts on two fronts: (1) partnering
with public and private stakeholders to develop an understanding of the environmental aspects of
carbon capture and storage that must be addressed for the necessary technologies to become a
viable strategy for reducing greenhouse gases; and(2)ensuring carbon dioxide storage is
conducted in a manner that protects underground sources of drinking water,as required by the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 6
Attachment 2: Letter from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA Office of Air
Quality, Planning and Standards to E3 Consulting, LLC.
(December 13, 2005)
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/igccbact.pdf
Mr. Paul Plath
Senior Partner
E3 Consulting,LLC
3333 South Bannock Street, Suite 740
Englewood,Colorado 80110
Subject: Best Available Control Technology Requirements for Proposed Coal-Fired Power Plant Projects
Dear Mr. Plath:
Your firm's letter to me dated February 28,2005, from D. Edward Settle,asks for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA)position regarding whether an analysis of Best Available
Control Technology(BACT)for proposed coal-fired power plants must specifically include evaluation of
alternative designs of coal-fueled processes such as integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC).
Generally,the Clean Air Act(CAA)requires an applicant to apply BACT as a condition for issuance of a
prevention of significant deterioration(PSD)construction permit in an attainment area.This response
provides EPA's view of how the CAA should be interpreted and EPA regulations applied under the
particular circumstances presented based on prior EPA policy statements and adjudicatory decisions.
There are two different parts of the PSD permitting process where consideration of alternative
designs or production processes may occur. One part is under Section 165(a)(2)where it is required that the
permitting authority allow an "opportunity for interested persons ... to appear and submit written or oral
presentations on the air quality impact of such source,alternatives thereto,control technology
requirements,and other appropriate considerations" (emphasis added).The other part is section 165(a)(4),
which requires that a proposed facility subject to PSD apply BACT. In Section 169(3)of the CAA,BACT
is defined as"an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction ... which the permitting
authority ... determines is achievable for such facility through application of production processes and
available methods,systems,and techniques, including fuel cleaning,clean fuels,or treatment or innovative
fuel combustion techniques for control of each such pollutant."
EPA's view is that,through this language,Congress distinguished "production processes and
available methods, systems and techniques"that are potentially applicable to a particular type of facility
and should be considered in the analysis of BACT from "alternatives"to the proposed source that would
wholly replace the proposed facility with a different type of facility. Although we read this language to
draw such a distinction, in practice, it is often not clear when another production process should be
considered to fit within the BACT definition and when it should be considered an alternative to the
proposed source.This distinction is especially difficult to make for coal gasification because the definition
of BACT includes"innovative fuel combustion techniques" in a list of examples of production processes or
available methods,systems,or techniques to be considered in the BACT analysis. However,even assuming
that coal gasification were in all respects an innovative fuel combustion technique for producing electricity
from coal,we do not believe Congress intended for an "innovative fuel combustion technique"to be
considered in the BACT review when application of such a technique would redesign the proposed source
to the point that it becomes an alternative type of facility,which,as discussed below,we believe would be
the case if IGCC were applied to a proposed SCPC unit.
As noted in prior EPA decisions and guidance,EPA does not consider the BACT requirement as a
means to redefine the basic design of the source or change the fundamental scope of the project when
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 7
considering available control alternatives.For example,we do not require applicants proposing to construct
a coal-fired steam electric generator to consider building a natural gas-fired combustion turbine as part of a
BACT analysis,even though the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product(in this case
electricity). In re SEI Birchwood Inc,5 E.A.D.25 (1994); In re Old Dominion Electric Cooperative,3
E.A.D.779(1992).
Therefore,the question in this instance is whether IGCC results in a redefinition of the basic
design of the source if the permittee is proposing to build a supercritical pulverized coal(SCPC)unit. In
this situation,EPA's view is that applying the IGCC technology would fundamentally change the scope of
the project and redefine the basic design of the proposed source.Portions of an IGCC process are very
similar to existing power generation designs that we have previously identified as a redefinition of the basic
design of source when an applicant proposed to construct a pulverized coal-fired boiler. The combined
cycle generation power block of an IGCC employs the same turbine and heat recovery technology that is
used to generate electricity with natural gas at other electrical generation facilities. As noted above,we do
not require applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired steam electric generator to consider building a
gas-fired combustion turbine as part of a BACT analysis.Furthermore,the core process of gasification at
an IGCC facility is more akin to technology employed in the refinery and chemical manufacturing
industries than technologies generally in use in power generation(i.e.,controlled chemical reaction versus a
true combustion process).This technology would necessitate different types of expertise on the part of the
company and its employees to produce the desired product(electricity)than the typical SCPC unit.
Therefore,where an applicant proposes to construct a SCPC unit,we believe the IGCC process would
redefine the basic design of the source being proposed.
Accordingly,consistent with our established BACT policy,we would not require an applicant to
consider IGCC in a BACT analysis for a SCPC unit.Thus,for such a facility,we would not include IGCC
in the list of potentially applicable control options that is compiled in the first step of a top-down BACT
analysis.Instead,we believe that an IGCC facility is an alternative to an SCPC facility and therefore it is
most appropriately considered under Section 165(a)(2)of the CAA rather than section 1 6 5 (a)(4).
Your letter did not specifically request guidance on whether IGCC should be considered in a
LAER analysis for a SCPC,but I am taking this opportunity to address the issue. As with BACT,an
applicant must generally comply with LAER as a condition for issuance of a nonattainment new source
review(NSR)permit in a nonattainment area. Section 173(a)(5)of the CAA requires an applicant to
conduct,"an analysis of alternative sites,sizes,production processes and environmental control techniques
for such proposed source." (emphasis added). Because we believe IGCC results in a redefinition of the
source in this situation, it should not be considered in a LAER analysis for a SCPC unit.Nonetheless,we
believe that the technology should be considered under Section 173(a)(5)when an SCPC unit is proposed
in nonattainment areas.
I trust that this response addresses the issues raised in your letter.
Sincerely,
Stephen D. Page
Director
Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards
http://www.epa.govittn/atw/utility/utiltoxpq.html
Announcements
On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's rule removing
power plants from the Clean Air Act list of sources of hazardous air
pollutants. At the same time, the Court vacated the Clean Air Mercury
Rule. EPA is reviewing the Court's decisions and evaluating its impacts.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 8
http://www.newsobserver.cam/1565/story/1015019.html (The Duke Energy problem)
http.//www newsobservercom/1565/story/1015019.html (The Duke Energy problem)
Attachment 3: "East Dubuque Business Blames Closing On Coal Pile,"
KWWL-TV(August 7, 2007)
Available at: http://www.kwwl.com/News/index.php?ID=13874
East Dubuque Business Blames Closing On Coal Pile
A tri-state business plans to shut down, blaming health risks from a nearby coal pile.
Vroom Auto Mall and RV Plaza on U.S. Highway 20 in East Dubuque, Illinois says dirt,
dust and other health risks from the IEI Barge Services coal pile nearby are forcing it to
close. Vroom president Rick Koehler says the coal dust collects on just about everything
on his property.
"About once a month we come here with a shovel and wheelbarrow and clean it all up,"
says Koehler.
The dust collects on cars and campers...but also seeps inside the building.
"Consequently we're changing our filters, trying to keep it down inside because so much
of it comes inside," says Koehler.
Koehler commission two studies to find out if these dirty filters meant the health of his 24
employees was at risk. One was done by an engineer from the University of Illinois, the
other by Wingra Engineering out of Madison, Wisconsin.
"When I received these two studies that were done on July 16th, when I read them, I
made a moral decision that I couldn't ask my employees to work in this kind of
atmosphere," says Koehler.
According to the studies, the air at the auto mall was contaminated with elements that
have been known to cause cancer and organ damage. Vroom has filed a complaint in US
district court, but so far, it has not been addressed. The business will close for good on
September first...with hopes to someday reopen without the coal problem.
"Something has to be done about the dust. And I don't know how they do that, I'm not an
expert in that field, I just know that I want it stopped coming on my property," says
Koehler.
Vroom Auto Mall opened in 2005, and said it didn't realize the coal pile would be
problematic. IEI Barge Services, which is part of Alliant Energy, released this statement:
"IEI Barge is and has always been responsible to environmental concerns. IEI has an
excellent environmental compliance record and remains committed to keeping it that
way."
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 9
Attachment 4: Dr. Antonia Herzog, Staff Scientist, National Resources Defense
Council Testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee Oversight Hearing on Coal Gasification
(May 24, 2007)
Full text at: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing ID=1633
At p. 5:
Environmental Impacts of Coal
Some call coal"clean."It is not and likely never will be compared to other energy options.Nonetheless, it
appears inevitable that the U.S. and other countries will continue to rely heavily on coal for many years.
The good news is that with the right standards and incentives it is possible to chart a future for coal that is
compatible with protecting public health,preserving special places,and avoiding dangerous global
warming. It may not be possible to make coal clean, but by transforming the way coal is produced and
used, it is possible to make coal significantly cleaner-and safer-than it is today.
At p. 14:
Conventional Air Pollution
Dramatic reductions in power plant emissions of criteria pollutants,toxic compounds, and global warming
emissions are essential if coal is to remain a viable energy resource for the 21st Century. Such reductions
are achievable in integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC) systems, which enable cost-effective
advanced pollution controls that can yield extremely low criteria pollutant and mercury emission rates and
facilitates carbon dioxide capture and geologic disposal. Gasifying coal at high pressure facilitates removal
of pollutants that would otherwise be released into the air such that these pollutant emissions are well
below those from conventional pulverized coal power plants with post combustion cleanup.
At p. 18:
With current coal and oil consumption trends,we are headed for a doubling of CO concentrations by mid-
2
century if we don't redirect energy investments away from carbon based fuels and toward new climate
friendly energy technologies. We have to accelerate the progress underway and adopt policies in the next
few years to turn the corner on our global warming emissions, if we are to avoid locking ourselves and
future generations into a dangerously disrupted climate. Scientists are very concerned that we are very near
this threshold now. Most say we must keep atmosphere concentrations of CO below 450 parts per million,
2
which would keep total warming below 2 degrees Celsius(3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Beyond this point we
risk severe impacts, including the irreversible collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet and dramatic sea level
rise. With CO concentrations now rising at a rate of 1.5 to 2 parts per million per year, we will pass the
2
450ppm threshold within two or three decades unless we change course soon.
At p. 19:
A coal integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC)power plant with carbon capture and disposal can
also be part of a sustainable path that reduces both natural gas demand and global warming emissions in the
electricity sector. Methods to capture CO from coal gasification plants are commercially demonstrated,as
2
is the injection of CO into geologic formations for disposal. On the other hand,coal gasification to produce
2
a significant amount of liquids for transportation fuel would not be compatible with the need to develop a
low-CO emitting transportation sector.Finally,gasifying coal to produce synthetic pipeline gas or
2
chemical products needs a careful assessment of the full life cycle emission implications and the emission
reductions that are required from those sectors before decisions are made to invest in these practices.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 10
Attachment 5: "Plants' Cleanup May Create Side-Effect," Anna Jo Bratton,
Associated Press (Aug. 26, 2007)
Available at:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLEAN AIR DIRTY LAND?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=HOME
&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
As the nation's coal-fired power plants work to create cleaner skies,they'll likely fill up landfills
with millions more tons of potentially harmful ash. More than one-third of the ash generated at
the country's hundreds of coal-fired plants is now recycled -mixed with cement to build
highways or used to stabilize embankments, among other things. But in a process being used
increasingly across the nation, chemicals are injected into plants'emissions to capture airborne
pollutants. That, in turn, changes the composition of the ash and cuts its usefulness. It can't be
used in cement, for example, because the interaction of the chemicals may keep the concrete from
hardening. That ash has to go somewhere-so it usually ends up in landfills, along with the rest
of the unusable waste.
"You're replacing an air problem with a land problem- a disposal problem," said Bruce Dockter,
a research engineer with the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of
North Dakota.
Coal ash naturally contains arsenic and mercury, and if the elements leach into groundwater they
can contaminate drinking supplies. The EPA says ash disposed of in landfills could pose
significant risks when mismanaged, and there are gaps in state regulation. And the chemicals
added to clean up emissions- such as ammonia, lime and calcium hydroxide-make the ash
worse, environmental groups say, because they take toxins such as mercury out of the air but
leave higher levels of it in the ash. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn't classify
coal ash-with or without the added chemicals -as a hazardous waste, although many
environmental groups say it should.
"As a general rule, anything you do to make the air emissions cleaner makes the ash more toxic,"
said Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm.
More than 120 million tons of ash and other leftovers come from coal combustion each year in
the United States, and more than 46 million tons are reused, according to the American Coal Ash
Association. Environmental groups encourage reuse of the ash because it keeps most of the waste
out of landfills. And substituting ash for cement means less mining for the materials typically
used to make cement-consequently causing a drop in the amount of carbon dioxide that would
be emitted by mining machinery. But the EPA is pushing power companies to cut emissions of
the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides,which add to smog and acid rain and contribute to
thousands of premature deaths, asthma and other respiratory ailments. A large portion of those
emissions come from coal plants,the EPA says.
"If you live near a power plant,you want the cleanest air possible," said Dave Goss, executive
director of the American Coal Ash Association. "If in exchange for clean air they have to dispose
of material -that's the challenge. The only option may be putting it in a landfill."
It's not clear how many plants already using or will use the new technology or how much ash may
be affected, but the technique is becoming widespread as companies work to comply with federal
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1, 2008 Page 11
guidelines, Goss said. The issue was raised as the EPA developed air emissions rules, but the
power sector has found ways to minimize the impact, said EPA spokesman John Millett, who said
the agency doesn't believe the increased injection of the chemicals into ash will cause a
significant drop-off in ash recycling. But the effects are evident in Nebraska, for example, where
the Omaha Public Power District sells about 135,000 tons of ash from its current plant near
Nebraska City every year. Ash from a new plant being built nearby will be injected with
chemicals to clean emissions, and it will be dumped in a 16-acre landfill to be built onsite at a
cost of$2.7 million, said Mike Jones, a spokesman for the utility.
"You've got to do something with it," Jones said. "This was the best option."
The landfill will fill up in about five years and likely have to be expanded. Xcel Energy Inc. will
use the injection equipment on a new plant near Pueblo, Colo., and also will install the equipment
on two existing units there. The ash will be dumped in a 250-acre onsite landfill. But even if
there is a drop in recycling, the trade-off might be worth it.
"The benefits of the additional (emission) reductions from these controls is immense," Millett
said.
In Nebraska, the dump sites are closely regulated, said Bill Gidley, a section supervisor with the
state's Department of Environmental Quality. Landfills must have liners to collect seepage, and
they are inspected every year. The Maryland Department of the Environment ordered the
operator of an 80-acre Anne Arundel County coal ash dump to clean contaminated water detected
near the site. Cancer-causing metals werediscovered last fall in almost two dozen wells in the
area. BBSS Inc. also was fined an undisclosed amount.
In a 2000 report,the EPA promised to re-evaluate the potential risks of coal ash and is developing
regulations for disposal of coal byproducts in landfills, spokeswoman Roxanne Smith said.
There are ways to remove the pollutants from emissions without making the ash unusable. But
that equipment can be up to four times more expensive, adding millions of dollars to the cost of
meeting EPA guidelines, Goss said.
"The utility's primary goal is to provide cheap, dependable electricity for you, the
consumer, connected to the grid," he said. "In order to do that and maintain compliance,
sometimes the only thing they can do is make the ash unusable."
Maryland's problems from coal combustion waste, current class action suit, etc.:
http://www.examiner.com/a-
1063037- Tougher rules on coal fly ash dumps not enough county executive says.html
http://www.themurphyfirm.com/pdf/Fly Ash Release.pdf
http://croftonfirst.org/docs/county bans fly ash for one year.pdf
The July 2007 publication of the four-year study of water contamination problems from CCW
disposal in Pennsylvania mines:
http://www.catf.us/projects/power sector/power plant waste/paminefill/
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 12
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory discussion of possible reclamation of COW(including the
radioactive components):
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornIreview/rev26-34/text/colmain:html
West Virginia problems from CCW in coal mines:
http://www.catf.us/publications/view/87
Surface water impacts from fly ash disposal in New Mexico:
http://www.cattus/publications/view/86
Drinking water contamination from CCW in Indiana:
http://www.catf.us/publications/view/23
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1, 2008 Page 13
Attachment 6: "Is EPA blocking clean coal technology?" Janet Pelley,
Environmental Science and Technology Online (2007)
Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/41/i01/html/010107news6.html
The future of coal is at a crossroads: will utilities continue to burn it and capture pollutants at the end of the
smokestack,or will they instead gasify it and remove pollutants earlier in the process?Environmentalists
and many state officials say that coal gasification is the wave of the future but have been frustrated that the
U.S. EPA has created barriers to the technology.Yet,the proponents of integrated gasification combined
cycle(IGCC)coal plants recently were handed a small victory when EPA settled a lawsuit charging that it
is discouraging gasification.
The IGCC process heats coal with steam and oxygen under high pressure to yield a"synthesis"gas of
hydrogen and carbon monoxide. An EPA study released in July says IGCC plants can cut emissions of SO2
by roughly 60%compared with a traditional pulverized coal plant.
On December 13,2005,EPA issued a memo stating that the Clean Air Act(CAA)does not require IGCC
technology to be considered as part of an analysis of best available control technology(BACT)for coal-
fired power plants. Companies planning to build new plants or expand existing ones must follow the BACT
process,which requires them to evaluate the most effective pollution controls available.
Environmental groups led by Environmental Defense sued EPA over the December memo,saying it had a
chilling effect on states that wished to require companies to consider IGCC as BACT. In the October 12
settlement published in the Federal Register(2006, 71 [202],61,771-61,772), EPA states that the 2005
memo is not final agency policy and not legally binding, says John Millett,an EPA spokesperson.But EPA
officials will not change their current stance that IGCC is not BACT, Millett adds.
"There's hope here,because EPA has moved from a negative position to a neutral position on IGCC as
BACT,"says Praveen Amar,director of science and policy for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management(NESCAUM),an association of eight state governments.NESCAUM supports IGCC as
BACT because coal gasification is much cleaner than traditional combustion and more cost-effective at
cutting pollutants and greenhouse gases.
"It is extremely disappointing that EPA is not considering as BACT a strategy that is as effective as IGCC,"
says Bill Becker,executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies(formerly STAPPA-
ALAPCO). CAA stipulates that the starting point of a BACT analysis should be the best technology at
cutting pollution,and at present that is IGCC,he says. If state agencies set the bar high for BACT, it can
drive innovation,adds Mike Schneider,an environmental scientist with the New Mexico Environment
Department.New Mexico requires coal-plant applicants to address IGCC technology in the BACT analysis,
he says. In 2004,American Electric Power(AEP),the biggest user of coal in the Western Hemisphere,
concluded that IGCC is the best technology to minimize the risks associated with emissions of carbon and
other pollutants, says Melissa McHenry,a spokesperson for AEP. Although AEP has filed permits to build
two IGCC plants, in Ohio and West Virginia,the company doesn't support IGCC as part of a BACT
analysis,she says.The wet coals found in the western states don't gasify as well as drier eastern coal,and
IGCC technology providers can't guarantee the performance of their equipment when western coal is used,
she says.
Meanwhile,EPA took comments from the public and had until December 20 to agree to the settlement. If
EPA revises the agreement,then it's back to court for the agency. "The pivotal question is whether EPA
will see this agreement as an opportunity to convene a thoughtful national dialogue on advanced coal
technologies or will continue to discourage innovation,"says Vickie Patton, a senior attorney with
Environmental Defense.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 14
Notice of Data Availability on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Waste in Landfills
and Surface Impoundments - The comment period on the CCW NODA published
August 29, 2007, was scheduled to close on November 27, 2007. The comment period
was extended once to January 28, 2008 and has been extended again until February 11,
2008. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/noda07.htm.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 15
Attachment 7: Minutes of Waterloo City Council Hearing(May 7, 2007)
Full text available at: http://www.wplwloo.lib.ia.us/WATERLOO/Minutes/2007-0507.pdf
At p. 7:
Mark Milburn, Project Manager, Project Manager for LS Power Development
LLC, explained that Elk Run Energy Associates LLC proposes to construct
a modern, 750 megawatt coal-fired electric generation facility. Mr.
Milburn noted that they propose to start construction in 2008, it would
take about four years for completion and be on-line in 2012. Milburn
reported construction of the project would require more than $1 billion
in capital investment and will have a remarkable impact on the local
and regional economy. The electricity would be sold on a wholesale
basis in Iowa and surrounding states. Mr. Milburn reviewed the benefits
and impacts of the proposed development, noting the Greater Cedar
Valley Alliance' s independent study. Estimated $3 .15 million in annual
taxes to state and local governments, economic stimulus of more than
$270 million during four-year construction period, more than $25
million annually during operation, more than 1, 200 jobs during the peak
of construction and approximately 100 fulltime, highly paid jobs. Mr.
Milburn noted that they have committed to financial donations in the
proposed development agreement.
At p. 11:
Mayor Hurley asked if laws were put on the books and those being
developed on CO2 would render this plant not competitive who would
demolish and clean up the facility. Mr. Milburn noted people in
Washington are working to formulate a viable way to reduce carbon
dioxide. Mr. Milburn commented if they don't account for that risk in
their business model to take care of carbon emission, their investors
on Wall Street won't be interested in taking on that task and they
won't be financed. Investors will do everything they can for a good
return on their money.
At p. 12:
Juanita Williams, 6145 Kimball Avenue, spoke in opposition and
commented she is a mother of two children and has been a nurse in this
area since 1992. Ms. Williams commented that she researched the impacts
of coal-fired power plant emissions on women' s and children' s health
and submitted a copy to the City Clerk. Ms. Williams noted that
particulate matter is absorbed more deeply by children as they absorb
it into the lung tissue and women also absorb it more deeply. Ms.
Williams commented on plant emissions and that there are no zero
emission plants. Ms. Williams urged the council to think of the legacy
for our children and grandchildren.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 16
At p. 13:
Betty Sadler, 2629 Crane Creek Road, spoke in opposition and noted she
has been an Insurance/Referral Nurse for the past seven years. She
works for six pediatricians and two pulmonary doctors and works with
the young and the old. Ms. Sadler noted that from doing her job that
lung related illnesses, such as asthma, COPO and lung cancer, are on
the rise in Black Hawk County. Ms. Sadler noted that the EPA is being
sued all across the nation from ,ten states on the east coat to five
states in the Midwest for not protecting the public from air pollutants
such as those put into the air by the coal-fired power plants. Ms.
Sadler believes health insurance costs will rise for those living by a
coal plant. Ms. Sadler noted according to an EPA website, small
particulates are responsible for the lung related illnesses that have
the greatest impact on the young and the old, and she believes this
plant will emit thousand of pounds of small particulates on an annual
basis. Ms. Sadler asked what organizations were asked for their input
concerning the potential impact on the health of those in the Cedar
Valley.
At p. 15:
Mr. Milburn reiterated that the new coal plants are different from the
old plants, and there are different regulations for old plants than new
plants. The new plants have higher/restricted regulations. Mr. Milburn
explained that the $3 million gallons of fresh water per day is the
maximum they would use, but expect it to be less. Mr. Milburn noted that
the cooling water that goes into the river is a very small portion. Mr.
Milburn commented on the quarry on Dysart Road operated by Basic
Materials and noted that because of the water levels, soil and streams
the DNR said it was safe for deposit of the ash. The quarry already gets
deliveries from UNI, John Deere and other companies, and they have
adequate room to accept LS Powers' by product. The DNR has deemed the
quarry appropriate. Mr. Milburn noted that numerous studies have shown
that the potential for heavy metals to reach the ground is minimal.
At p. 18:
Councilperson Getty asked if after the plant has been built for two or
three years and the EPA has more rigid standards, will this plant raise
those standards. Mr. Milburn responded in the past with the older goal
plants, Congress and the EPA required those old plants to update, so he
is sure this plant would have to do that too.
At p. 20:
Mr. Temeyer commented that if by some chance the project doesn't go
forward, we will hold the annex petition. The city agrees to keep the
taxes same for the property owners as if they weren't annexed. If the
project does not move forward, the annexation would have to come back
to council to be rescinded.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1, 2008 Page 17
Attachment 8: "GCVA contracts study on power plant economic benefits",
RC Balaban, Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier, (Nov. 10, 2006)
Available at:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/11/10/news/metro/c9d3d93 a252fecb98625722200546dd 1.txt
The economic benefits of the power plant proposed east of Waterloo has been touted since the initial
announcement. One area group wants to know exactly what economic benefits the area will receive if it
gets built. The Greater Cedar Valley Alliance is commissioning a study on the regional economic benefits
of the power plant.The group hired David Swenson, an associate scientist with the Iowa State University
economics department,to conduct the study.
LS Power and its subsidiary, Elk Run Energy Associates,are proposing a 750-megawatt,coal-fired power
plant east of Waterloo.The plant would cost in excess of$1 billion and would be the single largest project
in the Cedar Valley's history based on project costs.One of the touted aspects of the project is the economic
benefit of the construction itself. Elk Run Energy has estimated it would employ 1,200 workers at the peak
of construction with a$200 million payroll.The longer term effects include a permanent work force of
about 100 at an estimated payroll of$7 million annually.Those areas will be Swenson's focus. "What I'm
going to be doing for the Cedar Valley Alliance people is giving them a very straight-forward,technical
report of the expected economic impacts to the region as a consequence of both building that plant in the
region,which are short-term effects,and then the overall value of that electricity production to the
economy," Swenson said.
Linda Laylin,business services manager with the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, said she expects to see the
results by the end of the year. "I think both of those will be very helpful to us to better understand this
project," Laylin said. "This is so unique for our community in size and scope and planning of it that I'm
really looking forward to the numbers and kind of understanding it better." Swenson said the scope of the
study will be narrowly tailored to the economic benefits. "My analysis will not look at any kind of
environmental costs associated with the operation of the plant or any of those kinds of concerns,whether its
in land use or other kinds of issues," Swenson said. He stressed this study was not a comprehensive look at
how the project would affect the Cedar Valley in total, but wanted to isolate the economic benefits and see
how much of a positive it would be for the area. "It may show up as a very strong positive, but it's just a
piece of information," Swenson said. "It's not the criteria for making a decision. It's only one piece of
information."
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 18
Attachment 9: "Study: Coal plant will roll millions into economy," Pat Kinney,
Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier(Feb. 7, 2007)
Available at:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/02/07/news/metro/e 16050f620c35 7e5 862527b005207e2.txt
LS Power's proposed $1.3 billion, 750-megawatt Waterloo power plant will create an estimated 1,500-plus
construction and other jobs and pump$67 million a year into the local economy over the four-year
construction period,and another$25.8 million a year after the plant is operational,according to an
economic impact study commissioned by the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance. However,the Iowa State
University researcher who performed the study,and alliance officials,noted the study does not include the
plant's social and environmental impacts,which will be addressed as part of the state permitting process.
"This research only provides one small piece of the information needed to evaluate a project such as this
from a community perspective,"wrote Dave Swenson, an ISU associate scientist in economics and adjunct
assistant professor in community and regional planning. Still,the study is what GCVA expected,alliance
executive director Steve Dust said. "We see a very high economic benefit,both in construction and ongoing
operation," he said. "Not included in this is the ongoing investment that's going to be required at the plant
in equipment and technology" as they need to be updated. "There's no way to estimate that. We just have to
know it's not an simply an issue of maintenance. It's an issue of continued reinvestment.The scope of this
project tells you the scope of reinvestment that's going to occur."The economic impact,as projected in the
study, includes putting up the plant. "...It's the services provided in getting it there,that payroll,the things
that are bought here to put it up, as well as the dollars that are spent in this community,"alliance business
services manager Linda Laylin said. While the plant is projected to directly employ about 100 people,the
study says the plant would create 331 direct and "indirect"jobs, including people working for entities
providing ongoing goods and services to the plant and its staff,varying from electrical contractors for
maintenance to toilet paper.The facility would pay an estimated$2 million a year in taxes to local
jurisdictions. "These local impacts are a result of direct labor costs,purchases of goods and services,
operation and maintenance costs of the facility,and the related effects which are induced when workers
spend their paychecks,"according to a study summary released by the alliance. "What exactly happens
when you generate a new paycheck in the region?" Swenson asked. "Housing,by far, is No. 1.Next are all
your medical expenses.Next are food services,both eating and drinking establishments and groceries."
The proposed plant would be the largest single economic development project in the city's history,and the
alliance wanted to commission the study to confirm its impact. Swenson said a traditional power plant
built by a utility would have more of an economic impact, because more labor would be required to
maintain power lines,read meters and provide other services. However,he said, most utilities are simply
adding on to existing power plants rather than building new ones. "These are very efficient electricity
producers," Swenson said of facilities like LS Power's proposed Waterloo plant. "They simply produce
mass amounts of electricity as efficiently and effectively as they can." "It's not social impacts,it's not
environmental.It is economic impact only," Laylin said of the study. "There are other things to consider,
like land use,community planning types of things," some of which would be addressed by the Waterloo
Planning, Programming Zoning Commission and the Waterloo City Council as they approve annexation
and rezoning requests for the project. The project also requires permits from the state Utilities Board and
the Department of Natural Resources,both of which would hold public hearings in Waterloo on the project,
in addition to public meetings before the city planning commission and the City Council on the annexation
and rezoning requests. The alliance,the Greater Cedar Valley chambers of commerce in Waterloo and
Cedar Falls,the Waterloo Industrial Development Association and the downtown nonprofit Waterloo
Development Corp. all have endorsed the project.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 19
Attachment 10: Minutes of Waterloo City Council Hearing(May 21st, 2007)
Full text available at: http://www.wplwloo.lib.ia.us/Waterloo/Minutes/2007-0521.pdf
Atp. 7:
Margaret Whiting, 1974 Caras Road, asked if the coal plant is built and
it has to close before its life expectancy of about 40 years, who would
be responsible for the dismantling of the plant and any cleanup costs
associated with it. Would the City of Waterloo be responsible for these
costs or would LS Power. Ms. Whiting commented she thinks that soon
there will be a tax on energy sources that release carbon dioxide into
the air. Since this coal plant does not use the coal gasification
technology, the CO2 will go into the air. When it is taxed, this plant
may not be competitive anymore. It would have to increase its rates
considerably, some of the other energy sources might be much more
competitive and this plant may have to close or it may be retrofitted
for CO2capture and storage. Ms. Whiting questioned if LS Power is able
to retrofit it later, since they are not building the plant right now in
their proposal for a CO2 capture and storage, then has anybody looked at
the geology of this area to see if its even feasible to capture and
store the CO2 in the ground in this area.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 20
Attachment 11: "Council approves development agreement for Rath area
businesses,"Tim Jamison, Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier
(Aug. 29, 2007)
Available at:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/08/29/business/local/99cbc7M5c87071086257346004e0e24.txt
The city is providing financial incentives to help renovate the former Alstadt& Langlas Baking Co.
building as part of its Rath area redevelopment effort.
Waterloo City Council members voted unanimously to approve a development agreement with Michael's
Storage Manufacturing Inc.,which owns the building on the corner of Mulberry and Elm streets.The
company,doing business as Black Hawk Machining,manufactures storage sheds and is actively seeking to
grow and add employees.
Under the proposed agreement,the city would grant the business$50,000 to purchase and demolish an
adjacent house at 1421 Lafayette St.;give the business some former railroad property the city acquired;and
provide 10 years of complete property tax breaks on the value added by the expansion.
The business must complete demolition on portions of the building and make phased improvements to the
building's exterior.The building,now valued at$137,280,must increase to at least$300,000 through the
project.
The Alstadt Langlas Bakery had initially been slated for demolition in 1999 when the city receivA a
federal grant to tear it down. But the city failed to secure ownership.
City Planner Noel Anderson said the city has been working to help businesses in the former Rath Packing
Co. vicinity, including Crystal Distribution and Powers Manufacturing,to expand.
"It's still difficult to attract new businesses to the Rath area so we want to work with the businesses there to
improve and expand," Anderson said.
Meanwhile,the agreement with Michael's Storage also helps from a land use perspective,by removing the
house from an industrial zone.
"With the Rath reuse plan,we want to separate some of those(incompatible)uses,"he said.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 21
Attachment 12:
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant Site Information, EPA (November 18, 2005)
Full text available at: http://www.epa.gov/region7/cleanup/np1 files/iad981124167.pdf
Atp. 1:
The Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant site occupies one city block between West
Burlington and West Washington Avenues in Fairfield. The plant produced a natural gas
substitute from coal from 1878 to 1950. The plant has been owned and operated by Iowa
Electric Light and Power since 1917. Since 1950, the utility has used the site as an
operations facility.
Mason City Coal Gasification Plant Site Information, EPA (May 23, 2007)
Full text available at: http://www.epa.gov/region?/cleanup/npl files/iad980969190.pdf
Atp. 1:
The Mason City Coal Gasification Plant site is located on approximately 2 1/3 acres in a
commercial and residential area of central Mason City, a north-central Iowa community
of 29,000. Mason City Coal Gasification Plant operated from 1900 to 1951, and was
demolished in 1952. An electrical substation and a small storage building are all that
remain on the site. During a 1984 sewer installation, oily sludges were discovered in
subsurface soil at the site.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 22
Attachment 13: Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from
Power Plants: Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon
Dioxide, U.S. Dept. of Energy (May 2002)
Full text available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/powerplants/chapter5.html
Atp. 1:
On November 3, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed lawsuits against seven electric utility
companies in the Midwest and South, charging that 17 of the companies' power plants
had illegally released significant amounts of pollutants for two decades. At the same
time, the EPA issued an administrative order against the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), charging the Federal agency with similar violations at another seven power
plants. In addition to the lawsuits and administrative order, the EPA issued notices of
violation, naming an additional eight plants owned by other utilities as sites of similar
violations of the Clean Air Act (Table 19).
The Clean Air Act was amended in 1977, primarily to set new dates for meeting
attainment standards. At the same time, Congress eliminated existing facilities from
many of its requirements, exempting them from immediate actions to add pollution
control equipment unless they underwent major modifications. "Major modifications"
would trigger New Source Review(NSR) standards, and the utilities would, in that event,
be required to obtain a permit for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), which •
would be granted only if the plants used "best available control technology."Failure to
obtain the permit under the conditions specified would leave the utilities liable to legal
action and civil penalties.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 23
Attachment 14: U.S. Sues Electric Utilities in Unprecedented Action to Enforce the
Clean Air Act, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Nov. 3, 1999)
Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/November/524enr.htm
U.S. SUES ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN UNPRECEDENTED ACTION
TO ENFORCE THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Complaints Filed After One of the Largest Enforcement
Investigations in EPA History
WASHINGTON,D.C. -The Justice Department,on behalf of the EPA,today filed seven lawsuits against
electric utility companies in the Midwest and South,charging that 17 of the companies'power plants
illegally released massive amounts of air pollutants for years,which have contributed to some of the most
severe environmental problems facing the United States today.The EPA today also issued an
administrative order against the Tennessee Valley Authority,charging the federal agency with similar
violations at seven plants.
The seven separate suits allege that the electric utility companies--American Electric Power,Cinergy,
FirstEnergy, Illinois Power,Southern Indiana Gas& Electric Company, Southern Company,Tampa
Electric Company--or their subsidiaries,and the TVA,violated the Clean Air Act by making major
modifications to many of their plants without installing the equipment required to control smog,acid rain
and soot.
"When children can't breathe because of pollution from a utility plant hundreds of miles away, something
must be done," said Attorney General Janet Reno. "Today's actions will help clean the air and make us
breathe a little easier."
For years,the 24 power plants have operated without the best available emissions-control technology,
increasing air pollution near the facilities and far downwind of the plants,along the Eastern Seaboard. In
addition to the lawsuits and administrative order filed today,the EPA issued notices of violations to the
utilities,naming an additional eight plants where the agency maintains similar violations occurred.
The 32 plants targeted today are located in Alabama,Florida,Georgia,Illinois,Indiana,Kentucky,
Mississippi,Ohio,Tennessee, and West Virginia.
"As a result of one of the largest enforcement investigations in EPA history,we are today taking action to
cut illegal and excessive air emissions from 32 coal-fired power plants throughout the Eastern half of the
United States," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "This action will dramatically reduce the
harmful smog and acid rain that directly threatens public health and the environment throughout the
Midwest and up and down the East Coast."
By taking this unprecedented action,the United States aims to reduce dramatically the amount of sulfur
dioxide,nitrogen oxides,and particulate matter that electric utility plants release into the atmosphere.The
lawsuits--filed in U.S. District Courts in Atlanta,Indianapolis,Tampa,East St. Louis, Ill., and Columbus,
Ohio--seek to force the facilities to install appropriate air pollution-control technology. Similarly,EPA's
order directs TVA to install control technology that will significantly reduce SO2 and NO,,emissions.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 24
The United States will seek significant civil penalties from all these violators.The Clean Air Act authorizes
civil penalties of up to$25,000 for each day of violation at each plant prior to January 30, 1997,and
$27,500 for each day thereafter.
Power plants existing at the time the Clean Air Act was amended in the late 1970s were"grandfathered."
Therefore, utility companies were not required to retrofit those existing plants with new air pollution
control equipment,unless the utilities undertook major modifications of those plants.The government
asserts that the utilities each made major modifications to their plants in order to extend their lives and
avoid the cost of building new plants.These projects included replacing large portions of the boilers that
are the heart of the plants. Many of these actions cost tens of millions of dollars and took years to complete.
Under the Clean Air Act, modifications of this kind require installation of the"best available control
technology," but the utilities did not do so.
The utilities'failure to install this equipment resulted in tens of millions of tons of sulfur dioxide,nitrogen
oxides,and particulate matter illegally emitted into the air, according to the government, leading to adverse
environmental and health impacts. Each year,these plants release nearly three million tons of pollutants--
more than two million tons of sulfur dioxide(SO2)and almost one million tons of nitrogen oxides(NOx).
Collectively, electric utility plants in the United States account for nearly 70 percent of sulfur dioxide
emissions each year and 30 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions. In addition to detrimental health effects
on asthma sufferers,the elderly and children, power plant emissions have been linked to forest degradation,
waterway damage,reservoir contamination,and deterioration of stone and copper in buildings.
• Sulfur dioxide interacts in the atmosphere to form sulfate aerosols,which can travel long
distances through the air and can be inhaled. The inhalation of high levels of sulfate aerosols is
associated with increased sickness and mortality from lung disorders,such as asthma and
bronchitis.
• Nitrogen oxides are major producers of ground-level ozone,or smog,which can decrease lung
function--especially among children who are active outdoors--and aggravate respiratory
problems.Nitrogen oxides are also transformed into nitrogen dioxide,a dangerous pollutant that
can constrict lower respiratory passages,create difficulty in breathing, and weaken immune
systems.
• Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides interact in the atmosphere with water and oxygen to form
nitric and sulfuric acids,commonly known as acid rain. Acid rain,which also comes in the form
of snow or sleet, "acidifies" lakes and streams and damages trees at high elevations. It also
accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues,
and sculptures that are part of our nation's cultural heritage.
• Particulate matter is often called soot. Breathing high concentrations of particulate matter can
damage lung tissue and contribute to cancer and respiratory disease.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 25
Attachment 15: Coal-Fired Power Plant Enforcement Initiative, U.S. EPA (July
2007)
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/coal/
The coal-fired power plant industry is an EPA national enforcement priority. Since 1999,
EPA has pursued a coordinated, integrated compliance and enforcement strategy to
address Clean Air Act (CAA)New Source Review compliance issues at the nation's coal-
fired power plants. Many of these cases have resulted in settlements or are being argued
in court.
Coal-Fired Power Plant Lawsuits
On November 3, 1999, the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection
Agency announced the filing of civil complaints against seven electric utility companies
operating coal-fired power plants in the Midwest and Southeast, charging that their plants
illegally released massive amounts of air pollutants over a period of several years and
contributed some of the most severe environmental problems facing the United States
today. The companies involved are American Electric Power Company, Cinergy,
FirstEnergy, Illinois Power, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company, Southern
Company and Tampa Electric Company. In separate but related actions, EPA issued
Notices of Violations to these same companies, plus an administrative order against the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Perhaps the most comprehensive, coordinated enforcement
effort under the Clean Air Act to date, the complaints,Notices of Violation and
administrative order cover 32 plants located in 10 states.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 26
Attachment 16: "EPA cites coal plants," Michael Hawthorne,
Chicago Tribune (Aug. 7, 2007)
Available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-midwest 07aug07,1,473854.story
Atp. 1:
Coal plants are major sources of soot and other forms of air pollution that combine to
create smog, which lingers over the Chicago area during the summer. But older plants
like those owned by Midwest Generation, most of which were built in the 1940s and
1950s, were exempted for years from pollution laws.
Atp. 3:
In December, Midwest Generation agreed to make deep cuts in smog, soot and mercury
pollution from the six plants by 2018. It also raised the possibility of shutting down the
Pilsen, Little Village and Waukegan plants if improving them proves too expensive.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 27
Attachment 17: "EPA cites Midwest Generation for emissions violations,"
Lisa Donovan, Chicago Sun Times (Aug. 7, 2007)
Available at: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/49998,CST-NWS-toxic07.article
Coal-fired power plants in the Chicago area are shooting more pollutants into the air than allowed
by federal guidelines,the Bush administration alleged Monday in the latest push to cap emissions
at aging facilities on the West Side and the suburbs.
The U.S. EPA cited Midwest Generation for violating the federal Clean Air Act, allegations
considered serious by EPA officials.
Midwest Generation said it plans to spend $3.5 billion to install pollution controls at its six plants
including the one on Waukegan's lakefront.
"We do not know what the EPA's concerns are until we meet them. We're going to sit down
with them in 30 days,"said Doug McFarlan,Midwest spokesman.
He said his company will install pollution control devices that will reduce mercury emissions by
90 percent in 2015, sulfurdioxide by 80 percent and nitrogenoxide by 65 percent.
The EPA citations mentioned violations of emission violations of sulfurdioxide and
nitrogenoxide, McFarlan said. But nothing was mentioned about mercury because there have
been no government regulations on acceptable levels of mercury emissions, according to him.
He said the Waukegan plant, which his company acquired in 1999, will be installed with mercury
pollution control devices next summer.
"It will be one of the first to have mercury control," said McFarlan.
In a document dated July 31, 2007,the EPA lays out its case against Midwest Generation and
former plant owner Commonwealth Edison.
The EPA alleges that operators failed to install pollution-control devices,a requirement when
plants undergo substantial repairs—sometimes boosting energy production and,thus, emissions
of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. In its documents,the EPA redacted
details of the repairs.
In 2003 and 2005, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan argued against the Illinois EPA
granting pollution permits for the six plants statewide, including one in Pekin.
She contended the state EPA hadn't required Midwest Generation to demonstrate that it complied
with the Clean Air Act.
"With this notice of violation the U.S. EPA is agreeing with the positions that the attorney general
and numerous environmental groups have expressed since 2003," Madigan said in a statement
Monday.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 28
Attachment 18: "Don't rush to add coal plant, EPA warns," Phoebe Sweet,
Las Vegas Sun (Aug. 9, 2007)
Available at: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2007/aug/09/566652256.html
The Environmental Protection Agency is questioning whether Nevada is shouldering too much of the
burden of generating power for the Southwest. The question should be answered,the agency suggests in a
letter to the Bureau of Land Management,before the BLM approves another coal-fired power plant in the
state. The EPA's comments come as the BLM is revising an environmental impact statement for the 1,590-
megawatt White Pine Energy Station,a proposed privately owned coal-fired power plant near Elko. The
BLM,which owns the land on which the plant would be built, should identify who would purchase the
power-enough for nearly 1.2 million homes-and evaluate the trade-offs between the need for more power
and damage to the environment,the EPA advised. "The EPA is concerned that the density of new coal-
burning plants proposed in Nevada is in excess of the demonstrated need for energy throughout the western
states,"the agency wrote. LS Power of New Jersey proposed the White Pine plant,but has not identified
who will buy its electricity. Sierra Pacific Resources,the parent company of the utilities that provide
power to Southern Nevada and the Reno area,and New York-based developer Sithe Global Power have
also proposed large, coal-fired power plants in eastern Nevada. In a letter signed by Nova Blazej,
environmental review manager in San Francisco,the EPA also complained to the BLM that its
environmental study was too incomplete to determine whether the project would need additional
environmental mitigation. Blazej said in an interview that the EPA's complaints were procedural-that the
BLM report didn't include enough information to make a decision as mandated by federal law. "That's the
point of the process,to provide informed decision-making,"Blazej said. But environmentalists say the
language in the letter is clear. "The EPA is really screaming at the BLM in their own bureaucratic way,"
said Charles Benjamin,director of the Nevada office of Western Resource Advocates. "The failure to
evaluate a real demand out there for this plant is glaring. LS Power ... admits that it doesn't have a customer
for the electricity from this plant." Eric Crawford,director of project development for LS Power,
acknowledges that the plant does not have agreements to sell its energy,but says it will sell to "investor-
owned utilities,rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities," and he sees a need for new coal-
fired power generation in Nevada. The EPA also griped that the BLM did not genuinely consider
alternatives to the coal plant,such as conservation or coal gasification technology,and was satisfied to
simply consider two locations in the same valley for the coal plant. But Crawford said every alternative
was considered-and eliminated.Gasification isn't available on a commercial scale,wind and solar power
are intermittent sources,and hydroelectric and nuclear aren't realistic options. But the EPA points out that
a task force assembled by Western governors estimated last year that Nevada could generate 1,488
megawatts of geothermal power-enough for about 1.1 million homes-economically by 2015,for
example. The EPA also complained that although the BLM's environmental review eliminated alternatives
to burning coal because they would cost LS Power more, it did not make clear why those options were
eliminated or weigh the cost of the plant to Nevada's environment.The EPA also chided the BLM review
for not having information on effects from ground water pumping,diminished air quality, mercury
emissions and the lack of environmental mitigation. Crawford said the EPA's only actual environmental
objection to the plant may have stemmed from a misunderstanding. The EPA worried that the plant would
affect 440 acres of water and wetlands in White Pine County,but Crawford said the plant will affect less
than four of those acres,again a case of not enough information being included in the draft review. The
EPA's comments,as well as comments from other federal agencies and the public,will be included in a
final environmental impact statement scheduled for release in early 2008. Once that statement is released
and the public has a chance to comment,the BLM will rule on whether LS Power can proceed and under
what conditions.The decision is expected by late 2008.Environmental groups and the National Park
Service have complained that the plant would pollute Nevada's wilderness and spew 20 million tons of
carbon dioxide into the air each year while potentially selling power to California,Idaho or other Southwest
states.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 29
Attachment 19: "Power Plant issue turns to gasification,"Alana Y. Price,
Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier(Oct. 7, 2006)
Available at:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/10/07/news/metro/c2192c44d2c 10eb28625720000134111.txt
Disagreement over the proposed coal plant in Waterloo is fierce, but the opposing parties say they
could find some common ground if the plant were to use a technology that holds pollutants in
check as it turns coal into synthetic gas. Mark Kresowik, an organizer for Community Energy
Solutions, which is fighting the plant, said he would be more amenable to a process that uses a
coal conversion technology called gasification. "A lot of people in Waterloo have asked if the
energy company would pursue an IGCC (gasification)plant," Kresowik said. "It certainly would
be a cleaner alternative than the currently proposed plan." But LS Power,the company that wants
to build the plant, has said gasification is not an economically viable option. Mike Mallaro, a
leader of Progress Cedar Valley, a group that favors the coal-fired plant, doesn't want to do
anything that would drive LS Power away. But he believes his group also would be happy "if a
viable company came forward and wanted to build a coal gasification plant in the Waterloo area."
Gasification may be on the cusp of wider implementation in the United States. Just this week an
ambassador from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources traveled to Washington for a four-
day Gasification Technologies Council conference to learn more about the coal conversion
process. "I'm just gathering information--- so we're prepared to make (permitting)decisions
when we do see applications for plants," said Sarah Piziali, an environmental engineer from the
department's Air Quality Bureau. Gasification is a process that uses steam and pressure to
convert coal or other materials into a synthetic gas, which is then cleaned of pollutants such as
sulfur and mercury and eventually burned to create electricity. The carbon dioxide produced
during gasification comes out in a concentrated stream, making it easier for power plants to
capture it and prevent it from re-entering the atmosphere, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy. However, Kresowik and other environmentalists warn that gasification is not as clean as
renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Energy companies' growing interest in
the technology was apparent at the Washington conference, where top executives from Shell Oil,
Peabody Energy and other firms urged their colleagues to speed up efforts to bring the
technology, called integrated gasification combined-cycle, or IGCC, into wider use. Florida,
Indiana and Delaware are the only states so far to have IGCC plants, but Gasification
Technologies Council director James Childress said "the technology is available now," and at
least six more gasification plants are in early planning stages for construction in the U.S. Mark
Milburn,the project manager for Waterloo's proposed Elk Run Energy Station, said he thinks
gasification "has some promise," but LS Power is not yet willing to invest in the technology. The
utility's proposed 750-megawatt Elk Run power plant is projected to be completed in 2011 and
could cost up to $1.3 billion. "The cost would be prohibitive," Milburn said of gasification.
"There's a lot of risk involved until enough plants have been built, and it's been proven that the
banks and customers are comfortable signing up for it." Gasification-based coal plants cost as
much as 25 percent more than traditional pulverized coal plants, according to a 2005 report by
GE Energy and Bechtel. Commercial developers in Europe have begun building IGCC
gasification plants without government subsidies, but plants in the U.S. still rely heavily on
subsidies from the Department of Energy. However,Childress said, gasification is "not going to
need a lot of subsidization for a lot of time." The cleaner technology will become commercially
competitive if the government starts regulating carbon dioxide emissions--- something he said
industry leaders are expecting. "If you have to remove CO2, the game's over and gasification
wins," he said.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 30
Attachment 20: "Impact from power plant would be widespread," RC Balaban,
Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier(July 2, 2006)
Full text available at:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/07/02/news/metro/1094843 a322d7c9a8625719f0010f4b0.txt
At p. 4:
Milburn said such projects will become more prevalent as the technology improves. But
right now, it just isn't up to the level it needs to be.
"The economics are improving, but it hasn't yet been commercially proven to a point
where we can rely on it for a project that makes sense from an economic point of view,"
Milburn said.
Some of the other companies going the IGCC direction include American Electric Power,
the nation's largest coal consumer. In August 2004, the company announced plans to
construct an IGCC plant and have it in commercial operation by 2010.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 31
Attachment 21: "New Hampton energy plant will use coal gasification
technology," Josh Nelson, Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier
(Dec. 20, 2006)
Available at:
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/12/20/news/regional/a4c 10c31 da20a48e8625724a004d9d49.txt
A proposed ethanol plant east of New Hampton has announced plans to use coal gasification technology in
place of natural gas---a first in the energy industry. Homeland Energy Solutions,of New Hampton,
announced the$65 million upgrade Monday afternoon after results from an equity drive last week turned
out better than expected.The gasification system,also called "clean coal technology," is expected to reduce
energy costs by$16 to 20 million annually and reduce emissions, said Pat Boyle,vice president of project
development for Homeland. "This leaves us all kinds of opportunities we need to explore in the future,"
Boyle said. The plant will cost$224 million to construct. About 40 percent,or$90 million,was raised
during the equity drive,Boyle said. Up to 37 million bushels of corn will be used to produce 100 million
gallons of ethanol annually. Many of the investors were younger farmers from the area who saw the
venture as a"hedge," Boyle said.The industry props up corn prices,which means they can make the money
back from their initial investment either through higher prices or revenue from the plant. "They came in
with smiles on their faces because they knew it was something they could afford," he said. Plant officials
were also assisted by the Hawkeye REC,Home Federal Savings Bank,Monsanto and Ag-Star during the
equity drive, Boyle said. Homeland officials started getting interested in the use of coal gasification
technology as a way stabilize their energy costs---the second largest component of an ethanol plant.They
contacted Burns and McDonell,a Kansas City engineering firm,to conduct a feasibility study. Coal
gasification, a process where gas is created by heating coal without sufficient air for combustion,was used
extensively both domestically and internationally. It was supplanted by natural gas as a cheaper fuel source
in the 1950s,said Robert Brown,director of Iowa State University's Center for Sustainable Environmental
Technologies. The process can also be used on any carbon-based stock like wood or corn stalks,though
different equipment is needed. Some Iowa companies have also used the process to generate power from
biomass,but not for ethanol,Brown said. Gasification has become more appealing lately because of the
price compared to oil or natural gas and the proposed environmental benefits. Until recently, most
gasification systems have been designed to work with large turbines in electrical power plants,said Bill
Douglas,vice president of business development for Econo-Power International Corp. The company
worked with Burns and McDonell to develop a gasification system for Homeland. The Econo-Power
system is based on a modular design that can tailor itself to the need for power,unlike the large turbine-
based systems used for power plants. Part of the allure of gasification is the promise of cleaner-burning
fuel, Brown said.There will still be some possible side effects like carbon dioxide emissions if not properly
treated. Douglas said after the gas is produced, it is filtered to remove many harmful toxins like nitrous
oxide,mercury and sulfur before it is combusted,which results in less pollution.Treatments to reduce
carbon dioxide can also be performed at this time,he said. "Our emissions are the same or in some
instances better than natural gas," he said. Industry experts said they aren't aware of any other plants
turning to coal gasification for power. "That's not to say that's 100 percent the only one,but it's the first
time I've heard of it," said Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the national Renewable Fuels Association. Other
producers are actively exploring other forms of power, including gasification of biomass products like
wood or switchgrass, said Monte Shaw,executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. Other
plants in Texas and Nebraska are also experimenting with wind generation or using methane digesters from
animal feedlots. "What's exciting to me is you don't need a one-size fits all," Shaw said. This is the second
major announcement for the industry in Iowa.On Nov.20, Broin Companies,of South Dakota,announced
plans for a 200-million-gallon cellulosic ethanol plant,which uses corn waste such as leaves and stalks
instead of corn kernels to make ethanol.The plant would be the first commercial cellulosic plant in the
country. Construction on the Homeland plant will begin next summer and should take up to 16 months to
complete. Production should begin in late 2008, Boyle said.There are 25 plants operating around the state.
Another 11 plants are either under construction or in planning, including St.Ansgar,Tama and Charles
City,according to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 32
Attachment 22: Testimony by Joseph Chaisson, Director of Research and
Technology, Clean Air Task Force before the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation (April 26, 2007)
Full text available at: http://www.txsyn.com/news/news-senatecommhear-4-26.pdf
At p. 4:
"Next Generation" IGCC plant development
At least four"next-generation" IGCC projects are moving forward in the US, in addition to the
"hybrid"coal gasification plants described below. These projects are AEP's Meigs plant in Ohio
and Mountaineer plant in West Virginia, Duke Energy's Edwardsport plant in Indiana and BP's
Carson Refinery Hydrogen project in California.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 33
Attachment 23: "Zero Tolerance for Carbon-Dioxide Emissions,"Peter Fairley,
Technology Review (Feb. 28, 2007)
Available at: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18240/
Canadian government decides that cola plants must clean up their act.
Cleaner coal technologies have just received a vote of confidence from Canada,as a new provincial policy
announced earlier this month would require new coal power plants in British Columbia to emit no carbon
dioxide. But while British Columbia's energy minister Richard Neufeld says that the policy is only calling
for"the best technology available today," some say the ambitious policy could be asking more than current
technology can deliver. Some energy experts say that meeting the policy,which states that coal plants must
capture and sequester their carbon dioxide,effectively mandates the use of cleaner but more costly coal
gasification technology called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle(IGCC). In these power plants,coal
is converted into a hydrogen-rich gas that burns clean like natural gas. Capturing carbon from these plants
could be easier than capturing it from conventional coal plants.That's because the chemical processes to
separate carbon dioxide from other gases require less energy when operating on the more concentrated gas
streams found in an IGCC plant. "If you're going to do coal and capture the carbon dioxide,gasification is
the least-cost alternative," says James Childress,executive director of the Gasification Technologies
Council,an industry group based in Arlington,VA. Major utilities and technology providers in the United
States say that IGCC technology is ready for commercial use.According to the National Energy
Technology Laboratory, in Pittsburgh,IGCC is the technology selected for one-fifth of 159 new coal plants
proposed since 2000. But so far,systems for capturing carbon dioxide from such power plants have not
been engineered. And of the 32 proposed IGCC plants,only a handful are moving forward. What is
slowing the transition away from conventional pulverized-coal technology is IGCC's higher up-front cost.
General Electric,which is providing the designs for the IGCC project that is now the farthest along,
estimates that the first 10 will cost at least 10 to 15 percent more to build than a pulverized-coal plant.
Other experts estimate that the cost premium could be much higher.That has made IGCC a tough sell,even
though it is cleaner,emitting levels of smog-producing NOx and sulfur dioxide closer to those of a natural
gas-fired power plant. British Columbia's new carbon-dioxide policy, if adopted widely,could change the
rules of the game.Adding the cost of capturing carbon would raise the price of power. But prices could go
up less with IGCC technology, if it does indeed prove easier to capture carbon dioxide in such plants than
in conventional plants.That could make IGCC plants the less costly alternative overall.The proposed
British Columbia policy,however,could have unintended consequences.John Thompson,director of the
Coal Transition Program for the Clean Air Task Force,a nonprofit environmental consulting firm based in
Boston,says that British Columbia's seemingly IGCC-friendly policy may be too ambitious because it
would force IGCC operators to find a place to store their captured carbon dioxide. In Thompson's view,
carbon-dioxide sequestration technology is not as mature as IGCC. "There's a tendency to think that
geological sequestration from coal plants can emerge in one fell swoop. But[carbon capture and
sequestration] are really two distinct technologies," argues Thompson. Sequestration is under way at
several sites in Europe and the United States. (See"Carbon Dioxide for Sale.") Still,Thompson says that
more testing is needed to see whether deep geologic formations are capable of absorbing the carbon dioxide
from multiple power plants and safely holding it long term. "Who's liable if,God forbid,some of this
carbon dioxide comes up?" he asks. British Columbia's policy poses an immediate dilemma for the two
coal-power projects currently pending in the Canadian province.Proponents of one project, a pulverized-
coal plant proposed for Tumbler Ridge,are exploring the feasibility of adding carbon capture and storage,
Neufeld says.The other project, in Princeton,has found an entirely different way around the new policy:
dumping coal from its plan. The plant was originally designed to burn a fifty-fifty mix of wood waste and
coal.Neufeld says the developers are now talking about burning 100 percent biomass. The new plans for
Princeton are a reminder of the coal-power industry's stake in IGCC technology. If it doesn't find a means
of reducing coal's greenhouse-gas emissions,coal power may eventually be legislated out of existence.
Neufeld says British Columbia will need 25 to 45 percent more electricity within 20 years, and that
alternative forms of electricity such as wind power and new hydro power,which tend to be intermittent,
can't completely replace baseline power sources such as coal-fired plants. "We need firm energy," says
Neufeld, "hard,firm electricity...to make sure that the lights stay on."
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 34
Attachment 24: "EPA, TXU disagree on `IGCC'," Margaret Allen, Dallas
Business Journal (July 28, 2006)
Available at: http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/07/31/story3.html?f-
et158&b=1154318400%5E1322809&hbx=e vert
The Environmental Protection Agency has praised new coal-fired"gasification"technology that Dallas-
based TXU Corp. is resisting for 11 proposed power plants. Critics of TXU's proposed coal-fired plants are
pointing to a new EPA report as the latest evidence the plants should be put on hold. But,consistent with
TXU's claims,the report also says uncertainties remain with the gasification technology when it comes to
using so-called "low-rank" coals like those burned in Texas. In the July report,the technology--
"Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle"technology,or IGCC--was touted by the EPA as much cleaner
than conventional,pulverized coal technology,called PC for short.The report also said IGCC uses far less
water and can generate fewer solid wastes. While it said IGCC's capital costs are higher, IGCC plants also
have lower operating costs,the report said. TXU has called IGCC--which turns coal into a hot gas that
then fuels a turbine and generates electricity--experimental and unproven for coals mined in the western
states. Critics say the PC technology TXU is opting for is antiquated and dirty. If TXU's applications to
build the plants are ultimately approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,the units will
start coming online in 2008.The plants would be located in proximity to North Texas, including several
around Waco and in Fannin County,northeast of Dallas.
In defending the plants,TXU has said that even though it will double its Texas generating capacity, it will
reduce by 20%its overall emissions of pollutants like nitrogen oxides,or NOx, sulphur oxides,or SOx, and
mercury. But the company has consistently declined to disclose details,such as the timeframe and location
of the reductions,and whether or not the 20%includes reductions already being required by new
regulations. "We're just not ready to discuss that," said Chris Schein,a TXU spokesman. "That will be part
of the permitting process." About$2.5 billion will be spent for pollution control equipment that will be
installed on existing plants, and the new plants will be built with technology capable of reducing emissions,
he said. TXU's refusal to provide more detail leaves room for the company to renege on its commitment,
says Wendi Hammond,an attorney for Robertson County activists who've contested TXU's permit for a
new plant in their neighborhood. "The permit applications don't require the reductions,so how will it be
enforced?" Hammond said. In a July 19 media statement,TXU said the proposed plants will emit less
NOx,SOx and mercury than the nation's two existing IGCC plants,which have operated since the mid-
1990s. "The tricky part is what the(EPA)report is saying is what the technology probably will be," said
Schein.TXU is looking at what's operating today,he said. But according to Scott Anderson,a senior
policy adviser in Austin for the advocacy group Environmental Defense, it's wrong to compare the
proposed plants to existing IGCC plants. "The proper comparison is between the proposed plants and the
other options that TXU could pursue now,"Anderson said. "Currently available gasifier technology would
result in lower emissions than TXU is proposing on all fronts--carbon dioxide, mercury,NOx and SOx."
The EPA report states that IGCC technology is still immature compared to conventional PC technology,
which is ubiquitous throughout the country. IGCC technology hasn't been proven commercially viable for
use with"western" coals, Schein said, like Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal and East Texas' lignite.
The western coals are considered lower-ranking because of their high moisture and ash content,which
reduces how much heat they efficiently generate. But the fact that there are no coal gasification plants
operating in Texas doesn't mean the technology is experimental,Anderson said. At least two of the four
major IGCC gasifiers on the market will handle lignite without problems,he contends. Industry wants
more proof of that,though.The Wyoming Infrastructure Authority recently announced a public-private
partnership to build an IGCC generation plant to demonstrate the viability of Wyoming coal with IGCC.
Uncertainty with the coal is why city-owned CPS Energy in San Antonio rejected coal gasification for its
new PC power plant now under construction,said Joe Fulton,director of generation planning for CPS.
Even so,CPS managed to overcome opposition to its plant from public advocacy and environmental
groups. In a court settlement,CPS agreed to a net-zero increase in NOx emissions.To do that,clean air
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 35
equipment is being installed simultaneously at an existing plant adjacent to the new one under construction,
Fulton said. CPS also agreed to fund a comprehensive,$500,000 feasibility study looking at low-rank coals
and IGCC.The study,which will be made public, is due in October. The U.S. Department of Energy has
called coal gasification"today's environmentally preferred source of electricity from coal" and has awarded
$235 million for a 285-megawatt coal gasification plant in Florida using Powder River Basin coal and
lignite. With interest in coal gasification growing nationally, General Electric Co.,a major supplier of
IGCC technology,has said it expects several billion dollars in IGCC power plant orders by 2010.There are
currently 24 gasification plants proposed in the United States,the EPA says.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April 1,2008 Page 36
Attachment 25: "Coal Rush Reverses,Power Firms Follow," Steven Mufson,
Washington Post (Sept. 4, 2007)
Full text available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301
Atp. 1:
The mayor of Missoula,Mont., is the latest person to discover just how unpopular coal plants have become.
In early August,Mayor John Engen(D)won city council support to buy electricity from a new coal-fired
plant scheduled to begin operation in 2011. He said the city government would save money on its electric
bills.
But three weeks later,Engen pulled out of the deal after receiving hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from
constituents upset that Missoula would contribute to the creation of a coal plant and concerned about what
the town would do if the plant never got built.
"Coal is a double-edged sword," Engen said. "I sort of felt both edges."
A year after the nation appeared to be in the middle of a coal rush,widening alarm about greenhouse gas
emissions has slowed the efforts of electric companies to build coal-fired power plants from hills of eastern
Montana to southern Florida.
Recently,proponents of coal-fired power plants acquired a new foe: Senate Majority Leader Harry M.
Reid. In late July, Reid(D-Nev.)sent a letter to the chief executives of four power companies in which he
vowed to "use every means at my disposal"to stop their plans to build three coal-fired plants in Nevada.
Last month,after a speech in Reno,Reid said he was opposed to new coal-fired plants anywhere.
"There's not a coal-fired plant in America that's clean.They're all dirty," Reid told reporters after speaking
at a conference on renewable energy. He said that the United States should turn to wind, solar and
geothermal power in an effort to slow climate change. "Unless we do something quickly about global
warming,we're in trouble," he said.
Ruth Walker PP&Z Public Meeting April I,2008 Page 37
Page 1 of 1
NANCY ECKERT
From: Carolyn Cole [Carolyn.Cole@vgm.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:04 AM
To: NANCY ECKERT
Subject: FW: Written testimony regarding proposed power plant
For the record.
Carolyn Cole
VP-corporate communications
VGM Group, Inc.
Strategic Media, Ltd., managing director
P.O. Box 2817
Waterloo, IA 50704
319-274-6509
Original Message
From: Ruth Walker [mailto:ruthdbwalker@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:19 PM
To: mayor@waterloo-ia.org
Cc: schmittreginalda@johndeere.com; Carolyn Cole; harcarge@aol.com; quentin.hart@waterloo-ia.org;
rjgrx@aol.com; sschmitt@schmitthouse.com
Subject: Written testimony regarding proposed power plant
Dear Mayor Hurley and Waterloo City Council members:
It is disturbing to learn (from Courier articles) that some of you think all the information about the proposed power
plant is old and you've heard it several times before. None of the information in my written testimony for the
PP&Z hearing was given last year at the city hearings and some of it (the part about water wells contaminated
from depositing coal combustion residue in beneficial sites) I did not even find until March of this year. (All the
Maryland references have dates after the City Development Board hearing last September.)
It was disappointing that the PP&Z commission voted on the issue without even reading my written testimony.
(One is tempted to conclude that they had already made up and closed their minds.)
Please read the attached document carefully.
Sincerely,
Ruth Walker
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
4/28/2008