|
Coal-fire power plant gets local approval
May 8 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Tim Jamison Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, Iowa A showdown over the proposed Elk Run Energy Station stretched late into the evening before gaining local approval. Mark Milburn, project manager for Elk Run Energy Associates, expects the company will file its application for an air quality emissions permit with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources within weeks. That permit -- and separate approval from the Iowa Utilities Board -- is required before the subsidiary of LS Power Development can begin construction as hoped in 2008 with an eye toward the plant being operational in 2012. "We're just about ready to go" with the DNR application, said Milburn, exhausted after the nearly six-hour council meeting. The bulk of the opposition to the plant centered around health concerns related to potential emission levels and environmental fears related to water quality and global warming from carbon dioxide generated in the coal-burning process. Project supporters cited the economic benefits of 100 new jobs and $2 million in local taxes, which includes an estimated $800,000 for the city of Waterloo. Milburn and other company officials and consultants spent much of the evening responding to questions and battling what they said was an unfair comparison between health problems documented at older plants and the new "state-of-the-art" facility being designed for Waterloo. "Our emission rate is significantly lower than the old plants," he said. "It's not apples and apples to talk about our plant and the old plants." While oponents acknowledged the plant may burn cleaner than many older facilities, including the Cedar Falls Utilities plant nearby, they said the sheer size of the Elk Run Energy Station -- capable of powering 500,000 homes with electricity -- will result in larger amounts of sulfer dioxide, mercury and fine particulate being released into the air. Waterloo resident E.J. Gallagher was one of many speakers who said allowing the plant to be constructed hurts the quality of life and threatens public health in return for the jobs and taxes. "Do we value money, or do we value people and their health?" he asked. Pam Echeverria, a Cedar Falls resident who teaches in an east Waterloo school, cited statistics, confirmed by the Black Hawk County Health Department, that children in that area of the city already suffer significantly greater incidence of asthma and respiratory disorders. Like many speakers, she urged the council to withhold approval until the emission levels are known. "Anything less is reading the emperor's new clothes while silently squeezing a dollar out of the lungs of our children," Echeverria said. And Betty Sadler, a nurse and one of several health-care providers objecting to the plant, said the particulate will be especially hard on children and the elderly. "Lung-related illnesses are on the rise here in Black Hawk County," she said. "Watch as your health insurance premiums rise" as insurance company actuaries learn you live near a coal plant. LS Power environmental manager Kathy French countered that equipment to be installed at the new coal plant would result in far less pollution than those plants used in studies raising health issues. "Those are what is called grandfathered facilities," she said. "They have significantly higher emission rates than the Elk Run Energy facility will be allowed." Supporters The bulk of the support during the public hearing came from local economic development groups, including the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, Greater Cedar Valley Chambers of Commerce of Waterloo and Cedar Falls and the Waterloo Industrial Development Association. "It's great for the Cedar Valley," said Lori McConville, chairwoman of the Waterloo Chamber. "It's safe because it will not only meet, but exceed" EPA emissions standards. GCVA Director of Business Services Linda Laylin said the council should trust the DNR and EPA to ensure the plant is safe. "They are the experts, not us," she said. WIDA President Hugh Field added, "That's one of the reasons we have the DNR, to do that kind of thing. I would look to them to make decisions in regard to this matter." Mike Young, representing Progress Cedar Valley, which supports the plant, said the group did thorough research and visited other coal plants before making its endorsement. "This is a good project, we think, for the community that we live in," he said. "It's not perfect, but no project is." And developer Rick Young said it was hypocritical to use electricity and then complain about a power plant. He compared the old plants to Hummers and the Elk Run Energy Station to a hybrid Prius vehicle. "Le'ts get some of those Hummers off the road and keep our jobs here in Northeast Iowa," he said. But environmental attorney Carrie La Seur of Mount Vernon said the DNR does a poor job of enforcing its air quality permits, noting she has found hundreds of violations in reports from plants that brought no penalties or enforcement actions. Opponents And she said Iowa is one of five states that does not monitor levels of mercury -- coal plants are responsible for 40 percent of dangerous mercury emissions -- in its waterways. Plant opponents also argued the Elk Run Energy Station would not utilize emerging technology to limit carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for global climate change but not regulated in the U.S., which refused to sign the global Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases. While some cities and states are taking the initiative to encourage "green" and renewable energy, they said Waterloo was taking a step backward. "You're our last best hope," said former state Rep. Don Shoultz. He said Congress is too entwined with corporations to deal with global warming concerns. Shoultz also took aim at Hurley's comment during last month's Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission meeting -- commissioners voted 6-5 in favor of the zoning -- that the plant was a "gold mine" for the tax base. "Knowing what I know about the environmental impacts of gold mining, I wouldn't want one in Waterloo either," Shoultz said. Recent University of Northern Iowa graduate Katie Fleshner said the coal plant was not in tune with the progressive community she hoped to call home. "Now our community is looking to the past for jobs that will not be viable in the future," she said. Other residents raised concerns about the truck and train traffic to be generated by the plant and possible costs to taxpayers to improve the infrastructure. And others were worried about how the facility will affect water quality. Milburn noted Elk Run Energy Associates is committed to researching the use of biofuels at the facility and has given $400,000 to UNI to study alternatives to coal. Milburn said the company will pay for utility extensions and road upgrades, while following engineering recommendations to limit the effect of truck and train traffic to and from the plant. The plant will use up to 15 million gallons of wastewater the city currently discharges into the Cedar River along with three million gallons of fresh water from the Water Works, which is well within the Water Works' capacity. Any water leaving the plant will be tested and regulated under a DNR permit. Council reaction Some opponents said they felt their concerns were falling on deaf ears. "A city that gives more say to its businesssmen over its doctors, scientists, farmers and artists is a city that's living on borrowed time," said John Butler of Waterloo. Council members asked several questions before voting but indicated their vote was on annexing the 345 acres of land into the city and rezoning 260 of those acres for the plant. "We're here tonight for the annexation and the zoning out there, not whether the plant actually gets built or not," said Councilman Ron Welper, noting project developers could ask the county to rezone the land if the city turns it down. Councilman Reggie Schmitt said he believed the majority of Waterloo residents support the project and noted the truck traffic was insignificant compared to traffic in the northeast industrial area now. "Right now there's a thousand trucks in and out of that area," Schmitt said. "I don't think we're going to notice another 33 trucks." Councilwoman Carolyn Cole said most of the opposition appears to be from Cedar Falls, and she noted CFU is heavily invested in a similar coal plant being built near Council Bluffs. And Councilman Eric Gunderson said he could support a new cleaner coal plant over those already in Cedar Falls. "Being on the council for the last 3 1/2 years, this is one of the decisions ... I've had more trouble with," Gunderson said. "But it's time we close these old plants and get all new ones." Although he supported the annexation and zoning, Councilman Harold Getty's final vote on the second and third readings of the zoning change will be recorded as a "no." He had encouraged his colleagues to not suspend the rules and take up the final readings of the zoning change next week, giving them time to let the comments sink in. While Elk Run Energy has cleared its local governmental hurdles, the DNR plans to hold a public hearing in Waterloo when it considers proposed emissions permits, and the Iowa Utilities Board has also promised a local public hearing before its vote. Contact Tim Jamison at (319) 291-1577 or tim.jamison@wcfcourier.com. |