100-200 lbs of mercury per year (according to LS Power) - Likely much less, air permit application will identify a conservative estimate
This number was quoted by a representative of LS Power at a meeting in
coal dust off storage piles – Dust of storage piles will be prevented by surfactants, and all transfer points will have emissions control equipment, air permit application will identify all control methods and quantify any potential emissions. Our employees would be the most at risk if this was not properly controlled.
“Dust emissions occur at several points in the storage cycle, such as material loading onto the pile, disturbances by strong wind currents, and loadout from the pile. The movement of trucks and loading equipment in the storage pile area is also a substantial source of dust.” (Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov)
The use of surfactants only reduces coal dust, it does not ‘prevent’ it.
possible acid into surface waters from coal storage – We will have an engineered system to capture and treat all runoff, there will be no risk to surface or ground waters from the coal storage.
“Coal pile run-off: This waste stream is created when water comes in contact with coal storage piles maintained on the power plant site... Metals and other naturally occurring contaminants contained in coal leach out with the rainfall and are deposited in nearby water bodies.” (Power ScoreCard, www.powerscorecard.org)
Can LS Power guarantee that it will ‘capture and treat all runoff’ (emphasis added) during a major flooding event?
groundwater pollutants from ash disposal – Studies indicate very little risk of leachate into groundwater, and to the extent there could be, studies show that levels would be far below any risk levels. Iowa DNR regulates this and requires significant onsite monitoring. The ash disposal program to reclaim quarries has been very successful.
“The EPA recognizes over 70 cases of damage where drinking water, groundwater or surface water has been contaminated with hazardous constituents from power plant waste.” (Public Citizen, www.citizen.org)
Quarries are a direct route to groundwater.
carbon dioxide emissions – All combustion results in CO2 emissions (cars, lawnmowers, buses, power plants, factories, airplanes, etc.). It cannot be captured in a cost-effective manner. We will minimize CO2 by maintaining our facility to operate at the high efficiency. We have a financial incentive to ensure we are operating efficiently.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the country. Each plant emits the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of cars. The completion of all coal plants proposed or under construction would yield a 10% increase in CO2 emissions by the
Socioeconomic Effects: Likely increased rates of asthma, autism, some cancers, other health concerns – These claims relate back to uncontrolled emissions from coal plants built 30-40 years ago. These concerns will not be related to our plant. Otherwise, we would not receive our air permit.
Despite recent scientific evidence suggesting that annual particulate matter emissions standards are not stringent enough to protect public health (especially asthma and cancer rates), the EPA has indicated its intent NOT to lower the annual PM 2.5 standards. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of man-made mercury in the environment, which has been linked to increased rates of autism. Please peruse the Clean Air Task Force site at www.catf.us for more information about the health impacts of coal-fired power plants (even new ones).
train and traffic problems - We will study potential impacts and identify mitigation measures in a transportation study.
We hope such a study will include the costs to citizens and taxpayers.
new road construction – This will be reviewed in the transportation study. We do not anticipate much if any new road construction other than on our site.
Significant and costly road construction will be needed along Newell St, and heavy construction use could damage Elk Run and Raymond Roads.
decreased property values – We cannot predict future property values, nor can anyone else. There have been anecdotal cases that indicate property values would not be directly impacted and may even increase.
“Highly reputable research studies have established beyond doubt that electric power facilities have detrimental effects on residential property values.” (George S. Tolley,
“… decreased property values are associated with increasing density of petrochemical refineries, nuclear power plants, coal-fired plants, gas and oil fired plants and radioactive contaminated sites.” (Clark and Nieves, study in the
less than 100 permanent jobs – We expect at least 100 high paying jobs
LS Power does not operate any coal-fired power plants, and many speculate that LS Power will sell the plant as quickly as possible, sticking the public with the bill.
global warming – See answer to CO2 above
Also see the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
We recommend this website as well: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/.
potential use of eminent domain – We can request this from the IUB, but do not expect to, and do not want to.
LS Power has said the same thing to landowners (without the kind caveats). The state legislature voted to limit eminent domain for economic development purposes to prevent these kind of abuses.
construction of transmission lines – This would be required for any facility including Wind or Biomass. We are working hard to design and route it in a way that minimizes visual impact to the landscape and minimizes inconvenience to farm operations.
Distributed generation (such as small-scale wind) has much lower visual and operating impact than a concentrated facility.
disproportionate effects on nearby residents (especially Dewar and East Waterloo, the largest African-American community in
African Americans receive far more of the negative impacts from coal-fired power plants: http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Air_of_Injustice.pdf. We would rather not have the plant built at all, or at least be built using the cleanest technology available.
Control Technology: The proposed plant will NOT utilize the cleanest coal technology, including carbon sequestration and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) – These technologies are not currently commercially viable. They are huge financial risks that cannot be borne by a single entity such as our company. IGCC may have future promise and there are plans by some large utilities to develop these types of projects with federal subsidies. It will take years to demonstrate to Wall Street that these
Representatives of LS Power know that if they applied for a federal subsidy to build an IGCC plant (as citizens here have suggested), they would have to complete a much more rigorous Environmental Impact Statement. Huge financial risks are also being born by citizens because of global warming and increasing health care costs. Would LS Power consider retiring an older coal plant, or investing significantly in energy efficiency and renewable energy in
· The company believes that, if they can persuade the citizens that construction of the plant can not be stopped, they can get all their permits quickly. – The company believes that if we develop a safe, efficient, and quality project with substantial community benefits that our permits will be issued after going through the rigorous public process mandated by the jurisdictional agencies including the Iowa DNR and the Iowa Utilities Board
We highly encourage citizens to PARTICIPATE as much as possible in the processes with the DNR and the IUB (please see other section for contact information). We also recommend that citizens actively call on