WATERLOO - The proposed 750-megawatt Elk Run Energy Station would burn cleaner than existing coal-fired power plants in nearby Cedar Falls. But opponents of the project proposed by LS Power say Black Hawk County residents can ill afford to inhale the additional hazardous emissions from the project planned for Waterloo's northeast side.

Both sides are expecting a battle when the Iowa Department of Natural Resources begins the public hearing process on whether to issue an air quality operating permit for the plant. Elk Run Energy Associates, a subsidiary of LS Power, which is based in New Jersey, filed its application June 3. The request came a month after the Waterloo City Council finished contentious public hearings and agreed to annex and rezone property along Newell Road east of the John Deere's plant on Donald Street and Tyson Fresh Meats.

The project will cost about $1.3 billion, and DNR officials have yet to begin reviewing hundreds of pages making up the application or to set a time line for the hearings.

Elk Run Energy must show the plant will use the best available technology to control hazardous emissions while utilizing air modeling programs to show the exhaust will not cause air quality in the area to deteriorate below acceptable standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"We selected combustion technology and emissions control technology that will meet or exceed all of the requirements," said Mark Milburn, a spokesman for Elk Run Energy.

He added the company is proposing "the latest and greatest technology" for mercury control that's been installed in newer plants.

"We'll have one of the cleanest plants in the country regarding mercury," Milburn said.

Don Shatzer, a member of Community Energy Solutions, which opposes the project, said state and EPA regulations are lacking.

"That's been one of the big complaints with the Bush administration and the EPA," he said. "There are going to be health risks associated with this plant."

Based on the application, the Elk Run Energy Station would do a better job of controlling most hazardous emissions than the much older and much smaller coal-burning power plant operated by Cedar Falls Utilities and the University of Northern Iowa's power plant.

The 750-megawatt Elk Run plant would annually emit a maximum of 961 tons of particulate matter - a pollutant capable of causing or exacerbating lung and heart problems - compared with 3,725 tons from the 35-megawatt CFU plant. The CFU Streeter Station also emits more sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide but has much lower lead and mercury emissions if both plants run full speed all year.

CFU spokesperson Betty Zeman said relying on the maximum potential for emissions can mislead because that assumes the facility is "run at 100 percent of capacity 100 percent of the time."

CFU runs Streeter Station at only 10 to 30 percent of capacity, generating the bulk of its power from ownership interest in large power plants in Council Bluffs and Sioux City.

"In the case of a baseload plant like (those in western Iowa), actual emissions are much closer to potential maximum emissions because the plant is designed and operated to run as close to 100 percent of the time as possible," Zeman said. "That would also be true of LS Power's plant. Streeter is not operated in that way."

Zeman also noted the local plant has been out of commission because of flooding this summer.

CFU officials reported actual particulate matter emissions of 218 tons to the DNR in 2007, well below the 3,725-ton potential and well below the maximum for the Elk Run Energy Station, which projects it will run at 75 percent capacity.

Chris Roling, an environmental engineer with the DNR's air quality bureau, said he hasn't started his review of the Elk Run Energy application but expects the latest generation of power plants will use better emissions controls.

"The proposed Elk Run Energy Station will be cleaner on a heat input or megawattage basis," Roling said.

A couple of reasons exist.

"One is that it is a newer unit with a newer design that is more efficient at converting heat into energy," he said.

The other, he said, is the Elk Run plant is required by regulation to have the best available controls, which means the facility will have controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates and those controls will be top-flight.

"Older plants such as UNI and CFU don't necessarily have controls for all of those pollutants and when they do they are not necessarily the best available," Roling said.

Progress Cedar Valley, a local organization formed to investigate and later support the Elk Run Energy Station project, argued during zoning and annexation hearings that newer plants with better emission controls would help decommission those older plants.

"There are over 70 generating stations in Iowa using coal as their source for generation of energy, including two others right here in Cedar Falls," said Mike Mallaro, of Progress Cedar Valley. "Contrary to the implications of doom (Elk Run opponents) make, we are not facing a public health crisis in Cedar Falls."

Nicole Shalla, an attorney for Plains Justice, is working with Community Energy Solutions and the Sierra Club in opposing new fossil fuel plants, such as Elk Run Energy. The organization will have an engineer review the permit when one is issued.

"However, the air permit application is lacking needed emission standards," Shalla said.

"The lack of a carbon dioxide emission standard in the air permit application is irresponsible," she added. "This proposed power plant will emit 5 to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of adding hundreds of thousands of cars to Iowa's roads."

Beyond that, Shalla said, an emission standard for particulate matter 2.5, an EPA-regulated air pollutant, hasn't been addressed at all.

"PM2.5 is a public health risk linked to premature death, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, in addition to lung cancer deaths, infant mortality and development problems," she said.

Neither the EPA or DNR limit emissions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The state is collecting data on such emissions - Elk Run Energy lists 6.77 tons of carbon dioxide annually in its application - as a national debate rages over potential carbon limits or caps.

"Basically the DNR has no authority to shut them down on carbon dioxide emissions," said Shatzer, who is pushing for more investment in renewable energy sources. "Our state legislators aren't doing anything. With all the talk we do at the national level, we've done nothing in Iowa."

Meanwhile, the Black Hawk County Board of Health recommends a state moratorium on new coal-burning power plants until more stringent standards are in place for particulate matter.

A report by William Stigliani, commissioned by the board, noted the fine particulate matter in the air would "add to already high ambient PM concentrations and add to the already existing risk of pulmonary and cardiovascular disease prevalent in the county."

EPA administrator Stephen Johnson in December 2006, however, rejected a recommendation from the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to lower the annual average PM2.5 limit.

Progress Cedar Valley's Mallaro said not all experts agree on particulate matter risk.

"Current environmental regulations reduce the health risk of coal-based pollutants to a level far lower than the risk of being struck by lightning or of dying from a bee sting," said Mallaro, citing John Bell, a Madison, Wis., consultant who spoke to the issue in Waterloo last year.

"Health risk, like any other risk, cannot be completely eliminated," Mallaro said. "But our regulations limit risk such that it pales in comparison to the risks involved in the ordinary course of our lives, such as driving a car, riding a bike or climbing a ladder.

Meanwhile, Elk Run Energy Associates and opponents of new coal plants are keeping an eye on Marshalltown, where Alliant Energy's request to construct a 600-megawatt coal-fueled power plant is playing out ahead of the Waterloo project.

Alliant's air quality permit will likely be considered this fall. The plant has already receive approval from the Iowa Utilities Board on the condition Alliant expands its investment in renewable energy sources.

Milburn, with LS Power, said the Elk Run Energy Station application will be filed soon with the Iowa Utilities Board.

"Our desire would be to complete the IUB and DNR process sometime in the middle of next year," Milburn said. "That would give us the ability to firm up power sale contracts and begin construction at the end of next year.

"That's assuming no appeals on the permits are in place, but we expect there will be appeals," he added. "The delays are really a normal part of the development process. The permitting processes are really unpredictable."

Shatzer said that's OK with those who object to the power plant.

"Elk Run Energy proposed this plant in 2005 and it was originally to be in construction in June 2007," he said. "They don't have permits. They don't have land acquired. They don't have land acquired for transmission lines.

"The longer this project is delayed is just fine with us."

Contact Tim Jamison at (319) 291-1577 or tim.jamison@wcfcourier.com.