New Peabody Coal Plant Poses Major Threat to Health

SierraScape June - July 2004
Back to Table of Contents

by Jill Miller

Sometimes a tall tale is as plain as the nose on your face. Or the smoke from a smokestack.

Coal-burning power plants represent one of the largest threats to healthy air in the Midwest, and spew tons of carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming. But to hear Peabody Corporation tell it, their proposed "Prairie State Energy Campus" in rural Washington County, Illinois (about 50 miles from St. Louis), would actually improve the environment. Sound far-fetched? You'd better believe it.

In reality, this 1500-megawatt coal-burning power plant would dump 25,000 tons of harmful new pollutants into the air annually-harming the environment and putting more families and communities in our region at risk from premature deaths, asthma attacks and other serious health problems such as brain damage, heart disease and stroke.

That's why in late March, hundreds of people turned out to testify at an Illinois EPA hearing in Marissa, IL to voice concerns about the construction permit that Peabody has requested. Sierra Club representatives from Illinois and Missouri were part of a diverse coalition that included American Lung Association, Clean Air Task Force, American Bottom Conservancy, and Health and Environmental Justice-St. Louis, to name just a few. The majority testified that any new coal-fired power plant should be built using the most stringent pollution controls, and that Peabody's proposal, despite their claims, falls far short of the mark.

Take Action Today!
  1. Write a letter to the editor.
  2. On June 4 and 5, speak out for clean energy solutions at Route 66 Hybrid Evolution Tour events-see the article in this issue and visit missouri.sierraclub.org/emg.
  3. Contact Cheryl Hammond at (314) 291-5907, or Jill Miller at (314) 645-2032 about other ways you can help.

Peabody claims that it will use the best available pollution control technology to be one of the cleanest coal plants possible. If that's true, how come their own emission estimates show levels of nitrogen oxides and other pollutants far in excess of existing plants, and mercury emissions 10-15 times higher?

Peabody claims its new plant will not affect people's health. Yet according to Peabody's own air quality modeling, Washington Co., IL already violates the federal health-based air quality standard for sulfur dioxide, the pollution that causes acid rain and may result in more asthma attacks, emphysema and premature death. The American Lung Association recently gave St. Louis-area counties failing grades for high ground ozone levels, and on April 15, EPA declared eight St. Louis area counties to be in non-attainment under more stringent 8-hour ozone standards. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America ranks St. Louis third worst in the nation for asthma.

Coal plant smokestacks also comprise the single largest source of mercury in the environment. Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that can cause severe developmental and learning disabilities in developing fetuses and in children.

Peabody says its plant won't emit much mercury. In fact, Peabody is proposing to emit 280 pounds of mercury per year-seven tons over a 50-year lifespan. It takes less than the mercury in one thermometer, approx 1/70th of a teaspoon, to contaminate a 25-acre lake so the fish are unsafe to eat. Children and women of childbearing age are especially at risk. More than 630,000 children in the U.S. are born every year with mercury levels that present a real risk of brain damage, and one in six women of childbearing age have elevated mercury levels. In April, the Illinois Health Department issued an advisory against eating fish in every single lake, river and stream in Illinois. Missouri has had such an advisory for largemouth bass since 2001. Emissions also endanger the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. A new coal plant, combined with the proposed Holcim cement plant, would greatly exacerbate these and other problems we're struggling to solve.

Coal gasification and washing the coal are two proven ways to remove tons of pollutants, but Peabody is resisting those and other requests from citizens, saying they are too costly. Aren't the health risks too costly for us? At the very least, Peabody should not be allowed to build a new plant until they agree to install state-of-the art pollution controls.

For more dirty facts, please visit illinois.sierraclub.org/conservation/cleanair/peabody.htm. Then take action to protect our air.