Federal and state laws allow old, coal-burning plants such as the one on Charter Street to operate without modern pollution controls. But those plants may be required to install updated pollution controls if major modifications are made.

The Charter Street plant is under investigation by the state Department of Natural Resources because plant officials made changes without obtaining a permit that may have required the installation of millions of dollars worth of pollution controls. Instead, the plant now spews tons more pollution, including ozone-causing nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide than it did before the modifications.

Last week, the DNR notified the university that the plant is in violation of clean air laws because substantial changes were made to its boilers between 1999 and 2004 without an application to revise its pollution permit. The DNR's notice came just days after the university was notified of a clean water violation at the plant.

Alan Fish, UW-Madison associate vice chancellor who is in charge of facilities planning and management, did not comment directly on the DNR's investigation but said it is important to note that the plant meets state and federal emissions requirements. Making those emissions cleaner, he added, would be expensive and would require balancing the university's economic and environmental obligations.

Still, he said, university officials are aware that improvements are necessary at the Charter Street plant, and a study of the plant's future is under way.

Routine maintenance?

University and state Department of Administration officials indicated in a response to a Sierra Club air quality lawsuit filed in early May that the changes at the plant did not constitute a major change in operation. Instead, according to the response, "to the best of the defendants' knowledge, the project constituted routine maintenance, repair, and replacement, and therefore was exempt" from permitting. The plant, which provides heating and cooling for buildings on the UW-Madison campus as well as UW Hospital and the State Historical Society, is jointly managed by the university and the DOA.

According to DNR documents, the changes included updating and improving the plant's boilers by installing bigger stoker feeders and replacing dozens of steam tubes. The work cost $1.5 million. Such changes, according to the DNR, were beyond routine maintenance and therefore should have required the plant to change its permit and install modern pollution controls.

The DNR wasn't even told about the changes, according to agency officials, and didn't find out about them until the Sierra Club told the agency at a November public hearing on renewal of the plant's permit.

"They did a major modification,'' said Lloyd Eagan, regional director of the DNR's South Central Region. "And they didn't tell us.''

She said that the DNR has inspected the plant 16 times between 1993 and 2004 but that the work on the boilers was not noticed by inspectors.

"It would not have been obvious to us,'' Eagan said.

If the university had applied for a permit change, Eagan said, it is likely that the plant would have had to install modern pollution controls that could have cut dirty emissions by as much as 60 percent.

Currently, according to Tim Coughlin, an environmental law enforcement specialist for the DNR's South Central Region, the plant has only a "bag house,'' a device like a vacuum cleaner that captures particulates or solid pollutants, but no controls for such ozone-causing pollutants as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.

Installation of such controls would cost "millions," Eagan said.

Instead, emission of pollutants from the plant actually increased after the improvements, according to DNR data. Between 2004 and 2005, according to Eagan, nitrogen oxide increased by 171 tons, from 802 tons to 973 tons, while emissions of sulfur dioxide increased by 325 tons, from 1,648 tons to 1,973 tons.

"Those are pretty big emission changes,'' Eagan said.

When combined with sunlight, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide worsen ozone pollution, and that can worsen respiratory illnesses.

While the emissions increases were substantial, Eagan said, the plant's emissions do not violate state and federal health standards. Still, she added, the plant is more than 50 years old and has minimal pollution controls even though such controls are available.

And DOA officials, especially, should have been aware of the requirements that called for changes in a permit and the installation of new pollution controls if major modifications to a plant are made. She added that a DOA official even served on a DNR committee that reviewed the laws.

"To me, I think they were aware,'' said Eagan. "They should have been aware, in my book."

UW studying plant

Why hasn't UW-Madison cleaned up the plant?

The university is studying the facility's future, Fish said.

"Public health is one of the reasons we are addressing this concern,'' Fish said. "We know that, at this time, we meet all of the state and federal environmental emissions. We also know we can do better. So our tradeoff here is we are trying to find a way that an investment in dollars works for the business plan and the utility plan and also improves the air quality of the region ... If it's just about the money, then we're not being good stewards in our community. If it's just about the environment, we're not being good stewards of the taxpayers' investment. We have to find a balance of both."

Officials with the DNR are skeptical, partly because of the university's poor response to another pollution problem at the plant.

Last week, the agency filed a separate notice of violation against the Charter plant for violating clean water laws. The agency was notified in August 2006 by Midwest Environmental Advocates of rainwater blackened by coal running from the large piles of coal on the plant's grounds and into nearby storm sewers. The runoff from the plant flows into Monona Bay.

Despite an inspection and an order from the DNR to take corrective actions, the runoff problem remained. In February 2007, DNR inspectors observed coal dust covering the sidewalk, gutter and even the street next to the plant. And, as late as March, coal was seen spilling over the retaining walls and onto the sidewalk.

Eagan said the DNR was not happy with the plant's poor response to the runoff complaints.

"They had a chance to come clean and they didn't," Eagan said.

Such pollution has a clear impact on the neighborhood, Coughlin said. He said the area around the power plant was once dominated by small factories and commercial businesses. But now it is mostly a residential neighborhood for students.

"There's a difference in air quality," said Dan Gesch, a UW-Madison senior who lives in the area. He said he has a fan that faces the plant and that he has had to clean it twice this year because it was full of black dust.

"There's no other thing I can attribute it to. ... If you look at the sidewalk, you can see coal dust.''

And though the plant is small compared to Madison Gas & Electric's Blount Street plant, its emissions exacerbate Dane County's deteriorating air quality, Eagan said. The county is very close to being added to the federal Environmental Protection Agency's list of counties that do not meet air quality standards. In the last few days, she added, the city has been under an air quality alert with increased ozone levels.

"This is contributing to that,'' Eagan said.

Clean air advocate

UW-Madison has been a high-profile participant in a number of campaigns and groups that are trying to reduce air pollution. One of those is the Dane County Clean Air Coalition. In 2004, the university received the United States Energy Association's Energy Leadership Public Service Award.

Fish said the university is serious about making changes at the Charter Street plant.

"We live and work in this community, too," Fish said. "I ride my bike going by the coal pile in the summer and we want to invest in getting our fuels in storage buildings, not just laying out next to the street. We want to invest in cleaner air just like everyone else. But as you can imagine, because of the very large investments necessary, this requires a lot of groundwork and a lot of convincing."

Still, Bruce Nilles, a lawyer with Sierra Club, said there is something fundamentally wrong when one of the nation's top research universities can't do a better job of producing clean energy.

"We have all these incredible researchers,'' Nilles said. "We have national experts who go around the country and testify about the importance of global warming and at home we're not leading by example. In fact, we're increasing our emissions on the UW campus.

"People are really horrified to find out that this 21st century campus with all these wonderful cutting-edge research projects is being powered by 19th century technology.''

Contact Ron Seely at rseely@madison.com or 608-252-6131. Contact Heather LaRoi at hlaroi@madison.com or 608-252-6143.