The University of Tennessee released a report Saturday on its environmental track record, revealing that the university, while improving in several areas, was deficient in many others.

The university failed to live up to the standard set by peer institutions, the report shows, and the steam plant continues to consume in excess of 26,000 tons of coal every year.

The report was written to “see trends over time, which are really quite revealing,” Mary English, co-chair of the Committee of the Campus Environment and research leader for the Energy, Environment and Resources Center, said. “Universities can be leaders. That’s what we’re looking to do — to be leaders.”

The report covers time periods stretching from 1983 until 2003.

But the progress report shows that the university is far from leading its peers in environmental stewardship.

The university, as compared to the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, the University of Florida and the University of South Carolina, shows clear deficiencies in issuing environmental reports, possessing energy and water conservation plans and guidelines for making environmentally friendly purchases. “When we compare ourselves to UNC-CH, USC, and UF in the South, they stand out for having anticipated the need for environmental stewardship,” English said.

However, one university professor and expert on the environment, focused on the school’s improvement in environmental issues.

“The progress UT has made is evident. I’ve been here 20 years and there are some clear trends: mass transit, water use, landscaping, parking and air pollution. All of them show movement toward better environmental quality,” Mike McKinney, director of the environmental studies program, said.

The university is “starting to get serious about the campus environment,” he said. However, “it could be moving faster. It needs to make sure that the environment at UT stays a top priority and not just a passing fad with the environmental semester.”

One of UT’s major pollution problems is the coal-burning steam plant which provides the campus with heat.

The progress report shows that the steam plant emitted 976 tons of particulate matter in 2004, reduced from its 2001 record of 1,201 tons. Steve McDaniel, Knox County department of air quality management’s pollution expert, told The Beacon last summer that the “UT steam plant is the second largest stationary source of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compound emissions in Knox County.”

The progress report takes pains to note that there are very few industrial plants or power-generations sources in Knox County, leaving UT’s steam plant as one of the major single sources for pollution.

“It’s compliant with all current standards,” English said in its defense. “The switch to natural gas was to cut down on emissions,” she said. Indeed, the steam plant, which installed natural gas burners in the early 90s, has increased its natural gas consumption by 607 percent during the 1993-94 to 2003-04 period, at the same time it decreased its coal consumption by 22 percent.

But, Terry Ledford, assistant director of facilities services, said, “in the last few years, the cost of natural gas has gone up tremendously, almost doubled, and that has caused us to go back to burning coal.” The steam plant, he said, uses natural gas as a supplemental source, burning as the primary source only when the coal burners are deactivated for repairs. Natural gas also is burned to make up for the variances in heating use, taking up the slack for what burning coal may not be able to cover, he said.

The steam plant’s use is a necessity for the university, both environmentalists and school officials argue.

“It’s a matter of what you’ve got to have,” Ledford said. “You either have steam for heating, or it comes from some other place, and there isn’t one,” he said. “It’s a necessity for the university right now.”

A senior member of a local environmental group agreed.

“The steam plant provides a service that the campus needs,” John Overly, executive director of East Tennessee Clean Fuels Coalition, said. “I would like it to be as clean as possible. I just hope they move forward with the pollution control improvements,” he said. “I’m part environmentalist and part realist.”

The Environmental Protection Agency has raised its standards for particulate matter emissions, which will require the steam plant to install a dry scrubber, which, Ledford said, “Is just a huge filter, in essence.” The new filter is projected to cost $12 million, according to the report.

Not listed in the report is the idea that that steam plant eventually be replaced with a cleaner power source. However, a leading member of the CCE said he would like to see such a replacement happen.

“In my opinion, I’d like to see the ultimate phasing out of the steam plant,” John Nolt, co-chair of the CCE and philosophy professor, said. “We should be looking at replacing the steam plant instead of constantly putting Band-Aids on it.”

Whatever the impact of the report, English said that there won’t be any immediate decisions.

“Nothing is going to be solved completely, not today.”