Wisconsin Energy's Power-Plant Plan Raises Fears for Lake Michigan
By Lee Bergquist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel -- May 16
The next battleground over Wisconsin Energy Corp.'s plan for a new power plant is beneath Lake Michigan.
By any comparison, the proposed twin, $2.15 billion coal-burning boilers
would become one of the largest water users on the Great Lakes. The company
would draw 2.2 billion gallons of lake water each day. That's almost equal to
the water needs of Chicago and 100 surrounding suburbs -- and it far surpasses
the 120 million gallons used daily by the Milwaukee Water Works.
The plan calls for returning most of the water to Lake Michigan at a
temperature 15 degrees warmer than when it entered the Oak Creek plant.
Opponents are worried about the impact of this giant straw sucking water from
the lake.
They fear that small fish and even smaller aquatic life will be drawn into or
smashed against the intake system, which will lie 43 feet below the surface of
the lake. They are also worried about the effect of using so much water and
returning it to the lake at warmer temperatures.
Opponents also say Wisconsin Energy is using the wrong technology to cool the
1,230-megawatt plant. Instead of using the big lake, they believe the company
should be required to construct large and more expensive cooling towers that
would recycle water through the plant.
Wisconsin Energy rejects all of these claims. It says that using lake water
will make the plant more efficient and pollute less. It also says that fish and
smaller aquatic life, as well as the lake itself, will not be seriously harmed.
The dispute is only the latest surrounding plans by Wisconsin utilities to
upgrade their infrastructure since 1997, when the state grappled with power
shortages. Virtually all new plants and electric lines have encountered
opposition.
The Oak Creek plant became a prime target of environmentalists because it
would be the first coal-fired plant constructed in Wisconsin in more than 20
years. The site lies just south of Bender Park and just north of the Racine
County line, where We Energies -- a unit of Wisconsin Energy -- has operated a
coal-fired plant for more than 50 years.
If the new plant is constructed, We Energies could shut down half of the
existing 1,200 megawatts at Oak Creek. With new pollution control technology,
total air emissions at Oak Creek would drop 60 percent over 10 years, the
utility says.
The plant has received construction approval from the Wisconsin Public
Service Commission and air emissions permits from the Department of Natural
Resources. Now attention is shifting to water as both the DNR and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers review the intake proposal and the effect on the lake and
surrounding wetlands.
From the start, the plant has engendered opposition from local groups such as
Citizens for Responsible Power, statewide environmental organizations, and
another key opponent, S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. in neighboring Racine.
Steve Bulik, coordinator of Citizens for Responsible Power, lives four miles
from the current plant. His organization has fought the expansion on almost
every issue -- from air pollution to the noise and congestion that additional
coal trains would create. The plant's effect on Lake Michigan is next.
"It's a lot of water -- no matter how you slice it," Bulik said.
"No matter what they do, it's going to hurt the lake."
One concern is the effect on small fish. An intake pipe would be built 11/2
miles offshore. Larger fish would be able to swim away from it. But small fish,
perhaps only an inch or two, could be pulled against the screen of the pipe as
water is pulled in at the speed of a half-foot per second. That could destroy
fish that are forage for yellow perch, salmon and trout.
Wisconsin Energy said it has changed the design so that mortality should be
reduced by 60 percent to 90 percent and meet government requirements. The DNR
agrees. The updated design should protect most fish, said Bradley Eggold, a DNR
fisheries supervisor.
Another concern is that the intake will siphon off tiny aquatic life. These
are larval fish, fish eggs and a pair of shrimp-like crustaceans called Mysis
and Diporeia that are all food supplies for larger fish.
Wisconsin Energy has tried to resolve the problem by locating the intake
system in a sandy area that is relatively free of aquatic life, said David Lee,
director of water quality at We Energies. The company hired a consultant to drag
a net at different depths offshore from the plant site to find the best
location.
But David Jude, a freshwater scientist at the University of Michigan who was
hired by opponents of the plant, remains worried. The intake would still pull
out huge quantities of aquatic life, he said. That would hurt their successive
generations and reduce the food supply for larger fish, he added.
Jude also rejected the notion that building a water intake where few fish are
living will solve the problem. Once it's built with riprap and pipes, "it's
going to attract a lot of fish," he said.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has raised red flags as well. In October
2003, the agency's Green Bay office recommended that the Corps of Engineers not
issue a permit because the system could have "significant adverse impacts
to fish and other aquatic resources."
Joel Trick, a wildlife biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, said
that some concerns have been satisfied. But the agency still has questions about
the project's effect on the lake bed and surrounding wetlands.
Opponents also are worried about the effect on 2 billion gallons of lake
water a day after it is returned to Lake Michigan 15 degrees warmer. Sudden
temperature changes could shock fish. The warmer water also could accelerate
hatches of larval eggs and create a mismatch between food supplies and fish,
Jude said.
But We Energies' Lee said that past utility industry studies of warm water
discharge have not identified problems, and he noted that the plant would affect
only a small part of a lake that is the size of West Virginia.
DNR officials agree that water discharges can be designed to minimize risk.
While sudden temperature changes can be harmful, "it is a heck of a fish
attractant," Eggold said. In the early spring, he said, anglers break the
ice at Bender Park, get in their boats and motor over to the discharge at the
existing Oak Creek plant. They "really hammer the fish down there," he
said.
Opponents also say the utility should be required to build water towers to
cool the boilers instead of using Lake Michigan. A switch to water towers -- at
a price of $200 million, according to the PSC -- would drive up the cost of the
plant and force the company to go back to the PSC for another approval. The
company estimates it will cost $100 million to build the intake system.
Opponents say federal regulations require that new power plants be built with
the best technology available, meaning water towers instead of an intake system.
Wisconsin Energy said that towers aren't needed because the plant is not new,
but an addition to an existing power plant. The new intake system will cool both
the old and new plants.
Lee, of We Energies, said the cold water from the lake keeps the plant cooler
than a cooling tower. He estimated that the new plant would run at 5 percent to
10 percent greater efficiency, meaning 5 percent to 10 percent less air
pollution.
The DNR has thus far sided with Wisconsin Energy, but the matter could end up
in court.
"Ultimately, a judge is going to have to read these regulations,"
said Dennis M. Grzezinski, an attorney for the Sierra Club. "You can't help
but reach the conclusion that under the regulations this is a new facility.
"If the Sierra Club doesn't (file suit), then S.C. Johnson will."
But attorney Carl A. Sinderbrand, who represents S.C. Johnson on two other
legal challenges to the coal plants, said it was premature to talk about
lawsuits.
Wisconsin Energy expects decisions on both environmental permits and lawsuits
pending in Dane County by the end of the year. The utility hopes to begin
construction of the Oak Creek plant next year.
BY THE NUMBERS
2.2 billion: Gallons of water new power plant would draw daily from Lake
Michigan
120 million: Gallons of water used daily by Milwaukee Water Works
QUOTABLE
It's a lot of water -- no matter how you slice it. No matter what they do,
it's going to hurt the lake. -- Steve Bulik, coordinator of Citizens for
Responsible Power
-----
To see more of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, or to subscribe to the
newspaper, go to http://www.jsonline.com.
(c) 2004, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Distributed by Knight
Ridder/Tribune Business News. WEC,