Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Sep. 20--A scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency labeled We Energies' application for a large coal-fired plant in Oak Creek a "sham" because he said it would not meet a host of requirements under clean-water laws.
His comments mark the first time a regulator analyzing the project has gone
on record raising serious concerns about the project.
In correspondence to fellow staff members at the EPA office in Chicago, and
to an official with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Howe charged
that We Energies was withholding some information from regulators and skewing
technical data in its own favor.
And in a direct criticism, Howe said the DNR has been overly favorable to the
company by drafting what he termed a "sham permit" that will help the
utility but would not meet state and federal water-quality standards.
"(Without the EPA,) I suspect a permit would be issued that allows the
power plant to literally destroy billions of critical aquatic organisms without
consideration being given to the environmental impact of these losses," he
wrote.
A key DNR official in the case said he felt no pressure to make a decision
favoring We Energies.
"Pete is obviously of the opinion that we are far from making a decision
under the regulations and the law," said Duane Schuettpelz, director of the
bureau of water permits at the DNR. "I'm not so sure of that."
We Energies spokesman Thad Nation said his company will comply with all clean
water laws.
Nation also strongly denied the company has misled regulators with faulty
data. He said the company is doing its best to provide answers to questions that
keep coming. Documents presented to the agencies now total hundreds of thousands
of pages, he said.
"It's a very thorough process that is still not finished," Nation
said.
Howe's comments were part of documents obtained by opponents of the $2.15
billion power plant under a federal freedom of information request. Opponents
asking for the documents were Responsible Energy for Southeastern Wisconsin's
Tomorrow and the Midwest office of the Sierra Club.
"The memo raises several questions why the permit shouldn't be
granted," said Eric Uram, a regional representative of the Sierra Club.
"We're troubled by it."
For his part, Howe was reprimanded on Aug. 10 for circulating his comments
outside the agency without approval from superiors.
He declined to elaborate on his e-mail on Friday, and an EPA spokeswoman said
Howe's views did not reflect the position of the agency.
The Oak Creek plant would be the first new coal-fired producer of electricity
in Wisconsin in 20 years. The proposal has generated strong opposition from
environmental groups and one of the utility's largest customers, S.C. Johnson
& Son Inc. of Racine.
Opponents have many complaints, but their central beef is that the utility
opted for coal instead of a more environmentally benign fuel such as natural
gas.
With a decision on the project expected in about two weeks, both agencies
agreed with Howe that We Energies has not provided all requested information.
"We don't have everything we need to review," said Phillippa
Cannon, an EPA spokeswoman.
"I will state," Schuettpelz said, "and it has been stated
before, there have been instances where We Energies has been less than
forthcoming with information -- and it has not always been timely."
The Oak Creek plant is the biggest and most controversial piece of We
Energies' plan to meet rising electric demand and increase profits.
The company wants to add 2,300 megawatts of electricity, including 1,200
megawatts in Oak Creek, by the end of the decade. With new and more efficient
plants in its fleet, including a natural gas-fired plant under construction in
Port Washington, the company's chief financial officer said recently that
profits at parent company Wisconsin Energy Corp. could increase by 50 percent
from last year.
The Public Service Commission approved construction of the Oak Creek plant in
November 2003. The next step is environmental approvals from the DNR. The EPA is
leaving the review to the DNR, but it can weigh in and object to the state's
decision. Decisions made thus far already have been challenged in court, and the
company said it expects more litigation.
In addition to Howe's complaints, documents show two other EPA employees,
Robert Thompson and Janet Pellegrini, joined him in raising concerns about the
utility's use of Lake Michigan water.
Those concerns center on We Energies' plans to withdraw 2.2 billion gallons
of water a day from the lake, run it through a large boiler to generate
electricity, then return it to the lake at a temperature 15 degrees warmer than
when it entered the plant.
In addition to raising regulatory issues about dumping so much warm water
into the lake, they wondered about the fate of newly hatched fish called
ichthyoplankton that are unable to swim and could be carried into the warm plume
and die.
Another concern was a study supplied by the utility that used data from the
1970s. The EPA staff members said the analysis, offered late in the review
process, was not relevant because it ignored what the company wants to do: dump
more warm water into the lake than the current plant does.
We Energies says it sought to discharge the water at a spot near shore that
was relatively free of aquatic life.
In his lengthy, and sometimes impassioned e-mail, Howe expressed "deep
concern that politics may result in millions being spent on this intake (pipe)
which could have a significant adverse impact on fish populations."
Customers of the company "will be responsible for paying for this
potential tragedy and (the utility) will make a profit," he wrote.
One example of DNR favoritism, he said, concerned whether to define the
project as a new or existing plant. The issue has been a matter of debate in
other states where power plants are on the drawing board. If Oak Creek was
considered new, We Energies would be held to a higher environmental standard.
The EPA differed with the DNR and deemed the Oak Creek project a new plant.
Rather than try to work out their differences, the DNR quickly sided with the
utility, Howe said.
Language in a new federal regulation supports the claim that Oak Creek is an
existing plant, but environmentalists and several states have sued to overturn
the rule.
Howe likened the water intake system to a river 350 feet wide and 10 feet
deep that flows one foot per second. Indeed, DNR officials have said it would be
the largest such pipe on the Great Lakes.
But Howe worried the flow of water into the power plant would decimate the
local population of diporeia, a critical food source for larger fish.
He also was critical about how We Energies used data to buttress its case
that fish populations would not be hurt by large volumes of warmer water flowing
into the lake.
One example: The company measured fish larvae in the lake at night. But Howe
said larvae are known to move toward the surface at night, and away from where
the sampling was taking place.
In a meeting with the company, Howe said utility employees said night
sampling was done to get the results they wanted.
But We Energies denied that. Consultants tested at night because larvae are
known to evade nets during the day, said David Lee, water quality manager for
the utility.
"We hire reputable technical experts," spokesman Nation said.
"Some experts disagree with one another, but we would categorically deny
that we are skewing data."
Mercury is a toxic pollutant that can be harmful to those who eat fish. In
his e-mail, Howe complained that the utility collected only two lake samples to
gauge current mercury levels.
The new plant will substantially reduce mercury emissions into the air, but
that process leaves strong concentrations of mercury in water -- 1,000 times
higher than acceptable levels, Howe wrote.
The DNR's Schuettpelz sided with the utility, saying the overall effect of
mercury on the lake will decline and citing the utility's confidence that a
treatment process would capture the mercury.
By Thomas Content and Lee Bergquist
-----
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. For information on republishing this content,
contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213)
237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com. WEC,