 |
|
 |
| RESET Opponents have said: |
|
Facts...that our Opponents won't tell you: |
| “The proposed system fails to meet ‘best technology available’ standards that were enacted to protect our environment and the health of our citizens.” |
 |
Actually, the DNR has tentatively determined that the proposed intake structure meets the Best Technology Available (BTA) requirement. The DNR worked closely with EPA to reach this determination.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fact Sheet pertaining to the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-0000914-07-0, pg. 1 )
|
|
| “Cooling the plant will require 2.2 billion gallons of water per day” |
|
Yes, but what our opponents fail to tell you is that 99.9% of the water is returned to the lake - the less than 0.1% that is not returned to the lake is used in the pollution control equipment. The current intake structure is designed and was operated for over 20 years at a 1.8 billion gallon per day. The expansion will require a 20% increase.
|
|
|
“The open-cycle cooling system requires significantly more water than other available options.”
|
|
An open-cycle cooling system should be the preferred option because of the following benefits:
- More energy efficient – this means that it uses less coal per unit of electrical energy produced, which in turn reduces all air emissions including carbon dioxide
- No evaporative water loss – in contrast, cooling towers do not return the water to the lake, but rather allow 75% of the make-up water to be evaporated into the atmosphere
- Costs less to build and operate
- Results in less coal combustion by-products
- No visual impact of cooling towers and the related vapor plume
- Allows for public shoreline fishing
|
|
| “This cooling system will cause a large area of thermal pollution.” |
|
The proposed permit limits the discharge temperature to prevent harm to fish and other organisms in Lake Michigan. According to the DNR, “. . . the discharge of once-through cooling water from the proposed ERGS units will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and aquatic life in Lake Michigan.”
In response to requests from local fishing groups, We Energies plans a shoreline public fishing pier to be constructed as close to the proposed warm water discharge as possible.
Sources: 1) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fact Sheet pertaining to the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-0000914-07-0, pg. 12
2) Final EIS Elm Road Generating Station Project. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and DNR. Volume 1, page 345. July 2003. |
|
| “ Lake Michigan’s ecosystem is vulnerable and must be protected from abuse.” |
|
According to the DNR, the “proposed permit imposes conditions on the entire operation that will significantly reduce the plant's impact on the environment.”
“Conditions in the proposed permit require the utility to reduce impacts of the cooling water intakes and thermal discharges on fish, mercury discharges, and water loss.”
Source: DNR Press Release (January 12, 2005): Wastewater permit for Oak Creek power plant tentatively approved |
|
| “ . . . a suction-like intake that would result in the death and mutilation of large numbers of fish and other aquatic life.” |
|
The DNR states, “The velocity profiles around the screens will be relatively low, so organisms will not easily be drawn into the screens.”
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fact Sheet pertaining to the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-0000914-07-0, pg. 20 ) |
|
| “The cooling system will draw 2.2 billion gallons of water every day from Lake Michigan, killing a significant number of fish, larvae and eggs and forever changing the Lake’s ecosystem in Southeastern Wisconsin.” |
|
“Based on expert opinion and knowledge of the dynamics of the biological resources of Lake Michigan, the Department determines that the impact of entrainment on the overall biology of the Lake will not be adversely affected by this intake.”
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fact Sheet pertaining to the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-0000914-07-0, pg. 18 )
|
|
| “ Lake Michigan already suffers from elevated mercury levels, leading to restrictions on fish consumption and health advisories for the entire population.” |
|
“The limnology and other characteristics of Lake Michigan are not conducive or supportive of the methylation process, and therefore, the concentrations of mercury in Lake Michigan fish are low.
Accordingly, Wisconsin has no fish consumption advisories (FCAs) for mercury in Lake Michigan. The FCAs that apply to Lake Michigan are due to PCBs.”
(There are no PCBs in either the emissions or discharges from the Oak Creek plant or the proposed expansion.)
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fact Sheet pertaining to the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-0000914-07-0, pg. 22 ) |
|
| “The intake structure will be discharging the 2.2 billion gallons of water back into Lake Michigan with higher amounts of mercury.” |
|
"We Energies has proposed to construct a state-of-the art treatment facility to ensure its mercury discharges will meet the more stringent standards that are in place for the Great Lakes. The discharge from the new Elm Road units must meet an effluent limit of 1.3 nanograms per liter and there are also limits on the discharge from the treatment system.
Although there is a projected additional 1.3 pounds per year of mercury in the wastewater discharge, the air pollution and wastewater control systems will remove over 560 pounds of the mercury that would otherwise be released without those controls in place.” – Duane Schuettpelz, DNR Wastewater Permits and Pretreatment Section.
Source: DNR Press Release (January 12, 2005): Wastewater permit for Oak Creek power plant tentatively approved |
|
| “How much mercury will be pumped into Lake Michigan before we have had enough?” |
|
The EPA has accounted for the risk of bioaccumulation when establishing water quality standards for mercury. That's the main reason the water quality standard is so very low, 1.3 parts per trillion. The Oak Creek expansion discharge will meet or exceed that standard. |
|
| “The cooling system will decimate an already fragile population of diporeia, a critically low food source for what much of Lake Michigan’s ecosystem is dependent.” |
|
“After reviewing the information available regarding potential impacts, the Department’s determination is that the proposed CWIS for OCER will not substantially affect Diporeia
populations . . .”
“Current scientific opinion is that the reductions in populations have occurred due to increases in the number of zebra mussels in the Lake.”
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fact Sheet pertaining to the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-0000914-07-0, pg. 19 )
|
