Opinion ID: 1713897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Failure To Evaluate Cumulative Effects

Text: ś 309. One of the more controversial aspects of the project is its proposed cooling system, a type banned by both Illinois and Indiana. See, e.g., 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.509; 327 IAC 2-1.5-8(c)(4)(D)(v)(AA). The system uses cold water from Lake Michigan to cool steam after it passes through the electric turbine, so that the steam condenses to water and can be fed back into the coal-fired boiler to be converted back into steam. Because the cold water would be used only once before being piped back to Lake Michigan, the system is known as once-through cooling. ś 310. The drawback of the once-through cooling system is that it has the potential to cause large-scale destruction of aquatic life. The system functions by taking in vast amounts of water on a continuing basis. Here, the proposed facility would, together with the existing units, suck in approximately 2,250,000 gallons per minute, i.e., 3.24 billion gallons per day. Experts in this case testified that the massive water intake required for once-through cooling would result in the wholesale destruction of millions of fish and other aquatic life. ś 311. For instance, fish eggs and larvae passing through the fine filter screens to the power plant's condensers could suffer a mortality rate as high as 97 percent. [3] Likewise, larger fish would be killed or fatally injured through impingement when they are pressed against the filter screens by the force of the intake. Even with mitigating measures in place, [t]he proposed once-through cooling system will result in the annual destruction of tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and shellfish by entrainment and impingement. [4] The aquatic environment of Lake Michigan will be forever altered. ś 312. The minimum content of an adequate EIS includes the proposed action's cumulative environmental effects. Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3) requires in relevant part that an EIS contain: (b) An analysis of the probable impact of the proposed action on the environment, including: 1. An evaluation of positive and negative effects on the affected local and regional environments, including the proposed action's direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects. (Emphasis added.) ś 313. Likewise, WEPA clearly mandates that the EIS contain a detailed statement of: 1. The environmental impact of the proposed action; 2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c)1&2. ś 314. Here, after sparse discussion, the EIS dismisses cumulative effects of once-through cooling as inconsequential to the ecosystem of Lake Michigan. It notes: relative to the Lake Michigan fishery, the impacts of entrainment and impingement were inconsequential to aquatic life in Lake Michigan. (Emphasis added.) ś 315. This conclusion, however, was not based on a current analysis of Lake Michigan and the proposed water intake system. Rather, it was based on a 1975-76 monitoring study of the Lake and the then existing water intake system of the power plant. There are two problems with reliance on this study. ś 316. First, Lake Michigan's ecosystem has changed significantly in the last 30 years. For example, there are 36 new nonindigenous species that have been first observed in Lake Michigan since 1976. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Great Lakes Envtl. Resarch Lab., Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species List (May 27, 2003). Available at http://www.glerl.noaa. gov/res/Programs/invasive/ansmechofintro052703.html. The EIS does not take into account the significant changes to the ecosystem. ś 317. Second, the proposed cooling system is substantially different and much more ambitious than the one examined in the 1970s. Its intake system, extending almost two miles into Lake Michigan, would be ten times longer than the original structure. Moreover, the total exposure width of the proposed system would be more than twice that of the original system. [5] The estimated 3.24 billion gallons of water consumed each day represents a 183% increase over the consumption considered in the 1975-76 study. [6] Again, the EIS fails to consider these substantial differences. ś 318. In an attempt to curb the criticism for reliance on a study conducted almost 30 years ago, the majority quotes from the EIS' reference to a 2003 report. Majority op., ś 201. In doing so, the majority attempts to substitute an interim report of data collection for the mandated evaluation of the environmental impact of the aquatic life. ś 319. The interim 2003 report describes the data compiled during the first year of a two-year study. It is narrow in scope and limited to counting fish eggs and larvae in the vicinity of the existing and proposed structures. ś 320. The report fails to consider the impact of entrainment and impingement on tens of millions fish, crustaceans, and shellfish. Indeed, the report offers no conclusion whatsoever as to the environmental impact of the proposed structure. This interim data collection report of an incomplete study falls short of providing a hard look at the environmental consequences of the proposed action. ś 321. In light of these shortcomings, there was no adequate evaluation of the proposed action's direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects as required by Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(3). Absent from the EIS is any detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed action as mandated by WEPA. By relying on outdated and incomplete studies, the EIS failed to assess the future cumulative environmental effects of this proposed action. As such, the PSC's decision to accept the EIS contravened the basic requirements of the PCS's own rules and WEPA.