New Discharge Permit Hinges on Controversy
By Tom Henry, The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
Jan. 15–Thermal discharges from FirstEnergy Corp.’s coal-fired Bay Shore power plant in Oregon “have been somewhat controversial for a number of years,” the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency concedes in a new report.
But the hot water that the utility constantly releases into one of the shallowest parts of Maumee Bay does not appear controversial enough to shut down the plant.
The state regulatory agency is expected to take another step toward renewing the facility’s discharge permit tomorrow. An information session and public hearing on a proposal to extend the permit through July 31, 2011, will be held at 6:30 p.m. at the University of Toledo’s Lake Erie Center, 4701 Bayshore Rd.
FirstEnergy is asking for nothing but the status quo: Authorization to continue releasing some 638 million gallons of water per day from one of three outfalls, as it has done since the Bay Shore plant started producing more power in the early 1990s.
It produces 620 megawatts, about enough for 600,000 homes.
Another 1.8 million gallons of treated wastewater is typically released into the bay from a second outfall. The third discharge point, one which goes to Driftmeyer Ditch, hasn’t been used for years, although it would continue to be authorized for use should the need arise.
The Ohio EPA ruled out Bay Shore’s warm discharges as a possible culprit for nearby Maumee Bay State Park’s bacteria problem in 2004, according to a 28-page agency report.
State EPA researchers concluded that the power plant exceeded water quality standards for temperature.
But they also determined that the plume’s impact on aquatic life was not substantial enough to restrict the bay’s thermal mixing zone. Nor did officials find any compelling evidence that Bay Shore’s warm discharge made much of a difference in the bay’s bacteria levels, the report said.
“Although E. coli concentrations were high at sites in the Maumee River and shipping channel, these sources also had minimal effect on the bacteria problem at the park. E. coli concentrations at sites between the shipping channel and the park were low, indicating that transport from the shipping channel to the park was unlikely,” the report said.
The power plant sits right between the Maumee River and Maumee Bay. It draws in water from the river — one of the Great Lakes region’s prime spawning grounds for fish — and discharges it to the bay, once water has passed through the plant, to help cool the facility.
Area officials now believe that much of the state park’s bacteria is coming from Wolf Creek and Berger Ditch to the east.
But Bay Shore continues to be watched by fishing advocates because of where its powerful intake is located. Countless fish die after being sucked into the current. They either slam up against power plant screens or get drawn into the plant.
The issue has long been raised by Frank Reynolds of Oregon, one of the state’s last remaining commercial fishermen. He was not available for comment late last week.
“It does lie in an important area,” said Roger Knight, Lake Erie program manager in Sandusky for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and one of the state’s top fisheries biologists.
But the issue is “not unique to Lake Erie,” Mr. Knight said. “It’s worldwide. Anywhere you have power plants, that’s an issue,” he said.
FirstEnergy is in the midst of analyzing 12 months of fish sampling. It is required to file a report to the Ohio EPA by Jan 7, 2008, that estimates how many fish die at Bay Shore, Ellen Raines, FirstEnergy spokesman, said.
“We’re very much in the middle of that process,” she said, adding that the utility was not releasing preliminary data. “We have data, but it needs to be interpreted properly.”
The U.S. EPA, under its Clean Water Act powers, announced a new rule in 2004 that requires large power plants to reduce their fish kills by 80 percent to 95 percent and reduce their destruction of tiny, aquatic organisms that fish feed upon by 60 percent to 90 percent.
By getting water intakes at 550 plants re-engineered, the federal agency said it can achieve an $80 million annual benefit for the nation’s recreational and commercial fishing industries.
Oregon activist Sandy Bihn, western Lake Erie spokesman for the New York-based Waterkeeper Alliance, said she recognizes the intake is separate from the discharge permit.
But she wonders if the warm water discharged into the bay contributes to the proliferation of microcystis and other forms of blue-green algae that have re-emerged almost annually in western Lake Erie since 1996 after nearly a 25-year absence.
The state EPA said the warm-water discharge “restricts recreational activities in certain areas of the bay” but did not address the algae issue in its report. The algae presence has been identified by U.S. and Canadian researchers as one of the Great Lakes region’s hottest issues.
Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.
—–
Copyright (c) 2007, The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
NYSE:FE,