^ ^.^^y RE1LD^^^ ^ L 

STATE OF MICHIGAN ^ 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 	DE= ^^ _ 

LANSING 

RICK SNYDER DAN WYANT 

GOVERNOR DIRECTOR 

January 14, 2014 

VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

^ 

Ms. Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator T ^ 

United States Environmental Protection Agency ^-^ '^-' 

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1101A) ^^ 

^ 

a 

Washin ton, DC 20460 

g

^ ^ o ^ 

Dear Ms. McCarthy:

I am writing to express the views of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) regarding the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) 

rulemaking on cooling water intake structures at existing electric generation and 

manufacturing facilities. We encourage the USEPA to finalize a ruie that recognizes 

and implements a flexible, holistic approach (e.g., considering entrainment, 

impingement, and thermal issues together) when making best technology available 

(BTA) decisions. 

T{ie MDEQ be4eves that the USEPA should account for the following points in the 

ru:emaking: 

• Sitt-specKic decision-making and a cost-benefit analysis should be available for 

all perl-iiit applicariis as a rneans to select BTA for purposes of entrainment.


• The quaniirication of nonuse aenefits in individual Nationa: Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permitting decisions, if any, should be left to the states' 

discretion. 

• Permitted facilities that upgrade and modify their plants should not necessarily be 

required to install closed-cycle cooling. 

• The schedule for permit application and compliance deadlines needs to be 

extended to allow for Michigan's five-year rotating watershed permitting 

approach. 

On a very important rnatter, we undErstand tnat the USEPA will determine what factors 

state permitting authorities must consider in making entrainment decisiol;s and that 

consideration of costs and benefits may not be amorig tfiose factors. We support a final 

rule that requires permitting authorities to consider all relevant factors as set out in the 

USEPA's proposed rule, including costs and benefits, when making entrainment 

permicting dec;sions. 

CONSTITUTION HALL • 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30473 • LANSING, MiCHIGAN 48909-7973 


www.michigan.gov/deq • (800) 662-9278 
Ms. Regina A. McCarthy 

Page 2 

January 14, 2014 

Our permitting experience shows that consideration of costs and benefits is critical in 

order to deliver meaningful environmental benefits. The USEPA's final rule should allow 

states to take costs and benefits into account in permitting decisions in order to provide 

consistency and to avoid the inappropriate closure of facilities or unnecessary 

installation of cooling towers, with the resultant higher costs to customers and 

implications for energy capacity. 

Thank you for considering our views in obtaining a flexible, balanced rule that is 

administratively achievable, environmentally protective, and economically justifiable. 

The MDEQ is ready to work with you and your staff to assure the best possible outcome 

on this rulemaking.

incerely, 

ant

0 

vyant 

Director 

517-284-6701 

cc: Dr. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region 5 

Mr. Bill McBride, Governor's Washington Office 

Mr. Eric Brown, Governor's Washington Office 

Mr. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ 

Ms. Madhu R. Anderson, Director of Policy, MDEQ 

Ms. Maggie Datema, Director of Legislative Affairs, MDEQ 

Mr. William Creal, MDEQ 

Mr. G. Vinson Hellwig, MDEQ
r

	: 

Q V N 

^O CY) N^ .^ 5pzo ep^U 

o. 

^ 

a 0 

^ ^N^ 

r	^d 

S^^.ur,n o o ^ 

^ 

.^

^ 

^ 

^^ 

^N 

^ ^LL 

^ V 

J Q ^ 

C7 

J 

^ Z W ^ 

z 

O 

Cc 

> z 

zW 

OLL ^O 

_z ow 

cr 

w r- 

^Qa 

^w O^ 

dn^^ m ? 

Vi,:' W = 

rtRU_

^ 

GYJ 

^Z 

a^ 

^ 

0 Lo ^ 

arn 

ti 

a) 

0 

rn 

co 

v 

Z Q 

C7 

_ -oU_ 

M ^ )c C3 

Z 

m N 

OZ ag